Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-02 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on October 2, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSP 03-51.00: Lot Split (Jerry Kelly, pp 610) Page 2 FPL 03-09.00: Final Plat (Summerbrook Estates, pp 648) Page 6 PPL 03-12.00: Preliminary Plat (Crofton Manor, pp 323) Page 9 PPL 03-16.00: Preliminary Plat (Overton Park, pp 220) Page 12 LSD 03.33.00: Large Scale Development (Elsass Plaza, pp 177) Page 15 ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded LSD 03-34.00: Large Scale Development (Collision Repair Center, pp 287) Forwarded Page 30 LSD 03-32.00: Large Scale Development (The Crowne, pp 598) Forwarded Page 39 R-PZD 03-04.00: Planned Zoning District (Lazenby, pp 560) Forwarded Page 46 C-PZD 03-08.00: Planned Zoning District (springwoods, pp 248) Forwarded Page 61 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Alan Ostner Alice Church Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Rebecca Ohman Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Craig Camagey Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 2 LSP 03-51.00: Lot Split (Jerry Kelly, pp 610) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Jerry Kelly for property located at 1801 S. Mally Wagnon Rd. The property is in the Planning Area and contains 23.16 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of 22.16 acres and 1.00 acres respectively. Bunch: Welcome to the Thursday, October 2nd meeting of the Subdivision Committee of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Our original agenda had ten items on it. One of those items has been removed from the agenda. That is LSD 02-9.10 for Williams Ford Tractor. If there is anyone here to speak on that it has been delayed until possibly the next Subdivision Committee meeting. That leaves nine items on the agenda. We have a fairly extensive agenda today so when we get to the public comment sections of it if you would keep your comments just as simple as possible because we have quite a few people here who are waiting and so let's be considerate of everyone's time. The first item on the agenda is LSP 03-51.00 for Jerry Kelly submitted by Milholland & Company for property located at 1801 S. Mally Wagnon Road. Suzanne? Morgan: The proposal is to split the 23.16 acre property into two tracts of approximately 1.0 acre and 22.16 acres. There are currently several structures on the proposed tract A, the northeast portion and one along the southern border. There are not structures on tract B currently. Surrounding zoning is the Planning Area and it is used for single-family residential. Water will be extended to serve the proposed tract and it is planned to be serviced by a septic system. Mally Wagnon Road is classified as a local street on the City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan and requires 30' of right of way dedicated from centerline. The right of way dedication shall be made to Washington County. Staff is recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level with the following conditions: 1) A minimum of 30 feet from centerline of Mally Wagnon Road shall be dedicated for right-of-way to Washington County with lot split approval. Certification and dedication block shall follow Washington County standards. 2) Water must be extended from the north of the subject property to the northeast corner of the proposed lot prior to filing the lot split. 3) Existing buildings shall be shown on the plat. 4) County approval is required prior to recordation. 5) Prior to filing, Washington County approval for septic system on remaining lot is required. Milholland: I didn't hear what you said on condition number three. Morgan: Existing buildings shall be shown on the plat. Milholland: There are not any existing buildings, they would be shown if there were. There are not any. Morgan: It appears that there are existing buildings on the map so I assumed there were. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 3 Jefcoat: Morgan: Jefcoat: Warrick: Your city maps show there are buildings? Yes Sir. She was saying on the website there appears to be buildings. You have a copy of the map in your packet after the staff report. That is information from the city's aerial photography. Milholland: You mean buildings on the 23 acres, we were primarily looking at the one acre. Warrick: We have made a note in the staff report that there are no structures on the one acre tract. Milholland: Ok. Bunch: Casey: Bunch: Milholland: Bunch: Milholland: Bunch: Milholland: Bunch: Milholland: Bunch: Are there any other staff reports? Engineering? There is a condition of approval that the water line be extended to serve this lot prior to filing the lot split. We had a preconstruction conference Monday for the construction of this water line and it should be under way within the next week or two. Matt, I am assuming that the existing house on the larger lot is on a septic tank, should that be shown on the plat also to make sure that it doesn't interfere with this lot split? This one or this one? This is the lot that you are concerned with splitting out and there is an existing structure down in this area. We just need to make sure that the septic tank field doesn't go into tract B. It is existing. They did the perk test first for the acre. What about the existing structure? You mean the new structure? Isn't there a house on this 23 acres? There are several structures on this larger tract. Are any of those on septic tanks? Milholland: Oh, I'm sure they are. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 4 Bunch: You need to show locations of septic tanks to be sure that they don't extend into this lot B that is being split out. That is what we always do on lot splits to make sure that it is free of any encumbrances like that. Milholland: Ok. The septic system test was done before we did the survey. Casey: I didn't look at that because there is not any houses shown on the plat. That comment is usually a standard comment if there are houses shown. I am sorry, I couldn't hear you, did you say that there are houses on this existing? Milholland: On that 23 acres there is a house on there. We will check that out. If the house is back down on the north side a long way from this tract we will just extend them out. Casey: Bunch: If you can show the location of the house and then just show the approximate location of the septic system then that would be acceptable. When we make a motion we need to add that to the conditions of approval. Mel, will you introduce yourself and tell us if there is anything additional that we need to know about this project. Milholland: I am Mel Milholland with Milholland Engineering representing the client, Jerry Kelly. Comments stated so far by the city staff in their report is in order and your comment about the approximate location of the septic system on the 23 acres we will take care of. I didn't get Matt's comments. I didn't hear what you said about the water line. I have talked with the engineer that has been planning on trying to get the water line in pretty soon. Casey: We had the preconstruction meeting Monday and it should be under construction shortly. Milholland: Thank you. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this LSP 03-51.00 for Jerry Kelly? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions, comments, or motions. MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 03-51.00 with all of the conditions of approval and the additional one that designates the septic system on the 23 acres. Ostner: I will second it. Bunch: Just one question right quick for Matt on the water line. Is this addition Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 5 water line that is going to tie into the loop that comes across from Ed Edwards Road and also will hopefully help the situation on top of the hill? Casey: Yes, for the Watkins subdivision. Bunch: Thank you. I will concur. Thank you Mel. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 6 FPL 03-09.00: Final Plat (Summerbrook Estates, pp 648) was submitted by Milholland Co. on behalf of NLC, Inc. for property located at Hunt Lane, approximately 0.5 miles south of Huntsville Rd. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 28.35 acres. The request is to approve the development of 12 Single- family lots. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is a Final Plat for Summerbrook Estates submitted by Milholland & Company on behalf of MLC, Incorporated for property located at Hunt Lane approximately a half mile south of Huntsville Road. This is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 28.35 acres. The request is to approve the development of 12 single- family lots. Who has this one? Morgan: I do. The Preliminary Plat for this subdivision was approved on March 24, 2003. A portion of this property is in the 100 -year flood zone. The surrounding land is in the Planning area and is used for single-family residential. There are some existing structures within the western portion of this property. Water is planned to be extended and each lot will have a septic system that will require approval from the Arkansas Department of Health. 35' from the centerline of Hunt Road, a local road on the Master Street Plan, is to be dedicated as well as any additional property which falls within that right of way. Streets shall be improved to county standards. Staff is recommending approval of the Final Plat at the Subdivision Committee level with the following conditions of approval: 1) Gates shall be prohibited on Summerbrook Place. 2) Washington County Approval must be obtained prior to construction. 3) Final plat approval shall be obtained prior to filing the final plat. 4) An 8 inch waterline shall be extended to serve this subdivision. 5) Approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Arkansas Department of Health permits for individual sewage treatment systems. In conjunction with this condition, note number 8 will be removed from the plat. 6) Access from individual lots shall be limited to interior streets only. Numbers seven through nine are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Thank you Suzanne. Matt, are there any additional engineering comments? Casey: The 8" water line has been extended to serve the subdivision. It is installed, they have had a final inspection. They are currently waiting on the results of the water sampling before it can be accepted. Milholland: They submitted that several times. I think the lake has turned over and they can't get it. That's one of the reasons for not getting a good sample. I am assuming that's the case and everyone in Fayetteville is drinking the water but they have tried several times. The water lines have been extended where on here it says shall be so if you want to change that to has. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 7 Jefcoat: That's sort of the case on a lot of this. You are saying will be or should be or shall be and it already has been. Milholland: Morgan: Milholland: Bunch: Casey: Bunch: Casey: Milholland: Bunch: Casey: Jefcoat: Bunch: Jefcoat: Bunch: Milholland: I am Mel Milholland with Milholland Engineering representing the client on Summerbrook. Number six it says access from individual lots shall be limited to interior streets only. Lot number one will have to access from Hunt Lane. Can we change that to say except lot one? Sure. We concur with all the other comments. Matt, do we do final inspection on something like this or is that under the county? We did a final inspection on the water line only and that has been done. Streets, curbs, gutter and all of that is under the county? Yes. At this time we do not inspect any of that, it is just our water only. For your information Mr. Chairman, it has been done. Paving was completed the first of this week and it is the same kind of test on that as you would on a city street. At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to speak on Summerbrook Estates? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. A question about the creek and do we need to put any conditions of approval to call out any Corp. of Engineers requirements or how is that addressed? There should be a note on the plat about driveway crossings. That is note nine. Isn't there a note on the plat concerning access to lots 10, 11 and 12? That is what note nine says. Road access to lots 10, 11 and 12 shall be approved by the Corp. of Engineers. When I was out there looking at this there is a driveway that is not shown on your drawings or if it is on the drawing I missed it. It crosses the creek and there is a considerable amount of rip raft on either side of the low water bridge. That was there and is existing. That is not part of our design, it was something extra the owner did. There was a low water crossing right there, just a natural crossing and I think what he did was he improved that. We addressed this issue with Tim. Originally they were going to build a Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 8 dam but that would be very time consuming and so forth and then at the time Tim was still in Planning and he suggested that we do it like this so that these lots have the frontage and each individual owner can address their access individually. Bunch: Is there any sort of provision for making one creek crossing and then accessing the other lots from that one crossing? Milholland: I think that is what the Corp. asked for and use the existing driveway across there that they have. Bunch: Are there any other comments or questions? MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion for approval of FPL 03-9.00 changing condition of approval number six to read access from individual lots shall be limited to interior streets except for lot one. Church: I will second it. Bunch: What about the removal of note eight from the drawing? Jefcoat: That's in the conditions. Milholland: The other one was about the water line shall be, if they would change that to has been we will be happy to sign the conditions. I think that is item number four. The shall be was in preliminary and we've already done it. Casey: You can just remove that condition. Warrick: You have already met the condition, it doesn't matter how it reads whether it is shall be or has been. It has been installed and inspected. Bunch: So now it's just a matter of passing the inspection? Warrick: Yes. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 9 PPL 03-12.00: Preliminary Plat (Crofton Manor, pp 323) was submitted by Northstar Engineering for property located at 3110 Mount Comfort Rd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains 21.15 acres. The request is to modify the approved preliminary plat of 56 Single-family lots to allow for 2 additional residential lots. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is a Preliminary Plat for Crofton Manor submitted by Northstar Engineering for property located at 3110 Mt. Comfort Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, four units per acre and contains 21.15 acres. This is a request to modify a Preliminary Plat that has already been filed. Who has the staff report on this? Jeremy? Pate: Yes Sir. As you may remember, the Planning Commission did hear this project in August, 2003 and granted approval of the Preliminary Plat for Crofton Manor, a single-family residential subdivision with 55 residential lots, one large existing residential lot and two lots containing detention ponds. At the time the applicant expressed the desire to retain the existing condition of lot one on which the existing residence is sited. Specifically, a few conditions that are pertinent to this lot that access to lot one would remain in situ until such time as redevelopment on that particular lot occurs and then at that time lot one access would be restricted to interior streets. Item number two, part of Planning Commission determination of off site street improvements to Mt. Comfort Road included sidewalks requirement for that portion fronted by lot one would be constructed at the time of redevelopment and/or any new development of structure or access change to said lot. The applicant did include a note to that affect and basically what we're doing here is splitting this lot, adding two additional lots out of this original lot one into the subdivision and therefore, with the conditions of approval from the last Preliminary Plat access will be changed to restrict access from Mt. Comfort Road onto this new Kinswick Avenue and also construct the sidewalks. Staff has been in contact with the applicant regarding this proposal and is in support of that request. Basically what we're doing here is adding these two lots, additional lot one into the subdivision and therefore, with the conditions of approval from the last Preliminary Plat that went through access will be changed to restrict access from Mt. Comfort Road onto this new Kinswick Avenue and also construct the sidewalks. Staff has been in contact with the applicant regarding this proposal and is in support of that request provided that the conditions of the original approval regarding access change and the sidewalk construction are met. Staff is recommending that this item be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with the following conditions. We are forwarding it simply because it is a Preliminary Plat. I will go over those and read those into the record for you. 1) The applicant shall alter the existing access to Lot 1 to prohibit all vehicular access from entering onto the lot from Mt. Comfort Road. A drive shall be constructed from the interior street to access said lot, in accordance with current City regulations for residential drives. 2) The minimum distance between the Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 10 Mt. Comfort Road intersection and a residential curb cut is 60 feet. 3) The subdivision developer shall construct a four -foot sidewalk along the west side of the proposed lots 1-3 and a six-foot sidewalk along Mt. Comfort Road prior to final plat. Sidewalk location along Mt. Comfort shall be coordinated with the Sidewalk Administrator due to existing vegetation. Where possible, sidewalk construction along Mt. Comfort should be located at the right-of-way line, for future provision of an On - Street Linkage. Sidewalks shall be installed or guaranteed by money in a city escrow account prior to final plat approval. 4) Parks fees shall be adjusted to accommodate for the additional residential Tots. Fees shall be paid in the amount of $31,635 at the time of Final Plat. 5) Tree mitigation fees shall be adjusted to accommodate for the additional canopy. Fees shall be paid in the amount of $9,675 at the time of Final Plat. 6) All conditions of the approved PPL 03-12.00 shall remain applicable, with the exception of those noted herein. Bunch: Ok, thank you. Are there any additional Parks comments? Ohman: No Sir. Bunch: Tree and landscape? Carnagey: No. Bunch: Engineering? Casey: I don't have any comments but I would like to ask Mark to update us on the status of the off site drainage, the discharge from the ponds. I know it was a concern at the last Subdivision Committee meeting. Blakeley: I spoke with the people to the north, the Kimbroughs. We were on site and showed them where we would like to put our off site ditch on the west side and run that along the existing ditch along the drive and out to Salem Road and they are going to grant us an easement for that. You got construction plans in your office this morning. I haven't spoke to them yet about getting the letter but I need to get the letter from them. They understand what we're doing here and they are ok and in agreement with it. We have been in contact with them. Casey: Thank you for working with them to work that out. Blakeley: You're welcome. Bunch: What about the east detention pond? Blakeley: The east detention pond, we were out there and we walked the site with them and there is an existing sort of swale through the woods that he has Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 11 back there and we went both ends of it and I think it is going to be just fine. We are still going to walk with him with our construction plans and explain to him again on the flow rates so we will be going through that. Bunch: Does that conclude your comments? Casey: Yes Sir, thank you. Bunch: Why don't you introduce yourself and tell us a little more about your project? Blakeley: I am Mark Blakeley with Northstar Engineering representing Woodworks Plus, the development. It is 58 residential lots. It is going through routing the two additional lots to the one large lot that was to remain. That is about all of the changes. We have moved the sidewalk for the trail system. That's all I have. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone that would like to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee. Are there any comments, questions or motions? MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we forward PPL 03-12.00 to the full Planning Commission with all the conditions of approval. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Thank you Mark. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 12 PPL 03-16.00: Preliminary Plat (Overton Park, pp 220) was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Terry Gulley for property located on the 3400 block of Gulley Rd. The property is located in the Planning Area and contains 58.81 acres. The request is to approve the development of 51 Single-family lots. (previously Remington Subdivision) Bunch: The next item on the agenda is a Preliminary Plat for Overton Park submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Terry Gulley for property located on Gulley Road. It is in the planning area and contains approximately 5.81 acres. Suzanne, is this yours? Morgan: Yes it is, thank you. The proposal is to, as you said, create 58.81 acres in the planning area with 51 single-family lots. The surrounding land use is single-family residential and water will be extended to serve this property. Individual septic systems are required for each individual lot and approval of the septic systems for each lot has been granted from the Arkansas Health Depai lment. Right of way to be dedicated is 35' on Gulley Road, a collector on the Master Street Plan. 70' for the proposed Maywood Road and 50' of right of way on Briargate Drive, Suttle Ridge Drive, Appalachian Way and Gunnison Drive. These will be built and improved to Washington County standards. Staff's recommendation is to forward this project to the full Planning Commission with the following conditions: 1) The name of the subdivision shall be revised on the plat. 2) The centerline of Gulley Road shall clearly be noted on the plat. 3) Approval from the Washington County Health Depailment for each septic system on lots less than 1.5 acres. 