Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-29 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Friday, October 29, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN ADM 04-1297: Administrative Item (CLARY/HARP'S) Approved Page 2 LSD 04-1266: Large Scale Development (KEATING-TOWNSHIP BLDG.) Forwarded Page 6 ADM 04-1298: Administrative Item (JONES MOTORCARS, 213) Approved Page 12 LSP 04-1260: Lot Split (MAUGHERMAN) Approved Page 14 LSD 04-1261: Large Scale Development (HANNA/SHAVER FOODS) Approved Page 17 PPL 04-1263: Preliminary Plat (BRIDGEDALE S/D) Forwarded Page 23 PPL 04-1264: Preliminary Plat (MAPLE VALLEY S/D) Forwarded Page 37 PPL 04-1271: Preliminary Plat (RIVER HILLS S/D) Forwarded Page 45 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Allen Ostner Candy Clark Jill Anthes Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Suzanne Morgan Alison Brady Renee Thomas Leif Olson Brent O'Neal Jeremy Pate Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 2 Anthes: Welcome to the Friday, October 29th meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Our first item of business today is listed as number eight on your agenda, we're reordering a little bit. LSD 04-1266 for Keating, the Township building. Would the applicant come forward please? We don't have an applicant. Were they advised of the reordering? Morgan: I'm not sure if they were or not. Thomas: If you will please bump this item to number two I will call the applicant. Anthes: Ok, that item will be number two. ADM 04-1297• Administrative Item (CLARY/HARP'S): The request is for major modification to the approved LSD 04-05.00 for changes to building elevations and parking. Anthes: We're going to hear Harp's first. The first item is ADM 04-1297 for Clary and Harp's. Would this applicant come forward? The architect is on the way? Van Hoose: He is coming from Missouri. Anthes: We can get started, why don't you have a seat. And this item is Suzanne's. Can we have the staff report? Morgan: The subject property is located at lot 8 of Wedington Place Subdivision Phase II, north of Wedington Dr. and east of Colorado Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and while the Design Overlay District boundary does not encompass any portion of the subject property, most of the subdivision does overlay a portion of the district. The original Large Scale Development for this site was approved by the Planning Commission in March, 2004. Compliance with commercial design standards was discussed at length at the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission meetings. This property is adjacent to residential property to the north and west and commercial property to the east and south. The applicant requests to revise the approved large scale development with the following modifications: Modify parking orientation from 90° to 45° (angled) parking. Doing so will result in the removal of 10 parking spaces along the landscaped area adjacent to Colorado Drive and modify the configuration of landscape islands. Modify building elevations to include more substantial brick columns, the building materials and color, and add a column feature and windows on the western elevation. The proposed modifications to the approved large scale development have been determined as a major modification. In the event that a developer wishes to make major modifications to an approved Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 3 development, such modifications shall be submitted to the Subdivision Committee for approval or denial. The proposed modifications to the Harp's structure bring it into greater conformance with the original proposal and design for developments within this subdivision. Harps will be an anchor store for future development and set a precedent for the design of furture structures. Staff believes the proposed modifications will encourage development of retail subdivisions that will comply with commercial design and Design Overlay District standards. Therefore, staff does recommend approval, with three conditions: Subdivision Committee determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 2) Compliance with all conditions of approval for LSD 04- 05.00. 3) Large scale development approval is valid for one year from the original date of approval, March 08, 2004, and by this time, all building permits are required without an extension of the approval. Anthes: Thank you Suzanne, do we have additional staff reports? We'll get started. Could you introduce yourself and tell us more about your project. VanHoose: My name is Jay Max VanHoose. I'm Vice President of store planning for Harps Food stores. The project is a new Harps grocery store on Wedington road located as a reference point behind the Sonic location. This originally came through Large Scale in February. At that time, we moved forward with a Large Scale approval and as a part of that the elevation design. As we've gotten further into the project and done more detailed work and hired a permanent architect for the project, we felt like we could make some changes to the elevations that were more detailed in scope. I hope, especially on the west elevation, that we meet the spirit of trying to avoid an unarticulated box -like structure a little better because there was some discussion at that original meeting of which side of the store was the main retail side. So that's one of the things we're coming here today is to ask for those changes. In addition, we just made a minor modification to the Large Scale Development in terms of just parking orientation. I think staff felt like that should come before Subdivision Committee as well. Anthes: Thank you very much, would any member of the public like to address ADM 04-1297? Seeing none I'll close it to public comment. Commissioners, is there any discussion? I guess the first thing we need to talk about is commercial design standards. Are these the elevations that were originally proposed? Can you see those side by side? I do have a question. On the new elevations, we're not seeing the signage and the ATMs and the gas area. Are those still the same? Van Hoose: The ATM, this right here was the original concept for the pharmacy drive through, that now is more of a canopy structure. It's this piece right here. I guess you could say this bridge and this kiosk unit are no longer part of Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 4 the plans. On the front elevation, it would be this piece here, the side elevation, it's this piece here, so it's just part of the structure, you just drive through underneath the canopy. This has not changed in terms of the gas station. I think the one major change out of that is that if you look at this west elevation here, this is the one that faces Colorado Street, so we've just put another, I guess significant frontage application. These are what's called Kye wall windows, kind of a frosted window. So kind of break that area up a little bit. Anthes: Well I just want to say that Commissioner Ostner and I both had strong reservations against the original elevations for this building, and it does appear to be more substantial. It better addresses Colorado Drive. Do you have any comments Loren? Shackelford: It's the west elevation that I appreciate the addition to. Anthes: Now the site plan itself, we don't have a comparison but it looks like we have angled parking. Where were the ten spaces? Van Hoose: Well, I apologize that I don't have that. Suzanne you don't happen to have the original do you? Morgan: I'm looking for that right now. Clark: How many parking spaces are required for the city? Morgan: They are within their minimum. It is one space per 250 sq.ft. Clark: So they can lose ten and it's no big deal. Van Hoose: They really just kind of get eaten up in the layout with the angled and the angles. So it's not like they left a certain area, they just get changed. Morgan: This is the original and you can see that the parking spaces along Colorado drive have been removed. Clark: That's a good change. It's a nice change. Anthes: We still have the compactors; we've got the right pads. Van Hoose: I think the final compactor is just sitting kind of, it's still contained in the wall structure, it just sitting essentially next to the dock area. And that's something I'm sure that would have to be approved I'm sure by staff, but that's something that just got changed recently due to grading problems right here. So conceptually it doesn't change any, it just moves down the building wall. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 5 Anthes: Van Hoose: Anthes: MOTION: Shackelford: Ostner: So that wall that's shown on the north elevation would just extend? This is essentially, if you look at the rear elevation, this is it here. And essentially it moves down here. And that's the side elevation there. It really should be going back. You're seeing that wall. The other conditions of approval have to do with compliance with the Large Scale. So are there any other comments or motions? Madam Chair, I was obviously in support of this, if anything this is an enhancement to the original commercial design standards, so I will make a motion that we approve ADM 04-1297, subject to the conditions of approval with specific finds in favor of commercial design standards. I second. Anthes: Thank you very much, I believe this is an improvement. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 6 LSD 04-1266: Large Scale Development (KEATING-TOWNSHIP BLDG.): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at TOWNSHIP STREET, W OF COLLEGE AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.54 acres. The request is to approve the development of a 19,582 s.f. professional office building with 57 parking spaces proposed. Anthes: We will now hear item number eight on your agenda, LSD 04-1266 for Keating, the Township building. Hafemann: I'm Garrett Hafemann with Jorgensen & Associates representing Keating Enterprises. Honeycutt: I'm Don Honeycutt the architect for Keating Enterprises. Anthes: Thank you for coming. This is Jeremy's are you reading it? Morgan: The subject property is a 1.54 -acre site is located on Township, between College Avenue and Gregg Avenue. It is zoned C-2, and is one of the last vacant tracts along this stretch of Township to be developed. Surrounding properties are all C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and developed for retail use. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 17,752 sq.ft. professional office center on the property, supported with the appropriate number of parking spaces. Access is proposed to be from one new curb cut onto Township, and utilizing an existing cross -access stub from the west. A minimum right-of-way dedication of 45 feet from centerline is required along Township, a Minor Arterial. Based on staff research, 50 feet of right-of-way from centerline currently exists. Therefore, no dedication is required. The city is planning to improve Township in the near future. Staff recommends an assessment for the required street improvements for this development including street, sidewalk, and storm drain, due prior to issuance of a building permit. On site tree mitigation has been proposed. And staff recommends approval of LSD 04-1266 at the Subdivision Committee level with a total of 12 conditions as follows: 1) Planning Commission determination of street improvements: Staff recommends that the developer be assessed for street improvements along Township, in the amount of $68,750 to be paid prior to building permit. 2) Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards: Staff finds the elevations as presented indicate structures that meet the requirements as set forth in the Commercial Design Standards. 3) Other conditions of approval address screening of mechanical equipment, a few changes to the plat, technical changes, as well as the requirement for six (6) 2 -inch caliper mitigation trees shall be planted on- site to meet Tree Preservation mitigation requirements. Anthes: Thank you Suzanne, do we have additional staff comments? Subdivision October 29, Page 7 O'Neal: Honeycutt: Anthes: Hafemann- Anthes: O'Neal: Morgan: O'Neal: Morgan: O'Neal: Olson: O'Neal: Anthes: O'Neal: Committee 2004 I know we discussed the water line, you didn't have it on the first submittal. Is this office going to have several occupants, or is it just one occupant? That is a possibility of several occupants. Though we hope there will be one, we have had one occupant like vendors for Wal-Mart, but right now, it's more or less a speculative situation. We are doing negotiations, but I can't really go into those. If you would tell us anything you would like us to know about the project. It's really pretty much straight forward and we were hoping to breeze through things here this morning, but unfortunately, this Condition #1, we just found out about that yesterday evening, and we have not had a chance to review that figure, or been provided with any data as to how that number was derived. The client would certainly believe an assessment was required for his part but that number is a little bit excessive. At this point in time, we would still like to gain approval but on the condition that we can at least be provided details on how that number was derived at. If not, then we would take your recommendation on if we should go to the next Subdivision Committee or possibly the Planning Commission meeting in nine days after we've had a chance to review this. Can staff provide comment on the formula? What was the number we used for the linear on this street? I have a total of $68,750. What was the number used for the linear feet of street that we had discussed? It was either $125 or $150. It's basically 250 linear feet of frontage, what is the total divided by 250? $275. $275 for linear feet of road. That's for a 28 foot wide street, sidewalk, curb and gutter and storm drainage. And is this the standard formulas applied for any project of this type? Yes. Subdivision October 29, Page 8 Anthes: January: Anthes: O'Neal: Anthes: O'Neal: Anthes: Hafemann: Anthes: Hafemann: Osmer: Committee 2004 I guess we'll discuss that after we take public comment. Would any member of the public like to address LSD 04-1266? I'm Kathy January, owner of the property to the west. And I just want some explanation of how the holding pond works. I don't have a problem or anything; I'd just like an explanation on how that works I think they have it covered, but I'd just like an explanation. