Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-18 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Friday, June 18, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSP 04-1093: Lot Split (COULSON OIL) Approved Page 2 FPL 04-1092: Final Plat (CLABBER CREEK PH II) Approved Page 4 CCP 04-1051: (TWIN SPRINGS ESTATES) Forwarded Page 8 LSD 04-1094: (JOYCE BLVD. MED.& PROF. CENTER) Forwarded Page 11 ADM 04-1112: (MILLENNIUM PLAZA) Page 15 FPL 04-1077: (FAIRFIELD PHASE II & III, 359) Page 19 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Loren Shackelford Candy Clark STAFF PRESENT Craig Camagey Dawn Warrick Jeremy Pate Rebecca Ohman Matt Casey Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Christian Vaught STAFF ABSENT Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 2 LSP 04-1093: Lot Split (COULSON OIL): Submitted by BOB HILL for property located at THE S SIDE OF WEDINGTON DRIVE BETWEEN I-540 AND MARVIN AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.68 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 1.34 acres each. LSP 04-1093: Lot Split (COULSON OIL): Submitted by BOB HILL for property located at THE S SIDE OF WEDINGTON DRIVE BETWEEN I-540 AND MARVIN AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.68 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 1.34 acres each. Anthes: Welcome to the June 18`h meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission Subdivision Committee. We have six items of business today. The first item is LSP 04-1093 for Coulson Oil. Will the applicant come forward please? Pate: This property is located on the south side of Wedington Drive between I- 540 and Marvin Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.68 acres. The applicant is requesting to split this tract of 2.68 acres into two tracts of 1.38 and 1.30 acres respectively. The site is currently vacant located between an automobile wash to the west and the liquor store there at the corner of Shiloh and Wedington to the east. A public waterline does exist in the area but this property does not currently have access to that line. A public line will need to be extended to each of these lots at the time of development. Tract 1 currently does have access to public sewer at the southwest corner of the property. Tract 2 is very close, however, it does not have access to that sewer and a public sewer main will be required to be extended to serve tract 2 at the time of development. Dedication of additional right of way is required along Hwy. 16 at this time. Hwy. 16 is a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan requiring 55' of right of way from centerline which is indicated on the plat. Staff is recommending approval of LSP 04-1093 at the Subdivision Committee level with seven conditions. 1) The shared access easement shall be recorded with this Lot Split and indicated on the plat to ensure safe traffic and pedestrian movement. Staff finds that if you look to the north the centerline of Steamboat Drive any curb cut in this general vicinity should line up with that curb cut across the street to provide a safe means of access. This access easement will provide a means by which future development on either lot shall construct a drive onto Hwy. 16 directly across from Steamboat Drive. The rest of the conditions of approval are standard conditions or have to do with plat revisions. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any other staff reports on this item? Would you like to give a presentation? Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 3 Hill: I do have one question. We wanted to line the curb cut up and center it on the line. Obviously, that would be the easiest way to develop it and divide it into two lots but I understand you are wanting to move it over. Will we be allowed to have one ingress and two egress there? Pate: That is allowed within our commercial design standards. The time of development is really the appropriate time to look at that. Right now we are ensuring that adequate access across from Steamboat Drive will be located in the access easement so that either property can utilize that access easement. Hill: Are we required to have to go back and redraw this and resubmit it or is it approved? At Large Scale do we come in with a new drawing or when is that done? Pate: This plat is required to be filed. There are several revisions here. Those will need to be submitted to the Planning office for approval. Anthes: Is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners for questions or comments. MOTION: Clark: It seems like a basic lot split. I will move that we approve LSP 04-1093 with the stated conditions of approval. Shackelford: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 4 FPL 04-1092: Final Plat (CLABBER CREEK PH II): Submitted by GEOFFREY BATES for property located at THE NORTH SIDE OF MT. COMFORT RD. BETWEEN RUPPLE RD AND BRIDGEPORT DR. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 28.36 acres. The request is to approve the Final Plat of a residential subdivision with 88 single family lots proposed. Anthes: The second item of business today is FPL 04-1092 for Clabber Creek. Morgan: The applicant is requesting approval of a Final Plat for Clabber Creek Phase II. The Preliminary Plat for this subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission on April 14, 2003. This phase is within the RSF-4 zoning district and consists of development of approximately 30 acres yielding 89 lots with 88 lots designated for single family use. The property to the east has been developed as Phase I of Clabber Creek and was approved by the Subdivision Committee on September 11, 2003. To the west is the location of the approved Preliminary Plat for Wildflower Meadows subdivision. Surrounding land uses consist of the previously mentioned subdivisions either under construction or permitted and finaled as well as vacant fields and a creek to the north. Water and Sanitary Sewer have been extended to serve this development. Rights of way being dedicated include 70' for Morning Mist Drive, a collector as well as 45' from the centerline of Mt. Comfort, in addition to approximately 10' of the property south of the centerline. The interior street rights of way are either 50' or 44' rights of way. Covenants have been submitted. Those