4) Requested note limiting access of lot 2 to the interior street shall be reflected on the plat. 5) All street names shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator. 6) Proposed right-of- way shall be dedicated with the Final Plat. Condition seven is a standard condition of approval. Bunch: Casey: Bunch: Jorgensen: I guess there are no parks or trees on this. Matt, is there any additional engineering comments? As Suzanne stated, water will be extended to serve the development. Sewer is not available in this area and septic systems are proposed. That's all I have. Thank you. Dave, can you introduce yourself and tell us about the project please? I am Dave Jorgensen and I am representing Terry Gulley on this project and we agree with all of the staff conditions and I'm here to answer questions. Bunch: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on Overton Park subdivision on Gulley Road? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 13 committee. One question is this pond up on the hill going to remain or both ponds? Gulley: The front one will remain. Bunch: What about the one back here on lots 18, 17, and 44? Gulley: Delete. Bunch: How does this road line up with this road across? Jorgensen: Right directly across. Bunch: That was fortunate. On note two all utility service will be from the rear of lots. Jorgensen: Yes, it is underground service too. Bunch: You have access to all of them, you just wind up trenching around to the back? Jorgensen: Right. We provided the utility crossings that utilities requested. Bunch: You've got all the easements on there in order to accomplish that? Jorgensen: Yes Sir. Bunch: Are there any other comments or questions? Ostner: I have one question that I ask a lot of people. Are you all aware that this little cul-de-sac and this Appalachian Way could be narrower if you wanted it to? A lot of developers don't want to do that but we have a provision to go down to 24' on roads. It is up to you all. Casey: I just want to remind you that this does have to meet the county standards and not the cross sections that the city has. t believe that their standard is 28' wide. Jorgensen: There is some confusion when you get within that mile distance. Casey: We are currently working with the county to try to define some roles that the city and the county plays within those areas. It is not complete at this time. Jorgensen: We have gone to that 24' though and it seems to be a tight squeeze if somebody parks on one side of the street. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 14 Ostner: Some people like it. The one we just approved they did that with. Jorgensen: Ok. Gulley: Since I have to take care of them I would just assume they all be the same. We are going to meet and exceed the minimum standards because we are putting curb and gutter in even though we're not required to. Ostner: I don't have any other questions. Bunch: Hopefully one day we'll have city sewer available because this combined with the subdivision across the street and a lot of others going in that area are an awful lot of septic systems. Jorgensen: There is surprisingly good soil in this area, it is very sandy. Bunch: Did you check to see if the neighbors are on wells or city water? Jorgensen: They are on city water for the most part. Gulley: We're on city water. There may be one or two people left that are on wells. Bunch: Quite a few years ago I guess everybody started changing over because most of the wells in that area deteriorated. Are there any motions? MOTION: Osmer: I will make a motion that we forward PPL 03-16.00 to the Planning Commission. Church: I will second it. Bunch: I will concur. Jorgensen: Good deal, I appreciate it. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 15 LSD 03.33.00: Large Scale Development (Elsass Plaza, pp 177) was submitted by Milholland Engineering and Surveying on behalf of Kirk Elsass for property located on the northeast corner of Joyce Blvd. and Crossover Rd. The property is zoned C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 3.205 acres. The request is to construct a 32,344 square foot retail commercial building with 144 parking spaces proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSD 03-33.00 for Elsass Plaza submitted by Milholland Engineering and Surveying on behalf of Kirk Elsass for property located on the northeast corner of Joyce Blvd. and Crossover Road. Suzanne, is this yours? Morgan: Yes it is. Bunch: Would you give us the staff report please? Morgan: I certainly will. The request is to construct a 32,344 sq.ft. retail structure with 144 parking spaces. This project is delineated by Joyce Street on the east, Hwy. 265 (Crossover Road) on the west and Joyce Blvd. to the south. The property is zoned C-1 to the north and C-2 to the south. There will be three drives that will access this property. There are two located on Hwy. 265 and the third on Joyce Street to the north of the property. The land surrounding to the north and east are zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and are used for residential purposes. The land to the south is vacant and is currently zoned R -O and the land to the west is commercial zoned C-1 and C-2. Right of way to be dedicated is 55'from centerline on Hwy. 265 and Joyce Blvd. as well as 35' from centerline on Joyce Street. Street improvements are to be extended along Joyce to the north of the property line and installation of a 6' sidewalk a minimum of 10' from the curb along Hwy. 265 and Joyce Blvd., as well as Joyce Street for the length of the subject property is required. I will go over tree preservation data. Existing canopy is .08%, preserved is 0% and mitigation is three trees. Staff's recommendation is to forward this to the full Planning Commission with the following conditions: 1) A Tree Preservation Canopy Table and mitigation Proposal must be submitted for this project calculating all existing tree canopy removal, and indicating both the location and species of trees proposed for mitigation. 2) A complete landscape plan is required indication method of irrigation, a note that soil is amended and sod removed, landscape beds are edged, specific types of trees and shrubs and their planning locations are identified, size of trees and shrubs at time of planting. 3) The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way to fulfill Master Street Plan requirements for a Collector Street, 35 feet from centerline, for Joyce Street along the eastern property boundary and for a Principal Arterial, 55 feet from centerline, for Hwy 265 and Joyce Boulevard. 4) Requested revision of the required parking calculations shall be reflected on the plat similar to the chart in the staff report. Maximum building height on the north side of the property shall not exceed 30 feet in height. 5) Requested revisions to the vicinity map to include the extension of the 100 -yr flood plain associated with the creek and to remove the street Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 16 connection between Hillside Terrace and Joyce Street shall be made on the plat. 6) Building heights shall be submitted to assure correct building setbacks. 7) Access into the property shall not exceed a 10% grade. 8) Street improvements on Joyce Street extending to the north of the property will be made prior to issuance of a building permit. 9) All proposed parking lot lighting shall comply with City Ordinance requirements and include full cut-off fixtures, with light shielded, directed downward and away from adjacent properties. 10) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk 10 feet from the curb located at the right-of-way line along Highway 265, Joyce Boulevard and Joyce Street for the length of the project property boundary. The sidewalk shall be constructed through all driveways to meet City Standards. 11) Planning Commission approval of Commercial Design Standards. The rest are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Thank you Suzanne. Craig, are there any additional tree and landscape comments? Carnagey: No further comments. Bunch: Matt with Engineering? Casey: I would like to clarify number nine, street improvements on Joyce Street extending to the north property line. Suzanne, if we can remove the will be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. That is usually done in conjunction with the building. I just wanted to clarify that's a minimum of 14' from centerline including pavement, curb and gutter and storm sewer. That's all I have. Thank you. Bunch: At this time we will have the applicant introduce themselves and tell us about your project. Milholland: I am Mel Milholland with Milholland Engineering and this is Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Engineering and also Mr. Elsass is here. Bunch: Do you have any kind of presentation at this time? Jefcoat: I am Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company. Some of the comments that have been made on the conditions of approval have already been met and so noted on our plans that we just handed out. All of the conditions will be recognized and acknowledged and taken care of. The access onto the property shall not exceed 10% grade, Matt, do you want to explain where that came from or how you got that 10% grade? Casey: That wasn't from the Engineering Division, that was from our Fire Marshall's office and that was with the fire code. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 17 Jefcoat: Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Casey: Warrick: Jefcoat: Morgan: Bunch: Elsass: I just wanted to clarify that and get it on record that 10% grade was set. The Landscape Administrator, Craig, the chart has been added to the plans and so noted and it does include the canopy that was removed from the grading plan that was previously approved. The parking space revision will take care of that. The building setback has been revised on the east side so that the building can have a 30' height. That's all I have. I do know that I was called yesterday afternoon late about a north elevation on the building. I understand that the architect will provide that. He is working on it. He didn't have it ready. He understood that that was not a face of a building so he did not have it prepared but he will have. He turned in a sample board and a large board so the north elevation is the only thing he doesn't have and he will have that ready. I have one question. Matt, the 10% maximum, is there an ordinance for that? It is right out of the fire code. They have a maximum of 10% in their code? Yes. Chairman Bunch, one thing that was not included in the conditions that we need to add and you have information in front of you with regard to this is the Planning Commission determination of commercial design standards. We have those design standards here? No, we don't. Ok. That is number twelve. At this time we will take public comment. Are you all through with your presentation? I just wanted to make a couple of comments if I could. Dawn and I talked earlier about several issues. One of the things that I did want to mention today is that I have some concerns about the north entrance. I know that the grade into there, I did talk to Danny Farrar at the Fire and he was going to have a problem with any removing of that entrance on Joyce Street. If you will notice on the plat it shows that the entrance is coming in on the north. One of the concerns that I have had and we have spoken to Matt and everybody about this. I have kind of come to a conclusion that it is not going to be necessary for me to go ahead and put that in unless the staff and everyone goes ahead and sees it to be needed completely. My concerns are in developing this with my experience with retail, what I'm going to try to do with this project is on the back side is hopefully by putting the parking back here, in the past in any retail center such as this we have had retail with commercial and office space mixed. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 18 It makes some real good uses because you have less parking at certain times of the day and retail will have different times than an office will a lot of times. What you do run into with the parking is you run into people that are office oriented or say you have four or five employees in an office, they will tend to have a I don't need to park across the street for the customer because I don't have a customer so what you'll have if you are in an office such as this those people will park right up in here and take these spaces and eat up your retail person's front row parking. It is one of those things that you think that people would walk a few steps but human nature is we're not going to do it, especially in the United States I guess. What I've tried to do is to put some office type spaces in the back that would allow these people to be back here. They don't need retail front so by doing that my goal was to have them to be able to access off this back row. At the same time my concerns are if you go out there and observe this space for the last year for eight or nine months I have watched this space trying to figure out the best layout for this location. From sitting here and here and sitting here at the White Oak Station. Two of the issues are the access onto Hwy. 265. It is a very, very congested road. It really needs to be widened as we all know. This intersection down here is getting to the point now that it is starting to get a few cars in here. I know that the 2023 plan has this road extending on down this direction and with all that said, my concerns are is the person coming out here, if he comes in here and goes out either one of these exits and tries to make this turn this way it is going to be a very tough challenge. It is going to be a problem. It is going to be a problem with this intersection now and it will be even when it is widened. One of the things that we discussed earlier in our first meeting at Plat Review was this driveway back here. That would be real nice if these people in the retail sector would use that but they won't. The retail person is going to use what they see conveniently. Once they have learned it, we will attempt to put some signage down here and send them back this way. My original suggestion was when we first drew this was to put this right here. This grade is pretty steep right here. It wouldn't allow a fire truck in here but these would. That's the reason that Danny said I could speak to the Fire Chief about it. I told Dawn and Matt that I was not going to go against the grain with anything that they wanted to do. I just felt like the best solution would be to put an exit there. Dawn had made a suggestion I think if I'm correct that maybe we look at the possibility of splitting the difference right in here. If we split it I just made the comment it is really not going to do any benefit for what I'm wanting to do. If they are going to use this one they will use this one in my opinion. If we could put this up here where it was more visible then I believe that it would get used by these people. These people would make this come out here and utilize this stop light. That is what I wanted to do. There are some obstacles in that and so at this time I would like to be in a position to possibly even just take this one completely out and reevaluate later after we get this thing developed and built and work with the staff in some way. I don't know if that is even possible. I really don't see any need to put this Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 19 in here. I have other concerns about it in the back back there. Vandalism and such as that I would prefer not having that. As long as the fire trucks can get back there and they are safe with it then Tom and I have talked about leaving it on there and maybe at some point taking it out if that is not a problem with staff on that road. The other thing that I would like to mention and you all can address these and tell me no right off the bat. The other thing I would like to mention, and I spoke to Dawn about this, I haven't talked to Matt about it. I have a concern by putting this back here if you have ever driven this drive back here it is very dangerous. It is a little "S" turn. There have been a lot of accidents right there. Encouraging any traffic to go this way is something that I believe by me developing this I am going to create something back here. I believe that if we realize that this road at some point is going to come on down we don't need to advance this. I asked Matt could we maybe not widen that road, could we take that money, I would be willing to take the money that was to be put into this road back to here and it may even be a possibility that some of those trees could remain. I would be willing to take that money and forward it up here to this intersection somehow and utilize it for something. I am the kind of person where I hate to spend money on something that I know I'm wasting it and it's not going to be utilized. This driveway does not need to encourage traffic back here. If you do widen this side of it this side is never going to get widened to speak of. They may decide to widen it when they develop this but here's your road. If you look on the plan it is going that way. It is not going this way. It doesn't need to send cars back there so if we improve any part of the street it needs to be if we put it here my suggestion was to put this improvement here where we could widen this where we could get turning lanes in here where it backs up here or spend the money over in this intersection somewhere to either widen this a little bit. I would rather spend the money and widen this turning lane to what is going to be needed down the road verses spending this over here. If you say no then we will do what you say. I know that's been Matt's position on it in the past. He has not said, I have not really offered it publicly that I would do that. I would prefer, if I've got to spend the money let's spend it on something that is going to benefit. I know the ordinance doesn't put us in play that way but with all those things said the main thing is this entrance. I would like to maybe possibly just take it out at this time until we have had a chance to analyze it. If we have to come back and come through the process to put one in then we can do that and I would like to see who's responsibility it is of coming up with a calculation on the road and putting it over here. One last thing, I'm sorry. On the north elevation, the reason we didn't submit that is what we planned on doing was brick up with the same brick scheme so far and then we were going to use metal. I don't know if that is a no, no or poo -paw but we were going to try to do that in the back because it's never going to be exposed to the public. We are going to brick around the columns around to here and then put some metal back here so if that's an issue then I would just as soon know it right now. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 20 Warrick: Is that what is reflected in your submitted elevations? Elsass: No, we haven't submitted the north. That's the north elevation. That's the one that is going to be hidden back in the back so we just put metal back there. The reason for it is because I know a lot of people don't like metal but the thing about metal is that when you do come in and you need to add an additional window or door it is a lot easier than going in and busting out block or brick. That's the reason I was doing that. Warrick: We can talk about that and discuss the overall commercial design standards. There is not a prohibition against metal in our commercial design standards. It does discourage the use of metal as a majority of the main facade of the structure and when we look at the elevations of a structure it is really important that we consider what's visible from the public right of way. You've got a very exposed building in this location that has a lot of visibility, which is certainly to your benefit, but it also has to do with everything that the public can see as they are traveling in the area. That's what we are going to be considering. The other issue is that typically metal walls create a large, blank, unarticulated wall surface and that is something that is identified specifically under commercial design standards to discourage or minimize. That really has to do with how it is configured and what other articulation or features you may include on that wall face that could mitigate that kind of appearance. The Planning Commission will need to understand what you're proposing and will probably want to get some comments from the Subdivision Committee that may influence the way that you finalize that wall facade. Chairman Bunch, I will look to your direction as to how to direct the various issues that we need to further discuss. Bunch: Casey: I guess at this time Dawn can you or Matt comment on the driveway and the road situation? If I can start with Joyce Street. Mr. Elsass is correct in that the Master Street Plan does show Joyce to extend on out to the east. Our Master Street Plan also shows that this section going north and south is also designated as a collector. Right now it is narrow and dangerous and it does need to be improved. At this time we are making the recommendations that this portion be improved through this development. To address the driveway entrance, my suggestion would be that if we are going to look at removing that then we will need to have a formal traffic study done to show the impact on Hwy. 265 as far as safety is concerned and traffic volume by dumping all of the traffic out and not providing another avenue of relief. Warrick: The one thing that this access does do when people realize that it is there is it allows them to exit this site at a controlled intersection so that they Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 21 can travel south on Joyce Street and intersect Hwy. 265 at a signalized intersection. The other two access points that directly put traffic on Hwy. 265 don't have signalization and won't. They are uncontrolled access and while we appreciate your modifying those accesses to have a two way out so you have got a right and left turn there is still the situation of the heavy traffic that is traveling on Hwy. 265 and just offering the relief and the option for people to come and go at a signalized intersection we felt was pretty important. Kirk, when I talked with you and told you that I would go back and look at the situation on Joyce on the east side and consider your proposal Matt and I did discuss that, we checked back on the Master Street Plan and did realize that it is indicated as a collector street. It is not proposed to be abandoned in the future. It is proposed to be built out to a 70' right of way, 36' section as a full collector street and that's why we feel like it is important to pursue those improvements to fulfill the intent of the Master Street Plan along that east side. Bunch: Matt, is there anything additional? Casey: No Sir. Bunch: Just one thing, recently, in fact, as recently as today, we have seen that there is considerable residential development going into the east of here. For people who live to the east to have to get out onto Hwy. 265 to come back around that is creating a problem needlessly. One question, what bearing does this project have on improving the east side of Joyce intersection east of Hwy. 265, possibly widening that and maybe putting in a dedicated turning signal? Right now if you turn left to go south to Hwy. 265 from the east side of Joyce is rather difficult. Is there any relief in this parcel or anything for that situation? Casey: Bunch: Casey: We discussed approvals to Joyce last year when this came through as Premier Wines and Spirits. At that time, staff felt that any improvements made here would be removed with the design of this intersection, the build out of this. At this time I believe Joyce is three lanes and they do have a left turn lane. That would be what we would add if anything and it's already existing so we decided to ask for the improvements along this northern portion of Joyce and wait on the intersection improvements. Also, I might add that the signal pole would have to be relocated with any improvements. That is something that we didn't feel that the developer ought to bear that expense and the city is not wanting to participate in that at this time. Would it take State Highway Department approval to get a left signal on that system with signals? I'm not sure, I would have to consult with Perry Franklin on that issue. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 22 Bunch: Kirk, do you have anything else? Elsass: No, I just wanted those things to be thought of. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address us on this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. One question, on commercial design standards to make sure that we have everything ready for the forwarding it to the Planning Commission. You are calling out stone/concrete masonry units, is that just a stone face? Elsass: I'll be honest with you. My architect did that and I just stamped it and said it was fine. The plan is to use brick. We don't have any plans for stone at this time. He left it open. What I am going to do, I don't know if it reflects it anywhere here but the name of this is going to be millennium so it has to be something that we would try to utilize the same brick and if he did any block it would be a similar scheme to what we have done out at millennium which I have had a lot of positive comments on. Jefcoat: There is a sample board. Morgan: We are going to get the sample board so you can see. Bunch: There are some limitations on concrete masonry units so that is why I asked that. Elsass: It will be a split faced block on the bottom. What we tried to do is we tried to give this a different look. It is kind of hard to tell it from that but if you see the footprint of the building you will notice that the way this is designed is that the ends have a rounded area with glass and then the center will have the same rounded area and then the other end will. What we have tried to do is break this up and give it several different looks on the front and give it some different looks. We first started this design and from doing this, we talked to several parties about possibly doing a mixed use type thing over here with condos mixed in. Doing something similar to something that has been done down on Dickson Street and a few places. We ran into some obstacles with parking and things like that and we just didn't feel like we could get it all together so we went ahead and stayed with a different look to the building. You notice that it does change but it's only two or three different looks to it. As far as this, this is the back. Actually it is this one right here. This is the back and you will notice we have got a canopy over her with windows and then this would probably be what he is indicating to be the cut split block in the back and then brick up from there. Bunch: That looks a lot better than this one. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 23 Elsass: That was the original one I believe. The reason we did it this way, we did it on purpose because we didn't know if you have a retail tenant in this portion of the building and he went all the way across they really don't want all of these windows and doors back there in the back for security reasons so it would've been solid. This is kind of like I say, somewhat of a new concept to put your office on the back for the ones that don't need a store front and then the retail in the front. We were going to do some office glass along the back if needed and we would do the retail mainly on the front but we revised it to this one. Bunch: A question on this north end, are you planning on using the same concept with offices there? Elsass: No, that's the reason we were going to do the metal if we could in the back because we felt like that end, if you will notice there's no parking back there and we intended for that to be strictly for retail and for the bigger users, higher visibility. That was the plan. It seems like anytime you plan these it never works out the way you plan it. Bunch: Potentially these could be split like that and this would be larger tenants. El sass: Exactly. Since we are going to put the entrance to the back back there that would allow those people to enter and exit from the back back there without ever putting them on this portion of Hwy. 265 and then we would have parking along that back there which really hopefully what that is going to do is by the square footage is put some of those people back there and all of your employees can park back there for the retail. All of your office people in the back and hopefully have the front strictly for retail. That will feed all of the traffic, by leaving that road back there, that will feed. The only reason I suggested taking that out was that I still believe that the location of it needs to be further south. Because we can't move that then in leaving it there then we do know, Dawn has made this point, so has Matt several times, we do know that all of the employees for this are going to be required, especially for this portion of the building, to park back here in the back and try to keep this for retail. Bunch: Do we need to consider any handicapped parking back here in the back should some of it be office space? Elsass: You know, we can do that, it really doesn't matter to me. I believe if there is a handicap party involved then I think they are probably going to want to go ahead and use the front entrance anyway whether it be an employee or customer, either one. They can always access up here and then work their way along this sidewalk around the back. Our plans are to put our air conditioner units on the back of this portion up on top of the building here. We possibly may find an area back here to raise them up and put them Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 24 somewhere back here off the building but they would be able to get all the way back here. Bunch: It looks like it would be a convenience to move some of the handicap parking back here in case these are offices it would be access. Elsass: I don't care. I think it's easy to change isn't it Tom? Jefcoat: Yeah. You may lose a space or half a space and rearrange. Elsass: That's an issue in itself as far as parking. Just so that the people here know, that parking the way the ordinances read today, is a huge and tremendous problem for the retail sector. In Millennium's development I have had numerous times I have got three or four doctors right now that are just screaming and hollering. We had a big few over there between two or three doctors and lawyers over parking in the street because there was just not enough room allowed in the ordinance. Every one that I can add to these developments is better. I know that we are trying to get away from more concrete and go to more coverage but when you develop one and the cost of these things trying to go in there and using what used to be there was a minimum low and now it is a maximum low. Warrick: We modified our parking regulations and now there is a maximum but you can go 30% over that. In a retail situation the standard for meeting our ordinance is one space per 250 sq.ft. plus 30%. That is an optional increase in parking that is allowed by ordinance without special approvals. That has actually changed since Millennium went through the process and most of those lots developed. Elsass: So we can come back and change them? Warrick: Any new Large Scales would have to comply with the new regulations. Elsass: One thing we haven't talked about is my sign. One thing I wanted to bring up was my sign. What I'm going to try to do here is instead of trying to, normally on a site like this I would ask for a pole sign. We are not asking for a pole sign on this one. We believe because of the location, if you will leave that open I will show you. It is right here. The objective is there is a retaining wall through here and I want to try to put this sign in a location that would be very visible, not very tall but just whatever is standard or whatever we're allowed to do here. Put one sign across here. I have not designed that sign yet because I have not seen exactly what my wall is going to be. I want to see how high my wall is going to be. If my wall is going to end up being 30" or less then this area right here, which in talking to Tom yesterday more than likely it is going to be somewhere around 5'. If so I would like to be in a position to have the sign put in this comer where it is the most visible and then build it out of the same materials as Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 25 Bunch: Warrick: Elsass: we are going to use for our building and do a monument sign there and do a large monument sign and have it in sections so that different people in this development, I don't think we've got any around that would explain what I'm talking about. What I want to do is something that is brick and block, the same material here and build that in this area right in there somewhere. It was to be built as part of the wall originally and it still may be. My concerns are that I don't know exactly how tall that wall is going to be and if we have to we can build it into where the wall is going to be. Let it go up and have a real nice shape to it, come down and let the wall blend into it. That is somewhat similar to I think the University has got a wall and a sign kind of all blended in together. Dawn, do our ordinances accommodate an area identification type monument sign? We do have a joint id sign. A monument sign of course is defined as 75 sq.ft., 6' setback from the property line. I am sure we can work within the parameters of the joint identification allowances as well as the monument sign definition. I think that it is important that the Planning Commission understand at least visually an idea of what it is that you are proposing so that they can consider that with regard to commercial design standards. When revisions come in if you can include an elevation of what your proposed sign will look like then that is something that they will review with the package of commercial design standards information. If we could I would like to go ahead and show it on the plans of where this would be at this point, at the next meeting. You all tell me what materials that you really want me to put it in and then I'd be willing to say we won't put anything if we can't agree on it. I really don't want to try to design something and not put what I say. Warrick: What kind of materials is your retaining wall going to be? Elsass: It is going to be stone. It would be a different material than this. I can sit here and say we can build this but then I don't want you to go out there and say this isn't what you said you were going to do. What I'm trying to say is that where that retaining wall is going to come around I could use the back of my sign as a portion of the retaining wall, we could build it up and then block up to it and make it blend in together. I can sort of visualize it but I can't explain it to you. I would like to put it on here and I would like to state that if we can't come to that then we'll come back through the process for a sign if need be once I have something drawn. If I had this retaining wall in then I would have to put it in front of the retaining wall or behind it or wherever the setback is. I am just asking that you give me some lead way here on this and then I will bring it back and if it is not something that you all can work with or that we can come to an agreement on of the look of it then I'll agree not to put a sign at all. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 26 Warrick: I think staff can probably craft a condition that the sign be incorporated into the wall as appropriate with materials that are consistent with the development if that would be appropriate. Jefcoat: I think we have gone down that and have answered that before with both Craig and the intention was that the sign be part of the wall originally and that is still evidently the case. Other than the actual design at that point of how it fits into the wall is what we're asking for. The location be part of the wall or at that point and that the commercial design standards for signs be met, just that the actual design and review of that elevation be delayed until that is determined. Warrick: Bunch: As long as the Planning Commission is comfortable with that we will design a condition that will hopefully address everyone's needs there. If possible between now and the full Planning Commission meeting if you can give some sort of a concept drawing to let people know a little bit more about what you're thinking. Elsass: I don't know until I get in there and we've still got drainage to deal with. We are going to have some elevation raising and to be able to see what I've got and my depth and my block of where it's going to be it is kind of one of those do as you go deals. Bunch: Right. The drainage on this end is ticklish, we understand that. Elsass: Another thing too is exactly where it needs to be either here or here. As we are very aware and we have all made this comment, that location there is really not a whole lot of need for a big sign there. It pretty much advertises itself. Warrick: Do you propose the sign to have individual signage for the various tenants or to be the name of the development or have you decided? Elsass: Jefcoat: Elsass: It depends on the size of the sign. I really don't think there is going to be room for individual parties on there. If I was to have three tenants then that would be great. Generally I believe it is going to end up being Millennium Plaza or Millennium Center or whatever we end up finalizing the name of this project. It will probably be something with indirect lighting below shining on it with some landscaping around it. That's the vision that I have right now. Also, since we're seeing a name change, this has gone through all the steps so far as Elsass Plaza. I want my name off. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 27 Jefcoat: Can we go ahead and change the name to Millennium at this point? Warrick: For recording purposes it will probably always be Elsass Plaza in our computer system because that's the way it's been generated and started through the process. You can put whatever you wish on the sign for your development. Jefcoat: No, I mean carrying it through the rest of the process with our correspondence and things. Warrick: We will probably still recognize it as Elsass Plaza but we can certainly put a/k/a Millennium Plaza or Millennium Center or whatever you wish. Jefcoat: We will change the plat but we will double name it some place so you can recognize it. Warrick: Somehow so we can reference it back. Jefcoat: I just didn't want you to start seeing everything come through with another name on it and not know what it was. Warrick: Thank you. Elsass: I'm trying to hook these two developments together. Ostner: I have a question about the stormwater. Is there any sort of detention? You touched on that Don, I'm not sure. The other question I had had a lot to do with that retaining wall. I wish the Planning Commission could see an elevation like this considering grade and including retaining walls. Just to get an idea of what we're talking about. Is there any retaining wall at the north end? Jefcoat: The ends of the retaining wall are marked on there. We can give you a cross section if that might help you. Elsass: The retaining wall that will be there starts here and goes around and what the intention is to do the same type of retaining wall as we did over in Millennium. There is a wall over there on lots 3 and 4. If you want to see exactly what we're going to do over there it is going to be just stacked block with the caps. Jefcoat: It goes from nothing up to about 5' or 6' back to nothing. Ostner: Ok, so there is no significant grading with the retaining wall? Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 28 Jefcoat: No. We are within 5' of the property line so we are not disturbing anything at that point and then there is a small ditch and that's it. Ostner: I see the retaining wall heights but the more you talked about the sign the more I wondered exactly what it looked like. Elsass: Like I said, it is just very difficult to draw this and I'm afraid if I draw something when you actually get out there on the site, until we have what we've got to do is install our detention pipes in this area and this area and on this site we put roughly 32,000 yards of red fill in there already. We are going to take this out, put our pipes in and we are going to build, this end has still got another couple of feet to go up, we didn't do that. To know where this is and to see how this is going to look right here and to draw this, I can draw something that would be similar to what I'm thinking. Basically it would be a Millennium sign of allowable size with the blocks cut back to it. I don't know how exactly it will look. I imagine what we'll do is we'll do it and then put some kind of landscaping around it. Bunch: Of course there is the requirement for a hand rail for anything over 30" so that will have to be incorporated. Elsass: Right, it is going to have to be figured into that too. If we come up to this area and I am not going to know where this is and so if my sign is here and my wall is here and I've got to bring this in I may connect them together or I may, there are just some things that I can't answer. I can guess if we want to guess. Jefcoat: Are you asking? Ostner: I am not officially asking. I am saying when it comes Monday night it will be a lot easier for me to see it but I can go from here. For me it is not an issue. Jefcoat: We have numbered our elevations on there without doing it. Elsass: I want to see the finished final grade of the curbs in or see where the height of my wall is going to be and where it is going to come and see where these rails are going to come. These rails may not pick up until they get to the other side of the sign, they may pick up in the middle of the sign. I can draw something to show kind of what I'm talking about but it is probably not going to be exactly that way because there is no way of doing that until I know what that grade is going to be. There are areas of that wall that I'm hoping to keep down below that 5' if I can. If I can do that and eliminate some of that drop off that is what I want to do for the look of the whole center. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 29 Bunch: If you possibly can go ahead and convey your idea to your engineers and your architect and get some sort of concept between now and the Planning Commission. Are there any other questions, comments or motions at this time? MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we forward LSD 03-33.00 to the full Planning Commission with a change on number nine on the street improvements on Joyce Street extending to the north of the property line and also there needs to be an additional condition noting that you will work with staff on the sign to design it with materials appropriate to the development. Ostner: I will second that. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 30 LSD 03-34.00: Large Scale Development (Collision Repair Center, pp 287) was submitted by Milholland Engineering and Surveying on behalf of Tracy Hoskins for property located south of 2787 N McConnell Ave. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 2.39 acres. The request is for the construction of a collision repair center. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSD 03-34.00 submitted by Milholland Engineering on behalf of Tracy Hoskins for property located at 2787 N. McConnell Avenue. This is for a collision repair center. Jeremy, is this yours? Pate: Yes Sir it is. This property is located off of McConnell Avenue. It has frontage on both McConnell Avenue and the Fulbright Expressway or I- 540. The applicant's request is to construct a 15,000 sq.ft. automobile collision repair center and an attached 4,335 sq.ft. office space. The applicant, in a letter attached in your packets, has described the proposal to be utilized much like the existing Metro Automotive on North College with automobile sales, leasing and collision repair. The property does have frontage on I-540 and McConnell Avenue and is located within the Design Overlay District. The area shown as parking in the rear of the structure is to be utilized as outdoor storage facility and is therefore, required to be screened from adjacent properties. Permission has been secured from the property owners to the north and the south to grade to and construct upon the property lines. Additionally, a majority of the required tree mitigation canopy is proposed to be planted on the property adjacent to the south to create a screen from the residential apartment complex on this lot. That is Fairpark apai talents. Again, the surrounding land use an zoning is to the north the Southwestern Bell office, to the south is residential multi -family apartment complex, Fairpark apartments, to the east is the University agricultural farm and to the west is 1-540. 