Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-30 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, January 30, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSD 02-30.00: Large Scale Development (Southern View Apartments, pp 519) Page 2 PPL 03-3.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Meadows, pp 245) Page 8 PPL 03-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Regional Professional Park, pp 251) Page 15 Forwarded to Planning Commission Forwarded to Planning Commission Forwarded to Planning Commission LSD 03-4.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville High School Indoor Sports Facility, pp 522) Forwarded to Planning Commission Page 22 LSD 02-29.00: Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) Page 27 Tabled MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch (Early Departure) STAFF PRESENT Kim Hesse Rebecca Turner Connie Edmonston Sara Edwards Matt Casey Renee Thomas STAFF ABSENT Fire Department Solid Waste Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 2 LSD 02-30.00: Large Scale Development (Southern View Apartments, pp 519) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey for property located at the northeast corner of Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned RMF - 18, Medium Density Multi -family and contains approximately 19.39 acres with 312 units proposed. Ward: Welcome to the January 30, 2003 meeting of the Subdivision Committee meeting. We have five items on the agenda. The first item is old business. It is LSD 02- 30.00 for the Southern View Apartments submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey for property located at the northeast corner of Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned RMF - 18, Medium Density Multi -family and contains approximately 19.39 acres with 312 units proposed. It looks like we have got 300 units proposed on the new plan I have today. Will the applicant come forward please? Sara, take off. Edwards: This is a plan that we heard several Planning Commission meetings ago. Based on some happenings at Planning Commission, they did go ahead and extend Stone Street through the development. As part of that they lost 12 units, which is one building. Parking spaces went down by about 16 spaces. We are still looking at the waiver for the setback from the detention pond for a 35' setback instead of a 100' setback. Building 21 is encroaching into a 30' access easement on the north side, that needs to be moved back a little bit. Also, we are going to recommend that sidewalks be built on both sides of Stone Street within this development. To the north we did agree on a sidewalk on the south side of the street because there is some vacant property on the north side that we will have the opportunity to get a sidewalk on at that time. However, we would not have the opportunity to get sidewalks on both sides with that development. Parks fees are inaccurate, they will be down a little bit, 300 units at $375. Everything else is the same conditions as before. Ward: Ok. It looks like we have a total of 15 conditions. Matt, are there any Engineering concerns? Casey: We have no additional concerns. Ward: With the road that they are proposing to put all the way through, do you see any kind of problem with that? Casey: No Sir. Ward: Who is taking care of sidewalks? Edwards: I am. Like I said, on Stone Street we are recommending a sidewalk on both sides and then one side of Stone Street offsite as well as a sidewalk along Futrall Avenue. Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 3 Ward: What is the width of those sidewalks? Edwards: They are 6' sidewalks. Ward: All of them? Edwards: Yes. Ward: Kim with Landscaping? Hesse: I don't believe you have copies of the final plans. This is what we are proposing. Just to give you a history on the tree preservation aspect of it, we started out working with the client very early to save the best trees on the site. We went from saving all of the best trees to a requirement to bring this road in here, which we reduced that and then obviously this road came and we reduced it again. Unfortunately, the way the road lines up it is going through the best area of trees. Kelso: We are able to save a few of them right in this area though. Hesse: Most of the trees that you see throughout here are not in very good shape. We are working on preserving some of the better ones. I show a recommendation of approval for that. That is why there is so much mitigation. Mitigation is shown in the blue so all of the trees that you see in blue are for mitigation purposes. Everything in the green are for other requirements. Hoover: It looks like along Futrall are remaining. Hesse: Those are all proposed. There are very few that are remaining. He is showing more than what is required for mitigation. We have worked on species with diversity. Kelso: We are planting more along the front here to give that screening from the highway. Ward: Ok, thanks Kim. Is anybody from Parks and Recreation here on this particular one? Edmonston: I would like to introduce Rebecca Turner, she is our new Park Planner. Ward: Ok. Turner: 300 units at $375 is $112,500. Ward: Thank you. Jerry, do you have anything else? Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 4 Kelso: Ward: No, it is pretty much the same plan as what we had before except we did take a street through the middle of it and lost one building. That is all I have. All of the things that we saw at the last Planning Commission with the different types of buildings and all the materials and construction are the same? Kelso: Yes. Bunch: Did you go from six different types of buildings to three different types? Kelso: No. Bunch: I know some of the orientation has changed with the breaking up. Kelso: Back in the back it has but it was along the front where we were going to mix those up. That is all the same as far as the different types. Ward: Is there anyone from the public that would like to make public comment on this particular item? Barnes: Howard Barnes, I own the property up there on the north side. We have got a 30' easement off of the ends of these three pieces for a road. When we met here about two months ago Kim Fugitt was going to come through right here where Stone Street comes from. He was going to build a street up here to my property. I asked him about that and shortly after we met he called me and said Lindsey had agreed to it and Jim Lindsey called my wife and told her he was going to build her a street up here. I assumed that that was a trade off for going across this property here. This is left for a road to go down through here. When they came up to get this approved by the city they have taken that street off. They didn't call us or anything, they just took the street off. Ward: Do you have frontage on Futrall? Barnes: Yes. I have got 10 acres. What I proposed to the city if the street was going to be complete to right here I offered to give Y2 of the right of way to come a straight shot down, we have got an opening on Futrall here to get the traffic out. I can't understand why these people would rather than to give % of the right of way here and a straight shot down, they would just have to move their complex 25' to the south and they have got all this down here to do that. Instead of that if they give full right of way through here, lose one of their buildings, and lose all of this parking and I don't know whether Kim realizes it or not. I know he wants a street through there but does he want the traffic coming off 72,000 people out of Razorback Stadium when they find out they can come down there two blocks from the stadium and cut through right through here? I don't know about the Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 5 logistics of crossing this property here. I haven't got my lawyer involved but I guess I am going to have to find out about this. While he is doing that he may just as well research this down here. I am not sure Granddad ever owned this but if he did there may be a 30' roadway all the way down to the Old Farmington Road. I know he owned this here because I lived there. Thank you. Ward: Ok, thank you Howard. Staff, is there any easement required to get Stone Street to this particular project? Edwards: Right now there is a 30' access easement existing on the north side of the Lindsey property here. It was reserved as a road easement, an access easement maybe. What the developer has done on this project is they have agreed to give an additional 35', not just as a road easement but as public right of way to the city so that in the event that the Barnes choose to develop they have got a total of 65' there in which to build a road to access their property. Ward: Ok, so that answers any concerns about getting any other cross access into that property. Is there anyone else that would like to make public comment on this particular agenda item? Seeing none, I will close it and bring it back to the Commission. My recommendation has always been to straighten that street out and put it straight through. I didn't like the way it was curving around and making all of these "Ls" and "S" to get over to Mr. Barnes' property so I like this plan much better personally. Of course, I am just one person. It sounds like you have access into your property from both the east side and also along the main Futrall Drive. I don't see that we have anything else that we can do on that part. Bunch: A question on the existing access easement along the east side, how far is that? Kelso: It goes down to this point right here. We have researched it and that is all we have been able to find. Bunch: Where the lot split was? Kelso: It might not show it on your new plan. We were in a hurry putting this together. There it is, an existing 30' access easement. Edwards: I also had our land agents research the deeds for this property to the south and we couldn't find anymore than that easement either. Bunch: Ok. Is this line here an 8" line? All of the rest of them are marked. Kelso: They are all 8" lines except for that one 6" down there. Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 6 Bunch: Are you going to have any sort of statement or do it by the way that it is actually constructed that there won't be any curb cuts on Stone. It looks like you are not allowing any at all. Parking would be off street parking? Kelso: Yes, whatever I need to do. It will be a public street and then all of the off street parking is here. Bunch: I know that this is different and that you had to get it through in a hurry, so that is why we didn't have a tree plan. Is detention going to be in the same area? It doesn't show up on the drawing that we have. Kelso: Yes Sir, it is on the grading plan. I apologize for that, but yes, the detention is in the same spot. Bunch: You had a limited time to get everything done and get it all published, I understand that. That still leaves us in the same situation with the condition that we need a waiver? Kelso: Right. We are still putting the fence around the pond. Buildings will be 2' above the 100 -year flood. Bunch: Is it a 6' wrought iron fence with brick columns every 50'? Is that typical all along the Futrall frontage? It was hard to tell from the drawing. You have a regular 6' along there and 4' around the detention pond? Kelso: Yes. We have it in the legend over here as far as the different types. If you look at the one around the street you will see the little squares in it and we have got it labeled proposed 6' wrought iron fence with brick columns every 50'. Bunch: Ok. Ward: Where are you putting your sign? Kelso: Our sign will be one monument sign. Ward: It meets all of our sign requirements? Kelso: Yes Sir. Hoover: On the 28' wide street can we have parallel parking on one side? Edwards: Yes. Hoover: Do we need to show that on the plans? I noticed on Leverett they are all parallel parking on that last apartment complex. Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 7 Edwards: A 28' street would allow for parking on one side. Hoover: Do you mark it on the street or do you just say no parking on one side? Edwards: Typically how we have done it is until it gets to be a problem we don't really address it and let it go. At some time if people are parking on both sides and it is a hazard our Traffic Superintendent will have signs put on one side or the other. Hoover: Were you aware that you can have parking on one side for extra overflow? Kelso: That would be great. Hoover: I don't know if it is better to mark it on the street so people know that. Kelso: They could for overflow but typically you wouldn't want them to park out there. Ward: Sara, since there is a waiver on the setbacks from the detention pond and putting a fence around that does this have to go on to the full Planning Commission? Edwards: Yes it does. MOTION: Hoover: I will make a motion that we move this to the full Planning Commission, LSD 02- 30.00. Bunch: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thanks Jerry. Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 8 PPL 03-3.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Meadows, pp 245) was submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for property located on North Salem Road, north of Salem Village. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 39.99 acres with 101 lots proposed. Ward: The second item on the agenda today is PPL 03-3.00 for Salem Meadows submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for property located on North Salem Road, north of Salem Village. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 39.99 acres with 101 lots proposed. Will the applicants introduce themselves for the record? Gabbard: My name is Leonard Gabbard with Landtech Engineering. Hillis: Don Hillis with Landtech Engineering. Ward: Thank you. Sara? Edwards: As you said, this subdivision is to the north of Salem Village. It is directly across the street from Holcomb School. They are lining up one of their entrances with Crystal Drive, which is the subdivision to the north of Holcomb. Water and sewer is available along Salem. Salem is a collector on the Master Street Plan and they are dedicating 30' of right of way. Rupple is to the west of this site, which they are dedicating 45' of right of way for. Currently Rupple does not exist at that point. We are recommending that this be forwarded. We have added a few conditions and those are that the proposed streets be dimensioned for right of way width and street width and that a table is added that shows the street widths, sidewalk widths, and green space widths. Also, access will be limited from Salem and Rupple and a note on the Final Plat will be required to that affect. I am requesting the size of existing utilities in order to determine the requirement to be placed underground or not. There will be covenants to provide for wetlands and common space areas. Parks have requested that their park land be excluded from any of their restrictive covenants. Planning Commission determination of offsite street improvements to Salem Road. Staff is recommending widening Salem Road to 14' from centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drainage. Planning Commission determination of an offsite assessment for the future construction of Rupple Road. Like I said, Rupple does not exist in this area however, it is on the Master Street Plan and as subdivisions develop to the south we do plan for it to continue. Our preliminary numbers on that would be 1/2 of a 28' street for the entire length of the property, which comes to $144,566.40. Also, an offsite assessment for Rupple Road bridge. The other subdivisions in the area have been assessed for the bridge to go across Clabber Creek to the south. We are recommending an assessment of $11,429 based on projected traffic and the cost of the bridge construction. Parks is also requesting parks boundary signs to be erected by the developer. Any subdivision signs proposed must be approved by Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 9 the Planning Commission at the time of Final Plat. At Plat Review we requested a street stub out to the north for connectivity. It looks like what they did was did some right of way but we were actually requesting that it be constructed with the subdivision. I will go over sidewalk comments while I'm here. We are asking for a 6' sidewalk with a 10' green space along Stone and Futrall and then on interior streets a 4' sidewalk and a 6' green space. Ward: Thank you. Matt, are there any engineering concerns? Casey: No. Sara covered our assessments. We decided instead of Rupple being built out there where no one could use it we would rather an assessment for that construction. We are recommending the improvements to Salem and also the bridge assessment. Gabbard: Casey: Ward: On the $144,000 road assessment, if we get the bid on this and include the design on that and use that number is that negotiable? Can we make that a condition of approval? Either the assessment that we have come up with or the actual bid amount. That would be fine with me. How much right of way are they giving for Rupple Road? Edwards: They are giving 45', which would be 'h of the right of way required. Bunch: The sidewalk along Rupple Road, will that be constructed in the initial phases or will that be held in an escrow until Rupple Road is built? Casey: That is included in the assessment. Bunch: The $145,000 includes the sidewalk? Casey: Yes. Ward: Sara, on sidewalks? Edwards: I will amend condition number 14 to require only a sidewalk along Salem and the interior streets. Rupple will be included in the assessment. Ward: Kim, do you have any concerns as far as landscaping or trees? Hesse: No. Sara mentioned the maintenance of the wetlands area. Leonard, do you show this as common space? Gabbard: No, not at this time. Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 10 Hesse: We need to have some indication on the plat of the ownership of that. For the Planning Commissioners, basically that is the canopy. The last sheet shows canopy and this is all canopy and they are preserving everything. Ward: Ok, thanks. Parks and Recreation? Edmonston: This did go for a waiver before our City Council on January 7`h to take a combination of land and money in lieu of. When we took it it was 1.93 and now the amount has changed to 1.88 acres. Hillis: It is 1.84 due to the fact that we added a little more right of way on those roads. Edmonston: We will have to recalculate the money in lieu. If it was 1.88 as shown on that plat, it would've been $11,750 but we will forward those comments onto Sara. Ward: Sara, on this wetlands, does that go into some type of strictly preservation? Edwards: Because they are using it as a tree preservation area it will be a tree preservation easement. Hesse: Actually, no. We don't do that for subdivisions. By ordinance they are not required to do that. Ward: Ok. At this time is there anyone from the public who would like to talk about or discuss this particular agenda item? Turrentine: Fred Turrentine, Fayetteville Public Schools. We also have Holt Middle School that is on the end of Rupple. We paid for those utilities to come from Porter Road down to the school, is this development going to tie to those utilities or will they come in from Crystal Springs? Casey: They will come from Crystal Springs. The Salem Heights, which will be coming soon, there will be an assessment. Turrentine: That is just something to remember as we develop that area south of there that we will try to recoup some of our investment. Ward: Ok, is there any other public comment? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Hoover: Can we have a copy of the Master Street Plan when we do these because on this vicinity map there are no roads. I can't find Rupple anywhere. Bunch: They are not very well marked. Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 11 Hoover: In general, on these vicinity maps I am having a real problem getting oriented, especially when they are adding a road like that last one. It doesn't show up on how that ties in with all of the other roads. I don't know all the roads by memory like these guys next to me. Bunch: This one is quite confusing. On the same page it doesn't show the orientation of this one and that is also confusing. The orientation of these two are different and neither one is marked plus the vicinity map is pretty lacking in the landmark figures. Hoover: Maybe we could get a copy of the Master Street Plan so we always have a reference when we are doing these because I just can't get oriented. Ward: Leonard, do you have any other questions? Gabbard: No Sir. Ward: I noticed one of the street names in here is called Savanna. We have got a Savanna subdivision over on the east side of town. Most of your other street names are Bermuda and Hay Meadows and Red Clover and Blue Grass, I was thinking it might be more appropriate to go along with that type of line. Every time somebody mentions Savanna I think some other place. Gabbard: I was given 12 names by the developer and we gave them to Jim Johnson and said what do you want to do. This is the feedback we got from him. I am more than happy to change it to whatever you all want or what will work. I will scratch Savanna and try something else. Hoover: Is there a Savanna Street in Savanna? Ward: No, I don't think there is a Savanna Street, it is just in general. It is kind of unusual that all the streets in there are Bermuda, Hay Meadows, Clover, and Milo and Blue Grass. Bunch: That's a