HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-01 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on
Thursday, May 1, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building,
113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN
PPL 02-7.10: Preliminary Plat (Legacy Point, pp 465) Forwarded
Page 3
LSP 03-34 .00 Lot Split (Husong, pp 168) Approved
Page 6
LSP 03-35.00 Lot Split (Husong, pp 168) Approved
Page 6
LSP 03-36.00 Lot Split (Husong, pp 168) Approved
Page 6
LSP 03-30.00: Lot Split (Whitlock Estate, pp 596) Approved
Page 10
LSP 03- 37.00: Lot Split (Scott Miller, pp 562) Forwarded
Page 13
LSP 03-31.00 Lot Split (Williams, pp 493) Approved
Page 16
FPL 03-2.00: Final Plat (Mission Place, pp 370 and 409) Approved
Page 18
LSD 03-3.00: Large Scale Development (Rasberry, 366) Approved
Page 21
R-PZD 03-3.00: Planned Zoning District
(North College Development Company, pp485)
Page 24
Forwarded
LSD 03-13.00: Large Scale Development Not Heard
(Duncan Avenue Apartments, 561)
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 2
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT
Alan Ostner
Nancy Allen
Don Bunch
STAFF PRESENT
Julie Bland
Rebecca Turner
Dawn Warrick
Matt Casey
Renee Thomas
Tim Conklin
STAFF ABSENT
Fire Department
Solid Waste
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 3
PPL 02-7.10: Preliminary Plat (Legacy Point, pp 465) was submitted by Jorgensen and
Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan Properties, Inc. for property located east of Double
Springs Road and south of Owl Creek. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential and RM -6, Low Density Multi -family Residential and contains approximately
49.80 acres with 132 lots proposed.
Bunch: Good morning. Welcome to the May lst meeting of your Fayetteville
Subdivision Committee. This morning we have an agenda that shows
eleven items. Actually we will only be hearing 10 items. One of the items
has been rescheduled for May 15`h, that is Duncan Avenue Apartments.
There have been substantial changes so the rescheduling is to allow people
time to review the changes. Also, our last meeting in this room we had
some sound problems and that sort of thing so in order to alleviate it we
have reorganized a little bit and we will be using the podium for public
comment. That way we can make sure that we can record everything.
Any of you that wish us to have the benefit of your comments if you
would please use the podium during the public comment session. That
being said, we will move along to the first item, PPL 02-7.10 submitted by
Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan for
Sloan Properties for property located east of Double Springs Road and
south of Owl Creek. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential
and RMF -6, Low Density Multi -Family Residential and contains
approximately 49.8 acres with 132 lots proposed. The request is to amend
the approved Preliminary Plat to allow for three phases. Dawn is this
yours or Tim?
Conklin: I will be going over the staff reports this morning and we will do this as a
team effort. This is a Preliminary Plat for Legacy Pointe. When it
originally came through the process it came through as one development
that was not phased. The developer has requested that he be allowed to
phase this development so we brought it back through this process to
allow this development to be put into three different phases. The
conditions to address include that it will be subject to all of the original
conditions of approval. 2) That two temporary cul-de-sacs are to be
provided prior to the Final Plat for approval of Phase I. The first cul-de-
sac is to be located at the end of Milliken Bend and the second shall be
located at the end of Persimmon Street. This is recommended in order to
accommodate emergency and service vehicles due to the fact that it is
going to be phased and we will have dead end streets. The right of way
for Persimmon on all phases shall be dedicated with the Final Plat for
Phase I. The required street and drainage improvements for Double
Springs Road should be constructed with Phase I and the detention pond
shall be constructed with Phase I. Once again, typically if a developer is
going to phase his development we see that up front during the
Preliminary Plat process. The reasons why we consider these things are I
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 4
just went through some conditions with regard to access circulation, cul-
de-sacs, detention and right of way dedication. It is something that we can
deal with and staff has no problem with phasing it with these conditions.
Thank you.
Bunch: Tim, on condition number two is that at the end of North Milliken Bend
where it junctions with Rocky Crossing?
Conklin: Yes, I believe that is correct.
Bunch: Ok, are there any additional staff reports? Matt?
Casey: I don't have any additional comments other than the fact that construction
has already started on Phases II and III as well. I really don't have any
concern about phasing this. They have positioned the phase lines in order
to accommodate the sanitary sewer and the storm sewer so I really don't
see any problems from the engineering standpoint.
Bunch: Ok, Parks?
Turner: There are 132 lots, 108 single-family and 24 multi -family, which is a total
of 3.0 acres of land dedication to meet parks fees. You have provided
3.42 acres so I am assuming that we are banking the .42 that is in excess.
In addition to that, I have been working with Chris Brackett. We need to
get some more details on the drainage swale that falls on the future park
property so that we understand what is going on there for safety concerns.
Jorgensen: Ok.
Bunch: Staff, is there any concern over when the parks come in as far as the
phasing is concerned? Would that be addressed in the conditions?
Conklin: As a condition of the Final Plat we do require that the park land dedication
be made. We haven't really discussed it. Your idea is that we are going to
take the entire park land as Phase I?
Turner: Yes.
Bunch: Would that be with the Final Plat on Phase I?
Conklin: Yes, that is probably something just to clarify we can add that as a
condition.
Bunch: Dave, do you have any presentation or comments?
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 5
Jorgensen:
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
Bunch:
Conklin:
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
Conklin:
Bunch:
Conklin:
Bunch:
MOTION:
Allen:
Ostner:
Bunch:
None other than Phase II and III are going to follow. In fact, as Matt said,
they are in the process of construction so I don't think this is going to be a
long, drawn out deal but financial reasons caused us to do this. It is
moving along real good and I wish I would've put the phase lines on in the
beginning but we didn't know at that particular point the situation.
1 was out there yesterday and it looked like they were making substantial
progress.
It is coming along real good.
At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone present who
would wish to comment on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to
the Committee for additional comments, questions, motions.
Just for clarification, the phase line between Phase II and III like between
lots 124 and 123, I am assuming that dashed line is the phase line?
Does that extend all the way across to between 56 and 57?
Right.
Just when I looked at it I just wanted to clarify that and maybe make it
darker.
This has to go to the full Planning Commission?
That is correct.
Are there any other comments or motions?
I move to forward PPL 02-7.10 to the full Planning Commission with the
added condition of the park land dedication.
I will second.
I will concur. Thank you.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 6
LSP 03-34 .00 Lot Split (Husong, pp 168) was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates
on behalf of Robert Husong for Lot 8 of the Woodlands subdivision. The property is in
the planning area and contains approximately 4.00 acres. The request is to split the
property into two tracts of 2.00 acres each.
LSP 03-35.00 Lot Split (Husong, pp 168) was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates
on behalf of Robert Husong for lot 9 of the Woodlands subdivision. The property is in the
planning area and contains approximately 4.48 acres. The request is to split the property
into two tracts of 2.00 and 2.48 acres.
LSP 03-36.00 Lot Split (Husong, pp 168) was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates
on behalf of Robert Husong for Lot 10 of the Woodlands subdivision. The property is in
the planning area and contains approximately 4.12 acres. The request is to split the
property into two tracts of 2.06 and 2.06 acres.
Bunch: The next three items are Lot Splits 03-34.00, 35.00, and 36.00 submitted
by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Robert Husong for lots 8, 9, and
10 of Woodlands Subdivision. Each of these will be split into two lots.
We will handle discussion together on these items and then we will vote
on them individually. That being said, what is the staff report on these
items?
Conklin: Starting with LSP 03-34.00, the request is to take a four acre tract and to
split it into two parcels, each two acres. Right of way dedication, 55' of
right of way along Hwy. 112. My question for Dave, that was done
already with the subdivision for Woodlands?
Jorgensen: Yes.
Conklin: Ok, so there is no additional right of way dedicated. This can be approved
at Subdivision Committee level. Washington County approval will be
required prior to filing. The only question I have for Mr. Jorgensen is
were there any restrictive covenants when Woodland was created that
restricted lot splits?
Jorgensen: I will have to check on that.
Conklin: That is all I have. With regard to LSP 03-35.00, which is lot 9, taking
4.48 acres, splitting it into two tracts of 2.0 and 2.48 acres. Right of way
was dedicated as we just discussed. Washington County approval is
required prior to filing. On the previous one as well as this one of course
we have our standard conditions of approval. On LSP 03-36.00 they are
taking lot 10, 4.12 acres, splitting it into 2.06 and 2.06. The same
conditions of approval apply. That is all I have. Thank you.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 7
Bunch:
Casey:
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
Conklin:
Silkwood:
Conklin -
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
Bunch:
Warrick:
Jorgensen:
Bunch:
Engineering?
The only comments are that sanitary sewer is not available to these lots
and that sidewalks are not required at the time of lot split.
Ok, and it is outside of the city limits so there are no parks. Dave, do you
have any presentation to make on this?
None other than Celia, from Washington County Planning, just before the
meeting mentioned that when we bring it before the County we are going
to have to show this as a replat, she would prefer that. Which is no
problem at all, we can put all of this on one sheet of paper. That way
everybody gets to see 8, 9, and 10 on one sheet and show the splits on
there.
I guess just for record keeping, is it going to become a subdivision then?
It will be a replat of lots 8, 9, and 10 of the Woodlands Subdivision.
Ok, that is what we are going to be signing off on. Officially at the
County it will be a replat of lots 8, 9, and 10 of Woodlands Subdivision. I
think we can handle that.
Is there anyone who would wish to comment on this issue? Seeing none, I
will bring it back to the committee. One other question, along with
whether or not there were any covenants for lot splits on this, was there
anything that had to do with shared driveways along 112 to minimize curb
cuts for lots 8 and 9?
I will have to check. That would be a good idea though.
It seems like I went by Planning yesterday and couldn't find in the records
specifically but memory tells me that there was some discussion on this
when it came through previously about subsequent lot splits of the large
lots and also some discussion about limiting the numbers of driveways
along the state highway, particularly since that is right in between two
fairly blind curves.
It would be appropriate to note those restrictions on the replat document.
Ok.
Should we address those at this time, if they are not there should we make
some comment on it?
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 8
Conklin:
I think it is appropriate to make some comment on it. Let me ask another
clarifying question on this replat. Celia, is this going to be one process we
are going through at the county or is it a two step process?
Silkwood: If the city approves the splits and the replat then I can administratively
approve the replat. I do have notes here. These were the
recommendations from the Washington County Planning Board December
17, 1999 for final approval of the Woodlands Subdivision. Note the 911
addresses for each lot on the plat, note the width and surface type of
Howard Nickle Road and Hwy. 112 on the plat, indicate adjacent
developments and property owners, and note in the certificate block a
certificate of ownership and dedication. They did have a discussion on the
size of the tiles to be installed under the drives for lots 1 through 7 and 10
but they did not talk about shared drives, which they did a lot back then
but they evidently didn't on this one. If you look at the plat now, the
covenants are not signed on the plat so I don't know if they didn't do any
or if it didn't get signed.
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
Conklin:
Bunch:
Conklin:
Bunch:
Conklin:
Bunch:
Who is the owner of record, is it Bill Gray?
Right. Mr. Husong is buying it.
Staff would recommend that we limit it to three curb cuts, one per each of
the lots that are being split.
Lots 9 and 10 should we just say that they would access from Howard
Nickle Road only since they are turned a little differently? That would
leave us with two curb cuts, one on 8 and one on 9?
I think that would be appropriate, Hwy. 112 being a highway.
Particularly since lot 8 is in a curve. Are there any other considerations?
With these added items we can still approve it at this level correct?
That is correct.
The Chair would entertain a motion for approval with the added item of
limiting the access on lots 8 and 9 and also lot 10 being on Howard Nickle
Road. I guess we should do this one at a time. Since it is a replat can we
do it three at once?
Conklin: It is three separate items, I think one at a time would be better for the
record.
MOTION:
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 9
Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 03-34.00 with the added note
that there is only one curb cut between tract A and B.
Allen: I will second.
Bunch: I will concur.
MOTION:
Ostner: I make a motion that we approve LSP 03-35.00 with the added note that
there is only one curb cut between tract A and B.
Allen: I will second.
Bunch: I will concur.
MOTION:
Ostner: I make a motion that we approve LSP 03-36.00 with access only from
Howard Nickle Road.
Allen: I will second.
Bunch: I will concur.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 10
LSP 03-30.00: Lot Split (Whillock Estate, pp 596) was submitted by Alan Reid on
behalf of the Whillock Estate for property located at 1903 Finger Road. The property is
zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 25.50 acres. The request is to split
into two tracts of 2.89 acres and 22.61 acres.
