Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-17 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Friday, October 17, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN 1. LSP 03-53.00: Lot Split (McDougall) Approved 2. LSP 03-55.00: Lot Split (Red Robin) Approved 3. FPL 03-08.00: Final Plat (Legacy Pointe Ph. II) Approved 4. PPL 03-17.00: Preliminary Plat (Stonebridge Meadows Ph. II) Forwarded 5. LSD 03-37.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Athletic Club) Forwarded 6. LSD 03-36.00: Large Scale Development (Meyers Learning Center) Forwarded 7. LSD 03-38.00: Large Scale Development (Stearns Apartments) Forwarded 8. LSD 01-39.10: Large Scale Development (Combs St Church of Christ) Forwarded 9. **LSD 02-09.10: Large Scale Development (Williams Ford Tractor) heard twice **LSP 03-54.00: Lot Split (Cliff's Cabin) heard later **LSD 03-25.00: Large Scale Development (Red Robin) heard later **LSD 03-35.00: Large Scale Development (Brandon Mall) skipped **LSP 03-52.00: Lot Split (Brandon Mall) skipped **LSD 02-09.10: Large Scale Development (Williams Ford Tractor, pp 286) heard twice LSP 03-53.00: Lot Split (McDougall, pp 398) was submitted by Douglas McDougall for property located at 1187 N. 5151 Ave. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family 4 units per acre, and contains 3.01 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of 1.96 and 1.04 acres respectively. Assigned Planner: Suzanne Morgan Casey: The comments that I made at Tech Plat were not addressed on this revised plat. I would like to make those a condition of this approval. The utility easement, I'm not sure where the sewer line falls on this plat, the utility easement is to be a minimum 10' from the existing sewer line. That's all that I have. Carnagey: No comment. Bunch: Tell us who you are and about your project please. McDougall: I am Doug McDougall and I just bought this property. There is more land than I can handle but there is plenty of room. The lot that I've got is two acres. Bunch: Are you alright with the conditions of approval plus the added ones? McDougall: I would like to have some idea on what this sidewalk would cost. Casey: If you pay money in lieu it is $3 per square foot. Bunch: What size sidewalk is required there? Is it 4'?At this time we will take public comment Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant and the committee for discussion, comments or motions. Allen: I move for approval of LSP 03-53.00 subject to the eleven conditions of approval. Bunch: The two added ones are to show the water and sewer main and the water and sewer taps. Ostner: The third one is to show the easement and the sewer easement should be separated 10'. I will second. Bunch: I will concur. LSP 03-54.00: Lot Split (Cliff's Cabin, pp 487) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull, and Assoc. for property located on 2099 Cliffs Blvd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family 4 units per acre, and contains 36.77 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of 35.37 and 1.4 acres respectively. Assigned Planner: Jeremy Pate Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSP 03-54.00 submitted by Jerry Kelso. The property is zoned RSF-4 and contains 36.77 acres. Is the applicant present? We will move that to the end of the agenda. LSP 03-55.00: Lot Split (Red Robin, pp 174) was submitted by Brent K. O'Neal of McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of Alex Kanapilly for property located east of the intersection at Van Asche and Mall Ave., Lot 17. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 18.25 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of 16.22 acres and 2.03 acres respectively. Assigned Planner: Jeremy Pate Bunch: The next item is a Lot Split for Red Robin. Pate: This property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 18.25 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of 16.22 acres and 2.03 acres. This waiver of plat requirements is the third and final split that is allowed by ordinance for this tract. The purpose of the split is to create a legal lot on which the associated Red Robin Gourmet Burgers may be processed as a Large Scale Development. The lot is currently vacant, with a clustering of trees near Fulbright Expressway to the southeast. The extension of Van Asche Drive, from which the subject property will be accessed, is under construction, approved as part of the Preliminary Plat for Lot 17, Steele Crossing. The surrounding properties are zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Water and Sewer is being extended along Van Asche Drive to serve this lot. Sufficient right-of-way along Fulbright Expressway exists; The Final Plat of Lot 17 (currently the PPL has been approved and construction is underway) will dedicate the extension of Van Asche Drive as a Collector Street. A 70 -foot wide temporary access easement to allow for ingress/egress to Lot 17D is being filed with the lot split plat. Staff recommends approval at the Subdivision Committee level with the following conditions: Water and sewer lines shall be extended to serve the development prior to development. 2) Sidewalk construction along Van Asche drive shall be required at the time of development. 3) A temporary access easement allowing for ingress/egress to Lot 17D shall be filed with the lot split plat. The rest are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy, is the applicant present? O'Neal: I am Brett O'Neal with McClelland Engineering. This is for Red Robin located out of Denver. We have submitted a Large Scale Development proposal also and respectfully request approval of this lot split. Bunch: I have a question about the utility easement on Van Asche. Your lot split document is not showing the easement. If I remember correctly, there are a lot of utilities in that easement. O'Neal. Yes there are. Bunch: If you could show that. Commissioners, are there any other questions or comments? MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion we approve LSP 03-55.00 with the added condition that the utility easement be delineated along Van Asche Drive. Allen: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. LSD 03-25.00: Large Scale Development (Red Robin, pp 174) was submitted by Brent K. O'Neal of McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of Alex Kanapilly for property located east of the intersection at Van Asche and Mall Ave.; Lot 17D of Steele Crossing. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 2.03 acres. The request is for the construction of a 2,656 sq. ft. restaurant with 125 parking spaces proposed. Assigned Planner: Jeremy Pate Bunch: The next item on the agenda is Red Robin Large Scale. O'Neal: The person's flight was delayed who was going to present that and I request that we move that to the end of the agenda. FPL 03-08.00: Final Plat (Legacy Pointe Ph. II, pp 435 & 474) was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan for property located on Double Springs Road south of Wedington Dr. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single- family, 4 units per acre, and contains 13.25 acres. The request is to approve the development of 42 Single-family lots. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is FPL 03-08.00 submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan for property located on Double Springs Road south of Wedington Drive. Suzanne? Morgan: The subject property contains approximately 13.25 acres with 42 proposed single family lots. The request is to approve the final plat of Phases II and III to allow for the sale of lots. The Preliminary Plat for this subdivision was approved on March 25, 2002, and a revised Preliminary Plat dividing the project into three phases was approved on May 21, 2003. Phase I received Final Plat approval at Subdivision Committee level on July 3, 2003. The final inspection for this Final Plat has occurred. Surrounding land use, to the north is RMF -6, to the south is the Planning Area, to the east is Residential Agricultural and to the west is RSF-4. 8" water and sewer lines have been extended. 70' of right-of-way for Persimmon Street was dedicated in conjunction with the Final Plat for Phase 1 with a warranty deed, and 50' of right-of-way for Rock Crossing, Greens Chapel Rd. and Grays Gap Rd will be dedicated with this plat. Connectivity is being provided to the north and south via Rock Crossing. Multiple cross - accesses are being provided for on the east and west. Staff is recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1) Park parking lot must be reviewed before signing of the final plat. 2) The following corrections shall be made to the plat: Property name shall be changed to include Phase 3; Lot numbers in each Phase shall be called out and replace the current note; Right-of-way for Rock Crossing shall be indicated on the plat; Zoning in the Building Setback Table shall be updated to RSF-4; Correct vicinity map to show Phases II & III. The rest of the conditions are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Parks? Ohman: Under standard conditions of approval 5C we have received the land that was dedicated as Phase I. The parking lot construction was just shifted to Phase II. Bunch: Ok, thank you. Chris, if you would introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Brackett: I am Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates and this is the final phase of Legacy Pointe subdivision. Bunch: Are you alright with the conditions of approval? Brackett: We have already made those corrections. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment for Legacy Pointe Phase II. Seeing none, we will bring it back to the committee. How soon are you going to get Phase III done? Sloan: It is included. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve FPL 03-8.00 with all the conditions of approval. Bunch: A quick question for staff, we can approve this at this level? Pate: Yes. Allen: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. PPL 03-17.00: Preliminary Plat (Stonebridge Meadows Ph. II, pp 608) was submitted by Tom Hennelly on behalf of Bill Meadows of Meadows Enterprises for property located south of the intersection of River Meadows Dr. and Goff Farm Rd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family 4 units per acre, and contains 53.74 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 153 lots proposed. Assigned Planner: Suzanne Morgan Bunch: The next item on the agenda is PPL 03-17.00 submitted by Tom Hennelly on behalf of Bill Meadows of Meadows Enterprises for property located south of the intersection of River Meadows Drive and Goff Farm Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single family four units per acre and contains 53.74 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 153 lots proposed. Morgan: The applicant is requesting to create a residential subdivision of 153 lots on 53.74 acres. The subdivision is adjoins Stonebridge Meadows Phase I and abuts Stonebridge Meadows Golf Course. R -A (Residential Agriculture), RSF-4 (Single-family residential — 4 units per acre), and the Planning Area surround this property, all are Single-family in nature. Land zoned R -A within the proposed subdivision and to the west is used as a golf course. Water and sewer will be extended to serve the proposed subdivision. Right-of-way for Goff Farm Rd. to equal 70' total where Stonebridge Meadows borders both sides of the road and 35' from centerline where the subdivision is adjacent to the south side of the road only to fulfill requirement of the Master Street plan which designates this street as a collector. 50' of right-of-way built to City standards for the following roads: Cherry Hills Dr., River Meadows Dr., Doral Dr., Pumpkin Ridge Dr., Troon Dr., and Oakmont Dr. All street names shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board accepted a land dedication on June 2, 2003. The park land dedication for 148 single family lots is 3.55 acres. The two acre tract consisting of lots 144-148 was dedicated to the City of Fayetteville in 1998 as Eagle Park with Phase I. A request has been made to abandon this park and rededicate it to the east. At the time of rezoning this property RSF-4, the 2.0 acre tract of land was dedicated for park land and subsequently retained its R -A zoning. For tree preservation, Existing canopy is 1.13%, required canopy is 1.13%, preserved canopy is 0.45%. Therefore, mitigation is required in the amount of $12,375 to the City of Fayetteville Tree Fund. Staff's recommendation is to forward to the full Planning Commission with the following conditions of approval: 1) The following corrections shall be made to the plat: Right-of-way to match finding; Legal Description shall be corrected in accordance with GIS comments; Park land to be dedicated shall be identified with a lot number; A note shall be added to the plat which will prohibit the construction of any type of barricade along public easements to park land; Indicate clearly on both site plan drawings which trees are proposed to be removed and those proposed to be preserved; Trees proposed for preservation should not be located within areas likely to be built or disturbed from construction activity; Prior to submittal of construction plans, City Council shall grant approval for the rezoning of the 2.0 acre tract of land dedicated as Eagle Park in 1998. If the City Council denies the rezoning, Stonebridge Meadows Phase II shall be resubmitted as a preliminary plat showing the 2.0 acre tract zoned as Residential Agriculture with one single-family residence allowed. Park property must be defined and approved by Parks Staff before signing of final plat. The existing Eagle Park (1.95 acres) must be exchanged per City Planning and City Attorney's recommendation for land contiguous to the Phase II dedication. All street names shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator. Proposed right-of-way shall be dedicated with the Final Plat. Planning Commission determination of offsite street improvements to include Goff Farm Road a minimum of 14' from centerline including curb and gutter, storm sewer and sidewalk along the entire length of the property, including the portion along the existing golf course. The rest are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Thank you Suzanne. Parks? Ohman: In an effort to meet the developers request to exchange the land that is known as Eagle Park the Parks board recommends that the land be combined for a contiguous dedication. There is a 15 acre parcel that currently shows the park land on the eastern side of the 15 acres. This right now is not acceptable with the Parks staff. Their understanding right now is the entire 15 acres would be used for the 15 acres. There are going to have to be some additional discussion. They were under the assumption