Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-14 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, November 14, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 02-46.00 (1002): Lot Split (Stout, pp 365 & 404) Forwarded to Planning Commission Page 2 LSP 02-55.00 (1041): Lot Split (Krushiker Addition, pp 558) Page 6 LSP 02-53.00 (1026): Lot Split (Archer, pp 520) Page 8 LSP 02-54.00 (1027): Lot Split (Archer, pp 520) Page 8 PPL 02-17.00 (1028): Preliminary Plat (Skyler Subdivision, pp 403) Page 11 Approved Approved Approved Forwarded to Planning Commission LSD 02-27.00 (1006): Large Scale Development (PJT Development, pp 435) Forwarded to Planning Commission Page 26 ADM 02-36.00: Administrative Item (Childs, pp 566) Forwarded to Planning Commission Page 33 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Alan Ostner Lee Ward Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kim Hesse Keith Shreve Sara Edwards Matt Casey Kim Rogers Renee Thomas Fire Department Perry Franklin Solid Waste Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 2 Ward: Good morning. Welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting. Today is Thursday, November 14, 2002. It looks like we have seven items on our agenda. LSP 02-46.00 (1002): Lot Split (Stout, pp 365 & 404) was submitted by Greg Stout for property located at 1541 Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.92 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.59 acres and 0.33 acres. Ward: It looks like the first item is a combined item of a Conditional Use 02-27.00 submitted by A -Line Surveying on behalf of Greg Stout for property located at 1541 Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.59 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Then a companion item of this looks like LSP 02-46.00 submitted by Greg Stout for property located at 1541 Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.92 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.59 acres and 0.33 acres. Sara, are you going to handle this one? Edwards: This is 0.92 acres and the request is to split into .33 acres and .59 acres. This is a tandem lot, which is why you have the Conditional Use which means the second lot does not have the required street frontage, which is 70' in an R-1 and they are providing 40'. We did have a complaint regarding this property and that is that there are unlicensed vehicles and outdoor storage. That is still in existence and what we would like to do is go ahead and forward this to the full Planning Commission subject to that being cleaned up by agenda session. If not, we would remove it from the agenda at that time since it is in violation of several different ordinances. We do have some conditions. That is that a 30'x40' hard surface vehicular turn around at least with SB2 or better at the end of the private drive shall be constructed. That is for sanitation vehicle use. No vehicles shall be parked at anytime on the portion of the tandem lot utilized as the private drive or on the turn around required by the first condition and the dwelling structure and the tandem lot shall not be located more than 200' from the private drive. A minimum setback of 20' on all property lines and 25' from the right of way is required. Construction of the 25' private drive, paved 25' in from the intersection of Deane. Only one single-family house shall be constructed and the existing structure shall not be enlarged. The single-family house shall be limited within the required yard as shown on the site plan and the private drive shall be no closer than 5' from the side property line. For the sidewalks we are requesting a contribution in the amount of $630 when the tandem lot is developed. Ward: Ok, thank you. Is the applicant here? Please give us the benefit of your name. Stout: Greg Stout. Ward: Do you have anything to add to this or have any questions? Stout: I have listed the lot and I intend on cleaning it up to sell it. The Conditional Use Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 3 doesn't really matter. I owned the whole property and I sold the house so I think the city is trying to clean this up because I have already sold the house and I guess in order to be legal split it so that I can sell the lot. That is my only intention. I was going to build but I am not interested anymore. Ward: Do you have any problems with any of these conditions that have been listed on here? Stout: No. Ward: Ok. Thank you. I will go ahead and ask for other staff comments. Matt, with Engineering, do you see any problems? Casey: There are a couple of Plat Review comments. I asked for them to show the location of the water meter and the sanitary sewer service and I could not find that on the revised plan. I would like to see that so we are sure that the service lines aren't crossing over onto the split tract. We want to keep that contained on the tract that is being served. Ward: Casey: Ward: Ok, so you need to show on the plat itself the water meter and lines, what else? That's it. Chuck or Keith in Sidewalks? Rutherford: Sara already made the comment, contribution to the sidewalk fund. Ward: Rutherford: Ward: Rutherford: Ward: Edwards: What happens to that money again? It goes to that quadrant, whatever that falls in. I don't know if it is the northwest or southwest quadrant How fast usually is that money used? Well, there is some guidance given to the length of time to try to spend that money in that ordinance, within one year. Ok. I guess we have no landscaping on this particular one. At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there any public comment on this particular Conditional Use or Lot Split? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Committee here. Why don't you reiterate Sara why we are pushing this on forward to the full Planning Commission. The Conditional Use must be heard by the full Planning Commission. In an effort to get them both on the same meeting, we have already advertised a Conditional Use for that meeting so we would like to give them the opportunity to have it cleaned up by then and get both items on that same agenda. Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 4 Ward: Edwards: Ward: Bunch: Casey: Bunch: Casey: Bunch: Casey: Bunch: Edwards: Bunch: Ward: Rutherford: Edwards: Ward: Why do we have to have a Conditional Use? Because this is a tandem lot which means that the new lot will not have the required street frontage in an R-1 district, which is 70' and they are providing 40'. We do have a provision under our Conditional Use to allow for a second lot without that street frontage, the minimum is 25' on that. They are meeting those requirements. Ok, are there any other comments? I have a question on this 25' access easement. It was mentioned in the Tech Plat Review and the way it is shown on the drawing it looks almost like a 25' path, it is kind of confusing. It looks like it is contained in the dedicated driveway as well. Shouldn't that be a 25' easement that goes all the way down the driveway to access that sewer line? The Plat Review comment was I think this existing driveway comes out up here and if they were going to continue using it they probably need some sort of access easement but now that the right of way is shown on there I think the right of way takes care of the existing driveway as well so it doesn't look like we need the access easement. You don't need access down to this sewer line? No, they can access that by the driveway. Also, when this previously came through we had a letter from one of the property owners in our packet, I don't see it in this packet. Ok, I will be sure to get that for Planning Commission. From an adjoining property owner. Ok, are there any other comments or motions? On the 25' concrete surface that you are showing going from the street, is that required with the lot split or will that be required at the time of development? At the time of development. Basically Mr. Stout it looks like that you will have to get the property cleaned up, you will have to have this plat redone showing the water lines and water meters and so on on the plat. How soon does he have to have that back in here Sara? Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 5 Edwards: Ward: Edwards: Ward: Stout: Ward: Ostner: Edwards: Stout: Edwards: Stout: Ward: Stout: Ward: MOTION: Bunch: Ostner: Ward: The 18th is your deadline. We will go out on the 19th, the day before agenda session, and verify that everything is cleaned up before we keep it on the agenda. When does this come to Planning Commission? The 25tH The 25th of this month is when you can get final approval or disapproval. Then what? I have to apply again if it is taken off? It can't be appealed? I assume that if the conditions aren't met as far as the clean up or getting the Engineering part done on the plat, showing the water lines and water meters and so on then it would be tabled more than likely or it could just be turned down and you would have to wait a year. Usually we table those. You can also withdraw if you don't feel you are ready to come to the Commission. You can withdraw anytime, you can withdraw the day of. Then I would have to start over? No, we could place you on another agenda later if you wanted. Ok. Does that make sense to you? Yes. Do I have any motions? I move that we forward CUP 02-27.00 and LSP 02-46.00 to the full Planning Commission. I will second. I will concur. Thank you Sir. Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 6 LSP 02-55.00 (1041): Lot Split (Krushiker Addition, 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 3.53 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.39 acres and 1.14 acres. Ward: Our second item on the agenda this morning is LSP 02-55.00 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 3.53 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.39 acres and 1.14 acres. Sara? Edwards: This is just west of the University Square Shopping Center on Sixth and Shiloh. Previously you approved lot 2 with the Hampton Inn Large Scale Development. Surrounding zoning is to the west C-2 and R -O to the east is C-2 and to the north is C-2. There is a mini storage to the west. The property to the north is vacant. We are recommending this be approved at the Subdivision Committee level subject to one condition which is approval shall be subject to a written agreement for the detention pond for lots 2, 3, and the University Square Shopping Center and the other conditions are standard. Ward: Ok, thank you. Is the applicant here? Do you have any problems with the conditions that we have discussed? Rushing: No, Matt and I have talked about showing that agreement on this plat. It looks like that would be the best location. Written agreements can get lost, if we show it on the plat I think that is probably the safest way to do that. Ward: I think that is a great idea. Are there any other comments? Matt, do you have any other comments? Casey: Just the detention pond use agreement. Ward: Are there any comments from Sidewalks? Shreve: No comments. Ward: I assume there are none from Landscaping. At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone that would like to make public comment on this particular lot split? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Committee. Bunch: When we were looking at the Hampton Inn on lot two there were some sidewalk considerations that were supposed to be addressed in the future that had to do with lot one, could those be put on the drawing somewhere so there would be a full understanding? Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 7 Shreve: We were going to address lot one when it came through with Large Scale Development to decide what requirements to place at that time. Bunch: They also had an affect on lot two. Weren't there some of the ones on lot two? Shreve: We asked for some sidewalks to the existing structures and University Square. They made some small provisions for that. The plan is to have a private drive between the two buildings and we weren't able to get sidewalks along that drive. Bunch: We were trying to get access from the hotel and from lot one over to the existing shopping area and that will be addressed when lot one comes through? Shreve: They are showing some for the Hampton Inn on lot two at this time for the Large Scale for lot two. Rushing: We do have a connection for the sidewalks to the Hampton to the existing building. We also show a small piece of sidewalk from the Hampton to the edge of lot one. When lot one develops we will extend that down to Sixth Street is the plan. Bunch: I just wanted to make sure that that is on the record. Ward: I think that is what was agreed on when we approved lot two. Bunch: That is just one of those things that has a tendency to get lost. I just wanted to keep it at the forefront of the system. Ward: Are there any other comments or motions? We will be approving it at this level I believe so you will be able to head on down the road. MOTION: Bunch: I move that we approve LSP 02-55.00 at the Subdivision level. Ostner: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thanks Erin. Rushing: Thank you. Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 8 LSP 02-53.00 (1026): Lot located at 2115 Markham contains approximately 38 acres. LSP 02-54.00 (1027): Lot located at 2115 Markham contains approximately 2.5 acres. Ward: Split (Archer, pp 520) was submitted by Julian Archer for property Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 35.5 acres and 2.5 Split (Archer, pp 520) was submitted by Julian Archer for property Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.27 acres and 1.28 Our next items on the agenda are two lot splits, LSP 02-53.00 and LSP 02-54.00 submitted by Julian Archer for property located at 2115 Markham Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 38 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 35.5 acres and 2.5 acres. It looks like the companion item LSP 02-54.00 the request is to split into two tracts of 1.27 acres and 1.28 acres of the 2.5 acres that we are going to split off on the first lot split. Is the applicant here? Why don't you give us the benefit of your name. Johnson: Julie Johnson My understanding is that the 2.5 acres has been split and now what we want to do is create two lots from the 2.5 acres, each will be an acre and a quarter. Ward: Edwards: Ward: Edwards: Johnson: Edwards: Ward: Edwards: Ok. Sara, why don't you give us your take on that? That is why both of these lot splits are coming through. That 2.5 piece had been split but it hadn't been through the process. Ok, when was the split? I don't know. Probably about eight years ago. They had come through for a lot split and it had been approved subject to improvements to Sang, a sidewalk being built, which he objected to and so I'm not sure how this got split without those improvements being constructed but now we have a policy on lot splits not to require street improvements or sidewalks. At this time those requirements would not be made so when we hear this now they could go ahead and have this split and be in compliance with our ordinances. Ok. There is an 8" water line along Sang existing for water. Sewer is not accessible to this property, it will have to be on septic. Prior to this being tiled we will have to have proof that septic will work and they have a perk test. Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 9 Johnson: I have two permits here, perk tests for both lots. Edwards: Ok. Sang right of way requirement is 25' from centerline and the survey has not been dimensioned from that. There may be a right of way dedication required, I am not sure what is existing up there from the survey. I do need a surveyor's seal added to the plat to make this a legal survey. Ward: Ok. Edwards: Parks fees in the amount of $940, that's for the two additional lots at the single- family rate of $470. Everything else is standard. Ward: Matt, do you have comments as far as Engineering? Casey: I need you to show the location of the existing water line. I think it was shown at Plat Review level but the drawing has changed quite a bit since then and that was taken off so I just need that put back on. Ward: Ok, are there any other comments? Keith? Shreve: No comment. Ward: Since this is a lot split I guess Kim has no comments. Is there anyone that would like to make a comment from the public? I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee here. I guess what we need to make sure of is that you get all these things down. We have got to get the water lines shown, the surveyor's stamp on the plat. There are quite a bit of little touch up things that need to be done. Edwards: The legal description for the remaining 35.5 acre tract added and right of way for Sang dedicated. Ward: Are we going to try to approve this at this level? Edwards: If you feel comfortable with that. I think that administratively we can make sure all these conditions are met. Ward: Ok, how do you check on those? Edwards: In order to file a lot split I have to stamp the survey or the deed and I would not do that until I got a new survey in showing all of these requirements. Ward: Ok. Do you all have any other questions? Johnson: No. Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 10 Bunch: Julie, just for the record what is your relationship to the owner of the property? Johnson: I am the realtor that has the property listed and has had the property listed. Bunch: Matt, where is the nearest sewer? Casey: There is some nearby but it is not within 300' and that is usually our cutoff as far as requiring extensions. Bunch: It is within 300' of the rest of the property? Casey: I will have to check that. Originally when this came through all we saw was this portion, that was the entire drawing. Bunch: If it is within 300' of the remaining piece of property would it have to extend to the lot split since it is the same owner? Casey: If I remember correctly, the nearest sewer is to the east so no, I don't believe that they would. Bunch: One other question on the drawing, I know this is just a vicinity map, but should that arrow be over here? They are going to have to put the stamp on the drawing and make some other changes anyway, they need to correct that at the same time. Johnson: Yes, I am glad you pointed that out. We will change that. Will this be on the agenda for the next meeting? Ward: No, we are going to approve it today. The only thing you have to do is get all this stuff done and then after you get those things done then Sara is going to stamp it and it is over. Bunch: If you don't get it done then it comes back and we relook at it. Johnson: Ok. Ward: Are there any other questions, comments, or motions? MOTION: Bunch: I move that we approve LSP 02-53.00 and LSP 02-54.00 subject to administrative oversight of the conditions discussed and resolution of those conditions. Ostner: Second. Ward: Ok. I will concur. Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 11 PPL 02-17.00 (1028): Preliminary Plat (Skyler Subdivision, pp 403) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sam Mathias for property located south of Deane and between Sang & Porter. The property is zoned RMF -6, Low Density Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 21.03 acres with 57 lots proposed. Ward: Our next item on the agenda this morning is PPL 02-17.00, Skyler Subdivision submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sam Mathias for property located south of Deane and between Sang & Porter. The property is zoned RMF -6, Low Density Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 21.03 acres with 57 lots proposed. Is the applicant here? Barnes: I am Bleaux Barnes here representing Sam Mathias. Gilbert: I am David Gilbert with Jorgensen & Associates. Ward: Ok, thanks David. Sara? Edwards: The proposal is for a 57 lot subdivision. Eleven four-plexes, 1 lot intended for a three-plex, 37 lots intended for duplexes, and 5 lots intended for single family homes, 3 lots are reserved for common area. This was recently rezoned. It was subject to a Bill of Assurance which is included in your packet. Right of way being dedicated 55' from centerline on Deane, 35' from centerline of Porter and 25' from centerline on Sang. Street improvements, we are recommending they Widen to 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drainage on Porter, Sang and Deane. Some of those are existing. Tree preservation, existing is 6.03%, preserved is 2.22%. They are requesting mitigation, which would be 121 trees. We are requesting that this be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Conditions to address: 1) Planning Commission determination of required street widths within the development. We are recommending that a 31' street be constructed in order to allow on street parking and ensure adequate access for fire and sanitation vehicles. The standard requirement is a 28' street. We do have some different issues around town with townhouse development and the parking. Basically, they park in the street and we can't get a fire truck or a trash truck through and it is a safety issue. Although our requirement is only for a 28' street on a standard local street we are suggesting that a 31' street be constructed to alleviate those problems. 2) I did include the Bill of Assurance, there were density limitations on that. Lots 56 and 57 were limited to five units, they are proposing seven. What that will do is reduce the total units from 126 to 118 so we are asking that that be corrected in order to meet that Bill of Assurance. To alter a Bill of Assurance you would have to go back to Council and get that changed. 3) A detailed study is required for the Zone A floodplain pursuant to the Flood Damage Prevention Code of the City of Fayetteville prior to final plat submittal. FEMA acceptance of the study will be required prior to filing the final plat. 4) All lots will be required to have 6,000 square feet outside of the floodplain. Compliance will be determined at the time of final plat submittal. 5) All required trees and shrubs shall be required to be installed along the east and south property lines prior to final plat approval. 6) Planning Commission Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 12 determination of required offsite improvements. Staff is recommending that Deane Street, Sang and Porter be widened 14 feet from centerline to include curb, gutter, and storm drainage. Ward: Bleaux, do you understand all of that? Barnes: Yes. Of course I would like to start with item number one. Ward: Let me go back and get staff comments first and then we will come back and discuss some of these objections or what not. Matt? Casey: I just want to point out that since our Plat Review we have been discussing the potential need for some off site drainage improvements. We haven't got a recommendation yet as to whether that is going to be necessary but we will by the time of Planning Commission meeting. We have had some flooding problems at Linda Jo Place just directly down stream from this development and we are currently discussing that in the Engineering Division. We are yet to come up with a recommendation. Ward: Ok. Keith or Chuck? Shreve: On this development we have worked with the engineer. We are getting a 6' sidewalk along Porter Road and Deane Street and then Sang Avenue, Skyler Drive, Evening Shade and Willow Brook streets within the subdivision are classified as local streets. Under current ordinances we can require a 4' sidewalk or a 6' sidewalk for a local street. The text of the ordinance is a little bit unclear so we have run into some problems with the right of way on this development. The ordinance spelled out 50' right of way. The engineer has agreed to construct a 6' sidewalk on both sides of the street but to keep it within the 50' right of way we agreed to reduce the green space to 5' rather than to require the 6'. We think this is a good compromise with the engineer and developer due to the fact that the ordinance is somewhat unclear. The reason we are requiring a 6' sidewalk is due to the housing density since they are four- plexes and multi -family homes rather than single-family homes usually constructed on a local street. Something we may need to discuss is if that road is widened to 31' that will affect our green space or we will need additional right of way to maintain a minimum 5' green space. Ward: Ok. Bunch: Keith, if the streets are widened and you have two sidewalks on each side would you cut that back from 6' to 4' to help accommodate the street widening? How would that play in? Shreve: That is something that can be discussed. The current design allows for a 28' street, typically a 4' sidewalk and a 6' green space on both sides with a total of 48' used so there is a foot of cushion within the 50' right of way. When we went Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 13 to the 6' sidewalk and 6' green space on both sides that requires a 52' right of way to keep the sidewalks completely in the right of way. In this development we weren't able to get 52' of right of way so we compromised, reduced the green space to 5', upgraded the sidewalk to 6' and this is based on 28' wide streets which you can get the 6' sidewalk, 5' green space on both sides with a 28' street within the 50' right of way. Rutherford: If you go to the 31' street Don and stay within the 50' right of way that leaves 9 /2' on each side for green space and sidewalk width. Bunch: If we back in for more right of way would it still be advantageous to drop to a 4' sidewalk on each side? I am not trying to design it, I'm just saying that it all has to be balanced. Rutherford: In all the text you read on pedestrian use and pedestrian desire with trying to push for people to use sidewalks and alternative transportation more and when you get into this kind of density you have more people out there. A 4' sidewalk at the present time over 200' does not meet the ADA requirement. That is in review right now, I don't know how that is going to come out. Some cities go to just a 5' sidewalk everywhere to meet that. The City of Fayetteville has 4' and 6' sidewalks but with this density we feel a 6' sidewalk is a lot better for pedestrians. We are trying to push the use of them for kids walking to school, having sidewalks for communities. Rogers: A 4' sidewalk also, probably two kids can walk next to each other but two adults can hardly fit next to each other. Ward: Ok, are there any other comments Don? Kim? Hesse: I just wanted to point out some things. They redesigned and saved quite a few extra trees in the long run by moving the utilities to the front of lots 25 through 34, there is a barrier along the east here. Also, they moved the utility easements from the north boundary of lots 11 through 18 and then again we are saving a lot of extra hardwoods back along there. I certainly approve of their efforts. I just want to make a comment. At this point that mitigation has to be in the tree fund. Bleaux, I think you guys are also working to change those in another subdivision. Barnes: That is correct. Hesse: We have until the Final Plat. I understand that since you have made a statement about planting pines. At this point we can't use that for mitigation, the reason for that is I don't know who the owners of these lots will be. If you are proposing to own all of these lots then that improves your chances of being able to use those. The idea is we need someone responsible for maintaining them for 3 years. Other than that I don't have any issues. Edwards: They are proposing to plant trees in lieu of the fees? Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 14 Barnes: That was the proposal for Clabber of course and that was a different situation. I don't know if that proposal will come forward here. We would like to just look at the fee at this time, Clabber is a residential subdivision and that is different. Hesse: This one would be in the form of a tree fund? Barnes: Correct. Edwards: Is there a set fee for that? Hesse: They are $225 unless the developer provides me with a bid for a different price which would include the installation and the materials. Basically what you would do is sign off. If it is the tree fund then we take care of maintenance so it would just be the materials. Barnes: Ok. Ward: Ok, thanks Kim. Parks and Recreation? Rogers: They gave money in lieu of land. Ward: What were the fees again? Edwards: $45,915. Ward: Ok, thanks. At this time I will open it up for public comment Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Commission. Why don't we go ahead and go over these conditions Bleaux. Maybe you have some thoughts or comments and maybe we can get some better idea which way you want to go on this. Barnes: The first item number one, we have showed some consideration to the inadequate parking of Georgian Place. The pictures behind us are photographs of three bedroom condominiums. I built three dwellings in there myself that were two bedroom condominiums and we don't have a photograph of those dwellings here. Two bedroom, two bath condominiums typically we think of require two parking spaces. Part of our Bill of Assurance, we restricted ourselves to the condominiums to have two bedroom two bathroom units. Part of the Bill of Assurance, we have come in and provided that each of the patio homes would require a two car garage. We feel like we are showing some consideration to trying to get that traffic problem, that parking problem off the streets and into the private property. We provided some parking