Bunch: Moving along to the fifth item on the agenda is also a lot split, 03-30.00
for Whillock submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Whillock Estate for
property located at 1903 Finger Road. The property is zoned A-1,
Agricultural and contains approximately 25.5 acres. The request is to split
into two tracts of 2.89 acres and 22.61 acres. Is there a representative here
from Whillock Estate or Alan Reid?
McBride: I am Martha McBride.
Bunch: Your connection with the applicant?
McBride: I represent the sellers.
Bunch: Staff report Tim?
Conklin: The property is currently zoned A-1 and contains 25.5 acres. The request
is to split into two tracts of 2.89 acres and 22.61 acres. There is an
existing house on the 2.89 acres. Surrounding zoning includes to the north
R-1 and A-1, to the south A-1, to the east A-1, to the west A-1. To the
north it does adjoin the Cobb -Westphal property that we saw with the
Lowe's development last Monday night at Planning Commission. There
is a 2" water line available along Finger Road. There is no sewer
available. This can be approved at the Subdivision Committee level. The
conditions to address are a minimum of 25' from centerline for right of
way will need to be dedicated. A dedication block shall be added to the
plat, which the property owner dedicates right of ways and easements to
the City of Fayetteville. Those are the only two conditions. The rest are
standard conditions. Thank you.
Bunch: Matt with Engineering?
Casey: I have no additional comment.
Bunch: Parks?
Turner: Nothing.
Bunch: 1 don't want to put you on the spot Martha but do you have any additional
presentation on this that you feel is pertinent?
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 11
McBride:
Bunch:
Casey:
Bunch:
Conklin:
Casey:
Bunch:
Conklin:
Bunch:
Conklin:
Bunch:
I don't know what you all want to know. The owner is deceased and the
heirs, this is an estate and the heirs are wanting to sell the land.
At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like
to provide public comment on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back
to the committee for additional comments or motions. I will start off, is
there any electrical access to tract, zone A the remainder? They are
showing electrical coming from the south side by Stapleton's property to
the 2.89 split but we are not showing electrical anywhere on the
remainder. Do you know if there is access?
The utilities did take a look at this during our Plat Review process and I
don't remember where they said that there was service available. They do
request the easements that are necessary to extend service in the future if
they are not existing.
One thing that is rather unclear, we are showing according to the drawing,
we are showing some right of way along Finger Road but we are not
showing easements, we are showing right of way on both accesses to
Finger Road but we aren't showing easements if I am reading the drawing
correctly.
I see a 35' building setback and the right of way that is shown, it is
difficult to tell. I think that is the reason for the comment. The surveyor
will need to go back and clarify the right of way to be shown from
centerline for Finger Road, 25' from centerline and any associated
easements. We can go back through the Plat Review minutes and make
sure everything is shown correctly before we give final approval.
I think there is supposed to be a 20' utility easement along Finger Road.
What about gas?
We are just going to have to go back through. I don't have that answer
today.
Basically get all of the utilities properly located and correct easements
recorded on the drawing.
We will go back through the Plat Review utility comments minutes prior
to giving final approval and make sure everything is shown correctly.
Ok, so we can give approval at this level subject to staff verification of
these items?
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 12
Conklin: If you are comfortable doing that we are more than willing to go back
through and make sure everything is documented on the survey correctly.
The survey does need to be modified just with the two conditions that we
have already with the signature block for additional dedication of right of
way and showing the dedication of the 25' from centerline. We will have
to get that taken care of.
Ostner: There is a 20' right of way that is marked just below the driveway, I think
we are asking for 25'.
Conklin- I see that, we are asking for 25' based on our Master Street Plan.
Bunch: l think it is also marked on the southern access.
Conklin: Yes, I see that.
Bunch: Are you all comfortable with approving it at this level and having staff
document the changes? Do we have a motion to that effect?
MOTION:
Ostner: I make a motion that we approve LSP 03-30.00 with the added changes,
with the conditions mentioned and with the staff to look at utility
easements.
Allen: I will second.
Bunch: I will concur.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 13
LSP 03- 37.00: Lot Split (Scott Miller, pp 562) was submitted by Scott Miller on behalf
of Gene Barbee for property located at 729 and 815 S. School. The property is zoned C-2
and contains approximately 1.20 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts
of.45 and .75 acres.
Bunch: The next item on our agenda is also a lot split, LSP 03-37.00 submitted by
Scott Miller on behalf of Gene Barbee for property located at 729 and 815
S. School the property is zoned C-2, and contains approximately 1.2
acres, the request is to split into two tracts of 0.45 and .75 acres. Staff?
Conklin- This is another lot split request into two tracts, .45 and .75 acres. The
square footage of the building will need to be added to the plat to
determine the amount of parking that is required. In order to determine
the parking of course we need the square footage of the building. Existing
development is commercial, thoroughfare. Surrounding zoning is C-2 to
the north, south, and east. To the west is I-1, Heavy Commercial. There
is existing water and sewer. Right of way that will be dedicated will be
35' from centerline. There are no street improvements proposed as part of
this. Conditions to address include Planning Commission determination
of the request for lesser dedication of right of way. They are asking not to
dedicate the full 55' from centerline because the existing building
encroaches into the required right of way. The proposal is not to dedicate
right of way around the existing building. Staff is in support of this
request. We have been in support of similar requests where we have had
buildings that encroach into the future right of way. The applicant shall
resolve the parking and access issues. Staff recommends an access and
parking easement between the buildings to accommodate parking stalls
and aisles. A Large Scale Development will be required for each tract at
the time of expansion or redevelopment. This is required in order to
address utility easements and right of way issues. The rest are standard
conditions of approval. Thank you.
Bunch: Is the applicant present?
Conklin: I guess not.
Bunch: Why don't we move this item to the end of the agenda rather than table it
and then if they do show up we can hear it after we have gone through
everything else, is that acceptable for everyone else?
Allen: Certainly.
Warrick: It does need to be forwarded to the full Planning Commission in order to
hear the lesser right of way dedication.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 14
INSERTED FROM LATER IN THE MEETING
Bunch: At this time I would like to introduce LSP 03-37.00. Alan if you would
come forward please. We will step over this. We have done the lot split
for the Whitlock Estate. We are looking at Miller, LSP 03-37.00
submitted by Scott Miller on behalf of Gene Barbee for property located at
729 and 815 S. School. We have already had staff comments on this.
What were the questions that we needed to ask the applicant? We have
already had public comment. Was it concerning the right of way
dedications?
Conklin: The existing building and the right of way. Staff is in support of the
request since we are waiving that right of way since the corner of the
building encroaches into the right of way. We are trying to figure out how
much parking is needed for each of the buildings and how many square
feet are in the buildings. Each tract will be required to go through Large
Scale Development with the conditions.
Reid:
So I understand it now, we gave the square footage of the existing
buildings. It was my interpretation that the staff was going to come up
with the required number of parking spaces based on the square footage of
the lot verses the square footage of the existing structures.
Conklin: What are the uses of the buildings?
Reid: One is a restaurant and I believe one may be a grocery store or a market. I
believe the one to the north is a market.
Conklin: Ok, we are not prepared to determine that issue. We do recommend
forwarding to the Commission on this item and we can get you a
recommendation with regard to how that parking lot is going to work with
how it is setup.
Reid:
As far as that building encroaching onto that new right of way, it was my
understanding that that was something that would have to go to the City
Council.
Conklin: That is correct. Staff does not have authority to amend our Master Street
Plan.
Reid: I think we were just going to plan on taking it forward.
Conklin: Yes, we were just going to take it forward to the Commission and to the
City Council.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 15
Bunch: As we move it forward to the Commission what are the deficiencies that
need to be corrected between now and then?
Conklin: We will make a determination on the parking based on the use of the
structure, square footage and what is out there. We will do some more
research on that and see how that parking lot meets our current code and if
it is going to be shared between the two businesses. It appears that there is
some gravel parking out there and some concrete parking and we will have
to take a look at possible access easements and shared parking for what
the proposal is. We are just going to have to look on it a little more
between now and Planning Commission.
Bunch: I can see electric on here and sewer but where is gas and water?
Reid: I believe the water is actually on the other side of the highway. There is
gas in there somewhere, it is probably just imbedded in this drawing so
deep you can't see it but there is gas service I know. There was, I think
we added a sewer easement to the rear of the northern tract where there is
an existing sewer no the property already. I think those are comments that
we addressed from Technical Plat Review the first time around.
Bunch: Staff, do you have any further comments on this one?
Conklin: Staff has no further comment.
Bunch: I will entertain any motion.
MOTION:
Allen: I move that we forward LSP 03-37.00 with the conditions to the Planning
Commission.
Ostner: I will second.
Bunch: I will concur.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 16
LSP 03-31.00 Lot Split (Williams, pp 493) was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates
on behalf of Rich Williams for property located at 371 N. Harvey Dowell Road. The
property is in the planning area and contains approximately 23.60 acres. The request is to
split the property into two tracts of 21.99 and 1.21 acres.
Bunch: The next item on the agenda is also a lot split. It was submitted by
Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Rich Williams for property located at
371 N. Harvey Dowell Road. The property is in the Planning Area and
contains approximately 23.6 acres. The request is to split into two tracts
of 21.99 and 1.21 acres. Staff?
Conklin: This is another lot split that we are hearing this morning. It is a total of
23.6 acres, they are requesting to split it into two lots of 21.99 and 1.21
acres. Existing development is on agricultural land with a single-family
home. Right of way to be dedicated includes Wyman Road and Harvey
Dowell Road, which are classified as collector streets on the City of
Fayetteville's Master Street Plan. This requires a 35' right of way
dedication from centerline. Staff is recommending that this project be
approved at the Subdivision Committee level. Conditions to address
include the legal description shall close. Staff is currently verifying the
amended description provided by the engineer. A dedication block shall
be added to the plat. That allows the dedication of right of way and
easements to Washington County. Washington County approval will be
required prior to the filing of the lot split. The rest are standard conditions
of approval.
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
Bunch:
Casey:
Turner:
Bunch:
MOTION:
Allen:
Dave, did you have any presentation on this one?
No, I am here to answer questions on it.
At this time we will take public comment Is there anyone that would
wish to provide us with the benefit of their comments on this item?
Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions,
comments, or motions. Matt, do you have anything with engineering?
No comment.
No comment from Parks.
Do I have any motions?
I move for approval of LSP 03-31.00 subject to conditions of approval.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 17
Ostner: I will second that.
Bunch: Dave, are these conditions acceptable?
Jorgensen: Yes they are.
Bunch: I will concur, thanks.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 18
FPL 03-2.00: Final Plat (Mission Place, pp 370 and 409) was submitted by Crafton,
Tull and Associates, Inc. on behalf of CTC Ventures, Ltd. for property located south of
Fairview Cemetery and west of Mission Boulevard. The property is zoned R-1, Single
Family Residential and contains approximately 3.15 acres with 10 lots proposed.
Bunch: The next item on the agenda is the Final Plat for Mission Place submitted
by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of CTC Ventures, Ltd. for
property located south of Fairview Cemetery and west of Mission
Boulevard. The property is zoned R-1, Single -Family Residential and
contains approximately 3.15 acres with 10 lots proposed. Staff?
Conklin: This is a Final Plat. The Preliminary Plat was approved on August 26,
2002. Construction of the road and our utilities are complete. The request
is to approve the Final Plat to allow for the sell of lots and recording at
Washington County. It can be approved at the Subdivision Committee
level. Right of way along Hwy. 45 and Mission Blvd. will need to be
dedicated by Warranty Deed to the City of Fayetteville prior to filing the
Final Plat. The rest are standard conditions of approval.
Bunch: Matt?
Casey: Construction is substantially complete on the project. They have had a
final inspection and I see no problem with proceeding on.
Bunch: Ok, Parks?
Turner: Parks fees are set at $4,700 for ten units.
Bunch: When are those due?
Turner: They are due at the signing of the Final Plat so we will need to have that in
pretty quickly.
Bunch: What about the bonding for sidewalks and street lights, how is that being
addressed?
Casey: The sidewalks along Mission are constructed at this time. The street lights
should be installed as well either that or they should have provided a
receipt from the utility company.
Kelso:
We will need to post a bond for the sidewalk inside of it because the
sidewalk will be built as each house is built. That should be the only thing
we have to bond.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 19
Bunch:
Kelso:
Conklin:
Bunch:
Warrick:
Bunch:
Warrick:
Conklin:
Bunch:
MOTION:
Allen:
Ostner:
Bunch:
That would accommodate the curb cuts and we do have a receipt for
payment of the street lights?
I don't know if they have submitted it yet. If not, we will do that along
with the bond letter.
We can add those as additional conditions. That is something that staff
requires prior to signing the Final Plat. Proof of payment for street lights
is listed in 5B.
