HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-31 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on March 31, 2005 at 8:30
a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN
LSP 05-1389: Hedge, pp 206 Approved
Page 3
PPL 04-1408 for Cherry Hills Subdivision Tabled
Page 7
LSD 05-1428 for Seven Hills Shelter Approved
Page 19
ADM 05-1464 for Hank's Furniture Denied
Page 25
ADM 05-1467 Southern View II Approved
Page 31
FPL 05-1398 Cross Keys Approved
Page 38
FPL 05-1387 for Persimmon Place Approved
Page 42
LSP 05-1414, Dover Holloway Approved
Page 46
LSP 05-1430 for Cobb -Westphal
Page 48 Approved
LSP 05-1439 for JB Hays
Page 49
PPL 05-1437 Hays Estates
Page 53
LSD 05-1415 for Farmington Branch Center
Page 57
LSD 05-1384 for Creeks de Plaza
Page 68
LSD 04-1360 for Mailco
Page 75
PPL 05-1431 for Lewis and Wedington
Page 81
Forwarded
Forwarded
Tabled
Approved
Tabled
Forwarded
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 2
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Alan Ostner
Christine Myres
James Graves
Candy Clark
STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Suzanne Morgan
Brent O'Neal
Jeremy Pate
Allison Jumper
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 3
LSP 05-1389: Lot Split (HEDGE, 206): Submitted by ALAN REID for property located
at 3291 SALEM ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains
approximately 2.08 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of
1.31 and 0.77 acres.
Clark: Welcome to the March 31, 2005 meeting of the Subdivision Committee of
your Fayetteville Planning Commission. We have an incredibly lengthy
agenda but before we start I would like to welcome Alan Ostner who is
sitting in with us and James Graves and Christine Myres who will be your
Subdivision Committee members for the next six months. The first item
on our agenda is LSP 05-1389 for Hedge. Would the applicant come
forward?
Pate:
This property is located in the Planning Area and contains approximately
2.08 acres. The applicant is requesting approval of a Lot Split for the two
acre tract, which is part of Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Kingwood Hills Subdivision.
The property does currently have one residence located on it and the
existing home is proposed to remain on the 1.35 acre tract being split out
with the .73 acres to be developed in the future. This property was
originally platted as Lots 1 and 2 of the Kingwood Hills Subdivision. A
Property Line Adjustment was later filed that created tracts "A" and "B".
This proposal before you would split that Tract "A" into two separate lots.
This was tabled from the Subdivision Committee meeting of February
17`h, which is why you don't have any new drawings in your packet.
Nothing has changed since then with the exception that the applicant has
received Health Department approval for a septic system on a lot smaller
than 1.5 acres, which is our city ordinance requirements. There were
several comments taken by the neighbors at the last meeting, most of
which were opposed to the Lot Split due to its size and use of a septic tank
on a small lot. In response to the septic tank, sewer is not available
outside the city limits therefore; septic is really the only option. Also, in
your packets you will notice that on March 30`h staff did receive a letter
from an attorney representing homeowners in the same subdivision. The
letter is attached and essentially states there are covenants that prohibit
this action. I would just remind the Planning Commission that they are
not a third party to covenants and have no authority over those. That is a
civil matter. This property is surrounded by properties located within the
county utilized primarily for single family use. Public water is available
along Salem Road and dedication of right of way per the Master Street
Plan is shown on your plat. Staff is recommending approval of LSP 05-
1389 by the Subdivision Committee with four conditions of approval.
Number one, the legal description does need to be changed slightly to
reference the correct location. Item number two, right of way in the
amount of 35' from centerline does need to be dedicated. Item three,
Washington County Planning approval of the Lot Split shall be obtained
prior to recordation.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 4
Clark: Are there any other staff reports?
Hedge: My name is Rick Hedge and it is a two acre lot, as previously stated. I did
get the Health Department Permit so that the property will support a septic
field and also the alternate field that is required. The covenants, is my
understanding, are unenforceable because they are out of date and never
enforced. They are more than 25 years old. I have not consulted a lawyer
on that but nevertheless, I see no problem with building a nice house that I
believe will increase the property values for most of the neighbors given
the age and size of houses in that area. Not everyone, but the majority. I
can answer any questions that you have.
Clark: At this point I will open it to the public. Would anyone like to comment
on LSP 05-1389 for Hedge? Please come forward. I am going to ask you
to come to the podium, state your name, ask whatever questions you
would like to ask but we will not engage in a dialogue with you at this
point. We will take notes of all of your questions and then whenever all of
the public comment is complete we will try to address all of those
questions.
Spicer: My name is Tom Spicer, I reside at 3335 Kendall. I don't know
necessarily that I have any questions that have not been raised at this
point. I do believe that the covenants are still valid. The existing structure
will violate that 25' setback from the property line because my
understanding is the way that the split is proposed is that the existing
structure will be within 25' of the proposed property line, is that correct or
not? Therefore, it will violate the covenants if this Lot Split is approved.
I concur with at least part of your statement that your proposed split will
devalue the property of some of the neighbors. I favor that the one way
that this could still be addressed, although it would violate the 1.5 acre
septic tank requirement, is that the existing structure's septic system be
redone so that the lot could split evenly. That would impact our property
values much less than the proposed Lot Split. Since the second line for
City Goals 2008 is Planned and Managed Growth, I would like to ask the
Subdivision Committee why such a proposal would not be associated with
managed growth. I believe that the proposal of splitting the lot unevenly
does not meet the criteria of managed growth and frankly, it is
mismanaged growth. I would like the Subdivision Committee to respond
to that.
Clark: Is there any further public comment?
Selby:
My name is Vincent Selby, I live across the road from this proposed Lot
Split. I would like to comment a few things on it and give you my opinion
of it. The existing building that is on part of this lot is within 12' of this
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 5
proposed new line split. I would also like to comment on this percolation
test that has been run and the results of the percolation of this area since
1986, which is since I have been there, the man that owned this five or six
years ago had to replace the septic system because it would not percolate. I
realize that you have percolation tests run and I know a little bit about
what it proves. I also know what a big problem it is and how tricky it is to
treat things like septic tanks in clay soil. I'm well familiar with that. I
have dealt with clay material for many years in building roads and I
understand it. This septic system was redone about six or seven years ago
by a previous owner. He later sold the property and moved back to
Shellrock Missouri. His name was Pugh. Since then a fellow owned by
the name of Ferdowski. He also had to replace the septic tank system. It
just will not percolate. Now the proposal is to put two tanks there and
divide the land into two houses. My opinion is that it will not carry it
because it has not carried it for one building, one septic tank. I'm not here
trying to argue with the percolation tests because I'm well aware of what
clay will do for percolation and for road building. I don't think this will
work. This makes a very unhealthy situation when the septic material
comes to the top of the ground and it has done that in different occasions. I
know from experience and I appreciate your help in considering that.
Clark: Is there any further public comment on this Lot Split? Seeing none, I will
bring it back to the Commission.
Pate: The city does not review septic systems. Lots less than 1.5 acres are
allowed to have septic systems. Essentially, what our ordinance requires
is that any lot less than 1.5 acres will require an actual permit to be issued
and approved. You can note on the third page of your staff report, the
Arkansas Department of Health has issued a permit for this property along
with the proposed design of the three bedroom home. This does meet the
county setbacks of 10' from the side property lines. The city does not
have any other involvement with the septic system.
Clark: I think you have already mentioned that it is not within our jurisdiction to
deal with the covenant issues at all?
Pate: That is correct.
Clark: Commissioners?
Ostner: It seems pretty clear to me that there are some issues here that aren't able
to be resolved at this level. I will make a motion that we approve LSP 05-
1389.
Graves: I will second the motion for the same reasons that Alan just indicated.
They have their required State approvals for the septic system in
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 6
Clark:
accordance with the city ordinances and they meet the county setbacks. I
believe as far as the Committee goes, they have met all of the
requirements.
I will concur. Unfortunately it seems like you have a problem with
neighbors and you all are going to have to decide that outside of our
jurisdiction because we simply do not have the authority to intervene in
some of the issues that have been brought up . The things that are on our
checklist have been dealt with. This is within the Planning Area and our
purview is very limited out there. I will concur.
Myres: I will concur also.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 7
Clark: The next item on our agenda is PPL 04-1408 for Cherry Hills Subdivision.
Will the applicant please come forward?
Morgan: The proposed Preliminary Plat was before the Subdivision Committee on
March 17, 2005. At this meeting the item was tabled per the
recommendation of staff so that the applicant could address outstanding
comments and issues submitted by staff as well as recommendations made
by the Subdivision Committee at that meeting and concerns from the
public. Public comment was received. We had six individuals who spoke
with regard to the Subdivision. The applicant has met with the neighbors
on Tuesday, March 29, 2005. Staff did receive revised plans on March 23,
2005 and the following comments and recommendations in the staff report
are based off of the review of this plat. The subject property contains
approximately 75.85 acres. It is located west of Hughmount Road and
north of Mt. Comfort Road. The proposal is to create a 203 lot
subdivision with 200 single family lots. Two of these lots contain lift
stations and another is the location of a community sewage treatment area.
The property is located within the Planning Area and currently
undeveloped. The development proposed has three phases. A conceptual
third phase for Lot 81, the treatment area, has been proposed but has not
been reviewed for approval with this Preliminary Plat. At this time Lot 81
is shown with this Preliminary Plat to be the treatment area. I have listed
some related items with regard to what the city reviews in the Planning
Area. Surrounding land uses and zoning consist of properties within the
Planning Area and larger single family residences. Staff has received
letters from the Arkansas Health Department office concerning the size of
the field proposed for the community treatment area is adequate to serve
the subdivision based on rates. We have also received a letter from a
private soil scientist verifying that test pits indicate adequate soils for the
intended use as well as a letter from the Washington County
Environmental Services Department verifying approval of the soils test
and location as preliminary soil with conditions. Those letters are
included in the staff report. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets include
Hughmount Road, a collector street, as well as Lierly Lane, a collector
street. Right of way to be dedicated includes 35' from centerline of
Hughmount Road as well as internal streets with 40' and 50' rights of
way. Lierly Lane, a Master Street Plan street, is shown crossing east/west
along the northern property line. Upon the review of this subdivision at
the last Subdivision Committee meeting, staff has addressed dedication of
right of way with the applicant for this project. However, this revision
does not indicate any right of way for Lierly Lane. Connectivity is being
proposed, some additional connections were added since this was last seen
at the Subdivision Committee level. Mainly, a connection at the northeast
corner above Lot 161 and a connection to the west as an extension of
Canyon Row Drive above Lot 19. Street improvements are requested for
Hughmount Road adjacent to the property line as well as potential
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 8
Pate:
Clark:
reconfiguration and improvement of the "Y" intersection to the south of
this property. At this time staff is recommending that this Preliminary Plat
be forwarded to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for
denial due to the submission of a plat which does not meet ordinance
requirements. I have listed Planning Review comments in the staff report
and attached a memo from the Engineering Division with regard to their
comments and revisions which need to be addressed on the plat. I can
review those comments more in depth if you would like.
I would like to add to that just a little bit. The applicant did submit
revisions just last week to make this deadline, just a few days after the last
Subdivision Committee meeting. A meeting with the neighbors was held
on Tuesday of this week to discuss some of the issues that came out of the
last meeting. Obviously, none of those changes could be reflected in these
plans because they were already submitted. Staff did also meet with the
applicant earlier this week to discuss some potential alternatives, which
I'm not sure if they have brought them, but I have a feeling that they have
brought some alternatives to meet some of the ordinance requirements,
specifically regarding connectivity issues, Lierly Lane, which is a Master
Street Plan requirement, and some of the other matters. At this time our
recommendation for denial essentially stems from what we have presented
and what has been submitted. We can only review what has been
submitted. Typically, last time at the Subdivision Committee, we
recommended that it be tabled so we can get a lot of these issues
addressed. It is our understanding that the applicant would like to proceed
forward so that is where we are at this point. I would entertain a motion to
table if that is the Commission's desire to come back to this level once all
of these items have been addressed. We are just not comfortable with
recommending approval at this point.
Lierly Lane, which is a Master Street Plan requirement and some of those
other matters. At this time our recommendation for denial essentially
stems from what we have presented and what has been submitted. We can
only review what has been submitted. Typically, and last time we
recommended it be tabled so we could get a lot of these issues addressed.
It is our understanding that the applicant would like to proceed forward
and so that is where we are at this point. We would entertain a motion to
table if that is the Committee's desire to come back to this level once all of
these items have been addressed again. We are just simply not
comfortable with recommending approval at this point.
Let me get a point of clarification here Jeremy before we go any further.
If we pass this on to Planning Commission and it is denied per your
recommendation, do they have to begin this process all over again?
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 9
Pate:
There is an appeals process. A property owner can appeal to the City
Council and this could go to the City Council for review of the denial.
The Planning Commission could also vote to table that as well and we
could come back to this item. They really have the option to do a couple
of different things there. Again, the Subdivision Committee is the level
where we do a lot of committee work and try to get a lot of the details
worked out. Unfortunately, in this case we simply haven't gotten to that
point and one of the base criteria for any project going through our
development review process is it has to meet the ordinance requirements.
The Staff Engineer, the City Engineer and me, as Planning Director, all sat
down and looked at the general checklists that are located within the
ordinances, the checklist on the applications and several of the items just
simply haven't been met. There are a lot of them that have. I don't want
to put the applicant in a bad light. They have done a significant amount of
work to get where they are now and to comply with city ordinances. I
would like to commend them for working with us in that regard to try to
get to where we are now. I do feel that this project could come to a point
where we could recommend approval. I don't think the other outstanding
issues are insurmountable; it is just simply that we haven't gotten to that
point yet.
Clark: Thank you for that clarification. Are there any other staff reports? Okay,
introduce yourselves and tell us about your project.
Morgan: My name is Mike Morgan from McClelland Engineering.
Gill: I'm Ryan Gill from McClelland Engineering. Basically, we have revised
it as best as we could to meet the submission date, which is what you have
in front of you. I will admit after reviewing some of these, there are some
issues that need to be addressed. We were unable to meet with the city
staff to address some of the larger issues and meet that deadline. However,
since that point we have. We did conduct a meeting with the adjacent
property owners and I personally feel like that went well. We tried to
address as many of their concerns as we could. At this time if I can do
this, this is what we revised since the submittal date and after we met with
the city and heard their concerns. We tried to address them as best we can.
Morgan: We certainly appreciate your thorough review of this project. After
Monday we were in heavy discussions regarding the Master Street Plan.
We were under the understanding that we were not in the influence of
Lierly Lane coming across our land. After Monday we were informed that
we do need to represent the Master Street Plan and yield to it on our plan.
I think with that knowledge and our updated plan here along with these
comments, we could probably be tabled and have a more fruitful meeting
in the near future. I think in order to save time for us and my client we
could meet here in two weeks and progress.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 10
Clark:
It looks like you have addressed, for those of you who weren't with us two
weeks ago, I think the list was 60+ and now we are down to 20+ so we are
making progress. I personally would appreciate tabling this today to get
back with everybody to get it where we can really look at it and not have
to recommend denial.
Gill: Just to clarify, if we did proceed with the process with your
recommendation to deny, get to Planning Commission if we have met all
of these, and this is not specifically for this project, I am learning as I go
on that, and we meet those requirements, it is still possible that you can be
approved however, if you are denied, it could set you back to the
beginning, is that correct?
Pate: That is correct.
Clark:
Pate:
Please realize when you go to the Planning Commission you are dealing
with nine commissioners who will come up with even more things to talk
about. Subdivision is where we should fine tune all of this so we can
support and/or know what we are talking about.
I'm not sure if you are heading that direction, it sounds like it, to table. I
would like to, if the Commissioners are willing, to take a look at least
briefly, at what they have presented to get some feedback for the
applicants to see how at least four of the Commissioners would respond to
some of their ideas with connections and things of that nature.
Clark: Why don't you guys go ahead and show us what direction you are headed
in and we can follow along?
Gill: Per our conversation with staff, and I noticed in the comments, it was
recommended that I believe Sable Drive, which is not shown on this plan,
on the original plan it would be this street right here, would extend
through and that would be widened to a 70' right of way for Lierly Lane to
extend through. Speaking with our client and also the adjacent property
owners, we feel that it is fair to say that we will dedicate 35' of right of
way at the northern most part of our property line. According to looking
at the Master Street Plan, that is the most logical way. The center of
Lierly Lane runs across the center line of that section line which is our
northern most boundary. Therefore, we are conceiting to give 35' up for
that right of way but are not required to give up the full 70' and bear the
entire burden of that. That being said, that is one of the major issues that
we have addressed and are proposing. The other main issue that was
addressed at the last Subdivision Committee was the issue of Cotton Wool
Drive and Golden Wool Drive. We have addressed that. However, in the
comments I'm seeing that may or may not be an issue. The issue to that
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 11
was as the treatment area is developed and additional lots are added,
therefore, there is more traffic on that road. Due to the nature of the
treatment area, square footage is a driving factor. We do not feel that we
can give up the space to make it a 50' right of way for the entire length of
that road. What we are proposing is that Cotton Wool Drive, which is
along the southern most east/west road, would be widened to a 50' right of
way and Golden Wool Road, which runs north/south, would be a 50' right
of way once the treatment area is developed, if the treatment area is ever
developed. As it stands, the road will handle the traffic as is, that would at
least help relieve some stress as it is developed. Essentially, the northern
most part of this property is what has been changed. Everything from here
to here is essentially the same. That is what we are proposing and I would
appreciate any feedback as to that so we can proceed in a direct manner.
Clark: Now I would like to turn it over to the public. Do we have any public
comment on PPL 05-1408, Cherry Hill Subdivision?
Peret: I'm Dave Peret; I own the property that adjoins to the northernmost end. I
believe it is 2931 N. Hughmount, which touches on the first, and most
major, of my concerns, which is what is going to happen with Lierly Lane
ultimately, since that will run through my property and Carrie's property
immediately to the north of me. I would like to commend Ryan and Mike;
they have done a fantastic job of trying to address our concerns. I think
they are working over time. I realize that everybody here has a lot to do
and is subject to time constraints and that these things are fairly
amorphous and moving targets and they change for everybody. That
doesn't lessen the concern that we have that things around us are
changing. By in large, we don't like it, which I think is human nature.