35' from centerline is being dedicated along McConnell Avenue for a collector street on the Master Street Plan. That street is also being approved to match the existing north curb line and south curb line with curb, gutter, storm drain, and 6' sidewalks. Existing tree canopy on site right now is 34%. The preserved canopy with this development is 4.72%, required in a C-2 zoning district is 15%. Mitigation is requested at 15 high priority trees and 27 medium priority trees. The applicant is requesting to plant mitigation trees on the adjacent property to the south with permission of the land owner. There is an attached letter from the land owner giving that permission. There should be additional Landscape Administrator comments with regard to this request as well. Staff is recommending forwarding this to the full Planning Commission. There are a number of conditions. I will read those into the record. 1) The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way to fulfill Master Street Plan requirements for a Collector Street, 35 feet from centerline, for McConnell Avenue. 2) Requested 20 -foot utility easement along McConnell Avenue right-of-way line shall be labeled as such on the plat. 3) A complete landscape plan shall be submitted with the required revisions for Planning Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 31 Commission review. 4) Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for the required 200 feet between curb cuts within the Design Overlay District. Staff is in support of this request, as the width of the lot and location of existing curb cuts on adjacent properties creates an impossible situation to comply with the Ordinance requirement. 5) All proposed parking lot lighting shall comply with Design Overlay District requirements, including 35 feet maximum height and utilization of full cut-off sodium light fixtures, with light shielded, directed downward and away from adjacent properties. 6) Planning Commission determination of the requested tree mitigation proposal. The applicant proposes to plant mitigation trees off-site, with the agreement of the adjacent property owner, as a screen from the adjacent residential property. This variance request requires City Council approval. (see attached) 7) Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards. Staff believes the elevations as presented indicate a structure that generally meets the requirements as set forth in the Commercial Design Standards. The side of the structure facing I-540 is less articulated, however reflects the different roof pitch, has a variety of materials, sits back approximately 350 feet from the right-of-way, and should be adequately screened from view with the proposed mitigation trees. Staff needs to understand more clearly the materials as drawn on the elevations to recommend the south side, facing residential units. 8) All mechanical/utility equipment shall be screened using materials that are compatible with and incorporated into the structure. 9) Trash enclosures shall be screened with access not visible from the street. 10) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk located at the right-of-way line along McConnell Avenue for the length of the project property boundary. The sidewalk shall be constructed through the driveway to City Standards. If you have any questions about any of those please feel free to ask. Bunch: Are there any additional staff reports? Parks? Ohman: No Sir. Bunch: Craig? Carnagey: Yes. There are three significant trees on this site. However, I have made an assessment and had a second opinion from a professional arborist who determined that these trees are in a significant state of decline. They are showing signs of stem defects and decay throughout their interior cavity and I believe any development around these trees would create a hazard situation. I am recommending removal at this time. The applicant is required to mitigate for this removal and some other square footage of canopy, medium priority canopy. Right now the applicant's proposal is to plant a significant number of those trees on adjacent property, immediately adjacent property which our ordinance does not allow for at this time. The applicant has submitted a mitigation proposal and an Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 32 easement deed for that property. I have spoken with the city attorney's office as well in regards to that easement deed and I believe that the priorities laid out in the preservation ordinance are covered by this proposal. However, the applicant will need to propose a variance request to the ordinance which will need to be forwarded to the Planning Commission and to the City Council, which we do have a copy of. I haven't been able to read that yet but he did submit a copy. Jefcoat: That waiver has been submitted. Also, I understand that the easement is being signed shortly, he is out of town and should be back. Bunch: Engineering? Casey: I would like to add a condition of approval regarding street improvements along McConnell. That needs to be stated that street improvements are required a minimum of 14' from centerline including curb and gutter, pavement, and storm drainage along McConnell Avenue. The applicant is showing that on their drawing, I would just like to make that a written condition if that is ok. That is all I have. Bunch: Why don't you all introduce yourselves and tell us about your project? Jefcoat: I am Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company. Mr. Milholland is here. Tracy Hoskins, the owner/developer of this site is here. The conditions and comments, some of those have been made and have already been done. We concur and accept the conditions as presented. Bunch: And the additional condition that was just added by Engineering? Jefcoat: That's already shown and done on the plans, he is just putting that on the record so that it is there. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone from the public who would like to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions or motions. Milholland: This one item number seven where it says staff needs to understand more clearly the materials used on the elevations. We will get with them and get them whatever they need. Jefcoat: Here is a sample board right here. I think what we need is to label all of the elevations what the materials were. Warrick: Obviously, we have examples of all the materials and we do have elevations of all the sides of the structure. We just need to ensure that we understand which materials apply to which portions of the structure. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 33 Bunch: We didn't have elevations in our packets and that was one of the questions we had was to make sure that when it goes to the full Planning Commission that we have the elevations with the materials called out and labeled so we know which faces we're looking at. Bunch: We'll get those on 1 1x17, 30 copies, is that right? Warrick: 30 is more than enough. We probably really need just 15 because it goes to Planning Commission and staff only. Milholland: What's the maximum size that you're looking for? Warrick: 11x17 is easiest for us so that we can make sure that they get in the Planning Commissioner's packet. Jefcoat: I'll come and pick those up. Bunch: Are you going to have a sufficient amount of screening through this area so that the rear of the building will not be visible from I-540 since it is a face facing I-540? Jefcoat: Do we need the face not shown? Bunch: Design Overlay District design standards call for this being considered a front of a building since it faces this. Jefcoat: That's what I am asking. Since it is a front of a building you don't want it shown? Bunch: I just question whether or not the full Planning Commission, what they would consider on that one whether or not it meets the standards. The more screening that there is then the less opportunity there is. Jefcoat: I guess I'm being contemptuous because the client, if that is the front of his building and it is visible from the road, he would like for it to be seen from the highway. Bunch: Is it the back or the front of the building? Jefcoat: Well, it is the back of the building but it is being portrayed as the front of the building too. Yes, we do have sufficient screening. Bunch: It is your investment and your choice whether you dress up this face of the building and have it visible or whether you screen it. Jefcoat: I'm just asking the question. I'm saying this is a solid screen fence here and we do have landscaping added to screen that view here. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 34 Milholland: Existing canopy is staying there. Jefcoat: There is a whole grouping of trees here that are staying. You can see the whole grouping there is being preserved. Those are some rather large trees. That is what is being preserved on site and then we are adding all of this additional tree planting. This is also preserved trees. Bunch: Across from this way from I-540? Jefcoat: You have a solid screen fence and then you've got Southwestern Bell's building sitting right here. Bunch: How far back does that building extend? Do you know right off hand? Jefcoat: I am sure it can be seen from there. It is all the way back. Bunch: That comes into account when we're looking at it if the building comes back to this general vicinity. Jefcoat: Yes it does. Bunch: Then obviously you are not going to see this and you don't need to invest as much money in it. The same way over here if there is something on the adjacent property that is to be a permanent situation. Jefcoat: You do have the detention pond back there and all the apartments but that's true. Bunch: These are the types of things that as we forward it I'll go ahead and let you know about them now that possibly other commissioners will ask about so that you will be prepared and won't have to say gosh, we didn't look at that. Warrick: Commissioner Bunch, staff did address that to a degree. We approximated that that structure sits about 350' back from the right of way of I-540. The elevation, while it does not appear to be the front entrance of a structure, is not a blank, unarticulated wall surface. There are different roof pitches involved and different materials on that elevation. There is a degree of discretion because it is required to be a front of a building. However, this is not an elevation that is going to be very visible due to it's positioning on the site and the condition of the site between this structure and the right of way with all of the mitigation trees as well as the detention area and screening. We've made note of that in our staff report just for consideration purposes. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 35 Carnagey: If I could just add, considering the amount of mitigation that is required for this project, there may be some opportunities on the east side of that detention pond to plant at least two or three trees. Bunch: How far across this lot does the Overlay District extend? Warrick: It covers it completely. Bunch: Are there any prohibitions in the Overlay District on metal siding or any limitations? Warrick: The Overlay District does prohibit metal sidewalls. Hoskins: The structure doesn't have any metal sidewalls. It has metal trim but it is an architectural feature not a cheap feature. Bunch: I'm just trying to get these issues out of the way now so we don't have to go back over it again and it cost more money to take care of it. Milholland: Dawn, did you say that it does prohibit a certain percentage of metal? Warrick: Under commercial design standards it addresses metal differently than in the Overlay District. The Overlay District states that buildings shall be constructed of wood, masonry or natural looking materials. No structure shall be allowed to have metal sidewalls unless such metal siding is similar in appearance to wood, masonry or natural looking material. This particular project uses metal as accent. I don't believe unless someone is going to correct me, that there is an actual sidewall that is constructed wholly of metal. There is metal roofing material and some other accent pieces. Staff felt that materials being proposed with this project were consistent with the Overlay District requirements. My original concern was the materials on the elevation adjacent to the apartments, I think it is the south elevation. I was originally concerned that that was a metal sidewall but I am understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that that is block. Jefcoat: We changed it. Warrick: That's what I thought, that it was originally something different. Bunch: The reason I'm pursuing this line of questioning is this is the first time we've seen these and I wanted to make sure that comments were made prior to time going to the full Planning Commission so that you had time to respond to them if there were any problems. Hoskins: The metal on this building is designed to be architectural. It is on roof protrusions. The accent part of the north side of the building, etc. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 36 Jefcoat: The east elevation there is mechanical. Ostner: Is that gray band at the top metal? Hoskins: Yes it is. Ostner: That is vertical, it is on a wall. Hoskins: It is a protrusion out of the roof actually. Which elevation are you speaking of? That is at the very top of a wall. It is not a full wall by any means. Warrick: I think it is a parapet feature for screening. Hoskins: It is an accent. Jefcoat: We carried it around. Pate: Hopefully the comment that staff made to label the elevations will help to understand which side you're going to see. Bunch: First off have elevations, label them and call out the materials so that the other Planning Commissioners can review them. Ostner: Just while we're on the subject, I'm not really making a statement either way but I am pretty sure that there are other commissioners who would call that metal sidewalls and would not see that as passing the muster of the Overlay District prohibition. That's why we are here at Subdivision Committee is to let you know what's going to happen. Bunch: Just the knowledge that most of that north wall will be shielded by the adjacent building makes a big difference. At this time I will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions. Do you all have any additional presentation that you want to make? Ostner: I have a question. On the parking I didn't quite understand how it added up. I added the 27 and then the 104 to come to 131 and then it says 148. Maybe I'm not understanding it right. Pate: In this zoning district there is a maximum number of parking allowed, I believe that 131 is that number. However, this proposal before you is considered as part of the automobile sales and leasing use as indicated by the applicant. Therefore, there is not that same requirement for the maximum allowed in the zoning district. It is more like a car dealership in that regard. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 37 Jefcoat: That's where we came up with the 148. Ostner: Ok, so in other words 131 would cap it off if it were another type of use, so they have gone 17 over because it is a car dealership. Jefcoat: Right and the numbers there should add up to 148. The 30 over at the shop area. Ostner: I didn't see it adding up to 148. I just added the 27 and 104 for 131. Jefcoat: I will look at those again. Ostner: If there's extra allowed. Part of what got me wondering about that is the site is so narrow to get what you need you had to put the trees off site is what it seemed like and I just wondered if that north edge to remove those 17 spaces could bring the mitigation trees on site. I was just trying to understand about the 17 stalls. Bunch: Are these your bike racks here? Jefcoat: Yes, there are five required and five provided. Bunch: Does that requirement also kick in, is the bike rack requirement based on total parking spaces or the spaces required for office and people use as opposed to where a car dealer can have more spaces, do they need to have as many bike racks? Warrick: I believe it is based on total number of parking spaces. Pate: I think that is consistent with what we have recommended in the past. Warrick: I will double check real quick. Jefcoat: We originally presented it based on the office, the shop area. Bunch: On people parking as opposed to display area? Warrick: It is based on total number of parking spaces provided. Bunch: Regardless of whether it is display area or for parking? Warrick: Yes. Bunch: Are there any motions or anymore questions or comments? Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 38 MOTION: Ostner: I am going to make a motion to forward this but I just want to add for the record that I'm not convinced of granting the waiver of the offsite trees right now. It just seems like if there were less parking, just a little bit less that the mitigation could be handled on site. That is just my one opinion of many to happen next week. That just has to do with the variance. I will make a motion to forward LSD 03-34.00 to the Planning Commission with the additional condition that the improvements along McConnell have curb and gutter and meets city standards, which is called out on the drawing. Church: I will second it. Bunch: I will concur. We will see you at Planning Commission. At this time we will take a five minute break to let everybody stretch a little bit since we have a lengthy agenda and a few more items on the agenda. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 39 LSD 03-32.00: Large Scale Development (The Crowne, pp 598) was submitted by Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of LLC Properties for property located on both sides of Beechwood Avenue, south of 15`h Street. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately 32.3 acres. The request is to build an apartment complex with 444 dwelling units proposed. Bunch: Item number seven is LSD 03-32.00 for the Crowne submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of LEC Properties for property located on both sides of Beechwood Avenue south of 15`h Street. Jeremy, can you give us a staff report please Sir? Pate: Yes Sir. This property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 units per acre. There is approximately 32.3 acres. The request is to build an apartment complex with 444 dwelling units proposed. The location it does say on both sides of Beechwood Avenue. If you look at your vicinity map specifically or the maps on the plan you can see it is on both sides of Beechwood where 15th turns into Beechwood and then it turns into 18th there for point of reference. The existing site is undeveloped pasture land with trees located primarily along old fence rows and within the 100 -year floodplain along Town Creek to the south. This residential development is part of an overall master plan. The conceptual master plan has been included in your packets sort of showing the location of where these residential units are and what potentially could happen in this area in the future in south Fayetteville. A 7.6 acre natural greenway corridor is proposed along Town Creek pursuant to Parks staff's recommendations. Their recommendations are also included in your packets. The developer is proposing to construct a trail within the greenway corridor pursuant to the Parks and Recreation construction standards and recommendations. That will need to be coordinated with Parks staff as we go through the approval and construction process. Surrounding land use, to the north is the University of Arkansas baseball stadium, the indoor track facility, Baldwin Piano Company area. That is zoned C-2 and I-1. The south is typically single-family residential and duplex residential dwelling units. There is some light commercial activity there as well to the south. To the east is Razorback Road and some vacant properties along the railroad that runs through there an to the west is primarily vacant a this time. Street improvements proposed, Beechwood Avenue is being constructed to collector street standards with a full 36' cross section, curb, gutter, storm drainage and 6' sidewalks on both sides. 18`h Street will be constructed 18' from centerline with the same improvements on one side of the street where the property does not adjoin both sides there. A revised traffic study has been submitted. Staff is recommending that money be placed in an escrow account for this Large Scale Development's proportionate share for a future traffic signal to be installed at the intersection of Razorback and 15th Street, which is northeast of this site. Based on calculated traffic flows at full build out from this traffic study the developer is proposing to contribute 29% of the total cost with this development amounting to $38,976. This is for this residential phase of the project and staff is in Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 40 support of this amount. The Master Street Plan streets surrounding this project are Beechwood Avenue, 18th Street. Existing canopy is 10.6%, preserved is 10.2%. The required is the 10.6% so there is mitigation required and that is in the amount of 27 trees which will be planted on site. Staff's recommendation at this time is to forward this Large Scale Development to the full Planning Commission with a number of conditions. I will go through those for the record. 1) The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way to fulfill Master Street Plan requirements for a Collector Street for Beechwood Avenue (80 feet total) and 18th Street (35 feet from centerline). 2) Right-of-way from centerline for 18th street shall be indicated on the plat. 3) Planning Commission determination traffic signal contribution in the amount of $38,976, 29% the total cost of the traffic signal. Contribution is due prior to issuance of building permits. 4) Investigation for a potential through street to service Commercial development to the north of the East residential development will occur at the time of proposed commercial development. 5) Parks land dedication in the amount of 7.6 acres shall be required prior to building permits. 6) The developer shall construct a trail pursuant to Parks and Recreation standards within the designated greenway corridor along Town Creek. All conditions as noted in the attached Memo dated August 25, 2003 are applicable and shall be considered, by reference, as part of the official Conditions of Approval. 7) All trash enclosures/compactors shall be screened on three sides with access not visible from the street. 