TRIPLE S PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 18, 2005
MINUTES
Members Present: Chairman George Best, Jake Smith, Billy Smith, Ed
Rudolph, Gil Tucker, Scott Merchant and Joanne
Bemiss, Administrator
Member Absent: Frank Hargadon
Advisors Present: Vic Brizendine, Attorney
Ryan Libke, Planner
The October 18, 2005 meeting of the Triple S Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Best.
Best: You were given copies of the minutes for September 20, 2005 meeting and you have had a chance to review them. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? If there is no discussion on the minutes, a motion is in order for the minutes of September 20, 2005.
Mr. Tucker made the motion to approve the minutes of September 20, 2005 as written.
Mr. Merchant seconded the motion.
Best: Is there any discussion on the motion?
ALL IN FAVOR – SO CARRIED
Findings of Fact and Transcript – Barlow Property 1713 Cherry Lane
Best: You were given a copy of the Barlow Property 1713 Cherry Lane and you have had a chance to review them. Is there any discussion on the Findings of Fact and Transcript? Since there is no discussion a motion is in order.
Mr. Rudolph made the motion to approve the Findings of Fact and Transcript of the Barlow Property 1713 Cherry Lane.
Triple S Planning Commission
October 18, 2005
Page 2
Mrs. Smith seconded the motion.
Best: Is there any discussion on the motion?
ALL IN FAVOR – SO CARRIED
Financial Statement – August
Best: You were given a copy of the August Financial Statement and you have had a chance to review that. Is there any discussion on the Financial Statement? A motion is in order.
Mr. Tucker made the motion to approve the August Financial Statement.
Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Best: Is there any discussion on the motion?
ALL IN FAVOR – SO CARRIED
Best: If there is anyone here regarding the Bland Property Zone Change, that has been held over indefinitely and it will not be heard tonight.
Knob View Estates Preliminary Vector Development
Docket #S-1005-05
Mark Patterson with Vector Development representing the owner: This is the Preliminary plat for Knob View Estates. This property is located at the end of Knob Street. It is 10 acres and we are proposing 21 lots for single family homes. We have received a zone change to R-1, very low density. The density is 2.1 lots per acre which is below the maximum allowed of 3.4 lots per
Triple S Planning Commission
October 18, 2005
Page 3
Patterson cont’d: acre. The entrance will be off Knob Street and access to the existing house will remain the same which is along the gravel road through an ingress/egress easement from Tower Road. Minimum lot size is 12,500 square feet and the average lot size is around 15,900 square feet. The minimum size of the house for a ranch is 1,500 square feet and 1,800 square feet for a two story. All houses will have a two car garage with brick front. No out buildings will be allowed.
A tree mass is currently along the north property line which joins Thorobred Acres and every effort will be made to keep those trees along the Byers side of the property. Sanitary sewers and all utilities are already to the site. The storm water run off will be to the east and to the west thru existing storm sewer pipes and ditches. We are proposing detention basins on each side of the property to contain run off at a rate of preexisting conditions, prior to development conditions.
The staff comments have been addressed on the plat. I will answer any questions you might have.
Best: Anyone on the Board have any questions? Anyone in the audience wish to comment?
Kay Lockwood, representing Knob View, Rolling Hills and Thorobred Acres: I am wondering if this is premature to talk about this tonight. The research I did in the file in the Zoning Board office, I noticed there were two people that were not served with a certified letter. I didn’t find a return address card for Christopher Barrickman and Trina Thompson at 352 Tower Drive and I did not locate anything for Eric and Donna Segal on Tim Tam. Do they not need to be served in order to discuss this?
Bemiss: They both were sent letters. They may have no picked them up from the Post Office and we may not have received the letters back. That does not mean they were not sent a certified letter.
Lockwood: It was my understanding that everyone had to be served and you had to have the certified card back.
Bemiss: They may not have picked it up. They are notified three times before the letter is returned to us.
Lockwood: The people in these neighborhoods also have a concern. Mr. Patterson is the one that drew the plat, is that correct? You have certified three signatures on that plat. Is that a conflict of interest?
Patterson: I am the surveyor, not the owner.
Lockwood: You drew up the plat?
Triple S Planning Commission
October 18, 2005
Page 4
Patterson: Yes, I did.
Lockwood: I have an engineer that told me that was a conflict of interest. Can anybody verify this for me?
Libke: What is the conflict?
Lockwood: That Mr. Patterson drew the plat up and that he has also signed off on three of the certifications.
Libke: They all pertain to his profession which is a part of drafting the plat. He is certifying that the plat meets the requirements of the regulations. He has studied the drainage requirements for this development. He did the Hydraulic Study and drainage study for it which is a part of engineering and survey for this plat which is required.
Lockwood: I have a question, this is not the final plat, is that right?
Libke: That is correct.
Lockwood: Could we request a CAD program plat for this? The people in the neighborhood would like to have a CAD generated plat of the neighborhood proposal.
Libke: That is what is right here.
Albert Ross: How come that is not to scale?
Best: It is to scale.
Ross: No, it’s not to scale. I scaled it.
Best: Do you have a reduced copy of the plat?
Bemiss: If that is a copy you got from the office, it will not be to scale because it was copied and pieced together.
Ross: One tenth inch is not 60 feet.
Libke: It is on this one that is in the file. This is the original signed copy and it is to scale.