With respect to Lierly Lane, I still have virtually no idea what will happen
to that road as it touches on my property. There have been numerous
discussions about perhaps it could cut right through the middle of my
property if I were to vacate, which we are not going to do. We would
have to be condemned, at this point, in order to allow a road to cut
materially through our place. I know that that road is on the 2020 master
plan but it is my understanding that that is immediately on the northern
border of my place and splits between mine and Carrie's and Julie's. If
that is the case, I would like to see, since we are already treating that issue,
I would like to see some, I know you can't codify this and it is not your
responsibility, I would like to see some fairly well articulated plan that
says what that road will ultimately do on the north side of my property. I
don't see why we have to continue to talk about this in fairly nebulous and
far reaching terms if we are going to have houses immediately to the west
of me within three years. It seems like the plan for 2010 maybe should be
ramped up a little bit and we should know where that road goes. In this
case it seems short sided not to know. Another concern that I have is that
I've been looking over the county statutes, which state pretty clearly that
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 12
when a property in the growth area is concerned, the most restrictive of the
statutes apply, whether those are the city's or the county's. I see that there
might be some overlap and some trading off when you are negotiating
something like this. What I would like to know, and I understand that you
can't answer now, are there any of these shared septic systems, these drip
systems, in the City of Fayetteville now or currently under approval to be
put in the city? If not, why is there a difference in how you treat
something in the growth ring? I do know under County statutes, which
should apply in this case if they are more restrictive, if there is a
reasonable access to sewer, which I would think a couple of thousand feet
would constitute reasonable, why you can't just go ahead and tie into the
sewer. I realize that infrastructure at the fringes of a growing city is often
stressed to the breaking point. If there is a moratorium on tying into
sewer, we would like to know up front that there is a moratorium and we
are not going to tie anybody else onto the sewer. There go; anything else
that happens out here is going to have to be handled with septic tanks. If
that is the case, why are we tending toward a lot size that is exactly the
same size for the county statute of a doublewide trailer in a mobile home
park? It seems to me that we are working at cross purposes if what we are
trying to do is build a rather high end subdivision, we are hamstringing
that thing at every turn by not going ahead and letting them build more
lots and making them bigger by removing the need for them to tie into a
shared field and just jump across the road, do what you have to do, or wait
until the sewer is out there to get them. This is not going to be the only
development out there I suspect. As you go west you are going to have to
do something. The city is going to have to do something, why not get it
done now before you proceed? It just makes perfect sense. That also
touches on the other infrastructure issue that concerns us most in the
neighborhood I think, and I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself,
but any discussions that we have had it seems that the traffic flow on
Hughmount has been a major concern. All of the changes and the stub
outs still dump everything onto County 706. In the morning when it is
time for us to go to work or time for us to go take our kids to school, we
have to hit that road. I have no choice. My driveway opens up on County
706. I can either go take Megan to school at Holcomb, which can take 20
minutes to get in and out of the parking lot over there because Salem Road
has access problems. It was not handled terribly well. There are no
turning lanes, there are no lights. It is backed up at the school. That
school has about 600 kids in it now. I don't know where these kids are
going to go to school but I'm sure we will find somewhere. The only
accesses that I see or have seen here before are onto 706. Is there not
some way that you could propose that we cut back through to 707 or that a
road be stubbed or that some plan be put in place so you can alleviate
some of this traffic burden by dumping it off onto Adams Road, which is a
parallel street to 706, and is going to cause exactly the same problem
subsequently when further property is developed in this area. It seems like
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 13
treating it now might not be a bad idea. That's all I have. Again, I
appreciate your time. I appreciate the caliber of the job that these guys are
doing and I'm sympathetic to the developer's need to get it done and to
make money but I think if you have got a situation where 60 issues came
up, 40 have been addressed, 20 remain, I think it is wise to table because
then you don't put somebody in an untenable position. If I were minding
my business otherwise, driving down a city street and obeying 40 statutes
and not 20 I doubt that I would be allowed to proceed. Thank you very
much.
Clark: Is there any additional public comment?
Fields:
Good morning, my name is Yolanda Fields and I live at 3034 Hughmount,
which is to the north of this development. I think that all of the concerns
that have been presented to this point are exactly what I have and I think a
lot of the neighbors have. A lot of it for us is the traffic. Right now the
infrastructure is not there. We have, at least four or five new
developments on Mount Comfort that are already seeing problems. We
have the middle school and the elementary school and now I'm
understanding that something called Morning Mist, a street, is also going
to be cut down and connected over to Hughmount to alleviate some of the
problems that those other subdivisions already are experiencing. We are
trying to solve a problem that already exists and now we are going to add
to the existing problem. I just want to restate that I hope all of that is
taken into consideration. Thank you for your time.
Larson: Good morning everyone. My name is Carrie Larson; I'm an adjoining
property owner on 2999 N. Hughmount. I am in cohorts with our fellow
neighbors with the same comments and concerns. On top of those same
comments and concerns I want to share with I think David commendably
of McClelland's and the developer of the property. I felt like our meeting
on Tuesday evening was beneficial to everybody. I feel like we have made
great strides to work with this development. I think with the proposed
style of housing that is coming in I feel more comfortable with it if we are
going to have a development that comes in, I would rather have something
of that quality and caliber that is going to be there without as many
houses, but I understand that that is their choice to build that many houses
on there. I think one of my main concerns for me personally is the issue
with Lierly Lane. David and I both share that concern a great deal. If we
could get more insight on the actuality of where that road is going to lie, if
we are going to have the developers be the one to get ready for that road to
come in, how does it impact the two home owners that it is going to
directly affect? If we could get those answers sooner rather than later that
would be a benefit to myself and I think the Peret's as well. The other
concern for the table is the issue of, as Yolanda said, Morning Mist. That
road is going to be a detriment to that corner right there. The bridge is
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 14
Clark:
Pate:
something that hasn't been overly talked about. The strength of that
bridge I don't think with the number of construction trucks that come over
that area is going to withstand the weight of that small little bridge. I've
seen people come around that corner and one gal just hit that guardrail and
went right over that bridge. That "Y" up there at the end of that road is
definitely something that will need to be addressed, whether it is by the
developers or for the city to be prepared to attend to that pretty closely to
add onto the Rupple Road issue and the school issue whether there is a
light or a turning lane. That "Y" is going to need to be addressed and I
can foresee an issue with that bridge right there that will be something that
will need to be anticipated in the near future as well. Those are all of the
comments that I have right now. Other than, again, the small
improvements that were made on Tuesday with that plan, the turning lane,
the two accesses outside of that subdivision and the turning lane in there,
that helps a great deal and their proposed Lierly Lane 35' variance on the
north side. That is a benefit to me. I think that helps in a long run. I think
they have made great strides. I agree to table this issue right now until it
gets a little bit more clear but I feel like we are making gains for
everybody on both sides. Thank you.
Thank you. Is there any additional public comment? Seeing none, I will
bring it back to the Commission. There is still a lot of questions left yet to
be answered. This is the first I've heard about Morning Mist. Where is it?
It is south of this development, it skirts the property line to the south. It is
on our Master Street Plan as a collector street, just as is Lierly Lane. Just
to follow that up and hopefully answer a couple of questions with regard
to what happens to Lierly Lane. This is the connection that is planned on
the Master Street Plan, which has been there since 1996. I think it was
revisited in 2000 or 2001 with the General Plan update. We will also
revisit it this year with the General Plan update. We will look at the
Master Street Plan as part of that document as well. All of those are
public processes so please be involved in that. With regard to where that
goes specifically, obviously, between Hughmount Road (706) and Adams
Road (707) there is nothing constructed right now. It is a line on a map
and this is the first development that has frontage onto that line. We are
really looking at finding where the best possible way in that vicinity that
this collector street could go through to connect Adams Road to
Hughmount Road as Mr. Peret mentioned. That would mean more traffic
here than just the residential streets in between should the property to the
west develop. The Master Street Plan is available in our city offices if you
would like to come and look and see if the information has anything to do
with your property. Specifically with how it is designed really comes with
the development. That is what we do with the Master Street Plan. To
alter the Master Street Plan the City Council has to do that. That is a
policy making decision and that's made at that level. To answer some of
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 15
O'Neal:
the other questions, are there drip systems in the City of Fayetteville now?
No. The City of Fayetteville requires sewer systems to hook on our
municipal sewer system. However, the city does not provide sewer outside
of the city at this time. There are several package treatment plants of a
nature similar to this, six or seven that staff is aware of in the county in
areas surrounding the City of Fayetteville. Specifically, there is one that
the City of Fayetteville recently saw this last year east of town that was
approved. With regard to the lot size, the lot size being too small, this
property is developed at a density of about 2.6 units per acre, which is a
relatively close density to what most subdivisions in the City of
Fayetteville are developed at. We have not seen a development of this
nature at this density in the county that I can remember in the last couple
of years so it is unique in that regard. However, there is no zoning in the
county so therefore, the minimum lot size is 10,000 sq.ft. and that is being
met with 75' of frontage. Until that changes, that is what we have to go
with at the county level. The traffic flow on Hughmount, obviously, some
of these interior street connections will help with that and alleviate some
of that. Mr. Peret was entirely right. Currently right now the only access
is to Hughmount Road. That is the only constructed street in this area.
With dedication of right of way and future construction of a street for
Lierly Lane, that would help connect that east/west as well. With regard
to the "Y" intersection, staff has recommended pretty consistently that the
developer be responsible for improving that "Y" intersection to make a
"T" intersection. In our meeting on Monday I think it was understood a
little bit better about what that would be. We are not expecting a huge fix.
We are expecting a fix, not an entire intersection redesigned. As this
property is annexed and comes into the city and Morning Mist comes
through this area I am sure that we will see some major intersection
improvements. At this point we are trying to make a safer intersection for
the new community and the community that is existing out there right now
so that there is not a dangerous traffic situation created. With regard to the
bridge, I would have to defer to McClelland Engineers. I know they did
contract a traffic engineer to look at that and I would just have to defer to
them on that issue.
One thing I did notice, since you are not showing the improved Lierly
Lane, the developer will be assessed for 1/2 of the improvements, 14' of
pavement from centerline of the proposed Lierly Lane, curb, gutter, storm
drainage and street lights. It won't have to be constructed at this time.
The assessment will just be for 1/2 of their improvements.
Gill: You are saying a monetary amount will be given to the city for those
improvements?
O'Neal: That is correct.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 16
Gill: That is news to me.
O'Neal: The road was shown in the previous submittal, with this new submittal the
right of way only is shown.
Pate:
I want to make clear, we have not seen this submittal. I would highly
recommend that we sit down with the City Engineer and city staff to go
over any new submittal. I got this at 4:00 yesterday, so I got a little bit of
time ahead of you guys but I think it is going to take a more detailed look
at this before we make any major decisions about recommendations.
Ostner: Jeremy, you mentioned that you had not seen a project of this density in
the Planning Area. Didn't we see one two or three months ago? I
remember Mr. Hoskins working that through, wasn't that a fairly similar
incident?
Pate:
It was close. I don't think the lots were quite this small. The initial
submittal that was tabled and the project was eventually redesigned
entirely, was closer to a density of this nature. They were about 10,000
sq.ft. lots. They ended up with about 14,000 or 15,000 sq.ft. lots with the
newer submittal. They did drop a few and increase their septic field area.
It was Sloan Estates and it was the other one that had the package
treatment as well so that is the other one we've seen recently.
Ostner: That sort of leads to my next question. This might be for Engineering too.
If this gets approved at some level, not today, can a system like this be
integrated into our sanitary sewer system?
O'Neal:
Pate:
Yes, we have worked with the applicant and we are working on a policy
on these systems. What we have is a gravity collection system so that not
every individual lot has a pump. That just becomes maintenance intensive
so the standard will be a constructed per the city requirements, a gravity
collection system, down to their treatment facility. That is one of my
comments that we need to just have some method to connect to a sewer
main when that becomes available. I would just mention an easement
along that south property line. Basically, their treatment system would go
away, their lift station on Lot 44 would also be removed and they would
just connect with a gravity flow to the main.
I believe also that is why they are showing on the last sheet of your packet,
an optional Phase IV should the sewer ever become available. That would
come back for a Preliminary Plat to look at the potential of removing that
septic system and this leach field all together to be tied on.
Gill: We are proposing just this portion right here.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 17
Clark: There is floodplain out there right?
Gill: This is the 100 -year floodplain line. This is the floodway. Of course you
can build in the floodplain but we would avoid that.
Ostner: The last comment I have is basically about the Master Street Plan that two
years ago Persimmon was just a line on the map and it was just an idea
and today it is almost complete. That is no cure for everything happening
on the west side of town but it is being built piece by piece as we impose
that requirement on each developer. That is part of the logic behind the
Master Street Plan that seems to be building a street to nowhere in a field
today. As time goes by part of the plan is for it to alleviate some of the
same problems that you all are seeing now. We can't really just build a
street to solve all of the problems. We simply require the developers to
build their pieces of that solution. That is part of the explanation of that
seemingly strange system. I didn't understand the neighbor's comments
on Hwy. 706 and how this entire development would access that road.
Could someone explain that to me a little bit more?
Gill: 706 is Hughmount. This is 707 which is Adams Road. Essentially right
now there are no streets around us because this is all pasture. The only
ingress/egress to our subdivision are these two outlets here which are on
Hughmount Road. Yes, all traffic will have to go to Hughmount Road and
either go north or south to get where they are going. That is their
comments.
Ostner: Your proposal connects your subdivision with improvements to the south?
Gill: Right.
Clark: But you do have stub outs?
Gill: Yes, we have future stub outs. The ones that will be constructed until this
is developed around us will just be these two. Per staff's recommendation
and after our meeting on Monday our client is in discussions and willing
to improve this intersection. That is still in discussion but that will be
improved in some fashion and so that will help.
Ostner: Is that the "Y" they were talking about?
Gill: Yes Sir.
Ostner: That explains my question. Thank you. Those are my only comments.
Clark: Commissioners?
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 18
MOTION:
Myres: I would like to make a motion that we table PPL 05-1408 until such time
as the issues are addressed.
Ostner: I will second.
Clark: We have a motion and a second, the motion is carried to table. I truly do
encourage you to continue to talk to the neighbors because what you
propose today with the newest stuff looks a lot closer and it looks like
what you talked to the neighbors about. I'm thinking we are going to get
it done eventually. Thank you gentlemen.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 19
Clark: Moving onto new business, the next item on the agenda is LSD 05-1428
for Seven Hills Shelter.
Pate
This Large Scale Development request is located for property on the south
side of Huntsville Road east of Morningside Drive. The property is zoned
RMF -12, Residential Multi -Family, 12 units per acre and contains
approximately 3.581 acres. It is a portion of a larger tract, which I believe,
to the best of my knowledge, is approximately 19 acres owned by the City
of Fayetteville in this issue. The Seven Hills Shelter is leasing about 3 1/2
acres of this site and is requesting that the Planning Commission approve a
supportive housing facility with four buildings and 34 bedrooms proposed.
Specifically, the proposal is for three apartments for families, 17 rooms for
single women with shared bathrooms and kitchens, eight efficiency
apartments for individuals with disabilities. Of course, on site parking is
shown on the site plans. Residents will be housed in four buildings with
adequate parking to meet those demands. An on site resident manager
apartment is also proposed as well as general offices for counselors and
other use. A meeting room for all residents and staff as well as a
playground is also proposed at this time. The purpose of the project is to
provide 28 transitional program residents with 12 months of housing along
with appropriate support services on site. There are eight units for
individuals for disabilities and those, however, have no time limit on their
residence. The property surrounding this is primarily single family in
nature and zoning with exception to the west and the south which is
entirely undeveloped pasture land at this time. The City of Fayetteville
Community Resources Division is a Division of our city. Staff is actively
working with Seven Hills Shelter and other agencies to seek funding for
street improvements and other improvements adjacent to and within the
project site. There are funding mechanisms out there that they are looking
to utilize to start this project and continue it on. As of this time, as you
can note on the site plan, a driveway is proposed to access the
development site, which does meet city requirements for access to this
property. The city is considering extending a street in this general area
though to potentially serve other properties and other development within
the general area. You can see that in a half tone where that might lead in
the future. At this time and with this submittal, we are looking primarily
at a driveway that would meet city standards to access this property unless
the City Council does find funding or someone else finds funding to build
that street. Water and sewer are to be provided to the site. Parks fees are
waived by Resolution 09-04 which was passed by City Council for
projects of this nature. There is mitigation required in the amount of 11
trees on site. Most of the mitigation is because of the utility extensions
along the west side of the property line. There is essentially an old fence
row and drainage area that are low priority trees in that general area. The
higher priority trees have been retained. Staff is recommending approval
of LSD 05-1428 at this Subdivision Committee level. There are no
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 20
waivers or variances requested with this project and staff feels it is in a
manner that we could approve it at this level. There are 11 conditions of
approval. Item number one, right of way and necessary easements shall be
dedicated by easement plat or separate instrument prior to issuance of
building permits. Planning Commission determination of street
improvements. As I mentioned, the city is working with the applicant to
potentially construct a public street in place of the indicated driveway.
Staff recommends essentially the following language be placed on this
project: "If the City Council does not approve the funding to construct a
street to access this development, or otherwise, the applicant shall
construct a standard driveway to meet city specifications to access the
proposed development." This is essentially to ensure that whatever is
developed here does have adequate access. Item number three comes out
of the latest revisions: "An alternative emergency vehicle turn around
shall be investigated in lieu of the large cul-de-sac at the south end of the
project." I anticipate that is because of Fire Department concerns for turn
around. We might just look at that with the Fire Department. If this is
what they need then I think that's what they need I think there is maybe a
better way to save some money and not have so much asphalt with a
hammer head or something of that nature that could be utilized in another
way temporarily. You can obviously see that there are plans for expansion
in the future but I think there could be a more cost effective way to do
that. We would just like to investigate that with you. As I mentioned, a
total of 11 mitigation trees do need to be planted on site and items five
through eleven are standard conditions of approval. We do have someone
here from the Community Resources Division if you have any questions
about that from the city. Otherwise, staff is available for questions.
Clark: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any other staff reports?
O'Neal: I just wanted to clarify, the minimum easements for water and sewer is
20'. If you could number the buildings. It just makes it easier to reference
on all the sheets. On the existing water line, the 14" main that cuts across
the northern part of the property, I am still investigating if the tap can be
made on that line. It is a very old line. A tap may not be feasible at that
location so I am still investigating that. I'm also trying to find out how
wide the easement is for that line. I will get that information for you. If
you could also add the zoning designation for the adjacent owners. Show
the flood zone on the vicinity map. I believe it comes up on the south side
of the property. That's all of my comments. Thank you.
Clark: Alright, please introduce yourself and tell us about your project.
Sunneson: My name is Chris Sunneson with McClelland Consulting Engineers.
Gill: I'm Ron Gill with McClelland Engineers.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 21
Sunneson: Since this is an extension of Seven Hills Shelter it will provide housing for
transitional individuals. There is some group housing, there is also some
disability housing.
Clark: Can you tell us which buildings are going to house which?
Kelly: I'm Bob Kelly, we are the architects helping with the project. The
uppermost north building is the apartment building with three bedrooms.
The next building are the efficiencies. Building Two would be our
resident manager and the meeting room. It also has a kitchen facility with
that. Then we have the eight efficiencies in building three and then
building four would be our 17 bedroom unit for transitional housing.
