Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-03 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, April 3, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 03-26.00 & 27.00: Lot Split (City of Fayetteville, pp 219) Page 3 C-PZD 03-2.00: Planned Zoning District (Lowes, 557/596) Page 7 R-PZD 03-3.00: Planned Zoning District (North College Development Company, pp 485) Page 24 LSD 03-12.00: Large Scale Development (Skate Station, 639) Page 33 LSD 03-13.00: Large Scale Development (Duncan Avenue Apartments, 561) Page 42 PPL 03-9.00: Preliminary Plat (Clabber Creek, Phase II, pp 322) Page 63 PPL 03-10.00: Preliminary Plat (Copper Creek, Phase II, pp 61/100 Page 66 Approved Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Tabled Forwarded Forwarded Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Alan Ostner Sharon Hoover Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT Kim Hesse Rebecca Turner Sara Edwards Matt Casey Renee Thomas Tim Conklin STAFF ABSENT Fire Department Solid Waste Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 3 LSP 03-26.00 & 27.00: Lot Split (City of Fayetteville, pp 219) was submitted by Edward Connell on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located at 3265 Gulley Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 12.0 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 4.0 acres, 3.0 acres and 5.0 acres. Hoover: LSP 03-26.00 & 27.00, can you tell us about that Sara? Edwards: Yes. This is a Lot Split for the City of Fayetteville for city property located at 3265 Gulley Road. Right now it is 12 acres. The request is to split into four acres, three acres, and five acres. Right now it is the site of the Gulley Road water tank out in the county. There is no zoning. We are getting some additional right of way pursuant to the Master Street Plan but there are no conditions other than the standard conditions of approval. I would like to recommend approval at the Subdivision Committee level. Hoover: Ok. Do we have any staff reports? Matt? Casey: I don't have any comments. Hoover: Anything from Tree and Landscape or Parks? Nothing apparently. Our applicant is Ed Connell. Is there anything you want to tell us about this? Connell: This is a lot at the end of a long 1,300 foot plot off of Gulley Road. Basically this is being sold to Ozark Electric who will be putting in an electrical substation at the rear of this property. Hoover: I guess at this time I will ask for public comment. Is there anyone who would like to comment on this lot split? Jacks: Ernie Jacks, I would like to say that for what it is worth there are property line disputes on the north and south sides and probably the east and west too. Hoover: Ed, could you comment to that? Connell: We have our surveys which we have gone by in this lot split. We tried to remedy some of these deficiencies but most of them occur on the east end of the property. This west end is in pretty good shape. We are basically going to maintain both of the surveys here. We are not going to intrude on Mr. Jack's property and so on and so forth. Hoover: Mr. Jacks, are you familiar with the survey? Jacks: Yes. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 4 Connell: Here is the fence line, this is the property line. This is Mr. Jacks' property here. Here is where we are. We are inside that fence line so there should be no problems. Bunch: What about down into this part over here? Connell: Down in here we have got a little greater discrepancy. We have tried to resolve that. Virtually it all kind of boils down to the bearings associated with the line in here because both this point and that point are the same distance on the south side. We can't really resolve those particular bearings. He has had a survey and we had a survey and these surveyors don't always fall on top of each other so that is basically where it is. When we go up here we do need to go to court to resolve it. This is based upon our survey by an independent professional surveyor, Alan Reid. We are comfortable with it. Other people may or may not be. Hoover: I guess I have to ask staff can we approve a lot split that has a dispute with the property line? Edwards: Typically how that works is the property line is disputed between the two parties involved. If this weren't a city issue what we would say is that you need to reconcile your independent surveys and sometimes it has to be settled in court. It sounds like what Ed is saying is we are willing to not intrude on any of the adjacent properties. I think as a city I think we could be able to adjust it to satisfy. I don't know what he is proposing. Hoover: Mr. Jacks would you come up here and look at this? Connell: This lot was previously approved split. Jacks: It may not effect your business one way or the other. However, I do know that there are surveys filed in conflict with one another here, here, and here. Connell: He is right, they do. All of these are based on a corner over here and a corner down there. Jacks: That is one side of the deal. Connell: The old fence line was far from where the survey lines are. In any case, that is pretty much the story on that. Jacks: It may not effect your business one way or another but it remains in conflict. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 5 Ostner: Mr. Connell if this were to pass is there any development going on that would effect the disputed areas? Connell: Not unless Mr. Jacks is doing some developing. Jacks: No, not yet. Connell: I don't think it would effect anything. The city is not going to do anything. Jacks: There is not a buyer for this piece yet right? Connell: No. Jacks: From what I have seen from Ozarks Electric they are holding back from that dispute. Connell: Yes. That is our survey out there. We surveyed this portion here and we want to stay away from any dispute. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other public comment on this lot split? If not, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Subdivision Committee. Bunch: I have a question on this lot split 03-26.00 & 27.00, does that just reflect tracts A and C because we are showing on our drawing that B was previously approved? Edwards: We went ahead and just incorporated it in here so it is for all three. I don't think it ever got filed. Connell: It didn't get filed. That was for sale at one point in time and the gentleman down here was going to buy it and then this property dispute got brought forward and so he backed out. This never got implemented. Bunch: So we are actually looking at two lot splits. Connell: Well it was approved at that time, it was just never implemented. Bunch: Sara, after it leaves here does it go to the County? Connell: Yes. Bunch: Ed, can you tell us about this access? Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 6 Connell: Bunch: Connell: Bunch: Edwards: Bunch: Hoover: Edwards: MOTION: Bunch: Ostner: Hoover: Since this lot has no access except the city has retained a 50' area south of this particular lot to get back to our water tanks. Effectively, they will get as part of the deed a perpetual, you can call it an easement, it is not a defined easement. The city wants the ability to maybe change this road at some point in the future just because we have got two more tanks that can be built at the top of this hill so we may want to utilize some of this. They will have access. We will provide them access at all times ingress and egress. What made me wonder is that it shows that there is perpetual access but it is not in the verbiage of the description of any of the rights of ways or other accesses or easements. It will be part of the Warranty Deed. Ok. Sara, is the 50' access within our requirements, is that wide enough? Yes, that will be fine. Because it is used for public utilities it doesn't need to fit into the guidelines of a standard residential. Ok. That is all the question I have on it. I have a question, is Renee supposed to be here? No, we're ok. I move that we approve LSP 03-26.00 & 27.00 at the Subdivision level realizing that there are disputes on the property line that will need to be agreed upon by the parties involved. I will second. I will concur. Thanks Ed. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 7 C-PZD 03-2.00: Planned Zoning District (Lowes, 557/596) was submitted by Lance Mills of Ozark Civil Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. for property located at the southwest corner of Finger Road and Highway 62. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, R -O, Residential Office, and R-2, Medium Density Residential containing approximately 21.53 acres. The request is for a Commercial Planned Zoning District for a Lowes Home Center containing 13.9 acres (133,532 sq.ft. building) and a retail out lot containing 7.9 acres with 3.1 acres of tree preservation proposed. Hoover: The next project is a C-PZD 03-2.00 submitted by Lance Mills of Ozark Civil Engineering, Inc. Sara, will you tell us about this? Edwards: This is a Planned Zoning District. We are incorporating both the zoning approval and the Large Scale Development approval. There is also a Lot Split incorporated into this. There is also a Lowe's Home Center which is 133,532 sq.ft. retail outlet which is 63,876 sq.ft. Lot 2B will be split out and developed later and then there is 3.1 acres in tree preservation which is actually off the site but we will have a conservation easement on it. They have 590 parking spaces for Lowe's and another 304 for the retail, which is within our requirements. They have got water and sewer available. Right of way for 6`h Street, which is a principal arterial, is existing right now. We are recommending this be forwarded and it will have to go to City Council as well. Conditions that we would like to discuss is that Sherman Way, which is currently proposed as a private drive, is required to meet minimum street standards. We are wanting to look at the intersection of Sherman Way and 6th Street for further study. We want to explore some possibility of doing a traffic study to make sure that it is not going to cause congestion or accidents and that there is adequate stacking room. We may not need a traffic study, we may be able to work with the applicant and get that worked out to everyone's satisfaction. Secondly, they have requested a waiver to allow for parking spaces larger than 9'. There are some contractors spaces 10' wide, which is 1' greater than standard width for contractor parking and we are in support of that request. Also, they are asking for a waiver for aisles wider than 24' in width. There are some 40' and some 55'. Right now I can't make a finding on that. Really I need to see more the trucks and the type of turning movements they need to make before we can say we support or don't. They are also requesting a waiver from the landscape island around the front of the building. Their landscape plan is not showing a continuous planting of shrubs that is required adjacent to parking lots along the right of way. The offsite tree preservation easement must be filed prior to permit. Large Scale Development approval will be required for the development of lot 2B. Finally, Planning Commission determination of compliance with commercial design standards including signage. The building, we are recommending that the building materials Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 8 Casey: be revised for the Lowe's building and the retail building. I have spoke with them this morning and they are willing to do that. Also roof mounted utilities, dumpsters, and truck loading docks must be screened from the right of way. Signs, they are asking for a waiver and that their sign be allowed to extend more than 18" above the roofline. Their proposal is 46.25". There are two freestanding signs proposed. They are proposing a Lowe's sign which is a 30' tall pole sign. It exceeds the maximum square footage by quite a bit. The maximum square footage is 75 sq.ft. and we are recommending that be reduced. There is also an area identification sign that is going to be on lot 2B for the other retail development and that meets our ordinance requirements. They have revised this one to match closer with the color of the Lowe's development. This is the extension of the sign above the roofline. That is all that I have. Matt with Engineering, what are your comments? I have a couple of comments about the sidewalks. We require a 6' sidewalk and a minimum 10' greenspace along Hwy. 62. It doesn't look like they are showing the greenspace that we requested at Plat Review. A 6' sidewalk will also be required along Sherman Way and Finger Road. We didn't request the Finger Road sidewalk at the time of Plat Review because I believe this was grading only at that time. With the addition of the retail building in the parking lot the addition of that sidewalk will be required. Just to touch on the Sherman Way. Sara had mentioned that we needed to look at that. We are not recommending that the island be installed if this is going to be a public street someday. If your intentions are to maintain that as a private drive that will be fine but the city doesn't want to maintain any islands out there. We need to look at this to make sure it meets all the requirements of our minimum street standards. Hoover: Would you mind repeating where the 6' sidewalk would be? Casey: We are requiring a 6' sidewalk along Finger Road, Hwy. 62 and the proposed Sherman Way. Hoover: Are you saying those are on the plans now? Casey: The Sherman Way one is. The sidewalk along Hwy. 62 is there but the greenspace is not and neither one is shown along Finger Road. That comment was not made at Plat Review because this was not included at the time, these additional retail buildings were not shown on the original plat. Ostner: Where is that additional greenspace supposed to be on Hwy. 62? Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 9 Casey: Between the curb and the sidewalk. It would be located back at the right of way. Ostner: Oh, I see. The sidewalk is within the right of way right now. Casey: The sidewalk would still be in the right of way and it would just be pushed away from that. Ostner: Oh, I see. The space just needs switched. Hoover: Then on Finger there is no sidewalk shown. Casey: There is none shown, we are recommending adding that. Hoover: Those are the two issues. Edwards: There may need to be some more right of way dedication on Finger too. Hoover: How will we know? Edwards: It needs a minimum of 25' and actually, they have got exactly 25' so it is ok. Hoover: Matt on drainage how are they doing on that? Casey: They proposed two detention ponds for the development in the rear and a small one up front along 6th Street and that will be taking care of the entire development. There are wetlands on the site and they have been working with a specialist to work out the process with the wetlands. Lance might be able to tell you more about that. Hoover: Ok. Do we have anything from Parks on this? Edwards: No. Hoover: Tree preservation Kim? Hesse: Please show the sizes of your plants. That is really all I have on landscaping other than a requirement of shrubs along here. For tree preservation we really don't have a good tree preservation plan that you can vote on. You need to show basically what you show me. It shows all the existing trees and you need to provide this for them to review so they know what is happening out here. You need that by probably Tuesday so they can get that for our agenda session on Thursday. This is along Hwy. 62. This shows the existing canopy throughout the site. What we are Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 10 showing is here is your wetland area and this is an area that has canopy within it and we are from 20" oak, hickory, walnut I think a lot of that is scattered to the back out here. This is an area very much the same. This is an area that is mainly cedar and a lot of this has been inundated with moisture. It is very, very wet through this area. You can kind of see your property line. What they have done is included this in the site plan. This kind of canopy continues into this area. Hoover: This is the detention pond. Hesse: I really have to meet with you Lance. If we are including that area that calculation has to be figured into this. Mills: Ok, that makes sense. That offsite impact for the pond. Hesse: Absolutely. We have got it preserved. I was under the understanding that this was a part of your purchase, is that correct? Mills: This four acres will not be a part of the purchase. It is split off and it will be preserved in an easement. Mark, you might be able to help me a little bit. Lowe's didn't want to purchase something that is going to be set aside for an easement but it will be tied to this and it will be in an easement filed. Mark: Hesse: The agreement with Dr. Leffler was that he has the option to purchase this. The private agreement that will be recorded at the court house allows that to be preserved as undisturbed. I guess the issue there is we have to track where that property is and who's ownership it is in. If in the event he doesn't purchase that whose ownership will it remain in, how do we ensure that preservation easement? I know we will have the easement but there has to be a property owner attached to that. Will that be the Cobb Westphal? I want to look at that again when you calculated with the 15% did you count that as existing square footage for the whole site or did you just include that? Mills: I will have to look at this again. I think that I took this and then applied that. I didn't count this twice. Hesse: This is something that we can work out by agenda session. Basically we are preserving the best quality of canopy right here. It is better quality because of the canopy that is in it as well as the fact that it provides a buffer for an adjacent property owner that is highly impacted from the development. I just want to make sure that we have the numbers correct and that this is the best type of preservation. When you do preservation Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 11 offsite it is not as valuable as onsite and I really look at it differently. That is why I asked for it to all be one and I guess I thought it would all be one piece of property. We also have to look at what is happening here and the amount of canopy we are losing here. Mills: Actually we have three tracts. We have this one that Lowe's will build on. They are not really one but we are treating them as one for the PZD and tree preservation. That is probably where our communication broke down a little bit. Hesse: We looked at the entire tract here that encompasses much more than this property. We have looked at it as preserving the high quality canopy up front for the entire future and part of that includes this. Hoover: I don't know if this is clear property. Hesse: Not for this but the potential seller has much more. Hoover: Would you all identify yourselves? Mills: I am Lance Mills with Ozark Civil Engineering. Millis: I am Mark Millis with Lowe's. David Cummings is over there and he is Drunger Development. He has an option to purchase 20 plus or minus acres from the overall 90 acre tract of Cobb and Westphal. With that he is selling off to Lowe's the 13.6 acre piece as you can see probably better on this site plan. When we had our initial meetings with staff it was decided that the Planned Zoning Development which would include the Lowe's and Dorado seven acre tract would encompass that PZD. The tree mitigation for that as we moved forward with Dr. Leffler it became apparent that that portion needed to be preserved as a buffer to him as well as counting as tree preservation for the development. As Kim said there was an overall plan done for the entire 90 acres at one time identifying where the best trees were and what should be saved. Hesse: Initially we looked at preserving in this area for this development and then we really looked at this for the buffer reasons and also because it is nice quality canopy. That is why this hasn't just popped up on us. We have been looking at this for a very long time and trying to find out the very best way to do this for tree preservation as well as future planning. There are just some things that we have to work out as far as how well they look on the plan so that you guys know what you are recommending for approval as far as tree preservation. I don't think it is anything that we couldn't work out. