Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-14 - MinutesSUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, March 14, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSP 02-12.00 Lot Split (Wilson, pp 482) Page 2 LSP 02-13.00: Lot Split (McDonald Living Trust, pp 648) Page 17 FPL 02-3.00: Final Plat (Copper Creek, pp 99/100) Page 21 PPL 02-7.00: Preliminary Plat (Legacy Pointe, pp 435/474) Page 25 LSD 01-42.00: Large Scale Development (Karstetter & Glass, pp 402) Page 32 LSD 02-7.00: Large Scale Development (Dandy/Schmitt, pp 524) Page 40 ACTION TAKEN Forwarded to Planning Commission Tabled Forwarded to Planning Commission Forwarded to Planning Commission Forwarded to Planning Commission Forwarded to Planning Commission MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kim Hesse Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Keith Shreve Kim Rogers Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 2 LSP 02-12.00: Lot Split (Wilson, pp 482) was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Troy Wilson for property located at the SE corner of Hotz Drive and Palmer Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.38 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.19 acres and 0.19 acres. Ward: Good morning, welcome to the meeting of the Subdivision Committee on Thursday, March 14, 2002. We have six items on the agenda this morning, so we are going to be pushing pretty fast to get some of these things done. The first one will be a lot split 02-12 submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Troy Wilson for property located at the southeast corner of Hotz Drive and Palmer Ave. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately .38 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of .19 acres and .19 acres. Tim, are you handling this one or is Sara? Conklin: I will handle this one. This item was brought to our Technical Plat Review meeting on February 27`h. The proposed lot split will leave Tract A with access to Hotz Drive and Tract B with access to Palmer Ave. Tract A contains a burned out house that is to be removed, Tract B contains a shed to be removed. Neither Palmer nor Hotz Streets are classified on the Master Street Plan. The property on the north, south, east and west is all zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. On Wednesday, March 13, 2002, a petition was signed by 29 residents in the University Heights neighborhood. This was submitted to the Planning Division. This petition stated that the residents oppose the proposed lot split. I just wanted to make sure that you are aware of this petition. This lot split can be approved at this level. The R-1 zoning does require that each lot have a minimum width of 70', which each lot does and a minimum lot area of 8,000 sq.ft., which has been calculated and both lots are over 8,000 sq.ft. Conditions to address include, on the south side of Tract B the building setback line cannot be located inside the 10' utility easement and they will need to show the south building setback line at 10' instead of 8'. The rest are standard conditions of approval. Ward: Ok, thanks Tim. Conklin: Is the applicant present? Alan, do you have anything to say? Reid: Yes, 1 think Troy is here too. Ward: Troy, come on up if you want to. Lets start with Keith in Sidewalks. Shreve: Under current legal opinion by the City Attorney, we are not requiring sidewalks for lot splits. However, sidewalks will be required if the property develops. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 3 Ward: Ok, so does that mean if the structures are built on there then a sidewalk would be built on both streets, right? Shreve: Yes Sir. Tract A would have a sidewalk on Palmer Ave. and Tract B on Hotz. Ward: Are there sidewalks out there now? Shreve: No Sir. Ward: Ok. Ron with Engineering, any comments on this lot split? Petrie: No Sir. Ward: I don't think there is anything to do with Kim Hesse in Landscaping. On the Parks, we have a fee of $470 before a building permit is issued. Do you understand that Troy? Wilson: Yes. Ward: At this time I will open it up to the public if anyone would like to discuss this lot split. We would be happy to take public comment at this time. Weis: My name is George Weis. I was going to show you where all of this occurs. To give a perspective, this is Razorback up on top, Hotz runs off of that. The property in question is this and by the way, I did not draw this to scale. I happen to live over here and Troy lives, not on here, but he lives about three or four blocks away from here and he is in our neighborhood. I have met him a few times, I like him very much, but in spite of that I am opposed to the lot split and I will tell you why. My wife and I, when we have moved to different places, this being one of them, we always look for an established neighborhood, that is what this was. We know where the houses are, we know where the streams are, we know where the park is, here is the park right here. We know what the lot sizes are. Each of these lots on Hotz, the south side, there is a house on each one of them. The one that was damaged by fire is here. Of course, there are houses across the way as well. Now, if you will notice, the lots are about 160' deep here from Razorback on. These are apartments out here on Razorback. All of this in here is all the same thing. What Troy wants to do is to cut this lot in half. As soon as you do that, in my opinion, you have changed the character of the neighborhood. You have done it in a couple of ways. One you have split this lot, which is not consistent with what we have on the other side or further up here. The other thing is that we have one building on each lot. These are all basically ranch style houses. I think Troy wants to put a two-story thing on each of these two Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 4 Ward: Weis: Ward: lots. Again, this would change the neighborhood. For those reasons, I am opposed. Ok, thank you. I will leave this here incase someone else would like to look at this. Ok, is there anyone else who would like to make a comment on this particular issue? Davison: I will real quickly, just because it is relevant to my issue, which is the neighborhoods. Ward: Give us your name please. Davison: Sir, my name is Sharon Davison, I live in Fayetteville. My concern is rapid growth and excessive infill and for character changing things that are going on in our neighborhoods. These lot splits, there is one with Mr. Schmitt that I am dealing with up on Mount Sequoyah. He wants us to build him a $50,000 road... Ward: Lets go back to this issue Ms. Davison. Davison: This issue is related to his neighborhood on Oliver. He was one of the first people that came in split a lot, mulled down the original house up there. I went up there, I wish I had my pictures. This is one of the houses where we have a bunch of students who use domestic servant things to be able to insert themselves into neighborhoods where we want to have children, parks, families, single residents or residential. Yes we are right up there by the University but that is still a neighborhood of character. We have plans to build apartments to accommodate these students. Lindsey and Mr. Broyles' son, et.al., are going to build them down there by Campbell's Soup, Swanson. We are developing a plan to accommodate all of these students, which is supposedly the reason for all this excess need to go carve up neighborhoods. I understand people who have large lots, maybe acre lots, they come into retirement, they need to make a quick decision about selling a lot to be able to; I personally understand that situation. I don't want any of these people succumbing to people that come in and want to get a lot split done so they can put apartments, duplexes, we have these wonderful triplexes. These are changing things. We are trying to develop a growth plan for this area. Our Planning Commission is forced to look at things like this because we have not acted as a city, with our City Council, to stop some of this growth. I have pictures of up on Mount Sequoyah where we have single family residences that now have 5-7 SUVs parked in their driveway everyday. I have people that are putting for sale signs up in their Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 5 neighborhood, such as on Olive Street, which I have pictures of trash piles, concrete swales and vehicles that can't even get by. You are going to allow all of this kind of traffic when you do this. Our streets are not ready for it, nothing is ready for it. Again, I would like to say we have a precedence of these people who want to come in and do these fast, quick developments. I believe Mr. Schmitt's development on Oliver Street has been there long since the one on Olive Street several years. There is still no grass grown. The one on the street behind me, where I live on Rodgers, which is on Lighton Trail, we need to discuss our traffic flow and issues there. It has 5-7 SUVs in it. It is another triangle one similar to his Olive pattern. They know what they are doing. That is R-1 neighborhood. That is downright, you know what you are up to. These sorts of things are pushing the law and pushing us all. I would hope everyone would start considering we are organizing our neighborhoods. Our city, and I believe our City Planners are trying to help us with growth, and people who want to profit from it. The impact fee of all of this, are any of these people building under $100,000 houses that are complaining about our view for them to chip in a little more when they want to make money? This is about people making money, ruining neighborhoods, ruining the quality of life and I urge everyone to get involved with your Neighborhood Association. The City has opened the door for us to activate, to come together because unfortunately that is where we are at right now. In the next year or two they are going to be pushing all of this in while the money is here, while they can float it. You look at all these strip malls, you look at all the vacancies, look what is up and we know where we're all headed even if we are in the heartland of America and haven't felt it yet. These people are going to ruin our quality of life. They danger our children, we don't have our sidewalks. We have all of this traffic and again, look at what most of these are catering to, the college students with the SUVs. I live by it, I worry for my children's safety and our traffic flows. So please, to give other people time to talk, it is a serious issue, this is part of what we are speaking about, I urge you all to go to your Planning Commissioners and meetings. Definitely, you must lobby your City Council members, they are the ones who have the power to get some of this back where your neighborhoods are protected and you don't have to give up your jobs, your time, your energy. I have been standing a year to try to protect my neighborhood. Lets get together now and protect our town. Thank you. Ward: That was paid for by who? Davison: I clean houses to do whatever and I substitute teach. Ward: Would anybody else like to talk relevant to this lot split? Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 6 Eichmann: Yes Sir. My name is Justin Eichmann, I live at 1527 Hotz, which is just to the east of that house, the lot in question. My wife and I have lived there for several years. We purchased a house in this neighborhood because we thought it was a neighborhood where we could grow, where we could own a house for a while and we could make it better and we are concerned with the lot split. We think it changes the character of the neighborhood. We think it moves away from the standard lot size of the neighborhood. We think it will be a sign of things to come. We have spent a lot of money and a lot of time on our house, a whole lot of money. We have done it with the expectancy that we live in an R-1 zoned neighborhood that we are not going to have a line of rentals boarding us to the west. My wife and I do stand in opposition of this lot split. I would also like to add that we have additional signatures to the petition that Mr. Conklin has mentioned and basically that is it. Thank you. Ward: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to make comment on this particular issue? Lou Weis: I am not going to make a big speech, I am just going to say that I have really given this very serious consideration, I have nothing against this young man but I live kitty-corner from that and I have a lot of problems near Hotz Park. There is a house next to where he wants to build where there are a bunch of students and I've had to call the police a couple of times with noise. I want the neighborhood to stay as it is. As it is, we have some problems with kids coming from Hotz Park and traffic. I don't want to see anymore of this. We bought this house because the neighborhood was quiet, the neighborhood was pretty, the lot sizes, it is quiet most of the time except for these problems I'm talking about and I would like to see it remain that way. I live right across the street from this property. Ward: Ballard: Ok, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to make a public comment? Yes Sir. My name is Bill Ballard. I am just looking at your map here and I can see where the people don't want to get the characteristics of their lots changed but I go up and down that street all the time and I live in this neighborhood, I live up on Oliver Street. From the street you don't see the backs. You don't know how far those lots are running, from the street it is not going to change the appearance any. It is also my understanding that Troy is going to build a couple of residential houses that are going to be sold. They are not going to be rentals like people are talking about here, like a bunch of college kids moving into them. There are going to be families that live there. The house that burned, it was just a small house. I would think that people would see something that is more attractive to the eye being built because it is going to increase the house value in that area. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 7 I don't think it is going to have a bunch of college kids in the front yard drinking beer or something like that like these people are trying to indicate here. It is a regular house. I will say this, up on my street there have been several major improvements to houses up and down that street and the neighborhood looks much better, it is much cleaner and my property has gone up, not down, but up. Ward: Ok, thank you Sir. Are there any other comments? Yes Sir. Barnhart: My name is Clayton Barnhart, I live on Palmer Street. One of the attractive things about this area is the size of the lots and the people that have these homes have nice yards and it is a nice neighborhood. If you put two houses on here and you know what it is coming to. It is not going to be sold to anyone who wants a residence. It is going to be for the college students. We have limited parking, we have a small park across the street that has limited parking and when you have your college students and their friends, you have got nothing but cars up and down the street. You have no access to the park anymore because of the cars parked. Ward: Ok, thank you. Hart: I am David Hart. I live right up here. The house next to us was owned by a faculty couple when we moved to where we live now. They moved away, it has become a rent house, populated one time by a small family. The person who owned that was not able to rent it again that way and it has been populated since then by groups of students. Sometimes rowdy and sometimes not. The current bunch is fairly tolerable and I am afraid they are all going to graduate and go away and who we will get next, but the point that was made a while ago about the intensity of parking, is I think, probably the biggest single concern for that sort of population. The house next to ours has a fairly long driveway on a steep pitch and it is always full of cars. There is a sort of, it is like bumper cars when somebody who is down at the bottom has to get his car out. They all move around so there is a lot of wielding up and down the driveway to get the SUVs, because they are all trucks or SUVs, out of there. I suppose, since I see it in the description here, that the staff approval for parking lots is required, that there has been some provision for off street parking but I wonder for how many cars and while I'm on my feet, I will also say that it was my understanding that the intention was to split the lot and build two houses on it for the purposes of rental, not sale, as Mr. Ballard said. Is it permitted to ask the owner? Ward: This is just a lot split. Hart: Just a lot split? Ok, so we don't know what the intention is. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 8 Ward: Well, we know it is zoned R-1. Hart: As I say, I've been told, not by Troy Wilson, but by someone who tells me that he has talked to him the intention was to build the houses for rental. If that is so, the fact that one of the two is going to face Hotz Park does bother me additionally because if it is rented to a group of people, rowdy students, historically we've had some. They could easily spill over into Hotz Park right across the street and interfere with the use of the park by other people. That is chiefly why I am opposed. Ward: Ok, thank you Sir. Would anyone else like to make a comment? Dialo: I live at the end of Palmer and I can't say much about cars in the driveway because we have a huge family so sometimes we have a whole lot of cars in the driveway. I have a very large family with a whole bunch of kids, grandchildren. They are down and visit me regularly and we walk down Palmer Street, several times a week I use the park with my grandkids. My issue is traffic. There is a rental house at the end of this block and right now it is quiet because the house is empty, but there have been periods of time where the traffic was really awful. I don't think college kids think about little kids. My issue is the traffic that is going to be generated by rental properties and the fact that we walk on this street. There are not sidewalks because it is an old addition. We walk in the street to get to the park and I am very concerned about the increased level of traffic on a very small, narrow street with no sidewalks and no curbs. The fact that when we moved there we expected a residential neighborhood and that is what we would like to keep. Ward: Ok, what is your name Ma'am? Dialo: My name is Ann Dialo. Ward: Ok, thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes Ma'am. Johnson: I would like to know if he has that lot according to the other lots. That lot is not that size. I took 25' off of John Williams for a driveway when I built the house at 106 and then bought some more of this tract for the house, which is a rental, the lot is not that deep. I don't know how he counts the size that he is coming into because he doesn't have all of that lot. Ward: Ok, thank you. What is your name Ma'am? Johnson: Mrs. Johnson. I am at 105. I was the first house there, the dirt street didn't run beyond my lot. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 9 Ward: Ok, is there any other public comments Yes Sir? Mertins: My name is William Mertins. I live at 24 Parton, which is just around the block here. This lot right here is about 104' wide or so. Mr. Reid, do you have the dimensions of this lot? Reid: I sure do. Mertins: Is it 104' x 160'? Reid: Approximately. Mertins: So each of these, if it is divided down the center, you've got 80' on each. It is my understanding that on a corner lot down here in the city that we've got two fronts and two sides as far as setbacks. Mr. Conklin, is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. Mertins: So we are pushing this back about 25' this way, 25' this way, there is an 8' or 10' setback from here? Conklin: 8'. Mertins: 8' here? Conklin: 8' on the sides. Mertins: 8' on the sides and then if they are going to do front access on Palmer that is 25' back. We are going to have, it might meet the density requirements. My math didn't come up where it does. I am not really good at math so it might meet it but I think these are going to look like really crammed houses on pretty small lots. Right on Palmer, as everyone has said, it is a pretty narrow street. Right here you have got a T bar ditch going across so I don't know, that is probably in the City's easement. I guess Mr. Wilson would be allowed to build some type of bridge across the City's easement to give street side access but right now I would say that would be dangerous considering the size and the width of Palmer Street being right across from Hotz Park and right here on Hotz Park, this is where everyone parks to go to this park right here. I think street side access on Palmer is a really dangerous idea given the amount of traffic that is already on Palmer, given the difficulty of this intersection to begin with, during games it is even worse. As Mr. Conklin knows, we have already had parking banned on one side of Palmer all the way up to Center Street and then past Center Street, just south of Center Street, parking is banned on both sides of the Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 10 street because of the danger issues, because of problems with fire trucks. The size of these lots, 80' lots by 104' deep is not going to be big enough to have houses to have parking. The issue of whether or not these are going to be rental units or sold, is I think, a silly one. Sure, Mr. Wilson could sell these but if I went and bought the house there is nothing to stop me from renting it out. I moved into this neighborhood with my wife and now my daughter, because we wanted a nice quiet neighborhood with big, nice houses like Mr. Eichmann has done here. He has added onto his house and done some nice things with it. The character of this neighborhood is a big tree line neighborhood, big yards, should be quiet neighborhood. We have had problems in the past the city has had what I would call a dismal record of enforcing the residence requirements here. Just on Oliver, as this gentleman was saying, he says he lives up on the corner of Oliver and Cleveland, yes, it is very nice up there but Mr. Schmitt down on the corner of Maple and Cleveland has two rental houses that the city is yet to be able to get all of the college kids out of there. There are 6-8 cars parked in both of them at anytime. The same thing is going to happen if we divide this lot because they are not going to be people who move into the neighborhood for the character of the neighborhood. They are going to move in to buy a house for their kids to live in for college. There is going to be crowded, small houses on what will now be small lots. It doesn't look like anything else in the area. It is on a dangerous intersection on a small street across from a public park. You are going to have to let the property owner build across the city's easement. I just cannot see what reason the city could come up with to allow this lot split. It just does not make any sense. There are children playing in this park all the time, mine included. I can not imagine that the city thinks that we need more cars and more traffic and more parking problems in this neighborhood when we've already got so much going on in this neighborhood. Right across the street from me there is a house owned by Scott Bole. We had a religious commune in there until the end of the semester and they parked out in the driveway. If I am trying to sell my house or if I am trying to have company over, the last thing I want to look at is cars parked in the front yard. I think with the problems with parking, with the problems of street side parking, that is exactly what we are going to see here is a nice neighborhood with cars parked in the yards. I just don't think that is good for this neighborhood and I think this application should be denied. Thank you. Ward: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to make public comment? Weis: Can I correct something? We were told by Troy that, the only reason I mentioned this, I know rental verses property ownership is probably not going to be your concern, the only reason I am mentioning this is because the gentleman up there said these were going to be sold. Troy said he was purposely building to rent and I just wanted to make that correction. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 11 Mertins: One other thing, Mr. Conklin had said there were 29 signatures, we did receive 15 additional signatures this morning so all in all of the surrounding neighbors 44 people have now signed in opposition of this lot split and to my knowledge I think there have just been one or two people here today that have spoken on behalf of it. So I would ask that the department seriously consider the neighborhood opposition when voting. Ward: Ok, thank you. Is there any other public comment at this time that is new to what has been added already? Richards: I am Nancy Richards and I live on Markham Road. I have lived there since this was all woods. It was called the Hotz Addition and it was for family homes, that was the idea of it. I hope it stays that way. Thank you. Ward: Ok, thank you. Are there any other comments? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the applicant. Reid: I would like to address the T Bar ditch issue. That is just a standard ditch that can be found in the city where there is no curb and gutter. That ditch runs around the full block. Everyone has to address that ditch when they come in and out of their road. It is not just something new that sprang up. It runs down until it drops into a culvert but those things are usually handled with either poured concrete pipes or metal pipes for drainage. I would also submit that even though this lot would be split, we do meet the minimum requirements and I know I live in a neighborhood that is just as nice and just as family oriented neighborhood. My lot doesn't meet minimum lot requirements, it is the Wilson Park area. Yet, I submit that the homes over there are just as friendly and just as nice. As far as the rental problems in here, this is a university property. I would say that these signatures, it is very nice to see the public turn out, some of these signatures are probably six to seven blocks away from this property and I submit that not everybody that lives in this neighborhood is on this paper because they are probably rent homes to begin with. Ward: Ok, thanks Alan. Any other comment? Weis: I have a response to that. Ward: It is closed to the public, I do not want to hear anything else from the public. We have closed it to the public, we have got your comments and that is all that we will consider. We could sit here and listen to this all day and we would be here for 12 hours. Tim, why don't you give us the breakdown as far as what we are required to do. As far as I can tell, this meets our city requirements as far as a lot split is concerned or does it not? Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 12 Conklin: As far as city ordinance requirements, it does meet the requirements for R- 1 zoning, a minimum of 70' of lot frontage, which each lot has, and a minimum of 8,000 sq.ft. I would like to make sure that the Subdivision Committee is aware of this, and the public. That is, under Chapter 164 in our Unified Development Ordinance, if this applicant chose not to split the property, there is an ordinance that allows another single family home to be built and I will just read this for the record. §164.03 "The erection of more than one principal structure on a lot of record in any district, more than one structure housing a permitted principle use may be erected on a single lot provided that yard and other requirements of this chapter shall be met for each structure as though it were on an individual lot." I think that is important because even if this lot split were to be denied, a permit still would have to be issued by my department because I don't have the authority to change the ordinance. The ordinance allows for another single family home to be built. Bunch: When you say another single family home you mean one to replace the burned one or are you saying an additional one? Conklin: An additional one. Bunch: So actually two structures are on the property. Conklin: Yes. Ward: Of course, most of the lots up in that area are not on corners like Palmer and Hotz so it is a lot easier to split it than it would be almost any other neighbor's homes up there because of the accessibility to street frontage on both sides. We understand all of the neighbor's concerns, we can understand that but it is not that we have a whole lot of choices. I don't think we can say that there isn't going to be an extra home on there because it is allowable anyway. I am just trying, if there is any way that we have except approving it, I need to know. I am not sure that there is. Conklin: I am not aware of any. Hoover: Tim, is there any precedent for denial of lot splits? I can't remember one that we have denied when it meets all of the requirements, I am just curious. Conklin: I can only recall one lot split and that was in Freswood Heights off Cheryl. That is the only one I can think of and I don't have the full history on that. They ended up building another house based on the ordinance. After they built the house, he had two houses, they wanted to split it and that was not split. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 13 Wilson: I would like to say something. I have lived in this neighborhood for ten years. I came back up here to finish school in 1991 and I rented a house on Hotz that the roof leaked on it. It was the worst house on the street, it was all I could afford because I was going to school. Since then I bought another house on Hotz and moved out of that house and bought a house up the street and we rented that house out for two to three years. I don't remember having any complaints about the renters we had in that house. That house was almost 1,800 sq.ft. I am not wanting to change the character of the neighborhood. I could have put 5-6 college kids in that house, I couldn't have by ordinance but realistically I could have. I didn't do that. Both times I rented it, the first time I rented it I let the neighbors who lived next door to that house pick the renters. The second time I rented it we picked the renters but both times it was a young couple. There were only two people in that house and they parked on the driveway. I think we did a good job of maintaining that property and I think we brought people into the community that were consistent with our community. I have lived there for ten years. I drive by this every day. I have been a renter in college and I have been a home owner and I have been a property owner on that street. I consider this to be a neighborhood revitalization project. Our neighborhood, there are a lot of older people in our neighborhood that are moving out of their houses and we were getting a lot of college kids in our neighborhood and it is changing the character of our neighborhood and what I am trying to do is put some money into our neighborhood where I can attract the kind of neighbors that we want in our neighborhood. I have taken two trips to Austin and looked at the older neighborhoods around the University of Texas, and I have got photographs right here of that, of some older established neighborhoods, with houses similar to ours where they have come in there and done that. These neighborhoods are very well maintained, it is a mixture of professionals, students, professors. I think that anybody in my neighborhood would be happy to go in that direction. I would like to say something about his petition. I have lived in this neighborhood ten years. Whoever circulated this petition didn't even come talk to me about what we were proposing to do down there and I just don't think that was very neighborly and that is all I've got to say about it. Ward: Ok, thanks Troy. Are there any other comments from the Commissioners? Bunch: I have a question for Troy and Alan. What is this panhandle? Is that to gain access to utilities? Reid: The state and the city both require that we have access to the water and the sewer connection on Hotz Drive. Bunch: There is not sewer available on Palmer? Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 14 Reid: There is a huge box that crosses over Palmer that wouldn't allow us to go over or under to meet that manhole down there. That is why we have to have that. Even though we have the required frontage on Palmer we are just getting some frontage over here on Hotz to allow for access to the manhole. Bunch: Ok. Another question on the building setback and utility easements. How come those are combined because I think there are separate numbers that the utility easements are usually 20' and the building setbacks are 25'? Reid: We just discussed it at the Tech Plat Review meeting and they said to go ahead and run the line all the way up and across. That gives them room for utilities and it meets the 25' setback requirements. Bunch: That 5' is really... Reid: I can't build on it so they might as well put the utilities where they can. Bunch: It also has to do with landscaping and trees and that sort of thing. You can't have that in utilities. Ward: Ok, are there any other comments? I am looking for a motion. Seeing no motion... Bunch: I am looking at forwarding this to the full Planning Commission because I feel that there are some unresolved issues here and it would possibly give people more time to go back and maybe, since it appears that the neighborhood has not met with the applicant, possibly between now and Planning Commission that could happen and to see what the plans are. I am sure that since by law there can be two houses on here, then it is more of just a matter of drawing a line on a map to create the lot split and it is not going to change whether or not two houses can be on there so I would move that we forward it to the full Planning Commission. Unless we want to table it and bring it back here to allow the neighborhood and the applicant to take a further look at it. That can be put in the form of a motion, I will leave it to you two to say what you want. Hoover: I am only laughing because I was just thinking the same thing. I want to say that I am definitely in favor of infill and smaller lots. I know Austin well and it can be done really nicely. I don't think having smaller lots integrated into a larger lot neighborhood; I mean on our newer developments we encourage some smaller lots and larger lots so there is a diversity and a smaller lot could mean that someone older might buy this because they don't want a large yard. There are all kinds of different types of clients for this but because there is such a controversy, and I think that I feel like Don, I hate to...I would like the neighborhood and the Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 15 developer to get together and just talk about it a little more one on one. It just sounds like there is a lot of miscommunication here, third hand information. Wilson: Can I get some questions answered then since we are here? Ward: Yes. Wilson: You are telling me that I can build two houses on that lot correct? Conklin: Yes, we would have to issue those permits. Ward: I would think though that you would want a lot split because to me it makes it much more, in the future, lets say single family homes, if I was the neighborhood I would want the two lots because this gives it a much better chance of being sold to families. If you put two houses on one lot it seems to me it is going to be a rental. Wilson: Ok. If I meet all of the technical specifications of the lot split then what is the controversy? I have neighbors in my neighborhood that have contacted some of you. I know some people that are in favor of this. Ward: Sure. Wilson: I have neighbors that understand that we are trying to revitalize this neighborhood and this is an opportunity for us to do that. Basically, we split the lot, we drop the cost of the lot per project substantially so that we can afford to build a nice structure for that lot and that is the intent here. It is not our intent to put 6 college kids in each house. I have got a house next door to me that probably cost $150,000 and it has got 6 college kids in it. There is one across the street and we've got parties all the time. That is not what I am trying to do here. Ward: Well, like I said, as far as all of the regulations, I think you meet them all. You meet all the setbacks, you meet all the lot sizes, all the frontage sizes. It is a corner lot, which makes it easier to do. Wilson: I understand that you have the fortitude to push this through. Ward: Right. I don't have any problem with setting it back a couple of weeks as far as waiting until it moves to the full Planning Commission. I don't think it is required and I don't think that, just because there are people against it or what not, that it has anything to do with our Planning Commission. We are appointed to make these decisions and follow policies and regulations that we have on the books on the city. My opinion is I am going to vote for it one way or the other unless somebody Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 16 can show me something different that I don't see here. I will go along with the consensus I think and say we will give you a little bit of time and have it at the full Planning Commission which meets Monday the 25th of this month. Bunch: Do you want me to go ahead and redo my motion? I kind of left it open with tabled verses Planning Commission. Hoover: I just want to make it clear Troy, I am also in favor of this lot split and certainly do value infill and it is not, I don't want to prolong it, sorry that you are having the extra delay, but I think in the end it will be to your advantage that everyone understands what is going on. Sometimes more education helps. Wilson: I will try to respond to this. I put business cards on the sign so anybody concerned about the property could call me, get in touch with me and nobody ever contacted me, the petition was circulated. I went and spoke to at least a dozen neighbors and I had a lot of positive feedback. Hoover: Is there also a Neighborhood Association? Wilson: There is a Neighborhood Association. I was one of the people who helped found that. I am not a member of it now. Ward: Ok, well thank you. I need a motion. Motion: Bunch: I move that we forward this to the full Planning Commission and encourage the applicant and the neighbors to get together between now and that time and see if some of the difficulties can be ironed out. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thank you all. Hoover: Tim, does Troy have a copy of what he may do by right now? Conklin: Probably not. Hoover: I think you need to give a printed form out to the neighbors so that they can cosider what your right is right now, that you could go ahead and do it without a lot split. Wilson: I would like to get that before I leave. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 17 LSP 02-13.00: Lot Split (McDonald Living trust, pp 648) was submitted by William Jenkins of Jenkins Surveying, Inc. on behalf of McDonald Living Trust for property located at 2350 S. Hunt Lane. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 29.26 acres. The request is for 28.35 acres and 0.91 acres. Ward: Ok, we are going to the next item on the agenda. If you would, take your chair. The second item we are discussing is LSP 02-13.00 submitted by William Jenkins of Jenkins Surveying, Inc. on behalf of McDonald Living Trust for property located at 2350 S. Hunt Lane. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 29.26 acres. The request is for 28.35 acres and 0.91 acres. Tim? Conklin: This property is located south of Huntsville Road, the east side of Hunt Lane. It is in our planning area and contains an existing house on the .91 acre tract of property to remain. The applicant is proposing a septic fill easement on the adjoining tract. We recommend that it can be approved at this level. Conditions to address include a legal description of the original tract will need to be added to the survey. The right-of-way will need to be dedicated as part of this plat. The property lines shall be moved to include the required 30' of right-of-way, the legal description with acreages should also be revised. Number three is the Arkansas Health Department approval of an offsite septic field easements. We are not sure whether or not they will approve offsite septic field easement but it is off this site where the existing septic field was located. The rest are standard conditions of approval. Ward: Ok, thanks. This is out in the county? Carter: Yes. Ward: Ok, Ron, are there any concerns with Engineering? Petrie: Not really. Just a comment. This flow over easements, there appear to be missing numbers, we need to get that cleared up so we know where it is at. Conklin: Mr. Chair, I have a question for Glenn. Why can't you just put the septic system, enlarge that lot, and put it all on one lot? Carter: I don't have a good answer for that other than this is what the client has requested. I made the same suggestion but he wants to do it this way unless he finds out that there is some reason he can't. Conklin: Ok. Ward: How far is sewer from here? Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 18 Carter: I think it is about'' 'A mile. Ward: Are they planning on annexing this in sooner or later do you know? Carter: I don't know. Ward: Ok, we have had cases in the past where he have had places that were built and they had sewer lines, or water lines and so on that were on other people's property because they had it split sometime. It would be a lot cleaner if we could put this on the property and not on somebody else's property. Carter: I understand. Ward: At this time I will ask for public comment. Is there any public comment on this particular issue? Silkwood: Celia Scott Silkwood, Washington County Planning Director, if you would include that field in the lot and create a one acre lot, you could get this approved for free. It is a lot quicker than going to the Planning Board. I just think that is a way better idea to have the septic field on your own lot. Carter: Ok, I will have a discussion with Mr. McDonald about that. Silkwood: Other than that, I don't have any problem. Ward: Ok, thank you. Is there any other public comment? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the applicant and the Committee. Bunch: I have several questions. One I think is the same that Ron had. It is unclear from the drawings and inserts exactly where the easements are and how far they extend. The drawing does not seem to coincide with the legal description. Also, on the transmission line, the natural gas line, and the electrical line, do those have utility easements associated with them? You are just showing centerline of the utility and are not showing any sort of easement arrangement and I think if we are going to have this on public record it needs to be cleaned up. Carter: I am sure that they exist. We don't have them at this time. Motion: Bunch: Another concern is it seems rather cumbersome if we are drawing lines on a piece of paper at this time to go to a separate document for a septic field when you could just as easily have the line drawn to include that. If Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 19 nobody else has any comments, I would move that we table this to give the applicant a chance to clean these issues up and to go back to the property owner and maybe take advantage of what Ms. Silkwood mentioned. I move that we table this. Hoover: Second. Ward: I will concur. Do you have any other questions Glenn that we need to clear up for you? Carter: Just one. Commissioner Bunch was discussing, I am not sure what you are asking. You are asking that if we are going to show an easement to show it more readable than this? Bunch: One easement appears to stop when it gets to this lot that is being cut out. It is hard to tell from the drawing. It seems in the survey description that the 30' easement runs all the way past and through the lot that is being split but it is just hard to tell. I am more or less saying can you clean that up so it is more explainable? Carter: The 30' of right-of-way? Bunch: The right-of-way and the easement, both. Carter: Ok, I understand, thank you. Ward: You would think with almost an acre of land you would be able to get your septic field on the property. Carter: There is a reason for the way they did that. It is maybe not a very good one, it is one of those "We've done this a hundred times in the county, why can't I do it again?" Ward: Ok. Carter: That is how it got where it is now. Ward: How much more land would it take to put that whole septic field on the property? Carter: I don't know, not very much. Ward: You could make the total a full acre or an acre and a tenth. Carter: Maybe. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 20 Ward: Ok, well you have kind of got our concerns and our wishes. Go back, and that doesn't mean you can't bring it back again just like you have it the first time. Carter: Ok, thank you. I appreciate your comments. Ward: Thank you. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 21 FPL 02-3.00: Final Plat (Copper Creek, pp 99/100) was submitted by Brian Moore on behalf of Gary Brandon Enterprises, Inc. for property located east of Stonebridge Subdivision and north of Zion Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low -Density Residential and contains approximately 34.34 acres with 81 lots proposed. Ward: The next item on the agenda this morning is FPL 02-3.00 for Copper Creek. This is on behalf of Gary Brandon Enterprises for property located east of Stonebridge Subdivision and north of Zion Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low -Density Residential and contains approximately 34.34 acres with 81 lots proposed. Tim, are you going to take this one? Conklin- Sure. This is a Final Plat for Copper Creek subdivision. The Preliminary Plat was approved on November 22, 1999. As you are aware, the Preliminary Plat gives them approval to go ahead and construct infrastructure, streets, water, sewer etc. A conditional use request was approved for a private swimming pool with dressing rooms for the Property Owner's Association. That was approved by the Planning Commission on September 10, 2001. That is located in this area right up here. This item was brought to Technical Plat Review on February 27, 2002. The recommendation states approval at the Subdivision Committee level. I would like this to go to the Planning Commission based on some research we are doing. We do have some conflicts with our bylaws and ordinances on who can approve a Final Plat. We will be bringing you some clean up ordinance amendments but at this time I would like to take it to Planning Commission for final approval. Conditions to address and discuss include the Park and Recreation Advisory Board recommending accepting partial money and land dedication on September 8, 1999. The park land dedication is 1.46 acres, leaving a balance of $10,622. 2) The utility line must be removed from the park dedicated property. 3) The Park boundary signs and posts must be erected around the park. 4) Note seven should read new sidewalks, driveway approaches or access ramps constructed in the right-of-way shall meet Unified Development Ordinance §171.13, which is ordinance 4055. 5) Restrictive Covenants should state the common areas will be maintained by the P.O.A. 6) A note will need to be added to the plat to explain the availability of irrigation systems. The rest are standard conditions of approval Ward: Ok, so we basically have the six conditions there to address and discuss? Conklin: Yes. Ward: I will start off with staff. Ron with Engineering, do you have any particular problems with this Final Plat? Petrie: I just want to point out a couple of things. Phil, you have a finished floor note. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 22 Humbard: Yes Sir. Petrie: Will you take the City of Springdale off of it? Humbard: Yes. Petrie: On the second page, note #5, add the word detention pond. Humbard: Ok Petrie: Remove pipe and add detention pond. That was it. Ward: Keith? Shreve: No comments. Ward: Kim with Parks. Rogers: Yes. I got a check from Brian Moore yesterday and the acreage before was 1.57 and the new acreage is 1.5146, so it changed to $564 more, which I have now. (Humbard hands check) Ward: Ok, that was quick and easy. Landscaping, Kim? Hesse: Everything is fine. Humbard: I just have one question. I didn't understand what you said first about going to the Planning Commission. Conklin: We need to put this on the Planning Commission agenda. We will probably put it on consent agenda. Ward: Give us the reason again. Conklin: Well, we were looking through our ordinances and bylaws and it states that it can be approved at this level in your bylaws. The ordinance states that the Planning Commission must approve and I think that the ordinance is higher than the bylaws. We will bring an amendment. Ward: It should be consent agenda or something? Conklin: Yes. Humbard: What is that date? Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 23 Conklin: March 25`h. I would recommend, I can't put this on consent, only you can, but I would recommend that this be on consent and approve it there. Ward: Ok, thanks. At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to make a public comment on this final plat for Copper Creek? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Commission. Conklin- Mr. Chair, I would just like to inform Mr. Brandon that I am meeting with the United States Postal Service Monday to begin discussions with regard to Fayetteville possibly changing these postal areas from Springdale to Fayetteville. Because you are aware that these are Springdale addresses here. Cities can only request this once every ten years and it has to be city wide, it can't just be this one area. It takes a vote of the people that currently live in these postal routes, the different addresses. We have some in Springdale, we have some in Farmington and it takes a majority of the people agreeing to it. There will be some major decisions to think about because according to the postal service, there are about 50 homes with Springdale addresses out there. Whether or not they think that is a good thing or a bad thing or they want their address to change to Fayetteville, I don't know. It does take a vote. From that meeting I will let you and Mark Foster, who has the subdivision over here, know. I have been getting phone calls about people who want to build in your subdivisions who want Fayetteville addresses. That is just an update. Brandon: I just figured you were where you were. Ward: I guess not. Everything can be changed. Do you have any other problems with the six conditions that we have on there? Humbard: No. Ward: You understand that we are going to try to put this on the consent agenda for the full Planning Commission in about two weeks? Brandon: Yes. Bunch: I have a question for Kim on the tree preservation. Were there any tree preservation areas? I didn't see anything denoted on the drawing. Hesse: This went through during the old ordinance. There are a lot of areas that are preserved but under the old ordinance they didn't have to show easements. Under the new ordinance we have they are labeled. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 24 Bunch: I just noticed that there are quite a few trees that had been preserved in the area but there were no notes on the drawing that showed additional protection for those. Hesse: Conklin: Motion: That is under the old ordinance. The new ordinance doesn't carry on for single family. Mr. Chair, I do have one more comment. With regard to streetlights, we will need a guarantee for installation either submitted to the city, or if you want to pay the utility company and show proof of payment contract. Not just a contract, I want to make sure that they were paid and the check was cashed or whatever you paid them with and if they have the money we will accept that. Bunch: I will move that we forward FPL 02-3.00 to the full Planning Commission with the additional condition of the streetlights as outlined by Tim Conklin added. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. It looks like you are really close. Thank you all. Brandon: Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 25 PPL 02-7.00: Preliminary Plat (Legacy Pointe, pp 435/474) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan of Sloan Properties, Inc. for property located east of Double Springs Road and south of Owl Creek. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and RMF -6, Low Density Multi -family Residential and contains approximately 49.80 acres with 132 lots proposed. Ward: Ok, our next item on the agenda is PPL 02-7.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen, it doesn't look like Dave, but Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan of Sloan Properties for property located east of Double Springs Road and south of Owl Creek. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and RMF -6, Low Density Multi -family Residential and contains approximately 49.80 acres with 132 lots proposed. Who is going to give us the findings on this? Conklin- I will go over that. There are 108 single-family residential lots, 24 duplex lots proposed, and a total of 156 dwelling units in the subdivision. Park land is being dedicated along the north end of the property. The applicant is also building a parking lot for the park. The applicant will be dedicating the required street right-of-way for Persimmons Street, which is classified as a collector on our Master Street Plan. Double Springs Road is classified as a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan. The applicant will be dedicating the required right-of-way for that street and widen the street 14' from centerline with curb and gutter. There is property that is zoned A-1 to the east and west. The property itself is within Washington County. The property itself is RMF -6 and R-1. There is 5.29% of the site in existing tree canopy. The applicant is proposing to preserve 1.6% and to mitigate 3.68% tree canopy and a contribution to the City's tree fund. We are recommending this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Conditions to address include no lots will be allowed to access Double Springs Road, since that is classified as an arterial. We want to make sure the houses access from interior streets. The existing house on lot 76 will require a variance for the rear setback prior to final plat acceptance. 3) A fire hydrant shall be added near lot 38 on Milliken Bend. Those are the only conditions we need to address. The rest are standard conditions of approval. Brackett: I am Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates. There is a fire hydrant on lots 36 and 37. Edwards: I just received that comment so you can contact the Fire Department with that. Conklin: They might have missed that one. Brackett: All right. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 26 Ward: Brackett: Conklin: Ward: Petrie: Where is the RMF -6 location? It is down there next to the park in this area right the dotted lines, those are all half lots where the the center wall on the half lot line. This is going to be similar to North Heights off they have done the townhouse type development, Ok. Are there any comments from Ron? here. The ones that have duplex will be built with of Appleby Road, where one on each side. I have asked Paul Hawkins at OMI to verify that the lift station passes. I haven't heard back yet as to what he has to say. Hopefully I will hear back before the Planning Commission meeting but we are waiting on that. One thing I didn't see, street improvements to Double Springs Road. Planning Commission needs to make that determination. This portion of Double Springs Road is being improved by the State Highway Department. It is real close to Silverthorne subdivision. What we are recommending is it be widened to meet local street standards, curb and gutter, underground drainage. Other than that, I do reserve the right to change some of the easements when I review the construction plan. Some of them look very narrow, you show 12 72 foot drainage easements. The standard will be 10' from that pipe and they are not all shown that way. Also, this open swale, we will want a separate easement with utilities. Brackett: Ok. Petrie: That is all I have. Ward: Ok, thanks Ron. Keith with Sidewalks? Shreve: They have shown the sidewalks to meet all of the requirements. Ward: Ok. Kim with Parks? Rogers: Will this existing house on lot 76 remain? Sloan: Yes, it is going to stay there. Rogers: Ok, then there will be 107 lots? Sloan: There are two lots that will go with that, lots 76 and 77 will just stay together. Conklin: If you are going to create a lot you are going to be charged a fee. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 27 Sloan: Ok. Rogers: So do you not want to create that lot? Sloan: Why don't we leave it there and I will pay a fee. That way we won't have a problem later. I would rather to go ahead and pay the money rather than coming back later. That is fine, they discussed that with me and we went ahead and put it in. Rogers: Ok. I am going to charge you for 107 lots. The acreage amount on here for the park property is not right. It is 2.42 acres and the requirement is 3.635 acres. I would ask you to show the park property on there shaded gray or something like that that could delineate the property line. Brackett: I will do that but it is going to be a mess. You are not going to be able to read it. Rogers: You can just do that for our office. Brackett: I will draw something up to show you where the park line is located. Rogers: Ok. Jorgensen & Associates stated that they would set a park line boundary for us. They are going to provide the signs. The entry between lots 11 and 12 should be included, this will be paved, striped, and have parking bumper pads. I do request that the covenants exclude park land dedication so it doesn't have to meet any of the requirements of the P.O.A. Charlie Sloan stated that the P.O.A. would mow and maintain between lots 1,2, and 3 so we are going to accept that under the park land dedication ordinance. Charlie Sloan also stated that he would mow and maintain the park property for two years after the date of the deed. What day is this going to Planning Commission? Conklin: The 25`n Rogers: We calculated the park land dedication and it is .215 acres short from the dedication ordinance so we will have a Parks Board meeting and it will have to go to the City Council for a waiver of the dedication ordinance because it is over forty acres and over a hundred units. Unless there is some way that we can accept another .215 acres elsewhere and we would be willing to work that out. It can just be a condition upon approval Tim. Ward: Ok. Kim with Landscaping? Hesse: I will give you a copy of my comments. I have approved the design for the tree preservation. We went out and looked at the trees along the street. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 28 Ward: Ok, Charlie, have you had a chance to look at this? Sloan: Yes. Ward: Do you have any questions or anything at this time? Brackett: I guess that, I talked to Sara, we are going to be able to go through and have this be approved contentious on the park land being accepted by the Parks Board the ls` of April? Ward: Can that be done Kim? Rogers: Yes. Ward: Ok. At this time I will open it up to public comment Would anyone like to make a public comment on this preliminary plat for Legacy Pointe? Marr: I just have one question. The street widening that we are talking about, the two trees that are going to be affected. Are those trees going to be lost as an effect of the widening of the street? Brackett: If it is widened to the 36', the 30" oak that is on lot 94 would definitely be lost. The 36" hickory could probably be saved if care was taken. They are off enough now that it won't be in the way of the road. It could be widened and I believe that the hickory could be saved if care was taken in the widening. But definitely the oak, because of the elevation of it that it wouldn't be able to be saved. Conklin: Mr. Chair, Kim, you can correct me if I'm wrong but those are within utility easements and right-of-way. Hesse: Those really, we have gone through a lot of extra effort, we have moved the water line. I think we can save that 30" oak. Conklin: My point is that there is no guarantee that those will be saved because they are in the right-of-way. Utility companies have franchise agreements and if they are in the utility easements then they have the right to put utilities in those easements. Typically they work with Kim very well and try to save as many trees as possible. I just didn't want to give the impression those trees are targeted for preservation. Brackett: They will be preserved through this construction. Marr: Are they calculated in the preservation count? Brackett: Yes they are. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 29 Hesse: It is almost impossible in single-family residential subdivisions to have preservation easements. At this point the way our ordinance is, it doesn't monitor single family. Conklin- We aren't counting any trees...these two trees are on the north line in the rear, where gas, electric and cable are going to go through. The only ones that we are counting are the ones that are on the front of the lots where the main utilities are water and sewer, and of course, the street. We have redesigned the water and the sewer to save those trees so we cannot guarantee those trees will be saved but they should be. Electric companies or the gas, they are not going to be coming down through that easement. They are going to be in the back of the lot where we provided the easements for them. Hesse: Ward: The ordinance everyone has recently voted in says that in residential subdivisions all we are doing is saving trees through infrastructure development in hopes that homeowners and house builders will do the same. That is true and most people would definitely want to try. Do we have any other public comment on this particular Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Committee. Hoover: Can I ask that the vicinity maps show the connections? Conklin: Can you show your subdivision streets within your vicinity map? Brackett: Ok. Would you like us to change that for this or just in the future? Hoover: In the future because it is just a lot easier to understand what is going on and that we are connecting somewhere. Ward: Charlie, you are providing an easement there between lots 11 and 12 with some kind of parking lot? Sloan: Yes. Brackett: That is actually park property. The park property actually extends all the way to the right. Sloan: We are going to go ahead, while we are already there, it would be cheaper to go ahead and put it in now while we are there. We just, in lieu of part of the property that they are going to take, we are going to go ahead and put that in. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 30 Ward: Sloan: Bunch: Sloan: Bunch: Sloan: Ward: Sloan: Ward: Sloan: Bunch: Sloan: Bunch: That will be some kind of asphalt paving? Concrete probably, it will look like the driveways. That is why we were trying to get the smaller entry drive back there to it so it will fit and not look like a sore thumb parking lot. Just a question Mr. Chairman. On these RMF -6 areas, there was a question at Technical Plat about whether or not A and B are designated as individual lots. They are. They will be deeded separately. They will be deeded separately, it won't have to go through the process regularly done in a lot split. We caught that at Technical Plat. So these will be kind of like condo/duplex? Right. If you want to build over there you are going to have to buy lots 37A and 37B. Then there will be two separate deeds issued. They shoot down the centerline like we did North Heights then sell it. There is a firewall. Ok, do you have any kind of covenants as far as how small they are? They will be 1,400 sq.ft. minimum on each side, two -car garage, a minimal two bedrooms, no four bedrooms. They will have a P.O.A., maintenance and everything. They can't opt out of it. They have to have the yards landscaped. It is going to look like North Heights, where everybody is identical as far as looks, color, and things like that. Designs can vary. We want creativity in the designs so we have someone working on that. We want the basic look to be the same, the same color, same roof color, minimum pitches, etc. There is a minimal of two bedrooms and what is the max? They won't allow a four bedroom, three bedrooms would be the max. Basically, what we are working on design wise, and I think what the builders are going to design are two bedroom, two bath and an office with French doors or something. It is not closed off to be a bedroom. We are not trying to attract four or five people. This is a good concept here where people know in advance that there is the RMF -6 district and the other district. Everything is right up front. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 31 Sloan: It is there and then the builders that are buying out there can't buy here unless they buy here so it is the situation where we are enforcing it and so that they know that they have got to keep something up here. They understand that, they are looking at this out here, 1,800 sq.ft. minimum, all brick, architectural shaped roofs, it will be high standards on these homes. We have a minimum of 1,800 sq.ft., obviously, we expect it to get bigger as we go up but we would like to stay mostly at 1,800 sq.ft. when we are starting out. Ward: Does anyone else have any more questions or comments or motions? Motion: Bunch: I move that we forward PPL 02-7.00 to the full Planning Commission with the additional comments by staff. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Sloan: Thank you, I appreciate it guys. Bunch: It looks good. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 32 LSD 01-42.00: Large Scale Development (Karstetter & Glass, pp 402) was submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of Doris Ann Glass for property located at 2530 Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.76 acres with a 1,240 sq.ft. shop expansion proposed. Ward: The next item on the agenda this morning is LSD 01-42.00 submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of Doris Ann Glass for property located at 2530 Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.76 acres with a 1,240 sq.ft. shop expansion proposed. I believe we have seen this one before. Clark: Yes we have. Conklin: Yes, we have worked on this for three or four years now that I can recall. We are getting closer and hopefully this reflects what the Commission was looking for in the last Planning Commission meeting. The original structure is a legal non -conforming structure. Expansion of the facility began without any permits several years ago. A stop work order was placed on the project. The property was zoned Residential, it was not even zoned Commercial at the time. We identified it on the land use plan as part of a commercial area and the land use plan was changed. C-2 zoning was applied for in order to make it conforming with the existing use so that was passed. The property is within the design overlay district. Therefore, it had to come through a large-scale development. This is a large-scale development we have been working on for many months now. There are requested waivers with regard to the overlay district regulations, commercial design standards and other ordinances. The applicant is proposing to replace the metal gates, which are on both sides of the building, with wood gates and a chain link fence on the east and west side. The property to the west is zoned R-2, the property to the north is R-1. Across Futrall to the west includes Hanks Furniture. It is zoned C-2. The property across Wedington is zoned C-2. There are no trees on this site that are affected by this development. As you are aware, the building has already been constructed. The roof has not been placed over the top. The site plan has been revised to include removing some concrete along the front, along Wedington Drive. There is a blow up on your plans showing that concrete being removed with landscaping added. The dumpster being screened with a wood fence, the elevation has been modified to include some brick columns and different colored metal panel. Keep in mind, this is behind the main existing building facing Wedington. Conditions of approval include a fire hydrant shall be installed within 500' of the building. This is according to the fire code. 2) Determination of compliance with our commercial design standards, including a waiver of §161.21(b)(6), a requirement that curb cuts be a minimum of 200' apart. A waiver of §161.21(b)(2), which requires that 25' of landscape be provided along the public right-of-way. §161.21(b)(10), that buildings Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 33 shall be constructed with wood, masonry, or natural looking materials. No structure shall be allowed to have metal sidewalls unless metal looks like wood, masonry, or natural looking materials. 3) Determination of a waiver that requires driveway widths not to exceed 39'. 4) Planning Commission determination of a waiver, which requires that parking lot entrances and aisles not exceed 24' in width. 5) Planning Commission determination of a waiver for the requirement of right-of-way dedication for Wedington Drive for 55' from centerline. Currently there is 40.53' to 44.31'. The requirement along Futrall is 25' from centerline, currently there is 15'. Staff is in support of the request of right-of-way reduction along Wedington Drive only. This request would require City Council approval. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Board of Adjustments for a non -conforming building with regard to setbacks. The dumpster shall be screened, which they are showing. The rest are pretty standard conditions. Keep in mind that Wedington Drive was improved by the Arkansas Highway Transportation Department. They went out and built the sidewalks and the driveways and acquired the right-of-way from Mrs. Glass. Those improvements were installed prior to the addition of the shop building going in and were built by the Highway Department. That is all that I have. Ward: Ok, thanks Tim. Kim, do you have any comments about the landscaping proposed? Will it work, will it survive? Hesse: I don't know that it will survive. It is going to be in a real difficult situation because it is going to get ran over. Ward: Yes, is there any particular type of plant, bush or flower that should be planted in there that we need to recommend? Hesse: I can work with the applicant on something. I am sure that we can find some strong plants that don't need a lot of irrigation. Ward: Some of those that you can get at the Silk Tree? Hesse: Hopefully not. Ward: I don't think that there are any other comments that we need. I will go ahead and open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak on this particular issue of Karstetter and Glass project? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. My comment is that this is much better than what it has been in the past as far as putting in the columns and colors and so on and getting away from the long, unarticulated walls and so on. It meets my guidelines now. I have been kind of a stigler on saying it is ugly and it doesn't meet our standards. It is a metal wall, a metal building. At this point I think it is a huge Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 34 improvement compared to what has been brought in the past. The other things that we have required to screen the dumpster and so on, I think those are also good. Are there any other comments? Hoover: I have a question. The front of the building where there is 24', is that a parking space or a drive? Clark: That will be a drive. There will be no parking in front of the building. Conklin: That will be eliminated. Clark: No, the drive will still be there. Conklin: Right. Clark: The existing parking that is there will no longer be there. Bunch: Where will you have your parking lot? Conklin: To the side. Bunch: To the west of the building? Conklin: Yes. Bunch: That will I assume, be delineated by signage or something? Clark: It is currently paved and striped so yes. There will be the signage... Bunch: In material then, if you want to discuss with Kim then, there appears to be a tree in the southeast corner. Clark: That is correct. Bunch: Any idea on what kind of tree or is that going to be determined later? Clark: I prefer to get with Kim and have her give me some guidance on that. It won't be a Bradley Pear or something that is going to be obstructive and obscure the sight distance, we are going to try to use that driveway. Bunch: Clark: It is a tough location because you want to screen the building, but at the same time not alter sight distance. It is difficult and with the limited space we have, the landscaping is going to have to have some real consideration. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 35 Conklin: Aren't there some overhead power lines? Clark: There is some overhead power that comes across and runs this way, yes. It will need to be something fairly low growing and open at the bottom. Conklin- I don't think it will be a giant Sequoyah. Bunch: There are definitely some design problems, with all those different conditions it is going to be difficult to find a tree. Ward: Are there any of these conditions that you have a problem with that we need to discuss? Clark: One of them was item number three, the waiver, which was the driveway width not exceeding 39'. With the revised design that we have now we don't need that waiver anymore. Bunch: So we are omitting number three? Clark: That is correct. Hoover: Tim, when you go on to add a certain amount of footage or a dollar amount to an existing building then when does it happen that you have to bring your parking lot up to our landscape requirements? Conklin: 50%. Hoover: Is this up to 50%? Conklin: I'm sorry, it starts at 10%, based on percentage we break it up. Hoover: Ok. Conklin: The problem here is that we have very limited room, if you want to keep it functioning as a body shop. It is unfortunate, when the Highway Department widened Highway 16, they really needed to redo the entire circulation. I am not sure if they were compensated for that. Clark: They weren't. Conklin: It is not a good situation. I can see that on Sixth Street too for certain businesses. It really has impacted them in a negative manner Hoover: I guess what I don't understand is that, aside from all of that, if you are going to add on to your existing structure then you fall under that rule. Where would this fall under our ordinance? Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 36 Conklin: What we are trying to do is trying to fit in. I don't know what it would look like complying with every ordinance other than taking out all of the concrete out front. I am trying to answer your question. We have been pushing and pushing to get it to a point that it can still function without redoing access with the overhead doors at the end of the building and everything else. I don't know how to answer your question on that. Bunch: Possibly that the existing asphalt parking lot in the front may not be big enough to even come under the rules on non -conforming. How many spaces are there? Clark: In that front lot? Before there were eight, there are five on the side and three in the front. Now there are four. We have four spaces in the front of the building now. Bunch: So that would really not even come in. It would be hard. Hoover: No, you could park in the back or all the way down the side. There are other ways to work it. I guess what I still am in question with, I don't understand the need for two driveways. If this is not parking here, you've got a bay over here to get into? Clark: Yes, we have to have those driveway openings in order to get access into the front of the building. Conklin: The sanitation vehicle can't... Hoover: Can't you just go in this one and go that way? Clark: Well we have the City's garbage trucks that are going to have to come in here and pick this up. Hoover: They can't go like that? Clark: Yes, but then how do they get out? Hoover: Oh, they can't back that way and go that way? Clark: No. Could they physically do it? Possibly. They would end up destroying the parking lot and the cars and everything else that were in there. From a realistic standpoint, no, it would never work. Hoover: I guess if this bay here, if there is a 19' parking space, then how big is that? If that is to scale it is bigger than 24'. They would have a space to back into. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 37 Clark: Trying to get back out... Hoover: Then they would be going straight out. Clark: There is not that much room. Like I said, physically could you probably make this a turning template and make it fit in this space? Possibly. To try to get the trucks to actually do that, no, it really wouldn't work. It really won't work. Hoover: I am curious, is this drive to the east of the development, is that going to be a drive all the way around? Clark: What the intent for that is that there are, when accidents occur late at night and the wreckers pick them up and have to bring them somewhere, occasionally when that occurs they bring them in and there is a gate that is back here that is locked and trucks will in and back the vehicles up in front of that gate and get them into a secured lot. Hoover: Tim, I guess at some point, because this keeps coming up more and more, the dumpster locations and what Solid Waste can do and can't do, I would like from Solid Waste a diagram of exactly the turning radius that they require. Conklin: Sure. Hoover: This is coming up too many times and I just don't like our designs to be driven by misinformation. Conklin: This is the existing location. I know that doesn't make it right Sharon, but we are dealing with an existing site and I guess it is how far do you go before you redesign the entire site. Glass: This is honestly the only place where Solid Waste will pick up. We've tried it. Hoover: You've tried it before, well we've had that come before too and we've had to talk to them about it. Conklin: We could redesign the entire site and make it work. Mrs. Glass owns this entire piece of property. It could be redesigned and redeveloped. Hoover: Let me ask you this. Based on the ordinance that says if you are expanding onto your property, and we require certain things when they start to do that, are we treating this development just like any other one or are we treating it special because the state had already gone through? Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 38 Conklin: That is kind of how I am looking at it. Hoover: This is a special case because... Conklin- Everything was built out there, curb cuts were built, sidewalks were built, and no one asked me if that was allowed. Hoover: The expansion was started before that was done wasn't it? Conklin: No. Hoover: I thought you said that this has been going on for years. That this building had been started. Conklin: Wedington was widened. Clark: The first time it was widened was when the bypass went in. At that point they took most of the driveway and at this point it tapered in and then the subsequent was when the bypass was constructed it was basically built to this point and then they came back in and they took the apron out and changed the front end. It has always had the two driveways. Conklin: I think Wedington has been built at least five years. Hoover: When was this started? Conklin: Three or four years ago. Hoover: So you are saying that the sidewalk was already in place? Conklin: Yes, I remember going out there with Bert Rakes and other city officials. Hoover: The expansion of the building started before the concrete was poured. Conklin: No. I remember going out there and the road was already built. I remember standing out in front with many city officials and the owner trying to figure out what was going on. Ward: It looks like they will also have to go to City Council for approval of the waiver. Conklin: For the right-of-way, yes. Clark: We have come as close to meeting the standards as we possibly can with the space that they have available. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 39 Ward: Are there any other comments or motions? Motion: Bunch: I move that we forward LSD 01-42.00, Large Scale Development for Karstetter and Glass to the full Planning Commission with the notes and the omission of condition number three. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur Thank you Steve. Clark: Thank you. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 40 LSD 02-7.00: Large Scale Development (Dandy/Schmitt, pp 524) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates on behalf of Brian Dandy and Robert Schmitt for property located at the southwest corner of Fletcher Avenue and Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.01 acres with nine units proposed. Ward: The last item on the agenda this morning is LSD 02-7.00 submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates on behalf of Brian Dandy and Robert Schmitt for property located at the southwest corner of Fletcher Avenue and Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.01 acres with nine units proposed. Tim, are you going to handle this one? Conklin: Sure. This property was before the Planning Commission on April 23, 2001 with a request not to provide the required street frontage for lots in an R-2 zone. The property was zoned R-2, as far as I can tell, back in 1970. That is based on the 1970 zoning map. Right-of-way for Center Street exists directly in front of this property and runs parallel on Fletcher Street. This waiver was approved subject to the project being processed as a large-scale development and limited to six units. That was for half of what you see today. When the large-scale development originally went to our Subdivision Committee on June 14, 2001 there were six 4 bedroom units on 1/4 acre. The item was tabled due to design issues. The item was reheard on June 28, 2001 by the Subdivision Committee and was forwarded to the Planning Commission. The applicant then decided to redesign the project, which required a new review. The new site plan included twelve units with 22 bedrooms, 22 parking spaces and was heard at the August 16, 2001 Subdivision Committee meeting where it was tabled due to concerns over the proposed lift station. The item was then heard at the November 1, 2001 Subdivision Committee meeting and was forwarded to the Planning Commission. The item was heard at the November 12, 2001 Planning Commission meeting where it was tabled pending a traffic study. Meanwhile, the adjacent '/2 acre parcel was heard at the November 15, 2001 Subdivision Committee meeting where it was tabled pending receipt of additional information. Both projects were then combined and redesigned and resubmitted to the Planning Division. The applicant is now proposing a total of nine 3 bedroom units with 30 parking spaces for the entire one acre site. What has happened is Mr. Schmitt's project and Mr. Dandy's project has been combined into one large-scale development. They have eliminated separate curb cuts and combined it into one drive. Instead of having two driveways they have one driveway. The units have been reduced to a total of nine on the property. Conditions to address and discuss include the determination of offsite improvements. Staff is recommending that the applicant be assessed $5,722.40 for the widening of the street adjacent to this property. There is a report from Ron Petrie, our Staff Engineer. 