Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-03 - MinutesSubdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on July 3, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED FPL 03-05.00: Final Plat (Legacy Point Phase I, pp 435/474) Page 2 ADM 03-14.00: Administrative Item (Kinion, pp 445) Page 5 ADM 03-16.00: Administrative Item (Jones, pp 524) Page 7 LSP 03-45.00: Lot Split (City of Fayetteville, pp 439) Page 9 LSP 03-43.00: Lot Split (Hoskins/Brookhaven, pp 214) Page 12 FPL 03-04.00: Final Plat (Cornerstone Subdivision, pp 402) Page 21 PPL 03-11.00: Preliminary Plat (The Estates at Salem Hills, pp 205/206) Page 22 LSD 03-17.00: Large Scale Development (Landers Auto Park, pp 248) Page 37 ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Approved Forwarded Tabled Forwarded Forwarded MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Alice Church Alan Ostner STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Jeremy Pate Craig Carnagey Rebecca Turner Matt Casey Renee Thomas Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 2 FPL 03-05.00: Final Plat (Legacy Point Phase I, pp 435/474) was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan Properties, Inc. for property located east of Double Springs Road and south of Owl Creek. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and RMF -6, Low Density Multi -family Residential and contains approximately 36.53 acres with 66 single family and 24 duplex lots proposed. Bunch: Good morning, welcome to the Thursday, July 3, 2003 meeting of the Subdivision Committee of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Today we have eight items on the agenda. We will start in with old business, it is FPL 03-5.00 for Legacy Point. This was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan properties incorporated. Jeremy, can we have the staff report on this please? Pate: Yes Sir. The subject property contains 36.53 acres with 66 proposed single-family lots and 24 proposed duplex lots. The request is to approve the Final Plat of Phase I to allow for the sale of those lots. Phase I was approved on March 25, 2002 and revised Phase I Preliminary Plat was approved on May 21, 2003. Surrounding land use is agricultural and low density residential. The right of way being dedicated is Double Springs Road and Persimmon Street and street improvements on Double Springs Road and Persimmon Street are also required. The Final Plat was forwarded to the full Planning Commission by the Subdivision Committee on June 12th pending a final inspection. The Planning Commission sent the project back to the Subdivision Committee at it's agenda session and that is where we are now. We are recommending approval to this Final Plat with nine conditions of approval. I will read those for you. 1) Label the park property as lot 134 on the Final Plat. The parking lot for the park property shall be constructed with Phase II. 2) The right of way for Double Springs Road, which varies, and Persimmon Street 70' right of way for all phases shall be dedicated with Phase I prior to filing the Final Plat. 3) A variance for the rear setback for the existing house on lot 76 is required to be approved by the Board of Adjustment prior to issuance of building permits. 4) A deed for park land dedication in the amount of 3.42 acres must be received before the signing of the Final Plat. 5) A handrail shall be installed in the outflow structure of the detention pond by the developer pursuant to Parks Division requirements. 6) Payment of fees in the amount of $41,650 into the tree fund escrow account must be received prior to the acceptance of the Final Plat. The developer reserves the right to request consideration of a variance of this condition, which must be approved by the Planning Commission. Conditions seven through nine are standard conditions of approval. That is all I have. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any other staff reports? Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 3 Carnagey: I just received his variance petition yesterday and I haven't had time to review it but we will take a look at that. He is planning on making the payment into the tree fund as of today however, so all of his conditions have been met. Bunch: Thank you. Parks? Turner: If you could just let me know when the handrail goes up we will go out to check it. Brackett: It's up. Turner: Ok, thank you. Bunch: Are there any Engineering reports? Warrick: We met with Mr. Casey yesterday and reviewed our staff reports to ensure that we were including his comments. He is not available today. Bunch: Ok, would you all introduce yourselves and give us the benefit of any statements that you have? Brackett: I am Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates. Smith: Raymond Smith, the attorney representing the developer Charlie Sloan. Sloan: I am Charlie Sloan. Brackett: Do you all have a presentation? Sloan: I don't think so. I believe we've tried to meet everything that they needed done. We got the variance in yesterday on the tree ordinance so we have a chance to do the request that we would like to do on some of the changes on the ordinance but other than that I think we're fine. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would wish to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee. Brackett: I have a question. The Persimmon right of way I have it shown as dedicated on the Final Plat, is that sufficient? Pate: That is sufficient for that. The other will have to be dedicated by warranty deed because it is a state highway. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 4 Brackett: Ok, Double Springs right of way didn't change because of the improvements to the bridge I believe that the city or the Highway Department dedicated that right of way. I don't believe we are dedicating any additional right of way along Double Springs. Warrick: If that is reflecting the current condition then our land agents should have record of any acquisitions for the bridge improvements. Brackett: I will get with them to make sure. Sloan: I believe some of that was dedicated before I bought the land. Bunch: Are there any other comments, questions or motions? Church: Does this go to the Planning Commission then or do we approve it at this level? Warrick: You can approve it at this level. It is one of those items identified in your bylaws. Bunch: Initially we forwarded this to the Planning Commission to save time because the final inspection had not been completed and then the Planning Commission sent it back to us just as a matter of shortening the cycle. MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we approve FPL 03-5.00. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: Do we have any additions to the conditions of approval that would address the verification of rights of way with the land agent? Brackett: If it requires a deed we will deed it. Warrick: We just want to make sure that the documentation is in our files so we can recognize that that is what the city currently has as far as right of way is concerned. Bunch: Persimmon Street right of way is addressed on the drawing and then we need to verify that Double Springs? Warrick: We will do that before we sign off on the Final Plat. Bunch: Ok, in that case, I will concur. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 5 ADM 03-14 00• Administrative Item (Kinion, pp 445) was submitted by Laura Chioldi on behalf of Robert James and Mark Kinion for property located at 418 Ila Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential (RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre). The request is for an addition to a single family residence on a non- conforming lot of record. Bunch: The next item on our agenda under new business is ADM 03-14.00 submitted by Laura Chioldi on behalf of Robert and James Kinion for property located at 418 Ila Street. Jeremy, is this yours? Pate: Yes Sir. This property is on Ila Street. It is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, which as we know is RSF-4. We are trying to make that transition in zoning designations. The request is for an addition to a single-family residence on a non -conforming lot of record. Staff is recommending approval of this requested administrative item with the following conditions: 1) All improvements shall comply with current setback requirements for the R-1 zoning district. 2) All required building permits must be secured for proposed improvements. Warrick: You don't have a drawing in your packet but I do have this graphic which shows the site layout. Bunch: While we are looking at this can you tell us why we are looking at this rather than it being handled administratively? Warrick: This is a non -conforming lot of record. There is a code section that addresses non -conforming lots and structures within the ordinance. I think we have included that in your packet. It specifies that additions, alterations, or new construction for a single-family residence can be permitted at the approval of the Subdivision Committee on a non- conforming lot of record. In this case we are looking at an addition to an existing structure on a non -conforming lot of record. The structure complies with regard to setbacks. The lot itself is too narrow to meet the minimum requirements in the RSF-4 zoning district. It was created prior to current zoning regulations being adopted in 1970. It is very consistent with the neighborhood. This is the way that most of the lots in that area were developed. Bunch: There is no need for any other staff reports on this? It doesn't affect Trees or Parks or Engineering? Warrick: It does not. This is simply a Planning issue with regard to a non- conformity at the discretion of the Subdivision Committee. Bunch: We will go to the applicant. Can you introduce yourself? Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 6 Kinion: Bunch: Kinion: Bunch: Kinion: Warrick: Bunch: Church: Warrick: MOTION: Ostner: Church: Bunch: Kinion: Warrick: I am Mark Kinion. It is a double garage that will be added to an existing structure. The houses on either side have garages in the back also so it is very much like the neighborhood. This is the structure, you will drive in here and then you will pull into the garage here. This is a new driveway? No, it is an existing driveway. They already have a garage here and we have a garage underneath here that will be turned into a basement. Is this a shared driveway? Yes. Basically it is city right of way. I am not sure if there is an alley in that location or not. I know that it has been utilized as a shared drive for a very long time. At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for comments, questions or motions. Have we heard from any of the neighbors concerning this at all? I have not. I will make a motion that we approve ADM 03-14.00. I will second it. I will concur. Good luck. Thank you very much. When can I get the permit? If I remember, later this morning. I know it is in the system and it has been applied for so you should be able to get your permit. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 7 ADM 03-16.00: Administrative Item (Jones, pp 524) was submitted by Blew & Associates on behalf of Raymond O.W. Jones for property located in lots 16 and 17 in Block Three of Fairland Addition. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential (RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre). The request is to build a single family residence on a non -conforming lot of record. Bunch: The next item on our agenda is ADM 03-16.00 submitted by Blew and Associates on behalf of Raymond O.W. Jones for property located at lot 16 and 17 of Block 3 in Fairland Addition. Staff report on this? Pate: Yes Sir. The request for this administrative item is to build a single- family residence on a non -conforming lot of record. It is much like the other one in the fact that the lot is non -conforming with the lot width size. You will notice in addition to your packet there is a vicinity map. This location is off of Huntsville Road and Lighton Avenue. Staff is requesting approval of the requested administrative item with the following conditions: 1) All improvements shall comply with the current setback requirements for the RMF -24 zoning district. 