5C is Parks. I just wanted to make sure that they are all on there. At this
time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who wishes to
comment on the Final Plat for Mission Place? Seeing none, I will bring it
back to the committee for motions, comments, questions. On Final Plats,
at one time we were forwarding those to the full Planning Commission,
are we now doing them at Subdivision level again?
Your bylaws allow you to approve the Final Plat. We have been
forwarding the dedication of rights of way to the Planning Commission
and the City Council and we have been doing those in groups, basically as
we have several Final Plats we will process those forward for approval and
dedications. The actual Final Plat we have been approving at Subdivision
level.
I know the bylaws say it can be at Subdivision level and I think some of
the other state language says it is done at the Planning Commission level
but I guess Subdivision is a division of it.
You represent the Planning Commission.
Then we do take the dedication for public streets in groups to the City
Council.
That being said, do we have any motions?
I move for approval of FPL 03-2.00 subject to the five conditions of
approval.
I will second.
One question. What about any covenants for the maintenance of the
detention pond and the gravel access area, has that been addressed?
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 20
Kelso: It is part of the conditions.
Bunch: Ok, I will concur. Thank you.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 21
LSD 03-3.00: Large Scale Development (Rasberry, 366) was submitted by Dave
Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Henry Jordan for property located east
of Leverett at the north end. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and
contains approximately 1.18 acres with a 24 unit apartment proposed.
Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSD 03-3.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen
of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Henry Jordan for property located
east of Leverett at the north end. The property is zoned R-2, Medium
Density Residential and contains approximately 1.18 acres with a 24 unit
apartment complex proposed. Do we have any staff comments on this
one?
Conklin: This is a request to modify the approved Large Scale Development. The
original approval was for a two story 20 unit apartment and a two story
four unit apartment building with 48 bedrooms and 48 parking spaces.
The request is to change the number of units per building to result in a 16
unit and an 8 unit building. Staff is recommending it be forwarded to the
full Planning Commission. All of the original conditions of approval shall
remain in affect. I do believe that you can probably approve it here at
Subdivision Committee level. The ordinances to allow what is deemed as
something that is more than a minor modification that can be approved by
staff to go to Subdivision Committee and it can be approved at
Subdivision Committee so we can change our recommendation. It can be
approved here if you feel like it is appropriate. All of the original
conditions of approval will remain in affect.
Bunch: Engineering, are there any comments? Parks?
Turner: Yes Sir. Parks fees have been adjusted since this first went through the
new formula sets multi -family units at $393 per unit so the new fees that
are due are $9,432 for 24 units.
Bunch: Dave, just for the record can you tell us what is being added?
Jorgensen: What happened, this was approved earlier by the Planning Commission
and they found out starting at the beginning of this year you have to
sprinkle all units if they are above 20 units so what they did is they split
this up. Everything is the same other than the fact that they split this
building up such that they won't have to sprinkle this one here. That was
the whole reason for being this back before the Subdivision Committee.
Everything else remains the same. We changed our plans accordingly.
Matt, I think the grading plan and everything is essentially the same.
Bunch: The same way with parking?
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 22
Jorgensen:
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
Conklin:
Bunch:
Conklin:
Jorgensen:
Bunch:
Allen:
Ostner:
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
Ostner:
Bunch:
Bland:
Right.
One question. Should we not have some accessible parking by the small of
the two buildings rather than have all of it with one building?
I can sure check on that.
Would that be the type of change that would be permissible?
I thought we ran this by Perry.
That is permissible. Perry Franklin does like to spread the parking out for
each building. He typically makes that comment at the development
review process so I don't see that as a problem. They are utilizing dual
accesses between the spaces so it would eliminate one space.
One is van accessible and one is not, is that correct?
Yes. They may be able to relocate that closer to the two buildings towards
the east of the project and relocate that ramp to serve both. That is
something staff would ask that they look at.
We can do that, no problem. Put it down here?
I think that would be better.
I agree.
The issue seems to me like aren't those steps because then the disabled
people have to wheel behind cars to get there.
Those are handicap ramps.
Yes, that is what those represent. That would be closer to these two to put
them down.
The location would be better.
Is there anyone in the audience that would wish to comment on this Large
Scale? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for motions,
comments, questions.
I have updated the tree preservation plan and I would like to pass it out at
this time. In addition to the previous conditions of approval at the bottom
of the page that require the Landscape Administrator to approve the final
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 23
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
Bunch:
MOTION:
Ostner:
Allen:
Bunch:
Jorgensen:
landscape plan including species of mitigation trees and requiring separate
maintenance bond I have added that the bond will be in the amount of
$1,800 and that all attempts shall be made to preserve as many trees within
the right of way as possible as Leverett Avenue is extended to the north.
The contractor is to review construction within this area with the
Landscape Administrator to work around the trees and the location of the
sidewalk is to be determined in the field once the road construction is
complete to work around the trees. They have been approved for on site
mitigation.
Are these additional conditions acceptable?
Yes they are.
So basically you would be signing off on all conditions of approval
including this added item?
Right.
Do we have any motions?
I will make a motion that LSD 03-3.00 with all the conditions from the
previous approval including the tree preservation form and the relocation
of the handicapped parking more towards the east.
I will second.
I will concur.
Thanks a lot.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 24
R-PZD 03-3.00: Planned Zoning District (North College Development Company,
pp485) 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 the St. Joseph Catholic Church
buildings into 39 residential units (63 bedrooms) with 64 parking spaces. The existing
duplex on Willow Street and the existing single family home on Sutton Street are
proposed to remain.
Bunch: The next item on our agenda is R-PZD 03-3.00, a Planned Zoning District
for North College Development Company. It 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 including converting the school
and office buildings into 39 units, utilizing existing buildings. I guess we
will go to staff at this time for a staff report.
Conklin: This is a Residential Planned Zoning District. Once again, we are looking
at reusing St. Joseph's Catholic Church and converting that into a
residential use with 39 units what they are calling on the plat as the old
church is proposed 9 units, 6 two bedroom units and 3 one bedroom units.
What is referred to on tract one, on tract two, old school, as it is referred
to, contains 20 units, 8 two bedroom units, 12 one bedroom units. What
is referred to as the new church, 10 two bedroom units on tract 3. On tract
4 on Willow Street there is an existing duplex to remain, two one bedroom
units within that structure. On Sutton Street there is a single-family
residence that will remain as a single-family residence. There is an
existing playground, a parking lot that is being dedicated to the city for use
as a park. Parking includes 63 parking spaces, 4 ADA spaces.
Surrounding land uses include R-1 zoning, single-family homes to the
north, south, east and west. There is existing water and sewer on the site.
There are no street improvements proposed. Lafayette Street is classified
as a historic collector on the Master Street Plan. Tree preservation, there
are no requirements or changes to the canopy. Recommendation includes
forwarding to the City Council from the Planning Commission for the
rezoning portion of the Planned Zoning District. Planning Commission
approval at the full level of the proposed development subject to the
conditions listed below. Conditions of approval include any additional
utility meters or equipment will be required to be screened from the street.
2) Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver of the
required fifteen feet of landscaping along front property lines. The
applicant is requesting to provide 0-11 of landscaping along Walnut
Avenue. However, there will be some landscaping within the right-of-way.
If the required 15 feet of landscaped area were installed three parking
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 25
stalls would be lost. Staff is in support of this request in order to provide at
east one parking stall per bedroom. 3) OPlanning Commission
recommendation to City Council regarding the request for a variance from
§166.03.K Required Dedication of Land for Public Park Sites or a
Reasonable Equivalent Contribution in Lieu of Dedication of Land. The
requirement is for $11,261.87 in addition to the .176 acre parkland
dedication. The applicant is requesting not to pay the fees in lieu of
dedication. Please see letter from applicant. 4) Planning Commission
recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezoning of the subject
property to the unique district for R-PZD 03-3.00 with all conditions of
approval as determined by the Planning Commission. 5) An ordinance
creating this R-PZD shall be approved by City Council. 6) Covenants
shall be filed which provide for maintenance of parking areas and
greenspace. 7) An access easement shall be filed which allows for access
and parking throughout the site for each building. 8) A masonry screen
wall shall be installed along the south side of the property. 9) All signage
proposed on site shall comply with Chapter 174, Signs of the Unified
Development Ordinance and shall be permitted accordingly. 10) The lot
split survey shall be titles concurrent plat and shall contain the required
signature blocks for filing. 11) Parks fees shall be paid and parks land
dedicated prior to building permit. 12) An access easement and
covenants shall be filed with concurrent plat. 13) No building expansion
shall occur unless an amended Planned Zoning District is approved. The
rest are standard conditions of approval. This was heard at the Technical
Plat Review meeting on March 12th and it did go to the April 2nd
Subdivision Committee meeting. There was discussion at that time which
included the site development and parking. It was planned to go to our
Planning Commission meeting. However, due to changes in this project it
was felt by the Commission that it should come back to Subdivision
Committee for additional discussion prior to going to the Planning
Commission. That is all that I have.
Bunch: Thank you. Matt with Engineering?
Casey: The only comment I have is we requested for sidewalks that they need to
repair or replace any broken areas of sidewalks around the site but
currently they have sidewalks on all sides. They just need to repair
anything that might be damaged.
Bunch: Ok, Parks?
Turner: On April 7, 2003 the Parks Board voted to accept a combination of money
and land to meet the park land ordinance. This recommendation is a result
of a public Washington Willow neighborhood association meeting where
comments from the neighborhood clearly pointed that park land was
desired. From that meeting, and from the Parks Board recommendation,
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 26
the applicant would dedicate .176 acres and pay a remaining parks fee of
$11,262.87. In addition, I was wondering if we could add a vehicular
barricade to the park area. On the southern end of the old church you have
an existing sidewalk and driveway apron to remain. That provides
vehicular access to the park area and we are hoping to put a barricade
there so in fact, cars cannot drive into the park.
Alexander: I don't know that we have a problem with that.
Bunch: Ok, Richard at this time do you have a presentation?
Alexander: Yes. This is an existing, these improvements are existing, it is
approximately 38,000 sq.ft. of basically, at this point, abandoned
institutional space in the center of the city. We tried as developers to work
with other potential users for this site. We talked with representatives
from the University, from the Walton Arts Center, I called the public
school system, we have met with various private schools and churches,
church groups, the neighborhood association. While there was interest
theoretically of alternative uses of this site nobody was willing to come
forward with a solid plan that would justify the type of funds that will be
needed to renovate this. We anticipate a budget somewhere around 3.5 to
4.0 million dollars to renovate this space. It is problematic that as soon as
this property is purchased there are existing and very needed repairs, such
as a new roof on the sanctuary, that will not allow this property to remain
vacant for any amount of time in my opinion. I would've liked to have
seen a more mixed use at the site as opposed to all residential. My
partners and I have done multiple rehabilitations of historic and existing
properties downtown. We always try to put a little mix in there so it is not
just all one thing or the other. That was just not possible in this case.
Following meetings with the neighborhood association it also became
clear that the primary concern of the neighborhood is parking and traffic.
It is our opinion that development of this property as primarily residential
will have the least impact in terms of parking and traffic. Certainly it will
be a decrease in both density and traffic from the former use as a school,
office, playground and church. We tried to do, our project is to
rehabilitate the existing structures, we are not proposing to exceed the
envelope of the structures. There is adequate onsite parking if all of the
parking lot space that is available can be developed. One of the reasons
we are requesting a variance of the 15' landscape requirement on the east
exit of the parking area is to bring that back in 15' would cost the project
about three parking spaces. We currently have proposed one more parking
space than is required by code. Code requires for this density 63 and we
have 64. The landscaping is fairly well developed at that end of the
driveway. We intend, if you look at the plat you can see the new trees and
islands that we have added to landscape the parking area and put in trees.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 27
I think we are adding 20 some trees. We don't propose to cut any trees on
site and certainly no mature trees. We propose to enhance the landscaping
that is already existing. We have no objection to the dedication of the
parks land. Our request for a variance in that regard is that the land has
been appraised at approximately 225 to 425 per acre, that is the price we
are paying for it. The land that the parks wants us to dedicate will cost us
$17,000 in effect, and that is not the value, that is what it will actually
cost. The parks fees absent a dedication of parks land would be $15,000
some dollars. Under the current formula we would be buying land for
$17,000 and paying an additional $11,000. While we don't mind
dedicating the parks land we don't think we should be penalized because
the land is smaller than the .66 acres. It is our contention that land in the
center of the city is obviously worth more than land located on the
peripheral. I certainly understand the Parks Board concern about setting a
precedence but I have done projects in the center of the city with as little
as .66 acres on Dickson Street that would require a dedication of virtually
the entire site so I think at some point the city needs to address the equity
and the fairness of dedication of parks land at no set value. That is the
basis of that requested waiver. Other than that, the last time we met you
sent us back with some homework and requested that a lot of additions be
made to our plat. I think we have done all of that. We have met with city
staff on numerous occasions since and have tried to comply with their
requests. We have met with Parks and we have tried to comply with their
requests in terms of showing the dedication and making our plat fit our
proposal and I think we have done all of that. I am not aware of any short
coming, if there is, we would be glad to fix it. That is our proposal.