Clark: Do we have any public comment for LSD 05-1428, Seven Hills Shelter?
Please come up and state your name.
Jernigan: My name is Julia Jernigan. My husband and I own both a rental house and
our own residences very close to this facility. Several months ago when
we first heard of this being the location that was being considered we met
with Kimberly Gross to discuss what the intentions were. Our concerns
being that with this being a residential area the thought of having a lot of
single men just kind of passing through and hanging out on the street
across from our rental, which for several years has housed a single
woman, was a little bit scary. When we met with Kimberly she explained
to us that the intentions of this facility would be something that first of all
the people that were to go into it would have some very strict requirements
as far as their commitment to be really serious about turning their lives
around. That there would be drug testing, there would be limitations on
visitation hours, that it wouldn't be just kind of a free for all of people
floating in and out of the facility. We would like to publicly have that out
for the record that that is what we understand from what all that has been
said would be there and making sure that that would not change, that it
would be something more like the 6th Street location where you see a lot
of people just kind of hanging there at that facility. The one thing that we
did not, she could not address when we spoke with her, was the idea of the
transportation and what exactly the entrance to that facility would be. If it
would end up being something that there were people hanging there for
the bus to pick them up if we were going to start getting into a public
transportation situation or whatever might be going on with that. I guess
that's our main concerns that it is not a loitering type of situation right
across from our property. We agree that this is a much needed type of
facility for our area. It is just that we are seriously hoping that it does
become a very committed and family oriented facility that happens at this
particular location and that they can keep the more transient nature where
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 22
it is a come in and go out kind of facility in a more industrial type
location.
Clark: Is there further comment for Seven Hills Shelter?
Reagan: My name is Logan Reagan. My property is directly adjacent to the area of
1117 Huntsville Road. I share concerns that were just voiced. Another
thing that I have is if there are going to be people walking through there to
this facility there is nowhere really to walk. There are people walking up
and down that street right now and as I pass by it driving, it is not safe. If
there is going to be some public transportation I am concerned with the
way that it is going to be handled and the way that the buses or anything
else are going to be able to get through there. It is a very quiet area. That
is why I moved there but it is still inside the city limits. I like it. I
understand the need for this and the growth of the city but I am concerned
with the way things are going and maybe if it does turn into something
like the 6th Street area, the resale of my property is not going to be very
good. That is a very large concern of mine If it is something that is going
to be highly regulated, that is fine with me and very understandable. I just
wanted to voice that.
Clark: Thank you. Is there further public comment?
Grisham: I'm Lowell Grisham, the president of the board of Seven Hills. We share
the same interest and concerns of the neighbors and just wanted to assure
them that the program that we are developing here is very, very, very
different from what we are doing at 6th Street. The people who will be
living there will be carefully screened, will live under a very strict code of
conduct, will be monitored and will have live in professional
administrators. The people involved will be carefully selected and also be
coached and trained. The two facilities and their two missions are very,
very different in their intentions. We are really taking people who are the
cream of the crop are the folks that come to our attention. Who are
homeless but have great potential for moving out of homelessness to
permanent independence. These are neighbors who are going to be up and
coming and motivated to improve their lives so I think they will be very
good neighbors.
Clark: Thank you. Is there any further public comment? I will close it to public
comment and bring it back to the Commission. Commissioners?
Ostner: The question I have is for the applicant. Have you all considered this
issue of public transportation and possibly a bus stop?
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 23
Gill: No, it hasn't been considered. I know the way 6th Street currently handles
their shelter is they just have a regular van that does transportation. As far
as actual public transit, that issue has not been addressed or suggested.
Clark: In our packet it refers to some green area that is going to be developed
around this facility.
Gill: The play area is to the south. This will all be green until such time as
these additional buildings are developed at a future date. There is
currently detention shown on the drawings in this area that will direct it
out.
Clark: Jeremy, I'm assuming that we are losing some of these trees because they
are in the right of way and utility easements?
Pate: Yes, the utility easements, most of them, if you look to the west on the
property line there is an old fence line and sort of a drainage area. This
property south of here the city has put some drainage improvements in
relatively recently down near 15th Street. Just to the north of here utilities
are primarily coming in along the west side of the property from
Huntsville Road on your utility plan, which I think is Sheet 3, you can
easily see how they are servicing these structures. Those are considered
low priority trees. Some of the larger trees to the northeast corner are
being preserved as well as near Building #2, which some of those are
being preserved as well.
Clark: Personally I think this is a much needed addition to the City of
Fayetteville. I know it is land use by right so some of the rules and
regulations of the organization will have to be between the organization
and the neighbors. To me this is an organization that has certainly proved
its willingness to work with citizens and I think their mission is a very
commendable one. I think this facility is well needed. You have
answered all of my questions. Commissioners?
MOTION:
Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve at this level LSD 05-1428.
Myres: I will second.
Clark: I'm assuming you are incorporating the language of the second condition?
Ostner: Yes, thank you. As per the conditions of approvals and the staff
comments.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 24
Clark: There is a motion and a second, everybody is in agreement, the motion
passes. Thank you very much.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 25
Clark: The next item on our agenda is ADM 05-1464 for Hank's Furniture. Will
the applicant come forward please?
Pate:
This applicant is requesting a major modification to the approved and now
constructed Hank's Furniture on Joyce Blvd. Essentially the request is to
allow the building facade to remain as constructed. The change in that
elevation is that the side awnings, as you can see in some of the
photographs the applicant has presented, are not currently installed. This
is a photograph of the built structure. This is a photo simulation. The
Hank's Furniture is approximately a 40,850 sq.ft. retail furniture store,
which is near completion in it's constructed phase. I think they have a
temporary C of 0 to operate and looking to finalize everything to get their
final Certificate of Occupancy. The property is located on Joyce between
McDonald's and the United Bank in that area. This Large Scale
Development for this project was approved back on April 12, 2004 by the
Planning Commission. There were quite a few discussions at the
Subdivision Committee level and at the Planning Commission level about
commercial design standards and how the Planning Commission did
recognize that while it was a box like structure, it did meet and was
compatible with other developments in the area and the articulation that
came out of the Subdivision Committee presentation and submittal. There
were changes made from Subdivision to Planning Commission how those
did reflect and have more articulation to a point at which the Planning
Commission could recommend approval. The primary means of that
articulation was the awnings on the side. The articulation was proposed by
way of light fixtures, pilasters and columns with scoring lines on the first
submittal. What was just passed to you is the elevation that was submitted
to the Subdivision Committee. The second sheet there was the elevation
submitted to the Planning Commission that was approved. You can take a
look at the differences in those elevations. Also, we have photographs of
the finished product which is a lot easier to tell how the finished product
looks like. This is a request to essentially change the conditions of
approval for the approved Large Scale Development to not have the
awnings constructed on the sides of the building as was approved by a
vote of 7-0. Planning staff is recommending denial of this request for a
major modification to remove the requirements for awnings from the
sides. We find that the installation of those awnings as installed on the
front of the building will help to articulate the sides of the structure and
provide a more presentable facade on both the east and west sides. They
are very visible from Joyce Blvd. It was also the subject of a lot of
discussion at the Planning Commission. I did include some of those
minutes and underlined some of the specific references to the addition of
the awnings as presenting a more articulated surface to a point again, at
which Planning Commission could recommend approval. The applicant in
his letter has also stated that the utilization of trees would help to break up
the facade, which I do agree with, however, in this location specifically,
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 26
there is a utility easement and utilities running from the property line to
the building essentially which would prohibit the long term growth of any
trees if any utilities had to be serviced the trees would have to be taken
out. That is a concern of mine to help articulate. That is why commercial
design standards typically apply to the building alone because those are
permanent structures and anything other than that landscaping can be
moved in the future. With that, Planning staff is again, recommending
denial of this request for the change.
Clark: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any other staff reports? Please introduce
yourself and explain your project.
Roberts: I'm Steven Roberts, the construction property manager for Hank's
Furniture. We have been here before and have discussed this project.
However, I would like to, with all due respect to Jeremy, we have had
good discussion about this and have talked about it and wanted to come
before you and present our case just to kind of explain why we were
requesting this. We have done a lot of changing, we've been here almost a
year. As you can see, there is a rendering over there that is where we
started out. I think there were actually two different ones. This shows the
front and the side and they are basically the same. That is where we
started, and this is what we got approval on. One of the comments that I
remember from this Committee as well as from the Planning Commission
was that articulation taking away from the big box structure and
conforming to the area and making it look more like the area. We took
those comments to heart, even after we received approval to this and made
some changes from this. When we got to looking at it we thought in 1997
we built a facility out on I-540 and this has a lot of that look, which is
what the Hank's Furniture look was, integrated with the brick and things
like that and some awnings. We took that and decided upon ourselves in
consultation with Planning and revised it. One of the things that we did
was we changed these columns completely in their design. The columns
that are shown there are dryvit, these are brick. We articulated the brick
down here and we put brick on the center alcove area. On the front on the
columns down the side and we have some pictures in your packet too
which will show this. At that time when this initial one was drawn we
came up with burgundy and we felt like we needed to change the color,
that didn't go with the scheme of Hank's colors. We went to a captain
navy blue awning. When we designed this column we got much more
articulation we felt, and a much better appearance. The way this whole
thing came about quite honestly, is you can draw a lot of drawings but the
proof is in the pudding. Hank Brown, who is the owner of Hank's
Furniture, came up on site one day and I already noticed it, and thought
here we have a building, this is what it looks like today, far improved over
what we submitted, and the big thing that hit me was the side view. There
is a reason for these awnings on the front not only for articulation, but they
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 27
also provide shade for our windows that we have on the front, which is an
energy saving factor and we do it on a lot of our buildings. We have a
side that has no windows but we have a side that has dryvit columns,
which are much more articulated and drawn to specifically because we use
multi color brick. We spent a considerable amount more money. Then we
are going to go in and put an awning in there, we just didn't feel like it
accentuated this building anymore than what it does right now. I came to
Jeremy and said "Hey, we have a question here." And that is why I'm here
today. I understand and I've read all of the comments and I totally agree,
we are not saying that that is not the case, but I am saying that the facility
that is built there today far exceeds the architecture that we submitted, far
exceeds the costs that we anticipated because of those designs. That is our
situation. Therefore, that is why we have come back. We chose Bradford
Pears strictly because they flower. We are not hung up on a tree. We
would like to install a tree that would accentuate and kind of hide those
blank spaces. We have a McDonald's on one side of us and we have a
bank on the other side. We are not a big box. This building to me, does
not look at all like a big box structure. One of these photos, I thought it
was rather interesting, our ability to integrate with the area, if you will
look at the arch here that we have and here is the mall, isn't that strange,
the color of the brick on the mall is very similar to what we have done. I
think we have done a few things here. I think we have built the best
facility that we have ever built. It is kind of a starship for us because of
this building and the way that it has come out, we are going to Springfield,
Missouri and Little Rock, Arkansas and do something very similar. I was
sitting back here listening to the meeting and trying to figure out how I
could summarize this and I summarize it by the goals that on the wall.
Your goals are to build a strong, diverse local economy. We spent 5.1
million dollars on this facility. We want it to look good and that is why
we brought it to your attention. I understand and I was there for the initial
conversations and I would agree with those conversations. I don't
necessarily agree that that is the proper method to use right now, that's
why we brought it to your attention. Planned and managed growth, you all
do a great job of that. That's why we have been through many things in
this. A beautiful city clean and green, that is why we brought up the issue,
we would rather put trees than awnings. The easements are there and I
totally agree with that, however, our electric feeds from the back of the
building. Our gas also feeds from the back of the building. Our water and
sewer feed from the front of the building and are already in the facility and
would no way go down those easements. It is the same situation with the
McDonald's structure that is there and the bank also. I just don't see, we
all know easements are there for the potential future growth down the line.
I don't see those things being needed for any of the facilities that are there
currently and all of those facilities are pretty strong. That is where we are
and that is why I'm here to discuss it. I would be glad to answer any
questions that you might have.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 28
Clark:
Right now we will open it to public comment Does anyone want to talk
about ADM 05-1464 for Hank's Furniture? Seeing none, I will bring it
back to the Commission. Commissioners?
Ostner: The minutes from Subdivision aren't in our packet I think I was there and
I think Mr. Graves was there a year ago or further actually. Putting the
awnings on this west side I believe was a lynch pin to go forward. The
way I recall it. Once we got on the same page with the awnings being on
the west side everything else fell into line. It seems like to have that
discussion now after the approval doesn't seem right. The discussion was
adequate and I believe it was valid at the time and we moved forward from
that. We couldn't have moved forward if you wouldn't have agreed to put
awnings. Since we did use that I believe as a cornerstone for our approval,
it is my inclination to go ahead and stick with our approval to require the
awnings. All of the comments that are in here from Planning
Commission, no one refers to that west wall because that was a done deal.
It was solved. That is sort of where I stand on it.
Clark:
Pate:
I do remember in the Planning Commission full, we gave the dispensation
for putting anything on the northern side because you have that private
drive and it sits down. I think, at least in my mind, that was part of a
compromise that we would get awnings on the other exposures and not
require anything on the north, and I would have to agree with Alan. I am
also kind of distressed with your choice of Bradford Pears. Jeremy,
doesn't our landscape ordinance discourage the use of specifically the
"Bradford, I'm going to break any minute, Pear"?
Not specifically, no. It is not a recommended tree species and as
Landscape Administrator I wouldn't recommend it. Obviously, we would
have to approve any trees that go on the property. If the Commission
decides that that is the articulation that would be more appropriate here I
think Mr. Roberts would be more than willing to work with us to find a
tree that would fit in that area.
Clark: The Bradford just scares me a little bit.
Roberts: That is why I did say that I'm not specifically hung up on the Bradford. It
shows nice in the picture.
Clark: I think the trees would be a great addition but I'm with Alan, I think the
awnings are a necessity and I'm inclined to agree with staff to deny this
request.
Graves: I happened to be subbing in on the Subdivision Committee whenever this
one came through last year. You are not hung up on a certain tree, I'm not
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 29
necessarily hung up on awnings on the side of the building but I do
remember that that was of great concern to some members of the
Subdivision Committee and it was something that Hank's agreed to at the
time. Line of sight was certainly a major part of the discussion at
Subdivision and at the Planning Commission level as far as what the
building looked like from different angles. I think as Mr. Ostner has
pointed out, that part of the reason that that particular wall wasn't even
really brought up at Planning Commission is because it had been
discussed so much at the Subdivision level and the agreement had sort of
been hammered out. I can understand your point of view that an awning
over a blank brick wall might not be the best thing that makes sense over a
window, but I know that that was certainly what we discussed at the time
and certainly what the solution was at the time and I'm not inclined to go
back and rethink that at this point.
Roberts: I agree with what you are saying but I guess in hindsight, the reason we
came at this time is if we had presented a design such as this with the brick
we probably wouldn't be discussing awnings at this point. It is just one of
those things that you generate to. I agree that that articulation was a
concern and we just felt like we really handled the articulation pretty well.
Myres: I think you have, just speaking from a design standpoint, handled the issue
of articulation very well, but the addition of the awnings has nothing much
to do with articulation, it has to do with consistency and repetition of an
element that is very critical on the front facade and it should be carried
around to those other two very visible sides. In my opinion it is necessary
from a design and visual standpoint and not necessarily to create high and
low points on the wall, which the columns do very well. Just to make a
personal comment, I was very disappointed when I drove by this building
right after it had been built to find the changes that you had made in this
section right here. The scale of it is very different from what was
originally proposed and I noticed on your drawing that you had a brick
detail in this gable here that hasn't been constructed.
Roberts: We felt like the beauty of the brick was more, it just didn't look right in
the field when we got there.
Myres: That is certainly a call that you are perfectly capable of making but I
honestly think that the design that we approved initially, I don't know that
this is an improvement on it. That's just my personal opinion.
Clark:
I agree. As a matter of fact, two weeks ago I was still waiting on those
awnings because I'm out in this area a lot and even with the columns it
still looks fairly blank. I think it would be better the way we first decided
it would be. Do I hear a motion?
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 30
Ostner: I have another question first. The drawing you submitted a year ago and
the as built has a variation, I am guessing this is a light?
Roberts: Yes it is.
Ostner: These lights were called out to be on the first and third, etc., and you have
switched them?
Roberts: We switched them so you will actually see four awnings instead of three.
The lights are in where the awnings are.
Ostner: For the record, the awnings will hang on the blank panels not on the lit
panels.
Roberts: That is correct, they will not hang on the lit panels.
MOTION:
Ostner: I will make a motion that we disapprove this administrative item, ADM
05-1464 for reason stated.
Myres: I will second.
Clark: We are all in concurrence, the motion is denied.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 31
Clark: The next item on the agenda is ADM 05-1467 Southern View II.
Pate:
This is another request, this property has not been built, but it is a request
essentially like the one before, for a major modification of commercial
design standards. Some of you may remember, about a year and a half
ago R-PZD 04-1.00 for Southern View II, a Planned Zoning District for a
mixed use development located at Futrall and Old Farmington Road was
approved by the City Council. This is a series of three story structures and
contain 6,700 sq.ft. of commercial area on each structure, about 40,000
sq.ft., I believe with 114 units for this mixed use development. There are
eight interchangeable building elevations that were originally approved
and proposed for the front and rear sections of the buildings. The
Planning Commission did require that these elevations be mixed
throughout the development providing some specific findings, the tower
feature that you will see on one of these, could not be utilized more than
three times. No two identical facades could be installed side by side or
directly across from each other. Those were some specific findings that
the Planning Commission made and the City Council ratified with their
approval of this ordinance for this Planned Zoning District. Within the
minutes, in looking through this process, the applicant has submitted
building permits, this is one of the items that has come before us. We
always look at commercial design standards. Much like Hank's we looked
at the submitted elevations to see that they were in general compliance
with what the Planning Commission had approved for this specific item.