2) All required building permits must be secured for proposed improvements. Bunch: Is the applicant or an applicant's representative present? Warrick: This is one that if you are comfortable with approving this I will be glad to get the information to the applicant. The burden is still on them to provide a site plan that meets the requirements of the zoning district and for staff to review. Your consideration in this case is much like the previous request however, in this situation it is a vacant lot and you are being asked to approve the development of one single-family home on this lot. The neighborhood is fairly consistent in the development of small single- family homes. It is on somewhat of a slope. The zoning would allow for higher density development however, under the provision that it is a non- conforming lot you can only approve a single-family structure and that is all that staff would recommend. That is what the request is. We can convey any information to the applicant if you choose. Bunch: Just a question. It says located on lots 16 and 17, is this one lot or is it two lots for one structure? Warrick: It is one lot. There were adjustments made in the past that changed the configurations of several lots in this area and when lot lines were adjusted this actually became part of 16 and part of 17. This is the survey of the tract that we are discussing. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 8 Bunch: Warrick: Bunch: Warrick: Ostner: Warrick: MOTION: Ostner: Church: Bunch: Ok, thank you. At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. What size is this lot, the reconfigured lot? It is a bit of a trapezoid in shape but it is basically 50x145. The 50' being the frontage? There is about 57' along Lighton Street on the east and 45 ''/Z' on the rear of the lot to the west. It is shy of the 60' requirement for a single-family lot, only 3' shy. It sounds like you all have the ability to handle this. We will have to approve a building permit on this lot and it will be required to meet the setbacks regardless so yes. I trust our staff can handle it. I will make a motion that we approve ADM 03-16.00. I will second it. I will concur. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 9 LSP 03-45.00: Lot Split (City of Fayetteville, pp 439) was submitted by Bart Petray of the City of Fayetteville for property located at 4023 W. Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 3.98 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 2.00 acres and 1.98 acres respectively. Bunch: The next item on our agenda is a Lot Split for the City of Fayetteville. Jeremy, can you give us the rundown on this one? Pate: Yes Sir. The request for this property is to split the 3.98 acre lot into two tracts. The two tracts would be 2.00 acres and 1.98 acres respectively. That portion of the property containing 1.9 acres, which is the northern tract, has been rezoned from R -A, Residential Agricultural, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. The remaining tract, tract A remains zoned R -A. That rezoning was approved on July 1, 2003 by the City Council. Currently a single-family residence with out structures is located on the northern half of the site. Surrounding zoning is Neighborhood Commercial, Residential two and three family, Residential Agricultural and Residential two and three family. Water lines will be extended to serve the proposed fire station on this lot on tract A. A 6" sanitary sewer line exists along the west side of the tracts within an existing 25' utility easement. Rupple Road requires 90' right of way dedication, which is indicated on the site plan. It is a minor arterial. Staff is recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level. It is subject to three conditions of approval. 1) 90' of total right of way along Rupple Road shall be dedicated pursuant to minor arterial requirements of the Master Street Plan. 2) Water service shall be extended to serve any proposed development. Number three is standard. Bunch: On this water service extension, how does that play in with the development of the Boys and Girls Club? Is that water service extended down Rupple Road or did it come through the adjoining subdivision? I remember there was an extension. Warrick: Bart may be able to address this a little bit better but water and sewer are both being extended down Rupple to the Boys and Girls Club if I'm not mistaken. Petray: The water line came from the west in that subdivision. It dead ended at that street there, came across Rupple and then went south to the Boys and Girls Club. It is approximately 500' south here. Sewer I believe came from the south side of the Boys and Girls Club. There is an east/west sewer line on the south side of that property. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 10 Bunch: To get the water to this tract will it be extended from Hwy. 16 west to the south of this property or will it be coming up Rupple Road from the south and extended to the north? Petray: I'm not sure at this point. Dave Jurgens I'm sure is going to want to look into that. We are assuming that at some point in the future Rupple Road will be extended further south and he may want to come off of that large line up on Wedington with a large line running south. Warrick: That is going to be determined relatively soon. We are going to be seeing a Large Scale Development for the fire station on this two acre site probably within the next two months. At that time it will have to be determined in working with Water and Sewer and Engineering the best way to provide service for this lot and the city will be required of course to extend to provide service to the fire station site. Bunch: Ok, thank you. Tree and Landscape, anything on the Lot Split? Carnagey: No Sir. Bunch: Parks? Turner: No Sir. Bunch: Ok, thank you. At this time will you all identify yourselves and give us your presentation? Petray: I am Bart Petray, the City of Fayetteville land surveyor. I don't have a presentation but will answer questions. Ledbetter: I am Dennis Ledbetter with the Fire Department. I just got this this morning. I know they had meetings with people yesterday and a couple of days on the design and getting this going. I think that this will be a pretty fast project because they are really needing a fire station out there bad. This is going to be the answer to a lot of problems. Bunch: We are kind of familiar with this because we have taken a look at it recently on the rezoning to be able to accommodate this. It is a pretty good project. Petray: I do have a question on the rezoning. I have one or the other of these tracts incorrect here on my plat, I show both of them as C-1. Warrick: The one on the north is C-1, the one on the south has remained R -A. On the final document that you seal that needs to reflect that change. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 11 Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee. This will come through as a Large Scale Development so at that time we will address a lot of the issues like water and sewer and landscaping and how many of those beautiful trees get cut down and all that sort of thing. That looks like a lot that you can work around on. It is a beautiful lot. MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 03-45.00. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Good luck. I know the people on that side of town are very interested in this and would like to have a little bit shorter time on their fire service so I hope we can get this one done in a hurry. Ledbetter: It is going to be a nice project. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 12 LSP 03-43.00: Lot Split (Hoskins/Brookhaven, pp 214) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company Engineering & Surveying on behalf of Tracy Hoskins for property located at Lot 32, Brookhaven Estates. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential (RSF-4), and contains approximately 1.09 acres. The request is to split the tract into two tracts of 0.31 acres and 0.78 acres. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is a Lot Split submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland and Company on behalf of Tracy Hoskins for property located at lot 32 of Brookhaven Estates. Staff, what can you tell us about this one? Pate: This is a Lot Split of lot 32 into two tracts, 32A and 32B as proposed on the site plan. The parent tract of 1.09 acres would be split into two tracts of .31 acres and .78 acres. There is currently a two story single-family residence located at the corner of Bellshire and Sussex Drive. This home is proposed to remain compliant with all required setbacks and lot area regulations for the RSF-4 zoning district. The proposed lot 32B is currently vacant with a residential development planned for that lot. Surrounding zoning is Residential Single Family with multi -family uses. A 6" water line exists along Sussex Drive, any proposed development shall connect to that water service. An individual septic system is proposed for lot 32B due to difficulties in grade change. The applicant has submitted the proper septic system by Washington County pursuant to city requirements. Right of way dedication along Sussex Drive and Bellshire Drive are both local streets requiring 50' of right of way and that is indicated on the site plan. Those are local streets. A waiver for the required extension of Sussex Drive to serve lot 32B until a design grade for the extension of that street can be determined. Staff Engineering, Matt Casey, is in agreement with that proposal due to the grade differential of this extension. Sidewalk requirements have been agreed upon by the Sidewalk Administrator with a cash in lieu fee of $630 for a single-family residential lot due prior to building permit approval. The Fire Department has recommended that a cul-de-sac be constructed to accommodate turn around for fire apparatus. According to International Fire Code 2000 Addition Appendix D, which is attached in your packets, it requires a 96' diameter cul-de-sac for those dead end drives, 151' to 500' in length. This drive is not longer than 150' so the applicant is not required to construct that turn around. We are recommending that this go forward to the full Planning Commission based on six conditions of approval. 1) Planning Commission approval of construction of a single-family home without frontage onto a city street and their finding on a safe and adequate means of access to the proposed lot. 2) Connection to city water service shall be at the owner's expense prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Sidewalk cash in lieu fee of $630 for a single-family residential house shall be paid prior to building permit approval. 4) Parks fees in the Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 13 amount of $555 for one additional single-family lot are due prior t the issuance of a building permit. 5) All residential driveways shall have a maximum width of 24' measured at the right of way line. Number six is a standard condition of approval. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any additional comments from Parks? Turner: No Sir. Bunch: At this time we will go to the applicant. Can you introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Milholland: I am Mel Milholland with Milholland Engineering. I am representing my client on this. Staff has already defined the request in great detail. What was studied was from my understanding was ok with staff and from the Fire Chief, I talked to him personally with his comments and he said it could not be required from the standpoint of the international fire code. Due to the depth of the contours and the future street, this will be filled. That is one of the reasons it stopped here before. I did the subdivision also, because of the grade change. We think it is sensible not to put something in to tear it out later. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. If you would please come to the lectern right here and tell us who you are and give us the benefit of your comments. Dunn: Paul Dunn, I've got the house right there beside Sussex and Bellshire. You see where the lot stops there. A couple of comments on that, where will the utilities come from? Will they come through my yard or will they go through his existing house and tear up my existing yard? The second thing is on the septic system. We all had to connect to the city. I have got a $340,000 home there. If something were to happen with that sewer system it could ruin the value of my property. I have no control over whether you split the lot or not but the septic system I don't agree with because also they've the creek right behind it if something were to happen to that then all the water is running into the creek. My concern is the utilities. I don't want anything disturbed. When we bought the house to build my house, and I built it myself, there was no understanding or anything of this being a lot split. Now that I've got my yard in great shape I don't want somebody to come in and tear it up. If they build a house that is fine but use the utilities and all through their existing lot. I don't want anything disturbed on my property. Milholland: We went through Technical Plat on this with all the utility companies. The water line is already existing down to the site so there is no water line Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 14 Bunch: Milholland: Dunn: Milholland: Dunn: Milholland: Dunn: Warrick: Dunn: extension, just a meter set on the opposite side of the street from you. As far as the other utilities, he actually owns this house here so he would have to run the conduits along the easement on the east side. It won't touch yours at all. If you would come over and take a look at the drawing and let Mel explain it to you, I think that would make it a lot easier. Here is your property, here is where the street stops now, here is his house. The water line right now is a 6" line that goes down right here so all we are going to do is tap in here. The sewer system with the creek back here though? Here are the other utilities. He is going to put some conduits for the utility people to use on his property here so that would be on him. As far as the septic, this is so low that it won't drain into this manhole up here. It is allowed for larger lots to have septic systems. They have already had the soil pathologist, licensed by the State Health Department to do tests, and they have done tests on this and it has passed. They have got the septic system already designed for the house. Even with that creek back there if it overflows it is going to go into the creek? It is like if there is a manhole that gets stopped up and overflows. Which one is more probably? I don't think that is a consideration because both of them could do the same thing. But this is the city and everybody in the neighborhood is hooked onto it and we're not having any problems whatsoever and then you've got something like that where in the county don't you have to have so much land to have it perk? There is a certain requirement and the different lot sizes and different soil types are reviewed by registered sanitarians. They have reviewed this lot and they have issued approval that the size lot and the type of soil for the proposed system would satisfy the development proposal. A question on that then, if you will look at these other houses that have come along in this area. I had to build my house up instead of putting in a lift station because my lot is set back like that. Why can't they do a lift station? Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 15 Warrick: This was an issue that was reviewed by our Engineering Division. We can get some more information from our staff engineers and take that forward to the Planning Commission level. They initially have determined that because of the elevation of the lot and the elevation of the nearest manhole that it is not feasible for this lot to connect to the city's system and that there is an option under our grading and drainage ordinances or engineering ordinances with regard to water and sewer that would allow for an individual septic system when that situation is determined by the staff engineers. That is the information that I have at this point in time. Dunn: The next question is since he is allowed to get a septic system there will he have to pay sewer to the city? Warrick: No. Dunn: Ok, can I do the same thing with mine then so I won't have to pay? Warrick: I don't believe that you're in the same situation. I will be happy have the staff engineers review that again. Once you are connected to the city's sewer system staff would not be favorable to recommending that you disconnect from the sewer system. A septic system is not a preferable choice in this situation but my understanding is with the topography and the elevation of the lines it is driving this particular decision. Milholland: Another issue is the existing sewer system, we are talking about the grading needed to get close to this lot. The Health Department doesn't allow putting private lines across other people's property once this becomes a private lot. That is another problem with this issue. Dunn: Is there any guarantee on this sewage system? Milholland: Just like all the other thousands that go in it has got a professional that has assigned it. Dunn: That is out in the county though where they have more land correct? Milholland: No, there are small lots in the county too. Dunn: How many in the city limits? We have got a $340,000 house here, we've got a $360,000 here. I don't know the value of theirs. Theirs was $320,000 when they paid for it two years ago. Milholland: Just for an example, I don't know the exact value but I know I designed several subdivisions at the edge of town that have two acre tracts and a house which is 3,000 or 7,000 square feet. My house is 5,000 and I have a Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 16 septic tank in my front yard. I have the same fear as you. It has to be maintained. All I can say is it meets city ordinance and it meets State Health Department requirements. Warrick: What would it take to install an individual lift station to provide for this lot to connect to the city's sewer system? Milholland: I couldn't say. There are very few of those. The restriction is you can't run a private force main across another person's property. Dunn: It is their property right now. Milholland: It is not allowed to go across the property. If this is approved it is approved as a potential lot to be sold. Warrick: There is substantial city right of way there and easements. Dunn: I would rather go with the lift station. If you look at the other houses through there they have lift stations. Warrick: I don't know the engineering situation out there. Dunn: I will get the insurance on them, I know. Milholland: In this subdivision they have houses in here that have lift stations? Dunn: Yes, right next door to here and next to us they have a lift station. Bunch: Dawn, what is the city rule on minimum lot size for a septic tank? I think at one time it was revised downward to go from an acre and a half to one acre? Warrick: I would have to review that to tell you for sure. I don't know the hard number on that. My understanding is that it is based on what size lot will meet the requirements for the system to Health Department standards. Bunch: So it is either a size minimum or? Warrick: Or whether you could achieve a system and it function based on their requirements and have a permit issued. Bunch: Are there any plans for the extension of Sussex Drive? Warrick: Not at this time. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 17 Bunch: Could you elaborate on the comment that was made about the any work to be done on Sussex pending engineering review of grades? Warrick: It is the grades that we are looking at. It basically drops off the edge of a hill right behind this property. Lot 32 is the subject property that we're dealing with the split somewhere right here. Sussex is built about to this contour line and in order for Sussex to continue we will have to bridge this ravine and the incline will likely have to start at or before the existing pavement in order for it to be able to connect to something on the other side to engineer that. The comments from engineering reflect the current conditions that if that is built according to the platted right of way it will likely not be useable when the actual connection is built in the future. At this point in time there is no proposal for that connection to occur. Bunch: In essence, since the owner of this lot is requesting a split is actually a developer so in developing this second lot is there any requirement to contributions to road extensions or that sort of thing? Warrick: I have researched that some and my understanding is that the developer of Brookhaven Subdivision was required to put up funds for offsite improvements for the continuation of Sussex Drive and I can get the numbers for you on that but that was an assessment taken for the plat of the subdivision when it was originally created. Bunch: Warrick: Bunch: Warrick: Would there be anything in addition since this particular owner is developing his lot further? Would there be an additional contribution? the contribution was to get all of Sussex to a property line and I don't think that we can take an assessment to the same area twice. So there wouldn't be any additional burden that would be created by the creation of this lot? No. If the road were built all the way to the edge and this lot split remained proposed the burden would've been born for the burden of the street by the original developer of the subdivision. I don't think that the situation has changed because they did make an assessment for that. I believe that that is the case. I am still finalizing the research on that but I will have that for you at the Planning Commission to verify that the extension of Sussex has already been contributed towards by the development of Brookhaven. Bunch: Do you have any additional questions or comments? Dunn: Just the sewer. The utilities are fine because it is nothing on my property. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 18 Bunch: If you could get with Dawn to help her get information on these other lift stations. Warrick: I will get with Engineering, they will have to have record of that in their sewer systems. Milholland: Would the city allow a private force main in the right of way? My understanding was it wouldn't. That is why we got a septic system. Bunch: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee. Church: What is the standard lot size for this subdivision? Warrick: The standard lot size for the zoning district is a minimum of 70' of frontage and 8,000 sq.ft of land area. I have not done a survey to determine what lot sizes in the area equate to. They are larger lots. Church: So the acre size is close to the standard? Milholland: Not for Brookhaven. Warrick: In this particular area the lots tend to be a little bit larger but Brookhaven and some of the other subdivisions in that area are not really large lots. Milholland: The lot across the street from them is the same size, on the inside of the street back up these woods some of these lots are long because they go down to the street. Dunn: We paid more for those though because we wanted a larger lot. Bunch: Are there any prohibitions on lot splits in the information on the development in the plat of the development? Warrick: Not that we found. Bunch: Mel, did you engineer Brookhaven Development? Milholland: Yes. Bunch: I guess one of the things that we need to look at when we forward it to the full Planning Commission is to see if there are any restrictions on splitting lots within the development to see if anything is platted on that. Are there any other questions, comments or motions? Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 19 Ostner: I am concerned about the septic system. It seems to me that I would like to fully explore the pump possibility, especially since everybody else in the area is hooked up to sanitary sewer. The other thing that occurred to me is that if Sussex was ever extended as you mentioned, a great deal of grading or fill might be necessary. He would be in a hole. That is a possibility. Milholland: This part of the lot would be. I am sure they plan on building a house up here somewhere. If you start right here with a vertical curve. I actually laid this out when I designed it to see where it would be and then suggest where to stop this so it wouldn't be wasteful and this is the point. Right here you are at grade and by the time you got 7' down here you might be 5' or 6' above grade but you could still get out. The house wouldn't be down here. The house he plans to put up top. Ostner: Good. There again, if he is already located at the high part of the lot it would be the least effort to either build up to grade or to grind up hill. Milholland: I don't think he would be able to build the grade up high enough. He would be way above this building here or he would be even with it. It isn't steep to get past this point right here but it is going downhill. Like he said, all of these houses here are going down hill too. Dunn: I had to build mine 6' above where they proposed it so I wouldn't have to do a lift station. Ostner: Personally I would be willing to forward this but not to approve the septic system until we found out more about other lots in the area and the actual feasibility of a lift station. Milholland: We will look into it. Dawn is going to check the city ordinance with the Engineering staff and I will look into it from a cost standpoint. Bunch: In forwarding this we have some issues that need to be determined but there is sufficient time between now and the full Planning Commission I think to resolve those issues or to at least have a presentation. The septic situation, we have others in the neighborhood that are using lift stations I don't see any reason not to have this one. You have to be within 300' is the city requirement. Warrick: If you are within 300' and have the ability to connect you are required to do so. Bunch: Unless it is extenuating circumstances. Do I hear any motions that might include some of the additional information that we need? Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 20 MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we forward LSP 03-43.00 to the full Planning Commission and in the mean time that we investigate the option of going with a lift station instead of the septic system. Ostner: I will agree. Bunch: I will concur and also add that we need to research the plat of this subdivision to see if lot splits are permitted. Are there any other issues that we need to make sure to address between now and the Planning Commission? If not, we will forward this to the full Planning Commission. Dunn: Do I need to come to that? Bunch: Yes Sir, we have a time for public comment and public notification will be sent. Warrick: Notice has already been given. It will be July 14`h Bunch: The preceding Thursday we have agenda session where we look at it. It would be in your best interest to attend on the 14th Dunn: Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 21 FPL 03-04.00: Final Plat (Cornerstone Subdivision, pp 402) was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Lindsey Properties for property located west of Porter Road and south of Megan Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and RMF -12, Moderate Density Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 15.34 acres with 10 lots proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is the Final Plat for Cornerstone Subdivision submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Properties for property located west of Porter Road and south of Megan Drive. Do you have any information on this? Warrick: We do have information on this. It is not ready. We request that it be tabled to the next Subdivision Committee. Bunch: Rather than forward it and try to keep the time schedule? Warrick: We don't want to do that. We would prefer that it come to the next Subdivision Committee because at that point in time they should have sufficient time to have all of the inspections and requirements met on the construction. Bunch: I guess we need to ask if anyone in the audience is here to speak on this. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion for tabling. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion we table FPL 03-4.00. Church: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 22 PPL 03-11.00: Preliminary Plat (The Estates at Salem Hills, pp 205/206) was submitted by Tomlinson Asphalt Civil Engineering Division on behalf of TTM -LLC (Bud Tomlinson, Gerald Tomlinson and Mark Mahaffey) for property located north of West Salem Road, west of Salem Road and south of the west end of the Howard Nickle R/W on the Master Street Plan. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 40.14 acres. The request is for residential subdivision with 24 lots ranging in size from 1.06 acres to 2.27 acres. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is a Preliminary Plat for the Estates at Salem Hills submitted by Tomlinson Asphalt Engineering Division on behalf of PTM Limited Liability Corporation for property located north of West Salem Road and west of Salem Road and the extension of Howard Nickle Road. This is in the growth area. Do we have a staff report? Pate: Yes Sir. The subject property is approximately 40.14 acres and the request is for a residential subdivision with 23 lots ranging in size from 1.02 acres to 1.74 acres. The property is located in the planning area. Surrounding land use is primarily single-family residential and agricultural. Extended 8" water lines are proposed to serve this development and individual septic systems are also proposed to serve this development. Right of way being dedicated, Howard Nickle Road is a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan, it is the east/west road to the north of the property. That requires 110' of right of way. Salem Road is a minor arterial, it is the north/south road bisecting the property and it requires 70' right of way south of Howard Nickle Road. The applicant is requesting to amend the Master Street Plan, vacate the existing right of way and dedicate 90' of right of way along Howard Nickle Road through the entire proposed development in a different alignment as you can see there on the proposed site plan. Staff is in support of this request. The applicant is indicating 60' of right of way for West Salem Road to the south which is compliant with the Master Street Plan. Street improvements proposed would be along Howard Nickle Road improved to Washington County standards to include a 28' wide street. Staff's recommendation is to forward this to the full Planning Commission subject to eight conditions of approval. 1) Prior to this Preliminary Plat approval the project shall not be forwarded to the full Planning Commission until approval has been obtained from the county for those lots having a gross area of less than 1 ''A acre. A permit for individual septic systems by the Arkansas Department of Health for each proposed lot in this size category. 2) The lot split to create that portion of the property to the west of Howard Nickle Road shall be filed with the county. 3) Planning Commission consideration and City Council approval for an amendment to the Master Street Plan must be obtained for the proposed Howard Nickle Road alignment 4) The request for vacation of right of way for the current Howard Nickle Road alignment shall be considered by Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 23 the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. 5) Access to Howard Nickle Road shall be limited to those lots without frontage onto interior streets. A provision for shared access shall be indicated on the Final Plat for a maximum of five curb cuts onto Howard Nickle Road. 6) A 20' utility easement shall be granted along the property line of lots 16 and 17 pursuant to utility requests. 7) Property line for the project shall reflect the correct right of way dedication along West Salem Road, which is 30' from centerline. 8) Required right of way dedication for Howard Nickle Road is 90' into West Salem Road, 30' from centerline shall occur with the Final Plat. Bunch: I guess since this is in the growth area there are no other staff comments on it. Tom, can you introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Hennelley: I am Tom Hennelley with Tomlinson Asphalt Company. We don't really have any problem with the majority of the conditions that were read with the exception of the limited access onto Howard Nickle Road. We would rather propose that lots that have access to the two other streets and West Salem it be indicated on the Final Plat that access to those lots be restricted to the side streets but then not restrict the other lots from using whatever individual drives they come up with with the layout for whatever house they decide to put on there and not have shared access. It would increase the number that was requested from five to eight so we would be requesting actually three additional cuts along Howard Nickle Road rather than restrict the builders or whatever house layout the person decides to have to put a garage or whatever on a certain side of the house. What we would propose is that lots 9, 7, 4, 18 and 17 be indicated on the Final Plat to access only off of those side streets and then the remainder of them be allowed to access this. It is roughly 2,000 feet of road and eight cuts just didn't seem like it was excessive. Bunch: That is basically the same thing that is said in condition five, it is just worded differently. Hennelley: Condition five wants only five cuts which would require us to have a shared cut for 15 and 16, 1 and 2 and 19 and 20. Bunch: Is there any other presentation Tom? Hennelley: I don't believe so. I do have a letter from Dr. Bailey who is not able to be here and I don't have a copy of that. If you could make me a copy of that. That was faxed to me and the fax got brought down here while I was here. It basically states that his concerns are there are no sidewalks shown in the subdivision and that he is wanting to know about any type of reimbursement that may be able to occur because he built his driveway Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 24 within the right of way of Howard Nickle Road within the past three months and we will end up having to tear out what it was that he put in to build the new street within the right of way. Basically what he did was he built his new driveway almost smack dab in the middle of the right of way and then turned it up into his property. Bunch: That is that asphalt extension that comes through there before it gets to what is marked as Construction Road? Hennelley: Yes. I met with him yesterday and told him that we probably would not be able to utilize what was there because the section wasn't adequate for the traffic and that we would build him a new entrance where his drive comes through these pine trees here onto Howard Nickle Road and he indicated to me that he was happy with that but he was still a little bit upset that he had spent the money to build the drive. Bunch: Ok. At this time we will take public comment Does anyone in the audience wish to address us on this issue? If you would please come to the lectern and identify yourself and give us the benefit of sharing your comments. Goodman: Yes, I own property on Howard Nickle and Hutchinson Lane and my dad owns property. Bunch: Could you tell us who you are please Ma'am? Goodman: Debbie Goodman. We want to know what is going to happen about the traffic. The traffic on Howard Nickle Road right now is really bad. This is just going to add to it. Are they planning on extending it, the existing Howard Nickle? Hennelley: You mean widening the existing Howard Nickle Road? Goodman: Yes. Hennelley: No Ma'am. Goodman: How about the traffic? This is just going to add more to it. Hennelley: Yes Ma'am, it will. Goodman: Is there any plans for the upkeep on that? Right now it is unbelievable the traffic out there. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 25 Hennelley: Goodman: Hennelley: Goodman: Hennelley: Goodman: Hennelley: Goodman: Hennelley: Goodman: Hennelley: Goodman: Hennelley: Goodman: Hennelley: Goodman: I agree with you that there is a considerable amount of traffic through there. All I can tell you is that on the Master Street Plan it is indicated that at some point that road will be upgraded to handle the increased traffic. They won't want more right of way? You would have to talk to staff about that. I am not sure what has been dedicated along that portion of Howard Nickle. Rather than widening Howard Nickle Road what about putting another street down there at the bottom and get rid of some of the traffic up there on the hill? I'm not sure. It would be going back the other way instead of getting them out toward Howard Nickle it would put them back towards Mount Comfort down there by the school. We are paving those. West Salem Road that is south of that property, we will be paving that road. Back towards Mount Comfort? No, from the corner of our property out to Salem Road. By the community building? Right. What we are talking about is paving it the other way toward the new junior high. Go east with another road instead of putting it all up. That is on the Master Street Plan isn't it Dawn? Rupple Road extension from Mount Comfort all the way to this road. No, off of Salem and go east between the school and that housing project down there. There is already one street that goes a quarter of a mile and extend it on and come out there at Arkansas Best Freight to get part of it off that hill. Ok, I see, you're talking about Razorback Golf Course, down in that area? Yes. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 26 Warrick: Goodman: Warrick: Goodman: Hennelley: Goodman: Hennelley: Goodman: Bunch: Goodman: Bunch: Goodman: Warrick: There is a proposal for a connection from Deane Solomon west to the Crystal Springs subdivision and that is actually in development stages at this point in time with the new phase of Crystal Springs project and that will take traffic from the Razorback Golf Course area on Deane Solomon Road west to the elementary junior high area, middle school area, in the area of Crystal Springs subdivision. Can we get a copy of the proposal on the new streets out in that area? The city's Master Street Plan absolutely available in the Planning Division or the GIS Division. We can't even walk across Howard Nickle Road out there right now. I think a lot of that has to do with that construction going on on I-540 up there. I drive 112 a lot and there are a lot of people cutting through there because they are trying to avoid the construction. You are right about that but it was also bad before. I agree with that. All those people come through there going to the mall. If we get another road down there it would help instead of putting it all on Howard Nickle Road. The next action on this would be that it would be forwarded to the full Planning Commission and at that time there will also be more time for public comment Is there anyone else who would like to address us on this issue? If you would, please come forward. I'm sorry, what did you say? I said we won't take any action at this meeting other than to either table it or to forward it to the full Planning Commission and if it is forwarded to the full Planning Commission there will be more time in the interim between this meeting and the time that it would go to the full Planning Commission some of these issues can be investigated and researched and then there will be more time for public comment at the full Planning Commission. Ok. When will it go to the full Planning Commission? If it is forwarded today it would go to the full Planning Commission on July 14`h. That meeting would be at 5:30 that Monday evening. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 27 Fell: My name is Kris Fell and I live across the street. I am neighbors of Mr. Tomlinson who is going to be developing that. Again, I have no problem with the development per say, my concern is I am also on the school board and a resident of that area for a long time. My concern is the traffic situation that is happening with the development, not only with this development but of many other developments in our area. It is my understanding from visiting with several people that we are looking at over 700 houses being built in that area within a two mile radius of Holcomb and Holt School. At the current time the traffic cannot, those two streets, Salem and Mount Comfort, cannot support the current traffic that is on there in addition with what is going to happen with these other developments and an additional 2,000 cars because everybody has two cars and if you have got teenagers you are going to have three. Right now it is a backup situation during school that people are trying to go from Holcomb to Holt, from Mount Comfort to Holcomb, from Mount Comfort to Holt. You cannot turn in and you cannot turn out. The only people who give anybody any lead way are school bus drivers. School bus drivers tend to back up the people and everybody gets frustrated. They are doing their job and they need to do that but they are the only ones letting other school buses out, they are the only ones letting other people out. The city has to be conscious of this before additional developments are made. All I am asking that in your comments that you need to make the city aware that they are not keeping up with the infrastructure. There has either got to be a three way stop sign at Mount Comfort and Salem or a three way stop at Holt, the entrance to Holt because that only has one way in and out. There is only one way in and out to Holcomb now from Mount Comfort and Salem. They can come from Howard Nickle and they do that. The majority of those people are also taking their kids onto Holt. I am glad to hear that the Crystal Springs drive is going because I was beginning to wonder if that was ever going to happen because that was in the planning stages for four or five years and never happened. I am just concerned as a parent and as a school board member that we are going to have major accidents. Right now the dump trucks that are coming by Holcomb, it caused an issue right before school was out that they had traffic backed up. Now you are going to add all of these dump trucks again in addition to traffic and there is another subdivision going on Mount Comfort, there is a plat meeting coming up for that one that I didn't even know about until the last day or so. Something just has to be done before more additions to our city are put into plans. My one other concern is yes, we are on septic tanks and I'm on septic tank and I don't have a problem with a septic tank but the pump station right now across from Holcomb on Salem cannot support the flow of water that is going through it and the corner of Mount Comfort and Salem backs up at least four times a year and the city has to come up and dig it out. It is a major concern Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 28 there right now. Now you are going to add all of these houses on. When you make your comments to the Planning Commission, I know we have time to go and talk there, but please put those in there. Those are major concerns that I just don't want to see children and families hurt in countless traffic accidents and kids being late to school. Unfortunately, the principals of both of these schools couldn't be here but they both have major concerns also. Bunch: Thank you. I know we have quite a few projects that have been approved on Salem Road and part of the eventual planning is to extend Rupple Road and a lot of this infrastructure is being handled by the development process. Until all the different phases are completed there will be a lot of dump trucks and a lot of traffic that won't be able to be through traffic. Eventually through the development process some of these connections will be made but it may be two or three years out. Does anyone else wish to comment? Yes Sir, please come forward and give us the benefit of your comments. Turrentine: Good morning, I am Fred Turrentine, I am representing Fayetteville Public Schools. I am the director of Physical Plant Services. The growth is great, that property tax helps the schools grow. Tomlinson has been a great friend of the school system in a lot of projects. They pledge manpower and help some. I am certainly not opposed to the development but I too would like to address the infrastructure. In the last couple of years we had a bus going north from Rupple at Holt and the congestion was so bad on Mount Comfort Road it went over the bank, turned over and it totaled the bus. Fortunately, we had no kids in it. The kids had been dropped off. Often at that intersection a bus can't make the turn because the street is so narrow. I won't take a lot of this committee's time but we need a proper forum to address the narrowness of the streets on Mount Comfort and Salem Road and what our plans are with the county and the city are together to address this. We will this next year with the growth have a very difficult time getting kids to school on time. An answer might be well let's just start earlier. Then we get a lot of parent complaints that my children are being picked up earlier than is the proper time to pick them up. My concern is safety of children with the narrowness of the streets and the buses trying to get turned out onto those streets. I am going to formally ask that we have some type of quorum to address safety of streets for our school children and busses. Bunch: I would like to add a comment to that that it is also the school's responsibility to be wise in their choices of locations. We have some out on Hwy. 45 East that to me is a very poor choice of location. It is a major thoroughfare into and out of town and we plopped two large schools there with inadequate access other than Hwy. 45. That to me is very, very poor Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 29 planning so we need to look not only at what kind of roads we have around the schools. We need to take a strong look at where we locate our schools. Turrentine: That is an easy one to answer. We build schools where kids are. We don't build schools twenty miles out and truck them there or bus them there. Bunch: Right but we also could use some access management techniques to rather than pile traffic up on a major highway. Root School being off Hwy. 45 was there before the traffic started. The choice for location of new schools on a major highway just worsens traffic conditions. We need to have both things working together. The city needs to look at having roads that will accommodate school buses but the school system also needs to look at where they locate their schools so they exaggerate existing problems. Turrentine: Agreed. We want to be good partners. Again, both Vandergriff and McNair are already full. There are new houses going in daily and we are going to have to bus those people. It was an ideal location in that neighborhood, you only had 265 and 45 for entry. Again, it is infrastructure we are going to have to address at some point in the city and county. Bunch: With the growth rates that we've seen in the paper recently we need to take a real strong look at how we grow in this area. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this one? Come forward please Sir. Schultz: My name is Dale Schultz and I own property right next to it. I am not opposed to the subdivision either. My concern with that whole area is lack of fire protection. I know we addressed that with Rupple Road where they are going to put a new one. Still, with the 700 or 840 new homes and 24 new homes going in here and the potential growth. My concern is the closest fire station at this point if I'm not mistaken is Garland and Wheeler. If you have ever had a fire up there, which I did last year, it takes a long time to get there. Bunch: Warrick: Staff, is this served by the Fayetteville Fire Department or since it is in the growth area is it served? This property is not in the city limits. It is very important that we understand what regulations the city has the ability to place on a development that is not within the city limits. Bunch: This is barely in the growth area. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 30 Warrick: A portion of it is outside the growth area. Schultz: I am talking about everything, I'm not just talking about the 24 lots. That is great and I support that but you are looking at probably 800 new homes if I'm not mistaken with everything that has been said and done and then everybody else is going to develop adjacent to and what is our time frame for something out there for those 800 new homes plus what you have already got out there. Warrick: My understanding is the city has worked very recently to acquire a site for a fire station on Rupple Road. In fact, we saw the lot split for it earlier this morning and they are in design stages for it right now. The time frame is not something I have information on but just from discussions that I have seen and heard that that is something that they want to have on line hopefully by the end of this calendar year. Schultz: Ok, my concern is not just this subdivision but the collection of subdivisions as is theirs. Warrick: This area is growing very quickly. Schultz: Yeah, there's nowhere else to go. Bunch: In the next twenty years it is predicted that we will double and even greater in Benton County. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this project? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee. Warrick: I have a comment or two if that is alright. Bunch: Please. Warrick: One of the main issues obviously is the traffic and the city's transportation system in this general area. The city has contracted for a master transportation study city wide. We are taking into account the city's Master Street Plan and how that affects the various transportation systems and routes that people utilize within the city. The consultants are analyzing that. We have done our best to ensure that public notification is provided so that people understand that this study is ongoing. We have been working with consultants for many months. We had a public hearing a week ago on June 26`h. We have tried to encourage people who have concerns about the city's Master Street Plan proposals as well as current conditions with regard to the transportation system to make those comments known so that those comments can go into the consideration of the consultants when they are coming up with proposals to bring forward Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 31 to the City Council with regard to this master transportation study. It is important that people participate in these processes so that there is understanding of what various things need to be addressed. In this particular situation we are looking at a subdivision that is at the intersection of two Master Street Plan streets and we are trying to work with the developer to better the situation. Right now our Master Street Plan calls for Rupple Road to continue north until it would intersection with Howard Nickle traveling west in the middle of a ravine. The proposal that you have in front of you is to amend that situation by connecting the streets with a through street through this development connecting Howard Nickle Road to Rupple Road, which is proposed to eventually continue on south to Persimmon and potentially even further south to the Farmington area or at least down toward 6th Street. We have to piece meal to some degree how we get to the point that everything closes together properly. In looking at as Mr. Bunch said, one development at a time, we try to put the puzzle together and make all the pieces work so that we get people from one development or one side of town to the next. The city has a policy for connectivity. We encourage it. We try to make sure that with new developments we can accomplish that by getting people from one place to another hopefully without having to go all the way around the world and back and out on major thoroughfares to get next door. That is a goal of the city and we do attempt to make that happen as we review developments. As I mentioned, this project is located outside the city limits. We have less control over a lot of things when we look at development outside of the city limits but one of the things that we are looking at and requiring is that connectivity to ensure the integrity of the Master Street Plan. When we talk about ensuring the integrity of the Master Street Plan that also goes somewhat to access management and it comes back to discussing limited access and the number of curb cuts on a minor arterial so all of that kind of comes together to hopefully help address traffic situations. Bunch: Commissioners, are there any comments or questions? Church: Number one says that this won't be forwarded to the Planning Commission until we receive approval from the County on the lots that have less than one and a half acre. Do we have any idea about when on that? Hennelley: All of the soil tests have been done for all of the lots and we were able to revise the layout from Technical Plat Review so that all but two lots have an acre and a half. The only two being lots 21 and 22 and the septic systems for both of those lots are being designed as we speak. I expect to have those designs I'm going to say by Monday and they will be taken to the Health Department and if I don't have a letter or a permit from the Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 32 Health Department I guess by Friday we won't be able to do anything. I do expect to be able to do that though. Bunch: If we were to forward this to the full Planning Commission it would be contingent upon the approval and having in receipt the approval for lots 21 and 22 say by agenda session? Warrick: I think that is appropriate. That is Thursday afternoon. A week from today. Hennelley: That is the 10`h. Warrick: We will need it by noon on Thursday the 10`h Bunch: We could forward it based on that lead time and then we can table it. Hennelley: I don't see any problem with having those done. Like I said, I should have the designs by either this afternoon or Monday and we should be able to walk them down. There is a little bit of a catch 22 in that the city ordinance requires us to have a permit from the Health Department for lots less than an acre and a half. The Health Department will not issue us a permit for a septic system without approved water plans from the Health Department, which we can't get until you approve our subdivision. We will get a letter from the Health Department saying that the septic systems for these lots will work for a house of this size but it won't be actually a permit for a septic system. Warrick: I think that is the best we can do under these circumstances. Bunch: We can do that to where if it doesn't come through by noon on Thursday it would just automatically come back to this committee. It will be more or less as if it were tabled but this will give you the opportunity to move forward and to comply with the requirements. Can you explain this transition zone to us and how the access to the extension of Howard Nickle Road works and how the access to the Coker property as well as the Bailey property will be affected? Hennelley: Dr. Coker is really the only one. In addition to this, I'm not sure if you have it in your packet but we have the right of way vacation through here and on Rupple Road that is existing. There is 45' of existing right of way dedicated for Rupple Road and 50' dedicated for Howard Nickle with a 110' deed restriction. I talked with Dr. Coker because we are interested in vacating that easement because it really is no longer needed once we bring the street to the south. He is in agreement to that and has signed a petition for it. I am in the process of getting the utility companies to sign off on it. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 33 Bunch: Hennelley: He will be able to access from that right where his property touches the right of way for Howard Nickle Road and his drive is basically coming in almost adjacent to Dr. Bailey's. The transition here with the, are you referring to the island? Changing from 110' right of way to 90' right of way. We would like that, it seems like the only logical place for that to take place would be at our subdivision corner because there is really no good place to transition from 110' to 90' within the subdivision without taking the 110' all the way down to the south. This is already dedicated at 50' with 110' deed restriction on it so I intended on having that transition take place at our northeast corner. Bunch: Ok. Hennelley: That island will probably not ever get built. We put an island there because we had one at the south end because there is a real nice tree right there in the middle of the roadway. The county road department has a different philosophy than the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Trees located that close to the road do cause problems. That has been their experience. They would probably rather have us take that tree out and build the road straight through rather than build an island around it so we will probably end up taking those islands out. Bunch: The island made it look difficult to gain the access up in here also. Hennelley: That island for sure will probably be deleted when we submit the street plans to the county. Bunch: Since this is the Master Street Plan, I know making the sweeping curve solves a lot of problems. Goodman: Can I ask one more question? Bunch: We have already closed public comment. You will have to wait until the next meeting or maybe what we are saying today will answer some of your questions. We have already had a public comment session and we have closed it. Goodman: Is this going to affect the size of the light that is there at the corner of Howard Nickle? Bunch: Ma'am, we've closed the public comment and right now we are in the middle of a discussion on what section. Possibly we can come back to Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 34 that later but if you would allow us to continue with our business. Thank you. Is this going to create an out of spec access onto the road? We're solving some problems by making the sweeping curve but are we creating a problem with the angle of the intersection here or