Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-02 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on June 2, 2005 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ADM 05-1567: Administrative Item (7 HILLS SHELTER): Page 2 LSP 05-1513: Page 4 PPL 05-1509: Page 6 PPL 05-1510: Page 13 PPL 05-1511: Page 18 PPL 05-1528: Page 23 PPL 05-1432: Page 29 PPL 05-1399: Page 32 PPL 05-1433: Page 39 Lot Split (NELMS/LEFLETT, 209): (MOUNTAIN RANCH, 478): (TWIN SPRINGS PHASE II, 357): (LYNNWOOD ESTATES, 294): (LAUREATE FIELDS, 246): (SASSAFRAS S/D, 221): (DEVONSHIRE GLYN, 475): (LIERLY LANE S/D, 244): MEMBERS PRESENT Christine Myres James Graves Candy Clark STAFF PRESENT Suzanne Morgan Brent O'Neal Jeremy Pate Allison Jumper Andrew Garner ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 2 ADM 05-1567: Administrative Item (7 HILLS SHELTER): Submitted by McClelland Consulting Engineers for property located at HUNTSVILLE ROAD. The request is for a major modification of the approved Large Scale Development, LSD 05- 1428. Clark: Welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting of June 2, 2005. The first item on our agenda is ADM 05-1567 for Seven Hills Homeless Shelter. Will the applicants come forward please? Morgan: The Large Scale Development approval for Seven Hills supportive housing facility was granted by the Subdivision Committee on April 1st of this year with conditions. The property is located south of Huntsville Road and east of Morningside Drive and is currently undeveloped at this time. Currently, the proposed development is working on a restricted time frame due to deadlines with regard to gaining federal funding. The applicant at this time has taken a look again at the site plan that was approved by the Subdivision Committee and at this time feels that there is a more appropriate community oriented design that could take place. Therefore, they have revised the site plan. Parking numbers have not changed, the number of units have not changed, their access has not changed, just the internal layout of how these buildings are oriented. In review for a building permit for this project staff felt that it would be appropriate to bring this back to the Subdivision Committee for a major modification due to the changes. We are recommending approval with one condition, that all original conditions of the original LSD shall remain applicable. Clark: Please introduce yourselves and tell us about your project. Sunneson: My name is Chris Sunneson with McClelland Consulting Engineers. Kelly: I'm Bob Kelly with Tucker Architects. Sunneson: As Suzanne pointed out in discussions with our client, the client felt that it would be more appropriate to orient this site a little bit better with respect to the building layout and the geometric of the parking lot arrangement and so we have taken that task to heart and simply updated the approved LSD with a more curvilinear approach to the drives and layout to the building rather to the linear forms that we had originally. Clark: Would anyone from the public like to comment on ADM 05-1567, Seven Hills Shelter? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. Myres: It looks like a better plan to me. There is no cul-de-sac, there is no dead end, it is a much more logical layout. I know that site, it is very pretty. I Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 3 think this shows a lot more thought and a lot more attention to the topography. I don't have any problem with it. Clark: Where are the trash receptacles going to be? Sunneson: There was an omission on our part on that. At the building furthest to the south there is an area where we can swing some parking around, there will be provisions to put a trash receptacle there and shift some parking so that we meet that requirement and that will be screened from all of these as well. Myres: The parking right here, just above that range of buildings, they will have to shift the parking a little bit. Clark: The other question is the number of handicapped spaces, I'm only seeing two on this plat, is that all you are required? Sunneson: Yes Ma'am. Kelly: We anticipate that there will probably not be a lot of cars there. We are meeting the requirement but there will probably not be a lot of cars there. Clark: I think this is a better layout for that piece of property. We can approve this at our level. Myres: My only concern is that there is a building marked accessible which is a place where people with disabilities can live. Again, they may not have a vehicle but it doesn't look like there is a handicapped space close to that. Sunneson: We can shift one of the handicapped parking spaces to that area. Myres: That makes sense. I would hate to have them come up that hill. That would be my only suggestion. MOTION: Graves: I will move that we approve ADM 05-1567 with the stated condition that all previous conditions that were approved continue to apply. Myres: Second. Clark: I will concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 4 LSP 05-1513: Lot Split (NELMS/LEFLETT, 209): Submitted by ANITA LEFLETT for property located at 3582 HWY 112 (SE CORNER 112 & VAN ASCHE). The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.96 acres. The request is to divide the subject tract into two tracts of 1.42 and 1.43 acres respectively with 0.11 acres of R -O -W dedicated. Clark: The next item on our agenda is LSP 05-1513 Nelms/Lefflet. Morgan: This property is located on the corner of Van Asche and Hwy. 112. You can see on the site plan that it is the very north edge of the city's boundary. The property currently has an existing non -conforming structure located on it and is proposed to remain on the proposed 1.53 acre tract. A portion of the property is located within the Design Overlay District and the property is zoned C-2. It contains 2.96 acres and the request is to split the subject property into Tracts "A" with 1.32 acres and Tract "B" with 1.53 acres. There is a remaining .11 acres that will be dedicated as right of way for Van Asche and Hwy. 112. The requirements for dedication of right of way are 55' from centerline for both of these streets since they are both principal arterials and the right of way to be dedicated on Hwy. 112 will need to be done by Warranty Deed prior to filing this Lot Split because it is a state highway. Staff is recommending approval of the Lot Split at this time with a total of six conditions. The first two are with regards to right of way dedication for Van Asche and Hwy. 112. Conditions three through five basically address any future development. Of course, all requirements of the UDC and Design Overlay District requirements where applicable would be required to be met. We would also take a look at access since these are major principal arterials. At this time they are showing access easements on the property to allow for the utilization of the existing driveways for the building that is currently there. When these properties ever do come in and request development we will take a look at the time of LSD where best to align driveways. The rest is just standard conditions of approval. O'Neal: I just want to reiterate that the service for the water, it is not clear where the service actually crosses, if it crosses Van Asche. Of course, it actually crosses Tract "A" and state law dictates that services can't cross lot lines. At the time that Tract "A" develops we need to find out where that service comes from and if it does cross Tract "A" it would have to be relocated. Lefflet: I'm Anita Lefflet, I'm 50% owner of the real estate there. We have designed it to sell off the green part in front to something hopefully appropriate for the growing area. Something that won't hopefully destroy the beautiful green space that is already there. There is a lot of residential development out in that area that will require some services and it seemed like a good proposal when we bought it. It might be accessible for some Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 5 other Large Scale down the road. Hopefully it will be something that will enhance the neighborhood. Clark: Would anyone from the public like to comment on LSP 05-1513? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. We can approve this at our level if we choose to. Graves: It looks fairly straight forward to me, I see no problem with it. Clark: Do we need to add the condition about showing a water easement for access? Morgan: Brent, do they need to confirm that now? O'Neal: You should just add it as a general condition that at the time that Tract "A" is developed that that service be located. Clark: I will leave that to you all to note that so there will be a seventh condition of approval. MOTION: Myres: I will move to approve LSP 05-1513 with the conditions as stated. Graves: I second. Clark: I will concur. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 6 PPL 05-1509: Preliminary Plat (MOUNTAIN RANCH, 478): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES INC. - ROGERS for property located at SE OF PERSIMMON ST. AND RUPPLE RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 59.88 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat for a residential subdvision with 117 single family lots proposed. Clark: PPL 05-1509 for Mountain Ranch is the next item on the agenda. Will the developers come forward? Morgan: This property contains approximately 59.88 acres, it is located south of the Boys and Girls Club and east of the Rupple Road Middle School. It was recently zoned RSF-4 and nearby are many developing properties including not only the school but Rupple Row PZD, Cross Keys PZD and kitty corner to Persimmon, Persimmon Place. The subject property is going to be Phase I in a larger master planned development and will contain many street improvements along Rupple and Persimmon Street. Right of way to be dedicated includes the remaining rights of way necessary for Rupple Road for a total of 90' of right of way including that portion near the intersection being developed by Rupple Road School. Additional right of way includes 70' of right of way for Persimmon Street on the subject property. Connectivity is being proposed not only to Rupple Road and Persimmon but also to the south for future development. On site mitigation will be required for a total of 387 trees and I will go ahead and review the conditions of approval. Staff is recommending forwarding this item to the full Planning Commission. Some of these conditions are quite lengthy. With regard to condition one, Planning Commission determination of Rupple Road street improvements. Staff is recommending that the developer construct a full street section to city standards for Rupple Road south of the adjacent Rupple Road school improvements. What was agreed upon with Rupple Road school was that Rupple Road would be constructed to their first entry into the project. Therefore, at this time we are requiring that this developer construct the southern portion to this project boundary. If it is determined that this road needs to be a boulevard width staff is recommending a cost share with the city. Condition two, Planning Commission determination of Persimmon Street improvements. Staff is recommending a cost share to the City Council in order to construct Persimmon Street at it's collector width at this time. The developer would be responsible for the southern lane of three, one lane associated with all infrastructure adjacent to the property. Staff recommends that the center lane of Persimmon also be part of that cost share. We also recommend a cost share for the northern lane of Persimmon so that adjacent to the city owned property of the Boys and Girls Club north of the property so at the time of Phase I Persimmon Street will be constructed as follows, staff recommends a cost share subject to Persimmon Street being constructed to the east where Persimmon Street Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 7 currently dead ends near Betty Jo Drive at the time that this phase is constructed. Persimmon Street will be constructed as a three lane between Mountain Ranch subdivision and the Boys and Girls Club, or the city owned property, as a two lane street and as a two lane street east of the city owned property. What we are requesting is that from the intersection of Rupple Road and Persimmon to the end of the city property to the north it would be a three lane street with this developer constructing the southernmost lane and then a cost share to develop the turn lane and the northern lane. From city property all the way to Betty Jo we request that the developer construct that street to two lanes with the third lane to the north to be developed when the property to the north develops. Condition three, the developer shall be responsible for paying an assessment for a future traffic signal at the intersection of Rupple and Persimmon. The school was also required to pay an assessment for that and we have a memo from our Engineering Division with the numbers on that for a total of $4,729.73. Condition four states several different waivers that the applicant is requesting for development of this subdivision with regard to radii of several streets and the length of a dead end street at 516' where the requirement is 500'. Staff is recommending approval of each of those four waivers that have been requested. Just a little background information, a Property Line Adjustment has been processed to create this subject property as a legal tract and prior to approval of the Planning Commission, the final revisions for that Property Line Adjustment need to be submitted to staff for review and filed at the county. There were several