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 12 Hoover: Let me bring it to the Commission for a second. I am a little confused on the property. Is the detention pond outside your property line? Mills: Yes, outside the property line for Lowe's and Dorado. It will be on the remaining portion of the Cobb -Westphal property. Bunch: Ok, we are looking at this space here, here and here on the PZD and then this is a drawing from the lot split that came through previously. Mills: The reason for that is that we are actually incorporating the water for this remaining property here that would probably be developed commercially at some point. We have included that into the calculations for the pond so it is really a regional detention pond. Hoover: Is that regional going to take care of the rest of this acreage too or only this lot here? Millis: It is going to be sized for this lot and this portion of what is on this side of that ridge. It will be upsized. It will be designed and built to handle that, this, and this development. Hesse: Some of it flows this way. This is flowing in this direction so that makes sense. Mills: There is a big ravine here and as part of the permitting through the Corp. this cannot be touched. We don't want to go in there and disturb that. It is in a different system. Hoover: Sara, I guess I don't understand that we can do a detention pond that is not within this. Edwards: We can. They have to have a maintenance agreement between the property owners but we can. Mills: Which is included in your packet. Bunch: Do we have a representative from Cobb -Westphal here since we are talking about a lot of things that are going on with their property? Mills: We don't but he really represents Cobb -Westphal because he has a contract with them on the property. Bunch: That is pretty important. We have a lot of offsite work being proposed and we should include the property owners. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 13 Cummings: They hired local engineers, Crafton & Tull and they were informed of this meeting well in advance and I am surprised that no one is here. Millis: What we do have though Sir is an agreement between Lowe's, Cobb & Westphal, and Dr. Leffler that addresses everything that is occurring on the plan and the PZD. Cummings: Millis: Mills: Bunch: Mills: Bunch: Hoover: Edwards: Hoover: That will be a recordable instrument too. That is actually in the final form to check. We have been working close with Crafton because we upsized that pond based on the numbers that they gave us and he has reviewed that drainage study as well. Since this is a PZD and it will be going not only to the Planning Commission but to the City Council, I think we need a lot better documentation than we have and a lot better descriptions because this will become an ordinance. We need to have the least amount of confusion and the best descriptions that we can. That will expedite the process through both the Planning Commission and the City Council. So maybe an overall plan and a description showing this pond? That is definitely what we need to show how it interrelates with the offsite property. We need the whole picture. Sara, on the PZDs, I know that they are still new here. I was a little surprised. I thought if we had one property owner we would be showing the entire piece of property development or proposed plat divisions or how access will be. It was at the last Subdivision Committee meeting that we approved a Lot Split which actually split this lot, the Lowe's lot and the remaining acreage. They have worked to build access to the remaining property off of 6th Street. If you remember Superior built part of a drive, they connected to that to show access. We have asked them to look at future plans and they are just not very far in the planning of that but they are working on it. I would think part of this submittal would be good to have that information as far as access. I think that everyone will start looking at this and wonder how you get to the rest of the property. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 14 Cummings: The access to the balance of the property is going to be off of Sherman Way and there is going to be another artery coming out to Finger Road behind this other tract. Mills: That is why we went ahead and built this cul-de-sac in anticipation of what they might come up with. Everything that they have come up with so far is at best very conceptual. Cummings: All single-family. Mills: The PZD just deals with this tract but as you pointed out we are impacting this. Hoover: Bunch: That is when you start impacting the other tracts then for me the PZD is spreading to the next piece of property. We talked about a detention area as well as tree preservation and wetland mitigation, the wetlands that you are showing on this site here are they going to be mitigated offsite since you are covering them up? Mills: The wetlands that the Lowe's tract is impacting is 20 acres and we have already got them permitted through the Corp. They are wetlands that were manmade when they put all this fill on here they basically trapped the water so they aren't your high end wetlands. At the Planning Commission and the City Council meeting there will be a representative from Adams Engineering that did do the permitting for that. They can talk a little more in depth about the different types of wetlands and stuff. The city has a copy of the permit and what was turned into the Corp. of Engineers. What we are impacting and what we got permitted are wetlands that were manmade here. Bunch: Will those just be eliminated or will you have to mitigate them? Mills: The way the permit reads is for those wetlands, there is a designated area here that have to be set into an easement before any land disturbance can go through here. That basically protects this whole zone here in this valley which has some high quality wetlands within it. In addition, they are having to build a couple of weir structures in here to actually back water up and to create some more wetlands. Hoover: Bunch: On each one of these we have got detention and we have got wetland mitigation outside the area of our PZD. That is offsite so that will have to be part of the submittal too. When we are looking at wetlands here and then all of the sudden they disappear we Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 15 need to know what is happening in that if that is going to be accommodated in this area then we definitely need that information also. Mills: We are doing some offsite things which seems to be the concern. It may need some clarity before we go to the Planning Commission. I want to make it clear that we are trying to be completely up front and in the open and there are no hidden agendas here. I just want to put your mind to rest there. It is probably a great idea to maybe establish a plan that shows all the offsite and maybe more well defines these for the Planning Commission. That is something that we definitely can do because we have all the information. It is just putting it into a form that you guys want to see. Bunch: One of the things that we are trying to accomplish here is to rectify any deficiencies in the submittal package and to clarify as much as possible. Again, this one goes to the City Council and the City Council is having problems with extended agenda. The better we can do our job here the easier it makes it on the City Council and the shorter the City Council meetings are. Since all of this, as you say, is up front we need that up front information so that there aren't any surprises to people later on in the process. The lack of knowledge is what causes misunderstanding. As much information as you can give us will help expedite the process. Hoover: Always the more information you have the better on these. How are you going to do this? Can you go across the wetlands for access or how does that piece of property access? Mills: That is kind of why I think we don't show anything in the remaining portion of the property because once you start showing a few things then the questions start rolling in of what is going to happen to that property, how is it going to be accessed, how are you going to get sewer? We don't know. We aren't developing that. We don't even know if it can be developed due to the grades and the slopes out there and the utilities and the cost and so that is why we stopped where we did instead of getting into something that we don't have the information to provide to anyone and don't know when and if it will ever be developed. Ostner: I don't think we here at the Subdivision Committee really require a drawing and design of everything else. I think for me some legal agreements talking about the preservation area being attached, talking about how the wetlands is going to be mitigated offsite, talking about how that detention pond is affecting this and possibly the future of why it is being oversized. Is that going to be adequate or do we need drawings because they don't own the rest. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 16 Bunch: Ostner: Cummings: Bunch: Cummings: Hoover: Cummings: Hoover: Cummings: We definitely need the property owner for the remaining property to be part of the process since there is so much that is going on on their land. I am just wondering if that can be legal agreements instead of him actually designing the place. In our site development agreement the four party agreement has been agreed with the balance that is 82 acres total that the balance will be restricted to single-family development only. We have gotten the Cobb & Westphal families to agree with that. The reason that they have not come up with a specific plan for the balance of that acreage is it is just taking time to understand. There is a lot of topography there and the highest and best use they have clearly pointed out is residential. They have no immediate plan whatsoever to start developing that property so it is difficult to come up with a master plan for the whole 82 acres when they don't have any immediate plans to develop it. Possibly a conceptual plan would suffice. We do have a conceptual plan. I think that would help. I am trying to figure out how you are going to get access and I'm sure you have got some ideas on that and how the detention pond affects just general conceptual. To get access to the back of the property? Right. That is not shown with Sherman Way because that is going to be a cul-de- sac and it is going to be up to the Cobbs and Westphals to continue that cul-de-sac to the balance of their property. Mills: Sherman Way will provide for here. The conceptual that I saw that Crafton & Tull did is Sherman Way will provide access and Finger Road there will be one access here. Millis: In that four party agreement that David mentioned, there are stipulations to these access agreements with the neighboring property owner which we met with last week. Hoover: One of my concerns about that is I can see that you continue the loop through here but I am wondering how you get up here with the limitations on cul-de-sacs because I assume there couldn't be access here. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 17 Millis: Since this is what we are developing all the specifics to access and utilities and what have you would be addressed when this would come before the Commission wouldn't it? Hoover: Bunch: Millis: Bunch: Millis: Hoover: Mills: Hoover: Mills: Yes but what happens when we are trying to plan things is we are trying to look into the future and make sure we haven't designed anyone into a corner and now they can only get access. They need five waivers against our ordinances because they did something and didn't look at the full picture. That is why just conceptually. I don't see the need for any elaborate details but I would assume that everyone else would like that. Especially since your detention pond is falling into this property and you are using those wetlands as part of the project also. And the issue of Sherman Way as a private road or if it becomes a public road. If it becomes a public road to access this area that is something we need to look at how it ties in in the future. I don't think that the property owners have any problem with submitting that conceptual plan just for conceptual purposes. The main thing is so we are comfortable with how everything interrelates. We will definitely have them at the next meeting. They have kind of given us the ball and let us run with it and that is what we have done. We did think that Crafton & Tull would be here. Should we go down through these items and address these before we take public comment? We have focused a lot. I think you understand that part of it. Let me ask you a few of Matt's concerns here. On Hwy. 62 you can switch the greenspace and the sidewalk? Yes. It was our intention to provide that. We just need to swap it around. What about on Finger Road the sidewalk and the greenspace? That wasn't a comment on the last one because we added this. We went ahead and designed to show David's future here. Millis: Matt, are you looking for the sidewalk to extend to our southern property line? Casey: Millis: Yes. Do we have the room on there? Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 18 Mills: Yes, we can definitely put that in, I don't see any problem with that. Millis: To me it makes sense to carry it to the front of the building because there is really not anything up here. Hoover: Ostner: Our ordinance is to the property line. That would put you in compliance. We have got the right of way Sara said is fine. Since you don't own that tree preservation area but it's preservation is tied to your development who is going to put a sidewalk along there? Mills: It would stop short of the tree preservation area so we wouldn't disturb the trees with the tree preservation area by building the sidewalk. Ostner: But in a way we are kind of leaving a no man's land because you all aren't developing that but no one is and we kind of leave holes in our sidewalks and I am just wondering how that is going to pan out in the future. Mills: I don't know that it really makes a lot of sense to have sidewalks all the way back up in there. Edwards: Casey: Mills: Cummings: Casey: Edwards: Hoover: Casey: I think they should extend the sidewalk up in there. We will make a recommendation on that. Let me go out and look at it. This wasn't looked at before because this was going to be grading only. Whatever the staff recommends is what we will be doing. We may have to check with Dr. Leffler. We also need to look at street improvements there as well. It will probably be 14' from centerline with curb and gutter before it is approved. I have one comment from reviewing Matt's comments is that the tree lined boulevard at the entry, the city if this becomes a public street isn't it ok that they have this boulevard? It is my understanding that the city does not want to maintain those at this point. We have got several in town that maintenance is a big issue on those. Hoover: We know that we love to have boulevards in Fayetteville so how do we rectify this? Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 19 Casey: That is a good question. If it is a private drive for now and we have to access that later on I don't know, I am going to have to review that. I need to get with Lance and review the actual design of this and make sure they have got adequate stacking for cars. It may not be possible to put that in there. Sara mentioned a traffic study earlier. We want to talk to them about what the estimated number of cars coming in here is and how much stacking they need. There is some consideration that needs to be given here. It is my understanding that there is going to be a light out here as well, is that what I heard? Cummings: Potentially. We have done some initial analysis at the request of the neighborhood at our meeting last week and we have some information that we probably need to present to them because the signal west of 540 could actually delay or increase their wait times on Finger. We were up there this morning and we want to discuss it with them before we proceed with the signal. Ostner: Are there other ingresses and egresses across the street? I see a little curb cut here. Mills: I think there is one about that far further down. Ostner: Are those driveways or just streets? Mills: I think that is the Wild West club there or something. There are a couple of small businesses through here. Ostner: Ok, but no main streets that are offset or whatever. Bunch: There is Dinsmore Trail right in there. The Club West is over here. The rink is over here. If there is a subdivision that comes in that way for long term planning we should be looking at that. Hoover: Sara, on number one, how do we determine if they need to hire a traffic consultant to do the official study? Edwards: What we would like to do is have our traffic engineer along with Matt meet with them and talk about potential traffic and stacking room. If we can come to an agreement internally then I think we wouldn't need a traffic study. Mills: We actually have our traffic engineer here if there are any specific questions. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 20 Edwards: Ostner: Millis: Bunch: Hoover: Edwards: Hoover: Ostner: Millis: Hoover: Millis: Bunch: Millis: Ostner: Millis: Hoover: I think we can all meet and maybe they can provide us the information we need without too much of a problem. It seems like that would tie into the conceptual plan. We are agreeable with it being a public street. I can't remember why it hasn't been actually dedicated. I guess it is because we are not going a Preliminary Plat. Yes, if that other 53 acres is going to develop and use Sherman Way that is pretty important on how it ties in. Is that something you think everyone can get a report together by the right time? There is a lot going on here. We can work on it with them. We will go to number two. Does anyone have any problems with the waiver for larger parking spaces or is there any discussion about that? Where are they? In front of the contractor's section. With that the aisles wider than 24' for large trucks. It is 18 wheelers that come in and access all the way around the building. Back here is wider even though it technically is not a drive aisle for the public, it is more of a truck routing. The other one is this one and the reason it is wider is we have a lot of fork lifts that go up and down here and we like that clearance. Also, it is a matter for the fire trucks to make their routing. It is harder for them to get the bigger fire trucks around there so it is also a safety issue. So this area back in here is all concrete? Yes, that is concrete denoted by the hatching there. Why is this shaded? This is a heavy duty asphalt. Ok, so we have got that one. The requested waiver for the landscape island along the front of the building? Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 21 Mills: There is one in here and there is a light pole and a fire hydrant and something else and we just couldn't get everything in there. Hoover: Edwards: Hoover: Millis: Edwards: Mills: Hoover: So one tree island? They have got a lot of extra in here. My guess is there would be one tree required in there. You are still proposing a green island just with no tree. A continuous planting of shrubs to adjacent parking lots along the right of ways. I am not a landscape architect but it was our intention to meet that last comment. Are we talking shrubs through here? Yes, along Sherman and 6`h Street. It was the intention for that to be on there. Ok, we have talked about the tree preservation easement. Commercial Design Standards, do you want to explain to us the materials and the elevations? Millis: For the Lowe's basically the front of the building is split faced block painted with E.I.F.S. for the architectural peak and the peak for the lumber yard. The garden center is vinyl coated chain link fence with poly carbonate greenhouse shingles on top of the two peaks there. Bunch: Millis: Bunch: Millis: Ostner: Edwards: It is basically about the same layout as the one across from the mall. Actually this is a new prototype than the one up there. The one up there is the gray tones and we felt like with this area we would upgrade the colors of the elevations. It is real similar as far as where your contractor area is and your service area is. The three entrances, yes Sir, the same thing. Do you have an elevation of this west side? I would like to point out that I am a little concerned about being able to see into those truck bays. Those are required to be screened. I don't know if we can move into the back or screen with maybe a wall. It looks like you can also see the dumpster or maybe a compactor or something that also has to be screened right there. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 22 Mills: I guess that comes to whether Sherman Way is public or private. Edwards: 1 think there is about 100% chance it is going to be public. Millis: We are open to suggestions but turning the truck well is almost impossible. Hoover: Sara, on outdoor storage what are our ordinance requirements? Edwards: Outdoor storage has to be screened by vegetation or fence. Hoover: Is this considered outdoor storage? Edwards: It is indoors isn't it? Hoover: It is covered. It is not a solid wall. I just didn't know where it really falls in the ordinance. Edwards: That is a good question. I will have to look it up. Hoover: Commission, do you have any commercial design comments? Would you mind doing the retail space what the materials are, and all that? Millis: What we have done is we changed the colors to match the earth tone. This was tailored more towards the prototypical Lowe's colors. Since we changed the earth tones of the building we want to complement that with the color scheme that we have there. It will be E.I.F.S. on the front of the building and stucco. Hoover: Does it have any split faced block? Is it similar to the other? Ostner: The thing that jumped out at me is this east elevation is facing a public right of way and we need to try to stay away from large, unarticulated wall surfaces as part of our commercial design standards. INSERT HERE Edwards: You did intend your motion to be onto Planning Commission? Hoover: Yes, but if it is not clearly delineated then let's bring it back here. Bunch: That way we will be able to straighten it out before it goes to the full Planning Commission again. On these PZDs we need to be a little bit Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 23 more careful on the nuts and bolts of it before it winds up being an ordinance. Hoover: I concur. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 24 R-PZD 03-3.00: Planned Zoning District (North College Development Company, pp 485) was submitted by Richard Alexander on behalf of North College Development Company for property located at 313 E. Lafayette Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 2.0 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District for the conversion of Saint Joseph Catholic Church property to include converting the school and office buildings into 31 units (42 bedrooms) with the church and associate buildings to remain. Hoover: The next item is a Residential Planned Zoning District for the North College Development Company. We have PZD 03-3.00. Sara, would you tell us about it? Edwards: The proposal thus far includes the redevelopment of the St. Joseph's church site on Lafayette. They propose to convert the school and offices into 31 units with the church and associated buildings to remain. I believe that they are changing that request now which is ok with us because really there is no site development going on. It is all interior. They are changing the interior of the building to apartments and we need to make a determination that parking exists but I think it is ok if they add additional units beyond the 31. It is developed with water, sewer, and streets. We are not asking for many modifications to the site plan. From Parks, our land dedication has not been determined yet. The Parks Department is still working with them on that. This is a Residential Planned Zoning District. Right now it is zoned R-1. Hoover: We have no engineering concerns? Casey: It is all existing. Hoover: Do we have any issues with the trees? Hesse: No issue. Turner: On Monday they go to the Parks Board. We are going to have a neighborhood meeting on Monday at noon so we can gather community input to make our decision for the Parks Board meeting that evening. Hoover: Will the applicant identify yourself? Alexander: I am Richard Alexander for North College Development. We have amended our application somewhat. Do I give it to Planning or you guys? Bunch: I went by and picked mine up. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 25 Alexander: We amended the lot split part of it a little bit. Sara, we tinkered with this a little bit and we pushed this property line back to make this a better parcel for the single-family. There is a single-family home on there and we are proposing to leave that as a single-family home. There is a retaining wall back here. The existing property line went like this and we are pushing this property line back to make that a better backyard for whoever ends up with that. We don't think it would be useful for us to go back to that retaining wall. On tract 4 we pushed this line, we made a little more back yard on tract 4 so we have amended this a little bit. Dave Jorgensen amended the legals to reflect pushing these lines around on tracts four and five. We have amended our request. We were trying to leave the old sanctuary as some kind of performance area. A couple of problems with that were the most negative comments we received from the neighbors was the parking that would be generated by the use of that as a performance area on top of the fact that although we tried to get the University and the Walton Arts Center and other groups interested in trying to use that as a performance area there really has been no interest in doing that. Those two reasons brought us to the point that we think the best use of that now is to just turn that into residential, it is the least parking requirement. Again, we couldn't find anyone that wanted to use that. That is the old sanctuary, this is the new sanctuary. We propose to put this on the national registry and maintain that as historically accurate state. We have already met with the people from Little Rock. There are possible register implications for this building because it would stay although she thinks that is more problematic. This building doesn't qualify because of its age so our plan is to develop these within the skin of the buildings not exceeding them. We are not asking to go up or out. We are not adding any significant space. We have enough onsite parking if we toy with our parking. Bunch: All three of these buildings are going to be residential? Alexander: Yes. That is a single-family. The church used it for offices and that is a duplex that the church used for offices. That always was a duplex though. Edwards: How many bedrooms do you have now? Alexander: I think it is going to be close to 59 or something like that. Edwards: We'll need to know that. Alexander: We kind of changed course but we are proposing 10 additional two bedroom units in this. We have if we tinker with this a little bit we could get another three parking spaces right here if we cut the stairs back into that landing. There are 10 to 15 or maybe even more parking spaces here. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 26 We had originally requested the Parks permission to pay the fees in lieu of land dedication because we didn't think there was enough. Subsequently, we told the Parks people if it is possible to do something with them we are open to it. I don't know if they want to. We are open to it. We propose to develop these and leave the open space and greenspace. One of the issues is is the city going to be happy with the fact that we have enough onsite parking but no overflow? If overflow was needed that is a place that it could go. It is there already. This was all parking lot at one time and the church came out with some railroad ties and chips and turned that into a little playground. It is not ideal to use this because you have to go down a one way in and a one way out. If we had to we could. We are open to suggestions on that. Hoover: How many parking spaces do you have on that plan? Alexander: It is 59 if you don't count this so we have 62 currently and that is without tinkering with this a little. We could push this around to get a few more. That is enough, we meet city code. Again, there is some extra parking here that either could be parking or playground or park or greenspace or something. I guess we will meet with the Parks people Monday and get some input from the neighborhood. Whether or not the neighborhood even wants a park there is probably going to be the outcome of whether they want that or not. Bunch: You are talking about adding ten units in this building, how many bedrooms? Alexander: Two bedrooms each. Bunch: That will push you up to 67. Alexander: No, these are not all two bedrooms. Bunch: According to your drawing you had 20 units, 12 one bedrooms and 8 two bedrooms. Alexander: Without the addition of this and not counting this. This is Willow Street and this is two bedrooms but it has got probably 10 parking spaces. Not counting that we had 40 bedrooms and 59 parking spaces. If you add 20 bedrooms you have 60 bedrooms and 59 parking spaces if you don't put three more parking spaces there. Bunch: What you are showing here on your drawing is showing 28 here, 16 here, and 3 here in the duplex for a total of 47 bedrooms. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 27 Alexander: This is wrong. The correct total is on our application, it is 60 all together I think is pretty close. It was 42 bedrooms. These units, this unit, and this was a total of 42. If we add 20 that is 62 but this has onsite parking that doesn't count in here. This duplex has it's own onsite parking. I don't know how he came up with this number. 12 one bedrooms is 12, there are eight two bedrooms so 12 and 16 is 28 and then two one bedrooms would be 2 so the three would come off and it would be 62. Bunch: What we are looking at is a pretty good density in an R-1 zoning district. Not too far from here we have had a question about how many bedrooms can you put on two acres. Alexander: Again, when we first looked at this we wanted a more mixed use thing. We wanted to see if we could get somebody interested in doing it as a school, as a daycare, with the university as a performance area s a gallery. We toured the site with the Walton Arts people. We toured the site with the University. We toured the site with Montessori. We talked with the New School. We talked with a dozen other potential uses and nobody came forward. There is absolutely no interest in using these buildings for anything other than residential. Our initial proposal was to do a broader mixed use and not as densely residential. Part of the problem with the broader mixed use is if you have any kind of commercial office or that kind of stuff you go from a density of not one per bedroom but one parking space per 300 sq.ft. There is 38,000 sq.ft. on that site. That is approximately 100 plus parking spaces. That is not counting the face that this currently serves 400 or 500 people at a whack as a church in terms of it's capacity. We found ourselves swimming up stream trying to do a mixed use and non-residential use with that. After 120 days and multiple tours with everybody that we could think of the only thing we could come up with is residential that would fit the character of the neighborhood. You have to have enough units to make those buildings at least be self sufficient. One of the problems with leasing this out aside from the parking was we talked to a 501C about donating it to them. Right off the bat it needs a new roof, that is $30,000, it has utility maintenance management concerns, it would have to lease on a regular basis for thousands a month as a performance hall. We really found ourselves up against a rock and a hard place in terms of trying to find alternative uses for this. It is a higher density than R-1 but I don't know what else you could do with those buildings. We have spent 120 days trying to figure it out. I think on top of that, we had the same conversation with the public library when we went to the meeting with the public library when people expressed their concerns in what they would like to see the building as office space or performance space. I interjected at that point and said "Let me tell you, I would too but nobody is coming." It would be great to see it as that but nobody is showing up to do it as that. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 28 Bunch: We are getting off the order of business. We need to get back to the staff report and that sort of thing. Hoover: Sara, do you have any more comments before I take public comment? Edwards: I really need the units and bedrooms nailed down because we have to written an ordinance based on that. Alexander: We will have that. I hoped to have it today. Edwards: Deadline is Monday at 10:00 a.m. I will need 37 copies of your new site plan and your new survey. I would also like for you to come in and meet with me so we can go over all of this to understand if we are changing the parking or what not. It sounds like with the number of bedrooms there are enough spaces by code. Once we figure out what to do with the park we will have a better idea of if there is overflow parking or if it is going to be parkland. Hoover: I will open it up to public comment now. Is there anyone that would like to speak to us on this property? Cox: My name is Caroline Cox. I live at 427 Willow. My concern is that Lafayette is really Hwy. 45 so if you add all of this other congestion will that add to the need to widen Hwy. 45 by the State Highway Department? Hoover: Have you had meetings with the neighborhood association? Alexander: Yes. Hoover: Have you been a part of those meetings? Cox: No, I didn't go. Hoover: What were traffic discussions? Alexander: I think that ultimately the majority of the neighbors were supportive of what we are trying to do. They are familiar with the problem. The property has been for sale for a long time. Their concern is traffic and I guess our concern is traffic. Again, we are trying to get the most benign use of this as we can. We are proposing to leave the buildings basically as you see it with the open space as a practical matter Lafayette is probably it's widest right at that point. That is the widest stretch of Lafayette because also as a practical matter that is where the church used a lot of its parking is Lafayette Street. Whether or not the Highway Department Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 29 would do something with that I don't know. You probably couldn't get an answer from them even if you went to the Highway Depaitment. I don't know that they know that. I certainly wouldn't support that. I live in that neighborhood. Alexander: You have got a lot less congestion in this scenario verses 120 kids twice a day when I would take my daughter last year to school there. I am not saying that they would or wouldn't but I think this is a lot less traffic. This is less traffic than as a church and offices. Cox: I accept that I live in a high traffic area. It is just my concern that if you add apartments to what was a church and a school then the state will come in and say we have more traffic so that is going to add to the need to widen. Alexander: I think you actually don't have more traffic. You are taking a situation where you were having 400 on Sunday. If you actually did a traffic count there will be less traffic by about 80%. Edwards: The state does traffic counts yearly. We probably have something showing before St. Joseph's moved out and we could do a projection as to what this would be. I agree, I am sure it is going to be less. Hoover: Is there anyone else that would like to make public comment? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Bunch: I have a list of several things that I didn't see on the drawing. I think particularly since this is a PZD we are going to need these. One is bike racks. Rights of way and easements are not shown. Locations of existing utilities since everything is existing and landscaping and trees. We have somewhat of a site plan but it is extremely limited. These are the things that we normally have on drawings when they go to the Planning Commission and then this will be forwarded to the City Council so we need to have all these things described. Some of these are probably addressed in your conditions that you have on there Sara. We need adjacent owners. None of the owners of anything around this is listed and we don't know if they have been contacted or not. I know that there have been neighborhood meetings. Alexander: That was in our application. One of the problems is the architect that was working on this just got called up to the military. We have a survey which has a lot of the rights of way and easements and that kind of stuff. We need to melt those two together. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 30 Bunch: The total submittal package right now has no where near enough information in it. I am sure that all of this information exists but since this will become an ordinance it needs to be part of it. Also we need anything about parking on street parking and off-street parking as well as determining the number of bedrooms. That number seems to be floating around. Also, tie down the property lines. You said the property line coincides with the retaining wall. Things like that make sense but they still need to be documented in your submittal packet. Hoover: Also, do you have a letter from the neighborhood association with a list of their comments? Alexander: We haven't gotten a letter. We have had several meetings. Hoover: That might be helpful so we could have that for our packet. Alexander: We have had different meetings and different groups and I don't know how you can have a consensus. Hoover: Isn't that Washington Willow? Edwards: Yes. Alexander: We had a Washington Willow meeting but apparently that wasn't inclusive enough so the church invited another meeting so we have had several meetings and their comments are all over the board. Hoover: It might be helpful, especially if they are for the project. Bunch: One of my concerns is that in close proximity to this we have another project that is on an R-2 zoning where they are looking at less than 50 bedrooms on two acres. Here we are looking at over 60 on two acres for an R-1 zoning. Alexander: Let me just say, I don't want to swim up stream on this. If we are going to try to make this fit the zoning it will never do it. This is 38,000 sq.ft. of industrial use. That is why we are doing an R-PZD because from the get go I knew that the density would be higher than anything around. As a practical matter Washington Willow is a multi -family residential neighborhood. It says R-1 but there are duplexes, four plexes, five plexes spread throughout that district. I am not making the argument that this doesn't exceed R-1 zoning. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 31 Bunch: Alexander: ??: Hoover: Alexander: Bunch: Alexander: Hoover: Alexander: Bunch: Alexander: Bunch: My question here is from our standpoint of being consistent in how these things go we have neighborhood organizations that are saying one development is too dense and another development is ok. I think what they are trying to do is just figure out a use for these old buildings and that is the problem. I was at both meetings. The only concern was the parking. There was no opposition. There were more people relieved, there was no negative. I don't know how to document that other than to call them all up and ask them to come to the next meeting. Just a letter. When we first started with this we contacted Kathy Thompson. I live in the same neighborhood and we were unable to attend because the meetings were at the same time that we had meetings. We wanted the neighborhood involved and it became apparent that there were not enough people. A question in relating this to that other project is that the large difference here is that there are several ways in and out of here and lots of connector roads to disburse. These buildings also exist already. I understand that. We are basically looking at infill projects in the same neighborhood and we just need to delineate what are the differences between this one and that one. If somebody looks at the raw numbers and sees 62 bedrooms on two acres and 48 bedrooms on two acres then we need to validate the reasons why this can and should be done. Do you think that we can have all these things that we have asked for to have a full package by the next meeting? Yes you can. It is all out there. The problem was the architect was doing one set and our engineer was doing the other. Part of the reason that we are delayed is that we did do neighborhood meetings. In an effort to do due diligence we have got diligence and now we have to cooperate it into what we are trying to do so our plan has changed a little bit. I guess we can do this just like we did the last one Sara. If all the information doesn't come into you then it would probably be better to bring it back to Subdivision. If you miss the next Planning Commission Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 32 meeting then to help expedite it Subdivision will occur before the second Planning Commission meeting. There is so much of it that we know is there but we haven't seen it. I move that we forward R-PZD 03-3.00 to the full Planning Commission with the addition of the documents that we requested at this meeting. Ostner: I will second. Hoover: I will concur. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 33 LSD 03-12.00: Large Scale Development (Skate Station, 639) was submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of Neal Crawford for property located at 2283 S. School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.46 acres with a 16,625 sq.ft. indoor skateboard park and a 5,000 sq.ft. warehouse proposed. Hoover: The next item is LSD 03-12.00 submitted by Steve Clark. Sara, will you tell us about it? Edwards: What we have is a development of a site located at 2283 S. School. It is zoned C-2, it is 3.46 acres. The proposal is for a 16,625 indoor skateboard park and a 5,000 sq.ft. warehouse. They have provided 35 parking spaces, 3 ADA spaces and two bicycle parking racks. Surrounding development to the north is R-1 and C-2. To the south is I-1, to the east is C-2 and to the west is R-1. There is single-family development to the north and west of this site. Water and sewer are available. An additional 15' of right of way is being dedicated pursuant to the Master Street Plan. Tree preservation, there is 26.5% existing, their proposal is 22.4% to be preserved. The requirement is 15% in a C-2 district. We are recommending this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission subject to some conditions. One is that any easements be shown on the plat. Approval shall be subject to approval of a Conditional Use for storage in a C-2 district. Storage is not a use permitted by right in a C-2, that is permitted as a Conditional Use only. We will need more information as to what will be stored for the Conditional Use. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. What they are proposing is concrete and block for the east elevation and metal walls for the remaining elevations. As the applicant has pointed out the only prohibition is metal siding which dominates the main facade, not necessarily metal sidewalls as is the case in the design overlay district. Everything else is standard. Hoover: Matt? Casey: School Avenue is an arterial which requires a 6' sidewalk. After looking at this site the topography for a sidewalk in the right of way it is not a good site. We are recommending money in lieu of the sidewalk and there will be pedestrian access. We will be getting the money for the new sidewalk instead. Hoover: You are doing money in lieu of the sidewalk, is there any sidewalk on the adjacent property? Clark: There is the little sidewalk that is the asphalt patch. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 34 Edwards: If you remember, Dramis Hardwoods is to the north. We took money from them and refunded most of it back. Hoover: Ok, I guess we don't have any parks for this. Tree preservation? Hesse: They meet the requirements. He is very clear on his plan where the existing trees are. The only comments I have as far as landscaping is Steve, those trees need to be 2" caliper at time of installation instead of 1" and I think we needed one more. This is a dock right? Clark: This is a gap so there is not parking in there. I have got eight spaces here and eleven here. Hesse: Ok, well this counts but we could actually take one of these off and put it in the center if we could do that instead of one here. Clark: If that is what it takes to make you happy. Hesse: That is what it takes to meet the ordinance. Edwards: Is there any way to move that dock to another side of the building so it is not right up to residential? Clark: We spoke earlier with Alderman Reynolds and he expressed his concerns. What we agreed to do was two things, we have to put a privacy fence along this residential area and we agreed to a 6' wood privacy fence. The other thing was we take this dock along the north wall and slide it to the front in line with the building. Yes, that dock will be moved to the front so that it lines up with the front edge of the building. Hoover: Would you identify yourselves? Clark: I am Steve Clark. Moberly: I am Don Moberly. Clark: Don is the architect, I am the engineer. Basically there are some things that I saw on this project when I first walked the site. One was the mass of trees along the front edge of the property and then the other issue is drainage. There is an existing dry bed creek that runs along the northeast property line. That is the dividing line between this property and the Dramis property. That drains quite a few acres up on the hill, country club hill. There is 100 -year floodplain associated to that. Reportedly some of the property owners to the west of us have had drainage problems created that were caused in my opinion because of overflow from this ditch. This Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 35 ditch is very shallow and very narrow and has branches and stuff in it. In order to alleviate their drainage problem I designed the entry road to be raised 2' so it is going to be sitting up 2' above the existing grade which does two things. One is that it is above the 100 -year flood elevation which will keep the water that comes down this creek when it spills over the banks it will keep it from running down and over into the street. I continued the berm that is going to come all the way over to the property line. That shows on the tree preservation/grading plan. In doing that that is going to contain water into this ditch area until it gets past the property which will protect these gaps for the property owners immediately to the west. Also, in order to not increase the water that comes off the remaining portion of the site is we will construct roof drains and downspouts and a little storm sewer system that will pick up that water, take it over to the detention pond from both of the buildings and into the parking lot and will then allow it to discharge at below the existing rate for this site. We designed for the detention pond to be bigger than it would have to be to meet the minimum requirements in our effort to minimize the impact for the downstream property owners. We have setback the trees that are taking out are the trees that are the minimum that we would have to remove to build a drive to get into the site and there were two trees that were located within the footprint of the building that were to be removed and all of the rest of the trees will be protected. Ostner: There is an existing house. Clark: The houses have been demolished and removed. Ostner: But there is a house in the northeast corner of the property. Clark: That is a separate property. Speaking to the warehouse issue, I called it a warehouse and it may someday become that if the skateboard park demands change. It is intended now to be for storage of the owners that they will use this for ramps and pikes and the curve things and all the different components and he changes those out periodically so he has extras and those are going to go over into the warehouse areas. Ostner: I am a neighbor to the current skate station so I am aware of all the pertinences of this stuff. Hoover: Going down this list you are going to show existing utility easements on the site plan so that is not a problem? Clark: I think the existing ones are shown. The easements that are being requested by the utility companies is a 20' easement along the front of the property. There are existing easements to the west and to the north and Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 36 those are the ones that the utilities will be providing service from. We are going to be providing tree preservation easements along the rest of the property. Hoover: Should we talk about the Conditional Use for a storage unit in a C-2? Ostner: What sort of storage, is it the fact that it is a warehouse? Bunch: Yes, that is for all those extra ramps and stuff like that. Ostner: I was thinking of outdoor storage. Clark: Because I used the designation of warehouse on that building so I could use the parking requirements for warehouse space. That is my understanding of what it's use is going to be is storage, not a commercial warehouse. Hoover: Does anyone have any problems with that? Don, can you explain the materials? Moberly: On the front elevation we have a mixture of concrete block and some E.I.F.S. and some canopies as you can see. In my opinion that certainly meets the ordinance. All of the other sides of the buildings we are proposing metal siding. I visited with Sara about this and if you are not in the Overly District I think we can use metal siding. Ostner: It talks about the main facade. Moberly: It is not really the main facade. Ostner: Do you have any elevations of the warehouse? Moberly: Yes. Edwards: I would just like to remind you that on the Conditional Use, which is what the warehouse is, that we can impose conditions as far as appearances. Ostner: That is what I was going to mention. I would be willing to grant the waiver if the elevation facing the residential were finessed a little so it didn't look like a warehouse. Moberly: I think we can extend the concrete block like we have in the front along that elevation. I think that would help. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 37 Ostner: Moberly: Bunch: Clark: Bunch: Ostner: Moberly: Hoover: Ostner: Clark: Bunch: Clark: Hoover: Meares: When I glanced at this north elevation I thought, oh, that isn't too bad but it is the wrong one. I would be willing to go along with the concrete block wainscote if there was some other way to break up the metal above it. It is a pretty big building. It is 5,000 sq.ft., 100' long. The height is 16' right? It is not 16', I thought it was when I noted it but it is 14'. You are going to have a 6' screening fence. It is really the area up in the air. We can put some windows in fairly easily. Is that the only elevation you have issues with? The north. I promise you that our space looks better than Campbell Electric does. The other thing to keep in mind is with the trees that we have with the road there isn't going to be very much of these elevations that show up from the street. Except in the winter time. Even then it is going to be obscure because the tree canopy, even without leaves on it it is fairly obscured. This will be going to the full Planning Commission but why don't we take public comment on this now for the Skate Park? Cyndy Meares, my husband is John. We both together own these two pieces and these two pieces here. My major concern is the safety of the children that will be coming here. This highway, 71 Business is a very, very busy street. Dramis Hardwood Floors is right here. They don't have a whole lot of room right here for those kids to come and go to that skate station. What they are going to be doing is coming to this skate station, they are not going to be driving, they are going to be taking their skateboards and be coming down 71B. We have a very small place here in front of our business where we do have a sidewalk there. They don't have that big of a sidewalk in front of Dramis Hardwood Floors. He parks two of his cars right there in front of his building which is no access for Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 38 children riding skateboards in front of that. My concern is it is just a matter of time before some of these children get seriously interested. They are going to be jumping off of our driveway on their skateboards, because that is what they do, coming around Dramis Hardwood Floors on 71B. This street curves. When you get to our business it curves where you cannot see around that corner until you are on it. Those kids are going to be standing out there on 71B talking, visiting, eating, drinking or whatever. It is just a matter of time until a skateboard goes out in that street and I am not talking older kids, some of these kids are going to be 8, 9, or 10 years old. They are going to be unsupervised on this street. I think it is just going to be a matter of time before someone gets injured or killed on 71B. I just don't understand why we would put a children's establishment on such a busy street with no way to get there except through 71B. That is my major concern. My other concern is that we are going to have a lot of loitering on our side of town. Dramis and I and several other property owners have tried to upgrade that part of town. We have redone the front of our buildings, we have put in new sidewalks, we have put in new driveways. We even redid the whole outside front of our rental house so it would look nice on that end of town. I am worried about property damage and vandalism. I am worried about the littering that is going to happen. The kids are going to be eating and drinking and they are going to be dropping their wrappers and stuff and who is going to be cleaning that up? Also, we do have a lot of professional businesses on that street. I don't think it is going to help me with my renters if I have got kids riding skateboards up and down the street loitering in front of my businesses. It is going to be really hard for me to keep good professional people in our places of business there. Nobody is going to want to have a business where there is a skate station down the street and you have got skateboards going up and down the street jumping whatever is around to jump. I have a concern about that but mostly it is for the kids. Thank you. Hoover: Do we have any other public comment? Spillars: My name is Jim Spillars, I am the neighbor to the west. I live at 2230 Emma Avenue. I am on the southwest corner of the property. I talked to these gentlemen about the drainage outside a little bit ago and I am fairly