since that is a private drive would it not? Warrick: It is a private drive and actually the street construction is really going to be governed by the county. The city's concern is obtaining the necessary right of way to accomplish the Master Street Plan. Hennelley: I can help with that. With Dr. Coker and Dr. Bailey both, instead of that drive coming in at an angle they would prefer us to make their drives come in perpendicular to the street so that they can go either direction so that problem should be solved. Bunch: Not having an island there will help things out. Warrick: I understand that as you develop that you will be improving and fixing the access for those two property owners, is that part of it? Hennelley: Yes. Their driveways are existing so when we come through and tear it up we will have to straighten their driveways back out and bring them in at an angle that is useable to them. Bunch: West Salem is in the plans to be paved? Hennelley: It will be paved. The County is going to cost share the south half of that with us. It will be double chip sealed from Salem Road to the entrance the entire length including a portion that is not adjacent to this development directly below Mr. Schultz's property there. Bunch: Kind of an interesting thing. I was out there looking at this yesterday and there appears to be a motocross practice track there. Hennelley: I think his son rides motocross. He is apparently pretty good. Bunch: Hopefully people that buy lots 11 and 12 would have kids that would like to ride motorcycles. Having one in your backyard, as the town grows you start mixing rural and urban pursuits but having a motocross track in your backyard personally I would be in favor of it because I like motorcycles but I'm sure that there are a lot of people that would need to understand that these things happen and it comes under the category of buyer beware. Ostner: I have a question. Hayfield Circle, have you all considered making that narrower? You have got a 28' curb to curb. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 35 Hennelley: As opposed to like 24'? Ostner: I think we allow a 24'. Hennelley: I think the city allows 24' but I don't know if the county allows that. Either way, all the streets that I've developed in subdivisions where I've put in a 24' street although the city allows it, it just seems to cause problems. It seems too narrow. Particularly if you have somebody, during the day there are a lot of people that come by to see whoever and they pull their car off on the side of the road and it really causes a problem. It is just a little bit too narrow. 28', I remember when I started doing this it was 31' and then we went to 28' but 24' just seems a little tight. Ostner: I know we have the big consultant who is doing a traffic study and I think they are going to address that and try to give us latitude to justify it. Hennelley: In this development it may be if we were allowed to by the county you are probably not going to have that much curb side parking on an acre and a half lot. Ostner: They are huge lots and very few. Warrick: In this particular development the city doesn't have control over the street width or the street section that is going to be developed. The county, because of the location of the property, will govern the street section. Ostner: The other thing, I guess it has been said thoroughly, that the surrounding infrastructure does seem to be behind and lacking and that concerns me. I think this is a step in the right direction. I think this is one of the pieces filling in the puzzle and it is going to be uncomfortable as it grows. Traffic problems mean economic success and we've got it, we've got both. I think this is a good project. Hennelley: I would like to also say that we have talked with the county and met with them and John David Lindsey who owns the property south and west of here in getting chip sealed at least pavement on the southern portion of West Salem Road there. The pavement begins again about another 1,300 feet south of there and we do intend on continually trying to get that done. Everybody that is moving out there seems to rather drive on that than dirt. Bunch: Dawn, do our ordinances and regulations require showing the septic field for the existing house on lot 5? I know it says it is adequate and approved but does it have to be shown on the drawing? Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 36 Warrick: I don't know that it is a requirement. We have asked for that just to ensure that when a lot is being carved away that the septic system and all the improvements that are attached to that structure remain on the lot. I think that is a good idea. Bunch: Yeah, to make sure that part of it doesn't intrude over to lot four. Are there any other questions or motions? Ostner: I have forgotten all the special things. MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we forward PPL 03-11.00 to the Planning Commission if everything is accomplished in number one as far as a letter from the county with conditional approval, if that gets taken care of before agenda session. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. As a note to the members of the audience, if any of you have additional comments or questions I'm sure that the applicant will be happy to meet with you after this portion of the meeting. We do have other items on our agenda and we have people waiting to address those. If you have any additional comments or questions if you would please take them up either with staff after this meeting or with the applicant. Thank you. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 37 LSD 03-17.00: Large Scale Development (Landers Auto Park, pp 248) was submitted by Matt Crafton, P.E. of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Don Nelms, General Partner for Nelms, L.L.C. for property located at 1352 W. Showroom Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 42.82 acres. The request is for a 3,200 sq.ft. Hummer dealership in the seven acres of parking area approved in November 2002, , a 1,210 sq.ft. expansion of the Auto Body Shop with 55 additional parking spaces west of the Auto Body Shop, construction of a 1,210 sq.ft. Detail Building and additional parking for the display area. Bunch: The next item on our agenda is LSD 03-17.00 for Landers Auto Park submitted by Matt Crafton of Crafton & Tull on behalf of Don Nelms for property located at 1352 W. Showroom Drive. Staff, would you give us a rundown on this please? Pate: Yes Sir. This request is to construct a Hummer dealership on the seven acres of parking area that was approved in November, 2002. It is a 3,200 sq.ft. structure. An expansion of the auto body shop with 55 additional parking spaces west of the auto body shop and construction of an auto detail building, which is 1,210 sq.ft. and then additional parking for the display area. Surrounding land use and zoning is primarily C-2, I-1 and R -A. The right of way being dedicated is 55' from centerline on state Hwy. 112 to the west. Dedication must be by warranty deed since that is a state highway. Street improvements, 120 linear feet of additional sidewalk along Hwy. 112 will be constructed and that is indicated on your site plan. The adjacent Master Street Plan is Hwy. 112 which is a principal arterial and 1-540 is on the other side of the site to the south and to the east. The existing tree preservation canopy is 25.1%, preserved is 16.8%. There is no mitigation required. That was achieved in the original Large Scale. A Large Scale Development plan was approved for portions of this site by the City Council on November 5, 2002. Staff's recommendation at this time is to forward this project to the full Planning Commission subject to fifteen conditions of approval and I will go through those for you. INSERT CONDITIONS HERE Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Craig, are there any comments from Tree and Landscaping? Carnagey: Just that they have met all the conditions I requested during Tech Plat. Bunch: Ok, thank you. There's nothing from Parks. At this time we will go to the applicant, if you would introduce yourselves and tell us about your project. Crafton: Good morning, my name is Matt Crafton. I am with Crafton, Tull & Associates. I am the engineer for the project. This is Brian Black, he is Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 38 with Black, Corley and Owens, an architectural firm out of Little Rock and we are representing Mr. Don Nelms and the Landers Auto Group. As Jeremy described, this is kind of a multiple expansion project across the Landers Auto Park site. As he also mentioned, portions of what we are requesting now were previously approved last fall. The parking lot on the eastern side of the property was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council last fall. What we are requesting now is an expansion of that parking into the northeast corner of the site, a 3,200 sq.ft. Hummer building at the southeast part of that portion of the site and then the auto body shop area, which is kind of the north central area of the site, has a couple of expansions and actually the square footages are incorrect here. We put that on the application, I apologize for that. The auto body expansion itself is about 17,000 sq.ft. and the auto detail shop is about 5,600 sq.ft. plus or minus. In addition, just to the west of the auto body shop there is an additional parking lot planned and a couple of small parking expansions on the south part of the site near the used car dealership. We are happy to answer any questions you might have of us. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. I guess one of the first questions I have is do we have any drawings of the Hummer test area? Crafton: We are currently going back and forth with General Motors on what we can do in the way of deviating from the standard Hummer design test track. What we are trying to take care of here is item number one, setbacks from the property line may not contain any structure 30" or greater above the ground level. This test track does occur within that setback. What we have agreed to do with the Planning staff is to construct this out of loose natural materials like stacked stones, no mud, no dirt. The standard Hummer test track has steel rollers that Hummers are supposed to climb up and other different obviously manmade things. In order to make this more attractive from the highway and to comply with the ordinance, we would like to just construct it by stacking stones or other natural materials and working with Mr. Carnagey to landscape it as nicely as possible. Bunch: In addition to being in the setback area this is also in the Design Overlay District so we have other considerations than just the setback as far as details. A question on safety, I know from a sales standpoint it would be advantageous to have a test track close to the highway where it is highly visible but what type of distraction do you think this would be to motorists coming by and watching Hummers crawl over rock piles and that sort of thing. Do you think from a safety standpoint it would be better to have it Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 39 located in a different part of your parking lot so that it doesn't create a distraction to people who are driving 60+ miles per hour? Crafton: Since it is so close to the highway and it is so much lower than the highway is I'm not sure how much of a distraction it will be. Bunch: In that case, then why have it at that location if it is not visible from the highway because of elevation, why not have it on another side of the building or something like that to preclude a distraction to motorists? Crafton: Well Sir, this property here is being divided up into separate uses and only a very small part of this parking lot is going to be dedicated for