Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-31 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on July 31, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN ADM 03-18.00: Administrative Item (Walgreens/Shiloh, pp 135) Approved Page 2 PPL 03-12.00: Preliminary Plat (Crofton Manor, pp 323) Forwarded Page 5 LSP 03-44.00: Lot Split (Brian Reindl, pp 484) Tabled Page 23 FPL 03-06.00: Final Plat (Sage Meadows, pp 396) Forwarded Page 24 ADM 03-19.00: Administrative Item (Shake's, pp 252) Approved Page 27 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Alice Church Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Craig Camagey Kim Hesse Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 2 ADM 03-18 00• Administrative Item (Walgreen's/Shiloh, pp 135) was submitted by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Walgreen's for property located at 3939 N. Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.58 acres. The request is to amend signage and landscaping items within the approved Large Scale Development, LSD02-24.00. Bunch: Welcome to the Thursday, July 31n meeting of the Subdivision Committee of your Planning Commission. Today we have five items on the agenda. The first item is an Administrative item for Walgreen's submitted by CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Walgreen's for property located at 3939 N. Shiloh Drive. Jeremy, can you give us the staff report on this please? Pate: Sure, this item was heard at the last Subdivision Committee meeting on July 17th and brought forward pending further information from the applicant. There are two revisions to the Large Scale that are being proposed. Modifications, and that does need to be approved by the Subdivision Committee through an administrative process. The changes are two items, one is signage and one is the landscape plan that was proposed and approved with LSD 02-24.00. I will go over the signage first. The staff report for the approved Large Scale should be attached and should be in with your last packet at the last tabled meeting. The applicant stated at the November 12, 2002 Planning Commission meeting that the proposed monument sign would meet the required 10' setback, 6' height and 75 sq.ft. The current proposal is to amend the approved sign size to a 10' setback, 8' high, 67 sq.ft. display area sign. Because the sign is taller than 6' it is technically not a monument sign. As an alternative, staff is recommending approval of the previously approved sign that does meet all city ordinance requirements. I believe with this letter if the applicant wants to go any further, they are stating that they would like to retain the sign height and placement as approved at Planning Commission with no revision requested so I'm not sure if I need to go any further with the report. I believe they have basically backed out of amending the sign. If I am incorrect and the applicant wishes to go with the revision then we can go a little further in detail for the sign package but I believe they have requested not to amend that sign. The other part to this request is the landscape package and I believe Craig will go over that in a little more detail. Carnagey: The original tree preservation plan included calculations that encompass both lot lA and 1B which total 2.97 acres. Their approved mitigation required four replacement trees. Their proposed modifications to date include a revised tree preservation plan to reflect the actual lot which is being built upon which is lot 1A and the adjusted tree canopy calculations include mitigation trees, replacement trees at 15 trees and they are requesting the removal of one 12" maple that is currently approved for Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 3 preservation and Walgreen's has agreed to pay an additional $5,000 into the city's tree fund for compensation to remove that tree. The total payment into the city's tree fund would equal $8,375. The maple requested for removal is in marginal condition. The increases made to the site's existing tree canopy calculations do equal obviously, added mitigation numbers and the compensation for the maple's removal constitutes, in my opinion, a greater benefit to Fayetteville's urban forest so I am recommending approval of these modifications. Bunch: Craig, one question on the fifteen trees being mitigated, on the most current drawing that we have we are showing 17 mitigated trees less two for on site mitigation equals 15 trees? Carnagey: That is not correct, maybe James can address that. There should be just 15 mitigation trees. Bunch: So the rest of the note on the drawing where it just says 15 mitigation trees at $225 is correct and we just need to have them strike the 17 minus 2? Carnagey: Exactly. Down below that it does show 15 mitigation trees at $225 each and that is the correct number. Bunch: Thank you. I guess at this time we will go to the applicant. Are there any other staff reports? Would you introduce yourself and tell us exactly what you're trying to do here? Koch: Yes Sir. My name is James Koch with CEI Engineering, I'm representing Whiteco Interra Ventures for the proposed Walgreen's at Joyce and Shiloh. Jeremy Pate is correct. We don't want to modify our sign, we want to go with the approved sign that we received at Planning Commission for this project, that means that it will not exceed 6' in height, it will be a monument sign according to the ordinance for the city. Mr. Carnagey is correct, we do want to mitigate those trees by making a donation to the tree fund and for the removal of the other established trees that $5,000 is an acceptable dollar amount to donate to the tree fund for the City of Fayetteville as well. That is basically all that we are asking to amend from our previous Planning Commission approval. Bunch: Jeremy, am I correct in assuming that we can handle that at this level? Pate: Yes Sir, it is the Subdivision Committee's charge to handle this at this level. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments or motions. Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 4 MOTION: Allen: I don't see anything problematic with this at all so I move for approval of ADM 03-18.00. Church: I will second it. Bunch: I will concur and thank you for working with staff and getting all of this lined out and we wish you luck on your project. Koch: Yes Sir, it has been a pleasure. Allen: Thank you. Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 5 PPL 03-12.00: Preliminary Plat (Crofton Manor, pp 323) was submitted by Northstar Engineering on behalf of Aaron Nickel of Woodworks Plus, Inc. for property located at 3110 Mt. Comfort Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single- family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 21.15. The request is for a proposed residential subdivision containing 56 lots with 56 single family dwelling units. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is a Preliminary Plat for Crofton Manner submitted by Northstar Engineering on behalf of Aaron Nickel of Woodworks Plus, Inc. for property located at 3110 Mt. Comfort Road. Jeremy, can we have a staff report on this please? Pate: This request is on Mt. Comfort Road, as you mentioned. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family four units per acre, and contains approximately 21.15 acres. The request is for a proposed residential subdivision containing 56 lots with 56 single-family dwelling units proposed. Surrounding land use is currently single-family residential and agricultural in use. Water and sewer extended lines that do exist along Mt. Comfort Road at this time. Tree preservation numbers are 1.84% existing, that is what is required and that is what is being preserved so no mitigation is required on this site. Right of way being dedicated along Mt. Comfort Road is 45' from centerline and that shall be dedicated once this goes through Final Plat. Street improvements proposed along Mt. Comfort Road are 14' from centerline with curb, gutter, storm sewer and required sidewalks along the entire street frontage. Staff is recommending that the sidewalk construction along lot 1, which is the southeast corner of the existing single-family residence, that sidewalk construction be waived at this time until such time as redevelopment or change in land use and ownership occurs. A note to this effect has been included as a special note on your plat. The reason for this is there is an existing vegetative screen that the current home owner would like to retain so staff is comfortable at this point with holding off on the construction of sidewalk just along this lot until such time as this lot is split out or redeveloped. Stub outs for future connectivity to the west and to the north are proposed by the applicant. Staff's recommendation at this time is to forward to the full Planning Commission with fifteen conditions of approval. I will go over those for you. 1) Access to Lot 1 shall remain as constructed until such time as redevelopment on this particular lot occurs. A note shall be made on the plat limiting access for Lot 1 to interior streets at such time as redevelopment occurs. 