Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-14 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held at 8:30 a.m. on April 14, 2005 in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Items Discussed Action Taken PPL 05-1408: Cherry Hills Subdivision, pp282/243 Tabled Page 2 LSD 05-1415: Farmington Branch Center Approved Page 14 LSD 04-1360: Mailco Forwarded Page 23 LSP 05-1465: Dr. Israel Forwarded Page 25 LSD 05-1462: Ridgehill Apartments Forwarded Page 28 Members Present Members Absent Candy Clark Christine Myres James Graves Staff Present Staff Absent Jeremy Pate Brent O'Neal Matt Mihalovek Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 2 Clark: Welcome to the Subdivision Committee of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Today is April 14, 2005. The first item we will discuss this morning is under old business, PPL 05-1408 Cherry Hills Subdivision. Will the applicants come forward please? Pate: I will go over everything. This is the third time we have been before the Subdivision Committee. The Subdivision Committee did hear this and table this item on March 17th and March 31st. It was tabled on both occasions to allow the applicant additional time to review the proposal with both recommendations from staff and comments from neighbors. Obviously, there have been concerns regarding density and additional traffic on surrounding streets. The extension of Lierly Lane is a collector on our Master Street Plan, and of course, other proposed stub outs. The applicant has met since the last Subdivision Committee meeting, with the Engineering staff in an attempt to move forward in the process to go to the Planning Commission. This property, just for background, contains almost 76 acres off of Hughmount Road north of Mt. Comfort. The proposal is to create a 200 lot subdivision with 197 single family lots. Two of these lots will contain lift stations and the other is the location of a community sewage treatment area. The property is located in the Planning Area and is currently undeveloped. The city limits is several tracts to the east. The development is proposed in three phases at this time and a conceptual fourth phase is shown on the last page of your submittal, which is within the treatment area. That, of course, can not be approved or reviewed at this time simply because the treatment area is required as part of the Arkansas State Health Department size and area for the treatment system. If that property is ever subdivided we would see that as a Preliminary Plat portion alone. That has been called out as Lot 88 in this development. Water of course will be extended to serve this proposed development. As I mentioned, each of the lots will be served by septic systems. The minimum lot size within the county is 10,000 sq.ft. That minimum has been met I believe on all of the lots. The applicant has also submitted approval letters from the three entities that we require and the State Health Department requires for the septic system as well. Since the last meeting a couple of changes have occurred. To the north the applicant is proposing to dedicate 35' from the north property line south to meet the Master Street Plan requirement for right of way for Lierly Lane, which is a collector street. It is a little bit unclear and I will ask the applicant to explain in a moment, what they are proposing. It kind of depends upon what you are going to construct as to what the assessment will actually be. If nothing is constructed there and the streets just sort of stub out and go nowhere there would be an assessment potentially for the length of the property for half of the street width, which is what the developer will be required to build. That will be put into a fund which will eventually be utilized to build that street. Of course, with that change, some lots have moved in configuration. Staff is concerned about the size of some of the Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 3 lots. We have expressed some of these concerns. We have listed in the conditions about the actual buildable area of some of the lots, notably 194, 195 have about 30' width of buildable area. If a house can be built upon that I think that the applicant or developer should be able to speak to that. It is a very unusual configuration and we don't typically see homes of that nature built. Of course, 35' of right of way for A of the collector street. Should the Planning Commission determine that this is the appropriate location for the street, staff is recommending that either a 20' paved access and adequate turn around be provided for the Fire Department or any emergency service vehicle servicing that area be able to turn around. Of course, depending upon the amount of construction, if there are curbs and gutters and sidewalks as shown, then that will be taken out of that assessment. Connectivity is proposed in all cardinal directions. This property is very large, almost 80 acres, and adjacent to several very large tracts of undeveloped property. Staff is recommending additional connectivity to the east and the west for future vehicle and pedestrian connections. I think that has been pretty consistent in our recommendations since Technical Plat Review. Doing so will also result in smaller block lengths which will discourage high traffic speeds and avoid potentially dangerous traffic situations within the subdivision. Essentially, we are recommending a street stub out to the east between Red Stone Drive and the future Lierly Lane. That is the second street, Quantum Court Drive, to have a stub out to the east for future connection should that property develop in the next 100 years or thereafter. The subject property is within one mile of the city limits. Therefore, street improvements to city standards are required including storm drains, sidewalks, street lights, and a typical cross section for streets. Staff has evaluated the width of Hughmount Road, an off site bridge to the south, and found them to be sufficient width and condition to sustain traffic generated by this development. We do recommend however, improvements to the "Y" intersection of Mt. Comfort Road and Wheeler Road to create an intersection at a 90° angle. I believe at the last meeting staff did request some conceptual drawings to review at this time. We have not received those and we would request that at least some conceptual drawings showing the proposal be submitted to be reviewed by the Engineering Division prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. With those comments, staff is recommending that this Preliminary Plat be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review with a total of 23 conditions. I will go over some of those. I will ask the Committee if you would like to go over them or I can go over them for you now. Clark: Do the highlights, the ones we need to make determinations on. Pate: Planning Commission determination of appropriate street connectivity, residential block layout. Staff is recommending the western stub out at Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 4 Canyon Run Drive be north to Redstone Drive. This is the entrance to the north of the subdivision, we are recommending that one be stubbed out as opposed to the one south of it. That would increase the amount of distance here without the stub out, potentially move this stub out here. Myres: Would that mean removing Lot 134? Pate: It would. Hopefully it could be gained there with the removal of this stub out to the west, south of Lot 25. Clark: You want the one south of Lot 25 to go away and move up to Lot 134. Pate: We feel that is a more appropriate connection. Of course, that is your determination. Ensure adequate street design for the proposed potential vehicle trips per day for the streets within subdivision. Essentially, I think what we have reached is hopefully a compromise, along Golden Willow Drive, which is adjacent to the treatment area, we are recommending, I believe the applicant has also recommended, that the construction of Golden Willow Drive be constructed as a residential street with a 40' right of way at this time. At the time of development of Lot 88, should that ever develop, the street would be reconstructed and widened to a local street standard per the Master Street Plan, which would include the widening of the street, dedication of 10' of right of way for a total of 50' and construction of a 4' sidewalk on that east side. Item number three, Planning Commission determination of compliance with the Master Street Plan extension of Lierly Lane. They are requesting dedicating 35' right of way adjacent to the north property line. The grading plans don't show it but some of the site plans show that there is a 21' section of paved area that they are proposing to pave along the north along with curb, gutter and sidewalk, at least a portion of that. I just want to confirm that today at this meeting so we can determine the assessment amount that would be required. Some of the drawings show that it is there and some of them just don't reflect that and so I just want to clarify. Item number four, Planning Commission determination of street improvements. The typical off site street improvements are recommended, 14' from centerline pavement with curb, gutter, storm drain, 6' sidewalks for Hughmount Road, street lights a maximum of 300' for the entire length