Hummer. Since this overall site here, since the Hummer dealership is located far enough back to where it can be seen very well from the highway and the Hummer dealership is a very small building compared to the others, it is only 3,200 sq.ft. that we are proposing there, we need to have it close to the highway but we only want to dedicate the adjacent land to the dealership for Hummer functions. We did at first look at putting the test track back here at the very back so we wouldn't have to deal with these issues at all but if all of this back here is going to be used for inventory, storage, employee parking and what not, there would be conflicts with us doing that. Relocating this to another location back behind the Hummer dealership would be possible. Bunch: Can we have parking in the setback area? Warrick: Not in the 25' area of the Overlay District. Crafton: This is about the only function that we found that could go in this area since we can't park cars there. Safety distractions is one of your concerns, the height of it is one of the concerns. Bunch: I don't know how the other commissioners feel but there is probably some question about the Overlay District regulations on the building appearances. Of course it is not going to be a large box like structure or anything like that but is there anything in the Overlay District that would preclude? Warrick: A lot of the criteria within the Overlay District was removed when Commercial Design Standards were adopted. We went through and took out some of the specific regulations that were duplicated with the adoption of Commercial Design Standards such as the appearance of structures. Metal sidewalls was the one that was left in as specific to the Overlay District, the prohibition on metal sidewalls. Most everything else with regard to aesthetics and appearance of structures is addressed under Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 40 Church: Warrick: Black: Commercial Design Standards with the criteria that you need to look at, large, unarticulated blank wall surfaces, precision block walls, metal dominating the main facade, large out of scale signs with flashy colors and square, box like structures. It sounds like you have done everything you can to make it attractive to using the natural materials. We are still interested in actually understanding what it will look like even with those different materials. Currently we have submitted drawings to Hummer to General Motors design review company out of Tennessee. We have not received comments back from either General Motors or infrastructure on approval of our test track design so I don't think it is appropriate yet to bring it forward to the city until we know whether we can go forward with it. Is it possible to move forward contingent upon the approval by Mr. Carnagey for the design of the test track before it is ever built? We have committed to working with Craig to landscape it and present it as nicely as we can. I do want to emphasize that this is not going to be a sand track or a mud pit or anything that is going to cause tracking of dirt or materials onto Landers parking lot. Everything would be fixed and would be constructed in a permanent way, perhaps stones and a grout pit. Something that is still going to be rugged and looked fit for Hummers to be tested on. Bunch: That is a tremendous sales tool, no doubt about it. One of the concerns seriously is the visibility from the highway. Someone driving by could be watching the Hummers test drive. Crafton: Of course you could also make the argument someone driving by seeing 30 $100,000 plus vehicles on the side of the road would also be a distraction. We have displays out here with you know, either Hummers on display pads or piles of stone or anything like that in the future. Bunch: That would be enough of a distraction but this almost comes into the category of a moving sign you might say. We have had plenty of public attention to that lately. A question about this big expanse of parking lot back here with no landscaping, no islands, what is the story on that? Crafton: The story on that was that the intention was that Mr. Nelms in dedicating this area as a permanent wildlife refuge would allow us to have some liberty with the landscape design in this area here. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 41 Bunch: The reason I asked that is because institutional memory is fairly short and just to reiterate that this dedication here allowed some latitude in the layout and in the landscaping of the parking lot. Crafton: Also, we have tried in the design of this to keep it completely consistent with all landscaping on the existing auto park. You can take a look at the existing layout, we've got landscaping along Showroom Drive, landscaping in the right of way and landscape islands and sidewalks in the front sales area. In the existing auto park though once you get back behind the main buildings back behind Showroom Drive there is very little landscaping. Bunch: A question on lighting, I think the last time that this came through a comment was made that the basic whole complex was set up for control of lighting and that has not been done yet for reduced light levels at nights but it was already wired and engineered to be able to accommodate that. What is the current status? Crafton: Since November when Landers agreed to put all of the lights on separate timers Staley Electric up here has been contracted and they have completed their work to put all of the lights on separate time clocks. The auto park now has the ability to turn off half of the lights at any time. What their schedule is for their lighting right now I do not know. I have not been to the auto park at night in a long time. All of the lighting is now on two separate timers. Bunch: I am sure that that question will be asked at the full Planning Commission and if you could have an answer ready for us because some of the Commissioners were quite concerned with the lighting level over night. Just be able to describe what security lighting and display lighting and give us just a little update on what the changes are in the lighting. I know this is a continuation of a project since that came up. Does anyone else have anything? Ostner: My comments were about the structure within the right of way. It is just a simple issue of mass and almost fairness if you all can build in the right of way then why can't the next guy if he can convince us that it is temporary and it is natural and it is landscaped? Crafton: Just to clarify, it is not in a right of way, it is in a setback. Ostner: Excuse me, of course, right. I don't think I'm convinced that it can't be moved 25' or 30' to comply. We often hear requests to vary from the setback and with such a huge tract of land it is hard to understand why it can't be shifted. Just a single row of 18' or 20' display or parking could Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 42 be eliminated and the entire test track could be within the building setback it seems at first look. It will be a structure even though it is not a building. It is an issue of the mass to me. The other question I have is on number seven, the waiver to allow metal halide. I thought metal halide was allowed under our new lighting ordinance. Warrick: Council has not adopted a new lighting ordinance. We do not have one right now aside from those provisions that are noted under the parking lot ordinance with regard to parking lot lighting and then those provisions within the Design Overlay District. We are gearing up to retract those projects that we basically put on hold until adoption of the Unified Development Code. We believe that this condition as it is stated reflects the condition that staff placed back in November on the previous Large Scale Development that was eventually approved by the City Council. That condition was drafted based on that draft ordinance. Ostner: The way that is worded is metal halide is not allowed in Fayetteville or it is not allowed in the Overlay District? Warrick: The Overlay District specifically addresses lighting by stating that parking lot lighting shall be designed and located in such a manner to preserve the scenic appearance of the corridor. Lighting shall be shielded and directed downward to the parking lot and light spread shall not reflect into the adjacent neighborhood. The key statement is lighting shall not exceed 35' in height and shall utilize sodium lighting fixtures. That is where the Overlay District restricts lighting to sodium fixtures. The proposed Outdoor Lighting Ordinance does not. The request here is metal halide that is consistent with what was approved by the previous Large Scale as well as what is existing in the rest of the development. Ostner: I would be willing to vote for the waiver for the metal halide if I could get more information on the timing and the hours that you are going to come up with. Crafton: By our next meeting I will have a statement from Landers on that. Ostner: The point being, not just the fact that yeah we've got timers we can do whatever we want, but we're thinking about dimming them at 8:00 or at 9:00 and specific things like that. Church: The metal halide gives it a more natural look so that you can actually tell what color the cars are? Crafton: Yes. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 43 Church: It is probably pretty crucial in your business I would guess. Black: It is very important actually. Not just that, if we are adding more than 25% or 30% to this property here to have 2/3 of it burning metal halide lights at night then 1/3 burning high pressure sodium it is going to look like two different dealerships there, like two different businesses. If I could go back for just a second to the test track. As I talked to Jeremy about and Craig about before, on the test track, if this is classified as a structure and I see that it will be, we are willing to cut the height below 30" if that keeps us from having to apply for any type of waiver in there. We have no problem in keeping it below 30". Hummers don't have a 30" ground clearance so there is no reason for it to be taller than that. Bunch: It is more impressive if you climb over a taller stack of rocks. I know from a sales standpoint that that is what you need and we have to blend our requirements with those of General Motors that your dealer is representing. Black: General Motors will not have a problem with the height as much as they have a problem with us eliminating the steel rollers and the stuff that you have to put in there with them. We are proposing the Hummer to go to an all natural materials test track composed mainly of stone and we don't have any word back from them yet. Bunch: Maybe you can come up with something that they will incorporate in the rest of the country. While we are talking about the Hummer area, what about these areas where you are using the bigger asphalt paving, is there any possible way to put non impervious materials in there to help with the drainage or is it a situation where it is so surrounded by compacted soils that it probably wouldn't matter, it wouldn't make any difference that would allow ground water to seep through? Crafton: The drainage has been designed to funnel everything to detention ponds. The pattern asphalt is consistent with the rest of the site out there. That is installed throughout the other display areas. Bunch: That is always a concern how much water runs off there and what seeps through. On the wash out area is that strictly for during construction? I know in some of these drawings you show a material storage and stock pile wash out area. Crafton: That would be only for construction. It has a truck wash station. Electricity Went Out. Subdivision Committee July 3, 2003 Page 44 Motion carried to forward to the full Planning Commission.