Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-27 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on January 27, 2003 in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain at 5:30 p.m. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAC 03-2.00: Vacation (U of A, Harmon, pp 483) Forwarded to City Council Page 2 LSP 03-4.00: Lot Split (Zakariadze, pp 439) Approved Page 6 LSD 03-3.00: Large Scale Development (Rasberry, 366) Approved Page 10 LSD 03-1.00: Large Scale Development (Sloan, pp 399) Approved Page 15 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Lorel Aviles Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Nancy Allen Bob Estes Alice Church STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin, City Planner Dawn Warrick, Senior Planner Sara Edwards, Associate Planner Matt Casey, Staff Engineer Renee Thomas, Senior Secretary David Whitaker, Assistant City Attorney Planning Commission January 27, 2003 Page 2 Aviles: Good evening. I would like to welcome everybody to the Fayetteville Planning Commission meeting. This is Monday, January 27`h. We have four items of new business on our agenda this evening. First we will call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven Commissioners present with Commissioner Estes and Commissioner Church being absent. Aviles: Thanks Renee. Tim, before we get started, let me just be reminded, are there any things that require five positive votes? We are short a couple of Commissioners so let me make that announcement at the outset. Would a lot split require five positive votes? Conklin: All of these can be approved with a simple majority. Aviles: I just want to make the applicants clear on that when we are low on Commissioners. The next thing would be the approval of the minutes from the January 13`h meeting, do I have a motion? Shackelford: So moved. Bunch: Second. Aviles: Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the minutes were approved by a vote of 7-0-0. VAC 03-2.00: Vacation (U of A (Harmon), pp 483) was submitted by Gary Coover of McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of James Ezell of University of Arkansas for property north of Fairview Street on Harmon Avenue and alleys west of Harmon Avenue. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains approximately 0.48 acres. The request is to vacate Harmon Avenue between Fairview Street & William Street and the alleys west of Harmon Avenue. Aviles: First under new business this evening is VAC 03-2.00 for the University of Arkansas. It was submitted by Gary Coover of McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of James Ezell of the University of Arkansas for property north of Fairview Street on Harmon Avenue and allies west of Harmon Avenue. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains approximately 0.48 acres. The request is to vacate Harmon Avenue between Fairview Street and Williams Street and the alleys west of Harmon Avenue. There are eight conditions of approval, Sara, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: We do not. Aviles: Thanks. Can you give us the staff report please? Planning Commission January 27, 2003 Page 3 Edwards: The vacations are, as you mentioned, two alleys and Harmon Avenue. We have had no objections from any adjacent property owners, from the utilities, or from the city. The eight conditions of approval address water and sewer line and associated easements. I did get some additional information that I requested from the applicant and it should be available to you. There should be a site plan and an elevation there. Aviles: Coover: Is the applicant present? Yes, please come forward, give your name, and your presentation please. Good evening. My name is Gary Coover, I am the Project Manager with McClelland Consulting Engineers and we have members from the Architectural firm of Polk, Stanley, Yeary here tonight as well as some people from the campus Planning Division for the University. If you have any additional questions, the idea is to build a multi- level parking facility in this location. The idea is to take these large type of facilities and put them down in the lower areas so it is not the tallest building in Fayetteville by any means. This is one of the spots at the south part where they can later open up, I think your plan shows a proposed Buchanan Drive and those plans seem to put new buildings where Buchanan currently sits today and that will become a major transit center . The parking facility will be down in that area, basically, straddling where Harmon is today. Aviles: Thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions? Ward: Gary, I would like you to go ahead and give a presentation of what the project is going to look like and what it is going to be, just for public record. Cover: I think I will call on Craig Curson from Polk, Stanley, Yeary. Curson: Good evening. I am Craig Curson with Polk, Stanley, Yeary architects. We just have a larger version of the site plan that I believe you have in your packets. Aviles: Please face that toward the camera so that the audience can see it. Curson: Ok. I don't have any elevations showing the exterior of the parking deck. You can see the location is on the southwest corner of Duncan and Williams Street. It is a nine level parking deck that is really buried into the hillside so on the west side there are really three levels of the parking deck exposed above grade. That also shows the portion of Harmon