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Seeing none, I'll close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commission. Perhaps engineering can enlighten Ms. January about the drainage. The applicant has proposed a detention pond at the northwest corner of the site. In our preliminary investigation it does meet Fayetteville requirements. Can you tell her a little bit about what happens to the water in that. The excess runoff from the site is detained and released at a rate not exceeding the existing conditions. Does that make sense? Any runoff from the site runs down to that area. It's held in this pond area and then it is gradually released at the same rate any rain would currently be released on the site. Commissioners, I guess we need to talk about street improvements, that is condition of approval one. That's standard, is what we'd require of every developer. We'd be happy to provide the formula to you. Really that's all we're asking. If we had known about it maybe a day or so earlier we could have not had to do this, but on such short notice, we didn't have a chance to review it and based off of all the calculations that we have been able to provide, we haven't been able to come close to this number as far as actual construction cost for 250 foot of roadway. Well what we can do is have staff give you their calculations and how it's applied in other similar circumstances. That would be great. We're just a little unsure of how to proceed onward. Aside from just being explained that number and possibly being able to refigure it, we're happy with everything, with all the other conditions of approval. But that is the one thing that our client at this time does not feel that he would like to agree to. Question for staff I suppose. If this is approved as is, they are pretty much agreeing to this amount. If time goes on and the just can't see that being Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 9 real, they would not be complaint with the conditions of approval, they'd need to come back again. Is there any other method to work it out? Morgan: I do not believe so, because this is a condition of approval and if the applicant did wish to revisit that, it would have to come back to a meeting for that to be reconsidered. Shackelford: If it's something the applicant would like to pursue, I assume we could forward this to full Planning commission who is going to be the board that hears any sort of argument for undue hardship or disagreements in conditions of approval. I hate to put more work on that Commission given what our agenda have looked like recently. But that is an option if that's alright with staff, instead of approving at this level we could forward it with a recommendation to the full Planning Commission and that would give you opportunity to do whatever research you wanted to do and make any sort of presentation to that board. Hafemann- That's what we were hoping for, other than an approval with the stipulation of possibly revisiting that condition, if that's not an option, certainly going to the Planning Commission will give us time we need to revisit that condition of approval and look at it. Anthes: We would need to make a specific finding in order to find in favor the project. So... Hafemann: I understand. Anthes: Commercial design standards. Is this flat with this decoration applied or are there any undulations on the service. Honeycutt: Yes, there are undulations on the surface. Our sample is the first one over there. Let me show it to you. We tried to make a wall section with the materials as they are going to be applied to the building. It shows the red brick and stone boards with either stucco or a drive top and the colors that are involved. This is basically how the building is, this is basically how it layers. And there will be stepping places of particular design. Anthes: Is it essentially a flat plane with this surface attached to it? Honeycutt: Yes, it is essentially a flat plane and we will have an interior court with it. It goes in the building. Anthes: Oh that's what this is on the front. Honeycutt: And we'll have a fountain in there and trees and grass. Anthes: So these are the entrance doors to... Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 10 Honeycutt: Anthes: Honeycutt: Shackelford: Anthes: Shackelford: Ostner: Honeycutt: Ostner: Honeycutt: Ostner: Honeycutt: Yes, and it's also for the code. And you go through the bottom on that elevation in front of you, the wider one is the access to that area. And that's pedestrians only I'm assuming. It's going to be a very pleasant situation for the tenants for the building to rest and relax and also give a sense of space. We feel like the design will meet the design standards. Madam Chair I find it to be in compliance with our commercial design standards. Looking at the other conditions of approval, they seem pretty straight forward and the applicant has stated that they are in agreement with those. Are there any other comments or motions? Since it was my brain child to take it to full Planning Commission, I'm going to make a motion that we forward to Planning Commission LSD 04- 1266 with the recommendation of approval subject to all conditions of approval as stated. I have a question before I second the motion. I'm still confused as to the wall plane. Does it make these... The wall makes those undulations inside for different reasons. These two little... Those are designed for the fact that I have a overhead door on the east side. I did not want it to face the street, so that we could bring a truck in there and back it up and still have a pleasant place in the front to do that. If you look in the elevation, let me get the big board and show you. What we tried to do is screen as much of this as possible so that the street would show a nice location. If you look, this is a prospective from the southwest corner, you don't see that, but actually there it is. And the diagonal or the diamond shape allows frontal view to be obscuring that feature, but also, this bridges it to allow people to go into an open air space in the center of the building. So this 45° angle wall goes all the way two stories up to the roof. Well the center, these are locations for the mechanical equipment, each one of these towers and all the equipment's going to be screened behind, away from the street and away from the pedestrians. So what we try to do Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 11 Anthes: Ostner: Anthes: is keep a pleasant view of the building throughout the design process and obscure all the things that people don't want to see. Thank you very much. Before you put it back if you could just turn it so that the audience could see it. I'll go ahead and second the motion. And I will concur with the condition as stated Thank you, we'll see you in about two weeks. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 12 ADM 04-1298: Administrative Item (JONES MOTORCARS, 213): was submitted by Mandy Bunch on behalf of Jones Motorcars for property located at 3535 N. College Avenue. The property is located in the Design Overlay District, zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.97 acres. The request is for the extension of the approved Large Scale Development, LSD 03-21.00/21.10 for 1 (one) year, to construct a 4,678 s.f. Mercedes-Benz Center and a 13,009 s.f. Collision Center with 48 parking spaces proposed. Ostner: Madam Chair, I'm going to let Commissioner Clark take over. Anthes: Thank you for sitting in with that item. The next item of business is ADM 04-1298 for Jones Motorcars. Good morning. Suzanne. Morgan: The subject property is located at 3535 N. College Avenue. The property is located in the Design Overlay District, zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.97 acres. The approved Large Scale Development is to construct a 4,678 s.f. Mercedes-Benz Center and a 13,290 s.f. Collision Center with 48 parking spaces. The original Large Scale Development for this site was approved by the Planning Commission in September of 2003, with all conditions as stated by Staff, with the exception of the 25 -foot requirement for green space, which was reduced to 15 feet. Numerous determinations were made by Planning Commission as well, and are reflected in the attached staff report. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's approval, specifically with reference to Condition #1, dedication of 55 feet of right-of-way from centerline along College Avenue for the entire property. The City Council denied this appeal, and subsequently the applicant processed a property line adjustment and modification to the Large Scale Development plans to comply with the right-of-way dedication requirement for the north tract being developed. This approval was granted on November 13, 2003. The applicant requests to extend approval of the large scale development one year, to expire on November 13, 2005. As noted in the attached letter of request, the applicant has not been able to finalize agreements on the proposed showroom program with Mercedes-Benz. All permits, for both the Collision Center and showroom, are required to be issued before the one-year deadline. Because the showroom has not been finalized, the applicant has not yet applied for building permits for this structure. Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested extension to the large scale development approval. The applicant shall be allowed until November 13, 2005 to receive all required building permits. If at this time, all permits required have not been issued, the Large Scale Development Plans shall be considered null and void. The Unified Development Code gives the Planning Commission authority to extend approval of a large scale development one additional year if the applicant requests the extent on prior to the one year time limit and shows good Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 13 Anthes: Bunch: cause why the tasks could not reasonably be completed within the normal one year. Thank you Suzanne. Do we have another staff comment? Introduce yourself and tell us about the extension. My name's Mandy Bunch and I'm here this morning representing Mike Jones with Jones Motorcars. It's interesting how simpler the explanation of our previous process sounds in paragraph form. Basically, looking for efficiency, we had proposed both of these buildings in the same LSD, they're on the same tract and it made sense to do it that way. And what has transpired over the year is, apparently Mercedes has some goals that weren't discussed in the original, and there have been some changes and they've just gone back and forth and basically it's like, oh my goodness, it's October and for our large scale, to actually comply with the requirements of the large scale, both of the buildings have to be permitted. Until this showroom is approved by, they're in control, Mr. Jones really doesn't have any control whatsoever how Mercedes is going to react to this building. But that's why we're here today, is respectfully requesting that this be extended so that we can hopefully get these things together and finalize it before next year's is done. Anthes: Thank you Mandy. Would any member of the public like to address this Administrative Item? Seeing none I'll close the floor to public comment and bring it to the Commission. I appreciate the paperwork has been done on the street dedication, as requested by Planning Commission and then appealed by City Council. Looks to me like the project is the same as what we saw. Shackelford: Madam Chair I concur and I think we've seen five of these now recently, so it's something we might ought to look at. But I'm going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve ADM 04-1298. Clark: I'll second. Anthes: I'll concur. Thank you Mandy. Bunch: This is it, right? These guys have the authority to do this right? We're done. Anthes: Yes. Bunch: I knew you did, you approved it to begin with. I appreciate it. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 14 LSP 04-1260: Lot Split (MAUGHERMAN): Submitted by BARNEY & CANDY MAUGHERMAN for property located at 1873 ED EDWARDS ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 1.62 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 0.62 and 1.00 acres respectively. Anthes: We will now hear LSP 04-1260 for Maugherman, if the applicant would come forward. Good morning. Leif? Olson: This lot was submitted for property located at 1873 S. Ed Edwards Road. It is located in the Fayetteville Planning Area and contains approximately 1.62 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 1 acre and .62 acres. Public water is available at this location. Public sewer lines are not accessible to the proposed lots. Approval from the County for a septic system is required for the newly created lot. Dedication of right- of-way of 30' from centerline of S. Ed Edwards Rd., a local street at this location, adjacent to subject property. The surrounding land uses, if you look at the map, this property is kind of, it has the city to the west and to the south, and the Planning Area to the east. It is primarily residential single family, 4 units/acre and some of it's vacant. The property to the east is vacant. Staff recommends approval of LSP 04-1249 at the Subdivision Committee level with two conditions of approval: 1. Dedication of a total 30' right-of-way from centerline of S. Ed Edwards Rd. along the length of the subject property. 