Bunch: Thank you. At this time we will take public comment Is there anyone
who would wish to provide us with the benefit of their comments? If you
would please, come up to the podium and state your name and address.
That way we will be sure to get a good record of it.
Bell:
I am Dianne Bell. I am a member of the Stone family. We have lived
there forever, it is our family home. I am a property owner there, in fact
my home is the oldest home in the area. My concern for this, it sounds
like a wonderful idea but my concern is that there is not enough parking
space. As you know this is a University town and those apartments will
be filled full of University children, who are children. They will be
partying all night long. There is not enough parking places. There were
never enough parking places for the Catholic Church but that was only on
Saturday night and Sunday so everybody tolerated that. The other thing I
am worried about is the water and sewer. I know that you all said that you
thought it was ok. The traffic I think is the other thing. The changing of
the zoning laws, is this only going to be changed for the Catholic property
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 28
Bunch:
Bell:
Bunch:
Conklin:
Bell:
Bunch:
Alexander:
Bell:
Alexander:
Bell:
or is it going to be changed for the whole area so that means more people
can come in and build apartments?
This particular item is a Planned Zoning District and it would apply just to
these tracts.
Just to the property of the church?
The property defined on this plat, which includes the single-family
residence I would assume and the duplex.
Yes. The Planned Zoning District would state that the single-family home
is a single-family home and will remain as a single-family home and the
duplex will remain as a duplex.
I just feel that there are definitely not enough parking places. As you
know around the University apartment houses how terrible it is. That will
be the problem here too. There are not enough to park on the street so
they will have to park on the side streets because you can't really park on
Lafayette because it is such a busy street.
You are showing 16 on street spaces on Lafayette?
Yes, potentially. We were asked to include those. It was the wish of the
neighborhood pursuant to a traffic study that they conducted that traffic be
calmed on Lafayette. There is adequate room for those spaces there and
the neighborhood association, due to the traffic study, feels that that would
have the effect of calming the traffic and also adding to the parking
availability for this project and for other projects. If I can speak to the
student aspect of Ms. Bell's concerns, we have done multiple projects.
Students make up a very small portion of our potential tenants. The rents
that will be charged at this will as a practical matter, exclude most
students. That is not to say that there won't be some students but most of
our tenants are young professionals, graduate students, some college
professors, university support staff. That is who we find primarily
occupying the projects that we have done so far.
I understand your rent was probably going to start at $900 a month, is that
correct?
It will be $12 a foot is what we are targeting.
That just takes three kids to move in and that is $1,200 a month, three cars,
three kids.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 29
Alexander: You would have to let three kids move into a two bedroom, which we
don't do. Some people may do that, we don't. I appreciate that that is a
concern but we don't let that happen.
Bell: And with all the partying going on. This is a residential and it is a
historical district. In most cities, like Savanna, Georgia, where my
daughter lives, this would never happen. I understand that the Catholics
want to sell the property but I wish we could find something else to do
with it.
Alexander: I guess we tried to find something else. With respect to the single-family
nature of the historic district, I have lived there for almost 20 years. While
the technical zoning of the historic district is R-1, the historic district is
chalked full of multi -family, two, three, four, five, and six apartment
complexes. Frankly, the historic area, not in particular projects that I have
done, but has traditionally been occupied by students and grad students
and university staff. To think that this is an R-1 enclave out in the
peripheral, it is the historic district of the city.
Bell: I understand that but it is a concern I think the water and sewer should be
a major concern too.
Alexander: Again, I appreciate that so the question is what do you do with 38,000
sq.ft. of abandoned space. I can show you the police reports that have
been generated from the abandoned building that is the Mountain Inn and I
think that if you don't do an appropriate project where substantial funds
are expended and therefore, people have a financial interest in maintaining
the property, you run the risk that it becomes abandoned and deteriorating
and then you have the drug problems, rapes, vandalism. I drove through
the parking lot the other day and somebody had already dumped off a sofa.
That can happen fast absent of rehabilitation. I live in the neighborhood
too I would like to say. I live two blocks from this. I am not interested in
lowering the value of my property. We own eight buildings in the historic
area, everything from single-family to multi -family dwellings. We have
spent substantial monies rehabilitating those and maintaining those. I
have a concern about what happens to this property if somebody doesn't
do something.
Bell:
I understand that point but I think that there is still major concern with
water and sewer and with the parking problem. There is definitely a
parking problem. It was always, even when the church was there, but that
was just a day and a half. There is a major parking problem.
Alexander: The only thing I know is to add the amount of parking that is required by
code, which we have striven to do. We could've added extra parking and
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 30
Bell:
Alexander:
Turner:
Bell:
Turner:
Bell:
Alexander:
Bell:
Alexander:
Bell:
Alexander:
Bell:
had an alternative proposal, not one that we really encouraged, but there
was an alternative proposal to take the land that the neighborhood
association wants dedicated as a park and to take advantage of the
driveway that goes to that and the parking lot that is there already and
make an additional 16 spaces. The neighborhood association chose
instead to request that that land not be dedicated to parking but would
instead be dedicated to parks.
Yes, they play basketball every night there and I love seeing the kids
there, everybody does and they have done that for years. Are you taking
the basketball goal down?
If we give it to the city it will be a city park and they will do with it as they
please. I don't know that we will have any say over it if it is dedicated to
the city.
There will be a neighborhood association meeting to determine the use of
that park space. Your concerns will be taken into consideration when
planning the use of that park.
They do play basketball there every night and it is a very nice thing for the
kids to get to do.
We will take that into consideration.
This is my major concern and it is really a bad situation. The parking is
going to be a bad situation. The other thing is with this many apailuient
houses and the kids start partying what do you do, just call the police?
You know, it is hard to address the notion that there is automatically going
to be inappropriate behavior. I have multi units located in various parts of
the city. We have had very little trouble with most of the. Again, the type
of people that we rent to, I have a tri-plex across the street from my house,
there is a three bedroom, a two bedroom and a one bedroom.
Yes, and you have had trouble with that I understand.
We have not. The concern was that there would be partying. There is a
single professional woman that lives there.
When they first moved in there were kids.
There is a three bedroom.
And they had a good time.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 31
Alexander: That is right but they moved out with a little help as a matter of fact.
Bunch: Historically, the 300 block of Washington at one time was fraternity
houses, the University president and fraternity houses.
Bell: That was a long time ago when you acted very nice, now you don't ask
very nice though. There is also a concern, I understand that they are trying
to four lane Lafayette again, which is kind of silly because Lafayette
doesn't go anywhere, it runs right straight in to the University of Arkansas
but that would cause major problems there too.
Alexander: I am not in favor of that.
Bunch: That will go with some of these additional comments we have on the
landscape islands for the parking.
Bell: That is the latest rumor going through the neighborhood. I don't know if
it is true but they tried it once before and like I said, Lafayette doesn't go
anywhere.
Bunch: Ms. Bell do you have any other items?
Bell: No, this is my major concern.
Bunch: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would wish to address us? Please
come forward and share your comments with us.
Wright: Hello, my name is Wyatt Wright, I live at 346 N. Walnut Avenue, so I am
not directly across the street, but sort of across the street from the entrance
of St. Joseph's. I would like to begin with a procedural question for you
all. That is that the notice that I received and my neighbors received
yesterday and the day before yesterday states that the church and
associated buildings will remain, in other words that they will not be
changed. I pointed this out to Sara Edwards a week ago that your
statements were inaccurate and they continued to mail them out. I don't
think adequate legal notice or proper notice has been given to myself or to
my neighbors that in fact, St. Joseph's Church is going to be broken up
into 10 apartment units. I think it is inappropriate to consider until notice
is given and I would like a decision by you all as to whether you would
like to continue our discussion or if you would rather wait until everyone
knows what is going on. Would you like to see this?
Bunch: Yes.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 32
Alexander: As a practical matter, the buildings will remain.
Wright: No, it says the church will remain Richard, not the building.
Alexander: To correct, it says that there are going to be 39 units and 63, with church
and associated buildings to remain. I didn't write this but there have been
numerous neighborhood association meetings. It has been in the
newspaper, it has been noticed twice. This is the second time I have been
back. There is nobody in the neighborhood that I know that is not aware
of the project. The buildings will remain.
Wright: I know they are aware of the project. We are talking about the change
Richard, the change that was made from 31 units to 39, when you decided
to put ten units in the church.
Alexander: That was dually noticed and that is why we are back at Subdivision.
Wright: That was discussed at public meetings? My neighbors didn't know about
it when I talked to them.
Alexander: It was discussed at the public meeting where the Parks and neighborhood
association was at. The public meeting as I understand the process, is this
meeting. You are at this meeting, you have notice of it. You know what
we are doing.
Wright: Sure, because I have taken a personal interest. Most people are at work
right now. Most people don't follow this as closely. I talked to my
neighbors and no one knew about it. Those that had seen this were
unaware that the church was going to be broken up.
Alexander: I have heard from virtually every neighbor around the thing and met with
most of them so I don't know which neighbors don't know about it.
Wright: We can certainly get into that. I am just asking if you wish to continue or
if you want to wait until notice is given. That was my only question and I
am prepared to continue.
Bunch: Let's go ahead and continue. I think part of what is confusing is that you
are saying the church. Are you saying specifically the building labeled as
the new church?
Wright: All I know is the phrase that was used in there. The 31 units were going to
happen, the church would remain. It was presented that the church would
not be broken up. My neighbors thought that was the case. Now my
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 33
church is going to be broken up and the notices continue to indicate that
nothing has changed with the church I think that is improper and it is just
not factually true. I am prepared to continue.
Bunch: Since we are belaboring a point of what is being broken up and what is
not, could we be more specific instead of just saying the church?
Wright: I am talking about what you call the new church. The original proposal
stated that the new church would not be broken into apartments.
Bunch: So your point is that the building that is known as the new church
previously was not broken up into apartment units.
Wright: Many of my neighbors thought that was sort of an ok solution, or that that
would be a better solution. Now that it is being broken up they are not
necessarily aware of that because the notices don't contain anything that
would lead them to believe that, other than noticing the fact that it changed
from 31 to 39. I don't wish to belabor the point either, I am making a
point for the record if nothing else.
Bunch: That point is dually noted. If you would, go ahead and continue.
Wright: Ok. The second one is just some factual numbers. The proposal that was
handed out today, in paragraph one it states that there will be 63
bedrooms, in paragraph two it states that there will be 64 bedrooms. I was
wondering, which is it?
Alexander: 63, 64 parking spaces.
Bunch: It should read 63.
Wright: Ok. In the same two paragraphs, paragraph 1 states that there will be 64
parking spaces. Below in paragraph two it states that the parking will be
regular 63 spaces with 4 ADA spaces. Those are not the same numbers, I
was wondering what the correct numbers there are.
Alexander: 64 total with 3 ADA.
Wright: Ok. The three are part of the 64, is that correct so there are 61 regular and
3 ADAs?
Alexander: That is correct.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 34
Wright: I would like to give you all a copy of a signed petition from every
neighbor on Willow starting at Lafayette down to my house and my two
adjacent neighbors.
Bunch: Is this on Willow or Walnut?
Wright: I am sorry, Walnut.
Alexander: Can I have one?
Wright: Sure. The Planned Zoning Commission law 4434 in paragraph 161.22
says that rezoning of a property to a PZD may be deemed appropriate if
the development proposed for the district can accomplish one or more of
the following goals. Goal number two is listed as compatibility. As you
can see, none of us feel that this is the case at all. This is absolutely an
adoration in the neighborhood of R-1 homes to put in an apartment
complex of nearly 40 apartments. Number three of that same paragraph
says that there should be harmony, that it should be harmonious in the
neighborhood. It is clearly, totally inappropriate in a neighborhood such
as ours. This is the historic district of R-1 homes. There has never been
an apartment complex like this anywhere in the district and to rezone it in
such a way is clearly not harmonious. Number five, no negative impact.
You have in front of you, actually, it is misnumbered. You have a list of
six items that clearly indicate that all of my neighbors on Walnut think
that there will be a tremendous negative impact to our neighborhood. Fro
that reason alone, I think it doesn't meet the standards of ordinance 4434.
