Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-30 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on October 30, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. LSP 03-56.00: Lot Split (Mahaffey, pp 518) Page 2 LSP 03-57.00: Lot Split (John David Lindsey, pp 319) Page 6 LSD 02-16.10: Large Scale Development (Arena Village Bldg, pp. 52 1) Page 10 PPL 03-18.00 Preliminary Plat (Salem Meadows, pp. 245) PPL 02-13.10: Preliminary Plat (Stone Mountain, pp. 488/489) Page 14 R-PZD 03-07.00: Planned Zoning District (Brophy Condominiums, pp 290, 29 1) R-PZD 03-06.00: Planned Zoning District (Benton Ridge, pp 527) Page 30 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Alan Ostner Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Craig Camagey ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Not Heard Forwarded Not Heard Tabled MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Rebecca Ohman Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 2 LSP 03-56.00: Lot Split (Mahaffey, pp 518) was submitted by Ken Mahaffey for property located at 3494 W Dinsmore Trail. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and contains 21.61 acres. The proposal is to split the lot into two tracts of 14.4 and 7.20 acres respectively. Bunch: Welcome to the Thursday, October 30`h meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee. We originally had seven items on the agenda, two items have been tabled, one of them is a Preliminary Plat for Salem Meadows submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering on behalf of Palmco Properties. This is for property located north of Salem Village and west of Holcomb Elementary School on Salem Road. We will not be hearing that item this morning so if you are here for that there is no need to stay. Also, the other item that was tabled is a Planned Zoning District for Brophy Condominiums accessible from Brophy Circle and from North College. That item has been tabled. If you are here for Brophy Condominiums or Salem Meadows subdivision those items will not be heard this morning. The first item on new business is LSP 03-56.00 submitted by Ken Mahaffey for property located at 3494 W. Dinsmore Trail. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains 21.61 acres. The lot is to be split into two tracts of 14.40 and 7.20 acres. Jeremy, do you have the staff report on this? Pate: Yes Sir. As you mentioned, the applicant is requesting to split this parent tract of approximately 21.61 acres into two tracts. The applicant owns the parent tract along with other family members and the 7.20 acre tract is to serve the applicant's property on which a single family residence will be constructed. This split is the third and final waiver of subdivision requirements for this parcel of land allowed by ordinance. The parent tract describes property on both sides of Dinsmore Trail right of way. The filing of the lot split and dedication of right of way to fulfill Master Street Plan requirements the tract to the south of Dinsmore Trail does contain its own parcel number for the remainder tract and staff is asking that that be revised and labeled so that it is clear. Additional right of way will be required, 50' right of way total for a local street, Dinsmore Trail on the Master Street Plan. Staff is recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level of LSP 03-56.00 with the following conditions: 1) Correct Certification of Ownership/Dedication signature block shall be added to the plat prior to final approval. 2) The plat shall be revised to indicate the tract south of Dinsmore Trail as a portion of the remainder tract, separated by public right-of-way. 3) The owner/developer's name and address shall be added to the plat. 4) Parks fees in the amount of $555 for one (1) additional single family residential lot are due prior to building permit. Item five is just a standard condition of approval. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any additional staff comments? Engineering? Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 3 Casey: I would like to request an additional easement 10' on each side of the water line crossing this property. At Plat Review we didn't see the water line on there and that was requested to be shown. After looking at the location of that we do need to secure an easement a minimum of 10' to the north of that. To the south of it it will be right of way so we are protected there. That's all I have. Bunch: Do we need utility easements for other utilities? I know water is existing. It is shown on the drawing as being in the street right of way. Do we need to get utility easements both north and south for additional utilities as this develops out? Casey: Jeremy, was that requested by the utility companies at our Plat Review meeting? I don't recall. Pate: I don't believe it was. We don't have minutes. Casey: They usually request a 20' easement outside of the right of way paralleling the right of way. That would take care of our easement requirements as well as potentially any that they would have. Bunch: Is there sewer in this area? Casey: No sir, sewer is not available. Bunch: Thank you Matt. If you would please come up and have a seat, introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Mahaffey: I'm Ken Mahaffey. I'm building a single dwelling, 1,700 sq.ft. house here. Bunch: Are there any structures at all on either one of these? Mahaffey: No. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address us on this Lot Split for Mahaffey on Dinsmore Trail? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for additional questions, comments or motions. Matt, if this isn't on sewer do we need to show septic tank locations for the existing house? Casey: We usually ask for that to be shown to verify that the lot lines will not infringe on the septic leach field. The house in this case is across the road across from where the new lot line will be located so I didn't figure it would be necessary to show those, since the new lot line will not encroach on that and the same thing with the water meters. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 4 Bunch: Is it permissible to have septic tanks within the building setback or leach field? Casey: Yes, they have setbacks from structures from wells, streams and property lines but not from the building setbacks. Bunch: Jeremy, did you find anything additional from the utility easements? Pate: No Sir I didn't. I don't believe we have a record of those minutes from Technical Plat Review at this time and I'm not certain if that was requested or not. Bunch: Should we put those in at this time just in case because there are other properties in this area that will be developed? It sure would be nice to have an easement to put them in. I don't know if there is natural gas there or not. Casey: Standard condition of approval number five incorporates all Plat Review comments so if it was requested at that time it would be a condition of approval. Bunch: Unfortunately, there was a technical difficult at Tech Plat Review and from what I understand, the plat review tape was inaudible so we are working without the benefit of Plat Review minutes. Warrick: We do have notes from that meeting and we also have the ability to go back to the utility companies and be sure that their needs have been satisfied on the plat, which we can do. Bunch: Would it be prudent to go ahead and include it at this time and then if necessary vacate it later? Warrick: That's up to you. It does take City Council action to vacate an easement. It takes quite a bit of work in order to get something vacated. Bunch: It takes work to get an easement if it is not on the original dedication too doesn't it? Warrick: It takes work. It doesn't take City Council action but it does involve our land agents to acquire easements if they are needed at a future date. Bunch: Commissioners, are there any other questions or comments? Hoover: Just in general, do we usually show the electrical easements? I didn't think that we did at this stage. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 5 Warrick: General utility easements are shown on Lot Split plats. Bunch: Without structures on them is there any electricity on this anywhere? Mahaffey: No. Bunch: Is there any electricity to this house? Mahaffey: Yes, it comes in the back side here. Bunch: Ok. Warrick: A 20' easement along the street right of way would not increase a setback requirement, it would not change the configuration of anything that occur on either one of the tracts that are being affected. Bunch: As other property develops the concept of trying to have all the utilities buried I think it would be prudent at this time to show a 20' easement at least on one side of this street. Ms. Warrick, do you think it would be necessary to show a 20' easement on both sides or just on one side if we were to recommend an easement to be shown? Warrick: It appears that they have already got some utilities on the north side. We are requesting that there be an easement extending 10' beyond the location of that water line. If it is a 20' easement along the right of way it should incorporate that. Bunch: If the water line is within the street right of way and normally utility companies wish to have their easements outside of the street right of way. Warrick: This new easement would extend beyond the street right of way for the water line. Bunch: Can we just change that to 20' instead of 10'? Warrick: Along the north side of the right of way along Dinsmore Trail, yes. Bunch: Are there any additional questions, comments or motions? Hoover: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 03-56.00 subject to the staff comments which makes the easement on the north side 20'. Ostner: I'll second that. Bunch: I will concur. Good luck. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 6 LSP 03-57.00: Lot Split (John David Lindsey, pp 319) was submitted by Northstar Engineering Consultants, Inc. on behalf of John David Lindsey for property located at 5413 Wheeler Rd. The property is located in the Fayetteville Planning Area and contains 4.00 acres. The proposal is to split the lot into two tracts of 2.0 acres each. Bunch: Item two on the agenda is a Lot Split for John David Lindsey submitted by Northstar Engineering Consultants on behalf of John David Lindsey for property located at 5413 Wheeler Road. The property is located in the Fayetteville Planning Area and contains four acres. The proposal is to split into two tracts of two acres each. Suzanne, do you have the staff report on this please? Morgan: Yes Sir. This piece of property is not 5413 Wheeler Rd. Mr. and Mrs. James Buckner own the property to the north at 5413 Wheeler Rd, and the address was inadvertently placed on this lot split description. Surrounding land use for this piece of property is Planning Area, Single-family residential in nature. Water wilt be extended. Approval for septic systems is not required. 54`h Avenue is designated a collector on the Master Street Plan at 35' of right of way from centerline. The existing dirt/gravel private drive shall remain until 54`h Avenue north is extended. A 15' access easement is proposed in the southeast corner of the proposed Tract 2 for the existing gravel drive that accesses the garage on the property to the south, also owned by Mr. John David Lindsey. Staff recommends forwarding this to the Planning Commission after all requested information has been provided and shown on the site plan. Conditions to address are the following: 1) The following changes to the plat are required: Label the adjacent and subject property as Planning Area on the plat; Show the adjacent property owners (names, addresses, parcel numbers) on the plat; Vicinity map shall reflect the Master Street Plan to show existing and planned roads, city limits, and floodway with the 100 - yr. flood plain boundary and creek name; Remove "Private Drive" from the plat; Correct legal description of the parent tract; Replace signature blocks with those attached and any required by the County; Change the project name to include applicant's name; Ensure that all existing structures are shown; Note location of all septic systems and lateral fields. 2) A public water main shall be extended to serve both lots prior to filing of plat. 3) Park fees shall be paid in the amount of $555. Fourth is a standard condition of approval. Bunch: Is the applicant present? Matt, are there any additional engineering comments? Casey: No Sir, not at this time. Bender: I'm Mike Bender with Northstar Engineering. I want to address the water line. I met with the Fayetteville Water Department. There is a 2" water line that runs south just to the east of this right of way. It does not show Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 7 up on the map but there is one there that serves property south of us. There are no structures or improvements on this tract except for this driveway that is shown. Bunch: 5413 is the house to the north? Bender: The address is according to the City of Fayetteville 911 Coordinator, they are trying to get the addresses out there straightened out. Bunch: There is a house that has 5413 on it. Bender: I can't confirm that but I do know that the addresses are very weird up there. The City of Fayetteville said Washington County 911 will be the one addressing it. Bunch: Since the adjoining lot owners are not noted on the plat it begs the question have the adjacent property owners been notified? Bender: We supplied labels and all of that. We have that information, it is just not on the plat. Bunch: At this time I will open the floor to public comment, is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this LSP 03-57.00 for Lindsey just off Wheeler Road? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions, comments and motions. Casey: I would like to ask that the 2" water line that's being referred to be shown on the plat. Bender: You want us to have the City of Fayetteville locate the line and expose it to get an actual location on it. Casey: You can just have the Water and Sewer Division locate it, show an approximate location. Hoover: Is it possible to approve this here? Warrick: It is possible, we were a little hesitant because there were so many plat revisions. The Subdivision Committee has the ability to approve a Lot Split. If you feel that this information is something that you are comfortable with staff herding together we will be more than happy to ensure that that is complete prior to filing the lot split. Bunch: A question on removing the private drive from the plat is that because of the Master Street Plan? Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 8 Bender: Right. At tech review we were talking about moving this over as an existing gravel drive and then labeling it as future 54`" Street because we are dedicating a 35' right of way. We can take it off. That's what it is, an existing private drive. We can just call it something else. Since we are not improving the actual road, we do have it labeled for future 54`" Avenue. The road is not a dedicated road. It is private at this point. Bunch: Since this is in the county then there are no city requirements on improving the road, that would be up to the county to have it brought up to county standards, is that correct? Pate: That is correct. Bender: This will be submitted for their approval. Bunch: Part of the comments that I have is to locate all the utilities. Obviously there are some in the area serving the surrounding houses. Mike, are you comfortable with the conditions of approval? Bender: Yes. Bunch: How about item two, a public water main shall be extended to serve both lots prior to filing the final plat, is that going to be satisfied by locating that 2" line or does it need to be an enlarged line put in? Casey: A 2" should be sufficient to serve these lots. That condition can be removed. They do need to show that on the plat. This line does not show up on our maps but the apparently it does exist as a public line because our Water and Sewer division has located it and they maintain it. Bender: It was put in for some bad wells in the area, we will revise that note. Bunch: Is your recommendation that we delete condition number two and replace it with show a 2" water line on the plat? Casey: Yes Sir. MOTION: Ostner: If there are no other issues, I will make a motion that we approve LSP 03- 57.00 changing condition number two to read show the existing 2" water line on the plat. Hoover: I will second. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 9 Ostner: I will trust staff to take care of the other issues. Adding a condition where all existing utilities are shown on the plat. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 10 LSD 02-16.10: Large Scale Development (Arena Village Bldg, pp. 521) was submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Arthur Trumbo for property located West of Paris St. South of Sixth St. The property is zoned C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 3.44 acres. The proposal is to construct a 9,200 sq. ft. commercial building with 40 parking spaces. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSD 02-16.10 for Arena Village submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Arthur Trumbo for property located west of Parrish Street, south of Sixth Street, zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.44 acres. The proposal is to construct a 9,200 sq.ft. commercial building with 40 apartment spaces. Is the applicant present? Honeycutt: Yes. Bunch: Have a seat Don if you would please. Jeremy, can you give us the staff report on this please Sir? Pate: The Large Scale Development proposal before the Subdivision Committee this morning was approved in June, 2002. The conditions of those minutes are attached in your packets. The expiration period for a Large Scale Development is one year from that Planning Commission approval to building permit issuance. It has expired and by ordinance the Large Scale Development must be reviewed for compliance with ordinance requirements. No significant changes have taken place with the Unified Development Code in this time period. Therefore, the plat remains compliant as approved in 2002 at Planning Commission. As you mentioned, the proposal is to construct an additional building at the Arena Village site located south of Sixth Street and east of Razorback Road. Currently two buildings exist on this site which are part of Arena Village. That includes several businesses such as Taco Place, World Wide Travel, Big Reds and Subway. Currently 1.11% of the site exists in tree canopy. The applicant is proposing to preserve .77% and to mitigate on site. Right- of-way is being dedicated along 6th Street pursuant to the Master Street Plan. Staff is recommending approval by the Subdivision Committee subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds the submitted elevation drawings to be in compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 2) The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way to fulfill Master Street Plan requirements for a Principal Arterial, 55 feet from centerline, for 6"' Street (Hwy 62), by separate document. 3) All work with Arkansas State Highway right-of-way shall require proper AHTD permitting. 4) The applicant shall install an eight -foot wood board privacy fence along the southern property line. This is required in order to screen a commercial use from a residential district. The remainder conditions are standard conditions of approval. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 11 Bunch: Are there any additional staff comments? Craig, is there anything on tree and landscaping? Camagey: No. Bunch: Matt? Casey: Nothing additional. They initially submitted construction drawings last year and they were approved and they have already done a majority of the grading for the site. It just never continued onto the building permit phase. The grading approval still stands. Bunch: Don, could you introduce yourself and tell us about your project please? Honeycutt: My name is Don Honeycutt, I'm the contractor on the project. We were going ahead with building and the owner was looking for some tenants and didn't get them lined up so he just postponed the construction. We were just sort of stand by from month to month until that was done. He's decided to go ahead and time ran out on the permit and we are just reapplying with no changes to the building or the site. We are just really picking up with the drainage and utilities and site plan as we did last August we worked on this and continue on with the permitting phase for the building. We don't have a permit for the building yet. We will be submitting that soon. All the elevations that the Planning Commission approved for the Design Standards are in your packet. It is the same. It was approved at Planning Commission and is still the same design. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this issue, the expansion of Arena Village on Sixth Street? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments and motions. I have one question about these lights. Am I correct that all of this across the fagade are lights in addition to this? Honeycutt: That is general lighting for signage that is going to go here, that will be our signage area that will shine back on the sign or the sign could be illuminated. Bunch: Commissioners, the main thing we are looking at here is reconfirming the Commercial Design Standards. Is there any question about that type of lighting on the fagade? Hoover: Our ordinance hasn't changed since this was approved nothing has changed has it? Warrick: No. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 12 Hoover: I don't see how we can review it again. Bunch: It's expired, we can review it. Hoover: Technically. Bunch: It might've been an oversight previously. Hoover: It looks like there was a unanimous approval at the Planning Commission. Bunch: I think it had been discussed considerably at the Subdivision level and at Planning Commission concerning the treatment in the rear and the old railroad right of way and that sort of thing. Honeycutt: Landscaping, we talked about trees and that before the grading was done. Bunch: Limiting the curb cuts and dressing up the existing property as part of this project. Honeycutt: It has already been worked out with the Highway Department and the city on the additional right of way. We have gotten some feedback from the Highway Department about the guardrail that is required up here where the creek is down here. The grading is right along this side where the creek channel is. Hoover: Since I was involved at both Subdivision and Commission for this project, I am going to make a motion to approve LSD 02-16.10 as stands from the last approval. Bunch: This will again have a one year sunset clause on it? Pate: That is correct. There is a one year expiration from this approval date. Warrick: That is actually an ordinance requirement now, it approved a one year time frame on expiration of permits. We have consistently making that recommendation on Large Scales and the Planning Commission recommended and the City Council approved an ordinance making it an ordinance requirement that these projects only have a one year time frame. Instead of a recommendation it is an ordinance at this point. We will still keep it as a condition so it is in everyone's mind that there is a deadline. Ostner: Since this is a minor modification we can approve it here? Warrick: It is not a minor modification, it is a reapproval of an expired Large Scale with no waivers requested. We felt that Subdivision Committee approval would be appropriate, it is consistent with what your bylaws allow. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 13 Ostner: If those were parking lot lights I was going to be concerned. Honeycutt: No, they are not parking lot lights, we are looking at a couple of parking lot lights to get out at the north edge of the parking. Those are primarily decorative lights that add to the fagade and I'm sure some of the signage may be eliminated so they may not want the light on them. Those lights will either be controlled manually or I don't know yet. There is not that much, there are several lights but it is for that flat area there in case maybe with or without signage it may fill it in. Ostner: That sounds fine. I will second for approval Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 14 PPL 02-13.10: Preliminary Plat (Stone Mountain, pp. 488/489) was submitted by Jorgensen and Assoc. on behalf of Bill Conner for property located South of Hyland Park and east of Crossover Rd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family and contains 82.74 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 114 lots proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is PPL 02-13.10 for Stone Mountain submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bill Conner for property located south of Hyland Park and Crossover Road. The property is zoned RSF-4 and contains 82.74 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 114 lots proposed. Suzanne, is this yours? Morgan: As stated, the applicant is requesting to create a residential subdivision of 114 lots on 82.74 acres. Two lots are to be used for detention and 8.19 acres is proposed for park land. The location of the proposed subdivision extends east off of Crossover Rd to the border of the City and Planning Area and is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family with 4 units per acre. Stone Mountain Phase I was heard at Technical Plat Review on May 15, 2002. It was tabled due to concerns regarding water pressure problems in the vicinity. The project was heard again at Technical Plat Review on September 30, 2003. All surrounding land is zoned RSF-4 and single- family use in nature. The applicant requests an amendment to the Master Street Plan for the minor arterial (90') bisecting the property. The request is to relocate this planned road with Stone Mountain Drive at a lesser dedication of 70', a collector road classification. The following streets are being proposed to 28' with 50' of right of way: Crestline Place, Pebblestone Drive, Flagstone Circle, Limestone Drive, Fossil Drive, Sandstone Place, and Stonebridge Road. Connectivity will be provided to the west on Crossover and to the south and east for future street connections. The existing canopy on the site is 33.94%, required canopy is 25%. Preserved canopy is proposed at 24.88% and mitigation required is $3,150 into the tree escrow account. The recommendation is to forward this to the full Planning Commission with the following conditions of approval: 1) The proposed parkland shall be given a lot number. 2) Payment into the Tree Escrow Account in the amount of $3,150. 