1. A standard condition for the representatives of all the utility companies. Anthes: Thank you Leif. Do we have other staff comments? O'Neal: Yes, just a point of clarification that both lots will have to have approval by the health department being one acre or less. Anthes: Thank you. Would you like to introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Thomas: I'm Derek Thomas with Blue Land Surveying. I'm representing Mr. and Ms. Maugherman. This proposed lot split on S. Ed Edwards road, approximately 1.62 acres. We have made the revisions. A letter has been addressed by the health department and approved. I think they dropped it off here. Of course, right-of-way dedication's not a problem. I think that's about it. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any member of the public like to address this lot split? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and bring it back to the Commission. Commissioners? Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 15 Shackelford: Madam Chair? Question to staff, we don't have, at least I don't have any conditions of approval. Are they? We're talking about adding the dedication to... Anthes: It's actually here. Shackelford: Sorry it's early. Clark: But do we need to add the second one on the septic fields? Approval of the septic fields? Anthes: This is actually number two in here. Morgan: Yes we can do that. Anthes: We just need to renumber. This is actually Condition #2. Morgan: Additionally, this item will also have be approved by the county prior to filing. Anthes: Do we need to state that anywhere? Morgan: We can state it as part of the motion if you choose. Clark: Do we need to state about the septic? Then we're going to add the approval from the county health department on the septic fields. So there will be three conditions of approval? Shackelford: Actually four. Clark: Oh yeah, the fourth one we've just added. Shackelford: It's too early. Usually I can do this, but it's too early in the morning. Clark: I don't have any other questions. Shackelford: Is it state health, or county? It's state health depai intent right? Anthes: Yes. Shackelford: Alright Madam Chair, I'll give it a shot here. I'll make a motion that we approve LSP 04-1260 subject to four conditions of approval, the two that are stated plus the third one that the applicant must get approval from the health department regarding septic systems on property less than one acre, and the fourth that this is subject to county Planning approval as well. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 16 Clark: I'lI second. Anthes: I'll concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 17 LSD 04-1261: Large Scale Development (HANNA/SHAVER FOODS): Submitted by NEAL MORRISON for property located at 1367 S. BEECHWOOD AVENUE. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and contains approximately 13.71 acres. The request is to approve a 10,000 s.f. office building with 34 parking spaces proposed. Anthes: The next item of business is LSD 04-1261 for Hanna and Shaver Foods. Good morning. Leif, this one is yours. Olson: This Large Scale Development is for property located at 1367 S. Beechwood Avenue. It is a 13.71 acre site and it's located just north of 15th street. The property is zoned I-1, which is Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial. The surrounding land uses, the property to the north is Ayrshire Electronics. It is also zoned I-1, heavy commercial, light industrial. To the south is vacant, zoned RMF -24. To the east is the University of Arkansas's Tyson Track Center, zoned I-2, general industrial and just to the west of this property is a Southwest Electric Power transfer station, zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial Light Industrial. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 10,000 SF professional office center on the property, along with 32 parking spaces. Access is proposed by utilizing an entrance that currently exists for the warehouse facility. A minimum right-of-way dedication of 25 feet from centerline is required along the length of this property that fronts on Beechwood Ave, which is classified as a local street on the Master Street Plan. Currently Beechwood Ave. does not have curb or storm drain along the west side of the street. These improvements will be required with this proposed development prior to issuance of a building permit. Tree Preservation, existing there is a .5% of the site. All of those trees would be preserved. And staff recommends approval of LSD 04-1261 at the Subdivision Committee level with 13 conditions of approval. And I'll go over just a few of the more important ones. 1. Staff recommends that the developer be required to construct street improvements along Beechwood Dr., prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Stafffinds the elevations as presented indicate structures that meet the requirements as set forth in the Commercial Design Standards. 3. All proposed freestanding and/or wall signage shall comply with city ordinance specifications for location, size, type, number, etc. 4. The front landscape area shall maintain a minimum of 15 feet of green space from the existing 25 -feet from centerline right-of-way line. 5. Street trees must be planted every 30 linear feet along the right- of-way of Beechwood Ave.. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 18 6. Street lights are required every 300 feet and must be shown on the plat. Proof of payment for street lights must be received prior to issuance of building permit. 7. Solid Waste had a comment that a trash dumpster location has not been shown on the development plan. If a trash receptacle is proposed the location and dimensions (10' X 15') must be shown on the plat and approved by the City's Solid Waste Department and must be adequately screened from view of any public rights of way. Anthes: Thank you Leif. Do we have other staff comments? Would you introduce yourself and your project please? Morrison: My name is Neil Morrison. I'm with Morrison/Shipley Engineers. This building will be owned by J.B. Hanna LLC to serve Shaver Foods who also occupy the other large structure on this tract. I'm just here to answer your questions if you have any. Anthes: Okay, thank you very much. Would any member of the public like to address this Large Scale Development. Seeing none, I'll close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commission. Commissioners? Clark: Have you looked over the conditions of approval as stated? Morrison: Yes I have. That's fine. With the trash receptacle, there is another dumpster on this side that the existing building uses that this building will also use. Anthes: Let's talk about commercial design standards, that's Condition #2. How is this not a boxlike structure, Leif? Staff is recommending it. Olson: We are recommending it. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. Clark: I've heard that before. Shackelford: We're also working in an I-1 zoning, which I know commercial design standards still apply in an I-1 zoning, but it's going to be a different type of structure than you're going to see in CMN or something of that nature. Anthes: Olson: How are our commercial design standards written for I-1 as opposed to the C-2 zoning district? I would have to look and see. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 19 Anthes: Will there be signage on the building? Morrison: On the building, yes. Olson: Commercial design and development standards, under applicability, "The standards set forth here in, shall apply in the following zoning districts except as noted," and #6 in that list is I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial. Morgan: Typically whenever we've seen a development in an industrial zoning, if it is a more industrial or warehouse type use, then we do not apply the design standards, however, if it is an office or a commercial use in that industrial use, we do apply design standards. Anthes: Although it sounds like the way the ordinance is written, if a building is constructed in that district, it's exempt. Shackelford: Exactly. Morgan: Under Design standards, in that section, Section D states, "Design element for commercial structures" and it lists the five criteria by which we judge whether it meets our criteria. And so, by commercial standards, commercial structures, we'd interpret that as an office or retail type commercial use. Anthes: Well that's problematic then. I thought we were home free there for a minute. Are these awnings, that are coming out from the building. They look like they're rendered as brick, but it looks like. Morrison: I don't believe they're awnings, I think it's in the masonry . Anthes: The building itself actually has projections in the masonry that tilt out? It's hard to tell what's going on. There's aluminum sun screens at windows, and it has these little pieces articulated here. Morrison: I'm not the architect, and unfortunately, he's not here today so I can't go into a lot of detail about the architectural features. Anthes: Of course the west elevation in my mind, in no way meets our commercial design standards if it's true that they're applicable here, we've got a little problem. Clark: Are we sure they're applicable, we're positive? To me it is a block like structure and it seems that we should have some latitude because it's in an industrial setting. But, unfortunately I don't think we do according to the Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 20 rules. If these are awnings that truly come out and break up that structure. That's at least a beginning, if that's what those are. Shackelford: Question for the applicant. Can you tell me what percentage of the building is office versus warehouse storage? Morrison: Of this building? It's all office. Anthes: I mean basically what we have here is a metal building with a facade wrapped on three sides. It is a square box, the only articulation I see is some banding and perhaps some aluminum sunscreens that we're not quite speaking to here, and then the west elevation is a metal wall panel. Clark: I have a question for the staff. You said it's in the eye of the beholder, so tell me what you're seeing that I'm not. Olson: The west elevation faces an electric transfer station, so from Beechwood Avenue this would actually be screening that structure that's out there now. I think my interpretation as I look at this, going out to the site, it is in a very industrial area, most of the structures that are out there are metal prefab farm like structures, warehousing structures. The property across the street of course with the Tyson Track Center. I just feel that the existing warehouse that Shaver foods is in now is a big large metal building, so in my interpretation is this is a very industrial area, and this building would be an asset to the area. Anthes: Can you talk about the property to the south that's zoned RMF 24? Olson: Right. It is vacant right now. If you look at the close up view map, catty cornered across 15th street is the Crown here. And then this map doesn't show the Tyson Track Center, where it's located across the street here. But the RMF 24 tract that you're talking about is vacant. It's pretty much just a large field. Morrison: There is a fairly large buffer to the south of the building between the building itself and the RMF -24. And I guess that's an access road that goes to the substation also. Anthes: This is an access road? Morrison: Right here. Clark: Back to the sub station. Morrison: The substation sits on this rectangle right here. SWEPCO also owns the other piece of land. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 21 Shackelford: Madam Chair, I concur with what staff's comments on commercial design standards. As I go out and look at this location, I agree. This is one of our heavily industrial use areas in our community. What I look for is street visibility. The east elevation is most visible from Beechwood, I think there's a lot of articulation to that. You know, there's a utility, pretty ugly utility setting to one side of this, there's a tremendous buffer to the south that sits way off the property line before you get to the RMF -24. I would concur that I think this would be an asset to this part of an I-1 zoning. Clark: Madam Chair I agree with what Commissioner Shackelford has said, but I go to staff and ask if we can make determinations based on code. Because it sounds pretty interpretive to me. Morgan: Make interpretations about? Clark: About does it meet the standards if it meets the rest of the area? Morgan: Well, the commercial design standards, there are certain, five, criteria that you have to make findings on. Clark: Remind me of those since they're not in my packet, please. Morgan: The elements to avoid or minimize include unpainted concrete precision block walls; square box like structure; metal siding which dominates the main facade' large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces; and large out of scale signs with flashy colors. Clark: Well, it's not a red drive through lane, but... Anthes: Well, of those five points I think the one point that it is questionable whether it meets is the square box like structure. I think because of the general location and adjacent property uses and the zoning, I feel okay about being a little bit more flexible. I do feel, it's unfortunate that we have all this land here that we didn't tuck the parking behind the building, buffer it from the substation and get the building to face Beechwood without the parking lot in front of it. As far as the site planning goes, that's what I find unfortunate. Clark: I agree with you. I mean it is in an industrial. I think that sometimes we are very restricted by the way commercial design standards are written. And that's not your fault at all, it's just frustrating because we do this a lot. Shackelford: Fortunately, the ordinance is written to avoid or minimize, and I believe we are attempting to