covenants are in the packets. They are towards the end of your packets. Staff recommends approval of this Preliminary Plat with a total of 10 conditions which include 1) Subdivision Committee determination of streetlight installation along the right of way of Mt. Comfort Road. One streetlight is indicated at the intersection of Berkley Drive and Mt. Comfort Road. Staff is recommending installation of two additional streetlights along Mt. Comfort Road a maximum of 300' separation. In addition, payment of an assessment for Rupple Road Bridge in the amount of $10,080 prior to approval of the Final Plat. Payment of $13,200 into the city's tree fund prior to Final Plat approval. Rights of way shall be dedicated with the filing of this Final Plat. Covenants have been submitted to the Planning Division for review. There are several plat revisions and I have listed those within a memo contained in this report. Anthes: Thank you Suzanne. Are there any other staff reports on this item? Brady: We just need to coordinate with you guys on placing the park boundary signs. We have them and will provide them to you. We just need to get them to you and you can get them up. Anthes: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 5 Bates: This is just a Final Plat and we are ready to move forward. Anthes: Is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners for discussion. Dawn, will you remind us what we review at this level on Final Plats? Warrick: A Final Plat is basically the document that will be recorded confirming that the installation of the subdivision matches what was approved at the time of Preliminary Plat. What you are looking at is documentation of what has been installed and the conditions addressing anything that needs to be updated or remedied in any way prior to this plat being filed. Once the plat is filed these lots are recorded and are legal lots of record and can then be built upon. Clark: Dawn, on the conditions of approval we are talking about streetlights, do we need to make that determination? Barnes: Dawn, where are we going to propose to install those streetlights along Mt. Comfort? Are we going to install those amongst that right of way or outside of that right of way? Warrick: Streetlights are typically part of the street improvements within the public right of way. Anthes: Commissioners? Clark: Are the two additional streetlights going to be an issue? Barnes: I think the issue initially was that we have never had a request for streetlights outside of the boundaries of the subdivision. In this instance these are the only two streetlights along Mt. Comfort Road. Clark: We could talk about improvements to Mt. Comfort Road but you don't want to do that. Barnes: We will talk about the streetlights at this time. We've made improvements to Mt. Comfort Road . We widened it 14' curb and gutter. We have made improvements to Mt. Comfort Road. I think the issue before was it is based on where the location is and are these streetlights going to be in the rear of a yard to a property owner here. What proximity to Mt. Comfort are we going to install those? We have got a 45' right of way here. Warrick: We can work with you on the spacing and we will probably want our Transportation Division, Mr. Franklin is generally the person who will help to field check and locate if there are questions with regard to Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 6 streetlights. I know that you guys will need to probably pull some easements or maybe pull some line across the street. I am not sure where the nearest location is for you to access the electric. Barnes: I did speak with Mike Phipps with Ozarks Electric. He is the engineer for Ozark in this area. He said the simplest form of lighting for Mt. Comfort would be to utilize the overhead power and the overhead transmission lines on the south side of Mt. Comfort Road. He said that would be the easiest for Ozark as far as means of trying to light Mt. Comfort would be to install a typical light attached to a transmission pole. Warrick: This project is on the north side and extending those overhead electric lines wouldn't comply with the city's underground ordinance. We will need to work with you and with Ozarks to ensure that electric is pulled to these two new locations underground. We will be glad to do that. They are typically located within the public right of way and we just need to sit down and decide how that is going to be accomplished. Bates: A question on the ordinance, is it vague? Does it just say streetlights every 300'? I have always interpreted it within the subdivision. Warrick: The ordinance does state streetlights every 300' and then the other specifications about the lumens and type of lights and the locations at the end of cul-de-sacs. In this particular case we felt that it was appropriate. It was mentioned in the Plat Review comments and it is a situation that this developer is improving the street in this location and streetlights are part of the street infrastructure. Bates: Which Plat Review comments? Warrick: Preliminary. Bates: I didn't see it anywhere in the Preliminary Plat. We will install two streetlights out there. Barnes: The issue was if it was going to exceed the right of way it was going to be in rear property boundaries of these lots. It was going to be some 31' from back of curb. If we are going to install it in the right of way then that is going to eliminate that issue. Anthes: From what I understand, the Transportation Division and Perry Franklin will work with the applicant and Planning to locate and determine how these streetlights will be installed. Warrick: Planning staff will ensure that that is accomplished prior to the signatures going on the Final Plat. Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 7 Anthes: Are there any other comments? Barnes: We will provide written receipt of streetlights paid for and we will have agreed that there will be some specific location on the plat for those streetlights. Warrick: We will accept proof of payment because a lot of time the utility companies are not caught up with the developer with regard to installation. We just need to ensure that the utility is there for the lights to be installed at the proper location when they are ready to do so. Barnes: When you spoke of utility easements can we not utilize that 20' rear utility easement along the back of 11 through 16 to come underground to these streetlights? Warrick: Sure. Anthes: Anymore discussion about streetlights can be handled with staff. Let's look through the rest of the conditions of approval are acceptable to you? Barnes: Yes they are. Anthes: Are there any other comments or motions? Shackelford: Is a Final Plat a recommendation to the Planning Commission or something that the Subdivision Committee can approve? Warrick: The Subdivision Committee has the authority to approve a Final Plat. MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve FPL 04-1092 with the specific finding on condition one that there will be three streetlights required along Mt. Comfort Road with specific locations to be determined by staff prior to Final Plat filing. Clark: Second. Anthes: I will concur with one comment. Obviously, we haven't had a chance to read the covenants. Warrick: Covenants are not required except for the fact if there was any detention it would need to be maintained by the Property Owner's Association. This is not a Planned Zoning District where the city would be included as a third party in the covenants. Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 8 CCP 04-1051: Concurrent Plat (TWIN SPRINGS ESTATES): Submitted by DON HILLIS for property located at 0.8 MILES SOUTH OF WHEELER RD, WEST OF DOUBLE SPRINGS RD.. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 5.57 acres. The request is to approve the development of Phase I of a residential subdivision with 5 single family lots proposed. Anthes: The third item of business is a Concurrent Plat for Twin Springs Estates. Would the applicant come forward please? Pate: A Concurrent Plat is a combination of a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat. Typically when there are no street improvements requested or other public improvements requested with the subdivision of land or right of way dedication a Concurrent Plat can be processed. This is a subdivision of land. The property is located .8 miles south of Wheeler Road west of Double Springs Road. The property is in the Planning area and contains approximately 5.57 acres. The applicant is requesting approval of a Concurrent Plat for a five lot residential subdivision named Twin Springs Estates Phase L A Property Line Adjustment has been processed and recorded to create this overall 5.57 acre subject tract. As I mentioned, no dedications or public improvements are required with this requested subdivision of land. Therefore, the Concurrent Plat process may be utilized. Water lines do exist along Double Springs Road. As for sewer, individual septic systems are proposed. As you know, public sewer is not extended outside the City of Fayetteville. The developer has conducted soil tests and submitted plans for each individual lot. Each lot has been given preliminary approval by the Washington County Health Department. There is no tree preservation or park land requirements outside the City of Fayetteville. Double Springs Road requires a minimum of 25' right of way from centerline. Currently this road has 30' of right of way which is sufficient for our Master Street Plan requirements. Because this is a combination, Preliminary and Final Plat staff is recommending that it go forward to the full Planning Commission subject to five conditions. Two through five are standard conditions. Actually, number five can be eliminated. Washington County approval shall be obtained prior to signatures being applied to the plat. Anthes: Do we have any other staff comments? If not, we will bring it to the applicant. Would you introduce yourself and make a presentation please? Gabbard: Yes Ma'am. My name is Leonard Gabbard. I'm with Landtech Engineering representing the developer. As stated, we do have full approval on the septics on these lots. We hired Bailey Environmental Services. Each lot has been designed and approved for septics for a four bedroom home. Our intent here is to develop some high end homes. We are looking at selling these lots for $60,000. We are looking at homes and lot values at $300,000 to $350,000. At any rate, 2,000 sq.ft. homes and Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 9 above and 85% brick. We are trying to put in a really nice neighborhood with these first five lots. We have additional land in there that we will come back to this Commission on at a later date that will require a little closer look in terms of drainage and roadways and then septics on those as well. If there is anything else that you all want to know feel free to ask. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Gabbard. Is there any member of the public who would like to address this item? Please introduce yourself. Johnson: I'm Retied Lieutenant Colonel Don Johnson. I live directly below this proposed development. I have been out there about 30 years. My question is not about, I'm impressed that Mr. Gabbard is going to try to do something positive in the neighborhood. My concern is why is the city planning in an area in which I don't vote for anybody in the city. The Quorum Court is represented by Celia Silkwood back here. The question is who has authority over what is done in the area? Does the County have veto over what is being done in there? There are clay pits all over the area up there. It is a major problem right now. It is a major asset for improving property here in Fayetteville or parking lots but they are eating boundaries away. That's what they are doing here. Anthes: Are these photographs of the property in question? Johnson: It is adjacent. It is above me and below his property or the one he is talking about. Everything that happens on that property drains through my front yard. We are talking a water shed of/2 mile so if we turn it into a rapid runoff I'll probably be washed away. These people put in a dam that wasn't even engineered. It will probably break, it seeps underneath and I would think the Planning Commission before you start approving developments would look at the whole picture. That's my whole point here today. I'm not trying to obstruct, we need something like this if you are going to develop it. It is a beautiful wood area. These people went in and cut the oak down, peeled it bare, sold it for