Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-27 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, February 27, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 03-11.00: Lot Split (Sullivan, pp 401) Approved Page 2 LSP 03-10.00: Lot Split (SFCDC, pp 524) Page 4 Approved LSP 03-13.00: Lot Split (Fayetteville Hotel, LLC, pp 174) Approved Page 7 LSD 03-7.00: Large Scale Development (Marriott Courtyard, pp 174) Page 8 LSD 03-8.00: Large Scale Development (Ruby Tuesday, pp 588) Page 14 Forwarded to Planning Commission Forwarded to Planning Commission PPL 03-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Heights, pp 284) Forwarded to Planning Commission Page 20 LSD 02-29.00: Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) Page 28 Discussion of Cliffs Redesign of Parking Lot Page 45 MEMBERS PRESENT Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT Kim Hesse Rebecca Turner Sara Edwards Matt Casey Renee Thomas Tim Conklin Forwarded to Planning Commission MEMBERSABSENT STAFF ABSENT Fire Department Solid Waste Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 2 LSP 03-11.00: Lot Split (Sullivan, pp 401) was submitted by Brandon Sullivan for property located at 1334 & 1336 N. Salem Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.45 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.25 acres and 0.20 acres. Ward: Welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting of Thursday, February 27, 2003. We had ten items on the agenda and a couple of them have been removed from the agenda. If you are here for those particular items I will go ahead and bring those up now and kind of tell you what we have on the agenda. The first item is a Lot Split for Stratton has been removed. The next item that has been removed is a Preliminary Plat for Persimmon Place. Are there any other changes to this agenda Sara? Edwards: No there are not. Ward: With that, I will go ahead and start with item number one that we have which is now number two, LSP 03-11.00 submitted by Brandon Sullivan for property located at 1334 and 1336 N. Salem Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately .45 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of .25 acres and .20 acres. Sara? Edwards: What you have here is a lot that has two frontages. The part along Salem has an existing duplex and the proposal is to split the property and construct another duplex on the portion fronting on Colorado Street. Everything is in as far as water, sewer, and streets. There is some additional right of way being dedicated for Salem Road, it is 35' from centerline because that is a collector. We are recommending approval at this level with only some standard conditions of approval. Ward: Casey: Ward: Edwards: Ward: Casey: Ward: Ok, thanks. I will start with Matt with Engineering. Are there any engineering concerns on this particular lot split? No Sir. They have got access to water and sewer on both streets. I noticed on the plat that there is a 25' building setback that runs through the front porch of the existing building, is that something that is normal on Salem Road? What has happened is when Salem Road and this duplex were constructed the Master Street Plan requirement was not the 35' from centerline so when we get that right of way dedication it pushes that setback back causing a little bit of a violation there but it is an existing structure. Thanks. Who is taking care of sidewalks today? Sidewalks are existing out there and there are no sidewalks required at the time of lot split. Thanks. On parks fees we have a park fee of $786, is that right? Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 3 Turner: Yes Sir. Ward: We don't have to address the landscaping on this particular lot split? Edwards: Not for lot splits. Ward: Is there any public comment on this particular issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commissioners. Bunch: Matt, on the drawing on the Salem Road side it shows sewer but it doesn't show water. That was one of the questions I had. I just didn't know where the existing structure got it's water whether it came from Colorado or Salem. Casey: If you look at the northwest corner of the property you can see the location of the meters. It is coming across Salem. Bunch: Ok, thank you. Ward: Are there any other concerns or motions? Hoover: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 03-11.00. Bunch: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 4 LSP 03-10.00: Lot Split (South Fayetteville Community Development Corp., pp 524) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of South Fayetteville Community Development Corp. for property located at the northeast corner of Washington Avenue and 6th Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.384 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.176 acres and 0.208 acres Ward: The next item on our agenda is LSP 03-10.00 for the South Fayetteville Community Development Corporation submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of South Fayetteville Community Development Corporation for property located on the northeast corner of Washington Avenue and 6th Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately .384 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of .176 acres and .208 acres. Sara? Edwards: Surrounding zoning on this is R-2 and P-1. There is existing water along 6th Street. A new 6" sanitary sewer line needs to be extended to tract "A" to allow sewer access. For the Master Street Plan, 6th Street is a historic collector, which requires 25' from centerline to be dedicated and that is being dedicated. We are recommending approval subject to some conditions. That is tract "A" has a building setback of 25' required and there are 20' being shown on the rear property line so that needs to be amended to 25'. The front setback along 6`h Street for tract "B" should be 25' from the newly dedicated right of way line. The third condition is although the dimension of the right of way from centerline measures out to be 25' it is showing 15' so it is mislabeled there. The other comments are standard conditions. Ward: Thanks Sara. Matt, do you have any additional comments on this particular lot split? Casey: They are having to extend the sewer line to serve these tracts. There is an existing sewer line up at the northwest corner but the elevation is such that they cannot get into it. They will have to extend the line to be able to serve both of these lots. Again, sidewalks are not required at the time of lot split. Ward: Thanks Matt. Since this is a lot split I guess we don't have any concerns with the landscaping right now. What about park fees? Turner: Parks fees have been waived for this project. Ward: At this time is there anyone that would like to make public comment on this particular lot split item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the applicant. Jefcoat: I am Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company. We do recognize that the dimension was mislabeled and will do the 25' setback in the back. Ward: So all three of the conditions that we have addressed are things that you all can take care of pretty easily? Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 5 Jefcoat: Right. Ward: Ok, are there any other comments or questions? Jefcoat: One thing that I would like to go on record and have said is that where we did the setback from the encroachment on the other side, should that encroachment be removed or that house torn down, or any modification, that building reverts back to the old property line. Edwards: What he is talking about is this adjacent lot labeled as lot 3 here where there is an existing home which overlaps the property line. What we had them do is go ahead and take an 8' setback off the garage of that structure so that we could still have the separation of structures and in the event that that would be removed then we would be willing to let them build up to the 8' setback line from the property line. Bunch: One thing I didn't understand is the condition for the setback on "A", the rear setback is shown as 20' and it is supposed to be amended to 25', what about the setback on B, is it the same situation? Edwards: Tract "B" is a corner lot so you have two street frontages. You no longer have a rear, you have to fronts and two sides so the rear setback required is 8' but there is that 20' utility easement which becomes the setback. Hoover: Just in general on their setbacks, I know we have it on our master work plan to look at traditional neighborhood development setbacks because these look pretty large to me. I was wondering if the adjacent buildings have this 25' setback. Jefcoat: The 25' is just going to narrow it down a considerable amount from the north so I don't know what Habitat is going to put on there. Hoover: I was just advocating 20' or something like that. Jefcoat: I would like to see it remain 20' and I'm sure they would too. I am not sure what size structure they are going to put on there but that does narrow it down considerably. Ward: Sara, who is the South Fayetteville Community Development Corporation? Edwards: Tom, maybe you can address that better than I. Jefcoat: This is going to be a Habitat For Humanity project. Ward: Ok, thank you. Edwards: Sharon, to answer your question, we can look at surrounding properties and what their setbacks are and if this would be consistent with other development they can get a Variance. Hoover: Ok, that is what I wanted to point out. There is that possibility. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 6 Ward: Are there any other comments or motions? Bunch: What would be the procedure on acquiring that Variance? Would it have to come back here or would it be done administratively? Edwards: It goes to the Board of Adjustment. Bunch: I move that we approve LSP 03-10.00 at the Subdivision Committee level subject to the conditions as shown. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur Thanks Tom. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 7 LSP 03-13.00: Lot Split (Fayetteville Hotel, LLC, pp 174) was submitted by James Koch of CEI Engineering Associates, LLC on behalf of Mike Hoffman & Curtis Wegener of Fayetteville Hotel, LLC for property located east of Mall Avenue and north of Van Asche Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 21.56 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3.30 acres and 18.26 acres. Ward: The third item on the agenda this morning is LSP 03-13.00 for the Fayetteville Hotel, LLC submitted by James Koch of CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Mike Hoffman and Curtis Wegener of Fayetteville Hotel, LLC for property located east of Mall Avenue and north of Van Asche Drive. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately 21.56 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3.3 acres and 18.26 acres. Sara? Edwards: This is the property just north of where the Olive Garden recently was constructed and south of the deed restricted area of CMN. Water and sewer are both available along Mall. Mall is a collector and adequate right of way already exists. We are recommending approval with no conditions to discuss right now. They have met all of our requirements at this time. Ward: I noticed that we are showing 3.3 acres and 18.26 acres and the plat is showing 3.31 acres and 18.25 acres so there is a little discrepancy there. Koch: We will take care of that. Ward: Matt with Engineering? Casey: No comments. Ward: This is a commercial project so I assume there are no parks fees. Since this is just a Lot Split at this point I will go ahead and open it up for public comment. Is there anyone that would like to make public comment on this particular lot split? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the committee. We will get into the landscaping with the Large Scale Development. James, do you have any comments on this particular item? Koch: No Sir. Ward: Are there any other questions, comments, or motions? Bunch: I guess the main question I have that will probably come up under the Large Scale Development has to do with the road between these two. I move that we approve LSP 03-13.00 at the Subdivision Committee level. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 8 LSD 03-7.00: Large Scale Development (Marriott Courtyard, pp 174) was submitted by James Koch of CEI Engineering Associates, LLC on behalf of Mike Hoffman & Curtis Wegener of Fayetteville Hotel, LLC for property located east of Mall Avenue and north of Van Asche Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.30 acres with a 4 story, 113 room hotel proposed. Ward: The next item is LSD 03-7.00 for the Marriott Courtyard. This is property located east of Mall Avenue, north of Van Asche Drive. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately 3.3 acres with a four story 113 room hotel proposed. Sara? Edwards: What they are proposing is to build a private drive in between the Marriott and the Olive Garden to the south. Along that private drive sidewalks are proposed to be constructed on one side. They are requesting a 113 room hotel with 122 parking spaces and that will accommodate meeting rooms as well. Right now the site is vacant as is the rest of lot 17 with the exception of lot 17A where the Olive Garden is. Tree preservation, existing is 9.03% and the proposed remaining is 9.03% as well. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. There are several conditions that we have. The curb cut for this development shall wind up with the curb cut proposed for Olive Garden. If you remember when Olive Garden was approved there was a temporary curb cut approved up where this private drive is with the knowledge that when this private drive went in a new curb cut would be built for the. What we would be looking at is either a curb cut for Olive Garden being offsite on the remainder of lot 17 or the Marriott being able to relocate their curb cuts a little bit to the west to wind up with that proposal for Olive Garden. They are requesting a waiver from the 5' greenspace required between the parking lot and the eastern property line. The property owner to the east is willing to grant a 5' greenspace easement and when we get that easement in writing that can serve as their 5', it doesn't matter where the property line is so we are in support of that variance. 