Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-26 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on November 26, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSP 03-61.00: Lot Split (Lierly, pp 202) Approved Page 10 LSP 03-60.00: Lot Split (North St. Mini -Mart, pp 405) Approved Page 12 LSP 03-59.00 & LSP 03-62.00: Lot Split Forwarded (Calloway, pp 571) Page 21 LSD 03-42.00: Large Scale Development Forwarded (Calloway, pp 571) Page 21 FPL 03-11.00: Final Plat (Bridgewater Estates, pp 219) Approved Page 18 FPL 03-13.00: Final Plat (Estates at Salem Hills, pp 205) Approved Page 27 PPL 03-18.00 Preliminary Plat (Salem Meadows, pp. 245) Forwarded Page 3 R-PZD 03-07.00: Planned Zoning District Forwarded (Brophy Condominiums, pp 290, 291) Page 29 R-PZD 03-06.00: Planned Zoning District Forwarded (Benton Ridge, pp 527) Page 51 Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 2 Don Bunch Alan Ostner Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Rebecca Ohman Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Craig Camagey MEMBERS PRESENT ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 3 PPL 03-18.00 Preliminary Plat (Salem Meadows, pp. 245) was submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Palmco Properties for property located north of Salem Village and west of Holcomb Elementary on Salem Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre. The property contains 39.95 acres with 106 lots proposed. Bunch: Good morning, welcome to the Wednesday, November 26`h meeting of the Subdivision Committee of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. This morning we have nine items on the agenda. We will make some minor changes in the agenda. Item number six, Final Plat for Salem Hills, excuse me, item number seven, Salem Meadows, will be moved to number one on the agenda. Item number five, the Final Plat for Bridgewater Estates will be heard prior to what is listed as item three, a Lot Split for Calloway. That being said, we will move into our regular order of business. The first item is a Lot Split for Lierly, LSP 03-61.00. If the applicant is present if you would please come up and have a seat. Warrick: Were we going to do Salem Meadows? Bunch: I'm sorry, item number one will be Salem Meadows. Gabbard: Good morning. Before we get started I would like to thank staff for helping me in this situation. I've got a funeral that we're trying to get to and I appreciate you all accommodating us there. Bunch: This is PPL 03-18.00 for Salem Meadows submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering on behalf of Palmco Properties for a residential subdivision containing 39.95 acres with 106 lots proposed. Jeremy, would you give us the staff report please? Pate: Yes Sir. As you mentioned, the applicant is requesting a residential subdivision on approximately 39.95 acres. 102 of the lots are for single family lots and there is also one 1.84 acre lot proposed for park land and one lot delineated as wetlands area to be used for drainage and detention purposes. There is also an out lot, the 4.37 acres, to be used for future development. Salem Meadows is surrounded by Salem Road to the east and the future extension of Rupple Road to the west. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family four units per acre. As you may be aware, a Preliminary Plat for Salem Meadows was approved by the Planning Commission last February. After construction of the infrastructure the applicant submitted a Final Plat on September 8`h. This plat reflected changes to that Preliminary Plat with the addition of several single family lots and a cul-de-sac length greater than that allowed by ordinance. Therefore, due to these changes this project has been resubmitted as a Preliminary Plat and that is the purpose of going through this process. The applicant has requested a waiver for the variance of a Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 4 cul-de-sac length. It was approved on the original Preliminary Plat to be 500' in length but was constructed at 710'. That is the one to the west side I believe. Staff is recommending that this project be forwarded to the full Planning Commission as a Preliminary Plat with conditions. Several of these conditions have to do with plat changes. There are some assessments. Payment into the City of Fayetteville tree escrow account in the amount of $13,950. Parks fees in the amount of $14,060 and the dedication of the 1.84 acres will be required prior to the Final Plat for this project. Planning Commission must also make a determination of off site street improvements for Rupple Road. Staffs recommendation is that Rupple Road not be constructed along the west property line of this project but that the developer pay for Yz of the 28' wide street in the amount of $144,566.40. Also, Planning Commission determination of an offsite assessment of Rupple Road Bridge and staff is recommending an assessment of $11,919. Those are based on projected traffic volumes for this development. An additional condition that the Planning Commission does need to make a determination on is the variance for the cul-de-sac length as I mentioned earlier. That's all I have. Bunch: Parks? Ohman: No Sir. Bunch: Tree and Landscaping? Camagey: Just that the tree preservation area be more clearly indicated on the plat. As of right now it is not as clear as it should be. Bunch: Engineering? Matt, just a question. Since this in the general vicinity of some of the other projects that we've seen recently is there any sort of assessment for the water line on Salem Road? Casey: The water line assessment was for a certain area south of here. This was outside of the boundary that was established for that assessment. Bunch: At this time we will turn it over to the applicant. If you would Leonard introduce yourself and tell us about the project please. Gabbard: As it has been indicated, the plat came before you all last spring. At that time we had an issue with the wetlands and we did not show the detention pond down in the wetland areas. Our client obtained EGIS Environmental Firm to get permission with the Corp. of Engineers to put the detention pond down in the wetland area and when we did that that opened up that area and it was an oversight on my part whenever we moved that down there I lengthened the cul-de-sac and the plans were subsequently approved and it was built so here I am. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 5 Bunch: I wondered. It kind of looked more like it needed a Final Plat than a Preliminary Plat. Gabbard: Yes Sir, I understand. Bunch: That doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem. At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this Preliminary Plat for Salem Meadows? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for comments, questions or motions. Hoover: Tell me again what is the difference between this and the first time it came through. Gabbard: The major difference is the cul-de-sac. We do have some, there is also the connectivity to the out lot was added. That is a difference there that was not in the original plat. Hoover: Ok. Ostner: Is this wetland area pretty much a detaining pond? Gabbard: Yes. The interior of the pond, the Corp. of Engineers had us leave that as is as a matter of fact we had to enhance that wetland habitat. There were quite a few things that we had to put in there to satisfy the Corp. of Engineers to be able to do that. Bunch: Just a minute to let us review the packet here. Ostner: What are your plans for this out lot? Gabbard: More development. That is all wetlands as well. There has been an individual permit that is almost approved now that EGIS has been working on. That will come back before you all as a development by itself. Ostner: This is north right? Gabbard: That is correct. Ostner: Is this fairly developed down here? Gabbard: That is Salem Village. Ostner: That is where all the construction is going on? Gabbard: Yes, the townhouses are all in there now. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 6 Camagey: Commissioner Bunch, if I may. Just to be clear, when this out lot does come back through the process it will have to meet our tree preservation ordinance requirements as well. That is completely a separate tree preservation situation. Bunch: Thanks. Do I hear any additional comments or motions? Hoover: I still don't know where that cul-de-sac is. This is the same amount of lots that you had originally? Gabbard: I think we have gained some additional lots because of being able to move the detention pond. When we had the construction plans approved we all overlooked the fact that the cul-de-sac had become longer, everybody did. At that time we should've come back immediately for a variance on that but given that oversight that is why we are here today. Warrick: This is the approved layout from February. Hoover: Ok. Bunch: He moved this entryway per Alan's request to line up. Gabbard: This north connectivity was moved into this intersection is what you see on today's submittal and then we were asked by Ms. Warrick to provide connectivity here as well. Pate: I might add that there was pedestrian connection requested as well from the cul-de-sac to be able to access the street to get to the park so one wouldn't have to walk all the way around the cul-de-sac and then back. The Parks Department requested that. Hoover: I just ask this because I forget every time. The maximum distance of a cul-de-sac is 500' and what was that based on? Do you know the reasoning behind the 500'? Warrick: I probably don't know the exact reasoning. The distance, as it gets greater it becomes harder to serve. It becomes redundant for service vehicles to have to travel it to pick up trash or do deliveries or other types of access. It is just more efficient to have connecting streets for the purpose of providing efficient service I think is probably the most important thing and also when you end up with very long cul-de-sacs it could be problematic for people who are trying to way find around town and they get stuck at the end of cul-de-sacs, it becomes frustrating. We, of course, obviously prefer connectivity and it is more efficient to have connectivity and that is Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 7 why it is effective to have that limitation on the distance of cul-de-sacs because it does deter them. Hoover: Does the Fire Department have a maximum length they can go? Warrick: I don't believe the fire code has a length. They are more concerned with what happens when they get down there and having adequate turn around in the cul-de-sac itself. Hoover: Let me ask. Did you consider making a road from Bluegrass Place to Bermuda Avenue to cut through here that would then make your cul-de- sac the right length? Gabbard: If I would've known at the time I designed it or if it would've been flagged I guess we would've done that. Even in our own city review we didn't catch it then and at that point when the construction plans were approved we went forward and so that's just how it happened. Ostner: How much of this is built? Gabbard: It is all built. You guys have me here. Hillis: We did have a set of approved construction plans that we went by and the cul-de-sac was as you see it right now so we went on. Bunch: To try to put a road in now it would create an offset. Hoover: You'd have to go through right here, take out a lot. Gabbard: I think that with the sidewalk connectivity and pedestrian access across will probably make it easier for the people that live in the cul-de-sac to get access to the park land and I think that's what staff and us have concurred would probably be the best scenario to do and we would sure hope that you all would consider that. Casey: Just a little bit of clarification. The construction plans were reviewed as submitted with the changes with instructions for the applicant to get with the Planning staff to work out the approval process for the additional lots. One more thing, the cul-de-sac is not the typical 24' cul-de-sac that we normally see. It is a 28' with sidewalks on both sides. That added width may help with the additional length problems. Hoover: I don't know that we have granted this variance before but I don't remember our reasoning behind it. Usually it is environmental conditions, difficult conditions I thought. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 8 Ostner: Here is my issue. The cul-de-sac was approved to stop about there on the old plan and now we're being asked to move it up here. This road is not built. I would sure rather it connect to Rupple where it is since none of this was going to be developed by the old plan anyway. This is all a bonus. Gabbard: Could we dedicate the right of way for that to connect? Warrick: The connection would really need to be constructed for that jog to the west. Ostner: That would satisfy me. Warrick: It really couldn't go further towards the wetland area. There is no way to provide anything there but that is a really good option to take that out to the west. Gabbard: We would accept that compromise. Hoover: That would be lot 35? Warrick: Some of the lot lines may shift just a little. We can have that revised on the plans that go forward to the full Planning Commission so that you can see the way that it will actually look. I know that in the field that they are still connecting. They are providing that connection to the out lot so there is a little bit of construction still happening on this project so this stub out could be included in that process. That eliminates the need for the waiver. Gabbard: Thank you. Hoover: When we don't have any waivers on Preliminary Plats do they still need to go to the full Planning Commission? Warrick: Preliminary Plats are required to go to the full Planning Commission for approval. MOTION: Hoover: I will make a motion that we forward this to the full Planning Commission with the new connectivity. Warrick: We will modify condition number nine. Ostner: We are asking for that to extend west ward to connect to Rupple. Hoover: Is that a second? Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 9 Ostner: That is a second. Bunch: I concur. Gabbard: Sometimes we just look at something and we don't see the obvious. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 10 LSP 03-61.00: Lot Split (Lierly, pp 202) was submitted by James Gibson of Keith Robbins Realty on behalf of Carmen L. Lierly, Trustee of the Carmen L. & the Ima B. Lierly Trust for property located at 3577 N. Adams Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 33.08 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 14.60 and 18.48 acres respectively. Bunch: We will move to LSP 03-61.00 for Lierly submitted by James Gibson on behalf of Carmen Lierly and it is for a lot split of 33.08 acres into two tracts of 14.6 and 18.48 acres respectively. Is the applicant present? If you would come on up please. At this time we will have a staff report. Who has this one? Pate: The applicant is requesting to split this 33 acre tract into two tracts of approximately 14.6 acres and 18.48 acres. This is the second split on this piece of property. An existing road bisects the property where the applicant proposes to split the tract and that will be dedicated with the plat to Washington County. There is an existing water line parallel to Adams Road. It appears to extend along the southern portion of tract 1 along the road that bisects the property. 60' along Adams Road where the proposed tract adjoins and 30' from centerline where tract 1 does not adjoin tract 2 will be dedicated with this plat. Staff is recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level with four conditions which we've just discussed. Bunch: Are there any additional staff comments? Thank you. At this time why don't you introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Gibson: My name is James Gibson with Robbins Realty representing Carmen Lierly Trust. I don't have a whole lot to say about it. It is a 33 acre parcel, County Road 707 splits it. There is a pending contract for sell for the 18.48 acres and that is the reason for the request for the split. It is right along the road. The reason we had to come to Subdivision Committee I believe was because there was no dedicated right of way so that is what we are showing on here. Warrick: I would add that Mr. Gibson is right this project would've been approved at a staff level for an administrative Lot Split due to the sizes of the tracts being created. However, dedication of right of way was required and that requires Subdivision Committee approval. Bunch: Thank you. At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this LSP 03-61.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions, comments or motions. The only comment I have is the illegibility of the presentation on the drawing. I hope that you provided a larger format to the county so that they can read it because it is very difficult to determine where the Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 11 easements are and the vicinity map and such. A person that is familiar with Northwest Arkansas can find it. If they are not it is rather difficult. If you would pass along to your surveyor since these becomes public records to try to have something people understand a little better. Hoover: I don't have any comments. What size lot splits can be approved at staff level? Warrick: At staff level the first split creating at least 5 acres for each tract. The second and third splits have to result in tracts of at least 3 acres each in order to be administratively. However, they can't be approved administratively if dedication or right of way is required. We can look at little bit closer at that later on if you want to. Hoover: I don't have any issues. Bunch: Any motions? MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 03-61.00. Hoover: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 12 LSP 03-60.00: Lot Split (North St. Mini -Mart, pp 405) was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Tom Peevyhouse for property located at 742 W. North Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 8.35 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 0.80 and 7.55 acres. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSP 03-60.00 for North Street Mini Mart submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Tom Peevyhouse. The property is zoned I-1 and C-2 and contains approximately 8.35 acres to be split into .80 and 7.55 acres respectively. May I have the staff report on this item please? Pate: Yes Sir. As you mentioned, this property is requested to be split by the applicant into two tracts of approximately .80 acres and 7.55 acres. The structure on the lots to be split out is the North Street Mini Mart off of North Street. The proposed .80 acre tract does lie within the 100 -year floodplain and by ordinance any lot platted so that the entire lot lies in the structural flood hazard area shall contain a minimum of 1.00 acre. Therefore, one of the conditions is staff is recommending that the applicant enlarge the lot to a minimum of 1.0 acre pursuant to that requirement. This is the third and final lot split for this parcel. As I mentioned, there is currently a mini mart and laundry facility and gas pumps located on the tract. Water and sewer lines do exist on both of these lots. There is existing 40' of right of way, an additional 15' shall be dedicated by warranty deed. Staff is recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level with conditions including the dedication of right of way, floodplain designation on the plat. The applicant shall also clearly show the location of all utility easements including whether the proposed utility easements includes or excludes the area consisting of the pump island structure and the enlargement of the lot to 1.0 acre. I have included the flood hazard reduction ordinance section in the staff report. It is highlighted here. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any additional staff reports? Ohman: Yes Sir. These are in the notes. West Skull Creek and the Arkansas Missouri Railway are on the Alternative Transportation and Trails Master Plan and we would like to discuss the option of providing pedestrian access along these corridors. It is up to the owner of course to determine if this is something that they would like to proceed with. Steve Hatfield will be contacting you. He is our Trails and Greenways Coordinator about this option. Bunch: At this time we will go to the applicant. If you would introduce yourself and tell us about your project please. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 13 Patterson: I am Tim Patterson, I'm here as a surrogate surveyor, Alan had to go to town today. In essence, all we are trying to do is change the ownership of the mini mart here. It is basically just the existing lot. There is no development taking place, there are no physical changes taking place on the property. Apparently there is no variance in place for going less than an acre in a floodplain? Warrick: The ordinance doesn't provide for a variance that I'm aware of We believe that it is important to meet that one acre requirement as part of our flood hazard reduction ordinance to allow for enough area to mitigate if there is a problem with the floodplain. Patterson: Alan asked me to ask what would be the process, he wants to get a variance if at all possible, what would be the process to have that happen? Warrick: The project would need to go forward to the full Planning Commission. A variance couldn't be granted at the Subdivision Committee level. The variance section does refer to the Planning Commission with regard to flood damage prevention code the Planning Commission shall hear and decide requests for variances from the requirements of this ordinance. Any person or persons aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Commission regarding a variance request may appeal such a decision to the courts of competent jurisdiction. The Planning Commission would have final jurisdiction over a variance if it were to be granted. Planning Commission must consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors and standards specified in other sections of the ordinance. Variances may be issued for certain things. It goes on to state that floodplain variances shall only be issued in three instances. First, under exception or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other property in the same flood zone. Second, a determination that failure to grant a variance would result in exceptional hardship for the applicant. Third, these are ands, they are not either/or each of these, the way that this is drafted each of these conditions would need to apply. A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public or conflict with other provisions of the Code of Fayetteville. It talks about variances that can be issued for new construction or for substantial improvements or for other development. Really, what we are talking about here is the platting of a lot where it is specifically stated that the platting of a lot within the flood area is required to be one acre or larger. Patterson: I think our position here is that it is an existing piece of property. The property line right now is along the edge of the parking lot. The only way Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 14 we can get it up to an acre is to take the property east because here is their north boundary and here is their west boundary. If we do that there is an existing driveway that will have to be moved and it is kind of a hassle. Warrick: Where is that located? Patterson: It is impossible to see on the plat but just east of that power pole and telephone pedestal there is a driveway that comes through there. We can add that to it. Warrick: The brick building that is on the larger tract at North Street, what is that structure? Patterson: I think that is the Tune Concrete office. Bunch: Is that a gravel driveway or a paved driveway? Patterson: I believe it is paved. Bunch: I know there is a paved driveway further up the slope but right where the payphones are your drawing is showing that area as gravel. Patterson: I know this area in here is grass. I think there is a concrete driveway there, it may be gravel though. I know that is the driveway that they use to access their office. Bunch: It is calling out gravel right there. You do need to show the driveway, you've got an expanded version of it. Warrick: I think one thing that is important to note is that right now we have an 8.3 acre tract. It is fully compliant with the 1.0 acre minimum standard for a property within the flood zone and not all of that 8 acres or 8.3 acres is in a designated floodplain area. We are talking about creating a new tract and staff is not in favor of creating a new tract that doesn't comply with this regulatory minimum with regard to lot size. When it comes to an access drive I think that in this case we are dealing with one current property owner. It is certainly possible for a shared access easement to be granted over that property and for the property to go with the newly created tract. There is not a second party at this point in time that has to be dealt with if we are looking at access issues and easements such as that. There should be able to be something coordinated so that the land could be included in this tract and still be utilized by the other piece if the applicant is agreeable to work with themselves to make that happen. I foresee that as an alternative as being an easement area that allows both parties to utilize a driveway. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 15 Ostner: We are only talking 28' that would bring it up to an acre. It is almost the basic width of a street or driveway. Warrick: It would probably be the width of the driveway. What we can do if the applicant is willing to explore that possibility then we can go with the staff recommendation for the lot to be one acre. If the Subdivision Committee chooses it could be approved at this level with that condition. Should the applicant oppose that as a condition and not want to pursue a variance if they feel that they can meet all the criteria necessary for a variance to be sought or granted then we would need to take it forward to the full Planning Commission. Bunch: Ok. At this time I will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this LSP 03-60.00 for Mini Mart on North Street? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee and the applicant. On the 55' right of way, what is the designation of North Street here? Warrick: In that location it is designated as a principal arterial. Bunch: So the 40' on the other side of the street is inadequate? Warrick: It is inadequate. Bunch: Also, I don't see an easement for the sanitary sewer, is there some reason for that? Many of the utilities are not showing easements and I know you had the note. I wanted to show clearly what the deal is on the pump island. Warrick: The note was specific to the pump island because due to the line widths and the amount of information that is being shown it is hard to tell if this 20' dedicated utility easement goes around the pump islands, which I believe is the intent. That is kind of what I've shown here in red. Just because of the line widths it is hard to understand that it does not go underneath that structure. Patterson: Could we just put a note on the plat? Warrick: That or hatch it somehow. Bunch: It goes into the right of way? Warrick: The easement starts and stops. The utilities can be located in the right of way by our franchise agreements regardless but this newly dedicated easement. We don't propose to request easements or rights of way Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 16 through existing structures but we do need the easement in those locations if additional service is necessary in the future. Bunch: Another thing that we need to include on that one is just to the east of the pump island by your symbol it shows that there is a tank in under it so we would have to go around that tank also. It would be kind of tough to put underground lines through a fuel tank. Patterson: I will find out where that thing is located exactly. Bunch: I don't know what the deal is on these electric lines. Is that for private service on the Tune Construction lot? These private lines that come up through here? This is the sewer line here. Patterson: That will just be a service line that stops up here. Bunch: These other lines up here appear to be in the right of way so they would be covered in that respect, the water line and the electric line. Ostner: Would you rather take your chances at Commission? Patterson: We haven't had the chance to talk to the parties yet. Bunch: Another option is we could table it or you could withdraw either way to allow you to talk with your client. We would be accommodating on this. Hoover: What about if we approved it as presented with one acre and then can they come back? Warrick: If it is approved at this level and the applicant is not in agreement with the conditions they need to insure that it goes forward to the full Planning Commission in this cycle so that it would be heard on December 8th at the full Planning Commission. We would need to know no later than Wednesday of next week if this needs to be slated on that December 8`h Planning Commission agenda. That would be an option is if you choose to approve it with the conditions as stated, which of course, staff would support. If the applicant is not in agreement with that then it can go forward on your next Planning Commission agenda. Hoover: Don't you think we ought to do that to keep the process moving? Ostner: That is fine with me if that gives you enough time. Patterson: Yeah that shouldn't be a problem if you guys are willing to do that. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 17 Bunch: Go ahead and approve it with an acre and if they change it, it can come back here. Do we need to forward it with that understanding rather than approve it with that understanding? Warrick: If you feel that it is something that you want to approve with that condition then you have the right at this level to fully approve the Lot Split. We will not allow it to be filed unless it is a one acre lot meeting the conditions that are stated in your approval action. If the applicant chooses to do something different then it needs to be within this cycle so that it would go forward to the December 8h Planning Commission meeting. The reason I say that is because there is a 10 day period for appeal on a Planning Commission action. That applies also to the Subdivision Committee and in order to appeal that action staff needs to know what the determination is going to be. Ostner: Can that take place at the Planning Commission meeting? The fact that it was required to be one acre and during the meeting we can grant the variance? Warrick: Yes. Ostner: That can happen during that meeting? Warrick: I think so. MOTION: Hoover: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 03-60.00 subject to the conditions of approval as stated. Bunch: Adding to condition of approval three that all utility easements be clarified. Hoover: With clarification of utility easements. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 18 FPL 03-11.00: Final Plat (Bridgewater Estates, pp 219) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bridgewater Estates, LLC for property located north of Bridgewater Lane and west of Gulley Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 74.22 acres with 29 lots proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is the item formerly listed as item number five, the Final Plat for Bridgewater Estates submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Bridgewater Estates for property located north of Bridgewater lane and west of Gulley Road. This is a residential subdivision in the Planning Area and contains approximately 74 acres with 29 lots proposed. Jeremy, is this your project? Pate: Yes Sir. The applicant today is asking for Planning Commission approval for the Final Plat for Bridgewater Estates. This is a large lot single-family residential subdivision with 29 lots ranging in size from 1.7 acres to 2.97 acres at it's largest. An additional two lots are to serve as common space allowing access to the two existing on site ponds. Individual septic systems are proposed to be utilized for each of these lots. A Preliminary Plat for the subdivision was approved back in March along with Planning Commission recommendation to approve a Master Street Plan amendment to relocate and reclassify Bridgewater Lane and an unnamed minor arterial to collector street standards. City Council did approve this amendment in April with the condition that prohibits construction within the right of way needed for a minor arterial street. This deed restriction does need to be added to the plat before signatures are applied. Basically, what that means is 10' on either side of the dedicated right of way just needs to be deed restricted for no construction within that area pursuant to the City Council approval of this resolution. The property is surrounded by the Planning Area and county land. The property is in the Planning Area. 8" water lines have been extended. Again, all lots are proposed to utilize individual septic systems. Staff is recommending approval of FPL 03-11.00 at the Subdivision Committee level subject to eight conditions including the dedication of right of way to Washington County pursuant to Master Street Plan requirements and then also the deed restriction area added to the plat to prohibit any structures within 10' on either side of the right of way. The remaining two conditions are technical plat revisions. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any additional staff reports? At this time I will turn it over to the applicant. Introduce yourselves and tell us about the project. Hafemann: My name is Garrett Hafemann with Jorgensen & Associates. Basically, we are just requesting approval of this Final Plat for these 29 lots out in the growth area. There is nothing special. We have discussed this deed restriction condition with Jeremy and I will turn it over to you John if you want to talk about that. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 19 Rownak: I am John Rownak, I represent Bridgewater Estates. The 10' deed restriction was not in the City Council minutes when the Master Street Plan amendment was approved. However, it apparently made it into the resolution, which I have not seen. We will accept that 10' deed restriction in order to go ahead and get our approval even though we don't like it we will accept it. Bunch: Is there anything else for your presentation? At this time I will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address us on this Final Plat for Bridgewater Estates? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee. Staff, can you give us a little bit of information? Just what are our responsibilities on a Final Plat for a subdivision in the county? Do we concern ourselves with whether or not the roads are paved or any of that sort of thing like we normally would with one in town? Warrick: The infrastructure that is required to be accepted by the city has gone through the final inspection process and our Engineering Division helps to monitor that process and ensure that all the required inspections and approvals have been granted. At this point we are looking at a plat to ensure that the recorded document, which will be this plat, reflects the conditions of the Preliminary Plat and is representative of the construction that has been completed in the field. It is a follow up checks and balances sort of process to ensure what we are approving as a final is what everyone understood to be installed as a preliminary. This is just to verify the construction and to ensure that the proper approvals have a place on the plat. Rownak: Just for information, the county has approved the Final Plat subject to their final inspection of the road. They will be doing that inspection once the road is completed which we hope will be by the end of next week. There won't be any filing of the plat until they complete their inspection process. Bunch: This one didn't look as far along as the rest of them with grading and such. Rownak: Are you talking about this right here? Bunch: Yes. Rownak: Actually, the grading that you saw on that was a mistake because this is just a right of way dedication and there is no construction to take place on this road. The contractor inadvertently ran a road grader across it one time before they realized that they weren't suppose to do any work on it. Bunch: Access to lot 13 is from Bridgewater? Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 20 Rownak: Yes. 27 through 29 is from Gulley Road. Bunch: Matt, is there anything additional on this one? Casey: No. The inspection was done I believe earlier this week or late last week for the water line. Bunch: Is that basically all the city does is check the water line? Casey: That is correct. There was a couple of punch list items. The final grades are going to have to be established before we can sign off because we have to make sure that all the valves and hydrants are set at the proper elevations. They went ahead and that was just one of the punch list items. Bunch: Is this served by Round Mountain fire department or the City of Fayetteville? Rownak: I believe that it is served by Goshen and there is an agreement with the City of Fayetteville that if needed they will come out and assist. Bunch: When we check for water and everything do we check for fire hydrants? Casey: Yes. Bunch: Thanks for the information. Are there any other questions, comments or motions? MOTION: Hoover: I will make a motion that we approve FPL 03-11.00 subject to the conditions stated. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 21 LSP 03-59.00 & LSP 03-62.00: Lot Split (Calloway, pp 571) was submitted by David Gilbert of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Calloway for property located at Lot 35 in Deerfield Place. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 0.94 acres. The request is to split the lot into three tracts of 0.33, 0.27 and 0.34 acres. LSD 03-42.00: Large Scale Development (Calloway, pp 571) was submitted by David Gilbert of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Calloway for property located at Lot 35 in Deerfield Place. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains 3 lots. The request is to allow construction of three single-family dwellings. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is a Lot Split for Calloway and also a Large Scale Development for Calloway submitted by David Gilbert of Jorgensen & Associates for property located at lot 35 of Deerfield Place zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately .94 acres. The request is to split into three lots. We might as well speak about the Large Scale Development at the same time and then just vote on them separately. The proposal is to allow construction of three single family dwellings. Staff, will you give us the report on this project please? Pate: Certainly. Currently this lot is all one lot, .93 acres. It is required to go through Large Scale Development due to the Final Plat for this subdivision. A note on that Final Plat stated that specifically this lot which is zoned R -O, Residential Office, is required to go through Large Scale Development. That is why even though it is less than an acre and we are splitting the lot it is required to go through that process. There is another action with this proposal, which will be a Conditional Use action. Therefore, staff is recommending that both of these items be forwarded onto the Planning Commission to be heard with that Conditional use prior to this being approved or denied. The applicant is requesting two lot splits on the property resulting in three tracts. The property is located on lot 35 within Deerfield Place subdivision. It has not been split previously. Proposed lot 35C is a tandem lot. That is the Conditional Use for a tandem lot that the applicant is requesting. That is required to be heard by the Planning Commission. Access is proposed to be provided to lot 35C by way of a 25' access easement from Deerfield Way. The applicant proposes to develop a single family home on each of the proposed lots, which is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. A water and sewer main shall be extended to serve all of these lots and right of way has been dedicated in conjunction with the Final Plat for Deerfield Place. For the lot split, staff is recommending forwarding this project to the full Planning Commission with parks fees due in the amount of $555 for each of the three lots prior to issuance of building permits and then also, approval for the lot split is subject to Planning Commission determination of a Conditional Use for the proposed tandem lot. For the Large Scale Development plans, again the condition stated that it had to go through Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 22 Large Scale Development regardless of the size, that is why we are hearing this project today. Again, right of way was dedicated with the Final Plat for Deerfield. Huntsville Road is a principal arterial, Deerfield Way is considered a local street. There are no trees on this site. Therefore, a tree preservation waiver has been approved and granted by the Landscape Administrator. Staff is recommending that this item be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any other staff reports? Parks, I think in the Tech Plat there was some question as to whether or not the original lot had parks fees assessed. Ohman: Yes Sir. The fees were assessed but were not paid so the fees will carry forward with these lot splits. Bunch: Ok, Engineering, are there any additional comments? Casey: The parent tract does have access to water and sewer but with the splits that are proposed water and sewer will both have to be extended so all three lots will be served. Bunch: Thank you. At this time we will turn it over to you, let you introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Gilbert: I am David Gilbert with Jorgensen & Associates. When this was originally platted the lot was zoned R -O and I believe Mr. Calloway was hoping to do some office or maybe some very light neighborhood commercial on that. At this time he has decided that the best use that he can put this property to is to go ahead and develop this into single family homes. It is adjacent to the Deerfield Place subdivision which is single family homes so we feel that this is all in character with it. The configuration and size of the lot, in order to do this with the three single family homes a tandem lot is necessary just to make everything fit and to keep from doing some really funny things with property lines that would probably just not be in the best interest of everybody involved. We feel like we have made every effort to comply with the regulations. Staff has been very good to work with us on this. We appreciate their help and input and we respectively submit this for your approval. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this lot split and large scale development on lot 35 of Deerfield? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee. I just have a question about the 7 Yz' private utility easement. Gilbert: Yes Sir. That was generated in a discussion with David Jurgens the Water and Waste Water Superintendent. The water department really prefers not Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 23 to have meters back off the street. If we were to extend a public water main to lot 35C the meter would have to be in that lot rather than being up on the street. Mr. Jurgens and I worked with this and our intention is to use the existing meter for lot 35 and to run the water service in a private easement, which is my understanding, his preferred way to handle this so that the water service line to the home would run through that private utility easement. The same option is not available for sanitary sewer, which is why we have shown the extension back to lots 35B and C. This was our understanding of the way that the Water Superintendent would prefer to handle this. Bunch: Where would be the water for 3513? Gilbert: We'd be installing two meters down here. It is buried in that property line there. Yes Sir, we'd get a water tap off the main on Huntsville Road and then a double meter set right there in the corner of lots 35A and B. Bunch: I know we have an LSD that is coming through with it but as far as the lot split standing on it's own merit is there any need to have a statement about lots 35A and 35B from Hwy. 16? Warrick: We would certainly recommend limiting access to those lots to the interior drive. The Conditional Use that goes along with the tandem lot to create 35C certainly requires that it comes off that drive also, access to Deerfield Way only and not out to Huntsville Road. Bunch: Actually the tandem lot would also be limiting access to 35B. It would have to be off Deerfield Way. Warrick: I would note that we recognized in our copying of the agenda, page two with all the conditions that go along with the Large Scale which I think we are talking about now, is not in front of us. It will be when you get your full packets for the Planning Commission. Most of the comments and conditions are duplicate that you wilt see between the lot split and the large scale and again, there will be additional conditions and consideration with regard to access and trash service and screening and different things like that that accompany the Conditional Use specifically. We will see that at the full Commission. These are the leading up to that development items. Bunch: What is this 15' setback? Gilbert: That is an existing building setback on lot 35. Ostner: Is there a building here? Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 24 Gilbert: I'm not certain. I couldn't tell you for sure. I think all the lots in this subdivision have been built with homes. Bunch: There might be a statement in the plat for Deerfield that there would be no access from lot 35 from Hwy. 16 and our statement may be redundant but since this is being split up I wanted to clarify that. Particularly, if for some reason it didn't build out as proposed, something happened. Gilbert: I think you would be covered with that because of the Large Scale process. Everything that goes on lot 35 is subject to Large Scale because of it's original intended use. I think that you will be in pretty good shape there. If something like that were to be changed it would have to come back and you would have another chance to take a look at it. Bunch: This whole process will have to go forward to the full Planning Commission to be heard with the Conditional Use, correct? Warrick: They are all contingent upon each other. Bunch: Do you have any additional questions or comments? Ostner: I was going to ask that surrounding built structures be at least sketched in as an approximate location. That would help me at Commission to see what was surrounding it. That would help me. That's my only comment. Hoover: I have a couple of questions. I realize it has to be a Large Scale because it is an R -O zoning. Warrick: It has to be a Large Scale because when the Final Plat was approved the Planning Commission required that of this lot specifically. It is not because of the zoning. The size of the tract, regardless of the zoning, typically wouldn't. It was so close to that one acre and it was a different type development than the immediately adjacent properties so the Planning staff and the Planning Commission at the time felt that it was appropriate to place that condition and so that is why we see a Large Scale on this. Hoover: When this comes under Large Scale and we are doing single family homes, what will we be looking for? Warrick: Very little. Things like the access and ensuring that proper connections to utilities can be made. That is really the basic thing that we are looking at. The Conditional Use only applies to lot 35C, that will govern some additional or different setbacks for that lot specifically and ensure access and trash pick up for that particular lot just to ensure that it can be provided for. No, we are not going to be looking at too much detail. It is Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 25 a residential development. We are talking about three single family homes and so we want to make sure that they have proper setbacks called out, proper access and proper provision of utilities. Hoover: How will the fire trucks get back here? What do we do on a tandem lot? How do they see that? Warrick: A tandem lot must have at least a 20' clear access to provide for fire protection. If there is not a tum around there needs to be a place for the fire trucks to be able to turn around and it depends on the length of the driveway. The structure can't be located more than 200' off of the driveway itself for access purposes. I believe that fire has seen this through the Plat Review process for both the Lot Split and the Large Scale. We will make sure that all of those comments are reflected. Hoover: I would just like to know when it gets to Planning Commission if they have seen it and approved it. Warrick: Of course they do have direct access to the front lots, A and B in the corner. A has the corner lot. Bunch: We've seen this once before as a Large Scale or a Conditional Use for commercial haven't we? Warrick: It seems like they proposed at one time two structures with office uses proposed. It has been a while. I don't believe that it was approved as a Large Scale. I think it started through the process. Bunch: That might be part of the question that you had on why the Large Scale. This is such an unusual configured lot in the way that it fits with the rest of the subdivision. Gilbert: It is a plat restriction that requires it to be reviewed as a Large Scale. Bunch: Are there any additional comments? Do we have a motion for the two Lot Splits? MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we forward LSP 03-59.00 and 62.00 to the full Planning Commission. Hoover: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Do we have a motion for the Large Scale? Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 26 MOTION: Hoover: I will make a motion that we forward LSD 03-42.00 to the full Planning Commission Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 27 FPL 03-13.00: Final Plat (Estates at Salem Hills, pp 205) was submitted by Tom Hennelly of Tomlinson on behalf of TTM -LLC for property located north of W. Salem Road and west of N. Salem Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 41.64 acres. The request is to allow development of subject property with 23 lots and 23 dwelling units proposed. Bunch: Next on the agenda is a Final Plat for the Estates at Salem Hills submitted by Tom Hennelly of Tomlinson Asphalt on behalf of TTM properties for a subdivision located north of W. Salem Road and west of North Salem Road in the Planning Area and contains approximately 41.64 acres with 23 lots and dwellings proposed. Jeremy, can you tell us about this? Pate: The Planning Commission approved a Preliminary Plat for this site back in July of this year along with a recommendation to amend the Master Street Plan to lessen the dedication of right of way and curve the street as opposed to going straight through this and back down. The City Council did approve that Master Street Plan amendment, I believe the resolution is attached. The Estates at Salem Hills is a proposed subdivision with 23 single family lots located in the Planning Area just west of the city limits. Lot size average is approximately 1.5 acres with the smallest being 1.02 acre and the largest at 2.46 acres. The two lots that are smaller than 1.5 acres, which are lots 21 and 22 will be required to meet Health Department approval for permits for septic systems. Those have been received and are on file with the Planning Division. That is our requirement for any lots less than 1.5 acres that are using septic systems. 8" water lines have been extended and the right of way will be dedicated with the plat for both the roads within the development as well as Howard Nickell Road and West Salem Road. Staff is recommending approval of this Final Plat at the Subdivision Committee level subject to the conditions as written in the staff report. I would mention that the driveways of Dr. Coker and Dr. Bailey will have to be repaired by the developer upon completion of these road improvements to Howard Nickell Road. That was a condition placed on the Preliminary Plat as well and we are just reiterating it here. Also, lots in the subdivision that have frontage onto roads other than Howard Nickell Road will be prohibited access to that Howard Nickell Road. There is a note that covers all the lots in the note with the plat. That is all that staff has at this time. Bunch: Thank you. Engineering, are there any additional comments? Casey: It is very similar to the Bridgewater situation. The water line is installed and that is the only infrastructure that we are inspecting to sign off on the Final Plat. My understanding is that the inspection has already been completed and again, the punch list items will have to be in place prior to any sign off as well as any maintenance bonds, construction costs and as built plans. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 28 Bunch: Thank you. At this time we will turn it over to you Tom, introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Hennelly: I am Tom Hennelly with Tomlinson Asphalt. Again, this is just like Bridgewater in the Planning Area. The water line has been installed and tested and all the conditions either have been met or will be met. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this Final Plat? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions, comments or motions. Hoover: I don't have anything. I will make a motion that we approve FPL 03- 13.00. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Hennelly: Thank you. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 29 R-PZD 03-07.00: Planned Zoning District (Brophy Condominiums, pp 290, 291) was submitted by William Rudasill of WBR Engineering Assoc. on behalf of Ralph Brophy for property located east of College Ave, north of Township on Brophy Circle. The property is zoned RMF -40, RMF -24 and RSF-4 and contains approximately 6.01 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District with a total of 50 Residential dwelling units (25 Two-family units). Bunch: The next item on the agenda is R-PZD 03-07.00, a Planned Zoning District for Brophy Condominiums submitted by William Rudasill on behalf of Ralph Brophy for property located east of College and north of Township on Brophy Circle. The property has three zonings, RMF -40, RMF -24, and RSF-4, contains approximately six acres. The request is for a 50 unit Planned Residential Zoning District. Jeremy, do you have this one also? Pate: Yes Sir. I just want to mention the Subdivision Committee report packets you don't get these prior to this meeting and we try to keep these pretty slim. There is a lot of documentation with this project. It is a PZD so it requires both development review and land use rezoning type review. Therefore, there is quite a bunch of information here which you probably won't be able to comprehend all at this time. There are comments from the Fire Marshall's office, the Landscape Administrator, from Parks and there are also some additional maps in the packet as well as a narrative describing the project from the applicant and the applicant's representative, Mr. Rudasill. Additionally, along with the boards over here that I can pull out in just a second I think most of them are represented in 81/2 by 11 in your packets as well as to the proposed structures for this project. Also, the covenants are required to be submitted and a draft form has been submitted with this project. To go through the actual project, the applicant is requesting a rezoning and Preliminary Plat approval for a residential development within an R-PZD zoning district. There are three different types of zoning on this property, RMF -40, RMF -24 and RSF-4 in different locations. It may be a little different to read but I believe one of the first pages shows it. Warrick: The first page shows the current breakout in the zoning districts. 1.65 acres is currently zoned RMF -24, 2.04 is currently zoned RMF -40 and 2.32 is currently zoned RSF-4. There is also a chart on the main site plan page that describes existing land use and the allowable density on each of those existing tracts based on the current zoning and then the proposed land use is also listed. We'll let Jeremy go ahead and go through the conditions and other information and we'll talk more about that. Pate: To get you a little oriented, this project is just north of Brophy Circle which is a looped drive that can be accessed off of Township. There is a private drive to the north of this site as well. The applicant's proposal is to Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 30 construct 25 duplexes with 50 total units to be sold in a horizontal property regime. Basically, the building pads will be sold to individuals who will buy that portion and it is my understanding that the remainder of the land will be maintained by the property owner's association with the fees that are assessed from the property owners. There are two different lot sizes. 21 of the buildings are to be built 35x40, four of the buildings are 40x50. Those are listed in your staff report giving the types of style, which I believe refers to the different types of plans and elevations here that are in your packets and on the boards here. The driveway for each of the buildings are unique. Minor changes are required to the plat to assure that the correct driveway configuration is represented for each unit. There is also a proposed 5' area around each of these units designated as the construction perimeter and a porch easement should that be constructed. Surrounding land use includes commercial property currently along College Avenue. Duplex and four plex units to the south, single-family residential to the east and commercial development to the west. There is an existing 20' sewer easement and a private 55' gas easement existing on the property. A lot of the site design has been driven by these existing easements. Exact location of this easement is to be determined. No structure shall encroach in any public or private easements. The applicant is proposing to construct 24' wide private streets. These private streets will connect an existing private drive to the north extending east from College Avenue and then Brophy Circle to the south, which is a dedicated public right of way. Tree preservation, existing canopy is 58.4%, much of the site is wooded or canopied. Preserved canopy by the applicant is 23.9%. The minimum requirement is 25%, therefore, there is a mitigation fee to be paid. The applicant is requesting a couple of waivers including the ability to construct 4' sidewalks with 6' greenspace along private streets and item number two, to keep existing overhead electric lines between units 44 and 43 and along the offsite line to preserve existing tree canopy. Staff's recommendation is to forward this to the full Planning Commission with conditions including those waiver requests. The determination of the waiver request to keep existing overhead electric lines. Staff is recommending that these lines, which are below 12KV, be buried at the time of development, which is pursuant to our Unified Development Code ordinance requirement for any new development. Also, Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for a 4' sidewalk. Staff is recommending that 6' sidewalks with a 10' greenspace be required since this is a multi -family development. Also, payment of parks fees in the amount of $19,650 is required. The rest of the conditions are pretty self explanatory. Bunch: On the sidewalks, under what authority are we requiring sidewalks on a private street? How does that figure in? Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 31 Warrick: We are also looking at this as a Planned Zoning District and compatibility, pedestrian connections are really the reasons that staff is looking at this and requesting that the current standard be applied for multi -family. Bunch: Since it is a PZD there is no real standard and also as far as a private drive is concerned, again, how? Warrick: There is a standard for the construction the section of a private drive and that is basically that they comply with our street standards. Matt can address that a little more specifically. The sidewalks are something that we look at separately from the actual street standard and private drive. Casey: The sidewalks are a recommendation from staff. I don't believe that it is an actual requirement, it is a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Bunch: Matt, are there any other Engineering comments? Casey: No Sir. Bunch: Trees and Landscaping? Camagey: Yes Sir. I would just like to see the tree canopy table, the language of that table to be cleaned up and simplified in order to reflect the ordinance requirements instead of the easement areas that are in preservation. I know there are a lot of easements on this property but all we need to see is what you are actually preserving outside of those easements. I think we talked about this before. Also, you need to have a note describing or indicating the ownership of these tree preservation areas on the Final Plat. Again, there is a payment into the city's tree escrow account. Rudasill: A note regarding ownership of the tree preservation? Camagey: Right. There is language in the manual describing what that note needs to state. It is to clearly indicate the responsibility for that tree preservation area. Bunch: Parks? Ohman: Nothing additional. Bunch: At this time Bill would you introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Rudasill: My name is Bill Rudasill, with WBR Engineering representing Mr. Ralph Brophy, the owner of the property. What he is proposing here is Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 32 something that he started 20 years ago, even over 20 years ago. It is an extension of a town home condominium type project. He has always been dedicated to try to do this as duplexes verses putting apartments on the R- 3 and big parking lots and all that. He brought it forward. This area has some drain issues with it. That is why we are proposing the configuration with the private streets and the duplexes. We are going to utilize retaining walls along the edges of the fronts of the buildings to bring grade back down to natural grade. All buildings will be built on stem walls or dug into the hills with lower level garages, basement type construction rather than pad type construction where they will grade outside of the building and take more area. In an attempt to preserve as many trees as we can, we've limited the construction areas around the buildings. They will have to stay within that 5' easement to protect anything outside of that area. Water and sewer are both available to the project. The development will also provide for an upgrade to drainage and eliminate some erosion considerations or problems that occur currently with the steep grades that run through those areas. We will have a storm basin at the end catching water up high on the development. As far as the sale and the composition of the sales of the units, he will provide the streets, build the driveways, clear the individual pads so that when the person comes into build they are restricted to that specific building area. At the recommendation of the staff due to driveway considerations in which they want specific driveway configurations tied to each unit we have actually assigned units to each pad to give a variance in the type of units that are being proposed. They are noted on there as one through five. There are some larger units, the three bedroom type units with larger garage. This is what would be considered plan two. The hexagon unit would be a building set into the hill. Ostner: Is that two three bedroom units? Rudasill: Yes. It is a two story. Ostner: That is a duplex and each duplex is a three bedroom so it is a six bedroom building. Rudasill: Yes. This is plan three, which is in two places. One that fronts Brophy Circle but has a rear entry on the lower end coming off the cul-de-sac and across the cul-de-sac for the front entrance. This is also a three bedroom, six bedroom total. The rest of them are smaller units that sit on the 40'x35' pad. This one is a three story type unit here. These are to be built into duplexes. This is a three story unit. This is an existing unit that is currently built on Bronze Tree, which is at the other end, which was the beginning of this development. The ones here that have the narrow driveways coming into them are being built into the bill. That is a two bedroom unit. All of these are primarily two bedroom units. This is the Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 33 three story unit. Each have a garage on the lower storage area. The driveways are going to be built at this time in conjunction with the requirements of staff so that when they do come in there is relatively no change from what is planned in the development. The only changes that they may change is color. Ostner: You all are going to do the rough grading for the pads? Rudasill: Not necessarily the rough grading, we are going to clear the pad area and they will have to work within that pad area. Pate: I might mention too that there is a schematic in your packets sort of explaining how some of the driveways work that Mr. Rudasill has provided. Additionally, on page four there is a driveway slopes chart and that gives the driveways to each of these units giving the percentages that those will be. Rudasill: That is on the plat. Bunch: It is kind of like model Ts you can have any color you want as long as it is specified right? Rudasill: The siding is kind of a sandy color. Bunch: Would you tell us why you are requesting the 4' sidewalks instead of 6'? Rudasill: The configuration and the slopes that are involved on each side of the driveways. A 6' sidewalk would make us cut further into the hill and we are trying to avoid cutting into the hill. In general, we are trying to maintain certain depths away from the curb so the cars can get off the road if they are parked in the driveways in front of the garages. Bunch: Also, one of the things that I'm not seeing, I didn't see the mentions for it in the drawings and I'm not seeing it in the conditions are the heights of the retaining walls. Rudasill: That waiver request has been eliminated. It just got left on there. We originally had a retaining wall that was over 10' tall that was in an easement area but the city informed us that we couldn't do that. We were trying to preserve some trees but they were already in easements so they couldn't be counted as part of the tree preservation. We are still going to try to save them but the odds of trying to save them with fill on the roots is very minimal. We are going to put pipes on the grounds to try to preserve them. They are in an easement area so at anytime the gas company could come in and clip them. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 34 Bunch: At this time I will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on the Brophy Condominiums? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee. Hoover: Would you point out where the retaining walls are and what heights they are? Rudasill: Actually, there was a retaining wall in here that has been eliminated. That is the one that the waiver request was for. Hoover: Where is this one pointing to here? Rudasill: Between each unit? What we have is grading coming into the garage and we will have a retaining wall between each unit and it will go back down to natural ground and then you will have a stem wall on the side of the building on the downhill side this will be stem wall connecting with natural ground so there will be no fill brought in to adjust the pad. Decks and porches will be elevated where they come out above ground. Hoover: All of these are retaining walls? Rudasill: These little ones here are retaining walls in between the buildings. Hoover: Are there any other retaining walls? Rudasill: There is going to be one here. There is a gas unit here, a fenced in area which we will have to retain the ground around it but it doesn't exceed your maximum requirements. Ostner: On those downhill slopes, this talks about a garage being above the living area but none of your schematics show that. Rudasill: Actually, we don't have any that have a basement in it. There was one that we were considering which is this. You can see it here. Instead, we have chosen this one over here. We have a plan that has basement garages that come in from that level. It will be a stem wall here. This will have piers or filled inside the garage area to stabilize the garage and then everything will be crawl space. Ostner: I guess what I'm asking is I can't seem to picture how those downward buildings are going to work. I can understand how the uphill buildings as you drive up the hill I can see the digging in but as I go down I leave the street and I'm already steep for the garage to be buried it would be even steeper it would seem to try to level out I'm not sure it is going to work. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 35 Rudasill: It will level out around here and the building just comes up from natural grades. The footings will run something like this and then there will be a stem wall that comes up. Your finished floor level will be right here. Under the garage there will be extra footings and that will be reinforced. Ostner: Where is the living area? Rudasill: They are two story so it would be up here in behind the garage and above. Ostner: This height worries me. You are getting really tall. This could be almost 35'. Do you see where I'm going with this. Suddenly these are getting really tall on the downhill side because of the garage taking up almost a whole floor level. Rudasill: There are existing buildings out there right now, they are two story, they step down to a lower level but they don't have garages. He wants garage units. He wants somewhere to be able to park inside the buildings. Ostner: It is just this extremely tall face that is concerning me. I'm not sure how it is working. That is going to be really tall. Hoover: I think it all faces commercial. Ostner: It faces everyone going down College. Rudasill: The largest wall back there is 6'. There is a 6' grade change from the front to the rear. Ostner: From the front to the rear of that building? Rudasill: Yes. Basically buildings four and five, this one has one corner that goes to 6'. The rest each one of these contours is 2'. Ostner: We are only talking a 6' addition to the height of the building? Rudasill: Yes. Hoover: I have a question about the private drive, I know all of this is a private drive, right? Warrick: All of the new construction will be private. Hoover: I don't understand this. Warrick: That is an existing private drive. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 36 Rudasill: That is an existing 30' concrete private drive. Hoover: Does that mean anybody can use it? I can turn off College and come through here? Warrick: It is not blocked off. Rudasill: Part of the reason why I'm establishing the connection is for fire. This is the end of a looped cul-de-sac that is 700' deep at least at this point, maybe even a little bit more. This was originally on a 40 acre tract so it would be about 700' to that Brophy Circle end there and another 500' or 600' to the north end up here. Bunch: Who owns that private drive? Rudasill: There is a three way ownership through there. I do believe Mr. Brophy may own a piece of it. I haven't actually reviewed that. There are two others. This property over here and this property here and this property here all pay taxes on that piece of property. This was built 20 or 30 years ago when Mr. Brophy's office was here. Part of the reason for bring it through as a private drive was that he brought through a subdivision several years ago and the city did express that they did not want to take this street over at that time so we proposed a private drive through here at this time. For two reasons, one because it allows us to put some extra curves and stuff that some city regulations wouldn't allow. They prefer not to have steep slopes, we have got one steep slope in here. We tried to maintain 9% at the max and as flat as we can but it just allows us to fit the property, fit the preservation needs, fit the hillside, fit the easements that are there a whole lot better than a public with 50' right of way. It gives us some variance on front setbacks, side setbacks. Hoover: I'm curious what are the limitations on a private drive? Can you just go on forever and have a private drive? Pate: There is a maximum of 40 units on a cul-de-sac and on a looped drive a few more. This is in the PZD ordinance. This came up before when we were discussing the next item on the agenda. The maximum density served by a private street within a PZD is 40 units, served by a looped street shall be 80 units. They are well below that number. Warrick: Mr. Rudasill is correct that we talked about building setbacks. There is no minimum building setbacks on a private drive. Pate: The ordinance basically states that they are permitted subject to design and construction as if they were a public street with some allowances, Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 37 especially in width of the street and no dedication of right of way meaning that there is a lot more flexibility in setbacks from the street. Hoover: I was just curious when we look at connectivity with our overall network do we include private drives? I don't understand how it fits into our connections. Warrick: They are access for the residents within that development. It does provide them, in this case, two means of access instead of just having that one looped street to get from Brophy out to Township. It is definitely beneficial to be able to send this traffic in two different directions and to have the flexibility of the access as opposed to just the dead end. In that regard, it is very appropriate to look at it and to see how this development is going to utilize the various different access points. When we look at the whole overall street connection, it is going to show up as a line on the map. It is going to be used by emergency services and by city vehicles. It is going to be used by the residents and their guests. For the most part it is going to function like any street within the city. It is going to be maintained by this development as opposed to being maintained by the city. Hoover: So 80 units is our maximum on a private? Warrick: On a loop. Ostner: A loop means two ingress and egress? Warrick: I think you can look at a loop in a couple of different ways. Brophy Circle off of Township I consider that a loop even though it accesses Township in two different locations. It basically comes in off the same street that it exits off of I don't know if this would really be considered a loop, more of a thoroughfare. Rudasill: The loop issue basically has to do with emergency access should an entrance be blocked for some reason two cars be parked on the side of the road and a fire truck can't get through, he has another access point. The issue came up in one of the previous discussions with the depth of a cul- de-sac. The reason I think that those depths are limited is for emergency access, garbage access. They want to be able to get into that cul-de-sac, ok, if I get stopped here can I get my fire hoses to the line of fire. God forbid there is a fire. I think that is primarily the issue behind the length of a cul-de-sac being limited and connectivity and all of that. Ostner: Part of my worry with a private drive, I'm not sure how other Commissioners feel, but there are streets in town that say residents only. It looks like a street. I, as a citizen, would want to drive there to get Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 38 somewhere else but there is a sign saying I'm not supposed to drive through there. Warrick: We do have some private streets in town. The city doesn't encourage them in most situations because of exactly that reason. In some cases they can be functional and provide access like this. Of course, you are right. The property owner has control of that street. In this case, the applicant is not proposing gates or any type of limited access, which staff would not be in favor of a limited access on the street. They are proposing the private street for functional purposes to reduce the impact of having to dedicate right of way and expand setbacks that would really limit the placement of the structures that they want to put on this property. It does connect to another private drive and that is somewhat problematic when you are trying to connect a public street and then just stop. We have a pretty good transition in this location where Brophy Circle, it is basically a dead end. It is a loop but it is basically the end of that circle, the north end, and there is a pretty good transition onto this private drive. The nature of the development is going to be pretty similar to what is existing on the west side of Brophy Circle currently, which is duplexes and in the middle I think there are duplexes and four plexes located in there. It is going to be a pretty good transition with regard to land use and similar density even. We felt it was a reasonable location to apply a private street and to use that. We don't see them often and they are a little bit tricky but the construction of a private street is required to match our street standards. There is an allowable flexibility in there with regard to setbacks and we don't have the right of way dedication. The sidewalks are something that we will recommend but it is not a flat out requirement so we need some in put on that as to what the Planning Commission feels appropriate. Ostner: As long as the community to the south can drive through it I am ok with it. Rudasill: There is no intent of putting a restriction on that street. It will be an open street. Warrick: I think that that can be adequately addressed through the covenants. The covenants will govern the activities within this development and the function of the development so staff would entertain that as a solution. Rudasill: The covenants will grant ingress/egress to successors assigned, to all adjacent property owners and/or the public if needed. There is not going to be anybody sitting out there with a police car. Warrick: I think that a statement in the covenants should reflect somehow that access will not be restricted to the development. Rudasill: We can do that. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 39 Bunch: Unless you call attention to it, you just about have to know it is there to access it from North College. Warrick: You really have to know that that drive goes up off North College. Ostner: The people living down there are going to know because it is going to help them to connect. Bunch: It comes out at a non -signalized place so unless you're coming off of North College. Rudasill: Sometimes getting out on Township from where Brophy Circle is located sometimes that can be quite a chore. Hoover: This Westview Drive, just in general connection, I don't know how far it goes. Rudasill: Westview stops right here. Hoover: Is there any reason we wouldn't look at continuing that? Warrick: We looked at that. It is a very steep grade. Rudasill: There is a steep grade and grading issues. We actually vacated that right of way. Warrick: It stubbed out to the property and it was vacated on this piece right here I believe previously. This is a very steep location. Do your grades show on the site plan? Rudasill: Yes, it is here. These grades right here gets really steep right through this section. Warrick: This is also the tree preservation area. A significant portion of tree preservation is happening in this location so we didn't feel that it was really beneficial to the project or to the overall area to have that connection. Rudasill: It creates a good buffer between the RSF-4 and the multi -family type transitional development. Warrick: We can look at that. We can drive you all up there and take a look at it. Rudasill: The other issue here with regards to extension of Westview. This was part of the reason for this being maintained as a private drive. This was built, it Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 40 is 30' wide, it is a concrete drive. On the sides of it there is not room for a full city right of way and setbacks to the existing buildings that are there. If this were to be connected as a city street or whatever we wouldn't be able to get our right of ways through here and get what's needed on that street as part of a public drive. Pate: As a point of reference, the hillside taskforce actually visited the site just right here off of Emerald as part of the tour that the taskforce took looking at hillsides in Fayetteville. Bunch: Bill, can you address the issue of the tree preservation area and the overhead lines? Rudasill: Yes. There are three different overhead lines. This one runs borderline offsite, this one runs through the middle of the site. The request is to try to preserve at least this tree area here. There is an existing pole here. We would go underground to that pole but then we would like to come up and go vertical or aerial through here. Our intent is not to cut holes in this tree buffer that is here. I know it is an existing easement, there are trees that have grown on it. There is canopy that is there. If we have to go in and put this underground the electric company will clear that easement and we will have a big hole punched through there. Bunch: They will anyway when the trees start growing up. That's what I don't understand how it is going to save trees by not burying it because they are going to have to trim trees anyway. Hoover: If you marry it there is a better chance of planting trees there. Rudasill: The canopy outside the easement will grow back. Bunch: Is that staff's iteration on that? Rudasitl: They did have an issue with it, we were just requesting that to try to preserve that solid wall, at least during construction. Ostner: This driveway slope chart is very helpful on page four but those are really, really steep the A and B. That got me wondering why or if you considered sort of an alley system with this street being very narrow and another one to drive into your building, kind of what we're talking about here. This is a PZD, the building could be 10' from the street. It is a difficult site. I see cars parked on a 10% slope and that is really steep. I think that is the max for our streets. Rudasill: Our streets are allowed at 10% before they go to concrete. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 41 Ostner: A driveway is in essence a parking spot and we don't allow those slopes on parking lots, absolutely not. It is just something that came to my mind. I am not completely opposed to this. I know it is a difficult project. Stopping a car on a 14% slope just gets me wondering if there are other options. These driveways are so short, they are barely two car lengths long. Rudasill: Part of what steepens that driveway up is the fact that we have to bring the sidewalk level a certain distance and we are also trying to stay on the existing grade. My personal feeling towards 10% and 14% is that they are not really that steep. When you get up to 20% or 25% you will start noticing it. A 10% grade is one foot in 10'. Bunch: Basically 2' in a car length. Ostner: I have parked my car at a 10% slope and I tell you what, stuff starts rolling, doors start slamming. It was just an idea. This is a PZD. It would allow an alley system, especially down here. Up here I don't have a big problem. This seems like it could work because of the garages being cut in somewhat. Rudasill: Fitting an alley in behind these units, especially the ones you are talking about, is really not feasible. Ostner: Even with shrinking this street and pushing these buildings towards the street? Rudasill: I can't shrink the street because it is at a minimum width, which is 24' wide. Ostner: If it were one way, this is a PZD, our ordinances allow down to 14' one way and one way. Bunch: Then you are penalizing the people that live here saying that they have to enter from the Brophy Circle side by making it one way. Rudasill: A one way traffic flow in that general area would not be desirable. Bunch: That is one of the flattest parts. Ostner: It was just some idea to try to get around that. Bunch: While we are talking about that, why don't we discuss the 4' sidewalks? Did you say that that was to get your setbacks? Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 42 Rudasill: Originally we proposed sidewalks on one side of the street. Even though that this is a private drive we proposed an ingress/egress corridor which was 40' wide in which we were going to position streets and the sidewalk, which we would offset streets to one side and put the sidewalk on the other which would give us a solid greenspace, a transition from the roadway to the sidewalk and then turn it over to the driveway and to the house. At the recommendation of the staff, based on their ordinances for multi -family type development they require sidewalks on both sides of the street and a 6' width. Hoover: With a 10' greenspace Rudasill: It would push these units back up into the hill and would eliminate any chance for tree preservation numbers of any kind. It pushes them further up the hill away from the road. Just in general it creates conflict. We are trying to trade a sidewalk on both sides for a doable transition space. Warrick: I think that we can come up with a reasonable compromise on this. Bunch: It looks like just basically trading greenspace for tree space. Warrick: We don't want to lose the tree space, we want to be able to get the vehicles clear of the sidewalk, those that are parked in the driveway. Both of those things are equally important. If we can look at width of sidewalk and width of greenspace as a means of making that work we are willing to do that. Casey: Our ordinance doesn't cover greenspace requirements on a private street. I made the recommendation for sidewalks at Plat Review. We typically see 6' for multi -family but I know this is a unique situation. I would be comfortable with 4' sidewalks and we can work out the greenspace with whatever works since we have no ordinance requirements for that. Warrick: Do you have greenspace shown or are they adjacent to the curb? Rudasill: The greenspace is adjacent to the curb. I believe I've got 4' minimum there, possibly 6' with a 4' sidewalk. I can't tell you right off the top of my head exactly. It is shown. Warrick: It looks like he is showing a 6' sidewalk and a 4' sidewalk. I think that it would be reasonable to look at a 4' and a 4' possibly just to provide some distance between the curb and the sidewalk. Hoover: I prefer the 6' and the 10' unless you can actually show in a particular section that that saves some trees. I wouldn't just unilaterally say the whole thing can be reduced because we are saving trees on three lots. The Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 43 sidewalk doesn't have to be straight, that line can jog if that may be different. Rudasill: That would push everyone of those further back to accommodate cars parking in the driveway having accessibility to driveways. Pate: Potentially it could lessen the slope in driveways as well. Shrinking that overall greenspace, sidewalk, would allow for less of a slope. Rudasill: We are trying to keep the accessibility areas to within what is allowed. We are trying to pull those units in as close as we can yet have a couple that go up into the hill with longer driveways. The units that are down by the road with those moving everything has to move. Those driveways are as shallow as they can be with the accessibility issue with sidewalks on the rear side. Bunch: This is sandwiched between two hillsides, between a commercial district and a hillside with a residential up on top of it, it is a real unique situation. I know that we don't have building setbacks necessarily with a PZD but with the current situation for redevelopment of the downtown area people are saying gee, we would have more latitude of developing downtown if we eased up on our setback requirements. I see this as being somewhat analogous because again, it is a piece of property that is sandwiched between a commercial district and a hillside with residential on the other side of the hill. There are still some buffers in there and it looks like a creative solution. Rudasill: The reason I went to a 4' sidewalk is because they were required on both sides of the street. If it were required on one side of the street then I could possibly do the 6' sidewalk with the greenspace. The road can be adjusted to accommodate. Since I don't have a sidewalk that I have to provide access across the driveway on that side those can be closer to the road. Ostner: I would still like to try to illustrate this issue. I can see the buildings much closer to the road with some sort of alley system or alternative parking. The alley could be very narrow, go ahead and leave the street. The alley could be one way 10' for parking only. Bring the buildings closer. This is almost a suburban flatland model trying so hard to be on this difficult hillside. I think we need to kind of think Eureka Springs or Malibu or something really different. If these buildings were brought up almost to an urban model and an alley were worked out for the parking then the grade of the building and the street could match. Bunch: Where would you put sidewalks? Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 44 Ostner: Put it right on the curb, put it 2' from the curb like an urban downtown model. Hoover: You are saying then you don't have the driveway slope, take advantage of the slope in land rather than fighting the slope in land. Ostner: You push the buildings as close to the street as a downtown model would work and you work out the cars on the backside. Rudasill: Just looking at this, if we pull those forward and try to put an alley down there we are going to lose at least two buildings. As an engineer I don't see any benefit from it. Ostner: I'm seeing really long driveways in some senses. Some of them are short and really steep and the others are almost too long and that is inefficient. I think it can work. I think it can work out. I think it can be less problematic for vehicles. I think this is a good project, it is a difficult place, it is a good project for this place. I am having trouble with the detail of how it is laid out. When I look at the density of 8.3 units per acre since you are in a 40 unit per acre, 24 unit per acre and a 4 unit per acre area, that seems like a good density. Mathematically it is a low density. I don't know if the hillside can handle it is what I'm driving at. If another method were used I think it could work. Rudasill: The other alternative to this property, like I said, this is what Mr. Brophy has strived for. He feels it is the best development for this area. Aesthetics wise as far as duplexes, return on his investment that is another item. This was his retirement plan. The other viable option on the RMF -24 and RMF -40 is straight apartments with the RSF-4 area being preserved as the tree preservation for that area. The density of a straight apartment two story high, two units going one on top of the other would be higher than what is there. Bunch: We are looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of 130 or more units possible on this piece of ground with the existing zonings. It is being limited to 50 units. Ostner: That is not exactly a slam dunk either. Rudasill: I have looked at apartment layouts on this and they can get a density of at least 12 units per acre on that RMF -40 and RMF -24 and this area here would be greenspace, tree preservation area, which is an acre more than what would be required for the six acre site. Because you can't have a mixed use of use the R-2 and R-4 on that area. Hoover: If you did a PZD you could have that. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 45 Rudasill: They wouldn't need it for that. Hoover: I guess I think where I'm at on this project is I need to go look at it. I don't know if I'm for or against it at the moment. Everything that we have been talking about and especially with the hillside development, I have lots of concerns. It doesn't seem like at this point that the applicant is willing to adjust anything. Rudasill: We have adjusted and adjusted this thing. Bunch: It has been withdrawn a couple of times. Hoover: What is the history of this project maybe I'd have more compassion. Warrick: Right now it is a rezoning with the request to make it a uniform zoning. The request is for RMF -40 for everything. Hoover: I just want to follow you and make sure I understand. Warrick: The City Council zoned a portion that is closest to College RMF -24 as opposed to RMF -40. It was commercial. Hoover: This has been in the last year? Warrick: Yes, it was early summer. The suggestion at that time was that we look at a PZD because o the mix in the different zoning districts and the challenges that are inherent on the site based on its location and geographical issues. We started looking at a PZD in July and we have been through Plat Review two or three times, we have been to Subdivision at least one other time I believe, or at least close to Subdivision. It has been tabled two or three times by staff trying to work out some additional details. Rudasill: The big issues are that it is cut up very severely by existing easements, rears, fronts, sides, we are having to wedge these buildings in between those easements and still accommodate tree preservation, which has been the really hard one to adjust. Hoover: I would like to know from staff, what comments were their concerns and have they been addressed? Warrick: We have been working very closely with Mr. Rudasill and I think that we have gotten to a pretty good comfort level. We believe that the land use is appropriate, that the density is appropriate, especially given the fact that the more dense treed areas that are remaining provide the buffer between Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 46 the single family use and the proposed development. It is sandwiched inhere, like everyone said, on the hillside between single family homes and heavy commercial. We are talking about just over eight units per acre in a duplex configuration. We had a lot of concerns with the number of curb cuts, the number of driveways that were immediately accessing the streets because you didn't even have really breaks in that to allow for any on street parking because it was all curb cut after curb cut. We feel like we have been able to reduce that to some degree by combining some of these and finding elevations and plans that are suitable to the applicant's needs that provide for that kind of driveway configuration. We have had to, the applicant has had to work around some significant issues with regard to drainage, as well as public and private easements. I have got them kind of highlighted on this plan. The orange is drainage and the purple is all easement area that cannot have structures located within that. Strategically, they have put their street in that area, which functions, but they have had to basically sandwich in some units between easement and drainage that are really tight and it makes it very difficult to look at additional access when you are trying to work around the different things in color on the drawing once you start laying things on paper and we've also got easement issues that basically surround the entire site further easements that are existing. Rudasill: This is an existing sewer easement, this is an existing utility easement that runs here. These hatched areas on the tree plan are existing utility easements. This continues on. We didn't want the hatching going over the street but this easement here is that purple easement. Warrick: That is a gas easement. Rudasill: There is a sewer that runs down this side. Hoover: I guess I'm confused because it looks like it is big right here but it is not. Rudasill: This is tree preservation area in an easement right here. This area has been eliminated from the tree preservation numbers because it is in an existing easement. That is the only reason this is hatched. It gives a good depiction of where the easements lie. There are existing easements which we can't change short of a Vacation but they've got utilities in them so they can't be vacated. Hoover: I don't know what kind they are but I have moved utility easements before. Rudasill: This is telephone and gas I believe are in here, sewer is here. Hoover: What is this going down here? Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 47 Rudasill: That is a gas easement and sewer easement and overhead electric easement that continues on from here and goes on up Brophy Circle. It is two high pressure gas mains. Warrick: Given the history and the amount of effort that we feel has been put into this we were pretty pleased to be able to bring the project to this level with issues such as the sidewalks and the overhead electric. Those are more detail, more minor issues than the overall scope of the project and just the overall land use connectivity type issues that are more broad. We felt like we had widdled it down to the more detailed issues. If that is not the case, if the Subdivision Committee feels like this needs to be reworked then we will do it, if the applicant is willing we will keep working on it but we need some real specific direction as to how to do that to make the Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission comfortable with the project at hand. Bunch: The effort that has been put in to accommodate any of the easements and various problematic aspects of this project and to work with the hillsides, I think there has been a pretty good job done of not overloading the hillsides and not having tremendous cuts into the hillsides and that sort of thing. It has been a very good set of compromises and I think that we need to take a real good look at how the system of compromises is working because there were so many compromises involved here that it is quite a feat to come up with something like this to satisfy all the varying conditions on it. You are to be commended on working with staff and working with the land and easements and everything to come up with this because it is obviously, extremely problematic. I guess the question before us now as the Subdivision Committee, do we feel that we need to have them do more work or do we need to forward it to the Planning Commission. Committee members, what do you feel needs to be our action here? Hoover: I believe that we need to forward it on and either vote it up or down at Planning Commission. It will probably be a discussion because there will be several other new people looking at it. Bunch: Let's get pretty specific for the applicant. What do we feel the other Planning Commissioners would need to help them understand it better and to eliminate having to go through the lengthy process that we have at this meeting? How can we consolidate and make a better presentation to the full Commission. Of course, they could read the minutes of this meeting if they would and they might gain something from it or not. What can we offer Bill to be able to better describe the project to present it to the Commission? Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 48 Hoover: I think what usually helps me in general is if it is a project with a long history of coming in if there is a little summary of each time. What was in the beginning or even if there was a small drawing in the packet that showed what came in from day one. Just a little small synopsis to understand that this isn't the first time through. If I hadn't been here I would have thought that this was the first time through. That is one thing that definitely helps me. I think that we have to go by the site. Ostner: Something that would help me would be to have those worked out like this. Hoover: Those go on flat land. Ostner: Just a schematic. Bunch: Saying which of those goes where and that is possible at this time to have those sections. Ostner: It would need to be a little more than schematic because of the scale and the distance to curb and street I think is important. Rudasill: At the time that those were done we were actually discussing the thought of having the developer build the driveway to his needs as far as he elevation he wanted and we were still limiting him to the pad but the driveway was going to be built. Staff has said that we cannot do that. We have to specify the drive and have it built up front. The intent there is on the uphill sides is to stay with the existing slope as close as possible so we are not doing a whole lot of excavation. We go up and then we do a level pad for the house for the driveway, for the garage and then stem walls up and the basement would be into the hillside so that there would be a stairwell coming out in the back. Ostner: This is very helpful. I wanted to have this on many projects. This really helps me understand. As I said before, it is the downhill ones that needs clarification. Rudasill: The grade across that is not as bad as it looks, especially in that area. That is actually the prime building area is where all those units are. Hoover: The other issue I think is the sidewalks and the greenspace. I am going to just defer to staff on that if you look at it more closely because you know the project better and just have a clear. Warrick: Some of those sections would also help us in determining what is going to be most appropriate with regard to sidewalks and greenspace. We want to Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 49 ensure that we are not causing a worse problem with something that we can be flexible in. We can do that. Hoover: I certainly appreciate sidewalks on both sides but I think like Alan said if there is some situation where you need to pull it up to the curb or something. I would prefer wider over I guess the greenspace if that was an option. Rudasill: I can tell you this the owner was kicking and screaming when he had to do them on both sides of the street. That added $11 a foot for the length of the street. Hoover: Was there something else that you were trying to ask a waiver for? Pate: The overhead electric. Rudasill: If that is an issue we will just drop it. I don't think it is going to go forward. Bunch: Sharon, on the history, do you want a history from the standpoint of the applicant or the staff or combined history? Hoover: If staff has a little synopsis. Warrick: We will try to put together a little time line that shows where we have been with the project. Ostner: Now, the tricky question. I would love to see some impermeable breakdowns. Warrick: You will need to table it and bring it back to Subdivision Committee. What do you mean by imperial breakdowns? Ostner: How much driveway, how much rooftop and driveway and street. Hoover: We don't have that ordinance yet. Ostner: I know we don't. Ostner: I see too much driveway and I see that as being a problem. Bunch: Are you saying percentage of total lot? Ostner: Yes. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 50 Warrick: The tricky part in this is that the lot is the footprint. These are not 25 individual building lots. They are 25 footprints. Ostner: I am talking about overall built to non built dirt to permeable ratio for the total project. I think it is going to be an ok number. Rudasill: We can do that. It is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of less than 50% actually looking at it here. It is just a matter of pulling off areas on the computer. We have already tentatively done it for the drainage area. Warrick: We are looking at Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. as the revision date. Rudasill: The biggest thing that we have to do is the cross sections on the building. Warrick: For those will you be doing an example at each level like each side of each street one example or maybe one at the upper level ones? Rudasill: Depending on how much time we have and how difficult it turns out to be. We will cut a cross section through, try to get it through each building. Bunch: If you have multiple, number seven seems like a worst case and a best case. Warrick: You are going to use actual grade and actual elevation? Rudasill: We will use the grade that is on the plan. Bunch: Do I hear a motion? MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we forward R-PZD 03-07.00 to the full Planning Commission. Hoover: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Of course that is subject to Subdivision Committee notes. Hoover: Thanks. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 51 R-PZD 03-06.00: Planned Zoning District (Benton Ridge, pp 527) was submitted by Crafton, Tull and 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 final item on the agenda is another Planned Zoning District submitted by Crafton Tull & Associates, R-PZD 03-06.00 for property on the east side of Crossover Road, north of Huntsville and south of Wyman Road. The property is zoned RSF-4 and contains approximately 8.34 acres and the request is for a Planned Zoning District with a total of 44 dwelling units on 23 lots. Jeremy, is this yours? Jon and Julie, if you would like to come on up and join us. Pate: I won't go through this in minutia, the same Commissioners heard it two meetings ago. Just for the public's knowledge, and everyone else's knowledge, this project has been through the process several times. This is the second time it has been heard at the Subdivision Committee to my knowledge. It has been in Technical Plat or just prior to Technical Plat many more times than that. There is a detailed itemized report in your packets regarding those changes that were made pursuant to Subdivision Committee comments of two times ago. A graphic has been provided with the units located on a majority of the lots. I believe there is one or two that have still not been located or identified. Setbacks have changed. A neighborhood meeting was put on by the applicant. That meeting announcement is in your packets as well as are the people that signed in for that meeting that were there. I believe some of these property owners are here as well. From those comments, there have been some changes from what I understand from the applicant and representative. Some setbacks were altered, some units were kind of moved around. At the last proposal, the front two lots on either side of that street were single family and the one to the very far south was a duplex lot. It has now been determined that that will be a single family lot. It has an identified footprint so there are now lots 23, 22, and 21 are all single family lots. The tree preservation and conservation to open space has been identified with covenants and some notes on the plat. In addition, at the Final Plat of this those will be recorded protective easements with specific restrictions on development for those. That was another concern of the Subdivision Committee. All of the lots are duplex lots and have all been identified in your packets. I believe there are some elevations of those in your packets. Lots one and two is a multi-plex unit. It contains four units over two lots. There are two units per lot. There was a lot of discussion about this at Subdivision Committee last time and the applicant has decided to pursue this option. There will be at least twelve bedrooms for this structure, Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 52 which is consistent with the remainder of the structures, each has six bedrooms. In your staff report I provided a table based on lot number. It is actually on this drawing as well now that I notice it. The type of land use, whether it is a multi duplex, a two family or single family, what type of structure is indicated in your packets, the number of units and the number of bedrooms as well. The mitigation numbers for tree canopy has gone up a bit I believe with some of these changes and that is reflected in the staff report. There was a cul-de-sac shift a bit. Prior to this submittal the cul-de-sac and sidewalk were directly on the property line adjacent to the cemetery. That has been moved so that they comply with at least five feet and no grading or construction within that zone from the property line. Listed in page four of your packets it also explains what setbacks have changed, the 5' setback for the fronts of lots one through five was revised to a 20' utility easement. That was pursuant to a comment at Subdivision Committee. There were several setbacks that were closer to the property line that have been adjusted to 10' and to 15' as opposed to the 5' that was existing. I think I will just leave it at that. Staff is recommending that it be forwarded with conditions. Specifically, we would like to see the parking for the multi-plex unit for lots one and two be addressed because there are so many bedrooms. There could be potentially a different driveway configuration or some sort of configuration on that lot to allow for better parking simply because there could be so many cars in that location. Also, screening, staff feels that it would be appropriate to screen between this cul-de-sac and sidewalk and the cemetery in that location to the south that is adjacent to the cemetery. The lots which are not identified with corresponding units, which I believe is only lot 20, should be identified with a corresponding unit at the time of the Planning Commission meeting. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Are there additional staff comments? Tree and Landscape? Carnagey: They did identify the easement areas however, before the Final Plat we will need a note describing ownership of that preservation area and they have the language for that note on their comments sheet that I submitted. There will be a payment into the city's tree escrow account as well for mitigation. Bunch: Thank you. I guess we might as well address it now, are you speaking of the some of the greenspace and tree preservation areas are P.O.A's and some of them appear to be private ownership, having that clarified? Carnagey: Exactly. Bunch: I think we spoke to that at the last meeting and then at Tech Plat. This is the third meeting that we still are not getting clear on it. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 53 Zimmerman: There is a note on the plat that pretty much states that the conservation easements, which are lots 25, 26 and 27 are to be maintained by the P.O.A. Any greenspace that is on the individual lot will be owned by the lot owner but also maintained by the P.O.A. Bunch: One of the concerns is with individual lot ownership trees can be removed in residential. Zimmerman: Not per the covenants. Any trees located in areas designated as greenspace are to remain. Bunch: What about areas designated as tree preservation offsite? Zimmerman: Those are also to remain. Bunch: The conservation easement on 28 also? Zimmerman: Yes, this is a greenspace. Bunch: It is hard to tell how far that goes if it stops here or if it stops right here. Zimmerman: 28 stops right here where that line is and this piece is in lot 18. Carnagey: There is a standard note in the manual that identifies the language. This is just the preferred language we would like for them to use. Bunch: Parks? Ohman: Parks fees will be due in the amount of $16,275. That is for the 40 multi- family units and it counts for one single family unit as there are two existing single family units on the property. Those will be due before issuance of the Final Plat. Bunch: Matt? Casey: The retaining walls that we saw on the last submittal have changed somewhat as far as location. They have labeled the heights as requested. We do have the setback, as Jeremy mentioned, from the cemetery property line so I don't have any additional comments. Bunch: Was there any additional consideration on the outfall of the drainage across lot 26? I think that was something that we discussed at the last meeting. It is just more of a rhetorical question. What happens when it just dumps out? How do you address that? Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 54 Zimmerman: When we do our construction plans and check the velocity of the water coming out of that storm drain we will either put riprap or whatever is needed. We just haven't got that far yet. Pate: Mr. Bunch, I forgot to put in the conditions but it would be appropriate to add. There is a formal request now in your packets and in our files for the cul-de-sac length. The applicant requests 965' length as opposed to 500' maximum. This is sort of the time line reference. In previous submittals a loop drive was proposed and utilized to serve these lots which removed a significant grouping of trees. On your greenspace document it is this grouping of trees here near this detention pond. A looped drive removed those and minimized the area available for a detention pond creating a 9' or 10' wall surrounding that in previous submittals. Staff was concerned about both of those items and we actually recommended that a different alignment be utilized for this. The applicant has proposed something that we feel does work for the density served by this development, which is 5.2 dwelling units per acre. Bunch: Thank you. At this time we will turn it over to the applicant. If you all would introduce yourselves and bring us up to date on this latest variation of this project. Zimmerman: Sure. I am Julie Zimmerman with Crafton, Tull & Associates and this is Jon Brittenum, who is representing Long, LLC. I may repeat some of the things that Jeremy has mentioned but I think it will help see what all we've done to help move this project along. Since we were here at Subdivision Committee last time, lot 23 down here was a two family duplex. We have changed it to single family. He did mention that lot one and two was a little confusing but it will be two units on lot one and two units on lot two. It will be kind of an attached duplex is what it is really. The preservation easements were given lot numbers and we spelled out on the plat that they will be maintained by the P.O.A. Lot 24 was given a lot number because it is the detention pond. The cul-de-sac was moved north so that there wouldn't be any grading within 5' of the cemetery. We did submit this drawing also showing the footprints and the driveway which I know everyone was concerned about last time. We have included a packet of which footprint goes with which elevation and they are numbered on the bottom what goes with what lot which is pretty helpful. On the front of lots 1 through 5 there were comments at the last meeting that there was only a 5' front setback. We have changed that to 20'. The 8' setback on the back of lots 7 through 9' used to be an 8' setback, we have changed that to a 15' setback and after this meeting before it goes to the Planning Commission, we will be changing lots land 8 to have a 20' rear setback. Lot 9 right now we have it shown as a 15' setback. Before it goes onto Planning Commission it will show a 17' rear setback for lots 9 and 10. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 55 Those are some of the concerns that we have addressed from adjacent property owners. Bunch: Those are significant changes. Zimmerman: Yes. Hoover: Would you just go on down the road, 11 through 15 have what rear setback? Zimmerman: 15'. Hoover: Ok. Zimmerman: There was a 5' setback on the east side of lot 17 along the road and this was revised to a 10' setback. We held a meeting on November 18`h with the adjacent property owners. It went pretty well. One of the comments that we have addressed since that meeting and didn't reflect on the original drawings, as you can see on lots 9 and 10 we did have a footprint for Creekstone Way. Since the meeting with the property owners we have replaced it with Cooper Lake footprints, which are single story, whereas Creekstone Way was a two story. I believe that is most of the changes that we've made unless I'm forgetting something. Pate: Has lot 20 been identified for a unit? Zimmerman: No, not yet. Bunch: At this time I will take public comment if anyone would like to address us on this issue for Benton Ridge Planned Zoning District please come to the podium and give us the benefit of your comments. Clemens: My name is Dawn Clemens, I am on your map here, lot number 10. I would like to represent all of those lots right there, 9 through 13. You have representation already from the other lots, 7 and 8 here. If they are to be 20' for the other ones I would ask that our setback be 20' as well. Zimmerman: I don't believe that lot 10 can be any larger than a 17' setback at the moment. I see no problem with making lot 11 a 20' setback, lot 12 a 20' setback but lot 13 may stretch out to be a 17' setback. I don't think we can stretch it to 20'. Bunch: Are there any other comments Ma'am? Clemens: The only other thing is I've lived there for six years. I know my neighbors have been there for much longer than that. Right now when I'm standing Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 56 in my yard I can touch out two arm lengths and touch the red markers where they have marked for my yard. Right now it is my yard. That is where the markers are in my back yard. Of course I have small children and do not wish to have it that close. I understand that looking at this they have made amendments to move it back 17'. 1 would really much have it further as far back as the others with the 20' if you can see to do that. That's all I have. Bunch: Jeremy, if this were an RSF-4 home what would the rear setback be? Pate: The rear setbacks would be 20' if it were a single family home in the RSF- 4 zoning district. Ostner: What about the next dense district? I think it is more, I think it is 25'. Bunch: The current zoning is RSF-4 looking at it that way. Ostner: I know but it is a PZD and so we are changing that. Pate: If you went to an RSF-7, seven units per acre the setbacks are the same. The first time it jumps up is with a RMF -6, six units per acre and that jumps up to a 25' rear setback. Bunch: Is there anyone else who would like to make comment? Isaacs: You will be pleased to know that I brought this down from A through H to A to D. I am Elsa Isaacs, 2665 E. Travis. I was speaking with Julie and Jon out in the hallway asking them if they would make even further adaptations because my son told me that you don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. They were very flexible and they allowed a 20' setback because my property is a trapezoid. My property abuts 10, 11 and a wee bit of 9, is that correct? Brittenum: 7, 8 and a little bit of 9. Isaacs: Alright. That is why it would impact me so much more greatly. They allowed that, for which I'm pleased, 20' and I'm saying it so that it goes into the record. Ms. Zimmerman and Mr. Brittenum also said that if they put a privacy fence up it would be not on the property line but on Benton Ridge's property. They also said that the evergreen trees, which by the way are not represented on the green map at the back of my lot but they guaranteed that the evergreens would be preserved. They are very large and they are a windbreak and habitat. I am sorry if I'm focusing so narrowly on my own property but you know, it's my ox. I was satisfied with that. If those evergreens and that wooden fence with the wall of honeysuckle were to be cared for very, very tenderly when the sewer line Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 57 is hooked up to mine I would appreciate that. Mrs. Harden's property, if I'm not out of line, Mrs. Harden's line setback is 17'. By the way 8' is small and 17' and 20' are better I'm sure I don't need to tell you. We are pleased with that. The configuration of the building, as was mentioned a moment ago, has been changed and the duplexes are true duplexes, not duplex as a name only, not conjoined twins as Creekstone. That is not my problem anymore. That said, I am not going to fuss over this much. I am going to watch carefully. It ain't over until it is over. I am going to watch carefully at different meetings, not that that should scare anybody because I don't know anything. I would like to say something quickly so you get your lunch. Henceforth, when these proposed zoning districts are posited, that we look at whether there is some sort of bazaar position with existing neighborhoods. It doesn't mean that you have to replicate the existing neighborhood. In this particular case, as I mentioned to Julie out there, this is 270° of proximity and only Crossover is free of adjoining properties. I think all the ruckus is a function of this 270° proximity in addition to the whole character of this residential enclave changing significantly. Successful organisms adapt. We can either be ludites, we an either oppose change totally, or we can be somewhat flexible. I do want to thank the developers and the engineers for being somewhat flexible. That doesn't mean that I think this is the best of all possible worlds. As my neighbor Scott Clemens said, he is a smart young man, considering some of the alternatives, some of the other developers using this 8.34 acres, it could've been worse. Of course, it could've been better, we could've had lovely pasture beyond our properties forever and forever amen. It ain't going to happen. I specifically mention these accommodations that you have made, Ms. Zimmerman and Mr. Brittenum so they will be in the record and I hope and trust that they will be adhered to. Bunch: Thank you Ms. Isaacs. Does anyone else wish to address us on this issue? Clemens: I didn't get any feedback from the developers as to whether they would move that back for the rest of the group. Again, my name is Dawn Clemens and I am one of the property owners there. Bunch: Normally we take public comment and then after we close comment then the developers address it. Clemens: They did give comment, they said that they couldn't do it. Does that mean that it is set at 15' or 8'? Brittenum: What we can do, and what Julie said, on lots 11 and 12 we can increase that setback to 20' but on lot 13 all we can do is increase it to 17'. We are 3' shy of what you are asking. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 58 Zimmerman: I think she is asking about lot 10, which can only be increased to a 17' setback. Pate: It was 8' previously, is that correct? Zimmerman: No, that one was 15' Bunch: Are there any other comments? Clemens: That is a picture of the yard, that is what they look like, most of the yards in the back. Bunch: It is hard to understand. Is this the overhead electric that is being shown on the drawings that runs north and south? Clemens: That is number nine. Bunch: It is hard to tell from this what the extent of the easement is. It just shows a power line. Clemens: Just the power line. Right next to the power line is the end. That is where the red markers are for construction. There is nothing marked there now. It is just right there, the fence line. I just want to make sure that it is moved back. Brittenum: You want us to address the picture? Bunch: Yes. Brittenum: This picture looks like it has been taken north and south. Are these trees that are in line here the edge of the utility easement? Clemens: Yes. Brittenum: That is 20' onto your property? Clemens: It is about 4' or 5' and there are markers for the construction. I just want to make sure that that is moved back. If you are standing there facing the field and to your left you can see the cemetery. Brittenum: Correct. Your property line actually goes beyond. Clemens: My property line actually goes there at the end where I'm standing. Brittenum: Ms. Harden's property line would be an additional 10' to the west correct? Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 59 Clemens: Exactly. Brittenum: Then we are an additional 17' beyond that. Clemens: Right now the markers are in my yard. I just want to make sure that they are moved back. That's the only reason I came here today. Bunch: Jon, would you tell us if those are the property line markers or the building setback markers? Zimmerman: I don't think our company has placed any markers at this point. Brittenum: It could be surveying markers, it could be a benchmark for the engineers. I don't really know what it is. I personally haven't been out there. Bunch: They don't show up in the picture. Brittenum: At this point there has been no lot staking or setback staking. Zimmerman: We haven't sent our surveyors out there to stake anything. Brittenum: None of that has been done. That is definitely not a lot stake or a setback stake or building line. Zimmerman: We just toped the site months ago but we haven't sent our surveyors out there since. Bunch: Thanks. Is there any additional public comment? Ostner: While we are looking at these, I have a question. I know this is a PZD but on our regular development ordinances don't we have a height limit? Pate: Not in the RSF-4 there is no height limitations. Typically it is within the multi -family and commercial districts. Ostner: This is becoming multi -family very quickly. I am wondering what the limits are on other districts, just as a point of comparison. Pate: A point of 20' is the height that is addressed. Every foot over that 20' is an additional foot in setback from the setbacks as designated in that zoning district. Ostner: Right. That is sort of what is concerning me about this project is that I did a little sketch to try to understand it myself. In RSF-4 if we are building single family homes, there is a 20' setback and no maximum building height. We get into multi -family this and this are roughly one to one. I Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 60 think it is a 25' setback and a 20' max and then it increases one to one. A 30' setback is required for a 30' building. This is just a point of reference. These don't apply but these are used in other districts. I am concerned that we are not even close to a one to one setback and height ratio on this western edge against the neighbors. I can see getting tall buildings close to property lines in the rest of the project but along this residential area I need to see at least a one to one setback and height. Zimmerman: Aren't they just one story buildings? Pate: Actually, on this graphic the cave height is listed as 10' for the majority of those units. I believe Creekside Way which has been changed now is no longer two story, it is a one story unit. I am assuming that that will be consistent with the 10' cave height that is listed on this graphic. Ostner: Ok, good. I saw the picture of Creekside in here. Bunch: Is this a new handout that came out today or is this left over from the last time? Pate: It came out today. We handed that out today with your packets. Bunch: I must not have got the hand outs because I didn't get this or this. Zimmerman: The only change is that Creekstone is now a Cooper Lake. Brittenum: We changed that at the meeting with adjacent property owners last week. Ms. Harden and Ms. Isaacs were concerned about the two story Creekstone. By the way all of these names are names of plans that we are going to be building in here and their concern was that it was two story and they didn't want people looking in their yard, which I understand. We came to an agreement to do this particular one story on these two lots. Hoover: Can we finish on the rear setbacks? I'm in agreement with Alan. I think that we should refer to our code what we use usually in this district and I think it has got to be at least a 20' continuous rear setback or 25'. I don't know what on this side, is this at least 20' or what is this setback on the north edge? Zimmerman: Lots one and two only have an 8' rear setback but we can change it to 20' if you want to. Hoover: Can all of this also be 20' on the north? Zimmerman: It may already be except for lots one and two. I don't see any problem with making it 20'. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 61 Hoover: That ought to be consistent so that we have been fair to all the neighbors and not just the ones that came here. Pate: It is listed as 28 on lots 3,4,5,6, 7 and 8. Zimmerman: There is a 28' setback behind lots 3,4,5 and 6 and part of 7. Lots 1 and 2 only have an 8' setback but we can change it to 20' if you want to. Brittenum: As far as the setbacks on the east rear property lines, currently we do not have a building going in there that is going to exceed the 20' height. I don't see where that is even a factor as long as we are within the ordinance and the code. Hoover: The ordinance is 20'. Pate: The PZD allows the flexibility to change those. Hoover: Yes, but if we want to refer back to this kind of zoning. Ostner: We are rezoning to multi -family in essence. Hoover: What are we the equivalent of? Zimmerman: Single family is four units per acre, we are at 5.2 acres per acre. Ostner: I'm not talking density, I'm talking single or multi -family. Zimmerman: Right but multi -family has a density of 12 units per acre and that is when you jump to needing a 25' setback. Pate: Actually, the RT -12 which is a standard duplex and triplex residential two and three family district has a 20' rear setback. That is up to 12 units per acre. Ostner: What is RSF-7? Pate: That is also a 20'. Ostner: Since it is zoned at four units per acre and we are going beyond that to 5.2 units per acre and we are not only upping the density but we are changing it from single family to multi -family, I feel like we are already giving towards the density in the development. I think as something back the 20' should be a minimum along the back. I'm glad it is single story. Hoover: I think it absolutely has to be a 20'. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 62 Bunch: What is the RMF -6 requirement? Pate: That is a multi family, it jumps to 25'. Ostner: Here again, I'm not asking for that setback to be throughout the development. When the buildings meet each other back to back or side to side I can see those setbacks being reduced greatly. That is part of the flexibility of a PZD. When it abuts these neighbors to the east I would need it to be more. I just can't see giving that away. Bunch: To the east and the north. Ostner: What are these front distances? Could the buildings be simply moved a little? Zimmerman: Cooperlake, the ones on lots 9 and 10 could only move about 2' more. That is where you've got that 20' utility easement. Lots 7 and 8 there is no problem, lots 11 and 12 there is no problem and lot 13 there is not that much room. Hoover: You might have to switch it from Cooper Lake to something else. You've got a group of these to select from. Brittenum: I'm speaking obviously, on the owner's behalf. Part of the design in this and part of the process in going through a PZD was that we could adjust the property lines as needed. We have made many, many concessions as far as the setbacks are concerned and the actual structures that are going in here. I don't know, I've been involved with one other PZD. That one we did not have to actually disclose the individual structures and driveways and so forth and so on. We are doing things that I don't see is a norm in the PZD process. If we have a couple of lots, 1, 2, and 3 to be exact, that we cannot get a 20' setback out of because our structures won't fit I don't understand why that 3' on those lots is a problem. When our eave heights meet the requirements. Am I making sense? Hoover: From what I'm remembering from all the PZDs we've done so far, and they have evolved since they started since it is a new process, also we have got to have an educational program on them. Soon have a workshop about what we're really looking for. One thing, I don't remember what other one you brought through. Pate: The very first one, Jackson Place. Hoover: Right. I thought we were following the ordinance. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 63 Bunch: That was all single family. Brittenum: What I was getting to by saying that is that yes it was single family and we did not have to disclose the actual houses but had we had smaller lots or what not. Bunch: There was some question on that one, I think what gave it part of the buffer, if I remember right on the south side and the east side there were some tree preservation areas and drainage areas and that sort of thing that created a buffer with adjoining areas. That is one of the things that I look at on PZDs is just by it's very nature it is not going to be a norm. To compare one to another is not necessarily, we're not looking at apples and apples here. Brittenum: From a developer's standpoint, it makes it even that much harder to bring something here and when we've been through this for eight months now with staff and this is the second time we've been here. It seems like we have a sliding scale. Every time we come back we have done something that was asked for and then when we come back it is still not right. We will agree. I am not trying to be confrontational. It is just kind of hard to bring you all something accurate when it is going to change. Bunch: One thing to recall when going through the process from a design standpoint would be to remember he caveat that is in the PZD ordinance is that we do have the latitude. It is based on existing ordinances so we start from there. To me, the PZD process is a tool to deal with problematic locations but it doesn't mean that we throw everything out simultaneously. It might be that it allows us the latitude to shift and adjust a few things. Just to take a RSF-4 and turn it into an RMF -6 then we are starting to look at compatibility issues and that sort of thing. It is a powerful tool but it also has to be used within reason so from a developer's standpoint it is not like saying I've got a R-PZD here, I've got a clean slate, I can do anything I want to. The ordinance still gives us direction to look at what is suggested, what is called for but it also gives the ability to compromise. When you come through with something that pushes the limits on everything involved then the number of compromises go up. You create those yourself. The more aggressive you are and the more departure you have from the original zoning the more compromises you are setting yourself up for. You have control over that. Brittenum: From the compromise standpoint, with 3 out of 13 lots we have moved the setbacks to accommodate the 25' rear, can we not compromise and allow us to keep 3 at 17? Hoover: I was at the last Subdivision. I don't have the greatest memory but I know we talked about the rear setbacks and I know I referred to what our Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 64 ordinance is in general for them and that they ought to be uniform. I know this is greatly improved. The first time it seemed like every footprint had a different setback. Ostner: We didn't have footprints, we just had setbacks and the footprints we definitely need and that helps. I just don't see how we can not be consistent and the other thing, I just wanted to add to Don's about a PZD in general. I am going to refer to the ordinances as guidelines and then what your benefit is that you can adjust those without asking for a waiver. You can do thing and have different setbacks on your front setback or like Alan was mentioning, in between your buildings there is a smaller setback and you don't have to be asking for waivers is the advantage I thought to PZDs. Bunch: Also not having to get the zoning, to spend the extra time to wait until the rezoning goes through and then it would possibly fail because people might be too hesitant to give an open zoning. Brittenum: Let's move forward and I will put some thought to this while we are finishing our discussion. Ostner: If you all would've applied for a zoning change and you would've got the RMF -12 eight months ago. I don't think that you could even be building this much because the setbacks on those apartment buildings are severe, unless you've got one big block in the middle of this lot, maybe two. There are benefits to you guys too. I think you all are getting a better project, more development, more profitability through all this difficulty. As I said, it is not a set thing that we are turning you away. I think you are getting a better project out of this. As a specific, in general I'm in favor of this. I would just have to exist on a minimum of 20'. If that building has to be shortened then maybe it is a little too big for the site. I don't like the elbows but we are too far down this road to kick out a elbow in the middle of the road isn't right. I'm going to let it go but that is not the way a road is supposed to be to kick out so a corner can be developed more intensely. There is supposed to be one at the end of the street. I would like those setbacks changed but in general I think it can be moved forward. Hoover: I don't have any problem with anything other than the rear setbacks. Jeremy, when you present if you could just make it clear about why this cul-de-sac is longer, just make it perfectly clear. Pate: If I might get some comments. One of the conditions addresses the parking for the multi-plex units. Perhaps some suggestions for the developer and the applicant could be addressed. Hoover: How long are those driveways? I thought they looked pretty long. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 65 Ostner: If that is 28' this is close to 25'. Zimmerman: The drive for the number one is 50' from the street to the garage. Bunch: I guess that is six per side. How many cars do the garages hold on the Sarasota prototype? Brittenum: One. Bunch: We are looking at parking five vehicles per side potentially, one vehicle per bedroom? Pate: I think four can be parked in garages. Brittenum: I was doing it per unit. Bunch: So you've got two per side. Hoover: You have this driveway that continues on so no one can park in the driveway because we've got two people in the garage. Ostner: We let them stack I believe. Pate: That is basically why staff made this comment to see if Planning Commission was comfortable with that or thought that there was a different solution that could occur. Ostner: We all know what happens. The garage gets full and everybody parks in the grass because there is no room to park. Pate: There is parallel parking allowed in the street with this section. Although, where the driveways come out that will limit that quite a bit. Ostner: If Sarasota were instead of a total of 12 bedrooms, four three bedroom units, if it were a smaller building the problem would be solved. If it were a Chelsea. Bunch: This is the question we asked last time because of this massing to use Alan's term there, to have the zero lot line and making it basically like a townhouse, are you proposing any additional parking since this is a zero lot line between lots one and two are you proposing any additional parking that would be out in this area? Brittenum: We can. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 66 Bunch: That is one of the reasons we wanted you to show. Brittenum: I didn't think about the parking on that one. Hoover: I think that this is a good example of Alan's suggestion. Actually, if you pulled this up to the street you could have tons of parking in the back if you didn't have the garage on the street. It might work better, I don't know. Ostner: The garage could be at the utility easement. The building could be pushed up to almost a zero lot line up to that utility easement and have an alley. Hoover: Have something that you can pull around in the back. Ostner: So people use the garage and the back. Hoover: Do we want eight parking spaces out front? Bunch: Our current ordinances, knowing that this is a PZD, do allow some parking in setbacks and this is one of the things that has been abused in some areas. That is why we requested that you show some of these things. One of the things that we always look at, because what we do here doesn't, even though this is a PZD and it may not necessarily be allowed for another one, if it is approved for your PZD everybody else is going to say we approved it for Jon why can't we do that. Brittenum: How many are we looking at per side if you allow stacking then we have enough room to put six per side. Bunch: Let's be realistic. What sort of people are going to be living here? Let's look at the demographics here. Brittenum: We are hoping these are going to sell to people who want to be owner occupied. They are $165,000 per side. These are large units. If you were to buy one with that money involved you are going to have to rent your adjacent side for a lot of money. I believe right there the demographics that are involved. Ostner: $165,000 per building or per unit? Brittenum: Per unit. One building would be approximately $330,000. Bunch: One of the things that we don't have before us is if this is going to be condominiums how would it be broken up to be sold? Brittenum: They would have to buy a whole unit. Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 67 Bunch: So they would buy basically lot one? Pate: That is the type of information that is appropriate to be in the covenants, how that happens. Brittenum: For lots one and two? Pate: For any of those that are going to be sold. For lots one and two specifically I think needs to be addressed. Brittenum: That is the market that the owner is targeting is an owner occupied rent the other side $330,000 a building. Bunch: What we were kind of wanting to avoid here is this deal where somebody comes in and says this is what we approved and then later somebody comes back in and says it is not a substantial difference to put this parking in the setback and you wind up with a total concrete front on this which is what we are trying to avoid. That has happened in the past. Brittenum: I would have to look at the blueprints to see if that is an option. Definitely, you could scoot it up and put the garage around the back. Hoover: I don't think we can design it for you right now but we can give you the guidance that we prefer it not to be in the front and that you need to have enough spaces for the number of bedrooms. Bunch: By having the zero lot line where you can squeeze the two together that would offer the opportunity to put a driveway and put parking in the rear. Brittenum: How much parking do you allow in the street? Hoover: According to our ordinance it is one per bedroom for multi -family. Pate: On street parking is not calculated. Brittenum: How many are we required to have for off street parking spaces? Ostner: Six and six for this Sarasota. That is a lot of acreage. What sort of easement is this? Zimmerman: It is sanitary sewer. Ostner: I don't think driveways are prohibited. Something like Cooper Lake is a lot more amenable to me with a focused curb cut and they come in and Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 68 they are pulled off the street. It is ironic that Cooper Lake is going to have to go. Hoover: A double garage might also help in the cost to consolidate it. Do you think that we can move it on with the guidance we've given? Bunch: We need to take a quick look at some other things. I want to double check the conditions of approval since we've just seen them today. I think we can. In all fairness, since we have gone this in fairly minutia give them the benefit of everything that we have looked at before we start hitting them over the head at Planning Commission. One thing is on this sewer access for lot 23. We discussed that at the last one and it didn't get changed. It is a minor detail but you are showing sewer access to lot 25, which is a conservation area. You say that this part in here is part of lot 18? Zimmerman: Yes. Bunch: I see you've added a fire hydrant since the last meeting. Ostner: The building style for lot 20 needs to be delineated before Planning Commission. Bunch: What about the eave height for the four plex? You are not showing an eave height on the adjoined duplexes. Brittenum: I'd have to get back with you on that. Bunch: Let's go ahead and figure that out while we are playing the eave height and setback game and that sort of thing and looking at the parking. Brittenum: Right now it is showing 33'. Ostner: I'm just wondering how tall it is. Brittenum: It is not 30' but I will get an answer for you. Ostner: I think it is going to be under 20'. Bunch: Basically two story. Is there anything else that you think would help in forwarding this? As we look at it, we get our questions answered. From the standpoint of commissioners looking at it for the first time, what do you think would help the applicant with their presentation? One thing of course is to go ahead and delineate the changes you have made and put those into a historical record showing what compromises you have made. A little bit of a history if it because there has been considerable interaction Subdivision Committee November 26, 2003 Page 69 with the neighborhood and considerable changes based on that interaction. That needs a little bit of publicity you might say to let people know that the process is working. It may not be working to the best of everybody's satisfaction but in general the overall compromise comes out that everybody comes out with something acceptable. We are going to have to learn to see if our process is worthwhile, if maybe we want to get rid of R- PZDs, we don't know. Ostner: I think this chart is very helpful and this drawing is very helpful at a bigger scale. Zimmerman: We have one on a board. Ostner: The packet is best to give people time to study it at home. Bunch: Any motions? MOTION: Hoover: I would like to forward this R-PZD 03-6.00 to the full Planning Commission subject to the discussion today and particularly that lots one and two parking be worked out and also that the rear setbacks show at least 20' rear setbacks on the east and the north. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Staff, is there anything from our last comments that needs additional discussion? Do you all need anything additional from us? We are adjourned.