Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-12 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, September 12, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSD 02-21.00: Large Scale (Nelms, pp 249) Page 2 LSD 02-23.00: Large Scale (Hampton Inn, pp 558) Page 18 Development Development LSP 02-40.00 & 41.00: Lot Split (Cowan, pp 455) Page 26 LSP 02-42.00: Lot Split (Harkins, pp 298) Page 28 MEMBERS PRESENT Sharon Hoover Don Bunch Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Kim Hesse Tim Conklin Matt Casey Keith Shreve Renee Thomas Forwarded Forwarded Approved Approved MEMBERSABSENT STAFF ABSENT Kim Rogers Sara Edwards Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 2 LSD 02-21.00: Large Scale Development (Nelms, pp 249) was submitted by Phil Hagen of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Nelms, LLP for property located west of I-540 and east of Hwy 112. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 7.28 acres with a 907,194 sq.ft. outdoor display area proposed. Ward: Welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting. Today is Thursday, September 12, 2002. We have four items on the agenda this morning. Is that correct Tim? Conklin: That is correct. Ward: We will go ahead and start with the first one, which is LSD 02-21.00 for Nelms. This is property located west of I-540 and east of Hwy. 112. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 7.28 acres. We are showing here on this original one that it is 907,194 outdoor display area proposed but I see on the new one it is different. Conklin: I estimated around 300,000 sq.ft. Ward: Ok, tell us a little bit about this. Conklin: Sure. Maybe the applicant can give us a better idea of how many square feet of additional display area. I basically looked at the acreage of the site. This is a Large Scale Development for Landers Auto Park, Nelms still owns the land. The proposal is to construct this additional display area. We counted about 645 additional spaces for display on this site. The existing land is vacant. The surrounding land to the west is C-2, which is Landers. To the east is A-1, to the north is A-1, which is petitioned to be C-2 at City Council currently. A portion of this is to the north, that is currently A-1. That is currently on the City Council agenda. To the south is A-1. There is no right of way being dedicated at this time. Tree preservation, Kim Hesse has information on that. Kim is here this morning and I will let her go over that. Under site coverage, in the Overlay District they are showing 39.1% open space. 38.6% for the entire development. I did ask that they break that out from the Overlay District and overall development. Conditions to address and discuss, condition number one, these are some questions that staff has had. Has the wetland delineation been accepted by the U.S. Corp. of Engineers? If not, when? I want the applicant to answer these questions after I am through. 2) Please show the wetlands that have been delineated along the existing channel. Let's see what happened here. Here we go, that runs from the south property line to the north property line. 3) Please provide a statement of qualifications to the Engineering Division for the Firm and individual that prepared the wetland delineation. 4) A final grading plan, storm water plan and floodplain development permit will not be approved and issued by the City of Fayetteville until the U.S. Corp. of Engineers accepts the wetland delineation and issues all required permits for work and improvements within the wetland delineated area and waters of the United States. If the wetlands that are shown in the Large Scale Development are revised by the U.S. Army Corp. of Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 3 Engineers and are impacted by proposed development, the Large Scale Development shall require a rehearing and approval by the Planning Commission. Basically, the applicant has hired an environmental specialist to go out and delineate the wetlands. We can find out more this morning with regard to where that is at with the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers. Based on that, there are substantial changes where what is being shown for future display area, if there are wetlands within those areas we would like a rehearing at the Planning Commission level and approval by the Planning Commission. 5) The applicant shall provide information to the Planning Commission and Engineering Division on what best management practices are proposed to meet § 170.07(b)(4) of our Unified Development Ordinance. The BMPs are required to ensure that the storm water quality will not be detrimental to the wetlands. These additional BMPs shall be approved by the City Engineer. 6) We talked about this at Plat Review. A letter of map amendment based on existing conditions and a more detailed study shall be submitted to FEMA for review and approval in order to accurately delineate the 100 year floodplain and floodway on the flood insurance rate map published by FEMA. 7) A variance for the use of metal haloid lighting shall be required by the Planning Commission. All lighting shall meet the IESNA standards for illumination of automobile display areas and shall be shielded and directed downward. The IESNA is a national standard that is being used for our proposed outdoor lighting ordinance. That is currently in process at City Council. It has been referred to the Ordinance Review Committee to go forward in a couple of weeks. The rest are standard conditions of approval. Once again, I will have Kim Hesse talk about tree preservation. We have been working with Don Nelms who currently owns the property and have been working to make sure that tree preservation is being met for the entire auto park. That is why you see this area up to the north with regard to the tree preservation area, the wetland areas that have been delineated by the Environmental Specialist shown to be preserved in a tree preservation area easement. That is all I have, thank you. Ward: Is the applicant here? Kelso: Yes. Ward: Why don't you come on up and for a matter of record give us your name. Kelso: I am Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates. I haven't had a chance to review this. Phil Hagen is the engineer working on this thing and he is on vacation so I am going to try to address these as best I can. Basically, we are looking at doing additional display area for automobile sales on this project. I just did a rough calculation, it is about 200,000 sq.ft., which is a little more than five acres or something like that of display area. As far as the wetlands determination, yes, we have hired a specialist. There have been constant conversations back and forth with the Corp. of Engineers. I think they are in agreement with what he has come up with. I do not have the letter from the Corp. of Engineers yet but expect that shortly. Let's see, some of the other things that were talked about, wetlands Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 4 along the channel, we will show that. What we are doing there to avoid those wetlands is we are actually installing bridges to get from one side to the other so we will not affect the wetland whatsoever. Ward: What kind of bridges are those? Kelso: They will be precast bridges that will span the whole thing and we have got those in two spots. As far as a qualifications statement, we will get that to you guys. A final grading plan, like with the Corp. of Engineers, we should get that paperwork quickly on that. The BMPs, Matt, I don't know if Phil has given you anything on that yet or not, he may not have. That is just something that we need to address. I can't answer the questions as far as what BMPs we have got established right now but we can look at that and see. A letter of map amendment from FEMA, a study has been done. The actual floodplain is greatly reduced in this area, it is not nearly as wide as what has been established so that will be off to FEMA and again, the variance for the lights. We are just trying to keep in the same character as what is out there right now. Ward: Ok. Conklin: Planning Commission did grant a variance for these metal haloid lights for the Nelms Auto Park when it originally came through so that was granted. We have granted other variances. The difference between sodium lighting and the metal haloids is the sodium has the yellow type light, which is hard to tell color at underneath the light like car color or even just being able to see clearly so that is something that staff has supported. The one thing that we are adding as a condition is to have them meet the IESNA standards for illumination of parking lots. They have recommended lighting levels and I just want to make sure that they are following that national standard for illumination of the display area. Kelso: That is about all I've got. Ward: Ok, I will start with staff. Keith on sidewalks? Shreve: Just a little bit here. When the original park was constructed they built a sidewalk along Hwy. 112, however it wasn't extended to the creek channel to the north. At this time we would like to request that that sidewalk be extended approximately 125' to 150' further north along Hwy. 112 closer to the creek channel. Ward: Ok, how wide is that? Shreve: It is a 6' sidewalk. Ward: Ok, is that your only comment? Shreve: Yes. Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 5 Ward: Matt with our Engineering Department? Casey: Tim covered a lot of our concerns on the issues with the wetlands and the floodway and floodplain. One thing that has been brought to our attention, I heard that there is a possibility that the existing detention facility out there has somehow failed. I don't have any details on that. I would like for Crafton, Tull to take a look at that and verify that it is functioning in the way that it was designed and planned before we can approve these improvements up stream because it will be dependent on that to work in the way that it was planned. Please take a look at that. It may or may not be true that it has failed but it has been brought to our attention so we need to explore that. Kelso: It doesn't say how it was failed? Casey: No. Ward: Ok, Kim with Landscaping? Hesse: This area in the Overlay District, it shows trees being proposed all the way around, which meets those requirements. Typically you don't get requirements for in the parking lot when they are display areas so that is why we don't have any trees inside there assuming it is all display. Just for review I've taken the tree preservation plan, I have highlighted the largest trees that are being removed and that are being preserved. I met with Mr. Nelms early on this project. He proposed what was their intent and wanted to know how he could meet the tree preservation ordinance. Since Mr. Nelms owns property to the north he has chosen to deed that property along with the rest of his property in order to meet that preservation. He is willing to put this area in a tree preservation easement so it can be preserved to perpetuity. He is meeting the 15% of the entire site, which is more than what we started out with these trees preserved for this site. What he has done now is actually given us more land for tree preservation with this addition here. Subsequently, it also includes quite a bit of the wetlands in this area. I approve of the tree preservation. The trees in blue are the largest trees, they are all 24" to 36". The ones in yellow are 24" to 36" that we are losing. We are getting a good quality forest up here. I consider this a high priority because of the wetlands and because of the streambed that runs through there. I have to prioritize this basically higher than the few trees that we are losing in this area, even though these are large trees. Per our ordinance we are trying to keep the higher priority trees. Hoover: What does our ordinance say for display areas? Hesse: On the landscaping requirements for landscaping inside parking lots they don't require trees in display areas in the pavement. Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 6 Hoover: What is the definition of a display area? Conklin: When you are selling something. Storage display areas. Hesse: Tractor supply or anything like that. Conklin- That is how we handled the original Nelms also. Hoover: These trees that are placed along here, is that different than what is on the existing? Conklin: Yes. The existing one the Planning Commission granted approval allowing them to cluster the trees together. In this proposal they are placing them 30' on center in accordance with the Overlay District minimum 25' wide landscape area along I-540. Hesse: Are they proposing shrubs in that? Kelso: All we've got is just trees. Hesse: The shrubs are actually part of the landscape requirements for off-street parking. The Overlay District requires these trees. Conklin: I have put the Overlay District requirements in the report here. It states that trees shall be planted at the interval of one tree per 30' of green space area when practical. Hoover: Tim, on display area and building setback. Display area is considered a parking lot so it can encroach into the building setback? Conklin- Actually, they meet building setbacks already because if you landscape you can reduce your building setback to 25'. It is a display, it is not a public parking lot. It is to store merchandise outside, a display area. Hoover: It is not considered parking lot nor is it considered building? Conklin- No. Bunch: On these two areas right here, are they going to receive any landscaping or what will be there? Kelso: It is just green space, grass. Hesse: On the original plan we got we have got trees in the area where employee parking was, a few smaller trees in some of these islands that was originally planned that way. Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 7 Kelso: The intent it to try to keep the landscaping as it is out there and all we did was just show the minimum that is required so that may be something that we can show on the construction plans. Bunch: As a housekeeping measure, you are showing these trees that are obviously going to be removed, of course your legend is remaining and that is where the parking lot is going to be. Kelso: That is right. Hesse: As far as that landscaping in some of those islands, you will have to make that as part of your recommendation. It is not something that I can require. Hoover: This is a Large Scale Development and when a parking lot comes in with a Large Scale Development do we get any elevations? Conklin: There is nothing to see. Hoover: There is in reality. Conklin- It is flat. I think the elevation is say you are standing on the Fulbright Expressway, are you going to see trees standing up every 30'? Hoover: Ok, here is a good question. Is this lower than the expressway or about the same? Kelso: Yes. Hoover: How much lower is it? Kelso: It is quite a bit lower. Conklin: You are coming down off of here too and you're really high right there. Hoover: I think that I have a hard time with it being a large scale development and if it were a building then we would want elevations and all that but being this parking lot and seeing it from the road everywhere I am totally out of context here. I don't understand the topography at all and what I am really going to be looking at when it is built. Kelso: If you drive out there and look at the existing parking lots and things that is what you are going to see. Hoover: You can also do a section through the topography so we can actually see if you are a car up here, I guess I can read it and do it, you are 21, 15, and this keeps going off and then how high is it over here? Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 8 Kelso: It is quite a bit higher over there. Hoover: The other thing is I don't understand those bridges. Kelso: Ok. Hoover: Does this get channelized? Kelso: No, it is natural. You build abutments on both ends and then you just bridge across it, you don't even touch it. Hoover: But it is for a car, a one lane? Kelso: It will be two lanes I believe. Conklin: 24' and 25'. Hoover: So it is two lanes, where is there one that we can go look at that would be similar to this? Kelso: A bridge? Hoover: Yes, that just has the two abutments like that where nothing has happened to the landscaping. Kelso: There are probably lots of bridges in Fayetteville. Hoover: Most of the ones that I've seen have the abutments and then they have to go back how many feet? I know there is a foot bridge there on Joyce that they went back something like 20' beyond. Hesse: The one that is out there is another example. Hoover: Is that a pedestrian or a car? Hesse: It carries vehicles, one lane, just for maintenance vehicles. Conklin: You have to get them higher up. Hesse: But that was one that they didn't channelize. Conklin. To avoid channelization you have to get them high enough and then not be in the regulatory floodway and the floodplain. Hoover: Then how far back are the abutments? Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 9 Kelso: Typically you are not talking about anything huge here, say 10'. Conklin: In the report from their environmental specialist he said "I think the wetland area along that channel is anywhere from 10' to 20' in width." Kelso: We have got about a 25' wide bridge to span the whole thing. That is the reason we are using a bridge is to just completely stay out of the wetlands. Conklin- There are wetlands and then the other issue is the regulatory floodway and making sure that your base flood elevation is not increased, you have no rise and when you put that bridge in there the water does not back up. They have to increase the height also right there. You are going to have to make sure you can pass the hundred year storm through the bridge without backing any water up. Kelso: The actual drainage area for this thing is not very big. For a typical floodplain it is about as small as you get. We have got 25' wide bridges. We have done the study, we don't have a rise and we are in good shape there. Bunch: Is any of this tree preservation area? You are using the tree preservation area legend and it shows up on several sheets. Kelso: That is actually the existing floodway. It goes through the existing parking lot and everything else, it is totally wrong. That is the floodway is what that is showing. Bunch: Again, it is kind of confusing because you are using the same legend for the floodway as you are using for tree preservation area and when we start adding up acres and square feet on tree preservation it is very misleading. Hesse: They are saving these. Bunch: Those are to be saved? Hesse: Yes. Ward: Are there any other comments? Bunch: Another housekeeping item on sheet one general notes number 7, owner/developer Landers Auto Park, shouldn't that read Nelms, Nelms is the actual owner. Kelso: Nelms is the existing owner right now. I guess it is kind of confusing, I will do it however. Nelms is the owner who will be leasing to Landers who is actually the developer. Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 10 PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone here that would like to make public comment on this particular item? Alexander: Fran Alexander. I would like to address a couple of things. The BMPs on the water quality. The maps that I've looked at show that the floodplains are very, very close to Clabber Creek and as you know, there are animals in Clabber Creek that are almost endangered and if we keep pounding on them they are going to be endangered sooner than we might want. I was wondering about water quality along this parking area where the water is leaving. I know there is a detention pond planned over on the east side of this parking lot, I don't think there is one along Clabber Creek anywhere. The detention would only be treating the sediment in the water, it wouldn't be removing any toxins. There is research out there somewhere, I have come across it over the years, of parking lot pollution and what is running off into water ways. I was just wondering if the city is going to address that type of pollution directly into this creek and if there are any plans to try to test, treat, or otherwise handle what might be coming off this parking lot on that score. Also, I was wondering about the future phase to the north end of this display area, which is drawing straight lines. You don't have straight lines in wetlands. This is the problem we are having at the Wilson Springs Business Park discussion. You can't say it is wet over here and it is dry over here and there is a straight line separating it. That is not delineated on the map logically and it is very hard to reach any kind of opinion on what is going on on that property, especially since this has not been rezoned yet. I was wondering about that too. On tree preservation, can we have tree preservation counting for a different zone? If this is zoned one way and this is zoned another, is the tree preservation able to cross over those two different zones and count? Also, is tree preservation in a wetland counting for the total tree preservation or wouldn't the wetland preservation have to occur anyway? Ward: I will let Kim answer a couple of those questions there. Hesse: We have on all the other developments to this point combined wetland preservation and tree preservation. The new ordinance never divided the two so we just carried that on. Conklin: I'm sorry to interrupt. Believe me, I know you worked on it for 18 months, but wasn't that combined into the priorities of what trees to save? It specifically listed wetlands as an area where you do want tree preservation? Alexander: Yes, that was one of the priority situations. When you have a piece of property this large and when you are trying to mitigate the damage that you've done by paving and you have got wetlands up here and you are strictly able to pave all of this and leave this little amount, I'm not sure you are prioritizing as far as the design of all this goes. This little amount up here is hardly going to mitigate the Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 11 damage that is going on down here. I realize what you said that the display area is not required to have the same kind of tree coverage in a parking area, which I think is a loophole we need to address. What I am trying to say is that the wetland delineation up here, counting this for tree preservation as well, is not in the long run in the helping view of this treatment. Properly mitigating this much damage that is going on down here, the heating of the city and so forth. It is probably all we have to go on legally with the ordinance and so forth but I want you to think about that before you go ahead and approve something this vast, the impact that you are going to have on the environment total. Conklin: Thank you. I just knew you were on the committee and I thought wetlands were mentioned as an area in tree preservation. Hesse: We do need to separate the idea of wetland mitigation and tree preservation. On this particular project we are not mitigating tree canopy because they are saving tree canopy but the mitigation for the wetlands is a different issue all together. Fran does have a point on the zoning. Is that an agricultural zoning? Conklin- It is zoned A-1. Hesse: What we will need to do is look at that. Kelso: All of this is going through the rezoning process right now. Conklin- It is at Council, the second reading is scheduled for next Tuesday. Alexander: The assumption that that will occur is premature. Conklin: I have gone back and forth on this and it is a policy decision. At the City Council I have been criticized for making people wait until it goes all the way through and I have allowed development to simultaneously go through at the time of rezoning. In this situation that is what has occurred. I have been doing that probably the past year or so. They are at their own risk. If the City Council doesn't change the zoning ordinance then they have lost time and money but there are no guarantees because it is a legislative act of the City Council. Ward: Ok, thanks Tim. Either Matt or Jerry can you address the idea of the wetlands and how they run as far as a straight line? Kelso: What is shown as a straight line is what we intend on building on someday, actually reserving that area. The actual wetlands are not a straight line. If you look on this sheet right here, the actual wetlands are curving all over the place following the contour of the land. We have stayed completely out of that area with our proposed area. Also, there is quite a bit more area that was not delineated as wetlands that we are preserving as tree canopy. There is tree canopy in the wetlands but there is quite a bit that is outside of the wetlands too. Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 12 Ward: Ok. Bunch: On the question of the parking lot drainage, am I reading my map correctly that we are draining out this way which does not actually go into that wetland, which is the recharge for Clabber Creek? Kelso: This drainage comes on around. That is how it exists right now. It comes on around, you are right, this area will drain directly to here and will not drain into the wetland. Bunch: Alright, where does this other stuff end up going? Kelso: It continues on following the floodplain, eventually draining in there also and this goes on to the west. Bunch: So that is the deal once it crosses 540 and 112 you have the possibility of a berm there on the Wilson Springs side separating the spring water from the drainage coming off the developed areas? Kelso: Ward: Moorman: I don't know what is actually over here so I don't know. Is there any other public comment? Yes. My name is Barbara Moorman. You all are spending so much time on the details on this on the front end but what concerns me a lot is that the city has nothing in place to check. They have no mandate, they have no staff to check on what happens afterwards. It has been brought out already that you don't know the situation of the detention pond for the development that was approved right before this. It is all interconnected. You really don't have any way of knowing whether the detention ponds, the channelization, whatever was done for the auto park, the original part of it, if those things are really working the way they should and now you have got two more proposals here. You are considering them both at once even though one hasn't been rezoned that would involve really encroaching on a wetland, it would involve, as I understand it, some culvertizing that would speed up the drainage. It involves a couple of bridges. You will have no way of checking on that either and I think it is pretty irrational to go ahead with developments in a wetland, bordering wetlands, without asking yourselves how you will ever check on this in the future to see if it is working until something really goes wrong and you are forced to face it. In addition to that, that was my first point, the second one is to just say my concerns. Other people have already expressed their concerns this morning about the fact that you are assuming that the City Council will approve this rezoning. If you go ahead and approve '/ of a rectangle, which is what you are doing right now. You say 'this is fine' then you are kind of in concept approving the rest of it. When it gets to City Council there is the leverage there on the part of the owner and the developer to say "Oh well, Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 13 Ward: this part has been approved so you might as well go ahead and rezone that." I think you understand that game. I would just like to point it out. Thank you. I will ask Matt as far as engineering. Can you kind of give her some basic answers as far as how this can be protected in the future and what safeguards we have I guess? Casey: As far as water quality? Moorman: The water quality and as far as entering the wetlands. Alexander: Wetlands don't operate in isolation. You just can't pave right up to it and say that the wetland is going to be ok so I want to know what kind of engineering is going on there. Casey: Our requirements are going to be that they not affect the quantity or the quality of the water discharging into the wetlands. As Mr. Kelso stated, the channel is