Triple S Planning Commission
October 18, 2005
Page 5
Lockwood: There are numerous sink holes on this property. Are there any provisions about, let me put it this way, I have been told that if there are any sink holes that no structures can be built on sink holes they have to remain green space, and that you can’t have road structures on them.
Best: Normally you cannot build on a sink hole, but there are ways to take care of the sink holes, such as graveling and other methods. The sink hole would have to be spotted and we would have to know what size sink hole it is and the drainage area for that decision to be made. Generally you cannot build over a sink hole.
Lockwood: I noticed there were no noise barriers around this property; it is just along the north side. Can anyone tell me if there will be noise barriers around the perimeters of this property?
Best: Why would they be required?
Lockwood: It was brought up at the previous hearing.
Best: We don’t have noise barrier requirements
Discussion at the table between Mr. Ross and Mr. Libke concerning the scale of the plat.
Lockwood: I would like you to address the ingress/egress on Knob Street to this neighborhood. Who will maintain the roadway because of the increase of the traffic?
Best: It will be a county road.
Lockwood: Are there any plans to widen the street and put sidewalks through there?
Best: On what is existing, no.
Lockwood: Is this proposed development now in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan?
Best: Yes, it is. Anyone else wish to comment?
Dave Gove, resident of Northside Drive: I wish to address a serious drainage problem. This problem not only exists but will be exasperated by this development. For the record, I am a civil engineer and I am registered as a professional engineer. I have not had time to make any studies. I only wish to present to you tonight why the drainage from this development would create additional problems to what we already have.
Handed out a prepared sketch.
Triple S Planning Commission
October 18, 2005
Page 6
Gove cont’d: Drainage as it exists down through our property, I am speaking of drainage that goes between lots 77, 78,79, 80 and lots 73,74,75 and 76. The back yards of those lots are a drainage swale. The water that is discharged through there now comes from the proposed development. It comes overland and there are a lot of springs in that area. Water is fed into a catch basin which is shown on the front edge of lot 28. From that catch basin there is a 24” pipe that goes under the road and there is a predischarge onto the northwest corner of lot 73. The water then flows overland to a point on lot 79 where there is a 12” culvert that is installed. There is a small open space between that drainage on lot 79 and 78. There is a 12” pipe that is buried from the western edge of lot 78 over to a catch basin on the east side of lot 77 on Winding Way right-of-way. The drainage shown on the plat shows a drainage pipe coming from a detention basin on the east side of the development. The back pipe from the drainage basin going down along the property line between lots 29 and 28 does not show where that drainage pipe discharges to. I don’t know if it is intended to discharge onto open ground or where, but it is not shown. In any event, any water that would be discharged onto that area in front of lots 29 and 28 would end up in that catch basin on the east edge of lot 28. The development as proposed, in fact any development there, would exasperate drainage flow off that area, increase the short term flow and cause additional problems in the area shown on the sketch.
Passed photo taken several years ago of a flooded area.
This photo shows what happens when we have a good rain storm. It is a definite problem. I submit to you that anything that is done to allow a faster discharge of water off this property, and I submit a detention basin is not going to do this because the water is still going to be there, it is going to be discharged into this area and the water is going to flow down hill and it will exasperate this problem. I will answer any questions the members may have.
Best: The water in the detention basin will be released at a slower rate than the normal run off would be, which would actually provide protection, I don’t know that for a fact, I will let Mark address that.
Gove: With all due respect it would be easy to say that, but in practice it would be something different. If it proves to be something different, what recourse would we have?
Patterson: Are you saying the 12” pipe downstream is causing the problems?
Gove: The drainage pipe on lot 79 was put in to get rid of a swamp area.
Patterson: I can’t say without going out there and seeing it. This is all preliminary now.
Best: Does the design of the detention basins allow for a slower run off than would occur naturally?
Triple S Planning Commission
October 18, 2005
Page 7
Patterson: Yes. The detention basin would be released into the existing 15” pipe. It will be a small pipe, but I don’t know exactly what size it will be without doing the study.
Gove: Could you tell us the volume of the detention basin and what rain storm causing run off in that area, how much water would that hold.
Patterson: I can’t tell you the volume until the calculations are done for the final plat process and construction plans. It would retain one hour, one hundred year span run off.
Gove: We get those storms about every few years.
Best: What is the intensity you used?
Patterson: There are certain methods we could use. A one hour, one hundred year storm is probably 2.91 inches per hour.
Best: It should be 4 inches per hour.
Patterson: We could stipulate 4 inches per hour to compensate.
Best: Partly in regard to your question, Mr. Patterson would have to sign a certification that drainage is designed so no increase of run off of water would occur on any adjoining properties or on the property being developed. He has to sign that certification that makes him liable for it.
Gove: In our defense, if we continue go get flooding, what is our recourse?
Best: Take it up with Mr. Patterson.
Patterson: The county is responsible for drainage.
Libke: When they develop this development, the amount of water that leaves the site today, being a natural field, there is a certain amount of water that runs off during a storm. When they get finished developing, the water that is released from that detention basin, it will leave at the same rate or less than what it does today. What is required by the regulations he has to design it by, he certifies that, which states he has designed it to meet those regulations and no water will run off faster than it does today. Hopefully it will be designed to run off slower than it does today. That is what they are required to do, now water that releases out of that pond at the same rate or a little slower and you still have some flooding on the back of those lots, he has done his part and the Commission has done their part as per the regulations and as per standards of engineering to make sure that is attained.