that all 15 acres would be used for the school system. If we can set up a meeting to sit down with you guys and the school system and determine everybody's needs. Carnagey: During Tech Plat there were some items that were brought up that have not been addressed some minor items about clarity Also, lot 26 of the subdivision they are showing some trees for preservation that are likely to be built on. I made a suggestion at Tech Plat to realign some of those property lines The applicant has requested a variance of payment into the tree escrow account. Casey: Tom, between lots 30 and 31 is there a way we can add to your unction box to line the storm sewer with the property line I think that we are going to see vacation requests sometime in the future if we don't so if we can go ahead and get that lined up with the property line so if they want to build a pool or something we won't have to worry about that in the future. That's all that I have. Bunch: Tom, if you could introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Hennelly: This is Phase II of Stonebridge Meadows it is across the road from where the original Phase is. Bill Meadows is the developer, he should be here shortly Gregory: I am Carol Gregory. We own property on Hunt Lane. I have two concerns. My concern is the density of this subdivision, it is four houses per acre. We have put a lot of money into renovating that house and trying to make it into an estate. It is disturbing to think that our 10 acre tract which used to be the smallest tract in that entire area is about to become the largest. I am concerned with having small, small lots. My second concern is traffic. I will just describe to you what it is like in the morning. On 16East anytime between 7:00 and 8:00 in the moming. We hit a line of traffic that backs up well across the White River Bridge. Basically, it is stand still. It creeps u p t one or two miles per hour. I sat there literally for an hour and a half one day because there was minor construction going on. It is miserable during high peak traffic hours. I am concerned with the load that this dense of a project will create I don't object to the subdivision, I know that this is going to be more subdivisions. I object to the density and the high volume he plans to build on this parcel. Bunch: Is there anyone else who would like to address us on this issue? Wilson: My name is Sue Wilson, I live at 4015 Goff Farm Road. My five acres lies right next to the subdivision they have now. I think these were supposed to be custom homes and that didn't work out. I am also concerned with the density and traffic. Goff Farm Road is a real small road right now and I just don't know what the proposal is to get traffic out on Goff Farm Road. I am right up here on 35, 36 of the existing houses lie right now. I live right next to that. It is a gorgeous valley and I don't mind for the houses to go in there but I am concerned with the density and the types of houses that are going to be going in there and the people who are going to be moving in and out and the relationship to my property. Bunch: Is there anyone else who would like to address us on this issue? This item will have to go before the full Planning Commission which will have another opportunity for public comment. Those people who were unable to come because of work schedule. If you would like to comment and didn't get an opportunity today. Monroe: I am near deaf and could hardly hear a thing. My name is Ned and I live on a farm that is immediately connecting the eastern portion of this property. It is a cattle farm and there is a stream that runs down through it and actually hits the eastern border of this proposed development. I am concerned because I see it going right to the stream. I shave seen it flow with major water running through. I think there needs to be more clearance for that stream. I would think that ideally the stream bed should be more under the control of a general plan for water quality that enters the city. This thing ends up draining into the same basin that you drink out of. I am concerned about that. I think that the density is perhaps a little heavy because it just sits on a strip. I believe that you are considering parkland on the eastern end and as you are looking to the future if you want to look at the stream that runs up the mountain. I do worry about property value too because what ever happens affects the entire neighborhood. I would just like those reports reviewed carefully. If you are planning a density of four houses per acre on that part that you are putting in when you take the streets out and that sort of thing you end up with very little for those who live there. When you are packing it in next to somebody else's property that you don't have control over it seems to me that the owners should be providing space for those who live there where you only have a small box to live in with a tiny yard area. It is the responsibility of all of us who are land owners. Especially in the lower areas that that needs to be given great consideration by the Planning Commission with a city view of it. This is now in the city, is that correct/ Bunch: Yes Sir. The zoning that allows the four houses per acre was established by the City Council. The Planning Commission can only make recommendations. The City Council has to approve the zoning. Monroe I am also involved with my family in another state in planning a development and our concerns with that particular development is to maintain the natural features of the development to provide open space for the people who come there. Where I come from I think that that should be reviewed rather than to create little cubicle areas to do something different. I was reading the Fayetteville vision for 2020 and I wonder if those points are being considered here. That's all I have to say. Bunch: Fargas: Bunch: Casey: Thank you Mr. Monroe. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this issue? My name is Richard Fargas, I live at 2748 Hunt Lane. My wife is Carol Gregory who was up here a minute ago. I understand that development was stopped in Elkins because of sewer capacity, is that true? I understand the new sewer treatment plant is coming on line but I understand that we are pretty much at capacity with our existing one. I will check with engineering on this one Where are we currently on the sewer situation? On this side of town there has not been any problems with over capacity. In this area I am not aware with any capacity problems. My other concern is the density in this area. There is always talk about urban sprawl and it looks like we are creating urban sprawl in this issue. Bunch: The sprawl issue is a rhetorical issue. If you have greater density which some people like because it keeps down sprawl but as the urban environment moves into the suburban and rural development there is always a question sprawl verses lot size. Is Hunt Lane most of that is in the county on the other side of city limits? Fargas: Most of it is county, we have Fayetteville water but don't get to vote on anything out there. Bunch: One of the things we are seeing is subdivisions going outside of the city limits. With newer technology for septic systems you are seeing the lot sizes change to smaller I think these are good questions that need to be raised and also to talk to people in the city council since they are the ones that do the zoning Pate: R-1 and RSF-4 