3) All street names shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator. 4) Planning Commission determination waiver request for Stone Mountain Drive to be constructed at a 14% grade for approximately 1400 feet. The requirement allows a 10% grade with an allowance up to 15% for 300 feet. Staff is in support of this request due to the connectivity Stone Mountain Drive provides to the east on Crossover Road. 5) Planning Commission determination of the Master Street Plan Amendment proposals to relocate the planned minor arterial to the proposed location of Stone Mountain Drive and reduce the street from a minor arterial to a collector street. The two Master Street Plan Amendments shall be considered as separate items by City Council. Staff is in favor of the proposed amendment to relocate the street and to reduce the Minor Arterial Street to a Collector Street. 6) Parks conditions including The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 15 accepted a land dedication on January 15, 2002. PRAB accepted a banking credit of excess park land dedicated; The park land dedication for 112 single family lots is 2.68 acres. The owners have dedicated 8.19 acres, leaving a banking credit of 5.51 acres for the southeast park district. Please label the park land with a lot number; Parks Staff requests a review of the proposed concrete weir on Lot 114 for potential flow on Park Property prior to construction; A deed for the park land dedication must be received by the Parks and Recreation Division prior to issuance of the final plat; Parks and Recreation requests the developer erect park boundary signs. Signs are available at the Parks and Recreation offices located on Happy Hollow Road; POA should exclude the park land dedication from the covenants; Construction debris or dumping shall not be permitted on park property. Items seven through eleven are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Thank you Suzanne. Are there any additional staff comments? Tree and Landscaping? Carnagey: No comment. Bunch: Engineering? Casey: The applicant is requesting a waiver of our minimum street standards for maximum grade. Our standards are a maximum 10% grade with provisions for up to 15% for a maximum length of 300'. The applicant is requesting a 14% grade for 1400 feet. The reason staff is in favor of this is they are providing additional ways for connectivity and also this route over to Crossover is very narrow and there is not room to maneuver the proposed road way to be able to achieve a flatter grade by moving it or cutting through the larger tract of land. For those reasons, staff is in support of the waiver request. Bunch: Where is the 1400 feet of the higher grade? Casey: It is in here. Are the other streets within the subdivision any other place where grade is problematic? Casey: No Sir. Also, I need to add that last year this was tabled due to concerns with the water pressure. McGoodwin Williams and Yates was contracted by the city to do a water study, a model of the water lines in the city. That is almost complete. It should be complete by the end of the year. We went ahead and allowed this to come forward through the review process again knowing that that is almost complete. The applicant is aware that any pressure problems that might occur for this proposed subdivision or the adjacent residents would have to be addressed and taken care of with the water design. There may be additional measures that need to be taken, there has been talk of a potential tank or a pump station. There are several Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 16 options that have been discussed. We will work with the applicant with the water system design but there is no negative impact to the adjoining property owners and they will provide sufficient pressure to each lot of this subdivision. Bunch: Would that be included under standard condition number eight, those comments? Warrick: We will probably add that as a separate condition when this comes forward to the full Commission so that it is very clear. Bunch: Would the applicant introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Brackett: I'm Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates, I'm here representing the owners of this project.. Like Matt said, we have been working on this property since May, 2002. At that time we found out that there were water pressure concerns with the surrounding property. We have worked with the city to do a study and discussed several different options that we could have depending on what the study gives. As soon as the study is complete we will begin work with our design. We will do what is recommended. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment on this Preliminary Plat for Stone Mountain Subdivision. Is there anyone who would like to address us on this issue? If you would come up here to the lectern and introduce yourself and make your comments. ??: I get a letter saying they are going to do something next to my property and I don't know what it is that they are going to do and I don't know what it is going to look like. How do I get that information? Warrick: That information is available in the Planning Office. I think your letter probably states that plats and file information is on file in the City Planning Division. We would be more than happy to, and certainly the project engineer may help as well, to get you a copy of that information. You are more than welcome to come down and visit with us and see what it is that is being proposed. Wright: I'm James Wright, I'm with the Buckner Cemetery Association. The question I have is what the developer is going to do to prevent the cemetery from becoming a playground? Bunch: Sir, I think that has to do with the Benton Ridge project that is later on the agenda. This is Stone Mountain that is further to the north up where the ponds are on Hwy. 265 north of Wyman Road. Wright: I can't hear you guys. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 17 Bunch: Again, this is for the Stone Mountain Subdivision that is north of Wyman Road. Later we will be hearing Benton Ridge Residential Planned Zoning District which is south of Wyman Road but right now we're on Stone Mountain Subdivision which accesses Hwy. 265 in the general vicinity of the ponds at the base of the hill. We will wait a moment here while the neighbors look at the drawings to see if that brings up any questions or comments. Ostner: I have a question for staff while we're waiting. The connectivity was an issue and part of the reason that they needed a steep street, where are the connections or are they just future potential connections? Casey: On the southwest corner of the project is Stonebridge Road and sometime last year our Transportation Division improved that road. They did put curb, gutter and storm drainage on one side and widened the roadway all the way down to Wyman. Warrick: They are also providing a connection out to 265. I think the applicant went back and purchased additional property to do that is that correct, or did they have that piece? Brackett: It was part of this subdivision but not in the process. Warrick: They are connecting out to 265 and then south to the existing Stonebridge Road. Bunch: I know that this is shown as Phase I, is there a proposed Phase II and if so, where would it be located? Brackett: This owner owns property that is this piece right here and then he owns all the way down to Wyman. Bunch: You are talking about this chunk right here? Brackett: Yes Sir, that is the remainder of the property they own. Warrick: There are two stub outs from this project that are on the east edge of that future development area. Hoover: Didn't we have a Master Street Plan here? Warrick: It is overlayed on your vicinity map and also on the small maps that are in your packet. Hoover: Ok, so this isn't what you are doing? Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 18 Brackett: No Ma'am. Hoover: So this isn't there? Brackett: No Ma'am, it's a line on the map. Hoover: This is the Master Street Plan map? Brackett: Right, we are proposing to put it right here. Bunch: Here is Hwy. 265 and they are connecting to right here. Hoover: I don't understand that. The road goes like this, do you have any map that shows where the road goes to the Master Street Plan? Brackett: No Ma'am, this is it. Hoover: I find that really confusing. I can draw a line on here and when I draw a line here and then where are the stub outs going? Bunch: That will go into Phase II if it ever gets built. Hoover: This is stubbing out here and then where's that stub out, ok, then that one is up here. Bunch: Stonebridge. Hoover: Am I the only one that thinks that these maps are difficult to read when you don't have this information all overlayed on this? Pate: These maps are supplied by the Planning staff and we really don't have that information from the applicant. Hoover: If you can't do that on the vicinity map and then do another one to show this is the Master Street Plan since we are going to have to vote on it. Bunch: It gets kind of confusing. Hoover: I'm just trying to cut down on confusion. I understand but when it gets to the other members of the Commission they are going to be going through the same scenario I'm going through with the road is here. Warrick: Chris, if you can add a layer that shows what your plan is verses what the existing Master Street Plan is. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 19 Hoover: The less confusion the better for the long run. Brackett: Ok, no problem. Ostner: Since we are talking about that, the Master Street Plan has a connection up here and how do you all propose to amend that? Brackett: This will connect with our property and then it will come out here. This connection where it is shown is highly unlikely that it will ever be built due to the way that the land lays. It is not very well planned. Hoover: When we go to this Cliffs Blvd. on the Master Street Plan does it go all the way to Starr Drive? Brackett: No, we don't own that property. I assume it will. Bunch: I see where Sharon is coming from. This has a connection to it on the Master Street Plan and we need to take a look at replacing that connection. Brackett: It will still connect. Instead of coming out here it comes out here. It still connects. My point is not in my lifetime. Bunch: One of our responsibilities is if we make a recommendation on changing the Master Street Plan we need to show the connection on past your property. Brackett: That's what I'm saying, it can still do the same thing it's doing now. Just because it comes out here instead of here isn't that much of a difference. Hoover: When we get this to the full Planning Commission, will staff have a recommendation on how it will get over to Starr Drive? Warrick: Yes, in concept. It will be a line on a map. The intent is to still maintain the connection for that Master Street Plan street and we will propose a configuration. Bunch: It will definitely impact the property of other people. Now that people have had a chance to review the drawing, is there any public comment on this subdivision? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Also, this will be forwarded to the full Planning Commission so there will be additional opportunities for public comment. I will bring it back to the committee for questions, comments or motions. Hoover: Is there a trail around here or is there a connection to our Master Trail Plan in this area? Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 20 Warrick: It looks like there is a trail corridor that connects on the back side of the Hyland Park Subdivision and extends further to the east. That is north and east of this particular site. This is the project site and this is the trail connection. This is the Hyland Park subdivision. Ostner: That is off site? Warrick: Yes, that is off site. Bunch: On the subject of connectivity this begs the question since the applicant owns land that is on Cliffside Drive in the Hyland Park area and also on RockCliff Road and since the city has had a policy of connectivity, has staff recommend connectivity across lots 27 or 28 to Cliffside Drive or across lot 1 of Hyland Park Phase V? Our theme of connectivity for emergency vehicles and public service and protection, did staff investigate that with the developer since he owns all of that land? There is an existing road I think that comes from, the private drive comes from Cliffside to the barn. Brackett: Our original layout included this connection. In several meetings with the neighborhood association they were highly opposed to that connection so on their request we have removed it. Warrick: The Hyland Park subdivision is almost completely built out. When it was originally platted there was no contemplation of a street connection that location. We did initially work with the applicant to pursue a possible connection there. There were a lot of meetings with the neighborhood and it was determined that it was not in the best interest of the Hyland Park neighborhood to have that connection and this proposal does provide connectivity in two locations to the east and one location to the south. We felt that we were still achieving the city's directive of maintaining connectivity without making that connection to an existing developed subdivision. Bunch: Of course the question now becomes one of access to this complex where the existing building is that says existing to remain. Current access is from Cliffside Drive. Brackett: This will be removed and all the access will be through this development. Bunch: You are showing these roads are blocked off. What would be the access? One of our concerns is to maintain access and not create islands that are inaccessible, how would this property be accessed? Brackett: Those aren't blocked off. That is a utility crossing that is