2) There shall be one tree planted per 30' Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 41 along the front property line. These trees may count as the 16 trees required by the Landscape Administrator for replacement. There will also be, since this is now a large-scale development, an acre, there will also be payment of parks fees in the amount of $3,375. That is nine units at $375 each. That is a change from before. It was technically less than an acre and parks fees were not being assessed. Parks fees will be assessed and will have to be paid with this development. I know that we have looked at this for almost a year now and it has changed over the year. Now we are to, once again, the nine units with the one driveway with both projects combined into one. That is all that I have on this development. Ward: Ok, thanks Tim. Schmitt: My name is Robert Schmitt. I just wanted to say that in the year, where we got with our project is I think we had almost dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's with the larger density project. At that point, when I looked at what we were left with, we weren't real pleased with the final product. We had a retaining wall running around the thing for like 320'. It was going to be concrete with a few trees kind of stuck in and that had never been our intention even from the onset. What we tried to do was go back to the drawing boards and come up with something that incorporated the concerns that we had heard from the neighbors and the Commission itself, just different issues as far as the number of curb cuts, planning, street density and how many cars were running up and down the street. We paid for the individual street traffic study. We had that done. Even though there wasn't a negative impact on traffic, we decided to try to reduce the number of units to try to make it have the least impact on the neighbors as possible. What we have come back with, each of these units will be designed in such a way, and we are having elevations done that should be at the full Planning Commission. We have a graphic artist doing those so you will be able to look at what we are planning on building there. We have a significant amount of greenspace compared to the last plan. We are trying to bring something before the Commission that is more palpable to the neighbors and addressing some of the things that we have heard throughout the last year. Ward: Ok. We've got these nine buildings, what kind of units are those going to be? Are they going to be condominiums or are they going to be homes? Schmitt: We are going to set these up, with the expense that we have in these, we don't know that they can actually be effective rental units at this point. They would have to rent in the $1,600 range. We probably can sell these as individual homes. We will either try to lease them to families and people who like upscale rentals or sell them off to individual families who would like something out there. We tried to, we have consistently heard the word duplex mentioned from the neighbors as something they would Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 42 consider appropriate on this property. We have tried to design the two units, or three of the units that we could topographically get together in a duplex type format. One thing I would like to mention too is that even though these are combined and going through the city as one project, which is also something that we had heard from the Commission as a request, they still are two legally separate parcels owned by two different individuals. As much as people really want to try to make this one project, we legally are two separate projects and we are just trying to address concerns and all of that by going together. The units themselves will be about 1,700 sq.ft. The appraisals that we have are about $170,000. They are about $100 a foot. We think that they are going to be quality additions to the area. Like I said, we will try to have some elevations for you at the full Planning Commission meeting. Ward: Ok, thank you. Ron with Engineering? Petrie: When you sell the houses, you are not splitting the property? Schmitt: No, we are not splitting it. I think if you classify them as condominiums, which are allowed under this zoning, the individual structures can be sold and it has a P.O.A. that controls the whole. Conklin: It is under the horizontal property regime where the land is not owned, it is not being split. Petrie: I understand. Schmitt: We just heard that as a suggestion from some folks that they would like to see this in more of a residential capacity and not where it has to be a strictly rental type area. We were trying to comply with that. Petrie: Just a few additional things. On the plat we need to spell out all the maintenance agreements and access easements. We are still dealing with two different property owners. The lift station, whose job it will be to work it out. We will review that on the entire set of construction plans. I think I asked for a revised grading and drainage application, if I could get that before Planning Commission. Carter: I thought we had turned it in. I will check, maybe not. Petrie: I may just not have gotten it. Other than that, these water meters need to go out by the waterline, they will be installed on the side of the sidewalk, that is all. Ward: Ok, Keith with sidewalks? Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 43 Shreve: They are proposing a 6' sidewalk, which meets our requirements. Ward: Ok, Kim with Landscaping? Hesse: Once we get the infrastructure and the buildings worked out we can find better locations to plant the trees. Schmitt: Anywhere you want them. Hesse: I would possibly like to leave enough room to create some groupings in some places. Once we get an easement plat we can work that out. Ward: I don't see Kim with Parks but you understand about the parks fees applying to this. There are now parks fees involved for these nine units, a total in the amount of $3,375. At this point I would like to open it up to public comment on this particular issue. Lets just talk about this particular issue with the nine units please. Ms. Davison, you can go first. Davison: That is me. I am Ms. Davison. I just want to address your derogatory comments earlier Almost all of the meetings I usually, after introducing myself, say I speak only for myself'. I have no money and I resent that rude comment of yours Mr. Ward when I think that is what we are fighting here. In regard to this particular project, which I am not going to go into the pictures of the cars in the ditches from the last snow storm right in front of his property. The safety issue is unbelievable there. I have pictures of all of his other projects. We can't count on this. I am assuming these little condo units are similar to what he shoved in on Olive Street. Sir, would that be the kind of thing you are planning? Ward: Ms. Davison, make your comments to the Committee. Davison: Can we ask him? Ward: Make your comments to the Committee please. Davison: Ok, well if you would then, later ask him and then tell me Sir if these are the same type of units that are on Olive Street and have ruined that street in the one block stretch. There is a concrete culvert coming down in it. People have to park on the street. Ok, after one year of coming to these meetings, I have actually organized my life around this year with Mr. Schmitt. Here we are, he has finally, because he can't make it work, not because of what the neighbors all said, he knew. Every time we came in there was a different number, a different figure. One together, now separate, we want it this way, we are going to tie it together when it fits our purposes and we're going to tell you we're apart when it does not. The main issue where I expect at Planning Commission for this to be Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 44 Ward: Allred: denied as is, besides all of the other issues we have discussed, is traffic and safety. I finally see one figure here that shows me a little bit of how much it is costing us, as citizens in Fayetteville, to accommodate these gentlemen's right to make money. It is a $53,000 street for their project. Lets get that clear. They only have to pay $5,722.40, we, to accommodate these lovely gentlemen to degregate our neighborhood, to turn our neighborhoods, right in a row, they will go faster. You don't need anybody going faster on that road. We are going to have to pay $53,027.60. I don't appreciate that I, one, have to deal with the traffic this man is going to develop, unsafe neighborhoods for our children, but I am having to pay $53,000 to accommodate his street. We don't need that street widened. If you look at this whole area, we have a dead end street one-way, we have got a dead end street the other way. We have got a little loop that goes up to the hill that most of Mount Sequoyah's access from the other side. There is no one that needs this road widened. It will increase total traffic to the cross. We will have lots more traffic just from widening the road to accommodate this man's right to make money. Even when you widen that road, you are not going to make it any safer. People are going to be coming down and they are going to be in the ditches, in the culverts. You look at Olive Street, people cannot transverse on Olive Street where his other units are because they are parking on the street, I will have pictures of that for you. These people are going to have company that are going to park in the street when the weather is bad no one is going to be able to get anywhere. I am really glad to start seeing some numbers here, such as $53,000 that I have to pay for that man to make money and ruin my whole neighborhood. Thank you for listening Mr. Ward. Thank you Ms. Davison. Is there anyone else that would like to make a public comment on this? Yes Sir? My name is Harry Allred, I live at 1137 E. Rodgers Drive. My concern is basically safety. I look at the development, I look at the size of it, I look at the density and I know they are going to increase traffic, that is inevitable but the parking, the parking on Lighton Trail and the parking on Rodgers is going to cause some problems. The street is substandard, extremely narrow, right now it is a hazard as it exists. We are in the process of forming a Neighborhood Association, we haven't quite formed it. I would hope that you would consider the big issue. In my opinion, the development is one duplex too large. If I look at the mathematics of that I end up with 21 sleeping units, one car per bedroom, they have 20 parking spaces, I figure it would be about right. If I look at the piggyback parking in there where they've got four parking spaces in one unit, it appears a little bit light also. I apologize I am hard of hearing, I didn't get to hear everything you said when you were talking to each other but please don't shoot the messenger because of the message. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 45 Ward: Davison: Ward: Davison: Ward: Jansen: Ward: Wilkerson: Ward: Wilkerson: I appreciate your comments. Is there any other comment? I am sorry, I forgot about the parking issues. They will be parking in the street park, in the wide roads. Ms. Davison, we've already taken your comments. Excuse me Sir, where will that road come from? It will come from our park. Would anybody else like to make a public comment? Yes Sir. I am Jerry Jansen, I live on Lighton Trail. I can view the property from my property. I have a question for the staff. It is my understanding from reading the documents here that there is going to be a 6' sidewalk and then 6' of greenspace and nine 3 bedroom units and parking for 30 cars. I just don't think they can fit that all on one lot. It will be a difficult fit and I just have a little concern that the appearance of this thing is going to be like a parking lot at Wal-Mart. Ok, thank you Sir. Are there any other comments? My name is Tom Wilkerson. I know traffic was an issue in the first round on this. I presume you guys are looking at that this time. Does anybody have any information on that? We did have studies on it. If I remember right, it has been a while back, but even with the 22 units proposed, the experts that did the traffic study said that the impact would be allowable for that particular street and area considering what is already up there. This is a lot less units proposed. In an R-2 zone you can have 24 units total and this is nine units on this particular piece of property so it has been really a lot compared to what it was when we first started looking at it. I am not sure any units up there is safe to some people. Anyway, I drive by your house everyday and I am not sure how safe it is coming by your house either. Anyway, to me this is a much, much improved project compared to what we've been looking at. It is something that gives a lot of options. I see this becoming a very viable part of our whole Mount Sequoyah neighborhood. I am anxious to see what the elevations on this project look like. If I can ask another question. Does the Planning Commission approval of the project depend in any way on what it looks like? Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 46 Ward: Actually I don't think we have the right so much to make that particular decision. We don't have design standards as far as residential. That is my understanding. Is that right Tim? Conklin: That is correct. Ward: We are, the developer has made it clear that he is going to provide those. I live up there too and I am very anxious to see what it looks like. The property has been zoned this way for 50-60 years, it is R-2. There are property rights issues. In my case, I'm much happier with this particular proposal than anything I could ever imagine. Wilkerson: I appreciate that. Is there a way to assure the neighborhood that that is exactly what is going to happen? Schmitt: Can I address that? One thing I might mention for one of the gentlemen is that half of these parking spots are in garages so that half of the cars will not be seen. I guess we have 18 of the 30 requested spots in garages. The other thing I would say is that when we provide elevations as far as finished materials on the exterior, finished materials on the interior, I will be glad to provide some Bills of Assurance for those. We have to do the same thing for the lending institutions that make us loans on these. The total amount of money that we are going to use to build these is 1.2 million dollars. If you divide that by nine those end up being some pretty nice units. Yes, I will be glad to provide something. Ward: Ok, thank you. Is there any other public comment? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Hoover: I have a question for Ron. On this rational nexus calculation, how do you do that? Petrie: This is a conservative method. Hoover: I am just curious. For instance, if you figure out square footage wise, it would be like $3.00 a sq.ft. to widen the street. Petrie: It is about $250 a linear foot. Hoover: Right, but when you multiply it times the percentage factor for the development you come up with a total of $58,000 and when you multiply it times the percent of the traffic for the development and it ends up being $5,800 is the developer's expense. I am just curious when I figure out the amount of square footage for 8' of road that is 235' long, that ended up being $3.00 a foot is what the developer is contributing. Is that usually about right? Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 47 Petrie: You are saying $3.00? Hoover: A square foot, not linear. I am saying square foot. Petrie: It depends on the density of the development, how much traffic. It is hard to give you a definite answer for that because it is based on the density. Hoover: Right. Is it always based on a ratio of the amount of traffic that is going to be generated from this development that was not already there? Conklin- It is based on how the roads survey. Hoover: Right, so if we had a development that was three times this size then the developer would be paying more portion towards that. It is kind of interesting because if there was no development there then the city is not contributing anything to widen the street. It is just interesting to see the difference between how much the city has to put in and how much the developer has to put in just in general. I guess it always seemed like it was closer to being more equal but I guess that is because they were higher density developments. Conklin: That is why you look at our Road Impact Fee Study, the development community needs to look at that too. It creates a level playing field for everybody that is using the facility. It is not putting the total cost on one individual that happens to join the road. It goes back and forth. It is kind of interesting with the debate on impact fees. Hoover: That is what I started thinking about. We would be better off having a higher impact, a higher density, because then the developer would pay more. Conklin: But you are trying to assess based on a rough proportionality theory that this is their impact. Petrie: If I may, I think the Commissioners understand this but maybe some of the public doesn't. We are not recommending that this be widened. When this previous development came through we were recommending that it be widened. This is about 1/2 as much traffic so we didn't feel like, by rational nexus, that we could judge it by that recommendation. That is why we are recommending the money in lieu. Just because it cost $58,000 to do it, the city is not throwing in that money right now because we are not going to widen that street. It is planned to widen at this point and some day I am sure it will be, but not now. Conklin: In order to do a calculation you have to have a number. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 48 Hoover: Right. Just as a side line, on the Impact Fee Study with roads, is it similar to this? Conklin: Roads is all based on the average trip length. It is based on how much traffic is being generated by the development. Hoover: It is interesting. Conklin: We can talk about it later. Hoover: Right, I was just curious. I have the question about parking. You have 18 of the parking spaces in the garage? Schmitt: Nine units with two per. Yes Ma'am. Hoover: So you have got 3 extra spaces? You've got 27, I guess we are saying 30? Schmitt: Well, we have been walking a fine line on parking. Originally people were like "We don't want a parking lot up there." Then we have other people that come back and say "Wait, we don't have adequate parking." Also again, the amount of concrete, the last Technical Plat Review, they asked us to cut down actually the amount of concrete so we tried to do that a little bit. We are open. If you want us to try more or less. Hoover: I don't have an answer. After our experience this morning. I thought having off street parking was a good thing but then people are complaining that there are cars in the driveway. I think in this situation, it looks like I guess if you had two cars for each unit, then that would be 18 cars so you would have enough. I am just concerned about the street, I don't know if the city has up no parking signs out along the road there? Conklin: There will be. Hoover: Ok, I just think that would make sure. Schmitt: At the Technical Plat Review, somebody had brought up maybe providing some parallel parking within the existing concrete that we are doing and I think that we provided three spaces in there. Is that correct? Conklin: Mr. Chair, if I could just respond to this. I agree with Sharon. It has been difficult because we like to try to limit the amount of parking and so we typically try to limit how much parking is being built on a site but at the same time in this instance with this development I am hearing that we want more parking in these areas and there is some opportunity to build some more parking. I just am kind of in between. I am trying to preserve Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 49 as much greenspace and not create a huge parking lot and the issue of parking. We will have to listen and I think there is some opportunity here. Ward: In this kind of development do we have to worry about bike racks? Hoover: They are on there. Bunch: Refresh my memory Glenn on this offsite area. That .16 acres, I don't understand that on the drawing. Carter: That is part of the grading and drainage plan. We have identified an area on a separate map, a separate plat that shows the total acreage of offsite area and contributes run off to the site. The ordinance requires us to show the amount of offsite area. This is a combined grading and drainage plan that is why itis on here. Petrie: It doesn't necessarily need to be shown on here. Bunch: On previous considerations for this piece of property, there were some questions and other drawings forwarded showing the reworking of the sewer system, is that still in effect? It is hard for me to determine from looking at this drawing exactly where we are on the additions. At one time there were some fairly extensive additions to the sewer system proposed. Carter: We are going to come to here and have a lift station. Everything will drain down the lift station and extend up to a gravity sewer and there is an existing sewer extension plan to take this sewer out to the gravity sewer. Bunch: Ok, that is because there was a question about the capacity of the two different systems on the mountain. That is still part of the project to improve that? Carter: Yes. Schmitt: Where is that in process? Ron, is that in your office approval, the sewer system design? Petrie: Glenn had submitted something just as a review to make sure that it would work and it hasn't necessarily been approved. I think we need to look at it a little more to approve it. What was submitted should work. Schmitt: Ok. Ward: Are there any other comments? Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 50 Bunch: One of my comments is on the parking. Some of this seems to be from a nuts and bolts standpoint, like parking space number 22, if there is a car in 21, that looks like it is going to be awfully tight to try to get into 22 or needless to say, 24. The same way with a person backing out of 25, since that is the end of a building, if there is a car in 22, 21, 18 in through there, it looks like they are going to have to back straight back and then come forward. If these places are full, these guys are going to have to back over this way and then when he comes forward, here is this curb sticking out. I am just wondering if proper distances and clearances have been checked on this because this area right in here seems extremely tight. There were a couple of other areas too. The other thing that we're looking in parking, if this does sell off as condos then are these people over here, if they have three bedrooms just like these people over here have three bedrooms and need more parking, these guys only have two parking spaces and these have four. That is going to create probably a lot of ill will. Schmitt: Yeah, when one guy is parking in somebody else's spot. Bunch: Right, if this guy over here parks here then this guy can't get out and this guy may be incognito or something. It looks like it is rather wieldy. There is not that much in the way of what is apparent has common parking area for a condo situation. Schmitt: Ok, well as it stands right now we don't intend to sell these off. We set that up initially as just another request that we heard to make sure that it could be more residential in nature. These, I think Glenn and I did go through and check all of the numbers so that these people could back out. This unit probably could be turned just a little bit this way to give them better access pulling out. Carter: I have made this distance equal to or to exceed 24' width so when this guy comes out, these are 9' so he has got around 27' there to back up. As far as this, we can cut this back but since Plat Review I have gone into this and made an attempt to further reduce the impervious area as much as possible. I brought this high land up a little further and things like that. As long as we can keep 24', I have tried to that to reduce the run off and it is just kind of a goal of the city I have learned that we try to reduce impervious area. It is tight but if there is 24' there, if you think they need more then I guess we could do that. We just went with the standard driving lane width of 24'. Schmitt: One other thing I might mention, I noticed this morning. This retaining wall here that runs beside parking spot 24, that actually is supposed to go from that corner over to the corner of this southeast building and we will have that revised on the next meeting. Glenn and I talked about that on the phone and I think we mis-communicated. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 51 Bunch: This space right here, is it 19? I don't see a 19 along here, it just kind of jumps around there. Carter: Yes. Bunch: Another one was on the backing out of number 16, again, it looked like it was pretty tight. Schmitt: They could turn around here. Bunch: They might be hitting this right over here because this does stick out past this point. A full car length comes out to here. It does look as though they can turn back into this area. It looks like they would have to come back up around here and come out. It looks like you could get there out of thirteen. Schmitt: We will take a look at the parking. Bunch: This is a better design than what we had, it still seems to have a long ways to go but it is no where near the density of the previous submittal. Ward: I am just one person, but I personally think that there needs to be more parking. As you know, every time you put in a parking space you lose greenspace. Schmitt: How many are we allowed under ordinance? Conklin: One per bedroom. Schmitt: Is there not a maximum over that? Conklin: 20% over. Schmitt What is that? Conklin: If you go 20% over it is 30. Ward: Just because of the situation, if you could find a place to put a few more parking spaces in I think it is going to be easier. Bunch: It will take a waiver for that? Conklin: A conditional use. Bunch: Because it exceeds 30, 20% over. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 52 Carter: If you count these two parallel we've got 32. If we provide those two additional then we will need to request a waiver. Conklin: A conditional use. Carter: Ok. Schmitt: We would be glad to put those on if you are suggesting it. Hoover: It does seem that you need to have an area designated guest parking so that we know they are going to be off the road. I don't know what that number is and maybe you have some better idea from your business. I don't know realistically. Bunch: Just a look says that the three units over here only two parking spaces per, that you're three parking spaces shy and that is going to be a bone of contention with all the rest of the people in there. It looks like you are a minimum of three shy or one bedroom over here. Schmitt: We could definitely try to go back and show three or six more additional spots. Bunch: I haven't been over the garage setup. It lends itself to automatically having four per unit over here on this side and that uses up some of your allotment. Schmitt: Again, in trying to make this thing as residential looking as possible, doing the garage in just kind of like a normal subdivision, they have two inside and two behind so we were trying to set something up along those lines to get away from having a large parking lot but I think if you could designate a couple of small areas and maybe put up a sign that says guest parking and then assign the rest of the parking spots, that might take care of some of those issues and I would be glad to do that. Carter: This parallel right here would work for guest parking for this one and this parallel could be guest parking for this one. We may be able to pull that back a little and put a parallel right there as guest parking for this one. Schmitt: We will work on that. Bunch: I don't see a dumpster on here. Hoover: It is ok. Subdivision Committee March 14, 2002 Page 53 Bunch: Ok, I see it, they have turn around room. What about fire access? What did we find out when we looked at it before as far as fire engines driving down and backing back up? Edwards: He looked at it and he felt like they could drive in forward and back back out. We haven't required a turn around in the past and we're not going to start at this point. If you remember, he came to agenda session. Bunch: It looks like it is considerably less density than it was. I don't know that I am that proud of it but it has come a long way. Ward: Motion: Hoover: Are there any other comments or motions? I will make a motion to forward LSD 02-7.00 to the full Planning Commission. Bunch: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thank you. Schmitt: Thank you. Meeting adjourned: 10:55 a.m.