The petition before you, inappropriate to the area. It is totally out of
character for our neighborhood. It is an R-1 neighborhood. If you look at
what is across the street or what is behind it and you count the number of
houses, what is typical in our neighborhood is that there would be
approximately five houses in that location, not 39 apartments. It is totally
isn't in keeping with the neighborhood. It is unlike the neighborhood
character to insert an apartment complex in the middle of such a
neighborhood. Those five houses would typically have somewhere around
10 or 12 people in them with possibly 7, 8, or 9 cars. The numbers that
are being mentioned here are many, many times in excess of that. We are
talking five to ten times in some cases the number of people, the number
of cars, the number of traffic. The traffic, none of us liked the St. Joseph's
traffic but this traffic will be much worse. The St. Joseph's traffic was
daytime traffic for the most part. They were there when we weren't there.
These people are just like us. They will come and go just like we do.
They will be going out in the morning, they will be coming back at night,
at the same times we will. They will be running trips in and out. When
you live as close as we do in the center of town you are not out in the
suburbs. You don't think "Oh, I will be going to town and I will go to all
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 35
of these different places and kind of make my big pass through town."
What you do is you say "I forgot it, I will run down to the IGA, I will run
down to the post office." We generate more trips in my opinion, rather
than less trips. These people, I think, will be just like us. There will be a
lot more trips. The streets around St. Joseph's, other than Lafayette are
tiny. My street when I pace it is about 20' wide. You park one car on my
street and it becomes a one lane street. If you look at Willow or if you
look at Sutton in the evening after people are home they basically become
one lane streets, especially if anyone parks on both sides and then it really
becomes a narrow one lane street. That is with the present number of
residents. This place doesn't have enough parking to begin with just for
its own people. Anyone who visits these folks will have to park on the
streets around it, there is no other choice. They will park on our streets,
they will fill our streets. We will have gridlock in our neighborhood. We
have experienced this to a degree with St. Joseph's but this will be far
worse. This will be 24/7. St. Joseph's at least was primarily a daytime
activity when people weren't around but this will totally gridlock our
entire neighborhood. Property values, what it says here is just a matter of
fact. No one can stand up with a straight face and say that this will in
anyway enhance the property values of any of my neighbors. We have
worked long and hard and put a lot of money into these homes and this is
going to be taken away from us by a project like this. The parking lot
waiver adds insult to injury. There is inadequate parking and so one way
of keeping inadequate parking is we are being asked to bend the rules or
break the rules for these folks to take away the requirement for this little
greenspace. I don't see why we should have to give up what the law
allows us to have so that these guys can shoot a few more apartments into
this place. Parking, we have addressed that to a degree that what they
have will be primarily filled by their own people and visitors will be on
the neighborhood streets. A project of the size of the remodeling of this
project will disrupt our neighborhood for months. There will be trucks
coming and going, hammering going all day long. This will be very
disruptive to the character and quality of our neighborhood. This project,
and today I got to hear it again, has been presented as the best alternative
for St. Joseph's. I liken this to the 900 pound gorilla. If you are going to
have a 900 pound gorilla in your living room you would like him to be
well behaved. Mr. Alexander is a responsible builder and I think would
do a good project. The question is not whether we want a 900 pound
gorilla in the living room to be well behaved, we don't want the gorilla at
all. This is inappropriate. It may well turn out that with the price of the
property that the only possible use is apartments. That just means that
maybe the price is wrong. It maybe means that the free market system,
unless we give up so much so that this project can happen. You are asking
the neighborhood to endorse a project that would cost us money. If we
don't give that up it may be that this in fact, is an inappropriate price level.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 36
It may be that the price will have to come down so that other uses can be
found. The concept that we have to go with apartments and we should just
make the best deal we can is irrational. We don't need to go there. We
just need to say no to apartments so that we can then let other uses come
along. It may be at a lower price level but that is just the free market
system. If we put Seven Elevens in over there maybe they could get more
money but we are not going to do that either. Every person I discuss this
with, every person, I started this yesterday afternoon. I walked up to the
corner and walked down the street. Every person voiced opinions and
then I summarized them and went back and said "Do you want to sign
this?" They all signed it, 100%. It has been presented all along that the
neighborhood was sort of ok with this, they had some concerns about this
and that. 100%, it took me an hour and a half. I will be going down
Willow, I will be going down Sutton, I will be going down Lafayette with
the same petition. I think that the neighborhood will in fact, turn out to be
very solidly against it. It may be people who live two blocks away, maybe
they aren't concerned but their property values aren't being destroyed, it is
ours. It is our neighborhood. The cars aren't going by their house, they
are going by my house. This concept that the neighborhood is in anyway
pleased with this project, I came to the meeting two weeks ago that was
cancelled in this very room and when they said that they weren't going to
discuss it five people stood and walked out. I talked to them outside. I
asked them "Are you for or against this?" All five of them were against
it. They were the only people who walked out. The only people who
showed up were against the project. One fellow said to me "We were
talking about putting a lot of money into our home, we were going to
remodel it and make it nicer. I won't be doing that until I see how this
turns out, I might be selling." We don't want this apartment complex, we
don't want any apartment complex. It is not this issue, it is not how many
spaces, it is not any of that. We don't want an apai lment complex period.
It will destroy the character of our neighborhood. We don't want
Fayetteville to start thinking that every church that comes up can be turned
into apartments that any of these things can be rezoned, that this is
something that is ok for Fayetteville. We don't want apartments period.
We don't want it to happen and we will do whatever it takes politically,
legally to prevent this from happening. We want our neighborhood just
the way it is. That is it.
Bunch: Thank you Mr. Wright. I have a question on number one where it says
inappropriate for the area. Where did you come up with the number
would normally be five houses?
Wright: I counted the number of houses directly across the street from it, I counted
the number of houses directly behind it.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 37
Bunch: There are six directly behind it.
Wright: It depends on whether you count the corner house. It could be six, five or
six, I would be willing to concede five or six.
Bunch: Also, if you look at where the duplex is on Willow Street and then look,
take a mirror image of that over to Walnut, that would be another one so
for sake of comparison when we are looking at densities, lets try to get a
better picture because five I think is totally inappropriate.
Wright: Ok, what number would you like to discuss, seven?
Bunch: Just look at a number that would reflect the number of lots laid out.
Wright: You have got the map, what do you think, seven? That is not a point for
me.
Bunch: One other thing on this parking waiver. If I am not mistaken the parking
lot waiver is this sliver here.
Alexander: It is this part here. In order to comply I would have to bring this back 15',
which would eat up these two spaces and that space.'
Bunch: We are talking about this piece right here then?
Alexander: Yes, that way.
Wright: We are talking about the piece right in front of Bob Savage's house where
the exit is on the east side right?
Alexander: Yes. That is already landscaped and developed as it is. That is currently
existing. To comply you would have to pull this over 15'. That is if you
consider that the reason you have to comply is that if the amount of
rehabilitation exceeds 50% of the value of the building. Assuming the
buildings are valued at 1.2 to 1.5 million at 3.5 million we intend to spend
more than 50% of the value of the buildings. Therefore, as I understand it,
you come under the parking lot guidelines and you have to develop as if
you are developing a new parking lot. Our dilemma was that if we do that
we lose spaces and if we don't do that then we gain spaces. That is
already existing. This looks like what it looks like, it is already parking.
There is nothing that would take place here that isn't already there.
Wright: That is not quite accurate. What happens now is that it is used for a
church and the people who park there park there occasionally. Whereas,
in the future we are talking about 24/7. There will in fact, because of
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 38
inadequate parking already, be people parking there all the time. There
will be cars there all the time. They will be coming and going 20' from
Bob's front door. Actually his front yard is probably 20' wide, 40' from
his front door. I think the rules were written for a reason. I think that we
ought to just follow what the rules are. It is such a narrow street I think it
is appropriate to have some setback there. In other words, I think that
these folks ought to have to do what the law says.
Alexander: The law allows for a waiver and that is what we are asking for.
Bunch: You are asking for a waiver on the landscaping so that you don't lose
parking.
Alexander: So that we don't lose parking so that the argument can't be made that we
are out of compliance. The parking is existing and it will be in
compliance with city code.
Bunch: Regardless of whether that waiver is granted or not traffic would still flow
out that way because it is one way.
Alexander: It is one way in and one way out. I think the number is on here. Paul
Warren can tell you how many cars went through there before but it was
hundreds a day twice a day so the argument that this is an increase is I just
don't think valid.
Wright: It is certainly an increase as far as our perception since they are coming
and going at exactly the same times we are. When they went out at 3:30
or whatever time school let out there was nobody home. There was
nobody in the neighborhood, we weren't coming and going. These guys
are all coming home when we are coming home. They are going to work
when we are going to work. They are just like us so it is a very different
situation.
Bunch: Mr. Wright, do you have any additional points to raise? I think we have
discussed these sufficiently.
Wright: Those are my points.
Bunch: Does anyone else have any comments? If you would, please come
forward.
Warren: My name is Paul Warren and I am with St. Joseph's Catholic Church. I
am the business manager and have been on that property for quite a while
and still travel around it and check on it every so often and try to keep up
with it. We were very good neighbors with Wyatt Wright and in fact, his
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 39
wife works for our school and Wyatt does quite a bit for our school having
installed our computer system and puts a lot of time into us. I am not sure
about Ms. Bell. The comments I have are more about those alternative
uses. If this is not used for an apartment complex I can tell you that we,
for a year before we hired a real estate agent, we looked at those who
would we sell to also. That is the biggest problem with this property.
Unfortunately, the city fathers, when we moved to that site in 1872 didn't
see fit to acknowledge that as the church grew that we would be required
to have enough land for the parking necessary to support that kind of
facility. In 1967 when we built the new church that seats over 400 people
the city fathers then also didn't notice that we needed more parking and
street parking I think is the norm in that area. What we began looking into
is that in today's realm you do have ordinances. Anyone who purchases
St. Joseph's property must seek a Conditional Use Permit for a non-
conforming use, which is what technically we have, although we don't
because nothing was written in 1872 and I don't think anything was
pursued after that. It was grandfathered in. Let's say it is sold to a church,
how much parking would a church need and how many houses would
have to be leveled to support what is existing. The existing church right
now you would have to take almost another block of housing out to do
this. I think we see this across the street on 71, if you jump across College
you will notice that that the churches over there are taking up houses and
leveling them and making parking lots out of them. I fear that what our
issue is that as we begin to look at those alternative uses, if it was a church
let's sell it as a church, we would have as many neighbors show up and
say I don't want the church traffic, I don't want the people blocking our
driveways, I don't want the school traffic. There is quite a bit of school
traffic and there is a lot of traffic generated around school time so we
compete against those when we were there. I think that those alternative
uses become who would want them and who wouldn't. Our biggest
concern is that for every alternative use that you could come up with in
that neighborhood we would have as many neighbors come up and say
"We don't want that." We did this. We have had two neighborhood
meetings. The initial one is the neighborhood association meets every first
Thursday of the month at the library and apparently their notice or their
thought that everyone in the neighborhood knew that they were discussing
our project at a meeting in March came up. It was a very lightly attended
meeting. Maybe only 8 or 9 neighbors came to that meeting. After that
meeting we heard that there might be people who were very concerned
who were unable to make that meeting so St. Joseph's took the liberty of
soliciting the addresses of everyone in the neighborhood association, about
570 addresses, and we mailed a post card out to the neighbors that invited
them all, very specifically, to a meeting to discuss this project. Forty-four
neighbors showed up to that at which time it was presented. We realized
that the predominant feeling among those that were in attendance was that
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 40
this should be residential. They did not want another church or school to
be in that location unless there were parking issues addressed. Obviously,
the parking is inadequate for a church of our size and we have grown and I
would assume whoever purchases this would also need that additional
parking and again, the issue I brought up initially, where would you put a
parking lot for another 100 cars. Beyond that we talked about uses as
commercial type properties and other uses as some residential and some
other. What has been researched is that we are on the wrong side of the
street for people to drive past us for some of these more benign uses like
coffee shops or bistros or those kinds of things. People tend to congregate
more towards the Dickson Street area and I think again, what you would
have is someone who might be willing to invest some money but would
not have any tenants. Richard has researched them for about 90 days, now
almost 120 days and they are still not coming forward. Furthermore, were
this property to be sold for residential units, I know Wyatt mentioned that
there will be a lot of trucks coming and going. To purchase the property
to level it to put residential houses on is not a realistic issue unless we find
someone who is very eccentric who would be willing to pay the cost that
we have involved in that property to cover not only purchasing it,
removing everything that is onsite and then building the five to seven
houses that might go up there. The houses would obviously be non-
conforming to the neighborhood, they would have to be so expensive to
cover your costs you couldn't realistically do it. What we have is a pallet
that was this big when we originally said our property is for sale and we
are moving, we know it is for sale. It is an existing structure that won't go
away so we must do something with it. We solicited many, many
different organizations, almost the same ones as Richard, the University,
several schools. The Montessori School was the most prominent looker.