It was referenced several times in the minutes, pages 16 and 17 of the
minutes I think have most of the items of that I'm referencing. If any
major changes in elevations, if any additional elevations were proposed at
the time of building permit, if there are big changes in color or anything of
that nature than what was actually approved, would have to come back to
the Planning Commission for review. Mr. Fugitt the architect on the
project, did submit these to me last week and I determined that it wasn't
quite close enough to just sign off on the building permit based on what I
looked at. It is very close and I itemized some minor changes that
occurred with the project. Some of those, there is an addition of a balcony
corner element, which is actually I think a very positive change, it is
almost another tower feature but it is a balcony feature with kind of a
change on that. The colors of brick samples have been submitted and I
have those that we can look over as well. The side facades have been
altered to give more articulation and openings as requested by the
Planning Commission. One of the facades has been revised to
accommodate an accessible unit on the ground floor that now does not
have a physical entrance for doorway onto the sidewalk. There is still the
same articulation there with windows and differences in brick and
fenestration but that has changed enough to make me want to bring this
back to you for review. Ms. Warrick, the former Planning Director, made
very clear in her comments that she was very conservative in these types
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 32
of issues approving minor modifications verses major. A minor
modification is essentially an administrative item, if it is something very,
very minor it is an administrative approval and we simply stamp it. If it is
something that we feel that the Planning Commission would like to see
that is when we bring it back to you. I felt this is something that the
Planning Commission would like to see and that is why I brought this to
you. Staff is recommending approval of these requested modifications,
and I'm sure Mr. Fugitt can kind of go through. I think he has a great
diagram here and drawings of how these elements fit together. They
reference the brick color and the type of elevation, where they all are on
the site which is the first time we've seen that. There are some conditions
though that I feel still need to be met with the original conditions of
approval. Item number one, buildings four and five, there is the "C"
fa9ade, those are directly across from each other. As well as on the
buildings two and three, the tower fa9ade is proposed to be constructed
across from each other and I feel that that does not meet the spirit of what
was approved and would like to see those changed. The only other item
that I would like to get some more feedback from the Planning
Commission, I have the approved elevation of what was submitted to the
Council and what was submitted to the Planning Commission, they did
change somewhat. Ultimately, the City Council approved the
development and so we have to go with what the City Council approved.
In comparison to what was proposed, the brick color was something that
came up specifically and how there were definitely distinctions between
the different types of brick color. With any rendering and print out, even
the same print out on different pieces of paper here that were presented,
different printers and different paper. What is more important is, is the
intent being met? At this point I feel that the bricks chosen are too similar
to go forward without some sort of change in variation. There are
variations of red, which I don't think is a surprise. It is what we really
anticipated but I will let you look through that. If you have any questions,
I've got the samples here and will bring those up as well. This elevation,
as well as this elevation, is what was presented to the Planning
Commission. Those did change by the City Council and this is what was
approved with the City Council minutes. In comparison, this is what has
been proposed for the building permits. Most of them are very, very
similar. I want to make clear that point, that there is not a significant
amount of change. I pretty much itemized everything that was changed.
There are some changes in soldier blocks, we had a long discussion with
Commissioner Bunch about would it be a major modification if we
changed the brick from a soldier course, that is not what we were looking
for. What I'm looking at is there is at least one change to the side
elevation, there is an additional elevation in that one of them no longer has
openings. I still think it is just as articulated as the others. Then, of
course, the brick color. I will give these to you and pass around the
sample boards for you to discuss amongst yourselves.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 33
Clark: Are there any other staff reports? Introduce yourself and please tell us
about your project.
Fugitt: My name is Kim Fugitt and I'm the architect on this project. The Lindsey
Company is the developer. This is located on 6th and Futrall there by
Sines Body Shop. It is a six acre tract there. This has been, we've been
kicking this around for a while and are ready to pull the trigger on it as far
as beginning construction and you can see that the two facades here, it is
basically a mixed use facility with commercial office space on the ground
floor and then apartments on the second and third floors. It attempts to
create a more urban setting there to create this community. We have
followed the commercial design guidelines that are presented. One of our
agreements was to mix the facades and brick colors so we wouldn't have
any of the same facades across from each other nor adjacent to each other.
As far as going with the recommendations, we can change one of these
"C" facades to make that happen. I'm assuming item two with the tower,
that we would just delete one of those.
Pate:
Fugitt:
Pate:
That is really up to you. The requirement is for no more than three towers
and then of course that the facades not be across from each other, if you
want to change one of them to a balcony, I think with this Committee's
approval I think that would work just fine if it works for your design.
I guess what I would like to do is to try to get some feedback here so we
don't have to go through this process again. I guess I'm asking permission
on some of this stuff. Item three, we will be happy to revise the drawings.
My question would be based on those revisions, would we come back
before the Subdivision Committee or will that be administrative?
Condition number three is whatever comes out of this meeting, we would
like to see this drawing revised to show that and continue on with the
building permit process.
Fugitt: The fourth item, the more distinct brick colors, I think if you will look at
what was originally proposed, there are a couple of facades here that the
City Council, specifically, the Mayor, requested that we look at doing
something different with specifically this one and this one. We have the
dryvit system here and so we changed those to get a more uniform but
diverse facade throughout the complex similar to this. What we are trying
to create of course, is a feel similar to the square or Dickson Street,
something along those lines. In my mind those brick colors are typically
shades of red, brown and gray. You may see a lot of painted brick, I think
on Dickson Street where you do see a lighter color, it is typically where
brick has been painted over. That becomes a maintenance problem over
the years that we prefer not to get into. In developing a pallet for this
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 34
project we did find various tones of red, three or four of those, and then a
couple of browns, grays, and then there is even one that is kind of a mod
leaf color that we have tried to sprinkle in here and there just to break up
the tones. If you look at this drawing, this may help you see what we have
done. The little circled letter is the facade itself, this would be a `B"
facade, or an "F" or "E" facade, etc. Then the number there or the other
designation, refers to the brick color that we have given it. Here you can
see the brick colors that we have dispersed through there so neither facade
nor brick color are adjacent to or across from one another. I guess the
only issue would be how far we are on the brick color. These are all acme
bricks, this is called "Old Smoky", which is "OS" on the diagram. "Old
Washington", "OW". These have two blends here, the 230, goes into
almost orange or terra cotta. Then the 241, which is a little darker there
and then these two, which is called a burgundy that almost gets into a
plum nature and then an autumn sunset. This is a blended brick that really
has, if you saw an entire wall sample of it, it has quite a bit of variation
with a lot of lights and darks. The lighter bricks would be this brick and
this brick would probably wind up being the lighter tones and also this
terra cotta orange brick would be along the same lines. Going back to this
elevation, this would be looking at this range or this one, so you are
looking at the same similar situation there. In my mind, this might be the
clay pot here and this burgundy and this smoky. That is where we are
coming from there.
Clark: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on ADM 05-
1467? We will bring it back to the Commissioners.
Myres: I think Jeremy's concern with the repetition of the tower detail obviously,
is very valid. It makes sense because there are two adjacent buildings
here, four and three, to make both of those corners balconies but then
directly diagonally across in building one we have another balcony. I'm
not sure, I don't know how I feel about it.
Fugitt: The best way to look at it is this is the tower, this is the balcony.
Ostner: So this is a glimpse of how that might be?
Fugitt: Right.
Pate: I would just mention too as part of this modification request, if the
Planning Commission members here would like to allow for the tower
facade to go across from each other in this particular instance, it is
definitely within your right. You established the condition and you can
alter that condition. I just wanted you to keep that in mind. I simply was
going with the conditions of approval as stated earlier. Mr. Fugitt clearly
mentions it in the minutes, things change through the construction process,
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 35
there were things that just had to be worked out and this potentially was
one of those issues. I think the other ones are more clear and can be easily
changed out. The end facades, corner facades, are a little more difficult.
Myres: What if those two were just flip flopped and the tower in building three
becomes a balcony and the balcony in building four becomes a tower?
Then you have got two balconies across from each other but that is not
quite as an insistent visual element as the tower is. That is a real eye
catcher.
Fugitt: We can reduce a tower. We have no connection to that if you feel like two
may be more appropriate.
Myres: I hate to do away with one since three are permitted and things are usually
better in uneven numbers than they are in even, that is just a typical design
rule. If you added a tower to building four and created a balcony on
building three instead that would maintain the number of towers and they
wouldn't be immediately across from one another.
Ostner: I'm more in thinking that the colors of these buildings are going to be a lot
more obvious to the eye than the fact that two towers might be near each
other. It seems like a good mixture.
Myres: The two buildings across from each other are definitely different brick
colors, one of them is "Old Washington" and the other one is "Red". Even
though they are two towers, they are not the same color of towers.
Ostner: Also over here from building five to four, they are two "C" facades but
they are "Old Washington" on building five and "Autumn Sunset" on the
other. Even though it is the same design, I think with completely different
colors as you look at these, makes a big difference and helps a lot. I'm not
as concerned about the situation that is currently in front of us since the
colors seem to be a good mixture. If you all think otherwise.
Clark:
I wasn't a part of the original Planning Commission that apparently
labored over all of this so I don't have the background. I will trust you
and James here and Christine's eye. I think this is a very striking
development.
Graves: It seems overall that this fits the spirit of what we wanted even though
there may be some technical facades kitty corner with one another. With
the brick colors too, I think probably it is as good of spread as you can get
when you are taking out some of these other types of facades that we had
looked at at the time. Whenever I look at the rendering that we have now
I think that is still a pretty good spread of colors there.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 36
Myres: Between the differences in detail among the facades, the difference in
color among the facades, the difference in fenestration, articulation, I think
the brick color is just one of those elements. There is enough mix that you
get a variety without losing that continuity that you really want.
Clark:
Ok, let's break it down. Do we favor the revisions to revise buildings four
and five so that the "C" facade is not constructed across from one another?
That was part of the original condition.
Graves: I don't think those are necessary. I think what they have submitted fits the
spirit of what we wanted to do. I understand why it had to come back
though, because that is what we said we wanted at the time. The only
thing I think we would need, I think that takes care of all of the
recommendations from the Planning Staff. I think the facades are fine and
the brick colors are fine as revised.
Clark: You don't care that the towers are right across from each other?
Graves: No, I don't.
Clark: Anybody else?
Ostner: My question is for Jeremy. On number four when you asked for more
distinctive brick color choices. More distinctive from this?
Pate:
My intention here is to have this discussion with the Planning Commission
to see where they lie. I don't believe we had the brick samples when we
originally looked at it. We knew they were into reds but we didn't really
know what colors. Looking at it, not being an architect, it is difficult to
see will these really reflect what the elevations there show. That was
really my concern. I just wanted to make sure that everyone is
comfortable with that. As Mr. Graves said, it was discussed very openly, I
believe Dawn referenced it specifically. If significant changes or
distinctly different brick colors are not presented then we would bring this
back to the Planning Commission.
Graves: She did say that but I think as you look at the whole PZD having a couple
of facades sort of kitty corner to one another in the whole scheme of
things, I don't think that violates the spirit of the PZD, nor does
eliminating maybe one lighter color brick or something, I think overall
that this fits what we approved.
Clark: These bricks are going to weather differently anyway. What we think we
are approving today, ten years from now may look radically different.
Myres: To me these are distinctly different.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 37
Ostner: 1 think they are a good mixture.
Clark: So we are willing to strike the first two conditions? We don't think they
are necessary?
Graves: I think that takes care of all four of them.
MOTION:
Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve ADM 05-1467 with drawings as
submitted and the color samples as reviewed.
Graves: I will second.
Myres: I will concur.
Clark: Thank you Mr. Fugitt.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 38
Clark: The sixth item on our agenda is the Final Plat for Cross Keys, FPL 05-
1398.
Morgan: The applicant is requesting a Final Plat approval for a residential Planned
Zoning District. The proposed use for this PZD is single family
residential with 108 lots proposed. A detention pond is associated with
this subdivision located off site. I believe that easements for this detention
pond are being filed and recorded. Density for the entire subdivision is
2.81 units per acre and the Preliminary Plat was approved by the Planning
Commission on February 9, 2004. The City Council approved the R-PZD
shortly thereafter, with one modification. That was that Putting Green
Drive be stubbed out to the east, which has been shown on this and
constructed on site. The site is located on the northeast corner of the
intersection of Persimmon and 46th Street. The applicant has proposed to
erect a fence on the two rights of ways that will match the fence required
by the development to the west, Persimmon Place. At this time the fence
for the subdivision has not yet been installed. Installation for this fence
was discussed at the Preliminary Plat meeting and addressed in condition
four of the conditions of approval. At this time staff feels that installation
of said fence, because it is not a requirement of the subdivision, should not
preclude the approval of the Final Plat. Water and sewer lines have been
extended to serve the development, right of way being dedicated includes
a total of 70' for the length of the property for Persimmon Street.
Potentially a small addition of right of way greater than 70' at the
southwest corner of the property. It will be in compliance with the Master
Street Plan requirements. As well as 50' right of way for all interior
streets. Street improvements have been completed and of course, the final
inspection and all punch list items will be taken care of prior to signing
this Final Plat. Parks fees will be assessed for this property and mitigation
will be required for tree preservation. Staff is recommending approval of
this Final Plat at the Subdivision Committee level with a total of 15
conditions of approval to include parks fees assessed in the amount of
$59,940 for 108 single family units. A sign shall be posted at the stub out
of Putting Green Drive to indicate future extension of the street. Any
improvements which have not been completed, which can be guaranteed,
will need to be done prior to filing the Final Plat and also, any installation
of improvements for those which cannot be guaranteed. Most of these
conditions are fairly standard and I will entertain any questions if you have
them.
Clark: Thank you Suzanne. Are there any other staff reports?
O'Neal: Yes Ma'am. Chris, there are some standard notes that we will need on
both of the Final Plats we are seeing today. That is the only comment that
I have for this plat at this time.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 39
Clark: There is nothing that needs to be added to our conditions of approval?
O'Neal: No, they are just standard notes.
Clark: Ok, please introduce yourself and tell us about your project.
Brackett: I'm Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates.
Sloan: I'm Charlie Sloan, the owner and developer.
Brackett: We are in agreement with all of the conditions other than number two.
We don't feel that there is a need to put a sign there because that road is
already under construction.
Morgan: That is fine to strike that.
Sloan:
Jeremy, we have already purchased trees to be planted. I can't remember,
did we say to go ahead and pay the money? We are putting trees down
46th Street and Persimmon along the right of way. I don't mind paying the
$1,000 but I've already purchased trees. They are ready to be moved in as
soon as we start the sidewalk. We would like to get that done first rather
than tearing up the trees putting the sidewalk stuff in. It is not that much.
I usually plant.
Pate: If that is what you would like to do.
Sloan: I don't want to hold it up. I have already purchased the trees, I can show
you the check where we've already paid for them.
Clark: Can we amend number five to say "Dependent upon the landscape
administrator's decision, trees may be planted."
Pate: I don't have a problem at all with the trees being planted. Charlie has done
that many times in the past. I think we just need to have a plan and some
sort of guarantee to do that. I don't know what kind of timing that puts you
in, whether it is worth $1,050.
Sloan:
Pate:
I would rather pay the money rather than being held up. I have closings
set up for next week. I don't want that to be a problem. I didn't realize I
thought I either replant or pay the $1,000.
You do have that option. I think you could probably comply with that, it is
just a matter of getting the documentation. We could leave it open ended.
I don't see a problem with that, either or.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 40
Clark: Dependent on the Landscape Administrator's discretion. Is there anything
else gentlemen? Is there anyone in the public who would like to comment
on this Final Plat for Cross Keys Phase I? I will bring it back to the
Commissioners.
Ostner: I have a question for staff. Could you elaborate about the fence that is not
required for this development and should not preclude any approval of the
Final Plat?
Sloan:
I can fill in quicker maybe. The subdivision across from us that is coming
up next, that was required originally by the neighbors to have them put up
a fence and so when mine came through for some reason they didn't really
require me, but we presented a proposal with drawings and stuff so we
could sort of be in compliance. We didn't feel like it was fair for the
Walkers to have to do something that we didn't have to do so we tried to
comply with it. It wasn't a requirement on us. Actually, I think the
neighbor that required the Walkers to put that fence in, I bought him out
and so he was gone. We still wanted to work with the Walkers and do
something similar with both of us putting up a fence with the same height
and style. It wasn't a requirement to have mine up before Final Plat.
Brackett: There was a Bill of Assurance for Persimmon Place that required that
fence. There was no Bill of Assurance with this and it wasn't actually a
requirement of the Planning Commission.
Morgan: The condition of approval in the Preliminary Plat staff report states
"Planning Commission determination of appropriate fence material if
desired and appropriate timing for installation of the fence shall not
encroach upon right of way or easement." I went back through the
minutes and was unable to find a specific finding on timing for installation
so I just reverted back to our requirements do not necessarily require a
fence.
Ostner: I'm probably recalling the Subdivision Committee meeting before it
reached the PZD level. Many have slipped between there and there. That
answers my question on that.
Morgan: One condition that may be a little bit unusual is condition nine, which
states that at this time the City is reviewing the proposed protective
covenants for this R-PZD. Covenants to be filed with this Final Plat
should include specific things with regard to maintenance of detention,
etc., and approved covenants shall be filed with the County Clerk prior to
issuance of any building permit within the subdivision pursuant to Unified
Development Code. The reason that this is a little bit different that we are
looking at covenants for this is because it is a PZD. If this were any other
Preliminary Plat we would not be a party to any covenants.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 41
Sloan: We have those ready to file with the Final Plat.
Clark: All of the off site improvements that were in the original conditions have
been met?
Brackett: Yes.
Clark: Commissioners? The detention pond is kind of unique in this
development. It is going to be off site.
Sloan: You have approved one acre lots in front of that detention pond and the
detention works actually for this 40 acres and works for the other side too
so it benefits both. We have some other plans for the rest of the land over
there with potentially a golf course, so that was sort of an area that fit
perfect. We pulled from the original plan and brought the detention pond
back up here but we have filed easements and everything with the county
on that.
Clark: Commissioners? It looks like you have satisfied all of the conditions that
have come before us. I am ready to entertain a motion.
MOTION:
Graves: I will move that we approve FPL 05-1398 with the stated conditions of
approval and as amended on condition five that it was dependent on the
Landscape Administrator's discretion.
Clark: And removal of condition two?
Graves: Right.
Myres: I will second.
Ostner: I will concur.
Clark: I shall too Thank you gentlemen.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 42
Clark: The next item on our agenda is FPL 05-1387 for Persimmon Place. Can
we have the staff report please?
Morgan: Yes Ma'am. This property is located just west of the property which you
just heard for Cross Keys Phase I. The applicant requests Final Plat
approval for a residential subdivision for 154 single family lots. The
property is zoned RSF-4 and is subject to a Bill of Assurance. I have
attached that Bill of Assurance which describes things such as
requirements for the fence and entry features as well as requirements for
80' wide lots, which this development does meet that requirement. The
property is adjacent to Persimmon Street to the south and 46th Street to the
east. Broyles Road, a collector street, bisects this property. Like 46th
Street, it provides access to Wedington Drive. A condition of the
Preliminary Plat requires the fences and entry features and landscaping as
stated in the Bill of Assurance, be installed prior to Final Plat approval.
Upon inspection of the property yesterday, that fence is currently being
installed, but it is not installed at this time. Right of way is to be dedicated
in compliance with the Master Street Plan with street improvements as
required at the time of Preliminary Plat. Fees are required for park land
dedication and mitigation is also required for tree preservation. At this
time staff recommends forwarding this Final Plat to the full Planning
Commission. Mainly this is because of the items addressed in the Bill of
Assurance, as required by the Preliminary Plat, have not been completed
at this time. Staff is recommending that this be forwarded with 18
conditions of approval. Most of which address fees which will be due as
well as signs for stub out extensions of future streets and the construction
of fence and entry features. I will answer any questions if you have any.