grass land and those are all tied to grass. Ward: Savanna still goes to every time I think of Savanna I think of another location. Gabbard: I entirely agree. I just told the developer to give me the names he wanted to use. The problems I have are not usually much to do with names. Bunch: On these wetlands, are they designated wetlands? Gabbard: We have EGIS, we have been very, very much involved with Manual Barnes with EGIS. We have done a wetland delineation, we are getting a nationwide permit Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 12 and we are very, very much involved in working with the Corp. of Engineers on this as it goes. We are fully cognizant of the fact that the nationwide permit will have to be in place of course before we will get approval from Engineering on construction. Bunch: I guess that the fact that the wetlands are squared off has to do with it is a form of pasture. Gabbard: This land type here meets all of the qualifications of wetlands except that there is no vegetation on this area. We have the hydra soils all across the property but we only have canopy on this piece here that we have basically excluded out of the subdivision because right now, in order to deal with those wetlands and make them usable for the developer, we would have to go and get an individual permit from the Corp. of Engineers and do offsite mitigation and right now the developer is taking that under consideration and we may come back in six months to a year with something to do with that wetlands area but right now, this is where we are at. Bunch: Apparently, this whole track looks like if it had the vegetation it would be wetlands so we need to have that on public record that people know that they are building on what could be a wetland as far as the moisture and the soils and that kind of thing. Gabbard: The Corp. has agreed with our delineation and we submitted a report, you did get a copy of the report in Engineering. The Corp. of Engineers has written us a letter agreeing with that delineation that was done by EGIS. Bunch: On page three is that the pond? Gabbard: Yes Sir. Bunch: Since all of the tree canopy is in one place, it is kind of confusing. Most of the Planning Commissioners look for a tabulation of how you are figuring your percentages. This shows a percentage of existing canopy but it is not showing it for what is preserved and designated. Is it still 15.4%? Hesse: I would like the applicant to put a tree preservation plan on that sheet showing the preserved. Gabbard: So under that total canopy 16% we would say preserved there? Bunch: Just show what you have so we don't have to get the calculators out. One other comment, on page one the note says sidewalks to be constructed, should we revise that to say sidewalks on the interior to distinguish between the sidewalk on Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 13 Rupple. The way the joggers are in that neighborhood, to me it would be best to have the sidewalk along Salem put in initially. Gabbard: I believe we would want to do that and we will make that part of our contract. The interior lots we would like to have permission to develop those sidewalks as the lots develop. Bunch: That is great. You just need to differentiate between the interior sidewalks and the one on Salem Road. That is all I have. Ward: Thanks Don. Sharon, do you have any other questions? Hoover: No. Ward: On the proposed detention pond, Matt, I assume that does not hold water except during big rains? Casey: That is correct. Ward: Do we require any kind of fencing or anything around that? Casey: Not for a dry pond. Ward: For Parks and Recreation, the proposed park is 8.4 acres now. What do you all require as far as any kind of facilities built on that or is it just designated land? Edmonston: There will be facilities. We will wait until that community starts to be built out and we will have a public meeting then and we will ask the people what they would like to have. We have a list going. We don't have the funding as we take these lands in but until people live there we don't want to put parks facilities in until we know what that neighborhood is wanting in particular. Ward: Thanks. Leonard, do you have any other questions about these 15 conditions of approval that we have to address today? Casey: Leonard, there were a couple of items that were mentioned at Plat Review that were not addressed. I would like to see those addressed before Planning Commission. The sewer is shown to be looped together. The water lines need to be located. The water line extension needs to be connected to the south in that existing subdivision. That is all I have. Ward: Thanks Matt. Are there any other comments or motions? MOTION: Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 14 Bunch: I move that we forward PPL 03-3.00 for Salem Meadows to the full Planning Commission. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thanks. Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 15 PPL 03-4.00 (Regional Professional Park, pp 251) was submitted by Steve Clark of Clark Consulting on behalf of Investor's Realty, LLC for property located south of Appleby Road and north of Drake Street. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 17.388 acres with 12 lots proposed. Ward: Our third item on the agenda this morning is PPL 03-4.00 for Regional Professional Park submitted by Steve Clark of Clark Consulting on behalf of Investor's Realty, LLC for property located south of Appleby Road and north of Drake Street. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 17.388 acres with 12 lots proposed. Clark: My name is Steve Clark. Ward: I will turn it over to Sara. Edwards: This is across from the Washington Regional Hospital on Appleby. Water and sewer are available. Right of way, as part of the Rezoning there was a Bill of Assurance which required right of way for a collector street, which is being dedicated through the development as well as 35' from centerline for Appleby and Gregg. They are also connecting up with Bishop Drive on the north. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. We had some comments at Plat Review about sight distance and they may have taken care of that, I am just not familiar with that. We just need to make sure that the sight distance on Appleby is ok. Staff is recommending that Bob Younkin Drive, as named now, be constructed as a 36' wide street. They propose a 28' street. Our rational behind that is they are connecting two collector streets and this will function as a collector street. At the time that Drake is extended we will have more traffic. The construction of a center turn lane will be beneficial for this drive but again, they are proposing a 28' wide street. Third, the Bill of Assurance refers to a walking path that will be constructed. I didn't see that on the plan. I wanted that to be shown on the plan and then built or guaranteed with Final Plat approval so that we can make sure that that does get installed. Ward: Ok, thanks Sara. Matt with Engineering? Casey: No further comment. Ward: I haven't looked at this. If they put the 36' wide street is there going to be enough depth with all the setbacks because there is all kind of landscaping and trees and building setbacks. Edwards: We are ok zoning wise. We already have the right of way through there for a collector street that was required by the Bill of Assurance so the street construction will be within that right of way. Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 16 Ward: Ok, I understand now. Did you go over sidewalks? Edwards: A 6' sidewalk with a 10' green space on Gregg and Appleby. Bob Younkin will depend on how we build it, whether we build it as a collector or as a local street, design standards will vary but it does need to be a 6' sidewalk either way. Ward: Ok, thanks. Kim, do you have any comments on this Preliminary Plat? Hesse: This is a copy of our ordinance. If you will remember, when we approved the new ordinance on commercial subdivisions you have an option of preserving all of your trees up front or preserving only for infrastructure and then each individual lot has to preserve. That is basically what they have chosen to do, have each individual lot do their own tree preservation. Although, in addition, they have also proposed to preserve the trees along the east and west property line and put that in an easement. Ward: How wide is that easement? Clark: Hesse: Clark: Hesse: There is a 25' setback and we are going to have 20' of it as the easement. That gives the guys when they are constructing the buildings, because we will be building right up to the setback, room to put their scaffling without encroaching into the preservation easement. From my understanding, the utilities exist on both sides of this so the utility companies can cross through. We have given them an easement at the property lines so they can cross through rather than running additional lines where the tree fence row is. What I would ask is that on the Final Plat we make a statement that each individual lot is required to meet tree preservation requirements and note that these will not be put in easements. That is why we are showing them preserved, all the trees that are existing here. Due to the fact that we do not know what is going on these lots or where the driveways will be, it is very difficult to put those in an easement. That is why we have basically gone this route. It is our intent to save as many trees as possible. You all know Ben Israel plants as many trees or more than he takes out, exceeds your ordinances, and is trying to save as many as we can. Not only because we committed to the neighbors, but just because it adds to the attractiveness of the subdivision. Recognizing that these sweet gums and maples that run parallel to the old air strip, there is probably going to be a few that have to come out in order to get a driveway into the facility or into the development on each of the lots but we are going to try our best not to take any of them out. Typically if you choose the route they have where you look at only your infrastructure you would have to mitigate for what is removed. They are proposing to not remove any even with their infrastructure so we are not requiring Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 17 Clark: Hesse: Bunch: Clark: Ward: Clark: Ward: any mitigation. I would state if we find during the construction that we have to remove these for the construction of this road, we may ask you to mitigate for those individual trees. We are willing to do that. Dixie Development has purchased Jack Brody's tree transplant company. He is in the process now of planting trees on the sites in areas that we will be using those just as a temporary storage to be relocated. He