are basically the same zoning designation. Hennelly: Just to clarify this is 3 lots per acre. Fargas: Is that taking into account the acreage used for streets, curb and gutter? Fargas: Right now on Hunt Lane there is a development going in with a minimum one acre lot and up to five acre lots. It has covenants. Hennelly: There is a minimum of 1700 sq.ft. for all lots off the golf course and 2000 sq.ft. for all lots on the golf course. Fargas: Thank you. Bunch: Are there any other comments? Seeing none, I will bring it back and let staff comment on density, development and street issues. Pate: Speaking to the gross acreage density is determined by gross acreage amount. Traffic issues, Matt might be able Ostner: What is the condition of the rest of Goff Farm Road? Hennelly: I think it is 24' wide with no curb or gutter. Bunch: Dead Horse Mt. Road has been paved all the way to Black Oak Road? I know it is hard to guess but do you anticipate Hennelly: I would imagine. Not too long after the people move into this area they have traffic control devices at Black Oak rather than allowing some kind soul to let you in on Hwy. 16. Bunch: What about stream issues? Casey: The stream he is talking about is on the east side of this project. The Hennelly: It will actually be a beneficial impact. It is called the Cleveland Ravine that will drain into these streets and be diverted into the detention pond. Casey: The flow will be diverted to the storm sewers. Ostner: Where is that detention pond? Hennelly: It is a wet pond. It will provide a level of detention above the water surface elevation I think it is important to retain some sort of canopy buffer along that stream and my understanding was that the applicant was going to do that. Meadows: I am Bill Meadows the developer. This is Jim McCord, the attorney. Bunch: How are you going to have the golf carts cross Goff Farm Road Hennelly: They are currently doing that. Bunch: What can be done for the future conflict where you have golfers crossing? Hennelly: They look both ways and go. Bunch: Are you using signs for both the golf course and the road? What about lots 42 and 43 have the golf cart easement to cross their lots? Hennelly: In an attempt to not create an area where the property owner's association would have to maintain a small entrance area. We just included the cart paths on the lots and that will be known to the buyer of the ot. They will be expected to maintain their entire lawn. Bunch: Some mention was made to Phase III, can you show us on the vicinity map where that is. Hennelly: The park land dedication is really not a problem. There is plenty of property available to dedicate for parks, it is just where that property is. Park land be dedicated within that 15 acres, another option would be if the school decides that they don't want that. We figure at this same density the parks requirement was to present one parcel for the parks that they can use. Bunch: Are there any additional questions or comments? Allen: Is it proper to move this forward with parks issues. Pate: If the commission would like to see that those issues are to be worked out. Bunch: Nancy, what we normally do on items like this where issues are left unresolved, if not then it would often times be tabled at agenda or sent back to the Subdivision Committee or the next Planning Commission, whichever one is necessary. Hennelly: The parks issue I would not consider as unresolved. There is just the formality of dedicating the boundary. The tree issue I've talked to Craig about and am in the process of trying to determine if I can adjust lot lines enough to minimize the impact on the very few trees that there are on this property. It is not one of the issues that are going to kill the project. It may not be exactly what we want but we can work it out. Allen: Is there a residential area in close proximity with similar density? Hennelly: Right across the street. We have requested with as far as tree mitigation goes to let us mitigate on site around the golf course to replace trees that are being removed. Allen: Would it be possible for one of you to speak with concerned neighbors? Hennelly: I would be happy to do that. Bunch: One of the things that we have is it is still up to the City Council on the rezoning. How does that figure in with the timing of this Preliminary Plat? Pate: Subject to its approval it still has to wait to go to the city council with the four or five lots. MOTION: Allen: I will move that PPL 03-13.00 be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with the 12 conditions of approval. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. LSD 03-37.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Athletic Club, pp 138) was submitted by Jorgensen and Assoc. on behalf of Bob Shoulders for property located at 2920 E. Zion Rd. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and R-0, Residential Office. The proposal is to construct a 10,800 sq. ft. gymnasium, a 2,550 sq. ft. tennis pro shop and 6 full size tennis courts. Assigned Planner: Jeremy Pate Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSD 03-37.00 submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bob Shoulders for property located at 2920 E. Zion Road. Jeremy, can you tell us about this one please? Pate: Yes Sir. Carnagey: Mitigation trees are separate from the landscaping requirements and those trees need to be removed from the landscaping island and put in a mitigation area. A detailed landscape plan will need to be submitted prior to building permit. Hafemann- Ok. Bunch: If the applicant would please introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Hafemann: I am. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. I guess one of the first ones we should tackle is design standards as mentioned in the conditions of approval. One of the things we will need to do on the architectural elevations is to designate which buildings they are whether it is in the tennis pro shop, showing which one is which. Hafemann: I do apologize, the architect was supposed to be here this morning. I would generally be guessing at that since he is the one who turned the comments in. Hafemann: I believe that is the gymnasium right there. Bunch: The question becomes how visible is that going to be? Hafemann: The north and south would be the visible sites to the right of way The east and west would be blocked by the existing athletic club and to the west is the tennis court. Bunch: It looks like on the east it is very visible from Zion Road. On the west side what kind of screening does the tennis court have to it? Bunch: Hafemann- Ostner: Hafemann: Bunch: Ostner: Carnagey: Bunch: Carnagey: Bunch: MOTION: Ostner: Bunch: Hafemann: Bunch: Pate: Hafemann: Bunch: Show on the elevations the eave height on the west end and the height of the screening for the tennis court. That may dissolve having to invest in upgrading the west end. The pro shop doesn't look like it is going to be visible from anywhere. That is pretty much hidden. Unless it is tall. I believe that the architectural areas show that it has a viewing area on the roof so people can go there and view the tennis courts. I see that you are adding landscaping islands to the existing parking lot. I have a question about that. I thought we were trying to stay away from these cut out tree wells that go into four different parking spots. We are. We are requiring a tree lawn or island in this