2) Planning Commission determination of offsite street improvements to Mt. Comfort Road. Staff is recommending 14 feet from centerline to include pavement, curb and gutter, storm sewer, and a 6 -foot sidewalk at least 10 feet from the curb, extending the entire length of the property. The sidewalk requirement for that portion fronted by Lot 1 shall be constructed at the time of redevelopment and/or development of any new structure or access change to said lot. The applicant has included a note to this effect on the plat, and will also address Lot 1 requirements as an existing lot in the covenants. 3) Planning Commission determination Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 6 of a waiver request for required frontage of 70 feet for a RSF-4 residential lot (Lot 10). The Board of Adjustment must approve the waiver request prior to final approval. The applicant is proposing to stub out a street for future connectivity to the west and to the north. The stub out to the north extends approximately 28 feet along the proposed Lot 10, with future right-of-way dedication planned. The request is for approval of a buildable lot without adequate public frontage until such time as the street is constructed by future development. Staff is in support of this request. 4) A 20 -foot utility easement shall be labeled between lots 9 and 10. 5) The existing barbed-wire fences along the property boundaries shall be removed. 6) Right-of-way for Mt. Comfort road requires 45 feet from centerline dedication. Proper dedication shall be made at final plat. 7) All street names shall be approved by the City of Fayetteville GIS division. 8) Access shall be limited to interior streets for those lots fronting Mt. Comfort Road, including lots 26-32, and Lot 1 at the time of redevelopment. 9) The detention ponds shall be assigned lot numbers in the subdivision. The covenants must provide for maintenance of the lots which include the detention ponds. 10) Covenants must be provided to the City prior to Final Plat approval. Items 11 and 12 are standard conditions. 13) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $31, 080 (56 SF lots at $555). Items 14 and 15 are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Ok, thank you Jeremy. Are there any additional staff reports? Landscaping? Carnagey: They are preserving all of their existing trees. Bunch: Parks? Hesse: No additional comment other than the Parks Board did vote to approve the $31,000 on June 2"d Bunch: Thank you. Engineering? Casey: I don't have anything at this time. Bunch: At this time we will turn it over to the applicant for your comments. If you would introduce yourselves and give us the benefit of any presentation that you may have on this project. Blakely: My name is Mark Blakely with Northstar Engineering. We are just proposing a subdivision for Woodworks Plus, it is 56 lots. We are proposing a lift station at the northeast corner and we are in the process of trying to obtain an easement to go to Goosebury Lane for a shorter distance but if not we can always still pump up to Mt. Comfort Road. I guess everything else has been addressed in the letter. I don't know what else you need from me right now. If you have any questions I will answer Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 7 them. Bunch: We will get to those later. Right now we will take public comment and then we will come back to the Committee with questions. At this time we will take public comment. If you would please come up to the podium. Clemens: My name is Mike Clemens, I live at 3263 Mt. Comfort, which is right across the street from their west proposed driveway. I just have a comment, I was hoping that the Planning Commission will, the engineer assured me that there were going to be flow studies on this sewer. The existing is a 6" line and their 56 houses will come into that existing with an 8" line. I am not an engineer and flow studies may prove that that is adequate but it just doesn't make sense to me to pump all that much sewage from an 8" line into a 6" line and to expect it not to back up and to expect it to function normally. Bunch: Matt, can you respond to that? Does this have anything to do with our new revised sewer system? Casey: No it doesn't but the 6" line is just a short segment of 6" that serves a relatively small area. We can ask for the calculations, we probably will during the construction plan review of this development. At this time I feel like the 6" will be sufficient to carry what is there and what is proposed. They have an 8" that is going into a 6" that does not serve a large area that shortly after this project dumps into a larger line. It is not a long series of 6" line. Clemens: Do we have to wait until our sewage backs up and destroys our houses before you change that to an 8" line in front of our houses? Casey: We don't allow this development to connect into the 6" line if the calculations show that it will not handle it and any further development that would tie into that line would also not be allowed. Clemens: The tap is upstream of mine so you could understand where I would be concerned about that. Casey: Yes. I can guarantee you that will be looked at. It has been looked at in the preliminary review and we will ask for more detail study and calculations after approval and when the construction plans are submitted, more detailed plans are submitted. Clemens: Is there a way that we can be kept apprised of the flow study so we will know how that is going or when that will happen? Can I speak with the city during that process? Casey: If you would like to leave your name and number then we can contact you Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 8 after that information has been submitted if you would like to be informed of that. Clemens: Yes, I would. I will see you after the meeting. Thanks. Bunch: Thank you, is there anyone else? Patrick: Yes. My name is Betty Patrick, I live at 2361 Goosebury Lane. I have lived there 31 years. I love my home and I love my neighborhood. I want to know where the sewer is going to be connected from. Bunch: Usually we wait until the end of the public comment session but I think this is one that we can respond directly to. Go ahead. Blakeley: If you want to look at this. Betty, what we have got is here is your lot here. We have got sewer that is going two directions. We are doing gravity feed down here along these streets out to Mt. Comfort Road into an existing manhole The north portion of the subdivision is coming back to this area here to a lift station. We tried calling you yesterday but we spoke with Carl this morning. We are trying to get an easement if we can off of this south portion or maybe split some off of yours. If that is not available to us, getting an easement through here to get to Goosebury Lane to the existing sewer we still can come down Kinswick Terrace. Patrick: Did Carl tell you the problems with sewer? He is not connected, it is too low. Blakeley: Right, it is a lift station, it is not gravity. We will be pumping it into the manhole We do know that he is on septic at this time. Patrick: I want to ask why, I'm on a half acre lot, why are you putting four houses on an acre? This is not going to make my property go up. What is the price range of these houses? Blakeley: I couldn't tell you that at this time. I do not know. Patrick: We want the neighborhood to go up and not down. I am willing to work with anyone. If you want to put $300,000 to $500,000 houses back there I have no problem with that. There is already one back there. I want my neighborhood to go up. I work very hard on my home. I am a self motivated woman and the other neighbors feel this way too. I may be the only voice they have but that is ok, I'm all they need apparently. I am willing to work with whoever and whatever but I know something about building, I have done it on my house for years. I hang sheetrock, I do everything. We need to know what kind of houses are going in here. Are there going to be guidelines? How many families can be in there? Can there be ten families in one house? Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 9 Blakeley: One family, they are single-family homes. Patrick: You can't regulate it later down the road. We have country roads out there and they are wanting to build 500 houses out there and we already have a problem with traffic. What is going to happen if we have a disaster out there and no one can get out of there? Someone needs to think ahead on these things you know what I'm saying? It is a terrible thing. In fact, a mother pulled out last week, didn't see this car coming around, had a wreck with children in there and broke her arm. Fortunately that is the only thing that happened. I live on a dead-end street so what am I suppose to do? Am I suppose to get a four wheeler to try to get to work in the mornings because I can't get out on the highway? It is bumper to bumper every morning. It is bad enough when school is off. I am just giving you some things to think about. I have lived there 31 years and whatever it takes for my house I am going to do it. I want some answers. If you want to call me I will give you my work number. I will be happy to talk to you but I don't want houses that are going to pull my property down. Blakeley: I don't think that will be the case but that will be in the restrictive covenants for the type of houses that will be built. We can keep in contact with you and when those are written and when those are agreed upon by our developer we can share that information with you. I couldn't guarantee you anything until the covenants are written. Patrick: This has not totally been agreed upon yet? Is this a done deal already? You have bought the property and you are building the houses? Blakeley: No, this is just in the planning stages. Patrick: Ok, that's my question. You can call me. I will be happy to address issues with anybody since my neighbors don't want to do anything but your certified letter was just about detrimental to me because I fell off the steps at the post office getting it and knocked a rib, a hip and a shoulder out so this has not started off too well with me. Blakeley: Betty, if you want to wait then we will discuss it more after the meeting. Patrick: I have a job. Blakeley: I have your phone number, I'll give you a call at your home. Patrick: I have caller id, I will see it and I will get back with you. Bunch: Betty, you will also have an opportunity to respond because this will go from here to the full Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 10 Patrick: I'll be here. Bunch: What we will do is iron out details here and discuss things, take public comment and then forward it to the Planning Commission if it is in shape to be forwarded then you will have another opportunity to respond and also in the interim period you will have an opportunity to work with the developer. Patrick: I just want what's best for our neighborhood. I want what's best for Fayetteville. We are in a race now with Bentonville and Rogers to see who can win this race on who can build the most stuff and right now Rogers is winning because they are getting the big hotel, they are getting lots of nice things. What you all need to do is you need to drive to Overland Park, Kansas where my daughter lives. That is a growing area like this but they plan the streets first and then they build the $300,000 to $500,000 houses. I want something that is going to make my neighborhood go up, not go down. Thank you. Bunch: Kimbrough: Warrick: Kimbrough: We appreciate your comments. Is there anyone else who would like to address us on this issue? My name is Jim Kimbrough and my family pretty well borders that property on the west and on the north. Taking a look at this plat there were a couple of things. I will start out with probably an easy one at first with one of these conditions about removing the fences. I built those fences and they hold livestock, what's the plan there? I just got through, not that many years ago, building the fence line to the north and that property borders my brother's property and it is an agricultural area. There is livestock in the area and I kind of was concerned about what is the deal there? Were you just talking about the fence on the east side or were you speaking about the fence on the north and the west side as well? Staff isn't proposing that any fences utilized for agricultural purposes be removed. Only those that will be between residential properties once this is approved. Also, the way that the streets are stubbed out for the future stuff the one to the west also borders my mother's property. The one to the north borders my brother's property. We don't have any intention of that part of that farm doing anything in the near future. I understand why you want to stub them but keep a lot there that is buildable, I don't understand that part. Is there any relief for what is there rather than having a dead-end? What will happen there is cars will accumulate, people will park there and it is just not a good thing for us to have to look at. It will mess with the continuity of this division and we feel like it probably could be maybe planned a little bit better to make it look a little more aesthetically pleasing if we didn't have those stubs. Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 11 Warrick: Kimbrough: Warrick: Kimbrough: Warrick: Kimbrough: Typically the requirement that we apply on any of these developments is for a stub out to the property line so that at such time as development occurs on the adjoining property they have the opportunity to connect immediately to existing street improvements. We have in the past looked at temporary cul-de-sacs. What you would be looking at then is basically a 40' diameter circle of gravel as opposed to a finished stub that has curb and gutter. I want a curb because I don't want a bunch of cars parked there. There is a stub out with no street and really no conceivable development in the future in that we own that property. We are not going to provide access to the west to Salem and obviously we wouldn't be coming north on our property. There isn't anything there. You are talking about at the end of the street where it basically abuts the adjoining property you want a curb at that location? Yes, there doesn't need to be a stub there because what will end up is it will just be a parking place. People either put an RV or cars park there. It is some place for somebody to park something and leave it. It doesn't need to be there. There won't be a street there in the foreseeable future. On street parking is permitted if it is adjacent to the curb on streets that are this size. The street that goes to the north provides access all the way at the furthest point to the north of that stub out. I am concerned about doing something different in that location because there would be a lot with no access whatsoever if that street did not stub out to the north property line. We can look at that and see if the engineers can come up with an alternative and a proposal. Do you understand my concern about it turning into a parking lot? That is what happens. I wouldn't want that there and that is what is going to happen. The way that this land, if you have an opportunity to take a look out there from our side of it, from our part of that farm that surrounds it, it is all down hill coming to us. We will get to the detention ponds here in a little bit. That creates a view problem. At least, aesthetically that is not something that we are interested in taking a look at, let alone any of this. I think it would be more reasonable for these houses to be kept a lot further back south and not as many of them to keep them off this hill. You have already listened to a few of these problems with the concern for the sewer and the runoff is also going to be a concern. We are not interested in this thing being there at all anyway but if it is there then we need to keep it as aesthetically pleasing as we possibly can. Stub outs are going to be a parking lot, people will park on the streets. If you doubt that and doubt the stub out bit take a look at the Birdhaven Addition back to the east of that. Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 12 Warrick: We will ask the project engineers to look at a proposal on that and it may be able to be addressed in the covenants to some degree. One concern that staff has if those streets are not stubbed out the people who purchase lots in the vicinity typically believe that they are living on a cul-de-sac street that will never go anywhere and then when we look at an adjacent development and require a connection we have a lot of discussion as to what they felt like they purchased and what they were told by real estate agents and things like that. I believe that especially if covenants will be developed for this project there may be a very good opportunity to address that concern with regard to parking and storing vehicles or boats or something in those areas. Kimbrough: It will take a grand total of a month and it will be a parking lot. I think if you all will take a look around and see those types of areas you will agree with me that that is what they end up as. I am telling you that we own the property to the north and to the west. We do not intend for that to have a road go through there. You are presuming that in the future there will be further development there and we are telling you that there will not be and that is why we don't want those stubs. Let's talk about the detention ponds for just a moment. If you can take a look at those, there are two of them. Again, I would suggest that you all take a peak at that land. You are welcome to come on my side of the thing and see how it is going to be downhill all the way to Clabber Creek down there, Mud Creek or whatever you want to call it. I don't know about the dimensions and so forth of these ponds, do we do that in Fayetteville? Are there other instances of housing additions that have detention ponds to keep the runoff from being an imposition on the neighbors? I don't mean apartment buildings but I am trying to think of a subdivision in Fayetteville that you have detention ponds in there to keep that runoff detained? I am not going to refer to them as detention ponds anymore, they are mosquito ponds. Do we have a precedent, have we done that in the past? Bunch: Matt, can you respond to that please? Casey: On every subdivision for the past year and a half or so we have required this. The Clabber Creek subdivision that is currently under construction in this area, Clabber Creek Phase II which will begin construction shortly. Salem Meadows just up Salem is under construction now and will have that. Crystal Springs subdivision has a detention pond, that is in the area. Sage Meadows, which is further on the agenda here, which is in that area of town has two. Kimbrough: The natural drainage path of this property is going to go in two places. It is going to go to the west and across us, across a place where we have horses quite frankly and then into my mother's yard and into a ditch and on down to a dedicated wetland down there on Clabber Creek, again, on Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 13 Casey: Kimbrough: Casey: our property. That we have worked with Corp. of Engineers, U.S. Game and Fish, it is 15 acres that we can't do anything with for 15 years because we have given that to those people to help us develop and keep a wild land area. I know what the drainage is now because there is a fescue field there with clover and drainage is inevitable. It is not going to be the end of the world. I know what it will be now that there are streets, gasoline, grease, oil, fertilizers, the whole ball of wax and that stuff is going to run into those detention ponds and it will probably stay until we get the good rains and then I see a little concrete spillway you've got on your thing and then it is going to run right into that area where we have those horses and right down the same path. I don't have a big problem, I understand it is inevitable to have drainage on a fescue field of clover. I am not interested in that stuff coming into a pond and sitting and then when it does rain heavy spilling over and pouring onto us, not only on that side but also on the east side. That property is not mine, that is that Crystal Springs area. However, my property, there is a six acre hardwood stand with a dry creek bed that goes through it. That is where the wash is going to go. It is not going to go down to Crystal Springs. If it did go down to the Crystal Springs area, there is in fact, a year around spring that feeds those two ponds. I would invite you to take a look at some of that stuff. I don't want that runoff to be an issue with the junk that is going to be involved in this subdivision. You can't tell me that it is going to be the same kind of runoff that it is now. It is not that field, it is the streets, it is everything that goes with that subdivision. It is going to sit in those ponds and in the summertime that is just not going to be a tentative situation. I don't have to deal with one of them, I have to deal with two of them on each side of my property. They are mosquito ponds and I don't think that they sit there and drain out. Maybe someone would like to refute that but we'll go around with it. What do you think about that? We currently require a concrete trickle channel through the entire length of the pond. That limits the amount of standing water if there is a small amount of water in the pond it will drain on out so it won't stand. The pond should be graded to that channel, that concrete trickle channel, to prevent the standing. It really is not going to catch anything unless it is big? The runoff is going to occur constantly I guess is what you are telling me? The ponds are designed to limit the flows for all the major storm events, the two year, the five year, the ten year, all the way up to a hundred. It limits the flow to what is there now. We do not allow any increase in runoff from the developments. That has been the city's policy for the past couple of years that we require the detention, they provide the calculations that show that the detention pond was designed to limit those flows to protect the people downstream. The detention ponds to some extent do act as a filter for some of this too. The very small amounts that are going to Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 14 come through there that are going to stay in the concrete trickle channel obviously the concrete is not going to filter it. What does go through the grass portion, the sodded portion, we do require that the ponds be sodded up to the high water mark that will act as a filter for some of those pollutants that you were referring to. Kimbrough: That doesn't make me feel much better. I don't know that that is going to change anything for me in terms of being imposed upon by two detention ponds in this very small subdivision. I don't know that that is going to stem the flow going to the east to that spring and inevitably down to the creek and I know it won't do anything about running on our property and I want you to come take a look at it. I am not interested in looking at these papers and things. It is probably not going to be as eye opening to you until you take a look and see where these fence lines converge and see where this pond that you are talking about building is going to be and see how that affects that property. If, in fact, Crystal Springs goes ahead and develops up on that hill, which I don't know what the status is on that, are you going to have a detention pond dumping into another subdivision? I think that is proposed, or in the past it has been, so what are we going to do about a detention pond that is going to drain into another subdivision, Crystal Springs? This would be on the south side in behind Birdhaven. Casey: If the property adjoining this would develop next to those detention ponds there would have to be a pipe of some sort extended to catch the outflow from the detention pond and put it underground. It wouldn't be allowed to go overland through the development. At this time there is not storm sewer to dump it into so there would have to be a storm sewer provided at that time. Just like a lot of subdivisions now they have to stub out pipes with sections to catch runoff from adjacent properties, it would be similar to that. Kimbrough: Ok, I think you understand my concern about two detention ponds but I would like to know if there is some sort of agreement or commitment from somebody to come and take a look to see what my situation is. I want you to stand on my mother's back porch and look and see where this detention pond is going to be. Would anybody be interested in seeing that before you commit and say this is ok? I am glad to hear that this is kind of in the early stages on not a done deal yet, particularly considering the sewer, the detention ponds, and then we can address the traffic here in a minute. Would anybody be interested in taking a look and see how that would impact that farm that we live on? There are three families on that farm right now. My brother, I, and my mother. Bunch: I can't speak for the Engineering Department, Matt, you will have to make your own arrangements. Dawn, as far as the Planning Commission is concerned can we include this in our tour? Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 15 Warrick: Yes Sir. Kimbrough: I think it would be beneficial. At least you would see where I'm coming from. You would understand why I loathe those stub outs because I don't want the Winnebago or whatever it is parked there or the broken down car right next to the detention pond by the way, well fairly close to it, which is going to dump out right into a field where I have a couple of horses on right now. Let me switch to traffic for just a moment. I understand that there are a couple in and out of that thing to the south onto Mt. Comfort Road. If you take a look there you can see that that is your in and out, you've got two of them but have you taken a look or done any kind of study or do you have any kind of idea about how that is going to impact that traffic considering the fact that you have got Holcomb and you've got Holt, the middle school of course to the west, and then Holcomb down on Salem Road right now. It is pretty tough going to work in the mornings as it is with what you've got. Right now you have mentioned a couple of areas where you have detention ponds. Those developments are down there off Salem Road. There is one right across from Holcomb School, how many are behind Holcomb School already impacting Mt. Comfort Road coming into town if you are going to go in or trying to slip up Rupple Lane without any shoulders. That traffic, when you start fooling with these children in the middle school and elementary school is getting out of hand now. This one isn't built yet but it appears to me that the one north of Holt is pretty much a done deal and the one across from Holcomb elementary to the west is pretty much a done deal, in addition to the one that is up on the hill by Weir Road. That is a lot of houses all at once and the infrastructure is not there to be able to sustain that much traffic. Again, I would like to suggest that those that would doubt that or have some question about that take a look at the intersection of Mt. Comfort and Salem Road sometimes. First of all, it had been improved because you got it improved a little bit earlier where you can at least make the turn now, school busses can at least turn without turning into Ms. McDonald's yard but there is really a stop sign there and it goes kind of west out through there and back east into town and it is too crowded and it is not a tenable situation for school busses, children, folks dropping kids off down there in the morning. It is congested as it is. This will add 56 or 100 more cars you know. I would suggest taking a look at that and doing some studies and see how that is going to impact that traffic on that road as well as Mt. Comfort Road. That is just simply a suggestion. It is already there. Take a video camera and take a peak at it. The water line that supplies my home burst at that intersection a month ago and that is the third time since I've been on the farm down there south. We are interested in keeping the area, as was indicated by the lady that spoke before me, keeping it as nice as we possibly can. Obviously, our interests are that we live there. It has been a farm there for a number of years, since the 1940's, that hardwood stand that I mentioned has got 60 to 80 year old trees in it. There is a dry creek bed and I know where the runoff is going to go because I know the Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 16 low spots of the area because I live there. You can build a detention pond if you want to and squirt it out on Crystal Springs but that is not a good solution. I don't know what a good one is, I can't suggest a better alternative right now but that one is not a good one. We can do better than that I think. Detention ponds, I know they are suppose to drain and I understand that you have got them designed to where they are not as bad as what I thought when I first came here so I do appreciate that but they are going to be a continual drain on me. I think that detention ponds and the correct way to do a storm sewer, it is a cheap way of doing business. It is not going to be looking very pretty up through there. That is a lot of houses on a little lot up there. Traffic is bad and you are going to mess my property up with these detention ponds and I think that it can be looked at a little differently. Plus, you don't know the problems that you are going to have with your sewers just yet. You have got a little easement right down there in that corner that I don't know that you've addressed yet. Those would be the suggestions that I would make and thanks for taking a little time to listen to me. Bunch: Thanks for your comments. Does anyone else wish to address us? If you would please come forward and state your name and share your comments with us. Strange: Carl Strange, all I had was this here and here I came up here and am listening to this detention ponds and stuff like that. All I had was just a little drawing here blacked out with where it is going to be. I live on Goosebury Lane and I am the last house on the left as far as you can go. My lot is the lowest lot out there. I would suggest, as Mr. Kimbrough said, to come out and look at this. My lot is low and if this subdivision is graded just right it will be dumping water all over my property. I am not opposed to the development but I think that four houses to an acre is a tremendous amount. This is one of the prettiest pieces of property out there. I think it ought to be upgraded to better homes than I think what's going to be out there. I am on a septic tank out there. When that sewer was put in in 1978 I went and bought pipe for the sewer. I am a plumber, it is important to me to be on sewer. Well, when they got the end of the line up there it was 3' too high and I came up here to the city and I asked why and they said "Well, we hit rock and we just raised it up." I said I can't get on there. They said "Well, you built your house too low." I didn't think at that time it was too comical but that was the answer that I got. All of this time I've been on a septic tank and I'm interested in getting on sewer but I don't know if I can or not so they told me wait until some development comes in there in years to come and that has been nearly 30 years ago. I am not opposed to this but I think they ought to upgrade the housing and I think the traffic count ought to be looked at. We can't get out on the street as it is out there and I think there ought to be some kind of a traffic count out there. Like I said, my lot is the lowest one and I don't know how that subdivision is going to be graded out there, I Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 17 don't know how the roads are going to be. I wish I had a set of plans, I guess some of these other people had them and I didn't know how to get a hold of them or have them but I think before you vote you need to come out and look at the property and get a feel of the land before you ok anything. I am the property probably that they are wanting an easement through. Thank you. Bunch: Thanks for your comments. Our purpose on this thing today is we are not going to approve anything today. We are taking public comment, this is a preliminary stage and what everyone is saying is very valuable to us. It is valuable to the engineers that are designing it and to the staff engineers and we are very glad that you are making the comments. Again, the only decision that we might make today would be to forward it to the full Planning Commission and then there would be another opportunity for public comment at that time and then hopefully any revisions that would need to be made can be reviewed. Would anyone else who would like to comment please come forward and share your comments with us? Kimbrough: Thank you Sir. My name is Sandra Kimbrough and I live on the property just north of the proposed subdivision. I do have some concerns of course about the traffic, the runoff and the things that have already been mentioned. I would like to ask when we can get an idea of when we will have covenants for that subdivision should it be approved. Warrick: I will let the applicants answer that. Covenants are not required and they are not agreements entered into by the city. They are not enforced by the city. They are voluntary agreements that are brought forward by the applicant and they will need to address that. Blakeley: What we would like to do is discuss that with the developer and see if he has got a draft written and make sure it is ok and get them and issue them out to those who would like to see them. That is not a problem. I am not trying to sneak anything in. Kimbrough: Sure, we just kind of want to know. The lots are very small evidently. Blakeley: They did request a 60x60 building area, they want that to be the minimum size building area. They are not building small homes but I can't tell you the exact size. I don't want to make a liar out of myself and say the wrong thing. We will try to get a draft covenants for you to take a look at. Kimbrough: What would be the setback on the lot line? Blakeley: It is 20' on the rear and 25' on the front. Kimbrough: Ok, so we can get kind of an idea perhaps. Thank you. Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 18 Bunch: Is there anyone else who would like to address us on this issue? Clemens: Mike Clemens again. Bunch: Sir, normally we only allow people to speak once. Clemens: This is on a different subject if you don't mind. It is a continuation of her thought. I just heard the lady here say that the covenants aren't a part of the approval process, did I understand that properly? Warrick: That is correct. Covenants are civil agreements between property owners. With regard to this development the property is in a single family zoning district and what the city has with regulations that address the RSF-4, Residential Single-family, four units per acre, zoning district, that is something that the city can universally apply to any property located within that zoning district. That includes the uses permitted and the setbacks required, the size lots that are required. It does not address residential design standards, it does not address the types of materials that are required for a structure. It does not address price points. The city doesn't mandate homes be within a certain price range or anything. We regulate the use of the land and the number of units that are per acre and the setbacks and lot sizes. Clemens: That eliminates neighborhood opposition to substandard, what some people might consider substandard, or just like someone said that they wanted to improve the neighborhood rather than degrade it. That eliminates that as a consideration point for objection purposes? Warrick: With regard to the city Planning Commission has the authority to approve, we are not reviewing covenants for standards above and beyond the requirements of the city. We do look for things such as maintenance of detention ponds and other commonly owned property if there is on the project so that we are assured that those areas will be maintained by some entity. Typically a property owner's association. We don't base, we can't base approvals on the type or size of homes. Clemens: Ok, I understand. Thank you. Bunch: One note here, the zoning RSF-4 is what was previously called R-1. Some of you may be familiar with the former nomenclature that was used. R-1 was a single-family residential and that has been replaced with RSF-4 designation and it still has the same density of up to four per acre as the old R-1. Is there anyone else that would like to address us on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for comments and questions. I will lead off. Dawn, the traffic issue seems to have been brought up by several people today as well as in the letters or notes that are in our packets. Has a traffic study been requested or did we use the Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 19 micro trans that will show what type of traffic will come from a subdivision of this size and also how does this tie in with the ongoing transportation study? Warrick: The ongoing transportation study was brought forward. The consultant was in town yesterday meeting with staff. With regard to date I don't know when that is going to be brought forward but I believe that they are working on a final draft to bring forward to the Planning Commission and City Council within the very near future. Trip generation for a single- family home is approximately 10 trips per day with 56 lots, 560 vehicle trips per day is what you could expect out of this. That is what your micro -trans report would generate. We have talked a lot about traffic in this particular area because there is a lot of development going on in this area. We had a subdivision recently to the north outside the city limits and obviously there are projects that are under way. We have also talked about the fact that the only way to achieve connectivity is to have development and connectivity is a city policy and it is a means for alleviating the number of trips and the number of conflicts for people having to get out on the main arterials that they can utilize interior streets to get to the main arterials. Staff recommended, and the applicant complied with recommendations to proposed stub outs for future connections in this area. I realize that the adjoining property owners are not proposing any development and don't plan on any developments in the future. What we have to look forward is beyond 5, 10, 20, or even 30 years but what could happen later on with regard to property adjoining this developing out at some point in time. What we tried to do was provide a means of connecting over to Salem eventually, as well as to the north to additional property that has potential for redevelopment. The traffic issues and the capacity issues on Mt. Comfort Road, Salem Road, and this general area, this is a community wide problem. This is not a situation that can be solved by one particular project. It has to be addressed as a community wide issue. That is one of the reasons that the city has employed a consultant and we are doing a traffic study and working on transportation proposals for the city as a whole. It is important that we address these issues. We understand that there are still vacant properties in this quadrant of town that are zoned for development. The zoning enables people, it does give them the right to develop that. What we have to do is look at the proposal to determine what kind of demand is being placed on the city's infrastructure by the development and require improvements. In this particular case we felt that it was appropriate for improvements on Mt. Comfort to include the provision of the standard street from centerline to the property, 14' from centerline, curb, gutter, storm drain, and sidewalk so that this section of Mt. Comfort will be brought up to standard. It will improve capacities in this area to some degree but it is not going to fix the entire problem. I don't think that that is something that can happen out of a 56 lot subdivision. With each development that comes through we need to further address those issues Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 20 and find reasonable ways to look at off site improvements that will work towards addressing those transportation problems. I don't know exactly what you are going to see from the transportation study. I have not been very involved with that. It has been handled through our long range division but I do know that they are looking at Mt. Comfort Road and this is an area that you will see some findings with regard to traffic counts in this area as well as proposals from the traffic consultants. Bunch: Thank you Dawn. At this time also would the applicant care to respond to any of the comments that were made by the public? Do you have any additional? I know you responded as we went along but did you have any additional comments? Blakeley: I would just like to let all the people who responded know that we have an open line of communication. I would like to get some contact information for those of you that are still here so we can keep in line and keep you updated with everything that is going on. We don't want to impose any problems upon your property. We don't want to degrade your property. I think we are doing a fine development here that will actually improve. Like Dawn was saying earlier about the stub outs, in the future if there is connectivity, you will have access to Salem Road and you won't be flooding everything to Mt. Comfort. We know those stubs may never connect but there is a possibility sometime. We would like to still work with Carl on getting an easement. If that is possible we still have access coming out to Mt. Comfort Road. If he is interested in tying onto sewer that can be an option too to get him off the septic system. We can offer something to that in trade with our developer's approval with the owners. That is about all I have. I just hope we can all work together on this and make this a community and not neighbors in harm with each other and imposing property problems. That is all I have. Bunch: Commissioner Church, did you have any comments or questions? Church: I think all of my questions have been answered. Allen: I was just going to suggest that I thought it would be very appropriate for you to while you have these people here try to set up a time that you can meet with the neighbors and those that are concerned so that they can have an opportunity for you all to have some good dialogue with one another. Bunch: I think some of the neighbors have indicated that they have seen the drawings and some