Clark: Are there any other staff reports?
O'Neal: I just want to state that the punch list and the grading of the right of way
must be completed prior to signing the Final Plat. Also, Chris, if you
could show handicap ramps at the intersection of Wind Craft and
Tumbleweed between lots 22 and 51.
Brackett: We talked about that, remember? Those curb cuts are already installed
and we would have to bust out the curb. This is how it was approved.
O'Neal: These are from the Sidewalk Administrator. If you could contact Chuck
Rutherford and explain that to him. I will give you what he had told me
and you can talk to him about that. Also, handicapped ramp on the east
side of Lot 154. Cross walks at the "T" intersection of Broyles and Soak
Stone on the west side of Broyles and a handicapped ramp going south
from Lot 131 to across Persimmon. My next comment has to do with the
intersection of Persimmon and 46`h. If you could also notate on the plat
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 43
Clark:
Brackett:
what is going to be constructed with this development. Thank you for
clarifying the issue on the detention pond.
Thank you. Is there anything else? If you could please introduce yourself.
I am Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates here to answer any
questions that you have. The handicapped ramps, this is how it was
approved, not only with the Preliminary Plat but with construction plans.
These handicapped ramps that will be installed with the houses have to
have a curb cut. Those curb cuts have already been installed. There is not
one on where we are being asked. They have had several shots at it to ask
for those way before so we could build those in and it wouldn't be an
additional expense to us. I know that there has been a change of policy
from when this was approved and what it is now and now at these "T"
intersections we would show this additional ramp. At the time this was
approved that wasn't required and that is why it wasn't shown.
Myres: Are you saying that there will be no ramps?
Brackett: Yes. These curb cuts are already installed where the ramps are shown
now and to be able to install this ramp you would have to bust out the curb
that is already there.
Clark: Is there any public who would like to comment on FPL 05-1387,
Persimmon Place? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee.
Ostner: You have ramps but they are not the double style required today?
Brackett: Yes.
Clark: Do we have a grandfather clause here?
Pate: Chris is exactly right, the project was approved in early 2003. It has been
in process for quite a while. He is exactly right that those requirements
were not placed upon this project at that time. I think probably it is just a
matter of Chris getting with our Sidewalk Administrator and working out
those details to make sure that everyone is on the same place.
Clark: It does seem a little unfair now to make you adhere to rules that didn't
exist when you were coming through with this.
Myres: Just as long as there is some access.
Brackett: There is access, you can get across the road, it is just not on both sides of
the intersection. That was actually discussed at the Technical Plat Review
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 44
Clark:
Brackett:
level for this. This is what was approved for that. It wasn't that it was
overlooked. This is how it was approved.
This is an interesting intersection on 46`h and West Persimmon.
I can give you a little background on that. When this was originally
brought forth, this was shown as a regular "T" intersection and we were
just going to widen the road. When Charlie Sloan brought this forward he
did not want to change his fencing around the current house that sits right
here. He wanted the road to go around it because he felt this fence and the
way the trees are was part of the character of the neighborhood. What we
did was we redesigned this and the Walkers agreed to dedicate this right of
way and Mr. Sloan's contractor is going to build this portion of the road.
They are currently in the process, the drainage has already been installed,
they are waiting to finish the punch list items here and then they are going
to move over here and finish this road. We are going to put up money for
the improvements that are not installed at the time that this is signed so
this isn't delayed. The agreement with Mr. Sloan and the Walkers is that
they would agree to do this as long as it didn't delay their projects. Once
we get closer to when we are actually going to sign we will see what
improvements are done and we will put up money for the improvements
that are not done at that time.
Clark: Commissioners?
Osmer: On your chart, minimum finished floor elevations for lots 25 through 32,
this line is called out as the 100 -year floodplain, is that not a contour line?
Brackett: No it is not. What it does is as this flows on this creek the Corp. has
established the 100 -year water surface elevation and that line follows that.
It is not a constant elevation, it actually goes up as you go up stream.
Ostner: This is a question for Engineering or Planning staff. Since the Final Plat
document is almost as much for builders, and realtors and home owners,
as it is for all of us, would establishing a different system like feet above
top of curb be a problem or is that not really?
Pate: It is an industry standard and it is required by our codes to establish the
finished floor elevations for that.
Brackett: These lots will have to file a flood certification. They will actually have to
put one stating what their elevations are going to be and make sure it is
higher than that. After they actually pour the slab they will have to come
back and verify that they are there. It is not going to be a problem as far
as verifying.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 45
Pate:
Ostner:
Brackett:
Ostner:
Brackett:
Ostner:
Brackett:
Ostner:
O'Neal:
Brackett:
Clark:
MOTION:
Ostner:
Graves:
Clark:
Break
It is a very established program.
Great. That was my question. The other is that there is a typo here. The
state plane needs to be fixed, the upper right part of the drawing and the
lower right. I know that is silly, plane is misspelled. On the detention
pond, is that going to be fenced?
No.
Down here at the bottom you call out the detention pond is common
property and shall be maintained by the POA.
Yes.
That is basically just going to be an empty pond most of the year?
It is sodded. There actually are going to be wetlands in this area. We had
to mitigate with the Corp. for that so we put those in our pond. There are
going to be some plantings in this area. It is not going to look like most of
them do because of that.
Great, that answers all of my questions.
Going back to the detention pond, the trickle channel is not going to be
constructed, correct?
No it is not.
Commissioners, do I hear a motion? Is there anything else?
I will make a motion that we forward FPL 05-1387 to the Planning
Commission with the conditions as stated.
I will second.
There is a motion and a second, does everybody concur? We are in
agreement. Thank you very much.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 46
Clark: I am going to reconvene this meeting for the Subdivision Committee of
March 3151 moving along. We are now going to consider LSP 05-1414,
Dover Holloway. Can we please have the staff report?
Pate:
This property is located in the Planning Area on Wyman Road and
contains approximately seven acres. The request is to split the property
into two tracts of 3 '/2 acres each. There are a few structures currently
existing and an existing septic system. The property is located in the
county utilized primarily for single family use. Public water is available
along Wyman Road. Just as a side note, individual private service lines
may not cross private property lines. Therefore, each lot is required to
have it's own service lines from the public main. Dedication of 35' of
right of way measured from centerline is required along Wyman Road.
That is shown on the plat. Staff is recommending approval of this Lot
Split at the Subdivision Committee level with five conditions of approval.
Item number one, is access to public water mains without crossing private
property lines. It is not only a city requirement, but also, a State Health
Department requirement. Right of way in the amount of 35' from
centerline for Wyman shall be dedicated. Item three is a request to
graphically include the proposed access easement on the plat as described
in the tract 2 legal description. I'm not exactly sure where that is but in the
legal description it says on tract 2 a 30' wide access easement for ingress
and egress. I just want to make sure that we know where that is. Of
course, you do need to go to Washington County Planning for approval of
the Lot Split as well before it is recorded. That's all.
Clark: Are there any other staff reports? Will you introduce yourself and tell us
about the Lot Split?
Dover: My name is Kenny Dover. We acquired the property from my father in
law and just plan on building two houses, one for myself and one for my
step son. The existing house that is on it is going to be torn down and the
barn is going to be taken down also. The easement, the 30' is where the
existing driveway is to the house as far as I know.
Clark: Would anybody from the public like to comment on LSP 05-1414?
Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners.
Myres: I don't have any problem with this as long as the applicant is willing to
accept the conditions of approval, I think the size of the original lot is
much different than the one that we were previously considering. This
seems to have plenty of elbow room to do all kinds of things that you
would want to do. I don't have any problem with it.
Ostner: There are adequate easements in the Wyman right of way to serve both of
these new lots?
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 47
Pate:
With the dedication of the new right of way per the Master Street Plan I
believe the water line is now located within the right of way. The utility
companies did request an additional 20' utility easement outside of the
right of way so that should be adequate to serve them. It is the hatched
area across the top.
Clark: Is this the section of Wyman that is very narrow? Is this the dirt road part
of Wyman or still on pavement?
Pate: It is still on pavement here.
MOTION:
Ostner: I will make a motion for approval of LSP 05-1414 with the conditions of
approval.
Graves: Second.
Clark: I will concur. Thank you very much.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 48
Clark: The next item of business is another Lot Split, LSP 05-1430 for
Cobb/Westphal. Will the applicants come forward please?
Pate:
This property is located directly northeast of the Lowe's development on
6th Street between Lowe's and Finger Road directly west of the bank. The
property is zoned C-PZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District. It was
originally part of the Planned Zoning District for Lowe's and the retail
center directly to the east of that which has not been constructed at this
time. With the discussion of Lowe's it was clearly indicated in the
minutes that this would probably occur in the near future. It is probably
longer than they originally anticipated, but the fact that this lot would be
split out for some type of commercial development. The request is to split
the 7.35 acres into 5.88 and 1.47 acres respectively. On which, the 1.47
would likely be developed. You would see that in the form of a Large
Scale Development sometime in the future. Public water and sewer are
available to each of the proposed lots and adequate right of way exists
from centerline for Hwy. 62 as it was dedicated with the Lowe's
development. There is a small portion of right of way that does need to be
dedicated with this Lot Split. Evidently 25' from centerline is required to
be dedicated and slightly less than this was shown on the plat that went
through with that development. I believe this plat does show that. Staff is
recommending approval of this Lot Split with three conditions. Right of
way dedication, access shall be evaluated at the time of development for
each proposed lot and will likely be limited to the interior street and not
onto 6th Street. That's it.
Clark: Will you introduce yourself and tell us about your Lot Split please?
Hern: My name is Kip Hern with H2 Engineering. I don't have any additional
comments and we are in agreement with all of the conditions.
Clark: Is there anyone in the public who would like to comment on LSP 05-
1430?
O'Neal: I just want to let the applicant know that at the time the lot is developed
that there will be some improvements required for the lift station site.
There is a lift station at the northeast corner of the north lot so at that time
they will be requiring some improvements.
Clark:
Is there anybody else? There is still no one in the public who wants to
comment on this so we will bring it back to the Commission.
Commissioners?
Ostner: The first question I had is I am just wondering what the fenced off box is
on this corner?
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 49
Clark: That is the lift station.
Ostner: I know this is not a development plan but does that stay as is after
development?
O'Neal: Yes Sir. The improvements will probably be cosmetic in nature. The
actual site itself, the fence, I'm sure the applicant at that time when this lot
develops would want to improve the fence, access will also be provided
when this lot develops.
Clark: How would the second lot be zoned Jeremy?
Pate: It would remain C-PZD.
Clark: Commissioners? It seems rather straight forward to me.
MOTION:
Myres: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 05-1430 with the stated
conditions of approval.
Graves: I will second that.
Ostner: Before I concur, I just want to emphasize my concern over access. Jeremy
mentioned that at the time of development access could possibly be only
allowed along the 37.3' access easement on the south or running between
these lots and the Lowe's access on the west side. I think that is
imperative to keep traffic along 6th Street safe. This stretch is getting
more dangerous everyday. I will concur with those comments.
Hern: Can I ask would you mind moving item ten below number twelve? Tom
Hennelly who will represent that is at a doctor's appointment.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 50
Clark: Ok, so we are going to skip item ten, which is a Large Scale Development
for Farmington Branch Center and move to number eleven, which is LSP
05-1439 for JB Hays. Could I have the staff report please?
Morgan: This property is located west of Barrington Park subdivision and east of
Starr Drive. The applicant is requesting approval of a Lot Split for
property to create a tract of 5.45 acres. This property is zoned RSF-4 and
is proposed to be subdivided into single family lots. The overall property
reflected on the plat consists of three individual parcels. I have several
comments with regard to modifications and revisions to the plat to clearly
show from which parcel this tract is being split and to reflect the
corresponding legal descriptions for those properties. Public water and
sewer mains will be accessible to each tract prior to approval of the
requested Lot Split. With regard to right of way dedication, staff is
recommending dedication for a total of 35' from centerline for Starr Drive
which is a collector street on the Master Street Plan, as well as a 50' right
of way along the southern boundary of the proposed tract 2. Tract 2 as it
is proposed will only have 50' lot width on an improved public street at
that stub out of Arapaho Drive and we are recommending that they extend
that 50' right of way realizing that in the next item before you they are
proposing development of that and extension of that street. We are just
requesting this right of way at the time of Lot Split. Surrounding
properties consist of Barrington Parke to the east. To the north is located
several lots as well as property owned by the city directly north of tract 2.
South is the school and to the west on tract 1 is a large pond area as well
as a home and a dentist office. At this time staff recommends forwarding
this Lot Split to the Planning Commission in order to track with the
Preliminary Plat. We have listed nine conditions of approval.
Requirements that public water and sewer mains shall be accessible to
each tract prior to approval of the requested Lot Split. Requirements for
right of way dedication and revisions that I requested to be shown on the
plat to make sure that we are reflecting the correct original parcel from
which this tract will be created. If you have any questions I will try to
answer them.
Clark: Is there anybody else from staff? Please introduce yourself and tell us
about the project.
Hern: I am Kip Hern with H2 Engineering.
Goodereis: I am Crystal Goodereis, JB Hays' assistant.
Hern: We are in agreement with all of the conditions. I think that we are
meeting those. Tract 1 will be modified accordingly per your
recommendation. We have dedicated the right of way as requested. The
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 51
only question we would have is if you guys would be willing to approve
this at this level with these conditions.
Clark: Would anybody in the public like to speak to LSP 05-1439 for JB Hays?
Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. My first question
is why are we forwarding this onto the Planning Commission? Is there a
reason we can't approve it here?
Pate:
Potentially this Tract 2 that is being created does have 50' of frontage onto
a constructed street, the stub out there. In this zoning district it is required
to have 70'. Essentially, that is a waiver request. We obviously know that
the Preliminary Plat is right behind it so that is why we are keeping them
together to go to the Planning Commission. Waivers cannot be granted by
the Subdivision Committee so we are just going straight forward with it.
Clark: I concur with that rationale.
Ostner: My question was on condition number three, the right of way in the
amount of 50' shall be dedicated along the southern property line of
proposed Tract 2 to align with the existing right of way for Arapaho.
There is no right of way dedicated westward of Arapaho towards Starr
Drive. I understand Tract 1 is not being proposed for development. Would
that ever be a requirement or a request?
Pate:
Potentially. With the Preliminary Plat that follows, that is why I want to
keep these together as well, if the question comes up you can reference the
Preliminary Plat at the time of Planning Commission. There is a stub out
to this property. It might potentially alter. Whoever develops this property
might want to swing it up a little bit further north and line up with the
street that is across the way there and have lots adjacent to the school.
There are numerous opportunities to fulfill the same connectivity
requirements. At this time I don't think it is really that necessary to
dedicate the right of way without knowing how the property is going to
develop. It would also hinder the property's ability to do much at this
time with the right of way across the property.
Ostner: I just recall when this came through maybe a year ago, I believe it was a
zoning request and access got to be a big issue with the neighbors.
Everyone was coming in on Madison and having to flow through to get to
this. They were asking why an access wasn't being required.
Pate: You will see concerns with that in the very next item.
Ostner: That answers my question. I will make a motion that we forward LSP 05-
1439 with all conditions as stated.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 52
Myres: I will second.
Graves: I will concur.
Clark: We are agreed upon.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 53
Clark: The next item on the agenda will be PPL 05-1437 Hays Estates.
Morgan: As you can see, this subdivision is proposed for Tract 2 of the previous
item. The applicant requests approval of a single family lot subdivision
with 18 single family lots. This property will contain 5.45 acres. Staff has
received comments from at least one adjacent property owner stating that
she would prefer to see the proposed street connect to Madison Drive to
allow two points of access. This is something that we have discussed as
staff. The property to the north is actually owned by the City of
Fayetteville as park land. Staff is currently investigating the potential of
having right of way dedicated across that city property to Madison Drive
so that the developer could construct a street to access onto Madison
Drive. If the City Council however, does not approve that, the applicant
would like to request a waiver of cul-de-sac requirements with a
maximum length of 500'. They are proposing a 809' cul-de-sac and I
formulated a condition in the conditions of approval. Staff would
recommend in favor of a waiver to allow for the construction of a cul-de-
sac greater than 500' in length if right of way is unable to be obtained to
construct that through street to Madison. Water and sewer lines will be
extended to serve the proposed development. Surrounding streets include
Madison Drive, Arapaho Drive, both local streets, and Starr Drive, which
is a collector street. Right of way to be dedicated for the unnamed street
located on this plat will be dedicated per the Final Plat for this property.
As we previously discussed, dedicating right of way for Arapaho Drive
with the Lot Split. Connectivity is provided to the east and we are
discussing potential connectivity to the north. I will defer any questions
about tree preservation or parks to those staff here. Staff is recommending
that this be forwarded to the Planning Commission with a total of 13
conditions of approval. Condition number one discusses the waiver
request for the cul-de-sac length. Condition two is from the Parks
Division. I will let them address that with regard to right of way
dedication through Barrington Parke to the north of the property. Another
waiver requested is Planning Commission determination of a waiver from
100' separation of permanent water surface from the finished floor of a
proposed structure. This pond to the west of the subdivision is a wet pond
and that is why that waiver request is being presented to you. All other
conditions are fairly typical for Preliminary Plats. If you have any
questions I can answer those.
O'Neal:
On Arapaho Drive after you make the connection to the existing stub out
we need to have that realigned to that the center of Arapaho is centered on
the easement. Note for the future, in the middle of the easement. Also, at
that intersection we need to see the handicapped ramps per our
requirements and make sure that all of the sidewalks are moved to the
right of way line. If you could also label the lot sizes either in square feet
or per acre. We also need a table or notation for the linear feet of street, 6'
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 54
sidewalk and 4' sidewalk to be dedicated. If you could also add a note
with regard to the detention pond that it is not located on the property and
that it shall be maintained by the POA and the property owner. At the
north end there is a street light shown at the cul-de-sac, if you could move
that 5' outside of the sanitary sewer easement. I believe one of the
comments at the Tech Plat level was I was going to investigate the
viability of connecting to the sanitary sewer where you are showing. I
have not been able to do that yet but I will do that and will contact you.
Jumper: Are you ready to take this to Parks Board?
Goodereis: We were told when I started investigating this almost a year ago that that
was not an option that you could not do anything with that ground. We
were told that that was only going to be ordained by the City Council. So,
basically, I was told that we were not the ones that would be bringing it in
front of you, that the city would. We will do whatever you want to do. I
tried to obtain access a year ago from the very beginning so it makes no
difference to us whether it is a cul-de-sac or punched through. Someone
just needs to give us direction as to whether to come back to you or if the
city is going to do it.