taking the water away from the wetlands. It is not discharging to the north. Our requirements are still that the quality and quantity should not be affected. We are going to rely on the engineer of record to propose the methods that they are going to use to meet that requirement. I can't tell them what to do. It will fall on them to give us the information and tell us what they are proposing. Moorman: What about following up on it? Who checks that in two years or three years? Casey: The only avenue that we have is during construction to make sure that they follow what was designed and what has been approved. Alexander: I would like to ask also, in water quality, is temperature part of that criteria? Casey: Yes, it is part of the quality. Ward: Ok, is there any other public comment before I close it to the public? Ok, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Committee. Jerry, how long will it take? I guess you really don't have a clue to get all of these conditions answered as far as the wetland delineation and so on. Kelso: With the Corp. of Engineers I just don't know. Typically in these types of developments when we do have something like this it is approved contingent upon these things and we still have to go through construction plans and things like that when we get the wetlands determination, well we have got the wetlands determination, but the Corp. of Engineers agrees upon it. Like I said, a part of the condition if it changes from what we show here, from what you all approve, we have got to come back through the process. Typically in the past some of these things that take a while, I can't set a time frame for because it does take some time. Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 14 Ward: Sure. Tim, do you see any reason for this not to be forwarded onto the full Planning Commission? Conklin: I do want to make sure that the conditions that are in the staff report are being met and as long as they can meet those conditions, I don't see why we should not forward it to them. The conditions, we do have quite a few that talk about the wetlands and those are questions that we have received and expect to have questions at the Planning Commission and even today with regard to who the environmental specialist is and their qualifications in order to answer those questions we just wanted to make sure we can have that information. Kelso: I will have our environmental specialist at the Planning Commission because I am sure that people will have questions at that time also with more public comment. Conklin- As staff, we are not environmental specialists. I have to rely on the engineer's environmental specialist that they hire and the reports that they do give to us. If they can meet those conditions I don't see why we shouldn't forward this to that. I did write three more conditions. One was from Keith Shreve, our Sidewalk Coordinator, extend the 6' sidewalk 125' to 150' north to the creek. Provide information on the existing detention pond downstream that was built as a part of the first phase of Nelms Auto Park with regard to is it working as planned or if there are issues with that. I think that is something that the public brought up and something that the engineer has been aware of, but just for the record. This northern part where the tree preservation area is in the future, Phase II display area that any approval would be subject to the City Council approving the actual rezoning from A-1 to C-2. I have made that assumption all along with the engineer understanding that but for the record, it will need to be rezoned by the City Council. It is on its second reading next Tuesday night. Ward: Ok. Hoover: I have a question. On the lighting, what hours will the lights be on? Kelso: Brian, you're here, can you answer that question at all? Black: Typically we will work out a solution that is agreeable with the neighbors and the city. We have run into this numerous times before and there are no set hours for those lights. Typically we will run the lights full until some time around 9:00 p.m. at which time there is a drastic drop off in traffic and then we will cut the lights back to half and then after a certain time, possibly around 10:30 or 11:00 we will drop the lights down to the bear minimum for security and for energy conservation. There is nothing set in stone but we will work with the city and our neighbors. Hoover: Is that what the other lights are doing now already? Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 15 Black: No, but nobody has made it an issue up until now. I do know that they do run in two phases. There is a full on and then when they are just for security. Yes, they do run in two phases right now but I do not know what the time that they kick on and kick off is right now. Hoover: Tim, on our new outdoor lighting ordinance, I can not remember what did we determine? Conklin- We are still working on that ordinance with Michael Green, a local engineer. The current ordinance states it needs to meet IESNA standards. That will have an impact on this development with regard to how bright the lights are. Basically we are asking them to meet those industry standards for brightness. I can't tell you how that compares to what is out there right now but my guess is that it probably wouldn't be as bright. Hoover: Did we do some hours of operation? Conklin- No. Hoover: I couldn't remember that. Conklin: We did receive a call, and he actually came in, with regard to the drive in theater, concerned about lighting and future development of this area north. With the tree preservation easement and the tree preservation area that should help with regard to lighting getting over to the drive in theater. Many years ago they did grade for another drive in theater. It is all set up. If you look at an aerial photograph you can actually see the ramps for the cars to park on. It just was never built so he did have concerns but they are staying away from that area and hopefully they can make sure that tree canopy is adequate to help do that. Hoover: Is it unreasonable to ask to have the lighting situation worked out as one of the conditions? I mean I know we have done this before. Conklin: I guess the only question I have is I don't mind placing conditions on a project but what is the purpose? We haven't done that on other display areas. We have also permitted other car lots recently and we haven't had a condition that they have to turn their lights off. You, as a Commission, can place conditions on there but I do want to be consistent with how we treat other automobile dealerships, new cars and used cars because we haven't made that a condition. Kelso: We have got a requirement here that we have got to meet these certain standards so we've got to meet them. Ward: Ok. For the record please give us your full name. Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 16 Black: My name is Brian Black, I am here to represent Landers Auto Sales. I work with Black, Corley and Owens Architects in Benton. Ward: Thank you. Are there any other questions or motions? Bunch: After the Corp. of Engineers looks at the delineation and they rule on it then do they also look at any development that goes on or is that the extent? Kelso: Only if we are affecting the wetlands and in this case we are not affecting the wetlands. We are not changing the wetlands, we are not filling the wetlands. All their determination is is that they agree with where the wetlands are at. Bunch: If they don't see the drawings that show the proposed development in the area, how do they know if they are affecting the wetlands? Conklin- I guess the question is you are crossing a hundred year floodplain, floodway waters of the United States. According to the document from your environmental specialist, it talked about nationwide permit may be used or an individual permit may have to be issued. They will have to look at the plans with regard to where the crossings are occurring. I am just making a statement here, I don't know if it is true. Kelso: It is true. Conklin- That is what your environmental specialist had in his report. Kelso: We have to show them this plan. I guess maybe I misunderstood your question. We show them a plan and show them that we are not filling the wetlands. They actually do not issue a permit because we are not filling wetlands. They look at it, hey, it looks great, we don't have to issue a nationwide permit because you're not filling the wetlands but they will make that determination. If we were filling the wetlands just a little bit or we were actually putting pipes in here then they would have to issue us a nationwide permit. In our case we chose to protect the wetlands bridging it so we would not actually have to have a permit but just a determination from them. Ward: Ok. Are there any other questions? Bunch: I have none. Moorman: Can we speak? Ward: I have closed it to the public, I'm sorry. Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 17 Motion: Bunch: There will be plenty of time to comment on this when it goes forward. These are preliminary questions to get things answered before the next meeting. I move that we forward LSD 02-21.00 to the full Planning Commission with the additional conditions as delineated by Tim Conklin and all staff and committee notes. Ward: Ok, do I have a second? Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thank you very much and there is still a lot of work to be done and for the public there will be plenty of other times to comment on this particular item. Alexander: Part of my comment is other information has been added in. Conklin- If you will give me your comments I will put those in the staff report. Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 18 LSD 02-23.00: Large Scale Development (Hampton Inn, pp 558) was submitted by Erin Rushing on behalf of Narry Krushiker for property located at 2614 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.54 acres with a 4 story, 94 room hotel proposed. Ward: The next item on the agenda this morning is LSD 02-23.00 for the Hampton Inn submitted by Erin Rushing on behalf of Narry Krushiker for property located at 2614 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.54 acres with a 4 story, 94 room hotel proposed. Tim, what can you tell us about this? Conklin: This is a Large Scale Development for a new hotel, four story, 94 rooms. They are providing 104 parking spaces, that is based on 94 rooms at one space per room plus one space per employee. Ten employees at the maximum shift. The existing development includes two existing single-family homes that are to be removed, demolished from the property. Surrounding zoning includes to the west C-2 and R -O, to the east C-2, to the north R -O and south C-2. Surrounding land use, a shopping center is to the east. That is University Square Shopping Center that is under renovation right now, a ministorage to the west, vacant to the north and retail to the south across Hwy. 62. 55' of right of way along Hwy. 62 was shown to be dedicated as part of the lot split. Tree preservation, there is 47% existing canopy. 0.34% will be preserved. Mitigation is proposed by staff and staff is in support of the mitigation. Kim has left the room. Dollar: But we can call her. Conklin- There is a memo from her and I will let her explain that to you at this time. The recommendation is to forward this to the full Planning Commission. Conditions to address include 1) The additional right-of-way for Highway 62 (55 feet from centerline) will be required to dedicated by separate warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit. 2) On-site sidewalks connecting the hotel to the shopping center and public sidewalks need to be shown. I will let the applicant discuss any plans for pedestrian access throughout this development. 3) All improvements onsite and offsite except for landscaping that is guaranteed shall be complete prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel. It is somewhat of a unique situation where we have a private drive being built wrapping around the University Square Shopping Center. I just want to make sure that when the hotel opens its doors for operation that we have access from Shiloh Drive and Hwy. 62 built and open. That is why I really want to get everything done that is shown on the plans. 4) Approval of the waiver of the increased parking lot aisle widths. There are some increased aisle widths at the south end of this parking lot and there is a letter requesting that waiver from the applicant. Basically they need that for truck turnaround for deliveries. Staff is in support of that. 5) Planning Commission determination of compliance of Commercial Design Standards. The rest are standard conditions of approval. I did include on page 4 the Design Overlay District requirements with regard to green space. There was a green space reduction that was approved as a part of the Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 19 University Square Shopping Center up along Shiloh Drive. In order to create that cross access to the existing Hampton Inn hotel and to match that line up with their aisle. The Planning Commission granted it. The green space for lot number one, which is south along Hwy. 62, I am recommending that we plan that as part of that development when that comes through and to put the trees in at this time and landscaping. Signage, there are two monument signs shown. There is one at this location up on Shiloh Drive. It looks like it probably meets our setback standards. This sign down here with additional right of way dedication, I have measured it. It looks like we are probably going to have to move it back slightly to meet the Overlay District Standards. I did look at the Overlay District Standards with regard to how to allow this sign offsite on this lot. It does state in our Overlay District, and I will get that to you at Planning Commission, that you can have more than one lot as part of a development and standards would apply to one lot or more than one lot. Something to consider, this is probably more for the applicant because you do have another development you are trying to work on this lot. Is that going to be a joint sign with that development down there or is it just going to be the Hampton Inn sign? If we can find that out by Planning Commission that will work. Wall signs, and I apologize that we have this. I didn't see the south elevation in the packet. There is a wall sign on the Hampton Inn, we will need to see that. Since there is a lot in between Hwy. 62 and the building a variance will need to be granted for that because it talks about facing a street, that kind of contradicts what I just said about the Overlay District requirements. Let me think about that before Planning Commission. Once again, it is a fairly unique development here. Let me make sure as staff I am handling this correctly with regard to the sign. This came up with the Country Inn and Suites up on Wedington with regard to being able to see their signs. I just want to make sure whatever we grant here is allowed by code. Curb cuts have already been planned as part of the lot split, which was a condition that no additional curb cuts be allowed on Hwy. 62. All access will be internal on the private drive. They are asking for the use of metal haloid lighting within the parking lot. Staff is in support. The lighting fixtures do state in the plan that they are a maximum height of 35', which meets our requirements. Under site coverage in the Overlay District 25% of the site needs to be left in open space. They are showing 56.3% of it being covered with building and parking. Therefore, they are meeting the site coverage requirements. However, I believe that includes lot one right? Rushing: No. Conklin: No, just this part so they are meeting the amount of open space as part of this Hampton Inn development. They are showing a 6' high, is that existing or proposed? Rushing: It is proposed. Conklin: A 6' high wood privacy fence along the west property line. That is more to enhance your project than to screen the ministorage from the motel. Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 20 Rushing: Yes. Conklin: Just on page six the Overlay District talks about pedestrian access shall be provided from the street to the entrance of the structure by way of designated trail or sidewalk and encourages multi -mobile access. Once again, we do need to see how we are going to access the hotel to the public sidewalks that are on Hwy. 62 Shiloh Drive into the shopping center, especially in this location. I think that people that are coming to stay here for games or whatever may want to exercise or walk over to the restaurant or across the street to Denny's. It would be nice to provide them that pedestrian access to the street. That is all I have with regard to this project, thank you. Ward: Ok, thanks Tim. I will start off with the staff. Keith on sidewalks? Shreve: I totally agree with Tim's comment about the pedestrian access. This being a private drive I really don't put any requirements for any sidewalks along it. I am not familiar with the Overlay District requirements. However, we are requiring four bicycle racks as part of this construction. Ward: Ok, are those shown on there? Shreve: Yes, they are shown there by the front door. Rushing: Actually there are two locations. One by the south door and one by the front door. Shreve: Ok, great. Ward: What kind of sidewalks are you talking about Tim? Conklin: Do you have any recommendations on that Keith? The Overlay District really doesn't talk about the width. Shreve: 4' would be the minimum, we would recommend 6' due to the possible pedestrian traffic being generated by this hotel, motel. We have typically been recommending a 6' sidewalk for higher density developments. Ward: Ok. Rushing: We did show a connection from the existing, the old Marvin's IGA to the hotel through the islands. I don't know if anybody picked that up or not. Bunch: Another question on sidewalks, regardless of what you wind up calling them, how does this hotel unit work with the existing hotel unit? Will it be like the same company and possibly have joint ventures where you have meeting rooms in one and people need to get back and forth. Do we need pedestrian access between the two hotel units in addition to the pedestrian access to the shopping areas and Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 21 public sidewalks? Krushiker: The other hotel is a separate partnership. We are going to change the name, it won't be a Hampton Inn. It will exist on its own. Bunch: As far as convention bookings it would involve both entities for one function? Krushiker: No, both are limited service hotels. Ward: Matt, on Engineering do you have some concerns that you need to talk about? Casey: Yes. Since Plat Review we found out from our Water and Sewer Division that the