diagrams I believe to the Planning staff before and asked them to incorporate into the purchase of the lots trying to control the parking problems that we have seen in other condominium locations. I guess the request and asking for an additional road, are we going to be able to look at the Bill of Assurance? I am restricted on the condominiums of what I can build. I feel like I have went that step and if I am going to have to build wider Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 15 roads then I would want to look at that Bill of Assurance of course. David, do you have anything to add on one? Gilbert: The only issue I have with this is something that I have mentioned to staff and to the Commission before and that is it is very difficult for us to design anything in Fayetteville. This project is now three examples of where we have gone to the staff, to the ordinance book, we looked at what was required, we brought that in and have been told "No, you can't do that because now we want you to do this." The detention was one issue. It was a policy change of which I was not personally aware of but I know other people who were. That is my issue, certainly not the fault of the Engineering Department but it caused four of the lots to be eaten by the detention pond in order to meet this new requirement that has been in affect less than a year from the Engineering staff. That is a policy issue, it was a policy statement not an ordinance. The second is with the sidewalks. We had seen the ordinance picture which states that the sidewalks can be 4' or 6'. However, when our staff asked to have a copy of the ordinance faxed to our office we received a diagram dated a day later than what is out here on the wall which shows 4' only and does not show 6'. Obviously, there is some kind of an administrative issue there and now with the 28' verses the 31' streets. It makes it difficult from the engineering standpoint because we go to the book, we draw what is required and then we come in and then we have to go back and completely redraw everything because the lines keep moving. We sure would appreciate any help that the city can give us with this because it is getting difficult and it is getting expensive. Beyond that I think that Mr. Barnes' points are very well made. I went to these units here that are pictured on the wall and I understand that these are condominiums but at least one of them had a for rent sign nailed to it which indicates to me that some of the units are being rented. My understanding is that Fayetteville does have an ordinance which says that no more than three unrelated people can rent more than one unit and yet some of these units have four, five or even six cars out in front of them. I would say it is a possibility that perhaps that ordinance is not being followed. Hopefully, we certainly understand the need to get emergency vehicles through the streets. That is a paramount importance but perhaps by the time you get all the driveways in on this I don't think there is going to be much place for people to park on the street anyway. If everyone of these units, these lots up along Willow Brook and Evening Shade are going to be duplexes, which means in 80' of frontage you are going to have two 12' to 20' driveways all down the street and of course along Skyler with the quad units there that is even going to be more driveway. I understand the intent to provide on street parking but you can't park across your own driveway much less anybody else's so I am not sure what we are trying to accomplish here. Barnes: I guess I would ask on the Bill of Assurance, we provided that Bill of Assurance through multiple meetings with the neighborhood committee and city staff. It was of importance to provide that as quick as we could so the neighborhoods knew what we were trying to do, what the intent was. We provided that based on the number of units that was allowed for this zoning. Once the Engineering Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 16 Department gets together and we start designing drainage we are restricted to that number of units. Are we asking the developer to wait for a Bill of Assurance to be provided until the design is complete? Now I am being asked to go back forward to the Council because the number of units has changed yet all we are trying to meet is the number that was agreed to before, 126 units. The design is changed but the number of units has not exceeded the number that was spoken about before. Edwards: We are working on a Planned Zoning District and what that will allow is the zoning and the development to be tied together and go forward together, that way we won't have the Bill of Assurance with the zoning process. That ordinance is on its second reading at Council right now so hopefully this will not be a problem for much longer. I feel like the Bill of Assurance was negotiated with the neighborhood. They wanted these single family homes along the street and I am sorry that the detention cut back on the number of units but I don't think that should void the Bill of Assurance with regard to single-family homes. Gilbert: We are not looking to avoid the Bill of Assurance. We have spoken with staff and also to the president of the neighborhood association before we made this change. Understanding from your position the paperwork is not done and there is a lot to be done but we have talked with people and we feel like they will agree to this which is the reason we made the change. We certainly would not just make a change without trying to get that Bill of Assurance corrected at the same time. Barnes: Sara, I would like to also add when we began this project and we met with the neighborhood association there was some consideration for residential lots. Obviously they wanted this whole development to be residential lots. As we met with the neighborhood association originally up front it was not possible, it was not possible to develop this property into residential lots. We made that commitment to them. We went forward to them and I said I will provide this buffer here and here. Again, we have met with the president of the neighborhood association. We have met with a couple of the neighbors in the association. We are still providing four residential homes and this one side of the street is condominiums. If that is the problem before us were we allowed to go back to that neighborhood association and get their commitment here? Edwards: That is fine but we also have to go to Council and get the Bill of Assurance amended and I am thinking what we probably want to do is not put this on the Planning Commission agenda until it is done. We could approve it subject to it being done but then we run the risk of it being denied and having to come back again. Barnes: I have got land owners here that have followed through this process and obviously they are eager for the purchase of their property. We feel like we are coming to the end of the process, we have met a lot of things, we have worked with Kim, we have worked with Sidewalks. I don't know why we couldn't continue to go forward with the Planning. Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 17 Edwards: Again, all we are talking about is a number of units difference. They would amend the note, take these lines off and change it back to single-family if it doesn't pass so it would be a pretty easy thing to fix between now and Final Plat. He just has to decide if he is willing to accept that in the event the Bill of Assurance did not get amended and he wants to move forward with changing these lots to different units up there. Gilbert: The total number of units has not changed, it is the mixture of units that has changed. The total count is the same as it was in the Bill of Assurance. Barnes: I guess I would ask if our consideration was really the residential lots if we reworded this application from this reapplication here, that the number of units, 126 was going to be met by lots 57 to 55. We are just looking for a total of 126 units. Edwards: The Bill of Assurance says a maximum of 126 but then it also lays out 7 single- family homes, eight four plexes and then you have got ten so it is just the mixture of the units. Barnes: We were committed to that. Ward: I will go ahead and open it up to the public for comment. Carter: I am Glenn Carter, I am a member of the church there. Our drainage goes to the north right now, that's the way our drainage runs right now, it is all pasture. How is that water going to be carried across your project there? Gilbert: What we have designed Glenn is to let that detention sheet flow across the lots and the home builders are just going to have to work around that. It is to maintain that pattern. Carter: The lots that face us right here, what kind of lots are these? Gilbert: Those are four plex units, condominium units. Carter: Ok, is that what was presented to the neighborhood? Gilbert: Yes Sir, except that originally what was presented is that one and ten would be single-family. What happened is that when we went back to the detailed detention study, rather than having a detention pond near here, here and here, in order to get the appropriate volume the detention pond grew and ate four lots. That is just an attempt to recover and it really only affects the configuration of one and ten. We have skinnied these up to get that all to fit. Barnes: Glenn, we also met an agreement between us and the association that we would provide these streets but we would also provide a board fence along that rear Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 18 property also. Carter: Ok, I have taken enough of your time. I just wanted to ask the question since I didn't get the chance to go to the meeting. Barnes: Commissioners, my other question would be if we are talking about going offsite and improving an existing problem my