area. What do we have, two of those? Yes. And they are surrounded by compact spots. I will make a motion that we forward LSD 03-37.00 to the full Planning Commission. Before we do that there was a comment from an adjacent property owner about the lighting? We have put a note on the plan that the lighting shall be shielded, directed downwards. Is that for lighting on existing parking lots? Our ordinance doesn't really address lighting for existing parking lots. I can just comment that the owner is here and he seems to be in good relations with all of his neighbors. The letter says he is concerned about any additional lights and he has tried to work with the owner with no success. If you would between now and the full Planning Commission try to work with the neighbor? Hafemann: Pate: Bunch: Pate: Hafemann: For clarification, there is no ordinance on existing lights? Yes. This is a non -conforming parking lot. Currently I don't believe there are any existing landscape islands in their parking lot Is this a typo where it says Hwy 256? Most likely it is. It would be a standard parking lot fixture, we can certainly provide a detail of that on the plan if you would like that. Bunch: It has been moved, seconded and I will concur. LSD 03-36.00: Large Scale Development (Meyers Learning Center, pp 212/213) was submitted by Steve Clark of Clark Consulting on behalf of Meyer's Pediatric Learning Center for property located at 3419 Plainview Ave. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.48 acres. The request is to construct a 13,000 sq.ft. educational facility. Assigned Planner: Suzanne Morgan Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSD 03-36.00 submitted by Steve Clark of Clark Consulting on behalf of Meyer's Pediatric Learning Center for property located at 3419 Plainview Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 1.48 acres. The request is to construct a 13,000 sq.ft. educational facility. Suzanne? Morgan: Carnagey: First of all I would like to say that I appreciate the Engineer and applicant's efforts. That being said, on the landscape plan you need to look at the tree selections. Casey: The Large Scale will need to show a 20' easement on the water line. Bunch: I guess we need to show that on the lot split because even though it is off this isn't that still part of the mall property? Casey: An easement plat will have to be submitted and with that easement plat this water line can be shown. Either way, the easement plat is not submitted until after approval by the Planning Commission? Bunch: I am assuming if the Large Scale doesn't go through then the Lot Split stands. Casey: The Lot Split we are asking that this existing easement on the mall property be upsized to our minimum 20'. The water line, if the Large Scale Development doesn't happen. We want to tie the Large Scale to the lot split. Bunch: The concern was should the Large Scale not occur then someone could go in and use the existing building if possible. Casey: With the Lot Split we will have that. The condition you made with the Lot Split is to either abandon that sewer line or the proper easements. Bunch: Brian, can you reintroduce yourself and tell us about this project? Moore: It is probably known as the old Shoney's. Bunch: Before we take public comment I have a quick note on the parking. On the square footage, now that this is a lot split are there sufficient parking spaces on this particular lot for square footage for the intended use? Pate: Bunch: I show in the table required are 84 spaces minimum and they are providing 97. I just wanted to make that point clear. At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who would ike to address us regarding the Brandon Mall? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. Allen: How does this compare with the footprint of Shoney's? Moore: The existing footprint is right here if it gives you any idea. Bunch: I would like to pose that question for when it does go to the full Planning Commission. Ostner: I would like to know where the north and west elevations were. Moore: They are the same. MOTION: Allen: I move that LSD 03-35.00 be forwarded to the full Planning Commission subject to the eleven conditions of approval. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. LSD 03-38.00: Large Scale Development (Stearns Apartments, pp 136) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull, and Assoc. on behalf of Stearns Street Apartments Limited Partnership for property located at the southwest corner of Vantage Dr. and Zion Rd. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family 24 units per acre, and R-0, Residential Office, and contains 23 acres. The proposal is to construct an apartment complex with 276 units proposed. Assigned Planner: Jeremy Pate Bunch: Next on the agenda is LSD 03-38.00 Stearns Apartments submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates. Carnagey: Yes. First of all just to clarify, they are meeting their tree preservation requirements. Since the Tech Plat meeting they did increase their canopy quite a bit so there is no mitigation required. On the plan I would like for you to show all of the trees proposed for removal. On the landscape plan that same comment applies. Basically, on the northwestern corner I woud like to see some trees planted on that slope. You've got a pretty steep slop in that corner. I think Jeremy mentioned that the details of that plan would be required prior to building permit Kelso: Ok. Carnagey: I think this is enough for the Planning Commission to review at this point so I just want to reiterate that comment. Casey: The retaining wall on the north end of the project if you could label at various points the height. On this grading plan it is kind of difficult to tell what that bottom elevation is Step it back or request a waiver from the planning Commission for the retaining wall height in excess of 10', that's all I have. Bunch: Jerry, if you would introduce yourself and give us your project please. Kelso: I'm Jerry Kelso with Crafton Tull & Associates here representing Stearns Street Apartments Limited Partnership. We are showing a couple of different types of buildings. This property over here would be a mixed use type development and that would come as a different project. With this project we would be coming here, stopping this street here and connecting here. Another thing we are also doing is we are going to put a 36' back to back street, that is something that the Planning Commission wanted for quite some time that this ended up being a boulevard, that's it. Bunch: At this time I will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address us on this Large Scale with questions or comments? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Subdivision Committee. Would you give us a brief history of the R -O? Kelso: This was originally zoned RMF -24, this was zoned R -O. It was our intent to do an apartment project. We worked with staff to expedite things to get a Conditional use for R -O. Bunch: Wasn't this a larger scheme of split tracts? Kelso: Yes, it was four tracts of land and so we combined this into one tract. We are working on some building footprints right now. This would be the commercial here but the intent all along is to combine all of these pieces of property to get this Conditional Use to do the apartment project. We have not done anything as far as a rezoning on this. We think we will bring this in a s a PZD. Kelso: They are the only two variations of design right now. I would offer to come back with two different facades for these buildings We will try to bring those back at the full Planning Commission. We are trying to keep the spirit of the Conditional Use. Keep in mind, the Conditional use is this part up here. Allen: They look very similar. It is hard for me to tell the difference here. Kelso: when the Ostner: That street that leads to Barnes & Noble, is that the same one as you wind your way north? Kelso: Yes, but it doesn't go straight through. The other one is Stearns Street. Again, it feeds Joyce and runs south so we felt that this was more appropriate. Bunch: Isn't there another apai tment complex in this general vicinity that was built less than two years ago? I guess it is off Shepherd. I am looking at the vicinity map, it is kind of a dirt road and then there is an apartment complex that is eventually going to tie into Shepherd Lane. Kelso: I'm not aware of one. Pate: I'm not aware of that either. Bunch: We have the vicinity map that we just got today. I think we have enough information for the full Planning Commission. If you will give us some updates on the street plan and I guess when you are doing that go ahead and describe what's in the area and what's been reduced from a collector to a local and describe the density. Ostner: On Vantage what's the back to back curb? Kelso: It is 22' on each side. If you've ever driven down the Cliffs, it is about that size. Casey: What we have planned is just one lane and then eventually the outside edge of the pavement will be striped for a bike lane. Ostner: The bike lane is 6'? Ohman: They are usually about 5'. Ostner: I think that is so wide that people are going to try to act like it is two way. Casey: That is actually 18' of pavement so take off 5' so it would just be a little bit wider than the normal lane size. Ostner: We've got 18' two lane. MOTION: Allen: I will move that LSD 03-38.00 be forwarded to the full Planning Commission subject to the conditions of approval. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. 10:10 LSD 01-39.10: Large Scale Development (Combs St Church of Christ, pp 524) was submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of Combs St Church of Christ for property located at 350 S. Comb St. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family 24 units per acres, and contains 1.49 acres. The proposal is to construct a 4700 sq. ft. expansion of the existing church. Assigned Planner: Suzanne Morgan Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSD 01-39.10. Casey: Our recommendation for that would be approval of the vacation but we are asking that the area except for the portion containing the existing structure be rededicated as utility easement which would allow the utilities to use that area. Clark: In the event that they decide to use that easement they would have to replace the area that is torn up in the future. Casey: That is what is typically done. Clark: It is one that has been in the works for a couple of ears now. It is one that they got started, back in 1972 the city decided that they needed some right of way where 4th Street is. They just went to the church and said we need 50' off your property. Subsequent to that the street came in reconstructed completely outside of this right of way so at this point we are trying to clean it up and get the right of way to actually match the street. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment Is there anyone who would ike to address us on this Large Scale Development for Combs Street Church of Christ? Bunch: Let's start off here, is this actually Commbst Street? Clark: Yes, I've got it called 4th. Bunch: What is the existing condition of 4`h Street? Is it currently chipped sealed? Clark: An alternate proposal would be for us to overlay what is there and eliminate curb and gutter but that comment hasn't been addressed or discussed. Casey: At this time the proposal as shown should be recommended. Clark: I didn't intend to create a big question. We can take the same numbers and provide a wider street as opposed to the half curb and gutter. Casey: Another thing we might discuss is a cost share for the city to pave a portion of this. Bunch: That is what I was getting at since one of the comments is that it is needed by the city for fire and police protection. It will have to go to the city council. Do you have time to get the numbers together? Clark: Casey: Clark: Bunch: I don't think it is a problem I think Matt and I have agreed with numbers in past cost share estimates. If you could provide the numbers for that It just takes city council approval. Normally I'm not worried about that. There is such a work load for city staff coming in. Right now staff work load is fairly high with all the projects going in. Osmer: I have a question. This right of way Matt, you are basically requesting that the same area be converted to a utility easement but we have to vacate it first. Clark: Part of that is we can't construct a parking lot on street right of way but we can on utility easements and also the setbacks come into play with the additional setbacks from the right of way. Bunch: anytime we have one of these that has loose ends on it trying to get it all worked out so we don't have to delay the Panning Commission with additional paperwork. Allen: Will this letter from Kit be included in the packet for the Commissioners at Planning Commission? Morgan: Yes. Allen: Thank you. LSD 02-09.10: Large Scale Development (Williams Ford Tractor, pp 286) was submitted by Jorgensen and Assoc. on behalf Williams Ford Tractor for property located at 2501 N. Shiloh Dr. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 11.81 acres. The request is to amend the previous large scale development package. Assigned Planner: Suzanne Morgan Bunch: The next item is LSD 02-09.10 submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Williams Ford Tract of for property located at 2501 N. Shiloh Drive. Casey: Just a clarification, condition number three, was that intended to mean the entire site design. At this time none of the improvements have been complete other than construction of the additional building have been completed. Two detention ponds were required. I just wanted to clarify all of those conditions be tied into those previously approved improvements. Bunch: Why are we seeing this? Morgan: Because it was approved as a Large Scale Development any major modifications If the modification is a minor modification the Zoning and Development Administrator. We felt that because of its location and facing a right of way that this should be considered a major modification. Bunch: Can you introduce yourself and tell us about this project? Key: Yes, my name is Jim Key. I initially approached city staff and talked with Dawn Warrick in the Zoning Depaitinent to alter the plans by keeping the two overhead doors. Bunch: We will reconvene the Subdivision Committee meeting of October 16`h. Mr. Williams, Mr. Key, if you would come forward please. Would you give us for the sake of the record, we've had very little time to review and I don't know that we've had sufficient time. Just start back with how we got where we are, the building to the south that was supposed to be built there. Key: Bunch: Key: We had a plan there, they made an international decision to stop work in the United