minimize blank, unarticulated walls. I think we're Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 22 trying to minimized the impact the impact of the square box like structure by the architectural changes that have been done. Fortunately, I feel that the ordinance gives us that latitude and for six years I've made this argument that there's got to be some differentiation between commercial design standards of C-2 sitting on I-40 versus I-1 sitting in the industrial park. Clark: I agree with you 100%. Shackelford: As far as the design, I would assume that if this building wasn't being built to attach to an existing building, hopefully we would have had a little more latitude. And I think that's probably the limiting factor. Anthes: Any other comments on other conditions of approval. O'Neal: Madam Chair? I neglect to turn my note page over. Mr. Morrison on your transfer report, there's still a section that is labeled as a type two storm, we just need to make sure it's a type three I think it's on the post developed. Morrison: Is that in the input data or is that in the text of the... O'Neal: It's on the output data. Morrison: Okay, we'll take care of that. Anthes: Is that pertaining to any particular condition here? Clark: Does the developer have any problems with the improvements along Beechwood? Morrison: I guess we'd rather not take on that expense, but if it's required, then that's what we'll do. Clark: A sad thing, but yeah. Than Madam Chair, I move that we approve LSD 04-1261 with the conditions of approval stated with agreement with improvements of Beechwood and that it meets commercial design standards. Shackelford: I'll second. Anthes: I'll concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 23 PPL 04-1263: Preliminary Plat (BRIDGEDALE S/D): Submitted by MILHOLLAND CO. for property located at 1341 ROBERTS ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family — 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 7.47 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 25 single family lots proposed. Anthes: Our next item of business is PPL 04-1263 for Bridgedale. Good morning Tom. Clark: Tom, how do these differ? I've got two of them. Morgan: There's one modification to the plat. Anthes: We'll stop shuffling paper and get going here. Suzanne, this one's yours. Morgan: This request is to develop a single family subdivision within an RSF-4 zoning. The subject property was annexed and rezoned RSF-4 by the City Council on August 17, 2004. At the time of consideration of annexation and rezoning, the Planning Commission and City Council discussed improvements to existing streets in the area including Roberts Road to occur at the time of development. It was also noted through the review process that some areas of this property contain very wet land that neighbors have described as being configured similar to a bowl that holds water, and there were concerns from neighbors in the area that if the property is not developed appropriately under appropriate regulations that they would be adversely affected by development of this tract of land. The subject property contains two tracts of property totaling approximately 7.47 acres of vacant farmland. The property is situated south of Huntsville Rd. (Hwy 16) and west of Roberts Rd. It is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family — 4 units per acre. And surrounding areas are zoned RSF-4 within the city and other properties are within the county. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for a residential subdivision with 25 single family lots proposed. The detention pond is proposed to be offsite on property located within the Planning Area. A property line adjustment will be required to create a legal lot for the proposed subdivision. This is so that that detention is not on the subject property. That will allow this to just go through city planning process instead of county as well. Total density for the property being developed is 3.27 dwelling units per acre. Right-of-way to be dedicated includes 40' for Eastpoint Drive, stub -out from Stonebridge Meadows Phase I from the west. Staff recommends 50' for Northpoint St., a north -south connection stubbed to the north; the applicant has proposed a 40' right-of-way for this street. Right-of-way for Roberts Road, a Collector, is being dedicated 35 feet from centerline. For street improvements, staff recommends 24 feet and 28 feet street widths for Eastpoint Dr. and Northpoint St. respectively. Improvements along Roberts Road include 14 feet from centerline widening, including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drains and six-foot Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 24 sidewalks. Staff also recommends widening of Roberts Road north of the subject property to Huntsville Rd. to a minimum 20' pavement. As noted on the plat, it is currently 15.5 feet of width north of the subject property on Roberts Road. The Parks and Recreation Board recommends money - in -lieu of land for this subdivision to meet park land dedication requirements, with an assessment in the amount of $13,875 for 25 single family lots due prior to Final Plat. Mitigation will be required for the removal of the existing 3.8 % canopy on this property. The proposal extends a street stub -out to the north, utilizing a temporary cul-de-sac until such time as the property to the north extends the street for a development. Full street improvements stop short of the property line, and an assessment is to be made for that portion of unconstructed street. Additionally, staff is recommending a sign be placed at the end of the stub -out prior to Final Plat indicating to all potential and future homeowners that the stub -out is intended in the future to provide street connectivity. Staff recommends forwarding PPL 04-1263 with a recommendation of approval to the full Planning Commission with the following conditions of approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends the following.: Eastern extension of Eastpoint Dr. shall be constructed with a minimum of 24 feet width including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drains and four foot sidewalk located on one side. Northpoint Street shall be constructed with a minimum of 28 feet width including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drains and four foot sidewalks located on both sides. Improvements to Roberts Road shall consist of 14 feet from centerline standard street improvements, with six-foot sidewalks located at the right-of-way line along the property boundary, and widening of Roberts Road north of the subject property extending to Hwy 16 to a minimum 20 feet pavement width. Additional conditions besides Item 1 include: 5. Submittal and approval of a property line adjustment creating a legal tract of property for the proposed subdivision shall be filed for record prior to submittal of construction plans. 8. An assessment in the amount of $5,500 shall be paid by the developer prior to Final Plat for the unconstructed portion of Northpoint Street stub - out to the north, approximately 90 feet in length. 11. The Tree Preservation Plan calculations table shall be revised to reflect actual Preservation numbers, based on the plan submitted. The amount of contribution into the Tree Fund will be adjusted based on the actual amount of canopy removed. 14. Comments from Technical Plat Review for the Tree Preservation Plan were not addressed in resubmitted plans. Add the following to the Tree Preservation Plan prior to this item being forwarded to the full Planning Commission: Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 25 • Include a specification drawing to show the method and materials used for preservation fencing (reference the Landscape Manual for the appropriate detail). The inclusion of standard notes and details is a city ordinance requirement to be added to plats at the time of Preliminary Plat review or Large Scale Development review. • Include all of the standard Tree Preservation and Protection notes • Label the Tree Preservation Plan as such. • Include a note on the plat stating where possible, those trees located near the detention pond (within the City's Planning Area) will be preserved. Anthes: Thank you Suzanne. Do we have other staff comments? O'Neal: Tom, on the drainage report I appreciate the additional information for the detention pond. However, I do need some calculations on the outlet structure. I believe that's my only comment on that. Jefcoat: Alright. I thought I'd provided for those, but obviously not. I'll do that. Anthes: Tom, if you would introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about your project. Jefcoat: Yes, Tom Jefcoat, Milholland Company. This is a subdivision with a temporary cul-de-sac as mentioned. There are a couple of questions, that I have, and this is the first opportunity I've had to see these comments. And these are rather short notice on a lot of these comments being received and it would be nice, and I'd like to state it on the record, that if, from all standpoints, from this side of the table, and I've heard this mentioned this morning several times before, if we could receive these a couple days ahead of time to prepare, to provide rebuttal comments or explanations, would be really helpful. Receiving it the first thing as you walk in is somewhat difficult to address. Staff has stated that tree preservation plans were not provided and resubmitted but we are willing to mitigate and reduce the tree canopy. In fact, we've been back to look at the site and have determined that tree mitigation for utility easement is probably the wise idea rather than trying to preserve all trees that have gone back and been done. The 20 foot widening of Roberts road out to the highway, I think if you immediately look at the property that's in the county, the road width may be fifteen feet but the city has widened the road almost 2/3s of that length out to the highway, so it's not a very long distance there for that asphalt to be extended. It's not as dramatic as it sounds, because I think from this point forward it's been widened already by the City. So there are some comments there that you need to take into account and that are better than it sounds. I think the sign at the end of the cul-de-sac bas been added on the plat. All the other comments we accept and understand, and are willing to comply with I believe. I don't see any other comments. Do you not have your roads wrong, are you not looking at Eastpoint being Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 26 28 feet? It is the through street. And Eastpoint is existing as 24 feet wide, and Northpoint is 24 feet wide, and you're saying Northpoint, the temporary cul-de-sac should be 28 feet. Morgan: Yes sir, that's staff's recommendation. Jefcoat: That the cul-de-sac be 28 feet. Morgan: It's a temporary cul-de-sac to be continued through when property to the north develops. We are requesting that that be constructed at 28 feet with 50 foot right-of-way. Jefcoat: That's just strange that that's being brought up at this point but we will take that into advisement and revise those to 28 foot instead of 24 foot. That's rather strange. We'll want to discuss that with staff a little more, but if that's the case, we will certainly comply. And I think those are all the comments that I can, rebuttal, we accept the conditions and would like to move this forward to the Planning Commission. Anthes: Thank you, Tom. I will state that we get these reports when you do, and when we sit down, we're speed reading to try to understand the conditions right along with you. So we understand your frustrations. Would any member of the public like to address this PPL 04-1263? Roberts: My name is Eldon Roberts I live out in that area, obviously that road is named after my family and ancestors. We've probably owned that property back through my family 100 years plus. And to say that I don't know this property and to not know what I'm going to tell you about it would be an understatement. I have spoken with the developer, I believe it's Mr. McDonald, a nice young man, I hope him the very best. I'm not opposing this in any way shape or form, it's progress and it can't be stopped. I hope he makes a hundred million dollars tax free but we have some concerns out there with water in this area, and I have brought that before the Planning Commission just by talking to Ms. Warrick on the telephone. I believe I was told to the annexation and the rezoning hearing the first time that I could come to maybe this meeting. I think there's another one scheduled for November 8th pertaining to this same property and address my concerns there. So that's the reason I'm here. This property to best describe where you can really understand, is built or lays much like a cereal bowl, the outside perimeter, all the way around is property, is higher than the inside of it, and there's nowhere for water to go. And I think the developer, nor the engineer has ever seen, since they've become involved in purchasing this land or doing an engineering study on it, what can happen there in that area whenever we have large rains like we did in May. Two to three and with a large rain maybe four acres of this will flood and just stand there. The soil is of the consistency Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 27 of clay. I've watered my granddad's team of horses out of this old pond that's out in the middle of this property. It's an old swampy pond. It's slick slimy gray clay, that when it gets on your shoes you work for a week to get it off, so it holds water and it holds water and it holds water. Mosquitoes was an understatement our there in that area this year. I spoke to Mr. Milholland about this just to see what the plans were on handling this water and my concerns were even heightened more after speaking with him because I assumed this water would be drained over onto the existing Stonebridge Phase I development out there