Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-12 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on February 12, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSP 04-08.00: (Huddleston, pp 204) Approved Page 3 LSP 04-05.10: (Briggs, pp 485) Approved Page 6 LSP 04-09.00: (Bolinger, pp 599) Approved Page 8 LSP 04-03.10: (Fred Patrick/Jacoway, pp 523) Approved Page 10 LSP 04-10.00: (Owen, pp 254) Approved Page 13 ADM 04-07.00 (Persimmon Place, pp 438) Forwarded Page 16 LSD 04-02.00(DOCS Professional Building, pp 138) Forwarded Page 19 LSD 04-07.00(Walker Riding Arena, pp 716) Approved Page 28 LSD 04-06.00 (Landers Hummer, pp 249) Approved Page 30 PPL 04-02.00 (Elder Apts., pp 40 1) Forwarded Page 38 PPL 04-03.00 (Grand Valley Stables, pp 103) Forwarded Page 51 PPL 04-04.00(Grand Valley Estates, pp 104) Forwarded Page 51 Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 2 Don Bunch Alan Ostner Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Craig Camagey MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 3 LSP 04-08.00: Lot Split (Huddleston, pp 204) was submitted by Blew Land Surveying on behalf of Jon and Nancy Huddleston for property located at 3450 Hughmount Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 12.19 acres. The request is to divide the property into two tracts containing 9.22 and 1.59 acres respectively. Bunch: Welcome to the Thursday, February 12a' meeting of Subdivision Committee of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Today we have 12 items on the agenda. The first item is a Lot Split for Huddleston. Is the applicant present? If you would, come on up and have a seat please. Suzanne, is this your project? This is a Lot Split located on Hughmount Road in the Planning Area. Suzanne, can you give us the staff report please? Morgan: Yes, the request is to split 12.19 acre property into two tracts of 9.22 and 1.59 acres. The subject property is located within the Planning Area and all surrounding properties are within the Planning area. Existing right of way for Hughmount Road bisects this property and it is on this road which the split is proposed. The existing structure to the north on the smaller tract meets the bulk and area regulations within the Planning area and is proposed to remain. Staff is recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level with three conditions. One, County approval is required prior to recordation and staff would like to strike condition number two because there will be easements dedicated which will require a signature block. Bunch: Ok, I guess we don't have any parks or trees issues since it is in the Planning Area. Engineering, are there any additional comments? Casey: No Sir. Bunch: At this time would you all introduce yourselves and tell us about your project please? Huddleston: My name is John Huddleston. We are just asking to split this property into two parts to get rid of some of the land. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment for LSP 04-08.00 for Huddleston on Hughmount Road. Is there anyone who would like to address this issue? If you would, please come forward and tell us who you are and where you live and give us the benefit of your comments please. Newman: My name is John Newman, I am the neighbor of the Huddleston's to the west and the property across the street from our house and estate is part of the property to be split. We have an executive home next door to them on five acres. We have no objection to this split. We do have just some Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 4 concerns that we wanted to voice for development and access to the property as they want to develop it in the way they see fit. We have a concern that structures consistent with the neighborhood are to be constructed. Meaning the houses, barns or whatever structures that need to be developed on this split conform to this area. We have a nice home and want the property values to continue as they are or continue to rise. Having a barn or a large structure directly across the street from our driveway would be objectionable from our point of view. That's the point that we have. We have no issue with the lot split, just how it is developed. Bunch: What we are responsible for is showing that there is access and easements and that sort of thing. The method of development is a county issue. We don't have any jurisdiction on that. All we do is make sure I's are dotted and T's are crossed. That there are access to the various lots and that there are utilities available. Staff, is there anything else that we look at on lot splits in the Planning Area? Morgan: No Sir. Bunch: I'm not trying to dodge the issue. Your concerns are well founded and they need to be addressed to the County Planning process. Newman: Where would that be, what stage of the process? Warrick: They have the ability to contact the County Planner after it has been through the City process. After today they have the ability to approach the County Planner for approval of the same split. Newman: Is there a public meeting where comment is allowed at that point? Warrick: I do not know. Washington County does not have zoning. They do not regulate land use. I do not believe that there is a County regulation that can ensure what you're talking about, the type of development, because they do not have zoning regulations. I can get you some contact information for the County Planner and I'm sure that she would be glad to discuss with you the process and any regulations that they have that may affect this project. Newman: That would be good. Bunch: Thank you Mr. Newman. Would anyone else wish to speak on this subject? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments or motions. This appears to be a pretty clean, straight forward Lot Split. Do I have any comments or motions? Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 5 MOTION: Allen: I move for approval of LSP 04-08.00. Ostner: I will second Bunch: That is striking condition of approval number two, I will concur. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 6 LSP 04-05.10: Lot Split (Briggs, pp 485) was submitted by Blew Land Surveying on behalf of Lucas Briggs for property located at 200 Fletcher and 195 Summit. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 0.41 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 0.18 and 0.23 acres respectively. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSP 04-5.10 for Lucas Briggs for property located on Summit and Fletcher Street. Jeremy, can you give us the report on this please Sir? Pate: Yes Sir. You may remember this Lot Split was processed a few months ago. The applicant is now requesting Planning Commission approval for a lot split in a different configuration. Lot number four is an existing lot fronting onto both Fletcher Avenue to the west and Summit Avenue to the east. There are two single family homes and accessory structures existing on the lot. The applicant proposes to separate the structures by way of a Lot Split. Each lot does have adequate frontage onto a public right of way with this proposed split. Three are water lines and sewer lines existing. One of the issues with the previous Lot Split was a sanitary sewer line was going to need to be extended prior to filing of the Lot Split because sanitary sewer service lines are not allowed to cross private property lines. With this configuration that concern has been alleviated. The sanitary sewer lines will not cross the private property lines with this current configuration. Staff is recommending approval of the Lot Split at the Subdivision Committee level with only two conditions. Should the applicant desire common rights of ingress and egress over the existing driveways to serve both lots the Lot Split plat should be revised to reflect a permanent access easement with legal descriptions and locations noted on the plat. That is really just a question for Mr. Briggs. If he would like for these driveways to be accessed by either of the lot owners in the future. It would behoove him to have an access easement over that. Bunch: Thank you. Are there any parks considerations? I guess since both structures already exist there is no need for parks assessments. Are there any Engineering comments? Casey: No Sir, not at this time. Bunch: At this time would you introduce yourself and tell us about your project please? Briggs: My name is Luke Briggs. This is the second application for a Lot Split. Basically, we are just trying to acquire the property through the Lot Split. We had the issue of the sanitary sewer line which now has been alleviated. It is pretty much the same as the first lot split request. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 7 Bunch: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the lot split for Briggs at 200 Fletcher and 195 Summit? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Luke, would you want to exercise the option that has been provided for utilizing the access easement? Briggs: It is still under discussion, I don't know that we've come to a conclusion on that since I will continue to own both of the properties. I think that is something that can be amended at any point. Pate: That is correct. Bunch: We can leave that in our conditions of approval and should you decide to use it you can go ahead and file that information. Briggs: It would get approved prior to the decision being made, correct? Bunch: Well, we would approve your ability to do that, to have the easements and if you decide not to it is your decision. That way you don't have to come back through the process again to file the easements. We can do it all here at once with one fee. Are there any other comments, questions or motions? MOTION: Allen: I move for approval of LSP 04-5.10 subject to the two conditions of approval. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 8 LSP 04-09.00: Lot Split (Bolinger, pp 599) was submitted by Bill Jenkins on behalf of Randy Bolinger for property located at S. Brower Avenue and Razorback Road. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre, and contains approximately 0.52 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 0.27 and 0.25 acres respectively. Bunch: The next item is LSP 04-09.00 for Randy Bolinger on South Brower Avenue and Razorback Road. Suzanne, do you have a staff report for us on this one please? Morgan: The request is to split the .52 acre property into two tracts of .27 and 25 acres. The subject property is zoned RMF -24 and is located west of Razorback Road and Brower Avenue. There currently exists on this lot two duplexes and the proposal is to split the tract into two lots so that each duplex is on it's own lot. Surrounding zoning is RMF -24 with single family and multi -family dwelling units surrounding this. Frontage is provided by Brower as well as Razorback Road. Staff is recommending approval at Subdivision Committee level with four conditions. Show the centerline of Razorback Road on the plat, the correct zoning designation, and include the owner information on the plat. I believe that the setbacks, the utility easements, if those are, if these proposed on the plat are not currently existing we will need a signature block on the plat as well. Bunch: Are there any additional staff comments? If you would introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Bolinger: I am Randy Bolinger, I'm basically just getting this lot split for financial reasons. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address this Lot Split for Bolinger on Brower Avenue and Razorback Road? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. One comment, the address for 911 purposes, has that been resolved? Morgan: I did try to contact the applicant yesterday regarding that. Perhaps Mr. Bolinger could better address whether these addresses are correct. Bunch: Your drawing is showing one address and then another address shown on the building so we need to have that corrected on the plat to help our 911 people for emergency. Bolinger: I will get that fixed. Bunch: Are there any other comments, questions or motions? Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 9 MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion to approve LSP 04-09.00 with the conditions of approval. Allen: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 10 LSP 04-03.10: Lot Split (Fred Patrick/Jacoway, pp 523) was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Fred Patrick representing the property owner for property located east of Block Avenue and north of Archibald Yell Blvd. The property is zoned R - O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.30 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts containing approximately 0. 14 acres and 0.16 acres. Bunch: The next item is also a Lot Split, LSP 04-3.10 for Fred Patrick for property on Archibald Yell Blvd. and Block Avenue. Suzanne? Morgan: Yes, this applicant is requesting to split the existing .30 acre property into two tracts of .14 and .16 acres resulting in tracts three and four as shown on your plat. This property is zoned R -O and it is located between East Avenue and Block Avenue just north of Archibald Yell Blvd. The existing building on the property will be removed. The applicant has applied for two property line adjustments as well as this Lot Split on December 4`h. The property line adjustments were approved creating lots that met frontage and area requirements in the Residential Office district. At the Technical Plat meeting on December 17`h staff informed the applicant that the requested Lot Split would create a tract which would have minimal building area, approximately 600 sq.ft. due to the required front setback from Archibald Yell, which was 30' as well as the other setbacks on this property. The applicant has applied for a 15' setback along Archibald Yell, which is a 15' variance to increase the available building area and this item will be heard by the Board of Adjustment on March 1, 2004. Surrounding zoning for this property is mostly Residential Office as well as Central Commercial, C-3. Right of way to be dedicated, an additional 5' of right of way along Archibald Yell for a total of 55' from centerline. Staff is recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level with six conditions. First, that the requested 15' variance on Archibald Yell Blvd. shall be approved prior to filing of the Lot Split. Second, the dedication for a total of 55' on Archibald Yell by Warranty Deed. Third, that the plat shall indicate all applicable setback requirements as well as building permits shall be obtained through the city permitting process. Parks fees shall be applied for two additional single family lots prior to the issuance of a building permit. Bunch: Thank you. Are there any additional staff reports? Dave, would you introduce yourself and tell us about your project please? Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and I'm here on behalf of Jill Jacoway regarding this Lot Split. We are here to answer questions. As Suzanne mentioned, we are requesting this Lot Split in addition to the Variance on the setback and naturally we won't know the outcome of that until the March I't meeting. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 11 Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address the issue of a Lot Split for Jacoway on Archibald Yell and Block? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. Suzanne, if the variance is not granted by the Board of Adjustments where are we? Would the whole thing just drop off and have to be reapplied for a separate time? Warrick: We wouldn't be able to grant the Lot Split. It would not be possible to meet the lot and area requirements for this to be two tracts of land if the variance was not approved by the Board of Adjustment we would not file the split documents. Mr. Chair, I do have one amendment to the conditions. The parks fee should be calculated for one new lot. There is one lot existing, they are splitting it to create two so we really are only increasing the number of residential lots by one so it should be a $555 fee. Bunch: Thank you. Are there any other questions, comments or motions? Ostner: I guess I just wanted to ask a little bit about this variance that you are going to go for with the Board of Adjustment. I understand that you are giving up extra land for right of way to bring that to a 55' dedication and then there would be a 30' building setback from that right of way line? Jorgensen: That's correct. Ostner: You are asking to vary that to a 15'? Jorgensen: By the way the 15' is only along Archibald Yell, we still have a 30' setback along Block Avenue. Warrick: As far as the Lot Split is concerned, just to add a little bit of information, they meet the minimum requirements for lot area, lot width and what we need in order to create a lot in the zoning district. It would just create a lot that has a very tiny building footprint allowance without any type of variance being granted. With regard to meeting the minimum requirements for zoning in order to create a lot in the district they meet that. It is just a matter of whether or not they can get a structure successfully sited on the property. Bunch: Ok, thank you. MOTION: Ostner: I'm all in favor of people investing in downtown. I know it is difficult, it is steep too and I understand that's part of the problem. I'm ok with this. I was going to make a motion that we approve LSP 04-03.10 with all Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 12 conditions of approval changing condition number five to read parks fees in the amount of $555. Allen: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Thanks Dave. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 13 LSP 04-10.00: Lot Split (Owen, pp 254) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Tanya and Ben Owen for property located at 2625 Warwick Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 3.39 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 2.57 and 0.83 acres respectively. Bunch: The next item is also a Lot Split, LSP 04-10.00 for Tonya and Ben Owen for property located on Warwick Drive. Suzanne, do you have the staff report on this one for us? Morgan: Yes I do. The applicant is requesting to split the existing 3.39 acre property into two tracts. One of which is 2.57 acres and the other is .83 acres. The subject property is zoned RSF-4 as well as all adjoining tracts. It is located west of Oak Bailey Lane and south of Warwick Drive. There is an existing home on the proposed tract two, the smaller tract. Warwick Drive is currently constructed to the gravel drive of this house. Adequate lot frontage is being given with a Lot Split in this configuration. Warwick Drive currently has 30' of existing right of way and an additional 10' of right of way is to be dedicated for a total of 40', which is consistent with a Residential right of way. Staff is recommending approval a the Subdivision Committee level with a total of three conditions. First, the property line for tract 2 shall be adjusted to provide a minimum of 10' setback from the septic system. Second, parks fees are due in the amount of $555 for one additional single family lot to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Third is a standard condition of approval. Bunch: Thank you Suzanne. Are there any additional staff comments? Casey: I have two. We need to add a condition of approval that a 6" water main be extended to serve each of these two lots. It is shown on your plat but I think we need to add that as a condition of approval. Also, I have noticed since Plat Review they have shown the approximate location of the septic system and proper setbacks for a septic system leach field are 10' from the property line. That west property line, tract 2 may need to be adjusted to provide that proper setback. That's all I have. Bunch: Dave, would you introduce yourselves and the project please? Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and I am here on behalf of Ben and Tonya Owen on this project. We concur with all of the conditions of the approval. Ben, do you have any comments on that? Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to adjust the issue of LSP 04-10.00 for Owen on Warwick Drive? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. One question, obviously, since this is in the city limits, Matt, what is the situation on the Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 14 sewers? I know we are showing a septic system. Is there any sewer in this area? Casey: There is sewer in the area but the regulation is it has to be within 300' before they have to hook on and this area is outside of the 300' range for the sewer. Bunch: Both lots? Casey: Correct. Bunch: Thank you. Casey: I might want to add that sewer would be available if you chose to extend it and replace the septic systems. Bunch: How is water provided at this time? Is it just a small line? Jorgensen: Right, there is just a small line leading down Warwick and we are going to replace that with a new line connecting there at Oak Bailey and extending west to the new property line. Bunch: How would that affect all of the other people on Warwick Drive? Would they be able to access the new enlarged line or would they use their existing lines? Jorgensen: I suppose we would probably want to connect up to the new line. Casey: According to Dave Jurgens, our Water and Sewer Superintendent, the only lines located along Warwick are service lines. I know there is a map that may show a 2" line but they have done some field investigation and it does not exist. That is one of the reasons that a main is going to be extended to serve each of these properties. The existing meters and services can be converted over but we will have to work with our Water and Sewer Division on whether or not that will have to be done or not. You may want to coordinate that with them during the time of construction. Bunch: Thanks. Are there any additional comments or questions? Ostner: I just wanted to make sure that moving that property line is something that you all are aware of and it went along with your plans. My other question is does this new lot apply to impact fees? Warrick: Any new development that is connecting to the water and/or sewer system is subject to impact fees at the time of development. Those fees would be collected when the connections are requested, when a meter set is Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 15 requested for a new development. In this particular case, just to add, if they are going to utilize a septic system, then only the water fees would apply. You would not be paying the wastewater fee unless you connect to the waste water system. MOTION: Ostner: That was my only question. I will make a motion that we approve LSP 04-10.00 adding a fourth condition of approval to read "A six inch water main will be extended along Warwick Drive to serve both of these lots." Allen: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Good luck. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 16 ADM 04-07.00: Administrative Item (Persimmon Place, pp 438) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of the developer of Persimmon Place Subdivision. The request is to amend item 7 of the Bill of Assurance to allow a wood and masonry fence. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is ADM 04-07.00 on behalf of Persimmon Place subdivision pertaining to a concrete fence and a Bill of Assurance. Jeremy, is this yours? Pate: Yes Sir it is. The applicant is proposing to amend the Bill of Assurance associated with their approved RZN 02-15.00. If you will look on page four, the revised Bill of Assurance is item number seven. Turn one more page over you can see the one that has been filed and signed. Number seven of the original one says "A concrete privacy fence shall be installed along Persimmon and 46`h." The requested amendment says "A decorative masonry and wood privacy fence shall be installed along Persimmon and 46` Street." The proposal to amend the Bill of Assurance also amends the approved Preliminary Plat for Persimmon Place which has been approved. That condition of approval states the proposed concrete privacy fence shall be 6' in height. Basically, that would change that concrete to a decorative masonry and wood privacy fence. A little background, the subject concrete fence was not required by the Planning Commission nor City Council in approvals of the rezoning request. Rather, the applicant offered the fence as a compromise to appease concerned neighboring residents. The developer did hold to the approved Bill of Assurance with the Preliminary Plat that was processed for Persimmon Place and that concrete fence was indicated on the plat. At this time, the developers of Persimmon Place and the potential developer of the subdivision across 46`h Street, the Cross Keys R-PZD that was recently reviewed by the Planning Commission, have met to coordinate that fence and wall construction along 40h Street and have submitted the requested amendment. Staff is recommending forwarding this administrative item with a recommending for approval to the full Planning Commission for consideration with one condition. The amendment to the Bill of Assurance shall be restated to include a minimum 6' in height to be consistent with the Planning Commission approval of the Preliminary Plat. I would also mention that this will need to go to the full City Council to amend the Bill of Assurance. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any other staff comments? Dave, will you introduce yourself and tell us about this one? Jorgensen: Sure. I'm filling in for Chris Brackett on this project, he's on seminar this week. As Jeremy mentioned, we had a Bill of Assurance prepared for Persimmon Place. For various reasons we ended up with a concrete masonry type of fence along 46`h and Persimmon Street. Several of the Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 17 neighbors didn't exactly like the concrete fence. At any rate, we have an additional project to the east that is Cross Keys which is going to the City Council. The developers got together and we have come up with this alternative for revising the Bill of Assurance, which is item number seven. We stated in the revised Bill of Assurance that we would like to install a decorative masonry and wood privacy fence. Jeremy, you mentioned 6' tall, so add a 6' height to that right there. We thought that it would be more appealing to have a decorative masonry wood combination fence installed there and I'm talking about shadowbox type fence rather than a concrete slab going through there or a masonry wall going along each side of 46`" Street. It was a mutual agreement. In fact, we have met with the neighbors and one of the neighbors out there is going around and talking to the other neighbors. As far as I know, we don't have any objections to that. In fact, I think they are glad to actually see this alternative rather than the concrete masonry. Pate: I might mention too, the applicant did send out certified mail to the adjoiners of this property and staff has not received any comments regarding the fence. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address this ADM 04-07.00 for a change in the fence for Persimmon Place subdivision? Sloan: Yes, I'm Charlie Sloan, I'm the developer of Cross Keys next door to Persimmon Place. We want to encourage you to accept this item and let him amend it. After talking with Mr. Walker and talking to some of the neighbors out there, the neighbors actually approached me, one of them did, and said we would like you to talk to the Walkers about changing that if possible, working out a compromise that compliments the area. Landscaping was one of the things that I talked to Mr. Walker about, he was for that. For that reason, we would like to be able to have the opportunity to work with him to come up with something that compliments the area a whole lot better than just a solid slab wall sitting out there. I appreciate it. Bunch: Thank you Charlie. Is there any additional public comment? Warrick: I have one other statement. We have not heard any neighbor objections to the project. We have heard from one of the adjoining property owners who would like to work with the developer and request the possibility of installing a fence between his property and the subdivision. That is I believe the property owner immediately north of the northeast corner of the subject property. That was the only call that I'm aware of that we have received on that. Renee, did you talk to anybody else. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 18 Thomas: No. Bunch: I will bring it back to the Committee. Are there any comments, questions or motions? Allen: I wondered if this fence would look comparable to the one that Cross Keys showed us on Monday night? Did you see that? Walker: Yes Ma'am, Charlie and I have met and my name is Carl Walker, I'm the developer and one of the owners of Persimmon Place. Mr. Sloan and I have met and discussed trying to put kind of a joint venture together so that it would compliment one another and be very complimentary with the design and the looks and everything going through there. We thought it would be for both of our benefits to have them look as close as they could and try to keep conformed to the same thing out there. Ostner: I wanted to compliment you guys for working together. It is tough enough to do your own project without having to coordinate with the next guy developing. This has almost reached the point of absurd for someone to want to build a fence to not only come to us but to have to go to the City Council. I guess that's the state of things though. I will make a motion that we forward ADM 04-07.00. Bunch: We recommend forwarding it to the full Planning Commission who has to send it to the City Council. Allen: I will second. I also agree with Commissioner Ostner's comments about you all working together, I really appreciate it. Bunch: I will concur on the motion and the comments by my fellow Commissioners. I appreciate you working together. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 19 LSD 04-02.00: Large Scale Development (DOCS Professional Building, pp 138) was submitted by David Gilbert of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Randall Oates for property located on Crossover Road (Hwy 265) at Hillside Terrace. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 2.10 acres. The request is to allow the development of a 10,318 sq.ft. Medical/Dental office building with 44 parking spaces proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is the Large Scale Development for a Professional office building on Crossover Road and Hillside Terrace. Suzanne, do you have the staff report on this one please? Morgan: Yes Sir. The applicant is requesting to construct a two story office building with 11,088 sq.ft. It is located east of Crossover Road and west of Hillside Terrace. The subject property is a triangular shaped property with 100% canopy. Use of the building will be both medical and professional office with a maximum of two practicing doctors I believe. The parking requirement was calculated at the medical office requirement which will require 45 spaces and 44 are being provided. There are three accesses to this property. One access is being provided at the southwest corner of the site to Crossover Road and there are two proposed curb cuts along Hillside Terrace. The north access will serve emergency vehicles and is proposed to be barricaded with a chain. The south curb cut will access a small parking lot south of the building. Surrounding zoning to the north is the Fayetteville Athletic Club and single-family residential with zoning designations of C-1 and R -A. To the south is vacant single- family residential with residential office and RSF-4 zoning classification. To the east is single-family residential with Residential Agricultural zoning and to the west is property zoned R -O and C-1, which is currently vacant and has a C-1 commercial outlet. Right of way to be dedicated totals 55' from centerline for Crossover and 25' from centerline of Hillside Terrace. Traffic generation was done for this building as a general office with 20 employees it generates an average of 66 two way trips per day and calculating it as a medical office building with two employees it generates an average of 18 two way trips per day. Staff has received several calls from the public with concerns regarding traffic on Hillside Terrace and Valerie Drive and cut through traffic. Staff is recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with a total of 13 conditions. First, Planning Commission determination of approval of Commercial Design Standards. Second, Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for a retaining wall greater than 10' in height. Third, Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff is recommending 14' from centerline for Hillside Terrace. Condition five, retaining walls shall not encroach with any easement or building setback. That is to be corrected on the plat is my understanding. Six, to eliminate the northern access to Hillside Terrace. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 20 Bunch: Thank you. Are there any additional staff comments? Carnagey: Yes. We have been working with the applicant quite a bit to try to get the highest quality tree preservation area as possible. From that, there have been several revisions since this last submittal that you see in front of you to try to increase the canopy and again, to try to increase the quality of that canopy area. The most recent submittal shows a reduction in the number of parking spaces in the front parking lot to the north as well as a retaining wall along the edge of that parking lot to increase that preservation area. That would increase the preservation area to above the minimum percent canopy required for this zoning designation. As of yesterday we were in discussion with the Fire Department to possibly eliminate the access drive to the north along Hillside Terrace and there has been an alternative proposed to the applicant that the Fire Department approved. Essentially, it is a modified hammerhead that would eliminate that access and that would also increase the preservation area as well. I have a copy of one of the revisions if you are interested in looking at that. Bunch: Especially if it shows to eliminate the northern. Camagey: That one doesn't but that one does show the reduction in the number of parking spaces and the retaining wall. Gilbert: This should be the same. Bunch: Engineering? Casey: My comment is on the waiver request for the retaining wall height. The reason staff is in support of this is if we had to terrace the walls then I fear that we would negate some of the negotiations that Craig and Mr. Gilbert have had trying to increase this amount of tree preservation. The more stepping we do with that it is going to spread the actual impacted area out and get into those trees. That is the reason that we are in support of this waiver request. Bunch: Thank you. At this time will you introduce yourselves and tell us about your project? Gilbert: I am David Gilbert with Jorgensen & Associates. This is David Powell, he is Dr. Oates business partner in the venture. We appreciate your consideration this morning. I will apologize to you for bringing you something here at the meeting but we have been involved in some negotiations with the staff for quite some time and this project has just continued to evolve and to change as we and the staff work together to try to do the best thing we can for this piece of property. We certainly appreciate Mr. Camagey's input and help in getting through this part of Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 21 the process, particularly his discussions with the Fire Department. Sometimes we find ourselves caught between departments and can't really get where we need to go. Mr. Camagey's help in this matter has been invaluable, there is no way to calculate the help that he's been to us on this. Let me address the driveway, the northern driveway onto Hillside, Dr. Oates and Mr. Powell certainly have no objection to removing that driveway. This was an area where we had conflicting requests from Planning and from the Fire Marshall's office. Mr. Carnagey has been kind enough to involve himself in this and to work out a compromise where we can remove that. The applicant would like to remove that. Unfortunately, these negotiations came about so late that I haven't had a chance to draw up anything new. It will be a minor extension to the front parking lot to provide turn around room for fire vehicles so that they can get back out of here without having to back all the way out to the street. As this equipment gets larger and larger that is going to become more and more of a need and we certainly want to preserve the safety. At the same time we would like to preserve as many of the trees as we can. We are happy with the ability that we are going to be able to do that. The retaining wall, I think Mr. Casey put that very well, we are trying to keep everything as compact as we can. If the retaining wall were 10' high there would be no need to ask for a waiver on that. We are showing, asking, that we be allowed to put in a wall that at it's highest point will be about 12 ''/2' high so it is not a lot taller than what would normally be allowed. It certainly is well within the range of safe design for a segmental retaining wall, which is what we would plan to use here. A little background on this project, Mr. Powell lives on Hillside Terrace two properties south of this piece of property. That is his primary residence. Dr. Oates lives two houses down Valerie Drive. My boss, David Jorgensen, lives about four houses down Valerie Drive and their desire when they put this together was to occupy this piece of property with something where they could control what it looked like. They live in this neighborhood, they want it to be nice. They don't want somebody just to come in there and pave the whole thing, which would be impossible to do under Fayetteville's regulations anyway but at least in this way, they have control over what the entrance to their neighborhood is going to look like and that is really their desire here and the reason that they chose this location. We have configured the building and the parking lots the way we have because that is the way that the ground actually lies. By placing them in this configuration we can provide a terracing affect so, it is about a 14% slope down through there now which is an interesting challenge to work with and you can't build a building on that so you have to flatten things out and make flat places, terraces. We chose to do this terracing affect because when all is said and done and the project is completed, that is going to look like it fits the land. If we were to go in there and try to force the building to the property lines you'd have a large square cut somewhere or a large square corner and it just would not look good at all. It would look like somebody built Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 22 something in a quarry, which is certainly not the affect that we want to produce in this neighborhood. Our clients have gone to great lengths with the building and you see the elevations here over my shoulder, to make this thing fit the scale of the neighborhood, to make it attractive. We have really tried to make this as good of a project as we can make it. To my knowledge, those are kind of the high points. Again, we do appreciate the help of the staff to work through this and get everything going where we're going. I would like to add one other thing, that is with regard to the trees. There are trees that we can count and trees that we cannot count because of the way that the ordinance is written. Preservation on this we are aiming to preserve in the legal, official manner that we can count, 21.6% of the site in existing canopy. That number will go up as the fire access drive is removed. The requirement is for a minimum of 20%. In addition to that, there is about 3.3% in a utility easement along Crossover Road that we are going to preserve but that we are not allowed to count because it is in a utility easement and the way that the Public Service Commission works with utilities, if they choose to come in and cut those down to put in utility lines they can do that. It is wise not to count them but we want you to know that we're going to leave them there. In addition to that, by the time that you add all the street trees and the landscaping trees, which we are not able to count as well, by the time you take in what we are preserving, the street trees, the landscaping trees and the trees in that easement, site coverage is going to be up on the order of 34.5%. This thing is not going to look like 20%, it is going to look a lot better than that. We've worked to try to preserve some screening along the east property line existing vegetation along an old fence row that is there to help buffer the neighbors. We feel good about this project and we hope that you will agree with us that it is passable. Bunch: Thank you David. At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. I guess one of the things that is first obvious is looking from one set of drawings to the next you have gone from a mitigation standpoint to excess canopy on the tree preservation and I guess for the elimination of the north access on Hillside that that will go up even more. On the walkway from the upper parking lot, is that all ADA accessible? I see that you have ADA spaces in the upper parking lot. Gilbert: Yes Sir. It is not actually a two story building but there will be some second floor space under the roof. That's why I said it is going to fit the scale of the neighborhood because as you can see, it does not have the appearance of a full upper story. There will be some space up there. We have provided access to the second floor by means of a little bridge if you will, right in this area. From the middle of that upper parking lot to the middle of the back of the building so that's why the ADA space is back Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 23 there so they will have the ability to park and then have an accessible route from that space into the upper floor by that method. Bunch: Very good. That's always a question on hillsides. I'm glad you addressed that. Gilbert: We also have provided two van accessible spaces on the lower level, the main level, for access there. Ostner: Talking about that upper parking area, I see a much shorter retaining wall in the upper parking area which in essence is terracing in a sense. I'm just wondering or would like to pose the question why the 12' couldn't be dropped and the upper brought down to make that a 6' instead of a 4' retaining wall. Gilbert: We did look at that. One of the difficulties is that Hillside Terrace is also about an 11% slope and we are trying to provide safe passage in and out of this parking lot, which means we don't want that entrance to be too steep. That's the reason that we are trying to hold that parking lot up a little bit to make better access onto Hillside. Of course, this time of the year, especially with what we thought that we were going to get this morning that didn't materialize, we try to be very conscious of making people drive on a surface that when it ices up they are not going to be able to stop. Also, we want them to be able if they go in there and park in the morning we want them to be able to get out and go home. That's the issue. It was really the driveway slope coming in. Ostner: This upper driveway slope that if this whole area were to drop down. Gilbert: That would steepen that slope significantly. Ostner: I see. Gilbert: It is lower and we have a very short distance to work with there. If we had a longer driveway we could absorb 2' without much problem but that entrance drive is so short and in fact, the reason that the parking spaces are on the opposite side of the tot from the building is because that way we could lower that driveway some more and cut down on the height of that. Ostner: Ok, that makes sense. I would tend to agree that it is a good instance of going above the 10' to help other factors that you juggle. Bunch: Let's talk about commercial design standards. Do you want to tell us about your building, give us the description of it and the materials. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 24 Gilbert: On that issue I will defer to the architect who has agreed to join us. Jim Key who is the principal of Jim Key Architecture, has worked with us on this building. Rather than prove my ignorance I believe I will let him address you on that. Key: We have been working with the clients Mr. Powell and Dr. Oates over the last several months developing the final drawings that we presented to you prior to the holiday season. This building, in their minds, was to be a residential character. They came to us and had a fairly good idea of the pallid of materials they would like to see made of stones, clabbered siding, architectural shingles, and for the most part that is what we are looking at. It is going to be a lap siding, stone veneers, architectural shingled roof, cedar trim and cedar beams for the front porch area and the entry access canopies. You can see on the front of the building, the main entrance that is facing the north, there are two separate entries that have a small gable design for articulation along that long plain of the building. Those are all detailed exposed cedar beams and woodwork and trim supported by a couple of stone wrapped columns. That element has also been repeated on the south side of the building for the entrance to the upper level that is being accessed by the bridge that Mr. Gilbert had mentioned. The entire lower floor, the main level of the three sides of the building are finished in a natural stone veneer with a lapped siding, painted lapped siding for the remainder of the upper level. Along the back of the building we have utilized the siding entirely and just terminated the stone. Primarily that is because it is going to be below our retaining wall and will not be visible to the public or the users for the most part. This plain that you see here noted as the rear elevation that faces the south will be what is encompassed by this 10' to 12' retaining wall that has been noted a segmental wall that will be done with slightly terraced stacked block rusticated for a nice natural look there wrapping the back of the building as you can see from the site plan. It comes across and comes out both sides as it decreases in height with the natural grade of the land. That, in essence, is what is being proposed. A wood rail on the bridge with natural trim materials. Architectural shingles, which would be a dark brown, a darker color is what the desire had been. That is pretty much what has been requested of us and what we have provided to the owners and what is being presented to you for consideration. Bunch: Thank you Jim. Does anybody have any questions for Jim while we have him up here? Key: The elevations are a little bit dark, it wasn't our intent to. Of course, the entire porch here on the north side is in shadow of course and with the darker stone you will see that it comes off as a fairly dark element. We have got the small windows that will feed the upstairs and a residential roof overhang, 2' overhang. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 25 Bunch: It appears not only to meet our commercial design standards, but to exceed them. It also appears to be quite complimentary to the site. I think you've done a good job with a natural site and working with the engineering company on having a tree preservation and working with staff on that and having a building design that is complimentary. Key: I don't want to take credit for that. I want to express that that was the owner's desire. They had actually developed this plan themselves, came to us, showed us what they would like to try to achieve and they had a good understanding of what they would like to see in their neighborhood. As the owner and the engineer have expressed, they want to encourage what happens here and have control over it is why they bought this property. I think this will be an excellent addition to the neighborhood. I don't think the community could as for a better solution to developing this high visible corner here at this intersection. I appreciate your consideration. If you have any other additional questions I would be glad to answer them. Bunch: Thank you Jim. Are there any comments on condition number three with the street improvements? Those are pretty straight forward. Dave, how are you on the conditions of approval? Gilbert: We are in agreement with all of the conditions. Ostner: If we are eliminating the Hillside Terrace, if that works out, the access from Hillside Terrace, it starts to make me wonder about Crossover being so heavily traveled and dangerous. People complain about it a lot. Since you've got dual frontages have you all considered having Hillside your only access? Gilbert: We have not considered having Hillside be the only access for the reason that Crossover is a thoroughfare and Hillside is a local street. Local streets are mainly intended to be residential. We had initially proposed what the plans now show is this fire lane. We had originally proposed that to be full access to Hillside. Several people in the neighborhood found that objectionable and we were asked to eliminate that. Quite frankly, at this stage it would not be there at all except for our delay in, and this is not a reflection on the Fire Department, but us doing what they needed to do. We were not able to make the necessary adjustments in time, which is why it is shown as a 20' fire lane. In reality, we don't want to add any traffic to Hillside anymore than is necessary. As far as that rear parking lot goes, Mr. Powell lives on Hillside, he will be parking up there. Dr. Oates lives on Valerie, he will be parking up there. That is really the main intent is to have a place where they can just, when they need to drive there, if they don't walk they can drive around the corner and be there. They are Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 26 already in the neighborhood, they are not really new trips. If they weren't working here they would be driving down Hillside and Valerie to go to work somewhere else. These are, I'm not even sure under traffic count guidelines, I seem to have some vague recollection that that doesn't even count as a trip because it is originating and terminating in the same neighborhood. I may be wrong there but it is really very minor. We don't want to add to the burden of Hillside. Looking at that area, and the way that's configured, there are probably a lot of people who are using that as a cut through from other streets that I would prefer not to name on the record because I don't want to encourage anybody else to do it. We have sort of a wide audience here, we don't want to encourage that, we don't really know how to fix it. I agree, Crossover does have a lot of traffic but I believe it is the best point for the primary access simply because it is the commercial thoroughfare. Ostner: As you are talking I'm remember the area better and I'm understanding. Bunch: How about a left turn lane onto Crossover for access onto Crossover? You've only got 25' so that's not quite enough for one in and two out. Gilbert: We don't believe that the traffic in and out of this development really is going to be enough to justify that. Primarily, for the most part the people who come to this building are going to be the people who show up here at 8:00 in the morning, maybe they go out for lunch, they leave there at 5:00. Patient traffic will be very, very minimal. We feet like that this configuration, given the consideration of the site and the difficulties of making the drive work onto Crossover in the first place, honestly Mr. Bunch, I believe one in and one out will be sufficient for this use. We did receive a request from the staff, which we have altered the plans to reflect, to move that driveway to where it is directly across from one that is across the street. I believe that goes into the Charter facility if I'm not mistaken. That is a better alignment, they were right. Our initial alignment didn't line up and would've caused some problems so that was a good fix. That way you are making sort of a cross out of that intersection. Everybody can see everybody and nobody is worried about who gets to turn left first and all of that. Ostner: That leads me to a lot of people's questions. Do you all know of any widening plans for Crossover? I know you are giving up the right of way. Gilbert: The right of way dedication is in accordance with the Master Street Plan. That is just an automatic factor. We are on a principal arterial that requires 110' of right of way, 55' on each side of the centerline. That is just a given. As far as the Highway Department's plans, we hear the same rumors you do and really don't know anything beyond that. Quite frankly, if I thought I knew something I'm not sure I would trust myself because Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 27 those things are subject to change. I think all of us who are in this area and particularly those of us who have been in this area for an extended period of time are aware of the need for something to be done with Crossover. It has changed quite a bit since it was first paved. Ostner: I have a question for staff. With this new drawing, I know things are being changed fairly quickly, I count 32 spaces, does that meet the code or is there a new variance? Morgan: The required spaces are 45 and that number is within 30% below. Ostner: Great. Bunch: Commissioners, is there anything else that we need to address? This looks like it is ready to move forward. Is there anything that we need to tidy up before we send it to the full Planning Commission? Ostner: I think it is a great package, the drawings look great. I will make a motion that we forward LSD 04-02.00 to the full Planning Commission. Allen: It is looking good and I second. Bunch: I will concur. Thanks. Good luck. It looks like a lot of thought has gone into it. It is kind of a unique area and it took a lot of consideration to make it all fit. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 28 LSD 04-07.00: Large Scale Development (Walker Riding Arena, pp 716) was submitted by Kim Hesse of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of John M. Walker for property located at 1657 Sunrise Mountain Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 365.67 acres. The request is to allow the construction of a 30,500 sq. ft. private horse riding arena. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSD 04-07.00 for Walker Riding Arena on Sunrise Mountain Road. Jeremy, is this your project? Pate: Yes Sir it is. The applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval to construct a private riding arena for personal use only on the 365 acre tract in south Fayetteville west of Hwy. 7 1 B east of I-540. The proposed structure is more than 10,000 sq.ft. on a tract of one acre or more therefore, it is required to be processed as a Large Scale Development, that is why we are seeing this. It is a personal use, however, it does meet the requirements to go through a Large Scale Development. The applicant is proposing to erect a 30,500 sq.ft. private indoor facility for equestrian use. The proposed development is situated roughly in the middle of the overall 365 acre tract that the applicant owns and maintains and is Residential Agricultural use. Surrounding properties are similar, zoned R -A primarily and contain single family residences on large lots. There are two public rights of way existing on the property, Sunrise Mtn. Road, which is a 24' wide paved drive and Butterfield Trail, which has 50' of right of way platted but it is just a dirt road that has not been developed at this time. Sufficient right of way exists for both of these streets to the meet the Master Street Plan requirements. Due to the negligible impact on surrounding roads there are no street improvements recommended by the staff. It is, again, for private use and it is on the overall tract that is maintained and owned by the applicant. The existing tree canopy in the vicinity of the proposed structure has been indicated on the plat. As have protective measures to ensure the maximum tree canopy preservation is provided. Staff recommends approval of this Large Scale Development at the Subdivision Committee level with six conditions, two of which I will go over. Basically, the applicant shall secure proper building permits, that is how we kind of caught this. They applied for a building permit in the process we realized that it needed to go through Large Scale Development. That has been applied for and the proposed structure shall be limited to private use only. That's all I have. Bunch: Thank you. Are there any additional staff comments? Kim, if you would introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Hesse: I'm Kim Hesse with Engineering Design Associates representing Johnny Walker. Basically, the staff report covers just about everything. I've been to the site and if you have any questions, it is an easy site to get to. It is very much a rural feel environment out there. It is a farming acreage. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 29 They have an equestrian use already established out there and this is strictly for the use of the family to practice with their horses year around. It will be a completely steel structure and we have met with the Fire Chief. I believe they are satisfied. Hopefully, you can see from the vicinity map what we are dealing with and the amount of land that we have. This is pretty much across from Drake Field. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them. Bunch: Thank you. At this time we will take public comment . Is there anyone who would like to address the issue of the private riding arena, LSD 04- 07.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions, comments or motions. MOTION: Allen: I see nothing problematic about this. I move for approval of LSD 04- 07.00 subject to the six conditions of approval. Ostner: I would like to second. Bunch: I will concur. Hesse: Thank you. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 30 LSD 04-06.00: Large Scale Development (Landers Hummer, pp 249) was submitted by Matt Crafton of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Don Nelms of Nelms, LLC for property located at 1352 W. Showroom Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 42.82 acres. The request is to allow development of a 3,900 sq.ft. Hummer dealership, a Hummer Test Track and additional parking. Bunch: The next item is LSD 04-06.00 for Landers Hummer. It is in the vicinity of Hwy. 112 and I-540. Jeremy, do you have the staff report on this one please? Pate: Yes Sir I do. As you may remember, a Large Scale Development was approved back in November for the same site for a Hummer dealership without the test track. The applicant has resubmitted a Large Scale Development proposal to construct the same square footage, a 3,900 sq.ft. Hummer dealership, a Hummer test track and a row of parking expansion in the Landers Auto Park east of Hwy. 112. Changes from that approved Large Scale Development include the addition of the test track in the north portion of the site which is noted on your site plans, an additional row of parking, as I mentioned, to serve the auto body shop which is on the far west, and a reorientation and redesign of the architectural elevations of the Hummer dealership building. I did bring the elevations that were approved in the first Large Scale just for comparison purposes. A waiver for the use of metal halide lighting has been granted already with the Planning Commission's approval, as was the use of the monument sign for the Hummer dealership not to exceed 6' in height and 50 sq.ft. Those are issues that have basically already been approved at the full Planning Commission. Again, the Large Scale Development was approved back in July for the Hummer dealership expansion. Staff is recommending approval at this level with a number of conditions. One of which is the Planning Commission determination and approval of commercial design standards. These are the last elevations that were approved that met commercial design standards based on the Planning Commission's determination. Staff feels fine that the submitted elevations in your packets are compatible with the adjoining development on the Landers Auto Park site and the approved architectural elevations are similar to those submitted currently with the exception of the roofiine, which has changed. Condition of approval number two, per the Planning Commission approval of the previous Large Scale, one half of the parking lot lights on the Landers Auto Park site shall be turned off at 9:00 p.m. each night. That was something that was required with the last Large Scale, I just wanted to reiterate that for the record. Item three, a landscape screening with both trees every 30 linear feet and a continuous planting of shrubs shall be shown on the plat along the west edge of the proposed body shop parking lot expansion. That is a plat revision that needs to be Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 31 made prior to final approval. All other applicable conditions of approval from the Large Scale 03-17.00 shall remain in affect. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any other staff comments? Craig, does this impact the trees in any way? Camagey: No Sir, it does not. My understanding is that no additional tree removal is requested for this test track. Bunch: Are there any trees added? Carnagey: Quite a few. Bunch: Matt, do you have anything? Casey: No Sir. This is very similar to what has already been approved for a grading permit and they are currently underway with the previously submitted construction plans. I have no problems with it. Bunch: Thank you. If you would, introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Crafton: I'm Matt Crafton, an engineer with Crafton, Tull & Associates. Brian Black is the architect for this project and he could not be here today because of weather. I apologize and I will be glad to take any comments back to Brian. As Jeremy described, we have been before you two or three times now regarding Landers Auto Park expansion. Last summer the Planning Commission approved a seven acre expansion of parking along the east side of the Landers Auto Park. That is under construction right now and is progressing. This development that we are currently bringing before you now includes the Hummer building itself, the test track has been moved to the far northeast corner in the very back of the site, that was an issue that was controversial, you all had a problem with that the last time when it was in the front. It has been moved all the way to the back and then as Jeremy said, there is a single row of parking on the west side of the auto body shop. That is what we are asking your approval for at this time. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the revisitation of a Large Scale for Landers Hummer? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions and comments. I would like to start off with one. On the relocated test track, what provisions are being made to help protect the sensitive areas that surround it? I believe there is a wetland and a tree preservation area. Are you proposing any fencing or signage or anything? That is a Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 32 tremendous temptation when you're testing a Hummer to want to go through the wet area. Crafton: That's a good question. We have not proposed any fencing in the back there. Of course, during construction there will be silt fencing to keep any erosion off of that area that you are talking about but we had not proposed to put anything back there. There will be gates leading into the test track itself that will be closed. You can't just drive back there on your own. There will be gates that will be closed until the cars are ready to be driven back there. We have not addressed a fence. There will be quite a bit of a slope coming off of that test track down into this area to the north. It will be fairly difficult to get down there but with a Hummer that might be possible. Bunch: After hours people coming through and want to see if their vehicles will work on a Hummer track. Crafton: After hours, there is the intention to put a gate at east end of the test track and that will be closed after hours. Bunch: That helps that part of it but the other concern is something to protect that protected area. Craig, do you think that would be necessary to help with the tree preservation area and the wetland area? Camagey: Certainly. Anything to help restrict the access back into that area. Considering the nature of the activity of a test track adjacent to a tree preservation area I think it is reasonable to put some degree of restricted access to that area to avoid the possible temptation. Crafton: What kind of fence do you have in mind? Are we talking wood or chain link? Ostner: Anything to stop a vehicle. It could be a post every 4'. Bunch: Wrought iron or something that would match the theme of everything else. What type of gates and fencing are you proposing along this front edge? Crafton: It is just long metal bars swinging like that, it is a typical vehicle type of barrier gate. We can explore that issue and see if we can come up with something. Ostner: It could even be 3' tall as long as it was significant, as long as a vehicle, a person could step over it or step through it. That is my only, definitely not a board fence is what I was thinking. Crafton: I'm just worried about the appearance of that area. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 33 Bunch: Something that could be kept low to the ground that would discourage leaving the test track area and still be complimentary with the other design elements in the park. Crafton: We will explore what we can do with that. Bunch: Since the recommendation is to approve at this level, is that something that you can work out with staff that we can give you some directives I guess of what would be acceptable and then allow staff to pursue it rather than have to come back through the process any further? Warrick: We can do that. I can assure you that it will not be something of chain link in material since that's prohibited in the Overlay District. Bunch: I guess this particular piece is still within the Overlay District? Warrick: I believe it is. Bunch: Ok. Crafton: We will be glad to work with the staff to come up with something that meets that need and is pleasing to look at. Bunch: I know I would be tempted. Casey: Can I ask that the applicant update us on the status of the revised FEMA flood maps? Crafton: Yes. We are submitting this week. We have been working with FEMA over the last several months. As you know, they tend to take a long time to review flood maps and changes to them. We have been going back and forth and we are submitting again this week with what we hope to be the final revisions to our models correcting the map. We are in the process of doing that. We will get you a final determination on that. Casey: Thank you. Bunch: Let's talk about the commercial design standards. Pate: Chairman Bunch, I might mention again, this is just for comparison purposes. The submitted elevations are these in your packet. These are the latest revised. I believe there are two sets. This would correspond to the south elevation here. The north elevation which is into the parking area, the west elevation and the east elevation. You have those in your packets. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 34 Ostner: The building is very similar but it's been turned around. Bunch: It doesn't have that curved roof, it is more squared off than it was before. The elements I guess are compatible with the other buildings in the park? Crafton: The front of the building, the entrance will be to the south as opposed to what we had previously to the north. Bunch: The end treatments are pretty similar. Ostner: The signage on the building is under compliance? Pate: Yes, it does meet the maximum square feet or percentage of wall surface area requirements in the Design Overlay District. Ostner: Does that count the massive "H"? Pate: It does not, that is considered part of the structure. That is one of the items, components of the structure that actually helps with compatibility throughout all of the buildings there in the Landers Auto Park. They all have some sort of power element. This is compatible with that. Bunch: I guess that is a power element. Allen: It is awfully bright red. Ostner: I'm sure there will be a red Hummer right next to it. Bunch: If we are anticipating approval at this level, Commissioners, are there any other comments on commercial design standards? Does everything appear to be in order? Crafton: Jeremy, you had asked for us to bring a picture of the monument sign. I have that. This is the existing sign that is in front of the Chevrolet dealership now and it will be relocated over to the Hummer side of the line. Bunch: That meets all the dimensions and the lighting requirements? Pate: Yes Sir, I believe so. I'm not sure if there is any specific lighting requirements but it is compatible with what has been approved on that site. Bunch: Ok. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 35 Pate: This is a permitted sign as of right now. I just wanted to make it clear that it would be moved and an additional one would not be added. Ostner: Before we leave commercial design standards, can you talk about colors? Is there a color rendering that I'm not seeing? Bunch: How true are those colors? Pate: Here is the material sample board here. Ostner: What's being called prefinished metal I'm assuming is the "H"? Pate: Yes. Bunch: Stucco would be this E.I.F.S. surface, cast stone is the wainscote. Allen: I just wondered why the "H" was not considered signage. Warrick: The same reason that the peak on Lowe's was considered part of the structure. It is a judgment call. It is consistent with interpretations that we've been making with regard to this type of structure where they have an architectural feature that also identifies the structure. We allow it as a part of the building as opposed to the signage package. Allen: Kind of like Lowe's little peak being considered part of it's architectural design, I think that is kind of a stretch. Warrick: A little bit, but it is the interpretation that is consistent with the way that we've been handling these types of buildings. Bunch: As long as it doesn't have any writing on it, it is not a projecting sign? Warrick: Again, that's an interpretation that we look at on a case by case basis. That's a lot of what we, it's not specifically advertising but it does provide recognition for the type of building. McDonald's, they will be the first to tell you that any two year old in the country can identify that building by it's mansard roof. It is not signage but it is an identifying feature of that building that everyone knows is McDonald's. Bunch: And the golden arches. Warrick: That is signage. Ostner: As long as it is subtle, it's not considered signage is basically the issue. I'm being silly but yes, I would tend to understand the argument. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 36 Bunch: Are there any additional comments then on the relocations of the body shop area or the landscape screening? Ostner: I just have a question. That parking you are adding is obviously for storage right because no one can get out. The new landscaping doesn't require any variances, it all meets. We don't have any requests to vary any landscaping requirements? Carnagey: No. Bunch: Commissioners, do you feel comfortable taking care of this at this level? I don't see any need to send it forward to the full Planning Commission, or is this one of those that we are required to take care of at this level? Warrick: No, this is a new Large Scale. You have the option. Staff is recommending it because there are no waivers or outstanding issues. We feel that it is a pretty complete project so you have the option. If you feel like you are ready to you can approve it at this level. If you feel uncomfortable with that you certainly have the ability to forward it. Allen: I think the main concern when we discussed this before was the location of the test track and I think the fact that it has been relocated, I would feel comfortable with approving it at this level. Bunch: I think before it just almost wound up being eliminated. Allen: I really like your idea of the fencing, I think that's really important. Ostner: I agree. Bunch: Do we have any motions? MOTION: Ostner: The Quonset but was a bone of contention a couple of months ago and that has been removed. I will make a motion that we approve at this level LSD 04-06.00. Bunch: Do you want to add a condition in for the fencing to be negotiated with staff? Ostner: Yes. Condition number nine would read a requirement for a vehicular barrier or fence to be installed between the test track and the tree preservation area to be negotiated with staff for the purpose of protecting that area from vehicles specifically. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 37 Bunch: Can we go ahead and put wetland/tree preservation area? Ostner: Call that the wetland tree preservation area. Bunch: I think it encompasses both. Allen: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Staff, is that alright to have you all go ahead and work that out? Pate: Yes Sir. The minutes will reflect the Commissioner's intent. Bunch: Do you feel like you need any other comments on what type of fence or anything? Crafton: I think we've got it worked out. Thank you. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 38 PPL 04-02.00: Preliminary Plat (Elder Apts., pp 401) was submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of C & K Properties for property located north of Wedington Drive on Salem Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains approximately 8.32 acres. The request is to replat the subject property into two tracts of 4.77 and 3.55 acres respectively. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is PPL 04-02.00 for Elder Apartments on Wedington Drive and Salem Road. Jeremy, can you tell us about this project please Sir? Pate: Yes Sir. The applicant is requesting to subdivide the subject tract of 8.32 acres into two lots, lot one which is the northern lot of 4.77 acres zoned R - O, Residential Office. The proposed lot two to the south which fronts onto Wedington, the existing zoning for that parcel is C-1 which is Neighborhood Commercial. This site is surrounded to the north by the Walnut Heights subdivision, to the south by various businesses zoned partially R -A and some R -O zoning. To the east is the Arkansas National Bank and Salem Road there. To the west is single family residents and that is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. There are no street improvements recommended at this time by staff. That will most likely be recommended at the time of development for either of these tracts. 