States. What was the relationship of that facility to your proposal? I think that is part of the reason for allowing that tall metal building in the back. It is still the owner's intent to do something on that out parcel of land. Bunch: There are lots of intent on this project but none of those intents have been fulfilled. Key: I feel like the owner has made a very good effort to proceed with his desires and improve it. Bunch: We allowed a new building to go in that is not allowed to be in the Overlay District. That is why we are here. Key: We met with Dawn early on various times about how can this be done. The thought was this is much more desirable to dress the front up. Key: I don't think any thing has changed. The only thing that has changed is we would like to leave the doors facing the street. I committed and the owner agreed to this, we are very willing to take two of those doors out. In essence, my statement was very accurate, we are looking for a large door. Bunch: Where is the drawing that shows one door? Key: That drawing has not been prepared, we offered to submit that to you on Monday. I think we went beyond that. Compromising the integrity of the initial concessions that were made. If we don't have consensus here today we will go away and will build it as it is approved. Bunch: Let me ask staff your comments on the conditions of approval, your recommendation. Warrick: Staff did not feel that the small door to the south. The two double doors that are on the main facade should be removed. Those were deemed not necessary on the original Large Scale that was approved bynack in 2002. This is a decision of the Subdivision Committee and staff will support your decision. The elevations that are submitted staff feels are improved. Our really only concern was having as many doors. Key: That is the one staff is saying would be ok to remain. That is the one we would like to keep. It doesn't help us in terms of trying to get access to this portion of the building. This small door is back here 80' it sets back a way. We can bring UPS and even ground transport in over here. We need access in for an overhead door. It is simply for delivery access of materials. Dawn wasn't privileged to the conversation we had this morning. This shop is full of mechanics and grease and tractors when I was trying to figure out how to incorporate that space into the operation. The mechanics function of service. The desire of the owner and applicant is they would like to leave both of them and they would really like to leave both of them. That is why we have come back and presented all three. Bunch: Is this wall being removed? Key: We have talked to the city and actually are going to come in here and build a three hour wall and a two hour wall and a two hour wall right here. Bunch: What is this right here? Key: That is a small ATV repair shop. It would be very desirable to have a little bit more area. That is one of our big dilemmas. The public has to have access. It is not like we can just say the public is here and they can't come back in. I have worked very hard with Mr. Williams and his wife Marybelle and their sons. The reality now that they have vacated some of that space we have got some There are lots of things like this that we are doing in conjunction with this phase which also involves the facade. We are not adding onto this building at all. We are very willing to make concessions and agreements with the city but we really need a door. We would be willing to give up this door if we could be allowed to keep another one I think overall the solution we are presenting and asking for consideration and approval Ostner: If I can just read some of these minutes. There are two parts of these minutes that seem relative to me. This is Tim Conklin introducing this project. The applicant is proposing a 15,000 sq.ft. metal building Key: We were proposing a series of shrubs and major trees along the facade here, taking out some of this property, we are not proposing to change the landscaping whatsoever, our only big change there is we were proposing for the parking that was shown has gone away so we have left this in tact, we have screened all of this and enlarged this. We gained this and that area to display what we lost here. Parking spaces we've lost 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and moved around. We have three spaces here instead of four. The landscaping was proposed to be the same we have got new maples proposed to be here, new larger trees, pin oaks located here. Clustering those was discussed with the original approval. It is still the intent that this will be developed at some point. It is doubtful from what we have been told in the past that that will be an RSC facility. Mr. Williams and his wife have handed over this business to their son so it will be up to them as to what this will be. Bunch: Again, you agreed to trade this for this. Key: We weren't trying to say something that wasn't true. It went through the process and Mr. Williams paid good money to have this engineered. There is a huge tract of land that has been sold, there is sewer extension that is going to occur. We assume that public sewer facilities will occur. That is a very big task to extend the sewer main up to this property. Key: We've got an easement that butts all the way against our property. It is still the intent to do something here. We are extending or wrought iron fence to replace the chain link fence the entire perimeter along with the 6' sidewalk. This is the Design Overlay District Boundary. We agree that this is a better solution and would like to do that. Bunch: Where do you stand with this beam and the screening for this facade of this building? Key: This detention pond is there, the outlet structure is not. This has to be built and then this will be graded into it to allow this to drain out in that fashion. Bunch: Has this building been built? Key: Yes, it has been built, we have a temporary on this. The landscaping is likely to be planted this fall. Part of this work the owner has contracted himself and is soliciting bids out. Allen: If we were to leave one of these doors which one would be most strained? Key: It depends. This one sets further back from the Fulbright Expressway. I would think that this is the more prominent door because of the south bound driving lanes. Morgan: I do. The applicant is (TAPE SWITCH) Key: Season allows here between now and the spring farming season when the business here picks up and the need for more traffic starts occurring and we're hoping within the next six months we can achieve a great deal of improvements on the facade as well as the side improvements, the paving, the curb and gutter lanes caving and the fencework. So that's where we're at today. Quite simply these doors that were on the east facade closer to the street used to be old shop access doors. That area's now been vacated. After completion of the shop addition in May, it took the month of June to move all of their equipment and operations into the new shop. During the next month process was cleaning up the old portion of the shop that remained. It was now sitting there waiting to be reutilized to displace some of the functions that occur in the southern most portion of the building that will be our new main entry and sales entry, which is now all our parts area. That is going to move over into what was the old shop and that is why the need for the