Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-30 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on December 30, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSP 03-58.00: Lot Split (Mark Brewer, pp 526) Approved Page 3 LSP 04-02.00: Lot Split (Urfer, pp 207) Approved Page 5 LSP 04-01.00: Lot Split (Dixie Development, pp 368) Forwarded Page 7 LSP 04-04.00: Lot Split (Lot 5, Pine Valley V, pp 94) Approved Page 11 FPL 04-03.00: Final Plat (Lot 6 Pine Valley, pp 363) Approved Page 13 LSP 04-05.00: Lot Split (Briggs, pp 485) Approved Page 18 FPL 04-01.00: Final Plat (Jackson Place R-PZD, pp 255) Approved Page 21 R-PZD 04-01.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Southern View 11, pp 519) Forwarded Page 25 R-PZD 04-02.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Cross Keys, pp 438) Forwarded Page 39 ADM 04-01.00: Administrative Item (Stearns St. Apartments, pp 136) Approved Page 56 Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 2 Don Bunch Alan Ostner Jill Anthes STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Rebecca Ohman Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Craig Camagey MEMBERS PRESENT ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 3 LSP 03-58.00: Lot Split (Mark Brewer, pp 526) was submitted by William Rudasill on behalf of Mark Brewer for property located on Paddock Lane at Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 1.50 acres. The request is to divide the property into two tracts of 0.69 and 0.81 acres respectively. Bunch: Welcome to the December 30`h meeting of the Subdivision meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. We have 10 items on the agenda this morning. Have any items been pulled? Pate: No. Everything on the agenda is here. Bunch: That being said, we will move to item one, the Lot Split for Brewer. This is LSP 03-58.00 submitted by William Rudasill on behalf of Mark Brewer for property located on Paddock Land and Happy Hollow Road. Jeremy, do you have the staff report on this for us please? Pate: Yes Sir. This is a relatively straight forward Lot Split on property located at Paddock Lane and Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 1.5 acres. The request is to divide the property into two tracts of 0.69 acres and 0.81 acres. The project was initially tabled at Technical Plat Review due to the absence of the project's representative but we have made it to Subdivision Committee. Staff is recommending approval of the Lot Split with a few conditions. One of those being County approval of the existing septic systems. As you notice on your plat, both of those septic fields are shown on the plat as existing. There are a still a few questions that staff has from the applicant regarding what is existing and what is not existing as far as the septic fields as they are shown and I would ask the applicant to answer those at the appropriate time. Fox: According to Bill both septic systems are existing and the north building is built, the south building is not. Bunch: Are there any additional staff reports? Parks? Ohman: Yes Sir. In reference to that, since the building to the south is not existing there will be a Parks fees in the amount of $555 due before any building permits are issued. Bunch: Engineering, are there any additional comments? Casey: I am just curious if anybody has spoken with the County Health Department to see if the reuse of the older septic system, the one to the south you said is existing. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 4 Fox: The way I understand it is they built both septic systems at the same time and they built a building there not too long ago. It is not even completely built yet. Casey: So it is not one from an old house place then? Fox: That is correct. Casey: I don't have any other comments then. Bunch: Introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Fox: My name is Kevin Fox sitting in for Bill Rudasill and we want to take a 1.50 acre tract to split it into two. The north house is being built right now, we want to split off the south part to build another house. That's it. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on LSP 03-58.00 for Brewer on Happy Hollow Road and Paddock Lane? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions and comments. Matt, just as a matter of record, since this is in the city limits and is utilizing septic tanks, the assumption is it is a considerable distance to the nearest sewer hookup. Casey: I'm not sure if you can tell on the vicinity map where 4`h Street is. It is to the south along Happy Hollow. That is the nearest sewer. It is more than 300' of the required hook up. Bunch: Just so it is on record if anyone had a question about it. Are there any additional questions, comments or motions? MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 03-58.00 with the added condition of payment of $555 to parks for the new tot. Anthes: I second. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 5 LSP 04-02.00: Lot Split (Urfer, pp 207) was submitted by Earl Urfer for property located at 3069 W. Howard Nickell Road. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 4.23 acres. The request is to split the parent tract into two tracts of 2.08 and 2.15 acres respectively. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is also a lot split, LSP 04-02.00 submitted by Earl Urfer. This property is located at 3069 W. Howard Nickell Road. This property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 4.23 acres. The request is to split into two tracts. Suzanne? Morgan: Two tracts are to be split to create one of approximately 2.08 acres and the other 2.15 acres. This property is located south of Howard Nickell Road north of Salem Road and is located in the Planning Area. There is currently a one story home with a metal garage shop building located on the proposed lot 113. There is water that exists running parallel to Howard Nickell Road and right of way to be dedicated is 25' for a total of 55' for Howard Nickell Road. Staff is recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level with a total of four conditions including placing a note on the plat regarding the setbacks, dedication blocks reflecting the correct language recommended by the city and county approval. Bunch: Is the applicant present or representative of the applicant? Bunch: Are there any additional staff reports? Is there any additional Engineering? This is a fairly straight forward Lot Split. Dawn, do you think that we could proceed with this Lot Split if there are no unanswered questions even in the absence of the applicant? Warrick: I will leave it to the Subdivision Committee's calls. Staff is comfortable with this project and we don't feel that there are any outstanding issues that could not be resolved with some minor modifications to the plat before filing. Bunch: That being said, Committee members, are there any questions or comments? It looks like everything is pretty straight forward. Anthes: I have a question of staff. This is my first Subdivision Committee meeting. Will you remind me first of all what we can and cannot look at with a Lot Split especially in the Planning Area? Warrick: The project is required to comply with the minimum lot requirements. In the Planning Area where there are no zoning districts which designate the minimum standards for lot size. County standards as well as ours with regard to Suburban Subdivision Regulations recommends lot size and width. These lots that are being proposed to be created meet those minimum standards. The applicant understands that the installation of the Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 6 septic system for the new lot does require County Health Department approval. Really it is really a matter of ensuring those two things that access is available on Howard Nickell Road, right of way has been dedicated to comply with the Master Street Plan and that public water will be extended to the lot prior to filing. In this case it is available on Howard Nickell Road. Those are the standard issues on a Lot Split in the County that we are trying to ensure compliance with. We feel like with a few minor modifications to the information on the plat this is compliant with the standards. Bunch: I'm comfortable with hearing it at this level. Do we have a motion for this Lot Split? MOTION: Ostner: I will move that we approve LSP 04-02.00. Anthes: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 7 LSP 04-01.00: Lot Split (Dixie Development, pp 368) was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Dixie Development for property located at 2325 and 2539 N. Green Acres Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.02 acres. The request is to split the parent tract into two tracts of 0.23 and 0.79 acres respectively. Bunch: Our next item of business is also a Lot Split, LSP 04-01.00 for Dixie Development for property located on Green Acres Road. The property is zoned C-2 and is to be split into two tracts. Jeremy, if you would give us the staff report please. Pate: This project is located in the Colt Square area off of Green Acres Road and Colt Square Drive. The request is to split the 1.02 acre commercial lot into two tracts of .23 acres and .79 acres. The two structures that you see there on the plat are existing and utilized at this time as is the parking and everything else that is shown on the plat. The existing access easements allow for permanent access to the proposed tract. The entire site is in the 100 -year floodplain. If you look at the end of this report you can see where that floodplain lies. Due to this condition there is a condition that the Subdivision Committee must discuss at this time. Staff is recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission because there is a waiver or variance associated with this Lot Split request. That is addressed in condition number one. Planning Commission determination of a variance request from the requirements of the flood damage prevention code. I have attached the ordinance here in the staff report on page three. "Any plat platted so that the entire lot lies in a special flood hazard area shall contain a minimum of one acre. Subdivision Committee has seen something similar in recent meetings. The findings are also attached. Floodplain variances shall be granted if-. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. The determination of a failure to grant the variance will result in exceptional hardship. A determination that the granting of a variance will not increase flood heights or additional threats to public safety. Extraordinary Public Expense. Nuisances, etc. Staff is recommending that this Lot Split be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any additional staff comments? Engineering? Casey: Chris, can you verify the location of the larger building where the sewer service goes to, does it go to the south or the east? Brackett: Actually, I thought we were just concerned with this new lot. No, I haven't, but seeing the layout I would assume that it did. I'm not sure. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 8 Casey: If we can find that out before Planning Commission to verify that it does not cross the newly created lot. That's all I have. Bunch: Chris, can you introduce yourself and tell us about the project? Brackett: I am Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates here representing the owners today. This is two existing structures and existing parking lots in Colt Square that were built 15 years ago. What they are trying to do is have separate ownership for this building. We are aware that this is entirely in the floodplain. We feel that since this is existing we are not looking to create a lot that we will be putting additional structures on it. Everything is on it that will be on it. It is not a detriment to public safety. Because it preexisted this ordinance we feel that this isn't a detriment to the city. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address the Lot Split on Green Acres Road? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for comments, questions and motions. Chris, on splitting up the parking spaces to divide this into two separate tracts do we need to have an ADA accessible parking space for tract 2 to warrant that? Brackett: There are 10 spaces, I think an ADA might be on the cusp of that. Warrick: What are the uses in the two buildings? If they are professional office the requirement is one per 300 sq.ft. with 10 spaces on the lot with the smaller building you are accommodating about one per every 250 sq.ft. You have exceed your requirement by providing 10 on that lot. At one per 300 sq.ft. on the other you would need 30 spaces and you have exceeded that as well. Bunch: What does that do on ADA? Warrick: On ADA you need one for the smaller building and two on the larger building on the south. The ratio is one per every 25. Bracket: Since we are over our parking we could do some re -striping and make an accessible parking space out of one of the existing spaces since we are over the parking requirement. Bunch: Since this has to be forwarded to the full Planning Commission that gives you an opportunity to work with staff on providing ADA spaces. Are there any other comments, questions or motions? Ostner: My memory escapes me on what determination to make. We just saw one of these less than a month ago except that acreage was much larger and there was the possibility of each new tract being over an acre and this Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 9 doesn't have that possibility because it is one acre to start with. In the code that Jeremy provided page four, we talked about causing fraud on or victimization of the public. The future of selling a lot less than an acre in the flood hazard area seemed to keep coming up in the last discussion as a reason that this wasn't the appropriate thing to do. Warrick: The Planning Commission approved the Mini Mart on North Street with less than an acre on the two tracts that were being created. We have asked that the Planning Commission make a determination on this particular request. The circumstances are similar if not the same, we are dealing with existing development that any additional development on these two tracts would of course be required to go through the floodplain development permitting process. I don't think that either of these two tracts really has an opportunity to add square footage. Parking would be required even if the structures were added to in height. I don't know that there is enough land area to accommodate additional parking on this site. I think you are looking at an area with full build out without these sites being completely redeveloped. If they were redeveloped it would be required to go through a floodplain permitting process. Bunch: If this does come back at some time in the future for redevelopment since these lots are less than an acre could this be handled administratively? Warrick: Yes Sir. Bunch: In order to prepare for the full Planning Commission, are there any findings that have not been made or any information that we need to request in order to facilitate making those findings? Warrick: If the Planning Commission feels like they need additional information from the applicant with regard to I would say Section F under 156.03 is probably the section that needs to be addressed. We would ask the applicant to provide information about the various findings that are needed to be made. Talking about the extraordinary circumstances or conditions that are applicable to the subject property or the intended use of the subject property which are not similar to other tracts within the flood zone. Whether or not it is necessary to engage in this action. If the lot was not split how that would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant. Whether or not granting a variance would result in increased flood heights or a detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare is really what the third section of that ordinance addresses. I would say it would probably be helpful to the Planning Commission to have a listing or statement from the applicant addressing these three items so they have a starting point for their discussion and determination about the appropriateness of the variance. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 10 Brackett: Is it all three or any of the three? Warrick: It is all three, it is and on each of those. Bunch: Chris, I might add that we recently went through an exercise similar to this. It might be a benefit for you to look at the minutes from our last meeting. I think we had a statement from our City Attorney that addressed how we as a Commission have to look at these issues so it might be helpful to you. Warrick: It was the last meeting. We will make sure the minutes get in this section for that particular item so you will have it for reference. Bunch: Do you all feel comfortable with enough information to go ahead and forward it to the full Planning Commission? Are there any issues that you think might occur at the Planning Commission that would need background information that has not yet been called out or provided? Anthes: There is a dedicated access right? Brackett: Yes, it was dedicated with the original development. Anthes: Ok. Bunch: Do we have a motion to forward? MOTION: Ostner: I make a motion that we forward to the full Planning Commission LSP 04- 01.00. Anthes: Second. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 11 LSP 04-04.00: Lot Split (Lot 5, Pine Valley V, pp 94) was submitted by Blew Land Surveying on behalf of Sandra Perrino for property located at Lot 5, Phase V of Pine Valley Addition. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately 0.62 acres. The request is to divide the parent tract into two tracts of 0.31 and 0.31 acres each. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is also a Lot Split for Lot 5 of the Pine Valley Subdivision submitted by Blew Land Surveying on behalf of Sandra Perrino for property in the Pine Valley subdivision. The request is to split the lot into two parcels. Jeremy, can you give us the staff report on this please? Pate: This is Lot 5 of the Pine Valley Phase V development off of Wildwood Drive. It was approved as a Final Plat in April, 2002. The applicant is proposing to split this existing lot in half resulting two .31 acre tracts. City ordinance does allow for a lot to be split and internal side setbacks to be varied on one side to permit zero lot line development. There are no specific requirements as to minimum lot area or lot width area per dwelling unit on such a lot. However, all other development regulations remain applicable. Building permitting has to go through the same process as well. Sufficient right of way exists along Wildwood Drive so no additional needs to be dedicated. Staff recommends approval of LSP 04-04.00 at this level with a total of three conditions. Two of which, number one development in a 100 -year floodplain requires formal floodplain development permits. Development on the subject tract shall be limited to one two family dwelling unit in total and in accordance with all other applicable city ordinances and permitting regulations. Bunch: Since this is a Lot Split, parks, are there any additional comments? Ohman: No Sir, they met the requirements with the original development of the Pine Valley subdivision. Bunch: Engineering, are there any comments? Casey: No sir. Bunch: Tree preservation? Camagey: No Sir. Bunch: That being said, we will allow you to introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Blew: My name is Buckley Blew. I am with Blew Land Surveying. My project is we are splitting lot 5 Pine Valley Phase V. The owner of the property Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 12 wants to split the property so they can sell each side of the duplex separately. That's it. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Committee for Pine Valley Phase V lot V? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments or motions. Ostner: On condition number two do I understand that to mean a duplex will be built spanning these two lots? Pate: That is correct. There will be a common wall basically on the lot line so there will be one unit per lot as opposed to two units on one lot. Warrick: I would just add that the construction standard changes when you separate ownership between two sides of a structure and the building code addresses that through fire walls and separations or openings. I believe that the way that this will have to be permitted since it is not already constructed, there will be two building permits required for this joined structure since there will be separate ownership on each side. The construction standard is different. I would just recommend that you convey to the owner to work with our Building Safety Division to ensure that they follow the proper code in order to sell these two units separately. Bunch: Thank you Dawn. This appears to be a very straight forward lot split with the explanation Ms. Warrick gave us. I would entertain a motion for approval at this level. MOTION: Anthes: So moved. Ostner: Second. Bunch: I will concur. Good luck with your project. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 13 FPL 04-03.00: Final Plat (Lot 6 Pine Valley, pp 363) was submitted by Art Scott of Project Design Consultants on behalf of James Erwin for property located at 2726 Wildwood Drive, Lot 6, Phase V of Pine Valley Addition. The property is zoned RMF - 40, Residential Multi -family, 40 units per acre and contains approximately 1.9 acres. The request is for a replat of the subject property to allow for the development of 2 duplexes on this lot. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is the lot adjacent to the previous split, Final plat of Lot 6 Pine Valley submitted by Art Scott of Project Design Consultants on behalf of James Erwin. I guess this includes a Lot Split also? Jeremy, can you give us the staff report on this one? Pate: Certainly. This is relatively speaking, a Lot Split. We are processing it as a replat of that lot. On the Final Plat there were several conditions, one of which stated that tract 6 specifically go through a Large Scale Development. You might remember that the lot in question was considered for a Large Scale Development for a quad or four plex in months previous and discussion has ensued from the neighbors and Commissioners regarding that. At that time it was tabled and the applicant decided to sell the tract to Mr. Erwin I believe. At this time they are basically replatting the lot to create two new lots, both under an acre and I'm assuming process two duplex permits for each one of these lots. The current proposal splits the lot into the .92 acres and .98 acres. There is a Variance required for both of these lots. That will have to be processed through the Board of Adjustment. That application is in process at this time and will be heard next Monday. The Variance request is for the minimum frontage for a lot within the city, for a duplex lot that is 60'. The lot was platted with the Final Plat as one lot. Currently, lot 6A is proposed to have 17.54 feet. Tract 6B I believe it is more like 40'. Staff is recommending approval of the Final Plat at this level with conditions. One of those being that the Board of Adjustment does approve those Variances. The Variance request for a minimum lot width for a two family dwelling unit in the RMF -24 zoning district, which is 60' for both of the subject lots shall be approved by the Board of Adjustment prior to filing and final approval of the Lot Split. Basically, this Replat or Lot Split is conditioned upon the Board of Adjustment approval of those variances. Also, development shall be limited to one two family unit per lot subject to all city regulations and permitting requirements. There are a couple other plat comments in the conditions. I would add as well, the way the county accepts these plats for filing the signature blocks need to be on the same page as the site plan and all of the other information so we need to combine these two sheets into one and get all of the signature blocks onto this plat. It is just a plat comment but it is pretty important for the filing process. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 14 Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Parks, are there any additional fees on the split of this lot? Ohman: No Sir, it was paid at the original filing of this plat. Bunch: Matt, are there any additional Engineering comments? Casey: No Sir. Bunch: At this time why don't you introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Scott: My name is Art Scott with Project Design Consultants representing Mr. Irwin. The unusual thing about the property is it sets way down. In order to stay outside of the floodplain, which we desire to do, and to preserve these trees, we had to offset the driveway to the side. We have access and utility easements proposed so that both lots will have access and utility access there in perpetuity. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address us on the issue of the Final Plat and Lot Split for Lot 6 of Pine Valley? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee. I do have a question on this drainage easement, it seems to stop right here or does it continue on? It is a little unclear. The drainage scheme shows it to come to here and then you are I guess coming out of the outfall into a swale. I guess it goes into the flood zone then so it is probably not an issue. This is one I think that we had considerable neighborhood comment on. I think it has been before us a couple of times in different forms. Just as a question, have you had an opportunity to speak with the neighbors? Scott: Mr. Irwin lives in this neighborhood and he is intending to live in one of these units himself. He has spoken with a lot of the neighbors and apparently this is a plan that they like. These are actually probably a little larger than what is in the neighborhood so they are pretty happy with it. It is duplexes instead of a four plex or a tri plex which tends to bring the value down some on the neighbors. Bunch: I don't want to speak for the neighbors but if memory serves me correctly, on the comment that the mass of the triplex or four plex was out of character and not compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. I think comments were made at the time that duplexes would be more acceptable. That appears to be what we have here. Obviously, there are some constraints and issues with the frontage but I think that can be resolved and you can create a development that will be compatible with the neighborhood. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 15 Ostner: Is the garage under the buildings? Scott: They are in the fronts, they have three car garages on each side. This whole front is a garage here on both sides. Ostner: The building is above it? Scott: The building is behind it and above it also. Ostner: The entire front of the building is garages? Scott: Yes and the entrances are here on the side. Ostner: Side entrances are something that I had a question about. This is a question for staff I suppose. This is RMF -24, the height limit is 20' with an allowance of 1:1 additional setback, has that been addressed? Pate: I'm not sure that that has. Warrick: That is typically something that is addressed at the time of building permit. Bunch: It begs the question of where is that height measured from because it shows one building at 38' and the other at 28'. Pate: We measure to the eave, I'm not sure if that is the total height at the top of the roof. It is measured from the property line to that eave. It is most likely not 38' tall at the edge but in the building permit process all setbacks will have to be met and if it is higher than 20' one foot per horizontal foot would have to be complied with, as would any lot in this development. Bunch: Closest to whatever property line is proposed to on the backside where they might have a tall deck over the floodplain. Warrick: The condition applies to side property lines adjoining residential districts. I have had a conversation with the property owner with regard to this condition and we will need to know how the roof is configured and the height of the eaves on those sides so that we can do the proper calculations and ensure compliance with that setback. Like I said, that is typically done at the time of building permit. It is appropriate that they understand now in case they need to make modifications of the site development, this is a Lot Split and we are ensuring that the lot configuration provides for access to utilities as well as frontage and that the lot areas are accommodated as required in the zoning district. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 16 Ostner: I understand that their building isn't exactly what we are looking at with a Lot Split but it just seemed relevant. I wasn't sure if they could build their building if the setbacks were increased if the buildings were too tall. Normally it is all platted and the lot lines are drawn long before the permitting process. This is sort of happening at the same time so this is a little bit different than having a plat and going down and getting your permit. Warrick: It is unique that they have shown us footprints, that's not required. Bunch: The important thing here is that they are showing us the intent of having duplexes as opposed to the previous development scheme that had triplexes and quads. Scott: I think that was our concern. We wanted to make sure up front since this had been in an argument or turned down, we wanted everyone to know that it was going to be only two duplexes. Bunch: I appreciate your comments. I think it helps you Art to work on your Planning knowing that there are those issues to be resolved. I think the business at hand is to look at the Lot Split with the understanding that it will be duplexes and that those duplexes will have to meet appropriate codes. Casey: If I can add one more comment. It is not on the Lot Split. The finished floor elevation shown for lot A is below the minimum finished floor elevation. It needs to be a minimum of 2' above the BFE. Scott: We did put that on the plat and this just didn't get changed. It will be changed. Casey: Thank you, that's all I have. Anthes: Are you making a provision for a shared driveway? Scott: Each building will own half of it so they at least have a lane in and out and then they have an easement over the entire thing that goes to access for each property. Bunch: I'm assuming that this right here is the utility easement? Scott: Yes Sir. Bunch: Since this is a re -platting you probably need to go ahead and delineate that. This is an unusual piece of land with the flood zone and the trees. You have done a good job of working with the land to accommodate your Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 17 development scheme. Do we have a motion for approval at this level subject to conditions of approval? MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve FPL 04-03.00. Anthes: I will second. Bunch: That is with the stipulation that it goes before the Board of Adjustment and satisfies the conditions of approval. In that case, I will concur. Good luck with your project. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 18 LSP 04-05.00: Lot Split (Briggs, pp 485) was submitted by Blew Land Surveying on behalf of Lucas Briggs for property located at 200 N. Fletcher and 195 N. Summit. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 0.41 acres. The request is to split the parent tract into two tracts of 0.23 and 0.18 acres respectively. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSP 04-05.00 submitted by Blew Land Surveying on behalf of Lucas Briggs for property located off of Fletcher and Summit on Mt. Sequoyah. This is to split an existing lot into two smaller tracts. Jeremy? Pate: Yes Sir, as you mentioned these are existing single family homes fronting on Summit and Fletcher Avenue with existing structures also existing. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of .23 and .18 acres. There will be one lot fronting on Fletcher Avenue which meets the minimum requirements for this zoning district as well as one lot facing Summit. Water lines exist on both Fletcher and Summit. Sewer is existing along Fletcher Avenue. However, at this time, staff is of the understanding that there is a service line, a private line, that connects from Fletcher to the proposed lot on Summit Avenue. The sewer main will need to be extended prior to development and connected prior to permitting and filing of the Lot Split. This project requires Board of Adjustment approval. The reason being is there is an existing shed located to the north of the property on the lot fronting on Summit Avenue. It is an existing older structure. There are similar other cellars in this neighborhood and it is a historic structure. It is included entirely within that building setback. Therefore, it requires a Board of Adjustment Variance for a building within a setback that is over 30" in height. Staff is recommending approval of the Lot Split at the Subdivision Committee level subject to the conditions I mentioned, specifically the Variance request to approve the non -conforming structure within the building setback and the eastern lot a public main shall be extended to the property and connected to the property prior to final approval and filing of the Lot Split. Bunch: Are there any additional comments from Parks? Ohman: No Sir. Bunch: These houses have already been built so there are no additional fees? Ohman: No Sir. Bunch: Matt, are there any additional Engineering comments? Casey: We just need to see some construction plans for that sewer main extension and get that underway before we can sign off on the Lot Split. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 19 Pate: I believe the photos reflect two different structures. Briggs: That is the similar root cellar on Spring Street, I believe there is a Chiropractor there. This is the existing structure we are proposing to keep and maintain. As you notice there are architectural similarities in the two. Mine is on Summit this is a similar structure on Spring Street. It was built in the late 1800's. Bunch: At this time we will allow the applicant to introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Briggs: My name is Lucas Briggs. I am just moving to the Fayetteville area. I'm originally from Ft. Smith, Arkansas. I currently work in New York. I am in the process of purchasing these two lots from Sharon and Jim Rogers. The purchase is contingent upon the successful Lot Split due to financing. The only variance we are requesting is the shed variance. There is no intention by any means, change that structure or to cause harm to that structure. That's it. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them. Bunch: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on LSP 04- 05.00 for Briggs for property on Fletcher and Summit in the Mt. Sequoyah area? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Pate: I would just mention that this variance request is also on the same agenda for the Board of Adjustment as the previous request. I believe that is January 5`h. Bunch: If we approve this at this level it is subject to the approval by the Board of Adjustment for the shed in the setback and also would be contingent upon staff administrative approval for the sewer relocation and easement to make it a public sewer line, is that correct? One of the conditions if we approve it at this level is having the applicant show the staff that there is a public sewer easement extended, is that correct? Casey: An easement would be required for any sewer main extension if it was crossing outside of the right of way. I am not sure which direction the applicant is proposing to extend the sewer. It is possible they can come down Summit and stay within the right of way. It is also possible to come from Fletcher which would cross the property and would require an easement. That could be shown at this time or we could wait until the construction plans are submitted. Either way, before those construction plans are approved we will have to be sure that adequate easements do exist before we can construct it. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 20 Bunch: Would that have to be prior to filing of the Lot Split? Casey: It would be easiest if we knew ahead of time which direction sewer was going to come from. If it was going to cross this tract if it was shown on the Lot Split there would be just one document to file and wouldn't have to be done separately. Warrick: The actual extension of the sewer main is required prior to the Lot Split being filed with the County. They have to have utilities in order to create the lot. Blew: I am Buckley Blew with Blew Land Surveying. There is an existing sewer manhole that we did confirm south of this property along Summit Avenue. Summit Avenue is a 70' right of way as per the platted subdivision so we believe it would be best to stay in Summit Avenue right of way and come up. That is our proposal for right now. Bunch: There is one shown here. Blew: That is quite a ways south so the public main is going to have to be extended. Bunch: The main thin is it is being addressed to the satisfaction of staff prior to filing the Lot Split. Anthes: If we approve this now those changes can be made and this can be one filing as Matt wants? Bunch: Yes. MOTION: Anthes: I will move to approve LSP 04-05.00 with the conditions of approval. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Good luck. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 21 FPL 04-01.00: Final Plat (Jackson Place R-PZD, pp 255) was submitted by Crafton, Tull and Associates, Inc. on behalf of T -Crow, LTD for property located southwest of the intersection of Old Wire Road and Skillern Road. The property is zoned R-PZD, Residential Planned Zoning District, and contains approximately 8.37 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of the R-PZD approved by City Council on May 6, 2003. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is the Final Plat for Jackson Place which is our first Residential PZD submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates for property located at the intersection of Old Wire Road and Skillern. This is our first Final Plat type Planned Zoning District. That being said, Suzanne can you tell us about this one? Morgan: This PZD is 8.37 acres. The Preliminary Plat was approved with a 14 lot Residential Planned Zoning District. There is floodplain as well as wetlands located to the west which is the rear of the residential lots. There is a detention pond constructed within the floodplain. The proposal meets the RSF-4 zoning requirements with the exceptions of lot 6, 7, and 8 which were approved with less than 70' width at the front building setback. Covenants have been submitted. Staff is recommending a few minor changes with the final draft of those covenants. This item was heard by the Planning Commission on March 25, 2003 and was forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. The City Council approved this R-PZD in May, 2003. Surrounding land use is RSF-4 and Residential Agricultural. Right of way being dedicated is 45' from centerline for Old Wire Road and 50' right of way for the interior street. Staff is recommending approval of FPL 04-01.00 at the Subdivision Committee level with twelve conditions to include minor changes on the plat as well as dedication of right of way for Old Wire Road and the interior street to occur with the filing of the Final Plat. Also, lots shall not be permitted to access Old Wire Road as noted on this plat. Parks fees are due in the amount of $7,215 prior to issuance of Final Plat. The signature block needs to reflect this amount. There are a total of 12 conditions for this item. Bunch: Thanks Suzanne. Are there any additional staff reports from Parks? Ohman: No Sir. Bunch: Engineering? Casey: I have a request for the applicant. Can you label the minimum Finished Floor Elevations? They are actually on there but I'm afraid when somebody pulls this plat they won't know where it is. Zimmerman: We put it in the legend but I will change it to show. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 22 Casey: Also just for the Commissioners information, our Transportation Division is out this week making some alignment modifications to this intersection where Old Wire east onto Skillern will be the main through way for the intersection and Old Wire will actually come up and stop at some point. For the time being, they are going to make it a four way stop until everybody is used to it and then they will remove the east bound and west bound on Skillern to make that the through way and Old Wire will actually stop if you are headed south. Those improvements should be complete tomorrow from what I've been told. They are also overlaying the entire area. Bunch: That was one of the concerns. I think we had considerable discussion when this came through about the reconfiguring of the traffic. Of course, that is not necessarily the responsibility of this project. I think the applicant did do some reconfiguring of the physical structure of the street to accommodate the revised traffic flow patterns. Thanks for that update Matt. That gives the neighbors and everybody an opportunity to know that there are some changes coming and we will see if it works. Julie, can you introduce yourself and tell us about your project please? Zimmerman: My name is Julie Zimmerman with Crafton, Tull & Associates. This is a property that is 8.37 acres with 14 lots. A detention pond is located at the northeast corner of the project. There is a tree preservation area located in the southwest corner of the property. Like Suzanne said, we are dedicating 45' of right of way along Old Wire Road and Skillern Road. Our cul-de-sac street has a 50' right of way. There are several utility easements throughout the project that kind of wind in some odd directions. We did put a note that all lots will be served in the front of the property for lots four through eight to preserve some of the trees in the rear of the property. Other than that, I will just be glad to answer any questions you might have. Bunch: Thank you. At this time we will take public comment from the audience. Would anyone like to comment about the Final Plat for Jackson Place? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee. Dawn, at this time can you give us a little coaching since this is our first R-PZD coming through would you give us some insight of how we are supposed to approach this and if it is any departure from the way we would look at a normal Preliminary Plat and Final Plat? Warrick: Most of the work that is required to be done for a PZD when it is a combination of land use approval and subdivision such as this, is done at the Preliminary Plat stage. That is where the Planning Commission approves the development plan. The City Council approves the land use and density. Draft covenants were provided at that time and these covenants are very similar to those in adjoining subdivisions such as Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 23 Brookbury and Savanna. This particular Planned Zoning District was our first after that ordinance was adopted. It is some what unique in the fact that some of the property was already zoned for Single Family Residential development. The majority of the property was. There was a tag at the property, the southern end of the property that was zoned for Agricultural use. There were mixed zoning districts and the desired land use was all single family residential. The applicant chose to use the Planned Zoning District process as an option for processing this plat without having to go through the zoning process and then start back with the development review. He chose to take the option of processing a Planned Zoning District. With that, we were able to look at some specific areas on the site. This particular site had a tree line in that southwest corner as well as some floodplain that were able to be addressed a little more individually. We also had the alignments of the streets that the original configuration of the cul-de-sac came straight out to Old Wire Road and was offset to that intersection slightly and it was changed so that we could coordinate the intersection better and that is why you see the changes that are going to be occurring out there with the direction of traffic and that intersection changing patterns. With regard to the processing of it like I said, the Preliminary Plat is when the majority of the issues is addressed. What we are doing now is looking at a Final Plat just as we would for any other type of subdivision to ensure that the development has complied with the conditions placed on the Preliminary Plat approval. It is not required to go beyond the Subdivision Committee if it is clean and there are no outstanding issues it can be approved as a Final Plat at this level just as any type of Final Plat could be. Anthes: Suzanne indicated that there were changes that staff wanted to make to the covenants, is that anything that we need to concern ourselves with? Warrick: I think that if you have questions or substantial changes that you feel are appropriate to the covenants we need to go ahead and discuss that. Staffs recommended changes are to ensure consistency. I don't think that there was anything that was substantive in change, it was just more detail, technical information. Morgan: Just a few things that I noticed was the zoning designation from the old R- 1. It mentioned sidewalks with a 2' greenspace that needs to be increased to 6' so those are just minor changes I saw. Bunch: In addition to some of the minor ones, Julie I would like to ask you a question on the temporary structures. We see several of these come through and they usually have the same language on no temporary structures including tents to be erected. Some of these subdivisions have exclusions for short term putting tents up for kids to put up tents in the back yard. I wonder if that is the intent here to not offer that opportunity Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 24 with all of these beautiful tree preservation areas. We have gone through great extent on the southeast corner to work with the neighbors and preserve some foliage in that area and of course the major tree preservation area. Did you intend not to let kids camp? Zimmerman: I don't think that was his intent. Bunch: We have had some of these come through recently with specific language to allow that but not have permanent camp and squatters and that sort of thing. One other comment is hopefully in the near future with the creek running through there we will have different content of the water as we get our new sewer plants installed and offer our different split flow pumping methodology so that kids can play in that creek and not have to worry as much about what is in it as they do now. Ostner: I just wan to thank you for tree preservation and the excessive effort to dodge the trees with the utilities in the front. I remember this happening and it was complicated. You worked with Kim Hesse extensively on that and I appreciate that. Bunch: With the neighbors also. I remember a considerable amount of interchange on this and neighborhood meetings. That is the way the process is supposed to work, thank you. You did a good job of giving us a pilot to work from Julie. Are there any other comments? MOTION: Anthes: All that being said, I move to approve FPL 04-01.00 with the 12 conditions of approval. Also, that the finished floor elevations will be labeled on the drawings and the modifications to the covenants will be made with staff. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Thanks again and good luck with it. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 25 R-PZD 04-01.