Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-13 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, March 13, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSP 03-8.00 & 9.00: Lot Split (Stratton, pp 557) Page 3 LSP 03-24.00, 25.00 & 28.00: Lot Split (Lowes Home Center, pp 557/596) Page 5 LSD 03-9.00: (Walgreens, pp 523) Page 8 PPL 03-6.00: Preliminary Plat (Summerbrook Estates, pp 648) Page 19 PPL 03-7.00: Preliminary Plat (Bridgewater Estates, pp 219) Page 23 PPL 03-1.00: Preliminary Plat (Persimmon Place, pp 438) Page 34 LSP 03-20.00 & 22.00: Lot Split (Foster, pp 60) Page 30 R-PZD 03-1.00: Planned Zoning District (Jackson Place, pp 255) Page 45 ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Forwarded to Planning Commission Forwarded to Planning Commission Forwarded to Planning Commission Forwarded to Planning Commission Approved Forwarded to Planning Commission Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT Kim Hesse Rebecca Turner Sara Edwards Matt Casey Renee Thomas Tim Conklin MEMBERSABSENT STAFF ABSENT Fire Department Solid Waste Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 3 LSP 03-8.00 & 9.00: Lot Split (Stratton, pp 557) was submitted by McNaughton Realtors on behalf of Ron Stratton for property located at1295 S. Dinsmore Trail. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R -2 -Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 9.77 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 4.63 acres, 1.29 acres, and 2.47 acres. Ward: Welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting. Today is Thursday, March 13, 2003. We have eight items on our agenda this morning. It should be a fairly long meeting so I would like to keep things moving right along. The first item on our agenda this morning is LSP 03-8.00 and 9.00 submitted by McNaughton Realtors on behalf of Ron Stratton for property located at 295 S. Dinsmore Trail. The property is zoned R-1, C-2, and R-2 and contains approximately 9.77 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 4.45 acres, 1.98 acres, and 2.25 acres. Sara? Edwards: Right now this property is separated by Dinsmore Trail so we wanted to go ahead and separate this parcel with those tracts as well as a third parcel which has frontage on 6th Street. That is tract C and it is currently the site for Club Millenium as the parking lot. Right now there is a single-family home and a pool house on tract A and a single-family home on tract B. Surrounding zoning north and east is R-1, west and south is R-2 and southwest is C-2. Water and sewer are available to both of these tracts. We are getting 70 of right of way dedicated for Dinsmore Trail and 55' from centerline for 6th Street. We are recommending approval at this level subject to one amendment and that is that the plat needs to reflect the correct zoning. It indicates the zoning to the west and south is R-1 and that needs to be R-2 and R -O. Ward: Ok, so right now what we are going to look at is tract C which is 2.25 acres will be C-2. Tract B, the 1.98 acres will be R-2? Edwards: It is actually R-1 but the adjacent zoning is incorrect. The west, which they are showing R-1, which is Magnolia Crossing, is actually all zoned R-2. Ward: Ok. Tract A is the part with the bigger home up there that is R-1. Edwards: Yes. Ward: Matt, do you have any concerns with this particular lot split? Casey: No Sir. Sidewalks of course aren't required for lot splits and we worked with them to adjust the property lines to get water and sewer frontage for each lot so everything is fine. Ward: Is there any park fee on this particular lot split? Edwards: No, they all have existing homes on them so there will not be park fees assessed. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 4 Ward: At this time I will open it up to the public, is there any public comment on this particular lot split? Is the applicant here? Stratton: Yes. Ward: Do you have any kind of presentation that you would like to make as far as this lot split? Please give us the benefit of your name first. Stratton: I am Ron Stratton. I just want it to be known that I have nothing to do with Wild On Club and I just own the property and I'm splitting it up so I can sell my rental house. My house is the 4.45 acres. Ward: That is your residence now? Stratton: Yes. Ward: Are there any other questions or concerns from the Committee? Bunch: A question about the sewer. Are these on sewer? Stratton: Yes Sir. Bunch: Also you are showing 25' along Dinsmore Trail on all three tracts, is that a building setback or is that a utility easement? Edwards: It is actually both. Bunch: You need to show that. That is all I have. Hoover: I don't have anything. I will make a motion that we approve LSP 03-8.00 and 9.00 subject to staff comments. Ward: Is there a second? Bunch: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thank you Mr. Stratton. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 5 LSP 03-24.00, 25.00 & 28.00: Lot Split (Lowes Home Center, pp 557/596) was submitted by Initial Point Surveying, Inc. on behalf of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. for property located at the southwest comer of Highway 62 and Finger Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, R-2, Medium Density Residential, R -O, Residential Office, and R-1, Low Density Residential containing approximately 78.438 acres. The request is to split into four tracts of 13.619 acres, 7.354 acres , 53.555 acres and 3.910 acres. Ward: The next item on the agenda this morning is LSP 03-24.00, 25.00, and 28.00 for Lowes Home Center submitted by Initial Point Surveying, Inc. on behalf of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. for property located at the southwest corner of Highway 62 and Finger Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, R-2, Medium Density Residential, R -O, Residential Office, and R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 78.438 acres. The request is to split into four tracts of 13.619 acres, 7.354 acres, 53.555 acres and 3.910 acres. Sara, can you talk to us about this lot split? Edwards: Lot one and two are currently working on a Commercial PZD in which Lowes will be located on lot one. Lot three will be developed later. Previously there was a split for the Superior Bank site which is at the corner of Finger Road and Hwy. 62. We are recommending approval subject to some changes. That is that lot four be incorporated into lot three. Lot four is a tree preservation easement that we are going to go ahead and adjust back into lot three so that later we can decide how to better allocate that land. We are requesting that 6th Street right of way be dedicated by Warranty Deed, a dedication block added to the plat and that County approval is required prior to filing. There are parks fees due in the amount of $555 for one additional lot that is zoned R-2. Ward: Ok, so you are going to take lot four and make it all part of lot three? Edwards: Right. Ward: Matt, are there any engineering concerns? Casey: At the time of development of each of these lots the sidewalks, water, and sewer will be extended to serve the development. We don't want to require it at this stage because we don't know the requirements of each of the developments. We will let that come through with development. Ward: We have a Park fee because one of these lots is residential is that right? Turner: Yes. Ward: How much is that fee? Turner: $555. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 6 Ward: That would be lot three? Edwards: Ward: Millian: I believe it is part of lot one that the rear part is zoned R-2. Ok. Is the applicant here? My name is Mike Millian, I am with Initial Point Surveying. I don't really have much to add to staff's comments but I will try to answer any questions anybody might have. Ward: Do you think as an applicant you have any problems with lot four being incorporated into lot 3 now? Millian: No. Ward: That is going to turn out to be a very unusual looking lot. Millian: It is going to be very odd shaped but there is no problem with that. Ward: Ok, thank you. Is there any public comment on this particular lot split? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to our Committee. Bunch: At the time of development, is that when easements will also be assigned? It doesn't look like there are any utility easements on here. Casey: We will be requiring the easements for water and sewer and also the utilities through our Plat Review process. Bunch: I guess wetland issues will be brought up at the time of development also? Casey: Yes Sir. They are working on plans for that now. It is in the process. Ward: Sara, on this County approval is required prior to filing, is that because there is some land that is not in the city? Edwards: Right. Ward: What is the dedication block? Edwards: It is for easements or right of way that have been requested that is not dedicated by Warranty Deed, it gets that dedication by this plat. Ward: Ok. Are there any other questions or motions? Bunch: I move that we approve LSP 03-24.00, 25.00 and 28.00 reflecting that lot four is incorporated into lot 3 and subject to staff conditions. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 7 Ward: Do I have a second? Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 8 LSD 03-9.00: (Walgreens, pp 523) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BENCOR for property located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and South School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.0 acres with a 14,560 sq.ft. building proposed. Ward: The third item on the agenda this morning is LSD 03-9.00 for Walgreens submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BENCOR for property located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and South School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, and contains approximately 2.0 acres with a 14,560 sq.ft. building proposed. I will be recusing from this particular issue since I am involved in this one. I will either turn it over to you and let you chair or I will be happy to chair. This has to go onto the Planning Commission anyway. Hoover: You can chair. Ward: How would you like me to handle that Sara? Edwards: I think that you can chair. Ward: Sara, will you go ahead and tell us about this particular Large Scale Development? Edwards: We have a Walgreen's store prophosed with 70 parking spaces. It actually has four street frontages which is 5th, 6t , Locust, and School. An alley currently runs through the site which needs to be vacated along with this development. There are currently some vacant buildings on this site. Those will be removed. There is C-2 zoning on three sides and R-2 to the east. This property is across the street from the Mill District as well. Water and sewer are available. Street improvements are proposed to include the widening of 5th and Locust which are classified as local streets. 6th Street is a historic collector with a 25' from centerline dedication required. Improvements have already been made to 6th and School is a principal arterial which requires 55' from centerline dedication and no improvements on that one. For tree preservation, right now there is 4.5% of the site covered in trees. They are proposing 0% to be preserved with mitigation of 7 trees planted on site. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission subject to some conditions. The first is that we are asking for color elevations of the proposed freestanding sign on site. 6th Street should be dimensioned from centerline with the right of way dedication of 25' which is the requirement for a historic collector. That shouldn't present any problems as far as site design. All utility equipment shall be screened. Approval shall be subject to the approval of the associated alley vacation which runs north and south through the center of the project. Planning Commission determination of offsite improvements. We are recommending that 5th and Locust be widened to 14' from centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drainage. On the landscape plan the required trees along 5th Street shall be hardwood shade trees instead of ornamental Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 9 evergreen trees. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Ward: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Bates: I am Geoff Bates with Keystone Engineering. Ward: Go ahead and come up here. Bates: These are the proposed sign elevations. Is the entrance a problem anymore? Edwards: We had asked them to look at relocating their entrance to 5th Street which they did not feel would be good for them so I think it will be ok. Bates: Ward: Bates: Casey: Ward: Casey: Ward: I think our only issue is Walgreens wants a 10' tall monument sign. I thought it was 6' but it is 10'. That is a little bit more than what is allowed. Ok. We will address each of these issues as we go through them as far as signs and commercial design standards. I know that the water department has an old, old water main running along Locust and Walgreens is willing to cost share on replacing that line if the city is willing to work with them some on that sign. Matt with Engineering? As Geoff said, we are looking at a cost share for the replacement of the water line along Locust. Dave Jurgens with the Water and Sewer Division contacted me about this line and apparently he is planning on doing that sometime this year or the next anyway so from 6th Street to Archibald Yell and he didn't want to come in here after the fact and tear up their new pavement so he contacted me and wanted me to visit with them about using their contractor to do this work and the city pays for the work. What kind of money are you talking about? We haven't got that far yet. On the vacation for the alley, I guess this is for Sara. What has to be done to get an alley vacated? Edwards: We need to receive an application for that. All of the utilities need to sign off on that. I don't foresee any problems with that. Bates: I have already done all of that. Edwards: Ok. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 10 Bates: It is already turned in, all the utilities signed off on it and it is in the process. Ward: Does that have to go to City Council? Edwards: Yes. It will go to Planning Commission along with this item and then forward it to City Council. Ward: Great, thanks. Matt, are there any other comments? Casey: As Sara stated, we are requesting improvements to Locust and 5th Street 14' from centerline with associated sidewalks and storm drainage. Ward: How wide will the sidewalks be? Casey: It will be 6'. Ward: How much greenspace? Casey: It varies. We are having to work with them along Locust because of right of way issues and the location of the street. If we ended up making the street more narrow we could get more greenspace so we are talking about getting the sidewalk up against the curb in this area to keep the street the current width. Bates: Ward: Hesse: Bates: Hesse: Ward: Hesse: Right. The street is not centered in the right of way. It is pushed closer to the proposed store so if we went 15' from the centerline it would actually make the street narrower. In order to keep the street the same width we had to eat up some of that greenspace but there is a 15' landscape area all the way around it on all four sides. Kim, why don't you talk to us a little bit about the landscaping? I just want to confirm what you are talking about. On the landscape plan you show some Ash on 5th but those are mitigation trees. Mitigation can't count as landscaping. These are very thin junipers so what I need is just a different species of trees from you. Just the mitigated trees or all of them? No, just these junipers. These can stay where they are at you just need to put redbuds and a few other species to go in there. Will you be able to work with Geoff to figure out which species would be best? Yes. I am working with their architects out of Tulsa but they are really good. I don't see any problem at all. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 11 Ward: How many trees are we mitigating? Hesse: There is a line along that alley way and there is just a bunch of trees that have kind grown up and are in pretty bad shape. I will provide photos for you at Planning Commission. It is really hard for me to pick out a number of trees and I am not going to try. You can go by and look. Bunch: Kim, on condition number 6 it says the required trees along 5th Street shall be hardwood shade trees. Which ones are the required trees? Are you talking about the mitigation trees or the street trees? Hesse: Those little street trees. They show groupings of three junipers along 5th and that won't work. Those won't really produce a lot of shade and that is what we are looking for. Ward: Thanks Kim. I think Matt did we cover sidewalks all the way around? Casey: Yes. Ward: At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there any public comment on this particular item for a Walgreens at the corner of 6`h Street and 71B? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to our committee. Some things I guess we need to kind of go over with you Geoff is some things that we will definitely have to have at Planning Commission. We will need a materials board of all the materials that you are going to use on the building, the type of brick, the color of each item, roofs and so on. Bates: The architect is going to be here for that meeting and he is going to bring that stuff with him. Hoover: When will we have elevations of the building? Edwards: You should have those. Ward: We didn't get elevations in our packet so we had nothing to look at before the meeting. Bates: It looks just like the other two Walgreens. Ward: It will be very important that someone can describe it to us, even though it is not the first one in town that we know exactly how it is going to be built, what materials are going to be used and colors so that it meets our commercial design standards. I think the next thing we need to talk about is the sign. This is a monument sign that we are discussing and this is located right on the corner in the front of the building? Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 12 Bates: Ward: Bates: Ward: Edwards: Ward: Edwards: Ward: Edwards: Yes. It is right in the front of the building right at the corner. They wanted a pole sign but city staff really didn't want one and we tried to work with them but they want a little bit larger than what is required monument sign. I guess the only problem is it would be similar to the same monument sign that was approved for the Walgreens on Joyce. The problem is I think it had to be set back 40' or something and we don't have 40' to set that back from the right of way. We don't have the room, it would be in the drainage or the parking lot so it is more of a setback issue than anything. How far back is that line going to sit? I believe it is 10' off the right of way right now. Sara, how much bigger is this sign right now than what would be allowed? The maximum is 75 sq.ft. and I am guessing that this is a little over 90 sq.ft. Does that have to go to the Board of Sign Appeals? Yes, it will have to go to the Board of Sign Appeals. Even if we say ok it still has to be approved there. It is really not our decision. You do need to determine compliance with commercial design standards and that there are not large, out of scale flashy colors. The Board of Sign Appeals are the ones that can grant a variance with regard to size and setback. Ward: This is not going to be a flashy sign or anything like that is it? Bates: It has a reader board but it just stays on it doesn't rotate or flash. They change it once a day or whatever is required. Ward: Sara, how do you want us to handle that part with a recommendation or non - recommendation of this monument sign? Edwards: Really I would like to look at it more closely also with regard to visibility. I would like you to let staff take a look at it and make a recommendation. I would be happy to take your feelings if you think it is too large or if it is ok. Ward: I know historically in the past any redevelopment in the south part of Fayetteville we have gone way beyond what we have allowed in other parts of Fayetteville just to get things done. This will be a very, very important corner of redevelopment for that whole part of town. We don't want to do something that is going to create an unusual situation that we have to do things again like this on other property. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 13 Hoover: Excuse me Lee, may I ask a question? Ward: Yes Ma'am. Hoover: I agreed that you could chair but I don't think you can make comments. No offense, it just hit me. Ward: Ok, well go ahead Ms. Hoover. Hoover: Go ahead Don. Bunch: One of the reasons on Joyce Street that we granted some differences on the sign I think is because of visibility for people coming from the north and also because the street structure. This is in a highly visible place at a major intersection. Sara, is there anyway to put their reader board on the side of the building, is that permitted? Edwards: Yes. Bates: I am sure that they wouldn't want to do that. Bunch: Is there another location that they could place the reader board because being as close to that busy intersection with a 10' tall sign it looks like it is going to create some possible sight line problems. Edwards: We can check that. Bunch: I don't think that the visibility as far as seeing the sign relative to announcing that the business is there, I don't think that that is going to be a problem. The problem looks more like a safety issue. Casey: The intersection is signalized. Bates: If you are turning to the right you are going to be looking back that way so the sign is not really going to hinder you in looking at traffic. Hoover: Do we usually get a recommendation from someone on staff about sight lines and sight distances? Edwards: Yes, it is Perry Franklin. Hoover: Has he looked at it yet? Edwards: I just got this so no. Hoover: Ok. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 14 Bates: We may be able to slide it back a little bit more than 10' off the right of way to get a little more visibility if there is a line of sight problem or sight distance problem. There is a little bit of room there to work with. Hoover: Don, do you have more sign questions? I have some other questions. Bunch: Go ahead. Hoover: On the street width, I thought that the narrowest street was only 24'. Bates: We only have to improve half of it, 14'. Hoover: Right but I am asking staff why are we going for 28' if we could do 24' first of all. Casey: 24' is a residential street. The classification for that is less than 300 vehicles per day and this is in a Commercial area. Hoover: What is Locust considered? Edwards: A local. Hoover: It is not residential and neither is 511? Casey: They are both local. Hoover: Ok, so our narrowest would be 28'. I am unclear about the sidewalk here. I saw on the landscape plan that the sidewalk continues on 6th Street but on this plan is that correct? Bates: This is an existing sidewalk and it is fairly new so we are just going to tie onto it and all of this sidewalk will be new sidewalk but this is still new so there is really no reason for us to tear it all out. Hoover: Is this coming out? Bates: That is existing sidewalk but it is in bad shape so we are removing it. Hoover: So you will come down to where? Bates: We will tie that on to this existing right in here. Hoover: Ok. I didn't understand, there is no room for any greenspace along the curb edge right here? Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 15 Bates: That is the way it is now. They recently rebuilt that. Casey: When we looked at acquiring the additional greenspace and relocation of the sidewalk it dipped into some of the major drainage in that area. There is a large culvert that goes under 6th Street that goes under this property. Bates: There is actually only 15' of greenspace required but we have actually allowed for a lot more greenspace up here. Hoover: It is just usually since it is a rather busy street we find it dangerous to be walking along the curb. I guess the same thing is happening on Locust, we can't move the sidewalk back and get any greenspace there? Bates: Not and meet the other requirements of a 15' greenspace here. It would narrow the street down because the street is not centered in the right of way. Hoover: Ok. Let me just go through all of my issues. Since this building is going to be viewed on all sides by a street I don't consider these two elevations to have enough articulation to meet our commercial design guidelines. Bates: On these they are not going to do a wood fence, they are going to do a brick type to make it look more presentable. Hoover: Will they be bringing that? Bates: Yes. Hoover: Still, if this is just brick there is still not enough articulation in my opinion to meet what we have been approving and asking for. I don't think that that meets what we have been asking other developers to do which would be an addition of pilasters or windows or awnings or something like that. Bates: Would that not be more of a hardship on them because they are having to do so much already since it is surrounded by four streets? They are going to help improve this water line that they don't have to do and that is going to cost them about $20,000 probably. Hoover: Well what will happen then if we approve this one then the next person is going to come along and say "Well you approved that for commercial design guidelines so why can't we have ours?" Bates: Are we not meeting the commercial design guidelines? Hoover: I am saying in my opinion it does not. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 16 Bunch: This does have street frontage on all four sides I tend to concur with Sharon on these two elevations. Particularly the one on the north because I think that is going to be more visible for the traffic coming down Archibald Yale and S. School. I know if there was any place to let it slide it would be on the east elevation but I think the north is definitely nowhere close. If there was going to be any lead way granted I would lean towards granting it on the Locust Street side. Even with the additional landscaping on 5th Street they still need to dress up the north elevation considerably. Ward: You think the north and south should look a lot more alike, is that what you are saying? Hoover: Yes. On the access here, is this meeting what we have been allowing as far as distance from the intersection? Bates: That is an existing drive also. Edwards: Our required distance from the intersection is 40' from driveway if it is a new street it is 150' but it is 40'. The other importance is truck delivery through the intersection but I think the one on 6`h Street would meet the 40' requirement. Hoover: Edwards: Hoover: Edwards: Hoover: Edwards: And on School also? Right. You are saying that this is 40' from here also from this intersection and in all directions? Yes. There is not a different distance when you have a traffic signal, it is still 40'? Not that I'm aware of. I can double check that before Planning Commission though. Bates: This is the exact sign that they want, it is the same, they just switched the reader board. Hoover: I don't have anymore comments. I will have to go by the site and see if I might have some new ones after I look at the site carefully. Ward: I think we need to kind of come to a consensus about what you want to do about the monument sign. I think basically they need a recommendation for the Board of Adjustment what we are planning on agreeing to. Hoover: What is the question? Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 17 Ward: Bates: Edwards: Bates: Edwards: Basically the 90 sq.ft. and normally it is a 75 sq.ft. monument sign. If we moved it back another 5' or 10' would it meet requirements then because it is only 90 sq.ft. With the height it might but the square footage still with a freestanding sign the maximum allowed is 75 sq.ft. so I don't think you can meet the ordinance. So we are trying to get approval for more square footage? Yes. There is a 10' setback for a monument signs that don't exceed 6' in height, with the 10' that exceeds the monument sign standard. Bates: We can move it back a little bit to meet the height so our main issue is the square footage. Hoover: Can you down the square footage so that it would be back far enough? Edwards: Probably not. The square footage is a 40' setback with a 75 sq.ft. freestanding sign. We really don't go beyond 75 sq.ft. even with the additional setback. On the other Walgreens that is what we did with the 40' setback. I think theirs was 112 sq.ft. or something like that, I don't remember, but I think that is how we handled that. Again, this is a different site with different issues. Hoover: My reaction is that it needs to be 75 sq.ft. unless it is able to move back the correct distance and subject to its location being approved by Perry Franklin as far as sight distances whichever way it goes. Ward: Ok. I think we need a recommendation from Perry Franklin and see what he thinks about it as far as sight distances. I don't think we need anything on commercial design standards. I think that the applicant understands that the north elevation is going to need some work. We are kind of at a disadvantage since we are just now seeing it for the first time. Are there any other comments? Bunch: I just want to comment the utilization of this north space generates the reason for its appearance, is there any way that that can be swapped with the east elevation? In other words, put the drive-thru canopy on the north side and then your dumpsters and utilities and that sort of thing on the east side? Bates: l can ask but it all has to do with all the interior layout. Bunch: I just wondered if Walgreens had some different site plans. They probably have standard plans. Bates: It is the same as Wal-Mart. They put the same thing everywhere. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 18 Bunch: They usually have variations that they use. That looks like that would make a big difference in the ability to dress up the north elevation. Just swap with the east elevation. Ward: Sara, what is the property to the north zoned? Edwards: C-2. Ward: What is it to the east? Edwards: R-2, there are some apartments right across the street. Ward: Are there any other questions, concerns or motions? Hoover: I will make a motion that we forward this to the full Planning Commission, LSD 03-9.00 subject to all the comments. Ward: Ok, do I have a second? Bunch: I will second. Ward: Thank you. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 19 PPL 03-6.00: Preliminary Plat (Summerbrook Estates, pp 648) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of NLC, Inc. for property located on Hunt Lane south of Hwy 16 East. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 28.35 acres with 12 lots proposed. Ward: The next item on the agenda is PPL 03-6.00 for Summerbrook Estates submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of NLC, Inc. for property located on Hunt Lane south of Hwy 16 East. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 28.35 acres with 12 lots proposed. Sara? Edwards: Yes. This is a 12 lot subdivision in the Planning Area. They propose to construct a public street, Summerbrook Lane and water line extension. They will be utilizing individual sewage treatment systems. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Preliminary Plats do have to have full Planning Commission approval. Conditions to address are: 1) Gates shall be prohibited on Summerbrook Place. 2) County Approval must be obtained prior to construction. 3) Final Plat approval shall be obtained prior to filing the Final Plat. We require that because the city does not do inspections with regard to the street in the county. 4) An 8" waterline shall be extended to serve this subdivision. Everything else is standard. Ward: Ok. Matt, do you have any Engineering concerns with this Preliminary Plat? Casey: Ward: Casey: Ward: Casey: Ward: Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Casey: No Sir. As Sara said, the developer is going to be required to extend an 8" water main to serve this development. The existing 3" waterline is not acceptable for the development. They will be extending that from the intersection of Hunt Lane to the north and the interior lines. How far is sewer from this? Itis not available in this area. This is outside the city limits. Is there sewer along Hunt Lane? I believe there is some. This is a couple of miles? I would say % to a mile. There is an existing line out there right now right? There should be, yes. What we would like to do is just parallel that about 5' from it. I assume that is acceptable. Yes. Milholland: I will get with Ed or someone before that. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 20 Ward: Milholland: Ward: Dockery: Milholland: Dockery: Milholland: Dockery: Milholland: Ward: Milholland: Dockery: Ward: Dockery: Ward: Bunch: Since this is in the county, what do they have to do on septic tanks to get approval? It says it on the plat. It states that State Health Department requires a sewer ecologist, which in this case we used Bailey. She has already tested these lots. There is a statement on here that the leach lines have to be within 30' of the test pit that is made right now, which we have them right now. If the test pit or if the lines end up being in a different location they have to redo the test. Thanks Mel. Is there any public comment on this particular Preliminary Plat for Summerbrook Estates off of Hunt Lane? I am Johnny Dockery I live immediately north. My question is lot 3 on the septic tank there. When you take all of the easements out of that particular lot it makes it real small. I believe there was a utility easement added to the north side of that and I was just wondering what was going to be in that utility easement. The only thing that I know of will be an electric line. It will be underground. It will be underground? Yes Sir. That is what I'm interested in. All of the utilities will be underground that is added to this. How big is lot 3? It is about an acre and a half. When you take out the utility easement across there for the natural gas high pressure gas lien there you will find that the lot size is very small compared to an acre and a half. I see what you are talking about. I am sure they will have to design how the house is and how the septic system is laid out with all of that in mind to make it work. Does that take care of your question? I would like to know what meeting that I need to go to to see that this is actually addressed. It has to go to county when it is done here. Sara, is that it? It will have to go to the full Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 21 Ward: Edwards: Dockery: Ward: Milholland: Deming: Milholland: Deming: Ward: Milholland: Ward: Bunch: Edwards: So we will have the full Planning Commission meeting. What day is that Sara? It is March 24a'. I think everything is fine but there are no markers out there to say where the lot lines are. It looks like there is plenty of room to get the septic in but the ground all falls towards me from this. Right. Does this have restrictive covenants? They will have some. They already have them but they are in the process of making sure they meet everything that is said on here. The houses are going to be upscale. For that community it will be larger homes. The cost of the lots are going to demand that. I am Shirley Deming. My mother is Pauline Schiller and her land is to the east and we would like to work with you on the fencing, maintaining the fencing. It has been there since the 1960's and so I know it may have some problems now and then so if you could just meet with us about the fencing. There is an electric fence along there that keeps the cows from getting out that is there that graze there because it is pasture on my mother's side and there are probably some trees that may come down because they have been there a long time so if we could work with you on that just let us know. I am sure my client has no intention of cutting the trees down unless they are dying. We have no interest in tearing the fence out or building a new one but I am sure they would work with you. Just let us know. That is by lot number 10? Right. Why don't you give your telephone number to Mr. Milholland so he can get his clients to contact you. Is there any other public comment on this particular item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the committee. Sara or Matt, what is the minimum lot size for the county? Also, do the city's minimum standards apply to the growth area or just within the city limits? We actually have a separate minimum for the subdivisions that are out in the county which is 10,000 sq.ft. and then we have an acre and a half requirement which is if you are under an acre and a half you have to actually have the Arkansas Department of Health accept that septic system. As far as the county department, I don't know that they have a minimum, I'm not sure. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 22 Ward: Ok. Milholland: This will go to the county Planning Commission the first week in April. Bunch: My concern is because there are at least six lots that are under an acre and a half but the test pits have all been dug, one for each lot so that makes a difference because that was one of my questions with the design of some of the lots. Milholland: They will have to design, even though the test has been done, after the house size. The system is based on the number of bedrooms. They will come out and actually design the septic system for the particular individual homes. Bunch: I share concern particularly on lot 3 with the natural gas pipeline easement and the other utility easements if these are going to be larger homes, as you mentioned earlier Mel, dictated by the size of the lots and that sort of thing. That could be quite a challenge to have a large home on lot 3 with that size of septic field. Milholland: My client is aware of that. When we say larger home we don't mean more bedrooms, we need bigger bedrooms. That is basically what we are talking about, large with dens. We are talking about maybe 2500 to 3000 sq.ft. homes. Ward: Are there any other comments? Hoover: I don't have any. I will move that we forward PPL 03-6.00 to the full Planning Commission. Bunch: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thanks Mel. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 23 PPL 03-7.00: Preliminary Plat (Bridgewater Estates, pp 219) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bridgewater Estates, LLC for property located north of Bridgewater Lane and west of Gulley Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 74.22 acres with 31 lots proposed. Ward: The next item on our agenda this morning is PPL 03-7.00 for Bridgewater Estates submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bridgewater Estates, LLC for property located north of Bridgewater Lane and west of Gulley Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 74.22 acres with 31 lots proposed. Sara? Edwards: The proposal is for a 31 lot subdivision out in the Planning Area. The public roads are regulated by the county and they will do street construction to their standards. Old Wire Road extension is also proposed. Also, the individual sewage systems will be used. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. There are some adjustments to the Master Street Plan being requested with this. It is kind of difficult to explain those. If you look at the map in your packet, Bridgewater Lane currently is planned to the south of this property as a collector street. They are proposing to run it up through their development and not dedicate right of way for Bridgewater Lane to the south. Also, Butterfield Road is to the west of this development and they propose to move that into the development and actually use it as a street and dedicate right of way for that. We are recommending that that be changed. Approval of this needs to be contingent upon the approval of the Master Street Plan amendment which will be heard at the March 24th Planning Commission meeting along with this. Gates shall be prohibited along public streets within this development. County approval is required prior to construction. Ward: Matt, would you go over any engineering concerns on this Preliminary Plat? Casey: This is very similar to the one we just went over. It is outside the city limits, no sewer is available to them. They will be extending the water line through the development to serve each of their lots. Ward: Ok, how big of a water line is that? Casey: It will be an 8". Ward: Ok. Are there any other comments? Casey: No Sir. Bunch: I have a question for Matt. Matt, on the southwest corner where the road comes into this piece of property there doesn't appear to be within this access to cross it, who owns this piece of property right here and is there access granted to it? Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 24 Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and I am the Engineer and representing the owner on this project and that is property owned by another owner, Gerald Jones. Bunch: My question is do we have any sort of documentation on who the owner is and then if it is a separate owner from the developer do we have legal access granted across it for the new road? Jorgensen: That is a dedicated easement coming into the property. Jones: That was dedicated a long time ago. Bunch: It is hard to tell with a 50' or 60' access, itis hard to tell with the contour lines but that is a documented access? Jorgensen: Yes Sir. That is a subdivision to the south that was dedicated quite a while back. Ward: Dave, do you have any presentation or anything that you would like to give us? Jorgensen: No we don't. We are just here to answer questions. Ward: At this time I will go ahead and open it up to the public. Is there anyone from the public that would like to make public comment on this particular Preliminary Plat for Bridgewater Estates? Jones: I am Gerald Jones. One question I would have is whenever you open up Bridgewater are you going to have it to where you could take care of traffic coming out of there? Ward: Sara, why don't you see if you could maybe talk a little bit about the traffic out there. Jones: That is a dead end street up there now. Edwards: The city maintains a policy of connectivity. Obviously connecting Gulley Road with Bridgewater could result in additional traffic flows because we are building a collector that is going to connect that. I don't have a real good feel for how many cars are using Gulley Road right now and how that will work but there is a definite possibility of having some increased traffic out there. Ward: Of course this is fairly low density for the amount of acreage that is going to be used, 31 lots out of 74.22 acres. That is a very, very low density ratio as opposed to what we are used to in the City of Fayetteville itself. Bunch: Once people discover that this connectivity exists and traffic coming from the east on 45 wanted to go north on 265 will cut through. I would do it if I were coming in that way. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 25 Edwards: Bunch: Ekenseair: Ward: Edwards: Ward: Ekenseair: Jorgensen: Gulley: Jones: Gulley: I should also say we are doing some improvements, which was the last item on the agenda, to Old Wire near Crossover so that might also encourage some traffic through there as well so that may head off some of this. This is going to open up a considerable amount of traffic rerouting. June Ekenseair. There is already a lot of cut through traffic coming from the east from the Goshen area cutting through Oakland Zion. That is going to be a traffic jam. With Bridgewater being proposed to be extended to Gulley Road. Accidents right now here on Oakland Zion coming around the curve onto Bridgewater they have the right of way. If you are going on the west end of Bridgewater going east you have to stop for that traffic. I know that sounds crazy. They have a stop sign for Bridgewater on one side of it but I want to know if there is going to be something for the people coming off Oakland Zion to stop and yield to Bridgewater traffic. Let me refer this back to Sara. I am not sure if we can answer it right now. We don't have jurisdiction as far as stop signs in the county. That would really have to be addressed to the county street committee. I think that is a question that needs to be addressed. I have another question. Are there going to be fire hydrants through this subdivision? Yes. My name is Terry Gulley, I know the road well. Most of the cut through traffic there, I don't think you are going to get a whole lot coming off of Gulley Road. People coming from Goshen get hung going through Gulley Road and cutting over to Old Wire which will then give you a straight shot on Joyce or straight on up Old Wire on into Springdale. It is mostly traffic going that way. I don't think most of those people are going to take this direction through because you get over to Old Wire and then you have to shoot back to the north to get to Joyce or go all the way back to Old wire and 265 to go nowhere so I don't think that will affect it. It will be more people that live on Gulley Road going that way than it would be anything else. I would disagree with that because we have already got that. People are coming up that way to get to the school up here rather than staying on Hwy. 45 and coming down to the stop light on Hwy. 265 and then going east. They are going around and then coming in the back way. They are cutting through Oakland Zion. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 26 Jones: Right there at Bridgewater. Gulley: If they would choose to cut through Oakland Zion I think they are going to continue to do that. I don't think people going down Gulley are going to continue to go down Gulley because most of them I think are going to Springdale. Ward: Matt and Sara, we have looked in the past at the eastern bypass, is that any further along than it was five years ago? Edwards: We are doing a transportation study. We have hired a traffic consultant and they are going to look at all of our Master Street Plan and look at the route. Jones: Wasn't that eastern bypass scheduled to go right through that property? Edwards: Yes. Gulley: It was on the back at one time. Ward: Yes Sir. Vickers: I am Leroy Vickers. I live just across the road from this development. My question is I know there is not going to be an awful lot of traffic from this development probably dumping onto Gulley Road but we have a problem out there now with high speed traffic coming out of Goshen and then cutting into Springdale. Early in the morning traffic out there is horrendous and the same thing late in the afternoons. I would like to see some kind of traffic control issue addressed as far as that particular development is concerned to maybe slow the traffic down on Gulley Road. You have got a lot of hidden driveways out there and it can be very, very dangerous. My particular driveway somewhat hidden from up the hill coming out just at the north end of this property. As far as speed limit signs or anything like that out there I know the county posted a 40 mile an hour speed limit but there are no signs on the road. From that standpoint we do have a major problem even with a little increased traffic. Ward: Right. I think I can answer that but there again, I will refer back to our Planning staff as far as what the city can do and not do. Edwards: We can look into it but no matter what results we came up with I don't think we can mandate to the county to impose stop signs, speed limits signs, speed bumps or any other sort of traffic control device. I think that when this item is heard at the county Planning Commission that would be a good place to voice those concerns where they actually have some jurisdiction over those issues. Vickers: One other question. Is there any long term plan for Township to be extended to Oakland Zion Road? Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 27 Ward: Sara? Edwards: I am not that familiar with our Master Street Plan to answer that for you. I can look at the maps that we have in our office. We have a Master Street Plan down in our office if you would like to stop by and take a look at it. Vickers: If the street should be extended into Oakland Zion Road that is going to create even a greater problem as far as traffic concerns. Edwards: Also, we are doing a traffic study with a consultant and they will have public meetings and they would be glad to take any public input on the Master Street Plan issues and we will have to amend it and maybe make it better if you are concerned about that. Rownak: My name is John Rownak. As far as the Township issue, I have looked at the Master Street Plan issue pretty closely in relation to this project. I don't remember an extension there but there has been a very large subdivision put in at the very end of Township and for Township to be extended they would have to wipe out a whole lot of brand new houses. Vickers: It is wide enough to accommodate residential traffic at this point. I would just be very concerned about it if it went on through Oakland Zion and opened that up. You are talking about taking a residential area and opening it up to a lot of traffic flow. Jones: Are there any plans to bring this into the city? Rownak: Ward: Edwards: No. There is too much space between this subdivision and the adjacent city limits. Sara, you might talk to us a little bit about how the city can annex or not annex property that is out in the county. First of all to annex property it has to be contiguous with city limits. As John said, this is not actually touching city limits at this time. It would be quite a while before we could actually reach out there and bring this into the city. Ekenseair: The Bridgewater extension right now as it is will that be changed, will it be made into an asphalt road and widened? Edwards: The city does not choose to have the jurisdiction to require city street improvements out here. We refer to county regulations. Ekenseair: Do they have plans to surface it with asphalt? Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 28 Jorgensen: The plans for surfacing this project will be asphalt. The existing Bridgewater at this time as you know is chip and seal and it may be a combination of asphalt chip and seal. There are no plans to widen the existing Bridgewater. As Sara mentioned, this is in the Planning Area and county requirements at this particular time are not such that they are requesting any widening on Bridgewater. Ekenseair: So the subdivision itself is asphalt? Jorgensen: Yes Ma'am. Ekenseair: Will it have a drainage system? Jorgensen: Yes Ma'am. Ward: Dave, you might talk a little bit about what you are doing as far as detention and so on. Jorgensen: We don't have detention requirements in the county. However, we do have to prepare a drainage report and drainage calculations and plans for drainage and actually follow up with our construction plans. We will be installing culverts and taking care of the drainage at various locations on this project. We will be doing that after we take this to the county for their review. Ekenseair: There i fisting stream out there. Jones: s an ex Is there any danger from septic tank leach fields going into the stream and causing the pollution problem? I know that is on the Lake Fayetteville Watershed. Jorgensen: Sir, there is always that possibility. However, in this particular case the lots are large enough that we feel that we are minimizing that chance. In fact, we had the county sanitarian out yesterday and the people who are doing an analysis on this right here and they have decided that everything looks pretty good except for one lot. I think John, they are going to do some additional testing on that lot. I tried to call them this morning and never did hear back from them. It is pretty good ground for this type of septic systems they determined. Gulley: Just a clarification. That is not in the Lake Fayetteville drainage. That goes into Mud creek which runs south of the mall around the golf course which eventually goes to Clear Creek which goes into the Illinois River. It goes south not to the lake. Ward: Sara, on this number one condition which has to do with changing the Master Street Plan or make an amendment to that is that a City Council final approval? Edwards: Yes it is. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 29 Ward: Are there any other questions or comments? I have been kind of relaxed in how this has happened but we have had a lot of good response here. Is there any other comment from the public before I close it? I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Committee. Bunch: I just want to make a couple of observations here before we get into the meat of it. The way you maintain the access to your common space even though it is not in our jurisdiction, it looks good the way that you have done that. Of course eventually this could be annexed into the city. I am assuming that the ponds and such will be available for kids to go fishing and that sort of thing? Jorgensen: Yes, that is the reason for that. Bunch: This is not affecting your project, it is just an observation. We have had a lot of comment lately about urban sprawl in Fayetteville and there have been some concerns about annexations and this project and the preceding project both are indications there is going to be development associated with the growth of Fayetteville and Springdale and Rogers and that sort of thing that the city limits aren't restricting that. That is just an observation that there has been some comments about whether or not we should annex land into the city to be developed and to me one of the things is when you get it annexed and developed then it is on the city's sewer system where you don't have the concern of the concentration of septic tanks getting into the surface water. That is the only comment I have. Ward: Dave, are there restrictive covenants for this yet? Jorgensen: It is on it's way. Rownak: We have got an initial draft and should probably have those finalized within the next 10 days or so. The minimum square footage on houses is going to be 3,500 sq. ft. Ward: Are there any other comments or motions? Bunch: My other comment was it is good the way you followed the design and layout working with the contours of land to minimize the amount of dirt work and restructuring. That is nice. I move that we forward PPL 03-7.00 to the full Planning Commission with the comments from the Committee and staff's conditions. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thank you all. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 30 LSP 03-20.00 & 22.00: Lot Split (Foster, pp 60) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property owned by B.R. Peoples and located at the southeast corner of Albright Road and Crossover (Hwy 265). The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and R-1, Low Density Residential containing 9.84 acres. The request is to split into four tracts of 3.36 acres, 3.34 acres and 3.34 acres. Ward: The next item on our agenda, I have been asked to do item number seven next. It is LSP 03-20.00 & 22.00. It is submitted also by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property owned by B.R. Peoples and located at the southeast corner of Albright Road and Crossover (Hwy 265). The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and R-1, Low Density Residential containing 9.84 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 3.36 acres, 3.34 acres and 3.34 acres. Edwards: As you remember, this property was recently rezoned to R-1 and R -O. Tract 1 is the R -O piece, tracts two and three are the R-1 pieces. Right of way being dedicated is 25' from centerline for Albright Road. The requirement on Crossover is 55' but it looks like 63' already exists from centerline. Water and sewer extensions are required for each lot. We are recommending that this be approved at this level subject to the water and sewer extension. Ward: Thanks. Matt, are there any conditions or concerns with Engineering? Casey: No Sir. Currently tract 3 has access to the water and sewer and we are requiring the extension to serve this tract 1. My understanding is that tract 2 is going to be a single-family home. Due to the lay of the land here the accessibility to sewer is not possible. They are not on Fayetteville water. They have access to Springdale water along Albright so the extension will not be required to serve tract 2. It is 3.14 acres so with one single-family home septic should be adequate. Normally if the structure is within 300' of accessible sewer then we require a connection. We don't consider this to be accessible since the land is so much lower than the sewer manholes to the south. Ward: Ok. Casey: We try to discourage any pumps if we can help it because it is just a maintenance issue, an ongoing maintenance problem. Bunch: Matt, how does the existing house get its service? Is that serviced off of Fayetteville water or Springdale water? The one that is going to wind up on tract 3. Casey: I assume it is Springdale water. Jorgensen: This one is on Springdale water but it is going to be on Fayetteville sewer. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 31 Bunch: On the north side of Albright I am assuming that is a Springdale water line. Jorgensen: Yes Sir. Bunch: Actually we are talking tracts 2 and 3 would be served by Springdale water except tract 3 will be Fayetteville sewer and tract 1 will be Fayetteville water and sewer. It is a weird deal. Casey: The cities have an agreement on situations like this where there is just one bill and then there is a reimbursement between the two cities for the sewer charge. That way the customer is not paying a bill to Springdale and a bill to Fayetteville since the sewer bill is based on water consumption it would have to be based on that water bill. Bunch: That house that is on tract 3, is that currently on septic or is it on sewer? Jorgensen: It is currently on septic but it will be connected to that manhole that is right there to the south. Bunch: Ok. We won't need to have an easement or any of that sort of thing for that. What about your water easements to get from Springdale water to tract 3? Jorgensen: It has an existing water line down here at Albright Road. Bunch: Ok, up this driveway? Jorgensen: Yes Sir, that is where it is at now. Bunch: It is kind of hard to tell from the drawing. I didn't know if it cut across tract 2 or if it came up the driveway. Ward: Will there be parks fees involved with this? Turner: Yes Sir. Parks fees are assessed at $1,110 for two additional lots. Ward: That would be lots 2 and 3? Do we have an R -O park fee? Turner: No, we generally don't. Can you go ahead and tell me what tract one and two will be? Jorgensen: Tract 1 is R -O. I am not sure if we are going to do a LSD or a PZD or whatever we are going to do and tract 2 is a single-family. Turner: Ok, so it is just $555. Jorgensen: It got reduced down to one lot, this was two tracts of property up here. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 32 Ward: Bunch: Ward: Ok. You still have tract 4 listed over here so that is confusing. At this time is there anyone in the public that would like to talk about this lot split that is on Hwy 265 and Albright? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Committee. We have looked at this before with all the rezoning stuff that came through a couple of months ago so we are kind of pretty familiar with it. Bunch: A question on the acreage. When it was listed as four tracts it added up to 10.01 and it is now being listed as three tracts with 9.84 acres. I realize it is not much. Jorgensen: There is a dedication of the property along Albright Road. That additional amount reduced it down is the reason for that. Ward: Ok. Bunch: Access on Hwy. 265 it looks like it is separate from the driveway the way that the property line runs it is accessing tract 1 and that would require a curb cut on Hwy. 265? Jorgensen: Yes Sir. Here again, that will be brought back as a Large Scale Development. Bunch: Also, is this a road between lot 13 and lot 18 in Stonewood Subdivision or is that just a utility easement? Jorgensen: Lot 13 and 14 don't have utility easements and we are going to have to dedicate some additional easement for this water and sewer line extension, which we will be submitting plans to Matt for his review. Bunch: What is this between lot 13 and lot 18? Jorgensen: That is an existing utility easement. Bunch: Ok, there is no inner connectivity to roads or anything? Jorgensen: No Sir. Ward: Are there any motions? Hoover: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 03-20.00, 21.00 and 22.00. Parks fees are $555. Ward: Do I have a second? Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 33 Bunch: Just a question on the lot splits 20, 21, and 22. Is that reflecting when it was at one time four tracts, do we just need two lot splits? Edwards: Yes, you are right. Ward: Which one are you going to eliminate? Edwards: 22.00. Bunch: Do you amend your motion? Hoover: Yes, to approve LSP 03-20.00 and 21.00. Bunch: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thanks Dave. Jorgensen: Thank you. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 34 PPL 03-1.00: Preliminary Plat (Persimmon Place, pp 438) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of ARC Construction for property located at the northwest corner of 46`h Street and Persimmon Place. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 58.11 acres with 154 lots proposed. Ward: The next item on the agenda is PPL 03-1.00 for Persimmon Place submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of ARC Construction for property located at the northwest corner of 46th Street and Persimmon Place. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 58.11 acres with 154 lots proposed. Sara? Edwards: Yes. This is at the northwest corner of 46`h and Persimmon. The property owners recently rezoned this subject to a Bill of Assurance which they are proposing to meet. Broyles is being extended to the north and that is at the request of the city and Persimmon and 46th are both being improved. Tree preservation, existing is 7.33%, proposed to remain is 6.03% with mitigation paid into the tree fund in the amount of $18,500. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. We have a few conditions. Compliance with the associated Bill of Assurance. Covenants must be filed with the final plat which require compliance. All fences and landscaping required by the Bill of Assurance must be in place prior to final plat approval. 2) All utilities shall be placed underground. 3) A floodplain development permit is required prior to any work in the floodplain. 4) The covenants must provide for maintenance of lot 155 which includes the detention pond. 5) Planning Commission determination of required off-site improvements. Staff is recommending that 46th and Persimmon be improved to include widening to 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drainage and sidewalk. 6) Planning Commission approval of the associated Master Street plan amendment which adds Broyles as a Collector Street and changes 46th Street from a collector to a local street. Staff is proposing to remove 46`h, or to change that to a local street and in its place add Broyles as a collector to extend all the way up to Wedington. I would like to just add a couple of other conditions at this time. That is that any damage caused by development by construction vehicles to 46th will be required to be repaired by the developer. If during the course of development damage is caused to 46th the developer will have to fix that. Also, a 6' tall concrete privacy fence be installed as required by the Bill of Assurance. The Bill of Assurance said a concrete privacy fence and we want to make sure that that is 6' high. Ward: Ok. Matt? Casey: I might add with the relocation, when we first saw this Broyles was in a different location and at the city's request they have lined it up with the existing Broyles to the south and the city is going to continue Broyles from the north of this property line all the way to 6th Street. That will be at the city's expense. We are currently in the design phase of that. One of the reasons for this is that the proposed wastewater treatment plant is to the south of here and that will be a straight shot Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 35 for the construction traffic of that and created traffic in the future from that. We are requesting that the developer makes the curbs along Broyles be 9" high curbs so after construction of that wastewater treatment plant the city can come in there and overlay it and not diminish the curb capacity for storm water. With the amount of construction traffic in this area that is hard on the pavement so we are making provisions for that. The developer is going to be extending the water line along the future Broyles. I do want to add a condition to that that the city would be willing to construct that water line instead of the developer in exchange for the developer upsizing the water line along Broyles to a 12" line. That is on our Master Water Plan for this area to have a 12" line along this general area. The condition would be in the event that something happens and Broyles Road is not extended, which I don't foresee that happening that the water line would still be extended at the developer's expense. Ward: Ok. Casey: Does that make sense? We will take the line and will upsize that to 12". Bunch: The part I didn't understand is you said if the road didn't go through that the waterline would still be extended at the developer's expense? Casey: Yes Sir. I don't foresee that happening, especially with this waste water treatment plant this road is crucial to that. Ward: How far is it from this proposed development up to Wedington? Brackett: I think it is '/ mile. Ward: Kim on Landscaping and tree mitigation? Hesse: When you construct that concrete wall, do you know where that is? Brackett: It is going to be 2' inside the property off the right of way. Bunch: Why concrete? Brackett: They didn't want wood because it would deteriorate and they wanted a privacy fence. Bunch: Wrought iron and brick columns with wood wouldn't suffice? Brackett: No, they wanted a privacy fence. Hesse: My concern was if it was along here it would cause those trees to come out. Brackett: No, it is not there. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 36 Ward: It is strictly along 46th and Persimmon? Brackett: Yes, that is where it is going to be. Hesse: It won't affect any trees there. I have requested that most of these trees straddle the property lines. Typically this is what you have at the Planning Commission level. Since you are approving a tree preservation plan do you do that with just my recommendation? Brackett: We submitted that and they should have it. Edwards: We will get it for Planning Commission. Hesse: I didn't know if you needed it. It is really up to you and some of the information is in the record. Bunch: Are you talking about this? Hesse: No, the actual plans. Ward: We don't have the drawings. Bunch: Is the one that we saw earlier still in affect? I think this was pulled once from the agenda. Hesse: Nothing changed as far as tree preservation. That is fine, just so you know what you are approving. Bunch: That 6' wall, is that going to be a decorative concrete or is it going to be like a large, unarticulated wall surface? Brackett: There is not anything set in concrete on what it is going to be. It is not to the owner's benefit to set something ugly along the frontage of their subdivision. Bunch: That was my concern. That is a lot of linear feet of a plain concrete wall. Brackett: I guarantee you that it is going to be concrete. Ward: Before it comes to the full Planning Commission why don't you just kind of give us a little sketch of what it might look like to kind of alleviate the fears. I assume it will be pretty nice looking. Brackett: Right now we don't know. There are several, you can drive around off of Hurley Road in Springdale. There are precast, we could do a split faced block wall too that would look really nice. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 37 Edwards: I would like to add too, just so that everyone is aware, when this was rezoned it was subject to a Bill of Assurance, which required that concrete fence. That was through several meetings with the neighbors. Actually, the developer attempted to amend that a wrought iron fence and the neighbors weren't receptive to that and neither was the City Council so it remained as a concrete fence. I don't think there is much we can do to change that. Ward: Ok. Bunch: Are there any provisions to have something to block the sight but to have air movement through that? That gets to be a considerable health question if everybody has dogs and stuff in their backyards. If you don't have air movement through it, is there someway to design that fence to where there are some gaps to accommodate the neighbors' concerns and have a sight and sound blockage but still have some health reasons to have air movement through it? Edwards: I am not totally familiar with the different type of concrete fences. I really don't know that. Brackett: The adjoining property owner's concern is not to see most of the development from their property and that is why they wanted a privacy fence. I would think that anything you put in there that would provide air ventilation would let you see behind the wall. Bunch: Staggered or something like a shadow box. Brackett: We are getting into something, I mean the concrete wall is going to be costly enough as it is. I hate to, since it is not a requirement of the city in essence, it was from the negotiations with the joint property owners, I'm kind of hesitant to agree to other stipulations concerning the fence just because of that. Bunch: I appreciate your point there I just wanted to add that this is going through further public meetings that there are some health concerns with a solid concrete fence that may block one mans view but it could create some health concerns for everyone else and air movement concerns. Casey: One additional comment. I don't know if you have noticed yet, along lots 16, 57 and 41 along Broyles Road they are not showing the sidewalk. That was at the city's request because that is the path for our dual force mains going into the wastewater treatment plant and the city would be tearing that out anyway. We will constructing those after construction of that force main in that area. Ward: Ok. Thanks. Can we talk about Parks fees? Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 38 Turner: On October 7, 2002 the Parks Board voted to accept money in lieu of parkland for 154 lots that came to $85,470. Ward: Zieta: Ok, thank you. At this time I will go ahead and open it up to the public. Is there anyone that would like to make some public comment on this particular Preliminary Plat on Persimmon Place? My name is Bassam Zieta. I live adjacent to this proposed development to the north. I have several items that I would like to discuss. I have been working with staff and with Chris. I would like some clarification on what Matt said regarding the future Broyles Street and the developer. At the beginning Matt you mentioned that the developer was paying for the water line and then the city would reimburse them and then also you mentioned that there is a possibility Broyles will not be constructed, a slight possibility. This project coming before you is a major item as far as access from Hwy. 16. The city is in the process of amending 46th Street from a collector to a local. All the access during the zoning, all the neighbors concerns are the 2300 trips that will be generated by this development will come through 46`h. Then the proposed Broyles Street going in all the way from where it exists right now all the way to Hwy. 16. With the comments now, I just want to confirm that Broyles is going to get built. Also, nobody at the city is able to give us a schedule on Broyles Street. I would think Broyles Street needs to be constructed before the full occupancy of this development because this is one of our major concerns and the city is not willing to do any improvements past the north property of the developer on 46th Street. 46th Street as it exists right now is 18' wide with ditches, there is no curb. There is a lot of traffic that comes through that area. I have met with Perry Franklin who was kind enough to do a speed study for us. We have a lot of kids in the neighborhood and they play across the street and I will give you a copy of this. The speed limit posted is 25 miles per hour. There are cars that go above 50 miles per hour. This study does not say 60 or 70, it goes above 50 miles per hour. There is a major concern regarding traffic in this area. With this development there is not going to be any improvement whatsoever that we see today and that is really a major concern to us, not just me, but all the neighbors that live right there. I would like to hear as far as if the city has any idea as far as the schedule of construction of Broyles Street. Does anybody have any idea of when it is going to get built? I have a lot of questions. I will go through all my comments. I have been working with Kim Hesse on the trees. Ward: Ok, why don't you do that and then we will try to answer them all. Zieta: Tree preservation I think Chris and Kim have done a great job showing on the plans all the tree preservation. The city has went through a lot of headache creating the tree preservation ordinance to protect trees throughout the City of Fayetteville. My property, as a property owner I have a lot of trees. I have about 8 lots that are proposed to be built behind me and one of the trees is 1/2 on my property. The tree preservation is great. That is fantastic. The contractor is going Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 39 Ward: Casey: to protect these trees. When these lots are sold that is not going to help. There are some things that can be done to protect these trees, if a property owner comes in and puts a structure right next to the trees they have the right to do whatever they want with their property. Is there some kind of easement that we can put on some of these, not all the lots but the lots that abut these trees? If you can help me with that I would greatly appreciate it. It doesn't really make sense to have an ordinance that protects the tree during construction but then after construction is over somebody else can cut down that tree. Construction trucks, there is a big sign that says "No Trucks" at 46th Street as you make a left turn onto 46`h. They told me that this would be the construction access for this development. I have asked staff to see if that is the only way this can be done. We would like it to be avoided because the 18' wide existing road, to negotiate with trucks is very difficult. Especially since trucks are going to be carrying mud and all of that, it is going to be very difficult. I think the compromise here that we ask for is if they can put a limit. This thought is mine only, none of the neighbors have talked about this. I will leave it to them to say if they are comfortable with it. A restriction in time from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. because it is very difficult for us to make a left turn on Hwy.16. To make a left turn on Hwy. 16 to make a left turn it is going to take a very long time because traffic comes in at more than 50 miles per hour. There is a sight distance problem at where the entrance going into this development is located. I would highly encourage the developer and the city to take another look at it. We brought that up during the zoning. If that entrance can be moved to the south I think that will help tremendously. I think really these are all my comments. I know I took a long time but I would like to see if anybody can respond to specifically the question of Broyles Street. Ok, I appreciate it. Matt, I will come back to you on the Broyles extension. Nobody in the city can say anything until the City Council makes a final decision and nobody in the City Council can say anything because it has to be voted on. The Mayor nor anybody else can guarantee it right now because it is a City Council decision. Also, at the same time it has to be funded by the City Council. Matt, is there anything else that you would like to add to that? No, you covered everything very well right there. That is the reason I made that comment about the waterlines. In the event that something happens that this does not go through, which is very unlikely, we did add the condition on the waterline. The city is highly in favor of the project and it is slated for design this year as far as construction. We do want this construction prior to the construction of the wastewater treatment plant. We don't want the construction traffic going down 46th Street. I have heard the numbers of the concrete trucks and haul trucks estimated for this development and it is just horrendous. That is the reason we are asking for the 9" curb along Broyles because we fully anticipate having to overlay the entire street after the construction and we are aware that the property owners down there don't want that truck traffic going down 46`h. That is the major reason for this extension. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 40 Bunch: Does the city have the easement yet to extend Broyles? Casey: Our land agents are currently working on the property easements. Ward: Hesse: Ward: Let me get to you in just a minute because I want to get all these questions answered and then I will come back and let you give your thoughts on this thing. The next thing that he brought up was the setbacks and things for the homes for the homes that he is bordering up on lots one through six. Kim, on other residential subdivisions where there are some large trees bordering a new subdivision lot. We have setbacks of course from the rear property line. What else do we do to protect those trees that may be property owners somewhere else? As you know it was decided not to require tree preservation easements in residential subdivisions when we did the tree preservation ordinance. Correct, the ordinance has its downfalls. There is the building setback however, they can put other things in their backyard and trees do not have any guarantees once these lots are sold. On the problems with the sight lines, I guess this is mainly concerning 46th Street coming out on Hwy. 16, do you have certain traffic engineers that look at that Matt? Casey: Jorgensen has looked at it. We also requested that Perry Franklin take a look at it. We have not yet received a report back from him on that. Brackett: I have looked at it. There is an entrance right here. Right on our north line is the high point of 46th Street. I have sat approximately where the entrance is going to be and you can see to the north. If we shifted it to the south we are going to go further down and we are not going to be able to see over the top of that hill so it is either put it here, and I do believe there is sight distance and I can do that calculation with our construction plans if they wish, or you put it almost all the way down so you have enough sight distance because you won't be able to see over the hill. I believe this is the best place for the entrance because of sight distance. Ward: Casey: Ok but we will have Perry Franklin, maybe a written report from him about sight distances. The other thing that we might talk about a little bit again is the new conditions that we put on there. Any damage done by the developer will be repaired by the developer. How will we watch over that and see what damage has been done and who is responsible? We added that condition after conversations over the conditions of 46th. What we will do is have an inspection prior to construction beginning, video tape the entire street and document the current condition of the street so that if any damage is done we have got proof that it was not there before and it would fall back on the developer. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 41 Ward: Ok. Is that something that we require anyway? Casey: We have done it in the past. It is not something we do on every project. I would think that the developer would also want to video tape and cover themselves as well. Ward: Yes Sir. Goff: I am Miller Goff, I live at the top of the hill that he is referring to. I was hoping to tie into some of the assumptions that are being made contrary to promises that were made. I am aware that when the sewer plant first started being planned that we had a different Mayor and the Engineering people held meetings with someone that they brought in from somewhere else to tell us what a great thing this was. One of the things that was decided back in those days, and I understand there is change now from what happened then, that Broyles Avenue go south from the sewer plant location towards Farmington on Hwy. 16 and anything that was hauled in by the city could be brought in off of Hwy. 62 easier with better access than Hwy. 16 even though it is five lanes most of it since that time. It still doesn't go out as far as it needs to go to get trucks in and out of there. This extension was to be for that. Now I understand that that has been abandoned completely and that is the reason why we are talking about Broyles Avenue to the north. It is contrary to what was said by the engineers at the time. I don't know if that bothers anybody or not. Ward: Goff: It really doesn't bother me because things change all the time. This piece of land may stay vacant for ten more generations or it might be developed like somebody is trying to develop now. One of the points for me is the construction of the sewer plant and the development is going to be detrimental to what is there now. If that be the case and the Broyles extension is not made before the other is started, and it looks to me like that might happen. Then I think we should stop the construction of one and building of the other if Broyles isn't done before the other is started. Ward: I think that is a very valid point for sure. Are there any other comments? Zieta: Broyles Street has to go to City Council. I think it makes more sense to delay this project until Broyles Street is approved, goes before City Council and is approved. If it is not approved then all these assumptions won't work. There has to be a modification for this to work. I know that it is not really fair to delay the developer but I think the city should've come up with Broyles Street a long time ago. I think right now it makes sense to wait for City Council to see if they are going to approve the extension of Broyles. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 42 Ward: It is kind of a catch 22. If this particular development wasn't going in there probably wouldn't be as much of a need to take Broyles on through to Hwy. 16 either. Casey: Goff: Ward: Casey: Ward: Bunch: If I may add a little bit of history. Originally when the waste water treatment plant was planned it was going to go south and we were going to build a bridge over the creeks down there and take it all the way up to the highway. Sometime last fall staff was looking at the street alignment and the political part of it as well because we were going to be spending millions of dollars for street improvements and bridge improvements in Farmington. We thought that it would be better to spend that money inside the city limits of Fayetteville so we started looking at different options. One of them was Persimmon and 46`h and about that time this development came through for the first time. This has been in the works for a while within the city and we identified this as a possibility. Like I said, it is a straight shot through there. The money was going to be spent one way or the other and this just gave us a better avenue to go. Again, I can't promise that it is going to be done this year or next year or at all but there has to be a road built to get to that treatment plant. The traffic patterns once the sewage treatment plant is built will be less and will be a straight shot to wherever the city's employees have to go on a daily basis, perhaps an hourly basis I don't know, to that plant from wherever else they happen to be is going to be that way. It would seem to me the logistics, you would want to look and see how you are going to be getting. One of the things that bothers me about that is the sewage hauling. They will be hauling right through there. If it was the other way you wouldn't be. I do know that as time goes and development happens out there I know that Persimmon is going to be a major road going all the way to Double Springs and connecting into Rupple Road and that is going to be a major, major road. If you go out there now there is nothing out there but cow fields. I can tell you that will be a major, major traffic road in the not too distant future. Things do change and it is hard for all of us to keep up with it all and foresee the future. Are there any other comments? I might add that when the waste water treatment plant is completed there will be very few employees and one or two trucks per day. The main concern is during the construction. Normally there are no trucks going to or from the plants. Ok, are there any other comments? If not, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Committee. I have a question on the amendment to the Master Street Plan when that comes through adding Broyles as a collector and changing 46th to a local street, can we have some sort of contingency on that when it comes through? What is the developer's responsibility to 46th, how long does that go in time? How far down Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 43 the line can we still have improvements to 46`h and I guess the developer's responsibility would be a rational nexus of what he is generating and what frontage there is. Edwards: The main difference is the right of ways. They are doing improvements to 46`h which is the same improvements that we would recommend if it was a collector so the improvements are there. Basically what we are changing is the right of way dedication. They haven't dedicated the right of way on 46th for a collector, they have only dedicated for a local street. In the event that that were all to change then we would just have that dedication change so it wouldn't be too difficult. We do plan on running that Master Street Plan amendment along with this development. Ward: Ok, are there any questions or other comments? Bunch: I have one other question. I know it may be down the stream quite a way. How are you treating your flow from your surface drainage into Owl Creek? I know you are going to have a detention pond. One of my concerns is that Owl Creek is most likely a losing stream and when you get just a little bit to the west part of Owl Creek that has been determined to be a losing stream, the east side of the creek is in the city and the west side is in the county. Since it is a losing stream it could have some considerable impact on people's wells which is west of the city limits. Brackett: As you may or may not know, Phase II is being implemented now as of this week. We will abide by that. We will have a storm water pollution set of plans. One of the things that will happen during construction is to prevent sedimentation into the creek. This pond will be first and then water will be diverted into it as a sediment pond and then after the roads are constructed and put in then we will finish the actual grading of the detention pond. As far as issues other than that we haven't developed a storm water prevention plan for this as of right now because to spend that money now before it is approved is kind of costly but we will be. Bunch: I know the federal guidelines are a little on the vague side. Brackett: They are. Bunch: 1 just wanted to get that on the record that there are concerns for the people outside the city and county area that are drawing water from sources that could be communicating with surface water and ground water. Ward: Are there any other comments? Bunch: That is all that 1 have. Ward: Sharon? Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 44 Hoover: I have nothing. Bunch: I move that we forward PPL 03-1.00 to the full Planning Commission with the added conditions that damage done on 466 by construction traffic will be repaired by the developer and that the concrete fence called out on the drawing will be 6' tall. Ward: Also we might mention about the 12" waterline. Bunch: Ok, the reference to Matt's comments about the 12" waterline and 8" waterline extension along Broyles Avenue. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thank you all for your comments. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 45 R-PZD 03-1.00: Planned Zoning District (Jackson Place, pp 255) was submitted by Phil Hagan of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of T -Crow, LTD for property located at the southeast corner of Crossover and Skillern Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 8.37 acres with 14 residential lots proposed. Ward: The last item on the agenda is PZD 03-1.00 for Jackson Place. It was submitted by Phil Hagan of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of T -Crow, LTD for property located at the southeast corner of Crossover and Skillern Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 8.37 acres with 14 residential lots proposed. Sara, can you talk to us about this? Edwards: This is our first Planned Zoning District. It is a residential subdivision. What we are doing is processing the subdivision approval process with the rezoning process. Right now the south part of this property is zoned A-1. Under our old way we would have to rezone to R-1 and then the subdivision would go through but we have incorporated all of this into one Planned Zoning District. There are 14 lots. There is parkland located to the west. There are some wetlands in there. The applicant did work with the Corp. to get a better determination on the floodplain. There will be some filling of the floodplain. The lots will have to have the 6,000 sq.ft. of buildable area outside of the floodplain. Street improvements are planned for Old Wire which are to include curb, gutter, and storm drainage. We think that it is already 14' wide from centerline, if it isn't then they will widen it where it isn't. A new street is proposed with water and sewer extensions. Utilities will be primarily located to the fronts of the lots in order to preserve trees at the rear. Draft covenants have been submitted with restrictions similar to those of the Brookbury subdivision located to the south. This item must be heard by the full Planning Commission and also at the City Council because it is a rezoning. Trees on site right now they have a little over 80% and they are proposing to preserve 52.8% of those. Conditions to address are as follows: 1) Planning Commission determination of required off-site improvements. Staff is recommending that curb, gutter, and storm drainage be added to Old Wire Road immediately adjacent to the site. As part of this, we did go out with Perry Franklin on site and looked at site distances and he has requested that the proposed street line up with Old Wire across and that we will be moving the stop sign from Skillern onto Old Wire so you will actually stop coming out of this subdivision, stop on Old Wire and Skillern will be the main traffic. 2)Lots will not be permitted to access Old Wire Road. 3) All signs must be approved by Planning Commission at the time of final plat approval. 4) A final plat must be processed prior to the sale of any lots. 5) All utilities shall be placed underground. I would also like to add that there will be additional findings made at the Planning Commission stage with regard to those required for the rezoning. We will go over all of that at Planning Commission. Ward: Ok, thank you. Matt, do you have any concerns on this Planned Zoning District? Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 46 Casey: Zimmerman: Casey: Sara covered most of the comments that I was going to make. I have not had time to review these plans since the resubmittal. The curb and gutter is not shown to go the extent of the property and we need to make sure it has. I think that we stopped at where it was less than 14' and then it drifted away. We improved it where the centerline was 14' with the curb and gutter and then over on the west end there was plenty of room so we didn't add curb and gutter. We will need curb and gutter the entire length of the property. I might add that this is a residential street 24' and the sidewalks are only required on one side and to wrap around the cul-de-sac, they are proposing sidewalks on both sides which is above and beyond what we ask for. Ward: Ok. Kim on tree preservation? Hesse: The original plans they calculated original preservation was actually 31%. Do you have a clear plan on tree preservation? What we talked about was front utilities due to comments from neighbors. They don't want to lose those trees along their edge and so that swale is going to be taken out. Hagan: I have talked with the client and he is ok with doing away with that. It is going to cause us to have to upsize our storm sewer inside the project because we were diverting that around into the floodplain and now we are taking it onto the street and into the sewer and the detention pond but we are willing to do that to save those trees. Hesse: Again, they have also expressed problems with drainage in their yards and I think that would kind of help the drainage problems. This is an aerial view of this property, it actually comes down here and then follows the creek line. You can see that there are a lot of trees through here. Again, I wish we had a better idea and we may have a better idea of what the neighbors are really looking for. Obviously, we cannot affect trees offsite, I think that is probably the biggest reason. Hagan: We could probably do some swales along the property lines where there are not trees to bring some of that water onto the street and help the drainage. That is something that we can do that won't affect the trees. The whole point of the swale is to keep this water from having to go across these lots too and to solve that problem. We will do these swales between the lots where we are not affecting trees and do what we can. Bunch: There is no guarantee that the people that purchase those lots are going to want to preserve trees so it is kind or rolling the dice there. That is a lot of expense to save something that you have no control over. Hagan: There is a good potential of affecting the trees on the neighbor's properties by Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 47 Hesse: having that swale, we understand that. Water and sewer are in the front and electric and gas are in the back. That kind of kills the purpose again. Originally we were moving all the utilities to the front and then we realized that we had a swale back there so why bother and we put them back in the back. Hagan: Jon Brittenum can address that if you want to talk to him about that. Brittenum: I personally think it would look better if the gas meters were in the backyards and all the utilities were in the front yards. This is a small subdivision and it is going to be minimum 2,400 sq.ft. homes. I will