of the property. We are also recommending improvements at the intersection of Hughmount Road and Wheeler Road, which I mentioned, at the "Y" intersection and would request submittal of plans prior to review by the Planning Commission. I mentioned item number six, Planning Commission determination of residential lot size and design. There are several lots mentioned there, I've highlighted them here on my plan, that are much smaller than we have ever seen in the county and much smaller typically, than we see in the city limits as far as buildable area goes. Some instances it is 30' wide and 40' Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 5 wide in some instances, that is just not a typical lot arrangement, and that is under the purview of this Commission. Myres: Jeremy, you mentioned already 194 and 195 but I think down in the next block 120 and 119 are the same size. Pate: You are right, those did not make the list. Clark: What are we adding? Myres: 119 and 120. Pate: The applicants hopefully we be able to address that more. There are revisions from the Engineering Division that again, did not make this packet. The City Engineer is here today to go over what would be required of some of these to go forward and what just needs to be addressed at the time of construction plan review. That is condition number seven. I believe the rest of them are really just plat changes that still need to be made or with changes like setbacks on Lot 156, revised lot width on Lot 174 and 175, I think there are just a few changes here that haven't quite been made. Other than that, I will take any questions that you might have. Clark: Do we have comments from Engineering as well? O'Neal: Yes. I just want to hit a couple of the comments. Specifically, 1, 7, 8, 14, 15 and 16. First, the easement requested needs to be a separate easement from the drainage easement that runs along the south property line. This allows for no conflicts for future sewer and storm. Number seven, water and sewer mains have a minimum easement of 10' on either side. You need to check the width on some of those. They are specified on the lot numbers. Also, the Health Department requires 10' separation between water and sewer mains. Again, I listed the specific areas. You just need to check and make sure that you meet those requirements for separation. Fourteen is in regards to the force main from the lift station at the north end of the property. I believe that if that is rerouted along Hillshire Lane at the north, the one that runs south there in front of 168-170, if it runs along the front there it eliminates any conflicts with water and sewer, and I believe it shortens the forced main, which I think will benefit the client. On 15 and 16 I've reworded these notes slightly. We feel that these are reasonable requirements for the lift station and the treatment area. Other than that, if you have any other questions I would be happy to answer them. Clark: Do we have any comments from Parks this morning? Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 6 Mihalovek: No comments from Parks because it is in the Planning Area. Clark: Are there any other staff comments? Ok gentlemen, introduce yourselves and tell us about your project again. Morgan: My name is Mike Morgan, I am from McClelland Engineering. Gill: I'm Ryan Gill, also from McClelland Engineering. We have tried to work with Engineering and Planning. I have had a couple of meetings with Brent and have had a couple of phone conversations with Suzanne. Our schedules never allow for face to face conversation. However, we did try to meet everything on our list. We felt that had. As far as the intersection of Wheeler and Hughmount, after speaking with Brent, we weren't able to get it in with this submittal so I have these just to show what we are proposing and what can be specified a little bit better between now and Planning Commission. Of course, this is strictly conceptual and it is something that will have to be worked out because we are going onto Mr. Armstrong's property, which is not under contract with our client so that is still entirely up in the air. Per the recommendation to provide some form of a conceptual drawing, this is what I came up with. This is essentially a work in progress, but I wanted to at least get that so that it could be addressed. Some of the other comments that were brought up, wanting to stub out to the east along Quantum Court right here, while it does break up the blocks, the lay of the land does not really allow for a good street there. That is actually where that ravine is. You are not really going to build a road there without a huge cost and a lot of fill without already have acquiring that land. We did attempt to try to extend Red Stone out but we were going to lose at least one lot and we weren't going to be able to make it up right here. Myres: Why? Morgan: There is a 75' frontage right there because that needs to be a corner lot. Like on 83 and 82, you have to make a large lot so essentially, you risk losing two lots by having a stub out in that spot. Gill: Aside from that, at the north, after discussions with Brent, what we are proposing is to dedicate the 35' right of way, do curb and gutter along Lots 166 and 157. However, on Lots 156 and the treatment area there would be no curb. Thus, allowing us to meet the fire requirements to have the 20' driving surface so they can make the loop. This would be adjusted at such time as Lierly was developed. That is what we are proposing. Clark: At this point I will open it up to public comment Would anyone in the audience like to comment on PPL 05-1408 Cherry Hills Subdivision? If you will come forward and give us your name and make your comments. Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 7 Peret: Good morning, I'm Dave Peret, I live at 2931 N. Hughmount Road, which borders to the east of the north end of the proposed development. I have a couple of questions. It is difficult for me to imagine as things change, because we have not seen the details. I have several concerns. The north end easements, as they concern what will happen with Lierly Lane when it is ultimately stubbed through. This seems to be highly theoretical at this point. Yet, if it is not nailed down fairly well it is going to effect us adversely I think. There is a special situation on the property that borders Mcquay. You have got a 10' offset that really should be subject to adverse possession on the property lines in that particular section. If I understand correctly, the property line in question was assumed to be the fence line. That fence line is actually 10' further into Armstrong's property than the legal description actually shows. I'm not at all certain where this 35' easement on the north end would apply. I would assume that what will happen ultimately is that will parallel what is going to apply on my property to the east. If we don't know exactly what we are talking about easement wise, I don't know whether I'm going to be giving up 35', 45', or 25' ultimately when Lierly Lane comes through. I don't know that Carrie won't have the same concerns. It is going to shift one way or the other. Depending on where that line falls, it may well put an easement into Carrie's pool or in the slue behind my pond. It would be helpful for those of us who own property adjacent to this to know exactly where those easements are going to be. I would think it would be good to pass that along before we get much further. The connectivity proposed to the east and to the west, of course, I know virtually nothing about what is happening to the west, but to the east, those stubs are getting moved around and sitting out here in the gallery it is almost impossible to know where the stubs are going to go. Ryan's comment earlier that one of the stubs to the east would require a whole lot of fill, I'm assuming that is one that is going to nip just the end of my place. Perhaps not, it may front right on Bob and Dana's place. It would be helpful for us at least, before you finish up, just point out to us where those are going to be. That shouldn't take very long. I realize Ryan has done quite a bit of work for the intersection. I think those of us who have gotten up here, adjacent property owners, have been fairly consistent in our concerns with the traffic flow, particularly at that intersection. It is disturbing that there is no firm plan and yet, it appears that we are going to go ahead and pass this along to the next phase. Ryan's comment earlier that it is entirely up in the air and essentially a work in progress, he also said it was strictly conceptual and is also contingent on some of Armstrong's property being involved, that isn't included in this particular proposal. It would seem to me that what will happen is it will just get moved along and we will handle that later is essentially what is being proposed. That sounds rather dangerous to those of us who drive that road every day. I think that is it, other than the lots that do not meet frontage requirements, we are seeing a Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 8 Clark: Pate: trend away from mid size lots to these really small ones and now it looks like there are going to be three or four lots that are going to be allowed to vary with what should be required is disturbing. It is like we just continue to excuse and let squawks go and if there is 20 one time and 13 the next. I realize that this has not been given any kind of rush, and I don't mean to imply that, but it just looks like a lot of things are still not nailed down and we don't know exactly what is going to happen. In my case, it is fairly disconcerting because ultimately it is going to effect that north end property line, whether Lierly Lane is extended through there or not, and how. I'm worried that maybe it will just be put off and put off and put off until they are just going to say here is where Point "A" is and here is where Point "B" is on the other side of me and they are just going to condemn and cut the road through when it becomes time, when I am in the city, which we aren't of course, now. Thank you. Is there any additional public comment? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Commissioners? Jeremy, can we start with you talking about the situation with Lierly Lane and what can the neighbors expect? As with any Master Street Plan road or street that is not constructed, there is always room for movement. There always will be. It is a guiding plan that the City Council puts in place with a lot of public comment. We will likely be looking at it again this year or next year as part of our General Plan 2025 update to see places that we can potentially improve streets that are not essentially going to connect. This was seen in 2001 and I believe in 1996 when the plan before it was shown, as a good connection east and west in this area as a collector street. Obviously, no development has occurred, no Lot Splits have occurred to require dedication of right of way in this area and therefore, no right of way has ever been dedicated. This is the first action adjacent to Lierly Lane in this area, that would require any type of right of way dedication, which is what our ordinances require. That is why it is the first time it has been addressed in this situation. It is not the first time it has ever been addressed period. There are lots out in eastern Fayetteville that there is not a street anywhere near them but they have right of way dedicated for a major collector street that will potentially go forward in the future. That is why we have a Master Street Plan to allow for that to occur. To say whether it is going to be 45' on one side and 35' on one side, it is really hard to tell. Even with this development, we talked about moving it 50' or 80' north and south just to plan for the future and to allow for the connection to go through. I hate to say that it is a moving target but it is something that we have to plan as development comes along. The city is not planning to go and build Lierly Lane anytime in the near future at all. It will come as development and traffic situations increase out there and that east/west connection is needed. As development comes through the street will be constructed and there will Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 9 Clark: be another east/west connection to connect this county road to the one that is to the west, which is something that the neighbors have expressed the desire to find a connection to do that. That is the reason for the policy of connectivity too. I don't mean to make this sound in a bad way, we don't want the developers to lose any lots whatsoever if at all possible, however, the streets that are being planned within this development are public infrastructure. It is public street connections that will eventually maintained by the city and providing neighbors in this entire area with street and pedestrian connectivity. That is why we follow up with City Council's policy to connect these streets where possible. From my knowledge, I don't know, there may have been a couple of lots lost in the six weeks or so that we have been in this process, but not many I think that honestly, with the lot configuration on some of these things that we have concerns about, it is a result of trying to keep the lot yield up and not create actually buildable lots in my opinion. The County Planning Board also has to review this and they may have the same comments, I'm not sure. That is where we come from with regard to both street connections and the lot layout of the subdivision both in the city and the county. So when we are looking at revisiting the Master Street Plan again, these neighbors will have the opportunity to have input at that point regarding Lierly Lane and Planning can give you the specifics on when those reviews will take place. Right now it is still just a dotted line. Bottom line is we can't give you any definitive answers. Commissioners? Graves: I have a question on the suggested east stub out. You mentioned a ravine, is there anywhere along that property line where there are not maybe some of the challenges that you are talking about? Gill: Not really. If you look at the adjacent properties to us on the TOPO, which isn't shown, except for 10' over, essentially you have a deep ravine right through here but the TOPO of the land goes down and then comes up over here. I can't tell you the elevation off the top of my head but it would definitely be a large dip to get from there to there. I don't necessarily know what it would require. I don't know the city standards on how much of a dip you are allowed, I guess on the percent slope side of that. I don't think it would require a bridge but it would require quite a bit of fill and a lot of that fill would be required on the adjacent property owner. Myres: I'm with Jeremy when it comes to not wanting to decrease the number of lots any further than we have to but I really think that the suggestion of creating a stub out here rather than down here makes a whole lot more sense just looking into the future, and reducing the length of blocks that people have to drive to get to an outside street or a connector street. I also have some real concerns about the sizes of Lots 120 and 119 and 195 and 194. Are 156 and 157 skinny too? Subdivision Committee April14, 2005 Page 10 Gill: No Ma'am. They are skinnier but they are wider than those four. The water line kind of makes those small. Myres: Clark: I agree with Jeremy's comments, I'm not sure that those four lots are buildable. I know that you have made a lot of adjustments. On condition number two, for the treatment field you are going to do a 40' right of way, as you have stated you hope it does when this comes into the city, etc., why wouldn't you just do a 50' right of way now as opposed to tearing it all out and expanding it? Gill: 10' makes a huge different. It reduces my lots over here, I was going to lose lots but if I go the other way then I don't have enough treatment area to get Health Department approval. Clark: Gill: Clark: Pate: So the future expense is worth it. Yes. What about the situation with the "Y" Jeremy? Can we nail anything down if we don't have commitments from the land owners? That is going to have to come before construction plan review. Either offsite right of way will need to be obtained and a design presented. I know Engineering will probably want to look at this a little bit more in depth. Brent or Ron can comment on how much more you would like to see. I know in the past we have seen quite a bit more on projects where we have seen off site improvements. Gill: The "Y" intersection will have to be addressed, currently those aren't city street standards in the county. I'm not real sure on the final design of that. The county will have to address that as well so I don't know how that falls into the process. I haven't gone over that with Fayetteville's Engineering Department yet. Clark: We have now seen this three times. We started with 60 conditions, we are down to 23 but wait, there is a whole other page that we just got today from Engineering that has an additional 51. Some of them are very easy, some of them are just amendments to your drawings. Part of me says I want this to go on to Planning Commission to let them now jump in and we will really get the waters interesting and part of me says we need to table it one more time, let you do all of this, get it done and bring it back with a rendition that truly does reflect all the changes that have been suggested. Subdivision Committee April14, 2005 Page 11 Pate: I would just offer that the reason our recommendation changed at this level to forward because obviously, some of the comments that haven't been addressed are things that we haven't compromised, which will happen with development. A developer would not like to stub out, Planning Staff is recommending a stub out, it may not happen with ten revisions, it will ultimately be up to the Planning Commission to decide as a part of that approval process whether they want that as a condition or not. Clark: Do you think that we are at that point now? Pate: Clark: Pate: It is your decision. Brent hit on a few comments that could be made, some plat revisions that could be made. I think there are still some issues that need to be addressed, specifically with lot sizes. At least you are giving us something new every time. I think that, in a lot of ways, is a result of the fact that everything got pushed down without the loss of any lots. Everything just got squeezed a little bit more and got a little bit smaller. I think that is the net result of that. The comments regarding the slope, there are several places on