8) All proposed parking lot lighting shall utilize full cut-off fixtures, with light shielded, directed downward and away from adjacent properties. A receipt for street light payment shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance. 9) Street names shall be submitted for private drives within the development. Names shall be coordinated and approved by 9-1-1 Coordinator. 10) Tree protection fencing needs to be shown around all preserved canopy areas, on all grading, site and utility plans. 11) Coordinate tree lawn tree species on the drive east of Beech Street with the Landscape Administrator (refer to attached comments). 12) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include minimum six foot sidewalks along Beechwood Avenue (both sides) for the length of the project property boundary. 18`h Avenue requires 6 -foot sidewalks on one side, 10 feet from the curb. Sidewalks shall be constructed through driveways and to City Standards. Items 13 through 16 are standard conditions of approval. I will answer questions if you have any. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Parks, are there any additional comments? Ohman: Not really additional comments. April 1, 2002 Parks Board reviewed the project and voted to accept the land dedication. We have worked with the developer and Jerry Kelso significantly to do the layout of the park as well as the layout of the trail. We are in receipt of the construction documents for review so that the trail that the developer will be constructing meets park standards. It is moving forward. Bunch: Thank you. Tree and Landscape? Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 41 Carnagey: Just as Jeremy mentioned, mitigation trees required to be planted are separate from those required to be planted for parking lot landscaping. On this boulevard to the east of Beechwood a line of trees that they are proposing for mitigation trees. Those need to be placed elsewhere on the site, preferably in a more natural setting possibly down by the creek or somewhere down in that area. Those lawns should be planted out with tree species that are more appropriate for that dimension. I think that the species selection that you have right now is a little too large. This is only a 5' tree lawn so we probably need to go down to a medium size street tree on that. Kelso: A medium size street tree, I do think we are going to plant the trees along the boulevard and then we will do something. Bunch: Matt, are there any engineering comments? Casey: I would, again, like to add a condition of approval regarding street improvements. That needs to be street improvements for a minimum of 18' from centerline including curb and gutter, pavement, storm sewer and sidewalks along the entire prosject boundary. That would be for Beechwood Avenue as well as 18` Street. That's all I have. Bunch: Jerry, at this time would you introduce yourself and tell us about your project please? Kelso: I am Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates. This project is a 444 unit apartment project just south of Baum Stadium there in Fayetteville. Again, we have worked with staff. We have had several meetings on this particular project to come up with the schematic and the designs that we've got shown here. You can see we are kind of creating a unique streetscape street there along the center of the project which we have worked with staff on that. Other than the site itself that's about all I have. Larry Kester is with me here. He is the architect on these buildings. If you would like he can kind of briefly explain the type of buildings and materials if that would be appropriate. Bunch: Sure. Kester: I think it is important to note that the buildings are a combination of one story, two story, three story, and two and three story. You get a lot of horizontal and vertical articulation to the buildings just in massing forms of the buildings. In addition, they are a combination of siding, brick, stone and shingles. The club house which you see on the bottom is plantation style, a very prominent architectural building. Kelso: I would add that we are working with the University to get Razorback Bus Transit to pick up at that location also. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 42 Kester: One other point, we do have a few buildings that have garages in the buildings as part of the building and we have some external buildings that are just garage buildings, they are four bay garage buildings throughout the site as well. A combination of those one story, two story, three story, and two and three story really add a lot of character to this site. Bunch: Ok. At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this project? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for comments and questions. This is quite an extensive deal. I appreciate you having the concept plat in here to show us all the different elements and where the future commercial ties in. That sure helps a lot. How is this round about going to work? I know from our traffic study that was one of the things that was mentioned. Have you had a chance to talk to Engineering about how it works? Kelso: No. That is just something that they said they'd like to see so we kind of threw that in there as a possible maybe. Bunch: A test run to see how one works in Fayetteville. Kelso: Right. Bunch: You'll have restaurants on the east and west and a hotel convention center? Kelso: Again, those are purely conceptual but that's what is planned for. Ostner: I have a question about the boulevard. Can you talk a little bit about how it came to be? Kelso: Basically the city staff wanted a through street without parking backing up onto it or even parking against it. What we've done is we have come with a through street in the middle for two way traffic and then the tree plantings, the greenspace on either side of with one streets with parking that gets it completely off of the main thoroughfare so that's how we came up with that. Ostner: It just seems odd to me to duplicate all of that. Kelso: At one point we just had a boulevard down the middle of it but parking would back up onto the street. They wanted to have it clear and straight through so this is what we compromised and came up with. Ostner: Ok. I don't know how much it really matters. Kelso: You have it drawn how we originally had it. Ostner: It's the way it needs to be. I don't know why I would do that except just to drive really fast. I could go down the drive aisle the same because I Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 43 don't have any more turning opportunities. It just seems to promote speed. Parking lots, inheritantly, you almost build streets that you back out into anyway. I think I would rather see a boulevard with a turn capability because now you can't. Zoom down, turn, go back. Kelso: We are flexible to do it either way. Ostner: I am sure on Monday night a lot of people will have something to say about that. Maybe we can arm -wrestle staff. Pate: The primary concern I believe when we first saw the section that they were proposing is if this is ever dedicated as public right of way, we don't really allow angle parking or head in parking on a public street. That is not allowed by ordinance. If this ever became a public through street which potentially it would connect from Beechwood out to 18th heading north and south, it could potentially carry quite a bit of traffic, especially if this is built out at full build out of all of this retail in the area. That was the primary concern is that if this is dedicated as right of way it would have been a non -conforming street cross section. I think we did discuss parallel parking at one point but I think the compromise for the amount of parking. Warrick: We felt in order to protect the through traffic and also the people pulling in and out of parking spaces to come up with an alternative configuration so that we could still achieve the number of parking spaces that were needed to satisfy the developer and also the through traffic. Like Jeremy said, this street will potentially connect out to the outer road out to the bypass and connect commercial activity to this project site. We feel like in the future this very well could become a city street. Ostner: So it does have the potential to be dedicated? Warrick: Yes. Ostner: Ok, I didn't know that. I am sure there will be a lot said about that. I'm seeing their point. It still seems awkward. The other thing I wanted to talk about is this little crook right there. Is this the western part? Ok, so this is in the south. It lines up nicely across the street but this just seems problematic that people would be turning to come around the project and turning again with other people coming in. I wish it didn't have to be that way. The straight shot is so much simpler. Kelso: It just makes more sense when you line that up. Ostner: A straight shot would be so much simpler because there are less things for people to have to navigate. Lining up across the other side of Beechwood is very important too. Kelso: Right, we couldn't push the other side further south to do that because we Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 44 get into the floodplain. Ostner: Ok, I see. This big hatch, what is that line? Kelso: That is floodplain. We are leaving the floodway, we can't fill in the floodway. Ostner: How does this go over the line? Kelso: You just have to get a floodplain development permit. As long as you don't fill the floodway you can fill floodplain. Ostner: The floodway is this other line over here? Kelso: That is correct. Osmer: Ok. That was the one thing that I noticed. That's all I have to say. I appreciate the elevations. Bunch: Commissioner Church? Church: I don't have any questions. Bunch: I want to make a somewhat related comment here. It shows your open space for the lot area 70% open space. Alan and I both sat on the hillside development and that is one of the questions we're looking at. It's good to have this information where obviously you are able to achieve your economic goals and still have 70% open space on the site. That is something to look at in our considerations that a design like this still has been able to contain 70% open space. Ostner: I think that open space is just non -building. Kelso: A lot of it is down in the floodplain and a lot of it is being dedicated to the parks. Ostner: Ok, parking is not a part of that. Kelso: No. Bunch: Look at the table how they have added that up. Does this include the commercial space that has not been developed? Kelso: It does not include the commercial space. Bunch: It does include the park land dedication though? Kelso: Yes. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 45 Bunch: On the traffic study, we have had one submitted, I guess we need to have that available at the full Planning Commission meeting in case there are questions about traffic since this will be a large traffic generator and will be in an area that as it builds out will have more and more traffic. It is one that right now we have seasonal traffic I guess associated with university events. Is this going to be aimed primarily at student type housing or what is your focus and goals? Kester: It is basically a broad market project. We obviously, know we are going to have some student population but it is not intended to be a student project. Bunch: But you are talking with the Razorback Transit for mass transit? Kester: Yes. We even created in the plan right here a shuttle bus turn around so they can drop people off and be able to make that turn and head back. Bunch: It is always good to see as the University grows living space available to the University and also transit service so they have less and less need for sprawl of parking lots at the University itself'. Do I have any motions to forward this? Ostner: Here again, I really enjoy seeing this trail incorporated in the Large Scale Development instead of just sure we'll give you the land and whatever happens. I appreciate that. Church: You are in agreement with all of the other conditions right? Kelso: Yes. MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we forward LSD 03-32.00 to the full Planning Commission with all of the conditions and the one additional one that talks about street improvements at Beechwood and 18th Street. Bunch: Church: Ostner: Bunch: Kelso: Around the entire perimeter of the project boundary? Yes. I will second. I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 46 R-PZD 03-04.00: Planned Zoning District (Lazenby, pp 560) was submitted by Landtech Engineering Inc. on behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located on the west side of Razorback Rd. between Baum Stadium and the State Revenue office. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial, and contains approximately 8.79 acres. The request is to rezone the property to a Residential PZD (Planned Zoning District) to allow for the construction of 112 Multi -family residential units with 168 bedrooms and 168 parking spaces, a 10,400 sq.ft. office space with 35 parking spaces proposed, and contractor storage utilizing 5.4% of the building area. Bunch: Our next item on the agenda is a Residential Planned Zoning District submitted by Landtech Engineering on behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located on the west side of Razorback Road between Baum Stadium and the state revenue office. Jeremy, do you have the staff report for us on this item? Pate: Yes Sir. This is a Residential Planned Zoning District. The location of this property is on the west side of Razorback Road between Baum Stadium and the state revenue office not too far from the previous project. The property currently is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 8.79 acres. The applicant is requesting a rezoning and Large Scale Development approval for a mixed use development with a R-PZD zoning district. The majority of the proposed use is multi -family residential with 112 units with 168 bedrooms proposed. Commercial office space is also proposed along Razorback Road and an extension of the existing warehouse storage developed to the northwest is requested. The development wraps around existing wetlands and a large tree canopied area on the site, most of which is being preserved in its existing natural state and also utilized for stormwater detention purposes. All tree mitigation required is being planted on site providing for a significant amount of potential future canopy coverage. A draft of covenants will need to be submitted with revisions prior to Planning Commission. This item must also be heard at City council pursuant to the requirements for a PZD. Surrounding land use in zoning is primarily industrial in nature, although the land use is not so much industrial. To the north is the State of Arkansas Revenue office, to the south is Baum Stadium and associated parking. To the east across Razorback Road is a distributing warehouse and to the west is industrial storage and warehouse as well. Right of way being dedicated is 55' along Razorback Road from the centerline. Razorback Road is State Highway 16 and that is to comply with principal arterial right of way requirements. The State Highway Department currently has indicated no improvements to Hwy. 16 in this location need to be made. Staff is recommending that the applicant install 6' sidewalks along the property's frontage on Razorback Road to be installed at the right of way line. In addition, street trees and a continuous planting of shrubs are proposed to screen the parking adjacent to the right of way that serves the commercial development. Existing canopy currently is 19.5%. Preserved is 12.2%. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 47 The requirement is currently at 15% so mitigation will be 96 trees, all of which will be mitigated on site. Staff is recommending this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission and then potentially on to the City Council with several conditions. 1) Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezoning of the subject property to the unique district for R-PZD 03-4.00 with all conditions of approval as determined by the Planning Commission. 2) An ordinance creating this R-PZD shall be approved by City Council. 3) Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards for the commercial/office structures. 4) All utilities shall be placed underground. 5) A note needs to be added to the plat explaining access to the Contractor's Storage units from Beechwood Drive as part of the existing storage facility development. To the west here, northwest of the site is contractor storage units that will actually not be accessed from this development. It is an extension of a development I believe owned by the same owner that will access from Beechwood Avenue. It is a continuation of that development, it is just on this piece of property. 6) A draft of covenants needs to be provided by the revision deadline. 7) Interior street names shall be approved by the City 9-1-1 Coordinator. 8) Provide bicycle racks (2) to serve the proposed commercial uses. 9) A note needs to be included on the plat allowing the provision of cross access through the north commercial parking lot with future development of the north parcel. This requirement is for if this site is ever developed as something other than the state revenue office potential cross access here would be something we would be looking at. Hillis: We provided for that I believe. Pate: I believe so. Items 10 through 15 are standard conditions of approval. There is a payment of parks fees in the amount of $44,016 required prior to building permit. This is to be considered by the City council on consent agenda for the October 7, 2003 meeting. Rebecca may have something more to add to that. For the PZD there are a number of findings associated with that. For the Subdivision Committee those findings have not yet been gone through in detail but I have included those in your packets as far as what we look at specifically in the ordinance for a PZD. Planning Commission will need to make some recommendations on that at the full Planning Commission level and City Council will look at the zoning requirements as well. That's all I have. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Parks, are there any additional comments? Ohman: This is going to the City Council on October 7th because our parkland ordinance requires that if a development is over 40 acres or 100 units it must dedicate land to meet its requirements. Parks Board accepted and recommends money in lieu dedication instead of land. Therefore, to get that through we have to go to City Council. It has been placed on the consent agenda. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 48 Bunch: Landscaping and trees? Carnagey: I have no further comment. Bunch: Engineering? Casey: No comment. Bunch: At this time we will go to the applicant. If you would identify yourselves and tell us about your project. Hillis: My name is Don Hillis with Landtech Engineer. I am here with Ronny Ball who is part of the owner of this. What we intend to do is develop an apartment complex with a commercial site. There is one thing there I noticed on your application, on everything here it says that we have got 10,400 sq.ft. of office retail. There is another building sitting right next to it that is about 5,000 sq.ft. and I should add that to it I think. I indicated down below that it requires 17 parking spaces. We did have ample parking places. Those two are 10,400 and it is indicated on the plans. We do have shown here an office building for the apartment complex. That might get removed and put more into greenspace and have one of the apartments as the office. Other than that, I would be happy to try to answer any questions that I can. Bunch: One quick question before we take public comment. The number of units don't seem to add up. It is calling 112 but all of these are 16 unit buildings and this one is called 24. Hillis: That is a 24 bedroom, it is still a 16 unit. Bunch: Ok. Are any of these others also 24 bedrooms? Hillis: They are all 24 bedrooms. Bunch: Ok, the units and the bedrooms so we have seven units at 16 units each with 24 bedrooms in each unit? Hillis: Yes. Bunch: It was kind of confusing on what's on here and what's in your block down here. Hillis: That has been confusing. Bunch: Basically you have one prototype that you are using 7 times? Hillis: That is correct. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 49 who would like to address us on this development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for additional questions and comments. One is that there was a general note for wetland determination. It is note nine, will we have an opportunity to see that report? Has that been filed? Pate: 1 believe Matt has a copy of it. Bunch: I just wanted to make sure that everything has been determined and engineering has had an opportunity to review it. I guess if anyone in the public wishes to review that they are welcome to give you a call and review it. What was the determination on bike racks? Pate: There need to be two additional unless I just missed them. At Technical Plat Review we requested that the bike racks be scattered around the site so they could serve the residential units specifically. I believe there are some lacking in the commercial area, I believe two need to be added. Hillis: We don't have a problem with that. Bunch: Another thing that was really confusing. Maybe it is my inability to determine it, it was the computations on existing canopy, landscape canopy, preserved canopy and no mention of mitigated canopy. Hillis: There are two sets of plans One is a landscaping plan, one is a tree preservation plan. Bunch: They had the same landscape summary on them. Of course they had different presentations on the drawing. Hillis: Right. What I tried to do is show all the trees that we are going to be putting on this property. You see a lot of these trees are shaded, those are landscape trees and these are the tree preservation and over here in the melt down here it gives us the number of trees required for tree preservation. Bunch: This part of it was fairly explanatory but in your landscape summary, which is the first thing most of the commissioners are going to look at, it appears as though landscape trees have been included in the calculations for total canopy. Hillis: No. Bunch: It is unclear. There doesn't seem to be a good distinction that the two drawings definitely separate out landscape trees and tree preservation and mitigation trees and that sort of thing but the summary chart doesn't really reflect what the drawings show. I think that would make it go a lot quicker and have a lot less confusion to do a little work there. It looks like you have done quite a bit of work with a challenging site. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 50 Hillis: This site has been redesigned two or three times. Ostner: I have a question. I guess this is really for staff. What does the Master Street Plan give us for access to the north? This is really basically one way in and one way out. This other driveway immediately shares the first one. I understand it is somewhat developed. Pate: The Master Street Plan that's included on the last page of this report. Your question regarding the north and south access, Razorback Road goes to 6th Street and carries on down to Cato Springs Road. To the west the next connection is Beechwood Avenue through that intersection with 15th Street. Does that answer your question? Ostner: I guess it answers it. It is not what I wanted to hear. It is a big development for one ingress and egress and that concerns me. I don't know the solution by just glancing at it. Pate: Initially there was just one ingress and egress, there are two provided, like most residential we use this one just strictly across. Hopefully the commercial will try to use both of those as a means to get out. You are right, it is accessing only one road. There is only one built street in this area and I don't believe there are any other planned on the Master Street Plan. Bunch: Has Razorback Road been officially rededicated as Hwy. 16 instead of Hwy. 16 going down to the I-540 access road? Warrick: I will have to check on that designation. I am not sure what, if anything, has changed. Bunch: That is one of the things that is confusing here is that it is calling out Hwy. 16 and calling it Razorback Road and it may or may not be, you may check on that. I think it still goes down and loops around 18th to Futrall that is on the east side of I-540. Just make a determination on that because that might affect the type of right of way on Razorback Road. Warrick: Razorback is classified as a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan regardless of its designation for the Highway Department and our requirement is 110' of right of way, 55' from centerline, which is being dedicated with this project. Bunch: Then also if it is not Hwy. 16 then we don't have any encumbrances with the State Highway Department on various approvals. Warrick: The Planning Commission can require off site improvements on State highways. It would, of course, have to go through the permitting process at the state highway level for any work to be conducted within their right of way but our ordinances do allow you to require those off site improvements. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 51 Casey: At this time the Highway Department still claims this as their right of way whether it is designated as Hwy. 16 or not I can't answer that but it is their right of way. That is why we have not recommended improvements along Razorback Road. As far as the loop down from 15th to 18th, what I have heard through the Crowne development is that they are not claiming that any longer. That would be a city street. We are still making improvements along that. I believe Razorback from 6th Street all the way down to I-540. Bunch: It may actually be 112 instead of 16. They keep shuffling the 180 and the 112 and the 16 around. Is there anything else? I don't know if I took public comment or not so just to make sure. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this project? Seeing none, we will continue with this. Matt and possibly the applicant, on the water lines how does this work with a PZD? We are showing water lines without easements. Hillis: Water lines and sewer lines all have easements shown. There is a 20' water line easement all down here every so often and a 20' sewer easement also. Bunch: But it is not showing any meters or access to buildings. Hillis: That is all going to be on another sheet. This plan here will probably have about 10 sheets to it by the time I'm done with it. In order to show everything on something of this size it is very hard to get everything on there and make it clear so everyone can read it so there will be additional sheets. Bunch: We don't necessarily need to get into nuts and bolts here. The main thing was just to make sure that the easements are present. Also, architectural elevations for office and retail. If you had them on the residential we would sure be glad to look at them. Can you tell us about them since we haven't had the opportunity to see them before? Ball: Basically they will be brick, which is going to be that brick down there with the hardy siding, we're talking about the apartment buildings now. The hardy siding and brick with wrought iron across the balconies and so forth with architectural shingles. There will be eight two bedroom, two bath in each building and eight one bedroom one bath in each building. Bunch: What about on your commercial buildings? Ball: For the commercial buildings we proposed this. The fronts are where the gables are. Some sides where there is solid brick across is because they are back to back with other buildings where we don't believe there is hardly any exposure to that. The sides which have the main glass would be for the more exposed sides where you are coming down from 6th Street Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 52 from the north where you can see or coming from the south where you would see. Bunch: On buildings 8, 9 and 10, how do those relate to what we have on our drawings? Ball: The plan I have they're not labeled. Bunch: If you could get those labeled for us before it goes to the full Commission. Hoover: Yes please because that is going to get confusing. Also, you really need to label those east, west, north and south. Ball: Don't I have that written in there? Hoover: You have rear, left view. Hillis: They are on there, they are just real small. Bunch: Since we haven't seen them previously we want to give you a trial run on it so that you don't have to look it over too many times before you present it to the Planning Commission. Reynolds: Could the public see the elevations please? Ball: I don't know what happened to the deal with the hardy siding with the paint but we had one. It is all concrete siding, the concrete base siding in what I call more of a clay. It is not really a beige, it is more of a clay color which matches the brick very well. Bunch: When it comes to the full Planning Commission if you could have those. Hoover: What number is this small office building? Ball: That's the one that since we have added the office facility across the front we would take a small portion of that as our leasing part and then we would just have an onsite manager live in one of the apaiturents instead of just having that building there. Hillis: That will probably turn into greenspace. Ball: That will turn into greenspace. When we initially put that office there and residence there for the manager we didn't have that piece of property behind it. Hoover: Where are your dumpsters located? Hillis: They are located every so often. There is one up here. Anything with a T. They are placed every so often. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 53 Hoover: Can I ask, did you try the same scenario with the parking not along the street edge? This is an entry to the city and we do have on our work program to look at Razorback Road and the entry to the city and eventually I guess we are going to have to have a task force on that to determine what we want that area to look like. There is an awful lot of pavement along this edge here. The other thing is we have an ordinance in place if you don't have parking in the front you can have a smaller setback. Pate: There is a provision within the ordinance to lessen your setback to 25' if your parking is located in the rear of the structure. Warrick: Do keep in mind though that what you are looking at is a Planned Zoning District where they are creating their own zoning ordinance for this particular site. Setbacks are established by the plan that you are reviewing. Hoover: What does that mean? Warrick: That means that we are not applying a C-2 or I-1 or I-2 zoning district. That doesn't exist. They are proposing to apply a brand new zoning district based on the plan that you are reviewing and therefore, there is flexibility in the setbacks. Hoover: So if they wanted to move their parking lot and wanted to go closer then 25' that could be proposed so you are saying there is even more flexibility in options and opportunities? Warrick: That is correct. Hillis: We do have heavy landscaping in front of those buildings and big trees and everything per your ordinance. Hoover: I guess with a PZD as a Planning Commission, do we have the option to request? How do we base that? Warrick: The Planned Zoning District is a flexible process and you are talking about appropriateness and you are talking about the overall design scheme and whether or not it is appropriate with regard to the land uses and the configuration that is being proposed. Hoover: My conclusion is because of it's location and being an entry corridor to the city and even though we are behind in our ordinances, I am understanding with a PZD we are supposed to look at it again for... Warrick: Compatibility, configuration, land uses, and the site plan that you are looking at. Whatever is approved by the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council is what has to be developed on this site Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 54 through the Planned Zoning District process it ties the zoning approval to the development plan. Bunch: We can use everything else that we have existing as a guideline but we are not bound by it? Warrick: That is correct. Ostner: Because this is currently zoned Industrial, residential is not allowed in Industrial? Warrick: It is to some degree. There has to be a principal use of this site which is permitted by right in the zoning district and then as either a detached accessory or an attached accessory you could have residential units. Ostner: They couldn't have their commercial. In other words, the current zoning is inadequate is what I'm driving at and that is part of why they are doing it? Warrick: For the amount of residential that they are proposing the answer is yes. If their project was primarily heavy commercial/light industrial and there were accessory uses which were residential there would be other avenues to pursue that. Ostner: To follow up on something Sharon started, that is the first thing I looked at. I just wanted to flip those because there is so much opportunity to not have the parking in front because the stadium parking lot is already such a wash of concrete that it just seemed excessive to have the parking up front. When you are doing a PZD you do have the options. You can bring the buildings really close if you wanted to and you could drive up and park in the back. Bunch: If you eliminate the small office right here you can create a drive through and have parking. Move this one down closer to the street and then create parking in there and use it as a drive and you still have accomplished what you were saying earlier with additional greenspace. Ostner: That seems real important to me. Right now there are two curb cuts but there is essentially one ingress/egress. To have another would seem a lot safer from an emergency vehicle standpoint. Hillis: Another thing we have to look at too is the grading between those two buildings. If you go to the second sheet there, there is a pretty good grade difference from this building to this building. You put parking between there and it makes it difficult to get down to your grading size. Ostner: But this building would move up here? Hillis: Yes, because you are pushing the grading, you are pushing the parking Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 55 closer to that 16 unit building and you have got a grading difference there. Ostner: Currently these two are graded almost the same, they have to work. They just flipped. There wouldn't be a grading issue. Hillis: If we flipped it exactly. Ostner: They would be real close because I'm not talking about putting parking back there. You could have your building way up here. Hillis: See how steep that is there. Bunch: You have a base floor elevation of 51.7' there and 56.3' here so you are looking at roughly 4 '/2 potential. Hillis: Right, and you still have to stay away from the landscaping. Bunch: You are showing the landscaping in the easement here? Hillis: That is correct. It is alongside a right of way . Bunch: But it is inside a utility easement? Hillis: There is a utility easement down here and there is a utility easement across here. Most utility companies wanted a utility easement across the front. Hoover: Where the landscaping is going? Hillis: Yes. Hoover: We can put trees where we have utilities? Hillis: We do it all the time on the edge of them. Bunch: Is there any overhead electric in this area or is that going to be buried? Hillis: The overhead electric would be more down in here. Bunch: You don't have any water? Hillis: There is existing water and sewer down there also. Here is a sewer manhole, a sewer manhole existing. Bunch: Ok, so show us just exactly where this 20' utility easement is. Hillis: It is right here. Bunch: The existing water is under the street or across the street? Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 56 Hillis: The street is down here when they widen. Bunch: Ok, so it is within the street right of way? Hillis: That is correct, so is the sewer. Ostner: There is an overhead line on the west side of Razorback? Hillis: That I'm not sure of for sure. There is a power pole down here I know that but I'm not sure if there is anything down along here. Bunch: Basically between now and the Planning Commission our question is the propriety of if there potentially will be anything in this utility easement and if the large trees will be there. Hillis: That utility easement was requested by the utility companies at Tech Plat. Hoover: My question on that is, I have no problem with putting trees in the utility easements, but I have heard from city departments that they don't like that can we ask the tree person? Carnagey: It is content specific to what the easement actually looks like. It is basically determined by the Landscape Administrator. Hoover: I don't want the Water and Sewer Department to come out and say no, you can't have trees in there now. Carnagey: I don't think they will say that. Hillis: There is no water or sewer in that easement. It is beyond that easement. That is strictly a utility easement for cable, electric, gas and stuff like that. Hoover: Ok, it's not the city. Casey: We ask that the water be located outside of any treed easements and in this case it is in the right of way. Ostner: What about the possible overhead line? Hillis: I don't recall seeing an overhead line on that side of the road to be honest with you. I know there are some on the other side. Ostner: It would be good to know before the Commission. We have had trees planted underneath them and it is just a big mess. They are going to have to be topped or cut down. Hoover: I think more importantly the amount of parking along the street edge there is just I have issues with that. I wouldn't say that you have to bring all the buildings up but if there could be some reduction of the amount of Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 57 pavement along the street edge. Ostner: This situation is unique because there is already a reason to drive behind them. Often in retail you make people park in the back and there can be problems. Ball: It is getting people to come around. The convenience factor of retail has just become so unbelievable. People just want to pull in and go. They don't want to go to any extremes. We will look at that for sure and see what we can come up with. Hoover: I have an issue with that. I have an issue with dumpsters that face the street that are dead on facing the street and not turned. As far as coming under if you are looking under commercial design guidelines, even though I understand that we don't have to look at that for this. The other thing is you have got the exact number of parking spaces per bedrooms so I am assuming that guest parking if every place was filled they are going to overflow into this office parking which to me would be a good reason to have some of it on the back side to be more accessible. Ball: We looked at turning that building where it went up there where you could access it from both sides and then parking behind it. We will look at it and see what we can come up with. Hillis: That would be a one way. Bunch: How many total parking spaces are you showing? Hillis: For the apartment complex I think there is 168 and then there are 38 and 17 for the commercial. Ostner: I think there is a typo about the 38 square feet instead of the 38 spaces, that threw me for a second. Hoover: Also, my intent is not to slow down the process at all. I don't know what you guys think about that. If it is possible something that we can get together in the time that we need before Planning Commission. I don't want them to have to come back to Subdivision because we are making this request. Ball: The request is to move the buildings to the street and put the parking in behind? Hoover: Or on the side or try to find a compromise here on the amount of parking you can see from the street. I can understand how it could be insurmountable to bring everything up there so if you could look at some of it. Hillis: You wouldn't be able to move this one to the front because you are going Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 58 to lose that access. You are going to end up with just one. There was concern about having just one already. Hoover: Who was concerned about having just one? Ostner: Me. Hoover: I'm sorry. Hillis: This is the only one you can move. Ostner: This is almost irrelevant. That is super convenient, I don't think this is necessary. Hoover: That's what I was wondering is what does that really do. Ostner: What do you gain? They go to one immediately. Hoover: If it was on College Avenue we would be fighting for one, we wouldn't want two. Ostner: I think one mid -block would be idea. Bunch: If this was deleted then this could flip flop but otherwise by having the traffic routed through here this is the only one that could be flipped. Ostner: The distance between these curb cuts concerns me. This is way too close. Part of it is not your fault. This is a narrow frontage. The baseball parking lot and the revenue office, that is too close for the speeds on this street. I don't want two curb cuts. I want another access somewhere else. I think one centrally located curb cut would be much safer. Hopefully cross access to the north some day. Hillis: We left one to be connected some day. Ostner: I thought that was what this stub out was for. Hillis: No, that is a turn around for fire protection and stuff like that. This is the other possible access point. Ball: We want to do the deal. We have been messing with this for over a year. This is like our third or fourth try at this. We don't want to go in there and put industrial/commercial buildings. We don't think that's the right thing for that location. We just keep trying to come up with something to get in here. We are willing to do and look at anything. I just don't want to delay it anymore. We need to start getting something done. We will take a look of moving those two together, make a central entry way and move one of them up to the front. Yeah, we will take a look at that and we can do that pretty quickly. That is not a major issue. If we eliminate this house, Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 59 which we have, just make this one 10,000 sq.ft. building with more accesses across it, moving it that way we can have a bigger entryway into the area. We can look at moving these which are dedicated as offices. That in my opinion is not as important to having face frontage, road frontage as the retail type operations that we're trying to do. What I would say we would try to do is move this forward, dress up the back of it where it could be looking like a front or whatever, combine these two buildings to get the same square footage or a little bit less, then we would come to a main hopefully, a little larger entrance in the middle. Ostner: That seems like a good compromise to me. This parking would remain, this would flip to the back. Ball: It would be a more centralized location on getting out. That would eliminate some of your deals of being too close. Hoover: That would be great. Bunch: Can you put that in the form of a motion that speaks to that conceptually so we don't delay the project. If you don't have time to get it done before the next full Planning Commission meeting then the difference between that and coming back here is three days. They are on Monday and they are on Thursday. Hoover: Then you have to go another two weeks so if you can work fast. Ball: We have worked this so many times we know it well. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we forward R-PZD 03-04.00 subject to all the comments, is that enough or do I need to be specific? Hoover: I think that is good. We can watch it on video if we have forgotten them. Ostner: Basically the southern building moved toward the street, the two northern buildings get connected, one entry curb cut centralized. Bunch: To have them take a look at that conceptually since we don't want to do their design work for them. Hoover: No, but those are the goals. Bunch: To improve the building layout rather than tie it down to that. Hillis: We will show it on the plans. Hoover: I will second the group motion. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 60 Bunch: I will concur. Hoover: Thank you. Ball: I appreciate it. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 61 C-PZD 03-08.00: Planned Zoning District (springwoods, pp 248) was submitted by Joe Tarvin, P.E. of EGIS Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Collins Haynes for property located on the southwest side of I-540 and Arkansas Highway 112. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial, in the Design Overlay District and contains approximately 289.26 acres. The request is to rezone the property to a Planned Zoning District to allow for development of Residential and Commercial sites. Bunch: The last item on our agenda is the Commercial Planned Zoning District for springwoods submitted by Joe Tarvin of EGIS Engineering on behalf of Collin Haynes for property located on the southwest side of I-540 and Arkansas 112. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. It is in the Design Overlay District and contains approximately 289.26 acres. The request is to rezone into a Planned Zoning District to allow for the development of residential and commercial sites. I might add a note that this was the site formally known as Wilson Springs and I think the Tech Park and a few other names so that everybody will understand exactly which 289 acres we're speaking of. Jeremy, can you give us the staff report please Sir? Pate: Yes Sir I can. The 289 -acre subject property is being reviewed as a proposal for a Commercial Planned Zoning District. The applicant requests a rezoning and preliminary plat approval for a large lot subdivision within the Design Overlay District. The rezoning request, in conjunction with a development proposal, requires Planning Commission consideration and City Council approval pursuant to the requirements for a PZD. The proposed nine lots have been assigned Use Units and/or specific uses that are legally binding to each lot with the potential approval of this process. Each of the larger lots will require further review in the form of a preliminary and final plat and/or large scale development review. More detailed comments regarding vehicular and pedestrian circulation, street improvements, buffers and screening, commercial design standards, and other typical review items will be provided with the future submittals for each of these lots. Numerous environmental concerns have been raised with the history of this particular site. The developer of the springwoods subdivision has indicated that the Audubon Society has particular interest in utilizing and preserving Lot #8, comprising approximately 124 acres, or 43% of the entire site. This particular lot is required to be preserved in its natural state, thereby retaining the wetlands, tree canopy, and grasslands currently existing. Any future development on this lot, as with the others, through Audubon or any other entity, is bound to these restrictions and must be reviewed as a Large Scale Development through the City of Fayetteville. Below that report I've included the use units in the Commercial Planned Zoning District that each lot is proposed to have. I won't go through those unless you have questions but basically, there are a number of lots 1, 6, and 7 that are requesting professional office/commercial type developments and lots 2 and 4 are for multi -family dwellings. Lots 3 and 5 are intended for single-family dwellings. Lot 9 which is the very small lot here to the southwest of the site, is a lot to be Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 62 retained and owned by the City of Fayetteville and utilized for a sanitary sewer lift station. Necessary utility and access easements will need to be provided to this lot. Lot 8 (Audubon) requires specific designation for limited use. Currently it is listed as Use Unit 4. Staff is recommending the applicant designate Use Unit 1 as opposed to that Use Unit 4 for lot 8 A draft of the proposed Audubon uses to be permitted or omitted from occurring within Lot #8 is attached. Attached in your packet on page 5 are the uses allowed in use unit 1 which I believe are more appropriate for this lot. Surrounding this property is primarily a number of different uses. There is vacant pasture land, single-family homes, some commercial lots. Across Hwy. 112 is Landers Auto Park, I-540 and Shiloh Drive is also adjacent to this site. There are a number of streets around this site including those to be dedicated. Right of way to be dedicated includes Deane Solomon, Collector: 70 feet total, 35 feet from centerline; Shiloh Drive, Collector: 35 feet from centerline; Moore Lane, Local: 25 feet from centerline. There is a request for a Master Street Plan amendment which will need to be considered as individual items on the agenda for City Council once those requests are brought forward. That includes Truckers Dr/Gypsum Dr, Collector. It is indicated here as an extension of Truckers Drive, that portion proposed to be amended carries on through to the west. Technology Blvd, also a Collector, is basically in the middle of the site. That is to be considered for a Master Street Plan Amendment. No specific street improvements are proposed with the C-PZD before you and the associated large lot review. Staff has made recommendations for street improvements to coincide with the development of each of these lots. If those are not included they will be included for the Planning Commission reports. They are basically conceptual and specific recommendations by staff regarding which lots would be responsible for which streets when they were developed under further review. Again, each one of these large lots will have to go under a Preliminary Plat or a Large Scale Development process and be reviewed further and that is when those specific recommendations will be made. As far as tree preservation goes, there is a comment here. It is the Landscape Administrator's understanding that most of the trees throughout the site will be preserved, and that as development occurs individual Tree Preservation Plans will be submitted for each large scale and residential subdivision. Staff's recommendation at this time is to forward to the full Planning Commission this C-PZD 03-08.00 with conditions. 1) I will read those into the record for you. Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezoning of the subject property to the unique district C-PZD 03-8.00 with all conditions of approval as determined by the Planning Commission. 2) An ordinance creating this C-PZD shall be approved by City Council. 3) A Final Plat is required to legalize the large lot configuration and allow for the sale and/or development review of lots. 4) Requests for Master Street Plan amendments to Truckers Lane and Technology Blvd. require City Council approval prior to approval of the C-PZD. 5) On- and off-site street improvements shall be coordinated with lot development. Staff has provided preliminary recommendations with Technical Plat Review Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 63 comments, which remain applicable. 6) All utilities shall be placed underground. 7) Documentation needs to be provided prior to the revision deadline indicating specific uses for Lot #8, the Audubon lot. Staff is recommending changing the use unit and designating specific uses for that lot to be preserved. 8) No construction will be authorized without a floodplain development permit where required. 9) A draft of covenants shall be provided for Planning Commission and City Council consideration regarding the overall development of this subdivision, this PZD. Items 10 through 15 are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Jeremy, I have a question on number twelve. The tree preservation plan shall be required with development of each individual lot does that include all residential lots? Pate: With the subdivision, like I said before, lot 5 is indicated as a single- family residential use. That would have to come through a Preliminary Plat which would require a tree preservation plan as well. Bunch: When you are saying individual lot here you are saying a grouping of what most people think of individual lots within a development. We are using the word individual lot for two different definitions. Warrick: The project that you are being requested to approve is not the individual layout of smaller lots within the nine that are being specified with this Preliminary Plat. The conditions that we are recommending only apply to the nine lots being created with this Commercial Planned Zoning District. Bunch: I am wondering if there is a better way that we can state that because several years down the line as these develop out someone is going to look at that and say each individual lot and think that that might be a .25 acre residential building lot. My concern is to put the language in there now to avoid that in the future. Warrick: We can certainly clarify that in the wording of that condition. It is very important that everyone understand that the materials that you have in front of you are more extensive than the proposed nine lot Planned Zoning District that we're considering because the applicant has also developed a concept plat for the further division of some of those lots for consideration so that the Planning Commission and City Council can provide input to the applicant as to what they feel is appropriate whether or not they have questions or concerns with the proposed layout of those lots. I think it is important that we section off the way that we address the different things that we're talking about. The applicant is seeking in put on that concept plat and I think it is appropriate that we provide that so that when those other lots do come through for subdivision or Large Scale Development they understand what the starting point is and what direction the Planning Commission and City Council wish to see taken on those lots. As far as the conditions and the plat that is going to be filed as a result of this process we are talking about a nine lot subdivision. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 64 Bunch: When will the concept plat come through? Will that be a part of this process just to give the Commission an idea? Warrick: You have it before you now. Jones: I might mention too if I could, that of the total approximate canopy that is on the site there is about 66 acres in total of this site of which, about 2/3 of that falls within the 124 acres that is set aside that will ultimately go to the Audubon group. There is a very large on site canopy that will be preserved, enhanced and added to. Bunch: At this time we will take additional staff reports. Is there anything from parks? Ohman: No Sir. Bunch: Tree and Landscape? Carnagey: No Sir. Bunch: Engineering? Casey: I do want to add one comment. On the master development plan it shows 50' of right of way being dedicated off of Truckers Drive to access this lot number seven. We will need to have that dedicated separately from this plat since this parcel is not included in the overall development. That's all I have. Tarvin: At the time of Large Scale you mean? Casey: It will need to be done at the time of Final Plat. Tarvin: We are asking that the Master Street Plan be amended because of the connectivity that the Audubon society wishes to have with other properties that they may be able to acquire in the future. That is why this for instance, is wider than we originally proposed. We originally had a hundred foot buffer strip along the unnamed tributary. They asked that Mr. Haynes widen that out for access so that there would be a sense of connectivity between the 124 acres and any other properties that they might be able to acquire in the future. We also provided that over here because they are hoping that they may be able to expand in this direction. The Audubon Society was pretty strong in their feeling that they did not want a street cutting across this particular area. There was one comment here that I am not sure we can do right now. Number seven, documentation needs to be provided prior to the revision deadline indicating specific uses for lot 8, the Audubon lot. The revision deadline being next week? Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 65 Warrick: Monday at 10:00. Tarvin: I don't know that Audubon knows that yet. I don't know, they may have it all planned. There have been quite a number of meetings. We have met with state Audubon and International Audubon has been in for one meeting. I don't know exactly how far they have gone. Barnes: Can I describe a little bit of basic concept there? My name is Manual Barnes with EGIS Environmental. We have on black and white today, we didn't connect before we came that he is the engineer and I'm the ecologist but sometimes we have that kind of fun of knocking heads but we love each other anyway. That is what is kind of neat about this whole process of people working together trying to have a balance between development and conservation. Really that is what this site is all about. One of the things that you are looking at here from an ecological standpoint is the opportunity to do some healing up of some damaged habitat which is the channelized Clabber Creek. To take some of the wetlands impact that will occur in this area there is roughly plus or minus 17 to 18 acres of wetlands that exist further up the slope that will be impacted with the commercial development and there is a permit request with the Corp. of Engineers. The good news is to take that and replace that with this huge preservation effort, reestablish wetlands along the damaged Clabber Creek and begin the healing process of a very disturbed environment as far as Clabber Creek is concerned. Preserve the very high quality wetlands and the special springs where the Arkansas Darter, the Etheostoma cragini, exist and another thing I would like to point out is that there is a wonderful connectivity for a wildlife movement throughout the site with the green area. There has been a lot of give and take and interesting discussions with the engineer who would like to push and develop where the ecologist is wanting to preserve and have the connectivity that the Audubon is very interested in. I might just mention in basic concept that there is going to be a significant preservation of existing high quality wetlands. There is going to be recreation of new wetlands. There is going to be enhancement of wetlands. There is going to be prairie that is preserved. There is going to be a wide diversity of habitat that like the riparian zone of Clabber Creek. Right now Clabber Creek, if you go out there and look at it, a lot of it is denoted, has no trees along it. There will be a lot of reforestation that takes place out there. The canopy is going to be expanded in some of these connectivity aspects of the site. Actually, it is a very unique site for Arkansas. I don't think we have one like it in the state. This very significant contribution to the green as well as the development. Bunch: Is there anything else in your presentation? Tarvin: No Sir. Bunch: Just one quick question to help us as we look at this. What is this? I didn't see a legend for this particular marking. Is this mitigated wetlands Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 66 where you are moving wetlands from here to over here? This area here and this area here we can't tell what they are. Barnes: Don, what that represents is it is part of the, all of those areas that have hatching on them will not only go to Audubon but they will be forever protected through a Corp. of Engineer Conservation Easement that is recorded in the county as well. There will e prairie, there will be wetlands, there will be riparian zones that are protected. This area that you are pointing to north of Clabber Creek, as Joe was describing, it is a wider buffer protection and it will have the appropriate plantings that are the native species that Audubon is very interested in and the City of Fayetteville is very interested in. Bunch: I guess this area also since it is not shown as wetland? Barnes: Yes, it is not existing wetland but like this area where some of the birding entities are very sensitive, like the henslow sparrow. If there is habitat there that is better to be left as a prairie or a hommock then it will be done, left in that condition or enhanced. Ecological micro -system treatments, through time Audubon will evolve but we will have some basic things that we do that are very harmonious with the natural environment out there and a long term desire to have a preserved and a very solidly sustained ecosystem. Warrick: Mr. Barnes, you talked about that area that would go to Audubon, lot 8 I think is how it is designated, also being under a Corp. of Engineer Conservation Easement. Is that a pre -drafted, standard format, easement that the Corp. issues on certain properties that has basic terminology in it or is it specifically designated and developed for this particular site? Barnes: There is commonality in their conservation easements. However, this one will have very much so a uniqueness to it. It will be tailor fit to this site. Warrick: Has it been developed at this point? Barnes: It will not be finaled until a permit decision is made by the Corp. of Engineers, which they have this project open to public interest review at this time. Tarvin: Two other things that I wanted to say something about. Manual mentioned the trees and I want to mention the Park fees as well. I think the developer would like some consideration for the 124 acres that is being given already in the way of trees and parks when it comes to the requirements for he remaining portion of the development with 46% of the land already being given. Barnes: That large percentage is preserved and then when there is the giving back to replace impacted wetlands, those would have an extensive amount of reforestation plus the riparian zone so you will end up acreage wise it is Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 67 going to be huge. It is pushing 50% of the site dedicated to some kind of very ecologically sensitive vegetated form. Of course the Audubon is also very interested in prairie so some of those lands may not be forested but there will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 64 acres of preserved wetlands and there will probably be somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 to 28 additional acres of wet meadow/forested wetlands that are reinstituted on the site along Clabber Creek and some of these other areas that are designated as conservation area. Bunch: As this comes through since this is a concept plat in your presentation could you describe what type of relief consideration you are looking for on the tree preservation. Just to make a blind statement that you want some that's nice but let us know what. Since you are the designers let us know what you have in mind. Tarvin: Also, when will the draft covenants be required? Would that before the Planning Commission considers this or would that be before the individual areas come back? Warrick: It needs to be with this nine lot subdivision before the Planning Commission considers it because this is the only time that this project as a Planned Zoning District will be forwarded for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Once that is done those individual lots will come back and it won't be the same process through the City Council. Tarvin: That is Monday at 10:00? Warrick: Yes Sir I think that those covenants can be somewhat general because we need to understand the nature of this project. We need to understand what kind of common features the developer wants to see for each lot as it develops. Certainly as these lots come through for further development approval those concepts that are put forth in the original covenants are going to be further defined and more applicable to that particular site. There is understanding that this is somewhat general and in concept at this time but this is the forum to get that understanding of what the overall development will have and what the common features will be and if any design standards are proposed that will affect all of the different developments we need to understand that at this point. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Anyone who would like to address us on this issue would you please come to the podium and introduce yourself and give us the benefit of your comments? Earff: Hi, my name is Jeff Earff, I live at 2711 Woodcliff Road. Just a quick question, back on April 23`d the City entered into a real estate purchase and sale contract with the developer and I just wanted to read one of the conditions in that contract. It is 13F. After closing is completed the City of Fayetteville shall make available to Legacy project the amount of Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 68 $700,000 to be used fully to reimburse Legacy project for is infrastructure construction expenses on the property described in Exhibit "A". I believe that is the 289 acres. It goes on all expenses to be reimbursed by the $700,000 grant must meet all grant terms. I guess my question is I was wondering if the city Planning staff had reviewed the plans that have been submitted to make sure that it met all conditions of the grant terms. Warrick: There are no proposed infrastructure improvements with this phase of the project. Earff: Ok, that answers the questions then. Warrick: There will be infrastructure improvements and they will come along as each of these large lots develops. There will be consideration made on the impact of each proposed project, each proposed lot development and we will assess infrastructure improvements. We will require that of the developer and we will ensure that those comply with that agreement. Earff: Do you have a list of the grant terms then that they have to comply with? Warrick: Not with the materials at this time. Earff: Thank you. Bunch: Jeff, normally at these meetings we take public comment once from each person so if you have any other items that you would like to address please do so at this time. Earff: Thanks, no, that was it. Thank you. Bunch: Is there anyone else who would like to address us on this project? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments or motions. Hoover: We are just looking at the number of lots and how they are divided up? Warrick: We are also looking at the uses proposed. Hoover: Ok, thanks. Warrick: The applicant, like I said before, is wanting input on the proposed concept that you have in front of you that further divides some of those lots so that they can get some feedback as to what they may be looking at in possibly redesigning some of it or bringing forward projects that are very similar to what is being proposed. The layout on the proposed streets on the concept plan has not been fully engineered so it may need to change in order to meet design standards. Ostner: Talking about the layout and Master Street Plan, is this the point where we Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 69 either deal with Master Street Plan or we don't? Warrick: Absolutely. The Planning Commission on October 13th will be asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on the two requests with regard to Master Street Plan amendments to eliminate Technology Blvd., a collector street on the Master Street Plan, and the western extension of Truckers Drive as proposed with this project. Those amendments need to be heard prior to this Planned Zoning District being considered. If, for some reason, the City Council or the Planning Commission feels as though those Master Street Plan amendments are not appropriate that changes this development plan significantly and so we do need to talk about that. The applicant has presented a proposal and it is significant to the overall development of the project. Bunch: Is that proposal in our packets? Warrick: Bunch: Warrick: You have a memo from the applicant requesting that those two Master Street Plan amendments be forwarded. It is after the staff report. At what time do we see what the proposals are? We call them amendments to date. The proposal is to eliminate them. Bunch: What about Truckers Drive, it looks like it makes a turn to the north and has access to the adjoining property. Is there any Master Street Plan consideration? Warrick: That portion is not on the Master Street Plan. That would be an access easement I believe to provide access to the commercial lot. Barnes: And to the property to the north. Bunch: Basically what we're looking at is an amendment then is to abandon the two streets? Warrick: Yes. Ostner: That's the one thing that I notice on here. There is no access from the east to the west. That concerns me because as we grow in this area we are having problems with access. I guess that is something I would like to talk about more. Bunch: The idea of a preservation area is to limit access, which gets us back to the question for Parks how does this tie in with the overall Clabber Creek trail system? Ohman: This is part of it. To the west we have land recently donated for the trail corridor and this would be of interest for the parks to continue the trail Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 70 corridor along Clabber Creek. Tarvin: We do have plans for trails within the property itself. We have trails that connect the residential to the commercial. Bunch: Could we note that on the drawings in the concept plan because as it stands right now the Planning Commission is asked to approve a plan and then the City Council in turn is asked to approve a zoning that is not showing those or doesn't reflect that. Even a note saying that it is a concept. Tarvin: Yes we can do that. Part of the problem we have is while the developer is in favor of trails along Clabber Creek, which is one of the routes. The Audubon society wants to limit access because they want to protect it, they want to control access. Barnes: There is going to be opportunity, probably an education opportunity for recreation but we are going to be very sensitive about that as it passes through this special area. It is the challenge between the conventional development sending roads through this area verses designating it for special ecological purpose. I suspect as time goes on there will be a good discourse with Audubon to do some kind of a trail connect associated with this special green area. The bottom thing that we have wrestled with is that we wanted to preserve the integrity of the ecological connectivity on this site to not send a street through it. Bunch: I am not speaking much to a street right now but something to the nature of an elevated trail or that sort of thing. We have nothing in here that guarantees us that that opportunity is there. We are showing abandonment, amendments of a street ways and we just discussed that connectivity but something for all the people of Fayetteville to enjoy the opportunity of something that has been preserved. It doesn't do a lot of good to preserve it and not have people have the opportunity, other than a select few elitist to access it. What I am looking for is some sort of designated corridor or easement or something to tie into our trail system. If it needs to be an elevated deal to preserve the fragile environment, but at least to have in our documents that we have that opportunity and that possibility. Barnes: I personally think that opportunity would be available. It is just a very sensitive issue to work through with Audubon because I think the two worlds in that regard of recreation and education and Audubon's efforts are compatible. Bunch: We may not need a ground based jogging trail through here but if we have an elevated boardwalk so to speak, nature study trail or something like that. The main thing is we need to have it called out on the drawings that that access is available. Right now you are showing no access. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 71 Barnes: We will need to interface with Audubon and see what opportunity we can come up with there. Bunch: This is wonderful, not just for the citizens of Fayetteville but the Northwest Arkansas region or whatever. It is a calling card and I am sure that the Audubon would want to promote it and that we in the community would want to promote it. We just need to have people understand that that is there and that it not get lost in the papers. Barnes: It is always good to look at it with an open mind. You are right Don, there was originally by the Corp. of Engineers federal guidelines that's adopted by the EPA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a three parameter approach. There are approximately 80 acres of wetlands on the site that meet the three parameters. There are areas that have hydric soil and with some minor manipulations they can be brought back into wetland status. In some places there will be excavation, some places it will just be replanting with native species. It will be an evolved larger wetland mass with a nice combination of prairie uplands, riparian zone, existing wetlands, improved wetlands. There is a lot of neat ecological opportunities and just a tremendous showcase of how development and conservation can be a great marriage. Bunch: A great example of the delineation process is this fence line right here that any wetlands on this site officially stop at that fence line because on the other side of the fence is pasture. Agricultural pursuits, even though it may be basically the same conditions, don't meet all three parameters. Barnes: The other thing that happened on that fence line was the fiber optic probably changed some of the topography of the land. You see the wetlands emanate out from that fence line in a few spots, this over here and this over here. That is following the lay of the land. I think in some of the earlier meetings Joe made an excellent observation and that is that we have a very high quantity of clay on that site. There is often times probably an opportunity of a perched condition of water. Bunch: Also on the north over here, the agricultural land to the north as well as this fence line here where the wetlands follow a straight line demarcation rather than what one would assume natural habitat is and that is part of the reason for it. Ostner: Can you call out some of those areas in here? This area is a certain kind of wetland, this area has hydric soils? I think people would want to see stuff like that. Barnes: We sure can. We have the different kind of wetlands per the Corp's designation that can be an exhibit. I think it is in the city office at this time but we sure can. Bunch: I think that would cut down on an awful lot of the confusion when you Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 72 make your presentation you can point to this, your up slope wetlands and show where they will be mitigated by previously compromised areas. Is lot four in this project or not in this project? Tarvin: Yes it is from here to here. Bunch: Is this street right of way the one that is going to tie into the new subdivision that the City of Fayetteville has requested? Ok, I just wanted to get that so people would understand that also. Hoover: Can we talk about connectivity in general for their conceptual plan which lacks a lot of connectivity and I can understand why now seeing the whole site. Is it possible to get some east west connection even if it is away from all of this? Is it possible to connect that to that? Somehow we have to have some connection from Shiloh to Deane Solomon. Bunch: You've got Moore Lane plus this one. Hoover: Where is Moore Lane on here? Barnes: It goes east to west right here. Hoover: What about within this property? You are saying this? Bunch: You come up Moore Lane and here is a road right here that accesses the interior of the property and here is an exit right here. That connects with this road via Moore Lane right here so you don't have to have one coming through there. Hoover: Are there any other possibilities of connection or is that it? Bunch: With bridges. Ostner: Lots 3 and 5 are single-family residential. Bunch: Of course the big question on those is what about the use of pesticides. You have people having houses next to wetlands and it may be a static wetland rather than a creek type wetland where you have all kinds of mosquitoes and then you go to selling lots to people and they say hey, you sold me a piece of swamp land here with lots of mosquitoes and they are going to want a mosquito abatement. How does that impact trying to preserve the guys that live in that creek? Barnes: Audubon has some excellent information. You might look at their website on how they deal with the urban neighborhood and pesticides, insecticides. Utilization of birding opportunities, birds eat a tremendous amount of insects and institution of bat boxes and things of that nature. Those kinds of things will be in the covenants. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 73 Bunch: At this point in time what we are looking at is saying in the concept that these two areas are dedicated to Use Unit 8 so this is an issue that probably should be addressed now rather than waiting until these come up as large scales. If something comes up that says "well, sorry, we designated that as residential but you can't use it as residential." Lets go ahead and cross that bridge now if we have some covenants and if there are any problems with pesticides and herbicides and the encroachment of residential living into a preserved area. Let's go ahead and let that have a little sunshine now and talk about it before we approve a concept and then have people say well you should've approved that back when it was at the concept stage Barnes: Of course some of the concept in their natural setting is the filtration process. That is one of the major functions that they do. There will be some buffer if you will, between the lot, where the lot transitions into the wetland there could be some opportunity for different kinds of filtration if some of the land owners choose to use pesticides. I think what Audubon tries to do is a strong recommendation of considerations. Things that are much more ecologically friendly but they don't want to just absolutely require if you move in on this lot you cannot use any pesticide. There again, we have the balance. We are trying to bring the two worlds together. Bunch: That also ties in with Phase II Stormwater Runoff. The whole thing is this wetland area considered a buffer for Clabber Creek or are we looking at buffering the buffer? We need to have that spelled out so there is an understanding before we get much deeper into this. We have talked about how this might be on Audubon's website or this might be in this document or this might be in that document. To me, those need to be present in your presentation, saying that these are the concerns that we know are there and this is how they are being met and at least have a matter of public record showing at what point in time it is appropriate to address those concerns. If the appropriate time is at concept plat and then they cannot be addressed later we need to spell that out. If it is something that can be addressed later so that we are not operating in the blind. We need lots of sunshine on this. Hoover: Can we go back to connectivity now? Bunch: Yes. Hoover: Is there any way possible to connect lot 3 and lot 1 in some fashion? That is something to think about because I know we're not really doing streets right now but they will come up in the future. And the other comment I have on connectivity is something to connect to the north, some type of stub out for future. If we can't go across there it is really fragmented. Barnes: This is one of the challenges when you are accommodating both the development and the conservation effort, in that narrow strip that we just Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 74 mentioned between these two lots, we incorporated a wider buffer between those two from an ecological standpoint so we have wildlife movement opportunity in a full movement all directions throughout this whole "green" area here. This was widened from an ecological perspective. Hoover: Can you cross this right here? There is that or lot 2 and 8. Bunch: What's been done is it is interconnectivity for the critters rather than the people. Hoover: Yeah. Osmer: There are ways to do both. This is critters and people. Barnes: We have really brainstormed on different approaches to try to have some kind of a wildlife movement opportunity there. With something like this there is quite a challenge though because of ramping and impacts due to an elevated situation there. We are at ground level at that also. Ostner: From a traffic standpoint there is no way to access any of those without getting on this street, on Deane Solomon. That doesn't make sense to me. Shiloh is growing so if you get on Shiloh you have to come all the way around Moore to get up here and vice versa. Part of the solution is giving people opportunities of places to go. Bunch: Deane Solomon goes through to Mt. Comfort and then Shiloh is through all the way. The one that is going to be tough is the elimination of this depending on what happens up here to the Graves property. If Audubon gets this then of course it becomes a moot point. Ostner: That stub out seems important. Hoover: Yes. I am just saying in general more connectivity is what we are going to be looking for when it comes back than what is right here at the moment. There are obvious problems existing with it but we are going to keep asking for it. Bunch: The question becomes in a sense what is the need of connectivity from here to here when it is a short distance around this way. Hoover: That doesn't look like a short distance to me. Barnes: There may be an opportunity for pedestrian or bicycle connectivity between those which would be a lot more ecologically favorable. Hoover: That's true. The thing is if you work here are you going to drive your car around here and then go here? Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 75 Bunch: That is where your interconnectivity comes in where we would want a comment seriously about pedestrian and bicycle access. Hoover: True, but what if it is somebody who has to have their car at work just for instance because they go out during the day so they have to have their car over here. Ostner: We make these requirements on subdivisions all the time and it might only be a short distance to go around but we make them because connectivity is so important. Hoover: Yes. Ostner: There is a lack of it and I understand that it is a problematic site but I would need more reason than we just don't want it because of the wildlife. Barnes: Historically, previous iterations on this site when the city had it and the city was looking at different iterations of development there was a significant concern about things ecologically about things like crossing Clabber Creek and crossing this unnamed tributary. We have kind of been down those roads. Hoover: I don't think we are asking to cross those places at all. Barnes: It is just the same kind of concept. That is why this is what has evolved to try to be as sensitive to that as possible. Hoover: Sure. I think we have all followed this project very closely and I would never be saying you have to cross here. But within areas where you could cross. Again, it is not a piece of property where you can just overlay a grid on, that's very obvious that you can't do that either. Just in general, we are going to keep trying to make an effort. Bunch: While we are looking at these things, I know this is something that will come when it comes through as an LSD but by this configuration are you looking at limiting access to these lots from Deane Solomon saying they would have to come in from the interior. Hoover: We haven't had one come in lately in I don't know when that has had on access for I don't know how many lots. Do you know how many lots there will be? In our subdivision regulations can you have one way in? Warrick: It is not preferred. Hoover: Because if there were something blocking the road and you had to get a fire truck in there. Warrick: Two means of access generally is requested just for services and if there is some sort of problem. Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 76 Bunch: That might mean extending that, particularly this one since it has so many more lots. Hoover: That has one there and one there. Barnes: One of the things also that we are trying to do is get the ambiance of you are entering a natural area. There is creation of wetlands on both sides of these entrances and the institution of significant size trees. Hoover: That threw me off for a long time trying to figure out how that would happen. It is so close. Ostner: That is also something we generally don't allow in subdivisions for a cul- de-sac to back right up to a street. Tarvin: I think that the developer's desire there was that he wanted to create that no one would be living next to the entrance so they back up on it. They would be there but it wouldn't seem like it. Hoover: In general I don't have any problem with the land uses that have been designated for these lots. Do you have issues with that? Bunch: Yeah. There are predators out in here. The concept of when you have small dogs and cats in a neighborhood. Hoover: Are you going to say no residential? Bunch: I am just saying there needs to be sunlight on it and possibly part of the covenants for fencing or something like that because if we have coyotes and foxes out here. Hoover: They can co -exist but you want to know how. Bunch: Eventually, one of the problems that we always have when subdivisions go into previously rural areas or areas that are primarily what is called habitat, you start having interaction with domestic animals and wild animals. Sometimes the wild animals become predators on the domestic animals and vice versa so that is always a consideration. It just needs to be addressed. I am not saying that there is a definite solution to it. I am saying that if the Audubon Society has some information on that on how to accommodate that problem. It is an age old problem. This is not the first time. There are bird species out here that are to be protected so if you have cats over here what are the rules? Are we going to have rules? Now at the concept plat time is to say whether or not we are going to have residential? Barnes: For example, I live in Bentonville and I have a 200 acre block of woods beside my home. I have had deer this week, I have several hoot owls that Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 77 I enjoy listening to. I have geese that fly over my house regularly and I didn't select them but my children have allowed a stray cat to stay and several more stray cats came and stayed. We have had a pretty good compatibility with the significant block of woods. There is a large group of deer that are there. One of the challenges is from a tree perspective. I planted 50 trees at my four acres there in Bentonville. The deer do love to strip those trees. Here is the challenge. We are going to lose some trees because we have got a wild life preserve so to speak. That is another consideration you might kind of put in the pipe to consider how these people are letting the wildlife be right there but there will be some interface. We have tried to bring in the wildlife into the residential setting like in western Little Rock to leave wide buffer zones for the wildlife to move from west Little Rock into people's backyards because they enjoy seeing them. The social well being of being able to see wildlife is tremendous. There are challenges. We will look with Audubon to see how we can get the two worlds to work better together. Bunch: It is one thing to have a new subdivision next to cattle and chicken operations because they are subject to change but if this is going to be a preserve, cattle and chicken operations might go on and the property might be sold but if this is going to be a deeded preserve then we need to take a strong look at hawks and owls and dogs and cats and that sort of thing. If there is some sort of system set up for promoting or incentives for people to like you were saying, to live in a wildlife habitat type thing that there are different constraints and different considerations that need to be made to have a residential in a wildlife preserve area rather than as soon as they move in be calling animal control to come and get all of these critters that a lot of money is being spent to save. Barnes: It has been my observation on different development projects from thinking of one in the Little Rock area that there were about seven deer that were there before, during and after the construction. They are still there. They moved through the site. They established their habits and continue to come back and forth. This very development sits right out the backdoor of the Jacksonville Air force Base. There is a new Wal-Mart development there. There are all kinds of conventional hamburger shops and so forth and the wildlife is utilizing this site right next door to all of man's activities. Quite often they stay separated. Once in an while you might come across an article like I read in the paper in south Arkansas in Camden where a buck deer got on a bunch of pick up trucks and beat the living daylights out of them on the last day of deer season but I think there was poetic justice there or something. MOTION: Hoover: I am going to make a motion because I think we have brought up the items that we believe are going to be discussed at Planning Commission and given you enough feedback that you can be prepared to answer those questions. We certainly can't decide anything at this moment. I am going Subdivision Committee October 2, 2003 Page 78 to make a motion to forward this to Planning Commission, PZD 03-08.00. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Thanks guys. Staff, are there any other announcements or comments? Warrick: No Sir. Bunch: The meeting is adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 12:35 p.m.