indicated that they have not so that would be a good place to start also to show them what your intent is. Warrick: Commissioner Bunch, before we finish up on this particular item there is one additional condition that we need to address that was not included in your staff report that we have determined is appropriate and we have Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 21 looked at since we started talking this morning. There is a stub out to the north where Kinswick Terrace meets the north property line and there is a proposal for dedication of right of way along the tag piece at the northeast comer of the property. In order for that street to be extended in the future part of that development would occur on this developer's property and we feel it is appropriate for an assessment to be made for the extent of improvements that would be built at the time that that street is extended that would be on this development's property. Staff is going to recommend an assessment for that length of property which is 204' I think, maybe just a little bit more from the end of the proposed development to the north property line of that tag piece. Bunch: So that would be an assessment for the infrastructure as well as the dedication of right of way and extended easement? Warrick: That is correct. Casey: I would also like that they will need to provide some sort of access to the lift station. Bunch: A question for the applicant and also to poll my fellow committee members, should this sewer lift station have to be relocated, what are we looking at as a time frame to redo your engineering in order to have the project ready should we send it forward to the full Planning Commission? Are you far enough along that we can send this forward to the full Planning Commission or do you think that it needs to come back at this level? Blakeley: I think we are far enough along, if the lift station, I don't believe it is going to have to be moved, it will just be a longer force main. There really isn't a better spot on this property for it. That is a little bit out of the way, it is in the lowest part of the subdivision, it would just be a longer force main for our client. Bunch: Ok. There really aren't a great lot of substantial changes so I see no problem with forwarding it. I believe that timing is such that any revisions can be accomplished in that time table. Are there any additional comments or questions from staff or committee members? Allen: I would like to once again reassure the neighbors that forwarding it to the full Planning Commission doesn't make it a done deal in any way. Bunch: Do I have any motions? MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we forward PPL 03-12.00 to the full Planning Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 22 Commission and that includes the 15 conditions and the addition of the condition that has to do with the assessment for the 204' of stub out on the property line of the tag piece. Warrick: We can word that better when we redraft your conditions. Church: Thank you. If you would like to change that you can definitely. Allen: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. I would like to thank the members of the public that came and responded to this and also remind you that the applicant has indicated that he has an open door policy so I would encourage you all to get together and have a meeting of minds on this. Thank you. Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 23 LSP 03-44.00: Lot Split (Brian Reindl, pp 484) was submitted by Laura Kelly of Robert Sharp, Architects on behalf of Brian Reindl for property located at 580 W. Meadow Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 2.05 acres. The request is to divide the Parent Tract of 2.05 acres into two tracts of 1.02 and 1.03 acres. Bunch: Moving along, our next item of business is LSP 03-44.00 for Brian Reindl submitted by Laura Kelley of Sharp Architects for property located at 580 W. Meadow Street. Is the applicant present? Is the applicant present for Lot Split for Reindl? Warrick: We don't see the applicant. Staff would support tabling this item since we don't have representation at this time. Bunch: Do I hear any motions? MOTION: Church: I make a motion that we table LSP 03-44.00. Allen: I second. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 24 FPL 03-06.00: Final Plat (Sage Meadows, pp 396) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located north of Hwy 16 and east of 5161 Street. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family 4 units per acre and contains approximately 30.99 acres with 88 lots proposed. Bunch: Moving along to item four on our agenda is a Final Plat for Sage Meadows submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located north of Hwy. 16 and east of 515` Street. Do we have a staff report on this please? I will remind the commissioners that we viewed this property on our last tour when we were out in this vicinity looking at another project we drove through this particular one so we have had an opportunity to look at it first hand. Pate: This property is located north of Hwy. 16 and east of 51st Street. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre, and contains 30.99 acres with 88 proposed single-family lots. The request is to approve the Final Plat for Sage Meadows to allow for the sale of lots. The Preliminary Plat for the subdivision was approved in January, 2002. Surrounding land use is Residential Single-family and to the west is the county. Service lines are 8" water and sanitary sewer to serve the proposed development. Right of way being dedicated is along Double Springs Road which does vary and along 515` Street. 5151 Street has been improved 14' from centerline with curb and gutter and the adjacent Master Street Plan is 50 Street, which is a local street requiring 50' of right of way dedication. Recommendation at this point is staff is recommending to forward to the full Planning Commission based on the parks issue that I believe Parks can address here in a moment. I will go through the conditions of approval at this time. 1) Dedication of right-of-way for 5151 Street (varies, a minimum of 25' from centerline), and all interior streets to the subdivision shall occur with final plat approval. 2) Planning Commission determination of acceptance of 1.7 acres banked by the adjacent Fairfield Subdivision along with $1,107.50 in lieu of Parks requirements for $40,420 owed for Park Land Dedication requirements as approved with the Preliminary Plat by Planning Commission on January 28, 2002. All necessary documentation for land transfer, dedication and fees shall be received prior to final plat signatures. 3) Sidewalk construction shall be in accordance with the Master Street Plan and Chapter 171 of the Unified Development Code to include a minimum four foot sidewalk with a minimum six foot greenspace along 515`, Ponca, Dover, Shetland, and Cannondale streets. 4) Tree preservation mitigation fees shall be paid into the tree fund in the amount of $4,044 prior to signing of the final plat. 5) Access shall be limited to interior streets only, including lots 43-48 and 1-8. Items six through eight are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Ok, are there any other staff comments? Parks? Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 25 Hesse: Bunch: Carnagey: Bunch: Casey: Bunch: Casey: Bunch: Jorgensen: Just basically to confirm what Jeremy stated. When Fairfield went through a year or so ago they did dedicate additional property to the city for park land. The intent there was we are going to have a trail going through that area. An additional 1.7 acres was given to the city. There has been a deal with the developer of Sage Meadows to transfer those rights to Sage Meadows from Fairfield. That was approved on July 7`h by the Parks Board. We have the deed in hand for the 1.7 acres so at this point our next step is to go through the Planning Commission for approval of that transfer. Thank you. Craig, is there anything additional on tree and landscape? No, just that they are required to pay into the city's tree fund for 18 mitigation trees. Matt, is there anything from Engineering? No additional comments. Have we had the final inspection? Yes Sir and all punch list items have been completed. Ok, thank you. At this time will you please introduce yourself'? My name is Dave Jorgensen and I am replacing Chris on this. He is on vacation right now and I am filling in for him. I am here to answer questions and try to move this along. The Final Plat can't be approved at the Subdivision Committee meeting? Warrick: We have talked about that and I feel like it is appropriate in this situation for the