Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-15 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, August 15, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 02-39.00: Lot Split (Krushiker, pp 558) Approved Page 2 LSD 02-22.00: Large Scale Development (Premier Wine & Spirits, pp 177) Page 4 Forwarded to Planning Commission PPL 02-14.00: Preliminary Plat (Mission Place, pp 370) Forwarded to Planning Commission Page 14 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Lee Ward Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kim Hesse Sara Edwards Matt Casey Keith Shreve Renee Thomas Kim Rogers Tim Conklin Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 2 LSP 02-39.00: Lot Split (Krushiker, pp 558) was submitted by Erin Rushing on behalf of Narendra Krushiker for property located at 6214 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.02 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.45 acres and 3.54 acres. Ward: Welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting of August 15, 2002. It looks like we have three items on the agenda this morning so welcome each of you here. The first one will be a lot split, LSP 02-39.00 for Krushiker submitted by Erin Rushing on behalf of Narendra Krushiker for property located at 6214 W. Sixth Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 5.02 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.45 acres and 3.54 acres. Sara, what can you tell us about this one? Edwards: This property is just west of what has been renamed the University Square shopping center, which is the old Westgate Shopping Center where Marvin's IGA was on the corner of Sixth and Shiloh. It is surrounded by C-2 zoning to the east and west, R -O to the north and C-2 to the south. There is water and sewer available to both tracts. They are dedicating additional right of way which meets the Master Street Plan requirement which is 55' from centerline along Sixth Street. We are recommending approval subject to two conditions, which are that no curb cut be allowed on Hwy. 62 from lot one other than the shared access easement, which is running down. You can see the 70' wide access easement running from Hwy. 62 back to Shiloh and that the right of way that is being granted be granted by Warranty Deed. Ward: Ok, thanks. I will go to Keith with sidewalks. Are there any comments? Shreve: No comment. Ward: Matt, I guess you are handling the engineering part of it. Are there any comments on this lot split? Casey: Not on the lot split. We are going to require that width be made from the waterlines when either lot develops. They have dedicated the easements for that and they are shown on the lot split. Ward: Ok, so it is shown. Kim with Landscaping? No comments on lot splits. I will open it up to the public. Is there any public comment on this particular agenda item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. The only access they are going to have is this common road coming in here. There will be no other access right? Edwards: Yes. Bunch: How about the distance from there to there? Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 3 Edwards: Bunch: Edwards: Ward: Edwards: Ward: Edwards: Ward: Bunch: Edwards: Motion: Bunch: Ward: Allen: Ward: Edwards: Ward: Actually, we are looking at trying to close this piece off at a later date so we think we are going to be accessible then. Ok, so the access that is currently being shown to the east will be relocated to the joint access between lot one and Westgate? Right and then there is another access to the east as well. They will have a shared access. Is this in the Overlay District? Yes it is. What is it 250' or 200'? It is 200', I can't tell you for sure but I think it will meet it. Ok, are there any other questions, comments, or motions? Is this for approval at this level? Yes. I move that we approve LSP 02-39.00 at the Subdivision level. Ok, do I have a second? I will second. I will concur. We didn't ask for the applicant, was there any particular applicant here on this particular issue? I don't believe he made it. I don't believe so either but for a lot split I don't think we need one unless we have some questions for them. Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 4 LSD 02-22.00: Large Scale Development (Premier Wine & Spirits, pp 177) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Andy Bethell for property located at the northeast corner of Joyce & Hwy 265. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.0 acres with an 8,050 sq.ft. building proposed. Ward: The second item on the agenda this morning is LSD 02-22.00, a Large Scale Development for Premier Wine and Spirits submitted by Mel Milholland for property located at the northeast corner of Joyce and Hwy. 265. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately two acres with an 8,050 sq.ft. building proposed. Sara, what can you tell us about this particular Large Scale Development? Edwards: The proposal is for a new liquor store, 8,050 sq.ft. The required parking is 32 spaces and they are providing 32 spaces. Right now the property is vacant. There is A-lto the east, C-1 and C-2 to the west, A-1 to the north and R -O to the south. This sits on the corner of Joyce and 265 right across from the White Oak Station. They are dedicating some right of way, 55' from centerline on 265 and Joyce on the south side and 35' from centerline from Joyce to the east side. There is no tree preservation required because the only trees on this site exist in the right of way, there are none outside of the right of way. We are recommending this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. There are a couple of issues on this. One is Planning Commission determination of required improvements to Joyce Street. The proposal right now is the applicant is to widen the west side of Joyce to 14' from centerline from the proposed driveway south to where it turns to the west. We have not made a recommendation as of yet on that proposed. Striping the driveway with a 39' curb cut with one arrow in and two arrows out, a right and left. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. I am sure Sharon has a presentation on this. This site is very visible on all four sides. A large part of the proposed is smooth concrete block that is not typical of other development we have approved in this area. Also, we are concerned about the northeast elevation being unarticulated, but you can make that determination. The final condition is they started to show cross access, it just needs to go up to the property line. Ward: Ok, thanks Sara. I am going to go to staff first and then I will come back to the applicant. Keith on sidewalks? Shreve: The requirements are a 6' sidewalk along Hwy. 165 and Joyce Street, which they are showing on the plans and also two bicycle racks which they are showing. Ward: Ok, thanks. Matt are there any engineering questions or problems? Casey: We are going to recommend that improvements be made to the north of the driveway as well as along with what they are showing that is going to the proposed driveway. Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 5 Ward: Casey: Ward: Casey: Jefcoat: Ward: Casey: Ward: Casey: Ward: Casey: Ward: Hesse: Ward: Hesse: Jefcoat: What kind of improvements are you talking about? 14' from centerline, curb, gutters, storm sewer. Ok, that is a very narrow street now. It is pretty hazardous, it seems like there are a lot of wrecks along there. They are showing an open ditch along the property to that drive. The detention discharge here is discharging directly into the landscaping area and over the sidewalk. That will have to go under that sidewalk. Ok. This is only a representative landscape plan. We will provide a detailed landscape plan with the next submittal but because of the sight distance and the area around that intersection, we will probably get with Kim and not have such a formal straight-line appearance down there and move that landscaping back around. Set it back without it being a straight-line road type planting so that will probably be eliminated. As far as the sidewalk goes, there may be some other alternatives right in that area besides having a little bridge or something underneath it. Yes, that needs some aesthetic attention other than just that sidewalk. How deep will that detention pond be Matt? Approximately 4'. Do we have to worry anything about safety there? The detention pond is not by the sidewalk. Ok, that should take care of it? Yes. Kim? Is this being approved at this level? It could, but I think it is being forwarded to the full Planning Commission because of some Joyce Street road improvements. What needs to be on the submittal for Planning Commission is the general type of species you are going to be using. We intend to submit a full landscape plan. What we are going to propose to do is this sidewalk comes down like this, run it through here and put it back through that berm. Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 6 Hesse: Ward: Hesse: Ward: Milholland: Hesse: Allen: Milholland: Hesse: Ward: Hoover: Milholland: Ward: Jefcoat: Landscape plan requirements may be included with the site plan. A preliminary landscape plan is required for Planning Commission review and the final landscape plan is required prior to the issuance of the building permit, that is just for my review. How detailed of a landscaping plan does he need for the full Planning Commission? They will need to show the species, whether it is a hardwood, things like that and the size proposed and the size plant of the shrubs will need to be three to five gallons and then also you need a note. Be sure to look at a variety in selection Ok, thanks Kim. Kim, are you saying that you want a full fledged design plan? No, I just want to know what you're planting, whether it is a red oak or a white oak or a red bud, whatever it is that you are going to be planting whether it is a large shade trees or smaller ornamental trees. I would think that because of the visibility of this site that that would be something that everybody would want to know, as detailed of a plan as you could give us on the landscaping. I will just get that to Tim. What I look at the Planning Commission doesn't necessarily look at as far as details and I just want to make sure that we get everything that we need. Basically, some of the plants may change but the Planning Commission wants to know if were going to have tall shade trees or if we are going to have smaller ornamental trees. Is there any public comment on this particular agenda item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and will bring it back to the applicants. For the record, why don't you introduce yourself and then maybe we are going to talk some about Commercial Design Standards and some about the Joyce Street improvements. Sharon Hoover, Cromwell Architects. Mel Milholland, Milholland Engineering. Ok. Tom Jefcoat, Milholland Engineering. Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 7 Ward: Ok, thanks. I think that we should go ahead and talk about the Commercial Design Standards. This building is going to be super visible. Some of us have been fairly adamant about really making things look exceptionally nice because it is our northeast part of town. I think the only concerns I had was with the northeast plan. I thought the rest of the building, of course you know I like everything totally red brick, but that is just not it. I think that the northeast elevation was a little bit lacking. Since later on it is going to have quite a bit of visibility from the north. Hoover: The issue there is that all of this is cooler space from here to here on the back of the building. The other thing we have is we have all of the condensers, they are not going to be on the roof, they are going to be out back and this wall is to screen all of that and the dumpster equipment, which has to be somewhere around there. We tried the dumpster in several different places and kept coming back to here because we could do less concrete on the whole project. One thought we had discussed with Tom was some landscaping back here where there is a blank wall because we tried to get an overhang, this is actually the loading and unloading back door here so we have got a canopy over that, like the side canopy. My first suggestion was some landscaping to help break it up. The other thing about just the design in general why it doesn't have more pilasters and all of that is because, and maybe it is not showing up well on the picture here, but for smooth and rough faced block we are trying to go for more this classic look. I know that is a strange concept for a liquor store but we are trying to really give it a more classic look rather than to start bringing in a lot of different materials. These are examples of smooth faced concrete block that are sealed rather than painted. I guess what I want to point out is that you can use smooth and rough with some nice detail and it doesn't look like just a big boxlike box. Here you can see the contrast between the smooth and the rough. They are subtle details, they are just not out there with loud color or anything. The whole color scheme is all monochromatic. I just wanted to make it have more of this type of setting, this feel to it. Ward: What about either using color or different materials along the, you know you have got this rough block on the ends with kind of a different color, I am not sure what color it is going to be but what about some kind of cap along here, maybe a different color or something? Hoover: Well, we were trying to do like here, they have got the same color range. You don't want to go to a bright color, but we could use another color that is in this color value, this color world here to try to keep this going. That is no problem to add a cap to that part. I was just trying in the beginning emphasizing this as entry but we could emphasize these more and have something along the top of those to finish that off more if you think that will help. Ward: I like the front of the building, it looks really nice. That is just an idea. Hoover: Then what did you think Nancy? Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 8 Allen: Is there another building kind of in that same design that I might go drive by and look? Hoover: I was thinking about that but I can't remember exactly. They are building a new Barnes & Noble in Rogers. It has roughly the same color and the color scheme is very similar to this but I think it is E.F.I.S. here instead of the block, it is rough stone and then E.F.I.S. and then it has got a large cap like that in those kind of colors. Around here, I don't think so but I could probably find you some more photographs if you think that will help. Allen: That might help. I am just having a little bit of trouble with it. You know my boxy problems. I just think that it is such a visible site and I see what you're doing and I know it is your field and not mine. I am just wondering if in that visible location stand alone, whether that is going to take care of it. Do you have some thoughts of some other things that can be done? Hoover: Well... Allen: I was concerned about the southeast elevation too. Ward: One reason being is, it is not going to be the front of the building, but it is kind of like we did the Sirloins thing down there at Johnson. That was one way, it was on the main street the other way and we made them almost put a front on the back of the building. That is kind of what this southeast elevation, I am not saying it has to look like the southwest elevation but it is going to have tremendous traffic coming by there in the future. Hoover: One issue with this is that this is the emergency exit door and we don't want people to be entering through it so I don't want to build it up like that, that is definitely the entry. I guess I am looking at this, to me it wasn't bothering me but I can certainly add some things to it. I just don't want to get out of this jaunder and move into some other thing where we've got a lot of things going on. The idea was really to try to make it more classical if you can think of that. There is what other people have done but that is not what I'm wanting. Here is another picture that they've used it all. Ward: Here is basically where you want the front of the building. Hoover: Yeah. Ward: Ok, that is going to be on Hwy. 265 right? Hoover: Yes, facing the intersection. Allen: Make it kind of a facade face without an exit door. Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 9 Hoover: We have got to have an exit door there given the distances, we have got to have an emergency door there. Ward: There is glass and all that kind of design, I don't know. Edwards: I don't think people are going to get confused because the parking is right in front. They are going to see when they park. Hoover: Visually too. It has to be something secondary to that, not as large and grand as that. Usually, especially in retail, you want to try to make your main door very visible and obvious that that is where your main door is. Edwards: Is there a canopy over this drive-thru? Hoover: Yeah, we have the canopy here over the drive-thru. If we added something like this how would you feel? Ward: I think that does a lot. Bunch: Because this looks like the back of a building and it is on Joyce and as that street widens and more development in that basin out to the east. Hoover: I am having a problem here. Do I need to bring examples? Bunch: Another place would be on one of the out parcels at the Kohl's lot that we wanted to make sure that because of the visibility there that when you have a stand alone building like this with visibility from all sides then we want to try to differentiate from being a front but still give the impression of looking like the front of a building, not look like a loading dock. Hoover: The articulation with the windows, I thought that hat would suffice, which it has on other projects. Those are 4'x6' windows each. Other things we can do is we can put awnings over each window, make the windows look more special. Allen: That would help. Bunch: Either that or carry the arch theme around. Hoover: I am trying to isolate the arch. As a little design part, I usually try to isolate the arch to more important areas and specifically the front door but when you keep using the arch over and over again it gets less important on a building. You realize that when you see it several times. That is why I didn't start with the arch there, I was trying to limit it to just certain locations. The awnings might be nice just as a change. I hate to have the arch going all over the place. You are trying to make that front arch the really special arch because it is so big and grand. Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 10 Ward: Yes, but I think that you can theme a little bit of that around, especially on Joyce Street. Hoover: Do you like the arch or do you like the awnings better? Bunch: Something of this nature right here. You could carry that theme around, you've squared it off here but you have differentiated by materials, if it was something of that nature, which is a minor element as compared to this or to this and you still have your distinction and your two major points of sell, the point of entry and the point of sell. If you use something of that nature around this entryway then that would go a long way to breaking the whole thing up. Hoover: You would prefer an arch over the entry over an awning? Allen: Would the awnings be in the same color family, would that be your idea? Hoover: Yes, or they may be black or an accent color. Allen: Black would be kind of neat. I think my main problem is it being a stand alone building and that it is just such a prominent site that I don't want the back to just look so back. Hoover: What comments do you have on this elevation? I know what to do on that one, I know how I can fix that one. Ward: There again, I thought with the elevations coming down through Hwy. 265, I think that the top of the building is going to be very visible, especially when it develops to the north here so I think, that is why I was thinking that a cap along the top and so on would be good because you are screening a lot of that stuff, some landscaping and so on for the rest of it to break up. That was my idea. We feel like we are the back row sinners preaching to the bishop or something like that. Hoover: I didn't get Nancy's comment on the elevation, if we improve or enhance the cap up here to make that one larger so this one stands out. I don't know, do you think the landscaping is enough to take care of that area? Ward: I think this is the only area. Once you put a cap along up here you have already got all of this broke up. This part here is the only part you have to think about. Just try to see what you can come up with. Jefcoat: Is that along the back? Hoover: Yes. Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 11 Jefcoat: Bunch: Jefcoat: Ward: Hoover: Ward: Hoover: Allen: Hoover: Ward: Allen: Hoover: Edwards: Hoover: Edwards: Allen: Hoover: Ward: Bunch: The landscaping on the back is going to be on the other side of the asphalt further away so it is really going to be doing more screening. That is also in the vicinity of the drain field for the septic system. That is why I say the landscaping is going to be not right up against it so it will have a better effect. Does anyone else have any comments about the landscaping? I am not sure that we can ever come to a consensus. You know that. I know that. I am wondering if I shouldn't take this and do another one over here. That would be great. If that doesn't. I think that would do it. Then maybe we can reach consensus. That would be an improvement, that would help a lot. You know how picky we can be. There isn't a building that comes to mind in Fayetteville? I will look but I can't say that I've seen one. Probably what we need to do, since we do have that section that says no smooth faced block, is get a request in writing for a waiver of that. Ok, do you usually read that as gray concrete block as opposed to painted or treated concrete? The issue is that you can get really nice concrete block and not paint it and then you have a nicer material than painted block. I think it is literally unpainted is unpainted. In my vast architectural background I think a black awning would help there too, I really do. Ok. Are there any other comments? Where are we on the drain field and septic system and sewer consideration? Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 12 Milholland: Ward: Milholland: Ward: Bunch: Milholland: Ward: Milholland: Edwards: Milholland: Hoover: Edwards: Ward: We will have a design approved before Planning Commission. They are supposed to do it next week. I have other comments if you are through with Commercial Design Standards. Ok. A letter will be written to Tim about the justification for this part right here due to the fact that the future capacity of this right here will be way more than what he is computing for this for that part and then also we show just the different proportions here. We have a letter justifying our costs to you. Ok, that would be good. We advocate just doing both sides of it from the driveway south and then waiting on the north side? We are looking at just from the north side of the drive. Improving 14'? Yes, to the center of the street down to the right of way of Joyce Street east which is on the curve. It will be where that curve starts. The existing street is 20' wide. Can we get that by Monday Mel? Yes. When do you need my revisions? Monday is the deadline. Are there any other comments? Milholland: I didn't hear what you said about this stub out. Edwards: Ward: Motion: Bunch: Allen: I need it extended to the top of the hill. Is there anything else? Do I have any motions? I move that we forward LSD 02-22.00 to the full Planning Commission with staff notes, conditions, and comments from this meeting. I will second. Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 13 Ward: I will concur. Thank you all. We will see you in a few days. Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 14 PPL 02-14.00: Preliminary Plat (Mission Place, pp 370) was submitted by Geoff Bates, P.E. of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of CTC Ventures, LTD for property located north of Mission Blvd. and east of Charlee Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 3.27 acres with 10 lots proposed. Ward: Our third item on the agenda this morning is PPL 02-14.00 for Mission Place submitted by Geoff Bates of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of CTC Ventures, Ltd. for property located north of Mission and east of Charlee Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 3.27 acres with ten lots proposed. Sara? Edwards: We are actually going to call this eleven lots. There is an existing lot that they call an out parcel, that needs to be called lot 11. There is a single-family home currently out there. That is the only development on this site right now. A-1 zoning is to the north and R-1 is on all other sides. To the north there is one piece of property separating this from the cemetery. There is some additional right of way being dedicated, 55' from centerline along Mission. They are proposing to build a 24' wide residential street. We are recommending this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Preliminary Plats do have to be approved by the full Planning Commission. Conditions, as I mentioned, the out lot shall be included as a part of this subdivision and numbered as eleven. The driveway, that needs to be relocated so we can prevent traffic problems. There will be a requirement that no curb cuts will be allowed for lots one or eleven to Mission Blvd. They will all be limited to the new street. The proposed utility easement along the rear lot lines is not required and is in what they are showing as tree preservation area so we can just remove that utility easement and it can be counted as tree preservation area. There are some sight distance questions out there. What we are requesting is vegetation removal in the right of way and some possible grading within the Hwy. 45 right of way be done prior to Final Plat approval. Perry, Tim and Geoff have all talked and I think that we can come to an agreement that it can meet the sight distance requirements with some additional work by the applicant. All of that work will be done at their expense. The tree preservation calculations, they are inadequate and they need to be revised but we do still feel that they will meet the tree preservation ordinance. Lots three through seven all need to be dimensioned at the 25' setback line. The requirement in a R-1 zone is that the lots be 70' wide at the 25' building setback line. Geoff, I'm not sure if you have looked at that. Bates: They are all 70' now. Edwards: We just need that dimension added. We are requesting that the sidewalk along Mission be completed prior to the Final Plat approval, the 20' utility easement between lots four and five shall also be labeled as an access easement for detention pond maintenance. Then you are showing the sidewalk going across the new proposed street and we don't build sidewalks across streets, we just need that removed. Keep the access ramp though. Everything else is standard with Parks fees due in the amount of $4,750 and that is for ten additional lots. Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 15 Ward: Ok. Is that all of your comments Sara? Edwards: Yes. Ward: I will go ahead and start with staff first and then come back to the applicant. Keith, is there anything with sidewalks besides the one that we have already talked about? Shreve: Right. I agree with what Sara mentioned about sidewalks shouldn't go through the street. Two access ramps along the curb. The sidewalk needs to be extended around the cul-de-sac, at least to the lot line between lots three and four. It is only required on one side of the street but it is also required to wrap the cul-de-sac. The comment was made previously about the driveway approaches being concrete with the sidewalk continuous through, that was for the individual residential driveways and not this intersection here. That may be where this design came from. I think you are showing concrete here and that is not a requirement from our division, just an asphalt intersection. That is all I have. Ward: Matt, on engineering are there any comments? Casey: No. Ward: Ok, Kim? Hesse: The green is what we are actually preserving. Obviously there are no trees in here to count for tree preservation or those things. This will be saved. I think that all of this canopy will be removed when the construction happens. Obviously that will be the same here. For the Commissioners, because of the sight distance, and there is actually a dirt road right here that you can pull in and try to pull out. We are going to remove this large, 36" hackberry here and most likely we will have to remove all of this vegetation here so that you can see. It is a really bad location. That will help out. I think with the comment of having this driveway located down here we are going to end up losing some good vegetation here. I don't know if there is a rule on driveways close to an intersection but I don't think they have a whole lot of options since their drive is already existing. Typically, I think that they would probably just leave it there. That is pretty close to the intersection so I don't know. Edwards: They need to try to move it as far from that intersection as possible. Bates: We might just try to come straight out of the garage there. Hesse: The tree calculation, I don't think it is 44%, it is definitely 25% or more. We are fine, just for our records we want to have that revised. Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 16 Bunch: On this since it is residential, how are some of these lots going to be developed if we are looking at the percentage for the development as a whole and then we get down to the individual lots, how is that retained? Hesse: The way it works is it is written on the lot and we hope that the home builders will save them. You can't really penalize the developer in a situation where we don't know what will happen in the future. If we did that would give them incentive to just remove all of these. We prefer to allow them to count that as preserved. You could save these large trees in the front, put your drive in there. This we are going to lose most likely. I think you can count that, I meant to color that in. Typically we would ask them, and originally there was a lot line here, which is what we would encourage them to do but because of existences they would lose a lot if we asked them to put that lot line back in there because of that 70' rule and setback. When you start balancing all of the regulations you have just kind of got to hope that someone that builds a home will work with the trees. That is why we count them. Ward: Are there any other questions or comments? On Park fees Sara, what were they? Edwards: $4,750. Ward: Ok, so that is in the record. At this time I will go ahead and open it up to the public and get some public comment on this particular subdivision. If you would give your name and give us the benefit of your comments. Shireman: I am Ken Shireman, my wife and I own the property across the street. We have got a conditional use there and I have an architectural office there and a rental building. We plan to build our house behind it, we have a total of two acres there. I have got a substantial investment in real estate there and I am going to have an even more substantial investment and we are dug in for the long haul in Fayetteville. I am glad to see this happening, I don't have a problem with the scope of the development. The favorable sides that I see on this development is I like the idea of infill in Fayetteville, which requires no extension of our infrastructure, which is why I was looking for a piece of land similar to this. I like the idea of breaking these large parcels of land up into smaller parcels of land because I think it promotes long term stability in our city and precludes somebody coming in here and trying to build apartments or whatever. The down side I think, I am a little concerned about, and you have already addressed them, are sight lines on this property. I don't have a real problem because we are on the outside of the curve and we can see both ways very well. On the inside of the curve it is a little more of a problem and I would suggest that one thing would be real critical is for you to get that driveway as high as you could and make the grades work. I think it is real critical because you can stand there and say "I can see alright" but you get down and get your eye at the level where you are going to be sitting in a very low car, I think it is a problem. It is not insurmountable at all but it is a problem area, it is a safety factor with me. Tim Conklin and someone Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 17 was out there on the site yesterday looking at this and I joined them and they talked about maybe clearing out some of the right-of-way in there and I think that is a necessity to do that. However, I do have a real problem with removing those very large trees in there. I think you have already tagged the big hackberry, that might not be so good anyway, I don't know. I would say lets take a real hard look. Even if