Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-02 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, January 2, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 03-1.00: Lot Split (Shackelford, pp 558) Page 2 LSP 03-2.00: Lot Split (Gyles, pp 298) Page 4 LSD 02-30.00: Large Scale Development (Southern View Apartments, pp 519) Page 6 PPL 02-15.10: Preliminary Plat (Crystal Springs, Phase III, pp 246) Page 16 MEMBERS PRESENT Sharon Hoover Alan Ostner Don Bunch Approved Approved Forwarded to Planning Commission Forwarded to Planning Commission MEMBERSABSENT Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kim Hesse Keith Shreve Sara Edwards Matt Casey Kim Rogers Renee Thomas Fire Department Perry Franklin Solid Waste Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 2 Bunch: Welcome to the January 2, 2003 meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee. We have six items on the agenda. Edwards: There are four now, items three and five have been pulled. LSP 03-1.00: Lot Split (Shackelford, pp 558) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Tom Shackelford for property located at 2975 Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.32 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.68 acres and 0.64 acres. Bunch: If anyone is here for item three, Final Plat for Heritage East or item five, which is Large Scale Development for Sloan, those items have been pulled from the agenda and there is no need to stay. Moving right along, item one is LSP 03-1.00 submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland and Company on behalf of Tom Shackelford for property located at 2975 Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.32 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of .68 acres and .64 acres. Sara, can you tell us about this one? Edwards: Yes. We recently rezoned this property from A-1 to R-1. Right now there is an existing single-family home and garage on tract "A" and tract "B" is vacant. My understanding is that it is going to develop with another single-family home. They rezoned the site from A-1 to R-1. Water is available along Old Farmington. Sewer must be extended in order to provide sewer access to tract "B". Right of way is being dedicated, 35' from centerline to Old Farmington Road which is a collector on the Master Street Plan. We are recommending approval subject to some conditions. The first condition is that the sanitary sewer extension shall be completed prior to filing the lot split unless the owner requests to guarantee the extension. If the guarantee option is used it must be submitted in accordance with Chapter 158 Bonds and Guarantees. No temporary or final Certificate of Occupancy will be granted for any structure on tract "B" until the line is installed, inspected, and accepted. Everything else is pretty standard. With number four, I want to point out that parks fees are due in the amount of $470. Bunch: Ok, thank you. Sidewalks? Shreve: No sidewalk is required for a lot split. If they build a new home on tract "B" there will be a sidewalk requirement at that time. Bunch: Matt, is there anything from Engineering? Casey: Nothing additional other than the sanitary sewer comments. Bunch: Ok, Kim? Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 3 Hesse: Bunch: Edwards: Bunch: Edwards: MOTION: Hoover: Ostner: Bunch: No comment. Is the applicant present? Is there anyone in the audience who would wish to comment on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for comments and motions. Sara, have you been in contact with the applicant and are they aware of the conditions? Yes. He has been working on this for quite some time and he is aware of the sewer and the option to guarantee it in escrow. There were no complaints? No, he understood all of that before he started. I will make a motion to approve LSP 03-1.00. I will second. I will concur. Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 4 LSP 03-2.00: Lot Split (Gyles, pp 298) was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Kathy Ann Gyles for property located at 2686 Timberglen Lane. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 4.81 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.0 acres and 2.81 acres. Bunch: The next item is LSP 03-2.00 for Gyles submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Kathy Anne Gyles for property located at 2686 Timberglen Lane. The property is in the planning area and contains approximately 4.81 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.0 and 2.81 acres. Sara? Edwards: The 2.81 acre parcel will have frontage and access provided on Timberglen Lane. The 2.0 acre parcel will have frontage and access provided from Miles View Road. Right now there is an existing single-family home on the 2.81 acre parcel and the 2.0 acre parcel is vacant. This is in the County. The surrounding land use is single-family residential. They do have water available on the southern boundary of the property. We are recommending approval subject to one condition. That is that Washington County approval is required prior to filing. Bunch: Are there any comments from Engineering? Casey: No. Bunch: No comments from Sidewalks or Landscape. Does the applicant have any additional information other than what we already have before us? Reid: No, I think it is all pretty straight there. Bunch: Is there anyone in the audience that would wish to comment on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for comments and motions. I have a question. Are these private drives, Timberglen and Miles View? Edwards: Portions of them are and portions of them aren't. We have it dedicated along there where it comes in. Timberglen, this part on Robinwood II down here, that is public. The part on Robinwood I is still private. Reid: Actually, the street that comes from Hwy. 45 down to this 2.81 acres, that road was actually created for this tract of land, this 4.81 acres. Their driveway used to run through the center of what was called Robinwood I. When Mr. Schmitt developed Robinwood I he had to move this access over to provide to the owners previous to the Gyles, which were the Millers. They actually owned this land at one time. Although Timberglen is a private road that serves Robinwood I it was also primarily to serve the Gyles' property. They always had this access off of Miles View Road. That goes back twenty or thirty years ago that they were given access across that. Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 5 Bunch: So there is access off Miles View for the split out lot, it does have easements and has access to water. Reid: Yes. Bunch: Celia Scott-Silkwood, the Washington County Planner is in the audience, Celia, do you have any comments on this? Silkwood: No, I really don't. As soon as you get done with this process Kathy can come over to our office and we will approve it. Bunch: That being said, are there any motions? MOTION: Hoover: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 03-2.00. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 6 LSD 02-30.00: Large Scale Development (Southern View Apartments, pp 519) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull, & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Management for property located at the northeast corner of Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned RMF -18, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 19.39 acres with 312 units proposed. Bunch: The next item on our agenda is item four, LSD 02-3.00 for Southern View Apartments submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Management for property located in the northeast corner of Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned RMF -18, Medium Density, Multi -family Residential and contains approximately 19.39 acres with 312 units proposed. Sara, can you tell us about this one? Edwards: At the intersection of Futrall and Old Farmington is C-2 property, this is directly north of that. They are actually building Stone Street which comes from Markham Hill Apartments into this development. They are proposing 312 units, 520 bedrooms, 532 parking spaces. The surrounding zoning to the north is R-1 which is vacant. To the south is C-2 which is currently vacant. To the east is Fayetteville School District's shop building and to the west across the highway is the University Square Shopping Center. There is no additional right of way being dedicated as part of this development. Like I said, Stone Street will be extended to the east and along to the north to provide access to the vacant property which is zoned R-1. Futrall is classified as a collector street and adequate right of way exists. Tree preservation, existing is 12%, they are proposing to preserve 5% and mitigate 7% on the site. We are recommending that this be forwarded subject to some conditions. The first condition is they are requesting a waiver from the requirement that all buildings be setback 100 feet from the hundred year flood elevation. Their proposal is for a 35' setback and that is from the detention pond, which is a 65' waiver. The buildings will be built 2' above the hundred year elevation and an iron fence will be placed around the pond. 2) The applicant as offered to mix the architectural appearance of the buildings. Six different architectural styles will be incorporated into the complex. 3) Lighting will be required to be a full cutoff light fixture utilizing a sodium light fixture and it must be approved by staff prior to installation. 4) Planning Commission approval of the proposed monument sign. 5) Gates will not be permitted to limit access to the property from Futrall to Stone Street. 6) The final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved by the Landscape Administrator and must include a mixture of hardwood and evergreen trees around the detention pond. 7) We are asking if a flag will be installed and if so we would like to have the dimensions and location of that. 8) Dumpsters will be required to be screened with brick that matches the proposed buildings. Everything else is pretty standard. Park fees in the amount of $117,000 will be due. Here are the elevations of the different building designs that they will be using. Bunch: Are there any engineering comments? Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 7 Casey: I don't have any comments at this time. We have been working closely with Crafton & Tull and we think we have everything worked out. Bunch: Sidewalks? Shreve: They are going to construct a 6' wide sidewalk along the frontage on Futrall Road and on Stone Street extension we are going to get a 6' sidewalk with a 5' green space along the south and west side of Stone Street. Stone Street is classified as a local which normally requires a 4' sidewalk and 6' green space but due to the population density here we have upgraded it to a 6' sidewalk and allowed them to do a 5' green space. Bunch: Keith, do you know anything about the trails? I know there was one other apartment complex that this applicant did just north of Hwy. 16 in the Overlay District where they dedicated a trail. Is there a trail system that goes up the I-540 corridor? Shreve: Yes. There is a planned trail system along Futrall Road. Steve Hatfield said that due to the existing wide right of way at this point he didn't request any additional right of way. Sidewalks are going to be constructed at the right of way line. Kelso: Our fence will be on the other side of the sidewalk so it won't be inside the fence. Bunch: Ok, so sidewalks will be outside of the fence. Kelso: Right. Shreve: I believe Steve feels that if we want to widen it to a 10' or 12' trail in the future that can be done with the existing right of way. Bunch: Ok, Kim with Landscaping? Hesse: Jerry, did you get my comments? Kelso: Yes, we have addressed those and it is all in the Landscape Plan. Hesse: Due to the street we are losing a lot of the trees from the plans that you have got there. In the parking lot the landscape plan shows mitigation trees and plantings along the street. Some of the better trees are going to be left though actually. We are mitigating for those on the site plan. Engineering is still working with them still on the detention pond, we really can't determine the location of all of these plants until you guys have that detention pond built. I think the concern is that we don't block the outfall structure and that we stay away from the lines. There is a pretty good size water line along Futrall. Bunch: Ok, thank you. Jerry, do you have a presentation at this time? Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 8 Kelso: Kelso: Just that we have went through a couple of different iterations on this thing. As you can see from this plan it is a little bit different than how Lindsey has been doing it. The City Council was very interested in this project to make sure that the buildings were turned and moved around so that it is not all lined up in a row. As you can see, the product we have now is what we have got I think everybody is happy with the layout, we have met with the Mayor, and we have worked extensively with the City in that aspect along with the extension of Stone Street. Basically, we are trying to do everything we can to meet the requirements and meet the requirements and help this project along. Bunch: At this time we will open it up to the public. Are there any comments concerning this project? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for comments and motions. Hoover: I have got a question. Sara, is this the site that we rezoned? Edwards: Yes. Bunch: Yes, this part here is still commercial and this is one way. Ostner: Back when we rezoned this I went out and looked at it and right about here, I believe it is technically off your site, at the fence for the apartments there is a trail that is just beat down, it is used a lot. Is that on private property? Kelso: I think what you are talking about is an old drive that kind of goes to Stone Street, is that what you are talking about? Ostner: This one heads north up Markham Hill. Kelso: That I don't know about. Hesse: There are a lot of biking and running trails on that mountain. They cross private property up there. Ostner: They have their own thing worked out I guess, if they wanted to have anything to do with this it is their call I guess. I wasn't sure if that was going somewhere for pedestrians. Hesse: They are just all over that mountain top. Bunch: I have a couple of questions about the dumpsters. Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 9 Kelso: Ok. Bunch: There is one at this location on the north side. I really want to compliment you on your traffic calming layout, it looks good. This dumpster though looks like it is rather inaccessible and would require a lot of backing up and jockeying around and disturbing of the residents. Is there a better location for that? Kelso: It is possible that we could put it right in here and just have a little turn around right there. Bunch: Yes, or move some parking places over there. Kelso: Yes, we could add a couple of parking spaces to make up for those two that we lose there or something. We could probably do that. Bunch: I think that would make a more livable area. Another thing is if you look at the way these along here, the dumpsters, is there any way to orient them so that a person driving the truck could make a single pass and also eliminate a lot of the backing up? If you point them all the same direction maybe, those types of dumpsters are usually serviced early in the morning and it is just something that would make it more livable for the residents. It is not really a problem for us and I don't know that I should even be mentioning it. Kelso: Because everything is so looped around with curbs and stuff you never really know which way that truck is going to go. The only one that I think we might rotate a little if a truck can get that, back up and get that one and come out. Bunch: You would want to lay out an efficient path to make it better not only for the City but for the residents. I know you have had a lot of iterations on this and this is probably the one that you don't know. Kelso: Actually, they could come in and get that and that, come around and get him and be gone. It looks like maybe that one if we just turned it. I think that would be the only thing that I could see is turning that one a little bit. Bunch: Just so that they can make it in a single pass rather than having to back up and go around. Hoover: Does this dumpster have gates on it? I noticed that it is at the end of the access of this entry here. Kelso: I think they all plan to have gates on them. Hoover: I just think that is a little odd. I have noticed a lot of them have not been getting gates on them. If it is placed in a prominent location, especially in the entry to a Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 10 complex where you would think it would be the club house right there but instead it is the dumpster. Bunch: It is in the Overlay District. Is there an Overlay District line on this? Edwards: I think all of it is in the Overlay. Conklin- This is Residential and the Overlay District standards apply to Commercial. Hoover: There is nothing different about Residential in the Overlay District? Conklin: No. Kelso: The answer to your question is yes there is a gate and I think that will help screen that. Bunch: What arrangements were made for fencing around the pool? Kelso: There will be a 4' wrought iron fence around the pool, it is what we plan on putting around the detention pond so it all looks good. Bunch: So you can see through to see if there are any problems. Kelso: Right. You can see the line types there, the iron fence around it with the little circles. Hoover: On the parking, do we get the extra 30%? That didn't click with me that it applies to Residential also. Ostner: There is a sidewalk on Futrall, is that shown on any one of these? Kelso: It is on the front sheet. Ostner: Ok. Kelso: We have got the fence on the other side of the sidewalk. Bunch: The sidewalk is in the utility easement? Kelso: Yes. Hoover: The fence is an iron fence? Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 11 Kelso: It will be a 6' wrought iron fence. The one in the front we are actually going to put brick columns every 50' too. It will be a brick column every 50' and then a wrought iron fence between the columns. Hoover: Then the mechanical equipment on all of these units, where does that go? Kelso: Typically the electric meters and the air-conditioning units are all on the side. Hoover: Do we have a requirement for screening Residential? Edwards: We don't, it only applies to Commercial for our Commercial Design Standards and our Overlay District requirements. However, there are going to be a lot of trees planted along the detention pond when you look at the landscape plan so hopefully that will screen that. Hoover: So the detention pond is facing Futrall, what is that going to look like? Kelso: It will be a wet pond, we are going to put a big fountain in it. Along the top of the bank we have got a lot of trees that we plan on planting, a combination of hardwoods, evergreens, etc. so that you have got screening all year long. We have been working with Kim on that quite a bit. Hoover: Is there one like that in town that you would say it would be like? Kelso: Not with as much landscaping as we plan on putting on this one. Hoover: But it is wet all the time. Kelso: You have probably noticed on the Lindsey projects where they have got a wet pond with the fountain, that is what this one will be but the other thing on this one is that we do have quite a bit of landscaping that we plan on putting around it. Ostner: That is part of my question. There is a note along Futrall that shows proposed 6" caliper red maples every 50'. Kelso: Actually, that was a note we left on there. We had planned on doing that but after talking with the Mayor and Kim we felt like it would be better served if we had smaller trees with different types through there so that was a note that should've been taken back off. I am sorry. Ostner: That leads to my next question. Inside the project you have got a ton of trees, which is terrific. I am curious as to on the little cut outs on the comers of each parking area, it is basically between a pin oak and a red bud. I was just wondering, since the Mayor and Kim are giving you the run around on other stuff, Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 12 Kelso: the difference in those trees are huge. I was just wondering if there is a reasoning behind it. Basically, the pin oaks we tried to put in the bigger green areas where we have more space since they require a lot more green area verses the redbuds, they are in the smaller landscaped islands. Hesse: What typically happens is a variation of trees are actually installed, I work with them and there is a lot of variety. Kelso: Typically there will be more trees than we have shown. If you just go around and looks at Cliffs or some place like that, that is typically what will happen here. Bunch: A question on the numbers of trees. On sheet #4 it shows the numbers for the mitigation trees, 