satisfied in that. I wanted to echo Ms. Meares' comments on there is a consideration of having a lot of unsupervised kids in that area. Currently it has been a field and I have lived there for 13 years. We don't get much noise from them. However, next to them is Honeycutt Construction. There is quite a bit of noise coming from there during the day. I work during the day but my wife is home during the day and we hear a lot from that. I am concerned about how much noise, especially in the evenings, as I had talked to the gentleman who got the property, when he first started clearing it he was planning on operating this establishment in the evenings Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 39 when most of us are home. How late and how much loitering? Those things are concerns and I wanted to bring that before this group of folks. You said you are a neighbor of the current skate place. Maybe you can speak to that if there has been any difficulty or noise or acts of vandalism or anything like that in that area that you might think was due to that. We would sure like to know. We have not had a neighborhood meeting or any kind of formal gathering of the neighbors to meet with this gentleman to find out what was going on and what the plan was. I happened to see him out there working and I went out to talk to him back in November when this first started. Hoover: Thank you. Spillars: I guess I posed a question, do you know of anything? Ostner: As soon as we finish I will address that. Hoover: Are there any other members of the audience? If not, I will bring it back. Ostner: I live near, I am not next door. I drive by and see his stuff. Hoover: For the applicant, where is the fence going in? I know if we are next to an R-1 we have to have some type of screening and so is that going on the north and the west? Clark: Yes. Hoover: All the way to this corner and it is going to be what kind of fence? Clark: A 6' wood privacy fence. Hoover: Has the owner had any thought about the safety issue? Clark: You mean as far as access along 71? Hoover: Yes. Clark: He has indicated to me that many of them, I am not sure if it is the majority or not. I know that there are going to be kids that come via either skateboard or bicycle or walking or whatever mechanism that they can use to get there. He has the current facility that is up near 6th Street and School so I guess that any of the kids that live on this end of town that walked to his other facility walked up S. School just as they will today. I wish there were a more convenient place. Yes the neighbor has a concern and that is probably valid that there will be some children who are not as Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 40 safety minded as they should be when they are trying to get to this facility. On the other hand, there are kids that run up and down S. School unsupervised everyday. I don't know that this skate park being here is going to increase that number. It may but I don't know that we can hold this guy responsible for the fact that he is proposing to build a facility that requires a C-2 zone into a C-2 area that happens to be along a thoroughfare. That is just the nature of requiring C-2 zoning. Ostner: Sara, under the C-2 zoning this is allowable? Edwards: The recreational use is. Te warehousing is a Conditional Use. Clark: The skateboard portion of it is by right. Bunch: We are within a mile of the City of Fayetteville's outdoor skate facility and bicycle park. Clark: Is it also fronting on S. School? Bunch: Walker Park fronts on 15th Street and S. School. I guess it is actually blocked with the facilities along there. Clark: The kids that live on this end of town that are walking to the outdoor park so they are going to be going up S. School Street. Bunch: The privacy fence will keep them from cutting through the backyards of that subdivision that is right behind you. Clark: t think that is one of the primary reasons for it too. Ostner: I realize that this is just a Large Scale Development and it is allowed but do you know if the guy operating this has an idea about the hours of operation? Clark: I can ask him. Ostner: I am sure the neighborhood will want to know. Clark: I suspect it will be from 3:00 or 3:30 in the afternoon and run to around 8:00 or 9:00 in the evening. Hoover: Usually we ask developers to talk to the neighborhood association if there are adjacent residential property owners. You might consider doing that before Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 41 Clark: Hoover: Edwards: Clark: Hoover: Bunch: Clark: Hoover: MOTION: Ostner: Bunch: Hoover: Clark: I understood that he talked to most of the neighbors as he was working, over the fence type conversations. From the reaction that I got when I spoke to some of the property owners just before this meeting he didn't do a very good job. I don't know that there is a neighborhood association. Sara, is there a neighborhood association formed in this area? I don't think so I guess I haven't spoke with all the adjoining property owners but several of the adjoining property owners I spoke to just this morning prior to this meeting. I think the main concern was the safety of the kids that we haven't addressed. I am going to have to go study the project, look at the site and the sidewalk situation. A question I have is there anyway to put a gate in the fence back through the church lot or something to help alleviate some of the traffic. That is actually not a church. That is a residential structure. I presume that is for their Pasteur or someone. I don't think that is a solution. Are there any other comments? I will make a motion that we forward LSD 03-12.00 to the full Planning Commission. I will second. I will second. Thank you. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 42 LSD 03-13.00: Large Scale Development (Duncan Avenue Apartments, 561) was submitted by Mandy Bunch on behalf of James Mathias of Mathias Rentals for property located west of Duncan Avenue and north of 12th Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.46 acres with 48 units (80 bedrooms) proposed. Hoover: The next applicant is LSD 03-13.00 submitted by Mandy Bunch. Sara? Edwards: What we have here is property located west of Duncan Avenue north of 12`h Street zoned R-2 containing 2.46 acres with a 48 unit apartment complex proposed with 80 bedrooms proposed. Parking provided is 87 regular spaces, 4 ADA spaces, 2 bike racks. Surrounding zoning north, south, and west are R-2 with the east being I-2. Single-family housing is existing to the north, south, and east, industrial food processing to the west. Water and sewer are available. They are proposing curb and gutter on the west side of Duncan. Tree preservation existing is 27.12%, proposed is 12.58%. The requirement is 20%, they are proposing mitigation on site. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with only standard conditions of approval. Hoover: Thank you. Matt with Engineering? Casey: As Sara stated, they are going to be doing the street improvements along Duncan with curb and gutter and storm sewer. They are also providing a 6' sidewalk and 6' greenspace. They are providing detention. There are wetlands in this area. She is going to work to mitigate that within the proposed detention area. Turner: The Parks Board voted on March 3`a to take money in lieu of land so for 48 multi -family units the fees are $18,864. Hoover: Tree and Landscape? Hesse: I have an additional report to hand out to you. The numbers did change slightly. With the pond, the difference was there were trees along here and we added to that. Through the Plat Review process we requested changes to preserve this large tree here and this large tree here which they have done. They have changed the design in order to save a row of trees along this north boundary line to provide a buffer for that north property owner. At this point everything that I asked for in order to ensure the preservation is done. Edwards: Kim, do you know how many trees were to be mitigated on site? Hesse: Yes, it is 17. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 43 Edwards: Thank you. Hoover: Would the applicants introduce themselves? Bunch, M: My name is Mandy Bunch with EB Landworks. I am representing James Mathias who is the owner and builder and he is here. He will stay the owner and maintain these. Basically we have 80 bedrooms total. We have met with the neighborhood association the Thursday before spring break and it seemed as if with them the bulk of the concern, we have been in contact with the adjacent property owner to the north on several occasions as well as the property owner across the street. We have had some conversations and will do some more discussions with the adjoining owner to the south. Basically what concems we have heard thus far are traffic. From the neighborhood meeting we gathered that there are some regional issues with aged water and sewer lines which to the best of my knowledge from what I have heard from Water and Sewer, it is adequate to support the development of this site. There does seem to be over a period of years some things that have happened in the neighborhood and haven't been upgraded, etc. That seemed to be overwhelmingly some of the issues that the neighborhood had. Hoover: Mandy, I am going to stop you for just a minute. Matt, can you respond to that? Casey: I have not heard of any problems in the area. Dave Jurgens our Water and Sewer Superintendent gets copies of these and he responds through me on ones where he knows that the lines are inadequate and there was no response for this particular one. They do have existing sewer along Duncan and an existing water line, I didn't see the size labeled here. Bunch, M: The waterline is a 6". Both of the comments seem to be from sewer overflows and backups and things. One thing that we also discussed during a meeting was quite possibly it was a different front line that some of the complaints that were coming in was on. The neighborhood encompasses quite a bit of area that is not directly hooked onto that particular line. Hoover: So what line this project is going to has been identified? Casey: After this meeting before Planning Commission or agenda session I will get with Dave Jurgens and look at the lines that are out there. Hoover: Ok. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 44 Bunch, M.: The other overwhelming comment from the neighbors was drainage. I believe based on the basin and where it is located, a great number of their problems I think developed over time with the development of the University and there is absolutely no detention upstream from their properties. This town branch creek goes south of the basketball arena, etc. and it continues through here. This is where a majority of the drainage issues the neighbors are discussing is. It is an identifying floodway. Hoover: Matt, are there known drainage problems to the city? Casey: None that I'm aware of. Bunch, M.: What we are going to be discussing with Mr. Woody to the south is that creek. Actually it is not a creek but it is a stream that runs along the south property line of this property and it cuts through this area and Mr. Woody owns these two homes and what we are going to discuss with him is existing erosion in that ditch that development has caused. The detention designed as it is now decreases the peak runoff by 17% to that ditch to the south and it decreases the runoff that is directly on his property by over 50% we also tried to do a little bit more to try to divert all of that drainage away from him and bring it directly into the ditch instead of having it sheet flow across. I want to address the wetlands a little bit. I know that is a concern of several people. Mr. Shepherd lives directly to the north here. We have had several discussions with him and a lot of his requests were part of our original updates to the plans. This set of updates comes directly from him with the tree mitigation issues. He was concerned about the bird habitat in the existing brush line and the trees along this property line. What Mr. Mathias has agreed to is to actually install his privacy fence inside his property to maintain all that existing brush in those areas. That seemed to have met Mr. Shepherd's approval on that particular item. Also, with regard to the neighbors across the street, we have talked to them and located the drive to where it was not going directly into their house and also have proposed to berm this area along the frontage as well as plant some evergreens in there to screen southern bound traffic. Also, on this site plan the only setback that is required is 25' and this building is setback 75' from existing property in that area to maintain that buffer as well. The bulk of the parking has also been taken away from that side. As far as the wetlands on the area, they seem to have been built over a period of time. The whole region has some soils that could be prone to become wetlands if they are not maintained and water is allowed to sit. It is my understanding that this property was fairly unmaintained in the past and just recently before Mr. Mathias' purchase was starting to be brush hogged some. The Corp. of Engineers has been on this site and concur with the study that Mr. Mathias had done on the site. The wetlands area was delineated. The Corp. concurred with that finding. They actually visited Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 45 the site and concurred to that finding. It has been classified as a wet swale area. What we are proposing as mitigation items is that we have quite a bit of drainage that comes off the hill from the north/northwest. That is the bulk of the drainage that spans this area and the creek as well as the Pinnacle Food site directly to the west. To mitigate that we are proposing to maintain quite a bit of the upland vegetation to help with that. We are also creating a wet swale on the western property line. I have had more discussions with our wetlands scientist and we are going to be developing a wet swale along this property line to introduce the water into the pond. We are also going to construct the pond, it is going to be a little bit of a redesign here, actually just create the pond with a berm rather than taking any of this material out to aid in the creation of the wet swale area to the west we will be stockpiling the soils which are hydric in nature that are taken from this area and stockpiling them on site so they can be respread at a depth of 12" of existing going into the swale. We will also probably be introducing some different native plantings. Those are the things that we have done and we are doing. We have gone through the process with the Corp. and we have got clearance from the state as far as archaeological issues, etc. and also clearance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife on site. I don't have much else to say. We are here for questions and comments. Bunch: I have just a couple of questions. Is this fence going to remain or is that just during construction? Bunch, M: That is actually a tree preservation fence during construction and then the line that is further in is the proposed 8' board fence that is requested. Bunch: By virtue of setting this fence back from the property line to allow vegetation next to the Shepherd property who's responsibility is that going to be to maintain that? Has there been any arrangement made on that or is it just going to be allowed to grow up? What were the neighbor's concerns to set that fence back since you have been in contact with the neighbors? Bunch, M: Their concerns were mostly for bird and wildlife habitat. Mathias: It would obviously be ours to maintain. It would be on our property. Bunch, M: The request is basically not to maintain at all, just to let it stay as it is now. Mathias: I would maintain the fence. Terry: Melissa Terry at 101 N. Locust. The streams are not on the plat review maps so it is kind of hard to keep them in context. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 46 Radwell: Thank you for hearing me out before I leave. I think people in the neighborhood are much more aware of the conditions than I am. I have walked the site and talked to a number of people who live around there. I would just like to go on record about a couple of specific issues. First of all there is a drainage on the property that I have walked and it does have standing water and it does have flow into the little drainage that you mentioned that flows into this person's property. I believe his name is Mitch and I believe he is here. At the present time that particular piece of property is serving a very important function retaining and preserving that water. I really wanted to point out to everyone today that as of March 10, 2003 the City of Fayetteville did issue a notice of intent to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality that they would be developing a storm water management plan. They are under federal mandate to do so under the EPA storm water Phase II. Many of the issues that are involved with this particular site and the development of any land in that particular area are very relevant to stemware Phase II. That is a federal program with certain mandates that is intended to try to hale communities, such as Fayetteville and the entire northwest Arkansas region to deal with the kinds of problems that become cumulative during urban development. We already have seen those kinds of things. We have a problem in Fayetteville that is very well known on the Hamestring Basin and there are a number of people who have flooding. They have spent a considerable, I believe it is something like $93,000 to study the problem and there are millions of dollars in improvements that would need to be done to prevent flooding of these people's property. That is an issue that was developed some time ago. The purpose of Storm water Phase II is to prevent those kinds of things from surfacing in the future. We really need to consider all of those issues when you look at this piece of property and what is coming down the pike line relative to this area. This places things in a somewhat different context than what it was in the past. In the past people had very little recourse and when people built detention areas, the idea of a detention area is to hold water and yet I can site a number of detention areas in Fayetteville that have failed. They completely failed during the first time there was flooding and there was no recourse and there was no way for anybody to have done anything about it. They are simply areas that have never functioned from the very beginning. There was little recourse that anybody had up to that point. There has been considerable debate at the Northwest Regional Planning Commission's storm water meetings about the liability of those issues now that that Storm water Phase II has been signed on of our intent to comply. What the liability will be with regard to the city and to the developer remains