Pate:
The City Council is the only body that can give away city property as right
of way or otherwise. We are recommending that it goes before the Parks
Board because it is Park property. It is city property but it is utilized as
park land currently and we would definitely like to have the Parks Board
recommendation for the City Council to consider and weight the options
of what the utilization of it is. It is obviously on the Trail Master Plan and
Parks Staff at this point is requesting an easement and we will take that
through and get the necessary information from you guys to take that
through. At this point staff's recommendation is that the connection
would benefit all the neighborhood surrounding. However, we do need to
get a firm recommendation from the Parks Board to see what the
utilization of this property is planned for as well as City Council.
Clark: Is there anything else?
Goodereis: If we have to go to the City Council level can the Lot Split be approved at
the Planning Commission?
Pate: This project won't be held up by going to City Council. We will find out
before construction plans are released.
Hern: This condition of approval number two, as far as any trail dedication, is
there anything else if the plat stays as it is as a cul-de-sac, are there any
additional easements or dedications in regard to trails that you are asking
for?
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 55
Jumper: It looks like we would be looking for an easement for a trail there. It is on
the Master Plan. You can contact Steve Hatfield on that. He is our Trails
Coordinator. I can get you his number.
Clark: At this point I will open it to public comment. Would anyone like to speak
about PPL 05-1437 Hayes Estates? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the
Commissioners. I think doing away with the cul-de-sac and connecting to
Madison is a very good idea. I remember the discussion we had when we
did something else out here that the folks in Barrington were very
concerned about that traffic being thrown onto them. I don't remember
this Parks land so I'm not sure what we are talking about but if it could be
done feasibly and not taken away that would be a wonderful solution.
Pate:
That is our intent as well. If it is functioning as valuable property for the
Parks Department that is something that the Parks and Recreation Board
could make a finding on.
Clark: Are we talking about using the real pond as a detention pond?
Hern: Yes we are making improvements to the spillway structure of the
detention pond. We are over detaining in that pond for the site.
Clark: Ok, so you are not constructing anything, you are just going to do a
spillway into it?
Hern: Exactly.
Ostner: My concern was the access to the north and I think that has been
thoroughly discussed. I think that would be better for the neighborhood.
There is a good reason we require a waiver for a cu -de -sac of this length is
that it is not good for community so I would rather not grant that but we
will have to proceed as best we can. That is my only comment I believe.
Clark: Jeremy, is there anything interesting about the trees on this site?
Pate: Most of the trees are actually located along the western property line. It is
a large grouping of pine trees that is actually a really good buffer between
this neighborhood and the Barrington Parke neighborhood. Those are all
being preserved.
Hern: All of the utility easements will be on the front of the lot lines for that very
reason to preserve the trees along the back.
Clark: If I'm not mistaken that was another concern of the Barrington
neighborhood association.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 56
Pate:
The unique thing you see, especially with front lot service because no one
likes to see boxes sitting out there, is that you see between each lot there is
a 25' extension of that easement so it can get it off the front of the lot for
the transformers, meters, etc. to get them off there.
Clark: It sounds like to me that you have talked to the neighborhood association
because I remember hearing from them.
Ostner: That was when we considered a rezoning.
Clark: They had a lot of concern with future development and it seems like you
have met some of those.
MOTION:
Osmer: I will make a motion that we forward PPL 05-1437 with all conditions of
approval as stated.
Clark: With our wish that the connection be made if possible.
Ostner: Emphasizing condition number one that a right of way connecting to
Madison would be the ideal situation.
Graves: I will second.
Clark: I will concur. Thank you very much.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 57
Clark: Now we are going back to item number ten, LSD 05-1415 for Farmington
Branch Center.
Pate:
This property was recently rezoned from R -A to R -O, Residential Office,
to allow for this requested commercial office development proposal. It is
located on Hwy. 62 west north of the Ozark Mountain Smokehouse. The
property consists of 3.35 acres in it's entirety. 50' along the west side of
the lot exists to allow for an access easement for one single family home
to the rear of the property. It is still on this property, it is just an access
easement to that rear property that was obtained by means of a Conditional
Use request and tandem lot approval to allow for that house to exist
without frontage. This proposal is to construct a 22,275 sq.ft. professional
office development in two separate structures. The west structure contains
approximately 12,000 sq.ft. and the east almost 11,000 sq.ft. A total of 86
parking spaces are proposed. Surrounding land use and zoning is entirely
R -A with the exception of directly across the street to the west is R -O.
Most are developed with single family homes or undeveloped at this time.
Right of way to be dedicated is 55' from centerline along Hwy. 62 which
is a principal arterial. 6' sidewalks are to be constructed at the right of
way line for this principal arterial. Water and sewer shall also be extended
to serve the proposed development in compliance with ordinance
requirements. As a point of discussion, with regard to sewer, whether to
extend the public main into the property. We see developments of this
nature all the time where the main is not extended. It really depends upon
the applicant's desire if they are going to sell of these units in the future.
The way to do that would be to have separate meters, extend the main.
Much like an apartment complex, they are sometimes master metered, it
really depends upon the intent there so we are working through that with
the Engineering Division. The site has been shifted quite a bit to the west.
The original proposal was very close to the east property line which is
where most of the existing higher priority tree canopy is located. The
reason it is a higher priority is because most of the trees are actually
located on adjacent property so they are an asset to that person's property
and disturbing that canopy would be disturbing someone else's assets and
we typically see that as a higher priority type of situation. In looking at
some of the site constraints, and site development plans, we were able to
shift the building, parking, and everything to the west somewhat. There is
one entrance proposed with a left and right turn lane off of this property.
There is an existing private drive that accesses the rear property. It is a
curb cut onto Hwy. 62. You can see that dashed in there just to the west
of this property. Staff is recommending that this access to the proposed
development be combined with this access which is currently utilized by
the single family home behind this lot. We just saw the Cobb/Westphal
and Lowe's situation, staff and the Planning Commission, typically have
not been supportive of multiple access points in close proximity onto
major arterials based on access management policies and traffic situations.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 58
We find that two points of ingress and egress in this situation will
potentially create a dangerous traffic situation in the future. Though it
hasn't been shown we have discussed with the applicant potential ways to
hopefully combine these access points. I believe it is a point of contention
with the property owners. Staff is recommending that these accesses be
combined somehow so it is just one access point as opposed to two very
close. Staff is recommending forwarding this Large Scale Development to
the full Planning Commission with thirteen conditions. Originally the
recommendation was to table this item. There are several items that didn't
get addressed from Technical Plat. It is far enough long however, that I
think they can be made. It is a very quick turn around between now and
the revision deadline for Planning Commission and so we will just take a
look at it when it gets there. I think you are close enough though to get to
the Planning Commission level. I have itemized everything with regard to
that. We are recommending forwarding this with a recommendation for
approval as long as those revisions are made. Item number one, Planning
Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards. We do need
more information regarding the color of materials, some of the other
things on the actual structure to make the findings between Technical Plat
Review and Subdivision Committee, colors have changed based on the
color of the building. The Planning Commission does want to see colors
called out and a material sample board and a board also to be presented.
We do find articulation, design and structures meet the ordinance
requirements and really just need the information presented. Item two is
about the combined access point and somehow making that either at the
front of the lot or the rear of the lot to make that shared access point. Item
three is a couple of plat revisions. Items number four and five reference
the tree preservation report and the landscape report for the revisions that
have not been addressed. The tree preservation and protection report, I
think some of the calculations here have not been correctly made. I think it
is the intention to the east of the building to have a utility easement back
there.
Hennelly: Once I got in touch with the utility companies, there was some question
after Technical Plat Review of whether or not we needed a utility
easement for meters. According to the utility guys, they are telling me
they need to bring a transmission line out and set the meters off of it and
so they would in fact need an easement there.
Pate:
We worked so hard to get the building away from there and then the
easement just negates that. I would just recommend to do everything
possible to get that easement out of that area whether it is front service or
however you can work through those issues with utilities. It obviously
increases the amount of mitigation pretty substantially. At this point we
are looking at 21 trees or a little over $5,000 for mitigation calculating that
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 59
loss for easements. There are some other comments there and the same
thing with the landscape plan. That is all that I have.
O'Neal: Have you talked with the Meter Division about the location of the water
meters?
Hennelly: I think the initial comment was that the water meters should be located in
the center island in the middle of that parking lot, is that right?
O'Neal: That would be ideal.
Hennelly: That won't be a problem at all. It was just a drafting oversight.
O'Neal: Are these going to have one sewer service line for the entire structure or
are they going to have individual lines?
Hennelly: What I would prefer to do and of course, what the owner would prefer to
do in discussing this with an attorney that we get some advice from on the
horizontal property regime act, the sewer charges for each one of those
units are based off of their water usage. As Jeremy stated, we could
possibly service each building from a large single service and if they were
individually metered on water even if the property owner sold off each one
of these units, the entire compound minus their office space becomes
common grounds that they basically form a POA which would provide
them access to service if a sewer line got clogged up or something like
that, which would prevent us from having to put a sewer main extension
in. If we don't have to do that we would rather not do that. I shot the
sewer main on there to show that it was a feasible option and that we
could individually tap each unit if that is what the Engineering Department
decided need to be done.
O'Neal:
I will have to investigate that a little bit further. I think it goes back to
maintenance. I hate to put it this way, but if someone flushes something
and it causes a problem then it could cause a problem to the neighbor and
then who is to blame and who is supposed to fix it? The way that the
sewer is aligned currently it does cross the detention pond. We do not
allow easements to cross detention so that would have to be revisited. If
you do choose to do the individual sewer lines, we had discussed the east
building, tapping the existing line on the east side of the property.
However, there is a gap between the easement and the property and we
can't cross the property with the service lines so that right now is not an
option. I still feel that there needs to be a main extension.
Hennelly: You lost me on that.
O'Neal: The property to the east.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 60
Hennelly: Right, where there is an existing manhole and it makes a bend.
O'Neal: There is a gap along that property line between the sewer easement and
the property line and we can't cross that with a service line.
Hennelly: I would not have intended on serving those from that line, I would have
served from the 12" line. Probably if water and sewer was agreeable with
a manhole or tapping the line one way or the other, but I intended on using
a 12" line to service those buildings whether we used a main or individual
services.
O'Neal:
We will just have to look at that on the next revision. I will investigate the
horizontal property regime requirements a little bit closer. The only other
comment I had was to label the width of the sidewalk. Thank you.
Clark: We will now entertain public comment on LSD 05-1415 Farmington
Branch. Please come forward and state your name.
Feinstein: My name is Andy Feinstein, I am a friend of the Wilkes who are the
neighbors directly to the north of this project and who have the 50'
easement on the west side of this proposed development. Most of the
items I have are technical in nature that can be worked through. The first
one is the nature of the original tract was that it was split off and the
Wilkes retained the property to the north and this project is now on the
portion that was split away. Their water service crosses directly through
the middle of this entire tract. There is a meter about where their entrance
way is on Hwy. 62 that apparently doesn't show on these plans, but I
would assume that there is a prescriptive easement on that service line and
would have to be relocated. I am sure that they can arrange something
with the city as to where to put that new meter either with the new bank in
the central island or some mutually agreeable place, perhaps on this new
easement being proposed on the west. Another thing that caught my eye
was storm drainage. Apparently the detention pond is going to outfall to
the north and have a situation where there will be concentrated flow
crossing a portion of the Wilkes property before it reaches Farmington
Branch. They maintain that portion of their yard and would like to mow
that and are a little concerned that after a water event that it might impact
their ability to get in there and mow that. They would be willing to grant a
drainage easement if you would go ahead and pipe it to the branch and
replace the wall along that side of the channel. The plan I think I saw
showed grading down to the driveway edge which is not an issue of itself
but we haven't seen any building elevations. I am assuming you are going
to have some downspouts coming off that side of the building?
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 61
Hennelly: No Sir. We will need to direct all that runoff from the buildings to the
parking lots so it is routed to the detention pond.
Feinstein: That would be great. They have asked though that if on your final grading
you could leave them a little ditch on their driveway so that what is
coming off your fill bank doesn't wash across their driveway. They would
be willing to go ahead and take out that barbed wire fence after your
construction is done and do a little fine grading down through there. I
guess they also have concerns about burying a power line on the west side.
Is that going to stay in the easement?
Hennelly: It will stay in the easement but it will go underground.
Feinstein: As long as it doesn't tear up the driveway there shouldn't be a concern
with that. I guess there is some concern about construction traffic. Do you
anticipate any construction traffic coming on their driveway at all?
Clark:
We will make a list of your questions and answer them when you are
done. Otherwise, I am going to encourage you to get together with the
Wilkes and have this dialogue.
Feinstein: We just want to be sure that they can get in and out of their place. We
understand that during sidewalk construction there will be some closure
there. The other concern I guess was visual screening along their common
line there, your north line. Does the plan call for fencing or just a tree
screening?
Hennelly: Just a tree screening right now. Understanding that in the wintertime
those aren't all evergreens.
Feinstein: We wondered if we could do anything better than common cedars for
those. That is basically all I have. I think we can work through all of this.
Wilkes: I'm Gretchen Wilkes, the property owner. Relating to the existing trees on
our south side, your north, those Persimmon trees are basically dead.
There really are no trees along that line. They have been falling down for
years. My husband was told by someone on staff when this issue first
came up that there would be a fence and there would be trees so we
wouldn't know that that complex is there so we have been told that
initially. As it relates to a shared driveway, we are adamantly opposed to
that. We are really not trying to be difficult here but this is our home. We
have a lot of time and energy and money invested in this place and we are
really concerned with preserving that. I feel like if we have to share a
driveway with a business that that is really going to detract from our
property value in a long run. I mean if somebody who might buy this
house, they are not going to want to enter through someone else's parking
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 62
lot to get to their home and their driveway. In the beginning when Mr.
Slinkard met with my husband and I he assured us in no uncertain terms
we could have our driveway, that wouldn't be disturbed at all. I really am
opposed to sharing that curb cut. I can see trying to get in and out of our
driveway with people entering and leaving a business. I don't think
anybody here would want to do that and I can tell you that we certainly do
not. I hope that you will really take that into consideration. Thank you.
Clark: Is there any other member of the public? Seeing none, we will bring it
back to the Commission. We will start with screening.
Pate: This is a non residential use adjacent to residential uses which does require
at least a vegetative screen. In the landscape report I recommended a little
more variety and the facing of the screening. There is screening required
to the west, north and east. The east is relatively well screened and
planting there would not really do much. To the north I think you could
utilize some. There are some trees shown on this property, there are
several birch trees, oak trees and elm trees identified in the preservation
plan that are being preserved and then some vegetative screening elements
put there as well. Of course, on the west side as well I recommended a
little better spacing to have an adequate screening in that location.
Clark: Are you in agreement with all of that?
Hennelly: Yes.
Clark: Ms. Wilkes wants to see your landscape plan, come talk to Jeremy, he is
our Landscape Administrator. What about the shared driveway? I think
that is possibly our biggest issue.
Myres: On the one hand I can certainly see the concern with safety and the
number of cars entering and leaving the highway and the possible conflict
of those two being too close to one another. On the other hand, I really
would like to see the Wilkes be able to maintain their own entry way to
their property. I don't really know what an equitable solution might be.
Would any good be served by moving the entrance to the office complex
further east to create a greater distance between the entrances?
Ostner: That is something that I wanted to talk about anyway. If I could change
that topic for a second. I believe this ingress/egress where you
immediately hammerhead and have to left or right with the danger on this
street, leaving that discussion separate, I would love that ingress to either
be one or the other. I could easily foresee someone trying to enter this
establishment and stacking blocking their way. Even if it is just one guy. I
know that is not proper but people tend to drive poorly sometimes.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 63
Hennelly:
If we were to shift that entrance to the east and line it up with this east
drive we would be accomplishing more separation from that driveway,
keeping in mind, I can understand the Wilkes' concern. I wouldn't want
to be driving through a parking lot either to get to my house and they do
have a dedicated 50' access easement and it wasn't their choice that
somebody decided to develop this property. I can't see where it would
serve anybody any benefit to really penalize them by forcing them to go
through the driveway. Shifting that over to the east might work out as a
better layout as you pointed out.
Clark: Is there still an issue with two curb cuts Jeremy?
Pate:
Looking at any property that you look at with a development, especially
on arterial streets. You obviously want quite a bit of separation. The
Overlay District requires 200' of separation. This is not in the Overlay
District. I think the minimum is 60' for separation in this, which I believe
this meets. Shifting it further would obviously, be a safer situation.
Honestly, it is going to be more dangerous for the person pulling out of the
driveway because there is going to be more traffic volume here for
visibility. The other component that I didn't mention of trying to get an
access over toward the west, and I was more looking at the front
somehow, a driveway access. Would to be provide potentially should this
property ever develop, we are seeing a lot of rezonings in this area, it
would provide an additional cross access point to allow cross access
between developments if this property ever develops in the future.
Clark: Are you talking about further to the west?
Pate: No, not the actual drive. I was thinking more of finding some sort of
common ground here in the middle so that the Wilkes would not have to
drive through the parking lot but could simply enter the same entrance and
then go onto their existing driveway here along the front. I haven't tried to
sketch anything out to investigate if that option is feasible or not.
Clark: I see what you are saying. This entrance would be further down here, they
would just cut across and then up that way.
Pate: Right, then this would also provide a means of if this property develops in
five years, based on the rate we are seeing in Fayetteville, if that were
rezoned to R -O and developed as well, it would allow for cross access
without someone here in this building having to get out onto Hwy. 62 and
drive to the next property over. It is a little bit challenging on the property
to the east because of the tree line and the canopy there. Those are the
other considerations that we had in trying to recommend that consistently.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 64
Hennelly: That property to the east, that guy has been having fill dirt dumped in
there and it is probably 8' higher than this property is.
Clark:
Pate:
I think that we are all in agreement that the configuration now is a
potentially dangerous situation and we are in agreement that the Wilkes
shouldn't have to drive through the whole development to go home. You
don't want to table this right?
Our recommendation is to forward it on. If more investigation needs to
occur to come back to this level to see if some compromise can be worked
out. It depends on your feelings about that as well, your advice to the
applicant. Our recommendation is that needs to be some sort of shared
access point which would allow eventually for future cross access.
Graves: Even if the idea of shifting this hadn't come up or anything, I don't know
that I would be comfortable with forwarding it to the full Planning
Commission without more information on the elevations and more
information on addressing the tree preservation, landscape and
engineering issues that have been raised today. I have seen situations with
the full Planning Commission where we have to go through those details
at the first time at the Planning Commission meeting and it is easier to go
through here first and then it is smoother at the Planning Commission
level at that point.
Clark:
I would feel more comfortable tabling this so that you can talk to the
Wilkes, iron out those details and bring it back to us in two weeks. I think
you can easily make that deadline. I know we are slowing you down a
little bit but I think it will be much cleaner sailing at Planning
Commission.