this site that are extremely steep too that are being built and developed on so I don't know that that always carries a huge amount of weight. We want to make the most logical connection possible and not require these guys to spend exorbitant amount of monies to stub out and then the next property owner to do the same thing just to have that connection. We want to look for the most reasonable area to connect as well, because, if not, it becomes a maintenance problem later. We are open to that as well. I think at some point though that there needs to be a connection. The one to the west is negotiable. We are looking at our 400 to 1000 foot block length that we typically have. Clark: The block length going into Lierly Lane is almost 1,400 feet, that is the maximum feet that Fayetteville will allow. Pate: This is 1,300 feet here going all the way down. Clark: That concerns me. That is one of the reasons I wanted to see the east stub out. To me it almost looks like a raceway. That concerns me. Graves: I can foresee a time when this might develop and there is not a way to get over here without driving all the way down through and probably speeding down through there to get down to these southern connections. Subdivision Committee April14, 2005 Page 12 Myres: We have had a number of subdivisions that have been laid out with long, straight stretches of street where they subsequently find that they have got a raceway. Gill: We can definitely revisit that if the TOPO will allow it. Where I'm concerned is, I still have to slope down to the existing TOPO on the adjacent property owner. That means my road might stop where that number four is and just stop because I can't go out and just build a retaining wall. Clark: Let me remind you all that if we forward this to Planning Commission you have now got nine Commissioners looking at it I think that there are some substantive issues that will really mire you down, that is my humble opinion. I would rather work this out at this level so we can be committed to supporting it in Planning Commission. That's why I've never tabled anything since I've been on Subdivision, but I see some substantive issues that can be ironed out and I see some that the Commission is obviously, going to have to make some determinations on because you are saying no, and we are saying yes. Are we completely at locked heads gentlemen or can you make some more improvements in this plan that we can support it more completely in two weeks? Morgan: Certainly we can get staff approval to continue to Planning Commission I believe we can work in the meantime with Engineering to work on our intersection design and to address the comments that you see here so that we can take that approval and go to City Council. Pate: The trick with that is that revisions are due Monday morning. Clark: My indication is to table it at this level and let you come to us one more time and then take it to the full Planning Commission. Myres: That will give you more time to work out revisions. Graves: I think that the bulk of the Engineering comments it looks to me are things that are maybe more technical in nature than they are any discussions. You have heard some of our feedback. You may not agree with it and I don't know, I would be interested to see whether you agree with it or not when you come back in two weeks. If this was just a situation you came back in two weeks and said there is no way we can make that eastern connection for example, then it is time to go ahead and forward it to the Planning Commission. Right now you haven't told me that, you have told me that you are willing to go back out and look at it. Maybe you wish you hadn't said that, I don't know. It seems to me maybe there are still some things that we can work out at this level where you would at least go into the Planning Commission meeting knowing that you had three votes in Subdivision Committee April14, 2005 Page 13 support of it and that knew the story behind it and could relate that to the other Commissioners. I think that if you go forward to the Commission right now with all of the things that are up in the air, you don't know where you stand with any of the Commissioners for one thing, and for another, you are going to get bogged down in a bunch of details at the Planning Commission level and probably not get it through the Planning Commission. That's my take on it right now. Myres: I have to agree with you also. I realize there is a lot that you can do between now and Monday, especially addressing some of the housekeeping things that need to be changed, but I hate to make you wait. Clark: Am I hearing a motion? MOTION: Graves: I will move that we table PPL 05-1408 to the next Subdivision Committee meeting and allow these guys to address some of the things that we have brought up today. Myres: Second. Clark: I will concur. Subdivision Committee April14, 2005 Page 14 Clark: The next item on the agenda is LSD 05-1415 for Farmington Branch Center. Will the applicant come forward please? Pate: This property is located on Hwy. 62 north of Ozark Mountain Smokehouse. It was rezoned to R -O, Residential Office not too long ago. It contains approximately 3.35 acres. This is a Large Scale Development request to construct two structures with 22,275 sq.ft. of office space and 88 parking spaces. 50' along the west side of the lot exists as an access easement for one single family home to the rear of this property. We did see this at the last Subdivision Committee meeting as well. There were some plat changes that had not been made, issues with access that needed to be addressed prior to forwarding it onto the Planning Commission. To the north there is floodplain and floodway as well as a single family lot that utilizes the 50' access easement to access their property. Surrounding zoning is primarily R -A, Residential Agricultural. Right of way being dedicated is 55' from centerline along Hwy. 62. 6' sidewalks are to be constructed at that right of way line and water and sewer are to be extended to serve this development pursuant to ordinance requirements. Since the last meeting there have been several changes. I think the two items of most discussion were easements and tree preservation fencing along the east, which have been addressed. The canopy numbers have come up. There are only 12 trees required and I concur with Mr. Hennelly's findings and calculations here on the tree preservation plan. The other item was the access. There was concern from some of the Subdivision Committee members about stacking distance and clear and safe means of access. You may also remember that staff has been and still is recommending that in some manner, the private drive be connected to this one curb cut on this one lot to create a traffic situation. It is not a waiver request. It does meet the minimum distance for a curb cut. We just feel that it would be a better situation and it would provide a connection to the west potentially for future cross access, if, for instance, there was an access along the south side of that lot. I am not sure that the Subdivision Committee felt the same way, I think there were more thoughts that the two entrances should be maintained. Nevertheless, the entrance to this property has been shifted to the east to allow for a safer configuration and more stacking distance there. Because there are no waiver requests or outstanding issues, staff is recommending approval of the Large Scale Development at this level with 11 conditions. Planning Commission determination of commercial design standards. We do find that it does meet the requirements set forth in ordinance requirements. Planning Commission determination of safe and adequate access to the property in question. I've mentioned our recommendation, that is of course, your finding to make. I believe the rest are relatively standard, including 12 mitigation trees, trash enclosures to be screened with no access visible from the street, parking lot lighting to be shielded and directed away from adjoining property owners. Which is obviously, an Subdivision Committee April14, 2005 Page 15 Clark: O'Neal: Clark: Hennelly: important point for this development because currently it is surrounded by residential type uses or agricultural type uses. Everything else is relatively standard. Does Engineering have any comments? Yes. On the construction drawings we will need to see the sewer tap locations and we will also need to coordinate the meter locations with the Meter Division at that time. Introduce yourself and tell us about your project. I'm Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering. We have, as Jeremy said, made all of the changes that were requested by the city. I have met extensively on the phone with Mr. Wilkes, the property owner to the north, and discussed with him some of the issues. This project does impact his property by way of the 50' access easement as well as the overhead electric that runs down which will be put underground. They are fairly adamant about wanting to maintain the two separate entrances and not wanting to get to their house by coming through this thing. I might say that during the revisions to the entrance from the last Subdivision Committee, we were able to gain some more separation between those two drives. I think it helped the situation. Ideally it would be good to have only one there but I just can't