existing 6" water line along the east side of this property that we are going to be connecting to is in poor condition. It is having to be repaired. The city would like to cost share with the developer to get that line replaced down to the highway. At the worst case all the way down to the highway, there is an encasement there. We would like to replace to that encasement unless it is necessary to go all the way to the other side but the city would like to participate and have that done all at the same time. Ward: Ok, have you come up with any kind of a cost figure yet? Casey: No, I just found out about this and have not worked up that information. Rushing: Matt, are you talking about from our point of connection south or are you talking about the whole length of the line? Casey: I need to get with Dave Jurgens and find out the extent of what he would like to see done. Rushing: Ok, just let me know. Casey: Also, I have noticed that on the 8" sanitary sewer that is proposed going north I can not find an easement along that, we need a minimum 10' on each side. Rushing: I don't have it labeled, that is proposed to be a private line from right here, this manhole is in an easement, it is supposed to be private. Casey: Ok, I didn't see the easement on there. Rushing: There is an easement shown on the lot split that I have submitted. I think it is in Tim's office right now. Casey: Ok, why don't you just show it on here. Rushing: Really it is all one drainage easement but I've also platted an easement on this side and I sent that to Tim the first of this week. Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 22 Conklin: I haven't got a chance to look at it yet. Ward: Ok, thanks Matt. Are we going to get some kind of comment from Kim? Conklin: I forgot she had to go to a meeting. She did review the tree preservation and in your packet there is a tree preservation plan form review. They have met all the submittal requirements. They are going to be using onsite mitigation and offsite mitigation. Tree preservation is met, it is conditionally approved. She has a criteria used by the Landscape Administrator to evaluate tree preservation plans. It states most of the trees onsite are either a species that is considered undesirable or evasive or physically affected by existing evasive vines. She did not notice any trees worthy of altering the development to preserve. The last part of the form says her recommendation is for approval to allow the offsite mitigation and forest station but you can go through the plans. She can be here in fifteen minutes if you think you need her. Ward: It goes to the full Planning Commission anyway and we will have time to review all of this. We will be ok. Why don't the applicants formally introduce themselves and then we will maybe have some questions about commercial design standards and so on. Rushing: Erin Rushing with CEI Engineering. Krushiker: I am Narry Krushiker with Krushiker Hospitality Group. Ward: Ok, thank you. I think at this point I will go ahead and ask if there is any public comment on this particular item. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. We haven't seen the drawings or anything, the elevations on the buildings. Why don't you just go over the building, the type of material, height of it, all those type of issues to make sure it does meet our commercial design standards. I guess you are going to do that Narry? Krushiker: Sure, what I know of it. Ward: Ok. Krushiker: The building will be four stories with an interior corridor with two elevators, 94 rooms at the moment, we are trying to see, we might be able to get 95 rooms, we are not sure yet. It is a metal steel construction. The interior rooms have 8-10 suites that we are trying to fit in there and the rest of them will be just standard hotel rooms. Ward: Ok, what about the basic building materials that you are going to use? Is that different colors or different materials or what? Krushiker: That is just different colors. The exterior will be dryvit finish in two or three Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 23 different colors. Conklin: Narry, is the bottom first floor dryvit also? Krushiker: That is dryvit. Conklin: Everything is dryvit? Krushiker: Right. Conklin: Just different colors and patterns. Krushiker: Right. Conklin: Ok. Ward: Tim, have we allowed a totally dryvit type of construction on these hotels? Conklin: I can't remember if the Marriott was completely dryvit or not, I can find that out by Planning Commission. I think it might have been. I think the Fairfield Inn, Sleep Inn is completely dryvit. Holiday Inn Express may be completely dryvit. I can come up with that. Ward: I think that the building looks very nice to me. It has got a lot of articulation and it looks like you are going to use different colors and so on to kind of keep it from looking like a long blank wall. It looks like a very nice looking project. Krushiker: We are trying to tie it in with the shopping center that is under renovation right now. My partners with the shopping center have been very helpful in helping me to go ahead with this plan on the backside and giving us the easements and so forth. Ward: Ok. Conklin- One thing that we talked about and I see that Mr. Rushing here has done it, is putting the landscaping back behind that building. We added some landscaping to help screen that, right now it is just a metal back wall so that will help also for that existing building for University Square. Ward: Let's talk about the waiver for the increased parking lot aisle width. That is going to be for instead of 24' it is going to be 38' or something like that? Conklin- It is going to be 39' is what they are showing in that area right here. Hoover: Because they have a dead end. Ward: It is a dead end street and I could see that an 18 wheeler would have trouble in a Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 24 smaller. Rushing: It probably won't be 18 wheelers but it will be 40' to 45' trucks in there trying to turn around. Ward: Ok, so that seems like a reasonable waiver. Hoover: On the sidewalk connectivity, are we going to let staff work with them on that? Ward: I think so. Conklin: I am kind of interested from Narry, do you have any ideas or plans? I could draw something up but I would rather have you integrate it into your design as far as sidewalks going from the building out to the shopping center near the street. Krushiker: We didn't have any plans for it. I will just have to look at it and look at the cost of doing that to see how it would fit into our budget for this hotel. Conklin: If you can propose something because you will have a sidewalk in front of these store fronts right here and you are showing a sidewalk right there. Rushing: It continues on across these islands. Conklin- Ok, I didn't see that. Rushing: I believe it is 5' wide. Conklin: Ok, it is something to look at. I see that you extended this out to here. I am not sure if you have any plans over here. Rushing: I think we can do that. Are you thinking a connection from the hotel to Sixth Street? Conklin: The hotel to Sixth Street if it is a shopping center. I think you can accomplish it without building sidewalks all over the place. Ward: It will be a lot easier when lot one ever develops to finish up sidewalks. Conklin: We can talk about that too. I am not opposed to that. I could see as long as the Denny's is across the street people walking to breakfast or whatever. Krushiker: We are working with a group that is bringing in a nice restaurant into lot one and they should be forthcoming within the next 60 days with some plans to the city. Ward: The main thing we want to do is to make sure that what we put into your property would stub over onto that and over onto all the way over to Sixth Street. It looks like we have sidewalks going to the main existing building which is the old IGA Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 25 store. Conklin: Is this open between the buildings right here? Krushiker: Yes, it is actually a little drain area. Hoover: It is not a walking area, ok. Krushiker: No, in fact it is going to be closed off right there. Motion: Hoover: I will make a motion that we forward LSD 02-23.00 subject to the comments. Bunch: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thank you gentlemen. Conklin: The Commission or the Subdivision Committee is comfortable with allowing additional signs on the north and south of the building and the front? Hoover: Yes. Conklin- I just wanted to clarify the monument sign along Sixth Street or Hwy. 62. Bunch: Especially since there has been a removal of a lot of the signs in this area with previous projects and this is more or less part of it. Yes, that is great. Conklin: Ok, thank you. Hoover: Do you think you can get us a south elevation? Krushiker: I should have one. Rushing: We will get one. Conklin: I see the north elevation facing north, is it exactly the same thing? Rushing: It should be the same thing. Krushiker: But it is flip flopped. I will get that to you. Rushing: Will there be a sign on the north? Krushiker: Yes, because that is our vision from the highway. Ward: Sure, you would want one there. Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 26 LSP 02-40.00 & 41.00: Lot Split (Cowan, pp 455) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Coleen Cowan for property located at 16401 Summerrain Road. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 7.63 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 2.32 acres, 3.00 acres and 2.31 acres. Ward: The third item on the agenda today is LSP 02-40.00 and 41.00 for Cowan for property located at 16401 Summerrain Road. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 7.63 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 2.32 acres, 3.00 acres, and 2.31 acres. Tim? Conklin: This is in the Planning Area. Water is available. There is no right of way being dedicated at this time. I believe it was already dedicated with a past lot split. Washington County approval will be required. The rest are standard conditions of approval. That is all that staff has on this. Ward: Ok. Tell me again about the water lines. Conklin: There are water lines shown on the survey that exist along Wyman Road and Summerrain Road. Ward: Ok. This is out in the Growth Area so I guess Sidewalks, Engineering, nor Landscaping have much to do with this particular issue. Is there anyone from the public that would like to make comments on this particular lot split? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Committee. Of course this also has to go through Washington County approval. Celia, do you have anything to say about this particular lot split? Silkwood: Right now the way this stands if it is a family split we can approve this administratively. If not, it is going to have to go before the Planning Board. Our plat submittal is Friday, tomorrow for October. Ward: Ok, so that is good information to know. What is the difference about whether it is a family split or not? Silkwood: Because of the way our regulations are written we can administratively approve family splits of acreage one acre and above. If they are intending to not give or sell this to immediate family members, because of the way our regulations are written, they have to go to the full Planning Board. Ward: Ok. On these tracts like this 2.3 acres, do they have to get a perk test before they get this approval? Silkwood: Not as far as Washington County Planning is concerned. Conklin: Not in Fayetteville either. Anything less than an acre and a half requires a perk test. It is a very good question because there are areas that are five acres that Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 27 can't perk in some areas. Ward: This is right out there around the sludge area right? Conklin- Yes, I think it is across the street from it. Ward: Ok, are there any other comments or motions? Bunch: I have a question on the Technical Plat Review there is some question about the electrical lines, has that been resolved? They were worried about the lines going along the house and the barn but they are across Summerrain Road until you get up near this corner. This is Wyman Community Center over here and then that line crosses and then it is on this property on the side of Wyman Road so I think that might resolve the questions along the electrical easements and how you get past the house and all that, it is existing. Conklin: They seemed to have worked it all out by the time we got out of Plat Review the Utilities seemed to be ok with everything. Bunch: I don't see anything else. Can we approve this at this level? Hoover: Yes. Motion: Bunch: I move that we approve LSP 02-40.00 and 02-41.00. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thanks Chris. Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 28 LSP 02-42.00: Lot Split (Harkins, pp 298) was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Peter Harkins for property located at 5345 E. Mission Blvd. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 6.76 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.56 acres and 5.20 acres. Ward: The last item on the agenda this morning is LSP 02-42.00, and the best one is the last one always, is a lot split for Harkins. It was supposed to be submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Peter Harkins for property located at 5345 E. Mission Blvd. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 6.76 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.56 acres and 5.20 acres. Tim? Conklin: This is a lot split creating an additional parcel of 1.56 acres. They are dedicating some additional right of way along Timberglenn Lane as shown on the plat to get 60' of right of way for a county road. There are no Master Street Plans adjacent to this. We are recommending that you approve it at this level. The rest are standard conditions of approval. Ward: Conklin: Ward: It also has to be approved by Washington County? That is correct. Since there again, there shouldn't be any staff comments from anybody. Is there anyone from the public that would like to make public comment on this item? I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Committee. Would the applicants like to make any comments on this particular lot split? You understand that your septic system is going to be over on somebody else's property? Harkins: He is a dear friend of ours and we have got all that worked out. It is all agreeable between the two of us for that. Ward: As soon as he gets his house built about 18 months from now and he sells it to me and I'm going to be mad about that septic tank out there or lateral lines out there but that is alright? Conklin: We have looked at that and Washington County Health Department apparently doesn't have any problems allowing lateral lines in an easement on other people's property. Ward: Ok, is this a recorded easement that goes with it showing the lateral line field? Conklin: It will be recorded on the survey, yes. We had the same concerns. I think it would be beneficial not to have a septic system's lateral line fields on other people's property but at this point we don't have anything that says you can't. The County Health Department seems to be ok with it. Ward: Ok. Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 29 Bunch: Harkins: Bunch: Casey: Conklin: Thomas: Conklin: Hoover: Silkwood: Harkins: Harkins, P: Conklin: Harkins, P: Conklin: Harkins: This electric line that is shown, is there an easement for that electric line? Where is the electric line? It goes right through the middle of the septic easement for one thing, it goes from the east side, it actually crosses the 1.5 acre split off lot and then comes down to the remainder and then takes off to the east again. It is showing it coming like this and it doesn't show an easement for it. I think we established at the other meeting that there was no easement. I think it was a verbal agreement at the time if I recall. Renee, do you recall? It was a hand shake or a signature on the back of a work order. That is what the electric company said. Now, I don't have the minutes. I will review those minutes and see what the electric company said. I have them here. Do you have any lines out there at all? Are there poles or lines? Yes. Peter I've seen them. Who would grant the easement? You as the land owner. Since it exists already don't we assume that the easement exists? That is kind of what the Ozark Electric Coop representative is saying. Mike Phipps stated that "The existing overhead there has a 30' utility easement, 15' on each side of that line. You won't find it recorded. I am not sure who owned the land when it was put in but it could have been a handshake or somebody signing the back of a work order that it was built on. Any relocation of that line will be at the owner's expense. I would have to look and see if I could even take it out and get it out completely. We might be able to do it. I don't know if it go over to the Leonards' place and ties in or how that works I think the power for the Leonards comes west of that property and up his drive." That is how that ends with regard to Ozark Electric. Yes, a 30' easement needs to be shown, 15' each side of that line. I will write that down. Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 30 Silkwood: Are they saying that those powerlines aren't being used but they are there? Harkins, P: No, they are being used. They have been there for 50 years. Silkwood: We want to show 15' on each side of the line? Conklin- Yes, that will be an added condition. Ward: Ok, what else Don? Bunch: A similar situation, the water easement, we are showing just a water line, an existing water line being shown across the split off lot and showing it goes past where that lot splits. Do we need to know the size of that line, does that matter? Casey: I think that that is a fairly new line. Our website didn't even show that yet but apparently it extends onto the south and it is a new line. Harkins: Yes, there are two new houses down there. Bunch: That was my concern. We are not showing easements or whatever and showing how we feed these. Tim, refresh my memory, we had a lot down at the south end of this, a lot split sometime back where in fact, at one time, we were even concerned about an easement dedication for a north/south road or something like that. I drove out there yesterday and looked at this and there is a little turn around at the end of this road, a little circle cul-de-sac down amongst the trees, it is a good thing I was driving in my smaller truck because if I would've been in the bigger one I couldn't have made it around it. It seems like that road used to extend further down to some other lots that were potentially developable. Conklin: No, where it ends is pretty much right here. Harkins: That cul-de-sac you are talking about is a turn around