different comments from Tech Plat that were not addressed and so we have included these in here. Condition ten is in regard to FEMA requirements being met on this property. There is a lot of floodplain. Some of which, the lots are nearly completely within the floodplain. The requirement is that there shall be 6,000 sq.ft. buildable area on any lot which has floodplain associated on it or that those lots be platted at one acre unless there is a LOMR approved by FEMA so that will need to be finalized prior to Final Plat approval so that all lots can be platted in conformance of those requirements. The additional requirements listed are fairly standard. There is a requirement with regard to parks that I will let Allison review and there are several conditions with regard to tree preservation. Number thirteen is requesting more information on the tree preservation plan and based on the calculations that we have been submitted, we have determined that 387 trees would be required for mitigation. Clark: Engineering? O'Neal: On Sheet 3 you provide the typical road cross sections, that is fine. We actually still need it in the form of a table with the street names, right of way widths, green space, sidewalks. Also, I would like to thank Suzanne for clarifying the cost share. I was trying to write this out as I was going. The items for the floodplain, if you could show the grading for those lots Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 8 that you get the 6,000 sq.ft. that you are going to need for those lots, that would go a long ways for approval. Actual grading within the lots themselves. Also, in our discussions that we have had in the past, we also mentioned that we needed a 12" waterline system so if you could label the line size through the development that would help out a lot as well. Jumper: The Parks Board did recommend accepting land for this phase of the development and the requirement for this phase is 2.8 acres. However, we are working with Mr. Terminella to look at a larger park that will encompass the requirement of the entire development and it will be located in a future phase but we need to go ahead and nail that down before this phase is approved. Jones: I'm Kurt Jones with Crafton, Tull & Associates. Terminella: I'm Tom Terminella. Jones: This is a 117 lot residential subdivision. As staff has pointed out, there are several significant coordination issues for developments in the area. We have been working on addressing those. I think we have about got everything lined out. As far as the street issues and who is going to construct what, when and where, I think everyone is in agreement on that at this point. As pointed out, we are requesting some waivers. Mainly street radii, I think at least two of those are intersections that will come to a stop condition. The other cul-de-sac condition, we are asking for a slight variance of 16'. I kind of briefly looked through some of the comments and conditions, I think some of this information is on the plan. I would be more than happy to sit down with staff and kind of go through some of it if we need to work with them to clarify it a little bit better I would be happy to do that. As pointed out, some of the lots are within the floodplain, we have submitted a FLOMR to FEMA. It is currently being reviewed. In fact, we received comments on it. It addresses floodplain issues as well as the structures that will be constructed under Rupple Road and Persimmon Street. I would be happy to answer any questions. Clark: Would anybody from the public like to comment on PPL 05-1509? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. On Lots 33 and 34, is the front going to front onto the cul-de-sac or the street? Jones: Clark: Jones: All lots will front onto interior streets. I thought we actually stated that on the plat somewhere. That was my question, will the front or back be to Rupple? The back will be to Rupple. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 9 Clark: The traffic circle is very interesting. Is the turning radius tight? I am referring to the back of the roundabout. O'Neal: I have been working with the applicant on that and I believe that it will meet all of our requirements. Clark: I was just thinking of emergency vehicles. Is it going to be big enough? Jones: Yes. Emergency vehicles typically can turn around in a cul-de-sac, which is a 40' diameter. Morgan: Fire recommends a 50'. Staff usually just enforces a minimum 40.4'. Jones: We are well over that on this. We will work with staff. We have them labeled on a table, it is roughly 75'. Clark: In terms of the floodplain, I noticed that Lot 21, what percentage has to be in the floodplain? I know that Lot 21 is not in the floodplain in the build out. Morgan: There has to be a minimum 6,000 sq.ft. outside of the floodplain for any lot. If it doesn't have the 6,000 sq.ft. outside of the floodplain it has to be a minimum of one acre. Clark: It is just a weird looking configuration. Jones: Keep in mind, this floodplain is going to change significantly once our FLOMR is approved. That will be reflected on the Final Plat. Clark: The timing of this development is it scheduled to come in before, during or after the school? Jones: I am assuming that construction will be concurrently. Clark: It jumped to my attention because you have got a storage area for delivery of material and your truck wash right on Rupple Road right across the street from the school and that is a big come and play invitation for a child. That is a little concerning to me. Jones: I would anticipate that most of that use as storage area along Rupple Road would be complete. Clark: Is there some type of screening or protection? Terminella: It is a non -issue, we can store somewhere else on the site. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 10 Clark: I think that kind of stuff for kids would be a temptation. I have a question about trees as well. In the Landscape Plan there are a lot of trees that are determined to be in poor condition that you are keeping and you are keeping a lot of trees and that is a good thing. If those trees die will that count in the canopy preservation numbers? Morgan: Yes they would. If they were damaged or killed as part of this development the applicant would have to mitigate for those. For instance, if a tree on Lot 64 was in poor condition and this subdivision were platted, the owner of Lot 64 would have the right to remove that tree anyway. Clark: Jones: I did see you were going to require when the lots develop on site planting as well, which is great. The final questions I have, Lot 66 is a little lot by comparison. It is roughly 11,509 sq.ft. It is not even the smallest one. Lot 67 is the smallest. It is an odd size. Parkland dedication, what are we doing with parkland? Terminella: It is an ongoing discussion. I believe it was understood that we are going with our original proposal. We had 200 plus lots and had identified five acres which adjoins this proposed first phase. In talking through with some of the adjoining developers and with Alison we feel like it potentially makes more sense to do a regional park. We have 474 other acres on the mountain, some very environmentally sensitive areas that I would like to see preserved with natural features that I am going to be championing to locate the park in that area. We will do our best to get with staff and Parks and Alison in particular and look at some of our proposed sites. For this amount of mass there will be some 20 or 30 acres of green space that will ultimately come into play here for a regional park and we are going to make sure that it is something that we can use and has meaning behind it as far as it's preservation. Jumper: We just need to schedule a meeting real soon to look at those. Graves: Staff, my question is on the length of Mountain View Loop coming away from the traffic circle. We have had it come up before, the length of a street before it hits an intersection for traffic control purposes and I just wanted to be sure that we are ok on that. Morgan: We can check that. Our maximum block length is 1,400 feet. We can check and make sure that this is in compliance with that. Myres: I'm just very excited to see a development without straight streets. It looks very inviting, very welcoming, very pleasant to drive through and no speedways, which is great. That may be a result of the topography as Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 11 well. I don't have any problem with the current dead end. It is 16' over the maximum. I don't want to quenelle over 16'. Clark: Why are we stopping Persimmon at Betty Jo and not Shiloh? Is the city going to take it on? Morgan: Persimmon is actually constructed from Shiloh to Betty Jo so this will complete the connection. Clark: You are right and it will give the school more stacking space which is great. I think that is a wonderful traffic idea. We have several conditions, findings of fact to make, I will start at the first one and go down. Have you seen these conditions and are you in agreement with them? Jones: This is the first time we've seen them. Clark: What do you think about the Rupple Road suggested street improvements? Graves: I agree that we need to recommend to the City Council to cost share as staff has recommended widening those streets. Myres: Suzanne, clarify something for me real quickly. On Rupple, the school is over here, is this the first driveway that shows on this plat? The school is improving up to that point? Morgan: Correct. They are building a complete street up to that first driveway. Myres: Then this development would be responsible for the length from here to here? Morgan: Correct. As well as dedicating all right of way for that. Clark: On condition number ten, do you have specific lots talking about? nITT nd that you are Morgan: Those lots would be from 12 through 21, lots 79, 81 and 84. To the south of the development, lots 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 45 and 117 are all affected by the floodplain. Many of those lots already have 6,000 sq.ft. outside of the floodplain but for example, Lot 117 or many of those lots to the north adjacent to the proposed detention area seem to be completely within the floodplain and do not have the 6,000 sq.ft. of buildable area. Clark: Do you want to call those lots out or just leave it generic? Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 12 Morgan: Clark: Graves: Clark: Morgan: Terminella: Clark: Terminella: Clark: MOTION: Graves: Myres: Clark: We can more specifically call those out and determine which ones at this time do not have 6,000 sq.ft. buildable area. If you want we can update that for the Planning Commission. That would be a good step to update it so that the Commissioners know what to look for. We are passing this one, the recommendation will be to go to the full Commission. Is everyone ok with the waivers that they have requested? Staff is recommending approval? Yes, we are recommending each of those waivers. I would like to make one comment on the floodplain. We are waiting on the FLOMR and our FEMA study that we instigated for the construction of Persimmon and Rupple for the triple box culvert structures that have to go under those boulevards and in doing so that will change and we will have a map revision so the issue that is at the forefront now will slowly go away and those grades of those out parcels will be changed by import material which will change it's finished elevation. I think you have worked very efficiently with the existing floodplain to lay out the development. I think your density is something like 1.95 units per acre. We plan for a very dynamic new approach to development that has a sense of community instead of maximum density. I think that is a commendable objective. Is there anything else? I move for forwarding PPL 05-1509 to the full Planning Commission. With respect to condition number one, a recommendation that the Planning Commission also find that there should be a recommendation to the City Council to cost share as stated by staff. The same with respect to condition two and recommending in favor of the waivers requested in condition number four. Then with all of the other stated conditions of approval in place. I will second. I will concur. Hopefully by Planning Commission some of these lingering questions like with the park, etc., can be cleared up. Thanks gentlemen. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 13 PPL 05-1510: Preliminary Plat (TWIN SPRINGS PHASE II, 357): Submitted by DON HILLIS for property located at DOUBLE SPRINGS ROAD, N OF WEDINGTON. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 30.5 acres. The request is to approve Phase II of a residential subdivision with 23 single family lots proposed. Clark: The next item on our agenda is PPL 05-1510 Twin Springs Phase II. Will the applicants come forward please? Gardener: The Twin Springs Phase II project is located in the Planning Area on Double Springs Road north of Wedington and contains approximately 5.57 acres. The request is to approve Phase II of a residential subdivision with 23 single family lots. The Final Plat for Phase I of the Twin Springs Estates was approved on August 3, 2004. The property has street frontage and ingress/egress on Double Springs Road and the site is currently undeveloped. All surrounding properties to the project site are within the Planning Area and consist of large single family properties to the north, south and east and undeveloped open space to the west. Water would be extended to serve the proposed development. The applicant proposes septic systems on lots ranging in size from just under one acre to about 2 /2 acres. The applicant proposes dedication of right of way for a total of 30' from the centerline of Double Springs Road and proposes a total of 50' right of way for internal streets. The applicant has indicated stub outs to the north and south for connectivity. Staff is recommending forwarding the project to the full Planning Commission. In addition the standard conditions of approval, I will go over the conditions of approval that we do have for this project. Right of way dedication in the amount of 30' from centerline for Double Springs Road and right of way dedication in the amount of 25' from the centerline of internal streets. The second one, Planning Commission determination of appropriate sidewalk location. The applicant is indicating sidewalks on only one side of the street and this is because the development is not connected to any other areas, it is large lots and the topography is not really such on both sides of the road where it would be appropriate. That is why we are asking the Planning Commission to take a look at the sidewalk locations. A sign indicating future extension of right of way shall be posted at the end of all street stub outs. We need final approval of the septic systems and condition five, construction of internal streets constructed to city standards and improve Double Springs Road 14' from centerline. We will need approval from Washington County Planning for the Preliminary Plat and we included that condition for the utilities to be located underground. Clark: Engineering? O'Neal: No comment. Clark: Please introduce yourselves and tell us about your project. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 14 Hillis: My name is Don Hillis with Landtech Engineering, I'm here with Leonard Gabbard, who is also the owner of this property. It is not 5.57 acres, it is 30.45 acres. As Planning mentioned, we are trying to do a nice subdivision on this property. Sidewalks, I indicated some sidewalk locations but we are up to any suggestions on that if Planning has anything. We just feel that people are going to want to be more of a rural area than city per say. We are happy to answer any questions. Clark: Would anyone from the public like to comment on PPL 05-1510? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. We are very limited in what we can look at, as you all know. This is in the Planning Area. Where are you showing the sidewalks? Hillis: Gabbard: Clark: Morgan: Sidewalks on one side going around the edge and then up to here, cross again and come back. We didn't see any need for sidewalks in this area. We figured with the rural setting that most folks wanted that rural feeling. These are 2,600 sq.ft. minimums with 80% brick so they are estate Tots. We wanted connectivity for these pedestrians to have a way to walk a full circle and also even to go out to Double Springs Road. We figured a sidewalk on one side and with the steepness of the terrain, we tried to put the sidewalks on one side so it wouldn't be over on those outside edges where it drops off real steep. That was our thinking there. This northern edge is pretty steep and so is the eastern edge. What type of latitude do we have with regard to locating sidewalks? The standard is for a local street to have sidewalks on both sides with associated green space. This property, while in the Planning Area, is also located within one mile from the city limits so we are looking at full city street improvements. The Planning Commission can waive the requirement of a sidewalk on both sides if they choose to do so. Gabbard: One of these roads here, we could've done that 24' wide and it wouldn't have required a sidewalk on both sides. What we have done is opted to make these roads 28' wide and so we are trying. I don't want a 24' wide street in there. We are going to make it wider. That 24' would have required a sidewalk on one side. We feel like we are not only meeting the minimum standards but are going above and beyond minimum standards on this. We would like your consideration in regards to that item as well. Graves: We have looked at a number of these subdivisions that are in the county but pretty close to areas that are being developed that might end up being closer to being in the city later on down the road. What have we done with those on sidewalks? Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 15 Morgan: Graves: Morgan: Gabbard: Morgan: Gabbard: Morgan: Gabbard: Morgan: Graves: For the most part, since this ordinance was just adopted in December to require street improvements in those areas, I cannot recall a subdivision where two sidewalks were not required on a 50' street. However, it has never been requested to have only one. My only concern in not having the sidewalks in accordance with city standards is just what I just said and that is it is pretty close to areas that are already in the city that are being built up already. At some point there is a good chance it is going to be in the city and it is not going to have sidewalks on one side of the street. That is my only concern. If you look at the property in the vicinity map there are two stub outs. This development is pretty self contained except for the two stub outs to the north and south. That stub out to the south would actually continue to property that is not within our Planning Area. The stub out to the north however, could potentially be continued on and then we may run into the same question when the property to the north develops if it is within that one mile area as to whether they are going to add an additional sidewalk on one side of the street or just have a sidewalk on one side of the street. I have a question for Suzanne, that is the Planning Area boundary that basically cuts through about 50% of our subdivision, correct? Yes. What jurisdiction does the city have in that area of the subdivision? Because it is not within our Planning Area we don't have any jurisdiction within that area. That is basically where that road is that I'm making 28' wide and that I'm requesting for a sidewalk on one side. Anyway, the city could theoretically force me to put sidewalks on both sides of the street up to the Planning Boundary Area correct? Correct. I'm not trying to be a hard case on it or anything. The Planning Boundary shifts, if that area ends up being in the city the Planning Boundary moves. I just have a concern about having a property there that is pretty close to areas that are being built up rapidly within the city and could someday be in the city and doesn't have a sidewalk like all of the other properties have. That is my only concern. I'm just one person. There are nine Planning Commissioners. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 16 Clark: To me, will the topography in any way rule out the ability to put in sidewalks, especially to the north engineering wise? O'Neal: Clark: I don't know what the topography is to the north and to the south. Generally that is the ridge line. I would assume that up and down that ridge line that it would be possible to put sidewalk on both sides. There are many reasons that I am inclined to agree with Commissioner Graves. I understand that you are going for the rural setting with the larger lots but I would think that sidewalks on both sides of the street would be a great amenity for the folks living there. It would almost give them their own trail around a very secluded area coming and going. I think development out there is going crazy and it is going to be in the city fairly soon. We are not the final jury on this, the Planning Commission will be. I personally think sidewalks on both sides of the street would be a good amenity and necessary. I do commend the fact that you are making the streets wider, that is a great thing too. You are making a lot of inherent appealing features in this development. Hillis: The sidewalk is usually built by the homeowners as the lots are developed. I don't see making a homeowner pay for a sidewalk, like on this number five, that is a long lot, that is not fair to me. We were electing to put the sidewalks ourselves. Clark: Most of the developments we see inside the city the developer does the sidewalks, I don't know how they pass that along. Morgan: Typically, the sidewalks on arterials, exteriors, be done by the developer. The developer is required to put up a guarantee for construction of sidewalks and then at the time that each single family lot develops we require that at the time the home develops that the sidewalk be put in so the owner is therefore responsible for the sidewalk, but we do have a guarantee from the developer in case those don't get put in. Clark: We don't have to decide this today. It can go to the full Planning Commission and all nine of us can talk about it. Hillis: If that is the feeling of this group here we will go ahead and build the sidewalks, we will pay for it. We are not going to pass it on to the homeowners. Clark: We are just part of the Commission, you have six other folks. Hillis: This is too much of an upscale subdivision, I am not going to skimp on anything. The people are going to pay a good price for these lots, I am not going to make them pay for sidewalks. We will put it in. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 17 Myres: Morgan: Myres: Clark: Gabbard: Clark: Morgan: MOTION: Myres: Graves: Clark: I do have a little bit of trouble with the topography, especially on the northeast over here where it slopes off like a gully. It might make it a little difficult to widen that pad enough to make it possible to put a sidewalk on that side. Being that granted, it is close to the city limits, but being that this is still a rural area and the character of this subdivision, I didn't have any trouble with just a sidewalk around the inner loop. One option may be to continue a sidewalk along both sides of this north/south street so that if it does continue north in the future to another subdivision this can be continued. We can look at that. I'm looking forward to tour with agenda to go out and actually see this because it is real difficult to make a determination about what is appropriate and what is not when you are not familiar with the site. I will follow up on that and request that Engineering go out and look at it before agenda and are ready to make an informed comment about feasibility. When you all do your tour, we would be more than happy, we have cut some roads in for access for the perk tests that kind of somewhat follow where these roads will go so it will give you a feel for the terrain. We have some vehicles that we will be glad to let you ride in. Our position is whatever staff wants to do with the sidewalks, we will cooperate. Why don't we let you all work that out before we come back to the full Planning Commission. We will take a look at it and make a recommendation. Having said that, I would like to recommend forwarding PPL 05-1510 to the full Planning Commission with all conditions of approval. I will second. I will concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 18 PPL 05-1511: Preliminary Plat (LYNNWOOD ESTATES, 294): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING,INC. for property located at 2468 N CROSSOVER RD., NE OF TOWNSHIP ST. The property is zoned RSF-2, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 2 UNTS PER ACRE and contains approximately 4.77 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat of a residential subdivision with 6 single family lots proposed. Clark: The next item on our agenda is PPL 05-1511 for Lynnwood Estates. Gardener: Lynnwood Estates property is located at 2468 N. Crossover Road just north of Township Street. The property is zoned RSF-2, Residential Single Family, two units per acre, and contains approximately 4.77 acres. This property was recently rezoned in April of this year from R -A to RSF- 2. This project is proposing a single family lot subdivision with six single family lots. This site is largely undeveloped and vegetated at this point with a dense tree canopy and has one existing single family dwelling on the southernmost lot. Staff has received comments from four adjacent property owners. Two of the property owners are not opposed and two of them were opposed to the project talking about traffic issues and property values. The surrounding land uses mainly consist of single family residential on all sides and then there is a church across the street and also the Hickory Park PZD is under construction across Crossover. Water and sewer lines would be extended to serve the development. Right of way is proposed to be dedicated with this plat to result in 55' of right of way from the centerline of Crossover. There is existing 89% coverage of tree canopy and the project is proposing to preserve 71% so mitigation is not required. Staff recommends forwarding this project to the full Planning Commission with the following conditions: 1) The right of way shall be dedicated in the amount of 55' from the centerline of Crossover Road. I will let the Parks Department speak on parks fees. 3) Prior to signing the Final Plat the applicant shall provide a cost estimate to the city for construction of a 6' sidewalk along the project's Crossover frontage and also conduct grading for that sidewalk and pay the assessment to the city for fees in lieu of a sidewalk construction. Also, fees for the planned highway improvements for Crossover. 4) The addresses on the proposed lot shall be shown. 