has got the big tree spades. We have got more trees planted on the site now than there were existing. Those will be relocated into the facility and it will have lots of nice trees when we are done. Which, to clarify, if you go out to the site, just keep in mind that the trees that are planted on lot nine are there to be transplanted. On these easements, I like the way you are cutting them across but since these lot lines, as it develops will be subject to reconfiguration through lot line adjustments and that sort of thing, I just wanted to have on record that we need to say that those easements will go with the lot line or as it develops, how it is needed. In addition to that, if for some reason a lot line should shift to the point where there is a significant tree or something that we want to preserve then it is likely that we will shift that easement also away from the lot line so that we avoid that tree. We will do everything in our power to maintain any of the trees that are within this preservation easement out here on this side line. We have to because it is a preservation easement, but we are going to locate the utility easements so that they don't impact the trees. Ok, thanks Kim. Is there any public comment on this particular agenda item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Committee. Steve, have you got anything as far as getting sight distance confirmation from Perry Franklin? I have gone out and looked at it. I don't believe that there is going to be a problem with sight distance. I have not taken measurements to give you an absolute that it meets all of the criteria but I don't think it is going to be a problem. Definitely make sure you get with Perry Franklin and let him give us a report from the city standpoint. Does this Bob Younkin Drive line up going into the hospital also? Clark: Yes. That is why if you noticed the curve on the north end, it is directly opposite to the parking lot entrance. Hoover: Do you have a vicinity map? Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 18 Clark: I think you are on the grading and tree preservation. If you will look at the Preliminary Plat. Hoover: Where is the hospital on here? Ward: It doesn't really show. Clark: I guess that is a difference of opinion on what the intent of a vicinity map is. A vicinity map is to get you an idea of what part of the city it is located in. That is graphical. Hoover: Maybe I am asking for the wrong thing then. Where is Bishop Drive on here? Clark: Bishop Drive comes back through the subdivision. Hoover: So there is a street right here? Clark: Yes. It stops at our property line. There is Cydnee Lane up in here. This is all developed as a subdivision. Hoover: Bishop Drive is right from here to this way somewhere? Clark: Yes. Ward: Thanks for clarifying that. Are there any other comments or motions? Clark: May I address a couple of things? One, on the street name. One of the issues that is going to take a waiver is your procedure or policy not to name streets after people. One of the reasons that we are trying to name this Bob Younkin Drive is this, as you all know, was the air strip, Bob Younkin has been there forever and ever. When we purchased the property from Mrs. Younkin we discussed how we might maintain some resemblance or something about the airstrip and keep it in here. She said the one thing that she would like if we could, is to name it Bob Younkin Drive. As a result, we are passing that on and would appreciate being allowed to utilize a name for a street. If I remember right, the whole reason for changing that, and this goes back to when I used to work for Fayetteville 20 or 30 years ago, Perry said he was losing street signs all the time because people would name it after a girl and some guy up here at the University would see his girlfriend's name on a street sign and you couldn't keep that sign up there. There was a policy then not to use name I don't think there are going to be a lot of folks that steal Bob Younkin's name off the sign. Bunch: It is not our decision but we can make a recommendation that we concur with that line of thinking. I think it is definitely appropriate. Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 19 Clark: Ward: The second issue is the width of the street. When we agreed back during rezoning to dedicate the 70' right of way it was with the comment that was also included is that if the city wanted more than a 28' street that the city would participate in the cost of it. We still, if the city wants to have more than a 28' street, wants to have the collector street built, then we believe it is the city's obligation to participate in that cost. Since the street is not identified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street I believe the city actually cannot require us to build it. It has to be on the Master Street Plan in order for the statutes to be enforced to require us to build it. With that having been said, in the spirit of cooperation, we recognize the reason that staff wants it. At some point we may have congestion at the intersections and we are prepared to build left turn lanes at the intersections and an appropriate amount of stacking. As a compromise type issue I think that would function and that would work and that would enable everybody to sort of be satisfied with the solution. Before this comes to the final Planning Commission we will look on the minutes of those particular meetings and see what was agreed to and what wasn't agreed to. Edwards: I have read through there. We feel that the 28' street was a minimum requirement. Without knowing exactly what was happening or looking at the development as proposed. We were only looking at a rezoning. Staff didn't make a recommendation with regard to the street width. We also had a memo from Jim Beavers, and I am not sure if it went to City Council or not, that he felt that would be the minimum requirement and it would be discussed at the time of development. As far as a cost share goes, he also made a recommendation that the city should not participate in the cost share in this instance. However, the developer is free to seek that proposed cost share from the City Council if we chose to require the wide street. Ward: Bunch: If you would make sure we get the minutes of all of the meetings that have anything to do with this. That way we can try to interpret them also. Also, the comment that was just made about in lieu of a 36' street with the turn lanes on each end, run that up the flag pole and see what it looks like in Engineering. Casey: I think that would be the minimum that we would require. Bunch: It looks like a good compromise. Clark: There again, as noted, you all might want to research the issue of requiring something more than a basic street without it being on the Master Street Plan. Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 20 Ward: We will have our City Attorney check into that. Are there any other comments or motions? Bunch: People in those neighborhoods want some relief on the traffic now that the hospital is open. Clark: First we have got to get this approved and then I have to get my plans approved but it is our intent, and it has been my instruction that we want it built this summer. Bunch: Obviously the street goes in first? Clark: Yes. We are going to get the street in and get the utilities in and we are going to be working on pad sites as soon as we get approval from the city. MOTION: Bunch: I move that we forward PPL 03-4.00 for the Regional Professional Park to the full Planning Commission. Hoover: Sara, maybe what I am asking for is not a vicinity map but a conceptual map because I don't understand which curb cut this is into Washington Regional and I can't figure out where the rest of the streets are in here. I will second but I do need some clarification because I don't know all curb cuts by heart. Clark: I recognize that. That goes into that southern most parking lot. Hoover: It just will help because if I can't find it there are other commissioners that haven't lived here for 30 years. Edwards: Can you request that Steve provide something to that affect? We could use our aerial photography but the hospital is so new I don't think it will show on that. Clark: By the same token, I don't have any information on it. Quite honestly, I can't afford to go out and survey the area. Hoover: You don't need to survey but something that shows. I don't know where Millsap is on here. Clark: Millsap is the frontage road along the bypass. Bunch: Millsap changes to Futrall at some point. Edwards: I guess she is asking that you put all of the streets on there. Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 21 Clark: Does the city have a vicinity map? Edwards: You can get it off the GIS site. Clark: I have not been able to find one that I could use in my AutoCAD files. Edwards: You can get with our GIS division. Ward: Thanks Steve. Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 22 LSD 03-4.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville High School Indoor Sports Facility, pp 522) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Fayetteville High School for property located at 908 S. California Blvd. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 2.10 acres with a 24,500 sq.ft. indoor sports facility proposed. Ward: Our fourth item on the agenda today is LSD 03-4.00 for Fayetteville High School Indoor Sports Facility submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Fayetteville High School for property located at 908 S. California Blvd. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 2.10 acres with a 24,500 sq.ft. indoor sports facility proposed. Will the applicant introduce himself for public record? Brackett: Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates representing the school. In essence, what the school is trying to build is an indoor practice facility for multiple sports and an office/locker room complex in the front of it. It is just north of the baseball field and just south of the youth center. McNeill: I am Hannah McNeill and I am representing Mobley Architects, we designed the facility. Ward: Thanks Hannah. Edwards: What we are looking at is a 24,500 sq.ft. indoor sports facility. We have got the parking all worked out. It actually will be below a 10% expansion, therefore, improvements to the existing lot are not required. Water and sewer is available. The only real issue we have is the commercial design standards. I am not sure if you have elevations in your packets or not. They are requesting metal sidewalls. It is in keeping with buildings surrounding the site. We are in support of that request due to the fact that you are not going to be able to see it from California Drive to the north. That is a waiver that the Planning Commission does have to grant. Therefore, we are requesting that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Ward: Thanks Sara. Matt, do you have any comments with Engineering? Casey: No. They are going to have to relocate a sewer main and extend the water lines but they have got all of that shown and are meeting our requirements. Ward: Sara, will there be any additional sidewalks put in that we need to talk about? Edwards: No there will not be. Ward: Kim with Landscaping? Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 23 Hesse: Chris, did you get an aerial for an idea of the mitigation trees? Brackett: Yes, here is one. Hesse: We worked to try to save these trees but what has happened with the new fire requirements that began this year fire access has to try to get to the extent of the building. This is a very nice tree but it is the only we can get access to the building because of the existing conditions so we are going to lose a 28" oak tree. We are saving trees over here but that is the reason why we are going to lose that tree. Due to that, we are mitigating on the site. There is really not good location to try to mitigate right here. We felt it was best to try to mitigate on the rest of the property. They are proposing to mitigate in the hatched areas, which would be along Buchanan in the front of the high school and closer to the street, which are going to be more visible and better locations for mitigation. Brackett: This is an approximate of the property they own in that area. Hesse: The site is way behind the youth center and that is why we mentioned that you cannot see the building really from the road. Brackett: You can't see it from here because of the football stadium and California because of the buildings and trees and buildings along Virginia. The only way to see this is really to come into the complex. Bunch: What is the finished floor elevation of the proposed building? It didn't show on our drawings but I know that there is a considerable drop off there. Would that make a difference on the types of materials of the building? Brackett: This building is two stories. The bottom story is level with the baseball field, which sits much lower than the parking lot and the parking lot is up higher and then from the parking lot you come into the second story of the building. We are just filling up that area in between. Really, from the parking lot it will only be one story higher than the parking lot. Ward: Thanks. Does Parks and Recreation have anything to do with this particular building? Brackett: No. Ward: They are not going to be using it at all? Brackett: No. Ward: At this time is there any public comment on this indoor sports complex? Is there anyone that wants to talk about the indoor sports complex for the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 24 High School? Seeing none, I will close it to the public. Hannah, will you give us a rundown on the materials, what you are going to use as far as colors, banding. McNeill: This is a preliminary rendering that we did early on when they were trying to get approval from the school board and from everyone in the project. It is not exact. Your elevations that you have in your packet are more current. Basically, we have a 35' height. Chris talked about how the site slopes and comes down, it just expense wise would be incredible to try to make the whole thing masonry. What we have proposed is that the existing facility is a similar situation in which it is one story at the front entrance and then out on the football field it is two story. They used split face below and then metal siding up above. The metal siding on the existing school is all one color and it ties to the roof. This is a color of the split face that is existing, we will match that. We want to do a lighter metal siding and then we have created a large overhang fascia which is about 6' or 7' because of the proportion size of this building. We have added some windows along, which helps get light into the facility. On this other elevation we provided you we have added some awnings. A lot of that had to do with based on our existing grade and trying to get windows, we had some problems lining some things up so the material above will be green, this will be kind of a tan color that matches the other buildings on there, and then the split face. When we talked with Tim initially, there are some existing ticket booths at the ball fields, we want to pull two of those up front and so that was part of the reason of trying to eliminate some of the masonry to add the money and do something that would help tie the entire complex together. Ward: I guess the south elevation will be the one that is mostly the baseball field sitting up against it? Brackett: The actual south part of the building will serve as the fence for the baseball field. It will be right up against it. Bunch: That is the outfield fence isn't it so we won't have quite as many balls hitting the windows as if it were a foul line. Brackett: If they hit into those windows they are doing a heck of a job. They can skip this high school thing and go straight to the pros. Bunch: The way it tucks in under that hillside from the Baptist property that is going to make a big difference on what we need as far as Commercial Design Standards, and then the rest of it is going to basically face either the creek down here or the rest of the complex. McNeill: Basically the only two elevations you can really see is the south elevation, and that is from once you come down from the parking lot from the high school. I Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 25 took a picture, I had to get up on top of the hill and take a photo. There are some trees that help block it and the baseball field is basically all you see. Bunch: From those service buildings on the south side of the baseball field you can get a shot at it. That is right in the middle of the complex. Can we get a drawing like this for the other Planning Commissioners? The one that we have, it is real difficult to tell how this fits in relationship with everything else just from the two drawings that we have. Hoover: It is an excellent vicinity map though. Ward: Sharon, do you have anything on Commercial Design Standards? Hoover: I will just have to go out and look at it, I just can't tell. Isn't our ordinance written that it is what we see from a public street? Edwards: It is not. It specifically says no metal sidewalls. Our concern has primarily been the more visible places. It would take a waiver. Hoover: I don't see any problem at the moment but I will go out and see. I will make a motion that we forward this LSD 03-4.00 to the full Planning Commission. Ward: Ok, is there a second or additional comment? Bunch: I will second. What activities are going to be in this, like football and baseball practice during inclement weather? Brackett: Yes and soccer. Inside there are locker rooms for the boys and girls other than football. McNeill: In the second level, the main level, there are offices for the softball and cross country coaches. Bunch: Are those actually garage doors on the south elevations? McNeill: Those are garage doors. The intent is the practice facility field will not be cooled so there is ventilation through that area. There are girls locker rooms upstairs and then there are boys locker rooms downstairs with storage and the baseball coach is downstairs so he can visually see the practice facility as well as the baseball field. Bunch: How do we determine parking requirements for the area? Brackett: Because of the use of the building, there will be no additional parking needs because it is just an extension of their existing facilities. It won't be like there Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 26 will be additional people coming here. They will just move the existing field house into this and then the other part is the practice facility and that is students and coaches that are already at the school. This actual structure doesn't require any parking. Because we pushed it into the parking lot we reconfigured things. We lost one space because of the fire lane. I believe we have a letter to that affect. McNeill: Everything right now is being done in the current field house, the weight room and all of that for all the students and they would like to try to free that up so there is not so much congestion there and let the field house be more for the football and let this be for the baseball and try to eliminate and allow all students to have more weight. Bunch: The spaces that it is freeing up also will not generate another need for parking. Brackett: The other will still be football. Itis just expanding the football area and making a new area for the other sports. McNeill: If you drive down from California and go onto this, I think what we have done with the parking will help eliminate. It is a cluster of cars everywhere so this will give it a little more of a definition of where to go and where not to go. Brackett: If we could've put more parking on there we would've, it is just there is no place to put it. They need all that they can get. Ward: I will concur. It looks like a great project. Brackett: Thank you. Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 27 LSD 02-29.00: Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property located between Olive Avenue and Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 units proposed, a total of 48 bedrooms. Ward: Our fifth item on the agenda this morning is LSD 02-29.00, Large Scale Development for Sequoyah Commons submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property located between Olive Avenue and Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 units proposed, a total of 48 bedrooms. Will the applicants please introduce yourselves for the record? Bunch: I am Mandy Bunch with EB Landworks. Sharp: Rob Sharp, Robert Sharp Architects, Inc. Ward: Thank you all. Sara? Edwards: We have received public comment. Here is a letter from someone that couldn't be here. What we are looking at is seven buildings, 51 parking spaces, they meet our parking requirements. Surrounding zoning is R-2 and R-1. To the north along Olive Street there is a single-family residential neighborhood. To the south there is vacant land. To the east it is single-family mix. To the west is vacant. Water and sewer are available along Olive. There is no additional right of way dedication required at this time. There is 60' of right of way along Olive, 30' along Center which comes up from the west to this site and 60' along Fletcher which comes in from the east. What they are showing on their plans is Olive is proposed to go to this site and end in a cul-de-sac. Access is proposed by means of Olive Avenue, which is substandard both in width and infrastructure. The pavement is broken up and the sub base is not to city requirements. Right now my report does say forward to the full Planning Commission. However, we are going to change that recommendation to denial at this time. Based on access to the site. We are recommending that access be provided by extending the following two streets, Center Street should be extended from Walnut to Olive and Olive Street be extended from Spring to Center. This will provide a looped street and two ways to the site. We are asking the Subdivision Committee and the Planning Commission to not just consider this development but assume that there may be more developments that will increase the density of this area from around 1.8 units per acre to 20 to 24 units per acre. There are many large undeveloped areas and underdeveloped areas zoned R-2, which we must assume will be redeveloped and developed with densities to match this development. This is somewhat already occurring on Olive Street in two other locations. The city has Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 28 consistently followed a policy of connectivity and adopted the General Plan 2020 and it is for these reasons that we are not recommending approval at this time. Ward: Thanks Sara. Matt, have you looked at this as far as access into Center Street, is it something that can be done? Casey: Yes, it is possible. Bunch: The grades are such that on both Olive and Center and the intersection that it is within city specifications to put a road in? Casey: It could probably be made so without specific design it is hard to answer that. It would require quite a bit of work but it could be done. Ward: Do you have any other comments as far as Engineering on this project? Casey: Planning is going to cover the offsite improvements. One additional comment that I do have is that we need an easement adjacent to the existing water line that runs through this site. It is a 30" water distribution main and we do not have an easement for it. We would require it for this project and they are not showing it. Ward: Where does that run through? Casey: It runs along Center Street. Ward: Ok. Sharp: There is an easement for the water line, the water line just is not in it. The city put the water line somewhere else. Ward: Do you have any information about sidewalks required for this development? Edwards: Of course, depending on which streets are constructed, the requirement with the plan shown is a 4' sidewalk with a 6' green space along Olive as shown on the plan along the extension. Ward: Kim with Landscaping? Hesse: They meet the minimum requirements for tree preservation. The third page back shows the trees that are being preserved. What I have asked for, is through construction we have difficulty. I am concerned about this area and some of these areas. We may have to do some remedial work on the trees afterwards and we may have to do mitigation based on the quality of these trees. They have pointed out the larger trees. The reason why they show smaller trees here is because I asked them to inventory this because of the size of tree preservation area here. I Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 29 Bunch, M: Hesse: wasn't sure if there were even any trees there. There are, but it is real difficult when you have 100% canopy and you start taking chunks away if you are really getting canopy preserved and that is why we have looked again at this area. What they are showing inside of this is that 20.1% preserved. They do not consider this, we couldn't count this as preservation because of the right of way, or the easement for the water line, although there is not going to be any construction in that area. That is correct. We did have to take that out of our calculations and that is why the percentage went so far down. Also, I did consult with a structural engineer that we will use to design the walls and the area that we have left at this point is reasonable and doable technically. That is one of the things that we asked for. Basically, the retaining wall construction, how far out do you need to construct it? You really can't have tree preservation right up against the wall. That is why they have given us maybe 10'. Bunch, M: Basically the walls have to be made more dense. They have to be stronger to have shorter distance behind them and that is what we have planned on doing. Hesse: Bunch, M: I am working with Bristol Park right now and they are going to construct the retaining walls on one side. That appears to work on that particular project. There are so many different options on how to design these and to construct the walls that they will just have to work to make sure that that happens. I would also point out that when you are on the site, especially if you are on the east part of the site, this is all wooded but it is off the site. Just be aware that this wooded area is not going to be touched by the development but also it is not counted as preservation because it is not on their site. For landscaping purposes I had asked to investigate if there was any way to put a tree right here in this island. I know you have a clean out there. I will stress too that the landscape plan that has been submitted is strictly to meet minimum city requirements and we are planning to do a substantial amount more that just has not been designed to detail yet. Hesse: That is all I have. Ward: Parks and Recreation? Turner: Parks is requesting $14,625 in lieu of park land dedication for 39 multi -family units. Ward: At this time I will ask for public comment. Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 30 Hoover: Edwards: Hoover: Edwards: Chaddick: Edwards: Bunch: Edwards: Bunch: Bunch, M: Can we get Sara to repeat shortly what the improvements we are asking for. I would like the audience to address what staff is proposing too. What we are recommending is the construction of Center Street from Walnut Street east up to the site as well as Olive extension from where it ends now south to meet up with that Center Street construction. That would provide two outlets for traffic. Will there be sidewalks on both sides for both of those roads? We are a little short on right of way for Center so I don't know that that is possible on Center Street. Olive, we would be looking at, they would build it to residential street standards which would just require a 4' sidewalk on one side of the street. With Chuck and Keith's recommendation, on one side they wrapped it around the cul-de-sac and I do have a condition that it would have to be continuous through the driveway. One side on Olive that would be two on Center if that is feasible. We would just have to look at the right of way we have. Sara, if that were the case then would our action be tabling as opposed to denial at this level to allow the reengineering to have it resubmitted to include the Center Street and Fletcher revisions. I think that that depends on how the applicant feels about that. If they want to consider altering their plans at our request, sure. If they want to move forward this way then I think we need to consider that. It was unclear when you went over it the first time if the applicant would wish to do the revision then table it for that but as shown you recommend denial. I would like to make a comment if possible at this point. I think Rob and I feel the same way about it, I am not speaking for him. Greg was unable to be with us today so we are here to address all of these comments. I would also like to state for the record that we have been very above board with city staff and very communicative with the neighbors. I believe Greg has had three meetings with the neighborhood association, as well as the adjoining neighborhood association to the south and there has been a great deal of discussion and a great deal of work. The denial recommendation comes a bit of a surprise to me as I spoke with Sara yesterday at about 2:00 and was not expecting it. I don't feel however, that we are ready to make a final agreement to some of these other conditions today. I just wanted to state that for the record and let everyone know a little bit of the history of what we have done. We are not submitting something that no one has seen, it is not a big surprise. Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 31 Edwards: Ward: Bunch: Ward: Bunch: I agree with that completely. At this time is there anyone that would like to make a public comment on this although we will probably table it. Can I ask for a possible change of our procedure? At the time I was unaware that this meeting had been scheduled, it was not in our records that we received, and I have a doctor's appointment scheduled. If our motion is going to be tabling can we take that dispositive action that takes three? If there are only two people here then it has to go to the full Planning Commission. Can we discuss that amongst ourselves to see if we need to forward it or table it and then at that time take public comment because it will still be public record and we can all see it in the minutes of this meeting. I think we can do that. If you want to make a motion on staff's recommendation we can take it from there. Rather than lock you into being forwarded to the full Planning Commission at this time, the full Planning Commission might say go ahead and table it but all that is going to do is cost you another two weeks of time. If that is the case, then I will move to table LSD 02-29.00. Adkinson: The last comment that Ms. Bunch made about the neighborhood association meetings, it is true that we were invited to neighborhood association meetings. Mr. House presented the plans and left the meetings before the neighborhood association had a chance to discuss it. Everyone in the neighborhood is strongly opposed to the construction of those apartments and we made it clear to him. Ward: Ok, do we have a second? Hoover: I will second that. Ward: I will concur to tabling. At this time, since we have tabled it anyway I will go ahead and open it up to public comment If you have something to say please say it short and brief. You are going to lose one of your Commissioners and maybe all three of them pretty quick so try not to repeat what somebody else has already said. Caulk: My name is Bob Caulk. I live on Missouri Way and I am speaking representing the Southern Mount Sequoyah Neighborhood Association. Hoover: Can you tell me what the boundaries are of that? Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 32 Neimann: From Dickson Street south in that particular area, further up the hill it goes further south along Rogers down to Castrall to that long dead end, that subdivision called Southern Heights and then it extends further up the hill. It includes Summitt and Oklahoma, Missouri Way, Texas Way and Lighton Trail. Chaddick: It does not officially include Olive Street. Olive and below to the west is in no man's land. There is not a neighborhood association for Olive, West, and Willow. Bunch: What is the western border? Where is it in relationship to Fletcher in the vicinity of this project? Chaddick: Fletcher. Bunch: Does it run along Fletcher all the way to Lafayette? Chaddick: No. There is some vagueness because the Washington Willow Neighborhood Association extended to include the north side of Spring Street but when this issue came up and another issue in our neighborhood, a project brought to you by Bobby Schmitt, so many people in that area were interested in both of those projects that the people between Dickson and Spring have been attending our neighborhood association as well. In a way, people for that part of the neighborhood are voting to join the Mount Sequoyah South neighborhood association. Bunch: Still, the people who live on the west side of Fletcher with all that R-2 zoning, those people have no voice. It apparently looks like the neighborhood associations have been determined to eliminate the voice for the property owners living in the multi -family housing. Chaddick: Not at all. Alward: They may not have a voice within the neighborhood association but they definitely have a voice at the city. Chaddick: The neighborhood associations of course have formed out of citizen interest and nobody has ever intended to exclude anyone. Ward: Ok, go ahead and give your very brief comments. Caulk: As was mentioned, we did have a couple of meetings with Greg and his staff to get their views on what this was all about, what the nature of it was. We did give them some feedback. We then had another neighborhood association meeting that Greg did attend the first part of and talked to us about the latest view of what was going forward. He left at that point, which allowed us to have unanimous Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 33 opposition on this. Our position is to oppose this Large Scale Development. There is really a number of reasons. The first reason, and this might be the most important one. It is really not consistent with existing land use. What I have here is a map that is of the R-2 zoned area that we have up here on the hillside starting at Fletcher Street on the east over here going down to roughly Morningside and Huntsville on the southeast corner. Huntsville Road on the south, College Drive and Dickson Street. What this is is the city land study map for that whole R-2 zoned area which shows that there are 1.39 dwellings per acre in that entire area. Of the residential buildings in that area there are about 213 of them, 82% of them are single-family, 14% of them are duplexes and only 4% of them have three or more families in them. Basically, this is an area that is not developed R-2 at this point in time. Traffic safety is obviously an issue and we have had a comment about the quality of the streets there and the proposal to extend the loop to give us additional ways out of that street, both on Olive, on Walnut and down the hill on Center Street. To me thought the big traffic issue here is that all of the streets, even if you take them to residential standards, 24', all the streets are narrow in this area. Most important is the Spring Street, Olive Street intersection where the flow of traffic there is going to be increased. It is still not going to be big necessarily but it is going to increase almost six fold. You have got a steep hill on Spring Street and a cross street and in the morning rush hour for the kind of rush hours we have around here, and in the evening rush hour, you are going to have a lot of additional crossings of Spring Street and entrances and exits from Spring Street. I think that is going to be a serious safety problem. If you open up Walnut on Center Street that will help some but it is still going to increase the traffic on there a great deal. The parking is always an issue when you have to deal with large developments like this in residential area. The parking spaces, I think we are talking 48 spaces, one per bedroom, which is typical of what we do for these Large Scale Developments. Most of the Large Scale Developments that we look at though are two bedrooms or three bedrooms or four bedroom places. This one has 30 units that are one bedroom places. I was thinking back to days a long, long time ago. I should mention that Greg wants to build apartments here and attract couples. I started thinking back to the days when I became upscale when I got out of college. My wife and I lived in a single -bedroom apai lment and the first thing we did was buy a second car. All of a sudden, now we have '/2 of the 30 one bedroom apartments have a couple in them that are upscale enough to afford two cars, we now have 15 additional cars that have to park on the street. Before the proposal of the loop was put in the street was going to be about 470' long, 15 additional cars parked along that street will give you a string of parked cars 300' long. 8' wide says now your 24' street is down to a 16' street if they are all parked on one side and none of the existing neighbors park on that street. Parking can be a real problem in this kind of thing. Pedestrian safety is obviously another issue. A lot of people living in this neighborhood walk down Spring Street to get to town for things. Also, during the day an awful lot of people walk up Spring Street to the circle at the top of the hill on Skyline Drive. This additional traffic coming into and out of Spring Street and going up and down there is going to be a Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 34 problem because not only do we not have sidewalks today on any of Olive, we are going to be putting some in, the sidewalks on Spring Street are in very bad repair and a lot of the people that walk up and down that street walk in the street because of the condition of the sidewalks. The next item is litter. We have a number of these kinds of developments, fairly dense in this area, not a whole lot of them, but a number of them, what we have seen is that all of these tend to generate litter. We haven't figured out how to design a garbage containment area that would keep the litter there. This is going to be the densest one in the area, it is going to have the densest litter problem. The final reason for opposing it is the timing of it. This area has been zoned R-2 for thirty years and in thirty years the density of housing in this area is 1.39 dwellings per acre. 82% of the residential buildings in this area, this area I am talking about is not going up above Fletcher, it is in this R-2 zoned area, no R-1 zoning in this at all, 82% of the buildings in this area are single-family. Why can't we wait until this hillside study is done to try to figure out why this hasn't been developed R-2 for all this 30 years that it has been available to developers to do it. Why can't we wait until this hillside study is done so that we can include those findings in our deliberations here before we go forward. What we as a neighborhood association ask is as a minimum you delay this until the hillside study is done so that we can bring that into the thoughts. We would prefer that you not approve it, and strongly prefer that you not approve it, because it is not consistent with existing land use and it is going to cause vehicle and pedestrian safety problems. If you do decide to advance this, pay particular attention to the Spring Street, Olive Street intersection, and their recommendation will help that somewhat, but still, please pay attention to that because there is going to be a lot more traffic on what is potentially a very dangerous intersection. We also ask that you look very carefully at the parking with 30 single bedroom units there you could have the need for an additional 30 parking spaces to keep people off the street if it is truly an upscale development. Next, we would ask that you look very carefully at the design for the garbage area so that there be a reasonable expectation that you can contain the litter in this. Lastly, we were going to ask that at least one side of this block of Olive Street have a sidewalk on it Thank you for your time and I think there are quite a few other neighbors here. The other thing I should point out is at out meeting we did have some representatives from Olive Street and nearer neighbors. Other than that, we were well represented by all parts of our neighborhood association from down on Rogers, Lighton, and Missouri and all other parts. Thank you. Ward: Is there anyone else that would like to address us? Chaddick: My name is Susan Chaddick and I live at the southwest corner of Spring and Olive intersection. He has just spoken about the kinds of issues that I wanted to bring up so I don't feel I need to say that. I do need to give you some history I think. Almost sixty years ago to the day my parents brought me home from City Hospital to the house I now live in and in sixty years there has been such Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 35 remarkable little change on Olive Street. There have been four homes put in there in sixty years. Please honor the neighborhood and the mountainside. Hoover: Susan, did you write this letter about connecting Center Street? Chaddick: Yes. Hoover: Would you comment on that. If this proposal included connecting Center Street to this project then would that alleviate your traffic concerns? Chaddick: No. I just put that on the table as a consideration for the terrible implications of this project. I am almost ashamed to have suggested that extension of Center Street but I just felt it had to be brought to the table because of the implications of this development are just vast in my opinion. Ward: Is there anyone else that would like to make a comment? We have already addressed traffic, safety, parking, litter, density. Bryant, L: I am Lois Bryant and I am opposed to you opening up Center Street. I live on the corner of Center and Walnut and even with the few cars that can get down through there with 4x4s it is like the Indy500. Since traffic has already been addressed, that is my main issue, putting additional traffic on what is not improved, it is dirt. There is no pavement, there is no nothing. The next thing is if it is going to be then who's property are you going to be taking it from? Ward: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to address an issue? Atkinson: I am Meredith Atkinson. I live at 402 Spring Street, which is one house in from the corner of Spring and Olive. My house is 107 years old this year. I am concerned specifically about the unmarked confederate graves that this property will be built on top of. Some of them are marked, some of them are unmarked. In the past two weeks we have had to have the sewer lines dug up and repaired because of the single-family use that is occurring currently is stressing those ancient lines. I am extremely concerned about what will happen if we add 80 showers a day to that line at the end and don't improve the infrastructure from there to wherever it is in good shape, I don't even know where that is. My husband, Dr. Thomas Atkinson wanted me to say "To sacrifice the integrity of the neighborhood for a pocketful of money is abhorrent." Ward: Is there anyone else that would like to address us? McKinney: I am Rick McKinney, I live in the 600 block of Olive. Who would pay for the Center Street expansion to service this? Ward: It would be the applicant. Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 36 Bryant, L: The applicant said in one of his community meetings that he would not open Center Street. Bryant, J: Center Street has not been a dedicated street from that part of there. Ward: Ok. Meldrum: I am Dr. Meldrum. I own the property on the corner of Olive and Dickson Street which is about 6 1/2 acres. My main concern on this is the traffic on Olive. Already that little addition that Bobby Schmitt put up there has caused all kinds of problems. They are parking on the street, not by the street, on the street. I just hate to see this thing go up in a historical area of old homes. We are trying to keep that in the tenure of the historical district on our property and I think everybody else here has that in mind and I think that traffic is just going to be awful. Cinqmars: Leslie Cinqmars. This is a primarily single-family residential neighborhood with children with bikes, skates, the whole bit. As Dr. Meldrum said the next block north of Olive is very narrow. An approved small development by Bobby Schmitt which met ordinances apparently, what scares me about this larger development being approved is that when a small development that meets ordinances causes so much disruption. There have been so many nights that I have had trouble getting a small Japanese vehicle between cars and I have known that there was no way an emergency vehicle could reach us if we needed a fire truck or an ambulance. There would be no way it would pass. The option would be up Spring Street. I am not in favor of Center being opened at all but I am in fear of my life and my neighbor's lives. Already Schmitt's project was approved and it was small. My child has nearly been hit walking home from school. She rides the bus to Washington Elementary and then walks down Olive. Visibility is low and there are cars swinging around after school hours in that block. I live in the house next to the proposed development. I also have a real problem with the lack of buffer there. Mr. House built the apartments, townhouses, years ago behind my home. My children play in the backyard. There are balconies in the townhouses behind us and it is up the hill so no height of privacy fence would separate the visibility from our yard to those apartments. My children have been yelled at and taunted and teased just playing in their backyard by either the tenants or the guests on evenings that they have had parties and were drunk. They have actually walked down to my yard at night and tried to scare my daughter who was swinging. It changes the whole atmosphere, the whole environment. This is a single-family residential neighborhood with children primarily. Chaddick-Bryan: I am Holly Chaddick-Bryan, 107 N. Olive. I had a whole bunch of stuff to tell you but my lovely neighbors have covered most of it. I would like to explain what I did handout because there are a couple of questions that I think need to be Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 37 Ward: Whiteside: Ward: McMann: Chaddick: addressed before this development goes anywhere. As I sat here and witnessed today, do we have too many apartments in Fayetteville? I know that was a hot topic early in January. My big one now is the historical value of this land and surrounding land. I know where my house sits and the whole western side of Mount Sequoyah was the site of the Battle of Fayetteville. I have a book written by Mr. Russell Mahan who is a noted historian. He has written this book about the Battle of Fayetteville. Where I got the overlay, which I placed on top of Greg's conceptual is from Mr. Mahan's map. For those of you that don't know, the Battle of Fayetteville truly divided Fayetteville, half were on the north and half were on the south. What we are talking about is pretty much the battle front for the confederate soldiers. Mr. Mahan feels like the sites that say "HQ" highlighted in green were the headquarters for the confederate soldiers. I would hate to lose that under an apartment building. I would hate to know that as they are digging to do the excavation, put the foundations in, they could unearth unmarked slave graves. We could unearth unmarked soldiers that perished that no one knew about. I really think before a decision can go forth we need to ask ourselves what are the true historic values to this property. The traffic and safety issues as well as the hillside study, I truly find it quite coincidental today that I read in the newspaper today that the City Council has approved the hiring of the Missouri firm to do the 10 month traffic study. Can we not postpone this for 10 months to see what they say about the traffic? I haven't seen the data. Apparently Mr. House's Civil Engineer says Olive can handle 500 trips per day. I would like to see that. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment? My name is LaDonna Whiteside. I am an adjoining property owner as well, 112 Fletcher Avenue. The reality of the historic value of that property is very real. My husband and I have lived in our house less than a year and have found what we believe is a musket shot. It is still there. There is still valid archaeological information that needs to be researched. I spoke with state archaeologist, Jerry Killiard, who recommended a survey be done on the proposed site. Thank you. Is there anyone else? My name is William McMann, I live on Olive Street. I just wanted to comment that in the printed material it says that they are asking for a waiver of the length of the cul-de-sac street and if that were going to be granted then at least the developer ought to upgrade the rest of Olive Street so that it meets the minimum requirements. The cul-de-sac, can you actually cut off access to three of my lots from Olive Street by putting that cul-de-sac in? If you refer to Greg's map here, I own the comer lots of what would be Center Street and Olive and access to Olive on three of my lots would be cut off by the cul-de-sac. Can that be done? Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 38 Ward: Edwards: Chaddick: Ward: Bryant, J: Edwards: Bryant: Chaddick: Ward: Chaddick: Ward: I will let Sara address that. Right now there is no access this property, there is an off road required frontage. If you were to develop your property you would be required to build that frontage, just like they are. Our cul-de-sacs are not permanent. If the option was to make it a cul-de-sac it could later be taken out if you were to develop. If I were to provide a lot to Habitat for Humanity, which has been requested, they would have to assume that cost. Are there any other new ideas or comments? I am Jesse Bryant. Center Street has been where I've been all my life. Each time we have ever tried to do anything the City has said that that is not a dedicated street from Walnut to Olive, is this true? There are no fire hydrants or anything else in that area. Are you going to make this a dedicated street so that you can do this? I would rather you wouldn't. Our records show that there is 30' of street right of way existing for Center Street. The street has not been developed and people are driving on there somewhat anyway. It does exist and could be developed. Yes, fire hydrants do not exist along it, we know water, sewer, and the electric line is along there right now. I wish you would just leave it alone. What would the process be for halting this and just waiting until we have all the facts from the survey and traffic study? What option do we have for requesting that? Here is my take on the thing. You have got to put yourselves in the shoes of the person that owns the property. We have certain ordinances that we have to go by. The property is zoned already a certain way. It is not zoned R-1, it is zoned R-2. It wouldn't be fair for us to say "You don't own this property." I know you all would like to have it like it is now with the green space and so on but things are going to change. Another thing that I want to see happen in this city is a lot more infill and I think this is providing infill. The density level could be a problem and that comes along with that R-2 zoning that has been there for I don't know how long, 50 years. Thirty years. The developer has had an expert do a comprehensive traffic study that we have. Is it an appropriate project for the site? That is hard for any one person to say but Subdivision Committee January 30, 2003 Page 39 I do think that we are going to have infill and things are going to change. I don't think there's anyway around it. Chaddick: I am asking what process is at hand to delay. Ward: I am not sure that I can answer that. My feeling would be if they meet all the ordinances then we are probably going to try to make it the best project possible and move it on. If there are things that come about then there are a million things that we could delay it with. Chaddick: Don't you have a motion on the table to table it until staff recommendations are considered? Ward: Yes. It might take two weeks or two months. It is hard to say when it will come back by. We usually listen pretty closely to what our staff recommends because we have a very professional staff of Engineers and City Planners and so on but they also have to work under the guidelines of existing ordinances. We can't just change those ordinances when we want to. McKinney: When will it come up again? Ward: I don't have a clue. Hoover: Did you attend the neighborhood meetings also with Mr. House? Sharp: There were three meetings. We attended the fist two and the other one Greg was at just by chance. We had two special meetings and one normal neighborhood meeting. He wanted to talk to the neighbors. The other two were we presented to them and then we answered questions. Hoover: Have you presented this last plan to the neighborhood? Sharp: Yes we have. Ward: Thanks for all your input, it can be very helpful to all of us and with that, I will adjourn this particular meeting. Thank you all.