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Southern View II, pp 519) was submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Management Co. for property located at Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road, east of I-540. The property is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6.713 acres. The request is to rezone the property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow for a mixed use development comprised of 85 dwelling units and 34.000 SF of commercial space proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is R-PZD 04-01.00 for Southern View II submitted by Crafton, Tull on behalf of Lindsey Management Company for property located on Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road just east of I-540. This is a mixed use development. Jeremy, I believe this is yours, can you give us the report on it? Pate: Yes Sir. This project was originally submitted back in may, 2003 and heard at the May 28`h Technical Plat Review. Subsequent meetings the project was tabled by staff due to concerns with site development plans and other issues. The proposal was resubmitted and heard at Technical Plat Review on December 17`h and the revisions produced from that meeting and the subsequent meeting with staff are those presented before the Subdivision Committee. This project site is directly south of the newly constructed Southern View Phase I. There is a connection to that, there is a stub out from the Southern View I to this development as well as access onto Futrall Drive and two accesses to Old Farmington Road. The proposal entails approximately 40,000 sq.ft. of retail commercial, 186 bedrooms, a mixed use development. It is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. To get that multi -family development mixed with the commercial use that is the reason we are going through the Residential Planned Zoning District process. There is also a proposed buffer if you look at your landscape plan along Futrall Drive to buffer the proposed parking areas as well as providing landscaping along that. Parks fees, the applicant met with the Parks Board and there was a recommendation by the Parks Board at that time to take money in lieu. The number of units now has increased due to the addition of one structure so it is over 100 units. That will take City Council approval as well. That will track through with this project. I have included a table on the R-PZD about what is proposed. There are six structures, each one on the first floor has 6,723 feet of retail commercial space. There are also two bedroom and one bedroom units. There are a total of 28 two bedrooms and three one bedrooms within each of those structures. I have also included the total number of parking required. Based on those numbers, there are 348 spaces required, they are providing 302 which is within that 30% plus or minus number so they do meet our parking requirements. The total proposed dwelling units is 102. The proposed density Right now density is 15.2 dwelling units per acre but that will change. The proposed means of access, four means of access, as I mentioned, two from Old Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 26 Farmington Road, one from Futrall Drive, one from the existing Southern View Phase I development. A formal waiver request of the Design Overlay District requirement of 250' from an intersection to a curb cut. Staff is in support of this request along Old Farmington Road for the curb cuts. The existing lot prohibits there being a curb cut unless you are almost right on the lot line. Also, it fulfills the intent of providing an enhanced Main Streetscape. That is intended to be in this main entrance here between the structures here running north and south and one running east and west. We actually got these cut outs to try to create a space shaped plan of what these structures would look like and look in at building height ratios and horizontal to vertical ratios here. A number of proposals came through. We really looked at how this would create a streetscape. That is where the additional building came in. To sort of spatially enclose these main streets with parallel parking, widened sidewalks. The sidewalk goes all the way to the building from the main street. It was felt best to perhaps align the structures in this manner. That is one of the reasons that we are also in support of the waiver request for the 250'. It allows two means of access and two sorts of main streets to happen with the parking located in the rear. Elevations have been submitted. These are the proposed structures. There are two different elevations for each of the six buildings and those will be on both sides of each one of the structures. I have requested later in the staff report in the conditions of approval that the materials be called out so that we know the colors of brick and what, for instance, this material is and that type of information so that we have that. When we are actually going through this C of O and building permitting process we understand was actually approved at the Planning Commission level so we can actually permit those and sign off on the Certificates of Occupancy should this project go forward. Water and sewer lines are available to the site. There is an additional elevation here for the ends of the building. This is in the Design Overlay District. Most of those requirements have been met with the exception of the 250' waiver request. We do need a materials sample board to show those materials. Approximately 31% of the site has been left in open space and is landscaped. Pedestrian access is being provided as well as 12 bicycle racks. Staff is recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with a number of conditions. I won't go over all of those for you, there are 15. Planning Commission determination and discussion at this level at the Subdivision level, does need to include Commercial Design Standards, whether this does meet Commercial Design Standards since there is commercial retail use. Determination or a recommendation to the full Planning Commission of the waiver request for the 250' curb cut. Also, a waiver request for the 100' proposed building within 100' setback of the 100 -year water surface elevation of the proposed detention pond. If there are any other conditions you have questions about I can go over those for you. That's all I have. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 27 Bunch: Thanks Jeremy. Are there any additional staff comments? Parks? Ohman: Yes, as Jeremy mentioned, due to the increased number of units and due to the fact that they are now over 100 units this will require a waiver from the City Council of the park land dedication ordinance. They are scheduled to go to Monday, January 5`h meeting of the Parks Board so they can review and make a recommendation to the City Council and then we will move forward in the process concurrently with them moving onto the Planning Commission. Bunch: Engineering, are there any additional comments? Casey: I've got a question for the applicant if that is ok. Jerry, do you propose a wrought iron fence around the pond like in the other projects that we have seen? Kelso: We can if we need to. I think after talking with some of the staff and our client we would rather not put a wrought iron fence around this particular pond just because of the aesthetics and what we are trying to create with a streetscape and things like that. Right now it would be our proposal not to put a fence around this pond. Casey: With the waiver for the 100 -year setback from the pond the fence is usually offered as something to offset that variance so that is what I was asking. That will be up to the Commissioners to grant that. Kelso: Again, it is something that we can put, we've done it numerous times. In this particular case because of the aesthetics and things like that the commercial parts of this development thinking that families and things like that will be fewer kids that would be in these particular units that we don't think a fence is necessary. If it is Planning Commissioner's thoughts that we need to put a fence we will put a fence there. Bunch: Jerry, at this time introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Kelso: I'm Jerry Kelso with Crafton Tull & Associates representing Lindsey Management. What you see before you is a true mixed use development. It is something that the city has been looking for and Mr. Lindsey is ready to take the challenge and step in and do something like this. What we've got is a true streetscape in the middle of the project with buildings on both sides of it. You've got commercial on the bottom floor which could consist of offices, coffee shops, restaurants and things like that. The next two floors up would be multi -family dwelling units that would help the commercial parts of this development. One thing that we have done is we have worked extensively with city staff. I think we have had more meetings on this project than we have had with any other project that Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 28 we've done just because the city is very interested in making this successful. Of course, as the developer it needs to be successful also. Here is where we are at with it. Here is what we have come up with and I will try to answer any questions that you might have. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Would anyone in the audience like to address the R-PZD for Southern View II? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. I guess one of the first questions I have is a comment that this sure does lend itself well with some of the considerations that we have currently with the possible changes to our setback code and it will give a very good visible rendition of what is contemplated for some of the future of Fayetteville. Also, I think there have been questions in the past concerning the monotony of Southern View Phase I and this definitely offers some diversity in design when you put it in position to Southern View I. I guess that is in the eyes of many quite an improvement in the diversity of the architecture in this area so you are to be complemented on that. One question on the connectivity, this existing driveway here from Phase I. Kelso: Right. There were two existing cuts when we did Phase I because we were looking at something a little bit different than this. The main thoroughfare is kind of in the middle here and this is just kind of a back entrance. We think that we need at least one way to get in and out of this other phase. Two ways may be too much and that is why we cut it back down to one. You still have this one here but we took this one out. We can get more parking without it and we felt that was more important than having this other drive connecting right here since we've already got the one right next to it. Bunch: Even with this being a one way street and with this being the access to Stone Street for somebody to be able to go east and also to get back to the south? Kelso: Like I said, we wanted to make sure we had at least one. Again, this is two ways in and out right here. Bunch: I guess Old Farmington is also two way? Kelso: Yes. Bunch: So it does have access back to the south and the east. I understand that rational. In the Overlay District is this a long enough throat on the access from Futrall? Are there any stacking problems? Pate: I'm not sure if we have specific requirements in the Overlay District with regard to throat distances. I think it complies with our minimum standards Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 29 for commercial development in this location. Especially since it is all right hand turns out of this development onto Futrall. There are less traffic conflicts than trying to turn left there. Bunch: Another question. I noticed you have quite a few what appears to be compact parking spaces. It looks like the whole perimeter is compact. Pate: There is an allowance to go down to 17' for overhang anytime a parking area abuts required greenspace area because there is no sidewalk there and it reduces pavement which reduces impervious costs to the developer. I think it is a plus for both the city and the developer. Bunch: It reduces the amount of concrete and it is not so much a compact space as it is a permitted overhang area. That makes sense. Kelso: It was a recommendation from city staff for us to do that so we concurred with that. Bunch: On the ADA parking you are showing your parking spaces required per building. There are no comments as far as the ADA numbers. I guess as we get further along when this goes to the full Planning Commission and the City Council can we have that on the drawing just to be able to show the ADA compliance? Ostner: The parking space block has got a typo, it says five buildings. Kelso: I tried to catch them all when we made the last change, I missed that one. Ostner: What is this heavy dash? Kelso: It is a Phase line. Right now we just want to do two buildings so we wanted to show you which buildings we have planned. We are still going to do this drive because we want to make that connectivity there and then the parking behind to do these two buildings in the first phase. Bunch: So you won't do this opening here and this parking won't be in the first Phase? Kelso: Right. Anthes: Are the fronts and backs of these buildings identical? Kelso: Yes. The fronts and backs are the same. Basically, there is no back to this building. You have got two fronts. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 30 Bunch: Is this an extension? I looked at these the wrong way I thought one was the front and one was the back. Kelso: I think you could probably put the two different elevations that you see could be the front and the back of the same building. I think his intent is to just kind of mismatch it throughout the site. Ostner: Since we are on the elevations these areas are just kind of colored in gray. Are they open air? Kelso: That is just stairwells. Ostner: That is confusing. It looks like a solid building. Kelso: You still have the roof over it. Ostner: It is open air, it is not heated or cooled. I think that is important because this looks like a solid building, especially with the roof covering it all and it is really not. It is three buildings with shared roofs. Anthes: The way the ground floor plan is indicated could be altered to do a heavy line around those. It would show a nolli of the ground floor condition rather than the roof condition. Ostner: Since this is a great project by the way. I want to reiterate the things that Don said. This is pretty exciting with mixed use and the architectural variety. The open air stairs concern me if we are looking at the creation of a streetscape. I'm not sure if that works with a streetscape. That is just one thing I wanted to talk about. The other thing I wanted to talk about is on the landscape plan. If we are talking about a streetscape this is potentially really stark. You have got trees called out here but there are absolutely no trees on building five. Kelso: We will get them put on there. I think the intent is to have the little wells here. I will get them on there with the revisions. I just need to get them put on here. It is basically more representative of that. Pate: You can see this a lot more clearly than the smaller ones you have. Above a normal person's level I guess of height it is brick up to the probably 8' or 10' there on the stairwells. They are very hard to see on the smaller elevations but there is some articulation there just so you are aware. Kelso: Again, if the architect was here he could probably clarify a little bit more. Ostner: I think I have a picture in my head. That being colored gray I think is misleading. Frankly I think it ought to be colored sky blue because you Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 31 are looking at the sky and you will be looking at the sky. That way this drawing more accurately reflects. Bunch: Jerry, what is the do not disturb sign down here? Kelso: There is a GPS monument for the city and we want to make sure we preserve that. Ostner: I have a question. This is for staff. This is C-2 currently and except for Southern View it is predominantly a commercial district, why isn't this a C-PZD? Pate: It is based on the proposal square footage for commercial verses the number of residential units. It is based on the predominant use. 51% of residential means it is a R-PZD, 51% of commercial falls into the C-PZD category. The same with Industrial and the I-PZD. That