113 trees less 20% for onsite comes out to 91 trees. Can you explain that? I know mitigation is a fairly new thing and we all need to learn about it. Hesse: Mitigation you can't count as landscaping trees for the front of the buildings or in any parking lot so we ask them to separate them. The 20% reduction is part of the ordinance, if they have the room and are willing to do onsite mitigation we reduce the mitigation 20% to try to encourage them to put them all in the same site. We want to put them back in at the same location. That is the little bit of incentive that we have built into the ordinance. Bunch: I just wanted people to understand that since it is a fairly new ordinance and we are all learning how to utilize it. That 20% is an incentive for onsite mitigation. Hesse: What they will be required to do is bond for those 91 trees for three years and then after three years if 90% are still alive and healthy then they get their bond back. There is a little more restriction on these 91 trees. Bunch: So we are actually getting a minimum of 175 trees with that 91 and then the other trees. Kelso: The other trees are required for the parking lot and then the frontage. Bunch: Thanks for explaining that. Hoover: What is this up here? Kelso: That is the proposed extension to Stone Street. You can see where Stone comes out, Stone has a cul-de-sac that ends right there right about here where Markham Hill apaitments were and we are tying on right there and we are going to come around and go to the north side of our property and stop the street at that point. Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 13 Hoover: Are there any other roads in here that aren't showing up? Kelso: It starts going up that hill that is undeveloped. Hoover: So that is the only connection that is possible to be made? Kelso: Yes. Bunch: This is stubbing out on the property to the north so that is possible to be developed? Kelso: Sure, so they have got a street to tie onto. Ostner: This is not an available right of way? Kelso: Right, we looked at that. That is a private street, you have got major drainage coming through there and we worked with the city because we looked at coming down that way and everybody came to agree that connecting Stone Street would be the best thing for the street traffic patterns on this area. Ostner: I just want to make sure that since this is one way, the path of least resistance. I would hate for people to turn the wrong way, Stone I guess is the only option. Hoover: This commercial area down here, when this develops it won't have any connection to this development? The apartments won't be able to get to it because if you go out on Futrall the people in the apartments will have to go one way and go all the way around. Bunch: Unless they come out Stone. Hoover: We are not seeing that as something that could be needed in the future? Kelso: There is a large elm tree that we are trying to save right there also at that point. Edwards: We need to take a look at that. I am sure they will want their residents to get to that commercial without going all the way around. You probably need to look at some sort of drive in that direction to get around. Kelso: Hoover: Kelso: It would probably make sense to do that. So there would be some future connection. Is this commercial part owned by the same person? Yes Ma'am. Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 14 Hoover: He didn't want to do a master plan of this whole acreage, we want to do it in two different divisions here? I am just wondering about drainage. The wet pond is only taking care of the drainage on the apartments. There is going to be a whole different drainage plan on the commercial even though it is all one piece of property. Kelso: Right now we have split it and it is split into two different pieces of property. Right now we don't know what we are going to do with the Commercial. You just never know. Casey: That will be addressed in a separate Large Scale. Hoover: I think we need to go ahead and figure future access for some type of road to get to that. Ostner: Just across the interstate here where that Hampton Inn is there is a little cut through that is crucial with that one way street. It is a 20 minute route without that. I would agree something would be important down the line. Kelso: I think probably he would want this connection right here so I think we will put that in there. Bunch: With pedestrian access as well automotive. Kelso: Sure, we can extend that sidewalk on down. Bunch: Another question, on the flag condition number seven since that is posed as a question, do you have an answer? Kelso: We have got a flag shown on the Large Scale, a 100' flag. Edwards: Do you know the dimensions of that? Hoover: Where is that at? Kelso: It is right here by the club house. You have probably seen the one that they put on Shiloh, it will be as big as that one. Ostner: Could you tell me what a full cutoff light is? Kelso: Basically, the light is boxed at the top to where all you do is it just shines straight down and illuminates that area. From the highway you can not see the big bright light, it is just a beam shining straight down is the best way to explain it. Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 15 Ostner: There is no glare. Kelso: Right. Ostner: Sodium is the sort of orange looking right? Edwards: Haloid is the white light and sodium is the orange light. Bunch: You have read all of the conditions, do you have any questions about them? Kelso: No Sir. Bunch: Is there anything else Commissioners? Hoover: Do we have elevations of some of the ends of the building? Edwards: We can request that from the architect. Hoover: Is the club house one of these? Kelso: The one in the center. Ostner: It is almost the same. Kelso: As far as height and width and I guess length. Ostner: I am pleased you are working with Kim, it looks good and I am glad there is a lot of landscaping. With that said, I will make a motion to forward LSD 02-30.00 to the full Planning Commission. Hoover: I will second. How big are these retaining walls? Kelso: The highest would be 8' down to nothing in places. Hoover: I guess that meets with our hillside ordinance. Ostner: Do you have the materials for that? Kelso: The retaining wall will be the modular blocks that are more attractive than just plain concrete. Bunch: I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 16 PPL 02-15.10: Preliminary Plat (Crystal Springs, Phase III, pp 246) was submitted by Mel Milholland Company on behalf of Crystal Springs LTD for property located east of Pyrite Drive on Crystal Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 35.13 acres with 99 lots proposed. The request is to change the conditions of approval of PPL 02-15.00. Bunch: The next item on our agenda is item number six, Preliminary Plat for Crystal Springs Phase III submitted by Mel Milholland and Company on behalf of Crystal Springs Limited for property located east of Pyrite Drive off Crystal Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 35.13 acres with 99 lots proposed. The request is to change the conditions of approval of PPL 02-15.00. Sara? Edwards: Originally this Preliminary Plat was approved on October 14, 2002 with the condition that City Council approve the connection of Crystal Drive to Wilson Springs business park and that is the connection to Deane Solomon Road. On November 19th the City Council did approve a resolution for the connection subject to Crystal Drive on the west side ending in a cul-de-sac to discourage cut through traffic there. Therefore, the developer did do some redesign to accommodate that requirement and that is why we are bringing this back for a new approval. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Right now there are 99 lots proposed. There is some floodplain on this property and some fill is going to be done in which lots 210 and 213 and 128 when the Final Plat comes through and the fill has been done, it will be able to meet those requirements of our floodplain ordinance and we will be adding three lots total so that will be 102 lots, again, those are 210, 213, and 128. You can tell that they are just missing those lot lines right now. Right now surrounding land use and zoning is R-1. An 8" water line is being proposed, an 8" sanitary sewer line is being proposed. Right of way, 70' for Raven, 50' for Crystal Drive, 50' for Topaz, and 40' along Tiger Eye Drive. Adjacent Master Street Plans streets, future construction of the collector road, Raven Lane to be extended to Mount Comfort Road. Conditions to address are as follows: 1) No construction or disturbance shall occur outside of the 50' right of way on city owned land. That is from City Council's approval. 2) City Council will be considering a cost share for the connection of Deane Solomon. If the cost share is not approved the developer will be responsible for all costs associated with that connection. 3) Raven Lane shall be constructed to be a 28' wide street. The city may cost share to widen it to 36' subject to City Council approval. 4) Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 5) If the applicant chooses to fill to remove lots from the hundred -year floodplain to create additional lots a FEMA map amendment must be approved prior to getting Final Plat approval. Bunch: Matt with Engineering? Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 17 Casey: I just wanted to remind Mr. Milholland that the existing concrete channel will need to be flumed along the west side down to the detention pond as we said before. Also, I think we mentioned in Plat Review that we have got a 25' utility easement and building setback along the south end of the property, we would like 10' of that exclusive for sewer. You don't need to widen the easement, just reserve that 10' for sewer because this will be the route for sewer after the new waste water plant gets hooked on. Bunch: Where is that again? Casey: It would be all along the south. Milholland: I think it is my client's opinion at this time that those are for outfall lines and are negotiated for purchase. Although, I don't think, I can't say for certain that he would object to leaving it like we have got it and putting that 10' in that as long as the other utility companies don't ask for more. If they come back and ask for more at the Final Plat then he feels like he is committing to something that is not normal in a subdivision since it is an outfall line but I will sure let him know. Casey: As you are aware, we need to work with the drainage structure on this side to keep it in that 50' and not disturb the city property. That is all I have. Bunch: Keith with Sidewalks? Shreve: On what I believe is Van Knight Drive you need to show the sidewalk around that cul-de-sac. In your table with street names and sidewalk widths you have got a note here that says the developer is willing to dedicate 50' of right of way along Tiger Eye and build sidewalks on both sides. You are showing sidewalks on both sides of the streets so if we are going to do that I would like to go ahead and correct the information in the box and just show what is actually going to be dedicated and constructed rather than showing a 40' right of way with a note that it will be 50'. Milholland: We did that on purpose. The reason is that the city doesn't require over 40' and we don't want anyone on the Planning Commission or anyone else to get the idea that he is willing to build a wider street. Shreve: Right. You can show the 50' right of way and show the 24' street width. It is confusing to me. Conklin: I don't think we should leave the note Mel, that 50' right of way needs to say 50', it doesn't need to say 40'. If it is 50' it needs to say it. Please show 50' in the table and clarify the right of way we are talking about. Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 18 Milholland: It is a residential street. You can't put 50' there and show it in the table. We showed it on the plat and we are going to leave it on the table. Conklin: The table shows right of way. If I put a scale down on this and it dimensions to 50' I would like Tiger Eye to have a 50' right of way labeled there. Shreve: I think you can leave a note that says that this was upgraded to a 50' right of way but it is still classified as a residential street. Milholland: It will be constructed as a residential street, we can do that. Shreve: That way when someone comes in and looks at this table they are going to see a 50' right of way with a 24' wide street that should have a 9' green space and a 4' sidewalk on both sides. Milholland: My reasoning is these right of way widths are what the city requires and we are showing it with a note that we are giving 10' more and even building an extra sidewalk. Conklin- Here is a solution Mel. Put right of way required by Master Street Plan and Right of Way proposed as part of the development. You can add another column in there and you can show 50'. If you are concerned about putting the number 50 in that box, just make a column for street right of way required and street right of way proposed. Will that make everybody happy? Milholland: That will be fine. We just don't want anybody to get a misunderstanding later on and come back and say you have everything but a local street width. Shreve: We appreciate the upgrade. Edwards: Can you also put the names of the streets back on there? Jefcoat: Yes. Hoover: Is Raven being extended too? Edwards: It is on our Master Street Plan right now, we do have a proposal for it to be built. Hoover: Where does it ends? Conklin: It goes to the south to Mount Comfort Road. Hoover: This dotted line is Mount Comfort and that is the future Raven, ok. Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 19 Milholland: It ties onto that existing street. For your information, we already have a water line paralleling that that was planned a long time ago. Hoover: Will somebody tell me what is different about the plans from when this came through the first time? Edwards: Before this road, which they called Crystal Drive, came in all the way across. We had some concerns about cut through traffic and high speed so now it is ended in a cul-de-sac. Hoover: Ok. Bunch: Also, there is a grade school to the west and that was one of the concerns, some traffic calming to slow things down. Hoover: Ok. Bunch: A recreational complex and grade school. I would like to commend you all on that. I know we had some questions about preserving the land on the east side with Wilson Springs and then this trade off of getting some good traffic calming, we appreciate that. Milholland: Hesse: Jefcoat: Bunch: Zaccanti: Milholland: Zaccanti: The Council has approved that 50' right of way. Nothing has changed from the original. They are contributing to the tree fund and mitigating. Actually that part stayed the same. At this time we will take public comment My name is Albert E. Zaccanti and I am retired military and also a farmer. I own the 80 acres that adjoins this subdivision on the south side. He owns from this corner to right there. I want to go on record as being 100% for this project. The only problem I see with it is when Crystal Springs Road gets to Deane Solomon Road. The Deane Solomon Road is substandard. It doesn't meet the standards that it should. It bas two real sharp "S" hooks which would be north of where this Crystal Springs Drive hits Deane Solomon Road. You can't negotiate that road when it is raining if you are traveling over 20 miles per hour. Four years ago my wife rolled a brand new Dodge pickup and totaled it out and put her in the hospital on that curve so I think something should be done there to take care of the traffic that this subdivision will generate that will be traveling that road. There are also no Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 20 sidewalks. The whole Deane Solomon Road is a round type road, those two real sharp curves are bad. I have owned that property for 50 years, when I came back from the Korean War I bought that 50 years ago. Some of those roads haven't been worked on in I would say the last 75 years. I know the road in front of my property which is Salem Road, is a one way road that travels down past the Schlegel's property. They are going to be coming in for a subdivision and their only outlet is Salem Road, which is a one way road. If you meet the school bus you have got to back up or get off the road to let it go by. We have some problems with the roads. The roads within the subdivisions are wonderful but the roads when they get out to the city property or the county property will not handle the traffic that these subdivisions will generate. Bunch: Tim, since none of this subdivision borders Deane Solomon Road is there any requirement at all for contributions for future upgrades to Deane Solomon? Zaccanti: Those to curves are going to have to be taken out. There have been 30 to 40 accidents since I have lived out there. Conklin: There are no plans associated with this development for improvements to Deane Solomon Road. Hoover: Has there been discussion with the city property when that gets developed to do something with Deane Solomon? Conklin: I haven't sat down with McClelland Engineers who are designing Wilson Springs. Hoover: Does all Wilson Springs border on Deane Solomon? Conklin: Yes. Bunch: Where is the city limits? Conklin: The city limits is on the north side of Crystal Springs Drive. Closer to Deane Solomon is the city property that the road is being connected through to the north, see the north arrow on there? Bunch: Ok, so technically that part of Deane Solomon Road is actually a county road rather than a city road? Conklin: No, that is still in the city. Bunch: The part that Mr. Zaccanti was questioning? Conklin: It goes on up, I think that line is north. Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 21 Hoover: Bunch: Bassett: Bunch: Bassett: Bunch: Bassett: Milholland: Bassett: Milholland: Bassett: Milholland: Bassett: Milholland: Casey: It seems to me that that would be with Wilson Springs Development. There is the Schlegel property to the north also. I am Mary Zaccanti Bassett and I lived on this property growing up when mom and daddy bought it 50 years ago. The part that they live on on Salem Road is still a dirt road right in front of them so if you will go up 80 acres it is still a dirt road. The county paved it to the edge of their property on each side and never came across to connect them. They do not have city water or city sewer of course, they still have a well, which is very disturbing to me that the county nor the city have ever looked at that. Their property is zoned A-1, Agriculture at this point. I do want to know about the water and sewer capacity if we should develop that bottom 40 acres, what kind of sewer capacity is there available for us to look at a subdivision? Is the property that you mentioned inside the city limits or is it in the growth area? We are in the growth area. Have you pursued annexation so you could get water and sewer? I have not. All I want to know now is are we connected and would the water and sewer capacity be there for us? When we designed the original Phase I of Crystal we planned all that land that they own with the city's standard policy of a stub out for a 6" or 8" line whichever to the line which you have. What did you do on Phase II? It will be there for your subdivision. Is there enough capacity for that? I guess I'm asking the city for that. To sit here and say I have hydraulic analysis, I don't. Usually though an 8" line is adequate for that. It is adequate for water to the house. Most of those lines are designed for fire protection, which is way more than you need. Those lines are 6" and 8" lines. Would that be for sewer also? Sewer is stubbed out also to the property line. You will have access. We are currently making plans to upgrade this lift station. The capacity right now is pretty full but we are working towards improving that. Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 22 Within a few years we will have the new wastewater plant online and the capacity will not be a problem. Milholland: I think the goal is to have that new plant on line the first of 2005 right? Casey: That is what I have heard too. I don't know if that will actually happen. Milholland: That is two years down the road from now. Conklin: I think the end of 2005, I think it is more like three years. Milholland: It was planned for the first of 2005. I don't want her to think it is 10 or 20 years down the road. Casey: No, it is not that much. We are negotiating contracts at this time. Bassett: The other question that my dad brought up is widening of Deane Solomon Road and I understand by the discussion that that is not in the plans. However, if the Schlegels should go on with developing their 70 some acres that would definitely have to be a consideration for the lot sizes that we are looking at here and if they should go forward with lot sizes that would be at least equal in size or larger, they are still going to have a lot of traffic flow. We are for this subdivision, the lot sizes. I do want to know what the covenants on the property will be, the covenants of the house size, do you know that? Milholland: I have not seen the covenants but my understanding is that the houses will be similar to the ones already built. Bassett: At least 1600 sq.ft. then? Milholland: That is my understanding. Bassett: What about the school capacity? This will generate families on these 101 lots, how are we with the school capacity for the elementary school, do we know that? Milholland: I don't know that. I know when we did Phase I that kind of came up at the Subdivision level that the schools at that time were looking for a site out east of town and I got with my client and I told them about this and so we called up one of the school board members and the principal and superintendent and told them we were developing and we would work with them and they looked at where we were at and said that was actually the center idea point they wanted to be for that area so I am assuming that they planned for long term in that particular area of town since that was the center of where they wanted to be at. Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 23 Conklin: Bassett: Bunch: Bassett: Lastra: Milholland: Lastra: The school district is aware of this subdivision and other developments in that area. They actually started out looking at the school district boundaries and trying to determine if they needed to make adjustments. I read an article in the paper that said they determined that they didn't need to make any adjustments to those boundaries. Michael Gray with the school district now receives the packets that the Planning Commissioners receive with all of the development. The school district is aware of everything that is in our process that could impact the school district. We just started doing that within the last two or three months. He should have on his desk the plat of Crystal Springs and every other development coming through. It was important to them also for future planning of schools. We are in favor of this subdivision. Any less lot size we would not be in favor of. As far as this subdivision is concerned though, we are in favor of. As you get up the hill of my dad's property there are large homes, dad's home is almost 5,000 sq.ft. and all around us are similar homes, 5,500 sq.ft. to the west next to him. The people that bought the property across the street from him are also going to put a 6,000 sq.ft. home. Wheelers have the same, Perry Butcher who lives to the east also has a large home. Any less size lots we would definitely be opposed to. As long as the traffic generated from Deane Solomon meets the city's specifications and certainly the residents are here that represent Crystal Springs and that would be our other concern that the traffic flow through them would be good too. I am sure that they are going to talk about that. Thank you. Mary, were all your questions answered the best that they could be? They were, thank you. In the future we would like to develop the bottom that would adjoin this, 20 or 40 acres. We aren't in the works of doing that now but our plan would be at least this size lot and larger as you go up the hill. Ours would not be any less of course. It would be at least 'h acre to acre lots as you go up dad's property. There would be larger footprints as you go up if we should develop the whole 80, we are not sure of course. My name is Shay Lastra. We just wanted to thank everybody for working so hard with the people in Phase I. They have done an amazing job of revamping a lot of ideas. It is a whole new world out there for me because I remember having to deal with the city when it wasn't quite this proactive on the whole thing. I am just really tickled about it and I think a lot of people are. I just wanted to check on a couple of things. Will our covenants for Crystal Springs Phase I carry over to Crystal Springs Phase III? It is my understanding that they will be amended. If we were to have an architectural committee then it would preside over that phase? Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 24 Milholland: That I can't speak to, you will have to talk to Greg. Lastra: We would be concerned obviously with having a large number of 1600 sq.ft. homes. In our present subdivision the 1600 sq.ft. homes have had a tendency to turn to rentals and the upkeep in that area has been less than satisfactory. We have houses that have had broken out windows that had to be replaced and that type of thing, not mowing front lawns, etc. We are trying to maintain quality in that area. That would be great if we could do that. That would be something that our neighborhood would definitely be pursuing. Milholland: You all have a home owner's association? Lastra: Yes, we have a very, very strong home owner's association fortunately. I am sure that that will be a real consideration. We certainly hope that there will be very few 1600 sq.ft. homes and that it will quickly graduate to 1700 and above because when we were speaking to Greg he had assured us that there would be a lot larger homes percentage higher than 1600. Milholland: The cost of the lots are a lot higher than what you paid. Lastra: That is good. This will be something that I am trying to say, our subdivision will definitely be selective. I have another question about the drainage that is on the back of Pyrite Drive, which happens to be where I live on Pyrite. Pyrite will be abutting the new phase. Milholland: You live in the last subdivision that little cul-de-sac to the south? Lastra: The last street to the east in Phase I. Casey: They are going to be required to extend the concrete channel there to the south. Currently there is a portion of concrete and then a grass line. They are going to extend the concrete on down to the south. Lastra: My question was going to be who is responsible for maintenance of that creek? I know it is on my property but it was my understanding that that is an easement and I didn't know who was responsible for maintaining that and will it be affected with additional development? Milholland: You are actually north of Crystal Springs Drive in Phase I. The ditch you are talking about backs up to this on the south border. Lastra: Right. Fortunately we have had a wonderful neighbor up to this point that has really maintained this area. When trees have come down he has been out there. We have all worked together to keep that creek pretty decent but I don't know if additional runoff would create an additional problem with the amount of drainage Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 25 going into that creek. I would highly recommend that you folks get an easement of some sort to be able to access that creek and provide an easement for maintenance. We have fenced in property so there is not an access to that creek other than going directly into the creek. Milholland: I think you could access it, you are upstream from this subdivision. This subdivision doesn't even pass down here. You can access that creek from Crystal Drive and also the north street of Phase I. Lastra: That is correct. At this point