to be seen. However, there will be a liability so if this detention area does in fact, fail then people who live in this area do have recourse. There are two major issues with regard to Storm water Phase II. One of them is the amount of water. When you convert land from land that is holding water to Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 47 impervious surfaces obviously the amount of flow is going to change considerably. This is a site that had two homes on it and behind those two homes was a plot of roughly two acres that had a drainage that has standing water on it much of the time and water that actually flows across it during storms. I have been out there and I have seen the water flow across it. The Corp. has been out there and they can recognize it as well. We are now talking about taking that two and a half acre parcel that had two homes and this two acre drainage area and converting it to 48 bedrooms and 96 parking places it is my understanding. If you stop and look at that what it is going to take to get 48 units and 96 parking spaces it is going to be a lot of impervious surface. I understand these people have talked about their mitigation of those problems and they need to be aware that there will be serious consideration given to what the liability is if those steps do not in fact mitigate for the problem of the quantity of water. The second issue is quality of water. This has to do with how much impervious surface can you put. You have parking lots, you have anti- freeze, you have dripping oil, you have whatever else comes from 96 parking places so that does in fact, impact those waters. I have not had time to look at where town branch fits into the rest of the picture but we already have some empiric waters coming into Fayetteville, one of them is West Fork. It is already on a treatment list for the EDA. The purpose of this program is to address these issues and I do not know where this puts these people. If you proceed I am not sure if these people have any recourse at this point or do they have recourse after the damage is done. I do want you to be aware that this is the situation and I can't answer all the specifics of it. I think you would find it difficult to get all of the questions as to where they are going to proceed with this. This area is a prime example of the kinds of issues that Storm water Phase II was intended to address. This is a part of the city that is well known for it's drainage problems. You heard people start to laugh and snicker as people said the sewage and everything is ok. I have talked to people and they have told me of the problems that they have. 11`h Street I was told about a water line breaking three times in the last two years and shooting water 100' in the air. If you don't believe it go down there and look at it. They have had to fix it three times. I have also heard of backups and sewer water coming up out of their toilets and into their homes. I will leave those people to speak more specifically to their issues but I did want to make you aware that there is a sincere and deliberate effort being made to try to address the kinds of issues that we have here. This is a very, very intensive development in a single-family residential area. I was very surprised to see that it was zoned this way because if you go down there you will see single-family homes. One of the problems that we are sustaining right now is that there are a lot of parcels undeveloped. Parts of that area were not developed for the very reasons that we are talking about, because of the kind of drainage problems that there are in that area. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 48 Now that we have ran out of other land we are starting to look at these pieces that are potentially very, very wet. I have looked at the delineation done by EGIS Environmental Consulting and I would concur that he did a reasonably good job of delineating it but essentially what they are planning on doing is slabbing over the existing wetland. Whether the detention area and swale that they are talking about is sufficient to mitigate it that is a question that remains to be seen. I am going to have to go onto another meeting. I think the people who live in this area have been well articulated to me and I hope that they will convey their concerns and that you will bear in mind that as of March 10, 2003 the situation has changed a bit. We have a long ways to go. The city is required to pass with an input about how they want to plan for the future to avoid storm water problems so we have that challenge within the next five years. Thank everybody for their time today. Like I said, I think these people can speak very well for themselves. Shepherd: That was Andrea Radwell, she is a stream ecologist. I am Aubrey Shepherd. As these folks have told you I live just north of this property. This is the suggestion I had about not just our development but for this whole area. We understand that Hank Broyles and associates are buying property all the way from 6th Street including some trailer parks and some existing buildings and so forth on up this way. The basin of town branch there is rather wide and there are a lot of wetlands in the parts that he is buying. This particular part that our development is on is known as a mounted wet prairie. It has existed there, Larry is not here now but Larry was telling me when he was a boy in the 1950's and he helped mow hay on the dairy farm that was there but they never used this particular parcel to even mow hay simply because it was known as a wetland and they left it alone. They didn't put the cattle in there. This was his experience from that time. It was just simply prairie that was left alone. It was never developed for a reason and of course some of this other stuff that is up stream. What I am suggesting is that studies of first the sewer lines do need to be placed in that area if not before this development before the Broyles development for sure. It backs up in Don's yard. The water lines need to be replaced and then the street needs to be built. It seems a habit to pave a nice new street, putting the curb and gutter in and then having the water lines fail or the sewer having problems. They dig it up then. Those things paved in the last ten years have now been patched. That is the reason, it wasn't done in the correct order. Some of the culverts such as near Mitch's house are washing out. He has got a photo here of it. The wash out from the street to the culvert is a foot from the edge of the pavement. Mandy has drawn a fine plan, she is good at this, but should there be a major storm that increases the runoff much more than what her pond can hold and you combine it with all the overflow from the Pinnacle Foods property that comes by Mitch's house to that little creek then not Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 49 only could it take out the wall that supports his house, his lot, it could take out the street right there. Down stream from there there is a house. Mitch is going to show you pictures here in a minute. A lot of the houses are way down here near the thing. This creek comes from Mitch's, the street is trying to wash out there now. When it comes under here it goes down into their yard, turns with a rock wall to avoid their house and goes back here to town branch. Their house is lower than the creek is 40' in front of the house when the creek is full. It fills regularly. You can go down there and see it. What I am saying is that studies need to be done from here all the way up to 6th Street before those plans are firmed up. Those people are still talking about these issues. That study should be done. The Corp. of Engineers, archaeologically people and so forth should all be involved in this. The Corp. has some of these people on staff. I am asking that there be a complete study of the historical, environmental, archaeological, hydrological, and sociological values of the area from 6th to 15th before these other projects come to you, and it won't be long. Another consideration we don't talk about very much is they are talking about they want to take out this trailer park, another trailer park by 6th Street and two of them up here. That sounds good to a lot of people because these trailers are not in great shape. On the other hand, they are sitting on lots with magnificent timber that has been growing there for a generation or two. At least the kids if they don't have a nice home they have a nice yard. It may be junked up or it may not be the way you would like it but they consider it home. It is what they can afford and they at least have shade so they don't have to have central heat and air all year around. There is certain value in those. It is easy to look at them and say they have no value. That is not true. Some of them have lived there longer than some of us in that area. Some of the people in the trailer parks have been there for 30 years or more. The problem there is where do those people go? They can't afford some of these nice apartments that people are planning on putting in here. A lot of people in the trailer parks are paying rent by the week because they get paid weekly and they never have two weeks rent so they are paying $125 a week for trailers that aren't worth that but you don't have to have a credit check to get there so they can get their kids indoors. It is not a great thing but where do they go? I am saying that we should have a discussion that this should be part of the planning process. If you displace people in a neighborhood, trailer park or whatever, is there some provision or housing plan for the people who are displaced by the removal of these things? I think this is important. 6th Street shelter, Seven Hills Shelter, they can't take that many more people. Hoover: Can you speed it up a little please? Some of these issues are really for Council. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 50 Shepherd: Woody: I will shut up now and let Mitch go next. Mitch, make it short and fast because these guys are ready to go. My name is Mitch Woody and I live just south of this project. I have a rent house adjacent to it and then live next to the rent house. I have a bunch of pictures. Shepherd: I have seen water 2' deep in the house sitting next to the creek from this little deal. It didn't come from up that direction because the other creek comes down. That little house by the creek down there I have seen it half way up in that house in water. Woody: I am going to hold these up so everybody can see them. I hope that these are in the same order as the ones I handed out. I live right down here and this creek comes down here and across and then comes down. One of the things that I wanted to mention, these two trailer parks, I heard a lot at the neighborhood meeting about traffic. Traffic is not my major concern but one thing to note is that I observe in the summer especially. All of the kids that attend school that live in these mobile home parks know each other. They go to school together and naturally they go and visit each other quite a bit so it is not uncommon in the middle of the afternoon or anytime clay or night, five or six or eight at a time wonder through there looking at the sky, throwing their coke cans and stuff. That is ok too. They wonder down through the middle of the street, six, eight or ten of them at a time sometimes and they just wonder through and don't watch the traffic. People come around this corner and just glide around this corner. Others leave this mobile home park and sky rocket north. These photos, I just wanted to show you. The first photo shows that this is kind of a family neighborhood. The apartment complex is on the right here. This is facing south, it shows Jennifer's house on the left. You can see the right side. This second set of photos is standing in what would now be the driveway of the apartment complex. Looking north you see the road sign turning to the right, that is the curve, that is 11`h Street. As a matter of fact, it just happened that there is some kid riding a bicycle there. This other picture at the bottom is facing north. That is my rent house there. The gray fence is important because that is adjacent to the project. This other photo, I wanted to show the slope of this project. This property from the front of it looking down for about 50' in it looks ok and then it slopes rapidly downward. This other photo at the bottom I took from the middle of the property looking out. I wanted to show the slope there also. This mobile home park up here, there are two little ditches for canals across the road. They are shown on the plat. There is one here and one here. This drains directly across these mobile home parks and runs right off down here. This is actually a little high area here and it drains all the way down this side, which is where the parking area is shown and also there was to Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 51 be a building here but that is right in the middle of that flow but it all flows down here. This is the channel that comes from the mobile home park right across here. In fact, where you see my finger right here, that would be where the finger is here. One is facing north, one is facing south. This is the picture of the drainage problem across the road. Right next to my house is this drainage pipe. You can see right here whenever it floods it whips around in here. This is what Aubrey was talking about was right next to this street. This water comes across this creek and it just kind of whirlpools right here and is eroding right next to this street. Then on the other side of this street, on the other side, the east side of Duncan Street, you can see this drainage problem that is affecting this area there. They have got a nice rock wall built there and you can see how it is just eating it away there. This is my backyard here. I have a nice white walk over, some may call it a bridge. I have got some erosion problems right here. That little bridge is not attached and twice within the past two years it has actually floated away. One time it floated to this tree here but another time it floated all the way over to these people's house over here. One time it floated here, one time it floated way off down there. City Planning may say the solution to that is to get you a couple of rebars and nail it in. Further back in the back of my house, you can see this basketball net there and there, we are looking at the same one from different angles. You can see how it has eroded here right behind the house. That is after I put a bunch of rocks there to keep it down. This is actually only 200' from where the edge of the project would be. What happens is that the project would definitely impact my property and of course the property on up the road. This erosion has happened in the past three years since I moved there. It wasn't like this. You can see the retaining wall and you can see the erosion that is about a foot beneath that wall. Again, this has nothing to do with this project here, it's already there. If it is this bad now what is it going to be like in the future? My suggestion is that they do a retaining pond all the way across here rather than have a building here. I believe this drainage is coming right straight across here where that project is showing. Personally I don't have a problem with the buildings up here. The drainage is coming off here and it is coming right across here. I have another picture that I didn't include here but it shows the back of the rent house and it comes straight across underneath that gray fence and runs right across the back of my backyard. I will share those with you before I leave. Hoover: Did you say that your property does flood or is it just that this creek overflows at certain times or does your whole property flood? Woody: My property doesn't actually flood. The rent house does. It comes underneath the gray fence. The gray fence is straight across and then cuts down at an angle. Even when the two houses were next door and they had Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 52 nice yards there whenever it rained that water ran right underneath that gray fence and right down my property. Hoover: So it does flood? Woody: When I think of flood I think a foot deep. Let me show you one more photo. Hoover: Let me just tell everybody also that this will be going to the full Planning Commission. We will also have an agenda tour and go to the property and look at it with all the Commissioners just to let you know you will have more opportunities. Peterson: I am Wanda Peterson. I live at 1325 Ellis. I just need five minutes. I think those pictures are worth a thousand words. First, a little history. This is a picture taken back when my grandfather owned this property. This is the railroad. This was taken by my mother in 1970. This is the one that allows the water to come through and into the creek. This was a picture of my grandmother and you can see the tussle in the background. Here is a better map than what we have here. I have been fighting floods since 1973 so this is from my old files. Here is the creek. This gives you a better view of how it flows. Here is the tussle right here. The tunnel that you see over there are back here. Here is an exploded view of ours. I live right here. The creek comes up behind me and it floods. I wasn't kidding about 15' in my backyard. That is one picture of my flood from my window. Here is our garden, or what was left of it after a flood. We didn't need water at the time but we did have an irrigation system. Here is a little better picture of it. What you see here is the edge of our carport at that time, we have since built on back there. There is another picture of the garden. This is Carlson Terrace, this is not applicable right now because it has been taken care of. At the time it hadn't. This was 1973. It is on the back of the pictures if you want to look and see the description of them. This is directly behind my house after a flood where the water has pushed the rocks into the center. This is my bank here, this is my eroded bank here. At that point I already lost 4' to 8' off my property. This is the sewer that was in my backyard. Because we are on an angled street and not north, south, east, or west the sewer wouldn't cross. This has been taken care of although in taking care of it they did build an embankment that sticks out in the creek and is rocked. There again, it was a problem because it has deflected the water back onto our banks. That was after this. That is south of 11th Street bridge right there. This is a tree that was piled up north of the bridge. This walnut tree was 15" diameter back then. This is the 15th Street bridge. We finally got the state to come in and clean the debris out from the bridge, which did help the problem but it didn't alleviate it entirely. You can see how low these bridges are. This is Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 53 looking standing on my property looking back at that bank. The man who lived there at the time had property because of the angle of the creek, he had property on our side of the creek. He lived over here, he had trucks and some sort of construction business. He channellized this creek which made it terrible for erosion. He brought in to fill up his side huge pieces of concrete that he dumped into the creek. That naturally caused floods. This is the little ditch between Hill and Alice. I don't know how that is working. They just built a duplex. Shepherd: It is all washed out. Peterson: This is a little abutment at the corner of Dunn and Alice that allows storm water to flow to 15th Street bridge. You can see how that goes. I think that is still there. This is brush along the bank. Here is the creek bed a natural, narrow, natural slate creek bed. It filled in at different places along there where there were very wide and very narrow portions of the creek. Hoover: I think that we are getting the idea that there is a drainage problem. Peterson: I have been there 43 years. Shepherd: You said 1972. Peterson: I have been in the area, I know the history. I know the swampy land out there because we have some. I have lived 65 of my 66 years in this area so I do know something about it. Going back to the fence which was knocked down by the floods until they put it back. Hoover: Thank you Wanda. I know that Jim Beavers is now doing our storm water plan. Casey: He is working on the Storm water Phase II program that Ms. Radwell mentioned earlier. Hoover: Have there been any areas identified or have we addressed this area and the problems they are having with drainage? Casey: As far as I'm aware, there has not been a study of this area. I just wanted to double check and make sure that this is not an established floodway and floodplain, which surprises me with all of these comments. Hoodenpyle: Don Hoodenpyle, twenty years ago you guys brought in this guy that was supposed to fix this situation. A lot of the problem that you have got right here is between my piece of property and the next piece of property over. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 54 My driveway used to go up to Hill Street, that is why I am listed as being on Hill Street, which I am not. I am on 11`h and Duncan. They had a concrete embankment put in there and they had a bridge across there. The bridge washed out so they made 11th Street come on around and we started going out a different direction. This happened when I moved there over 30 years ago. That abutment thing, they let Christy come in there and dump 50 or 60 loads of gravel, or rock and concrete and stuff in over there so what it did instead of the water running over the top of Hill Street and then started coming back this other way. If they would cut a trench it would take a cat about an hour or less to cut off a piece of my property where it starts rolling back if they would cut off a piece of my property 10' or 20' would alleviate a whole lot of this problem because the water wouldn't be backing up. Hoover: Have you talked to the city? Hoodenpyle: Yes I have. This guy promised he was going to come back. Hoover: In the last few years recently. Hoodenpyle: As far as the city goes, I think it is foolish that that is zoned R-2 but it is already zoned R-2 but the next one coming up is going to be worse. As far as the city and these water lines, I don't think you can fix that water line. The road is completely collapsed underneath and they keep putting this gravel back in it. The cars come across 11`h Street, the more cars that come across there the more times that line is going to get broke. It got three times last year in one day. It happened after hours on Friday and they were up until midnight on Saturday fixing that stupid thing. The reason that these guys don't know about what is going on up there. We have called the woman in the City Clerk's office, she goes to the guy that fixes it, the guy comes out and fixes it and these guys don't know anything about it. Swifty didn't have any idea that we were having any problems down there. Hoover: Matt, can you meet with the neighbors and Dave Jurgens tomorrow and talk about some of these issues? Casey: For the water line? Hoover: The drainage and maybe Dave Jurgens with the water. Casey: Give me more time. Smith: They park a truck over the waterline because it is exploding all over my house with the asphalt hitting my house, breaking my roof, breaking my Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 55 windows. I thought the sky was flying literally because this is beating my house in. The city says "We'll fix it." This three times in one day but not only that it has happened three times since then that it has hit my roof like this. Casey: Is this on 11`h or Duncan? Smith: 116 Street. It is running water and it breaks. The sewage line facing Duncan. There is a manhole, my husband goes and looks in the manhole, he loses a finger because he is trying to determine whether it is ours or the city's. I come home and go "What happened to your finger?" He says "I lost it in the manhole." This is a regular occurrence. Several times a month we have sewage backing up into our houses. Casey: This is along Duncan as well? Smith: We have got a fire hydrant in our yard right in front of our house. This is where their drunklies are coming out from the apartments into our yard flashing our bedroom. Guess what? We have got a 45° angle coming onto this road where his cars are coming out into our yard. Hoover: May I make a suggestion? I know the rest of you want to talk. Could you pass a list around and get their names and phone numbers so that the city can look into this? A lot of these issues seem to be not so directed at this project but existing problems. Smith: This project being put in is a problem. Hoover: We need to find out what these problems are. Shepherd: Can I address the little park? You said you are going to take some money instead of the park. The park manager came down and said that wasn't set in blood but they could go ahead and allow them to put a park in there if the people would keep the grass cut in the park and I think they would do that. They said they were going to put it right on Duncan Street. Smith: I have a problem too. He went in and tore these homes down and he did not clean up the mess. He tore the homes down and he has not cleaned up the mess. There was lead paint in these homes, etc. My father in law had these two homes. There was lead paint in these homes. There was tile that had asbestos in them. He tore these homes down and he did not have all of this stuff picked up. There are still piles of stuff there. My father in law had these two homes and I know this stuff was in these homes. Hoover: What was your name? Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 56 Smith: Dianna Smith. I live directly across. He had these two homes that I know have asbestos in them. Hoover: Can we start wrapping it up please? Smith: I am worried about the runoff of this stuff and the soil because the surrounding homes. Creel: Jenny Creel, I live at 1116 S. Duncan directly across the street. You have seen my house from the pictures. It is the one that you see straight on from looking at those photos. You hear everybody talking about the kids that are in the street. The speed limit is 10 around the corner and people are flying up and down the street. The traffic is a huge issue. The other issue and the other things I can take up at the other meetings is the park. In order to have a safe place to go, for my children as well, I have three children. The children in the neighborhood have to cross either S. School or 15`h to get to a park. We are locked in. I know that it was voted down by Parks and Rec. I was volunteering for Parks and Rec. as a soccer coach when the meeting took place so I missed it. I don't understand how set in stone that is if it is going to come up for appeal or what is happening with that if there is a potential to get a park. They are saying something about if the neighborhood association would take care of the park that it was too small for Parks and Rec. but it seemed like a chunk of money. Turner: I just spoke with Connie Edmonston the Parks Director. This would be the first time that a neighborhood association would actually like to appeal a decision by the Parks Board. She believes that it would have to go to the Planning Commission. However, we would entertain a meeting with the neighborhood association if we went with the money in lieu of land to talk about where that $18,000 could be spent. It would have to be spent within the quadrant and the quadrant is a larger area than just your neighborhood but we could see how that could benefit your neighborhood. I understand that there are some concerns with crossing major thoroughfares to get to parkland. Either way, you would have to appeal at the Planning Commission or if you wanted to go an alternate route we could set up a neighborhood association meeting. Hoover: I think we should set up a meeting first. Hawkins: My name is Marla Hawkins, I live at 1101 S. Duncan. I would like to address the impact of this proposal to the neighborhood. The neighborhood is a single-family dwelling neighborhood primarily. Whatever one considers trailer parks, those are single-family homes. They have a lot of advantages of single-family homes. They have all got their Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 57 own shared back yard. The development really seems not at all to fit in this neighborhood. Around the corner from this neighborhood is an example of what I think the neighborhood feels is a good fit. A house burned down, a duplex was fit in. That fit precisely in the neighborhood. That is pretty much it. We have difficulty with this property because the obvious space for park space would be actually the only place that is buildable as I see it on this land where the two houses existed. The other part of the property is wetland. There is a stream that goes through there. There are turtles, crawdad holes. You can put a stick down into 3' of water down through the soil. I am really finding this proposal to be completely out of this neighborhood. I am guessing that because this is a working class neighborhood that perhaps folks don't find that terribly important but to have decided to develop a lot with apartments in a neighborhood that is single-family homes, this is important to us. Shepherd: It is a poor man's residence. Biggers: My name is Phil Biggers and I appreciate the Committee to allow me to speak. Obviously I know this is zoned R-2 and the apartments must fit within the density requirements for that zoning within your city. If it is zoned R-2 and if it has been that in itself then it is ok. I think there are some greater issues and greater concerns here and that is the water, sewer, and flooding. I will attest to the fact that crawdads come up on that property in huge holes and in huge numbers. I would be really curious to see the environmental study that has been done. As far as the sewer issue goes Fayetteville sewer called me to go up to the piece of property to the north. In fact they have been up there so many times there is a road along that creek where they have had severe problems. Last fall it flooded where the whole area smelled tremendously terrible. I think I called two or three times in addition to the neighbors. The really bad part was it flooded the entire creek through there. I realize that this is downstream from that area but there is a tremendous infrastructure problem. If Engineering is not aware of that there is a lack of communication on the sizing and the age and condition of the infrastructure. I guess in some sense I am appalled that we would place that burden on the infrastructure that is totally outdated. I know that it is not within this Committee's jurisdiction to hold this project at this point. I think we need to address some of those with some studies. Let's address those issues. Let's not kill the project totally but at least address those issues with some serious studies that alleviates the problem and alleviates the concerns of the residents. I have not been privy to the neighborhood meetings and I don't even know most of these people here so I am not able to jump on the band wagon besides that. There are really some infrastructure problems. Number one is I would like to see a sewer study or the sewer department Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 58 sign off saying that is a 6" line and it is ok. Before that moves forward let's at least look at that. Hoover: You mentioned the R-2. Sara, on this amount of property how many units could you put in an R-2 zoning? Edwards: 62. It is 24 per acre. This is 2 % acres. Hoover: Do we have any other comments? Terry: I just have a couple of quick things. My name is Melissa Terry and I am here as a representative of the Sierra Club. I have received several calls from different residents asking us to walk this site and to monitor the site. I did walk it yesterday and saw that the Corp. of Engineers has been out there and delineated some of the wetlands. However, outside those wetlands I just thought that you would like to know that there is standing water even as dry as it is even 15' or 20' on the perimeter beyond what they have already designated. We have talked a lot about water and sewer but it seems to me on a larger context is that this is a water shed problem. It starts under the parking lot at Carlson Terrace. Before you get to 6th Street it is experiencing strain and then it goes through there. All of those things compound what is happening on this site. For the big picture because there are going to be a lot of Large Scale Developments coming to you guys that are creeping up and down this water shed. On this particular piece we would like to support the neighborhood association's request for an appeal the Parks Depaitment in view of the problem that they are land locked. The families are locked in by state highways from accessing other parks in their area. We feel like it would be the highest and best use for the neighborhood, water shed, and water quality. The $18,000 that they would get in lieu of park space could be reevaluated and the parks space stay on that land as greenspace as a water filter, a catch basin and an erosion sediment control cross. Edwards: I would like to read a section of the UDO just so everyone understands about the parks. "The developer and the Parks Board shall make a joint recommendation to the Planning Commission as to the land dedication or contribution in lieu. In the event they are unable to agree they can make separate determinations to the Planning Commission who shall determine the issues." I don't think there has to be a formal appeal filed but we can point out as an issue to discuss because it is the Planning Commission's decision. Turner: May I also address that? That is if the developer and the Parks Board disagree. The developer and Parks Board agreed to take money in lieu of land so that decision is not being questioned here. It is now the Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 59 Smith: neighborhood association that is questioning it so it may be a separate issue all together. May I make a statement too? It is really a historic site. The wetlands start at the Bates' driveway and you can go up and look. That is where the trail tears where the Indians actually stopped and sat, that whole area right across from Bates to this huge pond. They moved the original sign. This is an historic site. Hoover: I'm sorry, I am going to have to cut you off. We get the point. Is there anyone else that would like to contribute something new to discuss? Usually you only get to speak one at a time and once. This has been really informal today and it won't be at Planning Commission. Is there any other issue that we have not covered that is a problem with anyone? I am going to close it to public comment if you don't mind. I appreciate it. Commissioners, what do you think? Bunch: I would like to thank the people that are coming up next on the agenda for being patient. I know you folks that spoke on this one had to be patient while you waited through some of the other things that we had on the agenda. We also have people after you all. We are about to break for lunch. We want to give all these other people here the same opportunity that you have. We have a long list of issues. The first thing I would say is give the applicant a chance to respond to some of these to see if we can get a more clear picture of it. Bunch, M: A couple of things, I think a lot of comments that we heard relate to what I said in the beginning. Some of the concerns are regional. We have some issues with water and sewer that need to be tracked down. On this developer's behalf we have done everything that we are supposed to do and everything we could do for this development and if the Water and Sewer Department say it is adequate for this development then that is their process. The water shed issues I think it is a huge issue for town branch creek. I don't know how much responsibility, if any, lies on this developer. His development is going to meet the drainage ordinance and the town branch creek issue is a cumulative regional problem that has developed project after project after project that didn't retain their water. I am sure historically and today it is a problem. It is a designated floodway. I have not looked at the floodway map but I am guessing the house that is down here is in the floodway that has been established. I don't believe it is my professional opinion that that is not attributed at all to this development because this development handles it's water in accordance with the drainage ordinance which the City of Fayetteville has been extremely proactive of meeting the requirements of the NPDS etc. and all the things that we are talking about with the March, 2003 deadline since Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 60 Bunch: Bunch, M: Bunch: 1994. Those original documents came into existence in 1992. The city already requires detention. The city already requires erosion control. The city already requires that developments be responsible neighbors. There has always historically been some sort of recourse on behalf of those people. If they get flooded they sue whoever that responsibility lies in. This property is going to detain to less than predevelopment flows. Technically there is nothing else this property can do unless it is a regional detention facility and I don't believe that burden lies on Mr. Mathias and his 2.46 acre site to fix the entire town creek area. As far as the kids, I know there is an existing sidewalk on Duncan. We have to put in a 6'. I know that this sidewalk is directly adjacent to the curb. I haven't measured it but I believe it is probably 3' or 4' wide existing on Duncan. Again, we are having to put in the 6' back with the street improvements with our piece. As far as the traffic, I know we recently went around and around with another project of this size. 11`h Street, even if you consider it as a local street as far as the functional classification of the street, which is our best tool, this project might attribute 5% or 6% of that volume. Engineering has already addressed that this is historically a collector, which I would agree. It is a straight shot between from 6th Street to 15`h Street and there is a signal at 6th Street. I have heard several comments from neighbors at the neighborhood association that that was an issue. As far as greenspace and park space, there is a lot of greenspace on this site. If you look at the area that we are having to use for the wet swale for our mitigation areas, for the tree mitigation and preservation, brush areas, the detention pond, and this green area left up here there is a huge amount of green area left on this site. Again, we are less than the density that is allowed by the zoning regulations. Also, I think there are some severe liability implications to having a park that is not owned by the city on this piece of property. I don't know how positive that is from an owner's perspective, I think it is something that he will need to consider. He has been very approachable and responsive to any comments that have been given. As far as anything else I am not sure what else there is to respond to really other than the major regional concerns. Which, again, I don't feel should be a burden on this property owner. Mandy, what is the percentage of open space on this project? Total impervious space on this site is 51.5%. Approximately 1/2 of the site is impervious, % of the site maintains green area. That is a pretty good ratio. Sara, as part of our packet for if this goes to Planning Commission a FEMA map of the area? We have got our immediate map like this and a one mile radius. I guess we could look at the different 100 -year and 500 - year and the different zones if we could get that spelled out. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 61 Ostner: On that same line a more careful consideration of which sewer line this is impacting. Hoover: We are going to need a statement from all city staff on drainage, sewer, water. Bunch: Phase II. Casey: As far as Phase II is concerned I think the city requirements are already well ahead of the curve. We are working toward a complete plan with our grading ordinance and drainage requirements that we have. We have already got a lot of the stuff that is required in place. I would like to look at the drainage and sewage issue and the condition of the water line. I need to get with the Water and Sewer Division and research this and find out what the problems are in the area. Unfortunately, we rely on the communications of the two divisions to identify these before they get to this point but sometimes it gets busy and it doesn't always happen. We will be checking into that specifically and get a recommendation. If it is going to require offsite improvements if I can review them I would rather come back to this level and discuss that at this point. Without looking into it I don't know. It sounds like whether the city cost shares with the developer to do this or what happens is yet to be determined. Bunch: Sara, do you have any idea when the division of Long Term Planning is going to be up and running? A lot of people may not be aware that in addition to the current planning that we are working on that there will be a Long Term Planning Division. Edwards: We do have a long term planning department in place now. The leadership of that department has not been decided. They are hoping within the next couple of weeks to fill that position. They will be looking at projects such as converting R-2 zoning areas to residential zoning. It just ranges from everything that we have on our work plan. Hopefully within a couple of weeks we should be really rolling with that department. Bunch: Would a watershed approach and Phase II and that sort of thing be addressed? Edwards: Our Long Range Planner is already working on that Phase II to make sure we comply and to do some public education and those different things. I know that is in process right now. Bunch: I guess when that comes up when people have problems that are not necessarily addressed by current planning and you have a whole Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 62 neighborhood of watershed area it looks like problems would be directed to that department. Edwards: Right now specific drainage complaints go to Sid Norbash of our Engineering Division. I can't say if he is aware of them and has had complaints. This is such a huge issue. This is really a big issue and it is not something that we can go and put a pipe in and fix. I would encourage you to talk to him as well as your aldermen. Terry: I think they passed around a neighborhood list. Hoover: What do you all suggest? MOTION: Bunch: I think I would like to look at it at this level again because we have had to kind of shorten public comment because we do have a lengthy agenda. Most of the items that we have had on the agenda have been more involved than what we normally would have. I know that this one has been a long time in process but I would like to see some of these water and sewer line assessments at this level again. I am going to recommend that we table LSD 03-13.00 Duncan Avenue Apartments to be brought back to Subdivision after we get more information from staff on some of the issues that have been discussed today. Ostner: I will second. Hoover: I will concur. Edwards: Just for the public to know, that meeting will be April 17th at the same time and same place. Hoover: That will give Matt and the Engineering staff time to get acquainted with the location. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 63 PPL 03-9.00: Preliminary Plat (Clabber Creek, Phase II, pp 322) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BMW Investments for property located north of Mount Comfort Road and west of Rupple Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 30 acres with 89 lots proposed. Hoover: Will the applicant on the next one come forward please? Next is PPL 03- 9.00 for Clabber Creek. Sara, can you tell us about this project? Edwards: Yes. This is Phase II of the subdivision that we approved last May. This has got 89 lots proposed, 30 acres. It is going to connect into Phase I which is being built right now. Also, this will access Mount Comfort Road. Water and sewer is ok. We are recommending curb and gutter and street improvements 14' from centerline on Mount Comfort. Tree preservation, they have 3.7% and they are proposing to keep 2.7% so a little bit of offsite mitigation that is being proposed. There is a large piece of property to the north of this project Phase I and Phase II which I believe is a total of 19 acres that will be park land. We are going to get a trail through there. $10,080 for the Rupple Road bridge will be assessed. We do have an assessment district established on that and this falls within there. This is pretty straight forward, it meets R-1 zoning requirements. Hoover: Ok, Matt? Casey: Sidewalks are going to be constructed according to our requirements. I don't have all those street names but they have been verified and they are providing the appropriate sidewalk widths and the greenspace on each street. We are going to be requiring street improvements along Mount Comfort. They are providing detention on the north end of this site that will be discharging into Clabber Creek. The flows will match or decrease the existing flows. That is all I have. Hoover: Parks? Turner: This project has not been before the Parks Board. However, the developer has deeded 20 acres to the city and we are assuming that the park land dedication was included within that 20 acres. I have spoke with Geoff and have asked for the deeds and all of the official material that will let us know that so that we can take it to Parks Board, get their approval and we will send the decision to you at the Planning Commission. Hoover: Ok, trees? Hesse: They are basically preserving the whole thing. There are just a few in the detention pond that they are removing. They are not developing any of the Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 64 forested area. The only ones that were affected was right in here. The only thing we are going to look at during construction is this is a 36" tree and this is a 36" tree so we may try to redesign this if it is possible due to the size of those trees. There was a slight change that was going to be included in this additional land that they are deeding to the city in place of getting offsite mitigation. Hoover: Would the applicant identify himself? Bates: I am Geoff Bates with Keystone Consultants and basically we are just extending Phase I and Phase II is nothing special. They are the same size lots. We do agree with condition number two and are already doing our 14' improvement across the front. It is just a regular residential subdivision, nothing special. Bunch: When we go to the regular Planning Commission can we get a drawing that shows the additional phases, an overall concept that also shows where this 19 or 20 acres that goes to the city is. We see part of it here. I remember how this project came in but doesn't it wrap around the school? Bates: Yes. Phase I goes around the school. All that we are dedicating is this here. Bunch: Something like that so that the other commissioners have a better idea. Bates: I can do that. Bunch: This is real straight forward really as far as how it ties into that. Bates: Ok, I can give you the whole thing. Hoover: Can you just show the streets. Edwards: You just want Phase I, Phase II and the park. Bunch: Maybe like the drawing when it first came through for a lot split or something like that that gives us an idea of what the whole project is because I think people are going to start asking where is that park area and where is that tree preservation area and how come we aren't doing this and doing that. All of that information will be on the larger plan. Hoover: You do need to show the streets on here. I find that confusing because something is connecting to something but I don't know what. It is just for clarity. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 65 Ostner: That will help us a lot. Bunch: One of the first notes I put on there was where is the break down of the canopy and the percentages and square feet because that is one of the things we normally look for. I know you have a tree inventory. Bates: An overview is on the last page. Bunch: Ok, thanks. A question about access on Mount Comfort. Do we want to limit access on lots one and lots 11 through 16? Bates: They have no intentions of using that. Bunch: Just make a note on here so we don't have curb cuts on Mount Comfort. Lot 78 does that have enough frontage? I imagine it would be measured. Bates: They all have the 70'. Sara always gets me on that so I made sure. Hoover: I would like to open it up for public comment for this Preliminary Plat for Clabber Creek. Seeing no one, I will close it to public comment. Are there any other comments? Bunch: I don't have any. I move that we forward PPL 03-9.00 to the Planning Commission. Ostner: I will second. Hoover: I will concur. Bunch: That is also that we limit the access to Mount Comfort. Hoover: Thank you. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 66 PPL 03-10.00: Preliminary Plat (Copper Creek, Phase II, pp 61/100) was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Gary Brandon Enterprises for property located north of Zion Road and west of George Anderson Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 57 acres with 131 lots proposed. Hoover: The next one is PPL 03-10.00. Edwards: Finally we have PPL 03-10.00 for Copper Creek Phase II. It is north of Zion Road and west of George Anderson Road. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 57 acres with 131 lots proposed. To the west is R-1 and there are the existing subdivisions. Water and sewer are ok. We are getting some additional right of way. Zion and George Anderson are collectors. A note shall be placed which prohibits access from George Anderson for all lots and limits access and to Zion from lots five and 113. Second is determination of required offsite improvements. We are recommending that both Zion and George Anderson Road be improved 14' from centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drainage adjacent to this development with the remaining half to be paved to meet county standards. We have '/z of curb and gutter to city standards and the other '/2 to county standards. Tree calculation numbers Kim can talk to you about. Hesse: We have got existing there is 1.86% on the total site. What they are preserving is 1.7%. That results in mitigation to the tree fund in the amount of $4,050. Hoover: Matt, did you have anything for Engineering? Casey: They are providing the required 4' sidewalks throughout the interior of the subdivision. We are asking for 6' sidewalks and 10' greenspace along Zion and George Anderson along with those street improvements that Sara mentioned. They are providing two detention ponds and I want to point out that they are having to put in two lift stations as well to serve the area with sewer through this recently constructed development to the west. The roads will be improved on the development side of the road to city standards and the other side will be to the county standards. We will be seeing the entire width of the road improved. With this you will see the entire road improved. One half of it will be to our standards. Edwards: I would like to point out that on the vicinity map you can see the existing streets leading up to it. Hoover: Thank you. Parks? Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 67 Turner: Hoover: Moore: Bunch: Moore: Bunch: Ostner: Moore: Bunch: Edwards: Casey: Bunch: Moore: Bunch: On March 3rd the Parks Board voted to accept 3.14 acres to satisfy the parkland ordinance. Thank you. Would you like to present? I am Brian Moore with Engineering Services. This is the Preliminary Plat for Phase II of Copper Creek Subdivision. The lots are about the same size as Phase I I don't know if you all have been out there or not. They are fairly nice houses in my opinion. I will be happy to answer anything that you might have. On the Preliminary Plat drawing you are showing a phase line cutting across this so we have two different things being called Phase I and Phase II. My understanding was all of this to the west was Phase I and this whole piece is Phase II, do we have a II and a III? I guess we could do that, that is not a problem. What is the impact of having it done in phases? Are you only planning on one right now? We are planning on doing this in two phases. Probably by the time we about finish this one we will start the other one. The engineering plans and everything will all be the same time. A question for staff, if this is done in phases then what impact does that have on the permits and the roads and the drainage? We are going to need to look at that. It seems like the sewer and everything can be phased. We will take that into consideration. That is the main concern with a phased project that engineering as. Is that phase line across the crest? That is correct. In the proposed private park area you are showing some trees in there preserved, are those going to be wiped out by slabs or tennis courts or what is the story inside that fence? It looks like that fence runs through some trees also. Hesse: That is not part of the property. Once they deed that of to Parks. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 68 Bunch: No, this is a private park. Hesse: Ok. Moore: We took that lot and made it a private park area. Hesse: At the time they were talking about an entry sign here. Moore: Why don't we do this to eliminate the mess is put the tennis court here. We were going to put it there but we put it here to impact less neighbors but I didn't realize that is where the trees were. Bunch: You were putting it right in the middle of the trees. Hesse: What we talked about for the easements was putting all the utilities in the front but to their point they wanted to put a nice entry here. They didn't want all of the services sitting right there so we gave on this one but we were coming up here stubbing off, coming back down and we were going to be in front of these lots and in front of these lots and then coming back over and picking up. That way we are not affecting the trees in the park, other than these trees right here but from here on. I guess we could stop that easement right there which gives you another tree. Moore: They have to get to this lot. Bunch: It shows fully across 130 and 129. Hesse: You didn't want any at all on this first street? Moore: We didn't want any at all on our entry street. Bunch: I didn't know if you wanted to come all the way to the back or if you do like we did on the air strip where the easements didn't run the full length, they just kind of stubbed out. Hesse: On this one what we are doing is they will come in and they will service this one here and then come down and service this one here with actually two services. Then we are going to come back down the front. That is why this easement is along the front is just to get passage back around. That is why we showed these trees to be taken out. They are not counted as preserved. You can see it by the curb cuts. Those that aren't outlined. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2003 Page 69 Bunch: For this tennis court moving across the road then that saves that. I am assuming that this is proposed park area and that is proposed public park area whereas we have a private park right next to it. Ostner: Where is the access for that public park area? Bunch: From the park next to it. Moore: What was the acreage on that? Turner: It will be a larger area now. Bunch: Where are the mitigation trees going? Hesse: They are going to be in a tree fund so the city will plant them along the streets once the houses are in. Bunch: The drawing is showing a legend for them. Hesse: They show them in the park but we can't do that so we are going to change that. Hoover: Do we have any public comment on this plat? I will bring it back to the Commission. Are there anymore comments? Ostner: I was just noticing that on some of those street widths that street G has 16 homes just like street F but street G is 28' and F is a 24'. Moore: Would you rather have that 24' also? Ostner: It seems like it could be reduced. I make a motion that we forward PPL 03-10.00 to the full Planning Commission. Bunch: I will second. Hoover: I will concur. Thank you for waiting so long. *Some names and addresses were not available at the time of the print of these minutes. Also, the motion to forward Lowe's and some comments about Commercial Design Standards for that C-PZD were inaudible. *