Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-29 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, January 29, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN R-PZD 04-02.00: Cross Keys, pp 438 Forwarded Page 2 LSP 04-07.00: (McDougall, pp 398) Approved Page 10 FPL 04-04.00: (Skyler Place, pp 403) Approved Page 12 FPL 04-02.00: (Salem Meadows, pp 245) Approved Page 18 LSP 04-06.00: (Fuddruckers, pp 173) Approved Page 24 LSD 04-03.00: (Fuddruckers, pp 173) Forwarded Page 26 R-PZD 04-05.00 (Hickory Park, pp 294) Forwarded Page 47 Members Present Members Absent Don Bunch Nancy Allen Alan Ostner Staff Present Staff Absent Dawn Warrick Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Craig Camagey Renee Thomas Matt Casey Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 2 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 108 single family dwellings proposed. Bunch: Good morning, welcome to the Thursday, January 29`h meeting of the Subdivision Committee of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Today we have seven items on the agenda. The first item, if the applicants would please come forward. It is a rehearing of R-PZD 04-2.00 for Cross Keys Development on the corner of 46`h and Persimmon Street. Suzanne, can you tell us about this one? Is there anything new with it or what is the reason for hearing it? Morgan: The reason for hearing this again, as you stated, this was heard at the Subdivision Committee meeting on December 30, 2003 and it was tabled back to the Subdivision Committee on January 12`h at the Planning Commission due to improper notification. Since the developer has notified the adjoiners within 100' for this meeting. The proposal is to create a Residential Planned Zoning District for single-family residential use with 108 lots. It is located along Persimmon and 46`h Street. Connectivity will be provided to the south and west as well to the east to vacant tracts of lane. Mitigation is required into the tree escrow account in the amount of $1,050. Staff is recommending forwarding this to the Planning Commission with a total of 13 conditions. Bunch: Ok. Charlie, before we ask for your comments, I want to see if there is anyone in the audience since we have already heard this item. First off, is there anything new, any substantial changes? Sloan: Not substantial. The one question about connectivity to the east, we show it on the plat, which we submitted and said we would last time, to make that a street connection. I have since talked to John Nock, and I thought John might be here, who has the property to the east of me and he would like to make that a walking bicycle trail connection instead of a street connection since we are building Persimmon Street, once again, our same argument we are four or five lots down building a collector street there. Once again, we would like to make that just a walking trail connection between us so we don't encourage anybody driving through our two neighborhoods cutting across. That is basically what it comes to. According to John, his plans are once again, I think that will be an alleyway for him that we will be coming into. He is having alleys behind his houses is what his plan is so I don't know if this is the forum again, to bring it up and discuss it or if we end up waiting until further down the Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 3 line or whatever. That is the one thing, out of the whole thing, that is the only thing that is still, it's not a good thing for us. With this situation we don't feel like we should have to make that connection for traffic. That is the reason for cars. We don't mind the neighborhood being able to walk between or ride a bike between but we just didn't want that to be a street there. Bunch: At this time I will ask if there is anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this issue, a Planned Zoning District for Cross Keys. Seeing none, I will bring it back. Charlie, if you all would introduce yourselves. Since this is a rehearing, if there is no public comment rather than to spend a lot of time with it so if you have anything. Matt, do you have any comments additional? Casey: No Sir. Bunch: Do you have anything else? Sloan: No, I'm Charlie Sloan, the developer on this. Once again, since one of the other issues was an entry fence and we are now working with the Walkers on doing their entrance fence. Their fence around the subdivision trying to work out something more that would complement each other and so he is sending us some photographs and stuff so we can do an artist's rendition of the whole area by the time we get to the actual Planning Commission meeting so you will have hopefully a little bit better drawing of that than what we have there. That is sort of the view we gave you, the latest view we gave you, is facing east down Persimmon Street once we build it. Bunch: Matt, one of the other developments that we have coming before us today I believe also is a Planned Zoning District and there was a comment on that one that the fence is considered a structure and cannot be in the right of way or the easement, how does that apply to this one? Casey: That is correct. We need to work that out as well. It can't be in the right of way or the easement and what we worked out with another applicant was just to have a gap in between them. We have run into problems where we have had walls or structures within our easements which is against our ordinances and that comes into conflicts with our utilities. Brackett: So you have the easements start 2' behind the right of way? Sloan: That area would be dedicated too for the fence. Bunch: Like a fence easement. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 4 Brackett: The only thing about that is the utility companies wouldn't be able to cross other than where the entrance roads are. I guess that's just the way we will do it. Casey: If it is water and sewer and it is going to be crossing a wall we would require an encasement in there anyway. Brackett: There are no public facilities there. Casey: That's what we will be concerned with. Brackett: We will show it anyway you want, I just wanted to point that out that there would be the access thing. Bunch: Since this is a PZD as opposed to a regular type development I wanted to bring that up to make sure that it is addressed and it doesn't further delay the project since we are having to kind of start over with it anyway. Sloan: That would be considered a common area, instead of part of the city property then? Brackett: That could still be part of that lot, the easement would just start. Sloan: They just have an extra 2' easement on them then for the fence? Brackett: Yeah. Warrick: We can work between now and certainly Final Plat when is the most important time that this is reflected on the plat, we can work on the detail that is satisfactory to the utility reps and the city as well as the applicant to make sure that that is reflected on there. It should not affect when it is going through Preliminary. It will certainly be important to be shown properly on the Final since that is what is recorded. Sloan: That's something that we need to address so we don't get into a problem with it. Bunch: Commissioners, are there any other questions on this? This is one that we looked at previously. Warrick: I would like to add Commissioner Bunch, I've received a call and spoken with Carl Walker, the developer of Persimmon Place to the west and he is interested in coming up with a reasonable alternative to his masonry wall requirement. That is part of a Bill of Assurance, it is a binding document but he and I are discussing a procedure for him to bring that back to the City Council to consider alternatives so that it could be more in keeping Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 5 with the proposal that Mr. Sloan has for Cross Keys. Mr. Walker feels that he should not have to be held to a higher standard, it was a different condition, a different type process and certainly a different project. However, we are looking at the neighboring property now and he feels like that it may be appropriate to relook that specific condition, the masonry wall. Bunch: Would that go directly to the City Council or would it come through the Planning Commission for a recommendation prior to City Council? Warrick: I think because the Planning Commission made a recommendation on the original Bill of Assurance it would follow that procedure and go back through the Planning Commission. Sloan: Can that go through with ours? We are trying to get everything done together, is that a possibility if we get his renderings done with our renderings to bring that through or does it need to come through this step first? Warrick: Let me look at it. It is very possible that we can take that as an Administrative item to the Planning Commission. I need to make sure that we get proper notification accomplished and make sure the people who were involved in making the comments that brought about the Bill of Assurance are also somehow notified, those adjoiners. I know that some of the adjoiners have changed and that may significantly change the comment. Sloan: We encouraged him about the landscaping and planting the trees and he said that he liked that a whole lot better putting the trees every 40' or 50' or whatever lays out. Brackett: The only issue that we have is the connectivity. We've spoke to John Nock, he was going to try to make it to this meeting but I guess he wasn't able to but he was strongly opposed to that connection, other than like a pedestrian connection. His layout is narrower lots with rear access and it is just a completely different style of development and they are really opposed to that connection for that reason also. I was just wondering if there was any way that we could revisit that. Maybe a trail or a sidewalk or something so that the kids from this neighborhood can walk through this development to the Boys and Girls Club and don't have to walk down Persimmon but not have the vehicle traffic. Bunch: I know we discussed that previously and if you have a concept plat for the adjoining development I think that would be critical when it goes to the full Planning Commission. Also, since it is a PZD it would have to be Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 6 forwarded to the City Council so there will be a minimum of four public hearings beyond this one to address that issue. Warrick: I've seen a concept on that property but I don't recall if the alley adjoins the common property line. Brackett: There is an alley running along that back, every lot has rear access on that concept plat. Warrick: It might be something that we can look at, I'm not saying that it is a done deal that I would change my recommendation but we could possibly transition to an alley coming through in that location since the alley would connect to Mr. Nock's alley. I realize that's not really what you all are asking for, you are talking more about a trail or a pedestrian access. The sidewalk provides that, the sidewalk is part of the street connection. If we can see more information on that adjoining concept. Sloan: Let us get his and see. You know how that goes, you start with an alleyway and it becomes a drive, we are sort of dealing with that over on Spring and Locust. There is an alleyway over there that is almost a main street through there. Warrick: Staffs recommendation and Subdivision's recommendation is for a street connection. Sloan: My big concern is basically to discourage people from cutting through there. That was the number one concern. Once again, streets can be used for more than driving on and as long as you can discourage a lot of through traffic it is safe for kids to use it and play in it, ride bikes and feel safe without having the traffic coming through that neighborhood that doesn't live there. That is basically what we are trying to do. Brackett: We will get with the adjoining owner and get with staff and try to work something out. Ostner: My fear of this not being a through street, of it simply being an alley connection is pretty much what you just touched on. It is a connection but it is not a proper connection so it is going to be used more dangerously. Sloan: I would rather have a walking trait through there is what I would rather have, it's either or. Ostner: If I were living on Mr. Nock's property and I had this alley and the alley was the connector between their development and mine I would be very concerned. These guys want to use it for proper connectivity, they have to zoom down the alley. I think it needs to be this little street. I think this Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 7 little street would help an alley. These people don't have to drive over there, there's an extra ingress and egress besides the public street. Brackett: Mr. Nock, in his discussions with me, is he felt that this connection really doesn't hurt this development as much as it does his because these people are far more likely to cut through his development to get to Rupple than these people trying to cut the substandard 46"' Street. He feels that the flow is going to be to the east and it is going to be through his development and that is why he thought it was a detriment. Warrick: The disadvantage that we are all at right now is that there is a concept for the property to the east but it is not something that has been approved. It is not something that we have been able to start looking at and other than seeing a preview of it at the courtesy of the developer, I know he is getting ready to do that, but it doesn't mean that it is going to be approved in the configuration that he is proposing right now. What we have in front of us is what we can deal with and we need to do that in the most appropriate way we can with the policies that the city has on the books with regard to connectivity. That is why we made the recommendation, that is why we are where we are with it. It is easy to make that decision without the knowledge of what's going on to the east. If we knew more then it would help. Sloan: We will try to get it. Bunch: This is a good opportunity to take a larger view of it since one of our missions is Planning. We have some very important factors, and I think this actually, it may not appear on the surface, but it is a very important development. Part of the development process of western Fayetteville. One on more of a short term basis of course, is connectivity and the building of Persimmon. Another are Phase II considerations and just like the relocation of your detention pond onto a property that you have under contract or have purchased. That is a very positive step forward in the long range planning of Phase II. Another factor is that you are working with developers and engineering companies on either side of you which is very encouraging. Since you are heavily developed and are heavily involved in the development of western Fayetteville your work has a lot to do with the vision of what the western part of Fayetteville is going to look like. Another factor to throw in is that the City of Fayetteville has taken the lead through our administration and considerations with our downstream neighbors on the Illinois Watershed and the impact of cities through Phase II and some other methods of our sewer plants and such is very critical so this looks like an excellent time to comment that it is where short term planning and long term planning are merging and also the development community, just like our city, has taken lead in the work with Oklahoma, our development communities appear to be taking the Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 8 lead in coordinating and it seems like this would be a good time to consider a watershed approach and to have engineering, short term planning and long term planning and possibly the Planning Commission, sit down with a group of engineers and developers because your engineering company is heavily involved in this area, Charlie you are involved in this area as a developer and this just looks like a rare opportunity to take all of these factors together and to sit down and say what is western Fayetteville going to look like. What can we do because Fayetteville is land locked on our growth and the western part of Fayetteville is one of the few remaining areas where we can grow, what can we do to have good development and sustainable growth in development. I am going to put you on the spot Charlie, would you be willing as a developer, to sit down with the regulatory people and discuss something like this? Sloan: We would love to. We have been trying to work to get the Corp. of Engineers down here to talk to us. We have done wetland studies out there because I'm also involved in the next piece of property next to me with some friends that abuts my property. Part of it affects Fayetteville with the extension of Rupple Road. Where does Rupple Road go? Right now it goes through wetlands if it is extended so how do you avoid that or mitigate it out? What is the future to the south going to look like? Rather than hodgepodge myself and two or three other developers as we work our way through there, it would be easier to sit down with a master plan and say this is what we would like to have, here are the benefits, yes, we have land. Our detention pond actually shown for this I believe Chris will tell you, is for this project but it will actually pick up more for the second phase. It will actually grow. The reason being that the location is a good location for us because we can't use the land anyway for the concept we want it is just the backyards for large lots so rather than be two acre lots they are one acre lots now and we use this area for detention and try to bring in, consolidate so we don't have a bunch of little detention ponds scattered all through this project. There is still the possibility of working with Mr. Nock. We encouraged him that we may still have a little room on our side to put some of his water across if need be so that his concept will work for him. We have plans for our little project but the overall area needs some kind of looking at. This is a unique opportunity down in this valley to figure out what we would like to have happen in that valley as we go and yes, we are heavily involved in it. We have made a big investment in it. It is a pretty place. It is a chance to put together a childhood neighborhood where you can make it child friendly, you can plan your streets, plan where your recreational areas are at because there is so much land out there and not just do a hodgepodge of a few streets each year. We have visited with Dawn about it. We have spent quite a few times bugging her to death and everybody in Planning about this. Indeed, if we had some kind of committee that would look at this overall area and Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 9 come up with some kind of concept that we think that we would like to have. Similar to what they've done with downtown. You might not get there but at least you have a goal to shoot for. Bunch: Another factor is that all these subdivisions in this area the drainage will be going right past the new Fayetteville Waste Water Treatment Plant and the water quality going in or going past that plant is going to be very important in the determination of how that plant operates and how it is permitted. I think that these developments in this area are critical to the performance of that plant also. At this time, it is a little unusual and I hope I don't put you on the spot Hugh but we do have a high level Fayetteville Administrator here, do you have any comments on the little discussion that we had here? It is not normal subdivision items but it is a rather unique opportunity to look towards the future of Fayetteville and to combine the various short term and long term planning. Earnest: Thank you for bring it up because I've been involved in some of these discussions. Those discussions are occurring across traditional boundaries involving more than one developer and I commend you for bring it up and Mr. Sloan also. I have been involved in conversations with him and also with John Nock so it is perfect timing. Thank you. Bunch: Since this is a rehearing of an item, we took a little detour but I hope it was pertinent. Are there any other comments on this or motions? MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we forward R-PZD 04-02.00 to the full Planning Commission. Allen: I second. Bunch: I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 10 LSP 04-07.00: Lot Split (McDougall, pp 398) was submitted by Doug McDougall for property located at 1187 N. 51" Avenue. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 3.01 acres. The request is to divide the property into two tracts of 2.40 and 0.61 acres. Bunch: The next item on our agenda is an item of new business, it is LSP 04- 07.00 for McDougall submitted by Doug McDougall for property at 1187 N. 51st Avenue. Suzanne, can you give us a staff report on this please? Morgan: Yes. This is for property located at 1187 N. 51 s` Street and the applicant has previously requested and received approval for a Lot Split at this property location by the Subdivision Committee on October 16, 2003. This, however, was never filed and the applicant has resubmitted for a reconfiguration of a split. He is requesting for the 3.10 acre tract to be split into 2.4 and .61 acres. The property is zoned RSF-4 with surrounding property to the north RSF-4 and R -A to the east, west and south. Water and sewer are extended to this property and no additional dedication of right of way is needed for this action. Staff is recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level with four conditions to include construction or money in lieu for a sidewalk at the time of development and Parks fees in the amount of $555. Bunch: Thank you. Engineering, are there any additional comments? Is the applicant present? Casey: One of the reasons we are seeing this again is that when we first saw it the sewer did not quite meet one of the proposed lots and a sewer extension was going to be required. They have since reconfigured slightly lot lines to line up with the existing manhole, which is the end of the line, so the lot will have access to that sewer line so it does provide sewer service and water service is available for both lots. That is all I have. Bunch: Thank you. Again, is the applicant present? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this LSP 04-07.00 for McDougall property on 51" Avenue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee. Dawn or Suzanne, since the applicant is not present how should we proceed with this? Is it clean enough that we can forward it on and any conditions can be met prior to filing? Warrick: We have handled these sorts of things in different ways when we have failed to have an applicant present. This is a very clean application, a clean project. There are no outstanding issues, there are no waivers being requested. Staff would be comfortable with the Subdivision Committee making a decision on this item if you feel that you don't wish to do that until the applicant is present you could certainly forward it to the full Planning Commission but I don't believe that there are any outstanding Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 11 issues that would need to be dealt with other than at staff level, collecting fees prior to a certificate of occupancy or ensuring that proper documentation is put together for filing and that is something that we would have to do anyway. Bunch: In your dealings with the applicant have they expressed any concerns with the conditions of approval to your knowledge? Morgan: No I have not heard anything? Bunch: Do you have signed conditions of approval? Warrick: We can obtain signed conditions, they have been through this process once and the only reason that we are looking at it is that they chose to reconfigure the split that they were wanting to file. In part I think that they found a buyer for the lot and they wanted a little bit different of a configuration and they also needed to deal with the access to sanitary sewer. Bunch: Fellow Commissioners, do you have any problem with taking care of this item at this level? Allen: I don't. I would move for approval of LSP 04-07.00 subject to the four conditions of approval. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 12 FPL 04-04.00: Final Plat (Skyler Place, pp 403) was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bleaux Barnes and Sam Mathias for property located south of Deane Street between Sang Avenue and Porter Road. The property is zoned RMF -6, Residential Multi -family, 6 units per acre and contains approximately 21.03 acres. The request is to allow the development of 57 lots with 126 dwelling units proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is a Final Plat submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Blew Barnes and Sam Mathias for property located south of Deane Street between Sang Avenue and Porter Road. Suzanne, do you have the staff report for us on this project? Morgan: Yes, the applicant is requesting to create a 57 lot residential subdivision on 21.03 acres with 11 lots intended for four plexes, one lot intended for a duplex, 37 lots intended for duplexes and five lots for single family homes. Three lots are being reserved for common area and these are the lots which are mostly affected by the floodplain. All structures excluding the existing home on lot 55 are to be removed. A Preliminary Plat for Skyler Place was approved by the Planning Commission on November 25, 2002 and surrounding land use to the north is the University of Arkansas, south is single family residential and non-profit organizations. To the east is RSF-4 and P-1, Institutional with the middle school and single family residential and duplexes to the east and to the west are duplexes and multi- family units with zoning RSF-4 and RMF -24. Right of way being dedicated is 45' from centerline for Deane, 35' from centerline of Porter and 25' from centerline for Sang. Tree preservation, existing canopy is 6.03% and the preserved canopy is 2.22%. Mitigation required is $27,225. Staff recommends approval with a total of 15 conditions of which the existing home on lot 55 shall comply with the required building setbacks and if the applicant could show the building footprint on the plat. In addition, FEMA acceptance of the required study for the Zone A floodplain pursuant to the flood damage prevention code for the City of Fayetteville will be required prior to the issuance of building permits on the affected lots and this is a slight change from what is shown on the conditions of the staff report. Covenants need to be submitted for the subdivision which states a listed six items regarding parking and lot width. Most of these conditions listed are the conditions from the Preliminary Plat that was approved. They are pretty much verbatim. Access will be limited and those lots which have access listed here in the staff reports. Each unit will be limited to an 18' drive. There are 15 conditions of approval if you have any questions regarding those I will be happy to address them. Bunch: Most of these, the ones that could be met at this point in time have been met, is that correct? Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 13 Morgan: That is correct. We have not received covenants as of yet and we will need to look at the existing home on Lot 55. Bunch: The 18' drives would be in the covenants and various payments would be with the Final Plat. As we are looking at it at this point in time the conditions are substantially met, the ones that can be met at this point in time? Morgan: That is correct. Bunch: Matt, has there been a final inspection on this and are there any other engineering comments? Casey: Yes they have had a final inspection on this project and there are some punchlist items that are to be done that we're in the process of getting the bonds and construction costs and preparing to sign off on the Final Plat. Bunch: The punchlist items are relatively minor items? Casey: Yes. Bunch: At this time will the applicants introduce yourselves and tell us where we are on this project in your estimation. Gilbert: I'm David Gilbert with Jorgensen & Associates and this is Mr. Barnes, one of the owners of the project. Basically, the streets are in, the utilities are in, everything is graded out. We are working through some minor punchlist items as is normal for a project of this size at this stage but nothing that we feel is really large to be concerned with, mainly cleanup and moving a couple of things around and basically getting everything in final order. The screening I know has been a big issue through the entire process and that is all in place. It was a requirement for a board fence on the south property line adjacent to the church's. That fence is in. There was a requirement for some loblolly pines inside that fence basically along the south line, which came through the Bill of Assurance process. Those are in. There was a requirement for some screening hedges along basically the eastern boundary, not where it comes all the way up to Sang but where it abuts the houses that front on Sang. Those are in. We have received some good feedback from the neighbors. We don't seem to have anyone to my knowledge that is disgruntled at this point. We believe we have taken care of all of their concerns. Mr. Barnes received a letter from one of the neighbors complementing him about how this was handled. The contractors have done a very good job with this and it has been very good working with them on this project. I think we are basically to the point where we need to be on this Mr. Bunch. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 14 Bunch: Ok, thank you. Warrick: My understanding is that each of these units, while many of them will be attached units, they will be single family attached, either commonly owned or patio homes, is that correct? Gilbert: That is correct. Warrick: The reason I ask that is that I believe that the parks fees were calculated with the consideration that there would be multi -family units where there really won't be so I am going to request that the Parks Division recalculate the parks fees. We are looking at 126 units, single family homes, some of them are attached, is that correct? Barnes: That is correct. Warrick: We need to recalculate the parks fees, I think they were undercalculated. Barnes: They were calculated based on the patio homes being duplexes? Warrick: I believe that is correct and there is a different rate applied. My calculation is the single family rate for each of the 126 units comes to $69,930. I don't know the exact numbers that they applied for coming up with the $47,915 but I think that is the cause of it being lower. Barnes: That is the difference between what we recognized before as a duplex which would be recognized as attached single family dwellings? Warrick: That is correct. We were always looking at 126 units, they were just broken up differently as far as the way they were calculated. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak regarding FPL 04-04.00 for Skyler Place? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions, comments or motions. I drove out and looked at it this morning and hopefully the drainage has always been an issue in this area so hopefully with the detention ponds and drain work it will be a considerable improvement for the neighbors on both sides and for the whole area. Gilbert: We have done a considerable amount of flood study on this particular channel going through here and the culverts under the streets, everything is designed to take care of up to the 100 -year event, which is very rare that that is a reasonable standard in this case given what's going on in the area. In addition, Mr. Barnes and Mr. Mathias have worked with the city to participate in improvements basically removing two culverts under Linda Jo Place, which is just to the west of the project over here. They were Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 15 replaced with two rectangular box culverts. The capacity of that culvert system now is tremendously increased over what it was before. That has all been calculated. The water in that area will be significantly reduced and we were able to work with Mr. Casey and other members of the staff to get that resolved so that is I think going to be a major imoprovement to that area. That will hopefully take care of a lot of things. As the city requires, the detention is configured for a no increase in peak flow from the project so that downstream conveyance should not see any increase in its peak flow due to this project, add the improvements to Linda Jo Place, along with the downstream ditch from that point, from Linda Jo down about a 100' or so downstream had really grown up. There were some trees growing on top of the concrete lining. We've got those trees out of there, that's all cleaned out and you can see the concrete again. We didn't even know there was concrete in there, it showed up on one of the maps and we were looking at it and couldn't find it. The surveyors dug down and actually found the concrete. That has all been dressed up. The capacity of this thing from Linda Jo downstream has been tremendously improved due to the work that Mr. Mathias and Mr. Barnes have worked with the city on here. Bunch: Also, it seems as though the flow coming from the east has been given the opportunity to get into your system and then be controlled by your development before it goes downstream also. It looks like you have created a better condition not only downstream but also up stream. Gilbert: I think we have. We have certainly tried to within the limitations and what the land would allow us to do. If you go east from this project 100' or so to Sang Avenue, from that point up there are still a lot of issues that just looking at it look like there may still be some issues to resolve there. That is really beyond the scope of what we could do given where we were working. I think the contractors and the owners have done a very good job in working with the city to help straighten up some of this through there and I hope everybody will be pleased with the results. It looks good. Barnes: If I might add, the City of Fayetteville also contributed to that off site. Our contractor did a wonderful job in performing beneath Linda Jo Place but that was a combination of our efforts and the city's efforts to try to eliminate an issue that was there pre-existing. There was some pre- existing flooding and I believe the adjoining property owners and neighbors have rejoiced at the idea that we are going to limit that. If you haven't had the opportunity, don't look just at the development, do take the opportunity and time to drive that off site drainage and look at it. The contractor has done a wonderful job of that in relation with the neighbors. Bunch: This particular piece of property has been before us previously with other proposed developments and it is encouraging to see that the city and Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 16 developers have taken a broader view and are doing the offsite improvements to improve the whole area, not just a postage stamp or particular project and that is encouraging and you are to be commended for it. MOTION: Allen: This seems like a fine fit for the area. With that, I will move for approval of FPL 04-04.00 subject to the 15 conditions of approval with condition number four to be changed from $47,915 to $69,930. Bunch: Should we review that number or say to the number that Parks comes up with that would be approximately that amount? Warrick: I would say use the higher number to be verified by Parks and should it be lower then it could be based on their calculations. All I did was multiply $555 by 126 and so I believe that that would be an accurate number. Allen: Ok, so that number should also be verified by Parks. Gilbert: Do we need to also modify condition number five? Warrick: Condition number five should also be modified to read "FEMA acceptance of required study for Zone A Floodplain pursuant to the flooddamage prevention code for the City of Fayetteville will be required prior to approval of building permits on the affected lots." We are asking for that to be modified mainly because of the time lag in getting approvals through the FEMA process. We believe that this is forthcoming but it should not hold up the rest of this development's build out. There are very few lots that are actually affected by this. Most of the lots that have floodplain on them are common greenspace for this development. Bunch: I think the ones that aren't affected by the floodplain are already showing a minimum finished floor elevation? Gilbert: In discussions with the staff Mr. Bunch, we developed a list of lots, and I have a revised plat here that I will give to Dawn and Suzanne. The affected lots, let me make sure I get the right note here because we've got several notes about lots. The lots are basically lots on either side of the drainage through the middle of the project. Those would be lots 27, 28, 40, 41, 48 and 49 and if you will look at the common areas that is basically just one lot on either side of those common areas all the way through the project. Some of those lots are currently affected by the floodplain and some are not but this gives us a little leadway so that if something does end up being affected we can work with the staff and the rest of the city to resolve those issues where they are not messing anything Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 17 up for anybody. It is a little bit cautious, we don't anticipate that there are going to be any problems for most of those lots. However, we do want to be on the safe side and make sure everybody is taken care of. Bunch: Good, does that include both A and B of those numbered lots? Gilbert: That would include the A and B portions of those numbered lots. Bunch: Ok, so 27, 28, 48, 41, 49 and 40? Gilbert: Yes. Bunch: Would the motioner revise your motion to affect that? Allen: Condition number five changed that the approval of permits on the affected lots 27, 28, 40, 41, 49 and 48 will be at the time of building permit. Bunch: Staff, does that cover it? Warrick: I think that covers it. Ostner: I will second it. Bunch: I will concur. Thank you. I appreciate your work. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 18 FPL 04-02.00: Final Plat (Salem Meadows, pp 245) was submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Alford and Palmco Properties, LLC for property located north of Salem Road and Salem Village and west of Holcomb Middle School. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 39.95 acres. The request is to approve the development of subject property containing 103 lots with 101 single family dwellings and a 1.84 acre park land lot proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is also a Final Plat for Salem Meadows submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech on behalf of John Alford for Palmco Properties for property located on North Salem Road in proximity to the Holcomb Middle School. Suzanne, do you have a staff report on this? Morgan: Yes I do. The applicant is requesting to create a residential subdivision on 39.95 acres with 101 single family lots, one 1.84 acre lot proposed for parkland and one lot delineated as wetlands. There is also an outlot of 4.37 acres proposed for future development. This property is zoned RSF- 4, Residential Single Family four units per acre and it is delineated by Salem Road to the east and the future extension of Rupple Road to the west. The Preliminary Plat for Salem Meadows was approved by the Planning Commission on February 6, 2003 with a revised Preliminary Plat approved by the Planning Commission on December 8, 2003. This Final Plat requests this most recent Preliminary Plat approved. Surrounding land use, to the north is vacant and within the Planning Area. To the south is single family residential. To the east is Holcomb Middle School. The land to the west is vacant and within the Planning Area. Water and sewer have been extended to serve this development. Right of way dedicated, 45' from centerline for the planned section of Rupple Road, 35' from centerline of Salem Road and 50' of right of way for all interior streets. Connectivity is provided to the north. To the west is the future extension of Rupple Road. To the east is Salem Road and a stubout is being provided for the outlet for future development. The applicant is also providing a 20' public easement and a 6' sidewalk from the end of the eyebrow on Bluegrass Place to Bermuda Avenue for pedestrian access. Mitigation required is $13,950 into the city's tree escrow account. Staff is recommending approval with a total of 12 conditions to include a 6' sidewalk between lots 31 and 32 and lots 13 and 14 shall be installed prior to Final Plat approval. Payment of $13,950 to the city's tree escrow account prior to filing the Final Plat. Parks fees in the amount of $13,505 and a dedication of 1.84 acres will be required prior to signing of the Final Plat. Condition eight, the developer shall pay for Yz of a 28' wide street in the amount of $74,915.60 prior to signing of the Final Plat and payment of $11,919 for an offsite assessment for Rupple Road Bridge prior to the signing of the Final Plat. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 19 Bunch: Thank you Suzanne. Matt with Engineering, are there any additional comments or anything on the final inspection? Casey: No, it is very similar to the last project. They have had the final inspection and just some minor punchlist items. Mr. Boyd could probably tell us better on that, he is the one doing them. Boyd: The punchlist items will be done by noon today. We had the final and the punchlist items will be done by noon today. There are 11 people out there working on them right now. Bunch: They were going before 8:00. Boyd: The inspector is going to look at the punchlist items this afternoon for us. Casey: We will just need our bonds and as builts and construction costs then before Engineering can sign off. Gabbard: We have got the as builts being completed and I suppose we will be assuming that if we get the permission to be completed at Subdivision Committee hopefully we can be getting signatures the first of next week. Casey: That's all I have. Bunch: Leonard, at this time would you all introduce yourselves and if you have any additional comments give us the benefit of that? Gabbard: Certainly. I am Leonard Gabbard with Landtech Engineering and I have with me today Jimmy Boyd with the general contractor. Mr. Boyd is the general superintendent for that firm and I think we kind of answered all of the questions that have been directed so far. Bunch: Thank you. At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the issue of FPL 04-02.00 for Salem Meadows? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for further consideration. I would like to commend you on the sidewalk across lots 31 and 14, that looked really good. With the additional access to Rupple Road, that looks good too. One question, at the end of Downs Avenue on the south end of it, what's to be done with that pond or is that just a low area of ponding? Gabbard: Currently that outlot has been delineated as totally wetlands and there will be a plat coming before this Commission. Ms. Warrick and I have discussed that stubout street will come down and connect to another street that will come in there. Our developer has for the privilege of developing the wetlands, he has invested over $100,000 to mitigate that off site. We Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 20 will be developing all of that in there. We have the approval from the Corp. to do that at this point so when that comes before the Commission at a later time you will see that pond is going to get filled with dirt. Bunch: We always ask for connectivity but when you see one going into a pond you should be well advised before. Gabbard: We will have signs at the end of the road. At the ends of each of those roads we will have permanent barricades as you do on deadends. When this comes back, that outlot, you will see a street coming down and a street coming in. Bunch: From a safety standpoint at this time there will be a barricade? Gabbard: That is correct. Bunch: Commissioners, are there any other questions or comments on this? Ostner: I do have one, it seems like a detail. This pedestrian connection, this is a great thing. I'm just trying to envision it in my mind. Bunch: It is a paved sidewalk. Ostner: With what, board fences? Gabbard: The property line is actually right on the sidewalk. We had to drive one of the corners into the concrete. I assume, unless we state it on the plat, I assumed that it was understood that there would be fences that would go on either side of that. Warrick: The property owners that develop on either one of those lots would have the right to do that to place the fencing. Bunch: Could there be a statement on how far back that fencing needs to be so we don't create a very narrow alley? Is that within our jurisdiction to be able to comment to that? Casey: Not number nine on the plat doesn't state any setbacks but it does comment that it cannot be blocked off. Gabbard: The sidewalk easement is 10' off of the property line both ways. On note number nine it says "No fences or barriers of any kind shall be used to block the pedestrian easement from Bluegrass Place to Bermuda Avenue." Bunch: Ok, so in other words, the fences will have to be outside that 10' easement? Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 21 Warrick: Fences can be located within an easement. They can't block the purpose of the easement, which in this case is for access. There is something to consider though, within that easement, if the fences are located a setback away from the sidewalk, who is going to maintain that I' or 2' strip or is it going to become a large weeded tract adjacent to a sidewalk that nobody is then going to walk on. If the fences are adjacent to the paved surface we've got somebody maintaining them up to that point. There may be a tradeoff on that. I am not sure which is really the better solution. Bunch: Then again, there may not be any fences. Warrick: The people who live there may choose not to fence that out in any way so that they can utilize the access easement. Bunch: Should we address that at this level to avoid future problems? Is there a P.O.A., since we have a tree preservation area and a detention pond that will be covered by the P.O.A. won't it? Gabbard: We have submitted covenants and we covered that in the covenants. Warrick: I think it would be appropriate for that access easement to remain clear and to be maintained by the P.O.A. That would be easy enough to include. They are going to be already ensuring the maintenance of the detention area so if it is the entire access easement to remain clear would allow for some fence on either side of the sidewalk and if it is maintained by the P.O.A. it should be maintained. Gabbard: I would think personally that as a land owner next to that sidewalk I would want a fence but from the point of view as a pedestrian, I wouldn't want to have a fence right on it because I would feel confined so I think somehow in terms of making this what we want to see, I would want to see a fence and a greenspace that is maintained and I want to see the fence at the edge of the sidewalk. Ostner: If they are 6' tall wood board fences I'm not sure I want to walk down that. If they were short fences or if they were translucent I don't know. Here again, I don't know if this is the proper place for that but since build out occurs after the infrastructure. Bunch: Since this is the Final Plat for approval if we approve it at this level it is the place to bring it up. Ostner: I think it would be better if solid fences weren't allowed along that. I don't know if that is fair to the property owner. I think it would make the pedestrian feel safe. They could be seen, they weren't stuck in an alley. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 22 Bunch: I think the important question now is how to word that in addition to the conditions of approval as expressed by Leonard. Ostner: Could we insert that into the covenants? Warrick: That would be the option to do that. You also have the original consideration of the property owner, the person who is building a house there if they want anyone who walks on this public access easement to see in their backyards, see in their back windows, whatever it is that is there to be exposed or to be seen by the public walking through the easement. Ostner: In my mind if this is on the plat, it's funny, this is exactly what Mr. Sloan wants instead of a street he wants a walking area. In my minds lots 13, 14, 31, and 32 are in essence, corner lots. There are two frontages to their lots, it is just that cars aren't allowed. That is my perception. They've already got a corner lot in a sense, we don't allow you to put up a board fence in your front yard now. Those are in essence a type. Warrick: We do. There are conditions. Ostner: I don't know how to resolve this. Warrick: If it is something that the committee feels is important and wants to include as a condition it needs to be addressed in the covenants because there is no way on the plat through infrastructure or city requirements otherwise to ensure that kind of condition either low solid walls or walls with perforations of some type. Bunch: Leonard, can you restate your comment on what you felt would be appropriate to put in the covenants and then we can address that as a condition of approval for what you wanted to put in the covenants? Gabbard: My personal opinion as a lot owner, I would want to have the right to my privacy from pedestrians walking through so I take disagreement to the opaque fence. I think that if it is the committee's wish, whatever kind of fence you all want. What I would put in the covenants is to require fencing, any privacy fencing between lots 32 and 31 and 14 and 13 would be at the sidewalk easement and that the greenspace inside the sidewalk easement would be maintained by the Property Owner's Association. Does that sound about right Dawn? Warrick: That's what I wrote down before. Bunch: I just wanted to reiterate that. Are there any other questions, comments or motions? Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 23 MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve FPL 04-02.00 with the added condition of approval that the covenants reflect the access easement between Bluegrass and Bermuda that fences not be put inside the access easement and that that land be maintained by the P.O.A. Allen: I second. Bunch: I will concur. Thank you. Gabbard: Thank you so much. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 24 LSP 04-06.00: Lot Split (Fuddruckers, pp 173) was submitted by James Koch of CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Joe Hudack of AMJO Properties, LLC for property located at Lot 13 in Steele Crossing. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 10.05 acres. The request is to split the parent tract into two tracts of 2.81 and 7.24 acres respectively. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is a Lot Split and also, accompanying that, is a Large Scale Development for Fuddruckers submitted by James Koch of CEI Engineering on behalf of Joe Hudack for AMJO Properties, located on Lot 13 of Steele Crossing in the CMN Business Park. Suzanne, do you have a staff report for us on this? Warrick: The first item is of course a Lot Split to grant the tract of land that the restaurant is proposing to develop on. The current tract contains approximately 10.05 acres. The request is to divide the tract into 2.81 and to 7.24 acres. The smaller lot, the 2.81 acres is the lot that Fuddrucker's Restaurant is proposing to develop on. The current zoning on the property, and all surrounding properties, is C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Water and sewer are existing available to the site. Sufficient right of way exists for Mall and Van Asche. Staff is recommending approval for the Lot Split. We are looking for some additional information for the Lot Split so it is all on one sheet for one document for filing and a few revisions are requested to show existing water and sewer lines, provide adjacent zoning designation, label the base flood elevation and finished floor elevation for each lot and some updated information on signature blocks for certification and ownership. With that, we are recommending approval of the Lot Split request. Bunch: Thank you. Matt, is there anything additional on the Lot Split? Casey: Nothing additional, I think the conditions of approval that Dawn read covers all of my concerns. Bunch: Thank you. James, can you introduce yourself and tell us about the project please? Koch: Yes Sir, my name is James Koch with CEI Engineering representing Joe Hudack and his proposed Fuddrucker's Restaurant development. In conjunction with that, we are just dividing Lot 13 into two parcels as previously described, 2.8 acres roughly and the remaining balance of that ten acre lot as you see in the county version of the Lot Split documents. I think it is pretty straight forward and if you have any questions I would be happy to address them. Bunch: Thank you. At this time I will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address the issue of LSP 04-06.00 for Fuddruckers on Lot 13 Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 25 of Steele Crossing? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for comments, questions and motions. I think I will start it off. I do have one comment. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 26 LSD 04-03.00: Large Scale Development (Fuddruckers, pp 173) was submitted by James Koch of CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Joe Hudack of AMJO Properties, LLC for property located at Lot 13A of Steele Crossing. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 2.81 acres. The request is to allow the development of a 7,073 s.f. restaurant with seating for 254 and 124 parking spaces proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is a Large Scale Development for this particular lot and it does show development outside of the property line. Is there an easement that would be with this Lot Split or would the Large Scale Development that addresses the construction work outside the property line cover that? Koch: Absolutely. Bunch: Is that reflected in the Lot Split documents that will be on file or is it in the Large Scale Development documents? Koch: Well, I'm expecting to pursue an easement plat at further review process with the Large Scale Development. However, if we need to show that information on the Lot Split and separately on an easement plat we can certainly do that. Bunch: A question for staff, should that be happened at the Lot Split level or at the Large Scale Development level? Warrick: I think it is probably more appropriate at the Large Scale incase something shifts between the Lot Split and the Large Scale depending on the approvals on it. There will be a document filed as a result of the Large Scale Development approval which will record all easements and we are requesting that that area on the west side of the development be shown in a permanent access easement so we will handle that with the Large Scale. Bunch: That Large Scale will have to go forward and to have multiple opportunities for review so my main concern here was to make sure that the Lot Split itself was clean enough that we could process it at this level. Warrick: Yes Sir, I believe it is. Bunch: Are there any other comments concerning just the Lot Split? Ostner: It looks fine to me. Allen: It does to me too. I will move for approval of LSP 04-6.00 subject to the three conditions of approval. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 27 Ostner: I will second. I was wondering if we needed to add a condition of approval with the easement that you were talking about, is that not necessary? Bunch: It doesn't appear to be necessary. Warrick: It will be filed as a result of the Large Scale easement plat. Bunch: This will stand on it's own should the Large Scale not come to being the Lot Split will still stand. I will concur. Bunch: We will move right into the associated Large Scale Development, 04- 03.00 for the same piece of property. Dawn, do you have the staff report on that for us please? Warrick: The request is on what will not turn Lot 13A at the southwest corner of Mall Avenue and Van Asche Drive. The property will contain 2.18 acres. The request is to allow the development of a 7,073 sq.ft. restaurant with seating for 254, also containing 124 parking spaces proposed. The subject property is partially located within the Design Overlay District. Of course the portion of the property located within the Design Overlay District boundary is subject to those requirements including greenspace, signage, curb cuts, lighting, exterior appearance, building materials, site coverage calculations, fencing, outdoor storage and access. Parking is being requested to be addressed with a Conditional Use request for parking in excess of that permitted by ordinance. Also, two formal waiver requests have been submitted. One is to allow a second freestanding sign and the second is to allow a curb cut within 250' of an intersection with the Design Overlay District. On the second page of your report we've identified Overlay District issues that are specific to that area that is contained within the Overlay District. On the plat you will see that that boundary line is delineated. Basically, the area within the Overlay District is the corner at Van Asche and Mall Avenue. Under the signage issue, as I mentioned, the applicant has requested approval of a second freestanding sign. This sign that is requested is a pole sign and it is located on a portion to the site outside of the Overlay District. However, staff is not in favor of that request on any single commercial site within the city one freestanding sign is permitted and we believe that the monument sign that is being proposed that is located at the corner of these two intersecting streets is the appropriate freestanding sign for the site. That is what we will recommend as the approved signage for the project. Also, under wall signage, the applicant is allowed two wall signs for the property's two frontages. This is with regard specifically to the Overlay District and we're asking that no more than four wall signs be permitted on the structure. That is consistent with standard commercial allowance for wall signs within the city. We are looking for some modification to the Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 28 elevations to comply with that requirement. With regard to the curb cut request, the applicant is proposing two curb cuts, one from Van Asche and one from Mall. The one from Mall is less than 250' from the intersection and due to the configuration of the site and the location of wetland and floodplain area to the west end of the site staff is recommending in favor of that waiver. James, you can probably help me on the distance. Koch: It is roughly 175 linear feet from the intersection to the start of the curb return into the site. Warrick: With regard to recommended conditions, we are looking for Planning Commission determination with regard to commercial design standards. Staff finds the building elevations to be in general compliance with commercial design standards, with the exception of the unarticulated wall surface on what is the rear elevation. Additionally, all elevations need to be relabeled, that is so we can refer to them as north, south, east and west in order to better distinguish each respective side. Planning Commission determination will also be necessary for the associated Conditional Use request. As I mentioned, they are asking for excess parking. 93 spaces are permitted by right and the applicant is request 111 spaces. We will also be looking for the Planning Commission determination of a waiver request with regard to the distance between the curb cut and intersection. As we mentioned, that is about 175' and the requirement is 250'. Planning Commission determination of the additional signage. A pylon sign is being requested, as I mentioned before, staff is not in agreement with that request. Condition number five, just has to do with some plat requirements. We are looking for a minimum of four bicycle racks to be established and installed on the property to comply with our ordinance requirements. Then again, you mentioned the permanent access easement on the western drive. Other than that, the conditions of approval that are stated are standard conditions for Large Scale projects. Bunch: Thank you. Matt, are there any additional Engineering comments? Casey: None at this time. Bunch: Dawn, do you have any reports on tree preservation or any comments on that that need to be addressed at this time? Warrick: You should have in your packets a separate tree preservation and landscaping plan. Bunch: The reason I ask that is we didn't show on the drawings themselves other than tree preservation within the deed restricted area. We don't have a table that shows the percentages and that sort of thing, I was wondering if it might be in the new information that we received this morning. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 29 Warrick: We don't have any additional comments with regard to the landscape plan. I don't believe there are any outstanding issues on tree preservation. James, on the site, are there any existing trees outside of that preservation area? Koch: No. Everything that is going to be done with this project will be adding landscape to the actual parcel that we have created here. Bunch: A considerable amount too. Koch: Yes, and we may actually reduce the quantities of some of those materials before the next meeting. The number of trees will definitely be at the city's minimum requirement or greater and so will the shrubs. Bunch: As far as forwarding this to the full Planning Commission, there are trees within the deed restricted area but I guess if there is nothing on the developed area then I am just wondering how we are supposed to reflect that on the drawings so that when the commissioners get their packets they won't be saying where's the percentages. I don't know how the deed restricted area even figures in. Koch: That has been referred to as a tree preservation easement a couple of times in discussion that I've read here and just for the sake of clarity, if they are deed restricted areas and mitigated wetlands on this tract of land. Definitely none of those areas are going to be touched by regulations that are currently in place. I think that whenever we initially put together the material submittal package, we had conversations with the Landscape Administrator and he recognized the fact that there are no trees. Everything that we are doing is going to be in addition to tree materials that are on site. I don't believe we even had to fill out that form. Warrick: James, in your chart on your plat, you have an acreage summary, usable area verses unusable area. Mr. Bunch, would it satisfy yourself to better define unsuable area as area with the deed restricted or define it as area that is deed restricted and located within mitigated wetlands? It does designate the half acre of this property that is off limits basically. Bunch: As James just mentioned, for sake of clarity, we might just put a comment in to that affect because it is something that is already taken care of just to let people know so they won't have to be concerned with issues, that it is an issue that has been covered and is already addressed so maybe just a comment of however you feel is a good way of approaching it. Koch: I can propose to just put a note in that block of information basically that says something about that. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 30 Bunch: That will be fine. At this time I will have you introduce yourself and tell us about your project. We have the basic staff reports completed. Koch: Again, my name is James Koch with CEI Engineering representing Joe Hudack and his proposed Fuddrucker's development Lot 13A Steele Crossing. As stated, we are asking for two signs here. Our client, and Fuddrucker's, desire is to have something that would actually be more visible from the Fulbright Expressway corridor. We expect development to take place to the south that is going to have the height of structures which could impede invisibility to the area, specifically with Lot 16. Because the grade from Lot 16 back across Van Asche Drive towards Mudd Creek is a downhill slope and the structure anticipated on Lot 16 is roughly 25' to 30' tall at it's highest point. A 30' tall maximum height pole sign is going to have some visibility for those guys on the Fulbright Expressway. That is the intent. If we could do away with one sign or the other we would prefer to do away with the monument sign at the present time and go with the pole sign. I also expect future development on Lot 13B which may generate a request for shared signage at some point in time. However, at present, that is not a part of this request. The curb cut, I feel is really something that is outside of the Design Overlay District, it is not even within the Design Overlay District limits here so I'm not sure what the minimums are for curb cut distances from an intersection outside of the Overlay but certainly, this curb cut does increase the line of sight opportunity for vehicles accessing this particular lot. The existing bridge structure is something that will obstruct the field of view and also, we are going up the hill with that curb cut so it actually gives them a better opportunity to look up and down Mall Avenue right there. Bunch: Where is the bridge on here? Koch: The bridge is right here. There is a storm pipe that crosses in this area. Bunch: Ok. Are there any other comments before we take public comment James? Koch: No, I think that's all I have to address. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address LSD 04-03.00 for Fuddrucker's in Steele Crossing? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions and comments. Koch: I do have an additional question. Are four bike racks required or five? Warrick: It is one per twenty five, you have one hundred plus, it should be five. There are 111 parking spaces so the number is four, I apologize. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 31 Koch: There is not a tree preservation easement, is that correct? Warrick: I believe that is correct. The deed restricted areas are already established. Koch: The tree preservation area that is indicated in item 13B, is that intended to be deed restricted areas? Warrick: The note from the Landscape Administrator states that if an easement plat is filed for this property, which it will be, we are looking at some easements especially, that access area, the correct way for describing the tree preservation area, deed restrictions will need to be included on the signature block for the Landscape Administrator. This area will need to be geographically identified as a tree preservation area, so that is the request. Koch: We are going to actually change the Final Plat's designation of this from deed restricted areas to tree preservation areas? Warrick: It doesn't really change it, it overlays it. Koch: Right, so we are actually going to override that Final Plat that was established with the commercial subdivision with this document? Warrick: I can look at that a little bit more but yes, a tree preservation area I believe is more restrictive than what the deed restriction originally was and with this Large Scale that is consistent with the Large Scale requirements to put it into tree preservation. Koch: Either way, there is definitely not going to be any development there. Warrick: You are not going to be able to do much in there. Bunch: It doesn't supercede it, it will just overlay it? Warrick: It will overlay it, it doesn't take away any of those deed restrictions because they are filed of record for the lot. It basically puts another layer of regulation on that property and calls it something else in addition to a deed restricted area. Koch: I will make sure it gets on there. Warrick: Thanks. Bunch: Let's look at some of these conditions of approval. Let's look at the commercial design standards. Could you show us which is which? The Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 32 labeling doesn't appear to be consistent with the footprint. Also, with the directions north, south, east and west. Can you let us know which one is which? Koch: Sure. As the front is facing Mall Avenue. That fagade that is on the top here will actually be facing Mall Avenue, which is to the east. The rear is indicated on the opposite side of that, which is going to be on the west side of that structure. What's called by the architect, the left side elevation will be facing Van Asche and the right side of that structure will be on the Mudd Creek side of this structure. Ostner: The left is the south elevation? Koch: The left is the south elevation, that is correct Alan. Bunch: Your footprint, unless I read it wrong, does not reflect that on the Large Scale Development plans. Koch: Something that may be a little bit of confusion here is the architect portrays the open area that is indicated on the site plan as enclosed. That open area that we have depicted on the site plan you see is really a patio area that has got the brick and stone material enclosing that, which is not indicated on this color elevation. That would be the right side elevation. Bunch: From the footprint it appears as though as what you decide as the north elevation is actually the south elevation that would be facing Van Asche. I had some concerns there. If we have this fagade on the south that is much better. Koch: That is correct. The intent is to get the more decorative and articulated surfaces facing Van Asche and Mall Avenue. Bunch: A question also on signs and elevations, staff, first off, James you are not showing an elevation for the top of the Fudds sign. Staff, do you know off hand what the regulation is on how high a sign can stick up over a parapet or base height? Warrick: If it is a part of the wall it can be attached to the wall. Bunch: I think we've seen this on several developments where there was concern of how far this can stick up over the wall or over the parapet even if it is part of it? I think we ran into that with Lowe's out on Hwy. 62. Warrick: Yes, that was an interpretation with regard to whether or not that was a wall sign or a projecting sign. The determination was that that was a wall sign and whatever the surface of the wall was it could be located on. The Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 33 projection was actually something that was not being applied properly in that particular situation. If this element is a portion of the wall it is not a projecting sign, it is a wall sign. That is probably somewhat questionable on this particular one. Bunch: When it sticks out 90° it is questionable. I guess we need information on that to be able to address it at Planning Commission. Warrick: Is that element attached to the roof of the entrance feature? Koch: Yes, best as I can tell, yes. Warrick: It is really leaning towards being a roof sign. Koch: It is attached to the actual front at a right angle to that elevation of the building. Warrick: I am going to have to look at that one a little bit more. Bunch: James, while we are talking about commercial design standards and signs, both staff's comments and conditions of approval, can you tell us what your thinking is on all of these? Are these awnings or are they parts of the building structure? Koch: Acutally, they are awnings. My understanding of that is that it is a heavyduty cloth type material that can be stretched over a frame that has the Fuddrucker's logo on it. Ostner: Does that count as a sign? Warrick: Yes it does. Ostner: That makes 13 signs. Koch: Each awning I look at as a single sign so that would be four on the left side elevation. Ostner: That is six, you have to count the Fudds and the other one. Koch: Then at the one the sign that you are seeing which is going to be considered the front, is that also going to be considered additional signage for each side of the building and the front as well? Bunch: That's what we have to figure out. Ostner: That's the issue. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 34 Koch: So that is actually getting a count three different times is that correct? Warrick: Please say that again. Koch: The Fuddruckers sign that is on the front elevation is actually being counted three separate times? Bunch: No, I'm only seeing twelve. Warrick: Are you talking about that projecting sign that we are talking about? Koch: Yes. Warrick: Where it says Fudds, that is one sign. Allen: I count 13 signs. Koch: What is being requested is a maximum of four out of the total signs on the exterior of the building. Warrick: Our ordinance permits four wall signs. Koch: That means for the entire structure you can only have four signs so that limits you to essentially one per elevation. Warrick: Or you can put them all on the same elevation. Koch: Or you can put them all on the same, ok. Ostner: Beyond the four wall signs there is also the monument sign that is allowed by right and is two sided. That can be construed as counting up to six on site. That is the way I understand our ordinance. Warrick: The statement on wall signs for a single tenant structure, where a building houses only one business a maximum of four wall signs may be placed on one wall but no more than four wall signs may be placed on a building. It will allow a maximum of four on one wall but if you use four on one wall that is your total allowance for the structure. Bunch: At this time let's keep the pole sign and the monument sign a little bit separate because these wall signs are involved in the commercial design standards, they are part of the building. If we could maybe address it that way. We are still going to have other sign issues to look at. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 35 Warrick: It is probably very important on the south elevation specifically because that south elevation is almost solely located within the Design Overlay District. Ostner: On the south elevation, I'm just trying to look for solutions, if the awnings were blank and the building sign were gone that would leave you with the Fudds out front. Bunch: That is actually going to be over here then isn't it, if this is the south elevation Fudds will be here. Looking at it, this would be the south elevation as you look at it but it is going to have this design on this wall that's why I say the footprint doesn't agree with this. Koch: That is correct but I agree with you Alan, I think to find a way to actually provide the signage that Fuddrucker's is requesting, if we just remove perhaps remove the logos from those awnings, that that would provide I guess a single sign for that elevation specifically. Bunch: Leave this element here and take the logos off. Koch: I will have to go back to our client on this and discuss how they want to pursue that. Ultimately, this is something that is going to be decided by the Board of Sign Appeals, is that correct? Warrick: It is a combination because part of this property and one of these walls, actually one and a corner of one of these walls, is located in the Overlay District, the Planning Commission has final approvals over any sign issues within the Design Overlay District. Koch: A portion of the building is being considered in the Design Overlay District and the entire site as a whole, is actually getting a review from two different perspectives within the commercial zoning allowances here? Warrick: Right. The Planning Commission will look at it for the Overlay District requirements as well as commercial design standards. Their recommendation, should there be an appeal with regard to the rest of the signage, will go to the Board of Sign Appeals, the Planning Commission will be asked to make a recommendation on that. Bunch: Dawn, just as another added thing on interpretation, we are talking about the Fuddrucker's logo on the awnings, what about the writing where it says fresh baked bread? Warrick: I would construe that as one sign. Bunch: Those would have to possibly come out too? Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 36 Warrick: Yes. We can work with the applicant on this and bring something that shows a little bit more detail as to the exact elevation information as well as the signage. I think that is basically what we are going to have to do. Koch: With respect to the revisions that are requested on these color elevations, if those are not able to be provided with the revision submittal date, is that going to cause this project a delay in review? Warrick: Potentially because we don't have enough information without the elevations to talk about. Koch: I think that we have got all of those elements incorporated into the color elevation and if we agree to omit or not provide that would we still need to show a revised color elevation? I am just a little bit pressed for time. I am dealing with an architect in Atlanta, Georgia right now on this and I'm not sure about the capability for turn around and want to maintain the current agenda since we have been tabled as a result of revisions recently. Warrick: Do you think you can get it to us in black and white? Koch: I can try. I just want to remain on the current agenda. Warrick: We can keep working on it. I do need to understand what the Commission feels is appropriate as far as number of signs so that we can then let the applicant choose which signs they feel are the most impactful and important for their development if they are wanting to comply with the number of signs requirement that the Commission is looking at. I think it is important that they have the option, if we are looking at number of signs we are going to say you can have four or you can have two or on this wall you can only have one. They need to be able to choose which one themselves because that is part of their marketing. As long as it is compliant with our size requirements and location requirements I feel like it should be their choice as to which signs they request. Bunch: I will start off I guess, the cumulative total of four, one per sign. Warrick: Is it one per side that you are recommending or is it a total of four? Bunch: A total of four at the applicant's discretion on how, since the comment has been made that all four could be on one side. Warrick: That is consistent with the commercial regulations for signage is a total of four wall signs for a single tenant business. The south side is special because it is in the Overlay District. The Overlay District allows one wall sign. Does the Subdivision Committee feel that restricting the south side Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 37 of the building to one wall sign is consistent with the Overlay District requirements, is that your desire? Ostner: It would be to me. Warrick: That would be staff's recommendation. Ostner: I don't think it is fair to put all four on the south side. Bunch: No, but if you wanted to put two on the east side and one on the west side or something like that. Warrick: So we are looking at a total of four, no more than one on the south side, the rest to be determined by the applicant is that consistent? Allen: Yes. Ostner: Yes, and we are not counting this Fudd's thing at the moment. Bunch: We have to determine what the Fudd's is. Warrick: We are going to determine how to interpret that and what we need to do with the roof or projecting or wall, marque. We have a lot of different definitions in the sign ordinance and we are going to see where that fits. Bunch: That sounds good. Allen: Perhaps we should talk about the west side. Bunch: Since we are doing the wall signs combined with the commercial design standards, do you have any comments on the west side? Allen: I know that the Commission will have considerable concerns about the west side and it's lack of articulation. Koch: Sure. Something that I would like to express is almost 95% of the exterior of this building is brick or cultured stone. That is well above Steele Crossing's architectural review committee requirements. This applicant didn't even try to submit something like CMU. He went with a brick and mortar and stone element for that material on the rear. Also, we expect development to take place on Lot 13B, that is going to be a front most likely facing this area. There is landscaping provided and I think that we could do some screening to help out with the unarticulated surface there. I'm not sure what we could do back there. Ostner: Awnings would help, you can put awnings on a blank wall. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 38 Koch: You are suggesting at the door, would that be sufficient? Warrick: You've got two doors on that elevation that could be approved by similar awnings that you are showing on the other elevations of the structure. You've also got down spouts and on other projects, I think that you've actually worked on James, we have attempted to box in those downspouts with similar materials just to provide some column affect and just better screening for those utility type functions. I would suggest that as a way to provide a little bit more articulation in the rear also. Koch: Enclose downspouts and awnings over the doors would help generate a staff recommendation for approval on that elevation? Warrick: You are getting there. Ostner: I think it is a step but I think the walls way overwhelm those small elements, two awnings that would break up the large, unarticulated wall, they would be fake, they wouldn't be doing anything but they would break the visual monotony. Bunch: Another thing would be to use some of the stone and brick elements, just change color. Ostner: If this yellow awning were here and here it would be real close to the front of the building. Koch: Not necessarily windows but awnings, is that correct? Warrick: We did something similar on I think McAllister's Deli. I think we did awnings like that along the rear fagade, that might be something to just look at. Bunch: Another thing that you might consider would be stone since you are already using the building stones and stone pylasters or something of that nature, some banding. Allen: Just awnings over nothing. Bunch: Just to give you a ballpark, I hate to get into the position of designing it but just to give you the perameters to work with. What about your service entry? Koch: Actually, the service entry is on the corner of that elevation, which is actually the northwest corner of the building. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 39 Bunch: Your drawing is showing a service entry from the southwest corner I thought. Koch: You may be right, I have rotated the building since the initial material submittal. Bunch: The main thing is since this elevation is now the south elevation, go ahead and flip that up, since this is now the south elevation here you are showing, I guess that is just a gap. I'm just curious how the water meters and the electric meters and all of that would figure in with the architectural elements since we do require screening and some addressing of it. Are your a/c and heater units going to be up on the roof and shielded from view by the parapet walls or where will they be located? Koch: That is my understanding, yes, they would be shielded by the parapets. Bunch: That is probably what this is for, access to some of that. One question is the service entry note that I thought were the elevations. Ostner: Talking about the elevations, I'm still not certain, you said that there were some exterior patios and areas? Koch: Right, there were several different prototypes for this restaurant. One of those prototypes has an open area here with basically an option for that open area to be enclosed as part of the structure, wholly a part of the sturcutre, which is what we see in the color elevations. This area is intended to be just something that has a visual connection with the area to the north of this, the creek and the tree preservation area that will soon be done with the actual platting through some openings there. He doesn't want to enclose that. He is not proposing to enclose that, he wants a little patio area for patrons to use. Ostner: I just really think that needs to be on the elevations. Koch: I agree. Like I said, I've had some problems getting the materials from the architect. It is not really a problem, just the time for turn around. I've been tabled once. I am asking that we remain on the current agenda with the understanding that we could get something revised if we have to. Ostner: I don't want to kick you off the schedule. All I'm saying is when this comes to the full Commission everything that is going to be built needs to be shown I believe. Bunch: A question on this, there is some of the information that we requested, like the height of the Fudd's sign and that sort of thing that could be supplied independently of the actual elevations. Is there any kind of leadway in the Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 40 submittal dates to possibly have the elevations come in later? Is there anything else that you need elevations for or would that slow your ability to get staff work done? Warrick: In determining the signage it is going to be important that we see the final proposed elevations. We can do that fairly quickly. If we have materials by the time that we go to agenda session we should be fine. That is a week from today. Koch: I would like to have it just as a condition of approval. Certainly a building permit is going to be required before we go vertical with this development. At that point in time there is going to be an opportunity to hold that process up. As long as we are in compliance with what Planning Commission approves and staff is recommending then I would like to approach it from that perspective. Warrick: It would be a determination of the Planning Commission. We usually see what's going to be constructed. If it is something that we are going to see these are the elevations that are going to be constructed and say yes that's ok with the following modifications we most likely would be interested in seeing exactly, we need to know exactly what the Planning Commission is looking for. Determination of commercial design standards is their purvew on Large Scale projects. If you are comfortable with saying a specific size awning on this elevation to make it compliant, that I can apply and at the time of building permit ensure that it is there. If it is more subjective than that, this might work and that might work, then we need to bring elevations back either to the Subdivision Committee or to the Planning Commission or wait until we have them. Ostner: There are several issues that make this tricky. This front sign Fudd's is different. We can't just type up three lines saying these are our requirements, this does or doesn't comply. The fact that you don't want to do a monument sign, you'd rather do something else. Koch: I would like to do both but I recognize the fact that the ordinance only allows for one. Ostner: On top of all of that we have the Design Overlay District. I think that there are just too many elements pushing in on this to try to do it in text instead of in drawing. Koch: Ok. Allen: One other comment about the design. On the north side there is an awful lot of expanse and bricks, I wondered about the possibility of maybe an awning over this back door to maybe break that up. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 41 Bunch: The same thing with the enclosed downspouts. You have got two doors. That would be visible from the bridge and the walking area and the greenspace and the trail. Ostner: Just about every building that you guys want to put in here is going to have to have this. It is not easy. Allen: These lines are they awnings too or is that metal? Koch: It is metal. Bunch: Is there anything else on building signs and commercial design standards? Moving down the list, excess parking, staff, would you and the developer work together? In the past we have had backup showing what has been approved. I know in this same particular area with projects that you have had go forward we've had excess parking. Is 93 the total allowed with the overage? Warrick: Yes, it is 30% over. Bunch: 111 would use the same procedure to review this on a case by case basis that we have used on the other restaurants in the immediate vicinity. We have Olive Garden. Koch: Olive Garden was a little bit over 8,000 sq.ft. building that has 155 spaces. Smokey Bones has 119 spaces with about a 7,200 sq.ft. building. The Red Robin adjacent to that has about 125 spaces for it's structure as proposed. The Marriott Courtyard had about 113 spaces for that hotel I believe. This is not quite as much as what we've seen in the past. Bunch: This is consistent with what is going on in the area at a slightly lesser level. Koch: That is correct. Bunch: I think for the full Planning Commission that that would be good information to have to be presented to show how it compares so we can make a determination. Are there any other comments on parking? Ostner: If my math is right the square footage allows for 62 spaces and then 30% again by right brings it to 93, which is only 16% again, beyond what we allow and for me that is fine. We've had cases where it is the 30% three more times instead of the one time and that seems excessive. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 42 Bunch: I will second Alan's comments that it appears reasonable and consistent with what we have had in the area. The main thing is to have the backup to demonstrate that for the other commissioners. Allen: I agree. Bunch: What about the curb cut with less than 250'. Koch: The maximum distance, if I put it up next to the bridge off that corner I'm looking at about 215' to the start of that curb return. If I did that I'm concerned for a couple of different reasons. One of course is the grading in the deed restricted area beyond that. The other, of course, is the line of sight. It is an encumbrance to the people leaving the site and moving it up the hill a little bit provides a lot better line of sight and capability to see people leaving and entering Lot 13A. Bunch: The comment was made earlier, this 250' a Design Overlay number? Warrick: It is an Overlay number and with the majority of the distance between the intersection and the curb cut is Overlay. However, the curb cut itself is not located within the Overlay District. It is more of a head's up so that you understand what it is that we are considering here. If the curb cut were located at the Overlay District boundary it would be closer to the intersection than what's being proposed. I think that it probably doesn't necessarily require a full on waiver from the Planning Commission but it is something that we wanted to bring to your attention because the majority of the distance between the intersection and the curb cut is the Overlay. We certainly wouldn't want to see any curb cuts closer than the Overlay District boundary is to the intersection. That primarily is why staff is recommending it and also for the reasons that James mentioned. There are construction issues once you move this curb cut further to the north with regard to the bridge and to the deed restricted areas and how this could impact them. Staff is comfortable with the location of this curb cut and we feel that it is a safe distance from the intersection and appropriate distance from the deed restricted and bridge areas. Bunch: I personally concur with that. Commissioners, are there any other comments on the location of the driveway? I think that with the mitigating circumstances it appears to be an appropriate location. Ostner: I would agree. I think that the spirit of that rule is to try to unclutter our intersections. When we brought that rule in in 1994 we were putting intersections on top of intersections. This bridge does mitigate and there again, Mall Avenue has a center turn lane that helps a lot so I would be willing to approve that waiver. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 43 Koch: To comment on the Overlay District clipping the corner of this lot. We have about 20% of our site in the Overlay District. Just for the sake of understanding what is happening here is the area inside the Overlay District is adhering to the Overlay District standards. The area outside of that is just pure commercial zoning standards that apply to this lot. In the future and I guess other developments that may have this same scenario out here that same consistency will apply, is that the intent? Warrick: Absolutely. It is a zoning line and where that line crosses the property we have to treat the different sides of the property somewhat differently. Bunch: Is there anything else on that before we move onto the pylon sign and monument sign issue? Well, Commissioners, I guess we can look to James here. Dawn has described one of the two is allowed, you are proposing two. Koch: Just to address the concerns associated with the heights of the sign. My interpretation of the ordinance for the pole sign is that the street that it is actually facing would govern how tall that sign is allowed to be, a maximum of 30' over the highest point of that street that it is actually facing would be the height of the sign so until I have that information shown for what it is actually facing I won't be able to give you exactly what that height is so I just removed any numbering that you see right here to indicate the total height. The intent is to comply with the city guidelines for the heights of the sign. Subsequently, that was the same with the monument sign as well. Bunch: What specifically is the Planning Commission charged with on reviewing this sign? Warrick: Commercial Design Standards allows you to review signs under the condition of avoid or minimize large out of scale signs with flashy colors. The setback is 40' from the right of way and no taller than 30' above grade of the adjacent street and contains no more than 75 sq.ft. of display surface areas. The Planning Commission can look at it for commercial design standards. Bunch: This area down here, is that going to have the letter board on it, is that part of the sign or is this the totality of the sign itself? Warrick: We would calculate that area also as display surface area. Koch: As long as I demonstrate that it is 75 sq.ft. or less total including that reader board or remove it? Warrick: Right. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 44 Ostner: The location, I don't think it is quite 40' back now. Warrick: It is about 60' back. There is a dashed line that shows the 50' setback. Ostner: Ok. You said 30' tall max and 75 sq.ft. max signage? Warrick: Yes, display surface area, that is per side. Bunch: Which way would it be? Koch: Facing Van Asche. Bunch: The north side of it would be visible from where? Koch: Hopefully the mall area. Bunch: As you present this to the Planning Comission you will be leaning more towards this and then you will take into consideration the size of that sign and the reader board? Koch: That is what our client, Fuddruckers has indicated. They prefer that. It is downhill from Lot 16. We expect the structure height on Lot 16 to be between 25' and 30'. They are concerned about visibility into this area and it is somewhat of a hardship on them that that is what is driving the pole sign request. I think that the potential to do away with one of the signs is there. It is just that they are really wanting to try for this. Bunch: I know many of the Commissioners, I can't speak for them, but many of them lean more towards monument signs than pole signs so this will be an issue that you will need to be prepared to address. I think at this time we might, in order to save time, to have any comments we have on monument signs should the full Commission decide, can the Commission make that determination, require a monument sign as opposed to a pylon sign? Warrick: By right they can install one or the other. Bunch: Then I don't think we need to concern ourselves with this at this point in time. Ostner: I would like to comment that I know we are researching the Fudds marque or whatever. I almost call that a pylon sign and to get two I don't think is fair. I don't know if we need to discuss that more, I'm not sure. Warrick: I'm going to give you more information on how the sign ordinance addresses that particular style of sign because it is not something that we Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 45 see commonly. That may play into some of the other determinations that we are looking at with regard to signage. When it comes to the applicant's request to install two freestanding signs on the site the Board of Sign Appeals will consider that because it is in their purvue, it is in excess of what the standard sign ordinance pemits. I think that it is very appropriate for the Planning Commission to make a statement for the Board of Sign Appeals to understand what your wish is with regard to that because you are looking at this for so many other things. It s coming through your review first. If the Planning Commission is opposed to two freestanding signs on a commercial site, as staff is, then it would be appropriate for you to state that so that the Board of Sign Appeals understands. Bunch: The sign with the Fudds on it is more reminiscent of a retrotheater sign. Warrick: It is a marque sort of sign. I need to figure out how we exactly can define it and whether or not it takes away from the wall sign allowance and bring that back to you. Ostner: Personally, again, speaking for me and not for the Commission, is that either needs to be counted as two of the four or as a pole sign and not to fall in the cracks and get a bonus. Bunch: The main thing that we have done here is that we have brought the subject up and staff will make a determination and once that comes in we can discuss it. I guess the bike racks is just a matter of numbers. We will have an easement plat showing the shared driveway and whatever encroaching on the remainder of Lot 13? Koch: Absolutely. Bunch: Is that going to be 1313? Koch: Yes. That will be 13B. Bunch: Staff, is there anything else that we need to look at on this particular one before we move it? I guess that covers all the conditions of approval. Committee, is there anything else that anyone would like to bring up on this item? Allen: I think we have pretty well covered it. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we forward LSD 04-03.00 to the Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 46 Allen: I will second. Bunch: Do you wish to address the issue of architectural elevations as far as timing? Koch: I can work with staff on that. I will do my best. Warrick: We will see what we can do in a week. Koch: At least we don't have New Years between us like I did last time so I will work with staff on that and we'll just go with what they allow me to do I guess. Bunch: I will concur. Good luck. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 47 R-PZD 04-05.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Hickory Park, pp 294) was submitted by Millholland Company on behalf of St. John's Lutheran Church of Fayetteville for property located at 2730 E. Township Street. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional, and contains approximately 4.429 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow the development of 14 residential lots. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is a Planned Zoning District for Hickory Park, it is R-PZD 04-05.00 submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of St. John's Lutheran Church for property located at 2730 E. Township and I guess also bordering on Hwy. 265. Suzanne, would you give us the staff report on that please Ma'am? Morgan: The applicant is requesting a rezoning and Preliminary Plat approval for a residential subdivision within an R-PZD zoning district. This item must be head at the City Council. The proposal is for a single family residential subdivision with 14 units with single family homes on approximately 4.42 acres. Density for the entire site is calculated at 3.16 units per acre. The site is located north of Township Street and east of Crossover. It is zoned P-1, Institutional and the site is currently vacant. The proposed subdivision will have one access to Crossover Road. Forty feet of right of way will be dedicated from the entrance of the subdivision to the landscaped island roundabout. The two extending drives are proposed as private drives to be the responsibility of the developer or a neighborhood property owner's association. The subdivision is proposed to have a 6' solid privacy retaining wall surrounding the east property along Crossover and landscaped island at the entry way of the subdivision as well as a landscape island with a mail kiosk at the terminus of the right of way. Surrounding land use and zoning to the north is single family residential, the Glenwood Addition which is 2.47 units per acre, it is zoned RSF-4, to the south is St. John's Lutheran Church with the P-1, Institutional zoning. To the east is single family residential use with the zoning of R -A, Residential Agricultural and to the west is Cedarwood Addition, single family residential, 3.17 units per acre and zoned RSF-4. Right of way to be dedicated is 40' for interior right of way and 55' from centerline of Crossover Road, there is currently 40' along Crossover with an additional 15' proposed to be dedicated. Trip generation calculations, 14 single family detached dwellings will produce 134 two way trips per day. Crossover Road is a principal arterial. Tree preservation, there is currently existing 100% required canopy is 25% and preserved is 26.82%. Staff has received several calls regarding neighborhood concerns with drainage, traffic, tree preservation and safety issues in regard to the round about and there has been a meeting between the developers and the neighbors. Staff is recommending that you forward this to the full Planning Commission with conditions. There are a total of 16 conditions of which condition two, the Fire Department has expressed the need for a 20' interior drive pursuant to International Fire Codes. Staff is recommending a left turn Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 48 lane onto Crossover. Also, the removal of utility easements along the rear of lots 1-6, and 8-11 in order to preserve a canopied buffer from adjacent properties be indicated. The proposed sewer easement be routed to avoid a greater number of significant trees. Covenants should be filed with the plat and it is my understanding that they will be getting those to us with the next revision submittal. There is a property line adjustment in process which needs to be approved prior to the Final Plat. This Property Line Adjustment is to adjust the southwest corner just a bit further south than what it is currently shown. Condition ten, payment of parks fees in the amount of $7,770 for 14 single family lots prior to issuance of the Final Plat. Item eleven is no structure shall encroach upon any easement. Items twelve through sixteen are standard conditions. Bunch: Thank you Suzanne. Matt, are there any additional engineering comments or staff report? Casey: Not at this time. I'm sure that there will be plenty of questions that we will have an opportunity to discuss but no comments at this time. Bunch: At this time if you all will introduce yourselves and tell us about your project. Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Engineering representing the owner and developer of the proposed subdivision, Tracy Hoskins. The proposed subdivision, is, as stated, 14 single family lots north of the St. John's Lutheran Church. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the issue of Planned Zoning District for Hickory Park? If you would, please come forward, I don't know if we have a sign in sheet there or not but if you would please sign in, tell us who you are, and give us the benefit of your comments please. Sigapuss: My name is Bob Sigapuss, I live in the Glenwood Subdivision, Hardy Lane. I am probably the representative of most of the people that live on the peripheral areas. Most of the people are not retired and have the benefit to coming to this meeting. I will speak my own mind and then add what I think was the result of the citizen's meeting on Monday night. I have three major areas I want to address here. First, existence of wetlands. At least one acre of that land in there is what I used to call as a kid, swamp. It is very low and, it is spongy, it has an ecosystem in there that I think environmentalists would say it is wetlands for sure. Under the definition of the Corp. of Engineers and EPA it is a wetlands. I suppose in determining whether it is a wetlands or not maybe it is the size of the property that is of concern. This is at least one acre. I've walked it several times and it definitely is not a stable piece of land. It occupies lots 11, 12, and 13. Not all of the lots, but a good portion of lot 12. That land Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 49 where my definition of wetlands exist is about 46" below the grade of Crossover. It sits way down. Mr. Casey said that he would talk about drainage a minute ago, it is a drainage area of sorts. There is a kind of ditch that comes in a northeasterly direction across. It almost starts at the proposed interior street to the northeast corner of the property. If any of you have walked in there you can probably identify it as kind of an unusual part of that whole acreage area. I think that ought to be addressed by the Corp. of Engineers or maybe you have one in the city, someone who specializes in wetlands. Lord knows, the city has had enough wetland issues in recent years so there probably is expertise far beyond my laymen's definition. The second problem I have is Crossover. That is a major problem. It took me seven minutes this morning to get out on Crossover from Hardy Lane. When I pulled up the hill, you go up a grade toward Township, a fellow behind me was tooting his horn and he gave me the proverbial digital because you can't gun your car up fast enough to get to 45 miles per hour. That is the speed limit on Crossover, 45 miles per hour. The distance between the proposed entrance to Hickory Park from Township is about 450' more or less and it is about 450' from the entrance to Hardy Lane. That is a very short distance. From 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. and from 2:30 in the afternoon until 7:00 it is wall to wall cars on Crossover. It wouldn't be so bad if there were only cars but there are trucks. It is a major truck route between Hwy. 412 and the south part of Fayetteville. Why they use that as a heavy truck route I don't know, they are probably cutting off Hwy. 71 and 540. The city has made a lot of statements in recent years. The Mayor talks about the growth, smart growth, and the recent traffic study by the consultants talked about access management, it talks about an access management ordinance. Director Tim Conklin set the access management as a priority for 2004. They also discuss traffic congestion. The congestion that exists between Township and Mission and Township back up beyond Hardy Lane to Old Wire and occasionally, the traffic backs up, if you can believe it, to Joyce Blvd. When it backs up it goes a snail's pace. With 14 homes and 138 entrances and exits a day, that doesn't seem like a lot. Living on Hardy Lane, which hasl6 homes, we have far more than 138 entrances and exits a day. Some of the families have three cars and everybody in the family has a car. This ought to be examined a little further. Having a turn lane and just painting a white stripe, left or right, whichever is not enough. That middle lane on Crossover is narrow. When you come down that grade from Township heading towards Old Wire that traffic starts to really move. 45 miles per hour is the least that people go, they exceed that speed limit. At night time when you are coming from south to north on Crossover and you are trying to turn into Hardy Lane the oncoming cars coming from the north to the south, they don't know what is happening there, they see these lights in the middle of the road and my god, a guy is trying to pass a car you know and here a person in a car like myself, you look in your rearview mirror and you say if you had one more coat of paint on your car you'd have a crash. The trucks are particularly dangerous there. The other night at the Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 50 meeting, most of the people, probably 25 people, most of them saw Crossover as a major concern. Mr. Jefcoat agreed, I think Mr. Hoskins did also. Suggestions were made that there is a remedy but the remedy may not be too popular with St. John's Lutheran Church. That is an access off of Township behind the church's parking. Jefcoat I must object. I did not at any time agree or suggest or give any inference that the church was willing, or that an access across the church's property was acceptable. Sigapuss: I didn't say that because, I'm saying that is a remedy. Bunch: Let him have his say and then you will have your opportunity to rebut. Sigapuss: To deny that Crossover is not a dangerous situation is putting your head in the sand. The traffic consultants talked about that and they talked about a remedy would be a four lane at some point in the future. I talked to the Highway Department and there is no plans for Crossover for years ahead. Unfortunately, pre -planners, pre city administration and other people in the county missed the boat when they took the outer beltway off the planning map. That would've taken a lot of stress off of Crossover. Ok, so much for that, incidentally, the City Council's goals retreat last year talked about mobility, street quality, improving those things and giving attention to the city's open greenspace. This woods is an ecosystem, pure and simple. There are foxes in there, deer, all kinds of things. It is a virgin forest that has never been touched. I have approached a few people in town who are interested in urban forests and it is the same old answer, there is no money. There is nobody around really to put out the money to buy that thing. The third and last issue is the plan itself. I am not a city planner, however, at one time 45 years ago I was on the city Planning Commission for the city of South Pasadena, California, so I know how it is to have to listen to all this detail. It is the internal street, if you can look at your map there, you will see this Mockernut and Shag Bark Lane, I asked the developer the other night, how will they get the garbage trucks and the fire trucks in those areas? There are four lots that have access onto that narrow street, Mockernut. Hardy Lane, which has 28' width and a pretty wide cul-de-sac street, garbage trucks have to back up twice to get around that. That is going to be far easier than what is proposed here in this Hickory Park. The developer the other night said that that has been approved. The city said that's ok. If I were a prospective buyer I would say I'm not going to be crowded in there, what if I have guests, where do they park? There is no provision for parking. In the proposal itself, they talk about an open area. That open area is about 30' in diameter, that is not much of an open area. Hardy Lane is 90' and that looks kind of small. I think that as a Planning Subdivision Committee, you might take a look at that possibility of congestion. From a developer's point of view and marketing point of view I would say does this present any problems to the Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 51 developer in marketing those lots. I don't know. They talked about anew concept, this PZD is something that they had seen in Atlanta and other eastern cities and it was a new kind of thing to Fayetteville. It seems to me that this is cramping the development substantially. On that point, I shall end this thing and give the developers a chance to rebut what I've said. Thank you. Bunch: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address us on this issue of Hickory Park? Is there any other public comment? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for comments and motions. First, Tom, now would be an opportunity for you if you have any answers to the comments that were made in the public comment section. Go ahead and respond to them if you would like to. Jefcoat: On his three points that he made, the only one that I really, I can address all three. The access onto Crossover, Crossover is a busy street and it always has been a busy street. I'm sure backup does go all the way back to Joyce at times, which is a considerable distance away. Development is always going to increase the traffic flow on Crossover. I think that there is a traffic light there at Crossover and Township which does slow the traffic and does give an opportunity for some amount of safety. There is an existing curb cut that the highway has approved on the church property here that is closer to the light. There is a center turn lane on Crossover which is an additional safety factor. We are only talking about 14 lots here to generate that closeness to the light. That entrance or existing curb cut that the church has would be abandoned and this curb cut would be applied for through the Highway Department. Bunch: Are you talking about that curb cut that appears to be there but it doesn't connect to anything? Jefcoat: Yes. Ostner: Ok, south of this proposed? Jefcoat: Yes. Bunch: Right in this vicinity I guess. Ostner: Here is their new property line, right there? Jefcoat: Yes. We are removing ourselves from the traffic signal somewhat. Bunch: That begs the question what is the involvement of this piece of property and the church if you are allow to petition for their curb cut. Is that part of the deal in buying this piece of property from the church to develop or is it being developed on behalf of the church? How does that work? Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 52 Jefcoat: I think that that particular curb cut was provided for future development circulation around the church for future development of this lot. It will no longer be needed when this lot develops. Allen: Before we move on from the public comment, I wondered if you felt that anything productive did come from your conversation with the neighbors. Jefcoat: Yes, we had about 35 people there and I think that we had some very pleasant discussion with a lot of the people. We only had a few that are really opposed to any development at all. That was well expressed as being totally against development. Mr. Hoskins would like to speak on that and I think that the neighbors were very receptive to the plan as presented in general. There were some comments about access sidewalks and comment five, about the removal of the easement, those easements are not there. That is on preservation one thing that we have done, is give the buffer of greenspace all the ay around the outside of the property so those easements are all internal now. That was one of the design changes that were made from Tech Plat. Hoskins: My opinion of the meeting the other night, the opinions that I got from the surrounding folks, I don't believe this gentlemen's comments were the consensus. On the contrary, I think most people are very, very receptive to the development. They have a lot of questions, we answered a lot of questions and I personally felt the majority of the neighbors were in support of the subdivision. Jefcoat: As far as the other comments, the wetland issues, there are three criteria for wetland issues and I am a wetlands delineator and have projects submitted to the Corp. and I would not recognize that area as a wetlands. It does not have the hydric soil, the hydroponic vegetation is not there. It may have the hydraulics there to support wetlands but that is only one of the three criteria. I am not sure that the hydraulics are really there. The last comment about the tightness of the subdivision, that is one of the design features that Tracy is trying to create here, a sense of community facing all the houses inward, pulling the house fronts closer to the street, providing sidewalks on both sides of the street almost making a town square situation. There is give and take both ways as far as we do have an 80' cul-de-sac, we have worked those traffic problems out, our circulation problems out with Engineering and we've talked our way through some of it and as a developer, and Tracy is not just developing the subdivision, he is building homes in the subdivision. He is in the process of drawing up the covenants so that shared driveways fence building fronts, some of those issues he will probably address in the covenants and in the building process. Bunch: Tom, as a person who has been involved in wetland delineation processes, Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 53 can you speak a little bit to the age of this land relative to the potential development of wetlands? I know that on the property that the City of Fayetteville had that was formally called Wilson Springs, that that had formally been pasture land and was reverting to wetlands, comments have been made about the age of this forest area so how does that play in if this were a potential wetland if it would've been a pasture then in time it could revert to a wetland but if it is an older forested area what are the wetland considerations there? Jefcoat: First of all, it would have to be inundated or saturated and in this area they are certainly not inundated by flooding and it doesn't remain saturated for a long period of time. The existing trees have not developed a rooting system that shows above ground or that is surfacing itself to find the hydroponics root system for sustaining growth, they are well rooted into the ground so you do have a forested area and not a hydroponics situation where plants are surviving in an inundated or saturated condition. While it is forestland, it is not an emerging wetland. Bunch: In other words, if it were an emerging wetland it has had plenty of times to have emerged and made itself evident since apparently the age of these trees is pretty old. I know some comments were made that it was a virgin forest so if that would be the case then if it were a wetland it would already be not only fully developed but it would be present at this time. Jefcoat: You also may note that the soil conditions here, this is a very rocky site and there have been rocks are evident on the surface and things and there is a fairly good amount of percolation there, it is not like the water saturates. Bunch: Are post oaks normally associated with wetlands? It looks like the predominant trees that we have are post oaks in this area, that is one of the ones that populates hillsides, I don't know how they do in wetlands. Jefcoat I think the designation for a post oak is FAC, which is a mid-range, it can work either way. It is not an oblique, it's not an OBL classification so you couldn't submerge it in water but it will stand some saturation but not total saturation. Bunch: Is there anymore comment on the issues that came up with public comment or can we move onto the conditions of approval? I guess since this is a PZD just by definition it will have a hearing here, at the full Planning Commission and then a minimum of three readings with the City Council. I think in the recent past the City Council has had some auxiliary meetings so there will be a minimum after this meeting, four more opportunities for public comment to address these issues. Part of that is because some of the people are unable to attend an 8:30 going onto 11:30 meeting in the morning but those other meetings will be evening meetings. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 54 Staff, can you tell us and Engineering, on the Fire Department, how does this cul-de-sac or public right of way with private streets on either side and a hammerhead, how does that relate to the Fire Department? Casey: At Plat Review the Fire Department did recommend a 20' wide entrance, it is shown as 14'. I think there has been some correspondence between the applicant an the Fire Department since then. I've not heard the outcome of that. Bunch: You are talking about the entrance off of Hwy. 265? Casey: Yes, right there with the landscape island. One thing, before I get too involved, the public street just includes the cul-de-sac, this crossing is just a private driveway. Bunch: That is pretty much what my question was about, the 40' radius on that cul-de-sac, is that sufficient? Casey: That is what our street standards calls for. The Fire Department at times have asked for more. It is nothing that we have in our standards to require at this time. I don't recall if that was a comment at Plat Review. Do you remember if they had asked for that? Jefcoat They were interested in having a 20' lane at the entrance and that was addressed at several different levels. One was that there be a left turn lane or that the exit lane be widened to 20' or another lane put in there. You could either take it out of the island or take it out of lot one. If it was 20' wide that would be a 6' addition to there what's shown. That would be two 10' lanes, one for turning right, one for turning left. That would give the fire truck it's 20' entrance into the 28' road system. However, most fire trucks you would suspect would be coming from the south since Crossover has a center lane, there is plenty of turning radius to be straight to come in and I submitted to the Fire Department that with the left turn lane if you were coming in you are going to be going in an exit and they said well we get in anyway we can and I said well, if you are going to get in anyway you can and you are straight, maybe jumping the curb and driving on the sidewalk for this short distance, 100' or 60' long then that might not present a problem because it is a short distance. We had conversations with the fact that we are adding additional hard surface, runoff is an issue, trying to save as much greenspace as possible, you are just adding more asphalt. Plus, if you eliminated the island and made that smaller, you are distracting from the purpose, the intent of the developer to do something maybe a little nicer than a huge solid asphalt three lane entrance. A lot of those aspects have been talked about back and forth across the table. I think it has been satisfied that the fire truck could get in and that the access for that short distance would be successful. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 55 Ostner: I just have one comment on that. I don't think those islands are the best solution for this street. I think it needs to be just 36' wide, 12' in and two 12' lanes out, a right and a left. In other words, lose the median. Jefcoat: You are talking about a 36' entrance, right now it is 41'. Ostner: It is 41' right now but there is an island in the middle, which I see as problematic to Crossover mainly. When the Fire Department says that they need wider lanes, I wish these lanes were narrower and not the entrance. I think entrances by safety and by function need to be wider and then let it get narrower inside. That is just my take on that intersection. The left turn would be resolved and the Fire Department issue is resolved and it gets narrower so you pull that landscaping out and put it on the sides. Jefcoat: Well, you are talking about a big, wide, harbor looking spance of asphalt to enter into a subdivision. Ostner: You already need a left turn lane, this is not going to do it so you are going to have to change this already. 41' could change to 50' if you made that a double lane out. Jefcoat: You are saying that you have to have a left turn lane, why are you saying that? Ostner: That's the way I understood it from the traffic being so heavy, this guy trying to turn left could take 20 minutes and everyone would be waiting. That is the way I understood that we need a left turn lane there by function. Bunch: Does Hardy have a left turn lane? Jefcoat: No it does not. Bunch: When was Hardy built? Sigapuss: 1989. Casey: Another thing that Suzanne and I discussed yesterday that involves this landscape island is the driveway access to lot 1 and 13. You are not providing enough space if you are entering off of Crossover and you need to turn left into lot 1 you've got your 10' from the property line requirement before the driveway starts and then a 24' wide. Jefcoat We talked that over with Suzanne also and we are in agreement that shortening that island up would make the drive entrance to lot 1 more attractive and better and it would also shorten the distance coming in there Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 56 so we would certainly revise the island to be shorter on the west end. We would like to keep the landscaping back there. Casey: Lot 13, would the driveway be coming off the private portion of Mockernut or off of the public right of way? Jefcoat We've actually talked about the builder/developer, that being accessed both ways through there. It is very feasible that lot 13 would orientate itself and have its entrance off of Mockernut Crossing but it is very feasible for a drive to go all the way through. By shortening the island up 10' that would certainly give access to both of those lots and resolve that issue. Ostner: I think it would be a lot safer if it only came from Mockernut. This is going to be a really quick turn in with heavy traffic on Crossover. Personally, I was going to ask if access be restricted to Mockernut only. Bunch: We are also looking at lot 1. It is the same thing as turning into here, a person entering here if this is shortened, coming around that making a bad turn coming into lot 1 whether than going up and going around the mail kiosk. Hoskins: At worst, the driveway to lot 1 would be on the property line between lots 1 and 2. As Tom said earlier, for the restrictive covenants we are planning on encouraging shared driveways so we will have as few cuts along the street as possible. The whole idea of the subdivision is to put some more green into it, save the trees, etc. If we want more of the same of what we've got here on North College then we can make that concrete or pavement all the way across that if you want more of what you've got out here. Bunch: Since this is a PZD that is within the realm of our review and it would be helpful to, as opposed to not only having it in the covenants, but to show it on the drawing and it could be a requirement. That is a very important piece of information is to show a shared driveway between 1 and 2 and maybe between 14, it wouldn't be fair to those people to restrict them that much. Hoskins: That is not a problem with showing it at least on these lots up front. Ostner: I think all the lots need to show the driveways. I'm excited that this is a PZD and you are doing something different but I'm not sure how 11, 12, and 13 are going to have driveways. Benton Ridge we made show the driveways and it helped a lot to understand. I like the idea of doing a short 15' building setback in the front. Bunch: While you are on the same issue look at lots 4, 5, and 6. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 57 Hoskins: It is a shared drive. Ostner: I think it needs to be on the drawing. Jefcoat: We addressed that with Suzanne about putting it on the drawing. A couple of issues come up, what if that changes, what if the builder shifts it to the other side of the lot or some other idea we haven't predicted. Ostner: With this process the design is happening up front. Jefcoat: I understand that. Bunch: Without a shared driveway here I would be in favor of saying that we could send this forward but with a do not recommend vote on it. This is entirely too tight right in here to have two driveways and that would have to be part of the document package. Jefcoat: I agree but my main objection was that if you show a shared driveway here and then the shared driveways wind up being either here or here you don't want to predict which ones of these begin to share driveways. One of those three lots could have its own drive and the other two could be shared. Certainly shared driveways need to be there. Ostner: Here at the approval process, if we leave it just in text. Jefcoat: I am not saying leave it in text, I just don't want it to be predetermined. Ostner: What if these two guys build it and then those two guys don't, they want to build over there, then suddenly we don't have them. Bunch: What if lot 7 decides they want a single drive then 5 and 6 have to, we are still in a situation of predetermining. It could be you could predetermine and say in here but this is still too narrow. If you have visitors coming in or someone that's lost driving around through the area, depending on these driveways, you are looking at a situation of possibly backing up around a blind curve or blind turn. That brings up the issue of what is this line. According to your legend it is a 6' solid privacy and retaining wall. You are using the same legend so we don't know what this is. Definitely this is your curb and gutter here. What is it? Jefcoat: That is a low retaining wall, it should not be there. Yes, we could predict the shared driveway here which is probably the best because these two lots certainly have a frontage that they can develop a separate driveway on. Rather than say a shared driveway either here or here, if the one shared driveway is predicted here and one of the other lots would have to be there. It is likely that these two will share a driveway and these two and those two. We can go ahead and predict that and put that on the drawing. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 58 Bunch: That is pushing 14 an awful lot, you are saying that you would make a driveway here or that you would do it here between 13 and 14? Jefcoat: I'm only saying that there would be a shared driveway here, not that this guy wouldn't want another driveway out here somewhere. Bunch: You are showing 40', actually a 28' road but you are still looking at a situation without knowing where these driveways are that people potentially could get lost coming in there and backing around this or pulling up in here and having to back out of it unless they pull up in somebody's driveway. I understand the concept of using a modified hammerhead with a turn around. Jefcoat We want to eliminate the amount of driveways in that area because we want the integrity of the sidewalk and the uniformity of the whole area. Bunch: Every compromise has it's price. In order to preserve more landscaping and trees and to slow traffic, then you are also creating a harder turn around situation. Jefcoat: I think our major trees are in this area and in this area so our common drive should be here. The same way with our trees located where they are the shared rive should be here and here. Bunch: On Lot 13 with access on both sides, what is considered a front as far as building setbacks? As a PZD we determine the setbacks in advance. What is your thinking? The way this is shown if this was a driveway in that area you would have a house right up in this corner. What are your thoughts there? Give us a little bit of the benefit of your thinking on how you drew the setbacks in and also in relation to potential shared drives. Jefcoat: Actually, I would think 13 would want to face the front just for prestige sake. 14 being a corner lot has a lot of options as to which is their front area. There again, you are sort of looking at a three sided porch with several fronts here and the through drive in the back is sort of the envision of that lot. 13 and 1 and these along this side would certainly not face the common square we would like to see but because of arrangement. We could put a building setback in this area. It is not likely that someone would build a front ended house in that depth. We could move this back further for a straighter line across there. Bunch: One of the things that comes to play with this is the access and also in dealing with the driveways. We use as a model and as a guideline of development procedures, even though it is a PZD, these are single family homes, the minimum lot frontage is 70'. First off, you are not showing us, I don't know what my numbers are telling me here on interpreting the Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 59 drawing as far as the frontage of these different lots. Do we show a line along a building setback line which is normally what we accept on comer lots with a narrow frontage. What we are doing here is a compromise where we are deviating from accepted practice because it is a PZD and because there are special considerations. To me it is a cumulative affect. Warrick: I would say to that regard Commissioner Bunch, when we do look at standard RSF-4 zoned subdivisions, there is an exemption granted to the frontage for cul-de-sac lots. These very much resemble what you would see as a cul-de-sac lot configuration in a standard subdivision. Staff did not see a problem with regard to that. We do encourage the use of shared drives and I think it is appropriate to show where we can predict those shared drives for tree purposes and also to cut down on having driveways go everywhere off the end of these accesses. Bunch: One of my concerns here was also for clarity and for ease of reading the drawings because the next step goes to nine people and then the step after that goes to nine more people so that it is more user friendly from the drawing standpoint for people to understand what they are looking at. Jefcoat: That is one reason, like Dawn said, we have shown the building setback here so that you do have more frontage here and we've done the same thing here. On that particular lot it was not done in that way because of the front on there we didn't feel it was necessary. We certainly have the 70' frontage was taken into account and that is the reason we did the setbacks where we had to get the 70'. Ostner: I still think for me that I need to see footprints, not pulled out of a book, house plans that are to be built, but maximum squares that are buildable that would be realistic. Jefcoat: When you say anywhere in the building setback is buildable area then you have done that and that's what we've done. Ostner: Is this guy really going to be square to this street or is he going to turn it? Jefcoat That is his choice. Ostner: I know but it is such a tight area and it is a PZD and they are getting, I noticed, similar to cul-de-sac frontages, but it is going to require driveway coordination, which feeds into house coordination. Hoskins: These are private street anyway. This is on a public street. Ostner: I'm just saying to coordinate the driveways for me to understand this you almost need some sort of maximum footprint, not a buildable line. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 60 Jefcoat: That is a maximum. Hoskins: Somebody could potentially fill that hole with a house, it would be a big house but they could do it. Ostner: How does that work with the driveways? Jefcoat: That is the reason that we have done this example of greenspace and we have said that we are preserving right a 27% where in reality when the house is built that is the worse case scenario should that whole buildable area be used. Ostner: I understand that. I am just saying the driveway coordination and house coordination are not completely separate issues, they work together. If you coordinate some driveways maybe it will just work itself out. Bunch: This drawing disagrees with what has been stated on driveways because you are showing. Jefcoat: If we determine the driveways. There again, the driveways are not taken out of your greenspace. We can do that, yes. That is not a normal occurrence. Bunch: Just for consistency, if you are talking a shared driveway here then obviously, if it is called out that that is a shared driveway then obviously this greenspace comes out of this but it will free up other areas for greenspace. Jefcoat: I think it may be a toss up as to whether we show a shared driveway or show a shared driveway. Which ever way Tracy feels more comfortable with predicting the development of those individual lots is where we show it. I think we are in agreement here that rather than just say that we are going to share driveways is to at least show it. Bunch: That is one of the costs of the flexibility of the PZD in order to have this type of configuration. Part of that compromise is you pay for it by saying ok, this is where we are going to put the driveway. That is the tradeoff. Hoskins: The essence of the concern is that we implement shared driveways and basically that each lot owner only has one entrance basically. In other words, do we have to determine at this point which lot lines get that shared driveway or can we put in the restrictive covenants that they have to share a driveway on one side or the other with their neighbor? Bunch: If you wanted to do it that way if a builder came in and said he wanted to buy these two lots then that would force these two to share. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 61 Ostner: If those two have already shared then this guy isn't left with anything but a single. Bunch: These right in here is a moot point. Ostner: We just said all lots have to share and if it is not coordinated up front. Bunch: Lot where there is a frontage issue if you will. Jefcoat: Ok. Ostner: That is my concern. Bunch: Our concern is the access to the individual lots and if we are to go favorable on this we are allowing less than normal frontage so it is important that we say ok, if we are doing that then we need to provide access to those and that is what we are trying to accomplish is the tradeoff between the lesser frontage and guaranteeing access. Hoskins: Are you talking about at the setback or at the street? Bunch: Well, there is reduced frontage here, this property line and this property line for a driveway to be put in if this is an unsbared driveway. What we are saying is that there has to be a scheme or a plan for providing access to the lots with minimal frontage, even though this is a private road, minimal frontage on the road. Jefcoat: We've got four lots there and four lots here so I guess we could split it between the two lots. Hoskins: We'll fix it whatever it is. Bunch: That would help as we get further down the line because right now it is rather confusing. On the same deal, let's look at this underground detention pond and who's responsibility that is and where the access is to maintain it since that is going to come very much into play with these driveways. Could you tell us a little bit on how that system works and how it will work in relationship to the driveways and what kinds of loads can be imposed on it? Jefcoat: Right. Your two inlet boxes are here. We were going to use the stormtech system within this end of the drive and include the volume in the pipe and the cleanout would be in front of the outlet structure here so you would have access to the underground facility and the two outlets there and the one cleanout at the pipe. Bunch: Would these have manholes on top of them for access here as well as the Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 62 cleanout? What affect would that have on placing the driveway between lots 11 and 12 on top of that? Jefcoat: That part would be concrete pipe. Bunch: So that is concrete pipe and it wouldn't really matter but there could be a shared driveway immediately above that? Jefcoat: Yes. Bunch: Matt, are you with what we are talking about here? Casey: It would just need to have some sort of private drainage easement then dedicated for the detention system to be able to be maintained since we are not creating a separate lot like you normally see in a subdivision. Bunch: We are also looking at drainage, I guess the existing contours of the land are all draining in the traditional fashion but all the roads and everything are drained to this system? Jefcoat: Yes. One of the issues brought up in the meeting was that these people receive drainage off of this and it does cause them a problem at some time. The development actually will capture and decrease the runoff affect that these people have and that these people do. The only person that receives runoff that doesn't get benefit from the development would be this particular lot and he was at the meeting and we talked about that. Bunch: These driveways and everything go into the road? Jefcoat: Yes, the contours all come that way so the road would actually act as an interceptor. All the runoff would be concentrated and captured and let out similar to where it is going now except the valley does come through these lots. We are actually having that water situation. Ostner: I know we've already touched on Hwy. 265 but I think for the full Commission that a better drawing than this needs to show overview. Bunch: Staff provided that didn't they? Ostner: I know, this just happens to be in our packet and this is all I've got. I need something that shows your proposed development and stuff surrounding it. I know that the other committees that have to look at it are going to want to see something more too. Warrick: You have this too. Ostner: I know, but that's confusing. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 63 Warrick: We will draw that line for you, this is what you will have in your packet also. Is this not sufficient to what you will need? Ostner: I don't think it is going to be sufficient for others. Warrick: I need more direction then because this shows all of the houses and all of the surrounding subdivisions. Ostner: If that showed this. Jefcoat: If we overlaid that onto this? Warrick: You want to see the lot layout on this? Ostner: I want to see the curb cut at least into that scale, that would be perfect, I think everyone is going to want to see how this falls into traffic. I would call that an overview drawing. Bunch: Ok, then the drawing that you have here Tom, how does that relate to conditions of approval five and six? Jefcoat: The utility easements have been removed from the rear of lots so there are no utility easements. The previous layout showed the sewer going in the back of those lots. That was in order that we didn't have manholes in the street and we eliminated as much unsightliness as we could, but in order to provide the buffer zone and to have less disturbance with the trees and things we brought everything to the front so there are no utility easements in the back of the property. Bunch: That creates a buffer between this and the properties behind it. Jefcoat: Right, it also creates a buffer between the church. All the outside we kept the integrity of the existing trees. I must point out that this is a thickly covered site and what we've shown is the significant trees. That is not to say that there are not 21" trees and 18" trees there because there are. These are only the significant trees there. There are just multi -trees, while this may be a 24" post oak there may be 10 21" post oaks in that same area. Bunch: The green is representative of existing canopy with the existence of significant trees highlighted. Jefcoat: We have shown the building setback so it is possible that these trees would be lost. Because these are significant trees hopefully not. Bunch: What about these down through here since this is a utility easement? You Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 64 are showing that as a green. Jefcoat: Some of those, we were going to preserve as many as we can through that. We are not going to just clear cut the whole easement. That is these two locations, we've got significant trees here that we are certainly going to try to protect because of the root structure here and here. We have them listed as preserved, not necessarily lost. We tried to accommodate all of our utilities down here. Bunch: When you are saying remove that are in a building envelope, can you interpret that for us? Jefcoat: Yes, where it falls within the building envelope we have slated it as removed because it could be removed because it sits in the building setback. Bunch: Not from the standpoint of a contractor looking at this coming in and saying oh my goodness, that says removed, it is in the building envelope, I have to remove it? Jefcoat: No, it is a potential removal and that was terminology that we worked out with the Landscape Administrator. He wanted us to present the very worst case scenario. Bunch: For purposes of calculation? Jefcoat: Right so it is the worse case scenario. It is obvious that this one is in the middle of the lot and it most likely would be lost. Bunch: Just maybe a note. Like I said, there is going to be a minimum of 18 people looking at this and probably many, many more. Jefcoat: That would be a good note to put on there as to why that is the worse case scenario. Bunch: To clarify the ones where it says remove. Ostner: Some people say "not counted towards total." Just lose the removed word and say "not counted towards total." Bunch: There is a lot more clarity that way. Jefcoat: Lot 5 and 6 that we discussed, the last one I guess is no structures in the easement. That has to do mainly with the stonewall proposed out front. This retaining wall shown in the circle, what we've done there is that is about an 18" wall to level the island up and to give it some character. It is going to be a landscape island and to give it a little better look we leveled Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 65 it up with an 18" wall and it is obvious because of the two contours. Had it been a 6' retaining wall we would've had many more contours. The nomenclature is wrong and we will straighten that out. Bunch: Would that be a stone fagade to match? Jefcoat: To carry unity and to act together. It would be installed like this. That sort of sets the character. It draws the unity throughout the development so that would be the same character as that. This retaining wall we were talking about a 5' to 6' stone wall. We did what Matt suggested, we took it out of the easement where you've got the right of way, the 5' strip for the wall and then your utility easement so it is not in a utility easement but we do show and would like to do some curbed entrances which crosses the easement. The gas line is out in the road right of way and the only utilities in the easement would be the overhead electrical. Since it is all the water and all the sewer is not in that easement the only utilities that would be in that easement would be the overhead electrical cable and things so if we provided conduit on either side of that wall in the easement we would like the curvature of that wall to cross that easement. Bunch: You are adding conduits should sometime that overhead be buried? Jefcoat: That overhead would be buried for this development. Bunch: Matt, is that acceptable, just like a street crossing to have the quads in under the fence? Casey: I think I'm comfortable with the wall crossing the easement and not running with the easement because it is a lot easier if a utility had to do some work, to put a new line in to go under that wall than to run right beside it if they are having to dig down several feet deep. I think crossing would be acceptable. Jefcoat: Good. We have conduit under the road so what we will do is just extend it on beyond the sidewalk. Ostner: You mentioned a maximum height for the stonewall to be 5', is that so you've got something pictured of how it steps down and follows this grade? Jefcoat: We are not going to level the top of it, we are just going to run it with the grade. You don't have that severe of a slope there that you would want to stair step it down. It would be contoured with the existing grade. Bunch: What sort of covenants do you have as far as house size, we are looking at compatibility issues with adjoining properties in areas so what sort of, you have house construction, house size, could you give us a preview of that? Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 66 Will you have those available for the full Planning Commission? Hoskins: We are working on the Restrictive Covenants as we speak. To give you an overview, the minimum square footage on the houses will be about 2,200 to 2,300 sq.ft. We are expecting more like 3,000 sq.ft. houses, all brick or stone, no E.I.F.S., no hardy board siding, no vinyl siding, no aluminum siding, no vinyl soffit, etc., all natural materials, we are looking at the gas lamps on the fronts of the houses and streets, we are looking at that but we haven't determined that yet. Minimum 8 pitch roofs, all rear or side entry garages, nothing facing the street. This is slated to be a European design type subdivision, in other words, lots of Tudor and sweeping rooflines, wood windows, etc. Garage doors being carriage style garage doors instead of sealed or whatever. Those are the things that we are leaning towards, of course, a lot of it is still up in the air, but that is the intent of the subdivision. Bunch: The covenant on the rear or side entry garages would go quite well with the issue of the driveways. Jefcoat: Yeah. We also talked about private fences being setback from the front part of the house to half the distance of the house. Hoskins: Right, no fences would come up to the front corner of the house. Jefcoat: It is good for the appearance of the subdivision to have all house fronts and no visible fencing along the fronts of the houses. Ostner: If you are looking for that kind of high end European style design have you considered narrowing these streets, they are 28' back to back, that is ample for three cars to pass, it is pretty wide. Jefcoat: If you narrow the streets you get back to circulation problems, trash cuts, vans, visitors. The wider the street and still keeping an intimate feeling. Bunch: What about on street parking, is that allowed? Hoskins: That is another issue as well, the width of the streets is for on street parking right? Jefcoat I think in the covenants you said that there would be no on street parking, it is understood, we talked about hours of on street parking and whether it is 24 hours maximum so you don't have permanent on street parking. Bunch: One of the concerns again would be in this area. Of course, that is a private drive but still, from a safety standpoint and emergency vehicles and access, that is a concern, whether it is a public or private right of way. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 67 Jefcoat: Right, we wouldn't want to narrow the streets anymore than what we've got. We have thought through a lot of this. Bunch: In this area definitely not but that works into the overall scheme and I think that people are going to be asking those questions so we want to preview them here to give you an opportunity to be prepared to answer them. Ostner: Part of the thought behind the 28' street is that it is in essence three lanes, two driving, on parking. It doesn't matter, it's just a comment. Bunch: Ok, I'll bite on one thing, how did you come up with the name Hickory Park when there is one hickory tree in it? Hoskins: I had a better idea but they didn't like my idea so I let them come up with the name. Bunch: Staff or Commissioners, is there anything that needs to be addressed as far as what we are sending forward if we do send this forward? Commissioner Allen, you've been extremely quiet on this particular one, any recap of the details that Alan and I have gotten into, can you give us an overview of it? Allen: I think everything has been clearly stated. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion we forward R-PZD 04-05.00 to the full Planning Commission. Allen: I second. Bunch: I will concur and I guess that is with there were many things that were brought up today I think to which you will be responding so I think that would be a good comment to make that it would be as discussed in this meeting. Allen: A reminder to the neighbor and to the other neighbors that if they are available to come to the hearing at the Planning Commission. Bunch: We are adjourned.