see where we can make them do it. Clark: What is the distance between the two? Pate: Centerline to centerline it is about 160'. Hennelly: The only issue that still remains, I think Mr. Wilkes is here, I basically doubled the amount of screening, vegetation on the north end. They are still requesting us to construct some sort of privacy fence. I have not had an opportunity since I talked with Mr. Wilkes to visit with Cliff Slinkard, the owner of the property, and find out whether or not he would be willing to do that, or whether or not it is even required. I don't believe it is required, but we are willing to work with the Wilkes on making that happen. Clark: At this point I will open the floor to public comment for LSD 05-1415, Farmington Branch Center. Wilkes: My name is Steve Wilkes and I'm the property owner to the north. I wanted to address a few of these issues. I did speak with Mr. Hennelly a couple of times and he has been very gracious in working with us and very forthcoming and we appreciate that. To address the issue of the access easement, there are really a couple of different issues with that that are Subdivision Committee April14, 2005 Page 16 intertwined in my opinion. The safety issue, which is the one on the table most at the moment, I think absolutely, if we are talking about two businesses with lots of traffic we've got one issue. We are talking about a single family home, we probably go in and out of there six or eight times a day, I don't know. We leave in the morning and go to school and come home at night and that's about it. The traffic that will be generated by this business in front of us will be at different times of the day unless they are planning on running an all night accounting service, and I doubt that they are. I am not too concerned about that issue. I am much more concerned about having these accesses together. I think that we invite traffic into our home that it is not very clear that this is a private drive and a private home. We have enough trouble with that as it is so we do want to keep it as separate as possible. As to the safety issue in terms of Hwy. 62, as some of you will know, because I've been before you before, I am a proponent of getting that speed limit lowered and I believe it should be 40 or 45 miles per hour and that would bring it into compliance with the other speed limits in Farmington and in Fayetteville further up the road. This is the perfect opportunity for me to be an active citizen and join with Mr. Slinkard and with Frank Sharp across the highway and see if we can't get that lowered. This is the time to do that and I'm offering to take the lead on that. As far as the easement itself is concerned, our understanding, and my attorney assures me that this is correct, that that easement is deeded to us for our use along that 50' as we see fit to get in and out of there. My wife and I probably will never change the way that we get in and out of there, we are perfectly happy, but we might at some point, and certainly will, sell this property to someone and if they choose to shift that driveway to the west and change the way that they go in and out they have the right to do that as long as they are within that 50'. We don't want to give up our right and any future owner's right for that access. We are not willing to let that happen. As far as addressing cross access with future development. I understand, and I don't want to be short sided, that we are not talking about a development that has never been proposed, is not on the table or anything else at the moment. What we are really talking about is creating, in essence, in bits and pieces, an access road. We would be against that at this moment. I think we can deal with future access when future access is proposed. That's my standing there. The fencing issue, I understand Mr. Hennelly will have to talk to the property owner. Again, I've discussed this with my attorney and with acquaintance of ours in the real estate business. They assure us that this is not an unreasonable request. It may be zoned R -O but this is absolutely a commercial endeavor that is being put in front of us. Our reason for asking for this fence is because the trees that are to be planted there probably won't provide very effective screening for three to five years so we are concerned about that. It is true that the dumpster can't be viewed from the road but there is no reason that it can't be viewed from my front porch. We want to be sure that we are not looking at the backs of buildings and Subdivision Committee April14, 2005 Page 17 Clark: backs of dumpsters. I am also very concerned about the access. Right now we have a field in front of us and we have a lot of foot traffic on Hwy. 62. I know that it is there because I pick up broken bottles at the end of my driveway frequently. I am concerned about opening this access down onto my property. I can just envision that we will create a corridor down to our front door for things that we don't want on our front door. I am trying in some reasonable way to screen that in a way that truly provides a break. Trees are great but things blow through trees. I don't want to be picking up Pepsi cans that blow through. We completely agree if a nice quality fence is put there, it doesn't have to be a big theater deal or anything like that, but it should be a good quality that will last a good length of deal. We completely agree that we need to take care of our side of that and maintain that and of course, it is in our best interest to keep our property as nice as possible, and on the other side that that will happen as well. We believe that this development can work to both of our advantage and we just want to see it done in a way that doesn't turn our $200,000 home into a $150,000 home because of the impact on it. In terms of the drainage, we are willing to grant an easement into the creek that in effect, provides a short storm drain as long as it is done in a way that is aesthetically pleasing and doesn't cause any negative impact on our bridge. That is where our concern comes from. The building and construction upstream from us so far has created a lot of negative impact in that creek. In other words, it silts over heavily with the velocity of water is quite great. We are concerned about that We are also concerned about if we raise the level of the land in front of us and we somehow change the ecosystem up there that will take 75' or 80' of that, it is essentially a bog that is wet most of the year. We are somewhat concerned that we will shift that wetness down to the creek. We want to ensure that we don't do that, even inadvertently. I think the storm drain system and the detention that Mr. Hennelly has already done, those two working together I think will solve that. We just want a good situation for everyone. We want to see this corridor developed in the best possible way and we are sure that we can accomplish that. Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to comment on LSD 05-1415? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. We have a couple of findings so why don't we start with those? Commercial Design Standards, you passed around a box, which is a wonderful way to show us what you are doing. Do you want to tell us a little bit about the elevations? Hennelly: I will let the architect do that. DeNoon: My name is Steve DeNoon, I represent Jordan & Associates. I appreciate your patience in letting us re -prepare the elevations for you. I'm sorry that we didn't have enough time to prepare a board. I was sort of looking at Subdivision Committee April14, 2005 Page 18 the surprised look on your faces as you looked in the box, which was kind of interesting. We will do better next time. I was trying to figure out how to attach that brick on there in such a short time. Back to business, on our last presentation we didn't show how we are going to make the transition in the elevation of the finished floor of the building. I think that was one of the main things that we are trying to express there. We have got this transition here and we will maintain that. We are making that transition here without breaking that roofline up but as we make the transition for the other one foot, it is just wasted space, instead of breaking that up with two gables that would just stick out, we are going to put a hip roof perpendicular to the ridge of the main roof line here which would brace that roofline up and that would make that transition. That keeps the profile. There is no real change in architecture since the last submittal. It is hard to see the texture, but we are going use a split faced block around the base and then some red accent and the windows are going to be vinyl and there will be soffit and we are going to use a green architectural shingle on the main building and the darker hunter green on all of these little entrances there. We call that building "A". Building "B" would be broken up in a similar fashion. We are sort of playing down the emphasis on that building to emphasize this main area here. If we make a 10' transition here we are still going to maintain that same roof line but we will have a higher finished ceiling that will go up to virtually 11'. We would maintain the slope here for a sidewalk, with another 1' of finished floor elevation, we dropped the roofline at this little entrance here. We have