there wouldn't be a problem if you go into the stream but you couldn't access to the side of it, you would have to go into the stream. I just think that an easement would be ideal. Obviously, if these folks plan on developing later it would just be a proactive way of having some kind of a buffer along that stream. That is the end of my commentary thank you very much. Bunch: Is this one of the property owner association drainage deals? Casey: Currently we make it the responsibility of the property owners. I am not sure how the previous phases were handled. Milholland: It was dedicated to the city at that time, that was 10 years ago or something before the responsibility stuff came across. Bunch: So some of it is actually city's responsibility and then some of it is property owner's association? Milholland: It is changing. They are trying now to make that public drainage ditch, the drainage water from 100 different people in the front coming across your property your responsibility. At the time Phase I was developed and filed that wasn't the case. It was a public drainage ditch dedication which is whatever the policy was at that time which should still be in force today. Any new development may have something different. I think they are doing a pretty good job of keeping it up. Lastra: I am concerned with additional development creating additional drainage issues with that. Casey: The additional runoff for this development shouldn't. Lastra: Not this development, it would be future. It would be the development abutting directly where that creek is at this point. Jefcoat: I can tell you the drainage structure, the ditch that we are talking about was designed for development capacity which would include the properties upstream so the factor of the drainage was considered before development of the ditch so Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 26 the ditch was designed to carry this capacity. It is designed to carry capacity when it is developed. Conklin: Matt, why don't you go over the storm water ordinance? Casey: Any future development, this was an exception. Any additional development to the north of this detention will be required. They will have to build a detention pond to hold the water to match what is actually running off there now so the quantities should not increase. Lastra: That is good news. Casey: This being an old project has come through and had approvals before they have actually constructed offsite drainage improvements for this site and that is the reason detention is not being required on this one. It is an old project that has been approved and is coming back through but it was originally approved prior to our detention policy. If they choose to develop their 80 acres they will be required to put detention in and hold that back to protect the people downstream. Bunch: Tim, did you have any additional comment on that? Conklin: I just wanted Matt to explain the storm water ordinance a little. Bemis My name is Jim Bemis. I just wanted to echo the comments about the Deane Solomon Road and the fact that beyond those S curves you have got two dead man curves where Deane Solomon ends on Hwy. 112. It is the most mysterious turn I ever made in my life and I'm sure you have all taken it. On the south end of that street, which has absolutely no control over, you have another curve going to 1-540. I don't know how the city handles it, I know it is not your job but it is somebody's job to see that that road is corrected. You have got the Audubon Society looking at ten acres of that as the road goes through as preserved, I don't know how that has to do with what you do in terms of Planning, and you have new jobs coming in theoretically on the 70 acres of high tech development that is going in. All of that could feed out onto Deane Solomon at some point. There is another road in there, Tech Drive or something like that, that comes out onto Raven Road at one time, not Moore Road but the one on up, I don't remember the name of it. In any event, you are going to have not only this traffic that you are talking about. I just hope that somebody has taken a longer look at what is going to happen up on these roads. You are just going to have an incredible increase there, there is no way to handle the pedestrian traffic now, imagine what it would be if you did have a park there or what you are going to have with the kind of development that they are talking about. We are not just talking about this one strip, I just hope somebody gets to thinking about what is going to happen on Deane Solomon. Thank you. Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 27 Conklin: Bunch: MOTION: Hoover: Ostner: Bunch: Bassett: Bunch: Bassett: Bunch: Chairman Bunch, on a larger scale, the City of Fayetteville has contracted with a consultant to do a transportation study for the City of Fayetteville and they are taking a look at the bigger picture. With regard to development on a case by case basis it is something that the staff does look at and we can certainly talk to the City Engineer and Public Works Director and get more information by Planning Commission with regard to Deane Solomon Road. I would think on Salem too since this is now going to be a connection between Salem and Deane Solomon. Is there any additional public comment? I will bring it back to the Committee at this time for additional questions, comments, or motions. I am going to make a motion to forward to the full Planning Commission PPL 02- 15.10 subject to all of the discussion we have had today. I will second. I will concur. I would also like to thank the people in the audience who have come in today and shared your concerns with us. This is very important because we are looking basically at a two dimensional piece of paper and it really helps to have the additional input of the people who live in the area and know the problems. The property values have gone up so much since the first subdivision went in. This property is valuable and my parents' property is valuable, their properties have appreciated and we want to be good neighbors and do the right thing when we develop maybe five years from now or something. We certainly want to work closely with Crystal Springs Subdivision as it exists as well as this one. We also have a lot of concerns about the Schlegel's property. When it comes up again we will get into that. We are working very closely with Crystal Springs I. I think that will reflect in the property values and enhance the property values. To me the main thing is to have it livable for all concerned and in an area like this where you have an urban lifestyle encroached by a rural lifestyle it does take a lot of consideration and it needs a lot of input to be able to handle these kinds of problems. I might add that we still farm that 80 acres, we still have cattle and horses on it so it is not residential at this point. We appreciate you listening. Sara, is there anything additional? Subdivision Committee January 2, 2003 Page 28 Edwards: No, that is all that we have. Bunch: We are adjourned.