there. Over to the east of that are 33 acres that haven't been developed. Bunch: I guess my concern here is that I am curious because the drawing doesn't show anything to the south that we are making sure that we have access to other properties in that area and easements, roads and easements to access them. Conklin: 60' of right of way was granted as part of those lot splits to the south and that is why you see this cross hatched area. I got the additional 10' so you have a total of 60'. It is kind of offset. I am trying to make sure that future, you have got a 60' road right of way going through there, the issue of you can drive a small car out there and got turned around, we rely on Washington County street standards and they regulate that and Celia and I talk about this all the time. I am not sure what to say, he has decided to build a 12' concrete road but on each side of that is Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 31 dirt. We don't require paving. At this point in time I guess if he has to pass someone or whatever he can get off the concrete. Bunch: Another question is, I don't know what impact it has on this because I don't know how all these relate, but the major access to this, the one on the east side, that road is failing miserably. Is that a private road? The new asphalt Road, Timberglenn. Reid: I think that was a deal struck between the city and Schmitt Conklin: I wouldn't say it was a deal. Reid: That is what you got left with. Conklin: It is in the county. Once again, the city does not enforce our city road standards. Silkwood: It is a private road as far as the county is concerned and we don't maintain private roads. Conklin: I agree with you that it is not the best situation and what I would like to see is some minimum street standards at some point in time. I don't know if that is ever possible because when I drove down there too it is not the best situation. Bunch: There are two big sections that are failing and with a little bit of rain and movement and one more winter it is going to be gone. The question I have is is there a property owner's association or who's responsibility are these private roads? Silkwood: Bob Schmitt. Conklin- The home owners. Bunch: Here we are being asked to grant an opportunity to build some more property depending on that as a major access and going out and looking at it we see that there is a road nowhere near anyone's standards. I question whether or not we should approve this based on poor access. Conklin: Well, that is a good question. You know these ordinances I keep on bringing to the Planning Commission, I have another one that we have been talking about. That is using Washington County Judge Jerry Hunton's Executive Order saying that cities can enforce our subdivision regulations within one mile, our road construction standards. Our ordinance currently states that it has to meet county standards. That is a major policy change for the City of Fayetteville. So far I've been bring all these other different ordinances trying to bring in some of the issues we have inside our city limits with regard to inadequate infrastructure on slopes and paper subdivisions, but that is another one that I've talked with Engineering Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 32 about and we may want to talk about that. I appreciate you bringing that up because we approved a lot split a few months ago where the creek was so high after it rained I couldn't even go look at it. That concerns me a little. That was off Deadhorse Mountain Road out in that area. Cars were parked in the field and they had to wade across the creek just to go to their house. Bunch: That was out toward West Fork. That was also more of a rural and farm type setting than this. You drive into this and there is a sign that says Robinwood Estates, which tells me that that is a subdivision, or at least it is being marketed as a subdivision. Conklin: When does it end though? That is my question. Bunch: Well my question is what can we do here to help start finding an end to it? Conklin- Well I have that ordinance. I would be more than happy to bring that forward. Bunch: Is there a property owner's association? Celia, on these private roads in the county are they registered with the county as to who is responsible for the road? Silkwood: They sign a private road maintenance agreement and they file it at the courthouse. Bunch: If we have one of those on this by denying or tabling this lot split, would that put into motion whatever is required to bring that road up to some sort of standards? If I lived out there I would be real, real upset with the condition of that road. Silkwood: People are accessing off the east, they are not accessing off of Timberglenn Road. Bunch: Is the primary access going to be off the dirt road to the east off the old green haul road? Silkwood: Am I right Alan? Reid: To the west. Bunch: If it is going to access off the existing gravel road to the west, then that is a different horse of a different color. Looking at the way most of it is set up it looks like it would access from the east. Reid: I believe that Mr. Bratton, who is buying this property is going to be using that western access that comes down to the Harkins house. They are going to grant him that easement over that narrow driveway there. I am in total agreement with you, I think that in the crystal ball you are going to see some other properties come in front of you that are going to have to use Timberglenn as an access point at some time. Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 33 Conklin: Reid: Silkwood: Conklin: Bunch: Conklin - Harkins: Bunch: Harkins, P: Bunch: Right now we rely on the county, I know I have said that four times now. It is an issue. Was Timberglenn not dedicated from 45 all the way down now? It is a private road. The county has to deal with a private road. It is something that I see a lot of Celia. I am out there as the City Planner in the middle of nowhere with angry people going "What, you want me to pave a road out here for my son's house?" They are all different but first you are going to split this one and then all the sudden five years from now they want two more and then two more and then all the sudden you end up. This is how east Fayetteville is turning out. You used to have much larger tracts and now all of the sudden they are getting smaller and smaller and now we have all these people using what I consider substandard access into their property. The one of which you spoke earlier, out off the west fork of the White River, that was a rural acreage split and it was more of a rural lifestyle where people are used to floating creeks and that sort of thing. This is an upscale subdivision. Still, we are building another house where emergency vehicles could not get to it. We are not part of the subdivision. That is what we wanted to determine. Somehow it is a subdivision and from looking at the minutes of the Technical Plat Review, it has never been officially a subdivision in the county, it is just a lot here, a lot here, a lot there and even though this may be different property owners, it is one more lot that could be part of this subdivision that isn't a subdivision. Somebody has gotten around the subdivision rules somewhere along the line on this. There has been a lot split here and a lot split here and a lot split there and it hasn't gone through a subdivision process. I am not trying to accuse anyone of anything, it is just that this particular lot that we have in front of us appears to just be one more link in the chain. It may not be but that is what it appears. Are we to be victims of the short comings of the owners of the subdivision? That is what I am saying, the way that this thing has developed, each individual lot that became part of it, each one of those pieces of land could use that same argument. Are we to be the victim? I am not trying to accuse anyone of anything and I am not trying to penalize anyone, I am just saying that this is a system that we seem to have in effect that we wind up with unsafe situations where there is not access to emergency vehicles and that sort of thing but each time we put another link in the chain, somebody says "Am I to be the victim?" Now, the people that are saying that sometimes may be very, very innocent and sometimes Subdivision Committee September 12, 2002 Page 34 they may be putting on a nice act. That is what we don't know as a body. We are trying to figure these things out. Harkins, P: Robinwood as I understand it are the six lots just to the north of us. We are separate and apart from them and we have no connection with them whatsoever. The road that you refer to as being maintained by Schmitt, who is the developer of Robinwood... Harkins: Did they recently pave that back there? Harkins, P: Yes. Bunch: The southern part is in concrete and it is still holding up. The northern part connects with Hwy. 45 is asphalt and it is failing miserably. Harkins: We never go over there so we didn't know. Bunch: Anyway, one thing I wanted to determine is is this part of Robinwood mess? Since we do have the access easement that is on the drawing, I will move that we approve LSP 02-42.00. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Conklin: There is no other business but just keep in mind Mr. Bunch and the rest of the Commissioners, that minor/major subdivision I have, that is what that is all about. Ward: Meeting adjourned.