is the basis there. It seems to staff there is more of a residential component than there is a commercial. Kelso: Basically you've got two floors of residential and one floor of commercial. Obviously the commercial needs to be on the bottom floor. If we just had just a two story you could probably go with a C-PZD and get those ratios just about right. With three story and meeting with that streetscape and having the taller building look and your ratios as far as vertical and horizontal really an R-PZD is the only way to do it. Ostner: I just wanted to bring that to light. That is really more of a discussion for the Commission. Since this is a Commercial district people talk about, no offense, gobbling up our Commercial areas with residential. A C-PZD requires more than 50% Commercial and an R-PZD requires more than 50% Residential. I just wanted to touch on that. Bunch: Rightfully so. This was an issue for the rezoning for the northern portion of Southern View. I think it would be in our best stead since it is a rezoning, that we should include that in our considerations since we make recommendations to the City Council. One of the main reasons that I think this went in was the fact that Futrall is a one way and it had to do with putting Stone Street in and that sort of thing. There was some considerable concern like you stated, with replacing the commercial districts with residential. I think this is a good transition personally. If a person looks at Hwy. 62 and I-540 junction, there is not that much residential within a certain radius of it and in order to make that a successful commercial area I think we need more roof tops in the area. This is a mixed use with wonderful architectural presentation. Personally I think it is a very good use and a very good approach to it. I think as we forward it to the full Commission and as we look at it as a full Planning Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 32 Commission that that is one of the recommendations that we will have to make on the rezoning and just like you said, are we gobbling up Commercial to make Residential. I think that was one of the big questions when this went to the Council previously for the Rezoning. Anthes: Most commercial developments in this area are one story commercial developments. They have got basically a one story commercial development that they've added two stories of residential to which makes for a higher density and fewer car trips so I think it is fantastic. Kelso: Our thought was on this thing, just to add to what everybody is saying, our argument has always been since Futrall went as a one way this piece of property being a stand alone commercial just is not going to happen. It has been sitting there forever and nobody has approached Mr. Lindsey about doing anything there. Our thought was by providing the residential it would help feed the commercial that would be on the bottom floors. I don't know any other way to develop this and still provide the city with some commercial type uses on this piece of property without having the residential to support that. Ostner: The only caveat is that Old Farmington is two way. In the discussion that was a big difference between Southern View and this parcel. We all said gee, Futrall is one way, definitely Southern View should be residential. But, later on, since Old Farmington is two way, you all at the time were talking about a mixed use or some sort of commercial development and that sticks in my mind because I remember the difference. Futrall is limiting to this site but Old Farmington opens up a lot more than the Southern View to the commercial. It is limiting. Bunch: One question that we might need to discuss and get some guidance from staff on is this was previously C-2. As we go through the Planned Zoning District what comments do we need to make on the allowed commercial uses within the commercial portion of this project? Do we retain the C-2 use units or is that even a matter that we discuss? Pate: As part of the Residential Planned Zoning District there are specific use units that are allowed within that. It is actually in the ordinances. There is a note on the plat that says "All permitted uses under the R-PZD ordinance are allowed for the site except the following..." They have designated use units 8, 9, and 10 as units that they do not wish to allow. That is something that we brought up at Technical Plat Review if they wished to exclude certain types of development within those lists of use units that is definitely an option and something that the Planning Commission could discuss as well. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 33 Kelso: I discussed that with the owners and right now not knowing what type of businesses and such that would come to him he wanted to leave that open so that is why we have included everything that can be allowed under the R-PZD and excluding the single family type use units. Bunch: Ok, I just wanted to get that out in the open and discussed. We can cover it now and it will be in the minutes and hopefully the question won't arise, or arise in a different form if it does. Warrick: We will include that full list in the staff report with the findings based on a rezoning action for this property. The permitted uses, aside of those that were identified as undesirable, which were single family, two family and three family dwellings, the list of uses that would be allowed in a R-PZD would include city wide uses by right; city wide uses by Conditional Use approval; Public Protection and Utility Facilities; Cultural and Recreational Facilities; Government Facilities; Offices, Studios and Related Services; Eating Places; Neighborhood Shopping; Small Site Commercial Recreation; Home Occupations; Professional Offices and Multi -Family dwellings. That is the list from the ordinance identifying allowable uses in an R-PZD. The applicant has chosen to remove some of those as options within this development and that is one of the items of flexibility that the developer can exercise with regard to a PZD. Bunch: I guess one of the reasons I wanted to have this highlighted is that the current zoning, again, is C-2 and has some pervasive commercial functions than what is being proposed here. Even though there is a commercial component to this it is a restricted commercial component. Warrick: The land use in this project will be more restrictive as approved as an R- PZD than it would being left C-2. Anthes: I want to go back to this issue of the connections to Phase I. I understand that you are under the number of parking spaces that you are allowed and figure that is probably why you cut this one off. I would also consider that Phase I residents are going to serve this commercial area as well. To me the idea that you would create visual cues that this is all one thing but shares this commercial aspect would be of benefit to you. Are there other ways you could provide connections whether it is a trail, footpaths, walks or something like that that would allow the residents of Phase I to come and use the commercial buildings without necessarily getting in their cars? Kelso: Sure. We did show this, it's hard to see but we do have this coming down here like that. I don't see why we couldn't maybe do another one over here. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 34 Bunch: What is proposed for this area, is that going to be a trash bin or a park area? Kelso: Just greenspace. Bunch: A fountain? Kelso: I haven't thought about it that far. Bunch: It is showing the extension of Stone Street but there is also another Lindsey development right back over here that would also provide access from that development to this commercial area. Ostner: I wish, talk is cheap on paper, I wish this could be just sort of direct and, as Jill was saying, sort of way finding. This seems like if I were up in here I'm not sure if that's there or not, sort of almost grand. Like she was saying, these are meant to be together. Is this built? Kelso: Yes. What it is, is the parking lot stops right here and it stops right here. It is just all parking right now but the cuts are there. Ostner: If so, personally, I wish this could be like a grand pedestrian 8' sidewalk with benches. As they were saying, something proper instead of people just finding their way people having a special way. Kelso: Have a special walkway path here and have this for car? Ostner: Yes. Bunch: Alternative transportation multi -mobile deal here. One thing about it, this does definitely have a traffic calming influence because the only way to go is out and around. Kelso: Yeah. I think we can probably do something like that. The cut is there. Bunch: Within the dotted lines are Phase I. Of course, you do realize that this driveway is outside of the Phase line. Kelso: We will move that Phase line where we pick that up because that needs to be part of Phase I so you do have the connectivity. Originally we did have the two drives coming in but meeting with staff and trying to get some more parking spaces and things like that we decided to cut one of them out. We never really decided which one. Staff didn't recommend which one, we just picked one so we picked that one. Ostner: I can't really see doing two either because they are so close to each other. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 35 Bunch: Right now it makes a good storage area for the trees that they are putting in over here, there is a lot of landscaping. Ostner: I think a dumpster is going to wind up there because it is so convenient. Anthes: That is why we need to develop it now. Kelso: One thing you will notice we did with the dumpsters, between the buildings like this is where we will have the dumpster pads, all of your transformers and things like that, meters, etc. This area here will be fenced off with a big fence so you still have the same streetscape type look and you won't see that type of stuff. Ostner: Since we are basically talking about that stuff, I would wish that you did not fence off the fountain. If you are deliberating on that, I think it often looks odd. Personally, having a child, if safety or corralling the kids were a concern I could see a 2' seat wall, even if the seat wall has got grass on both sides. It stops kids momentarily for parents to catch them. Bunch: I would be open to whatever works architecturally with the existing building whether it be a wrought iron situation that is more decorative than functional that blends with the wrought iron work on the buildings or like you said, a seat wall configuration. I think that looking at the architectural renderings it sure looks like a blending of the square and Dickson Street so I think we have some pretty good examples to follow with the downtown Dickson Street enhancement project. Some of those themes have been continued into this area. Anthes: A question about this corner. Kelso: We haven't really decided what we are going to do with that yet. It will end up being kind of like a little park area, we might have some benches there or things like that. We thought we would keep just a little courtyard type area. At one point we thought about putting a gazebo there or something like that. Anthes: My question is, you are talking about creating Main Street conditions and the last place on earth you would ever leave open on a Main Street condition is the corner. You want your buildings to hold your corners. It is important rent space because it has access to two streets and two sides for visibility. Normally those greenspaces are moved as pocket parks that are in between buildings on the long sides of the street. I don't know, I guess in interest of keeping these buildings all the same perhaps that is why that ended up there. It is probably the weakest part of this scheme. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 36 Ostner: I wish one of those could just slide and fill that and bring your green to an end instead of the corner. That probably doesn't work with the construction. Kelso: You've got fronts on both sides so you don't want your front. Anthes: You would have a different building. You wouldn't be able to replicate that exact building over and over but you might end up with a stronger site. Bunch: I have seen a lot of city areas that actually do that, particularly in redevelopment schemes, in older downtown areas and Main Street type redevelopments. One thing that is interesting is the mix of the parallel and straight in parking. Ostner: I think that is nice. Bunch: It does create a streetscape. Anthes: Ok, what do we need to do now? Bunch: We need to move forward with this is what we need to do. Pate: We have covered everything except we haven't really had any discussion about the 250' waiver. If the Subdivision Committee would make a recommendation, perhaps with the motion to forward, about their thoughts on that. I believe everything else has been covered in detail. Bunch: All things being said, on the Design Overlay District that is definitely a departure but I think that site limitations and requirements more or less dictate that. I will entertain comments from Committee members. I think we should definitely include that in the forwarding of this and recommend that it be done. It is because of the one way street and the way all of this shapes up. I think it is very necessary to making it all work. Parks fees have been calculated? Ohman: They have been recalculated already to reflect the 102 units. Bunch: Ok, do we have any motions? Ostner: I have a comment before I make a motion. The third condition of approval, the 250' space between an intersection and curb cut, I'm just not sold that it is necessary since there is another one right next to it. I see the benefit of having front door immediate access but if you just had to keep going on Futrall headed to the north and turn back around. I'm not going to vote against it, I'm just bringing that up. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 37 Anthes: Considering that Old Farmington is two ways and you would have two opportunities to turn. Ostner: I'm just thinking of stacking since we are getting more and more activity and there is a brand new intersection going in to the east. Bunch: There is no way to designate that as no left turn, which would make it kind of strange. Otherwise, people would have to come all the way up here. In view of the streetscape issues. Kelso: This is the main entrance, this is the one you want. Bunch: That is the main streetscape. Otherwise, this whole thing would have to be shifted and then we would get back to the sea of parking visible from the road as opposed to streetscapes. Ostner: Since our buildings are double fronted, I'm not sure why this has got to be the one you want. You get to this one just as well, you avoid stacking issues. Kelso: You don't have buildings on this side to create your streetscape that you are trying to create. Ostner: I know but you still see it. You just drive by it and you find your way there. You've already seen it. I know no one is going to turn left off Old Farmington but people are going to turn right onto Old Farmington and want to come left and these people are going to be potentially stacked up if there is other development behind the Wal-Mart Optical and the new school and the new intersection. Bunch: Unless this becomes a one way and an exit only then you get a circulation this way. Kelso: I really think that the intent is to have this as the main drag right here and you want that entrance right there just like that. We've had several meetings with staff and that is what everybody wants. Bunch: I think that is very crucial in selling this concept. I'm not totally sold that we want all of Fayetteville to look like this, that we want all of it to be a downtown area to have the concrete canyon concept as Main Streets in bigger cities. I think that we have a mix of suburbs and that sort of thing. As a visual tool in selling this concept and seeing if we need to utilize it in commercial areas I think that is key to making it work. By debilitating this thing's ability to portray the streetscapes and streetscape concept I Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 38 think it would make it even more difficult to sell that concept for broader use within the community. Ostner: Those are very important points. I'm just, in my mind, trying to think of why we would put in a rule of 250'. It is generally for safety and having two intersections too close together. I was just trying to consider a way around it. I'm willing to forward it as is. Bunch: Jerry, are you comfortable with the conditions of approval as stated so far? Kelso: Yes. Bunch: Staff, Commissioners, is everybody ready to forward this? Warrick: We are pleased with what we have so far and feel like we've come a long way. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we forward R-PZD 04-01.00 to the full Planning Commission with the conditions of approval and with the comments as noted. Anthes: With my second I would like to urge you to think about filling in that comer and maybe not having exactly the same building footprint everywhere. Bunch: I will concur. Good luck. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 39 R-PZD 04-02.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Cross Keys, pp 438) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan and Sloan Properties for property located south of Wedington Drive at the corner of N. 46`h and Persimmon Street. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 38.48 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow for the development of a residential subdivision with 109 single family dwellings proposed. Bunch: Just a comment, the PZDs seem to take a little longer as they come through but the added deal is if they had to come through individually as a Rezoning and then a Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Development I think it winds up taking even more time. On the surface these things look like they are quite lengthy, and they are, but they are still shorter than having the duality. As we move to the next item on the agenda it is another Residential Planned Zoning District for Cross Keys submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sloan Properties for property located south of Wedington in the Persimmon and 46`h area. Suzanne, can you give us the staff report on this please? Morgan: Yes. The applicant has requested a Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for this residential development for an R-PZD. The proposed use is single family residential with 109 lots proposed with a detention pond located south of the property. Also, the proposal is to have this community fenced with a wood and brick fence. Also, the density for the entire site is to be 2.83 units per acre. The land is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and the site is located north on Persimmon Street and east on 46`h Street. The item must be heard at City Council pursuant to requirements for a PZD. To the north the land use is single family residential zoned RSF-4 and R -A. To the south the land is in the Planning Area and used for single family. To the east is currently zoned RSF-4 and to the west Persimmon Place Preliminary Plat has been approved for the west of this development. Water and sewer are to be extended to serve this development. Right of way to be dedicated is 50' along all of the interior rights of way and 70' along Persimmon Street as well as 50' along 46`h Street, a local street. Street improvements are construction of Persimmon Street along the southern property line. There are to be street connections to the south and west of this property. Tree preservation information, existing is .13%, preserved is .08%. Mitigation is $1,050 payment into the tree escrow account. Staff's recommendation is to forward this R-PZD to the full Planning Commission with a total of 13 conditions. Number five, Planning Commission determination of connectivity. Staff is recommending a street connection to the east to allow connectivity for future development. Number six, modified to state Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff is recommending 14' from centerline for 46`h Street to include curb, gutter and storm sewer. Staff will be recommending a cost share for the developer to overlay the entire Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 40 width of 46h Street for the length of the project. Item seven, payment of parks fees in the amount of $60,495 for 109 single family units. Bunch: Thank you Suzanne. Are there any additional comments from Parks? Ohman: No Sir. Bunch: Engineering? Casey: Not at this time. Bunch: At this time we will turn it over to the applicant. Will you introduce yourselves and tell us about your project please? Brackett: Yes, my name is Chris Brackett, I'm with Jorgensen & Associates representing Charlie Sloan who is here with me. This is a PZD. The main reason why this was brought forward as a PZD is because as a firm, we were involved with the development of Persimmon Place adjacent to this and there were many concerns with the adjoining property owners with this development. Through the rezoning they had a serious problem with not being able to see exactly what we were planning on doing. With this process we felt that we were able to bring forward exactly what we were proposing and present to the adjacent property owners. Also, this development the density is more than the RSF-4 required and we had some other slight changes to that zoning. We felt that it was appropriate to bring this in as a PZD and will be happy to answer any questions you might have. Bunch: At this time I will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this R-PZD? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for comments. One of the first comments we need to address is what you just said about the density. There was considerable complaint and comment concerning the development across the street because of the density and the size of the lots and the impact that those would have on the neighborhood, whether it be from perceived property values or traffic or whatever. How is this going to exaggerate or help the situation where you are getting more of Persimmon built? Are you building both sides of Persimmon? Sloan: Both sides. Brackett: Persimmon brought through the Bill of Assurance we worked out with the adjoining property owners required 80' wide lots. We are at least 80' with the majority of these being 85'. My understanding of the problems with Persimmon was they didn't want the 70' wide lots and pack them in kind of development. They wanted a larger home with a little bit bigger lot Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 41 than your normal, than some of the subdivisions that have been developed in this area. This exceeds what Persimmon does and by the lack of public comment I think we've achieved something that the adjoining property owners are comfortable with. Bunch: Can you tell us a little bit about the detention pond and how that is working? I know that it is on the property that is owned by the same owner. Sloan: I am going to own all of it, both sides of Persimmon. Bunch: Are there any kind of easements that need to be drawn up Matt for the detention pond since that is part of this? Casey: Before that goes to construction we will require offsite drainage easements to be filed for that area. Bunch: I guess by having both pieces of property that makes a much better solution by putting it down next to the drainage area. Sloan: It really came from staff that we have that down there, we have the availability. We are going to put one down there eventually for the other side so we had space to make it fit together. We already have a natural drainage to that point so why not just go ahead and continue on with it. There are some other things planned for the land across that that may benefit it in a long run by doing it that way. Bunch: Is all 70' of right of way for Persimmon being dedicated in this proposal? Sloan: Yes, we are going to be able to because we will be closing on everything and then we will be able to dedicate both sides. We went back and sort of worked something out so we do make sure that we do own everything completely so we can dedicate it. Bunch: All of your lots with just an exception of a handful of them are just over 11,000 sq.ft. The ones that are under are just barely under. Sloan: We are putting up a 2,000 sq.ft. minimum on the space. Bunch: How wilt the fence around this compare with the fence that is going in across the street and will it create a monotonous corridor down through here and a wind tunnel or what is the deal on the fences? Sloan: Suzanne may be able to show a quick elevation of what we are proposing for a fence. I knew that there was one across the street so we were trying to do something like that. I had planned on an all brick fence but the more Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 42 you look at a solid brick fence the more you don't really like a solid brick fence. I thought maybe we can do a mixture where we have basically brick across the bottom of everything and put maybe cedar or something in between it to lighten it up and maybe breathe a little bit. Maybe we can get together with the gentleman that owns the project next door and maybe we can coordinate so they will complement each other and one doesn't look like a stark contrast from the other. Bunch: Was the one across the street supposed to be poured concrete? Brackett: We were required to show it as a decorated concrete fence. Sloan: One of the neighbors called me this morning and said that they would like us to work with the owners of Persimmon Place and possibly coordinate that fence. It may be a little bit different color but the same texture, something that looks good. I am sure they would want to keep their distinct subdivision. We are trying to tie something together on this side of the street that ties together with the rest of the land across the street for future expansion. Bunch: I think it is just a matter of keeping it from being like a concrete canyon, a little diversity in there and also a little breathing room. A solid fence was predicated on sound and visuals and everything else. Now that the situation has changed I think it is wonderful that you are working together to try to create something that is a little friendlier. Sloan: We are going to try to. The neighbors, at least the one I talked to, said that he was going to try to get the neighbors to work together to support some kind of change. They still want the fence there but they would like to see a little bit more diversity rather than just a block fence or a solid masonry fence. Bunch: Is this going to have a P.O.A.? Sloan: Yes. That will be taken care of through that. Bunch: Through this one? Sloan: Through all of them. Hopefully this will be Phase I of an overall project and then each one will be just added to it. We wilt come back with the southern part with another PZD because we will have multiple size lots with a little bit bigger lots all the way up to an acre and possibly four or five acres around the existing home. Bunch: Are you going to restrict access to lots 36 and 37 to Turner Drive? Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 43 Sloan: Yes. Bunch: That begs the question of where is the fence. I guess the sidewalk will be outside the fence? Brackett: Yes, the sidewalk is in the right of way, the fence will be outside of the right of way. Ostner: Is there a space between the fence and the sidewalk? Sloan: Yes, it will be landscaped. Bunch: Also limiting access on lots 1 and 49? Brackett: We have a note that all lots will access interior streets. Bunch: There is that short turning radius and medians here will preclude some of that. Sloan: That will stop that for sure. Bunch: Unless there is a car space between it. Of course, you build out most of your subdivisions yourself don't you? Sloan: I usually do but this one there will be quite a few builders, probably five or six builders in there with me at least. I don't have a problem with that. I just know on corner lots you guys like to have side garages but we are just talking about four lots being affected. I don't have a problem with it, I just hadn't thought about it. Bunch: Do you think by the time this gets to full Planning Commission that you will have a better handle on what the fence will be? Brackett: We are going to propose that. Bunch: The one across the street was just a regular subdivision, it wasn't a PZD. Brackett: Right, it came in before that ordinance was approved. Ostner: I have a question. I'm not sure it is even for you guys. These comer elbows, I was trying to find some guidance in the development manual on the limit of width of streets. I know we accept cul-de-sacs but these are neither. How are these streets widening to 60' or 70' in the corners? Casey: I don't know that you will find that in our manual anywhere. It has been accepted practice for years to do this in a residential subdivision. Our Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 44 minimum street standards state that the minimum radius for a street is 150'. If you did that in a subdivision like this you would have all radiuses and no straight portions of the streets. This is an option to overcome that. They allow the little bulb around the corners that gives plenty of room for turning movements. It also gives the benefit of adding additional right of way frontage for these corner lots. You are not forced to have the larger lots in the corners to make your frontage requirements. There are a few reasons for that. It has the same radius as our cul-de-sac which is 40' to the back of curb. Other than that, I don't know that you could find that anywhere in our minimum street standards or in our development code. It is just accepted practice. Ostner: So, 150' minimum radius. I took my pen and paper last night and I'm pretty sure if it was just a curve that that would be real close to 150'. Brackett: We've drawn it that way. A 150' cuts this lot out and it brings you out into here. Because this 150' on the centerline and then you have your additional 25' on the outside. It is substantial. Ostner: Since this is a PZD those are all on the table. You get an extra lot in every corner. Those lots, even though their frontage at the right of way line is 70', their curb is tiny and the driveways tend to pile up as they do on many cul-de-sacs. This is just something that concerns me. I'm not sure how to resolve it because it is a standard practice but I just wanted to ask the question. Anthes: I'm with you Alan, these things drive me crazy too. We see them a lot, I always know there is a Jorgensen plan coming through when we've got these little elbows everywhere. Bunch: One thing that we have to remember is that these are R-PZDs and not Conditional Uses so we have to go by what the existing ordinances require on these sort of things. If we have plans to modify this I think that there is an avenue to present that to the Planning Commission and forward it to the City Council to alter the methodology of development. Brackett: Our point of view is that it is standard practice. We do do it a lot. I don't feel that it is a safety concern. If the Planning Commission does feel like it is something that they would like to see we would hope that it would be brought forth as far as city policy before we are in the process. Ostner: This is late into the game and I'm not sure that it is fair to ask it of you now. I understand that staff and no one has brought this up until now. Anthes: It is just something that we have been kind of commenting on in the background and we need to start talking about. You are the first. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 45 Bunch: You are the guinea pig to make this thing go forward to present to the City Council to see what they think of it. Ostner: Since this is going forward as a legislative act by the Council, this 46`h Street I understand is a minor arterial. Warrick: 46`h Street is a local street. Brackett: It was a collector street before Persimmon came through and that collector street was moved over to Broyles. Bunch: That was the relocation of the water line and everything for Broyles. Ostner: The high speed alley that is being inadvertently created is not your fault. You all are following our procedures. I think our development standards need looking at. Part of the street's purpose is to provide frontage and we are requiring no one to have frontage. You all had to duplicate frontage on both sides. No one can face the street. We've got three streets where one could work. I think that is expensive. I think it is backwards. It is usually presented on the point of safety that this street is going to be high speed and we don't want people coming out from their driveways. I would like to challenge that philosophy. Not every street is a high speed street. I believe with frontage it reduces speed. When you create an alley of course you are going to speed, why not? No one is backing out, no one faces it. Here again, this is not really relative to your project, you followed the procedures. I want to bring that up. I don't think that is good Planning. I don't think it is good for our city to create these high speed alley ways. Bunch: I guess what would really be the key to it is what happens if 46`h is extended to the south. Sloan: It won't be. Bunch: As it stands right now, Persimmon is going to be a fairly close parallel if we look on this, to Hwy. 16 that is going to go down to Shiloh and it will go over to Double Springs. Broyles is being rerouted. Ostner: That comes right back to the question is does every street that functions over 40 miles per hour have to be restricted to no frontage? I disagree. We have got lots of streets in town right now that function that way safely. Bunch: The question here is this one being restricted for traffic reasons as much as it is aesthetic reasons. Once we have, I know that the statement is made Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 46 on here that we are restricting the access to it. I don't know if this is going to be a high speed street but it is going to be a busy street. Ostner: Then why do we restrict access at all if it isn't going to be high speed? Why do we build streets not just to get from one place to another but lots of different functions. I believe this street has one function to get somewhere in and out, not to have dialogue, not to have yards. Bunch: If access were granted along that street and this street were moved over we would still have the same number of streets and same number of accesses. Ostner: This system where backs of houses touch backs of houses is sufficient, there is one frontage. This system where the backs of houses all have a very expensive street. It is awkward at the edges of development. Bunch: If this street were here and a road was moved over that backed up to this there still would be very little gain. It would be virtually the same situation that we already have. Ostner: No, you wouldn't have the backs of houses facing a street. Bunch: That is one reason we have the fence in because of the backs of houses but if the houses face the street and then you have the houses back up to this and move this road over you are still going to wind up with the same amount of roads and a similar number of lots. Ostner: No you are not. This system right here with the backs of houses on the backs of houses, four rows of houses and two streets. More than twice as much asphalt, more than twice as much traffic. This is not really on the point. I wanted to bring that up as a point of discussion. Warrick: I would just add that I think it was during the development of Persimmon Place that 46`h Street was downgraded from a collector to a local street and we don't want to have all of those curb cuts on a collector street. When that subdivision to the west was designed it was with the intent that that would be a collector street and not to have that many curb cuts onto 46`h Street with it being classified in that fashion. After it was preliminary platted 46`h Street was downgraded and Broyles was upgraded because of other situations. Ostner: I understand that. There are streets that carry more traffic faster than streets that we call collectors. Warrick: You were just asking about why we had a fence against that street for Persimmon and for this one. This one I believe the developer just chose to Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 47 mimic what was happening across the street. That was not a city requirement that they not access 46`h Street. Ostner: It makes sense. It has already been done once so you need to finish the project. Sloan: It complies with what they requested. Ostner: I am just trying to bring up for discussion that just because of the fact that it is a collector I disagree that it needs to have restricted access. We have streets that are bigger than collectors, Old Wire off of Mission carries a ton of traffic and people live on it. Sloan: I agree with you. Across the street right here, we've had this discussion already. We would like to mimic what's happening with this house all the way down this thing with the wrought iron fence. These will be acre lots with an individual automatic gate to each lot which their drive would come out onto a collector street. We feel like 16 lots is not going to be a tremendous deterrent to a street. Ostner: I think frontage is a key. An 85' lot on a major street might be dangerous, a 200' or 250' lot there is a big difference. Sloan: That is what we propose to do on this side is to access this street this way since we are basically building it again. That gives us the opportunity to try to keep the character of the houses that are already there and then go from there to the creek. Then we would hit the creek and have a natural barrier. Ostner: With a larger lot you are less apt to back out. You are more apt to turn around. Sloan: We would probably require an oval drive, just like this. Each lot would have to have an oval drive so they would be heading out forward. Ostner: That is just common sense. America was built that way and we have sort of fallen away from that. Bunch: Looking at how this area is developing overall, regardless of how 46`h Street is designated, it is going to function as a fairly heavy traffic carrier. Sloan: We are working with the two land owners here. One of them is a friend of mine and we are basically going to be handling the development of that eventually over the next couple of years and with John Nock to go ahead and get this street built through eventually all the way through. We have Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 48 sort of a gentleman's agreement to try to get this thing resolved immediately. We are trying to funnel our people over to Rupple Road. Bunch: As Hwy. 16 gets widened, I think the next phase is to widen it out to Double Springs. Eventually there may be a light at Double Springs and a light at Rupple. As this goes through and then being a straight shot to Shiloh, the current use of this area is going to change considerably. Of course, with the sewer plant going down through here and with the change in Broyles being a north south down to the Farmington area and Hwy. 62 we are going to see some major reconfigurations of the traffic patterns in the whole sector. Sloan: We are trying our best to keep people off of 46`h Street for the neighbor's sake. We are going to improve it on our end of it. That is a point of contingency that I have is I would rather my money be spent building sidewalks for them all the way to Hwy. 16 than building our street out. Leave the street like it is, put a sidewalk down it, back off the curb and gutter and spend the same money. Cut the check to the city or we will build it here is how many dollars we are going to spend to improve this between myself and the other developer. Let us take it and do something all the way to Hwy. 16 whether it be sidewalks, fill in one ditch on one side or whatever we need to do. Right now the rules say we need to improve this street. Bunch: What we need is Charlie in on our long term planning for this area of town because he is doing most of the work out there. Sloan: We hope to be back. Our goal right now is between this development and we have another project that we are trying to get annexed in, I know we are going to be held up because of the annexations. Our goal is to put Persimmon from Double Springs Road to the Boys Club. We will take care of making all of those connections with the next two projects, John Nock's project and the McBride project. That is what we are trying to piece together right now so that we have a road running parallel from Hwy. 16 from Double Springs. A lot of that comes from Farmington so they could turn down Persimmon and then turn to go to Broyles verses coming back on 16 and around. Ostner: Hwy. 16 needs another outlet. Sloan: We are trying to solve one of the problems as far as traffic. Bunch: This part of Shiloh is one way isn't it? Sloan: It is one way going south. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 49 Bunch: There is still Betty Jo and Rupple. Sloan: Right. Ostner: If the north bound people stayed on Wedington the south bound could use this. Bunch: We are diverging onto long range planning. Sloan: We don't mind talking about long range with you. Bunch: Especially since you are heavily invested in this area of town this is to your benefit. Moving this forward are any of the conditions of approval sticking points with the applicant issues for you all? Ostner: Yes, number five. Sloan: I know what is planned. We have two different neighborhoods. We are going to build a street that will give you connectivity because we are building a collector street that is only a few hundred feet away. We don't understand why we should have to connect. He has a totally different concept of what he wants to build there verses what we want over here. We don't really want to connect the two subdivisions together. I went to one of your street meeting things they had. Streets can be used for other things besides driving on like kids and things like that. I feel like if you keep making connections people will find a short cut even though there is an easier street one block down the road they are going to keep cutting through in places. He already has two or three connections that he has to make to Meadowlands that are already there that he has to tie into. We didn't see, since we would be making a connection here or here, preferably we would not make a connection here. The neighbors really didn't care to have this connection but we didn't see any reason if we are building this street for you here why we should have to make a connection here. It is not like they are going out on Hwy. 265 to go from Savanna to one of the other subdivisions. Bunch: How about an alternative transportation path through there and have them walk or ride a bicycle as opposed to a street connection? Sloan: We wouldn't have a problem if we had an easement or something through there to connect. Bunch: I would personally be more in favor of that than the automobile connectivity just for the same reasons that you discussed to have the concept of a neighborhood and if there is a different theme in the Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 50 development next to it to have some sort of multi mobile connection but not necessarily automobile. Sloan: I live on a cul-de-sac and I have two little girls and they have road their bikes out there for years on that cul-de-sac and I feel like if you can sort of keep some of the traffic contained into some of these smaller areas that it gives the kids an opportunity just to feel like you are not in a high traffic place. That is the main thing that we were looking at. We didn't see any sense in connecting those two together. Bunch: I always use the Tulsa model of that where every ten blocks either north, south, east or west there is a major thoroughfare, regardless of what it is called, arterial or a collector or whatever. Within those ten block square areas there is traffic calming and less access just for that reason to have a neighborhood and have a place for children to play and to learn to ride bikes and learn about traffic and that sort of thing. Those of us who are addicted to automobiles have the every ten blocks we know that there is something. We don't have to have a major cut through every two blocks. Sloan: We don't have a problem with doing that. Then across the street we have talked with Parks and Trails about connecting this neighborhood down toward the creek which will eventually have a trail through it too. We are trying to work it out where it will be more of a bicycle walking friendly neighborhood. Obviously, for kids the big draw is the Boys Club sitting over here and access to get there. That was one of the things that the neighbors commented to me, just get my children a way to get to the Boys Club without having to go around and that is what our proposal was. We will work together and make sure that we get that. Bunch: If there is some way of coming up with an alternative path down towards Persimmon with bicycle and walking and all that, it would be a lot safer if the kids could cut through. Sloan: That is something that I would have to get with John to coordinate but I don't think he would have a problem with it. Anthes: What is his concept? How is it different? Sloan: He is doing rear entry garages, smaller homes, alley ways I believe is what he is looking at. Casey: He is showing an alley back here to access the back of the homes in the preliminary drawings that I saw. The access would go onto a public alley. Warrick: We have looked at the adjoining project concept in concept. It is obviously, not in process yet. Staff is also recommending a connection to Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 51 the east. Our recommendation would be that lot 11 extend to connect to the vacant tract of land between 25 and 30 acres to the east. Yes, there is a concept for the development of that project. However, that concept may never come to pass. I believe it will. I fully believe that that project will come forward. As Matt said, that developer is looking at some rear entry alley access type configurations. When we spoke with him, when staff made him aware of our intent to have a cross access between this development and his he didn't love the idea but he did state of course, if he was required to connect he would connect. He was following up this project as he is following up development to the north that have stub outs with intentional connectivity to this vacant tract of land for future development. As his development is coming in behind all of these others he is having to respond to those other decisions that were made with regard to connectivity with that tract of land. In reality it is a timing issue as to who comes first and who has to react based on other people's actions and other decisions of the Planning Commission. Staff's opinion is that it is not just getting people on foot from one development to the next. It is getting mailmen, it's getting the UPS truck, the trash truck, getting everybody who needs to travel from one development to the next off of the more major streets for convenience purposes but also just because it is reasonable to do it. We are planning a street system for the city, not for individual developments and we need to ensure that they respond to each other but that they also can protect the integrity of developments. I think that it is very important that when we look at this we have to look at those macro issues. This is the city street system that we are trying to ensure reasonable connectivity in. That is why we made the recommendation. It is obviously, a point of contention and Charlie and I have agreed to disagree on this one and we will continue to do so amicably. We are looking for the Planning Commission to make a decision with regard to this connection. Ostner: I would tend to agree with Ms. Warrick that these being developed from a development to the east in essence says this is our street and then this person says we have ours and we have ours. In my mind that is not what a city is all about. A city is all about these are our streets. If this is built in such a way that these people can't use it even to drive to their friend's house it is not a macro vision. I think lot 11 is a great place to put the connectivity. I think he could still have a completely different look. I have driven from subdivision to subdivision sideways not out on the major streets and you can tell how that changes. That could be his alley access right there, I'm not sue. I'm in favor of condition number five and it is something we have held a lot of other developers to. Anthes: Exactly. I feel that there are a lot of other developments in this area that we are putting the same condition on and we need to be consistent in those decisions. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 52 Bunch: What about lot 13 then as opposed to 11 or 15? From an Engineering standpoint, Matt, would that cause any problems with the turns and the radii? It would give a traffic calming affect. 15 would definitely be a straight shot through. 13 or 11, I realize 11 doesn't go through to 46. Ostner: This is already your traffic calming, offsetting intersections is second best in my mind when intersections line up it is much safer. There are fewer intersections, there is one instead of two. No one is going to want to go through all of these stop signs as a cut through to go fast. Sloan: How many times do I cut through Wilson Park a day? Ostner: That is different. Those aren't offset like these. There is nothing for a quarter or half mile. That is why we all do it. There is nothing that is happening that way. Sloan: There is a street that I'm building that is five lots down. Ostner: That is why traffic won't cut through I believe because we find the path of least resistance and you'll go to it. Sloan: I believe people will cut through here, through here and go through his. Even though it is not logical to do it. Ostner: If these were lined up I believe that could be a problem. Sloan: That is just like saying these people won't go up 461h Street if we don't have that there. They will still go up 46`h Street. That is the reason I can see the neighbor's point of view. If this is here and we are funneling traffic back that way there will eventually be a light at Rupple and that is what we are hopefully planning on the traffic for that purpose. Ostner: It is strange but cut throughs can go both ways. There is a high speed cut through and a friendly neighborly cut through. Connectivity is all about cut throughs but it is all about friendly, low speed neighborhood cut throughs. It is not high speed I'm going to cut through and ruin those people's neighborhoods. I think lot 11 would do that too. Bunch: I know that this has been a rather drawn out meeting but I think we have touched on some important issues here because this whole area of town, these are issues that we are going to be looking at in the future and I would like to thank Charlie for giving us the opportunity to look at these. We are going to see this more and more as this area develops out so I don't think that the time that has been spent today, I think may have been wisely spent because these are issues that are constantly in front of us and that are Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 53 going to be in front of more and more rapidly and particularly as Persimmon goes through. Now that the Boys Club is built that is a motivating factor. I think you could probably tell us more than anyone since you have had considerable development in this area. I know that you are having a rather rapid build out. Sloan: It is. This is the growth of Fayetteville right now. The bigger growth is going to be out in this area. The builders are excited about it. We have home owners calling about this area. The Boys Club is a big attraction. It is for myself. I have two little girls that made me join the new club. That is a big drawing power and we have hopefully some great plans for another benefit for the Boys Club with the next development. We hope to do some stuff that we actually build some stuff for the Boys Club and give it to them for additional recreational facilities for them. We have the space and we have some other area that we are not going to utilize so that is what we are trying to work with the other two land owners. Bunch: Build out rates on your developments over off Double Springs Road really accelerated. Sloan: It is unbelievable. It is going to make a great neighborhood. There are beautiful homes. Bunch: You were concerned with phasing those in and blinked your eyes and were doing final build out. Are there any other comments on the conditions Charlie? Sloan: No, I guess I will give into Dawn and give on number five. Warrick: I think it is a win/win situation. Bunch: What if it is a gated community? Sloan: I tried one several years ago and I didn't know what the Planning Commission's feelings were on gated communities because it is a situation where it could be done very easily. We are going to put fake gates up here to match what goes up across the street. Is that a no around here? Bunch: I don't know, we haven't run it up the flagpole yet. One of the things we will need Charlie since this is a PZD we will need a height and better description on the fence, height and location. Warrick: I think it is pretty well described in the elevation drawing. I would be interested in understanding how it relates to the fence across on the other side. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 54 Sloan: Ijust got a phone call this morning and he said please try to coordinate something. Brackett: The fence for Persimmon was required by the Bill of Assurance. This is a voluntary act by this development and we really don't want to go into extraordinary lengths of developing this fence at this time when really what we would like to do is work with the developer across the street. Bunch: I guess we can do that as a PZD, just call it out as an architectural type fence and then allow some latitude or does that get into substantial change venue? Warrick: If you approve it allowing some latitude then it wouldn't be a substantial change if they came back with something different. I think that it would be appropriate for the fence to be of sufficient height to provide a screen which is typically considered 6' to 8' and if you are going to suggest that it is at least predominantly brick or masonry in structure then whether the panels set in are wood or wrought iron or some other type of material we can work that out. Sloan: I would love to have wrought iron to match across the street but then you are looking in the backyards, I don't want you to look in my backyard so then you need to panelize that. Bunch: I'm trying to limit the red tape on it. Normally PZDs are kind of nailed down but I think we may have some latitude depending on how you present it where we can specify an architectural fence compatible with the fence across the street. Anthes: If you could bring a photograph of the fence across the street that may help as well. Ostner: As part of the negotiating I would be much more willing to hand this off into the hands of the staff if you all would agree to plant a tree every 40' with a group of shrubs every 20'. Sloan: Hopefully all the corners will be landscaped. I was hoping to come out here and do a short wrought iron fence or something that matches here and then we can do flower beds. The same thing with the entry. Chris has a common area with the entry for planters and hopefully down here we can do some small landscaping and maybe a tree wherever the panel happens to hit with the brick panel. Ostner: I think that would make a big difference. In fact, I would include that with the fence in my mind because that is what you see, you see the fence and Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 55 the landscaping. Two fences with no landscaping can be really oppressive. Sloan: Landscaping will be there. That is to try to break it up. Brick fences look good at first and then you need something to break it up. Ostner: You've got a couple of trees and then some landscaping. Sloan: I didn't know I was going to have to furnish that but that's easy enough to draw that on a cad program, stick it in there and try to come up with something pretty quickly. Ostner: Since this is a PZD everything becomes law. Sloan: I will try to get somebody to work on a couple of renderings and come down with something. Ostner: I would bet that more landscaping on paper would be more helpful. Bunch: Actually he has a little extra time because of the holiday. This is Tuesday instead of Thursday and then the agenda session so you have time to work with your neighbors and then come up with a presentation. Let's get this one on the road. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we forward R-PZD 04-02.00 to the full Planning Commission. Anthes: With the connectivity at lot 11? Ostner: With condition number five talking about a street connection to the east being made at lot 11. Anthes: I will second. Bunch: Do we want to specify at lot 11 or do we want to leave that to Charlie to negotiate with staff between now and the full Planning Commission? Brackett: We are going to put it on lot 11. Bunch: I will concur. Good luck. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 56 ADM 04-01.00: Administrative Item (Stearns St. Apartments, pp 136) was submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Management for property located on Stearns Street between Vantage and Zion. The request is to modify the approved Large Scale Development with an extension of Vantage Drive. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is ADM 04-01.00 for Stearns Street Apartments submitted by Crafton, Tull. Jeremy, is this yours? Pate: Yes Sir. Bunch: Will you tell us about the change to this one that just came through? Pate: Yes, I will not prolong this meeting much longer. This is a major modification to a Large Scale Development that was approved just recently for the Stearns Street apartments. The request is to not construct the Stearns Street connection to Vantage Drive and in City Council discussion and meetings after that there was a desire to actually connect south from Zion to Joyce Street. That is a pretty important connection on the Master Street Plan to connect Zion Road all the way south to Joyce Blvd. The boulevard cross section would actually be extended a ways until it started to taper. Both sides of the street would then be constructed at that point to connect down to Joyce. Again, the Stearns Street connection would not be made at this time. Staff is recommending approval of this modification with three conditions. All guarantees for public improvements remain applicable so when the guarantees for this project come in to be permitted we will be permitting the full length of Vantage Drive as opposed to what we would've done with Stearns Street. Also, the 6' sidewalk comment is just a reminder that it will be to the property line and not all the way down to Joyce because as those properties develop they will be required to then construct sidewalks. Additionally, all conditions of the original Large Scale Development remain applicable. Bunch: Thank you. Are there any additional staff comments? Casey: Just a question. Why is the boulevard section proposed to end and not continue all the way down to Joyce? Kelso: Cost is the main reason. Of course that is what s required is a 36' back to back. We looked at that and felt like in order to be able to do this that is all he can afford at this time. Ostner: Is that 36' back to back going to be three lanes? Kelso: Yes. Of course you've got a box culvert to build and then we are tying onto a 36' existing drive when the post office was built. Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 57 Bunch: Who owns all this property currently? Kelso: It is a partnership with the gas company and Mr. Lindsey. Bunch: Ok, so we are not looking at acquisition cost, just a reconfiguration of the paving scheme? Kelso: Yes. Pate: I believe there is quite a bit more street proposed to be constructed with this extension as opposed to the Stearns Street extension. Bunch: I guess at this time we need to let you introduce your project. Kelso: This is Stearns Street apartments, it has been approved by the Planning Commission. Part of that approval process had Stearns Street connecting from here to here and then the road ended right there. At the City Council there was a lot of discussion about making this extension connection down here rather than this connection. Of course all it was was just discussion at the time. After the meeting Mr. Lindsey basically is making the commitment or the alternative of going ahead and doing this to appease some of the City Council's concerns. That is where we are at with it. Warrick: You will probably remember that this project also entailed two adjustments to the Master Street Plan which is why it did go to the City Council for review. The Stearns Street reconfiguration was one of them as well as downgrading both Stearns and Shepherd from collector streets to local streets. There was a lot of discussion at the Council level about whether it would be possible for Vantage Drive to extend all the way from Zion to Joyce as opposed to Stearns Street coming in and making a connection. That is what the developer took to his partners and came back with an option with the alternative of not building Stearns Street but creating this Master Street Plan connection which truly is a more direct and impactful connection with regard to our Master Street Plan because it is providing a direct connection between Zion and Joyce so it is going to be a pretty valuable connection immediately I think but also in the future as additional properties south of the Stearns Street apartment project build out as well as property along Joyce Street on the north and south sides. This is going to be a very valuable connection and it is an important piece of our Master Street Plan. Staff does support this change for those reasons. It was very heavily discussed and desired to be at least investigated so we feel like this is a result of that. Bunch: This is at the City Council's urging more or less? Subdivision Committee December 30, 2003 Page 58 Warrick: And staff to some degree as well. Bunch: Is this one that has to be approved at this level? Warrick: Yes Sir, it is a major modification to an already approved Large Scale. Subdivision Committee has the job of approving those types of modifications. Bunch: We don't have issues of Master Street Plan changes or anything like that because that has already been done by the City Council. Warrick: This Vantage Street connection is consistent with the Master Street Plan. It is identified as a collector street connection on the Master Street Plan and the proposed development is consistent with that. Bunch: Basically what we are looking at is all the jurisdictional things have been taken care of so we are looking at a modification to a Large Scale? Warrick: Right, it is Vantage instead of Stearns. Ohman: In addition, as part of the Stearns Street apartments the developer agreed to build bike lanes for Vantage Drive. In reference to, since they are not going to be building sidewalks past their property line. We are going to ask in the future that bike lanes be built with those future developments, just as a reference. Bunch: This would connect with the system utilized for Joyce Street and then to the creek to the south, East Mud Creek? Ohman: Yes Sir. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment on this important street issue. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments or motions. Basically this winds up being more or less a housekeeping item for previous changes that were made. I think our function here is just to fulfill our duty and go through the administrative process. Does anyone have any comments on this? Anthes: No, I think it is a stronger plan than the original one so thank you for the work. I will move to approve ADM 04-01.00. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Thank you. Are there any additional comments from staff or anyone else? Seeing none, we are adjourned.