which has all totally brand new streets and storm drainage and culverts and whatever I assumed that this water could be funneled into their drainage and it'd be handled. But he advised me that the city has rules and regulations that water off of one subdivision can't be sent to the other one. I thought that's what I understood him to say. He mentioned retention ponds, I know what those are, I think they're great, but most all of those, if not everyone of them, after they fill to a certain level, they have an outlet that lets the water dispense at a rate much like the rainfall and drain on off. Well, where's this going to drain on off to? There's nowhere for it to go. It might hold it's own water until it becomes full, and then let's say the drain starts working and it starts draining off but it's still not going to get outside this cereal bowl perimeter the way I see it. I'm just a simple person but, so I thought I only had that concern until I hear the Planning Commission people talk about widening Roberts, down through there. Now I don't know how much right-of-way the city has there. I've lived there all 57 years of my life, but it sounds like you're about to get into my concrete driveway and my chain link fence, and my privacy fence and my yard, and I've got a problem with that too, if that happens. So I don't know where you're going, I hadn't even picked up on that going to be a problem. To speak to what the engineer said while ago, the city has come out, and as a matter of fact just last week, put a brand new two inch layer of asphalt over the chip and seal road that was there and it is a nice road now, totally free of any chug holes or any cracks and crevices from the Roberts Road and Huntsville Road intersection to the City limits, which is 300 feet south. And I would say, I don't know how wide the road is now, but it's considerably wider than maybe what Planning is thinking it is or what it used to be. So I think the road is pretty fine, pretty good shape, especially if we're going to start trying to get my driveway and my chain link fence and my privacy fence and my yard. But those two items I have some concern over. Now, I heard the gentlemen back in the back while ago, or maybe you, when you were reading about this detention pond, going to be offsite. Well I know that property very well, I say, I've lived there all my life and live there now, within 20 feet probably of where this is going to go. Where is the offsite, who's property is that going to be on, I know everybody out there so when you tell me it's going to be, I'll understand if it's going to be off-site. Subdivision October 29, Page 28 Anthes: Roberts: Anthes: Jefcoat: Anthes: Jefcoat: Morgan: Jefcoat: Anthes: Clark: Committee 2004 We'll answer your comments after we take public comment from everyone. Then I don't have anything else other than that. I just want to put you on notice that it does have a potential water problem that has to be addressed somehow. thank you Mr. Roberts. Would any other member of the public like to speak? Seeing none I'll close it to public comment and bring it back to the Committee. I guess let's start with Mr. Roberts's questions about how we're going to handle the water, the drainage, and the retention on this site. Can you tell us a little bit more? Yes. We will handle it in accordance with the City accepted drainage criteria. That is we will determine the existing discharge and determine the construction discharge, and retain in the detention facility the difference between the two. Discharge the difference is at the same rate as it currently leaves the site. That will be done on the expansion of the existing pond to accept additional water, with a discharge structure, following the same drainage pattern that's there now. I believe that's this on your drawing. And is that offsite. No, the offsite being outside the City limits. It is all one site. Not outside the City limits but off of this site. The owner owns, the developer owns both sides. It's that the property line adjustment is this is not in the subdivision. So, that's the only difference is that this is one site, this is another and this is the subdivision site. And I think that that lot line adjustment has been filed. I'm not aware that it's been submitted for review. It was to be submitted for review and should have been and if not, I'll find out when I get back, because Mel should have submitted that and has been asked to do so. If it's not it will be in the process. So let me reiterate for Mr. Roberts. What Mr. Jefcoat's saying is that the retention structure is actually on this developer's property it's just that there's a lot line adjustment so that there was a split and there's two tracts, and it's not on the subdivision tract. Here's a visual aid Mr. Roberts. Here's the subdivision and there's the detention pond. Roberts: Oh, I know exactly. Can I speak, or can I not speak. Subdivision October 29, Page 29 Anthes: Roberts: Anthes: Roberts: O'Neal: Anthes: O'Neal: Jefcoat: Committee 2004 Is it something that's critical to our discussion. Yes, I know exactly where he's talking about. They can call it offsite if they want to; it's all within this area of the cereal bowl. So where's it going to drain? You know when he said offsite, I assumed they meant they were going maybe channel the water through a drainage ditch off over to somebody else's property when the retention pond filled up it would run out and go on. This is all still within one area that's inside of this area that doesn't drain. So where's the retention pond going to drain when it fills? I'm going to have engineering address that question. From what I can understand is that there is an outlet area which is where the water is currently flowing and that it will be, the amount of flow will be restricted to the amount that would currently fall in that property right in that channel. But let's have that elaborated on by engineering. Well, let me say one more thing and then I'll sit down. The water doesn't leave that area now. It doesn't go anywhere. There's nowhere, it doesn't leave that area until it eventually soaks into the ground, and that can be weeks. It doesn't have a natural manner in which it leaves there now. According to the plat information I have, there is an existing structure on that pond, am I correct Tom? So the pond right now acts like a detention facility. It is being improved and increased in size to handle the additional runoff created by this development. I don't have our information further downstream of this existing system, so I cannot make a determination of if there is adequate drainage in the entire area. Is that something that staff generally does prior to the issuing of a grading permit? In many cases, submitted with a drainage report is a quad map. I do however have a section of the firm map, submitted by the applicant. This area is outside of the flood zone region. So I can't make any determination other than what's been provided here. I can, however, go and do a little bit more investigation on existing conditions downstream of the site. But with what I have in front of me, I cannot make a determination at this time. And I might like to comment that I do understand what Mr. Roberts was talking about and I'm fully aware of offsite conditions and the downstream drainage problems, but those downstream drainage problems are existing conditions and we're not going to increase the current downstream problems. Those problems are existing conditions that are outside of our control. Our detention facility will meet the requirements Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 30 Clark: of detaining to increase runoff and release at that currently exists. If you'll notice from the contour map, that this actual development sits on a knoll. If there is a bowl existing, it's not this ridge upon which the subdivision is built. It's offsite. And I will be glad to meet with Brent at his convenience, make myself available and we'll go out and look at the surrounding areas so Brent can fully understand it. I guess I'm not understanding all the engineering technicalities here because what I'm hearing Mr. Roberts say is that downstream run off is not the issue. It is actual onsite drainage issues that the water doesn't go anywhere. So you're proposing to use an existing pond to channel runoff into from this development, correct? I mean, keep it simple. Jefcoat: To expand the existing pond so that it becomes an increased, it acts like, the pond receives runoff now, and we're going to increase the pond size to accept the additional runoff and release it at the same rate. Clark: Okay, because what I'm hearing is the runoff the pond accepts is not sufficient. That water still stands. What I would suggest is that when you talk to Brent, you talk to Mr. Roberts as well. Jefcoat: We'll be glad for Brent. Clark: Because this will come back to the Planning Commission as well. Jefcoat: If Brent would like for Mr. Roberts to attend, that'd be fine. Clark: Because every time we hear something from this area, drainage is always mentioned. Jefcoat: Drainage is always an issue. Clark: I understand that and it's an important consideration, so... Jefcoat: It is. Clark: O'Neal: Clark: If we can get everybody together maybe everyone can understand how this is going to work. Madam Chair I'd also like to note that the applicant is over detaining. They are actually detaining more than what is leaving their site. There's nothing wrong with being an overachiever. Subdivision October 29, Page 31 Jefcoat: Anthes: Morgan: Jefcoat: Anthes: Committee 2004 Shackelford: Anthes: Shackelford: Morgan: Well, it's impossible to meet exactly the increase, so it's always, the only thing that you can make it do is to make it a better to detain more than your increase. Let's look at the conditions of approval here. I guess I've got some confusion about the Eastpoint and Northpoint Streets and the widths. Is there, do to Master Street Plan requirements, is there some reason that Northpoint is viewed as to be a more heavily trafficked street than Eastpoint? Eastpoint was stubbed out in Stonebridge Meadows Phase I as a 40 foot right of way. The reason for that I am not aware of, I could do some research on that, but because it was stubbed out as 40 foot right of way, we decided to continue it as such. We predict that because Northpoint will stub out to the north and continue in the future as a through street, that it would be best based on potential traffic counts, which I can get you for Planning Commission, that it should be a 50 foot right-of-way to carry additional traffic. Usually we see 40 foot rights-of-way as cul-de-sacs or in more of a grid type urban pattern, where there are many different points of connectivity. And I would like to not that in your packet, there's a response to technical plat comments from the engineer. Item 1t4 of the engineering division comments states show Northpoint street as a 50 foot right-of-way with sidewalk on either side. So that was made as a request at a technical plat meeting. Thank you. I guess that does confuse me a little bit because we're talking about streets that are to take traffic and to take it somewhere and to make connectivity. But we're talking about, even when it continues through to HWY 16, it's still a relatively short street that I can't imagine it would have traffic on it. I agree, I think that Eastpoint is going to provide a much needed ingress and egress to Stonebridge Meadows. I anticipate traffic will flow out of Stonebridge as well as this development to Roberts Road to access HWY 16. I think we would be better suited to make Eastpoint the major thoroughfare and not Northpoint. But what we're hearing is that it's the 40 foot right-of-way and 24 foot going west. But at property line I assume we could make that adjustment and widen it back out. I think we've done that in the past. Taking the 40 foot right of way and widening it. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 32 Shackelford: Taking it to a 50 foot right-of-way at the property line of the next development. Jefcoat: Well that's a... Anthes: Is that a problem for you because of the way this is drawn? Jefcoat: Well, it's only a problem with the fact that we're feeding that from a forty foot right of way already, and since we're feeding that from a 40 foot right-of-way, and it is a relatively short stretch, just ascetically even, it would look much better to maintain it as it exists. We desire the existing conditions to be met as a 40 foot right of way with a 24 foot street. Anthes: And I would support the fact that it seems to me that Northpoint could also be that same cross-section just as its drawn here. Mainly because of the length of it and the amount of connectivity, it doesn't seem to warrant the larger street section. How do you feel about that Commissioner Clark. Jefcoat: Anthes: Jefcoat: Shackelford: Clark: I think also that if you'll look at the way the parcels are laid out and the plats that are in the county, that if the street was continued, it would not go all the way up, it would turn and go aback over to Bridgestone, and I think that if you see a bigger, large scale where you don't see how the parcel's divided up, but the way the ownership of the land is, is that this road would turn around and come back over to here. It's not likely that it would go out to 16, it would come into here somewhere. And then River Meadows is a wider street section at this point? River Meadows, yes, the main road into River Meadows is a wider street. But it is also the main street that goes all the way down to the farm road. I will concur with your comments as well as I look at this. Even if Northpoint does connect directly north through to HWY 16, we've seen a lot of subdivisions recently that have long, straight streets and that wish they would have done more narrow than the width that they did for safety concerns. So, I think probably, Mr. Jefcoat's right, this will probably turn back and connect back into Stonebridge Meadows, but if for some reason it did go straight out, I think the neighbors would benefit from a more narrow street based on the topography and the length of the street. I think we've actually heard comments from some of the Stonebridge Meadow neighbors that talk about keeping the streets a little more narrow to cut down on the flow of traffic, the speed of traffic with kids. So I agree. I concur. Subdivision October 29, Page 33 Anthes: Jefcoat: Morgan: Anthes: Morgan: Jefcoat: Anthes: Jefcoat: Anthes: Committee 2004 And particularly if Northpoint is taken back around with a natural general bend in it, I think that would be a benefit as well rather than the straight street. So that would actually mean that the recommendation would be adjusted to 24 in both areas under Condition 1? Now about Mr. Jefcoat's comments about extending Roberts Road and the 20 foot pavement width. If the City has provided an overlay there, is there indeed, do we need to better define the section of road that this development would be responsible for, or do we just leave it up to them to make up the 20 feet and how would that impact Mr. Robert's drive? Has anybody looked at that? Let me make one additional comment. That is in the county, that stretch of road is in the county, so the widening of that road would have to be coordinated with the county. Staff does recommend widening to HWY 16. We can research to see whether or not there was improvements done adjacent to HWY 16 and exactly how far that needs to be. Our recommendation at this time is to the north at least 20 feet, so if there is existing pavement greater than 20 feet, then it could be stopped at that point. As Mr. Jefcoat has stated, besides the frontage of this subject property, the property to the north, Roberts Road, is in the county. I looks on these plat that there are 60 foot of right of way. And so that's the typical street section within the county is 60 feet of right-of-way. So many times properties are abutting these 60 feet of right of way do have their driveways all the way to the constructing street, but there is a large amount of right of way to construct a street. And Mr. Roberts could come to staff office and talk to you about that so that he could understand where that would be? Yes, we would be willing to talk about that an look at it. If I may the only thing that I would like to add is if the overlay to the existing Roberts Road to HWY 16, what we would really like to see, and I think Mr. Roberts would like to agree is that we do not widen it any more than the exiting overlay that's been applied. So that if we do we match that. It's consistent? Right, it's consistent. I guess I'd have to differ to engineering on that because this is going to be the second outlet of this development and connect with earlier phases, I'd just want to make sure the capacity of that road is going to be able to Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 34 handle it. We wouldn't have the condition where people couldn't pass safely. Jefcoat: I think, also, that if you go to our comments, we have objected to our developer having to foot the bill for that entire widening, when it was not required of Bridgedale and the other outlets that were on the Roberts Road, certainly with the City improvement, that lessens that a good bit. We would like to discuss that with Brent while we're out looking at the drainage issues. Anthes: So we could make a recommendation that that be studied and staff revise or not their comments prior to Planning Commission. Shackelford: And madam chair I think the same thing holds true for the street widths on Northpoint and Eastpoint. Staff still wants to recommend the 24 and 28 sections. I don't know that we ought to change our recommendation at this level, but be prepared to discuss our views. Obviously full Planning Commission will get minutes of this meeting. I don't know that we need to change, unless staff, we've convinced them with our wonderful arguments that they want to make that change. I think we ought to leave the conditions as proposed and allow. Jefcoat: Shackelford: Anthes: Clark: Morgan: Clark: Shackelford: Anthes: I would like to see it changed if possible or at least a recommendation that it's change. Because if we go to full Planning Commission, I would like to have a plat prepared for approval, and that would leave me in between. That's a good point. Okay. I'm scanning over these other conditions. What do you think about leaving it at 24 or changing it... I believe that the recommendation obviously was at 50 feet. I think staff would need to take a look at traffic counts and what the Master Street Plan calls for and revisit that recommendation again. We certainly will note Subdivision Committee's recommendation to the Planning Commission in the staff report. So that doesn't answer my question. And Mr. Jefcoat makes a great point. We need to give him some direction at this point on which way to go for what hopefully is the preliminary plat that will be approved by the Planning Commission. And I think it's the responsibility of this Committee to right the conditions in a way that we're recommending to the Planning Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 35 Commission, and if that's what we're recommending, then we need to change the condition. Shackelford: Commissioner Clark, are you in agreement with Jill and I on this? Clark: Yes. I think it makes intuitive sense. Anthes: I'm scanning the other conditions, they look pretty straight forward and the applicant has stated agreement with those. Clark: Are we bringing a more detailed tree preservation plan or landscaping plan to the planning commission? Jefcoat: I think with accepting these conditions of approval, stating that we are going to remove the existing 3.8 percent of canopy on the project site that is not in the building envelope, and it will not affect the canopy that is on the lot split that's on the separate property. Yes, we are in agreement to mitigate the for the 3.8 % of tree removal, which means that what we've shown in this revised plat reflects that is that the tree canopy was originally in the utility easement that was in the back of the property. In order to preserve that tree canopy, the utility easement was moved to the front of property. The front of property utility easement, telephone boxes and electrical boxes on the front of the property decreases the value of the property, it's not ascetically pleasing, we would mitigate for the 3.8 percent tree loss and put the utility easements back in the back of the property which is the proper place for them. Anthes: Okay, now I'm confused. So this drawing that we're looking at is not what you're proposing. You're proposing to flip this easement back to this side of the property. Jefcoat: We had originally submitted the plat with the utility easement located in the back, and the loss of the 3.8% of tree canopy. During, between technical plat and Subdivision Plat, we had proposed to our client to move the utilities to the front and save the 3.8%. Obviously our submittal to staff did not pick up on that. And also since then, our client has said, "No, I do not want the utilities, I will pay for mitigation because I don't want to sell lots that have pedestals and the proper place for it is in the back of the property. I'll pay for mitigation; let's put it in the back of the property." So yes we will provide a landscape plan or pay into the mitigation fund for that. So these recommendations are acceptable. Anthes: Also pursuant to the conversation earlier, that the engineer and City engineering will go to the sight together, look at the existing conditions downstream, and get us a better report and understanding of what's Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 36 Shackelford: Jefcoat: Roberts: Shackelford: Clark: Anthes: happening prior to full Planning Commission meeting. Any other comments? As well as review the improvements that have been made to Roberts Road north of the subject property extending to HWY 16. I'd like to add that and the City engineer has to look at a recommendation on what needs to be done in accordance with what has already been done at the City limits line. I would love for you to visit with Mr. Roberts and let's not take his fence and driveway and everything else out either. Mr. Roberts, do 1 have your phone number? Or a way to get into contact with you. (Phone number). Madam Chair with that being said, I'm going to make a motion that we forward to Planning Commission PPL 04-1263 with Condition #1 changing to read that Northpoint Street shall be constructed to a minimum of 24 foot width including pavement, curb and gutter, storm and drainage, 4 foot sidewalk located on one side. And all other terms and conditions as stated. Second. Well you know me, I always like to see sidewalks on two sides, but this meets our ordinances and we'll see you at Planning Commission. Thank you. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 37 PPL 04-1264: Preliminary Plat JORGENSEN for property located zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - contains approximately 7.71 acres. with 19 single family lots proposed. (MAPLE VALLEY S/D): Submitted by DAVE at 2809 MT. COMFORT ROAD. The property is 4 UNITS/ACRE AND P-1, INSTITUTIONAL, and The request is to approve a residential subdivision Anthes: The next item of business is PPL 04-1264 for Maple Valley. Would the applicant come forward? Suzanne, are you reading? Morgan: This property is located at 2809 Mt. Comfort Road. A portion of the subject tract that was formerly owned by the adjacent church was recently rezoned from P-1, Institutional to RSF-4 to allow for the development of a single family residential subdivision (RZN 04-1099, for Brisiel). The church property has now been included as an outlot of the subdivision, in order to legally subdivide the property from that which is being developed. The subject property contains approximately 5.67 acres of vacant farmland and 2.04 acres on which the Fayetteville Baptist Church is located. The property is situated south of Mt. Comfort Road, approximately 0.25 west of Deane Solomon Road. Surrounding land use and zoning includes agricultural as well as single family uses and all surrounding properties are zoned RSF-4. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for a residential subdivision with 19 single family lots proposed. One lot is proposed for detention, and an out lot is being created to legally subdivide the existing church from the property being developed. Total density for the property being developed is 3.35 dwelling units per acre. Right-of- way being dedicated is 50' for the interior streets. Right-of-way for Mt. Comfort Road, a Minor Arterial in this location, is being dedicated 45 feet from centerline. Improvements along Mt. Comfort Road include 14 feet from centerline widening, including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drains and six-foot sidewalks as well as 28 foot street within all the bow streets in the subdivision. The Parks and Recreation Board recommends money -in -lieu of land for this subdivision to meet park land dedication requirements, with an assessment in the amount of $10,545 for 19 single family lots due prior to Final Plat. Tree Preservation, there is an existing 23.5% canopy. Preserved is proposed to be 13.0%. Therefore mitigation is required. The proposal extends a street stub -out to the west, utilizing a temporary cul-de-sac until such time as the property to the west extends the street for a development. Full street improvements stop short of the property line, and an assessment is to be made for that portion of unconstructed street. Additionally, staff is recommending a sign be placed at the end of the stub -out prior to Final Plat indicating to all potential and future homeowners that the stub -out is intended in the future to provide street connectivity. Staff recommends forwarding PPL 04-1264 with a recommendation of approval to the full Planning Commission with the 16 associates conditions of approval, including the following: Planning Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 38 Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends the following: Interior streets shall be constructed with a minimum of 28 feet width including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drains and four foot sidewalks located on both sides. Improvements to Mt. Comfort Road shall consist of 14 feet from centerline standard street improvements, with six- foot sidewalks located at the right-of-way line. 2)To meet the parkland dedication ordinance, the developer shall be assessed $10,545 for 19 single family lots, due prior to Final Plat. 3) (Item 9). An assessment in the amount of $3,975 shall be paid by the developer prior to Final Plat for the unconstructed portion of Sauter Lane stub -out to the west, approximately 65 feet in length. 