understanding is that the detention we are providing is we are not forcing anymore water offsite than what is here now. We are talking about an offsite drainage problem and we are going to be asked to participate in helping with that problem or funding to that problem, how does that affect our detention ponds? Are we allowed then to release? Are we able to look and redesign our detentions and reduce those detention ponds? Casey: The detention will stay the same. As far as offsite improvements, the ordinances in our drainage criteria manual leave that up to the City Engineer. Currently we are discussing the need for that and we will be prepared to make a recommendation hopefully within the next week. Barnes: That is an area that has existing problems now? There is flooding that occurs now. Casey: Yes. Barnes: Thank you. Ward: Ok, in order to keep this moving along, there is no way to change the Bill of Assurance unless you take this back to Council is that right? Edwards: That is right. Ward: I believe you are going to have to either stay with the Bill of Assurance that was originally proposed with the number of condominiums being eight or, we don't have the authority here to do anything different now. Barnes: The number of units in that Bill of Assurance is 126 correct? Edwards: Yes. Ward: I guess the best thing to do is if we push this on to the full Planning Commission is on the 31' street, I think between the City Sidewalk Department, the City Engineer, and you all if they can come up with a recommendation we will listen to a couple of things about the width of the street. You have got some points too about whether that street is actually going to be used for that much parking if there is going to be right of way all up and down it anyway, whether the additional 3' required width would really do much. We can look at both things. It is kind of hard for me to visualize it would but it might. Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 19 Barnes: Again, we have showed some considerations. That is something that was brought forward originally. I would like to add that Georgian Place, the chaotic parking that is there now, if we drove down there today it is directly in front of the three bedroom condominiums. It is not in front of the two bedrooms. Ward: I think that is a real big consideration that the units would be two bedrooms instead of three or four bedrooms. That does make a tremendous difference as far as parking is concerned. Are there any other comments or questions or motions? Bunch: Obviously the Parks fees would not necessarily be $47,915, that is subject to change depending on how many units there are. Obviously the drawings would need correction on your Preliminary Plat page you are showing number 24 as being both single-family and a patio home and you are showing lots 60 and 61 which don't exist and you are also showing on your table on the left-hand side on your acreage table you are showing lot 58, which doesn't exist. Depending on the mix, I am sure this all will have to be revised when you come up with a mix but at the same time you can make corrections on that. Gilbert: I apologize to you for that. When the four lots went away with detention we renumbered and I wasn't quite thorough enough. Bunch: I would rather look at it at this point rather than have it come up later. It is kind of confusing when we start looking for those lots and they are not there. Ward: Sara, what do you think would be the best thing for us to do at this time go ahead and forward this with the idea that a recommendation can be made? Edwards: I feel like the neighborhood association is assuming that this development is going to comply with the Bill of Assurance so you probably will not get the people here commenting that would be opposed to this change because they won't know that it is before us. They are assuming it is all taken care of and it is going to comply with the Bill of Assurance. I don't know that that is something we want to do. I feel like it would be better to have them go to Council and let them take public comment on if that Bill of Assurance is changed. This wouldn't even be able to be developed except with the Bill of Assurance and then bring it to the Planning Commission once that is done. That is my opinion, of course, you can forward it if you like. Gilbert: Mr. Maynard, the president of the association, has been in our office. We have explained this to him in detail. He did bring one of the other property owners with him and he told us, of course we have no way of knowing whether this has been done or not, but he did tell us that he would email everyone in his group to let them know of the change. Barnes: Sara, I guess if we go forward with this today we are restricting ourselves to 118 units if this is approved and based on 118 units we bring it back forward to the Council is those neighborhood members then going to get an opportunity to come Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 20 forward? Are they not going to be made aware? Edwards: If we approve it with this condition and then you change the Bill of Assurance we are going to have to bring it back to the Planning Commission to amend that condition back to the 126 units. Either way there is going to be a delay for you. Gilbert: Could it not be approved conditioned on a successful change in the Bill of Assurance and if that change is not successful then we come back? That way if the change is successful. I wouldn't ask that except I think based on what we have talked with everyone around we feel like that the change will be successful and we feel that would give us our best shot of coming through the process. Goodman: My name is Ron Goodman, I own two lots on Sang Avenue there that abuts this project. I was unaware of the neighborhood association meeting. I am not on the email list so I don't get notified. This is the first I have heard about it. I haven't seen the plats or anything like that so I may be the only one in the neighborhood that doesn't know what is going on there. Edwards: Basically we have four plexes along the south of the property line and then you said you are on Sang? Goodman: The drainage on Sang that will feed from his detention pond, that comes across my property. Right now it is a real problem. That is why I am here. I am concerned about who is going to be maintaining the detention pond. Right now all it does is fill up with trash and sewer. Gilbert: There is no detention pond existing on the property. Goodman: There is on mine. Ten years ago the city asked for an easement to cross the property that you all are talking about and the property owner at that time denied that easement so what the city did is they built a concrete ditch along my property and it dead ends on my property. It fills up with silt and it creates a mosquito mess right there. What we are going to do is move that down stream a little bit I guess. Gilbert: What we are proposing is to take and channelize that from your back fence basically at the end of the concrete swale and channelize that and take it through the development and what we will call this intermittent creek there, the stream flow that you are concerned about. We are planning on just routing straight through, we are not going to try to detain that or anything, we just want that to go straight through the project like it does now. What would be detained is the water that comes off the homes and that would be detained in those ponds on the western boundary of the project and you can see the ponds over here on the western side. We have designed the box culverts where they will pass even in the hundred year storm event and not back up onto the adjoining properties. Goodman: The fence is going to stay there? Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 21 Gilbert: Yes, it stays. The trees will stay also. Goodman: This is a concrete ditch so you are going to have a fence across the ditch? Gilbert: There is already a fence there. Yes, we are not proposing to change that. I am not sure who owns that fence, it may be your fence, it may be common but we can't just go in there and take it out. Ward: Does that answer your questions a little bit? Goodman: Yes. Ward: Ok. Let me give you my quick take on this so we can move this thing on. Sara, I think that the consensus of the Subdivision Committee is that we feel like since these are two bedrooms that the 28' will be adequate enough instead of 31' which means you don't really have to redesign anything on that part of it. This still has to go to the full Planning Commission, it would have to be a consensus of everyone but the three of us here I think feel that the 28' would be something that would be more than adequate. Number two about the Bill of Assurance, we don't have the power or authority to do anything differently than what is required so we cannot change that so you are going to have to make a decision. It is going to have to be built under the Bill of Assurances to get approval at this level or you are going to have to take it to the City Council again and get that changed. Just because the neighborhood association agrees to it I don't think that would affect it much would it Sara? Because it is a Bill of Assurance we are not in a position to change that at our level. We don't have any way to go around that. It is kind of your call what you want to do now. Barnes: Can we approve it based on the recommendation of having the approval of that Bill of Assurance at a later date from the Council? Edwards: Are you guys comfortable with the lots changing to four plexes? It talks about being a buffer for the neighborhood by simply approving it that way we are recommending that the Bill of Assurance be changed and if that is what we want to do as a Planning Commission. Ward: In my case I am very comfortable with it. I think that the idea