full Planning Commission to approve it and the reason being that this is a unique situation with the park land dedication issue. Staff is fully supporting what is being proposed here. Since I've been here this is the first time that I have seen developers in Fayetteville engage in a transfer of development rights. It is a practice that is pretty common in other locations but what is happening is basically a trade off. This developer is purchasing the rights from another developer to utilize banked park land that they have already provided to the city for development of Fairfield, which is north of this project. It is I think beneficial because that park land will not have to be accounted for in the future through the Parks division. They don't have to keep records on how Fairfield might utilize, or the developer of Fairfield might utilize that park land in the future on another development. It is all basically accounted for and applied to one of the two developments at this point in time but it is unique. The Planning Commission is required to confirm park land dedication and/or money in lieu and to concur or oppose any decisions and determinations of Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 26 Bunch: Warrick: Bunch: Warrick: Bunch: Warrick: Bunch: Warrick: Bunch: MOTION: Allen: Church: Bunch: Jorgensen: the Parks and Recreation Board through the Planning process. Typically that is done at Preliminary Plat, this change has occurred between the Preliminary Plat for this project and now and so for that reason it is really a change to the conditions at the time of Preliminary and I felt like it would be appropriate for the full Commission to endorse the change. Staff is supporting this and we feel like it is a good utilization of resources between these two developers. Dave, does that answer your question? Long answer for a short question, sorry. At this time we will take public comment. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. I will start off with I have a question about some lot widths. The dimensions that are shown are at the right of way and I think we measure at the setback line. Have these been checked on lots 35, 36, 38, 12, 13, 14, and 44 to see if they are in compliance with the setback line? I think that we asked for that at Preliminary but I will ask Dave to double check that for us before this gets to the full Planning Commission to provide those numbers. Commissioners, are there any questions or comments? Dawn, what is the requirement on an RSF-4 lot for frontage? 70'. It is allowed on these pie shaped lots? For the lots that are affected as they would be in a cul-de-sac situation in this case it is kind of a loop drive but it is appropriate for those to be measured at the 25' setback line. Are there any other comments or motions? I move that we forward FPL 03-06.00 and the eight conditions to the Planning Commission. I will second it. I will concur. Thanks a lot. Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 27 ADM 03-19 00• Administrative Item (Shake's, pp 252) was submitted by Tim Cooper, Architect on behalf of Springdale Market Place for property located at 2785-2835 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.66 acres. The request is to amend the approved Large Scale, LSD 03- 05.00 by modifying the site design. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is ADM 03-19.00 submitted by Tim Cooper, Architect, on behalf of Springdale Market Place for property located at 2785 and 2835 N. College. It is Shake's development. Staff, could you give us the report on that please? Pate: Yes Sir. The request is to amend the approved Large Scale Development, LSD 03-5.00 by modifying the site plan. The proposed amendment will shift the footprint of the proposed operations building due to site constraints. The shift will cause a change in parking spaces and a revised landscape plan for that portion of the site affected. The proposed amendment is primarily a result of prohibitive construction costs due to soil content conditions unsuitable for the previously proposed 12' retaining wall. The Planning Commission did approve the Large Scale Development on March 3, 2003 subject to a variance for that retaining wall in question and approval by the Board of Sign Appeals for that proposed signage. The sign appeal was approved in July, 2003. The proposal for the operations building currently to be relocated does not alter the site layout, parking requirements, landscape, greenspace or tree preservation areas in adverse manner. A drive into the operations center is being removed, thereby providing more greenspace. It is a steeply sloped site formerly cut into and held back by a 12' retaining wall that will be mostly preserved by the proposed amendment. Total parking spaces altered from a total of 41 to 30 spaces remain compliant with the city ordinance requirements. Landscaping is also sufficient and meets city code requirements. Staff is recommending approval at this time of the requested administrative item to amend the Large Scale Development plan subject to the following conditions. 1) All landscaping shall be installed as indicated on the amended Large Scale Development plan prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 2) A revised landscape plan shall be submitted which indicates the method of irrigation proposed. 3) The note requesting a variance for 2'+/- in maximum retaining wall height shall be removed from the site plan and a revised plan submitted for approval. 4) All conditions of the original Large Scale Development (LSD 03-05.00) as approved shall remain applicable, with the exception of the modifications herein. Bunch: Ok, staff reports from Landscaping? Carnagey: Just that I need to see a method of irrigation. Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 28 Bunch: Ok, Engineering? Casey: I would definitely support this change. It is doing away with that large retaining wall and also reducing the amount of impervious surface so Engineering staff is definitely in support of the change. Bunch: Can the applicant introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Jefcoat: I am Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company. We agree to all of the conditions as presented. The method of irrigation we will address with the developer and we will submit a new set of plans. We will remove the note that was inadvertently left on requesting the variance. That is all I have. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. One question is the phasing, was that already accomplished with dividing it into Phase I and Phase II, was that done at an earlier date or was that part of this application? Warrick: The Large Scale was approved and the Large Scale was approved for one calendar year. A building permit has been issued and the project is under way for the construction of the store, the restaurant building that is sitting at the front of this site. We expect that within that one calendar year of approval from the March 3rd date that the other building will be under construction in order to be a part of the one Large Scale as it was approved. Bunch: If they request a dividing note where they can put it in phases would it then be one year from the date of request for phase or one year from the date of initial approval? Jefcoat: From initial approval is the way we understand it and I also understand, not just understand, but the developers have asked us to stake the construction for Phase II so we are putting grade stakes there now. I would assume that shortly the final plans for the operations center would come forward for approval. We are physically staking the location on the ground for construction now. Bunch: Can we do approval at this level? Warrick: Yes Sir. In fact, this is one of those situations that you are the sole body requested to review and approve this item. It is a Subdivision Committee responsibility. Bunch: Basically we refer it to staff to approve the items such as number two, a revised landscape plan with irrigation and that sort of thing? Subdivision Committee July 31, 2003 Page 29 Warrick: We would certainly be looking for those items as soon as they are available and before any permitting activity were to occur on the second building we would have to have this material in hand. Bunch: Ok, are there any questions? Committee members? MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we approve ADM 03-19.00 with the four conditions as listed. Allen: I second. Bunch: I will concur. Thank you Tom. This concludes the agenda. Staff, are there any additional items? Warrick: No Sir. Bunch: Are there any comments, questions or announcements? Church: I don't think so Bunch: We stand adjourned.