underground. They will access, we will work out the access to this building through one Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 21 of these two streets. This is the same. This is the owner of this so it won't be a problem. Warrick: Can you add a note to the plat that that existing private drive will be removed upon development? Bunch: This is not necessarily a departure from the city policy of connectivity but it is taking where we have a potential current connection, trading that for two future connections depending on a Phase II build out? Warrick: I don't believe it is a departure because that current connection is really a driveway. It is not a public street and if a public street were to be installed in that location it would change the nature of the traffic patterns and the existing established single family residential neighborhood and also it would change the impact to the adjoining lots. They have had a private drive into this lot in this larger tract for a number of years. In our determination changing the character of that was not really in the best interest. We could achieve connectivity to the east and the south and still have an affective street connection pattern. Brackett: That currently isn't access for anyone other than the owner of this property. Bunch: I was thinking of in the future as this whole area builds out and Fayetteville grows. Considering that this is hilly terrain and sometimes accessibility by fire and ambulance and police service that connectivity from that standpoint looks like it would be advantageous not only to this subdivision but to the Hyland Park area and would also give residents of Hyland Park an additional means. Instead of having to come out to Hwy. 265 and try to turn left during high traffic periods, they could come down here and come down Stonebridge Road and go to Hwy. 16 and pick up a signalized intersection. Brackett: This owner doesn't object to this entrance. Like I said, that was our initial plan. Warrick: If the Planning Commission wishes to pursue that then that is a condition that needs to be stated in the staff report and we would probably need to take this back to Plat Review and to a public hearing with the neighbors. Brackett: We would be opposed to delaying the project any further. The neighbors would definitely have to be notified because they have strong feelings concerning that. Hoover: You are saying right now there is an easement already established? Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 22 Warrick: The owner owns that lot. Brackett: The owner lives right here. He owns these two lots and he built a private drive. There is a gate right here, it is closed. Bunch: He also owns this lot here which would line up with this cul-de-sac and it would be difficult to build. Brackett: There is a really beautiful piece of property right there. Bunch: I wanted to bring that issue up so that there would not be a feeling that it was swept under the table or hidden from view or anything like that but it is a concern, it has been around and I just wanted to give it some sunlight. Hoover: Repeat again, what happened when you first started out having this connection? Brackett: Our initial concept plan had this connection and we had several meetings with the Property Owner's Association for Hyland Park and they felt that this would be a detriment to their subdivision. Not to mention the fact that they currently have some problems with their streets as they are right now and they were opposed to any additional traffic due to this development through substandard streets and possible problems with that. Ostner: Do you remember if anyone considered that this might cause less traffic? Brackett: We brought up the fact that this would provide them another access out and they didn't want it. Ostner: With development the way it is in this area I'm inclined to not let this connection go. I think this is a very important connection. It seems to me like on of the biggest problems with heavy traffic is people have no options. In a hill town that happens a lot but this is one instance where we can get a tremendous group of people options to avoid Hwy. 265. Brackett: If you look at how this was developed, and I know this was before a lot of these things came up, Hyland Park has one entrance, you have Lover's Lane that has one entrance. It is how they were platted. We are trying to work with the city. The developers, we did what the city asked us. We met with the neighbors several times to try to iron our any potential problems and that was a serious problem. We don't have a problem with it. We do have a problem if that means we have to go back and start the process over again. We would be opposed to that. Bunch: Basically, it would be the elimination of one lot just putting the street in through here. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 23 Brackett: That's what I'm saying, it is not the lot. It is not the lot configuration, we had it there initially. It is just the time issue now and the fact that I know if we add this road there will be a whole council room full of people speaking against this development. We are just trying to be good neighbors. Bunch: My intent on bringing that up was to give it the light of day for discussion since connectivity was mentioned as a strong thing in our packets for this. I wanted to explore why that particular element of connectivity had not been utilized. Let's move on and discuss other issues. I think we have discussed this one a considerable period of time. Just a question on your tree canopy table, it says that the site area does not include the park. Do the additional calculations also exclude the park area? Are you taking this out of the overall to get your percentage? Brackett: It is excluded. As far as the canopy preserved we are not including this canopy that is in the park. I don't know if it is clear in the ordinance but I know we do it all the time. Bunch: It was a little unclear. It looks like you have done a good job on the layout of preserving the trees and also configuring your lot layouts to where they are buildable without further removal of trees. Brackett: We spent several hours on the site with Kim Hesse at the time and made several revisions to save as much of the canopy and as many trees as we could. Bunch: This pond on lot 114, is that an existing wet pond? Is that the reason you have this as a wet detention pond so you can utilize this in your design? Brackett: Yes. Bunch: Then the dry pond on lot 51? Brackett: Yes. Bunch: I did notice lot 32 is marked. Brackett: That is a lot, I need to add that. Bunch: This street here shown for removal, is that sidewalk going through it? Brackett: It is mainly because that is a deep hole, we are going to have to fill it up so we can bring the road up to Hwy. 265. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 24 Bunch: This connection onto 265 I can foresee that as being extremely problematic at peak traffic times but by having the Stonebridge Road connection that allows traffic to go over to Starr Road and down to Hwy. 16. Hoover: I was curious from staff on the Master Street Plan this street was a minor arterial and now we're saying it can be a collector, what's the difference between the two? I forget. Morgan: A collector street is 70' right of way and a minor arterial is 90' so it is a difference of 20' of right of way. Hoover: The same amount of lanes? Warrick: A collector street has the potential for a three lane section with turning lanes. A minor arterial I believe has the potential for up to four lanes, maybe five in certain sections and of course the carrying capacity is increased in a minor arterial. I need to go back a little bit and compare this to the proposed Master Street Plan. We have some amendments coming forward with the Traffic and Transportation Study. It has not been adopted yet but in your information for Planning Commission we will compare and give some feedback on what is being proposed from that study. I am not sure that there are many amendments in this area but we did go through and remove some collector streets and minor arterial streets because it just didn't look realistic based on the differences between the currently adopted Master Street Plan and what's coming as a proposal. Matt, do you have anymore? Casey: I did check that and this has been removed from the proposed map, totally removed, not just reduced. Warrick: That is certainly something that we will get to you to help you with your decision. We will also provide some findings based on those proposed changes. Ostner: What's been removed? Casey: This street has been totally removed from the proposed Master Street Plan that is being worked on right now. Hoover: I have to ask, do we know why? Casey: Grade could be one reason. I have not been involved in that but that certainly could be a factor. As we have discussed, with the way that drops off it is not likely to be constructed. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 25 Bunch: Is this piece right here a part of lot 51? Brackett: Yes it is and the reason for that is we will probably be coming back with a Lot Line Adjustment with this house here. We haven't worked out the details but these people have lived back here for a while and they weren't quite aware of where the property was. This is to accommodate that if we can work this out with them. Bunch: There is a question about the survey and where the lot line is? Brackett: Yeah. There is no question that this is the boundary of the property. It just cuts right in front of their house where it was built. It was just back in the woods where they built the house so we are in negotiations with this owner to give them a buffer. Bunch: This pond down here, is that going to remain? Brackett: No. Bunch: That will be removed and be part of the drainage system? Brackett: Mainly that pond is just where that water comes off this bigger pond and goes down there and circles and flows out. Bunch: Is this little piece a part of Lot 6 and is it going to be an easement across that to make sure you have access to the manholes? Brackett: Yes. Bunch: This manhole will be accessed by the street so if we ever have to dig the pipe up. Lot 63, how does it come down and where is it's frontage? Brackett: Right there, see this dimension here. Bunch: That's at the setback line and then all the rest of these appear to be satisfying the lot widths? That was a question on this one so this little triangle right here is part of lot 63 and it will access from 63? Brackett: Yes. Bunch: Where is that overhead line, that large line in relation to this, is it to the south? Brackett: It must be because it doesn't cross this property. Bunch: Commissioners, are there any additional comments, questions or motions? Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 26 Hoover: Back to that same item. Ostner: The fact that that proposed Master Street Plan line on the map even makes me more inclined to require this connection because future connectivity. I am not familiar with that area if a future connection following that is not even proposed or planned. Bunch: It is proposed but it will just be replaced instead of coming across here like this, it will come across and it will either come out here or here and as Dawn stated, staff will review it. Brackett: It has been removed on the new Master Street Plan. Warrick: It hasn't been adopted. What we have on the books right now of course, is what you see on your maps on the vicinity map in your packets. Brackett: That is not a final decision that that is going to be removed. Ostner: It sounds likely. Hoover: They have made the suggestion. I don't know what to do. Warrick: A higher level street making that east west connection or not the city still has a policy of connectivity. When we see projects develop adjacent to this piece in the future we will look for connections regardless of whether or not they are collectors or minor arterial streets identified on the Master Street Plan. We will look at that at the local street level. Brackett: This most likely will go all the way to Wyman with our next phase so that is another connection. Bunch: This one would have the connectivity but Hyland Park would not be subject to the same connectivity. Warrick: I don't know that the city had a policy of connectivity when Hyland Park was developed. There are not stub outs provided from that subdivision to adjacent vacant properties which is what we would require today. Brackett: Lovers Lane and Hyland Park are not connected and there are no stub outs to our property from Hyland Park. I think that was the intent for it to be an enclosed subdivision. That is what all these people bought into and paid good money to be there now and they don't want connectivity. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 27 Ostner: The thing is on Mt. Sequoyah four or five months ago those homes have been there a hundred years, three times as long as Hyland Park and we required connectivity there. Warrick: That was on platted right of way and so there is a little bit of a difference. Hyland Park is a single family residential lot development. Brackett: When these people bought these lots they looked at the plats and there was on right of way connecting. Bunch: There is considerable question on Mt. Sequoyah also even with some Master Street Plan connections that the City Council has said that there will be no connection. I think that is where we stand right now across Mt. Sequoyah. I have no real strong feeling one way or the other about this. I just wanted to bring it up and to discuss the relative merits and hardships. I just wanted to make sure that it sees the light of day. Warrick: I would request if I might that if the Subdivision Committee wishes to forward this with a recommendation for an approval with a connection that that be specifically stated. Otherwise, the minutes of the Subdivision Committee meeting will go forward but the applicant needs direction and staff needs to understand what to expect so that we can notify additional people if they will be further affected by this project than what they were. I believe that the neighbors feel that this issue has been resolved. That is why we don't have the public comment here today that we had when we were initially starting this project and it hadn't even been publicized for a public hearing at that point. It was just neighbors understanding that there was something going on. Should the Subdivision Committee wish to see that connection and forward it as a recommendation to the Planning Commission that the connection be made we need to understand that now. Ostner: Would that recommendation require the whole cycle of Tech Plat Review and Subdivision Committee again and for them to be delayed? Warrick: I think that we would at least need to look at it at Subdivision again. I don't think that it necessarily has to go back to Tech Plat because the Technical Plat Review Committee has really actually seen it that way once. We can get those comments put back together. Bunch: Were there minutes of the meetings with the neighborhood association or meetings with the developer and the neighborhood? Warrick: Those are informal meetings and we don't have access to that. Brackett: I can tell you that there were a lot of people in that room that spoke up to that connection. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 28 Bunch: Are there any covenants in that subdivision that would preclude utilization of a lot for that purpose? Brackett: I don't know of any. I assume that if there were they would've been brought to our attention when it was first discussed. The intent of that subdivision was to limit the connection. That is why a lot of people bought and built there because of that. Hoover: I'm leaning more, since there is no stub out and with the way we are handling subdivisions now we always have stub outs so people know what they're buying into. I'm somewhat hesitant. I like the connectivity, I think it makes a lot of sense but if there is no stub out there or nothing platted it does seem like we are changing the character of the neighborhood. Brackett: This connection really wouldn't benefit this subdivision because it has the connections that it needs. It would really benefit this and they don't want it. Hoover: I would naturally want to connect but since it was done so long ago before we had our concept of connectivity. Bunch: I also lean that way. I just wanted to make sure that this had the opportunity to be discussed. If people in this neighborhood bought their property with that understanding that they would have limited access and there were no stub outs platted and if the current property owners do not wish to have the additional access that would obviously be beneficial to them and would not necessarily serve the new subdivision, it wouldn't make any difference or wouldn't make that much difference to Stone Mountain Subdivision. Personally I'm not going to pursue and insist on that connection. I just wanted to give it the opportunity to be discussed. I personally would favor forwarding this to the Planning Commission with the recommendation that it be like it is. We have discussed this and unless someone really wants to discuss it again there would be no need to go back into the subject again. They can read the minutes and see what discussions have been made so we don't have to have this same conversation over again at Planning Commission unless there is someone who feels extremely strongly about it. Hoover: Is that a motion? Bunch: No. MOTION: Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 29 Hoover: I will make a motion to forward PPL 02-13.10 to the full Planning Commission subject to all the comments as it is drawn. Ostner: I will go ahead and second it. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 30 R-PZD 03-06.00: Planned Zoning District (Benton Ridge, pp 527) was submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Long LLC for property located on the east side of Crossover Road, north of Huntsville Road and south of Wyman Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single -family -4 units per acre and contains approximately 8.34 acres. The request is rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District, with a total of 44 dwelling units on 23 lots (21 Two-family, 2 Single-family) Bunch: The next item on the agenda would've been the Planned Zoning District for the Brophy Condominiums, that item was tabled so we will move onto R-PZD 03-06.00 for Benton Ridge submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Long, LLC and contains approximately 8.34 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District. Jeremy? Pate: Yes Sir, thank you. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District on 8.34 acres currently zoned RSF-4. RSF-4 does allow a maximum density of four units per acre of single family dwelling units. The applicant requests a zoning and Preliminary Plat approval for a residential subdivision with 23 lots. 21 of these lots are proposed to be constructed with two family dwelling units for a total of 42 dwelling units. The two remaining lots on Crossover Road are proposed to be single family lots for a total two units. The total proposed dwelling units on the 8.34 acres is 44. Therefore, the total proposed dwelling units in density on this project is 5.3 dwelling units per acre. The subject project has been submitted to the Planning Division a number of times including two meetings of the Technical Plat Review before being tabled by the applicant due to staff concerns with tree canopy preservation and natural drainage ways on the site. The site does contain some significant groupings of trees, some of which are located along a natural drainage way. That is a requirement and is part of the consideration for a Planned Zoning District. I listed those sections of the ordinance for you. With this in mind, staff has worked with the applicant to preserve several groupings of trees and a portion of the natural drainage way that meanders through the center of the site, thereby protecting those trees that depend upon this water source. The two lots at the entrance of the development, that would be lots 21 and 22 I believe, are indicated for single family homes with the remainder proposed to be two family dwelling units. Lot 23, which is the far south lot, the southwest lot near Crossover is to contain a two family residential structure. However, the applicant has indicated that it will retain a single family appearance. A draft of restrictive covenants addressing building materials, size, landscaping and other items have been submitted and that is in your packets. The final draft is required to be filed with the Final Plat. This item must also be heard at the City Council pursuant to the requirements for a PZD. Surrounding zoning is all RSF-4. To the north are single family homes. Just south of Buckner Cemetery is Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 31 single family homes. To the east is single family residential use and to the west is Crossover Road and vacant. Water and sewer are available and intended to serve the development. There are no street improvements proposed at this time along State Hwy. 265. Crossover Road is a state highway and is classified as a principal arterial requiring 55' of right of way dedication by warranty deed. The existing tree canopy on the site is Isaac: What did you say? We can't hear what you are saying. Pate: The existing tree canopy is 29.72%, preserved canopy is proposed at 15.36%, required canopy on this site is 20%. Therefore, mitigation in the amount of $2,350 is required from the applicant. The tree preservation areas indicated on the plat are to be placed in a protective easement with ownership noted on that plat. There are a number of documents, letters from adjacent property owners. The Benton Ridge PZD proposed covenants are also in your packet. The neighborhood association of the Wyman Stonebridge Association has also submitted a letter. Staff at this time is recommending to forward this project to the full Planning Commission with conditions. Conditions to address and discuss today include: 1) Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezoning of the subject property to the unique district for R- PZD 03-06.00 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) A Final Plat is required to legalize the lot configuration, filed pursuant to Fayetteville city requirements. 4) A note needs to be added to the plat explaining the Tree Preservation/Green Space areas that are to be located within protective easements, and assigning ownership for these areas. 5) The detention pond shall be assigned a lot number in the subdivision. 6) Interior street names shall be approved by the City 9-1-1 Coordinator. 7) All setbacks, protective easements, and designated lot uses are binding with the approval of the R- PZD. Submitted covenants and building elevations are likewise binding to the project. Items 8 thorough 12 are standard conditions of approval. I would just like to mention payment of parks fees in the amount of $16,506 is required prior to building permit. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any additional staff comments? Craig? Camagey: No additional. Bunch: Matt? Casey: Nothing additional. Bunch: At this time we will turn it over to the applicant. If you would introduce yourselves and tell us about your project. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 32 Zimmerman: My name is Julie Zimmerman with Crafton, Tull & Associates, I'm the project engineer. Brittenum: I'm Jon Brittenum, I'm the owner's representative. Zimmerman: Basically, what we are proposing, like Jeremy said, is to have a PZD subdivision in which there will be 21 two family units and two single family units. We are proposing one entrance off of Crossover, which will make a cul-de-sac. It will be the only entrance into the project. We have mandated several of the setbacks throughout the project to preserve some natural tree rows along the outside. Mainly we've put a 15' setback on the east side of lots 10, 11, 12, and 13 to preserve a natural tree row on that side. We have also left a 15' to 20' buffer along Buckner Cemetery to preserve those existing trees. We have also kept on the south side of lot 22 and north side of lot 23 left a substantial area to preserve some natural pine trees that exist on these lots so there won't be a building there. Other steps we've taken, we have tried to preserve the natural drainage way that goes through the project. There will be some existing trees right here to the center that are going to remain and also an area on the south where the trees will remain and that existing ditch will continue to flow like it always has. There is also some setbacks along the north property that we are enlarging a bit to preserve those natural tree rows up there also. We have a detention pond on the southwest side of the property. I will be happy to answer any questions anyone might have. 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? If so, please come to the podium, introduce yourself, tell us where you live and share your comments and concerns with us. I live at 2665 E. Travis west of this. Mrs. Hardin also has property abutting this west of this. I am also speaking from the Stonebridge Wyman Neighborhood Association, although I'm not an officer of I know you folks have been sitting for a long time so I will give you the quick version. The proposal has been very much moderated since the sheet by jow incipient type of slum high density thing and for that I am grateful. My blood pressure is grateful. We do have some questions. How have you settled on the development finally as described in the meeting on October 25`h, I was told that you have gone from three to two single family dwelling units for which God be praised. I should wait for you to answer that. I shouldn't ask a question without waiting to be answered. Zimmerman: There are two single family units now instead of three. Isaac: This is not going to be such a proposal that there will be other changes in the event that it is approved by this body there won't be other changes? Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 33 Warrick: The process for this kind of project Ms. Isaac is that the Subdivision Committee reviews this. It is required to be heard by our Planning Commission which will be November ]0`h and because this is combining the development proposal with their request for land use, which is the zoning of the property, it will then go forward to the City Council. Each of those levels will review it and they can make modifications. We hope that it is in a situation that by the time it gets certainly to the City Council that everyone is comfortable that the neighbors have had their input and that any modifications that are necessary have been made by that point in time. Isaac: Thank you. Are you Ms. Hoover? Warrick: No, my name is Dawn Warrick. Isaac: Thank you for your clear and pointed remarks, we appreciate that. Alright, that was one of the questions of the association. We also want to know how close the roads and the buildings will come to their property. When we say a 20' easement we need that clarified. People want to make sure the road is not going to come right up to their property, people who's interest may be grandfathered in to some degree. That is something that I really need a numerical answer to take back to the association. Zimmerman: Your question was how close the building was? Isaac: You're right, I did ask two questions. Zimmerman: It varies for each property. For instance, adjacent to yours there will be... Ostner: You can come up and look. Isaac: It is ok, go ahead, it will be what? I need this. Zimmerman: On the lot that is adjacent to yours will have an 8' building setback. Isaac: So the buildings might be as close as 8' to my property line? Zimmerman: Yes. Isaac: Ok, I don't like that because it is close to mine as it is to Hardins. The building itself could be 8'? Zimmerman: Yes. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 34 Isaac: Will there be single family dwellings or duplexes abutting our properties? That is a big question because there are many different properties in the neighborhood association. We really need to take the plan back to the association. I think since we are new in this procedure I don't think we have had this visible to us before I came up here. I should've perhaps gone down to Planning shouldn't 1. Will there be intrusive street lights into our homes? That is a real concern especially for the people up there on Zion Road who just got turned down on that. Will these residences be one or two story? If the two family buildings if the zoning goes through will they be duplexes? Zimmerman: Yes. Isaac: They will not be town homes? This is a duplex, is that correct? Zimmerman: Yes. Isaac: The association members wanted a diagram of the plan for me to take back to them. I think you've already addressed the issue, you will be happy to know that I'm on H of a list of K. We wanted assurance that the tree and foliage on the property lines will not be removed and that their root systems won't be chomped up by the earth movers. If there is going to be a building within 8' that is going to be a real concern. Zimmerman: On the back of your property the building setback is only 8' because there aren't any significant trees back there. Isaac: That depends on your definition of significant. Zimmerman: We go by the City of Fayetteville's. Isaac: Yes, they don't live at our houses but we do. Zimmerman: This is your property. Down here south of you there is an existing tree row and the setbacks are 15' off the property line. Isaac: Alright, let's work with that perhaps later on alright? Is that a malleable situation? Can that be changed? Zimmerman: The setbacks? Isaac: Is it possible to make some change on that Ms. Zimmerman? Zimmerman: We can change it. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 35 Isaac: Alright, let's perhaps work on that. I've already asked whether or not Crafton, Tull alone can alter this if it is approved and Ms. Warrick answered that. The cemetery buffer, I think we have already addressed that. That cemetery needs to be treated with reverence and respect. That site needs to be treated with reverence and respect. This is K in a list of A through K. The neighborhood association has substantial objection to rezoning out of R-1. Whether or not I share that isn't the issue but they have significant objection to that being changed out of R-1. I do want to mention that I already knew there was a god but now I really, really know there's a god when the nine multiple dwelling units which were imprecisely defined were dropped, is that correct Ms. Zimmerman? Zimmerman: Can you say that again? Isaac: Never mind, it was probably academic. Zimmerman: There are no four plexes. Isaac: I wanted to reiterate that I'm not an officer of the neighborhood association but I'm one of the few retirees who have mornings off. I will turn everything over to you all. Bunch: Is there anyone else who would like to address us on this Planned Zoning District for Benton Ridge? Hardin: My name is Lou Hardin and I live right behind where they are going to do this. We are all concerned and everybody we have talked to is concerned about this right next to us, the decrease in our property values, etc. Bunch: After we take public comment we will have the applicant address some of these issues. Normally we wait until all public comment has been made to let the applicant address them one at a time. Ms. Zimmerman, if you would like to respond to some of these go ahead. Hardin: That's ok. Those were some of the main issues we had. Bunch: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address us on this? Ok, we will close to public comment and bring it back to the Committee and to the applicant. Hoover: Can I ask something? What is our maximum length of a cul-de-sac and maximum density? Warrick: The maximum length of a cul-de-sac is 500' but the Planning Commission does have the discretion to extend that. We did, as Ms. Isaac mentioned, there have been substantial changes to this plat in the past probably six Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 36 months that we have been working with the applicant with various configurations. The street configuration that you are looking at now was proposed as a means to allow preservation of significant tree areas, groupings of trees and drainage areas on the site. Staff is in support of the waiver to extend the cul-de-sac beyond 500' because this was a better solution to maintaining the physical features on the site that were desirable. Hoover: Shouldn't that be in the list of conditions, a waiver or something? Warrick: Yes, we will add that before it goes to the Planning Commission. Hoover: Just to satisfy my curiosity, what was proposed before that was destroyed? Pate: There was a looped street following sort of this configuration but it went through this grove of trees and this is a significant grove of pine trees that both the Landscape Administrator felt was significant enough to be salvaged. Warrick: We have been through a lot of reiterations on this particular site. The original proposal included some office use at the front along 265. From that we went to a development that was primarily duplex, it did have some four plexes included. At this point we are looking at a proposal that is primarily duplex with some single family homes. The street configuration, as Jeremy said, has changed significantly. This is just an example of the original street configuration that we were looking at and lot layout. The changes that you see are changes that the applicant and staff have worked to hopefully ensure that this Planned Zoning District is more in keeping with the intent of a Planned Zoning District and that it is preserving the natural features that are valuable on the site and working around those to allow more greenspace preservation, tree preservation, allowing the natural drainage ways to be utilized and not placed underground in pipes. Primarily those are the reasons that you see the changes in the configuration that you are looking at today. I'm not sure what the most recent information to the neighborhood association was. Jon, you might be able to help with what they have seen most recently and how we can get them additional information. Brittenum: We haven't, as far as I know, Julie, correct me if I'm wrong. We haven't submitted anything to them at this point. We were waiting to get through this and then the owner would like to hold a meeting with them and go over what we talk about here and decide. Warrick: I think that is very appropriate and would like for that to happen before this goes to the full Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 37 Ostner: I have a question. It is obvious you have worked on this a lot. What is the reason behind the density going from four units per acre to 5.3? Warrick: Of course the Planned Zoning District is a flexible tool that allows for changing density on a particular site. Like I said, we were originally looking at a mixed use project that was more of an impact than this particular one. When we are considering whether or not it is appropriate for an increase in density what staff looks to is our General Plan which does identify desirability in having a mix of different residential building types within a neighborhood and also for maximizing infrastructure but providing density to make it worthwhile for infrastructure to be installed. Those are some of the things that we thought about. We thought about how to integrate this type of project into an existing neighborhood and what impact it would have, preserving tree lines and buffers between those properties we felt were solutions that would help to mitigate the impact of a slight change in use. With this particular proposal we are looking at primarily duplexes with a couple of single family homes in an area that is largely developed with single family homes but is also fronting a major highway. Those are some of the things that we took into account when we considered that. The density increase that is being proposed here is less than two units per acre. The allowable density of four units per acre and we are here at 5.3 units per acre with the total proposal that you are looking at. It is only a slight increase in density. Isaac: May I beseat you to bend the rules and open it to the public for something small? Bunch: Normally we don't do that but go ahead. I also had a question I wanted to ask you. I assume you are aware, I just wanted to double check, that you have sewer access across the back of your property that has to be maintained so that the man holes can be serviced? Isaac: Yes, that is part of the 20' easement west to east isn't it? There is a 20' utility easement. Yes, we know. Bunch: And overhead electric as well as sewer through that easement. Isaac: Yes. I don't know what kind of access we have to allow but there is no permanent fence from north to south. Some of the properties don't have fences. May I bring it to your attention that this duplex is two story, not one. That is one of the issues that I suppose we will need to work out whether that is desirable to have a two story home 8' away if this is the sort of thing that will back up to our properties. If I might point out, this is not a single story building. Is there anything else I should address to the association? Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 38 Bunch: One of the questions I think will come up which we have in our packet is this, which appears to be greater than a duplex and the question I have is why is this in our packet if they are all duplexes and if that is a duplex how many bedrooms does it have? This is quite a large structure and it looks like one person could almost have multiple apartments on each side of the duplex and have seven or eight people living there. Isaac: Is that from the previous? Bunch: This is in the packet for this time. Isaac: That is something else we need to clarify. Bunch: We have three facades that we were given plus a couple of deals that appear to be single story and have floor plans. The question is why are we getting these and what do they represent? Brittenum: This is a duplex. There is a two car garage. I don't know how many bedrooms it is. There are several different options here of structures that we could place on certain lots depending on the size of the lots. That is a duplex. Bunch: How many square feet are we looking at on that? Brittenum: The covenants state that it is a minimum of 1,400 sq.ft. per side on the duplexes and 1,600 sq.ft. minimums on the two single families. Bunch: What is the maximum square feet and how many bedrooms in that? That looks like it could be a five bedroom. Brittenum: I could find out. Isaac: Also, height. We really need descriptions of a lollapalooza like that we need to know height. Brittenum: Just from the looks of this one I don't believe that it would fit on any of these lots that would back up to your property. Isaac: Cross your heart and hope to die? Warrick: I think that can be further nailed down and defined in the project before it is in the final stage. I would suggest that we end up with the variations of structures that would be located and maybe even if it is possible identify which ones will be located on which lots so that it is very clear what we are going to see. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 39 Hardin: Why do we have 20' on our property but they can get away with 8'? Warrick: You have an easement because there is a utility that is along the rear property line. In the zoning district that your property is located in you also have a required 20' setback. The difference in what we are looking at with this project is that it is flexible until it gets to City Council and they make a ruling that it is a final design. The Planned Zoning District is a mechanism for the developer to define some of those standards within their project and because the idea is for them to be able to preserve natural areas and to maintain tree canopy and to work around the physical features on the site, there is a trade off that they are allowed some flexibility in their setbacks. It is not a given. It is something that they propose and it has to be approved. That I believe is something that needs to be discussed with the neighborhood association and everyone needs to understand what the impact of those proposed setbacks would be and if there are issues we need to discuss them at the Planning Commission level and make sure that it is appropriate because compatibility is very important in these types of projects. Isaac: So I should bring up at the Planning Commission height and proximity? Warrick: I'm hoping that there will be a meeting with the developer and the neighborhood association before that so that some of these things can be ironed out before we get to the next public hearing, which is the 10`h. I would suggest that if we cannot get something scheduled with the neighborhood association before that time that we wait until the next Planning Commission meeting. Bunch: That's assuming that it goes forward. It might come back to this level and then have a repeat of this and then go to Planning Commission so there would be potentially a little more time for public comment. Hoover: Along the lines of the setbacks, it looks like they vary a lot within this development. I can't tell what's this one verses this one? Zimmerman: We have a 13' greenspace on the back and a 17' easement on the back so we took the ability to make flexible setbacks and just provided 5' on the front and for situations like that. Isaac: What did she just say? Bunch: There is a 17' drainage easement and a 13' greenspace to protect some of the trees. Because of that, the 30' setback more or less unbuildable place, they put a smaller setback on the front. These are on lots that border the north. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 40 Hoover: Typically in the residential zoning isn't the rear setback 25'? Warrick: 20'. Hoover: Some of these don't have 20'. I think 5', even though I'm for bringing the building up to the sidewalk, I think 5' is a little small and then this one is how far away? Zimmerman: That is a utility easement, it is 20'. Hoover: How do you get the drives in there if you've only got 5' in there? Bunch: That is the question I have for parking and the drives. If you do say which building designs are scheduled for which lots I think the building setbacks probably should be adjusted to accommodate a reasonable driveway unless you plan on having it right up to the front. While we are on the subject of setbacks, it looks like there are at least two places where you have zero side setbacks between lots 1 and 2, why are you showing a zero side setback there? 12 and 13 is called out but 1 and 2 is not called out but it is shown on the drawing. Zimmerman: I believe with the ordinance you can have zero lot lines if you provide 15' setback on the exterior side so that is what we have done for lots one and two and the lot in the corner down there. Bunch: Can you tell us why you did it on one and two? Zimmerman: That is just what the developer asked for. Hoover: I think what's becoming apparent to me, if you want to vary the setbacks, and I can understand trying to avoid some of the environmental issues, you are going to have to place the footprint on here don't you think and the drive so that we can understand. Maybe it is a really good reason here and this works well but we can't see it from just this. Bunch: This drawing that I have in my packet here explains a lot because the other drawings are extremely unclear and there is lack of continuity in the description of the greenspace and which property is which piece of property. I guess after we talk about the setbacks I would like to get into that. This helps tremendously having this available to get a better idea. Warrick: I have a question on the zero lot line configurations, 12 and 13 and one and two, would those be a duplex on each lot with a zero lot line between or would they be a duplex that spans that could be owner occupied and sold and condominiumized? Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 41 Bunch: It almost looks like to me that that would be a zero lot line building. It looks like two duplexes that come together which is basically a four plex. That is what it looks like. With zero lot lines it would accommodate a four plex here and a four plex here. Brittenum: This would be the one that would go on those and that would be a duplex on each lot. Bunch: By having the zero lot lines you wind up basically with the four plex if you put them right up to each other. Brittenum: I could be wrong. Bunch: It is a zero lot line and the duplexes are all built to the zero lot line then you actually have a four plex more or less. For all intent and purposes it becomes a four plex. Warrick: We need more information on that. Bunch: That needs to be nailed down exactly what is there. I could see where on 12 and 13 because of the lack of frontage on 13 that it does not come anywhere close. I know that this is a PZD and it can accommodate things like a lesser frontage but the frontage on 13 is very small and I would like to see it shown on the drawing exactly what it is just to see if there is room for the driveways. Hoover: I think that they are going to have to put most of the footprints and drives on here. If they are going to present it like this. Otherwise, my answer is going to be no. I don't have enough information. Bunch: The frontage on lots 12 and 13 could be problematic. Also, lot number 23 while we are talking about access and frontage, am I correct in saying that access to lot 23 is across this greenspace? It will be on common property. The question becomes who is to maintain it. Is it the property owners association maintenance of those people's driveway and also, since it comes across this piece of property here to access the maintenance of the detention pond, that becomes very problematic and it leaves a fairly small access across there. We need to know what those numbers are. I believe it kind of zig zags as it comes across. It comes across, down and over. Zimmerman: It is dodging some trees that are right there. Bunch: Also, there is no sewer shown to lot 23 but there is sewer shown to this greenspace up here. Zimmerman: There should be. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 42 Bunch: On the site plan you have sewer coming to right here which is on a greenspace. Zimmerman: That is actually part of lot 23. Bunch: That is unclear on this. This shows 23 coming over here. Zimmerman: I need to check on that then. Bunch: That needs to be clarified, just what is lot 23? Zimmerman: This may be incorrect because this drawing shows lot 23 going all the way up here. Bunch: This area here, this greenspace, it is rather undetermined from your drawings whether that is part of lots 16 and 17 and 19 and 20. Zimmerman: That is the lot line right there. It will have 20' easement for lot 16 and 20' for lot 20. Bunch: Then is there a legal description that would say that the lot owner of 16 and 17 can do nothing with that? Carnagey: It has been requested. That is one of the conditions of approval. Ostner: Is 23 a buildable lot? That is really steep. Bunch: The question is what is 23? Ostner: Even if it is the lower or the combination, that might be a 30' fall. I saw greenspace and I didn't even think that was a buildable lot. Bunch: From your site plan and your Preliminary Plat, between the two of them it is very difficult to determine just which property is common property that will be the Property Owner's Association and what is not. What is listed as greenspace is also shown not as property owner's association but as being owned by individual. To me it would be better to go ahead, if this is a tree preservation area to dedicate that as a tree preservation area rather than to burden these people with having taxes on it. If you put a deeded area like for that and this in it it lends itself to better tree preservation rather than have it on each individual lot. Pate: I do believe that is the intent of that condition that all of these tree preservation areas will be in a protective easement and that is recordable with the Final Plat. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 43 Bunch: Part of the problem here is that we are showing some of it as greenspace and some of it as tree preservation and we need to be definitive of what is what. Warrick: That was staff's recommendation. Bunch: It is extremely unclear. A question for Matt. Any comments about the post development flows from the southeast comer? It looks like we are showing a split drainage system that one part of the lot drains over to the detention pond and another part flows through this and over here so we are into a ravine. I don't know how that impacts the property owners to the south. Without a detention means, unless this is being used as a detention pond, it looks like there would be accelerated flows from this side through the channelized corridors down this ravine. Of course it discharges on their own property but then eventually comes down here. That seems to be a major concern that needs to be addressed. Casey: It has been. The piping that you see on the east side that goes through and under the streets, opens up and comes back through is just carrying the existing flow through this channel. All the runoff from the proposed street will be routed through the detention pond and their report shows that the post development flows to the southeast do not exceed the predevelopment flows. Bunch: This detention here is just to deal with existing? Casey: That's correct. Bunch: All the rain coming off driveways and streets and stuff like that is going to loop around and come around the cul-de-sac? Casey: That's correct. Bunch: Those are pretty flat angles. I bet that was fun to engineer. Zimmerman: That was tricky. Bunch: Real tricky. Speaking of that, what about the retaining wall in the southeast corner, it looks like it starts at 1', goes to 2', then to 9' and then drops back to 5' and then to 7' and back up to 1'. That is a retaining wall from here all the way around to here? Zimmerman: Yes. It is basically that cul-de-sac. We put the retaining wall along there to help preserve those trees along the cemetery. It will be pretty steep at Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 44 the 9' and the 7' peaks until it goes back to where it matches the existing ground. Bunch: Where is the end of the retaining wall, the west end? Zimmerman: Right next to the cemetery on that cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac will match existing ground at that sidewalk. Bunch: On both sides of the fence, you are showing the sidewalk coming right up to the property line so my concern is. Zimmerman: There is a group of trees, there will be some that we will be affecting right by that cul-de-sac. Bunch: The question becomes the excavation and construction techniques to put that retaining wall in for the streets and sidewalks and that sort of thing, it is going to damage trees in that area. Casey: I might add that all grading and retaining wall construction needs to be set back a minimum of 5' from the property line unless you submit written permission from the adjacent property owner, that would be the cemetery in this case. Bunch: This is apparently within 5'. If that is a 5' building setback then that is definitely within 5' of the property line. Are all these sewer lines that are shown, a 6", 8" and then this 6", are they all existing? Zimmerman: Yes. Bunch: Changing the subject on you a little bit here, are you talking about a 4' trickle channel? Zimmerman: Yes. Bunch: One of the things that is unclear on the drawing is on the drawing number four, the grading plan, the legend that is used for the filter fabric barrier and the legend that is used for floodplain are the same legend. Unless somebody really knows how to read the drawings they are not going to be able to tell the difference of which is which. Zimmerman: We will fix that. Bunch: If you could change that. Is there any sort of outfall structure there? Is it just going to dump into the existing ditch are you going to put any riprap or has there been anything to modify that? Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 45 Zimmerman: We propose just to dump into the existing but if we need to put riprap we will do that. Bunch: It is your proposal. Casey: We will check the velocities of that storm sewer design when that final design is complete and make recommendations at that time. Our drainage criteria manual does address the type of slope protection at the outfall pipes and it can be sod or riprap or concrete based on the discharge flow and velocities. Bunch: You are showing a fire hydrant here and one here. Where are the existing fire hydrants out here? This area right in here, is that more than 300' from this fire hydrant? Zimmerman: I will verify that. Bunch: It looks like there needs to be fire protection up in this area somewhere. I couldn't tell by this. That looks like the fire protection symbol. Zimmerman: That is an existing fire hydrant. Bunch: However, that is not the symbol that you are calling out on your drawing. That is consistent with your using the symbols for existing and proposed. Like this for an existing fire hydrant rather than a whited out one of these. I couldn't tell from the drawing where the nearest fire hydrant was to service this area. Hoover: I do have a question on density on a cul-de-sac, do we have a maximum number of bedrooms? Warrick: No. Bunch: I thought we had something. Warrick: Maximum number of bedrooms on a cul-de-sac? Bunch: Residences or bedrooms, there is a number for that because it came up in discussion on the 100 block of Olive. It is somewhere in the Unified Development Code, a limit of either 40 bedrooms or residences on a cul- de-sac. Ostner: Beyond that we would have to require connectivity and under that we wouldn't have to. Bunch: That was a part of the consideration on the connectivity. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 46 Warrick: I know that there was a lot of discussion about a lot of things and I would have to look that up to see. Pate: The maximum density served by cul-de-sacs shall be 40 units. Warrick: It doesn't say bedrooms? Pate: That is in the PZD ordinance. Ostner: They are under 40 units? Hoover: No, they are 44, 21 two family and two single family. Pate: That is actually within a private street and this will be a public street. Warrick: Is the concern for emergency services or is there some specific need for us to further address? Bunch: I guess it is compliance with the ordinance. Warrick: That is for a private street, this is a public street. Hoover: Ok, for a private drive. Pate: 40 units may be served by a cul-de-sac, 80 units if it is a looped street. Ostner: Density is my concern too because this is currently single family four units per acre and you all are proposing a mixture of multi -family 5.3 units per acre. Combined with the steep terrain. I don't know what the grades are, your luck has run out because this happens to be the hillside taskforce. Not that that matters, we are not going to hold that on you but it is an issue people are looking at. I think with this density on street parking is going to be crucial. I think people are going to line these streets with the density being this high. Combined with the steep streets I'm not convinced 5.3 units per acre is going to work. I don't have a problem with duplexes. I just think that there are too many people living on this cul-de-sac as it is drawn. Bunch: Speaking of steep streets, Matt, could you jump in or the applicant either one, and tell us what the maximum grades are on this street? Zimmerman: The entrance off of Crossover comes up at 5% and the rest is just 1% and then a negative I%. The street itself is not steep. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 47 Bunch: One of the concerns in line with what Alan is talking about, is the reduced setbacks on the front of the pieces of property and not necessarily matching up with the prototypes that you have offered for the various buildings that may be placed on these lots. There doesn't seem to be a coordination. There is no room for if the buildings are placed up next to the road with a 5' setback there is no room for stacking, no parking. Zimmerman: We can show the footprints and the driveways on that drawing. Bunch: Particularly on the 12 and 13 and one and two with zero lot lines and the potential for this type of structure, which I think that appears to be rather problematic. Hoover: How much beyond the 500' do we have? How long is the cul-de-sac? Zimmerman: It is about 1,000'. Hoover: Why do we have the 500' rule? Casey: It was for connectivity and not getting too many vehicles per day when we only have one outlet. Bunch: When we look to the one we had before, Hyland Park just has one. Regardless of how the street circulate within that it is a glorified cul-de- sac. Casey: We are talking 44 units here as opposed to a large subdivision so there is a difference. They are providing a 28' back to back street, instead of a 24', which we normally see on cul-de-sacs. Warrick: That is to allow for on street parking. Casey: It will be a waiver request nonetheless. Bunch: It is a very interesting project and it looks like you have come a long ways but it is still considerably problematic. Unless we have a whole lot more that we are going to bring up I would entertain a motion to table this to allow the applicant to incorporate some of the things that have been stated here and bring it back and see what it looks like at a later date. I think there has been too much gone over here to have it ready for the next Planning Commission meeting. I think it would be wise just to go ahead and table it at this level to give you an opportunity to address some of the issues that have been raised and then bring it back. MOTION: Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 48 Ostner: I will make a motion that we table R-PZD 03-6.00. Hoover: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. If there is anything you want to ask us at this time to give you direction on anything of us or staff. What we're trying to do is give you some information that you have to work with. I suggest that you have a meeting with the neighborhood to show them the project that has been made and to clarify to show what steps have been made to address some of their issues. Brittenum: Aside from the engineering questions, the position of the structures on the lots showing the driveways is something you all are really needing? Hoover: How off street parking is really going to work. Brittenum: The street design allows for off street parking and we have garages and driveways on the majority of them. Some of them may not because they are sitting so close to the road. Hoover: That's what I would like to see because I really wonder if you can fit all of these units in here on some of these given your building setbacks. Some of the building setbacks. Some of the building setbacks I don't understand why you have less than 20' for the rear setback. That is typically what is in a residential zoning so some of those you ought to look at. Bunch: One of the things that we have to be cognizant of is that parking can go in setbacks and we have seen an example of that on Olive Street in the 200 block of Olive where an awful lot of stuff was crammed onto one lot and then the parking was put into the setbacks which kind of defeats the purpose of it. I think that since this is a PZD and we have a little more openness and more control, that we need to take a close look at it. Hoover: I think that's a good point of why we want to see where the drive is and where that off street parking is. Bunch: That one kind of went in off Olive Street and once it got built everybody kind of looked up and said oh my gosh, where did this massive amount of concrete come from. I think it would behoove us to take a close look, since it is a PZD to nail these things down. Brittenum: You are saying that the ordinance does allow parking in setbacks? Warrick: We don't have restrictions for a residential lot as far as the amount of pavement that can be provided or parking locations. If you have an area that provides for more than five parking spaces together, that is considered Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 49 a parking lot and there are restrictions on that and it has to meet the parking lot standards for setbacks and landscaping. When we are talking about a residential driveway there is not a restriction. Ostner: Are two driveways side by side with a 2' strip of grass considered one parking area? Warrick: That wouldn't meet our distance requirements for the distance between curb cuts. Ostner: With these designs that generally happens is two driveways with a little swap of grass. Bunch: Since this is a PZD I think it would be better to go ahead and nail these things down now rather than to leave them to chance to misinterpretation since this has to go forward to the Planning Commission and to the City Council and will give an opportunity also to show the neighborhood association, the neighbors, and to show us what is envisioned. What it is showing as greenspace could become not greenspace, particularly when we are talking about lot lines and who's property is the greenspace. A lot of this is shown as being part of a lot but it is also designated as greenspace and may or may not be tree preservation and in residential it could be cleared, trees could be cleared and greenspace could be cleared and driveways put in or parking places be put in. Zimmerman: That particular entrance will be a conservation easement and so will these so that they can't do that. Bunch: Right. The question would become like this one and this one and this one over here. Spell it out so what we envision as being greenspace or open space and setbacks doesn't actually become somebody's parking spot with a big slab of concrete there. Hoover: On density I believe you ought to be looking at a little less density. Even though that is for a private drive, in our past discussions, we've used that 40 units as what we considered the maximum on a cul-de-sac. I don't know how other commissioners will feel about that. Bunch: We haven't used it for that long if it was in the PZD ordinance. Hoover: We had it in the discussion on Olive Street for sure. It has been coming up in discussions. Ostner: Staff is doing so good on connectivity that I don't think it has come up much at all as I recall. Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 50 Brittenum: Dawn pointed out earlier, our original design when we first came and I spoke with Sara Edwards about it and showed her what we were going to propose and talked with her and that was the best plan. Then we started sitting down with the trees and the natural drainage. Staff supports the density that we have. Is two units going to make that big of a difference? Hoover: I think we have to consider each situation as different is how we look at it. You've got some environmental conditions that make your piece of property really significant. It is not a flat piece of property with no trees on it which then you could do whatever you need to do. I think that if it is considered but on the other hand, I keep going back to that last discussion because it was a similar kind of situation as far as being hilly and trees and that kind of thing. Bunch: You are talking about the one on Center and Olive? Hoover: Yes. Bunch: Where the Commission voted to have access on Center Street because of that many units at the end of a cul-de-sac. Lots one and two, these are pretty problematic even with a zero lot line because this is a single family here and this is a single family. Ostner: I think if maybe two or three of these duplexes became single-family it might lower it for me. That's just an idea. I haven't hammered out the numbers. If I had my rathers it would be the ones backing up to these neighbors here but you all have to develop it. Bunch: What they have done is made the entranceway single family so it gives a different appearance. Hoover: I appreciate this buffer up here. Bunch: These are some nice floorplans for duplexes. Brittenum: It is not going to be, I don't know how you define duplexes but as far as the quality and the appearance of them we tried to pick things out that would be nicer. The covenants allows for a landscaping P.O.A. it has the restrictions of the materials and so forth that have all been submitted so we've tried to go into this. I think we can all agree that the surrounding neighbors will be happy. Bunch: Am I correct in assuming that this is different from this and different from this? These are three different prototypes and this one looks like it could be potentially two story and this one seems preferable on the zero lot line Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 51 something of this nature as opposed to something like this because that could be a minor hotel just about. Brittenum: Let's say this one is not in your packet. Bunch: Let's do that. Hoover: The other issue are the garages. This one shows no garage. Is the garage on the back? Brittenum: That one maybe... Bunch: That is why we want to show which prototypes go on which lots and have the footprints and the driveways. It is real nice to have all these pretty pictures but if they don't work what are they telling us. Ostner: If you could hammer all of that out that's what we are looking for. Bunch: This gets into your concept of massing. Ostner: That is mass. Brittenum: For this particular unit, say we go to lot one and two with that one. Bunch: It stilt gets into parking and cars. Brittenum: What if that is a three bedroom? Bunch: That is six and six so twelve. Ostner: Garages, this is neither here nor there, we all know they get filled and people can't use them. Bunch: That just about looks like it could be a sorority house or a fraternity house. There is a question in this town with having dense. We have been in that situation quite a bit with people utilizing single family residential neighborhoods as extensions of college and I have no problem with students living in a neighborhood but when you start really stacking them in then that becomes problematic. We have recently approved a large number of apartment complexes and they seem to limit some of the transient residences where the investment and sanctity so to speak of the peach and quiet of a single family neighborhood is preserved. That is one of the things that make Fayetteville attractive and why all these people are coming in and we want to preserve that. Having something of that nature shoe horned into a quiet residential area, that's potential to have too much Subdivision Committee October 30, 2003 Page 52 to upset the density of the neighborhood. Do you all have any more questions of us? Do you need anymore direction? Warrick: Deadline for revisions are due next Wednesday, the next meeting is two weeks from today. If you will get with Jeremy then we can coordinate with getting your materials back in and how we can get you scheduled. Bunch: Ladies, we would like to thank you all for coming in and being patient for us. If there is nothing else, we are adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED 10:55 a.m.