is that if the neighborhood association is fairly comfortable with it also, I think that is more important in some cases. It is not really changing it that much I think we could go ahead and get some recommendation. Rogers: The neighborhood association also asked around this existing pond, was there going to be any landscaping around that? I know it is a flood area but were you planning on putting benches or anything? Barnes: We are not showing anything at this time. I think Kim what was talked about Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 22 before obviously is the neighborhood association had an interest in that becoming a park and we all met out on site and we determined that is not possible. Rogers: Because of the flood issues? Barnes: There was no formal agreement between us, the developer, or the neighborhood association for benches, trails, etc. That was only a concept item that was provided by our engineers, what could be a park, what this could look like. Rogers: Ok, so right now there is no plan for you to put benches or anything like that? Barnes: That is correct. Rogers: Is that something that could be in there in the future? Barnes: That is a common green area. Gilbert: I think the only physical constraint would be the floodwaters may back up. Of course anytime you put anything in there like that it has three possibilities, either it has no affect at all, or it starts to back up water, or it gets carried away and we find it in the next county after a good rain. Rogers: I am talking about in ground benches or something like that that are not too expensive that might be a little around that pond that might be good for the residents of the area. You can get an in ground bench for about $190. Barnes: Who is going to maintain these benches? Rogers: I am just asking because I remember the POA asking for that for the neighborhood association. I know what you are talking about because we looked at the same issues because that is going to be a floodway, you don't want to put a lot of structures in there because it might back up tree limbs or anything like that that might be blowing through there. I just wanted to mention that in the minutes that that might have been mentioned by the neighborhood association that they were requesting those amenities. Barnes: Of course Kim my interpretation of that request from the neighborhood was that at that time they wanted some control over where those monies were going to be spent. If there was something that was designable here and that was acceptable, they felt like they had control over what would be built here. I don't think that there was definitely a request for benches, picnic tables here, they wanted them somewhere and that was my interpretation when we all met. Rogers: Ok. They did send out a newsletter, I don't know if they sent out an email but they did send out a newsletter that had information on this development and I am waiting for Richard Maynard to make a recommendation of what the neighborhood association would like in this quadrant even though the Asbell Park Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 23 is right across from it. Ward: Thanks Kim. Bunch: In looking at all of this, lots 55 and 57 don't have an address. Edwards: The Bill of Assurance specifically limited those two lots to 5 units and they are proposing seven based on that table. My understanding was that there was a lot of discussion and that it went from 7 to 5. Bunch: At what time was the Bill of Assurance changed? My copy has 7 struck and 5 written in by hand. Edwards: Right. Dawn said that she did that at the time of Planning Commission based on discussion at that level. She said that she thought that they were aware of that, we can go back and read through the minutes. Barnes: I wasn't aware of that at the time. Gilbert: We had originally shown those as five and they went to seven when the detention increased. Barnes: Correct. Gilbert: Again, you would have a mechanism if you were to pass this on and if the Planning Commission were to approve it contingent on modification of the Bill of Assurance. The Bill of Assurance still has to come back before the Council and everybody gets a chance to weigh in. It doesn't really shortcut anything, it maybe just changes the time just a little bit in order to let our work proceed but it does not cut the neighbors out of their opportunity to come in and express their concerns. If the Council decides not to amend the Bill of Assurance then we don't have approval anymore. Ward: Does that save them any time Sara? Edwards: We couldn't let them start construction until City Council approves it. By doing Planning Commission before City Council we probably save them a week or two. Bunch: Who is the property owner to the south? Gilbert: That is Calvary Baptist Church and Sang Avenue Baptist Church. They back up to one another and they control all of that property. Bunch: Ok, so lots one and ten wouldn't necessarily be buffering anything to the south but they would to the east and west. Gilbert: To the east is the school, Asbell. To the west is two residential homes. Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 24 Barnes: The residents that occupy one of the homes had originally come before us in one of the meetings and had some concerns about the location of the street, we were bringing our traffic directly out to their front door and we made those changes per the engineers to eliminate direct traffic into their front door, that was their big consideration at the time of our meetings. Edwards: These people are on your adjoining property owner notification labels? You know you were required to notify them prior to this meeting. Gilbert: To my knowledge everyone was notified. We do have the numbers across the street, the numbers kind of get lost in all the data but we do have them and to my knowledge they were notified. Bunch: So one of the things we are looking at just from a compromise standpoint is lot 10 may not be as necessary buffer as once imagined and we are still looking at lot 1 being single family. Edwards: I have a suggestion. What if we have them specifically notify those property owners across the street stating that we intend to change the proposed development from a single family lot up on Deane that way they know that it is not going to be what they once thought. Barnes: And then the opportunity to come to the Planning Commission, that would be great. Ward: Are we ready to take a motion? Bunch: When this goes to the full Planning Commission when will they have an opportunity to address the Bill of Assurance issue with the City Council? That will not occur before this goes to the Planning Commission will it? Edwards: No. We are probably looking at the first meeting in December at the earliest for City Council, maybe even January. They have a certain agenda setting time. Renee will let you know those dates for sure. Ward: Bunch: It would be just an additional condition which is not abnormal, we have done it before. I think what we probably need to do is forward this to the full Planning Commission and rather than dip into all that was said here is to put a stipulation that they are on the agenda for the City Council to address the Bill of Assurance issues and then if you have not made it on that agenda then delay it until such time that you are on the agenda. That way we don't have to make a motion at this level that is very complicated. We will just basically say that we forward it to the Planning Commission with the condition that you actually be on the City Council agenda, with the knowledge that you are on the City Council agenda before Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 25 Ward: MOTION: agenda session. I think we could go ahead and say that we recommend the 28' street instead of 31'. I think you are in compliance with all the other conditions. Is that a formal motion? Bunch: Also knowing that the Parks fees are subject to change depending on how many units we come up with and how everything is split. I move that we forward PPL 02-17.00 to the full Planning Commission with the added condition that arrangements be made to bring the Bill of Assurance issue before the City Council and at such time at the agenda session those arrangements have not been made this item will be tabled and that we would recommend to the full Commission a 28' street. Also, that we specifically notify the property owners to the west of proposed lot one about the changes. Ostner: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 26 LSD 02-27.00 (1006): Large Scale Development (PJT Development, pp 435) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Consulting on behalf of Bobby Hatfield of PJT Development for property located at the southeast corner of Wedington Drive and Double Springs Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.51 acres with 4 retail buildings proposed. Ward: Our next item on the agenda is a Large Scale Development for 02-27.00, which is PJT Development submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Consulting on behalf of Bobby Hatfield of PJT Development for property located at the southeast corner of Wedington Drive and Double Springs Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.51 acres with four retail buildings proposed. Sara? Edwards: Square footage is a total of 29,900 sq.ft. There are 121 parking spaces proposed, which meets our requirements. To the north the property is zoned C-1, to the south R -O, to the east and west is A-1. They are dedicating right of way, 55' from centerline along Wedington and 45' from centerline on Double Springs. They are proposing with our recommendation to widen Double Springs Road to 14' from centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drainage. There are no existing trees on this site. Trees that you might see removed from the