We looked at commercial type things, law offices, everything down the
gamete and ultimately eliminated them just based on costs or realistic who
would be a tenant or who wouldn't be and if no one comes forward you
can't rent something out even if it is a beautiful facility. We came down
to the point where basically the only thing we are trying to push through
the shoot is residential. It is the only thing that will cover the cost of the
property and will create a return on an investment that could cover the
investment of renovating that property. Short of that, I can tell you St.
Joseph's will not do a fire side sale. We wouldn't allow the value of that
property to go below what it is appraised for and it is appraised at 1.3 to
1.5 and we have an offer that is very close to that, slightly lower than that
actually. If it was down in the $400,000 to $500,000 range we would not
sell it. We would keep it and probably hang on to it indefinitely as is,
empty, probably chain link it. We might allow groups to use it as we do
currently. There are some groups, in fact First Night is still exploring
some issues down in the basement of the church. We have had a theater
group that has gone in there and done auditions and we have the auxiliary
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 41
for Washington Regional is going to use it for a rummage sale they are
going to have some time next month. To keep the utilities up and that
kind of thing on that property it would not be worth it for us to do that.
We are currently spending about $40,000 to $60,000 per year just to keep
it as is, utilities on, lawn mowed, windows and maintenance issues.
Property insurance and at some point in time I think we would try to
decrease our liability and our outgo until such time as we might be able to
use that facility again for something that we would have to then get a
Conditional Use Permit for, such as a daycare or a school or a high school
or a junior high or something that we would need in our ministerial make
up. What I am saying is we don't have the wherewithal at this point in
time for the price we paid for our current facility to do anything with this
facility for at least, I am guessing 7 to 10 years, perhaps even longer. The
sell of this property was to pay down the cost and the note on the current
property on Starr Drive. Without that being paid down we are going to
have to carry that debt for more years. With carrying the debt out there we
could not do anything at Lafayette Street. Those are our biggest issues.
Again, it is our opinion that St. Joseph's has been a good neighbor to all of
the neighbors in the association for many years. We know we created our
own problems for the neighbors. In our looking to the future when it was
our decision to renovate and expand because our church was growing we
had the opportunity to buy up the houses on that lot, level them and put in
parking, we chose not to because we didn't feel that was in conformity
with the neighborhood. I believe the most benign purpose for this
property, the use that would create the kind of people that live there, you
know, it is a neighborhood where people walk their dogs and ride bikes
and play basketball at night. I think additional neighbors would do the
same thing, walk their dogs, play basketball and visit with each other on
the streets as they currently do. You wouldn't get that with the other
alternative uses if they were even to materialize, which I doubt seriously
that any of them would. Thank you.
Bunch: Thanks Paul.
Allen: I just wanted to know whether efforts were made to sell these individually,
the old church and the new church and the school. Were efforts made?
Warren: Ultimately our initial effort was to try to sell it as one property, the entire
package as a package deal, knowing that were we to sell off individual
units, such as the houses, the duplex and even the old church, which is on
the corner of Willow and Lafayette, that was at one time a residential unit,
it had four men living there upstairs as an apartment basically although
they were monks and you would call it a monastery. Those were looked at
and we potentially could break them off and sell them as separate units but
then that continues to restrict what are your potential possibilities for the
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 42
two larger buildings. We felt that it would be best to sell this as a package
deal to maintain the parking because otherwise you would have to
segregate off. For instance, had we sold the building on Willow and
Lafayette as a residence, we would've had to take a chunk of that
playground to sell with it as a lot I think that had we done that we would
just continue to restrict the opportunities to sell the other two facilities.
Furthermore, if it didn't sell and we had sold off a couple of properties if
we ever needed to go back there with a large group effort, such as a church
or a school or something like that, it requires that you have the space to try
to put in some parking and we would need that space in the future.
Furthermore, we looked into uses for ourselves. Could St. Joseph's put a
daycare in. We have been asked quite a bit, do you all have a daycare. It
is something that we think is needed in the Fayetteville area and could
possibly be an opportunity. Current state law, based on daycares and the
numbers of students that you have in a daycare, we couldn't afford to
support that facility based on the size of a daycare we could use based on
the square footage of property. You have to have so many square feet, I
think it is 75 sq.ft. per child of playground space and we don't have that.
That is assuming that we had a daycare of approximately 200 kids. Our
school had 230 students when we left there, we are at about 270 now. If
we even decrease the number of kids but just had them, we could not do it
with that current property. We then listed it with a real estate agent to try
to sell it as we tried to sell it. We solicited several other churches. We felt
that that would be probably the most logical thing was to sell it to another
church but then again, depending on the size of the sanctuary, unless they
were able to buy us. I must say, we had one church that really made a
serious effort. They offered us a million dollars for the property, which
included being able to sell off some of it to finance their purchase I should
say and they couldn't have afforded to renovate it to their needs with the
kind of investment they were going to make just to purchase it. They
would've had a 400 some seat sanctuary without parking. The first
question that I think would've come before us would've been "Where are
your people going to park when they come to your services?" There
would've been a requirement by code for that additional 30 to 40 extra
spaces immediately needed in addition to what is already parking there
too. Those are the efforts that we made.
Allen: Thank you. I just thought there might be people that would be interested
in knowing the entire history. Thank you.
Warren: I can say it has been up for sale since May, 2000 when St. Joseph's got
Vatican approval to build what we built on Starr Drive.
Alexander: Can I just add? To turn this into apartments, that wasn't my first choice.
Frankly, we tried to do something else. I live in the neighborhood. I am
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 43
as concerned about that property as anybody is. I own as many properties
as are on this petition. As somebody that lives in the neighborhood what
do you do with 38,000 sq.ft. of institutional space in the heart of the city?
To me it is absurd to think that it is not appropriate for multi -family
residential in the heart of the city. If a site visit will show that this
property is exactly a block and a half from IGA. It is exactly two blocks
from the public library and the courthouse. Part of what the city is going
to have to do is determine how it deals with not only this issue but what
are you going to do with the library when that becomes empty and that is
in the heart of the city. What uses are going to come to that? I tried for
120 days to find alternative uses. I tried to make my initial proposal to
where we didn't turn the sanctuary into apartment units but sought an
alternative use, one that could be given to the neighborhood association on
a regular basis as a donation but that it would at least have to rent for
enough to pay part of that $40,000 a year that Paul is talking about.
Whoever buys this on day one needs a new roof on the sanctuary. That is
$20,000 or $30,000, utilities, taxes, insurance, maintenance. Those are all
things that are going to have to be whatever use of this property is going to
have to generate sufficient revenue so that the neighbors don't come back
to the city and say why do we have this eye sorer next to our
neighborhood. With respect to property values, I have to think that if you
spend 3.5 million dollars there you would have to enhance the value of the
existing structures. There are some very nice houses adjacent to St.
Joseph's. There are some very, very poor looking unkept structures also
in that neighborhood. This neighborhood is not a pristeen multi-million
dollar on clave of upscale houses. This is a real mix of some very nice
houses and some very small, multi -family not so nice houses. How does
the city deal with those issues?
Bunch: Richard, could I interrupt you at this time? We are going to have to lose
one of our committee members who has another commitment. At this
time I would like to suspend this particular issue and revisit the Miller
item that we postponed that was item 6 on the agenda and then come back
to this item, to your development and then maybe have some staff and
committee comments and then go back into public comment. If one of the
Commissioners leave the only action that we can take is to forward to the
Planning Commission. We are not going to cut the public comment
session short, we are just going to suspend it momentarily to revisit this
other item because it looks like this is a very lengthy item. We will revisit
the Miller item, come back to this item and have some staff and committee
comments and then return to public comment. We will return to R-PZD
03-3.00 for the North College Development Company. At this time I
would like for the Committee members to ask any questions. Richard, if
you would come back up please.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 44
Allen:
Bunch:
Allen:
Alexander:
Bunch:
Alexander:
Bunch:
Alexander:
Bunch:
Alexander:
Bunch:
Alexander:
Bunch:
Alexander:
Can we do that before we take public comment?
Before we take additional public comment. The public comment will
become a matter of record. It is being recorded but Alan may have to
leave early and if we decide to either table this if we don't think that it is
in shape enough to move forward if we need additional information then
it would require a three person vote or if we need to forward it we would
have a three person vote whereas, with a two person vote it automatically
has to be forwarded.
Since I wasn't here at the other Subdivision Committee meeting and it got
tabled at Planning Commission I wondered what changes have been made
since that time.
We had a list and I think we addressed all of them. We put in landscaping,
park land dedication, located all of the utilities, bike racks.
You have made substantial progress, I will say that. You put in the
property owners and that sort of thing. One thing that is definitely
perplexing and seems to be missing is this intended to be broken into three
or five separate tracts that will be individual pieces of property that could
be sold individually?
That is correct. We did that at the request of the Planning staff.
We will need the areas of each of those.
There is a separate plat for the lot split.
We weren't given that.
The Planning staff has that. It was too much information to get on this.
Since this is basically a rezoning request, even though it is a R-PZD, it
would be helpful to have the density of the various areas.
We did that. I would hate to bump this back further. We submitted 37 of
each. I presumed that you had them. There are the lot splits and the legal
descriptions. The only reason we didn't put it all on this is this thing was
starting to get pretty crowded.
That was another one of my questions, the legal descriptions.
We were asked to do the overall density and we have that on this, 29%
building to land ratio, 27 to 127, built area 94,525, 29% building to land.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 45
Ostner: The reason that is not quite sufficient is that it includes four and five,
which in essence, aren't being developed.
Alexander: Again, we were asked to include those.
Ostner: If you could just break it down into three for me.
Bunch: We have this now and it gives area on each one.
Alexander: Again, the reason we did it separate was this was getting kind of crowded.
Bunch: Let me go through these.
Allen: I had something else. I was interested in the park. Is that for the tenants
only or is that for accessibility to everybody?
Alexander: It would be a city park is my understanding if we dedicated it the city
would own that property, it would be a city park and again, they would be
free to do whatever they wanted to with it.
Bunch: The information on your drawing doesn't reflect that. It is rather confusing
on where it is talking about private park amenities and public park
amenities and whether or not it is a dedication. One part of it is saying it
is dedicated and one part it is rather unclear on whether or not it is
dedicated.
Alexander: Again, I didn't think it was appropriate for me to speak to what the Parks
were doing. Parks, they are asking for the dedication. Our request was to
pay fees in lieu of dedication and then when the Parks met with the
neighborhood association and wanted parks land, we didn't mind
dedicating but then again, we are asking for a variance on any remaining
fees since the value of the property is more than the fees. It says here
proposed dedicated park land area, 7,687 feet right here.
Bunch: Right here it says proposed private park amenities maintain existing
greenspace and open area, remove existing playground equipment and
chain link fencing and replace with sidewalk and landscaping between old
school and old church.
Alexander: That is what we propose to do. Between the old school and old church,
that is on there, we did all of that at their request. There are no proposed
public park amenities by us. Again, I can't say what the Parks Department
will do.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 46
Bunch:
Alexander:
Bunch:
Turner:
Alexander:
Bunch:
Alexander:
Conklin:
Bunch:
Alexander:
Conklin:
Alexander:
Bunch:
Alexander:
The part that is confusing is whether or not it is going to be dedicated as a
public park or a private park.
It is proposed to be dedicated, at least, that is what the Parks Board wants.
Whether or not it ends up dedicated is going to be up to the Planning
Commission.
I just think we need to document these things and have it where it is clear
and understandable.
I think in addition, if you look at the notes on the right, proposed private
park amenities, you may not want to call them park amenities. You may
want to call them greenspace or open space amenities just to clarify the
difference between public park land and then the amenities that you are
providing for private use of the residence.
Again, we just picked that heading because I thought that is what we were
supposed to do. Whether or not it is park land, all of the greenspace that is
will remain. Everything that is there will remain. There are no changes,
there are no additions.
The upshot of this is that it needs to be documented. We don't need to
belabor it anymore here. Time is running short. It is something that is
unclear and it needs to be clearly documented.
You mean more than what we have done?
To clarify.
Clarify what is public and what is private. You did an ample job of
describing it just now, put that on the drawing.
I don't know what I would put.
We will work with you.
Are we going to come back?
We are trying to find out whether or not we are going to come back. If we
could go through these items quickly rather than expanding on each one
maybe we can get there.
I am with you.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 47
Bunch: On the phases, there is no mention of the home on Sutton Street. How
does that figure into the phases?
Alexander: The home on Sutton Street we are not proposing to do anything. We are
not proposing to rezone it. We are proposing to leave it R-1. The only
thing we are proposing to do is give it a little more backyard than it
currently has, which we have drawn on there. We are not proposing to
change the density, the zoning or anything.