4) (Item 10). The developer shall contribute a total of $17,000 into the Tree Escrow account to meet tree preservation mitigation requirements. Anthes: Thank you Suzanne. Do we have any other staff comments? O'Neal: Just one thing, on the sidewalk, it needs to be located at the right-of-way along Mt. Comfort. I'm not sure if there's existing sidewalk in that location, but any proposed sidewalk needs to be moved out to the edge of the right-of-way. Anthes: So you're particularly talking about pulling the sidewalk to the south on that right-of-way line. Would you like to introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Jorgensen: I'm Blake Jorgensen with Jorgensen and Associates. Let's see Maple Valley here, the development has a detention pond in the southwest corner. As always, reduce the post development runoff to the predevelopment conditions. We have provided improvements along Mt. Comfort Road. And as I've been notified, we will move that sidewalk along the right-of-way. Any questions or comments, I'll do my best to answer concisely, I've been kind of sick, so if I sound kind of nasal or lifeless, that may be why. Forgive me. Anthes: Well, thank you for coming today. Would any member of the public like to address this preliminary plat? Please come forward. Elmore: I'm Elizabeth Elmore, and I live directly across from the property, 2740 Mt. Comfort. Anthes: North, across Mt. Comfort? Elmore: Yes, ma'am. My main concern is traffic on Mt. Comfort and they keep adding subdivisions and more cars emptying onto Mt. Comfort. It's like a race track except when a policeman's sitting in the driveway at the church. Another concern I had were the maple trees, but when they showed me the plat, and it looks like they're going to be preserved. And then I wondered Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 39 about a fence by the house that'll be closest to Mt. Comfort. Anthes: Lot 1. Elmore: Yes. Anthes: Any other comments? Elmore: No, those three concerns, the traffic. We've had, since we've been there, a car between our two sweet gum trees in our front yard. How it happened I don't know. It was there, so that's the reason I was concerned about a fence by that house. All these people probably that go to either Holcolm or Holt, and you can hardly get in and out, you know, before school. I don't have to get out, but they will, and they're going to have to make left hand turns onto that road. So that's my main concern. Anthes: Thank you Ms. Elmore. Would any other member of the public like to speak. Seeing none I'll close the floor and bring it back to the Committee. I guess let's address Ms. Elmore's comments here. I know that as we've seen multiple developments along Mt. Comfort Road, we've talked about this very problem. Would staff talk about the City's take on street improvements on Mt. Comfort and how this gets accomplished? Morgan: Brent, would you like to address that. O'Neal: Well, I do know Mt. Comfort is not under design as of yet. I do know that we have done the survey work for the improvements for Mt. Comfort. I have heard through our survey team that the road conditions right now are very hazardous, especially for someone trying to get out in the middle of the street and survey. But I don't know the exact time frame for the design and construction at this time. Anthes: And what improvements to Mt. Comfort are required with this particular plat? O'Neal: 14' from the center line of Mt. Comfort, curb and gutter and sidewalk. Anthes: Ms. Elmore, what happens is as developments come through, each of these developments is required to make their portion of improvements to Mt. Comfort, plus the City from what we're hearing is looking at an additional set of improvements along that street, but we don't have a time frame on those. Clark: I have a question to staff. This has been a problem for me since I joined the Planning Commission in April I think Mt. Comfort is an incredibly dangerous street, and I think all of the development along it just exacerbates that problem. Unfortunately, I don't know that our ordinances Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 40 give us a lot of latitude in terms of making people fix the big overall picture. There are some developers who are making improvements along Mt. Comfort on their own. But it still remains a problem. Is the City, or how do we get the City to reconsider Mt. Comfort. It's a Minor Arterial now, and it seems like that's woefully inadequate for what's going on out there. Morgan: As, are you referring to addressing the improvements to create it a full... Clark: To make it a collector. Or, I can't remember the hierarchy. Morgan: Minor Arterial is actually, our highest is Principle Arterial, those are I believe College Ave. and Wedington, I believe are Principle Arterials. Minor Arterial is the next step down from that. And I believe Brent's going to look at our requirements for that. As for improvement or widening this out to the full extent of a minor arterial, I don't know when that will take place. Hopefully, with t his development, they are proposing a stub out. Hopefully with additional development, there will be in the future other means to access other streets besides just Mt. Comfort. Clark: And there's the catch 22. The more you grow, the more you can get some developments, but I'm not seeing anybody come through, and we certainly can't do it, come through with a major, let's fix Mt. Comfort. And it's very frustrating, and I share your frustration. Especially because we can't do anything about it. Screening, however, is another question. Anthes: On the Tree Preservation, it looks to me like there is a pretty significant span of trees on Lots 1 and 2, it looks like they'll be maintained during the development of the subdivision but as these houses are built on those lots, those property owners may choose to remove those trees. Unfortunately. Clark: What about screening of the subdivision from Mt. Comfort? Anthes: Are these lots proposed to be fenced? Jorgensen: I didn't quite catch the question. Anthes: She had two questions. Clark: To separate this development from Mt. Comfort. Jorgensen: Oh okay, right now, the developer doesn't have any intention to enforce the residents to install a fence, but privacy fences are always something that each individual resident can put upon their land. But right now, I'd have to talk to the developer to get a definite answer. So, if that's one of the conditions that would like to be met, than I can propose that to the developer. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 41 Anthes: The City does, we would take a look if a fence were to be installed at site distance at that corner. Also we have a provision in Chapter 164 regarding in any required setback or required setback area, nothing permanent over 2 '/2 feet or 30 inches high may be installed which materially impedes vision between vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Anthes: I have a question. You know these temporary cul-de-sacs are a little funky. They, I don't quite understand what this sign is that we put at the end of them. I understand why we put it there, so that property owner's don't expect that this is it and then when the street goes through, they're not back here saying, "We didn't know anything about this. You're taking away our dead-end street." Is there a standard for that sign. Is that sign going to be maintained through the, until the street goes through? What provisions do we have for that? Morgan: For previous, before I even worked here, I think that in previous subdivisions, they did install signs that stated that this road was a road to be stubbed out and continue to the future. Most of those stub outs however, are quite clear that they're just stopped. These last few subdivisions that we've been looking at have proposed cul-de-sacs which may appear to the property owner's as, that's the end of the street, it cul- de-sacs, it dead ends. We are requesting that the applicant coordinate with our traffic division to install signs that would notify the surrounding property owners, the future property owners that that street will got through. As for maintenance or new signs, if those were damaged I think those would have to be coordinated through the traffic division. Anthes: Well a lot of the other developments in this area have the stub out going to the property line without the money -in -lieu. This seems particularly strange because of course we've got a detention pond on this property that's going to have this kink in it to respond to a temporary condition. I don't know, it's just funny. Shackelford: Can staff enlighten us on the decision process of why we went with a temporary cul-de-sac versus a stub out in this location. Morgan: I believe that a temporary cul-de-sac was proposed with the submittal of this project. Jorgensen: We were required to provide some kind of turn around for fire trucks in case, you know, you can't foresee when the next development may come through, and if there was an emergency, any vehicle that needs the ability to turn around without just having a stub out. Also, we prefer to do a stub out. It's more ascetic and I think it looks more consistent with what is going to happen. But for fire trucks and emergency vehicles, they have to have some ability to turn around. There's several different geometries we Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 42 were given that we could do. To me, I thought that this was the most ascetic and appropriate because once it is removed, it had less impact upon the pond geometry and also the lots around it. The other thing you can do is do a hammerhead which would be a more permanent. I guess we didn't put it on the last one, but it would come down into the pond and severely affect the geometry of the pond and would be a more permanent structure. And a resident driving by that would be kind of confused. Once there was a further development you'd be like, well what is this little stub out. This geometry basically is more appealing because once it is removed there will be curb and gutter obviously extended and you wouldn't recognize there was a temporary cul-de-sac, but for right now it's an emergency situation. And there is a preference from the developer to just have a stub out, but that's the reason for having a... Anthes: In the locations where we just had stub outs, is there a parallel, I mean a street that's running perpendicular that allows the turn around. Is that how we've been able to get around it before? Morgan: Well I know that on Copper Ridge, there is a detention pond in the area that it is stubbed out similar to this and it is a hammerhead. There's a area so that they can turn around in the detention pond. We required a gate there and I'm not able to recall any others right of f the bat, but we've just in this Subdivision Committee meeting we're going to be looking at at least two with that. Shackelford: Well the overall length of this stub out is about 200 feet. I mean, we're not talking about a large expansive length of road. I don't know what our requirements are for emergency vehicular turn-arounds, but I'm pretty good at backing a bass boat, I think you could back off this 200 feet to the other cul-de-sac if you had to. I think a stub out would be more ascetically pleasing and I think the detention pond's going to be more functional without that little hiccup. Clark: Is there a requirement for length of turn around? Morgan: I would have to consult the fire department to see what... O'Neal: 50 foot minimum radius. Anthes: That's the radius. Clark; Because I think that Commissioner Shackelford is absolutely correct. I think that a stub out would be much more appropriate in that location. Shackelford: I would understand if it was a 400-500 foot section, but on a 200 foot section, I just don't know what the requirement is for linear feet to require a cul-de-sac instead of a stub out. Subdivision October 29, Page 43 Anthes: Jorgensen: Committee 2004 Shackelford: Clark: Shackelford: Jorgensen: Clark: Jorgensen: Clark: Morgan: Clark: Shackelford: I guess, what I'd say is obviously if it's required for safety, we can live with it. This seems to make sense rather than putting a protrusion into there. That if we could check with the emergency responders and engineering and see if there's any way we could just provide for a simpler situation where we wouldn't be collecting money -in -lieu and we wouldn't be re -advising, and we wouldn't be putting up strange signs. That's definitely the preference from our standpoint. The use of sidewalks across Lot 16, I think it's just a lot cleaner look if you could stub out instead of... yeah, the hammerhead would be horrible. I like this better than the hammerhead, but I like a stub out better than I like this. Yeah, I agree with all those comments. I thought the minimum was 200 feet. I can recheck. I was told that we had to have a turn around at some point. But I guess I didn't follow up on that just because I felt that whoever advised me to do that, that that's...But if there's all this movement to provide a stub out. And there may be legitimate reasons that you have to do the temporary cul-de-sac. But this, I've heard temporary cul-de-sac more today than I have in my entire tenure. Yeah, I think it's a newer. And we've done stub outs every place else so I'm confused. And if we could research that, that would be great. You know what, I'm recalling several different projects where we've talked about how fire will turn around at the end of these stub outs, but no names are coming to mind, so we'll take a look at that. Commissioner Shackelford can give them backing up instructions on hsort spaces. Well, I can think of three in my neighborhood and adjoining neighborhoods where there's stub outs that they didn't require a temporary cul-de-sac. I guess I would concur that I've been doing this a long time, and this temporary cul-de-sac is something that we're hearing a lot all of the sudden. So I would like some clarification at Planning Commission for that requirement as well. Clark: And if there is not a legitimate reason, we can certainly amend this at Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 44 Planning Commission level. Shackelford: Well, it does have to be forwarded to the full Planning Commission as any preliminary plat does, so I'm going to make a motion that we forward PPL 04-1264 with all conditions to address or discuss as are stated with the caveat that I would like to discuss that Condition #1 with the full Planning Commission. Clark: And I'm going to second that. Anthes: I will concur. O'Neal: To get back to the public's question on the Minor Arterial, four twelve - foot lanes, an eleven foot turn lane if possible. Paved width of 52 feet from the back of the curb, 59 with a turn lane that's a 90 foot right-of-way. The speed is 35 to 40 miles per hour. Anthes: Did you hear that? The street section and the right-of-way that's being given for that street will provide for a four lane with a possible turn lane on Mt. Comfort in the future. Clark: So we may fix that little spot. Anthes: And we will have another hearing on this preliminary plat at Planning Commission, the Monday after next. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 45 PPL 04-1271: Preliminary Plat (RIVER HILLS SID): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at HWY 16E, S OF THE DAVID LYLE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 6.91 acres. The request is to approve the development of residential subdivision with 18 single family lots proposed. Property Owner: JAMES PATTON Anthes: The final item we'll hear today is PPL 04-1271 for River Hills. Our applicant is here and Leif, can we have the staff report please? Olson: Sure. This property is located on HWY 16, east. And it is just south of the existing David Lyle Subdivision. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 6.91 acres. This property was recently before the City Council to amend a Bill of Assurance to allow single family residential development, which was previously restricted as a condition of a Bill of Assurance at the time the property was annexed into the city limits. The subject property contains approximately 6.91 acres of vacant land located south of the David Lyle Subdivision on the north side of Huntsville Road. Colonial Road, a local street, bisects the site, and is currently constructed through the proposed subdivision with 70 feet of right-of-way at the entrance meandering to 50' of right of way beyond the proposed intersection of Dovie Drive. Surrounding land uses to the north, David Lyle subdivision is zoned RSF-7, Residential Single family 7 units per acre. To the south there are single family homes. To the east, it's both vacant and single family. And to the west is also single family homes. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for a residential subdivision with 22 lots proposed. Two of the lots are proposed for detention (Lots 4 and 13) with the 19 lots to be utilized for single family homes and a daycare center to be built in the southeast corner. Total density for the project is 2.89 dwelling units per acre, which is allowable in the R -O zoning district. Right-of-way being dedicated is 50' for the interior streets and 55' from centerline for Huntsville Road, a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan. Street improvements include both Falcon Road and Colonial Road as existing streets. The only newly constructed street with this subdivision will be Dovie Drive, which is proposed to be 28 feet in width including pavement, curb, gutter, and storm drains with 50' of right of way and 4' sidewalks on both sides. This street will connect to both Colonial Road and Falcon Road. Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Huntsville Road (Hwy. 16), a principal arterial. Parkland dedication, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board voted in 2001 to accept land that had been banked by the David Lyle subdivision. Tree preservation, the existing tree canopy is 8.30%, the preserved canopy would be a little over 3%, so mitigation would be required in the amount of $10,750. In terms of street connectivity, the proposal connects Falcon Road and Colonial Road, both existing streets in the David Lyle Subdivision. Falcon Road is currently stubbed out to the east as a part of the David Lyle Subdivision for future connections to Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 46 adjacent property. Staff recommends forwarding PPL 04-1271 with a recommendation of approval to the full Planning Commission with the following 13 conditions of approval, and I'll go through some of those. 1. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends the following: Interior streets shall be constructed with a minimum of 28 feet width including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drains and four -foot sidewalks located on both sides. A Six-foot sidewalk shall be constructed along Huntsville Road located at the right-of-way line. 2. The applicant shall mitigate for the removal of 15,899 SF of tree canopy by contributing $10,750 to be deposited into the Tree Fund. 3. Dedication of right-of-way 55 feet from centerline of Huntsville Rd (Hwy 16) by warranty deed prior to final plat approval. 4. Street lights shall have a maximum separation of 300 feet along all streets, including Huntsville Road. Installation or guarantee for streets lights shall be required prior to signing the final plat. 5. Fire hydrant located at the southwest corner of lot 1 shall be relocated out of the sidewalk. Anthes: Thank you Leif, do we have any other staff comments. Would you please reintroduce yourself and your project? Jorgensen: I'm Blake Jorgensen once again with Jorgensen and Associates. The subdivision is comprised of 22 lots, two of which will be used for detention ponds. The overall drainage pattern for this lot is divided between an east and west type flow. Both of these detention ponds over detain to prevent the post development flows to predevelopment flows, therefore there's no further increase of runoff from this subdivision. We've made every attempt to preserve the trees that are significant. We've altered in two locations the sidewalk in hopes that they will be preserved. Any further questions I'd be willing to answer. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any member of the public like to address this preliminary plat? Please come forward. Caldiero: I'm Rick Caldiero, president of the David Lyle Property Owners Association. I'm here to ensure that certain issues and concerns of our members involving this project. I've had many opportunities and conversations with the developers and we have been assured of certain issues that concerned our David Lyle Property Owners, but all of these assurances have been verbal. And I want to have this on the record Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 47 because we have had problems with that addition in the past. Without going into details, at one time someone tried to sneak multifamily homes into it and we had to contest that. We were fortunate enough to avoid that. The issues that we have from David Lyle is that only single family homes will be developed in River Hills Subdivision. Number 2 is that the covenants will mirror or exceed those of David Lyle subdivisions. Number 3, signage on both Colonial Drive and Falcon into the area will be acceptable to the David Lyle Property Owners. And an appropriate buffer, be it shrubbery, fence, columns, etc., be placed within the property lines and HWY 16. And the final issue is an opportunity for the river hills property owners to join in marriage with the David Lyle Property Owners Association for their mutual benefit. Anthes: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Caldiero. Would any other member of the public like to speak? Seeing none I'll close the floor to public comment and bring it back to the Committee. Let's first talk about Mr. Caldiero's questions. When is it that we see Subdivision covenants? Morgan: We can request them at the time of final plat, usually that's when see them. Anthes: So would the applicant be amenable to... Jorgensen: Yes. Mr. Calloway is already, as he has said, has had verbal agreements upon this. And I was under the impression that there was some written, not necessarily pertaining to all these single issues, but there was some written agreement, and I wasn't sure what the second party of that was. I'll definitely talk to him after this meeting and arrangement a documentation of agreement on these issues so that it won't be an issue later on as we've seen before. Clark: Because this will come back to full Planning Commission. And you'll have an opportunity. We'll keep seeing it. Caldiero: We're just trying to prevent future problems. Clark: Understandable. Anthes: The recommendation is to forward this to the full planning commission which will be in a couple of weeks and then it will come back as a final plat after the streets and things are in and there will be an opportunity to review covenants at that time as well. Clark: I do have a question about screening because that's on the list. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 48 Anthes: Right, the 4th condition I was going to ask staff about. The buffer between the property lines and HWY 16. Is there any way there to make recommendations. Morgan: Typically we do not see any screening requirements for residential subdivisions, whether it be between residential subdivision and a commercial development or a residential subdivision and a street. Anthes: Because the zoning on this property is R -O, however, I thought that we had some additional latitude. Clark: Doesn't an R -O give you screening options? I don't have my book. Shackelford: I think the R -O would only have the ability to require screening if it backed up to commercial. Olson: It talks about setback reduction with vegetation for the R -O district. Anthes: Well this is something that you know I, you know, the whole fence to the main street thing is a big issue for me. That we're creating major streets that are trafficked within our city that are going to be tunnels of fences and walls along the back of them. This piece of property and the geometry of it would be very difficult to do much different then what you did and still develop it. But if your client would be going to talk to these property owner's and address their concerns as well as those of this body, or at least me. Clark: There are other types of screening possible then just fences, for example a vegetative strip would be great. I mean, we're going to be seeing the back of all of these houses coming down HWY 16, so some type of vegetation, trees, shrubs would be... Mr. Caldiero has another question. Caldiero: It is very pertinent to the conversation I had with Mr. Calloway about it. He's already told us about what he plans to put in there. But all I wanted to do is get it into writing. Anthes: It sounds like at least the two of us are trying to push for that as well. So we'll if we can get that in. What do we have in terms of conditions of approval. Street improvements, again, I don't know. We have a piece of street here that has six lots on it, and we're building it to 28 foot street section. To me that seems, it's obviously a cul-de-sac, it backs into another piece of property. It's not going to go forward in the future. It seems like that's another one of those situations where we could go to a 40 foot right-of-way and a 24 foot street section and be perfectly fine. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 49 Clark: To me, I agree with what Commissioner Anthes is saying. That looks like it's going to just say speed, be a major drag thoroughfare. And I think a 24 foot would be more than adequate. Shackelford: Are you talking on the entire width, or just. Anthes: Just on this part. Clark: Just on the east -west. Anthes: On the Dovie Drive. I mean obviously we have to listen to engineering, but we have in the past had some latitude with this. Clark: I can understand the 28s, I mean those are already existing, but that just seems extreme. Anthes: The other thing of course is that we always have these comments about the medians in the center line as you're turning out on Huntsville Road. We have, I believe we have eliminated when proposed in other areas. Clark: Is that existing? Yeah, it's already there. Anthes: They exist. Olson: Both of those streets are existing. Clark: Yeah, this is the new one. So can we reduce it? Morgan: That is your determination. Clark: I love it when you're so agreeable. Anthes: Do you have any feelings about that street. Shackelford: I will very easily be in agreement with you on that. I think that the 24 foot street with the short expansion of that and the commercial field, knowing that there's cross access that's already 28, I would perfectly fine with that. O'Neal: Anthes: O'Neal: It was proposed as a 28 foot drive street. The clarification on the comment was they had it mislabeled to a 32 foot paved width. But it was shown as a 28 foot, so that was the clarification that we asked for. But I think what we're saying is that the 24 foot section might be adequate here. It wasn't a requirement; we just wanted to clarify it. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 50 Clark: Okay, so nobody's excited about it. So, I'll make that, whenever we make the motion, I'll make that with a 24 foot and a 40 foot right-of-way. Anthes: As far as the cul-de-sac at the end. I'm showing a 40.5 foot radius, I thought we required a 50 for emergency responders. So is that a change that needs to be made? O'Neal: Yes. Clark: Is that going to be a new condition? Anthes: It'll just be a plat change. O'Neal: Something that needs to be, the correction needs to be made on the plat before we look at it at Planning Commission. Clark: So put bushes in and fix the cul-de-sac. Shackelford: We can't tell them to put bushes in. Clark: We can suggest. MOTION: Shackelford: Madam Chair. I'll make a motion that we forward to Planning Commission PPL 04-1271 with the correction or the change to conditions of approval Number 1 that interior streets shall be constructed with a 40 foot right-of-way, 24 foot wide street width, with curb gutters, storm drainers, and a 4 foot sidewalk located on one side. Clark: Second. Anthes: And I'll just say that in your plat you have sidewalks on both sides. I appreciate that. See you in a couple of weeks. Clark: And this will come back to Planning Commission in I think the Monday from next. Shackelford: And for the record sir, we're not allowed to require screening as part of the approval process. Caldiero: I know, it was just part of the conversation I had with Mr. Calloway and I would like that we've gotten it on the record. Subdivision Committee October 29, 2004 Page 51 Anthes: Are there any other announcements? Seeing none, we're adjourned. Thank you.