that we would propose closing and the ultimate master plan of the University then shows Buchanan Avenue, which would be rerouted along the western edge along the diagonal of the parking deck in the future. Aviles: Ok, thanks. We appreciate the information. When we were at our agenda session we were given only a street plan map and I had questions concerning the traffic flow the Planning Commission January 27, 2003 Page 4 youth center and things like that. Can you address some of those questions about traffic flow? Curson: There has not been a specific traffic study clone but the parking deck is replacing parking lots on campus and also proposed expansion of the business school, which is just to the west of the parking deck over the next three to five years we will take additional parking off campus and the ultimate plan would be for this deck to take the place of that parking and the net gain would be between 500 and 600 parking spaces. Aviles: Ok, thank you very much. Commissioners, are there any further questions? I will go ahead and take public comment. Is there anybody here from the public that would wish to address us on this proposed Vacation? This is only a street Vacation. I will go ahead and bring the discussion back to the Commissioners and to the applicants. We do not have signed conditions of approval, have you been able to see those and have you agreed or disagreed with those? Coover: I have not seen those. Aviles: I need to go ahead and read those for the record. I think they mostly have to do with public works issues. Coover: If that is the letter from Dave Jurgens at Water and Sewer, yes, we have seen that and that is all being taken care of in our plans. Aviles: Let me just go ahead and read those into the record. 1)The water line on Harmon must be replaced with a 12" main (per the University's identified requirements) along the future Buchanan Avenue between William and Fairview. 2) The water line on Duncan along the entire front of the property must be replaced with a new 8" or larger main. This main must have a steel encasement under the footing for any large construction crane. 3) A new 8" water main shall be installed from Duncan west to the dead end 6" PVC main on William. 4) New sewer mains in the size of 8" or 12" (as needed for current and possible future buildings) must be installed to provide service to any current or future structures which are or would be served by the currently existing sewer mains. These mains must run to each lot or parcel requiring service. 5) All water and sewer mains shall meet City of Fayetteville specifications, go through the City Engineer's review, approval and inspection process, and must be approved by the Arkansas Department of Health Division of Engineering. 6) All mains which are or may in the future be City owned mains shall have easements which meet the City's easement requirements. 7) Water valves shall be installed at any current or future transition of ownership points. 8) The construction of the new roadway and the parking deck in this area shall be in accordance with the current City of Fayetteville drainage, grading and street requirements. The plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the City's Engineering Division prior to construction. You are in agreement with these items? Planning Commission January 27, 2003 Page 5 Coover: We have coordinated all of those items with the City and we can certainly provide a site plan showing that information if you require that. We will be issuing to the Department of Health later this week. Aviles: I would imagine that there is a sewer and water permit process that they would go through with the City's Engineering Division that would happen later on. I have one question about this. I don't see any mention about fire hydrants, would that be part of this for fire lines? Coover: There will be additional hydrants placed on the project. We are relocating one and adding four additional hydrants in that area. Aviles: Matt, should that be a part of these conditions if they are on the City easement? Should we make a note of those? Casey: They should meet all requirements of the Fire Marshall. You can make it a condition of approval but it sounds like they have already met those requirements. Aviles: I think for the record we should just go ahead and say fire hydrants installed per the fire code. Commissioners, are there any further questions or motions? Ward: I will make a motion that we approve this VAC 03-2.00 for the University with all nine conditions that we talked about including the added fire hydrants. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward, is there a second? Shackelford: I will second. Aviles: Is there additional discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward VAC 03-2.