Bunch: That is not clearly delineated, or at least I haven't found that.
Alexander: I have a full blown application that I have submitted more than once. It is
very detailed. Again, I guess I am surprised that you don't have it.
Ostner: Richard, I am going to have to go, I'm sorry.
Conklin- I would like to just ask one question. It is something that came up at
agenda session. That was I have heard that the homeowner's association
or the neighborhood association, Washington Willow has heard this
project. What kind of documentation can we get for staff, the Commission
and the Council and the neighborhood with regard to did the neighborhood
association vote on this and make a recommendation? This is something
that as we work with neighborhood associations, we are trying to get more
structure. Instead of someone saying the neighborhood association is ok
with this. Did they meet? Did they vote?
Alexander: I addressed this in my application. There is almost two full paragraphs
outlining it.
Conklin: I would like something from the neighborhood.
Alexander: I don't know how I could get something from them. I can tell you that I
put in there the meetings that we attended.
Conklin: I understand that. There was another neighborhood association that
worked with the developer and they actually voted and gave staff a vote of
who was in favor and who was opposed. Do you have to do that?
Probably not. I don't think there is a law that requires you to do that. I am
just trying to understand what the neighborhood association is thinking
and I don't really have any documentation on that and we did request that
in the past.
Alexander: Again, other than to give a detailed history of my meetings with the
neighborhood association you know, the issue is who does the
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 48
neighborhood association, I have met with them four times, I don't know
what more I can get.
Bunch: Can we continue with this?
Merryship: I am a partner in this. Would a letter from the association be appropriate?
Conklin- However the association makes recommendations, yes.
Bunch: Yes, but it also needs to reflect the current status of this.
Conklin: Something I think the Commission was looking for was if we are going to
say the neighborhood association supports I want to know what that means
as staff, and I think the Commission does and the Council will. Yes, I
appreciate all the efforts that have been made to meet with the
neighborhood association. I just want to make sure we understand what
that means if we say that they are in favor.
Alexander: Again, I don't know what that means. I suppose I can ask Kathy
Thompson for a letter and I would be glad to do that. If you have a
neighborhood association meeting you have multiple opinions.
Turner: The most recent plan was shown at the Parks Board neighborhood
association meeting and we do have minutes reflecting comments from the
neighborhood association in regard to the most recent development. I
have those here if anybody would like to see them.
Bunch: My concern here was the first time we heard this at the Subdivision
Committee, we sent it forward to Planning Commission with the
understanding that quite a few things be clarified and some of them were
not. It was tabled at the agenda session partly because of the parking lot
requirements that had not been addressed. My concern here is that if we
forward this thing again that we wind up in the same shape and wind up
delaying it even more. There are a lot of things that are unclear that we
don't see and it may be that all of the information has been presented but it
just hasn't been presented in such a way.
Alexander: I guess I am unclear as to what is not clear. I addressed everyone of the
concerns. I met with Planning staff on numerous occasions and put every
change that the Parks Board asked for. We specifically put it in the form
and the information requested both with respect to this committee and the
Planning Commission.
Bunch: This drawing here, like I said, we just now received this drawing that has
the areas on it that we are looking at. This is a rezoning and we are
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 49
looking at densities, and just what is it being rezoned to. We don't show
an area and a legal description for the park land dedication on this drawing
here, which contains your legal descriptions so that potential park land is
not delineated.
Alexander: Having not acted on it, is it appropriate to put it in?
Bunch: Staff, is that correct?
Conklin: We do typically have a boundary shown. Typically it is a lot number, not
a legal description for a park.
Bunch: Also, concerning the landscaping on Lafayette, is that a state highway and
does that have to have state highway approval for narrowing the street?
Conklin: Yes, anything done in the highway right of way will have to have AHTD
approval.
Bunch: Am I correct in assuming that these right here are encroaching into the
right of way of landscape islands shown, one next to Walnut and one next
to Willow?
Conklin: That would be my assumption also.
Alexander: We put that in at the request of Planning. That is not anything that we are
looking to do. We were just asked to show potential on street parking.
That is a state highway. Whether or not the city wants that, we weren't
proposing to do that. You're right, that is a highway issue.
Bunch: All I am saying is what is on the drawings is what becomes the record and
that is what we have to go by and it is embellished by our comments. In
order to forward this so that the other Planning Commissioners don't have
to go through the same lengthy process that we are going through today to
try to determine just what this drawing and subsequent drawings are
telling us. We need a package that is clear and explanatory and describes
what is called for in the UDO and I am not seeing that. This looks more
like a concept drawing rather than an LSD and a rezoning request.
Alexander: Again, I have met with staff on numerous occasions and supplied
everything that I have been asked to. If you would give me specifics I
would be glad to put them in. Is it a meets and bounds of the park land
proposal?
Bunch: I have a Planning Commissioner that has another commitment that he
must leave. I will ask you if there is anything specific that you want to see
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 50
and if you feel that we need to forward this or table it once more to get
sufficient information?
Ostner: I do think that it is going to be real confusing at Commission like this.
Alexander: I am struggling. I am not trying to be interruptive but I am struggling as to
what additional information I could put in, if it is a legal description of the
park land.
Ostner: It seems that most of it is here but it is not in a way that we can read very
well. The three of us I think read things better than most of the
Commission, we do it all the time.
Bunch: It is just little things. Legal description of tract 5, the driveway is shown
on another person's property, is there a shared property agreement there?
You are showing a driveway access to that but it is on someone else's
property.
Alexander: Maybe I started this with the wrong subsequention. We started this
process with the fact that this is all existing. What is the legal status of
that? There is no way I could respond to that. It has been a shared
driveway for probably a hundred years.
Bunch: This is a tract that will be for sale though.
Alexander: That tract is already separate. I have been asked to supply separate deeds
for this and this, they are already separate and I supplied them. Originally
I left this off of the proposal, put it back on at the request of the Planning
staff so to the extent that it is confusing, I don't know how to answer that.
I have put it on and I have put it off. It was a separate deed. I am not
asking to do anything with this. My proposal with this project is to do
nothing to that. My proposal with this is to do nothing to that. It is an
existing duplex, it has adequate parking, I am not proposing to do
anything.
Bunch: In that case, we need to back those areas out since nothing is to be done
with those, back those areas out and look at the density of this part of the
development less these areas. Right now we are including the two acres.
It is are they in or are they out?
Warrick: Chairman Bunch, the reasons that tracts four and five, there are other
reasons that we are including these as part of the PZD. Lot lines are being
adjusted from the original deed restrictions from these tracts and the PZD
can allow us to do that and we also have non -conforming lots that the PZD
can address. The fact that you have a single-family R-1 zoned lot that has
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 51
60' of frontage, that is not a standard lot in the R-1 zoning district,
however, it can be incorporated into the PZD and be considered
conforming. The same thing on tract four with the duplex. It has
insufficient lot width and the use also. It is important that those
development items be included as a part of the PZD. The lot lines are
being adjusted as a part of this lot. It needs to be filed and they need to be
accommodated with regard to the uses and lot sizes. With regard to the
question that you had on the density, if you calculate the existing sizes of
tracts 1, 2, and 3 based on the legal descriptions without the parkland
being subtracted you are looking at a density of approximately 22 units per
acre.
Bunch: Can we get what you just described for us as part of the body of
information? I think that would clarify many things.
Ostner: Tremendously.
Bunch: That would help a lot. Moving the property line I can see why that would
be in. Just so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel and go through this
all again let's clarify those issues. The same thing on mentioning
covenants, it says for maintenance of parking area. Do we have any other
covenants if these are to be like condos or something is there a description
of how the common areas will be handled or a mention of a property
owners association?
Alexander: No because we haven't made a decision yet on whether or not we will do a
horizontal property regime. Right now we are planning the development
as apartments. Whether or not you can do a horizontal property regime is
something that would be considered at a later time. We have not made
that decision. The only covenants that I know of that we have been asked
to supply were the covenants for the ingress/egress and maintenance of the
parking. I asked staff, it was my understanding that as a condition of
approval that we would have to forward covenants sufficient to satisfy
them. Again, that is not something that we drew up for this hearing.
Warrick: The uniqueness of a Planned Zoning District is that it can have specific
requirements placed on the development by the developer. If they choose
to provide a certain characteristic or a certain type of development and that
is conveyed through the plans and through any covenants or other
documentation that we file with that. What we request is that any
covenants or restrictions that the applicant proposes to make this project
the unique project that it is, any covenants that would be required, that
those be presented for the Planning Commission to review so that it would
be incorporated into the ordinance that creates the special Planned Zoning
District for this particular piece of ground.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 52
Bunch: Since a PZD has to go before the Planning Commission and on to the City
Council one of the things I was hoping to be able to accomplish at
Subdivision was the clarification of this so that when people do review it,
it doesn't take an adverse amount of time to understand just what the
project entails. What we have seen today, there are many things that
people question and it has taken considerable effort to explain them and
some of them we haven't even explained, we just said that it can be
explained and then moved onto the other items. Our City Council is going
through a process of trying to streamline their meetings and make them
much shorter. I would hate to on our part to forward something to them
that takes more time to properly address. Our job here is to get this thing
as clean and clear and easily understood as possible to send to the
Planning Commission, then the Planning Commission will go over it again
and try to address the issues and get them much more clear and defined
and then should it be forwarded to the City Council then it will be in the
shape where it is not using an extreme amount of time.
Alexander: As part of this process, maybe you all didn't get it, I had a four page letter
that answers many of the questions because there is simply not enough
room on this site plan to put the detailed items with respect to landscaping,
easements, parking, variances, waivers. I have two letters that I also
submitted with my application that dealt with both of the variances and the
reasons why and background requests. I guess you all didn't see that but it
gives the history of the neighborhood association meetings.
Bunch: We are used to working off the drawings and the UDO does require that
certain things be on the drawings and those are things we were looking for
on the drawings. We are not necessarily looking at other sources. When I
say drawings, it can be multiple drawings. Why don't we go back into
public comment at this time because it looks like we have lost our
Commissioner that had to leave. Anyone who has public comment at this
time would you please come forward and share your comments with us?
Keating: My name is Stella Keating, I live at 444 Sutton Street. I am against these
apartments. I won't say too much. I am catholic, I moved to the
neighborhood because of the catholic church and I hate to be on the
opposite side here now. Paul was saying that this property has been on the
market since 2000. That is not a real long time for real estate to be on the
market, especially for something as problematic as this. I am not good in
public speaking and I get a little nervous here. He said the appraisal was
about 1.5 million and then I hear the roof needs to be repaired and you
can't just put a school in there, it probably takes another 1/4 million to get a
school going. Maybe that is not a realistic figure for this particular piece
of property. You can't put a church in it because they would have to do
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 53
Bunch:
all of this repair so they can't afford it. In real estate timing is everything
so maybe the time is not right. This property is within one mile from the
University. The University is growing, there is a lot of money being put
into it. As time goes on there is less land and someone might come along
with money and a better solution, it is just a matter of time. That is about
all I have to say.
Thank you. Does anyone else have public comment they would wish to
make at this time? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee.
Obviously since we have two members of the committee left the
dispositive action will be to forward it to the Planning Commission, am I
correct in that is the only action we can take?
Conklin- That or if you believe it needs to go back to the Subdivision Committee.
What I want to avoid is what we did last time and make that decision at
agenda session. If you two on the Subdivision Committee believe it needs
to come back I would like you to make that decision today.
Bunch:
Alexander:
Bunch:
Conklin:
Bunch:
Conklin:
Bunch:
That being said, lets look at the type of things that we feel we would need
for Planning Commission and see if they could be done in time. One, is of
course, to show the areas.
You prefer that this be on this?
It can be on this and then incorporated into this table over here. You have
shown the building to land ratio, you have not shown the impervious to
land ratio. Parking lots, you are showing building to land ration and that
needs to be clarified just as to how much land and how much buildings. If
we are showing all the land let's show the buildings or break it out by tract
or whatever but put it in a method that is consistent and that we can
understand. Also, do our ordinance require that we show the percentage
of impervious to greenspace or to total site staff?
We do have those for commercial developments, not residential.
Ok.
We don't have that open space requirement.
Do we need any sort of covenant or maintenance, Richard said staff
required the one for the parking area, do we need anything on landscaping,
any language on landscaping requirements? I know most of it is existing.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 54
Conklin: The landscaping shown is being required by ordinance. On the parking I
would request that access easements be provided between tracts 1, 2, and 3
to ensure that cross access is given.
Bunch: You are showing an underground telephone between tract 1 and tract 2
with no easement no that and it is also the area that we think is going to be
dedicated as a park land, is that permissible to have an underground utility
under a park?
Conklin: We do have utilities and easements in our parks so yes, I believe it is.