changed like two gables or something like that to mix up the profile. Clark: You do plan windows and different types of articulation on that side? DeNoon: Yes. This is a storefront at this point. Depending on where the exits are and the roof, yes, we will put glass on it. Clark: We don't just want to see flat with no articulation. The second question we had to answer was the access. Jeremy, staff is still recommending one access for both? Pate: We are still looking at it. Just like the last Subdivision Committee, I think there is opportunity here for one access point, maintain the private drive but just combine these access points. It seemed like it was the desire of the Subdivision Committee last time to not separate those entrances. Our recommendation still remains consistent. I think that would provide a connection to the west. I don't see it staying a R -A property for that long. It is an open piece of property currently. I have no idea what the McAllister's will do in the future but we've seen a lot of requests for rezoning and development along Hwy. 62 in the recent past. If it is not done now it cannot be done in the future because obviously, there will be a Subdivision Committee April14, 2005 Page 19 building there and no access to that lot. That is our reason for this concern now. Clark: You want this private drive to have access, you want a west connection out of this development? Pate: I think that could be accommodated. This may have to shift over, there is not the distance there currently but providing some sort of access so obviously, right now this property owner back here would maintain their private drive over someone else's property within the existing access easement. Clark: They would still have their private access? Pate: No, we would recommend that go away. Again, that doesn't violate our ordinances as far as separation and distance, it would just provide one more level of safe access. Clark: Let's address that, what do you all think? Myres: I hate access roads. Even though from a safety and traffic standpoint and connectivity and traffic control, that's probably a good reason to have them. What you end up with sometimes is two parallel streams of traffic. I just don't like them. I don't like the way they look. I don't like the way they work. Clark: I understand the Wilkes' desire to keep their own access and keep their 50' easement. It is approximately 160' between the two. I am not as concerned about safety. I think this is a very unique situation. We have a tandem lot behind a development. Myres: I'm inclined not to require that they do that. I know it is probably not as proactive as we could be because who knows what is going to develop out this way in the future but you are right, it is a unique situation and I'm not necessarily in favor of requiring them to connect. I don't think it would serve much purpose. Graves: Staff is right, that should be the way to go but I would rather let the neighbors get along than not get along and it meets the requirement. The applicant has done what we asked him to do with the drive. He moved it over so I would be inclined to, in this particular situation, decline staff's advise on this particular deal. Clark: What about the screening issue Jeremy? Can we require a fence at the back of this property? Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 20 Pate: You can if there is a combination of non-residential use adjacent to residential use. That requires some sort of screening. It can be either a fence, vegetation or a combination thereof. I felt it was more appropriate for vegetation in this area because it is down near the floodplain and floodway of that area. It is actually within the floodplain so there is a potential for water to flow through there during time of floods. I was more comfortable with vegetation in this particular instance. Clark: How far does the floodplain come up to the back of this property? Hennelly: It is identified here. It would be all contained within the floodplain. Clark: I can certainly understand the Wilkes' desire to have a fence there. I love trees, I would like a combination of both. In terms of trash blowing, people wandering and just being a natural break between a commercial building and a home. I don't know about you guys but I think the combination would work well. Do you think the property owner would be open to that suggestion? Hennelly: He possibly could be. Let me make two points. Keep in mind that the Farmington Branch does actually separate these two properties. Unfortunately, it will be an obvious situation where somebody could wander down through there and trash would more than likely be collected within the branch. As well as Mr. Wilkes mentioned, a dumpster. That is screened on four sides with gates. It will not be visible from their house. I am sure that Mr. Slinkard will be willing to consider it. Not having had an opportunity to talk to him yet, I don't know that for sure. I do feel that ultimately, and it may not be until after the Wilkes have decided to sell this house and move somewhere else, that those number of trees that we have planted will provide a better screening than a fence could. In the short term I think a fence will. You would be hard pressed to see the buildings once they reach maturity, which you are talking about several years. Clark: Putting a fence in the floodplain concerns me. I think that could be an unfair burden to the developer if the fence is going to get damaged, be destroyed and have to be maintained because it is in the floodplain, I don't know how often the water gets up that high. What do you think? Graves: I'm more supportive of the vegetative screening that they have put in place at the recommendation of staff. I'm not inclined to require a fence. If you visit with the land owner and he is willing to do it and it seems like it is easier as far as getting along with the neighbors there then so be it, but I'm not inclined to make that a condition of approval. Subdivision Committee April14, 2005 Page 21 Myres: I don't know if there is any such thing as a fence for now until the vegetation gets more mature. I don't know if that would be cost effective to build one and then take it down. Clark: I'm also afraid if we mandate the fence then some of the trees will go away and I like the vegetation much better. I think this is an issue that might be best left to work out between the developer and the neighbor. We are going to maintain your private access drive. The vegetation has been bumped up, there is a lot more, but the fence I think we are going to have to let you all work out. I think we have resolved most of the issues. Myres: My only other thought would be to maybe mix shrubbery of some sort with the trees so that you get something that grows quickly and thickly at 5' or so, something like a red tip, which grow like weeds around here, to kind of fill in the creek. Clark: Do you have any shrubs planned there at all? Hennelly: Not in the screening but we could certainly modify it to accommodate that. I just don't want to get into a situation where we double the number of screening trees there on the north, and admittedly, initially there were not enough there to properly screen the property. My responsibility is to accomplish what you guys recommend in the most economical fashion for our client and I don't want to get into a situation where we are buying a lot more landscaping material or building fences when we don't have to do that. Myres: What are the plantings there? Hennelly: They are eastern red singers. Clark: Unfortunately, our committee doesn't have anything to say about speed limits, but we will certainly agree with you that 50 miles per hour is fairly ridiculous so good luck lobbying whoever you need to lobby to address that. Do I have any other comments and/or a motion? Myres: I just wanted to compliment the architect and the developer on the collection of materials and the fact that this does not look industrial at all. Just between ourselves, you will notice if you look closely at the drawing, that there is a scaled figure under the canopy on the south elevation to give you an idea of how tall the building actually is. We had a discussion recently about things that end up being larger in scale than you think they are going to be. From a design standpoint, I don't think this is at all out of scale or proportion for this location, and is actually very attractive. We appreciate the attention you paid to the west elevation so that driving Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 22 Clark: MOTION: down their driveway they won't be faced with a big blank wall on that side. I think it is a very sensible application of commercial building. If I'm hearing what you are saying, we are going to agree that the Commercial Design Standards have been met, we want to strike condition number two and go with the rest of the conditions. Do I hear that in the form of a motion? Graves: I will move that we approve LSD 05-1415 with findings that the proposal meets Commercial Design Standards and that there is safe and adequate access for the property as proposed in the drawings submitted, along with all of the other conditions stated. Clark: I will second. Clark: I will concur Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 23 MAILCO MINUTES TO BE INSERTED Clark, S.: I don't think that