Hennelly: I do, in a sense, agree with you. However, Mr. Slinkard who owns the
property that we are working for did check with the Wilkes and we just
heard Mrs. Wilkes talk. It sounds like to me that they are absolute about
crossing this property in a manner and I'm not sure any further discussion
would change that situation.
Clark: That would give you the option of moving further to the east as I
suggested.
Graves: Just the commercial design issue alone if we are seeing the elevations at
the very first time at Planning Commission level can bog things down so
much.
Hennelly: I can understand that. The Engineering issues and the Tree Preservation
issues I think can be resolved during construction plan review. Tree
preservation, Mr. Slinkard is committed to doing this. If we have made an
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 65
error in the calculations on the canopy we don't have any problem with
correcting that and mitigating for it whether it is with money or trees. The
elevations of course, we didn't create them, we didn't generate the
drawings and am not even sure what the status of those are so I can
understand your concern on that.
Clark: I think this is stuff that you all can hammer out by the next meeting but I
think Commissioner Graves is right.
Ostner: It might seem like you are being penalized at first but I assure you if you
come back here things are going to work better for you.
Hennelly: I don't feel like we are being penalized. I just feel like everything that H2
Engineering has control over we can revise to your satisfaction and
provide revised plats prior to Planning Commission that address all of the
conditions. As far as the building elevations I can't say.
Ostner: For the Planning Commission to see those for the first time is a lot
different than seeing them here first.
Clark: I would like them to come to Subdivision first so we can talk to you.
Ostner: There is a lot of Committee work to be done yet and Monday night is a
poor night for Committee work. Applicant suffer because we push
Committee work onto Monday nights. I have a few questions. Did some
of Mr. Feinstein's requests seem amenable talking about a ditch along
their access easement?
Hennelly: That shouldn't be any problem. That is a minimal amount of runoff, we
are only talking about 20' of runoff that is headed in that direction so that
will certainly be able to be accomplished and will add that to the notes on
the grading plans.
Clark: It sounds like you are agreeing on a lot of things except for the access.
Hennelly: We are not disagreeing with the access. If I could provide something that
the Wilkes were agreeable with I would be happy to do it. It is out of my
control.
Ostner: I think where I would fall really, I don't think I've ever said this because
I'm a big believer in access management, I think the vehicle trips per day
coming out of a single family residential home (10) and vehicle trips per
day is going to be 100 for this thing. I think there is a big difference. I
would never want to let two businesses have curb cuts this close. A home
having an access easement and a business, I think Ms. Wilkes said it, she
is the one who is going to have to dodge the business drivers but the
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 66
Pate:
business drivers are not going to have to dodge them. I don't think it is fair
to require a home owner to adapt their frontage that they have legal right
to for our access management. If this were a business that were built solid
and couldn't require cross access, we would never require Mr. Hennelly to
do a potential stub out because that building was already built. I see this
access easement as a building that is built and cross access is a great idea
and we have to put it everywhere we can and I don't think we can do it
here.
I guess that is where I would disagree a little bit because this is part of the
property. This is not the Wilkes' property. This is part of the development
that this developer is constructing. The Wilkes were required to have an
access easement to allow them to have a tandem lot without any frontage
as a variance in zoning requirements. The legal description of this
property encompasses this specific piece of property.
Ostner: They have different rights along that access easement. They have rights of
access easement. They did not forfeit those rights with this development.
Pate: No, they are required to have those rights in order to split this lot out to
sell.
Ostner: In a way, even though the property is delineated the same, the rights of
this access easement are in essence, a type of wall. They don't have to
allow certain things. It is an access easement. I see what you are saying.
Pate:
Clark:
Ultimately it is the Planning Commission's decision. If that is the way
you go if you want to move it to the east and allow the existing access to
remain, it is your decision. I understand your point about 10 vehicle trips
per day is a lot less than if a business were located back on this property.
I think your entrance has to change somehow to allow for the problems
that were discussed and you need to keep the Wilkes entrance and exit in
mind when you do that. I want to skip ahead to Travis' memo about the
dumpster. Where is it and are you going to make the pad bigger?
Hennelly: Yes.
Clark: I am still of the mind that this needs to be tabled so that we can see a
revised everything so it is all clear to us and we can send you onto
Planning Commission confidently.
Hennelly: Could this be approved at the next Subdivision Committee or does it have
to be approved at Planning Commission?
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 67
Pate: It looks like there are no waiver requests so it could possibly be approved
at the next Subdivision Committee.
MOTION:
Clark: I will make the motion that we table this to the next Subdivision
Committee meeting pending all of the modifications and elevations, etc.
Ostner: I will second.
Graves: I will concur.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 68
Clark: The next item on the agenda is LSD 05-1384 for Creekside Plaza. Would
the applicant come forward please?
Myres: I am going to excuse myself.
Clark: Can we have the staff report please?
Pate: This Commission saw this project before back in September, 2004. A
Conditional Use was granted by the Planning Commission to allow for a
mini storage (Use Unit 21) on the C-2 zoned property. There were certain
conditions of approval, which I have attached in your staff report. The
proposal before you is the Large Scale Development for that use and the
retail use that will be screened from the storage units in the front. It is
very similar to what you saw with the Conditional Use request. There are
some changes in building configuration and just meeting ordinance
requirements with landscaping and parking but otherwise, it is relatively
similar. The property is located at the northeast comer of Huntsville Road
and Crossover (Hwy. 16 and Hwy 265). It does sort of wrap around the
existing service station there. It has street frontage and access from both of
these principal arterial streets. The western portion of the site is
encompassed by floodplain and floodway with the drainage improvements
that were installed there several years ago. Some drainage improvements
with this development will also be installed to meet our ordinance
requirements. The site does not have a lot of tree canopy. The
percentages are 14%, almost all of which is located on the east and north
side. You will notice that parts of the development are encroaching into
the tree canopy, which we typically do not allow to count for preserved.
However, in visiting the site and walking this entire perimeter with the
applicant, these trees are about 4' to 8' in some cases, above the actual
grade of this entire lot. Their root zones are well above any disturbance
that is occurring on this property. Therefore, even though canopy
overhangs it is really not going to disturb the trees whatsoever. There will
be some root pruning needed and there are a few trees that will have to be
removed that are on the bottom of the slope but otherwise, it does not look
like it will impede any of those trees' ability to continue to grow. The
2.53 acre tract is proposed to have a mixture of uses with commercial,
office retail type uses located in Building A and Building B and mini
storage units in three buildings behind those units to be screened by the
retail uses. Controlled access to the storage units is typically a
requirement of the mini storage units and that access is located off of
Crossover Road. The office and drive thru service window that you
typically see with these types of uses is proposed at the north end of
Building "A". Access to the other side of the property to Building "B" is a
line to cross from the Glass/Hill Carwash access. I think we spoke about
that earlier and one of the conditions of approval here is that they just
continue to work with the developer and ensure that those are directly
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 69
across from each other to ensure a safe traffic pattern there. The proposed
mini storage is in three buildings with almost 17,000 sq.ft. On site parking
is provided to meet the parking demands generated by the office and
commercial uses as well as any of those varying intermittent demands
generated by mini storage uses, which typically have very low traffic
volumes and are sporadic at that. Water is currently available at this site.
Sewer is being extended from the northeast corner. A sewer main is to be
extended to the property. Existing canopy is 14.3%. The proposed
canopy is 12.2% with mitigation of six trees to be planted on site. Most of
which can be utilized as screening. This is, again, a non residential use
adjacent to residential uses. Again, we walked this site and determined
some areas where screening would be appropriate and some where
visibility is not really that big of an issue because of the existing canopy.
Another condition of approval is that the proposed non residential use
shall be screened as generally indicated from adjacent residential uses
subject to the approval of the Landscape Administrator. A combination of
fence and vegetation. Staff is recommending approval of this Large Scale
Development at the Subdivision Committee level. There are no waivers or
variance requests of this item. Condition of approval number one,
Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards.
The applicant has brought in some of the elevations. Staff finds that the
elevations and material sample photos presented meet the design standards
and fulfill the requirements of the Conditional Use request as approved by
the Planning Commission. These same elevations were essentially
presented to the Planning Commission as part of the Conditional Use and
we discussed those in some detail at that point as well. Item number two
references one of the conditions of approval, of course, staff went through
the Conditional Use conditions and made sure that everything was
compliant. The applicant shall revise the elevations for the western most
mini storage building, which would be in this area here, the most western
mini storage. There is quite a bit of visibility through the gas station area
from the right of way. As you know there is some fence screening and
vegetative screening, but as part of the Conditional Use request, the sides
of those buildings need to be either dryvit or brick as opposed to a metal
structure. I have mentioned pretty much all of the conditions unless you
have questions. Just to let you know, the conditions of approval of the
Conditional Use are also located in your packet if you have any questions
or want to go over those. We are recommending approval at this level.
Jumper: I would just like to note that there is a trail corridor on our Trails Master
Plan in this area and you should contact Steve Hatfield. I don't know if he
has studied it further to see if the exact location is on this property.
Ostner: How would that be coordinated if there were a trail called out?
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 70
Jumper: I believe the trail is shown along the drainage but I'm not sure if that has
been studied further. It may be that it might be safer in a different location
as far as crossing Hwy. 265.
Clark: It is certainly not a trail now though?
Jumper: No.
Pate: It is much like our Master Street Plan. It is a line on a map and we have to
determine the best feasible way to get it in the right location.
Clark: Thank you. Is there anything else?
O'Neal:
Pate:
If you could submit in the future on full size. It is very difficult to read
some of the information. Also, I need to have you confirm curb radii on
curb cuts, I believe the one onto Hwy 265 is below our minimum. If you
could label the proposed sewer pump station and the force main as private
and also, show any service lines. On the grading plan we need to see the
items from the grading plan checklist. Also, this is a new layout than what
we saw previously with the large drain pipes and we may need a larger
easement than normal to allow for excavation of those pipes if it becomes
necessary. That is just something that you will have to investigate a little
bit further. I am not sure if you have shown the water surfaces. If you
would please show those and label the sizes. Show where the meter
locations will be. Show the sidewalks continuous through the drives by
just removing the lines along the curve radii. I believe those are all of my
comments.
This is a miscommunication in the staff here. We are actually trying to get
applicants to submit 11x17 so you have room to look at them. I did
request full size copies so I should've got those to Engineering. I do
apologize for that.
Clark: Will you introduce yourself and tell us about your project?
Keener: I'm Ronnie Keener with Hawkins Weir Engineers. We are out of Van
Buren. I would like to commend Jeremy and the Engineering staff for
working with us and meeting on the site to work through some of the
initial comments. They were very helpful. I don't have anything else to
add from what Jeremy has already gone over. I'm open answer any
questions that you might have.
Clark:
I am going to open it up to public comment now. Is there anyone who
would like to comment on LSD 05-1384 Creekside Plaza? Seeing none, I
will bring it back to the Commissioners. We need to look at the
Commercial Design Standards first and foremost.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 71
Pate: These are essentially the drawings that you saw at the Planning
Commission with the Conditional Use request.
Keener: It will be brick for access and then dryvit. The very backs which will not
be from public view will be metal and have a metal roof. It will pretty
well be a fixed glass frontage.
Ostner: Condition number two, Mr. Pate mentioned revising the elevations for the
western most mini storage.
Pate:
Clark:
Pate:
I noticed in the bottom corner it used to say brick and it has been erased.
That is really what we are looking for, either a brick or E.I.F.S. structure
there. It was not erased when it was presented at the Planning
Commission with the Conditional Use so I just want to make sure that it
has not become a metal structure facing the street.
Are we certain the east elevation from Building A will not be visible? As
I turn that corner every day there is not a lot of vegetation across that part
of that creek at all down from the service station. I'm thinking that you
are going to be able to see it coming down Hwy. 16. I can almost promise
you that will raise concerns on Commercial Design Standards. There is
nothing here. You have walked it, am I putting this building too far
forward?
If you just kind of take yourself through here and with a new office
building here, a commercial building, you wouldn't be able to see
anything. At this point crossing the creek would be the biggest chance.
There is a fence proposed in this location with some trees and shrubs. If
you look at your landscape plan you can note where those are located as
well.
Clark: The south elevation also gives me some concern but there is some
differentiation there.
Pate: I think the south elevation would be more visible than anything. The rear
elevation with these new structures in there would be pretty difficult. The
south elevation I believe is brick and dryvit. If you want more articulation
on that surface and you are looking to approve it at this level, now is the
time to ask, or if you want to forward it on to have the full Planning
Commission look.
Ostner: It is that south elevation that is concerning me because I can see this being
pretty prominent. As you said, there is nothing blocking that southern
elevation from a large view. I appreciate that it is brick but I think it could
use some help. I wish Commissioner Myres were here. She seems to
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 72
have the touch. She knows how to say it and how to do it. I wish your
architect were here. I hate to hold you all up because of this.
Clark: I think that the front elevation is very well articulated and it is a stark
contrast to the south elevation. I think it is going to be very visible from a
lot of traffic that is headed north of Crossover.
Pate:
Is there anything that you can commit to at this point as far as architectural
elevations, potentially bump outs in the brick so it would create some sort
of relief?
Keener: I think the owner is very willing to do whatever. We are not just adamant
about this. If we need something to better articulate it we can look at that.
Clark: It needs something to better articulate it and make it not look like a flat
surface.
Ostner: This is something that we asked of Hanks Furniture a year ago and they
were just here earlier. If that elevation could have a fake gable, just a little
something breaking that line and maybe another vertical column or
something to match that left side. For me, if you could commit to that I
could be happy.
Keener: Yes we will. I know the owner gave me some latitude to get it approved.
He is very anxious and wants to comply with the wishes of the
Commission.
Clark: Jeremy, how would we articulate that in the condition?
Pate:
Clark:
We have the minutes. With the condition, I would say in your Planning
Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards, you would
just add to that the Commission finds that the south elevation of Building
"A" shall be further articulated with a false gable of some sort to match
the fronts of the office building as well as with a vertical element with a
same or similar color to add some relief to that structure.
I'm not even opposed to giving you an option of the gable or the extended
awnings, those look very nice as well. I wouldn't have a problem with
either of those. Just something to break it up.
Ostner: It is almost a false front that would be amenable.
Clark: If you all can do that I would be happy to approve this at the Subdivision
level.
Keener: I am in agreement.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 73
Pate: Staff can work with them to ensure that we get where we need to be.
Clark: Is there anything else gentlemen?
Ostner: On the westernmost mini storage building, we already talked about that
that this elevation just needs to be either brick or E.I.F.S. or something not
metal, that satisfies condition number two.
Clark:
We have a comment from Solid Waste that the pad dimensions are
reversed. The pad needs to be 15' wide by 10' to 12' deep so if you will
make that adjustment Travis will be a happy man. I will make a motion
that we approve LSD 05-1384, Creekside Plaza, with the conditions stated
the special note to Commercial Design Standards on the south elevation.
Graves: I will second.
Ostner: I will concur.
Clark: We are in agreement.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 74
Clark: The next item on the agenda is LSD 04-1360 for Mailco.
Morgan: Several months ago the applicant applied for a Large Scale Development.
Planning Staff met with the applicant previously regarding this
development. At the time this development proposal was taken to Tech.
Plat Review we realized that the proposed development was encroaching
the RSF-4 zoning of the property. Subsequently, the applicant brought
forward a rezoning request to rezone the rest of the property that was
zoned RSF-4 to C-2. That was heard by the Planning Commission and
they voted 9-0-0 to forward that rezoning request to the City Council with
a recommendation for approval. City Council did approve that rezoning
request on March 15, 2005. No action however, may be taken on the
requested Large Scale Development for 30 days from the date that the
rezoning was approved and the ordinance becomes ratified. Therefore,
this item may not proceed to the April 11, 2005 Planning Commission
meeting if you choose to forward this item. We would need to place it on
the April 25, 2005 agenda provided that all revisions and requested items
have been submitted. The subject property consists of 4.02 acres located
east of School Avenue south of the on ramp to Fulbright Expressway.
There is a floodway and associated 100 -year floodplain extended along the
northern property line of this property. The proposal is that the applicant
proposes to construct a 13,000 sq.ft. postal establishment for Mailco (Use
Unit 8) and approximately 30% of the structure will be utilized for sales
offices and the remainder will be utilized for packaging and sorting mail.
A total of 37 parking spaces are proposed with two bike racks.
Surrounding land use consist of single family residential uses as well as
commercial uses adjacent to School Avenue. Right of way being
dedicated for this property include right of way for a total of 55' from
centerline along School Avenue, a principal arterial, and that will need to
be done by Warranty Deed prior to the issuance of building permits. With
regard to street improvements, staff is recommending construction of a 6'
sidewalk at the right of way line adjacent to the subject property as well as
installation of street lights in compliance with the ordinance. The site plan
reflects those requirements. This property is located in the Design
Overlay District and we make certain findings and look at certain criteria
for that. With regard to greenspace, the applicant is providing 25'
greenspace along all rights of way. As for the signage, at this time we
haven't seen any proposed signage. I know that a monument sign was
shown on the previous plan and I couldn't locate it on the revisions so that
will just need to be called out. Sign permits are required for any signage
and we will ensure that they meet Design Overlay District requirements
for those. With regard to curb cuts, two are being proposed. No shared
access is proposed. Property to the south is developed and there is a creek
along the north property which may preclude cross access. The distance
between the two proposed curb cuts and the curb cut to the south are less
than 200'. That would require a waiver and that is addressed in condition
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 75
number six of the conditions of approval. Staff is recommending approval
of the requested waiver for the distance between curb cuts. The type and
amount of traffic generated by this business will warrant the need for two
curb cuts along School Avenue and the proposed distances between the
proposed and adjacent curb cuts is uniform and adequate. It is
approximately 160' between the two proposed curb cuts and 135' between
the southern most curb cut and the curb cut located to the south on
adjacent property. A note has been indicated on the plat to state
compliance with lighting within the Design Overlay District. With regard
to exterior appearance, elevations have been submitted for all four sides of
the building and I will discuss a little more about staff's recommendation
and determination of Commercial Design Standards in a moment. With
regard to building materials, a sample board has not been submitted for
review. I was told that we will see one today. The elevations do show that
the building materials are to be a gray split faced block, beige, stucco,
black, brick and metal. The applicant is compliant with site coverage and
outdoor storage are not applicable for you. Pedestrian access is being
provided from the street to the entrance by way of a sidewalk and two bike
racks are required and will be provided. With regard to staff's
recommendation for this project, at this time we recommend that the Large
Scale be forwarded to the Planning Commission at a meeting date after
April 15, 2005 with a total of 16 conditions to be addressed. Some of
those include some modifications to the site plan listed in condition
number seven. Condition number two states Planning Commission
determination of Commercial Design Standards and Design Overlay
District design standards. Staff does find that the proposed elevations do
not meet the ordinance requirements for design elements specifically with
regard to minimizing unpainted precision block walls, square box like
structures, large, blank unarticulated wall surfaces and the Design Overlay
District requirement for building materials of wood, masonry or natural
looking materials. It is also stated that additionally, no structure shall be
allowed to have metal sidewalls unless such metal siding is of an
appearance similar to wood, masonry or natural looking materials. I
included after the conditions of approval Design Overlay District
requirements and on that last page it talks about exterior appearance and
building materials if you want to take a look at the Code with regard to
that. Prior to Planning Commission consideration, if you feel you need to
see it at this meeting we will need to have a materials sample board so if
you want to see that here you should just table it.