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Aviles: Thank you Gentlemen. We appreciate your presentation and it looks like a very ambitious project. Planning Commission January 27, 2003 Page 6 LSP 03-4.00: Lot Split (Zakariadze, pp 439) was submitted by Ira Zakariadze for property located at 944 & 946 N. Meadowlands Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains approximately 0.43 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.20 acres and 0.23 acres. Aviles: The second item on our agenda this evening is a LSP 03-4.00 submitted by Mr. Ira Zakariadze for property located at 944 & 946 N. Meadowlands Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains approximately 0.43 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.20 acres and 0.23 acres. There are four conditions of approval. Sara, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: We do not. Aviles: Can you give us the staff report? Edwards: Yes. Both of these parcels have frontage on Meadowlands Drive. However, they will access Larkspur Drive from the rear. That is due to access being prohibited from Meadowlands Drive by a note on the Final Plat. This lot is subject to the Meadowlands Restrictive Covenants. I would like to point out that a second structure is allowed by right. Once they prove that they can meet the requirements for yard and other zoning requirements provided as if it were on an individual lot. Regardless of this split we could still permit a second structure. There are some conditions. One is that there is a public sewer that needs to be extended prior to filing this split. There are parks fees due in the amount of $375. We did get the additional information to the City Attorney that was requested with regard to the rezoning and the minutes of those approvals and so that has been reviewed. Aviles: Thank you very much. I am going to read those four conditions in and then we will hear from the applicant. 1) The required public sewer extension must be completed prior to filing the split. 2) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 3) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 4) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $375.00. Would the applicant come forward and make a presentation? Zakariadze: My name is Ira Zakariadze, teacher at the University of Arkansas. I really care about the Meadowlands Subdivision. As far as I know this plat will meet all city regulations to split. On Saturday I had a very positive talk with the Property Owners Association and we came up with a pretty good outline here that would fit their requirements. Personally, I am very happy to meet the city as well as the Subdivision Committee requirements. Planning Commission January 27, 2003 Page 7 Aviles: On Thursday at our agenda session we learned that your proposal does meet city requirements but at that time it was in violation of the Restrictive Covenants of the neighborhood. Zakariadze: I think that it is all set. Michael Andrews can answer any questions you have about the neighborhood. Aviles: Ok, we will take public comment in a minute. Do you have anything further and do you agree to the four conditions of approval should this be approved? Zakariadze: Absolutely. I would like to thank you, the City Planning Commission, as well as the Subdivision Committee. Thank you. Aviles: Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this Lot Split? Andrews: My name is Michael Andrews. I am the Vice President of the Property Owners Association at Meadowlands. I realize that the City of Fayetteville does not enforce covenants and we would do that on our own. We had some negative comments about the proposal that was being made but in a meeting that we had Saturday I think we came up with some compromises and some things that would work. I will just briefly inform you of what those are. Instead of the proposed duplex the unit would be limited to a three bedroom, two story single-family residence. The second one is the plans will be submitted for approval to the Property Owners Association. The Property Owners Board will be acting as the Architectural Review Committee. Third, the proposed residence will contain exterior cladding of masonry except for the fascia and soffit areas. 4) The driveway design will be incorporated into the existing curb cut with minor modifications as required by the City of Fayetteville for the adjacent owner owned property. Ira will pay $5,000 to the Meadowlands Property Owner Association. These monies will go into the POA General Account for landscaping utilities, maintenance, legal, and other association purposes. 6) Owner Covenants to self govern residences to ensure all parking is off-street parking. Ira has agreed to these and with that, we all agreed that this would be an enhancement to our neighborhood and we are looking forward to a nice addition to the property out there. Aviles: Thank you very much. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address on this Lot Split this evening? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring discussion to the Commission and to the applicant for further discussion or motions. Bunch: A question for the Property Owner's Association. In the covenants it says that no lots shall be subdivided into smaller lots or parcels other than shown on the recorded plat except with permission of the developer's in accordance with City Ordinances. Later it says after the lots have sold out that it would be up to the Property Owner's Association. Is the Property Owner's Association going to file this with the County Clerk so that it would be an official act of your board? Andrews: If that is what is necessary to grant him a waiver. Planning Commission January 27, 2003 Page 8 Bunch: That is what appears to be in your covenants, that you have to have an official action. Either in the early stages by the developer or in the later stages by an act of the Property Owner's Association. Regardless of what we do here, we can approve it in theory. I will have to ask our attorney about this, but it seems like if your covenants have this restriction it takes an official act by the