55' of right of way along Wedington Drive will need to be dedicated by Warranty Deed and a minimum of 35' along Salem Road by plat. There is a lot of background with this particular piece of property. It has been before the Planning Commission and the City Council in previous years for at least two rezoning requests, a Lot Split, Large Scale Development, and most recently, a Preliminary Plat in pretty much the exact same configuration that we are looking at. Again, the property is currently zoned R -O to the north and C-1 to the south as indicated on the plat. In 1998 a Lot Split and Large Scale Development was processed to create and approve the development of the Arkansas National Bank at the northwest corner of Salem Road and Wedington. In 2002 a Preliminary Plat was approved by the Planning Commission to split this remaining tract into the same configuration. This approval has expired. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a Preliminary Plat for a similar lot configuration. The reason that this is going through a Preliminary Plat as opposed to a standard Lot Split is that with the conditions of approval for the bank lot split it was required that any development or splits of these lots be considered as a plat for subdivision purposes. In staff's research of all of these actions, the rezoning request, the Lot Split, the Large Scale, etc., the minutes and staff reports consistently reflected a condition of approval and discussion by the Planning Commission for determination of street improvements and right of way dedication for a future street connecting Salem Road and Wedington Drive. Additional curb cuts onto Salem Road and Wedington Drive are not allowed per the Planning Commission's approvals through previous actions. There are two existing curb cuts that stub out to serve Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 39 the development on the subject 8.32 acre tract. Staff is recommending that a 50' wide right of way be dedicated with the current proposal for this Preliminary Plat connecting Salem Road and Wedington Drive and that at the time of development a public street will be required to be built connecting the existing curb cuts with future development. Staff is recommending that this item be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with the following conditions. There are ten conditions. Planning Commission determination of street improvements and/or right of way dedication for a future street connecting Salem Road and Wedington Drive. Again, the Lot Split approval for the Arkansas National Bank required the street be built when the subject tract was subdivided. Staff, however, is recommending that the right of way only be dedicated at this time to connect Salem Road and Wedington and that construction of that street be delayed until such time as future development occurs on either tract. Item two is just to reiterate a condition that has been previously approved by the Planning Commission, that additional curb cuts shall not be permitted onto Salem Road or Wedington Drive. All future infrastructure improvements shall submit both a tree preservation plan and detailed landscape plan. There are a couple of plat comments that I won't go over. I will mention also, that I have included not all, but a lot of the information from previous actions. The Lot Split and Large Scale Development that I mentioned, here are the minutes and staff reports detailing those conditions of approval that the Planning Commission placed on those actions in your packets. Additionally, on page five or six, there was mention of a potential street off of the Salem Road existing driveway there. Staff at this time is not recommending that a street be connected to the west to cross the property. Again, we are only recommending that right of way be dedicated basically along the northern and western boundary of the existing Arkansas National Bank tract to ensure that proper connections can be made between those two existing drives. Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any additional staff comments? At this time we wilt turn it over to the applicant. If you would introduce yourselves and tell us about your project. Moore: I'm Brian Moore with Engineering Services, the engineer for the project. Carrie Elder is the applicant, she is sitting to my right and I think you all know Mr. Lee Ward there on the far right. I think Jeremy did a pretty good job of explaining the project. We passed out a few new documents showing kind of what we are planning on the 4.77 acres to give you all an idea of where we are on the curb cut issue as well as the road issue. I don't know if Carrie wants to address that or Lee. Elder: I really would like to point out something. In the documentation you are calling them apartments. They are not apartments, they are Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 40 condominiums. We are asking to get a Conditional Use to construct 64 condominiums which will have a value of approximately $85,000 to $90,000. They will be purchased individually so they will be owner occupied. We believe that this is a good way to address a need for affordable housing in that area and in Fayetteville as well. Affordable yet we will build them with high quality and very upscale. The reason why I'm telling you all of this is I think for the original determination of the Preliminary Plat has changed, we are wanting to do residential verses commercial on there so the issue of the curb cut now is relevant because we need it for this condominium neighborhood. This is going to be a neighborhood of condominiums and they need their own entrance. They don't need to make, we don't feel, six or seven turns to get into their property. We thought that it was important that you all understand that they are not, these are not apartments. We wanted to show you the quality of what we are trying to accomplish from the outside. We will do extensive landscaping which you all have recommended, we will of course do that and extensive fencing. We are also very conscientious about parking and I want to note that although these are 1,300 sq.ft. they are only two bedrooms. The reason why we did that was to try to limit the number of residents that would be occupying these condominiums. We wanted to keep that to a minimum and then we went to the extent of providing three spaces, which is well beyond what we will be required to do. We did that to make sure that everybody that lives here is within their parameters, they don't branch out into any of the other neighborhoods. We think, we really believe that this will enhance the property values in that entire area because of the nature of the neighborhood. We think that it is very, very important for a couple of reasons that I will share that we get this curb cut here. The first reason, as I pointed out, if we go along with bringing the road in this way they are going to have to make three turns just to get into the property. That is the residents and ambulance, fire, police, anything that would need to get in there. They are making five or six turns to get to the resident. We think that that is a safety issue, a danger traffic wise. That, plus the fact that what would be the real purpose of that anyway if this is going to be commercial we don't see now what's the vision of the purpose of it ending here if it is never going to access. For this use we are not seeing that that would serve a purpose other than to create more congestion than is needed for this neighborhood and others as well. We are asking that you all would not only approve us to go forward but that you would approve us for the curb cut on Salem. Bunch: Would this right of way still be dedicated and everything to where this could hook up but just allow the new curb cut? Elder: I don't believe we are able to do that on this particular layout. No, we would not want to allow 50'. It is completely on this lot. None of the 50' Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 41 lies on the property that is now occupied by the bank. It is all on this north piece, we are not sharing it. Ostner: This drawing for your condos is the northern lot? Elder: Yes. Ostner: Jeremy, staff is suggesting recommending what about the right of way, that it basically circle Arkansas National Bank? Pate: Yes. At this time while these drawings are relevant, this is probably more relevant to the Conditional Use request that you will see at the Planning Commission level. It will kind of be in tandem with this Preliminary Plat. What we are reviewing right now, and staff's comments, are based on the plat before us and the recommendations and conditions of approval that the Planning Commission has placed upon this entire piece of property, which was at one time one piece. Staff is recommending, there is an access easement currently. There is a stubbed out driveway to the north of the Arkansas National Bank tract and one to the west of the Arkansas National Bank tract. Staff is recommending that 50' of right of way be dedicated, basically following that property line around so that a public street could connect Salem Road and Wedington Drive so that potentially future development could then access that interior public street as opposed to accessing directly onto Salem Road or onto Wedington Drive. That is really the issue with the Preliminary Plat that we are dealing with today. Bunch: For interior circulation? Pate: Yes Sir. Elder: For Commercial. I think that was originally the vision when this was all being considered for almost an "L" shaped commercial kind of development. Now doing residential here that vision is changing so we are hoping that you all will see the need to change that as well. Ward: I will go ahead and give my two cents worth on it. Back in 1998 and also 2002 when Mr. Rodgers owned the property brought this to us the original concept of this was to use it as strictly commercial. As Planning Commissioners, we all knew and staff, that probably the back property back here where those families are going to be was going to be a couple or three office buildings. A curb cut coming off of Salem and one curb cut coming off of Wedington would be more than sufficient to handle a couple or three office buildings back here. When you put 64 family units back here it changes the whole concept of what he envisioned, although he passed away last year. It changed totally the concept of what I thought it would be or what he envisioned it to be either one. I think I see the real Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 42 problem is just a lot of turns and turns and more turns to get into the project as compared to one straight shot in there. Especially when we are talking about trash trucks, fire trucks, even the residences. For them to make all of the turns to get to their home it just doesn't make good planning sense. It is not something that makes a lot of sense. Also, Jeremy, on number five, kind of go over that again about the additional right of way that you are asking for on Hwy. 16. We only have the use and are looking at buying the north half of that property which has nothing to do with the property the Rodgers' still own on Hwy. 16. I'm not sure we can require his widow to dedicate that right of way. It is not like we have control over that part of the property. It is something that we can ask for from them and they might be willing to do it but we're not really involved in that piece. Warrick: The Planning Commission is required to approve a Preliminary Plat in order to create the tracts of land that you are interested in. A condition of a Preliminary Plat under state law is dedication of appropriate right of way to meet the Master Street Plan requirements. Should the applicant choose not to dedicate according to the Master Street Plan the City Council must approve a lesser dedication. If your proposal would be not to meet that 55' requirement it would require a City Council action. Ward: What I'm trying to comprehend is we are only buying property on Salem, we are not buying any property on Wedington. Pate: As of right now there is no legal lot on just this legal tract, the 4.77 acres, it is all one legally described tract. To actually split out that lot and record it legally a Preliminary Plat process is required. Therefore, we are looking at the entire tract for the purposes of meeting those requirements. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the issue of PPL 04-2.00 in the vicinity of Wedington and Salem Road? If you would please come forward, tell us who you are and give us the benefit of your comments please. Mabie: Basically, we are both property owners on the north side of this plot. I'm Monica Mabie and this is Jon Ketzler. We are just here basically to voice our concerns about multi -family housing going in on the side of our single family homes. I feel a little better since you said that these are condominiums. We've been told they are apartment complexes. I'm worried about transients and crime and noise and privacy issues and all of that kind of stuff. These are upscale? Elder: If you would like I will give you a little more description of even the interior. They will be 1,300 sq.ft. on the inside. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 43 Mabie: That is comparable to most of the houses along there. Elder: Yes, they will be comparable to most of the houses. Mabie: These will not be rental units? Elder: Right. Mabie: Will they be one level or two? Elder: They will be two. If you notice on the plan, the second level is under the roof. It is not like the second level is exposed. It appears to be a single level, the bedrooms are underneath the existing roof. Bunch: There is nothing to preclude that these are rentals if someone bought several units and decided to rent them. Ward: Sure, there are houses out there that people rent too. Bunch: Is there any other public comment? Ketzler: The other thing that we were kind of concerned about is the right of way. On the description that we received on the letter that we received I think the right of way was only like 8' some odd inches, at least that's what we were interpreting. I'm just kind of wondering, that's not really large enough to get a fire truck or anything down through that right of way and we use that right of way now. That's an open field and so we do use that right of way periodically and we were kind of wondering how large of a right of way are they going to give us, are they going to give us an alley way or exactly what are they going to give us across the back part of our property there? Elder: Do you mean behind? Ketzler: Yes. Elder: Can you see the layouts here, Salem Road is on the right side. Bunch: Are you talking about access easement as opposed to a right of way? Elder: I think he means setback. Are you talking about a setback, how far the building will setback off your property? Ketzler: What I'm talking about is how much right of way are we going to have from our fence line to the property line? Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 44 Elder: That's setback. 15' would be the minimum but I believe we've got that drawn as 25', that's our intent. Bunch: Right now we're looking at a Preliminary Plat. When it gets to the Planning Commission we will have both a Preliminary Plat and a Conditional Use. Pate: There is a Conditional Use request in process right now that will be heard at the same Planning Commission meeting as this subject. Bunch: Then it will have to come back again as a Large Scale Development? Pate: If the Planning Commission approves that use, correct. It is an R -O District right now they are requesting multi -family units in an R -O District which requires Conditional Use Permits. Bunch: Do you all understand that? Ketzler: I think. Our property is right there on the very end of that division there. What my concern was that if we came down through there if it was wide enough you would have to back all the way back, you'd have to have a turn around or I don't quite understand, are they going to come through with a street and connect Wedington? Right now if we have a fire or something down through there you can bring a truck down through the back. If we didn't have the right of way large enough you wouldn't be able to get a truck down through there. I'm pleased that the condominium concept is coming. We were concerned with rentals. Thank you. Bunch: Is there any additional public comment? Again, there will be some additional opportunities for public comment. This is a Preliminary Plat and the next normal stage would be to forward it to the full Planning Commission. There is a Conditional Use that is being processed that will come before the full Planning Commission at the same time that this does if it is moved forward. That Conditional Use has to do with the residential applications in an R -O District. Those two will have to be heard at the full Planning Commission and then there will be a Large Scale Development if that is all approved. I will bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Apparently, the item of contention is we talked about the street right of way on Wedington. Let's talk about the curb cuts and the road around the bank. Apparently you all don't agree with it. I think you've stated your case. Jeremy, do you have any additional comments based on what has been presented this morning? Has anything been presented that is new to you that would alter the staff recommendation? Pate: No Sir. Again, we are basing this on the Planning Commission determinations from the past, as well as our charge to provide adequate Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 45 means of access to these properties. Again, there have been previous actions that have said the Planning Commission has determined that no additional curb cuts could occur on Salem Road and Wedington Drive. We are basing many of our decisions off of that. Additionally, in some of the minutes here you can see that across this proposed property line here in the past there was discussion with the Planning Commission and the applicant at that time, Mr. Rodgers, to dedicate right of way and construct a street to the western property line. At this time staff does not feel that that is appropriate because we believe that adequate access can be maintained with just connecting this existing driveway from Wedington to Salem because then that will allow two means of access from this property which is in keeping with what the Fire Department has required in the past. They have made comments on this particular Conditional Use request as well which you will see at the Planning Commission. For this number of units that is proposed with the Conditional Use they are going to require two means of access into and out of this property. Potentially this could provide a portion of that. Bunch: Could you all tell us how your layout fits into that? It looks like some of these places could be accesses. Elder: We would be willing to stub out for future access any of these. This one I think actually lines up with the street that you are wanting along side the bank. Ward: We definitely want cross access. Elder: Yes, we are for that. To eliminate this and just come in here I don't see cross access anyway. I don't know what will happen with this piece of property. Looking at it, a road coming in here would be more a service in my mind than here but that's neither here nor there. If I was looking at that to build offices on I would rather have access where I could build on either side of that street. Bunch: Looking to the future, Salem Road, I think our Master Street Plan proposes it to go to the north to connect to the rest of Salem Road. It will become in time a busy, busy street. Of course we all know what Hwy. 16 West is like and it is going to continue getting busier so I can see the rational about limiting these curb cuts. Ostner: Also, the future, I understand that you all don't own that southern tract but with this plan that you all have people coming south on Salem wanting to access that southern tract would cut through your development, which is really not safe. This interior parking area would turn into a street for people just to get here safely. No one wants to get out on Wedington and turn right back in. That's the hang up I'm having. Vice versa it works too Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 46 but southern traffic heading south on Salem needs a safe public right of way to access that other tract. Ward: I think the main thing is the residence living there shouldn't have to go all the way out on Salem, all the way out on Wedington just to get to a shopping center backdoor, let's say a drycleaners or something that develops out there. We are looking for some kind of cross access as that other tract out front develops depending on what it is and how it lays out. There are a lot of places where we can stub in or have cross access into it. It is pretty important when you have 64 family units to have more than one way in and out. Bunch: We are talking about a couple of different things here. One is cross access but the other is also the primary access. Ward: Like I said, the main reason we are interested in the curb cut on Salem compared to where it was originally planned is just a matter of it is going to take somebody going to their home coming off of Wedington, they are going to have to make six turns to get to their home. That's just not good planning. Bunch: As it stands, that would come across here to some point. Ward: Right now it is right here so they would come off Wedington, turn left, turn right, turn left, turn right and turn left again. They would just keep turning to get in there. Ostner: I think I would disagree that straight shots through apartments, well these aren't apartments, but condos, I don't think straight shots through there are safe. That's a good traffic calming measure inside multi -family units is turns. Elder: This is not multi -family. Ostner: The buildings are multi -family. Elder: Yeah, ok. Can I say this? If we were allowed this curb cut it is the building of the street for something that is the future that also has concern. This building could be turned and leave that stub for future and give the right of way if we could still have this access the curb cut and not have to construct the public street at this point in time. Bunch: That makes a lot more sense. If you had the dedicated right of way and left this access here and then turned that building. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 47 Elder: If we could get an additional curb cut then that would not be a problem at all. The economics of it, we reduced our number of units from we started out with 72 or 75, whatever was permissible under the Conditional Use and we have reduced it to try to not have too many people living in this neighborhood. We've done all we could to economically come up with a good neighborhood that everyone would be proud of in that area. Bunch: How does that fit in with the distance between curb cuts and that sort of thing? What's staff consideration with this alternate proposal? Pate: Again, we are not processing a Large Scale Development yet here so it has not been engineered. Detention requirements have not been shown, street improvements have not been recommended by our Engineering staff. That would really come at the time of development for the subject tract. The use has not been approved on this subject tract. In all actuality, the subject tract doesn't exist as of right now. We are really making a recommendation for this entire 8.32 acres to provide the access means, not the construction of the street at this time, but at the time of development the street would then probably be recommended to be constructed within that right of way. Bunch: On the Preliminary Plat all we are talking about is the easement for it. Elder: Ok, I think I misunderstood that. Moore: At Large Scale they are going to request that. Elder: That is what we can't economically see at this point. Warrick: If it was looked at in its entirety but this applicant only wishes to look at 4.77 acres. There is no need to look at a PZD for a single use one lot development that should be able to comply with all of the conventional zoning standards. Mr. Chair, if I might add one thing. We've been talking about the previous use or the previous consideration on the northern tract. In 1998 when the Planning Commission approved the Lot Split to create the lot for the bank the northern tract was zoned R-2, which is now RMF - 24, 24 units per acre. That is when the condition originated that no additional curb cuts be allowed on Salem or Wedington and that we review this project as a Preliminary Plat and at such time in the future that any division of property was requested. We have been, that was allowing for 114 units on that northern tract of land. Since that time the property, the northern tract, was rezoned to an R -O designation and we are still looking at a residential proposal on that property of a lesser density. However, the statements made with regard to consideration of additional curb cuts being based on that being an office development are not really accurate because those decisions were made when that property allowed Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 48 for 114 multi -family residential units. We are trying to be consistent with that. We are trying to ensure that we have appropriate access management on both Salem Road and Wedington Drive because additional curb cuts mean additional traffic conflicts. Again, as Jeremy stated, what we are trying to do with this action today is to ensure the proper division of property to create the piece of land that the applicant wishes to develop. We have not reviewed plans for a Large Scale Development but in all reality, they should follow the subdivision of the property and be responsive to what the Planning Commission requires for the appropriate subdivision of the total tract. If that includes right of way dedications or some improvements then the development should be a reaction to the planning of the subdivision. Right now what we are trying to do is have the development drive the subdivision. While it is appropriate to look at it all together. Overall, we don't even have an approved use on the northern tract except for a Residential Office development. That is what the underlying zoning is right now. Bunch: Thank you. Are there any additional comments? Ostner: I understand this is five carts in front of the horse. This idea of allowing this curb cut while still leaving that right of way concerns me because they are way too close together and that is dangerous and also it is a waste of money, it is a waste of construction, it is a waste of land, you are duplicating your entrance. Your entrance is safer off an interior street than it is off here even though it looks convenient. It could look the same and you just make one more turn. I know that turns don't see very popular. Elder: Construction of a public street is expensive. Ostner: Absolutely. I think it is important for that street to provide access to land that is off your development. Bunch: Without engineering studies we don't know if this is going to be the same number of buildings because with the detention ponds and such it could wipe out a whole block of them. This is a pretty flat area with not the greatest drainage. Ward: It actually slopes down. This is setting up pretty high, it really drains to the southwest real fast. Allen: This plan says 58 town homes and then this says 64. Elder: That is the updated, we could do the 64 with the 50'. We revamped our buildings to try to do that. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 49 Bunch: This is added information, we are still looking at a Preliminary Plat with a right of way and a road to be built there. Obviously, we have two strong schools of thought on this and we are not going to be able to resolve any of it so much at this level so the question becomes how strongly does the applicant want to pursue this and if we send it forward to the Planning Commission it would be with no recommendation. It would be just to send it forward to give you due process to plea your case before the full Commission as opposed to three members of it. Ward: We were hoping to beg and plea until you all agreed with us to make a recommendation to approve our idea but if not then we ask you to go ahead and forward it anyway and maybe we can beg and plea up there and maybe have some better ideas. Warrick: With the restriction placed on the Preliminary Plat that no additional curb cuts are allowed, the Planning Commission makes that restriction, the Planning Commission can change that restriction if you feel that an appropriate plan is provided to you in the future through looking at a Large Scale by amending that Preliminary Plat. Making the condition now doesn't restrict you from any consideration of an alternative in the future. Bunch: But it would have to be at the Planning Commission level? Warrick: Absolutely. I just hate to make decisions based on plans that may or may not function. We have to start somewhere. We've got to have a lot that exists and right of way that is appropriately placed on the Preliminary Plat. Then we can start looking at how the development can fit in response to the infrastructure that is necessary for the Preliminary. MOTION: Allen: Knowing that you can plead your case at the full Planning Commission, I think I will make a motion with these conditions as they are that we forward PPL 04-02.00 subject to the ten conditions of approval to the Planning Commission. Ostner: I will second that motion. Bunch: I will concur. I think that if you know what the ground rules are and what ballpark you're playing in that gives you a certain amount of latitude on potential redesigns to come up with something. You don't have hopefully a lot invested on engineering and that sort of thing for a Large Scale Development at this point. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 50 Allen: Also, speaking as one only I think there is a need for a condominium in this price range in Fayetteville. Bunch: The concept is very attractive. I think you are trying to address a need that is definitely an existing need and you are to be commended on. It is just going to be tough to do it on this particular piece of property with the constraints that appear to be on this property. While you have us here are there any questions that you want to ask us or any comments or anything? Ward: I don't think so. I think it is a really unique project. It is in the right area for what needs to be done. I think this is the way for affordable housing for Fayetteville in the future. We've talked about it and talked about it and I don't see another concept that will work for affordable housing. The average cost of a home today is about $150,000 to $155,000 and this comes in at half that much with maybe a nicer home, definitely a nicer home, with a lot less maintenance. Bunch: It is definitely a good concept and something that is needed. The question becomes is this the right location for it and how to make it work on this location. Ward: We appreciate it, thank you so much. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 51 PPL 04-03.00: Preliminary Plat (Grand Valley Stables, pp 103) was submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Terminella & Associates for property located along the north side of Guy Terry Rd. at Howard Porter Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 70.29 acres. The request is to allow development of a residential subdivision with 24 single-family lots proposed. PPL 04-04.00: Preliminary Plat (Grand Valley Estates, pp 104) was submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Terminella & Associates for property located along the north side of Guy Terry Road, east of the intersection of Howard Porter Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 77.67 acres. The request is to allow development of 24 single-family lots proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda, we actually have two items that are related. I guess we could hear them both more or less simultaneously but we will have to rule on them separately but it is the same people involved. Warrick: They are very similar projects and they are the same applicant. The properties are not contiguous, they are not adjacent so it is important to look at them somewhat individually but yes, let's talk about them together. Bunch: They are in the same general area but maybe a half mile apart in a rural setting. That being said, we will look at PPL 04-03.00 and PPL 04-04.00 for Grand Valley Stables and Grand Valley Estates in the vicinity of Guy Terry Road. Suzanne, do you have the staff reports on these? Morgan: I'll try to do them one at a time and simultaneously to try to get them both. Grand Valley Stables is a proposal for a residential subdivision on 70.29 acres with 24 single family lots proposed. It is located north of Guy Terry Road in the Planning Area, as well as Grand Valley Estates. These 20 lots are ranging in size from 1.50 acres in size with four lots ranging in size from 8.82 acres to 10.56 acres. There are four parcels that consist of this proposal. The right of way to be dedicated is 35' from centerline of Guy Terry Road. 50' of right of way is shown for all interior streets. However, the county requires 60' of right of way for all streets, this also applies to Grand Valley Estates. The applicant is providing a looped street with two accesses to Guy Terry Road. The applicant has shown that the terrain would not create a suitable connection to the east from this subdivision or to the west from Grand Valley Estates. As such, staff is removing the recommendation for connectivity. However, we have addressed any future division. Any connectivity which might be required for future division on this property with condition number one. Let me review he particulars for Grand Valley Estates really quickly. Everything is pretty much similar to Grand Valley Stables. 24 lots are also being proposed for Grand Valley Estates on 77.67 acres ranging in size from smaller 1.66 acre lots to approximately 7 or 8 acre lots. Four being large and the other 20 being smaller sized lots. There are 12 conditions for Grand Valley Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 52 Stables. Any future division of the property to create new lots shall be reviewed for right of way connectivity and access with appropriate dedications and infrastructure development which may be required to serve additional lots. Condition three, all interior rights of way shall be 60'. Condition number five, gated subdivisions shall not be permitted on public roads within the county. There is an attached county ordinance regarding gated communities and it is my understanding that both of these are intended to be gated. Condition six, Washington County approval will be required prior to signing of the Final Plat. No structure shall be located within the easement. There is an existing structure on Lot 14 shown in an easement. Finally, the existing septic tanks for lot 24 need to be shown. The conditions for Grand Valley Estates are very similar to those for Grand Valley Stables. The first of which, would be any future division of the property staff would be able to review for right of way connectivity at that time. In addition to those stated for Grand Valley Stables, the existing home on lot 1 is to be identified if it is to remain and to show the existing septic system on that lot. Bunch: Thanks Suzanne. Matt, are there any Engineering comments on these? Casey: I would like to add a condition to each of the projects that an 8" water line will need to be extended from offsite to serve the developments. That will be the case for both subdivisions. Bunch: Thank you. Brian, if you would introduce yourself and tell us about your proj ects. Moore: I am Brian Moore with Engineering Services. This is Tom Terminella, the developer for both Grand Valley Stables and Grand Valley Estates. I get them confused so I'm sure you are going to too. Suzanne did a great job. We are trying to have gated communities. We didn't know about the ordinance that you couldn't have so I think the fix to that is to have these as private streets instead of county roads so we can have the gated communities. I know that Celia is here. Bunch: Celia, why don't you come on up to the table and join in with us here. Moore: That's really the only issues that we have with any of the comments, we can address all of the others. Silkwood: You are going to be required to build the road to county standards even though it is a private road. Are you doing curb and gutter or are you doing shoulders? Moore: We are going to do shoulders. Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 53 Silkwood: Do you know how awful those are really, seriously? They are awful. You are going to sell these lots for this big high dollar and then you are going to build a road that has a gravel shoulder. Bunch: At this time I will take public comment, is there anyone who would like to address the issues of Grand Valley Estates and Grand Valley Stables? Seeing none, I will bring it back. Silkwood: I just have another issue. I talked to Brian about this and I actually went out there. Stables is the west one and Estates is the east one, one of them those back lots drop off but the other one they don't but I am just afraid that in the future you will be seeing these lot split requests for these back lots. Terminella: I am going to retain ownership of that. That will be my personal dwelling. Moore: Actually Celia, both of them drop off. Silkwood: I couldn't see it on the first one. Moore: I can show you the contours. From the street we are at 1360 down to 1210 on this one. That's the stables and on this one we go from 1340 down to 1170. Both of them drop off 100'. Silkwood: I just see this a lot where there are these bigger lots and then you end up dividing them and there are these private roads and then there is a call from the judge saying fix these roads. Moore: Can we note on the plat that lots 7, 8, 9, and 10 can not be split in the future or something like that? Silkwood: Sure you can do that. Terminella: If they are we can address the access issue there at that time. In theory there are 30 acres there that will have two dwellings on and they are already spoken for. Silkwood: In 50 years when we are all gone. Terminella: I agree with you, that's why I think it is appropriate to put something as a caveat should they be subdivided in the future that connectivity be handled. Silkwood: You guys are not recommending any right of way dedication at all? Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 54 Warrick: Not at this time. Our condition is that future splits requests in the future would be looked at for future right of way connectivity access issues. If these are private streets that makes it a little bit more complicated but I talked with Mr. Terminella about this extensively as well and our original thought was we need to look at it. The nature of what they are trying to do here and his assurances that there will be notes on the plat and assurances in the covenants included in our packet, there is pretty strong language about these lots not being split and if they are that they understand and the buyers understand that we will certainly look at connectivity and infrastructure development at that time. Bunch: Since these are in the growth area, our main concern as the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee are just access and utilities. The notes are on the drawings, if that is a condition of approval that those notes be on there then about all we are looking at is utilities. Just one question I have is you are showing an 8" water line existing. Moore: Those are actually proposed. Terminella: It is 6,700' roughly that we will be building and giving to the city with our loads at the appropriate locations. Bunch: Then you will actually be completely spanning these two and what's in between them. Terminella: Yes Sir, it is about a quarter of a mile, which is Mike Terry and Donna Terry which is the son and daughter in law of the ruler there, Guy Terry. Bunch: You are showing proposed and then an existing. Moore: There is actually an existing 2" or 3" line there is all it is. Bunch: Ok, so you are upgrading it with an 8"? Moore: That is correct. Terminella: The parcel that sits between these two proposed projects is a Mike and Donna's farm. The topography is such and the lake area which is here, that it really doesn't lend itself to having stub outs and connectivity because of topography change. On the north end as well as the east and west. Like I said, the water issue we will be doing that as a condition of the overall approval of the development. Bunch: Most of the comments on this is one that you would have with Celia, I appreciate you coming in and giving us the benefit of your comments here Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 55 because we are pretty limited in what we could do but it still needs to dovetail with what you are doing. It is potentially an urban area. Ostner: Since we are contiguous with the city limits, I understand that we are in the growth area. Warrick: They are not contiguous with the city limits. Bunch: It is quite a ways out. Ostner: Ok, so you are a mile away? Moore: Yes, Copper Creek Phase II is the closest to the city limits. Warrick: If this was contiguous with the city limits city street standards, full city street standards would be in affect and we would look at it with a higher degree of scrutiny. Detention would be required. Ostner: We wouldn't require annexation, it would still be up to them. Warrick: Correct, we would not require that it be annexed but there are different levels of regulation when the property directly adjoins the city limits. Bunch: Are there any additional questions or comments? Ostner: Yes, I just want to understand. I don't think that there are any truly gated communities in Fayetteville or the Growth Area that I know of so this would be the first. The streets are built to county standards, which they have a choice, and they are doing a ditch, and there will be a gate with access restricting. I just want to understand that. Bunch: That will come under the county's jurisdiction as to how the gates are accessed for emergency. Silkwood: You should talk to the Fire Marshall. Bunch: Obviously, Fayetteville also. Terminella: We are developing the land north of there and providing a new fire station for Springdale, a location that we have offered them not more than a half mile away so we will have good fire protection. It is actually in Springdale's school district and Fayetteville's Growth Area, south of the water service district boundary line, it all comes together there. We have held off from annexing additional ground that we have while we worked with city planning staff to work on utility and infrastructure and water and Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 56 sewer and things of that nature as well. We are sensitive on the needs in that part of the world. Pate: Dawn, would it be appropriate for Celia to be in an access easement as opposed to right of way that is being dedicated on the plat? Warrick: I think that would probably be standard. Silkwood: No, it needs to be right of way. Warrick: Even if it is a private street development? Silkwood: Yes. Terminella: I don't have a problem with that. Bunch: Are there any conditions of approval that you object to or are you alright with everything? Terminella: Everything is fine. Silkwood: These two projects will be going to the Planning Board March 4`h Ostner: They will have to go to the Planning Commission as well. Warrick: They will be at the February 23rd meeting. Moore: We will actually come here before we go to the Planning Board. Warrick: Which is appropriate. Silkwood: Could I request a copy of the staff report for these projects and the minutes? MOTION: Ostner: I was going to make a motion that we forward PPL 04-03.00 with the added condition number 13 of extending the 8" water line to serve all developments. Do we need a 14 about any future? Warrick: It is item number one. Allen: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Is there a motion on Grand Valley Estates? Subdivision Committee February 12, 2004 Page 57 MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we forward PPL 04-04.00 to the full Planning Commission with the added condition of approval that we extend the 8" water line to serve the development. Allen: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Announcements Bunch: Ok, is there any other new business to come before the Subdivision Committee? Seeing none, we stand adjourned.