Clark: Is there any other staff comment?
O'Neal: If you would show the sidewalks continuous through the drives just by
removing the line through the curb radius. Also, if you could clarify the
sewer connection line, it looks like it dead ends to the water line instead of
connecting to the sewer main. Also, if you could show the location of the
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 76
Clark:
Clark, S.:
Clark:
Clark, S.:
Pate:
water meters. I believe you are also proposing irrigation. If you could
complete the items on the grading plan checklist.
Having no other staff comment, are there any comments from the public
on LSD 04-1360, Mailco? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the
Commission.
I have no real presentation prepared. I think we discussed Mailco before
the Planning Commission when we came forward for the Rezoning. We
are here now for the Large Scale. Many of the issues that Suzanne
brought up as far as the architectural details, the architect was supposed to
have a materials board ready, I got word from him yesterday that he did
not. If you guys want to see that, we are prepared to be tabled until the
next meeting. I would be happy to address any items that we have today
to discuss. Hopefully next time we will come back as old business and I
won't have to wait until 12:30.
I agree with the Design Overlay issues. Especially the south elevation,
even though it is brick it is very articulated. Is there going to be any
screening to the south?
It is commercial property to the south also. I think some of the articulation
is in the building walls themselves. I am not prepared to address
architectural issues. The strict elevations it does appear rather box like but
if you look at the front with the projections I don't think it is quite as boxy
as it might first appear.
I think three dimensional drawings do help with showing at least what
portion of the building have been massaged for their uses. There are pretty
strict guidelines in the Design Overlay District. You have to understand
that when you are developing a property within that Design Overlay
District. We have had hours of conversation with regard to metal
sidewalls in the Design Overlay District. Metro Collision on McConnell
with the metal garage doors was a big conversation. I just wanted to stress
the importance of that and the east elevation is primarily metal. If it is
metal it needs to look like it is not metal, like a natural looking material.
Clark, S.: The eastern elevation is the back of the building which is not visible from
the street.
Pate: The north elevation, there is a pretty blank, unarticulated wall surface
there with the split face and again, some of the items are directly in
violation of those DOD requirements. I think probably a lot of that reason
is the very nature of the building. We have been purvey to the discussion
that we went back and forth for a while about whether this was an
industrial type of use. We eventually determined that it is applicable and
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 77
Clark:
Graves:
Pate:
used as a commercial use in this instance because of what they actually do.
It is not the huge industrial type of use that mail sorting sounds like. We
just want to make sure that it does meet the DOD requirements regardless
of the type of use.
I can see that a materials board would also help us with this. I would not
be opposed to tabling this.
It seems to me in light of what we did on the Farmington Branch one a
while ago, and there is not a time press either so I think we should table it.
I agree. What I would not want to happen is we wait two weeks and
nothing happens and you come back and say we need to do this now and
so you have to come back. I guess if there is any direction.
Ostner: On that note, the west elevation is my biggest concern because it faces the
right of way. I would call these three panels large, unarticulated walls.
Even though the sign is stuck on this center panel with brick they need
more articulation. This stucco panel, brick panel and split faced concrete
masonry.
Clark: Banding, lights, there are all kinds of options.
Ostner: If hints for what happens in two weeks is what we are after, that is my
biggest concern. The Commercial Design Standards and Design Overlay
District do make a little bit of difference. If this were not in the DOD we
would only be dealing with the facade. In the DOD, as I understand it, we
do look at all sides of the building to some extent and no metal sidewalls
even on the back the way I understand it so that needs to be removed.
Clark:
I think the north elevation has the same issue. You have some windows
back there but I really think more can be done with it and more can be
done with the east elevation. I still have some concerns about the south
simply because you are going to see that as Hwy. 71. It might be
something you could just encompass if your architect gets an idea for the
whole building to articulate the building and give it a continuing theme. I
don't have a problem with the curb cuts. I think the waiver is appropriate
and called for in this case. I am not anticipating that being an issue.
Ostner: I understand staff's reasoning that since big trucks and not industrial but
heavy commercial will be going on here that more than one curb cut could
be justified.
Clark: I think the proximity to the I-540 entrance also justifies that.
Ostner: That has nothing to do with curb cuts.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 78
Clark: No, but in terms of traffic flow and safety I think it does.
Ostner: I am not questioning the usage. I could see this working fine with one
curb cut really. You have got a good circulation around the building.
Hwy. 71 isn't as intense and hectic here as it is in other parts of town so I
think gee, two curb cuts isn't a big deal, but development is happening and
these curb cuts that are too close to each other can get problematic in the
future.
Clark, S.:
The biggest issue I have with it is the trucks. It is not heavy truck traffic
but there is limited truck traffic that will be coming through here. Most of
it will be UPS size trucks but the issue is by having two curb cuts the truck
traffic will come in one size and go out the other side and we eliminate or
minimize the cross traffic through the pedestrian area with the larger
trucks. If we only have a single drive that means the trucks make a loop
and then come back and cross through the pedestrian area. I think it is
much better suited to have a second drive for that reason.
Graves: 1 don't have a problem with the two curb cuts.
Ostner: That is good reasoning.
Clark, S.: We went back and forth on that issue and I just really didn't want to take
the truck traffic through the pedestrian area.
Clark: I just want to make sure that this applicant doesn't run into a road block
when they come back that we are not anticipating.
Clark, S.:
As far as unarticulated walls, one of the issues is I have driven in front of
the restaurants that are in front of CMN and you look at many of those,
Logan's and some of the other ones really are sort of boxy. The only
relief that they have are the awnings on the front. If we hang a few
awnings, is that going to sufficiently break up the articulation?
Graves: Whenever I think of box like I think of it less of whether this is a square or
not, I think of it whenever it has square comers and a flat roof. To me that
looks boxlike no matter how many relieves you put on it.
Clark, S.:
Whenever you have something that is a large commercial operation like
this one is it does tend to be built either square or rectangle and it does
become a little bit boxy.
Graves: I think the walls are important but I am thinking of some other type of
relief along the roofline.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 79
Ostner: The gable that we just talked about with Creekside Plaza, something to
break this line up.
Graves: I know this is not a box, this is not a square and I can appreciate that with
the three dimensional look at it. It is still a flat roof and square corners.
Clark: If we did something that broke up the roofline?
Graves: I think the walls are important too but it doesn't matter what you do to the
walls if it is a flat roof like that. I think both elements.
Clark: I think you have a lot of grounds to tell your architect that he should've
been here today.
Graves: I think a lot of the restaurants that you are referring to have more than
awnings, they have a broken up roof line too, they don't have a flat roof
on them.
Clark, S.: I will have Ken here to argue his case and will pass these comments onto
him.
Ostner: He can get this from our staff. It is not a big secret the things that we like
to approve.
Morgan: We met with Josh yesterday.
MOTION:
Clark: I will make a motion to table this to the next Subdivision Committee.
Ostner: I will second the motion to table.
Graves: I will concur.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 80
Clark: The last bit of business is PPL 05-1431 for Lewis and Wedington.
Pate:
This property is located northwest of Wedington Avenue and Lewis
Street. Lewis leads to the soccer field complex area on the north side of
Wedington. The property is currently zoned RSF-4 and contains
approximately a little over four acres. The request is to approve a
residential subdivision with 17 lots and 16 single family homes proposed.
I think that it has changed since the last submittal in your description. It is
surrounded by established single family residential neighborhoods so
essentially it is an infill development. Directly adjacent to the south is
Wedington Avenue which is a four lane state highway. Obviously, that is
a primary factor in the design decisions of this property. This area has
seen recent drainage and street improvements by the City of Fayetteville.
The overall area has historically been prone to some flooding and drainage
issues. Some of which were exasperated by the four lane of the highway
when the State put that road in. Hopefully those were aided by the
drainage improvements in this area. Water and sewer lines exist on Lewis
Street and will be extended into the property to serve the development.
Adjacent Master Street Plan streets are Wedington, which is a principal
arterial and Lewis Street, a local street. Those require 25' of right of way
along Lewis and 55' of right of way along Wedington. One interior street
is proposed. In initial looks at this site with the design decisions, as I
mentioned, Wedington is obviously, high volume traffic street. Initial
concepts called for another curb cut onto Wedington. Staff was not really
supportive of that because of it's close proximity to Lewis and we worked
with the applicant to try to come up with some sort of alternative to that
which hopefully is received well here. The system of street layout is
essentially within a 40' right of way a 24' wide street will be constructed
with a hammerhead turn around that does meet current code requirements
for turn around there. Some response to some of the Commissioners
comments regarding lots backing onto arterials and collectors, we have an
applicant who has looked at a potential alternative to that. Lots 8 through
13 will front either onto Wedington or Lewis and will have rear alley
access within our current Master Street Plan rights of way, a 20' right of
way on the alley and a 16' wide alley. I know it is not a standard
development and I just want to commend the developers for looking at an
alternative to hopefully create a good subdivision neighborhood within
this existing neighborhood. One of the larger issues you will see on your
tree preservation, existing is 73% canopy. There is a lot of canopy. Most
of which is probably in the 4" to 15" range in caliper size. They are not
significant trees. They are significant in the fact that they are all grouped
together and probably one of the last larger stands in this neighborhood.
Although, succession has occurred and you have seen more tree growth.
The proposal is to preserve, you will note on the plans that you have a
lower percentage, preserved I have at 19%, the requirement is 25%. On
site mitigation therefore, would be 39 trees. I think all of which could be
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 81
planted along Wedington, Lewis or interior streets in a relatively easy
manner. Staff is recommending forwarding this Preliminary Plat to the
full Planning Commission with 13 conditions of approval. Planning
Commission determination of street improvements. Staff is
recommending the widening of Lewis Street, 14' from centerline with the
typical street improvements including curb cut, pavement, sidewalk and
street lights. Staff does recommend construction of a sidewalk at the right
of way line. That will need to be revised. They are showing a 6' sidewalk
along Lewis, which is a local street, I believe that can be reduced to a 4'
unless we are working on a trail or something that I am not aware of. For
those lots with access from the interior alleys, curb cuts shall not be
allowed onto other streets and lot one shall access from the interior street,
not Lewis. Lot 4 shall be labeled as an unbuildable lot utilized for the
purpose of storm water detention, maintained by the POA and a note does
need to be included for those purposes. I will let Allison go over park
land. A minimum of 39 2" caliper trees do need to be planted on site.
That is my recommendation unless the developer would like to do
otherwise. I truly believe that you can get all of these trees on site with
cost savings. That's it.
Clark: Allison?
Jumper: Parks Board recommended accepting money in lieu of land for this
project. I'm still seeing 16 buildable lots so the fees would be $8,880.
O'Neal: I believe Jeremy covered most of my comments. The only other comment
that I have is to provide a street name at your earliest convenience. The
other item I have is I believe on Lot 13 the sewer tap crosses over into the
adjacent lot. That needs to be contained within it's own lot. Going back to
that, I think we can tap the existing sewer line that runs on the west side of
Lot 12. Those taps need to enter the main, not the manhole that you are
showing on Lot 11. I also have a request to look at the viability of looping
the water system back to itself'. I know you have a challenging grade there
so you couldn't really come back up to Lewis at that dead end where that
fire hydrant is. It will create a little bit better system if we can loop it back
to itself.
Scott: We will have right of way access there, we can tap it back to the one on
Lewis.
O'Neal: That would be even better.
Scott: That is a 24" line on the south.
O'Neal: Thank you.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 82
Clark: Is there anything else? Please introduce yourself and tell us about your
project.
Scott:
My name is Art Scott, I'm with Project Design Consultants. This is Jon
Brittenum who is the owner/developer. As Jeremy said, we have decided
to face the lots towards Wedington and access at the rear with alleys. I
think it is going to be a unique subdivision in that manner. We have
talked with the neighbors, Mrs. Price and her family and discussed
drainage issues with them. That appears to be the biggest issue they have
because this was all done recently by the city so we are putting the
detention pond in the lower corner of the project and we will have a little
bit of a swale behind Lot 3 to ensure that that water does not come off of
our project and into their property. They have said they have had standing
water since this other stuff was installed. It will just take some fine
grading on that to absorb into this project. There is water and sewer right
there so it is a pretty viable development.
Clark: At this point I am going to open it up to public comment on PPL 05-1431,
Lewis/Wedington.
Price: I'm Dolores Price. As they just stated, we have been visiting and I feel
comfortable with everything that they have told me about this project. I
am the owner north of this project. I have all of that property north. The
city has come out and corrected some what of the drainage problem that I
have lived with 38 years. However, I am still dealing with Sid Norbash
over some existing problems, the way that they did the level of the ground
which now I have water that stands on my lower lot which I did not have
to contend with before. Hoping we can get that situation fixed with the
city and if not, with these gentlemen here. They were out yesterday and
saw what my problem was. The city did hire someone to come in and do
that and they made it higher and still made me lower and so therefore, I
still have an existing problem with water. The only other thing I can think
of is this detention pond they are putting in will carry and probably take
care of the water from what they are putting in out there. The only thing I
would ask is for that to be fenced in. I would like to know who is going to
maintain that and for it to be fenced in because there are a lot of children
in the neighborhood that would be attracted to something of that nature.
That's all I have.
Clark: Would anyone else like to address us?
Opella: I'm Paula Opella, Dolores' daughter. We do feel very comfortable with
what you are telling us and what you are proposing to do. I would just like
to enlarge a little bit on the water situation. All of this property, the
proposed development sits considerably higher than Mom's property.
Mom's property borders to the north the entire length of the proposed
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 83
Clark:
Scott:
development. You mentioned doing something on Lot 3. Her property
goes all the way to Lewis so anything that you could do that would help
with any kind of runoff from Lots 1, 2, and 3 to see that that goes to your
detention pond will help. We might possibly be building another house on
one of the empty lots. We want to make sure that that lot doesn't have a
problem or that Mom's house doesn't have a problem. We know that
everything that you have done as far as the streets and the other properties
draining to the detention pond has already been planned for. We talked
earlier that you don't have anything in place for runoff from Lots 1, 2, and
3. You are going to grade it higher. It is already higher from her property.
We want to be sure that none of that water empties into her properties.
That is our main concern and what might you be doing to do that. That's
pretty much it.
Seeing no one else in the audience, I will bring it back to the
Commissioners. You just told Jeremy that you were going to have a swale
on Lot 3.
It appears that Lot 1 and 2 are going to drain southwest. Lot 3 is the one
that concerned me the most. That is a drainage easement in there now so
we can put a swale in there and it will be sodded so it will take anything
that goes to the back when they grade for the houses and stuff.
Clark: Is there going to be a POA for the detention pond? That is specified in the
conditions that they are going to be responsible for maintaining the
detention pond. Do we require detention ponds to be fenced or screened at
all?
Scott:
I think that we should have a fence around the whole thing. Probably a
chain link fence so it is visible, you can see in there and can tell when it
needs to be maintained.
Graves: Who will be responsible for maintaining it?
Scott: It will have to be the POA.
Ostner: On the issues of fences, this is going to be dry most of the year. I sort of
fall on the other side of that that the visual impact of a fence is uglier than
the benefit of those 10 days a year where there is water in it. That is up to
you guys. I don't want to put that requirement on you to fence it, if you
all think it is deep and steep, I don't think fencing benefits everybody
necessary.
Clark:
This is we are getting into the problem of detention verses retention. This
is not meant to be standing water all year long. This pond will only hold
water when the rains come. Otherwise, it will be a piece of greenspace.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 84
That is why we don't require fencing. I don't know where we are going to
be going with detention ponds or retention ponds soon. We need to figure
out how that all works.
Ostner: For our approval here I would like to just stick with our conditions of
approval and leave that between the applicant and the neighbors.
Graves: On number one where it says Rupple Road, do you think that is supposed
to be Wedington Road? I am just asking because it says recent
improvements and there were improvements at Wedington. My question
for the applicant then, is the condition makes reference to installing a 6'
sidewalk along Wedington.
Scott: Wedington has one.
Graves: Ok, so that whole part can be stricken whether it is Wedington or Rupple?
Pate: Yes.
Clark: You are still going to improve Lewis Street?
Scott: Yes.
Clark: As I was reading through the packet there was a comment about the traffic
issue and it needs to be clearly stated that the applicant is going to widen
Lewis to help better flow of traffic, the western half.
Price:
Since you brought that up, we have had a problem with Lewis Street for a
long time. Asbell put in that soccer field down there and that is a
thoroughfare. Polly Street if you are going south from Lewis toward
Wedington, from Polly Street, there is a hump in the road there and you
cannot see above from Polly Street to Wedington. There are people who
travel through there at 55 miles per hour. I believe they have 25 miles per
hour from Lewis and Polly to Wedington Drive. They don't obey the 25
miles per hour that is in there now. If we could have a caution sign or
anything that would help them to slow down in there.
Pate: We will talk to our Transportation Department about that.
Scott:
Our sight distance is adequate here. The high point is further to the north
but the driveway for her house there on Lewis is blind. We were standing
there talking to her the other day and someone came flying over there. It
needs some signage that says dangerous driveways or traffic entering or
something.
Subdivision Committee
March 31, 2005
Page 85
Clark: When you are making the improvements on Lewis hopefully you can talk
to Transportation and get together on something. That is certainly going
to be a danger for your development as well.
Scott: We can probably put a sign on the side of this and can work that out.
Pate:
If you could recalculate your square foot on Lots 12 and 13. Those are
right at 8,000 and they look bigger than some of these others. Just do an
area calculation. On Lots 11, 12, and 15, those would be a rear setback
along those alleys. Just go back to what you were on those sections on the
rear of the lot. That is 11, 12, and 15 adjacent to the alley.
Ostner: I would like to commend the applicant for doing something different and
facing houses on an arterial. Unfortunately, we saw dozens of homes
designed in Preliminary Plat to back a street. Our development guidelines
don't address that issue and this is a great solution with the alley.
Wedington won't be boxed off. You are not going to do privacy fences
along the fronts of your houses. You still have safe access away from
Wedington. I would like to thank you for that. I will make a motion that
we forward PPL 05-1431 to the Planning Commission with the conditions
of approval as stated, with the exception on condition number one striking
through the sentence Rupple Road improvements, etc.
Graves: I will second.
Clark: I will concur. We are adjourned.
Announcements