board as spelled out in your Covenants to permit this. Aviles: Before the Neighborhood Association answers that I would like to reiterate what our City Attorney talked to us about at agenda session. Is that a matter for the City of Fayetteville to worry about or is that something between the two parties? Whitaker: It would be up to the Property Owner's Association to consult private council as to what their obligations are under their bylaws and charter. Aviles: Based on that opinion by our City Attorney I am going to limit discussion only to those things that are covered by ordinance. Is there any further discussion? Shackelford: Along that same thought process, we heard from public comment about these agreements between the applicant and the Property Owner's Association, we probably for the record need to note that those aren't part of the conditions of approval for the city business that we are doing at this point. Aviles: I think that is a good thing to note. We also want to encourage the kind of dialogue that you guys have had. As of Thursday I don't think we had an agreement and that was troublesome but it was not something that the city was going to be able to take action on. Shackelford: I just want to make sure that that is not considered part of our city work here. Conklin: That is a good point. I want to make sure that we are not responsible for the brick and other requirements beyond zoning. It will be up to the Property Owner's Association to make sure that whatever agreement they come up with is being complied with prior to permitting or after permitting. Aviles: I am wondering if we should make any positive statement under the conditions of approval that these do not take into consideration the private covenants. Whitaker: I think the discussion you just had probably establishes enough of a record that you are not basing your decision on this. That would be the only question at a later date would be was there any evidence in the record that you could use this as a basis for your decision. I think you have made it pretty clear at this point. Aviles: Is there a motion or any further discussion? MOTION: Planning Commission January 27, 2003 Page 9 Ward: I think that this lot split does meet all of our city requirements according to our city staff. What they do later on with the lot is really not our dog fight so I will go ahead and move that we approve LSP 03-4.00 for the Lot Split. It does meet all of our requirements for a lot split, along with the four conditions that we have to go along with that. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward for the approval of this lot split, is there a second? Hoover: I will second. Aviles: Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 03-4.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Aviles: The motion carries unanimously. Again, I want to commend you for working together. Planning Commission January 27, 2003 Page 10 LSD 03-3.00: Large Scale Development (Rasberry, 366) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Henry Jordan for property located east of Leverett at the north end. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.18 acres with a 24 unit apartment building proposed. Aviles: The third item this evening is LSD 03-3.00 which was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Henry Jordan for property located east of Leverett at the north end. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.18 acres with a 24 unit apartment building proposed. There are nine conditions of approval. Seven through nine are standard conditions. Sara, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: Yes we do. Aviles: Thank you very much. I am going to go ahead and read those conditions before we hear from the applicant. 1) Planning Commission determination of required off-site improvements. Currently this property abuts undeveloped street right-of-way for Leverett Avenue. Staff is recommending that Leverett be constructed to the northern property line as shown on the site plan. 2) The sign shall be relocated in order to meet the Sign Ordinance. The sign shall be a monument sign not to exceed 16 square feet and will have a minimum setback of 10 feet. 3) An additional mitigation tree shall be required. The plan shall be revised in order to reflect one additional mitigation tree. Location and species shall be approved by the Landscape Administrator. 4) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 5) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 6) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $9,000.00 (24 units @ $370). 7) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum ten foot green space with a six foot sidewalk. 8) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 9) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits; b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area; c. Project Disk with all final revisions; d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by .158.01 .Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; e. Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received. Is the applicant present? Gilbert: Good evening. I am David Gilbert with Jorgensen & Associates. Aviles: Do you have a presentation that you would like to make or do you want to answer Planning Commission January 27, 2003 Page 11 questions later? Gilbert: This is adjacent to Leverett Garden apartments. It is on the north end. It is currently an open lot. It is pretty evident where it is if you have been to the property. Mr. Jordan is married to one of the Rasberry sisters. The Rasberry, LLC manages and owns Leverett Garden Apartments. This is sort of all in the same family. There is another gentleman, Mr. Benton, who is also involved in this. It is a family operation with all three pieces. This is all together, they are in on this and they are ready to go to work and build some more units. We believe that this meets the requirements and will be a good use of the land and we appreciate your consideration this evening. Aviles: Thank you very much. Is there member of the public that would like to address us regarding this proposed Large Scale Development? Thomas: We are the Thomas' we have property on the west. We are concerned about the street that is supposed to be going along the north side by the University farm. Is that going to be developed? Aviles: The University Farm? Thomas: No, just south of the University line. Aviles: Tim, can you answer those questions? We have this street shown on our plat, let's go ahead and discuss how this is going to be phased. Conklin: At this time with this 24 units staff made the recommendation to extend Leverett Avenue up to what is called Ernie Jacks Blvd. There is right of way to the north but we did not require that part of the street to be built at this time with this size of project. Thomas: That has been a thorn in our side for quite a while. We own 15 acres there and there is no right of way across ours. Two years ago we attempted to sell five acres and the City wanted the fellow from Maine to put a 80' street across there and furnish the land. That is 660' across our land. That takes a lot of property. That is our retirement. We just wonder when we try to sell it again if the street has to be there. Aviles: Let me make sure that I understand. Your property abuts this to the north? Conklin: West of the north property line would be the University Farm. There is 80' of right of way north of this development already dedicated that is City public right of way. The issue is that we do show a Master Street Plan connecting that street which would go from Garland to Gregg where the Sweetsers built the mini -storage and Ridout Lumber and the SWEPCO substation. The right of way does exist to the north of this project so we are not building over that right of way. It still exists and the requirement was to build the street up to that right of way north of their driveway up to Ernie Jacks Blvd. I do remember a conversation a couple of years ago when we talked about it and discussed it during our update to our Master Street Plan in 2000 and it was a decision at Planning Commission January 27, 2003 Page 12 that time to keep that on our Master Street Plan and to allow that connection from Garland to Gregg to occur sometime in the future. It still is on the Master Street Plan. We would still expect right of way to be dedicated. Aviles: 1 remember when you all came and spoke to us a couple of years ago, we have public hearings regarding the Master Street Plan and those Master Street Plans are looked at every few years. Conklin- Every five years. Thomas: I wonder if this study that this city is having done for the traffic if they will decide anything about that. Aviles: That would be a good forum for you to go and address because I think that they are reviewing and looking at some Master Street Plan issues as well as traffic flow through neighborhoods and so on and so forth. I think that it is not something that we are able to address on this particular piece of property tonight because it is just not as far up as yours. Thomas: Is the street to be built all the way to the University Farm on Leverett Street? Conklin: Leverett Street goes up to Ernie Jacks Blvd. where it could be built and tie onto the future. Thomas: It won't have to be extended on this piece of property? Conklin: No it won't. We required them to extend it all the way up to that right of way for Ernie Jacks Blvd. Thomas: Thank you. Aviles: Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address us on this Large Scale Development? C.L. Thomas: Two years ago when we were turned down we wrote a letter to this board and after reading the letter Conrad Odom, he was head of this board, he didn't even bring it before the board. We read it and he said he would just like to leave it like it was. We asked to lower the footage of this easement across there. We don't think it needs to be 80'. He didn't even consider it, he just said he would rather leave it like it was. Aviles: Thank you Sir. I would encourage you to go to the traffic and transportation meetings. I think that is a good forum for you. Also, the Planning staff would be quite helpful in giving you information about Master Street Plan updates and so forth. We will continue to go ahead and review this particular plat that is in front of us this evening but I think that you will find if you will contact the Planning department that they will give you every avenue and let you know when public hearings are coming up on the Master Planning Commission January 27, 2003 Page 13 Street Plan issue that affects your property. We will certainly try to make sure that you are kept in the information loop. Right now I don't know of any changes to it but the Transportation Plan might be a good place for you to start. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address us on this particular development this evening? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring discussion back to the Commissioners and to the applicant. Hoover: I had a question in general. I know that you showed a new dumpster location that is enclosed and there is a dumpster right now sitting out by the front of Leverett, will that one be removed? Gilbert: To my knowledge, we are not proposing to move any dumpsters which are currently present on the Leverett Gardens property. All we have tried to address is the new dumpster that would be required for these units. Hoover: Is that one on your property? I thought that one that was further back was on the Leverett property also, the neighboring property. Gilbert: I am not sure which dumpster you are referring to. Are you referring to the concrete pad at the southwest corner of this property? We do not have any plans at this point to move that or to do anything with it really. Aviles: Commissioners, is there any further discussion? Ostner: Is there any provision to continue the pedestrian access into the University Farm? I know a lot of people go through that little gateway and run and walk. Gilbert: What we have shown is to extend a 6' sidewalk along the Leverett frontage. This property actually stops about 80' short of the fence. It was kind of confusing to me when I looked at it. I thought the property was much deeper than it is but coming down from the farm, you have the farm then the fence, then the 80' of right of way for Ernie Jacks Blvd., and then this property begins. This property doesn't touch the University's fence. I am not sure if that is the gateway you are referring to or not. We have no plans to do any modifications to the University's fence. Ostner: The Ernie Jacks right of way is actually on the south of the existing chain link fence? Gilbert: Ernie Jacks Blvd. right of way is south of the fence. I don't know if the fence exactly marks the north right of way line of Ernie Jacks, I suspect that it does but I do not know that for a fact. It is pretty close though. Ostner: It is not your boundary line though? Gilbert: No Sir. Our line is actually about 80' south of that fence. Aviles: Are there other questions, comments, or motions? Planning Commission January 27, 2003 Page 14 MOTION: Shackelford: I think that this project is in conformity with all of our zonings. I think that they have met the requirements of the city. It is a good fit for the area. Based on that, and the findings of staff, I am going to make a motion that we approve LSD 03-3.00 subject to the nine conditions of approval. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, do I have a second? Hoover: I will second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Hoover. Is there any additional discussion Commissioners? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-3.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Aviles: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously. Planning Commission January 27, 2003 Page 15 LSD 03-1.00: Large Scale Development (Sloan, pp 399) was submitted by North Star Engineering Consultants Inc. on behalf of Charlie Sloan for property owned by Westridge Freewill Baptist Church and located at 4596 Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains approximately 2.36 acres with 6 lots proposed. Aviles: The final item on our agenda this evening is LSD 03-1.00, which was submitted by North Star Engineering Consultants on behalf of Charlie Sloan for property owned by Westridge Freewill Baptist Church and located at 4596 Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains approximately 2.36 acres with 18 units proposed. There are eight conditions of approval. Six through eight are standard. Sara, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: We do. I would like to propose a minor modification to condition number six. That is that sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk along Franciscan Trail and a 4' sidewalk along Trinity Drive. Aviles: That is in conformance with our sidewalk ordinance? Edwards: Yes. Aviles: I will read the conditions into the record. 1) Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver for a dead end street longer than 500 feet. The proposal is for a 572 foot dead end street. Staff is in support of this request. 2) Fire lanes shall be marked pursuant to State Fire Code requirements. 3) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 4) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 5) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $6,750.00 (18 units @ 375) 6) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a six foot sidewalk along Franciscan Trail and a 4' sidewalk along Trinity Drive. 7) Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 8) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits; b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area; c. Project Disk with all final revisions; d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by .158.01 Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements. to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; e. Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received. Is the applicant present? Ingalls: My name is Jason Ingalls, I am with North Star Engineering representing Charlie Sloan. This is a six lot subdivision, each lot having a triplex on it. Planning Commission January 27, 2003 Page 16 Aviles: Did you have a presentation to make? Would you like to show us elevations of the triplexes or would you like to answer questions later on or how would you like to proceed? Ingalls: I will answer questions later on. Aviles: Is there any member of the audience that would like to discuss this Large Scale Development with us this evening? Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring discussion back to the Commission and to the applicant. Ward: Just for the public record, I would like you to go ahead and describe the construction and the elevations and so on. We have got pictures here but just for the public record why don't you give us a little in depth look at it. Ingalls: Any questions regarding that I would like for Charlie Sloan to come up and answer. Sloan: I am Charlie Sloan. What we are trying to do, on your pictures I believe we tried to design something that first of all, we tried to place it so the parking would be tucked away so as you drive down Franciscan Trail you don't see a whole lot of cars and everything over there. Second of all, we are going to try to do a brick project, we will have complete brick front, turn the sides with it and then about 3' of brick all the way around the base of the project and then try to meet all of the landscaping requirements and things that Kim has worked with us on replanting of additional trees and things like that. I don't think it is indicated there but we will probably put up a fence along Franciscan Trail to block the back of that one unit that is facing back toward Franciscan Trail. We tried to design them so that they have a small porch covered on each unit so that it is not a small patio outback, so that they have a place to sit that is covered to do any kind of small cooking or anything like that they want to do or just sit outside. The colors that I gave you a photograph of, I was trying to put it on the elevations. It is hard to get the computer to pick up the color that we did but the North Heights project off of Appleby Road, we are going to use the same color of brick, the same color of windows, roof, and things like that. Aviles: Thank you Mr. Sloan. Allen: When I drove out to look at the property I noticed some really large pine trees to the east of this area. I wondered if they would remain. Sloan: I don't know about pine trees. The whole row of trees to the west, all of that stays. Three are not any trees coming down on the west side of where our street is at coming in to that project. Allen: I thought they were to the east. Sloan: There is nothing to the east except duplexes. There are trees further back toward the Planning Commission January 27, 2003 Page 17 north of the property that we worked with Kim on what ones we can save and things like that. Along the west side is where the whole row of trees are at and those are all saved. There are not any trees coming down at all on the west side of the project. Aviles: At agenda session, Ms. Hesse, is Kim here tonight? She talked about a ravine and a low spot that had some damage to some existing tree canopy that was approved to be removed, do you remember anything about pine trees? Conklin- I don't recall anything about pine trees. She did talk about how it was overgrown and looked like there was a lot of debris dumped in the past and that it was very overgrown. In her opinion, the trees weren't high quality trees in that area to be removed in the middle of the property. Ward: I think the pine trees are way south. Aviles: I don't remember Kim talking about pine trees. Allen: Have there been any comments from neighbors about the project? Edwards: No we have not heard from anybody. Ostner: The duplexes to the east seem similar to the ones you are proposing on my eye except they are turned toward the street instead of sideways. My question is that since parking is so compressed, are these units you are proposing going to have back doors so that they could access that green area in between them? Sloan: Yes. There will be patios out on the back. Ostner: I just noticed that the front is so compressed with the parking that if the backdoors didn't exist it would be awkward. Aviles: Are there any other comments or questions? Shackelford: Tim, condition of approval number one is asking the Planning Commission to make the specific determination of a requested waiver for a dead end street of 572'. It states here that staff is in support of this request. For public record could you discuss briefly the thought process for that waiver? Conklin: Sure. If you turn to page 4.9 in your agenda, the hatched area is the subdivision site. The building footprints are a gray color. You can see from that map in there that this property is completely surrounded by existing subdivisions that have been built out. It is impossible to make any future street connections to the north, east, or west at this location. Typically we would ask for that street to be extended or stubbed out but that is all currently developed. Aviles: Thank you. Is there any further discussion, comments or motions? Planning Commission January 27, 2003 Page 18 MOTION: Ward: I will move for approval of LSD 03-1.00 subject to all of the conditions of approval and granting the waiver as requested. Aviles: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward, is there a second? Shackelford: I will second. Aviles: Is there any further discussion? Renee, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 03-1.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Meeting adjourned: 6:45 p.m.