overhead doors there. It's a procedural process of step by step doing what we can. In fact, six weeks ago we just completed the ??? -rated separation on the inside of the existing building. Once we vacated the shop we stripped all of the materials that are on that wall off and were able to instruct a new framed wall with three layers of sheet rock until we get the fire protection from the old building to the new. So work is progressing. We've stopped at this point. The new shop is completed. We understand that there is a concern for getting this all done, but our permit is still valid. We're hoping to proceed with the renovation work. We had intended to submit this September 2nd, but we did not. We weren't able to have the owners present for the October 2nd meeting of the Subdivision. They were traveling out of town. Mr. Williams is here today, if you have any questions fo the owner, as well Chris Brackett with Jorgensen and Associates. It's our feeling in looking at the site plan that I reviewed with Mr. Jorgensen and Mr. Williams and the business owners earlier this week, that we are actually increasing the green space along the front of the building along the east because we've relocated some of the parking that was being proposed for that side around to the south end as an extension of the existing parking lot, so we're going to be maintaining the amount of landscaping and grass in front of the building. We will be also increasing the pavement area there to allow us access to those doors if they are allowed to remain. Ostner: Can we see the sight plan? Key: I have here a copy of the Large Scale Development plan as it has been resubmitted. The original Large Scale Developemtn plan is here underneath it and you see we had parking along the front with the large triangle of green space. We're putting a new drive back into here but we're also taking this parking away, so our islands are coming out of this as a larger area of green space now, and here as well we're picking up the green space at these locations. So we're really just replacing this with green space and an adjacent proximity. We really as I said would like to maintain these doors. We need them for access. I realize the staff is recommending that those two doors not be approved and that this third one here be allowed to maintain for access purposes. We've got access to the rear of this building, which is what this was desirable for operational purposes. At least one of these doors is absolutely necessary, or we'd have to look at replacing or changing the operations, so I'd at least ask that we consider the possibility of allowing us to keep one of those doors as a compromise. Bunch: Could you explain to us, I'm speaking strictly from memory here, when this was first, not the first time through but the previous time that it was approved ro cam ethrough, there was considerable trade-off. The redesign fo the front was at the suggestion of the applicant in lieu of considerable work on new buildings and other changes. I think it was your suggestion. You said, "Rather than spend this money back over here where it might not be seen as well, let's put it up front." So, again, I'm speaking from memory, but there was considerable amount of compromise that was done and we don't have before us the before and after, unless you have them Key: represented here that says this is what was approved and this is what we're now proposing. I think you were given, the staff actually asked that I submit copies of the original elevations for your review, and I think you do have them. They were done in a smaller format. We had two copies of these, these were the original approved elevations. We had two copies of these, one of which was mounted and presented to the staff, and I believe it's no longer available. We got this back from the owners to bring here today. But that was what was originally approved for the enhancement of the facade of the existing structure. And you're absolutely right, Mr. Bunch, we did propose that there be trade-off made. If we were simply to come before the City and want to do our 15,000 SF shop addition, we would have had to have done commercial design standard improvements in terms of the material for these facades of this new addition to this building or this site. It's actually a stand along building with a slight connection. It has, and you can see part of it represented here, the building which comes off to the left on the top elevation or to the right, it's 300 feet long, 250 feet long. It has a series of about 13 overhead doors and we thought we're going to see a lot of overhead doors there and a little bit of wall surface. The staff and the Commissioners agreed that it was very desirable that we improve the existing facade of the building. And that's still our intent. We're going to be going from the southwest corner of the existing building all the way around the entire facade to the northwest corner of this small appendage. So we're still intending to improve that entire facade, it's just that instead of using brick, we're proposing to use some ??? or ??? materials above a certain height. We're using a charcoal colored block for a wainscot which was originally intended as well, with a red brick for the body of the building up to a height with the top of the doors and windows and then exterior installation and venting system materials above that will be an off-white color to work with the new home theme as opposed to it being all brick. There were a couple of reasons for that. One was we felt that the facade, the scale of it, that brick was going to be a little bit obtrusive, such an extent of it. The other was that you'll note one difference in the original elevations was we were taking out this glass on the south facade and minimizing the amount of penetration there to allow us to put in some columns for ??? to support the brickwork above. It's thought to be desirable that we maintain all the store front blazon that faces to the south because the way the building is oriented, it is what is perceived as the front. It's very visible. And we're going to utilize this as our main entrance although we will have a secondary entrance facing the highway on the east of the building. That's still the intent. We're going to put a canopy ??? But we're maintaining more store front glass. We'd like to utilize those canopies with some steal tie rods, some accents, elements in terms of the diamonds to help again break up the facade. And quite truthfully I think we feel the end solution is much more pleasing than what was originally presented. So we're not asking for relief on any of the improvements that were intended, other than that we were just wanting to keep the overhead doors for access purposes. Ostner: Just a couple of nights ago, basically across 540 from here, we approved a collision repair center, and if my memory serves me correct, I was awake until midnight that night, I believe just sheer metal, we approved much more metal than we're looking at right here. I think this is adequate. It's a C-1 zone. I agree that this is an improvement off the original request. I would tend to want to grant them the two doors, crossing ways with staff. Bunch: The question that we need to look at on this, Allen, is what were the conditions of the trade at the time, what was allowed to. I don't believe we have that in our packet. Morgan: The staff report from April 86 is included.