site are all located in the right of way so those don't count in the calculations. Right now we are recommending this item be tabled due to failure to submit new building elevations. Commercial Design Standards is one of the conditions that we need to address. The last elevations they showed had metal along the east and west, that is another issue, the applicant needs to tell us which building is which. This is the last elevation I had, which had metal along the entire west wall of this building two is my understanding but again, they didn't label it very well. Until we can make a staff determination of what exactly they are proposing and which building is which and we did ask them to change the metal to dryvit, which we have no elevations showing that, we would like for it to be tabled so we can have a better chance to look at the proposal. Item number two, the offsite improvements, Planning Commission does have the final determination, that improvement with staff recommendation is to widen Double Springs 14' from centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drainage. All utility equipment on the site shall be screened. All public improvements shall be constructed with Phase I and that includes the streets, the drainage, water, sewer and we won't issue any temporary or final occupancy until those improvements are completed. Condition number eight, typically in standard conditions we state that Large Scale Development shall be valid for one calendar year, added in that the second phase must be permitted within one year and construction must be started within three months of that permit. That is our protection in the event that the ordinance changes and they could hold off on this for several years with their approval. Everything else is standard. Ward: Ok, thanks. Matt, do you have any Engineering concerns? Casey: I have got one comment. The access easement serving these manholes to the Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 27 south, we have requested that the 12' gravel access drive be extended to those. That is extended to the south property line but it also needs to go on down to serve those manholes as well for that easement. That is my only comment. Ward: Ok, thanks Matt. Sidewalks? Shreve: There is a requirement for a 6' sidewalk along Wedington Drive and along Double Springs Road which is on the plan. We are asking that those be constructed at the new right of way line. Also, five bicycle racks will be required. Ward: Do we have those shown now? Shreve: He is showing three at the northwest corner of building one which would satisfy Phase I and for Phase II he has those at the northwest corner of building four. We would allow those to be phased with the building. Ward: Ok. Kim? Hesse: I had asked for the types of trees that they are proposing and for your information they are proposing mainly shoe mart oaks and some ornamental cherries inside the development. The only thing I might want to mention Glenn is that on the shrubs around the parking 50% of those have to be evergreen. I want to ensure that these aren't dwarf and maybe too short. You might just break it up so you have maybe a taller species. It is not so much an issue in Phase I because the whole site is lower and any shrubs that you park there aren't going to be very visible. All they do is kind of screen the grills of the cars and they will actually be screened by that slope but I just need the flexibility in your approval to review that at the time of building permit approval. It is pretty standard. Ward: Ok. Let me open it up to the public first. Is there any public comment on this particular item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the committee here. Sara, is there any reason that we really, really need to table this? Edwards: Basically they are showing overhead doors between buildings one and two and this is a 30' wide asphalt strip which we usually don't see. I am assuming that is for truck delivery traffic. Carter: Yes. Edwards: What are they putting in there that is going to require that kind of traffic? Carter: They don't know yet. They are expecting that they will need rear delivery. Edwards: We figured the parking based on professional office which was going to limit them to professional offices based on that parking. Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 28 Bunch: Building four was professional office, the others were just retail. Edwards: Ok. I guess that will be ok. They are going to have to work with those numbers and make sure they don't go over each time a tenant comes in. As far as a restaurant goes, I am concerned that is the kind of delivery traffic I would think would necessitate that and we haven't provided the parking for that. Carter: We tried to take a worse case to build to be sure we have enough and then if we go in and he gets somebody that really wants to go in there that is a use that doesn't require as much parking, we would be glad to eliminate that and that doesn't do anything but help. It reduces impervious area, it reduces drainage. We started with kind of a worse case for approval and then if anything happens different from that it is going to be a positive thing. I apologize about the drawings. I guess it is just a misunderstanding on my part. When you made those recommendations I talked to the guys that are doing the drawings and they did revise them but we just weren't aware that we needed those here. For some reason I was thinking that the Subdivision Committee would review the colored elevations that we submitted and that would be one of their comments and it is just a misunderstanding on my part. Bunch: We didn't even have those to review, the color, the buildings and the elevations. Carter: You didn't get the elevations I submitted? Ward: No, we didn't get anything. It was kind of hard to know what was going on without the elevations. Carter: Just for the record what is the procedure? We submit something and you don't see it until staff tells you this is what you want to see? Ward: Usually we get the elevations. Bunch: If they were obviously unacceptable there wasn't any sense in forwarding them to us like the metal building and that sort of thing. Carter: There is some metal on it but there is dryvit and a metal roof. I agree with Sara's comments completely and we did go back and we put in, we didn't get it colored and reproduced and all that but we did go back and put in brick and we tried to take care of this. Edwards: Maybe you can go over what you are proposing now. Ward: The big item here looks like it would be the Commercial Design Standards seeing if it meets our main five elements to avoid. Why don't you kind of run us through color schemes and materials that you are going to use. Carter: I failed to keep a copy of those myself so if I could borrow that just a minute. I Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 29 think one of our main problems was the fact that we had quite a long wall that was not quite articulated enough and so what we did was we went back. Building two has the big doors. We need to label them a little better so you can tell what is what for sure. In building one and two we have increased the brick and tried to break that up and rearrange this a little bit to try to break that long wall up. The colors are the same, everything else is pretty much the same. The large overhead doors, we had those at the back of building two and we didn't have any pavement over here so we rearranged our parking and opened that up and we have got a little over 30' so we paved that portion right there to make access to this building two. There are small doors outside of building one off the back of this building and then there is large overhead doors outside of this building and then just a long paved way in between. Edwards: Where is the metal siding? Is there any left? Carter: It is all covered with dryvit now. The only metal is on the roof and it is a painted metal roof. Edwards: Can you just tell me which side is the west side of building two so we can look at it for articulation? Carter: The west side of building two is with the overhead doors. Edwards: I'm sorry, the east side. Carter: We haven't changed that, that is metal. Edwards: The inside walls of the buildings are both metal? Carter: Yes, the sides that face each other. Bunch: On the south side of building one and south side of building two. Glenn, what is the purpose of the end, is that going to be like a drive thru for like a drycleaners or something like that? Carter: At this point I don't know. I don't know, there was some talk about a drive thru but when that was talked about, they haven't showed me how it is going to work so I am not advertising that as a drive thru because I don't see how it will work. Bunch: There is no access to it. It is that style of building but there is no way to accomplish it. Ostner: On the building plan it is just a little patio entry. Carter: This is kind of what the colors would look like on the roof. This is an existing building that has been built like this. This is the metal roof and this is what these would look like. Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 30 Edwards: And the signs will go in those triangles? Carter: I am not sure about that. He has a way of using, if you can see right here, this sign right here a fluorescent light sign. Edwards: They can't extend over the white roofline. Carter: He can put something along the front like that though? Edwards: Yes. Carter: I think that is what he was planning to do with signs. Other than that, there are no monument signs or anything like that planned. Ward: I think the main concern is going to be Commercial Design Standards and elevations. I would guess that if we do forward this that we would want a complete set of this before it came to the full Planning Commission so at agenda session we could really look it over. That is going to be the real kicker when it comes right down to it because really there are not many other conditions to talk about except for the Commercial Design Standards and Sara is probably right it wouldn't pass the way it was for sure. Carter: I appreciate her comments. Ward: It is kind of hard for us to make a final decision because we are not architects or engineers or anything. The idea is to build two buildings first, try to rent those out and then build two more? Carter: Yes, see how it works and then move on with the rest of it. Ward: Of course the first two buildings as far as Commercial Design Standards, are really the ones, because it is going to be up in the corner in the highest visibility of Wedington and Double Springs Road so we will be looking at those elevations on all four sides specifically to make sure that they look nice because that is where the high traffic areas will be. Carter: Ok, we can definitely do that. Ward: The idea of using some brick and some glass and dryvit and a combination of all those types of materials and staying away from metal would work. Carter: We can get some samples and bring in. Bunch: Glenn, what is in this space back here? Carter: Almost nothing, that is just grass. Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 31 Bunch: That is going to make the back of building two visible from the road so when we are talking about the design standards, the south side of building two will probably need a comparable treatment to the south side of building one since there is going to be considerable visibility. Unless there is going to be some tree plantings or something back there or screenings of some nature. Carter: I don't see any happening. We could do that but we are probably better to dress that up. Bunch: On the extension of this 12' gravel access drive, how far to the south do you want that to extend? Casey: To service that south manhole. Ward: How large of sewer is out there? Casey: It is 8". Ward: Ok. Bunch: What was the deal about putting in the compacted base and having top soil and sod placed on top of it? Casey: At the request of David Jurgens, our Water and Sewer Superintendent, we have started asking for the 12' gravel access drive. When they go in and service the manholes and clean them they have had problems sinking, rutting up the yards and they have to go back to take care of that and plus it is just getting back there is a problem so we have asked for that but that is kind of ugly and we don't like to have the gravel in some of these areas so we give them the option of putting sod on the top of it. It still gives us the base, we just don't have to worry about 2' ruts in their yards. Bunch: Do you have to put anything between the gravel and the sod? Casey: That is up to them how they keep it. As long as we get the 12' gravel. They can put whatever they want to over the top of it. That stabilizes the ground so we don't tear it up too bad. Hesse: I think they would have to have at least 3" of top soil. Bunch: It seems like a waste of time to put sod on it without a layer of soil between the compacted sub base and the sod. Casey: They can do that, as long as we have got that stability there. Carter: What I think has happened here if I understand it right is in some of these Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 32 residential areas in subdivisions they have got to have that access to get to the back yard and there are some really nice homes and they don't want a gravel road beside their house so they found out they could cover that with sod and it looks fine but really underneath it is the road base. I don't know if you all are requiring that. Casey: We just require the 12' gravel drive. The sod is your option. Carter: I agree if we are going to put sod down we need to get 3" top soil. Ward: Ok. I think I personally would like to go ahead and get this forwarded on if you will get our building elevations to us and maybe a little color scheme, exactly what the colors are going to look like and the materials as far as the brick, the metal, the dryvit, kind of give us a board showing those particular colors and so on so we can make a final determination if it will meet our commercial design standards. I don't see that there are any other really big issues or conditions that would stop us from forwarding it. Bunch: Just get all the changes that we talked about and everything up to date. Carter: Is this something that can be approved at the Subdivision Committee level? Ward: No. I am looking for a motion. MOTION: Bunch: I move that we forward LSD 02-27.00 to the full Planning Commission with the notes of this meeting. Ostner: Second. Ward: I will concur. Thanks Glenn. Carter: Sara, is November 18th the deadline? Edwards: Yes, the 25`h is the meeting. Carter: You need how many copies of the revised plans? Edwards: Thirty-seven and then twelve color elevations. Carter: Thank you. Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 33 ADM 02-36.00: Administrative Item (Childs, pp 566) The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.93 acres. The request is to rehear the sidewalk conditions for CUP 02-26 Childs. Ward: The last item on the agenda today is CUP 02-26.00 submitted by Mac Childs for property located at 2178 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately .93 acres. The request is for a plant nursery. This is a Use Unit 2, City Wide Uses by Conditional Use Permit in an R-1 district. Sara? Edwards: Basically back in September a Conditional Use was approved for the Mhoon Beef on Huntsville Road to be converted into a nursery. Along with that there was a requirement, number 4, that a cement concrete driveway approach and a 6' sidewalk be installed prior to occupancy. Upon further review it looks like where we would require that sidewalk based on the Master Street Plan would run right through their parking lot so Chuck has got a proposal in place of that requirement and we are looking to amend that condition. Ward: Ok, Chuck? Rutherford: Sara described the situation out there perfectly. In the beginning for whatever reason I was assuming that we were going to get more improvements, we were going to get parking improvements and those sort of things but the way I understand it since then after meeting out there with the property owner, the intent is no improvements at the present time. They just plan on renting it out and there is going to be a plant nursery there. To require the sidewalk where we normally require it at the 50' line would basically put it right up where they are going to park. The right of way goes all the way back to here so if we put the sidewalk up here there is only 20' from there to the building and then they actually have 4' front porches there. The way I see it we are not losing the opportunity to get a sidewalk here because at some point in time this will be improved and it is right in here when they do improvements to the building they have to come back to the Planning Division to go through the proper channels. I just feel to make everything work, if we put it in there now and they do go in there and tear the whole building down at some point in time it is just going to be in the way and it is not going to work with what is existing. If we go ahead and build it and push it closer to the street then it gets it out there in the way if there ever is a street improvement, the sidewalks might have to be removed to do that. Ward: Chuck, what kind of money are we talking about as far as putting a sidewalk in there? Rutherford: Their frontage is 211' of 6' sidewalk so whatever that square footage is and the very minimum would be $3.00 a square foot. Bunch: That is $18 per running foot. Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 34 Rutherford: Shreve: Rutherford: Ward: Rutherford: Bunch: Rutherford: Bunch: Ward: Edwards: Ward: MOTION: Bunch: Edwards: Bunch: Edwards: Bunch: Ostner: Right. It is about $3,800 at $3.00 a square foot. The reason that I don't recommend us taking the money and putting it in the quadrant for this is because there is not a sidewalk here and this is going to develop and be improved I don't think too far down the road so if we take the money and put in the quadrant that money can be used somewhere else. Which you don't want to happen. We want it to end up on this. The Highway Department's sidewalk ends on the east end at the present time. That is where they ended their project. What is on the west end? The west end ends at the edge of a yard and then you skip a couple of yards and then there is a sidewalk. It is right along that portion there across from that gas station and a little car wash. There are some high retaining walls, just west of that. This is almost right across the street from Jerry Avenue. Between Jerry and Ray, down through there. This has to go to the full Planning Commission? Yes, I believe that it does because that is where the Conditional Use was approved and this would be an amendment to it. Are there any other questions or motions? I move that we forward CUP 02-26.00 to the full Planning Commission. Are you in support of these changes? Since we didn't really have anything to look at and haven't studied it we might want to look at it. Is it something that we would want to tour? Not necessarily. Just the main thing is to have some drawings. All we have is item 7 on the green sheet with no back up. I don't want to influence them to make their decisions based on something we haven't really reviewed that much. I will second. Subdivision Committee November 14, 2002 Page 35 Ward: I will concur. We will look at it a little bit closer when we get to the Planning Commission. Like I said, we didn't have a lot of time to think about it or address it and we don't want to make a quick decision on it. With that we are adjourned. Thanks.