is going to be an issue. As you drive by, I would be surprised if you saw much of that roof at all. We are also between 6' and 8' of the level of Hwy. 71. Clark: I will drive by this twice a day personally. I'm working on trying to like it. Graves: I don't have any quiver with forwarding it onto the Planning Commission. All I am suggesting is that you all hear that they would like to see more color somehow in it. Clark: Pate: Clark: Even a simple band of color across some of the flatter expansions just to give it some additional articulation I think would accomplish exactly what Commissioner Graves is talking about. Some of our concern is that these are so similar. It is a little hard to tell which ones are which. If we could label these before the next meeting that would be helpful as well. I think maybe a little bit of articulation here to try to articulate that a little bit better. At times we face a dilemma. Architects will tell us there are textural differences that you can't really discern in the drawings and when it is built there is not a slap happy bit of difference. I think that is what Commissioner Myres is getting towards. Anything that will articulate it a little more visually will help. Myres: I personally have no problems at all with this building, the way that it is designed and the materials that have been used. I think they are totally appropriate for something that is sort of light industrial. We don't want for instance, something that looks like the Farmington Complex that we just saw, that's a small office complex. I think your selection of materials and the variations in texture are wonderful and I think they will be even more obvious than they are on the sample board. I realize that we do have standards to maintain but I think that the building meets the spirit of the standards, even if it does not meet the level of them as written. I wish every commercial building we saw was as handsome as this one is. I really compliment you on how it looks. I was really taken with it. I agree that the black, white and gray with the red accents may not be compatible with the natural surroundings but I don't think it is intended to blend in either. It is a place of business, it is a man made structure and there are times when that is appropriate. Shireman: The other thing too when you drive around and look at the revitalization of South Fayetteville, you see what has happened at the north entrance down Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 24 there, you look at the university center, you see what is going on out there. There is very clean, contemporary cut look. I think that is important because that is where we are going. You have the very large, very industrial buildings, it is a very mixed use neighborhood. Myres: In the right context, there is nothing wrong with industrial if it is user friendly. Graves: I would just recommend you guys get with staff before the Planning Commission meeting and maybe try to come up with some ideas maybe with some accents or something that may enable the staff to feel like they could recommend from a commercial design standpoint. Clark: I'm in complete agreement with the waiver request. I do think you need those two curb cuts and I think that this will be a good project to present to the Planning Commission. MOTION: Graves: I will move that we forward LSD 04-1360 to the Planning Commission. Myres: I will second. Clark: I will concur. Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 25 Clark: We now move to new business. That first item is LSP 05-1465 for Israel. Pate: This was a Lot Split that was initially started back in 2003. There was some confusion in the parcel numbers that were submitted by another surveyor that would not allow staff to process it. I think we have got those all sorted out now so we are able to continue forward. The property contains approximately 31 acres and the request is to split it into two tracts of 28.95 and 2.04 acres. The city limits in this area are very strange. If you look on the last map, most of this property is in the county. I have circled a small portion, that is the only portion of the property that is actually within the city limits. That is where the request is, within the city limits It does not have the required frontage along Starr Road, which is the right of way here, therefore, a Conditional Use request is required for this. That is the process we are going through right now. This will need to go forward to the full Planning Commission because there is a Conditional Use request that will be attached to it. We are recommending that this request be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. I have ten conditions currently. Item number one, the Lot Split shall be subject to approval of Conditional Use request for a tandem lot by the Planning Commission. Number two, a 30' wide ingress/egress from Starr Drive to the two acre lot shall be filed of record with the Lot Split plat. That is shown currently on your plat as a utility and access easement to allow for access for the two acre lot. That does meet the minimum requirements for a tandem lot. Item number three, a private drive of course, shall be constructed within that access easement and paved a minimum distance of 25' from Starr Drive. A tandem lot does have different setbacks, I sat down with Mr. Clark's staff to find out where the setbacks were and we finally just came up with a table. If you are in the R -A zone that is the setback, if you are in the Planning Area then that is the setback. 35' from centerline along Starr Road is required to be dedicated. A public water main will need to be extended to this property before the Lot Split can be filed to at least Tract "B" is my understanding from Engineering. Of course, this will be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. I fully anticipate we will recommend both the Conditional Use and the Lot Split request. The reason for that, part of the findings in the Conditional Use request, even though we are not discussing that, is that a standard subdivision could not be had. They are not looking to subdivide the entire piece of property, building a street, etc. This applicant would like to build one home on two acres and be able to have it deeded separately. They do have 312' of frontage. Honestly, they could probably extend the line all the way to Starr Road but it would be a lot of property. We in support of the request, it does meet the minimum ingress and egress requirements. Sanitation will be brought to Starr Road and emergency vehicles will be able to access that Tract "B". Clark: Engineering? Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 26 O'Neal: Just that a utility easement for water will need to be extended from the point of beginning of Tract "A" down to Tract "B". Mihalevich: Because this is in the city parks fees would apply for one additional lot, $555 will be due before issuing the building permit. Clark: Is there anybody else from staff? Clark, S.: Basically, this property is part of Ben Israel's horse barn. The barn and everything are on the property that's back to the north of this. It is mostly pasture, some trees, and his daughter is wanting to build a house on it. I think he would like to keep his grand kids within a walk of his house or a short drive. He is willing to sell her a lot in order to build a home. In order for that to be accomplished we need to get this split. The reason they chose this house site is because it is the best house site, it sits up on the hill and has pasture around it. All things considered, this is where we derived at a logical location. Clark: Seeing no one in the audience except our next developer, I am just going to keep it with us. A lot can be split a maximum of three times right? Pate: Without a Preliminary Plat that is correct. Clark: Because there is so much county/city conflict here, that wouldn't apply at all would it? Pate: That was the problem with the 2003 request. The parcel number that was submitted had been split more than three times so it was required a Preliminary Plat and a Conditional Use and a gamete of other things. The parcel number that was submitted was actually north of this property. Once we got the right parcel number and were able to check the county records it had not been split more than three times so we were able to process it. Clark, S: In fact, the oldest deed I was able to find went back to 1987 and it retained ownership since that time. Clark: MOTION: If the owners are able to attain that you have setbacks everywhere, I don't have a problem with it. We do have to forward it to the full Commission so I will entertain a motion to that effect. Myres: I would like to move that we forward LSP 05-1465 to the full Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 27 Graves: I will second. Clark: I will concur. We will see you at the Planning Commission. Thank you. Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 28 Clark: The final item on our agenda is LSD 05-1462, Ridgehill Apartments. Will the applicant come on down? Pate: This property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 units per acre, it is located directly north of the Central Baptist Church, which is close to the corner of North and Gregg. The property to the north is vacant and then there are a couple of duplexes or four plexes or something. Directly to the west you will note on this first sheet, it is quite steep. That is when the railroad bank went in I'm assuming. The railroad does exist and is utilized there to the west. It is a very steep bank. In reviewing trees on this property we just kind of looked over it and decided not to walk down but they do have some slopes that they are dealing with and the architecture of the structures and the design of the site has had to respect that somewhat. The property contains approximately 1.68 acres. It does have significant slope. The applicant is proposing to construct four residential structures with 38 apartments, a total of 62 bedrooms. The proposed density at full build out is 22.6 units per acre, which is close to that density requirement. For multi -family development one parking space is required per bedroom. The minimum parking spaces allowed for the proposed development is 44 spaces, that is with the 30% decrease. You will note in your staff report, we have a bit of a concern just because we know the nature of multi -family development. With revisions from Plat Review a row of parking spaces was lost. They still meet ordinance requirement, we just wanted to voice that concern and have it on the record for the future. We would recommend that either look at talking to the church and potentially getting some sort of shared parking arrangement with them, not necessarily approved by this board because it does meet ordinance requirement. Property surrounding this is zoned multi family primarily with RSF-4 to the east across Gregg Avenue. 45' from centerline is required to be dedicated and a 6' sidewalk is to be constructed with a drive at the right of way line along the length of the property on Gregg Avenue. Parks fees, I believe Matt will go over that. The tree preservation, existing canopy is at 29%, most of which is low priority volunteer species along the slope. There is not a lot of significant canopy on this site. The applicant is preserving 17.9% and 20% is required so four trees will need to be planted on site to meet those requirements. Three adjoining property owners have submitted comments to us. Two of which objected to the development. There were no specific reasons, they just checked the I do object box verses the I don't object box. We are recommending forwarding this LSD to the full Planning Commission with 16 conditions of approval. I will go over a couple of those, at least one of those is Engineering's comments. Item one is just a revision to update the number of units, it currently states there are 39 proposed and I believe it is 38. Building height has been a little bit of a challenge on this project. In this zoning district if you have a building that Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 29 is higher than 20' in height you have to set back an additional foot for every foot in excess. The north building, Building "A" has been setback 12 additional feet. Actually, a section drawing was submitted showing the adjacent grade and how I could measure that, so I was easily able to tell building "A". I'm not sure about Building "D". I could not find anything in our notes so I'm not sure if that is going to require additional setback or not. If it does, obviously, the site plan will change dramatically. It is hard to tell at this point about what that building height is. It might be fine. If it is 20' then it won't have to be setback additional. Scott: We will get something to prove that it is 17'. Pate: That clarifies items two, three and four. There was one additional, the drawings you submitted to me was 32' and then add the eave of the roof, probably another 6", so it will probably be 13' additional. Item five, I put this in just so we could talk about it today. Planning Commission determination of a waiver of the maximum wall height of 10' along Gregg Avenue. I need to talk with the Engineering Division to determine what requirements and if they are being met and whether or not that is a waiver. That is just something that I need to clarify just as much as the Commissioners do. Item number six, street lights along Gregg Avenue do need to be installed. I think they are shown on the other side of Gregg. I think that is about it. Everything else was relatively straight forward. Clark: Thank you Jeremy. Engineering? O'Neal: On the retaining wall, there is no waiver that can be applied for. Itis 10' maximum height. You can step it. Pate: O'Neal: Essentially, that condition needs to be stated that the wall height needs to be revised to show a maximum of 10' in height prior to Planning Commission. Also, on that wall just confirm the setbacks. There are some additional setbacks that may be allowed for the wall from the property lines. It looks like you are ok but just confirm that. Clark: Parks? Mihalevich: On March 7th the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended accepting money in lieu for the parkland dedication ordinance for 38 multi -family units, that total comes to $14,934 and those will be due prior to issuing the building permit. Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 30 Scott: My name is Art Scott, I'm with Project Design Consultants representing Mr. Barber. They are proposing what I think is a pretty nice looking complex here. They do have a material listing here. Pate: Stone veneer, asphalt roof shingles, stone clad windows, glass, steel, concrete, stone veneer, base heaters, things like that. We don't require elevations for multi -family, it is just a courtesy. Scott: I think the multi level and split level on the site makes it unique and I seek your approval. Clark: I see nobody here in the audience so we will keep it with the Committee. Scott: I did want to mention one thing, we met with some members of the church before this and they expressed the desire to have a privacy fence and so I told them I would put that in our plan and let you all know that we plan to do that along the southern boundary. Clark: Scott: My first question is the underground detention site runoff. I see a note in the packet. I didn't see retention or detention, anything that is on a slate. Do you want to talk to us a little bit about that? I am thinking storm water runoff on a slope can be a deadly thing. We do have underground detention proposed in the parking lot and a pipe system. Right now it is determined that we put it in here which is a part of the asphalt section. The rest of this right here will runoff. I think we probably can downspout this to get it to the parking lot. Clark: I have never seen a system like that. Scott: It is driven by land price. I have done a lot of projects around the country and it only occurs where land prices are high, which is where we are at here. Clark: Is it equally efficient and what is the grade on the side of that hill going down to the railroad tracks? Is it over 1.5%? Scott: Yes. Pate: If you look at the map on the very last page of your packet, this little portion shows the slopes that are over 15% in the site. That is showing that all of that is over 15%. Again, most of which was created with the railroad cut. Clark: I just know that the apartments that are on North Street right on the railroad tracks are under the hill. This is going to be on top of the hill. I Subdivision Committee April14, 2005 Page 31 Pate: think runoff and erosion is always a major issue. Will this type of detention work? Much in the same way, they will still have to meet our same criteria for a detention pond, it is just this one is underground as opposed to a surface so you don't see it on the surface, it is just located in pipes underground and there is a flow associated with predevelopment that has to be released at the same rate. Clark: Where is it released? Scott: There is a drainage ditch on this side of the railroad tracks and it will be released where it goes now through this pipe between the two buildings here. There will be a device that prevents erosion from this outlet. Clark: That is a steep drop, you are taking it down right? I'm just trying to figure out, will there be a channel or something for it to get down? Scott: Actually, it will be piped out of this pipe system down through and released here into the ditch area. The ditch is out here. In that area we will have a device that reduces the velocity of the water to prevent erosion and then sod. Clark: Everybody is happy with that? Pate: It obviously will go through our construction plan review process as well as fine details that may be worked out then. Yes, the type of system is sustainable. Clark: Commissioners? Why are we forwarding it to the full Planning Commission? Pate: Because of the waiver request. Clark: You heard specifically no comments from neighbors as to why they oppose this and you are going to do the fence for the church? Scott: Yes. Pate: MOTION: With the exception of clarification of height of this building, that is the only major question we have to forward. We could potentially forward and put it on consent. There are no further questions. Myres: I would like to forward LSD 05-1462 to the full Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee April 14, 2005 Page 32 Graves: I will second that. Clark: We are going to elaborate on number three and change number eight to the correct amount of parks fees and I will concur. Thank you very much. Announcements Meeting adjourned: 10:25 a.m.