Bunch: One of the public comments addressed the capacity of water and sewer
even though all of these buildings currently have them, the question that
we will need answered from Engineering is whether or not it is adequate
for expanded use.
Alexander: Actually it was my understanding that we were decreasing the use in that
they had 300 or 400 people running through there at a time. It is my
understanding that the sewer and water are more than enough for the 50 to
60 people that we are proposing.
Bunch: Since we have had public comment questioning that can we get some
documentation for the next meeting?
Conklin: Matt Casey, Staff Engineer, did leave me a note that there should be
sufficient water and sewer capacity. The demand should be less for the
apartments than for the church and school. With regard to the condition of
water and sewer, the City of Fayetteville is responsible for maintaining
that existing system in these areas. I can have Matt provide more
information on that and address those concerns.
Bunch: We wanted rights of ways and easements listed. Of course, property lines
I assume already affect the rights of way, has that land already been
dedicated historically?
Conklin: Yes, we can verify all of that information.
Bunch: Now that we have these legal descriptions, I just assumed that we
would've received several drawings with all of these on it. What
generated these questions was we were only working from this one
drawing.
Alexander: I apologize, I thought I gave the correct amount but maybe we did
something wrong, I don't know.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 55
Bunch:
Alexander:
Warrick:
Bunch:
Warrick:
Alexander:
Conklin:
Alexander:
Conklin:
Alexander:
Conklin:
Alexander:
Conklin:
Allen:
Warrick:
Alexander:
Richard, between you and staff do you think that all of these additions and
clarifications can be completed in time?
I can have them by Friday.
Good, the deadline is Monday at 10:00 a.m.
It has to be Monday at 10:00 in order to go forward to Planning
Commission.
In order to go forward to the May 12`h Planning Commission staff has to
have all of the materials together Monday at 10:00 revised.
It is building to land ratio, that ought to be fairly easy. How much land to
buildings, we can do that. Access easements, I am offering to provide
whatever staff wants. Do you need more than that?
I just want to clarify that if these are sold separately that access will be
provided.
It will be provided as part of our approval process whether they are sold or
not.
They need to be shown, I think that helps clarify access and parking. If
tract one is sold, tract two and three, or if tract two is sold.
The access, just so we're not mistaken, I plan on giving an easement for
ingress/egress and parking on the parking area for the benefit of tract one,
tract two, and tract three.
That is just what we want to clarify.
Do you want a separate document by way of deed?
You can show a note, a hatched area, a clarification on the drawing.
Is your on street parking limited to certain places?
That is public parking.
The only reason we included it when we were asked to just show the
potential for the benefit of the Commission. It is public parking, we are
not proposing to do or not do anything with the street, just information that
there are that many spaces available if the city chooses to do that.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 56
Bunch: One of the things we need to delineate is tract 6, which would be the
playground area and potential park area where it remains. You would
need a new legal description for tract one, tract two and then a revised
showing tract 6 or however you want to number them. That again, would
change these areas as well as legal descriptions.
Conklin: I just want to say this one more time. At agenda session the
Commissioners seemed to want to know about the neighborhood
association and their view point. I just would request that somehow
something in writing from the neighborhood association offering their
opinion, if they want to give it, if they don't want to give it they don't
have to. Since that has been stated in meetings I would like something
officially from the neighborhood association. How they make that
recommendation or give their opinion on how they vote. That is up to
them and their bylaws if they have bylaws, but something on their
letterhead or something with their signatures just to clarify that.
Alexander: I would be glad to ask for that. Of course I am not in the neighborhood
association so I have no control over them.
Conklin: I understand that but something from them if we are going to make
comments about they support it or they don't have problems with it. If
they don't want to do that that is up to them.
Bunch: If they do let's make sure that it reflects the latest configuration showing
the new church building broken up into ten two bedroom units.
Conklin: That seems to be a concern that I have heard. Not just on this project,
when we start talking about we oppose it or we agree with it and support
it, it comes down to who is that. We run into this all the time.
Allen: Does your proposal intend to be all apartments and no condominiums?
Alexander: Whether or not those are condominiums is a decision that we haven't
made. I don't know that it is appropriate to make it at this point. It is
certainly possible that they could be condominiums. I don't know that we
have made that decision. Yes, it is possible. We have had interest from
people that would be interested in buying a condominium there. I guess I
was going to take first things first and get to the point that we have.
Bunch: The PZD is a fairly new process. Normally we would be looking at a
rezoning request and a Large Scale Development. I think since the PZD is
a combination of the two, we are looking for the information that is called
for in the UDO for both rezoning requests and a Large Scale
Development. I know that you have done plenty of projects in this city
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 57
and you have done some wonderful work but in order to be able to take a
good look at what you are proposing. Staff, would a good guideline on
how to present this is as if it were a rezoning and a Large Scale
Development since that is in effect, what it is? Reflect on the drawings
what those requirements are, what are required of those two.
Conklin: That is correct.
Allen: So then wouldn't it be helpful for us to have at Planning Commission
some proposed drawings as to what this might look like?
Alexander: Again, our proposal is existing. Part of what we are doing with this
process, as I understood it when we first met with Planning staff, we aren't
proposing to change the look of it at all. It looks like what it looks like.
We are not going to cut any trees. We are not going to take away any
greenspace. We are not adding any parking area. In fact, if the park land
dedication goes through we are taking out asphalt.
Allen: The facade of the church will remain?
Alexander: It will be what it looks like.
Warrick: Will you be punching in any new windows?
Alexander: Yes, probably but we haven't located those. Part of this process is does
the developer spend $100,000 on architects detailed drawings and
construction plans prior to getting approval? I am certainly not prepared
to do that. When we met initially with city staff how much detail did we
need? We thought we had the correct amount of information giving the
fact that the project is existing. The site is existing, the street
improvements are existing, the curb, gutter, landscaping, etc. It is
problematic, we have spent substantial monies just to get to this point and
are still at Subdivision Committee. We are reluctant to do detailed
construction drawings where you are set in stone to exactly where are the
bedrooms placed and how are the windows placed. We haven't done that
yet and I hope I don't have to before I at least get an understanding of
whether or not we can proceed with the project.
Bunch: Maybe I can throw something in. I sat in with the committee that did
some of the background work on the Planned Zoning Districts and what
you just described, that level of drawing and preparedness is what was
expected in a Planned Zoning District. The benefit was to be able to bring
it through with a rezoning simultaneously and have it spelled out. It is a
gamble, admitted gamble, on the part of the developer as opposed to
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 58
bringing a rezoning through and then maybe later bringing a Large Scale
Development through.
Alexander: Again, I didn't' know we were required to have detailed elevations with
exact window placement I guess. If that is a requirement I certainly
wasn't aware of it.
Conklin- We have Commercial Design Standards for non-residential projects. We
require elevation drawings. On residential we typically do not require
that. As we all begin this process and we are looking at an existing non-
conforming use situation when they did approach staff they indicated that
they intended not to add additions onto the buildings. We did understand
that there would have to be windows of course for the units. I am going to
leave that up to your judgment with the Commission. You have asked for
things before. With regard to where the windows are going to be, etc.
Bunch: There is language in the Planned Zoning District, I am speaking primarily
off memory and I will speak conceptually. There is some language that
describes what are minor adjustments that can be made. Since this is
something that becomes law, it goes before the City Council and it is an
ordinance. The better described it is, the better but there are some, and
you can best work with staff on that. I don't think it is our job to get into
what is so much a minor deal, putting in two or three windows would
probably come in that category. I am not real sure, I don't want to make a
judgment on it. I am just saying that there is some language that describes
what is a minor change and how much change is permitted on a minor
basis.
Alexander: Again, we met with staff early on. I talked about my concerns. This is a
difficult project in that it is existing. It is easier in a sense that it is
existing, if you want to see what it looks like you can just drive by. It
looks like we have existing elevations that we have shared with city staff
in terms of what is there already. Part of the minutia of the detail depends
ultimately on what is the density, window placements will change if the
density goes from 31 to 39 to 36. There is how detailed do the floor plans
have to be. We have conceptual floor plans but they are not set in stone as
far as we are concerned.
Bunch: We don't get that much into floor plans. The main thing that we are
looking at is to satisfy the requirements of a Large Scale Development and
a rezoning simultaneously. That was the purpose of the PZD to be able to
bring a fully prepared Large Scale Development through, whether it is a
retro fit or a greenfield, to bring it through simultaneously with a rezoning
request.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 59
Alexander: I appreciate that. Again, I guess we thought we were doing that.
Certainly from my perspective we have made every attempt to add all of
the information that was requested and we will continue to do that.
Bunch: I think the quicker we can get it clarified the better the neighbors will
understand, the more concise and clear our public comment will be, and
the better the Commissioners will understand it and the more fair look we
can give at it. Right now we have been mirrored in misunderstandings and
things that are unclear.
Allen: A lot of that I think is it is just such a new process.
Bunch: That is part of it too. Maybe a retrofit is not one of the best examples to
bring through as the initial project. We are learning an awful lot in this
process at your expense, I understand that and thank you for it. Still, in
order to give it a fair appraisal then we need more detailed information.
Alexander: As part of that, for instance is the old church, we are proposing to put the
old church on the national register, that would require that the facade stay
exactly as it is. That is part of our application and we spelled that out. In
terms of that building we are not proposing to make any changes at all
other than some window perforations on the other one, what you see is
what you get. We are proposing to utilize the skin of the building and
most of the windows that are already there. We haven't gone further than
that because we are just a little reluctant to at this point. If we need to I
will.
Bunch: Nancy, do you feel that that is appropriate?
Allen: I would have to defer to staff on that. I am not a normal member of this
Committee and I don't know whether we have adequate information.
Conklin: Once again, we encouraged to have them go through this process. Initially
they talked about a rezoning request and that concerned staff because we
wanted the ability to talk about how we preserve the character of these
structures and this neighborhood and the open spaces and the landscaping
and the trees. That is one of the benefits of this process that we can
restrict it to as Richard just stated, you can go out there and you can
actually see this project on the ground. The issue is what kind of use
should be allowed within these buildings. The change of the buildings
would be windows. If you want to see what the project is going to look
like without making a decision on what the use is right now, you can go
out there and you can see what it is going to look like. It is somewhat
unique in that manner because you can physically go out there and see
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 60
Allen:
Conklin:
Bunch:
Allen:
Bunch:
Alexander:
Bunch:
where the parking lot is located and you can see where the buildings are
located and you can see where the landscaping is located.
We all have the Commission tour.
With regard to if it was a brand new project staff would probably ask for
more information to have a better understanding of what it is going to look
like and how it is going to be compatible with the neighborhood with
regard to the architectural compatibility issues but you have existing
buildings out there. On that issue, we didn't really push that issue of we
need to do a bunch of drawings because it is existing. That is how we
made that decision. At this time, if windows are a concern about where
they are located then we need to ask for that information. He has
conceptual floor plans so that may change.
My standpoint is a conceptual floor plan is adequate. The question then
becomes how many units, that is one of the things that we are looking at.
The same thing on the architectural aesthetics. We are basically looking at
what is existing and there might be minor changes so those aren't things
that I am not necessarily looking for. Where the closets are placed in the
apartments is your deal. That, to me, is one of the beauties of it. That
does not have to be nailed down. This process has a lot of latitude but at
the same time, while we have the latitude, at some point in time we need
to start clarifying. I realize that the project has changed and approaching it
as a PZD when you did not know whether or not it was going to be office
or a recreational hall or something like that then a PZD makes a lot of
sense but as the project becomes more defined and it is being presented to
the neighbors and to the community as a formal project then we need to
have it clarified.
Do you feel like the areas of clarification that you have asked Mr.
Alexander would be adequate for us for Planning Commission? He feels
he can get those to staff by Friday.
It has to be by Monday, we meet next Thursday and Friday would be after
agenda session.
I mean this Friday.
Ok, tomorrow. Sure, that would be wonderful if you could have that. I
guess we could form our action here like we did last time that we forward
it to the Planning Commission contingent upon satisfaction of the things
that we have discussed and if staff doesn't think that enough of them have
been clarified we can either return it to Subdivision or we can wait until
agenda session to see.
Subdivision Committee
May 1, 2003
Page 61
Allen: That seems fine to me.
Bunch: Is that ok to you Sir?
Alexander: Sure.
MOTION:
Bunch: I will put that in the form of a motion. I will move that we forward this to
the full Planning Commission with the understanding that the deficiencies
are cleared up and if they are not cleared up in a timely fashion then staff
will let us know and we will return it to Subdivision.
Allen: I will second.
Bunch: Are there any announcements that we need to make at this time?
Conklin: No announcements.
Bunch: The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
Meeting adjourned: 11:17 a.m.