3) Planning Commissioner determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Right now their proposal is for a brick base on an E.I.F.S. building. You should've got an elevation, which you have, which shows some pilasters on the east and west elevation. Staff's recommendation at this time is that in order to incorporate a common theme for lot 17 as a whole the Olive Garden has used stone and we would like to recommend that in lieu of the brick that the Marriott incorporate that same type of stone or at least try to incorporate a common theme between the buildings which is a requirement under our Commercial Design Standards §166.14.d.2.b which says a development which contains more one than one building shall incorporate a reoccurring, unifying and identifiable theme for the entire development and a development shall provide compatibility and transition between adjoining developments. 4) The parking lot lighting shall be full cut off sodium lighting fixtures not to exceed 35' in height. That is because it is in the design overlay district. 5) All mechanical utility equipment and dumpsters shall be screened. 6) That the private drive be constructed to meet minimum street standards. They have provided a material sample board so you can see what they are planning. Ward: Matt with Engineering? Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 9 Casey: Ward: Koch: They are providing the necessary water extensions to serve the facility and as Sara mentioned, they are providing a private drive that must meet our minimum street standards. They are also providing sidewalks on each side of that and there is an existing sidewalk along Mall Avenue. I do want to point out that they are going to have to meet all the requirements of the approved CMN storm water management plan when the entire development was done, which is very involved and extensive. That is something that our division is going to be holding them to through the construction plans and when it goes to construction. Why don't we talk a little bit about the private drive. I have kind of forgot now why we have incorporated the private drive and what is the purpose of using a private drive instead of a city street at this point. My name is James Koch with CEI Engineering Associates representing Fayetteville Hotels. The private drive is brought forth as a private drive because we anticipate future development on the lot and in order to go ahead and do the entire road at this point would limit the capability for development in the lot. Whenever the next guy comes on board with a development on this particular lot we plan on pursuing the complete design for Van Asche Drive. At this point we just want to do a private drive, dead end, once we serve the Marriott site and the Olive Garden site and come forward with the complete Van Asche Drive extension with the next development on that particular lot. Ward: Thanks James. Tim or Matt, is there any reason why we shouldn't be doing this? Is there any negative to doing it this way? Casey: None that I'm aware of. I would like to point out that the reason that we want to make that private drive comply with our minimum street standards is to guarantee that if it does become a public street that it meets our minimum standards. Ward: Kim with landscaping? Hesse: No additional comments. Ward: Why don't you give us a quick overview of what has been done out there and a little bit about the tree landscape easement and all that kind of stuff? Hesse: Actually, the easements that are in there are the trail easement, the easement for the wetlands. When we did this we had no requirements for tree easements. We are just expecting them to preserve what they can of what was left. Basically they are showing no removal with this development so they are keeping everything that is there. We are encroaching a little bit but we will look at the construction of this wall when it comes through for construction design and we will make sure that they don't impede in that canopy area. Ward: How tall is that wall? Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 10 Koch: To speak on the wall, we are planning on working with Steve Hatfield with Parks and the guy that is doing the monitoring for the Corp. of Engineers on the site to try and grade out our lot and marry the boundary of the trail easement with our site and do away with our walls and still provide for a gentle slope that can be maintained on the north side of our property. Ward: Kim, on the type of trees and so on is that just something that is a consensus with the developer and you all? Hesse: As far as what is proposed for landscaping, yes. We will work that out when we get to final construction plans. So far they look fine. Ward: We addressed the sidewalks. The sidewalks along the private drive will be installed as if it is a public street. At this time is there any public comment on this particular item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Commissioners. I think one thing we need to talk about is the Commercial Design Standards and the type of materials. You have heard already a take from our city that they would like to have some of the stone that was used on the Olive Garden. Personally I am not sure that that is as important to me. Maybe the same type of color scheme and so on but I'm not sure. Is this building going to have elevators in it? Kelso: Yes it will have elevators. Ward: Ok. Why don't you go ahead and for the record show us what colors are going to be used on this particular building the way you have proposed it right now. Kelso: Of course these are the materials that are submitted to cavy this project. Some of the colors on the elevations that I have don't truly reflect the materials submitted here. I just feel like it is necessary for me to say that. The green is on the awnings shown in this location on this elevation. This material is going to be placed over the first floor. The height of the brick is the better part of 12' here and the remainder of the building is proposed to be the E.I.F.S. material and then of course these are the shingles that would be put on the roof of the structure itself. Ward: Koch: Trying to get a color design of what the Olive Garden is, to me the Olive Garden is probably closer to this color right here with the river stone. If that becomes an important item I guess we could make a determination of that at a later date. I am not sure the source of the materials for what the Olive Garden used. Certainly cost is a concern to our client. They have looked into doing some type of native stone, I don't know if they found a source that was financially acceptable to them. That is why we have the brick. It is a common brick. Conklin: I am not sure if the stone on the Olive Garden is real. Ward: It is manmade. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 11 Conklin: It is a manufactured stone, just so everybody understands that it wasn't shipped over from Italy. Bunch: Is the north elevation similar to the south elevation? Koch: Yes Sir. The only difference between the two is that the advertisement is placed on the south side of the building only. There is no Marriott Courtyard lighted advertisement for the face on the north side of the building. There will be the courtyard coming out of that first floor so that is going to have a different theme. Hoover: I think you are going to have to have a north elevation because the footprint is not the same on both sides. Koch: That is correct. What they are going to do with the courtyard is have an enclosed area on the east and west side and this will remain open so that the hotel patrons can see the trees and different elements on the north side of the site. Hoover: Can you provide a north elevation for Planning Commission? Koch: Sure, I will ask the architect for a north elevation. Hoover: As far as the theme, which is always an issue that comes up on these. I don't see that this needs to match the Olive Garden at all but then I try to think back when requiring other developments to but I think especially if they have common walls they should match. I am trying to think of reasons why you continue the theme on and what we have done in the past. It is definitely when we have adjoining walls but then I am thinking further down over here with Kohl's we have that pad and continued the theme there which made sense. Conklin: We did continue the theme with McAllister's and Party City up there also. Once again, staff is trying to be consistent with what we have required other developers to do. This is not directly adjacent to it within an overall shopping center but it is across the street. Hopefully people can see that McAllister's and Party City have some common design elements. The sunset red brick of Target and Kohl's somewhat match fairly closely. Hoover: Does the Olive Garden have some E.I.F.S. on it or is it all stone? Edwards: It is all stone. Conklin: They brought that to us, we didn't ask that. Hoover: I guess we could've said to them that you have to be like Kohl's and do the red brick and we could've continued. Edwards: The only thought behind that is there is a lot between them. Our thinking was this is all lot 17, do a theme there. Party City was all lot 2, a theme there. Kohl's and Target. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 12 Hoover: Don't you think we need to redefine that in our ordinance? Conklin- It is on our list for our work program including design standards and guidelines which are much more detailed and require much more design from developers than we have in the past. Koch: Our client for portions of the work in this area do have covenants for the property in this subdivision so there is some criteria that they have set forward outside of the scope of what the city requires. Conklin: Has this been approved by the architectural review committee? Koch: Yes. They have looked at it. They have met and discussed things here. There was a change made to the covenants and I am not sure if I have given the official copy to the city yet. Edwards: The change he is referring to is the covenants basically did not allow E.I.F.S. walls, there was a percentage of 20% or something and they needed to amend their covenants to allow for this quantity of E.I.F.S. to be used. Ward: Before we send this on I think we need to make a consensus of what we expect the developer to do. Hoover: This with the north elevation. Bunch: Would it be economically advantageous to use the brick instead of the manmade stone is there any way you could fit in the color schemes to approximate some of the color themes? Koch: My understanding to this point is that the building that we are looking at here is a standard architectural approved element from the Marriott Courtyard and any deviations to this would be outside of that standard. Some modifications could be made without a major ordeal but they still have to approve it. Right now this is their theme this year. Bunch: It does have a certain amount of separation where the road is going to go in between and the distance between this building and the Olive Garden, it is going to be hard to carry a common theme with the massing. I think I will concur with Commissioner Hoover, show us the north elevation and it looks reasonable. Ward: I assume that the brick color changed to match what Olive Garden put up in stone would be a compromise. I am not sure if that is very important to me, it might be to somebody else. Hoover: I am going to make a motion that we forward LSD 03-7.00 to the full Planning Commission subject to all of our comments. Ward: Do I have a second? Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 13 Bunch: Before I do, can you explain to us why we are having another Marriott Courtyard come before us? Did they decide to change locations? We have already gone through the process with a Marriott Courtyard that hasn't been built yet. Koch: Bunch: Ward: I know that these guys have tried to do projects here and I believe that the financing just was not attainable on previous attempts. We are pushing the deadlines for getting things here at this point but it looks like that this one is going to fly. I will second. I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 14 LSD 03-8.00: Large Scale Development (Ruby Tuesday, pp 588) was submitted by Mark Rickett of Rickett Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Bruton of Ruby Tuesday for property located north of Highway 62 and west of University Square Plaza. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.43 acres with 4,600 sq.ft. restaurant proposed. Ward: The next item on the agenda is LSD 03-8.00 for Ruby Tuesday submitted by Mark Rickett of Rickett Engineering on behalf of John Bruton of Ruby Tuesday for property located north of Hwy. 62 west of University Square Plaza. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately 1.43 acres with a 4,600 sq.ft. restaurant proposed. Sara? Edwards: First let me say that the representative for this project cannot make it. He is out of Little Rock and with the weather he did request that we not ask him to navigate here. So he won't be here today. To explain the project, this did go through a Conditional Use request late last year. 100 parking spaces were approved, the proposal is now for 99 parking spaces. University Square is located to the east of this property and then lot 2 is where the Hampton Inn is going to be and they are starting construction on that now. Water and sewer are both available along 6th The right of way for 6th Street, which is a principal arterial, has been dedicated. For tree preservation, existing canopy is 14.79%. Preserved is 0 and mitigation is $4,725. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission subject to some conditions. Condition number one is parking lot lighting shall utilize full cutoff sodium lighting fixtures and not exceed 35' in height. The freezer shall be architecturally incorporated with the building and all roof mounted utilities must be screened with a parapet wall and we are asking that new elevations be submitted, which depict that requirement, showing the parapet wall on the top. 3) Planning Commissioner determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. We are recommending a color sample submittal prior to Planning Commission. The Hampton Inn was approved to be entirely constructed of EIFS and done in different colors. At this point we just can't determine if this is compatible with that without having those material samples. 4) All utility, electrical equipment, meters, and dumpsters shall be screened. 5) A sidewalk shall be constructed along the west side of the private drive to connect with the sidewalks from the Hampton Inn. 6) Pedestrian access shall be provided from the private drive to the front door. The other conditions are standard. Ward: Ok, thanks. Matt, do you have any concerns on this particular project? Casey: No Sir, I have no concerns. I might point out that they are going to be removing the asphalt strip that serves as a sidewalk now along 6`h Street. They will be replacing that with a 6' sidewalk located at the right of way line. It is not shown on the drawing here but they do have a note pointing to it saying that they will provide a 6' sidewalk along the west side of this private drive to connect to the north and the Hampton Inn. This private drive will be under construction soon with the construction of the Hampton Inn which was just approved not long ago. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 15 Bunch: Does that satisfy the conditions that were spelled out for the Hampton Inn? I know there were sidewalks to get access to the shopping center and I guess 6`h Street. Casey: Yes Sir, those were provided for the Hampton Inn and they also stubbed out to the south to this lot and we are going to be connecting to that and extending it down as requested at the time of the Hampton Inn development. Bunch: I know some of those concerns were covered under the guides of we own that property so it won't be any problem. I just want to make sure that we follow through with it. What about the underground detention? Casey: The detention is going to be handled within the parking lot and within the pipes there will be an underground detention and storm sewer pipe in the parking lot. Bunch: There's plenty of provision for cleanout and proper sizing to accommodate that? Casey: Yes Sir. Ward: Matt, being serviced by tractor trailer trucks where would they load and unload to get in there? Hoover: It has got to be on the north, they don't have any other choice. Edwards: You see where they have that heavier concrete, that is obviously where they are intending their truck traffic to go so it will hold up to the weight of that. Ward: So you think they will do all of their loading and unloading on the north side of the building? Edwards: Yes. Bunch: Do the placement of the islands permit the circulation of a tractor -trailer because if it comes in from the north it is obviously a fairly easy shot into the building but then it looks like they would have to turn to the north and loop back around to get to the driveway. I guess do those meet the radii necessary? Casey: I will have to get with the applicant to see what their intentions are. Bunch: It looks like there could be some encroachment on the landscaped areas. Ward: It looks like Ruby Tuesday's is going to be facing to the east, is that the front of the hotel or the back of the hotel? How is that going to line up? Casey: The hotel faces east as well. Ward: This is the shopping center that is already there to the east right? Hoover: Is this parking lot on the hotel down here? Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 16 Bunch: It is real hard to tell. They are showing these expansions of gravel and gravel. Hoover: Right, I can't figure out what is there. Bunch: Since we don't have a representative here. Matt, can you interpret anything on this drawing for us where it is showing these large areas of gravel on adjacent lots? What we are seeing doesn't show us, you may have more information of how it ties into the adjacent property. Casey: Last year they did a property line adjustment and lot split. The property did come right along here adjacent to this was a gravel drive going back in here onto this property. With the proposal of this street, the Hampton Inn adjusted the property line out into the street. You are worried about the orientation of what is out there? Bunch: It is hard to tell what is existing and what is showing as proposed. Particularly on the adjacent properties. Casey: All of the gravel is existing and should be removed at the time of development. This will all be paved and landscaped with top soil and grass after they are completed. The gravel will be removed, it is just what is out there now. There are two houses that are served by the gravel driveway and then the parking area. The bulk of it is back here on the Hampton Inn, the parking lot under construction now. Bunch: The gravel area under existing sheds and existing gravel to the north? Casey: Yes, that will be inside the parking lot to the Hampton Inn. They have the outline, the curb shown for the Hampton Inn parking lot there on the north. This curb here is the edge of their parking lot so all of that going to there will be paved. Ward: Thanks Matt. Kim, why don't you talk a little bit about the landscaping required and what has been proposed. Hesse: These are the existing trees to be removed. When we do agenda session if we don't do a tour we will sure give you pictures of what is out there. I couldn't find one tree that was really worth redesigning for. There are several trees out there that are in really bad storm damaged shape and really have not been maintained for years. That is why I am recommending the removal of all of those. We will have a pretty good amount of mitigation, I think it is 13 trees that we will be planting back. Probably just like we did with the Hampton Inn if you remember, the city will be planting trees along the bypass with their mitigation, we will do the same with Ruby Tuesday. As far as the landscaping, we have asked them to disperse in the parking lot more, which they have done. They have made some arrangements to change that and most of those are larger trees that are going to be in the parking lot. They meet our requirements. Bunch: Kim, on the northeast corner they are showing a cedar to be removed and then replacing it with another tree, am I interpreting that correctly? What are they putting in there? Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 17 Hesse: I think that is a pin oak. The cedars out there, I am sure if we go on tour we will look at those trees, but they are in pretty bad shape. Ward: It looks like all of the existing tree inventory is in poor health, is that true? Hesse: Yes . Ward: Usually cedars aren't high priority anyway are they? Hesse: It is depending on where they are at, if they are holding back a slope or providing wildlife habitat, yes. I am sure they are providing wildlife habitat but for purposes of grading it would be very difficult to save that cedar and due to the health that it is in currently it wasn't worth redesigning for. Especially in a parking lot situation we are better off with a pin oak. Ward: Cedars pretty much hide everything. Hesse: Ward: We would have to limb it up quite a bit, which you could do. It is not necessarily the best tree. It has been hit by lightening and topped so it became more of a shrub than a tree. Thank you. I will open it to the public right now. Is there any public comment on this particular Ruby Tuesday restaurant Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and will bring it back to the Committee. Sara, why don't you go back over again what we are looking for as far as Commercial Design Standards and colors and theme as far as this restaurant as compared to the other buildings out there now. Edwards: As you recall, the University Square is done in about three shades of EIFS and brown. I'm not entirely clear on what this color is, that is why I have asked for a material sample just to see that it is compatible with the adjacent developments. We are looking at our Commercial Design Standards and the design overlay district as well. The south elevation is what is facing 6th Street and the east elevation will be facing that private drive. Ward: Is that some kind of stone or brick or what kind of material is that? Edwards: It looks like it is stone. Ward: Is that the same stuff that they used on University Square? Edwards: It appears to be. Ward: So we've asked for a material board with colors and so on. What about signs? Edwards: When the Hampton Inn came in they were approved for what is called an area identification sign along this private drive. You see proposed monument sign, there is one here and then one at the entrance on University Square along Shiloh Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 18 Drive so what they could do is put both the Hampton Inn and Ruby Tuesday on each of those signs. Ward: Is it going to have a sign on the east elevation and on the south elevation or just one on the east? Edwards: I only see the one on the east. In the design overlay district they are restricted to one sign per building unless it can be determined that there is more than one front facing street. That is a private drive so it is not really a street. Ward: Did they ask for a monument sign at all? Edwards: When they originally came to plat review they had requested a pole sign, the design overlay district is most of this property so they wanted to put a pole sign just outside of the design overlay district. Specifically that violated the sign ordinance because you cannot have more than one free standing sign per lot. They did remove that from their request. Ward: We have got 99 parking spaces, how much overage is that? Edwards: There is one per every one hundred square feet so we would be looking at 46 plus 30% so around 50 so they are roughly double that. That did go through a Conditional Use several months ago. Bunch: On the design standards for the north elevation is there an access road across the north of this property between this and the Hampton Inn? I can't remember what the Hampton Inn is like. I know there were some concerns. I guess since it is not viewed from a public street I guess it doesn't have to have any particulars on the north elevation where it is visible? Conklin: It talks about fronts facing streets and the rest is fairly similar to commercial design standards. Edwards: Again, I asked them to architecturally incorporate the freezer. He said he wasn't sure at plat review if the freezer was architecturally incorporated. Hoover: I would say that the north elevation probably needs some additional work. I think if we got the material boards on that that would help. Ward: Are there any other concerns, questions, or motions? Bunch: I don't guess we have any real concerns on the west because that is currently a mini -storage which will probably stay there for quite some time. We don't have that many locations in Fayetteville where those are permitted. I would imagine that would stay that use for some time and we do have the wrap around of the theme on the west elevation. I guess that also precludes cross access concerns. Should they change I see that it is feasible. Other than that I don't have any comments. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 19 Hoover: I make a motion that we forward LSD 03-8.00 to the full Planning Commission. Ward: Do I have a second? Bunch: I will second. Since we don't have the opportunity to deal with the applicant I am trying to see if there is anything that we could do further to help them prepare for the meeting since the weather precluded them being here. I will second. Ward: I will concur. Sara, you can talk to the applicant and get all the items that we need before it comes to the Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 20 PPL 03-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Heights, pp 284) was submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for property located on North Salem Road, south of Salem Village. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 30.96 acres with 87 lots proposed. Ward: The next item on the agenda is PPL 03-2.00 for Salem Heights submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for property located on north Salem Road and south of Salem Village. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 30.96 acres with 65 lots proposed. Sara? Edwards: Yes, there are 65 lots proposed for this subdivision. We do have a wetlands delineation which is going right through the middle. Floodplain exists on a portion of this site. Master Street Plan does show a collector running through this development. Salem is a collector and Rupple is a minor arterial, Salem is to the east, Rupple is to the west. Rupple Road is due to be constructed by a subdivision that was approved last year. Tree preservation, there is 4.27% existing, 2.79% proposed to remain. Mitigation is $10,350. We are recommending that this be forwarded subject to some conditions. First of all there is an area labeled not a part on the northern portion of this property. That has changed since Plat Review so we are not sure if the intent is to leave that as open space or to be platted later maybe as another phase. We are looking for an explanation on that and if it is open space it will be maintained by the Property Owner's Association pursuant to the covenants. We are looking for a street stub out to be provided to the south. When the Final Plat is submitted access will be limited from Salem and Rupple. All utilities shall be placed underground. I am not entirely clear if any of that existing is under 12KV on the site but if it is under 12KV it will need to be placed underground. Planning Commission determination of offsite improvements to Salem Road. Staff has recommended improvements to include 14' from centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drainage. Planning Commission determination of an offsite assessment for Rupple Road. We are recommending an assessment in the amount of $15,380. Planning Commission determination of offsite assessments for Rupple Road bridge, that would be just north of this property. We are recommending an assessment in the amount of $9,870 based on the estimated bridge construction cost and projected traffic generated by this development. Street G right now dead ends into this not a part portion. That will need to be constructed as a cul-de-sac. City Council just passed an ordinance that requires payment for the connection to the water lines on Salem Road and that amount is $6,192. The other comments are standard. Ward: Is the applicant present? Gabbard: Yes Sir. My name is Leonard Gabbard, I am with Landtech Engineering. I am here today for Don, he is celebrating 35 years of wedded bliss to his wife. I guess the not a part issue, I will start with that. I have written down three items here. The not a part issue we would bring into the subdivision later but because of the fact that at tech review on this previously it was indicated to us that most of that area is in a 100 -year floodplain for Clabber Creek but we could only subdivide it into one acre lots. What we have advised our client to do is contract with Tom Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 21 Edwards: Gabbard: Ward: Casey: Hecox who is very strong in this area of getting things out of floodplains and go for a CLOMR and follow that with a LOMR to bring that out of the floodplain, which is probably about a year or maybe a year and a half process. At that point in time we would be prepared to come back to the city with a portion of this thing that would be available for development. Of course we would also have to meet storm water pollution prevention requirements that are going into effect I think next month. There are a lot of things that have to be done to make that property developable. I have no problem with putting a cul-de-sac up there on G Street and we will show that for the submission with these revisions. As far as the stub out goes on the south side Don talked with me about it and I really didn't know exactly where that would suit you guys the best Sara so I thought what we would do is throw it to you all and say you tell us where you want it to stub out and we will put it there. Why don't you place it in the cul-de-sac, off the end of that cul-de-sac I would say would probably be the best location. So I could basically leave that cul-de-sac, when I do a street in and out I like to call that an eyebrow type thing, leave the cul-de-sac and then just come south right there. That is not a problem. All the other issues as far as the contributions and things that were read, I believe we will be able to sign that and have that for the Planning Commission if this is forwarded. Matt, do you have engineering concerns? You might talk a little bit about the offsite assessments that we have on bridges and Rupple Road and so on. I will start with the streets. We are recommending improvements to Salem Road, a minimum of 14' from centerline paved with curb and gutter, storm drainage and the sidewalks. Rupple Road, which is on the west of this project is being constructed now as part of the Clabber Creek subdivision just across Rupple to the west the entire street is being constructed so this developer will not be required to make those improvements. They are connecting to it and adding a sidewalk along the east side as well as the sidewalks throughout the development on the interior streets. As far as the assessments, the city did extend a portion of Rupple Road up to serve the middle school up here and we have been assessing the developments that connect to that to try to recover some of that cost and that is how we get the $15,380. We base that on the estimated traffic generated by this development verses the total traffic on that road. We are assessing for the Rupple Road bridge which would be right at the northwest corner of this property across Clabber Creek and we haven't constructed it yet but it will be done in the future and we are trying to collect the money from the developments for that. Bunch: Now you have this development coming through and I guess Salem Village and the one that you recently brought through to the north of Salem Village, how close are we getting to extending Rupple Road? Casey: We are getting closer but it is still a ways off. It is about $700,000. It will be a major expense to the city. Whenever the City Council determines that that is the priority then we will go in that direction. In the meantime we are just assessing Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 22 developments to try to get the money to go towards that. Also, I am not sure how long ago it was but when the water improvements were clone in this area the City Council passed an ordinance creating assessment for any developer that connects to the water line in this portion. We didn't see that to the north but this is within the limits that was established by the ordinance so they are going to be assessed the $6,192, it is based on the number of lots to connect to the water line along Salem Road. Ward: Thanks Matt. Are there any other concerns? On Parks and Recreation? Turner: On December 2, 2002 the Parks Board voted to accept money in lieu of land. Since that date parks fees have been adjusted. Today 65 units are going to be developed and that is $36,075 for parks fees. Ward: Thank you. Kim on tree preservation and landscaping? Hesse: I have a couple of comments for this. I am just going to point out that the trees that are being removed are basically right here where the road is. What he was discussing as far as the floodplain, that doesn't include trees other than right through here so I think when future development comes in we are really not going to impact tree canopy so much. Most of the trees are in the wetland area. I just want to reiterate that we do not put easements in subdivisions so there will not be tree easements per say. Leonard, is this going to be common property for the home owner's association? Gabbard: I am sure it will have to be. That is how Mr. Alford needs to handle it. Like I said, we are also working with EGIS to restore this, this was a natural spring before this pond was put in back in the 1950's and what we are trying to do with this and we are working with Manual Barnes to restore this, this is a stream. This was a natural flowing stream before it was dammed up so one of the things that we are trying to do is restore this back to a natural flowing spring and that will give us some points with the Corp. of Engineers so we can get better ratios on our mitigation here. Conklin: I think we need to clearly identify what is going to be common open space and what is going to be future development. I hate to go down this road and have this built out and the homeowner's not realize that they are going to be responsible for this open space or realize that there are going to be additional houses built north of there. Gabbard: On this area here we need to shade? Conklin: I would like it delineated somehow because we aren't asking for stub outs to the north on C Street. You are not planning on developing this property along A Street. Hesse: Basically I think we are saving most of the canopy. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 23 Ward: I noticed on the tree inventory there is a 40" sweet gum that is in poor condition and low priority and it is going to remain. Is there any reason we should have those taken out? Hesse: They are in an area where they are not really affecting future homes. The same with the hickory. Again, a lot of these are in bad shape but unless they are really close to a home lot we would like to preserve them anyway. They will probably stand for many years. Ward: Ok, so that is the main concern. If it is close to where a home is going to be setting then you will remove it. Hesse: If it is hazardous. A lot of time, especially in large parks, we will keep a dying tree as a habitat tree, a host tree they call it. That is great as long as it is not near a picnic table or a playground and you just kind of weigh those values. In this situation they are far enough away that they shouldn't be a problem. Ward: Tell me again how you get to the mitigation fee of $10,250? Hesse: It is just for these few trees. We classified them as low quality because of the shape of the trees. The ordinance is to deter you from mitigating trees so the mitigation is kind of high, it is quite expensive. I felt the same way. I thought it was quite a bit for just a couple of trees and we relooked at that and I spoke with them yesterday to make sure we were calculating that correctly. Ward: These are the two or three trees that are going to be in the roadway? Hesse: Yes. Ward: Ok, thanks Kim. At this time I will open it to the public. Is there any public comment on this particular item which is a Preliminary Plat for Salem Heights? House: My name is Greg House. Where does the mitigation money go? Ward: I will let either Sara or Kim answer that for you. Hesse: It goes into a tree fund and the city will plant trees within that neighborhood. If it is not in the neighborhood it goes within a mile of the subdivision. McKinney: My name is Rick McKinney Generally I am kind of opposed to accepting fees for park space or greenspace. I grew up or lived in the downtown area all my life. We are down to zero greenspace for the residents there. Secondly, I would like to remind you that at the renewal of the last OMI contract, they manage our sewer treatment plant, they stated that our sewer system was at 95% capacity. You are adding close to 150 toilets in this 67 housing development and that is not including the sinks. You are adding much more sewage flow to the extreme west side of town. I think it is projected for 2005 or 2006 that you get the west side sewer treatment plant online, all of that has got to be pumped miles to the east side for treatment. At 95% capacity that is going to be a very slow process. I Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 24 Ward: Bunch: Casey: Bunch: Casey: would encourage you to consider the future on any of these developments that you are reviewing at this committee, how much we're approving or you are approving at the Planning Commission, City Council, and directly here of how much capacity we have left to handle it. Thank you. Thanks. Is there any other public comment? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Are there any other comments or questions? A question for staff in regard to Mr. McKinney's statements, we have periodically asked for updates on the sewer situation, what is our latest status on that? In the past six or eight months we have been working with the Health Department with their concerns for capacity on the west side where everything flows to our Hamestring Creek lift station. We have contracted with RJN of Dallas to study that lift station and everything that flows into it. We are waiting on a recommendation that should be coming any day on whether or not it is capable of handling flows for the next few years or how much additional we can add and if it is not going to handle it what we can do in the meantime between now and the time that the west side treatment plant comes online, what we can do to carry us over until that happens. We are waiting on that and like I said, it should come any day. Would that possibly involve a fee on development similar to the ones that were refunded not too long ago for another lift station in the Hamestring Creek area? We are not looking at any assessments at this time. It could be a possibility. I might add that the Health Department has been looking at this very closely and we mentioned at Plat Review to Mr. Gabbard that there is a chance that they may not get approval until these things are done for their sewer system. We have been making them aware of that up front so that they can proceed at their own risk until we have got further information. Conklin: With regard to the actual treatment plant, OMI did make a presentation to the City Council a few weeks ago and discussed their ability to treat the waste coming into the plant. At this time wet weather flows are the biggest problem with the plant trying to handle that. We have been in contact with Greg Boettcher, our Water and Sewer Operations Director, and he is aware of the developments that are occurring. With 125 million dollar sewage treatment plant project including a collection system, lift stations, we have been informed that we can continue to approve developments since we are making that investment to solve the issues of the treatment plant capacity. At this time we are not making recommendations to deny any development based on where we are at and what we are going to be doing on the west side treatment plant. Bunch: I am assuming that the recommendation here is to forward it to the full Planning Commission and at that time we will have comments from Fire and Police and other city services and see how they can respond to this area. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 25 Conklin: They participate in the technical plat review process. Their comments should be in the minutes of that process. Ward: Thanks Tim. Are there any other questions, concerns or motions? Hoover: I have a question in general. When we are looking at a Preliminary Plat what should we be looking for? Edwards: Right now this is a vacant piece of property. You are looking to make sure that streets connect. Hoover: I guess this is where I have a problem in that I don't know where the other subdivisions are that have come through on the map to just be assured that I know we are connecting. Conklin: That is why staff has consistently recommended street stub outs be connected and stubbed to the property lines. To the south I am not aware of any developments. Clabber Creek is directly across. There is access from Salem to Rupple to Clabber Creek with continuation of that collector street further to the east. You asked what you are looking for as a Preliminary Plat. As staff the process begins with in house technical plat review with city staff and other departments looking at code compliance. Our ordinances require us to review and comment back to the applicant or engineer with regard to does their project comply with city ordinances and again, that is the process where we sit down with the utility companies outside of the city, phone, cable, gas, electric and look at what it takes to provide that type of infrastructure to serve that development. From there it comes to the Subdivision Committee where typically we look at as Sara pointed out, street connections, issues with connectivity. Hoover: I am just curious as a Planning Commissioner. Conklin: You are also responsible for the tree protection and tree preservation ordinance with regard to approving those tree preservation plans. I don't think you can put one ordinance over top of another. We are looking at flood damage prevention codes, grading, storm water, street improvements, Master Street Plan and Sara in the staff report kind of outlined that through those items. Hoover: Do we have a Master Street Plan map here? Edwards: It is shown on the map included in your packet. Conklin: Then of course we are looking at the zoning, does it meet the zoning ordinance with regard to the minimum lot area, lot width, are the setbacks being shown correctly, are the fire hydrants spaced correctly, are the street lights shown, are the sidewalks shown, the street widths, cul-de-sac radius. We are looking at the technical requirements for an urban type subdivision in a City of Fayetteville neighborhood. Hoover: I am assuming here that these are planned but not built? Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 26 Conklin: Yes. It is built up to here but it is not built across the creek, Salem Road. This part will be built, this is Clabber Creek Phase I. Hoover: Ok. Edwards: Let me see if I can get those other subdivisions shown on here. Hoover: I know we have all this other development going on out there but I don't know where it all is happening in relation to this. Conklin- We can get that to you. Ward: Are there any other concerns? Bunch: On the parks situation, we have obviously in very close proximity to this a school and a complex of ball fields and in fairly close proximity another school, what about the Clabber Creek area and the wetlands, is that on the Master Plan for a trail system or some sort of tie ins? Turner: I am not quite sure if it is on the Master Plan, it is still in the proposal stage However, I believe there is a park being built either at Clabber Creek or Salem Meadows. Salem Meadows is building a park which is adjacent to this so there will be parkland near this development. Bunch: And with all the wetlands in the area there will be considerable open space? Turner: I will have to check on that one, I am not positive but I can get that for you. Ward: Are there any motions? Hesse: On the north boundary this is adjacent to wetlands. Bunch: Between Salem Village and the other development that Mr. Gabbard brought in recently there is another wetland area so there is open space. I move that we forward PPL 03-2.00 to the full Planning Commission. Ward: I will second. Hoover: I will concur. Ward: With all conditions of course. Gabbard: Thank you Sir. The monies that are donated for street improvements, I think this was brought up at the last Planning Commission meeting, would you reiterate if those monies are not used within a certain period of time can the developer apply to receive those back? Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 27 Conklin: That is correct. The ordinance states that within five years if we don't spend the money we then hold a public hearing and the Planning Commission decides if the improvement is likely to occur in the immediate future and hold those monies, determine whether or not to refund them back to the developer, or refund them back to the home owners. Gabbard: Is the time from the time the check is written and received? Conklin- That is how we have interpreted that ordinance. Gabbard: And the developer has to initiate in writing that request? Conklin: That is correct. Gabbard: Thank you. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 28 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 & Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units proposed (48 bedrooms). Ward: The next item on the agenda this morning is LSD 02-29.00 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 and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units proposed, a total of 48 bedrooms. Sara? Edwards: There are 39 units within seven buildings. Parking, they are proposing 51 spaces, 48 is the number of parking stalls required. Surrounding zoning north, south, and west is R-2. To the east is R-1. There are single-family residential existing to the north, the south property is currently vacant. The east is a mixture of duplexes and single-family and the west is vacant as well. Water and sewer run along Olive Street. Right now there is right of way for Olive Street, 60' existing, 30' for Center, and 60' for Fletcher all existing adjacent to this property. They are proposing Olive Street to be improved adjacent to the site with a cul-de-sac. Access will be through Olive Avenue which is substandard both in width and surfacing. Tree preservation, there is 100% tree coverage existing. Preserved is 20.17%. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission subject to some conditions. Condition number one is Planning Commission determination of required offsite improvements and required access. Olive is currently substandard, it is 18' wide, it does not meet state fire codes. With the allowance of off-street parking two way traffic cannot be accommodated. The pavement and sub base is failing and likely cannot accommodate construction traffic. The site has access to Fletcher. Fletcher access is not proposed with this development right now. Right of way for Center exists to the site and south from Walnut Street. Staff is recommending the construction of Center Street and Olive Street to the southeast corner of this lot with waivers from the minimum street standards. The sidewalks shall be continuous through the driveway. Approval shall be subject to a vacation of existing an utility easement which runs north/south through the property. A 10' utility easement shall be granted on both sides of the existing 30' water line. All buildings shall be required to meet setbacks based on height. Lighting shall not reflect onto adjacent properties and a lighting plan shall be submitted and approved by staff prior to installation. The other comments are standard comments. Ward: Ok, thanks. Why don't you introduce yourself as the applicant first. House: I am Greg House for Houses, Inc. Ward: Let me get other staff's comments first and then we will come back to you. Matt why don't we talk about engineering concerns. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 29 Casey: In addition to the street waivers that Sara mentioned, the sidewalk issues will have to be addressed after we decide what we are going to do with the streets. They have got limited right of way and the streets and the sidewalks is going to have to be something that we are going to work out and make a recommendation after the determination of the streets. Ward: Ok, are there any other concerns? Casey: No Sir. Ward: As far as Parks fees, what are those? Turner: The Parks Board voted on October 7th to accept money in lieu. The fees due are $15,327. Ward: That is based on how much per unit? Turner: $393 for each multi -family unit. Ward: Kim as far as landscaping and trees? Hesse: For the zone 20% preserved is the requirement. They are having a lot of retaining walls in order to try to save that many trees. If it is confusing as to why we are showing so many trees right here my thoughts are is that it is too narrow of an area to really preserve trees and I wasn't really sure that trees would really be in there so they went back and located trees that were smaller than what is required to be located. My concerns are that all the trees that are here are casting canopy over and there wouldn't be any trees here but we have found several trees here that will provide canopy so we did count that as canopy preservation. The landscaping meets the requirement. Ward: I think what I would like to do, I got a letter, you have had some meetings with the neighbors and we have heard from the neighbors before with their concerns. Why don't you try to address some of the concerns that you have or that they have and how you can help maybe take care of some of those concerns. This letter I was glancing at is dated February 26`h. Do you have a copy of that? House: I do. Ward: Why don't you just highlight that as far as parking, Olive Avenue improvements, traffic calmers, traffic control, green preservation, access to Center Street, talk about your Bill of Assurances. Why don't you kind of go over all of these issues and how you are proposing to handle them and then we will get public comment and go from there. House: Thank you Lee. I just want to say good morning and that I appreciate your patience with this process. I know that this is not the first time before your committee. I want to say that we have been working on this project for years. First I met with Tim and his staff numerous times over the last several years and Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 30 even more particularly since this summer trying to come up with a plan that would work for everybody for this property. As you mentioned, we have also met with the neighbors in two formal meetings and then one kind of informational meeting and have had numerous discussions with various neighbors about their concerns and about how we might meet them on the hillside and also, as you can see, by letter. I just want to say that we have submitted a plan that we think meets the Large Scale Development ordinance in it's entirety. We haven't asked for any waivers or any special consideration but are still trying to come to a plan that hopefully people can live with. I am sure it is not going to be acceptable to my neighbors, they would rather see it be a park. So I can show you how we got here, one of the first concerns in the neighbor's letter of February 22"d, the neighbors that are immediately adjacent to this property on Olive wrote me a letter and they were very active with the homeowner's association and neighborhood association's meetings. Their concerns were that we have not compromised with respect to density which I will address first. I brought some boards to share with you to just give you a brief history of how we got here. As I said, for several years we have been working on this. In the attachment that I submitted we have a schedule that talks about density. In trying to determine what to do here we first looked at the maximum density that would be allowed. We came up with based on the square footage of land, it would be possible if we could meet all the other requirements, to build 132 bedrooms. We never even entertained that idea. We did consider something less than that. We have some plans that one of them was 62% of maximum density of the 132 bedrooms, I call that the Bobby Schmitt plan which nobody was really in favor of'. It was fairly unattractive and it had a lot of pavement and the buildings were not aesthetically pleasing to us. We have a plan that looks like a hotel that was 42% density, it was all two big buildings that again, from an aesthetic standpoint wasn't as pleasing. From a monetary standpoint it probably would be one of our best alternatives. Then we have a couple of others that I won't bore you with that we eluded to in our submittals. As we have gone through this process in light of what we knew were the neighbors' concerns about density we settled on the least dense plan, which is 36% of the maximum density. This is a product of several years, not just the last six or eight months of work on this property. The neighbors are acting like we haven't compromised but I say tat I could've come in here and asked for the 42% plan and then compromised but I felt like it was the best choice was to approach the neighbors with a plan that we could live with and that was realistic and would still be feasible so that is how we got to where we are today. Other issues, as far as parking that they raised, I agree that that is an issue that we are concerned about too from a practical standpoint. In our letter of response that we drafted yesterday I have asked my architect and engineer to have a look if there is a way to increase parking and we think that there may be a way. We will get to that in a few minutes because it is based on some of the other issues. All the other concerns of the neighbors we felt we were able to meet with the exception of for sure there are Bill of Assurances. Rather than reading through the Bill of Assurances, everything that they have asked for I will say that we have agreed we can do in their Bill of Assurances. Ward: Why don't you go over that? Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 31 House: That we would have assigned parking for each tenant for each unit. There would be no on street parking except directly in front of the development and it would be on the east side only. There will be no access to Fletcher Avenue. There would be an onsite manager or a 24 hour contact for resident neighbor concerns. That snow and ice removal would occur within 12 hours, that landscaping will exceed the City of Fayetteville standards and that the Bill of Assurances addresses building designs in terms of durable materials and roof slopes. The structures will be of a quality material and they will stand the test of time and wear and tear of multiple tenants. This is not a tract development shall I say. We are going to do stucco and brick exteriors. We are going to have terraces and planting areas. Our parking design is linear to add to the look. I am pleased with the way the project looks. Our goal is to attract higher end tenants and in order to do that we have to design a project that is going to be tasteful. Many of you may be familiar with our work, I feel like we have only done tasteful things in at least the last decade. We have no complaint with the Bill of Assurances. The green preservation, some of these others, I don't really understand percentages of green space and all that, I would rather the architect or engineer address those because they understand how we calculate it and so forth. The access to Center Street, that has been a big issue. This plan was submitted, and I eluded to this in some of my letters, based on meeting with the city Planning staff and coming up with a plan that seemed acceptable. Since that time staff has changed their minds about what they think is necessary for this project. That is why I believe we were tabled at the last meeting. I have been opposed to the idea of connecting to Center for two reasons. One is I felt that the neighbors wouldn't support it because of the increased traffic that would come through the neighborhood. I didn't just love the idea as a resident myself. The second is how it is going to be paid for. In meeting with Mr. Conklin over this matter he suggested an alternative would be to construct the streets in what he suggested would be not normal street standards of full curb and gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks on both sides, that we construct more in keeping with what is already in the historic district as far as width and improvements. The other issue is still how do we pay for that. My concern is that if we are asked to pay for it all that that is not fair because it opens up a big chunk of undeveloped land for other people to develop at our expense. How we pay for that, whether the city should pay for that with the rational nexus idea we haven't determined. My other concern is if we submit and say yes we will go ahead with this plan, this is going to cost me again, we are still trying to determine how much in planning to redesign this thing so that it can be acceptable and I am reluctant to keep trying to hit a moving target as far as our submittal is concerned. I am looking for a way to go through this process where maybe it can be approved conditioned upon certain things and then we say ok, we will come back and we will take the cul-de-sac out of our plan, add some parking to our plan and agree how we are going to do the offsite improvements. Otherwise, I have got to spend money to redo the plat and then come in and everybody says "We don't really want that anyway." I meant to get with Tim again because the neighbor's support of connectivity completely shocked me. I just received that the evening before last. I am willing to talk about that where this submittal doesn't show that but how do we go forward without this moving target? Ward: What about opening up Fletcher Street, connecting through Fletcher? Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 32 House: The neighbors are not in favor of that. The topography of that makes that very difficult. It is a very steep change from Olive to Fletcher and the neighbors seem to be vehemently opposed to that. I am not sure that that satisfies Planning's concerns about connectivity to the main traffic flow. Ward: Let's talk a little bit about one of the conditions that we are going to discuss is the offsite improvements on Olive to bring you up to standards. Can you address that a little bit as far as what your take is on that? House: First my take on that is that we have been out there with a tape measure and it is mostly 20' wide, not 18', there are a few portions that are 18' but most of it is 20'. That is and the condition of the ditches and so forth are common to the whole hillside and on into the historic district. If the plan is to go to Center Street part of the compromise, from staff's standpoint my understanding is that further improvements on the existing portion of Olive would not be necessary because we are tying in and the traffic can flow through rather than having to turn around and then come back. Ward: One of the big calls that the Planning Commission is going to have to make is whether to open into Center Street or do the cul-de-sac as you have got shown on your plans now and what offsite improvements that we would require to make that a feasible project. Bunch: Are the rights of way easements and dedications existing on Olive to permit such things described in condition one or would that require procurement of land from existing land owners? Conklin: There is platted right of way for Olive and Center Street. What I have asked is to look at what it would take to make that connection. I also asked that I don't want them to just take a look at our minimum street standards and say it can't be done. I think Fayetteville wouldn't be Fayetteville today if you had to build to our minimum street standards most of Mount Sequoyah and a lot of Fayetteville wouldn't be built under the current street configuration and the pattern that we have. That is what I wanted to look at the possibilities. Matt, I will give you the Engineering perspective. Bunch: The initial part of my question was whether or not the right of ways exist on Olive in order to make improvements, sidewalks and widening and such from Spring Street to this development and then of course follow up if it were to go around to Center if sufficient rights of way exist to produce what has been requested. Casey: The right of way is existing. Edwards: For Olive there is 60' all the way up and we have got a 20' street proposed to allow emergency vehicles. Casey: On Olive it is sufficient to do all the requirements. Center Street is where, as Tim mentioned, we would have to be creative in connecting it and take a look at our Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 33 minimum street standards. With only 30' of right of way you couldn't put a 24' back to back street in there with sidewalks and storm drainage so we would have to take a look at what we've got and what you all want to do and staff could be comfortable with as far as allowing something less than our minimum street standards. Bunch: Has anyone looked at a rational nexus for improvements of Olive based on the impact of this proposal? If Olive were upgraded what the share with additional traffic and such would be attributable to this development? Conklin: Staff always make a recommendation and then we allow the developer if he thinks our recommendation does not meet that rational nexus standard they can propose something to the Commission and staff will consider this. On a previous development we just required them to extend that street 100' down to the south property line for Salem Heights. They have 65 lots, single family homes for connectivity. My opinion is, let me address Mr. House's concerns about staff and where we are at, staff initially looked at improvements onsite and offsite for this project. Last August the City Council did pass a resolution to take a look at R-2 areas and unplatted areas and do a zoning study. With that, I think this goes back to Sharon's question too of what are we looking at. We need to take a look at more than just this project. This hillside is zoned R-2, 24 units per acre. What is it going to take in infrastructure to build this out? It is occurring. We have developments on Olive Street, we have another development up on Fletcher Street. This area that in our initial calculations has a density of about 1.8 units per acre. If we are going to go back and redevelop this hillside and densify it what street improvements will it take to handle that traffic? We hear a lot about traffic on Mount Sequoyah and what it is going to need to function at 24 units per acre. That is what staff is looking at right now. It is zoned R-2, that is the city policy with regard to land use. If it remains R-2 in my opinion we need to require the street extension of Olive Avenue. It is in front of their project. Staff did not recommend Center Street and we didn't recommend Fletcher. Once again we are trying to balance this rational nexus and how much is required. I would like to point out though, I find it interesting when we say it is difficult or impossible to develop these streets but at the same time we build parking lot aisles and parking lots throughout this entire development all the way up to Fletcher Street. If it is dangerous to have a street at these grades I'm not sure how safe it is to build parking lots at those grades. I know a street and a parking lot aisle are not the same but at the same time we say we can't do it here on public right of way but we go up this hillside from Olive almost all the way up to Fletcher Street. I think we need to take a look at where we need to make those connections. Yes it will open up the hillside, it is zoned R-2. Staff will start the process of identifying what the existing infrastructure is in this R-2 area and what it will take if it remains R-2 to serve the increased traffic and densities of this hillside. Staff's position is that we do need two connections to Olive and Center. If you look at their plans they are showing a gravel drive in poor condition. I have walked this drive and it seems very feasible from a non -engineering observation going out there you can walk it and you can see that cars have been on it and that it is feasible that it could be built. That is our recommendation. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 34 Hoover: I have a couple of questions. On Center Street how many feet are you talking about being improved? I don't know where it is on this map. Bunch, M: It is approximately 430'. Hoover: Am I reading this correctly that all of this is R-2 on Olive? Conklin: All the way over to Dickson. Hoover: And no neighbors have come in to rezone their property to R-1? Conklin- We are doing a zoning study also. Hoover: All of this is R-2 on the other side of Center? Conklin: Yes. Which is why as staff looked at this in more detail if we are going to redevelop Mount Sequoyah from 1.8 units per acre to 20 units per acre, I had this discussion with Mr. House, that what are we going to need for infrastructure in that area to serve it? I understand that this is your project but I am looking at projects back to the south, back to the west. In my opinion we are going to need additional streets and we should complete the street pattern where possible. That is probably one of the reasons why we are not recommending Center. It is fairly steep between Olive and Fletcher. We walked that portion of Center between Olive and Walnut and it seems feasible. People are driving on it today. House: Two things about that. Honestly, we have two alternatives. One is to put the streets in now and open it up for development for the other undeveloped properties or continue with the cul-de-sac plan and when the next people come in let them pay for the portion that effects their land rather than asking us and the city, or however we do this, to open the whole hillside up. Frankly, it is six in one hand, half dozen in the other to me. I think from a community standpoint what is the hurry? If you are talking about down zoning then if you have us put in streets you are going to have more of a human cry to keep the down zoning than if there are unimproved right of ways out there that the property owners, most of them will say 'we probably won't do this for another five or ten years'. That is the cul- de-sac plan. If we put in the streets it is going to be opening the door. I have talked to property owners on the south side and that is just what they are waiting for. Conklin: Mr. House, is development bad then in this area if we open it up? House: Obviously from a practical standpoint the less development the more our property is worth. I don't know if it is bad Tim, I am just saying that every six months we have an ordinance change. I call it incremental down zoning with the tree ordinance and the hillside drainage ordinance and now we are talking about unimproved infrastructure, you have to replat and come through Large Scale. Legally the city has decided to make it more difficult to develop. I don't think that we should be punished for having spent money to go through the process to try to finish our development while other neighbors who are out there, maybe they Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 35 want their land to be R-1. I think the Chaddicks would rather it be Agricultural, which is their right to do what they want with their property. All I am saying, and it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me, I am just throwing that out there as a policy thing that if we put the streets in, however we pay for them whether it is part us and part the city or however that works, that is going to open that up for development and everybody ought to be aware of that verses the cul- de-sac idea makes it more private down here at the end of the street and it probably will impede development for some longer period of time while these ordinances are having another look at and while you are considering down zoning. I am just throwing that out there. From my standpoint, I think infill is a good idea. I think it is helpful for the whole community. The more people live in and close to downtown the better all the goods and services are that we enjoy downtown because there are more people going to Collier's and going to the local restaurants and walking to do it rather than driving. I walked the last few days because it was snow downtown to my office, it was delightful. I think that is possible by having infill. I am not opposed to infill, I am just throwing that out there that that is something that you are encouraging by asking for this kind of activity. Ward: Are there any other questions Tim? Hoover: Staff, have you had any other thoughts in general about street connectivity to the south of Center for the future? I don't know what the topography is over here. Conklin: We don't have the rights of way. Fletcher Street goes down through to Huntsville Road. House: The unimproved right of way does. Hoover: Ok, so we have right of way right here. Conklin: The Highway Department at one time thought about taking Hwy. 45 through Fletcher back down to Huntsville. Hoover: Ok, right now we have got the right of way going like that so that is something that could happen? Conklin: That plan was abandoned due to opposition I believe from the neighborhood. Hoover: I am trying to figure out what conceptually happens with all of this when it is built out. Say we do this connection then what happens next with development, if, as he says, this promotes development through quickly and then we are going to have to figure out what are we doing with the rest of the connection and is that a possibility. Ward: There is no easy answer. Hoover: No. That is all right of way there so that is a possibility? Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 36 Conklin: That landowner doesn't have any current plans as far as developing at this time as far as I know. House: If there is a street there that might change. Conklin- The right of way is there. Ward: In order to get this thing going on, I will go ahead and open it up to the public for comment. We have heard a lot of these same public comments before. I don't want to hear them again. We have got records of them in the minutes and so on. If you have got some things that you can add that will help us make some decisions that is what we want to hear. Those are real important to us. We understand most of the problems. Like I said, we have got minutes of all the things that have been said before and we have read them many times. Bryant: Holly Bryant, 107 N. Olive. Sharon, as you were questioning about the R-2, I think it is necessary Tim if you will explain how far the R-2 encompasses. We are talking Dickson Street is the northern boundary all the way down to Huntsville Road would be the southern boundary. Fletcher is the eastern boundary, College is the western boundary. Another point to make is I'm sure there is a map that shows the big clumps of land that are undeveloped that are R- 2. There are about three or four families that own those and those properties have been in those families for generations. They have not been developed as of yet and I don't foresee them being developed, certainly not as R-2. I urge you to be proactive. There is no easy answer but we must think about the future of Fayetteville when it comes to the possibility of this huge amount of land that is R- 2 and how to handle the traffic if in fact, it were developed R-2. Ward: Thank you. Caulk: Bob Caulk, Missouri Way. The last meeting I did speak for the Mount Sequoyah South Neighborhood Association and I don't plan on repeating myself. In looking at this and discussing it the last time parking was the big issue and seemed to drive traffic issues and a lot of other things around it. When I look at finishing out Center Street and Olive down to Center Street, I look at that as a way of generating significant offsite street parking because Greg, if he does manage to rent to upscale couples like he wants to is going to have a real parking problem. The USA Today on Tuesday pointed out that the average household income less than $10,000 has 1.3 cars per family. The average household with income greater than $75,000, the kind of people he is going to be looking for, have an average of 2.4 automobiles per family. Parking is going to be a real problem. Finishing these streets out is an awfully strange way of generating parking that is necessary in my opinion. I think a better way to do it would be to look at the possibility of keeping the parking spaces at 51 and reducing the number of units by eight to ten. That would basically allow effectively 1.5 parking spaces per single bedroom and two parking spaces per two bedrooms. I think that would be a better way for everybody involved to solve the problem. Ward: Thanks for your comments. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 37 Bryant: House: Bryant: House: Bryant: House: Bryant: House: Bryant: House: Bryant: Ward: McKinney: Lois Bryant, I just have a question for Mr. House. On opening Center Street, what neighbors did you speak to? I have spoken with the people on Olive. No, I am talking about Center Street. The people on Olive they don't live on Center Street so that would be fine and dandy with them, you open up Center Street you are not doing anything to Olive but who did you speak to on Center Street? I spoke with Verda Watson who has a piece of property on this Center Street right of way. I spoke with Charles Lear who has a piece of property on Center Street right of way. My understanding is that in one of the last meetings the people that represented me visited with the neighbors that live down on Center. No. Nobody spoke to me. I live down on Center, my dad owns the other house. They may not have spoken with everyone that lives down on Center. You did not speak to all the neighbors on Center and get all of our opinions. I did not say we spoke to all the neighbors. You presented it as an opinion from the neighbors on Center Street presented as an opinion of the neighbors you spoke to. How do you feel about the connectivity of Center Street? I am against it. I told you that beforehand. I am against it. Even with the easement, you are going to be taking off of other people's properties which if we decide to develop any of our property we can't do much of anything with it. Thanks for your comment. Rick McKinney again. As far as the improvements to Olive Street, I believe that you should encourage that. When you run cement trucks, lumber trucks, and all the supply trucks that they are going to need to build this, it is going to break down that street which is in somewhat of a process of deterioration because of age at this point in time. I presume this meets your grading ordinance with the hillside and the grade that that is or we wouldn't be even talking about this. Again, Parks and Recreation, I oppose accepting money for green space. There is the recently developed water treatment park up the hill that is no more than concrete walls and a grassy knoll. You have very little area here for the neighborhood to use as green space. I know Greg is planning on using these apartments for young married couples. Young married couples sometimes have children very quickly. Again, the sewer issue. I appreciate Tim's comments after my objections here. Again, when Lindsey and Company does their development at 6th Street down there, you are adding roughly 90 to 100 toilets to this Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 38 Ward: Sinquar: neighborhood in an area where we know the sewer system is to a point of aged condition and deterioration. I would encourage you now and in the future to consider the number of units that you are allowing in these developments. The gentleman sitting here next to me, that had the property out there on Salem, informed me that you have got three other housing developments out there that you have already approved in addition to this one today. We are adding a lot of approvals that are going to hit in the next couple of years before the west side plant goes online. Thank you. Ok, is there anyone else from the neighborhood? I am Leslie Sinquar, I own the property adjacent to this proposed development. I am not sure that this is the most appropriate forum for one of them but first of all my biggest concern is Mr. House will be required to widen and make our block of Olive Street bigger increasing the capacity for the traffic. However, then what happens? This will bottleneck all of this additional traffic from the complex will then be bottlenecked onto very narrow, steep Spring Street. Beyond that Olive Street in the next few blocks north are very narrow and very substandard, particularly between Dickson and Lafayette. There are deep ditches. If cars are parked there is only one lane of passage and Spring couldn't handle a lot of additional traffic just within the few blocks of Olive further north. My children walk home from school down Olive Street and there are no sidewalks. There are deep ditches. My daughter has already had a couple of close calls due to the increased traffic from Mr. Schmitt's project on Olive Street due to the on street parking. There have been numerous evenings that I have been concerned about emergency vehicles being able to get through with the increased traffic that would be. I am thinking the city, before this type of project is approved, we really do have to look at where all this traffic is going to go beyond our block of Olive and without sidewalks beyond that with the school children walking home as well because their lives will be in danger. Like I said, I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate forum. I wanted to address this to Mr. House previously. I am real concerned about the building next to mine which will be facing Olive Street and then behind that there will be another building that will run parallel to my backyard. I know that your requirements are only the city ordinances that you have to follow the law, I am very concerned about balconies, back porches, whatever may be on the building that runs parallel to my backyard. Already in the townhouses facing Fletcher whose backyards are adjacent to my backyard, over the years renters have come and gone. There have been good renters, there have been bad renters. There have been good renters who have had big parties. There have been drunks on the balcony on the back that on more than one occasion have harassed my children playing in the backyard. Even set way back, when the leaves are off the trees even though the townhouses facing Fletcher, even though there is a great distance from my backyard, there is a considerable distance, even still there has been a problem with privacy and with the renters having interaction with my kids when they have been in drunken states. Now there is not going to be much distance at all between the back of that one apartment running parallel to my yard and my yard, very little buffer, very, very little buffer. I would like to see increased buffer. Preferably natural buffer with more trees, I like more space and more trees. However, if that is not possible I Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 39 Ward: Chaddick: Edwards: Chaddick: Ward: Gable: Ward: would at least like to see a large privacy fence. The other issue I would like to just throw in. I personally deeply object to that particular area being referred to as infill. I would like to invite anyone who sees it that way to join me for a hike. I have always known that it would someday be developed. I had no idea it would be to that degree of density. To pass it off as infill, to use that term to make it look like an environmentally positive thing, like this is infill, this is a good thing for the environment, I think of infill as developing areas, vacant lots, warehouses, whatever, to accommodate people for housing. This is adjacent to a 91 acre wooded area forest and the wildlife that we have, I have five deer in my yard in the morning. I have always accepted that that land would be developed. It really hurts me to have it be referred to as infill, like it is a good environmentally positive thing. As I said, I would like to invite anyone who sees it that way to join me on a hike. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to make public comment? Yes, Susan Chaddick, I live on the corner of Spring Street and Olive. I just think it is ludicrous to talk about 48 bedrooms and 51 parking spaces. One of those being a handicapped parking. When we have guests where are they going to park? I ask you, where are they going to park? When you have a one bedroom apartment couples both working to pay the standard cost of this housing, where are they going to park, one car behind the other car in a slot? This is in my estimation a huge, huge problem that you all are faced with. I would like to ask, Mr. House makes comment in his letter to us that 1.3 spaces per unit is the maximum allowed, is there a possibility of getting a waiver from that 1.3 and even moving that up to 1.5? Yes, a waiver can be requested for additional parking. Then I will continue to harp away at the parking issue. It is a huge, huge problem. Thank you. I am Julie Gable and I would like to reiterate the parking problem that we have right now. The block just north of us where Bobby Schmitt has built some duplexes, it is really difficult to get out, especially with the snow right now. It is difficult to drive down the street and he has parking within his complex. Time and again there are cars lined up. I counted 13 that were just lined on the side of the street and it is really difficult to get by, especially somebody in an SUV vehicle. I would really like to reiterate the problem that we are having with that and the proposed development is going to increase it many times of what it is right now. I think we really need to address this and do something positive for the neighborhood. Also, looking at our neighborhood as a near historic site with the confederate cemetery. I would like to keep the flavor of our neighborhood, not necessarily the same, along with the Mount Sequoyah look and feel. I don't have an easy answer but I would really like to make that really adamant request. Thank you. Is there any other public comment? Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 40 Bryant: Ward: I think I would simply like to ask you to consider what a renter is going to feel like if they come home at 5:30 in the afternoon and they don't have a place to park onsite. I can't imagine renting where there is no possibility of being assured that when I come home in the afternoon from work that I am going to be able to park. If there is the upscale renter that you are proposing to rent to, especially if there is a couple, I can't imagine people paying the upscale rent when they don't have a place to park. Thank you all for your comments. I will close it to the public at this time. Really what I get from this Greg is that from the additional infill most people have brought, as the statistics have shown, a lot more vehicles into the neighborhood than what is even allowed or maybe recommended by our Planning Commission as far as parking. I do live on Mount Sequoyah. All the streets up there, even Assembly, which I live on, is a state highway, it is very narrow, there are cars parked up and down it and it is almost one way most of the time. People have to park somewhere. I think parking is probably my main concern too. I would like to see you address that. My personal opinion is I still like your concept with the way you are putting this in as far as the cul-de-sac and the widening of Olive and making it a much better and more usable street. I am not sure that I am really excited about opening up either Fletcher or Center Street personally but there again, I am just one person on a committee of nine and we try to make the best decisions we can with what we have to work with meeting all the city ordinances. We have looked at this fairly hard a couple of times now and I'm not sure that any of us will ever come to a compete census on this. There are nine members on the Planning Commission and we always have varied ideas of what we think should be done. There are some people that think we ought to put a super highway right across Mount Sequoyah and some people are adamantly going to block that for sure. Everybody has their different take on how things should be done. Do you have any other statements that you would like to make? House: Just a couple of quick ones just to help. I will start with the last. Our design is traditional. Chaddick: I think I am talking more about the parking all along the street. House: I am not sure that can be helped. In the historic district you have parking along the street. Most people don't even have garages in the historic district. To the parking, I believe that we can definitely get to the maximum allowed by the ordinance, which is 1.3 onsite and then have on street, adjacent to our property, as the neighbors have requested, another eight spaces, which brings us to 1.44, which kind of allows us to stretch the code as it is written. I agree with that. From a practical standpoint I feel that that is necessary. I will say that we don't rent just to couples. We get a lot of single people that rent one bedroom apartments and that is part of what we aim toward. I think the ratio of 1.3 to 1.44 will work for us. Secondly, I just want to point out that we are proposing the same number of bedrooms that are allowed in R-1.5 zoning. We are not even coming close to the R-2 as far as what we are asking for in density. With respect to Leslie's comments about balconies, the buildings are turned so that there is pretty much a blank wall towards her property and not balconies. As far as traffic, we have Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 41 submitted a professional traffic study regarding traffic safety. My understanding is if we didn't do anything we are in good shape. Ward: Commissioners, do you have any questions? Bunch: I have several questions. Matt, at one time we had before us a development further up the hill. I may have asked you this previously, Ron Petrie brought us a map of the sewer situation on Mount Sequoyah. There was one system of sewer lines that was at capacity and having problems and another section of the sewer system that appeared to be flowing quite well. Can you elaborate on how this relates to the different sewer layouts on the mountain? Casey: I will have to check on that for you. I did look at this with Mr. Petrie when this first came in and that didn't come up. An assumption would be that it is not in the area of concern but I will double check with that if there are any problems. Bunch: We beat around the bush a lot on densities and from Mr. House's standpoint I appreciate his comment that he continues to shoot at a moving target. We have got neighbors all speaking of different densities. One neighbor over here says that one less building and more parking would be acceptable. The question I have is have you all gotten together, Mr. House and the neighborhood association and the neighborhood come to a conclusion to present to Mr. House saying this is the density that we can accept. You are putting the pressure on us to listen to comments from a multitude of different neighbors expressing different densities and then you are expecting Mr. House to respond to all of these and spend his money but it seems to me that it would be imperative that the neighborhood get together and say if you are going to have a unified front you should have a unified front on what you will accept, you have one on what you won't accept. If we are going to make progress why can't we do things like that? We have a meeting Tuesday night on New Urbanism and Smart Growth. I would like to definitely extend an invitation to the neighborhood association concerned with this to look at those. We are having all these people come in and speak of Smart Growth and New Urbanism. People on the outlying areas say we want infill, we don't want sprawl and it all comes down to the situation where people want infill, want infill, until it is in their backyard. Until we can open up some dialogue and get some communication and have people make commitments and say what you will accept. Also on revising the hillside standards and the development standards. I feel like the information that we are getting in a meeting like this can go a long way in helping what we are looking at in the future. Yes, we have a big block of R-2 from Fletcher west if that needs to be revised then we need good dialogue from the people live with the situation and can show us the errors in that. We are put in a position to make decisions for people often times without good information. If you all could attend that deal Tuesday night and then if you could get with Mr. House and talk to him about what kind of densities are acceptable. I think we can shorten this process considerably. Chaddick: The letter that you got from Mr. House was a reply to our letter that we sent him. We were advised not to bargain specifically on number of units, the way we should best approach it would be to request more parking spaces because that is Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 42 really what we are talking about. By code those are the issues. The traffic, the safety, the topography, those are the issues that stop or continue a project. By ordinance and code he is under the R-2. If that is what you want us to do, if you want us to come and say we want it 15 units and two bedroom units, I don't think legally we can do that. House: I was pleased to see the letter from the neighbors that signed the letter. Chaddick: Don't get us mixed up with the Mount Sequoyah Neighborhood Association. These are just the Olive residents. House: But these are the people that are most affected I think we can go 80% of the way to meeting their needs. The real issue I see is who pays and how much offsite development do we do. The rest of it, the parking and the Bill of Assurances and the garbage enclosures and the tree things and all of that, I think we are on the same page on. The real issue is whether we do a street in front of their house and the connectivity if I am paraphrasing that correctly. I think we can get the parking at least that meets the law. Ward: Mr. Bunch, are there any other comments? I am ready to get out of here. Hoover: If I can get staff to just explain quickly, what improvements are you suggesting on Olive and exactly where? Conklin: Extending Olive down to Center Street and then extending Center Street down. Hoover: You are not talking about anything offsite from Olive to Spring at all? Conklin: We are trying to have a balance there. Require connectivity and building new streets and not doing any additional work. Hoover: So no improvements from Olive to Spring, only in front of his property and this would be a narrower street in front of this property on Olive? Conklin: We need to talk about the issue of on street parking. There is 60' of right of way here, I think we would want to make sure that we could have on street parking and have two way traffic. House: We thought we could still do the 20' pavement and then have the additional for parking. Conklin: As you can tell he hasn't provided a plan and I think everything is up for discussion here. My biggest issue was not just looking at this project but looking at the entire hillside and regardless, I heard let's build streets and let's not build streets, if it is single-family homes or if it is apaitments, in order to develop you are going to need a street. Unless you leave it open space and you don't develop it. Even on single-family homes like Olive Street has a street in front of each house. That is a typical urban city type development, a house with a street in Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 43 front of it. Whether it is single-family or apartments we are looking at a street extension and connections. Hoover: Let me ask you this. If this were a new development further out and not infill, what would we be requiring the developer to build? Conklin: On larger complexes or apartments? Hoover: This size. In a similar situation but where we are not infilling, like the last Preliminary Plat that we had. Conklin- That is why I brought up that plat. We require street connectivity, the connections. This is already kind of set on this plat. Hoover: I am just saying that we are not asking the developer to do anything that we wouldn't ask someone else to do if it weren't infill. I guess I'm thinking if this were out there he would have to develop this street here wouldn't he? Conklin: This is what is challenging about these unequated subdivision plats, these paper subdivisions. We had the same issue up on Rochier Heights, Ken Marvin didn't want to build any of that street out. There are hundreds of lots up there and streets. At the same time we are land locking property. Typically on an apartment complex. Let me answer your question, this is a traditional grid type street pattern. You look at a map of Fayetteville on the wall right there it is a lot more dense, it is platted in lots and blocks traditional design of street systems. As you move out you have more cul-de-sacs and dead end streets and everything funnels out onto an arterial street system and everybody has to go on the same street to either get to downtown or to the mall. I guess I can't answer your question because it is a whole different street pattern system that Fayetteville historically was platted with, that is residential lots and blocks verses creating a subdivision with stub outs and cross connection with arterial streets that pick up the traffic. You probably wouldn't have three streets on three sides of a project. Hoover: Ok. Ward: Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: Mr. House, do you feel that you have enough information that you can do whatever is necessary between now and the full Planning Commission for this to be forwarded? I know there are some issues that will never be settled. I guess there haven't been any technical changes. Edwards: Are you going to add parking? House: Definitely I would like to add parking but I would like to do it in a way without having to spend a bunch of money. I would like to go forward with approvals upon us getting to 1.3 or whatever it is rather than me coming in and replatting and redoing drainage and redoing the whole thing and you all say we don't want to forward it anyway. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 44 Conklin: I let Mr. House come forward with this project because I don't want someone to spend the time and money if the Commission is not going to require the street connections. Offsite street improvements, that needs to be decided. Bunch: Ok. That being said, I will move that we forward LSD 02-29.00 to the full Planning Commission where it can be discussed further with public meetings and maybe you can get some definitive information. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I will concur. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 45 Discussion of Cliffs Redesign of Parking Lot Hesse: The reason I am bringing this to you is this plan shows more than the minimum requirement. When we went out to inspect it for final approval they met the minimum but they didn't meet the plan. We need direction of can we approve it this way? We know that you approved this layout however, this layout wasn't built exactly They do meet the minimums except one area that I will discuss lately. Overall, we need to have direction from you all do you want us to bring these things back or do you want us to make an administrative decision? Ward: I think as long as it meets our minimum you can make an administrative decision. If it meets our standards that is all that matters. Bunch: Are you talking about someone coming back and leaving a great long expanse of asphalt? Hesse: When I say minimum they would meet the 12 parking spaces, this shows like 6. The other item is there is an area on here that would call for a waiver, they do have 20 spaces without an island. We could go about this two ways, they could put the island there or we could ask them to put trees along that side. Bunch: I like the trees along the side because a lot of times the trees in the islands may not survive. Kelso: There is a lot of drainage in this particular location and that is why we were thinking it would be better if we could plant the trees along the sides verses the island. Hesse: We would require double the trees. I am afraid they wouldn't survive on this island anyway. Bunch: On some of these projects that have come through we have looked at specific locations for islands and we have called them out in the minutes like this here to break this up or it was a tradeoff like out at the hospital or something like this but I think these were just more or less meeting standards. When in doubt bring it up but in this particular case I think it is ok. Hesse: They put in a lot more trees than what were required. We would ask them to put more right here because we don't have an island. Bunch: That would have an effect on it too depending on how many teeth we had to pull to get the trees. This would save a lot of trees, add a lot more landscaping trees and so having some latitude to shift these around I don't see any real problem with that. It is still the general idea. There will be some probably where it does make a difference. Hesse: Ok. Ward: As long as they meet minimum standards. Subdivision Committee February 27, 2003 Page 46 Bunch: You should ask Commissioner Hoover, she may have a different idea. Hoover: I think as long as they meet the minimum standards and we are getting more trees that is fine with me.