firewood, started selling the clay and the State or the County nor anyone could do anything and he didn't even own the property. Do you see my point? Anthes: Yes we do. What we need to do here is address this particular piece of property and development and then put you in touch with the people that you need to talk to in order to deal with the rest of this issue. Johnson: Who would be the people I would talk to? Anthes: I'm going to try to get you an answer. Warrick: For clarification, as you stated, this area is not within the boundaries of our city limits. Under State Law we have the ability to impose certain Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 10 subdivision regulations and in that area when a property such as this does not immediately adjoin the city limits, we, as the City Planning staff and Commission regulate the division of lots and the provision of access and water to this particular site. Other regulations as far as the type of street improvements will be handled at the County level. This project is required to go through the County Planning Board prior to being finaled. The land use is not something that is controlled at either level because there is not zoning in the County. For further information on that, you mentioned Ms. Scott Silkwood, the County Planner who can assist you with the County regulations. As I said, we look at these projects with regard to certain subdivision regulations and configuration of the subdivision of itself with regard to those properties within the city's planning area. Anthes: I'm sorry that we can't give you better information. We just don't have any jurisdiction over it. Johnson: I understand but it is a major concern to me. Anthes: Is there any other member of the public who wishes to speak on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Clark: It seems that our jurisdiction is very limited in this area, is that correct Dawn? The things we normally look at with a development within the city don't apply? Warrick: There are things that do not apply. We do take into account our master planning such as master streets. This particular property we have looked at that for our master street plan requirements. We would ask for right of way dedications to comply with the master street plan if it were applicable. We are looking for access, configuration of lots, provision of water and in all other instances county standards would apply. MOTION: Shackelford: This looks to be fairly straight forward to me. I will go ahead and make a recommendation that we forward to the full Planning Commission CCP 04-1051. Clark: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page I1 LSD 04-1094: Large Scale Development (JOYCE BLVD. MED.& PROF. CENTER): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at N OF JOYCE BLVD, W OF SUNBEST AVE.. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 4.93 acres. The request is to approved the development of a professional office complex with five structures totaling approximately 39,180 sq.ft. and 169 parking spaces proposed. Anthes: The next item of business is LSD 04-1094, Joyce Blvd. Medical and Professional Center. Will the applicants come forward? Pate: The subject property for this Large Scale Development request is located at the northwest corner of Joyce Blvd. and Sunbest Avenue. The property is currently zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 4.93 acres. The applicant proposes to construct a five building complex consisting of 39,040 sq.ft. approximately of professional and medical office space with 163 parking spaces proposed. A common architectural theme is identified throughout and is noted in the architectural elevations that we have several boards over here to review. Surrounding land use and zoning includes to the north the regional land trust and single family homes, which is zoned RSF-4. To the south is zoned RMF -24 and to the east and west is zoned R -O and utilized as office type uses. Currently right of way is required along Joyce Blvd. in the amount of 55' from centerline, 25' from centerline along Sunbest Court. Street improvements have been made along both of these streets including sidewalks. Any driveway cuts of course sidewalks will need to be constructed through those driveways. Water and sewer lines do exist to serve this development and will be extended within the development to serve individual structures. The tree preservation requirements are waived on this site. There are three or four trees that are being relocated to utilize as street trees. There are comments from the Landscape Administrator regarding the relocation of those trees. Staff is recommending that this Large Scale Development be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with 12 conditions of approval. 1) Planning Commission determination of commercial design standards. Staff does find that these proposed buildings meet all the commercial design standards. 2) Individual uses of structures shall be subject to the R -O, Residential Office zoning district requirements. The applicant has noted that this is a medical and office type of complex. This is just to ensure that there are certain restrictions with regard to the R -O district with the use units in that. For instance, no more than four doctors in one building and that type of use. Any proposed signage shall be approved through appropriate sign permits and are subject to commercial design standards and other applicable sign ordinances. 4) Trash enclosures shall be screened on a minimum of three sides with materials that are complimentary to and compatible to the proposed buildings. Most of these buildings are brick so we expect that those screenings will incorporate brick. Access to this enclosure shall not be Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 12 visible from the street pursuant to city ordinance. The only one that staff has a concern about is the one directly from Joyce going all the way to the north that would be visible from the street right of way. It looks like there are proposed gates. I just want to confirm that. If those are then that would work in that situation. The rest of the requirements are pretty standard. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Do we have any other staff comments? Clark, S.: I'm Steve Clark. Hudgins: I'm Garth Hudgins, the architect. Hettinger: I'm Craig Hettinger, I represent the ownership. Anthes: Is there anything about Jeremy's report that you would like to address? Clark, S.: Is there any way that we can approve it at this level? Anthes: Because we have commercial design standards and some other things apply we'll probably go ahead and forward it. Is there any member of the public who would like to address this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for discussion. Shackelford: I have one question for Jeremy. You said there was a waiving of tree preservation based on some transplanting of trees on site? Camagey: I can address that. The trees that are on site, there are six trees that are below our threshold for requiring a canopy calculation. They are 6" in diameter or below. They want to try to utilize those trees instead of just taking them all out. They would like to transplant them. The area they want to transplant them is along the street right of way and that is why we are requesting as part of their landscape plan that they present a method of transplanting and that those trees are going to be appropriate and transplanted directly along our right of way. Shackelford: We are not waiving the tree preservation there are just simply no trees on this site? Camagey: Yes. Shackelford: I understand now. Clark, S.: We do have a Landscape Architect on board that is going to be doing some design work and will work with Craig on this. Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 13 Anthes: I think the first thing we should discuss is commercial design standards. I would ask that the applicant be sure to provide small scale versions of these with materials labeled for the Planning Commission. Clark, S.: We did, they are in your packet. Pate: We will make sure to get those to you. I'm sorry about that. Anthes: It is very useful in the future if you go ahead and label the materials on the drawings in addition to providing a sample board. Hudgens: The smaller ones have the materials labeled. Anthes: Are you putting any signs on this site? Clark, S.: There will be a sign. Anthes: Will you be able to provide a drawing of that prior to Planning Commission? Clark, S.: Sure. Anthes: Would we like to add a comment about gates for this trash enclosure that is visible from the entrance of Joyce Blvd.? Clark:, S. It will be screened on all four sides. Anthes: Lighting, sidewalks. Clark: We will see the landscape master plan in the next step? Clark, S.: This does have some landscape on here. Clark: Is it close to what we an expect? Clark, S.: It will hopefully be improved upon by the Landscape Architect. I did this one and as an engineer I put trees where I think they are supposed to go. I'm not a landscape specialist but I get enough on there to get it through and then the landscape people work with the plan. Hudgens: The landscaping shown is what is required and then we are going to go beyond that. Carnagey: There are some details that need to be presented on the construction document before building permit. Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 14 Anthes: Is there any other discussion or motions? Clark: Do we need to make the four sided screening part of the conditions? Anthes: If you would wish to when you make your motion that would be clear. Clark, S.: Condition number four says not to be visible from the street. Anthes: We like to be specific so we all understand. MOTION: Clark: With that in mind, I will move for approval of LSD 04-1094 forwarding to the Planning Commission. Shackelford: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 15 ADM 04-1112: Administrative Item (MILLENNIUM PLAZA) Submitted by Milholland Company for property located at HWY 265 AND JOYCE BLVD. The request is to approve modifications to the approved Large Scale Development on the subject property. Anthes: The next item of business is ADM 04-1112 for Millenium Plaza. Will the applicants come forward? Morgan: The applicant is requesting to modify a condition of approval for LSD 03- 33.00 which was approved on October 13, 2003. The development included construction of a 32,344 sq.ft. retail structure with 135 parking spaces. This project is delineated by Joyce Street on the east. Hwy. 265/Crossover on the west and Joyce Blvd. on the south. The property is zoned C-1 to the north and C-2 to the south. Three drives will access this property. The owner is in the process of obtaining a building permit for this development. Following a submittal for those permits a representative met with staff regarding modification to the approved Large Scale Development. The change in the site plan results in the removal of four parking spaces for a total of 131 parking spaces, which is within the allowable spaces. The applicant also modified the elevations to the structure. This modification is a major modification which is why it is here before you today to consider this change. On page two of the report I have detailed that the requested modifications include four changes. First, there are new building elevations to the east, west and south. These building elevations have been modified with the addition of drive through lanes to the south and replacement of doors and windows to the east. Also, there is a reduction in parking. They are removing four parking spaces. There is also a reduction in the total area of the structure. The structure was approved at 32,344 sq.ft. The proposed modification reduces this area to 31,316 sq.ft. Also, there is a change in the site circulation to allow for a drive through bank facility. Staff recommends approval with conditions. There are four conditions stated. Subdivision Committee determination of compliance with commercial design standards. All conditions of approval from October 13, 2003, as modified herein, shall be completed within three years from issuance of the building permit. Revise building elevations and site plan to reflect the Large Scale Development with the approved modifications shall be submitted prior to commencement of any further development activity on the site. Large Scale Development approval is valid for one year from the original date of approval of the Large Scale Development. Anthes: Are there any other staff comments? If you could introduce yourselves and tell us about the changes here. Fugitt: I'm Kim Fugitt, I'm the architect on the project. Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 16 Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat, the engineer on this project. Fugitt: We were approved on this original design and then had a bank come to us and request this location for the end portion of this strip center. Of course, along with a bank it is necessary to have drive through lanes and drive through windows. This is an odd shaped lot in that at the point of a triangle there it is very difficult to determine a way to get drive through windows as well as the stack space required for that. This was our best solution to that situation. We had the drive through window at the building and then we had to cut off a portion of that in order to get the stacking space, that's why this all took place. The elevations that you have, we gave you a before and after, we have used the same building materials. We'll still use the brick structures and awnings that are interrupted by these "farmers market" type areas here. The drive through windows will be of that same theme with wood and the exposed column and the painted trusses and the signage background that we had originally planned in these areas here. We are taking the same materials and same design details and just reworking with that triangle shape. Jefcoat: None of the outside perimeter of the site changed, none of the landscaping or the utilities or entrances. The only change was internal and parking spaces for this area. In fact, this island remains the same in both locations. The site plan changes strictly occur here. No changing has changed, the calculations still associate the same amount of hard surfaces. Grading stays at the same perimeters as before. Anthes: Thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would like to address this administrative item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners for discussion. Shackelford: Other than the bank fagade none of the other elevation facades of the building was changed? Fugitt: No. Anthes: I do remember quite a bit of discussion on this project at Planning Commission about the ingress and egress from the site. Would you talk to us about the way that this traffic lane is going to work and if you expect the stacking space to accommodate all of the cars and whether that is going to have any impact at this intersection? Jefcoat: If you will notice the landscape island there is separation. The traffic flow will remain the same. The entrance to the project will remain the same. This was not moved at all so the same distance from that intersection is achieved. The stacking space is there are three lanes so it should be adequate. Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 17 Shackelford: Tom, do you have any idea how many cars could stack in that area? Jefcoat: Up to 12. Fugitt: That's not counting the vehicles in, that is just stacking space so there would be 15 vehicles there. Shackelford: That is a significant number of stacking for a branch location at a bank. Clark: This is the first time I've seen this development so the connectivity onto Joyce how many outlets? Jefcoat: One. Clark: Is there any connectivity or outlet to whatever this is that runs behind it? Jefcoat: Yes. Fugitt: Here is the connection here, this is Crossover and there are two connections there. Shackelford: One of the significant discussions we had at the first approval of this was that Joyce is supposed to be realigned in a straight fashion behind this so that back road is not going to be as significant in the future. Clark: Ok. It seems like the drive through would be an interesting turn out unless they could go some other way. Jefcoat: We had an entrance here at one time and there has been a lot of discussion about that. It is not allowed. We had tried to get an entrance here as well as here but we will leave it like it is. Anthes: We also have some significant topography to deal with on this site. The administrative item is addressing two issues. It is addressing commercial design standards and the parking spaces. Obviously, because of the drive through lanes I think it is on the table to discuss the traffic circulations within the site. If we would like to look at the building elevations and make comments. Does the north elevation end up changed? Fugitt: No. Clark: It is the east and the south? Fugitt: It is just that end. Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 18 Clark: It is just going to have the metal roof out from the drive through? Anthes: From the looks of the east elevation it actually improves with this in my estimation in that we don't have the expanse. Clark: Technically that's the back of the building? Fugitt: Right. Clark: It looks like a neat design. Shackelford: I like this project. I liked it the first time and spoke highly of it and assisted it the first time. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve ADM 04-1112. We are basically taking away four parking spaces and a little over 1,000 sq.ft. for this building. We are changing a limited amount of fagade and I think we have mentioned the changes in that fagade, if anything, have added to the enhancement of this property. Clark: I will second. Anthes: We can approve at this level correct? Morgan: Yes. Clark: What are the other conditions of approval from October? Do I need to worry about that? Anthes: No. I will concur. Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 19 FPL 04-1077: Final Plat (FAIRFIELD PHASE II & III, 359): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC for property located at THE E SIDE OF SUNSHINE ROAD AND W OF BRIDGEPORT SUBDIVISION. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 36.01 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of a residential subdivision with 113 single-family lots proposed. Anthes: The final item of business this morning is FPL 04-1077 for Fairfield Phase II and III. Morgan: The applicant requests approval of the Final Plat for Phases II and III of the Fairfield Subdivision. The Preliminary Plats for this development were approved by the Planning Commission in 2001. Phases I and II were heard together and Phase III was heard later. They have not been finaled. Phase I was finaled first and now they are finaling Phases II and III together. Surrounding zoning and land uses are to the north Hamestring Creek and Planning area. To the south is Sage Meadows subdivision zoned RSF-4. To the east are Bridgeport Phases IV, V, and VI. They are zoned RSF-4. To the west is located in the Planning area and is vacant as well as a few single family homes located there. Water and sanitary sewer have been extended to serve this development. Rights of way being dedicated include all interior rights of ways with widths of 42' as well as 50', varying for different streets. New Bridge Road is a collector at 70' of right of way. Right of way for Sunshine Road was dedicated prior to approval of the Final Plat for Phase I of this subdivision. Staff recommends approval of FPL 04-1077 with 24 conditions. Condition one, verification that a 15' sewer easement has been vacated by the City Council prior to approval of the Final Plat. Maintenance of all open space shall be provided by the Property Owner's Association. Condition three shall be removed. The developer has complied with the Landscape Administrator's requirement and therefore there is not the need for this condition. Several conditions (4-7) are regarding floodplain. I will let Mike Rozelle describe what exactly is needed there. Several of the additional conditions of approval were taken from the conditions of approval from the Preliminary Plats for Phases I, II and III. Condition eight is a condition that swales be lined with concrete. In addition, condition number nine, approval of this project regarding sewer capacity will be evaluated if the sewer capacity is available at the time of development. Condition number ten addresses assessments for sanitary sewer improvements. This condition was made pursuant to PPL 01-04.00 for Phases I and IL Condition eleven, an 8" water line shall be installed on Granby Street stub out to the east property line. If this has been done then it shall be indicated on the plat as installed. Please remove condition 12. That is addressed in condition 13 more fully regarding a storm pipe easement located between several lots to the north subdivision. Storm water and floodplain issues shall be resolved as required by city staff prior Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 20 to Final Plat approval. In addition, all conditions of approval for the Preliminary Plats of these subdivisions shall be met and most of the applicable items I have addressed in these conditions. In addition, the requirements for street improvements to Sunshine Road. I believe they have been completed. However, I have included that condition in these conditions of approval. A 25' pedestrian access easement shall be added as a 25' parkland dedication and that just needs to be clearly indicated on the plat as such. I have included a memo regarding specific items to address just on revisions for the plat within this report for Fairfield Subdivision. There are a total of 24 conditions, four of which are standard conditions of approval. Anthes: Let's start with Mike. Will you tell us about the conditions that you have requested? Rozelle: During the Plat Review process we had some conditions regarding the floodplain on the plat to include minimum finished floors and to create an easement across the lots that were affected by floodplain, which they have done. Those comments have been addressed. We did find out on the site that a couple of the storm drain outlets are installed along Hamestring Creek. When an area that would create an immense erosion problem and that really wasn't a good way to stabilize it. They revised the storm drain plans to address that problem and submitted them to us and we reviewed them and have given a verbal approval and should be improving those today to go ahead and install that with some conditions that they do some permanent stabilization around those headwalls and maybe some additional grading to reduce the possibility of erosion. Some of the other comments too, are that final stabilization will need to be done on the site which means the site needs to be revegetated. I understand they have seeded it and done some other measures to address that. However, we will want the site vegetated before we sign off on the Final Plat or some other type of erosion control measures installed until that vegetation is established. That is basically it at this point. Ohman: We need to ensure that we have adequate room for the trail between some of the drainage structures and the park boundary. You may want to contact Steve Hatfield on that. Carnagey: Just to clarify condition number three. The developer had agreed to plant 50 mitigation trees on site. As of yesterday, we talked and he opted to pay into the tree fund for those mitigation trees rather than plant on site, which is an option that they do have by ordinance. Staff has agreed to that condition so it would just be a payment into the tree fund in the amount of $13,750. Clark: I thought we dropped condition number three. Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 21 Shackelford: We did, he is just explaining it. Clark: Paying into the tree fund would be a condition wouldn't it? Camagey: It's paid. They paid yesterday. Anthes: Are there any other comments? There is no public here so we will bring it back to the Commissioners. Clark: I noticed in the approval of Phase I connectivity and street stub out was an issue. Has that been satisfied with this Phase of the development as well? Morgan: As I recall the discussion in the minutes for that condition of approval regarding connectivity is that they were adequately satisfied with the connectivity that was proposed in these separate phases. Anthes: I have a question about item 17. They do note on the plat here that there is a 25' pedestrian access. Is this because we are asking for them to clearly state that that is a parkland dedication? Morgan: It is identified as a pedestrian access on the plat. If that area is within the parkland dedication I would like clarification on the plat. Barnes: The property line that is the 30.66 you can tell if you see the 25.94' that is the actual length that was dedicated as parkland. Warrick: Because it is so small in that corner it is just a little confusing and we were hoping to get just a little more clarification in the note so that it is very clear that that is parkland. Clark: Instead of planting trees you paid into the fund for trees? Barnes: Yes. Clark: I know it is legal but I hate it. Anthes: Engineering, are you completely satisfied with the fact that these drainage structures are going to adequately handle everything and not harm Hamestring Creek in any way? Rozelle: Based on the plans that they have submitted it would greatly reduce the possibility of erosion downstream of the pipes compared to what was designed before. Really when you get out there and see in the field what the conditions are like you can see that what looks good on papers didn't really turn out in the field. Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 22 Barnes: I didn't think it looked good on paper myself. What we have done is we've put junction boxes in further down the slope and then you had a pipe that was at a slope of like 5% coming into the creek which is going to have a great velocity coming out. We have changed that to I think it is either .5 or .7. You are going from a 5% slope to a .5% slope and what happens is the velocity is reduced as it comes down the box. Rozelle: It basically takes the energy out of the water and reduces it and it comes out into the creek at a lot lower velocity than what we would've had before. Barnes: I think we are actually under six feet per second which is actually good. We've got a rock base down there which is actually under six feet per second is good for a side channel also. Rozelle: It has minimized the impact. When you have an outfall on a creek it is always an impact anywhere. I think that they have minimized it to the extent that you can. Clark: Have you talked to any of the property owners downstream from you? I'm reading ahead and in the approval for Plat I that was a major concern. Barnes: We actually submitted to engineering a letter from the adjacent property owner to the west saying that everything looked ok. Clark: I'm just looking ahead. If there was a concern about Phase I drainage, etc., etc., etc. Barnes: It was actually for all of the Phases. There is actually a letter in the file that we got with Mr. Casey about. Shackelford: That infrastructure for I, II and III, how long has it been in place? Barnes: Eight or nine months. Anthes: Dawn, could you tell us on the Final Plat approval if we are still concerned about things like the drainage is there any of our review that the Subdivision or the Planning Commission has about that that has been installed? Warrick: If the Subdivision Committee feels that there are issues that are outstanding that cannot be addressed by staff prior to filing of the plat then it would be appropriate either to table this or to forward it on to the full Planning Commission. I'm not sure that anything is going to happen in the next 9 to 11 days that would change the conditions. We are basically Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 23 waiting for some additional improvements and some plat modifications that need to be installed and reviewed to ensure that all the various conditions that staff feels are appropriate have been met. That is kind of where we are at this point . the infrastructure, for the most part, has been installed. Obviously, there are a few improvements and modifications to the drainage system and e are kind of at the point that it is a punch list of materials and items that need to be finished and I'm not sure that waiting would really change any of those conditions. Anthes: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Shackelford: I concur with what she is saying. I'm not an engineer and don't attempt to be an engineer but we do have staff comments and city engineers who are in agreement with this as it is proposed. Based on those comments and their expertise I'm comfortable with it as it is drawn. Clark: I will concur because I'm not an engineer and we are guessing that what you have done is going to be sufficient and I hope it is. I'm also looking ahead to the Planning Commission. Anthes: We can approve it here, that is the question. Clark: I'm seeing the potential of a lot of property owners downstream coming in and wanting to hear about the drainage. I looked back in the minutes the first time and there was a lot of comment. I'm going on faith and confidence in city staff and I've got it. Shackelford: We've had infrastructure in place for eight months. Dawn, to your knowledge have there been any complaints from downstream about the engineering that has happened prior to this? Warrick: I'm going to ask Mike that. Rozelle: I honestly have not heard of any. Barnes: I will actually go a little further in saying that since Phase I the property to the west across Sunshine Road is being developed as a subdivision. They are actually having to do improvements to their ditches also. Warrick: We saw that. Sunshine Road is the city limits in this location. The property to the west is the Nottenkamper property that we saw as a Preliminary Plat for Amber Jane Estates. That was approved by this Planning Commission and the County Planning Board within the last three or four months. They are looking at doing similar type improvements. We did not have quite the jurisdiction over everything that they are doing but I can tell you that with this particular project they are substantially Subdivision Committee June 18, 2004 Page 24 complete on their infrastructure. There are, obviously, some details that need to be worked out. If there is an issue that staff is not able to resolve in working with the applicant this will be back. We are not going to just sign off on a plat just because you've said it is ok. There are conditions on it and if any of those conditions are not met to the satisfaction of the city we will be back. Clark: When we take conditions off how many are we left with? Shackelford: 22. Based on Dawn's comments and the fact that we do have professionals giving us direction on this at the city level, I am going to make a motion that we approve FPL 04-1077 with the omission of condition of approval number 3 and 12, leaving us 18 conditions of approval plus four standard conditions for a total of 22 conditions of approval. Clark: Second. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you very much. Hearing no announcements, we are adjourned.