put it in the front but I personally think it would look better in the back. I do understand if we go through the back we are going to go through the roots of those trees and kill them and we are going to be back to square one. The homeowner could put flowerbeds and shrubbery around the gas risers. Hesse: These lots are rather big so I see a potential for the homeowners to want to keep the forest in the back and if they do it they would have room to build and not have to use that for material storage. We find that when we have trees in the back of minimum size lots that it is not working because there is not room to build behind. I think there is more room to build behind on these so I think there is the potential. Again, we are guessing what the homeowners may want but the way the ordinance is written we should try to save as much as possible for that opportunity. I am still leaning towards removing the swale in the back of the lots and removing the utilities from the back of the lots as my recommendation. Bunch: What is going to make this so difficult is that with a normal type of development we would have the latitude to change some of these things but coming through as a PZD that means it goes before the City Council and will actually be enacted as an ordinance so we may lose the latitude because of the language in the PZD that constitutes a significant change. Whereas, with the previous method there would be more latitude to swap this and that around. It is probably going to take a little more discussion and a little more determination of nailing all of these things down because it does become law. Ward: How much drainage problems do the neighbors have? I will go ahead and open it to the public. Quattlebaum: I am Charlotte Quattlebaum. I live in Brookbury. There is a small drainage that is about 15' past my property line. Right now that always has water flowing down through it almost from Brookbury Crossing as soon as it gets down by where lot 8 is it is almost overflowing with water. My concern as a property owner is I don't want Pauline's now to be the flat area that becomes a swamp and holds water but I want to make sure that that water continues to flow. Right now I can also tell you that I would love for this property to not be developed because last week there were nine deer that used that little drainage area. My other Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 48 question was the trees. I walked this property last week and I will agree that there are a lot of trees out there that are small and scrubby and should be cut down but on the property line there were three or four Targe trees that were noted for removal and to me those are the nice trees along the property line and I was questioning whether those were still going to be removed with the changes. Brittenum: Right along the east? Quattlebaum: Right along the east edge. Brittenum: That is pretty much what we are talking about. Quattlebaum: There are three trees that are nice looking there. Hagan: Removing those trees decrease in the value of the lots so if we could keep those trees we are going to definitely try. Brittenum: If we need to move the utilities to the front then we can do that. Hesse: I do know that the cost increases for you with the utilities and I see the issue. The tree preservation area is the shaded area and so our issues mainly are from lots four to eight. Obviously everything on the south side of the road can be in the back because we are already dealing with the removal. Brittenum: I don't know if the utility companies are going to have big transformer boxes and how many and where they are going to put them or if that is going to be an eye sorer. Hesse: Maybe leave them in the back, coming down between lots three and four and putting them in the front and then going back between lots eight and nine for the final lots. Hagan: It would actually shorten the footage on the utilities if they will allow us the flexibility to do that. Hesse: They have been really good. Brittenum: So you would have two risers in the front and then we could hopefully deal with the power company to get the transformer for those houses. Hoover: I would think that they would do them in the side yards and the same thing with the gas riser. There is no reason they can't go up the side yard rather than being right out at the front of the street. Brittenum: The gas company won't put their risers off the easement. Hoover: I guess I don't understand that. I am from a different town where that didn't Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 49 happen because it was dangerous to be out by the street, someone could run over it. This is what the gas company tells you that they will not allow it to go somewhere else? Brittenum: Right. Once they put it on someone's property they can't go work on it. Hoover: We didn't have easements, it was like you brought your riser out of the house and they came and met you wherever you wanted it to serve you. Brittenum: That is how it is along commercial buildings. Hoover: But you are saying for residential they don't want to accommodate. Hagan: They are going to get there. They are doing that in Oklahoma now where they do it at the house. Hoover: It makes perfect sense. Hesse: There are some large trees down here. Brittenum: I don't have a problem with moving those utilities in front of those five lots to save the trees. Bunch: Ok. Hoover: Sara, the 6,000 sq.ft. requirement, what is that from? Edwards: That is for development in a floodplain we require 6,000 sq.ft. of buildable area outside of the floodplain. Hoover: Is that a FEMA requirement? Edwards: We have a storm water ordinance that has to be approved by FEMA so that is one of the requirements of that. Ward: Are there any other questions? You might talk to us a little bit about Park fees. Turner: The Parks fees did vote to accept money in lieu of land. Our Park land ordinance has been updated to reflect current market prices so the parks fees have risen. Also, a house is already developed on this property so that will not be assessed. Park fees today for 13 single family units is $7,215. Ward: Ok, thanks. Brittenum: The city is going to get $7,215 for parks fees and plus they are going to three acres of land. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 50 Turner: I don't think we are getting three acres at all, I haven't had those discussions. Hagan: We offered the three acres and since it is in the floodplain they did not want it. Turner: We will not be taking this land. Bunch: It doesn't say anything about it other than the fact that the creek runs through it. Brittenum: Will it effect where we are at in the process if we just adjust those lot lines all the way to the far back corner? Edwards: That is fine. Brittenum: Then the property that the detention pond is on, just make that a common lot. Otherwise we will be out there mowing it instead of the property owner. Bunch: Eventually you won't have the flow going clown Mud Creek. That is the tributary from the outflow. Eventually if we get our new sewer plant built then hopefully it will change the flow characteristics. There will be less flow but there will probably also be a different type of flow. Quattlebaum: I recognize the change that you are proposing over on Old Wire but will that affect the other property owners because it is very narrow now. Casey: We are requiring some improvements along Skillern, which would be 14' from centerline, which meets our standards for a local street. I have asked the engineers to work on it where it is not such a jog as you are going around through there. Quattlebaum: The Calloway's property will not be affected? Casey: It will be just this property. Quattlebaum: At the present time the traffic through that area is fairly calm. Although that jog is there and I do walk that jog, I actually think that jog is what slows people down. I really don't have any objections, I just want you to address and change over that session of Skillern Casey: We will have to get with our Traffic Division and see. We will have to do some changes and look at traffic calming there. They have had problems in the past there and have made modifications. Quattlebaum: Not audible. Ward: We appreciate your comments. I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee and to the staff. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 51 Bunch: On lots around the cul-de-sac, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10, where do we measure the setback and the minimum lot width in a PZD? Edwards: Typically if it were an R-1 subdivision we would measure at a 25' setback. I think I have asked them to do that. Bunch: They are not showing the setback line there. I realize that since it is a PZD we are not bound by that but I think the PZD as it is written, that we are supposed to use that as a guideline. Edwards: Please measure that as a 25' setback or address that. Hagan: Ok. Bunch: This one is going to go through a lot more scrutiny and by the time it gets to the City Council hopefully we won't have. Brittenum: Can we talk about the process? This is going to the full Planning Commission and then this entire development for the Planned Zoning District is going to the City Council? Edwards: Yes. Bunch: Hopefully we will go over these issues at a meeting like this and at Planning Commission and by the time it gets to City Council there will be fewer of these types of items that you would have to address this. Brittenum: Do you see the City Council looking at this like the Planning Commission? Hoover: You are the first. Edwards: I think simply because of the fact that it is our first one that it is going to be kind of slow going because there is an understanding issue. Hoover: I think that we need to be careful at the Planning Commission and address each issue very carefully and state it well so that by the time it gets to City Council we have already documented all of these issues. Brittenum: If any other issues pop up I will be surprised. This has been redesigned three times I think and torn apart. A lot of that is just because of the floodway, floodplain and trying to get the correct information from the Corp. They gave us information that was incomplete and we had to complete it. Hoover: Have you talked to all the neighbors that are adjacent? Brittenum: Not yet. Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 52 Hoover: I think that that would be a good idea before Planning Commission to make sure that they understand what is going on and that we have resolved all of their issues which will help the process. Ward: For the benefit of the record please give us your names. Zimmerman: I am Julie Zimmerman with Crafton, Tull & Associates. Hagan: My name is Phil Hagan with Crafton, Tull & Associates. Ward: There is still one issue that I see. If there is a drainage problem back there already for some of the neighbor's yards and you are not addressing that because of trying to save the trees. I think sometimes for the long road that drainage is more important than a couple of trees that might be there tomorrow and might be dead tomorrow. That is the only thought that I had about that. Some of these preliminary plans that you had with putting that culvert around and so on for that whole part of the area would be better than some of the things that we are trying to do to it right now in order to save a couple or three trees that might be saved and might not. We know that sometime in the future they won't be there, they will be dead. Anyway, is there any other comment? Hoover: Thank you for coming through with a PZD being the first people not to think that it is so scary that you couldn't do it. Hagan: We did it because we thought it was going to save us some time but now we regret doing it. Hoover: It is intense but it will save you time in the long run and I appreciate the sidewalks on both sides of the streets. I think that the 24' wide street is appropriate but I really believe that we need to have sidewalks on both sides when we do the 24'. Hagan: I would like to take credit for that but we thought it was a requirement. Hoover: Well good fumble. Brittenum: If there is a problem with the drainage from the Brookbury neighbors then why can't we keep this swale right here because if the water is standing in these people's backyards that would help alleviate that problem and we would only lose one tree and we could keep those three. Quattlebaum: I don't have a drainage problem now. This area flows down there. I know there is drainage between 7 and 8 and I assume that it will keep flowing with that development. The water is flowing now and we don't want the flow to back up now, we want to continue the flow. Hagan: We would be happy to meet you out there and walk the site to see what is going on and what we could do to help. Here are a few of my cards if you want to give Subdivision Committee March 13, 2003 Page 53 them to your neighbors and I will be happy to meet with you anytime. Bunch: I would like to compliment you all on the vicinity map. Not only is it easy to find the location, we have had some difficulties with people being able to find it but also with the way you have shown it with the adjoining subdivisions showing how you are going to relate. That sure helps us by having that type of vicinity map. I will move that we forward RPZD 3-1.00 to the full Planning Commission. Are you all going to have time to get the changes done for our next one or should we jump a cycle? Hagan: No, we will have that done. Bunch: The extension of lot lines across no man's land and that sort of thing. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thank you all. This meeting is adjourned.