they are in the right of way, I don't think the tree is blocking the view, I think what blocks the view is the lower vegetation mostly out there to the south of this property. I have another issue. Is the house right there that is existing going to be included as part of the project is that what you are saying now? It was an out parcel and now it is part of the project. I don't quite understand the 24' wide street. I am in disagreement with the city of Fayetteville. Number one, I think a 28' wide street is too narrow in a residential area and I think that 24' certainly is. I thought we had a 28' wide minimum street in town is that not right? Edwards: Our standard residential street, which cannot exceed 300' and cannot be a through street, which it is ending in a cul-de-sac, it can meet this residential street standard, which is a 24' wide street. A 28' wide street is a local street standard, which is a higher level street. Shireman: Ok. So this is fine? I think we need to change that eventually. I think we need to address that. I still think it is too narrow. I don't have any real problems with it other than the issues that I have brought up. I am interested in a quality development. The only other real problem I have is with this driveway entrance there. As far as any landscaping, do we have any landscaping requirements or is it just going to be up to the property owners that buy those houses to do whatever they are going to do out there? There is nothing that is going on in the right-of- way, we don't require anything. It is just going to be whatever these people decide to do is what it is going to be? Ward: Edwards: Shireman: Right, on residential. Sara, if the developer wanted to put in a 28' or 30' wide street would they have to get a variance from us? Our policy has been to allow a 28' street, anything above that, yes, they would need a variance. My son has lived in Fort Collins for so many years. I don't know if anybody has ever been to Fort Collins, Colorado, those people out there are so lucky. It is a very, very old town but almost all of those streets out there are 60' wide. They probably have a 12' green space on each side of the sidewalk and cottonwoods 5' or 6' in diameter. You can park parallel on both sides, they have a bike path on both sides between the parked cars, you can still do a U turn in the middle of the street, I mean they are huge. I don't see how we can get a street in this town too wide. I am serious, I can't see too wide. Bates: It would be wonderful and I'm sure everybody would love to do that but it is Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 18 expensive and somebody has got to pay for it. Shireman: I understand that and we all require developers to pay I just think they are short sided. We have got a town full of streets that are too narrow already, I think they are short sided. That hasn't got anything to do with this development other than I think the 24' street is too narrow. Ward: Of course we have the other side that says there is way too much concrete and asphalt already. Is there anyone else that would like to make comment on this particular agenda item? Stassen: I am Robert Stassen, 1714 Charlee. My property, I guess the east side of my property abuts this. I have always been interested in what would happen with this because this triangular property south of the cemetery, any kind of improvement I would say is positive. I think it has been neglected and in selfishness I was hoping that the development would come closer to lot sizes the same as my own. With the setbacks, with the 25' and they are really crammed for space, and the lot size seems very small. That is just my comment I would like to see something comparable to this. The lots are very small and I have another neighbor that might speak to the drainage problems we have with water flowing. I believe it comes from the east side of Mission. It comes from the east side of Mission and it comes across, the city has made a major investment accommodating drainage. Ward: I would say one of your comments as far as Spring Creek and this particular plat, most of these lots adjoining you are even larger than your lots from just glancing at it so I can't think that that is really a concern because lots 5 and 6 that joins along there are much larger than any lots in Spring Creek that I've seen. It looks like lots 7, 8, 9, and 10 are all nice size lots. Stassen: On the plat I can see on that I think ours are 150'. Ward: Some of these are 171' deep along some of the lines. They are some pretty good size lots the way they are laid out. They are not perfect rectangle lots but they are nice sized residential lots. Do you have any other comments Bob? Stassen: No. Ward: Would anyone else like to address this particular item? Thompson. My name is Dale Thompson, I live at 1690 N. Charlee, that is lot number seven. I recently purchased the house last year and I guess my big concern is the drainage. In the past the city has put a lot of work into the drainage. Water does flow down that hill across from his lot so I guess my big concern is that we don't disturb that. Sometimes I used to work at an installation where they built a huge building next door to us and then it flooded everything. That is what I am concerned about. I am curious, what is this detention pond back here? Is that something existing? Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 19 Bates: That is what is going to stop the drainage. It actually should probably improve it because what was just running through there is now going to be caught in that pond. It should flood less. Thompson: So it will be sitting water? Bates: Only when it rains and then it will drain out. Thompson. Ok, that was my big concern was the drainage really. Ward: Thanks Dale. Would anybody else like to make a public comment? Matt? Casey: Our requirements are that they detain in the detention pond the water and release it at a rate equal to or less than what it was before it was developed. In this case they will have to release it at that or whatever the capacity is of that pipe that the city has put in. They can't overload that pipe so it will be equal to or less than what is there, possibly better. Shireman: One other question, is this detention pond going to accommodate the water that is coming off of our property going under the highway there. It doesn't really look like there is any kind of drainage structure going through the pond but there is substantial water going through there, very substantial. Bates: It has no choice, it has got to flow right into that pond. Shireman: You're right. I just didn't see any contours that addressed that. The pond is deep enough that it doesn't have any choice. Bates: Right. The sight distance issue, Perry Franklin and I have spent a lot of time out there the other day and measured and to the north it wasn't all that big of a deal, especially if we did a bit of trimming up in here but that hackberry is just right in the way. That was his major issue. Shireman: It would be removed anyway? Allen: There is not any way to avoid it. Bates: It is right in the way, it is a danger because if you look one way and look back that tree is big enough that it could be right in your blind spot and you could pull out right in front of somebody. If that was gone the sight distance wasn't that big of an issue from what I understood from Perry. Ward: Bates: How big is that again? Three foot, 36". Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 20 Ward: Ok, is there any other public comment before I close it to the public? Thompson: What size house would typically be built on these lots? I am just curious, is there an ordinance? Ward: I will let Sara address this. I don't know that we have to have covenants with a Preliminary Plat, usually there are covenants that come with the property that will be addressed later. Looking at lots number one and number four the building area is fairly small on those two particular lots, the rest of them have a lot of building area. I am not sure what their covenants will be as far as whether there is going to be a 2,000 sq.ft. minimum or something. What do we require on covenants? Edwards: We do not require covenants. We do not have any ordinances that allow us to require covenants. It is purely at the developer's choice if they want to offer something like that. Brittnum: It is going to be 1,600 sq.ft. minimums. Ward: Are they going to have any covenants about the amount of brick, stone, or two car garages? Brittnum: They will be architectural shingles, two car garages, 70% brick. Ward: Do you have any idea about what the cost of a house would be in there starting off on lot five or six? Brittnum: I just sold a house over on Jordan Lane right across from Root School on the other side of Charlee and it was 1,850 sq.ft. and it sold for $167,000, so you are looking at $140,000 to $160,000 probably. Ward: Are there any other comments from the public before we close it to the public? I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Are these lots one and four large enough to put a 1,600 sq.ft. house on them? Bates: We have actually drawn some houses on there to see if they would fit and they did. Ward: Are these going to be one story or two story? Brittnum: Some of them are being designed to see what can be done. Ward: Are there any questions from the Committee? Bates: I have a question, why does this have to go to the full Planning Commission? Subdivision Committee August 15, 2002 Page 21 Edwards: Brittnum: Edwards: Bates: Edwards: Ward: Casey: Ward: Bates: Brittnum: Ward: Motion: Bunch: Ward: Allen: Ward: Ordinance requires that all Preliminary Plats be approved at the Planning Commission. Final Plats in the past have been approved at Subdivision Committee. You said we need to clear the right of way up here? No, we are talking about on Mission. That is just for the sight distance prior to submitting the Final Plat. Geoff will make a proposal and Perry can talk to you about it. Go out there and do the work and he will come out there and check to make sure it meets our sight distance requirements which is 325' to 350', he has gone out there and measured that and he will measure it again. The only problem I see is the part that Perry and I talked about that was just a little higher that needed to be mowed and maybe cut down a little bit is up here, it is not on their property at all. He thought that it was probably in the right of way, which would give us the right to allow you to go in there. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have Perry give some kind of recommendation that this is going to give us enough sight distance. It would be nice if you could do it in the beginning for construction traffic so they can get in and out safely. For the record why don't you all introduce yourselves? I am Geoff Bates with Crafton, Tull & Associates. I am John Brittnum with CTC Ventures. Thank you all. Are there any motions? I move that we forward PPL 02-14.00 to the full Planning Commission. Do I have a second? I will second. I will concur. Thank you gentlemen, have a great day. That will conclude our meeting for today.