5) No other driveway cuts shall be allowed other than those shown on the plans. Those are the ones that I wanted to highlight. In addition, we have our standard conditions of approval as well. O'Neal: Kip, we had mentioned earlier about showing an additional fire hydrant somewhere in the area of Lot 4 or Lot 5 so if you could just add that to your plan. Jumper: The Parks Board recommended accepting money in lieu. Fees are assessed for six single family homes in the amount of $3300 and those are due before Final Plat. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 19 Clark: Please introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Hern: O'Neal: Tape Ends Hern: My name is Kip Hern with H2 Engineering. This is obviously, a very low density development. Basically, it is three tracts that we are just splitting, basically lot splits creating six large estate lots. We feel it is very low impact on that particular area. I do have a question on one of the conditions of approval on item number three. The assessment to be paid to the city for fees in lieu of sidewalk and to planned highway improvements in this area. The question is in regard to the highway improvements and then the second question may be that I was under the impression that the Highway Department as part of their construction through there would construct a 4' sidewalk so that this developer would only have to add 2' to that. You are correct, the developer would not be responsible for the highway improvements. However, the assessment would be for the full 6' of sidewalk. Ok. Mr. John Brown, who lives to the north of this development, has requested that we look at the feasibility of extending the sewer, since we are having to extend the sewer down to this location to begin with, he asked that we extend that sewer across his property and tie in possibly at another location up to the north. We are exploring that option, if we can accommodate that, or if the manholes can accommodate the sewer, we will be willing to do that. We have done some investigation. There is another lateral just north of the existing homes here that are basically on the back side of these homes. That is only 4' deep at that manhole so there is some concern about pouring under the highway there and being able to get into that. If there is some way to accommodate him, even on a more limited basis toward the southern end of his property, we are willing to do that. Clark: Hopefully you will have that worked out before Planning Commission. Is there anything else? Hern: That is all. Clark: I will open comment to the public on PPL 05-1511, Lynnwood Estates. Would anyone like to comment? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. Suzanne, what is the distance between the curb cuts? Morgan: It is over 200'. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 20 Myres: The thing that I like about it is not having a curb cut for every lot. That makes a great deal of sense because of the traffic on this road in the first place. It makes it much less dangerous I think without all of those accessing it. Clark: Did I dream that when this came through as a rezoning that you had talked about access through an alley? We have lost that idea now? Hern: That was a recommendation from staff when it originally came through that when the Preliminary Plat be brought through that we looked at the possibility of constructing an alley, which really was a major impact to those properties from the trees that would have to be cut down to construct that plus the additional runoff that would require a detention pond, which would create more of an impact to the trees. We had three tracts that are there now that are in existence that are all permitted to have access to the highway. We are utilizing those three access points to try to serve all six lots. Clark: Hern: My only concern, I don't know how we factor this in, the house that is here, there is plenty of turn around room within the lot itself and so you pull out on Crossover. Of course, surely you are going to think about configuring this as safe as possible, you are not going to ask people to back out onto Crossover. The size of the lots, they will have ample opportunity to turn around and face forward. Plus, that existing drive that is there will be removed and he will share that drive with Lot 2. Clark: Should we think of making that a condition that we don't want anybody to back onto Crossover, is there any way to do that? I know that is your intent but once we get to building that could be a whole different thing. Morgan: With regard to parking lot requirements, if you have five spaces or more, we have requirements that you can't back out onto a street. We can see whether or not that can be included as a condition. If you feel that, with regard to the alley discussion, it was staff's initial recommendation when meeting with the applicant, even prior to the rezoning that we address access onto Crossover and we suggested an alley way. The applicant does have a valid argument that there are three existing lots on this property and can have three curb cuts so with this plan they are just utilizing those three to access this lot. Clark: I think the shared drive way is a good way, I thought the alley was a great idea but if you can save more trees and be more efficient doing it this way that makes sense. I am just concerned about forcing traffic onto Crossover Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 21 the wrong direction. I know what your intent is now but when those lots are developed and you are not building them, who knows? Morgan: I think we can add that as a condition. Hern: I don't know how we can enforce that. Morgan: It would be a condition placed on this Final Plat that we would have to ensure. Whenever we look at a building permit for each of these lots we would have to ensure that there is adequate room for the vehicles to turn around on the property. Graves: It wouldn't be a condition requiring people to go out frontward, it would be just a condition that they have room in their driveways to get turned around and go out forward. Hern: Would that require as part of our construction efforts to clear a pad? Or is that just at the time the building permit is pulled? Morgan: At the time of building permit would be appropriate. Hern: That is fine. Clark: Are you going to sod over, remove the concrete of the existing driveway? Hern: It is asphalt. Clark: Is there anything else Commissioners? Graves: I just had a question for staff on condition three now that we have changed it on condition three now I understood you to say that the applicant is agreeing to construct the 6' sidewalk? Morgan: Through the proposed driveways so that the driveways and the sidewalk would be constructed at the time that this Final Platted but that there would be an assessment for a 6' sidewalk. Graves: That is going to be prior to signing the Final Plat, that he is to go ahead and construct the curb cuts for the driveways and the sidewalks too? Morgan: Yes, I think that that is appropriate just because it wouldn't be therefore, the responsibility of one or two of these owners. If somebody buys Lot 6 before Lot 5, they are responsible for constructing that drive. Hern: Yes, I did want to confirm that, that is part of our initial construction. Also, it says that grading shall be conducted for a 6' sidewalk in that area. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 22 Would the grading be part of the Highway Departments' efforts in widening? Morgan: I will defer to Engineering as to whether they would request grading at this time or allow that to hold off. O'Neal: Hen: The development across the street is being required to just grade the area for the 6' sidewalk at the right of way so you would also be required to grade, approximately 2% above the curb line of the proposed widening for the 6' sidewalk. Do you think that once the improvements for the highway are being made, I am wondering if any disturbance of materials out there is really going to coincide with the plan for the highway improvements. O'Neal: It is going to be an approximation. Clark: How does that leave us with condition number three? Graves: I will try to make a motion. I will move that we forward PPL 05-1511 to the full Planning Commission with the stated conditions of approval with the exception of condition number three which will change to say "Prior to signing the Final Plat the applicant shall construct driveways and 6' sidewalks through the driveways and shall conduct the grading for a 6' sidewalk in that area along the project's Crossover Road frontage" Leaving in the language about an assessment to be paid to the city for fees in lieu of the sidewalk construction but striking the language about planned highway improvements. Myres: I will second. Clark: I will concur. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 23 PPL 05-1528: Preliminary Plat (LAUREATE FIELDS, 246): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at SW CORNER DEAN SOLOMON AND SALEM RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 73.39 acres. The request is to approve a Preliminary Plat for a residential subdivision with 211 single family lots proposed. Clark: Morgan: The next item on the agenda is another Preliminary Plat, PPL 05-1528, Laureate Fields. The subject property is 73.39 acres, is currently vacant and west of Deane Solomon Road and south of Salem Road. Single family residences are located to the north of the subject property along West Salem Road and areas to the north and south are vacant. On August 23, 2004 the Planning Commission granted approval for a residential subdivision on the subject property with 176 lots. This development was called Schlegel Subdivision. Items of discussion included Master Street Plan compliance with a collector that runs east/west through the property, park land dedication per the approved City Council contract and resolution between the city and the developer and street development within the subdivision. Since the time that that original plat was approved the applicant has informed staff that they found that it wasn't feasible and therefore, would like to add lots to the proposed development. Therefore, they have resubmitted a new Preliminary Plat for the same property. All of the streets are in the same configuration. Nothing has changed with the street design however, some lots were decreased in size to add additional lots within the subdivision and the park land area was removed from the subdivision and lots were added in place of that park land dedication. I will allow Parks to elaborate on that situation. At this time the applicant proposes a residential subdivision containing 211 lots where originally 176 were approved on the property. Again, none of the street configurations have changed and staff is recommending forwarding this Preliminary Plat to the full Planning Commission at this time. Most of these conditions are exactly the same as the conditions that were approved on this property with the previous subdivision. Those that are slightly different I have specifically addressed in conditions one through three. Condition one being Planning Commission determination of Master Street Plan compliance with regard to Gypsum Drive, an east/west collector. The street is shown as an east/west 28' street constructed from the eastern property line through the round about south on Long Fellow Parkway and west on Thoroughfare to the same property line. This is the same condition as it was on the previous Preliminary Plat request. The Planning Commission found in favor of that street as shown on the plans. Since this is a new Preliminary Plat, you would need to make that finding again. Second, Planning Commission determination of parkland dedication. The Parks Board voted to accept a land dedication of 5.064 acres on offsite property also owned by the developer and planned for a larger park area. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 24 The specific park location shall be determined and deeded to the City of Fayetteville prior to signing the Final Plat. Condition three, the park land dedication changes, if approved, shall also take City Council approval in order to alter the resolution and contract between the city and the developer regarding the original proposal. I will take any questions that you may have. Clark: Engineering? O'Neal: No comment. Clark: Parks? Jumper: Suzanne mostly covered the Parks' comments. The original recommendation from the Parks Board on this came through the first time with a park land dedication within this the development. Since then, the developer came back and requested to present this Preliminary Plat to the Parks Board and they made a new recommendation to still accept park land but it would be off site in a development that is north and east of this development. We will need to nail that down before this Final Plat is signed. Clark: Is there anybody else? Introduce yourselves and tell us about your project. Jefcoat: I am Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company and Tracy Hoskins with Paradigm Development. This is the same subdivision development that you saw previously as the Schlegel property. The staff is correct, there are no street changes, there are no utility changes, all of the sanitary sewer, water, storm water, street grates, everything remains the same. The only difference is the parkland that was parkland is now developed as lots and some of the lots, some of, not all, only the lots on the north half of the subdivision became somewhat smaller to increase the number of lots from 176 to 211, other than that, the project remains as submitted, approved. The construction plans were also approved and the project was bid and was found out of the budget and that was the reason for the re -submittal, to gain a few more lots and to re -bid the project. With that having been said, we also took advantage for the parkland dedication increase, the size of the park dedication in another location adjacent to here. The Master Trail Plan runs parallel to this project and so there is linkage and provides a good opportunity for expanding park development somewhere else. We would like to recommend that this project be approved at this level. We have not changed the Master Street Plan, it was approved before, has been approved, and so the location of that did not change. The parkland dedication has been resolved and approved by the Parks Board. All of the other conditions of approval remain the same and are unchanged with this Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 25 project. We would respectfully request that you approve it at this point and let us move forward with construction. Morgan: It is staffs determination that because of the additional lots this has to be brought through as a new Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Plats must be approved by the Planning Commission and cannot be approved by the Subdivision Committee. Hoskins: Morgan: Up until this point, I was under the understanding that this was not a new Preliminary Plat but that it was a modification. It is not, it is a new Preliminary Plat. We received new application forms, new fees, made a new project folder, a new project name, so it is a new Preliminary Plat. Clark: Thank you. I am going to open it to the public. Would anyone like to comment on PPL 05-1528? If you would please come to the podium, state your name and give us your comments please. Raymond: I am Susan Raymond at 3052 N. Hughmount Road, Fayetteville. I'm not familiar with this, I just have some questions because I hiked over there in that phase of Crystal Springs that is under construction that has the roads that are dirt and under water and then the Deane Solomon golf course. Just for the public, I am not getting a picture of where this is and am not objecting, just curious to have more information. Also, is West Salem Road where it is the gravel road? Am I in the wrong place all together? Brown: I am Patricia Brown, I live at 2733 W. Salem. My property is adjacent to this. I have a question concerning a year around spring that is on my property that forms a creek that runs north and south through the proposed property. I would just like some clarification of how they are going to handle all of that water. Clark: Is there anybody else? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the Commission. First, did the map help you at all Ms. Raymond? Raymond: It is the gravel road. Jefcoat: This is the Deane Solomon Road that runs east/west, called West Salem Road. It is paved, a portion of that is paved. Part of our requirements and conditions of approval, which are part of our construction plans will be to widen that portion of the road and pave that from the entire length of our frontage out to the intersection with Deane Solomon and also, 20' wide all the way out to Deane Solomon. Those are the same conditions of approval as last time. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 26 Clark: Jefcoat: Clark: Jefcoat: Clark: Jefcoat: Clark: Jefcoat: Clark: Jefcoat: Clark: Morgan: Clark: Raymond: Clark: Raymond: Clark: You are not near a floodplain anywhere are you? There is floodplain south of us, not on this property. What about the year around spring mentioned? There is a spring there. The Corp. of Engineers has concurred that that is not within the jurisdictions of the U.S. but with an area inlet, we are intercepting the water flow, piping it underground and carrying it through the project to Clabber Creek uncontained as part of the storm water so that it continues to travel and discharge as it does presently. Is that part of the creek that runs through the springwoods addition next to you? No, there are no creeks on this property. There is just a spring and that spring dries up before it leaves the property. Ok, but you are taking it under and out? Yes, we will be piping it. Do you have a full plat of this development? We have this paste it together stuff. Yes we do. We have submitted it as one before and you all asked us to split it so we split it into north and south pieces. We have submitted it several different ways and it is split now so that the scale is larger and you can see it. If we put it on one place then you can't see it. How about we split the difference? I couldn't figure how it all went together. For Planning Commission we could just require 24 11x17 copies and then you could give us a copy. Ms. Raymond, do you have another question? Does this connect to the phase of Crystal Springs that is under construction? Yes. Will there be connectivity? Yes. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 27 Raymond: Hoskins: Clark: Morgan: Jefcoat: Clark: Jefcoat: Clark: Jefcoat: Clark: Jefcoat: Clark: Jefcoat: Clark: Graves: The reason I am asking is that Crystal Springs seems to have come to a dead halt because they have standing water in the roads that is not moving. They are getting ready to pick up on that. I talked to them last week, as a matter of fact, the same crew is finishing up a couple of jobs for me. That is the reason I asked whether they were in a floodplain which would account for some of the water standing. Is that an issue with Crystal Springs? Not that I'm aware of, but I'm not directly involved with the construction of that. We are also the engineers of that project and that road has been undercut so there is no way for the water to go anywhere. But you are going to fix that? It will dry up or it will be pumped out when they get ready to install it. Are there detention ponds in Crystal Springs? There are no detention ponds in Crystal Springs. Ok, so you have raised another issue. Talk to us about how you are going to convert the water so you are not going to have a problem with this development. What water? We are passing it through storm water. The detention ponds, etc., please explain how that is going to work. We have detention ponds on this property so that we are not discharging on the Crystal Springs anymore water than is presently being discharged onto Crystal Springs. Crystal Springs is designed to carry developed conditions, even if there was not detention here, through their property, to Clabber Creek. That is for your benefit. What they are trying to do is make sure that they don't put anymore water onto that subdivision, which hopefully will clear up the road and clear up the standing water issue. The way I understand it is it is just holding water right now because it is not built out yet. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 28 Hoskins: Clark: Graves: Clark: Hoskins: Clark: Morgan: Graves: Myres: Clark: Jefcoat: Clark: Right, they have done the undercut. So they are about to build it out and so that will hopefully go away. Does anyone have anything else? I don't. It is the same project with the exception of the parkland and changing up some of the lot configurations. I was going to ask the question about a connection from this area to the park and you have already answered that question. To me it is essentially the same project, just moving the parkland off site. That is where you picked up most of your lots because this was going to have the parkland right in the middle. I am amazed that there is not more north/south connectivity. We connected everywhere we had an opportunity. I understand what you all have been back through. Unfortunately, we can't approve it at this level, it will have to go on. Where in the conditions of approval does it talk about the street improvement other than Long Fellow Park Way and Thoroughfare? Mr. Jefcoat indicated that they were going to improve up to the intersection but I am not seeing that. On condition eight it talks about street improvements, 14' from centerline along the property's frontage onto West Salem Road that the north side of the street shall be improved to Washington County standards, that Washington/Salem Road should also be widened to a minimum 20'. I will move to forward PPL 05-1528 with the stated conditions of approval. It sounds like from the staff's comments on one, two and three, that these are findings that we are having to make over again essentially. They were the same findings that had already been made previously. I will motion that we forward it with a recommendation that the same findings that applied last time apply this time. I will second. We have still got the same landscape plan, etc.? None of that has changed. You might include that for the full Commission if this is a new Preliminary Plat I think we need all of the items attached, even though it hasn't changed. I will concur. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 29 PPL 05-1432: Preliminary Plat (SASSAFRAS S/D, 221): Submitted by N. ARTHUR SCOTT for property located at THE WEST SIDE OF SASSAFRAS HILL RD., N OF BEAU LANE. The property is in the PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 9.25 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 8 single family lots proposed. Clark: Morgan: The next item on our agenda is PPL 05-1432, Sassafras Subdivision. This property contains 9.17 acres. It is located west of Sassafras Hill Road, which is a collector street. The proposal is to create an eight single family lot subdivision. The property is in the Planning Area and outside of the one mile boundary from the city limits It is currently developed with one single family residence. This item was heard at the Subdivision Committee meeting April 28th this year and tabled due to lack of information needed with regard to the septic systems on each of these individual lots. What was required was a preliminary approval from the Washington County Health Department. Right now they actually have permits for each of these lots so we feel that that condition has been adequately satisfied. Other items that were discussed and addressed included connectivity. The applicant is proposing one street with lots on either side of the street and the street is proposed to be stubbed out to the west. Staff recommends the inclusion of a temporary access easement on either side of the proposed cul-de-sac to be abandoned at the time that that street is continued to the west. Other items that we addressed were with regard to ownership of the 50' access easement. I discussed with the applicant on several different occasions since this was last heard, who owns that 50' right of way easement to the north of this property. From the information that I've been presented, the best that I can decipher from that is that that property was owned by the Shorts and sold and when this property was sold to Hometown Development that 50' easement was part of the property that was sold. Therefore, it needs to be included in this subdivision. If they do not want to include that portion within the subdivision then a property line adjustment needs to be submitted so we can adjust those property lines or if it is to be included these property lines need to be shown to the north of that 50' easement and then we need a revised legal description. That has been detailed in condition number one of the staff report. We requested that the applicant convey to the staff the desired means of resolving this issue prior to Planning Commission consideration. Staff has received public comment from several adjoining property owners who have concern with the density and development of this property. I have included their comments in the staff report. At this time staff is recommending forwarding this Preliminary Plat to the full Planning Commission with a total 15 conditions of approval. Condition one I have addressed with regard to the 50' easement to the north. Condition three is in regards to authorization from the current owner of the property to process this Preliminary Plat. I believe that the ownership has Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 30 O'Neal: Clark: Scott: Clark: Myres: Clark: Scott: MOTION: Graves: Myres: changed hands. It was brought up as a concern by one of the adjoining neighbors that we have correct authorization from the current owners of this Preliminary Plat. We will just need to have a letter with regard to that. Right of way will be dedicated in the amount of 35' from the centerline of Sassafras Hill Road as it is a collector street on the Master Street Plan. A total of 50' right of way is proposed to be dedicated with the new streets within this subdivision. All other conditions are standard conditions of approval. I just wanted to let the applicant know that we still are going to be requiring an off site water connection. If you would before your first submittal of construction plans to get with me and we will coordinate that. It will probably just be a short connection between the existing 12" and 8" along Mission (Hwy. 45). Introduce yourselves and tell us about your project please. My name is Art Scott, I am with Project Design Consultants, this is Mike McDonald with Hometown Development. We are planning on putting new lots here, they are right at an acre lots and are on septic with city water. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to comment on PPL 05- 1432? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. There was some comment by neighbors up and down the road about the fact that in adjacent areas the lots were much larger. I can understand the economics from the developer's standpoint that you want to get as much bang for your buck as you can out of this and from the standpoint of someone who lives in the city and has a very small lot, I think an acre seems like a very generous size. As far as traffic load we are talking about eight more houses, I don't think that is an issue at all. The fact that this is in the Planning Area, we are restricted as long as the lots meet the 10,000 sq.ft. minimum with a width of 75' that is all we can work out and they do so be it. It looks like a lot of detailed paperwork needs to be finished up. We can have that submitted by the deadline. I will move that we forward PPL 05-1432 to the full Planning Commission with the stated conditions of approval. I will second. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 31 Clark: One last question for Art. Do you have anything that you are going to do with this either extend the lot lines? Scott: I will extend the lot lines. Clark: Will we have new plats for Planning Commission? Morgan: We have requested new plats. We will also need a new legal description with that. Clark: Ok, I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 32 PPL 05-1399: Preliminary Plat (DEVONSHIRE GLYN, 475): Submitted by N. ARTHUR SCOTT for property located SOUTH & WEST OF THE 54TH AND PERSIMMON ST. INTERSECTION. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 45.68 acres. The request is to approve a preliminary plat for a residential subdivision with 127 single family lots proposed. Clark: The next item on the agenda is PPL 05-1399 Devonshire Glen. Morgan: This subject property contains 45.68 acres. It is located east of Legacy Pointe Subdivision Phase IV and south of Persimmon Street, west of 54th Street. The property was recently annexed and zoned RSF-4 within the last year. The property to the east is owned by the City of Fayetteville. It is a large tract of land that was recently subdivided for the development of the waste water treatment plant to the south of this property. Development of this property will include construction of Persimmon Street, a collector street, from Legacy Pointe east to the intersection of Persimmon Street and 54th Street. I believe that with the Mountain Ranch addition and with this development Persimmon will be complete from Double Springs to Shiloh. Surrounding land uses and zoning include RSF-4, R -A to the east and several single family residential developments. With regard to right of way being dedicated, 70' of right of way is required for the length of Persimmon Street through the existing property. If right of way for Persimmon is to be dedicated on any portion that is off site, it will need to be dedicated by Warranty Deed so that Persimmon Street can be constructed through to the existing location of the street. Right of way will also be dedicated in the amount of 55' from centerline for 54th Street adjacent to the subject property and property that is adjacent to 54th Street and not part of the subject property is not required to dedicate right of way at this time. There have been several different discussions with regard to the street improvements and connectivity I will go over. These are discussed in the conditions of approval. If you look at the northeast corner of the property there is a shaded in Sundance Meadows. There was a stub out on Sundance Meadows to this property. Also, at the very north portion of the property there is Genevieve Avenue and a right of way stub outs at the very northeast corner of the property. We have these two connections or two rights of way and approved street alignments. The applicant is proposing just to dedicate right of way and connect those two streets and provide a stub out to the south on their property, a stub out that would connect eventually to the east to allow for connectivity. Staff's recommendation is that this east/west street, the very north east/west street on the property, be extended to connect to the stub out that was approved within the Sundance Meadows Subdivision and dedicate right of way for Genevieve to create a "T" intersection. That is our recommendation. The applicant has included several different stub outs through the property, we find that those are adequate. With regard to street improvements, staff is recommending that 54th Street from the intersection of Persimmon Street Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 33 O'Neal: south be improved to 20' clear with curb and gutter on the west side. Additionally, that 54th Avenue from Persimmon Street north to the intersection of Tackett be improved to 20'. With the development of Sundance Meadows we had many conditions with regard to improving that street to 20' wide and we are requesting that this applicant do the same for the remainder of 54th Street to Persimmon. With regard to street alignment and street configuration, there are different sizes of rights of way proposed, 50' and 40'. Within each of those rights of way a 28' street is proposed. Staff would recommend that any street that is designated to be less than 50' right of way be a 42' right of way with a 24' wide street and two 4' sidewalks down either side. It would allow for the construction of a sidewalk with ample green space on both sides of the street. This is listed in the conditions in number two, we are requesting that Wexford Lane, Wickford Lane and Dairy Lane, be constructed at 50' right of way with a 28' street. Many of those streets are going to be stubbed out to the south and we feel that those need to have a larger right of way. I just discussed conditions one, two and three with regard to street alignment and improvement. Additional conditions listed in the staff report with regard to dedications of right of way as conditions four and five. Condition six is with regard to street improvements shown on the submitted plans will need to be constructed and required rights of way for all of these streets. Condition seven, written agreement shall be submitted from any adjacent property owner to Persimmon Street of whom right of way shall be required to construct the improvements to Persimmon Street as shown on the submitted plans. I am not quite clear what the existing right of way is compared to what the proposed right of way will be for Persimmon Street and 54th so I am not sure if there are any additional owners maybe to the northeast of whom you will have to get right of way. We can take a look at that. There were several different revisions to the plat that I am requesting be completed prior to Planning Commission approval that I have listed in condition nine. This subdivision is a bit unique in that they are proposing parkland dedication on Lot 111. It is located north of Persimmon Street and Lot 110 is proposed to be utilized as a clubhouse for the subdivision. If that Use Unit is requested, it will require a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission. That can be processed at the time in which that lot is developed. 41 trees are required for mitigation. I will allow Parks to go over the park requirements for this project. The only comment I have is in regards to the subdivision to the east. There is a water line that was extended or to be extended off their property to the west, I am just requesting a connection from that extension to your subdivision up in that northeast corner at that intersection of their stub out and Genevieve. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 34 Jumper: Parks recommended accepting a combination of land and money for this project. They are dedicating 2.48 acres parkland and will be paying the remaining fees in lieu. It looks like you are showing a little proposed grading on the parkland, I am assuming that is for the pond that is going to be filled? Scott: Yes. Jumper: On the tree preservation, there are some dark lines on there, I don't know if those are around the edges of the trees to be preserved and counted in your tree preservation or not. Scott: That is the tree preservation fencing. Jumper: So are those trees counted for your tree preservation that are on parkland? Scott: Yes they are. Jumper: That is a conflict. You are going to have to amend your calculations for that, we will work with Jeremy on that. Clark: Introduce yourselves and tell us about your project please. Scott: Clark: I'm Art Scott with Project Design Consultants. This is Dan Ferguson with Atlas Construction, the developer of the project. We agree with all of the comments from staff with exception of that stub out to the north and that connection. Where that is approved on this site does not lend itself for the developer to utilize any of that land up there to the north to go to this connection. These lots would be so short that we would lose three or four lots. We feel like this connection, when this develops, will be a good connection to the north to tie into this subdivision here. We have connectivity addressed very well around the rest of the property. We just feel like that even if we lose the land and the lots, if you look at it from that perspective, I don't like the way that "T" would be here. There are just too many streets, in my opinion, all together in one spot there. For those two reasons we were willing to just add a right of way that would connect these two and let all of our traffic come down to this collector street and traffic coming up here can come to this collector and also the subdivisions to the west will utilize this collector street and we are stubbing to this subdivision that is going on right now. That is the only thing that we disagree on. I will now open to public comment PPL 05-1399, is there anyone in the public who would like to comment? Seeing none, we will bring it back. Let's talk about connectivity Suzanne. I know the city policy proposes Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 35 connectivity, connectivity was proposed in this subdivision, do we have latitude there? Morgan: You do have the opportunity. I would hate to see this street dead end into nothing. They are proposing some connection to Genevieve to this. It was advisable at the time that Sundance Meadows was platted to have a connection. We, I'm sure, did not look at all of the property lines to see how lots could be platted on adjacent property if that street were stubbed out. We are taking a look at that now. The Planning Commission does determine appropriate connectivity so I would say that if you felt that connection was appropriate to not continue through to this subdivision, that is your determination to make. Clark: Scott: Morgan: Would it be possible to lose that stub out to the south, could you gain lots there to honor this connectivity? What happens is if we move that up and line the street up, that is no lot feasibility anymore, it is only about 80' deep. At 80' you are going to have a 30' to 35' depth for buildable area. I don't know if it possible, you have a detention pond on Lot 44, I don't know if you could utilize that area if you did stub out the street, utilize that area to the north as detention and gain a lot on that comer. I haven't looked at your grading and drainage, but that may be a possibility to utilize that for detention and gain a lot elsewhere. Staff would be comfortable if that street were connected to the stub out in Sundance Meadows, the stub out to the south, that connects to this undeveloped property, be removed because it would just mean some connection here, but we feel that because there is a stub out it is more appropriate to connect where there is an approved stub out. Graves: It seems strange to me when you have developments that are abutting like that to have three stub outs sitting there instead of going ahead and connecting through which was the intent. We kicked Sundance until it was a very dead horse. It came through many times to the Planning Commission because of 54th Street and because of the traffic issues and because of the layout of the streets. There was a lot of meeting and thought that went into the way that ended up going in there and it seems strange to now have a development coming in right next to it and leaving two stub outs in Sundance and having a new stub out there and none of it connected to anything. I am not very comfortable leaving it that way. Clark: I truly do believe in the concept of connectivity and I remember the discussion with Sundance and that was a very specific recommendation because we annexed that property and rezoned that property. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 36 Myres: Morgan: Myres: Morgan: Ferguson: Clark: Myres: Ferguson: Morgan: Graves: Ferguson: Scott: Clark: Is there any reason that the streets would have to continue straight? We are also recommending a connection to Genevieve to the north, so if that street gets curved it may be appropriate to have a "T" intersection but if that could be curved in any way I would have to refer to engineering or the applicant. Just to mitigate the impact of losing too much buildable land but I don't see any reason why it would have to just come straight across, there ought to be some way that it could bend or angle or whatever. I am sure we would have to look at sight distance. We could curve into here. This connection to me, it seems like a problem because for this person here they would have three sides of the house. They should know that when they build it. There has to be a way. Taking this one out and going through here might be feasible, but you still want this connectivity here? Those lots, with regard to having a street on three sides, unfortunately, sometimes it happens. We have developments that develop on a principal arterial and you just have a row or lots that have three rights of way on either side, those two lots north of that one on the corner that would be surrounded by three already have double fronts. These folks bought that piece of property seeing the stub outs on Genevieve and the street behind them and I don't think it comes as a surprise. The street that is stubbed to the north here, is that still a requirement to make that connection as far as the way the lot is designed? What I am concerned with is also you have all of these streets here and I didn't want to encourage this traffic to come up and come across, I thought we should try to keep them on this collector. You might be encouraging this traffic down to the collector. I really believe in the concept of connectivity. I really think this was thought out and recommended before and I am really sorry that it is kind of laying at your feet but it is. Scott: It will be sort of an angle across from that knuckle. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 37 Clark: That could be something that would slow down traffic, I don't know that is necessarily a bad thing. I have another question about Temporary Lane to Ireland, how long does that stretch? Morgan: It is approximately 950'. Clark: Our maximum is 1,400, but on my plans that just looked way long. The canopy, I'm hoping that when we get to the full Planning Commission that we will have a little bit better landscape plan and plat because I couldn't tell where some of the trees were either. We are losing about 53% of the canopy and your note indicates that part of that is because that is where Persimmon is platted to go, a lot of these are in the way of the street. A lot of these trees were high priority trees. Can we work with where Persimmon goes to save some of those high priority trees? Morgan: Yes. Persimmon Street is supposed to be connected from here to here, how that is done and how that alignment may be rearranged. Clark: It might save you some mitigation trees as well if you can save some of those high priority trees. I can't make you do it, I'm just throwing it out there because 11 high priority trees are lost according to your comment about Persimmon. Since Persimmon is still kind of a concept right now maybe we can make it a little more tree friendly. I don't know about the rest of you all, but I am in agreement with the findings of staff on street connectivity, right of way issues, etc. Graves: As I understood the applicant, other than the connectivity issue, you all were in agreement with the other staff recommendations on the other conditions as far as improvements to 54`h Clark: This will get 54th to completely 20' in width? Morgan: Yes, at least to the bridge with Tackett and across the bridge is already improved. Clark: MOTION: We have been working on 54th Street for a very long time, thank you all for finishing it up. This looks like a very unique subdivision with a lot of amenities that will be very attractive if we can iron out these few issues I think it will be great. Is there anything else? Myres: I will move to forward PPL 05-1399 to the full Planning Commission with the staff recommendations and conditions of approval as stated. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 38 Graves: I will second. Clark: Thank you very much, I am hoping you can make these changes by the Planning Commission. I will concur. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 39 PPL 05-1433: Preliminary Plat (LIERLY LANE S/D, 244): Submitted by MIKE MCDONALD for property located at 4267 LIERLY LANE. The property is in the PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 22.92 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 51 single family lots proposed. Clark: The next item on the agenda is PPL 05-1433 for Lierly Lane Subdivision. Morgan: The subject property is located within the city's Planning Area on Lierly Lane north of Clabber Creek Subdivision Phases III through V. Access is existing on Lierly Lane. This is currently an unimproved street that connects to Hughmount Road. If you notice on these maps that I will pass out, Clabber Creek Phases III through V was located to the south and included a portion of city property that extended to the north all the way to Lierly Lane. Those developers have coordinated with this applicant to adjust that piece of property into this subdivision and we currently have a Property Line Adjustment that we have reviewed and we will just need a revised copy and get that filed prior to Planning Commission. Therefore, this property will actually have a sliver of city property within it. The property within the Planning Area will not have to get building permits. However, if there is any construction on the lots that are partially in the city and partially in the county, those will need to come through our building permit process. That is included as one of the conditions of approval. With regard to water and septic systems, water will be extended to serve the proposed development and at this time the applicant is proposing sanitary sewer to be provided by way of a decentralized treatment system located on Lot 59 which consists of 4.3 acres. A total of 3.8 acres is required to meet the criteria set forth by the Health Department and the applicant is required to submit approval letters by both the Washington County Environmental Services Department to verify approval of the soils test as preliminary approval and from the Arkansas Department of Health to review the system's design and soils for adequacy pertaining to state regulations. In condition number four, we have stated that prior to Planning Commission consideration all conditional letters of approval required by the City of Fayetteville for packaged sewage treatment systems shall be submitted for review. I believe that the Engineering Division has comments with regard to sewage connectivity, which I will allow Brent to elaborate on. We will require right of way dedication in the amount of 35' from centerline along Lierly Lane as it is a collector street on our Master Street Plan and 50' for all interior streets. The applicant has indicated stub outs to the east and west for future connectivity and has coordinated a realigned street connection to the south from Clabber Creek Subdivision. In that subdivision there was a stub out to the north and due to some constraints within this development that applicant in Clabber Creek worked with this applicant to realign their stub out so that there would be connectivity. There is a letter and exhibit included in this packet from H2 Engineering with regard to that Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 40 O'Neal: connectivity. This property is also within the Clabber Creek bridge assessment area and we have received a memo with regard to the amount of money that would be required for that assessment from the Engineering Division. There is an existing on the property, there is a lot that is shown as an existing lot along Clabber Creek and it is currently developed with a single family home. When this property was sold that tract was deeded out of the property sold, which basically constituted an illegal Lot Split because it did not come through our process, we are recommending that that small lot be shown as part of this overall subdivision so that it can be legally subdivided from the property. This will require dedication of right of way along Lierly Lane for that property however. I believe all other conditions of approval are fairly standard. I will be happy to go over any of the items with you. At this time we are recommending that the applicant connect with the sewer. There is a stub out proposed in the Clabber Creek, in this far western phase of Clabber Creek. It is adjacent to this property so we are recommending that they connect to that sewer service. Scott: That would certainly be a better situation. We will coordinate that with that developer. I think that is the right way to do it. Clark: Introduce yourselves and tell us about your project gentlemen. Scott: I'm Art Scott with Project Design Consultants. Mike McDonald is representing the developers and is one of the developers on this project. I think that is a good idea if the city will allow us to do that, that is the way we want to go with the sewer. O'Neal: Clark: This would require approval from the City Council for this sewer connection since you are not within the city limits or annexation. Once you are annexed then you have the right to connect to the public sewer. Those are the two options that we are looking at. I am going to open it up to public comment. Would anyone like to speak to PPL 05-1433, Lierly Lane? Please come to the podium and introduce yourself. Threlkeld: My name is Connie Threlkeld. My address is 4222 Lierly Lane. I have several concerns or comments about the subdivision. The first was going to be their sewer system, which is a step system, which might be changed possibly because we are getting sewer treatment on that side of town and from what I understand, these are incompatible with gravity flow sewer systems so I had a concern about that. My next concern was Lots 1, 2, and 3 opening onto Lierly Lane, which is a collector street. I think we would be safer if those opened to inside the subdivision. That addresses onto the Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 41 Price: safety of the street coming off of Hughmount onto Lierly once that is paved it is a really long, straight stretch that people can shoot right off of the curve on Hughmount, which is 90°. We have lived there for five years, all of our mailboxes for those of us who live on Lierly Lane, are up in the curve of Hughmount. We requested years ago when we moved out there for the post office to move those down Lierly and they would not do that. There is some safety concern for us with increasing the amount of traffic and paving that street and us getting up there to get our mail and back, which includes lots of kids and families that already live on that street. Having the entrance to the far east of that subdivision really draws more traffic on down Lierly where there is already existing families and kids and so I have a concern about that if that could be possibly moved back to the western part. I think an initial plat had it further to the west in that subdivision. My name is Jennifer Price, I live at 4089 Lierly Lane. It sounds like my concerns about the septic system may be addressed as well. I hope that the city does take that into consideration and hooks this to the sewer system of the city. The type of system that is being proposed now, even though it has advantages, it has disadvantages in the fact of who is the entity that controls the system once the developer has left, is it the Homeowner's Association, is it the city government, the county government? I think those are questions that need to be addressed before these type of systems have been approved. I think Springdale has issued a three month stay on any of these systems that are going through their City Council and so I hope that we will do the same. My other concern basically is the traffic and the density that is coming in this area. Just today over 455 new homes have been passed onto the Planning Commission and that doesn't include Cherry Hill on Hughmount, the various subdivisions on Salem Road, Clabber Creek IV and V. I hope the issue of schools will be addressed, street widening, I don't know if your kids go to Holcomb, if you have ever been on Salem Street and Mt. Comfort in the morning when you are dropping off your kids it is a nightmare and in the afternoon as well. I hope that those issues, not just for this subdivision, but the other subdivisions that are going in as well, are addressed. I guess those are my comments. Raymond: I sent in some notes and letters to the different people that we were asked to send in comments. My name is Susan Raymond at Hughmount Road. Did anyone receive those comments that I sent in? Clark: Yes Ma'am. Raymond: It seems like the property owners have changed, my letter said Flying Squirrel, is that the property owner now? Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 42 Clark: Actually, Ms. Raymond, I do not see your comments in my packet. We have a lot of comments from other property owners so you might want to review what you said. Raymond: My main concerns are with the sewage pond and so if it will be connected to the city sewer then it will make a whole difference. Should I skip talking about the septic system since you all are pretty sure it is going to be hooked to the city sewer? Clark: We are pretty sure it is a concern with the neighbors. Raymond: I live on the western boundary of this property and so this property does go down and connects to Clabber Creek Phase V, I live on the west boundary and so when you say there is a connecting road, when I looked at the Master Plan I didn't see a connecting road to the west. Where does that connecting road to the west fall? I don't think we saw it when we reviewed the maps that you presented. Scott: It is about half way down. Raymond: How is that going to be possible since that is their home? They have a three acre lot and that is where they live. You are planning on saying that someday you would just put a road through their property? Clark: We are not going to have dialogue, go ahead and ask your questions and we will answer them all at the end. Raymond: I have concern there because I know that they don't plan on subdividing. They have a three acre lot there but many of the lots in the neighborhood are larger like that. We live on a three acre lot just north of their property. If there is a connecting road down to Clabber Creek Phase V going south will that be put in at the same time that Clabber Creek is finished? Where you show Lierly Lane is the main collector road and you show it going over to Salem, I know it doesn't do it now, will that Lierly Lane Road be connected and finished before this subdivision is allowed to be finished or will all of the traffic just come out the one exit and dump out to Hughmount Road? My other main worry was if there is none of this septic pond stuff, it just seems like too many lots on 22 acres to put next to all of these other homes where people mostly have more than an acre and they are settled residential, not subdivisions. The other thing that I'm worried about too is Ozark Electric regularly drives down that utility cut because that is their access to maintain the lines, you can see on the map they drive from Hughmount Road to Clabber Creek and then they crossover Clabber Creek, come out on Mt. Comfort Road. I have talked to you in the Planning office about this, you say that that narrow strip was in the city limits but that it is Ozarks Electric easement, but when I talked to Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 43 Clark: Planning, you said that it was ok for the property owner to build up to the west boundary right in that utility easement, that they will own that lot to the west boundary. Will Ozark Electric still be able to get access down there or will the property owner have the right to fence that off? My concern is that when you are coming up with this 51 lots quite a few of the lots are along that utility easement and they are counting a good bit of the lot size to be the utility easement. I think that is crazy when you are in a rural area outside the city limits and most of the surrounding property is more than one acre lots and here you are putting people with a 50' lot and the rest of it is a utility easement that Ozark Electric drives a truck down frequently. Let's handle Ms. Raymond's questions. It seems clear that all of the neighbors are worried about the septic. Tying onto the city seems to be a possibility Brent? O'Neal: Yes Ma'am. Clark: I'm sure you all would rather pursue that? Scott: We had always planned to design the system to gravity flow to where it could be connected at whatever point we were allowed to, we just didn't want to wait to be annexed, which would take a long time. Clark: But if you can get very lucky and not have to get annexed and get connected, that is something that you are willing to pursue? Morgan: We will formulate a condition of approval that has staff's recommendation for a connection so that the Planning Commission can make a determination. It will take City Council approval for a connection if they are not to annex and we will try to draft the condition so that if it is the Planning Commission's recommendation that they do request from the City Council approval to connect and the City Council does not approve that connection, we may be able to formulate the condition so that they will get approval for design with the drip field. Clark: Ok, so that means to the neighbors keep watching and monitoring so that the City Council approves connection that is fine, if not, we go back to the gravity flow system. It is really going to be in the hands of the Council but the contractors are indicating that they are willing so it is a very good step. I don't know how to address the comment about the mailboxes. It does seem to be dangerous. Scott: This road is a very low traveled gravel road right now. I would presume that is why they have that stipulation. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 44 Clark: I would assume that if you improve the street, which you are going to do, and build these homes that the post office would have a lot of incentive to put mailboxes near the homes. I can't promise that, that is not within our jurisdiction. Graves: At the point that this develops the mail system is going to have to come into this development to deliver as well so they would be traveling up Lierly Lane to get into the development so presumably they would be more willing to relocate those. McDonald: I've had an opportunity to talk to postal carriers about the location of quite a few boxes around town and generally what they don't want to do is go into a dead end and not be able to drive through. They want their carrier to be able to circle through and keep driving. I think once you put these houses in that makes them not drive in and come back out so I'm assuming they would probably let them move them from the corner. Clark: That is nothing within our jurisdiction but logically that would make sense. What does the density come out to be on this? Morgan: The density, including the 4.3 acre drip field area is 2.23 units per acre and if you exclude that 4.3 acres it is a total density of 2.74 units per acre. Clark: Would you all be inclined to use this drip field as buildable area if you tie onto sewer? Scott: That is what I would assume at a later date. The city has a requirement for us to do it gravity so everything is presumed to be temporary. These are a good permanent fix but this is presumed to be temporary and the city has us set it up with gravity so at some point you could tie into that. Even if that later date is two or ten years this will probably be brought in and have something done with it. Clark: Back to Cherry Hills which had a RSF-4 density and it was built out to the max and you are doing half of that and we really have no control over a lot of that because it is in the Planning Area but it is to some degree a transitional density. The connection to the west was an issue, you aren't going through anybody's house right? Scott: I don't know where the house is on this property to be honest with you. We put it in a logical location for our development. This was the best soil on the site so just to be efficient we laid it out that way. Clark: It will just be a stub out, it is not going to go over the property line, you don't have to cul-de-sac it, it is just going to be a street? Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 45 Scott: Clark: Scott: Morgan: Clark: O'Neal: Scott: Morgan: Clark: Morgan: Clark: Scott: I would say we will probably end up building 10' short of the property line or something like that. So there will be some green space between the street and the property owner? I've done that before and I believe it was just cash in lieu of the rest of the improvement. The only way that that street would be continued through is if that property owner decided to develop that property. The connection toward Clabber Creek is being built right now so that is going to be an immediate connection? It is under review right now. We have met with H2 Engineering and talked about that. It is Phases III, IV, and V so it is probably not going to happen immediately within the development. That development also includes development of Rupple Road and a bridge so they have got quite a bit of development that they are going to be doing to just get access into that property. So we are probably going to wait on Clabber Creek before we make that actual connection. Clabber Creek will have connectivity to this as well, the developers have set down and done that together I believe. Ok, where does Lierly eventually go and what is it going to connect to? Lierly, unfortunately the Master Street Plan is not shown on this vicinity map, but it should be on the one mile map that I handed out. Lierly will eventually connect from Hughmount to Adams Road to the west and we discussed that at length with the Cherry Hills subdivision and then it will extend further to the east to Rupple and then to Salem. These developers are not responsible for doing that connectivity at all. As more property develops those property owners will be responsible for the street improvements. Eventually we should have an east/west corridor with development. Finally, the utility easement, can you address Ms. Raymond's concerns about Ozarks Electric still maintaining their easement and having access to it? These property owners will not be allowed to build within that easement, they can't put a fence across it because they are overhead lines. They cannot put buildings within that easement. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 46 Clark: Scott: Morgan: They will still have access to their easement, they cannot put buildings on it, they cannot restrict it. They can build up to the easement but that is it. Ozark Electric can still maintain their lines. What Ozark Electric gains from this is that people are maintaining their easement for them. With regard to one of the questions in discussing access of Lots 1, 2 and 3 onto Lierly Lane, we have placed two conditions of approval. Condition 12 states that Lot 3 and Lot 4 shall access interior streets. Those are the streets that are on the corner of the proposed street and Lierly Lane. We are requesting that those be restricted to not access Lierly Lane. Condition 13 states that staff recommends that Lots 1 and 2 share access to Lierly Lane, a collector street, and request that the applicant address that accordingly. I believe conditions one and two is just for the existing drive to be maintained on the lot that is developed and then have a shared drive on Lots 1 and 2. Scott: So all we end up having is one driveway. Clark: Lot 4 will enter on Centurion and not onto Lierly, that seems like a good compromise and a safe compromise. Graves: There was a couple of questions related to the intersection at Hughmount and Lierly and whether there were any kind of plans to try to improve the way that comes together out there. It does look like a severe curve on Hughmount. Morgan: Does that improvement reflect what is currently existing or is there a realignment there to make it more of a "T" intersection? Scott: We intended it to come in at this angle. We are making this adjustment at Hwy. 112 and Howard Nickell. Clark: If you will bring that representation to Planning Commission, that may help folks see what you are proposing. It could be an improvement to that corner for that curve and slow down traffic. Is there a reason why you aren't doing a temporary cul-de-sac down here? Morgan: A lot of times when we look at dead end streets if there is a long dead end street without any way to turn around we request temporary cul-de-sacs. For Fire Department requirements they can use this as a "T" intersection so the length of that dead end isn't long enough to require a temporary cul- de-sac because they can turn around and back out on adjoining streets. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 47 Clark: Scott: Clark: Myres: Petrie: Clark: Petrie: Scott: Graves: Petrie: Clark: Petrie: Why not annex? That is just a random question and has nothing to do with my decision here. We think it takes too long. If they give you sewer that is a great amenity to have immediately. I will make a motion to forward PPL 05-1433 to the full Planning Commission with the conditions of approval as stated and with the additional conditions suggested by staff. I'm Ron Petrie, City Engineer, I just wanted to clarify the sewer because this is somewhat a change in policy and you can call it my interpretation, but I think it is a very clear interpretation of what the ordinances state. In the ordinances, under §166.04 for required on site improvements for subdivisions in Planning Area, that is what it is entitled. Under sewer it states where a public sewer is reasonably accessible the subdivider shall connect to such sewer and each lot within the subdivision shall be provided with a connection thereto. All connections shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. I think it is very clear that it is accessible to the subdivision. Whether that means annexation or that means special approval from the City Council, I think the subdivider needs to prove to us that it is accessible. I would say annexation is not necessarily out of the question in this particular instance. Even without it, if it is accessible it is there and it is accessible, they can do it. The ordinances also state you cannot connect to sewer unless you are within the city limits. If the Council will not annex it then it is not accessible. That seems to be two conflicting ordinances. It does to me. It seems like the ordinances should say if sewer is accessible you have to move for annexation. In my opinion it does in a roundabout way. It is not as clear as it should be, I agree. So, the Council could not give special dispensation and let them attach to the sewer unless they annex. They have that ability to allow that special approval. In the past that has not been granted unless you decide to annex. Subdivision Committee June 2, 2005 Page 48 Clark: McDonald: Clark: McDonald: Morgan: Scott: Graves: Clark: Are we thinking about annexing in the future? As long as we don't have to wait to start our subdivision. We are obviously, willing to put in the cost of this septic system and design it not only for normal, but design it so that it will connect and be gravity flow which involves yet additional costs. We will do all of that. We just don't want to have to wait to start on annexation. Of course, we can't make that policy but it seems like you've got some good compelling arguments that indicate that you could potentially possibly annex. From the beginning we have talked about over sizing the lots and the gravity flow. As we saw with the Laureate Fields, they had an approved Preliminary Plat, they had to come back through a new Preliminary Plat, I assume if this does get approval to connect to sewer either through annexation or other means, they are probably going to want to somehow develop this property. We may need to see it again somehow. It will be a Phase II. I will second the motion. I will concur. Thank you gentlemen. Announcements