Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-04 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Friday, June 4, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSP 04-1067: (MAGUIRE) Page 2 LSP 04-1076: (PETRINO) Page 5 PPL 04-1081: (SUNDANCE MEADOWS) Page LSD 04-1065: (FAY. AIRPORT FUELING SYSTEM) Page 15 ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Forwarded Approved LSD 04-1078: (BOTANICAL GARDENS OF THE OZARKS) Forwarded Page 17 LSD 04-1082: (LOT 17E RESTAURANT) Page 24 R-PZD 04-1075: (CAMBRIDGE CROSSING) Page 32 MEMBERS PRESENT Alan Ostner Jill Anthes Candy Clark STAFF PRESENT Craig Camagey Dawn Warrick Jeremy Pate Rebecca Ohman Matt Casey Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Approved Forwarded MEMBERS ABSENT Loren Shackelford Christian Vaught STAFF ABSENT Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 2 LSP 04-1067: Lot Split (MAGUIRE): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at THE SW CORNER OF HWY 16E AT MALLY WAGNON ROAD. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1. 15 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 0.807 and 0.344 acres respectively. Pate: gas station. The site is currently fully developed with the existing store and gasoline service station on the proposed tract IA and then the automobile wash station on the proposed tract 1B to the west. The existing structures are currently non -conforming. Their situation on the lot places them within the building setbacks. However, the subdivision of this lot does not exasperate that situation at all. A self service auto wash is allowed only in conjunction with a gasoline service station in a C-1 zoning district. Removal or discontinued use of the gasoline service station will create a non -conforming use of the auto wash which then could not be expanded at a future date. Water lines do existing along Hwy. 16 and Mally Wagnon Road serving the properties individually. A 4" private sewer service line currently extends from Mally Wagnon onto tract 1B which is not allowed by ordinance. As mentioned in the conditions of approval, the applicant or developer prior to filing the Lot Split will need to extend a public sanitary sewer main or additional private service line which does not cross the property lines to serve the new tract 1 B. Right of way is currently not required to be dedicated with this Lot Split. The lot is fully developed. The future Master Street Plan right of way will be shown on the plat but it will not be dedicated at this time. Staff is recommending approval of LSP 04-1067 with five conditions. The first just mentions the revisions about the additional right of way. Just show the future Master Street Plan right of way on the plat. Second, future expansion, reconstruction or new construction on either tract is required to comply with Master Street Plan right of way and building setback regulations at the time of development. Third, mentions the public sanitary sewer main extension. Anthes: Are there any other staff reports? Tom, do you want to make your presentation? Jefcoat: I think Jeremy did an adequate job. It is a simple Lot Split. We are looking at bringing the sanitary sewer from the south. The applicant is aware of all of the conditions and accepts those. Anthes: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this Lot Split? Seeing none, I will bring it back Committee for discussion. Ostner: I have a question. On this condition of approval number two, future expansion, reconstruction or new construction shall comply with the Master Street Plan right of way, what does that mean exactly? Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 3 Warrick: That means the setback is extended to accommodate the Master Street Plan so the setbacks are greater if there is not adequate right of way according to that Master Plan. Ostner: I see. The way that it is built now does not comply with the future. Warrick: It does not comply with the future Master Street Plan right of way setbacks. Clark: All you are asking is to draw a line and separate the lot. I am assuming it is going to be a continued use of what they are doing now. Jefcoat: Yes. Anthes: I would like you to discuss the requirements of a C-1 zoning district and these uses. Pate: Certainly. The existing use of a car wash is allowed in the C-1 zoning district but only in conjunction with a gasoline service station. These two have to be a pair to be allowed to operate in a C-1 zoning district. In a C-2 they can then operate separately. If, for instance, the existing gasoline convenience store does go out of business the car wash then would be considered a non -conforming use and could not be expanded in the future. Anthes: My question is if these are split are they going to be sold to different owners? Pate: The ordinance doesn't prohibit that. They are still in conjunction here. They are still utilized in conjunction with the gasoline service station. Anthes: It doesn't matter about ownership, it just matters about use. Is that why you are requesting this Lot Split? Jefcoat: Yes, it will be leased and operated separately. Clark: If the gas station goes out of business they are either going to have to rezone this or go out of business? Pate: It can continue as a non -conforming use but they can never expand. Clark: Ok, that makes sense to me. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 4 MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve at this level LSP 04-1067 with the five conditions of approval listed. Clark: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page S PPL 04-1081: Preliminary Plat (SUNDANCE MEADOWS): Submitted by GEOFFREY BATES for property located at W TACKETT AND GENEVIEVE AVE, S OF WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 7.90 acres. The request is to approve the development of a subdivision with 25 single family dwellings proposed. Anthes: Item three is a Preliminary Plat for Sundance Meadows. Will the applicant come forward please? Pate: The subject property located at West Tackett and Genevieve Avenue has been before the Subdivision Committee several different times in different forms. Primarily that was for a rezoning request and a Planned Zoning District request. At this time the applicant is requesting a Preliminary Plat approval for a residential subdivision with 25 single family lots proposed. The 26`h lot would be utilized for detention. The vacant site is located on the west side of Fayetteville south of Wedington Drive fronting onto West Tackett Drive and Genevieve Avenue. Immediate surrounding properties are primarily single family and agricultural in nature. There are some two family homes in the vicinity on larger lots. The subject tract has been to the full Planning Commission in the past year for rezonings. It was rezoned on April 20, 2004 from R -A to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre on a 9-0-0 vote by the Planning Commission and a unanimous vote by the City Council. This is the follow up development to that rezoning. Right of way being dedicated for this project will include 50' for all interior streets. A minimum from centerline of 25' along West Tackett Drive and Genevieve Avenue to meet Master Street Plan requirements. That right of way is sufficiently dedicated at this time. Street improvements include 14' from centerline including curb, gutter and storm drains along the property frontage onto West Tackett Drive. Staff is also recommending that West Tackett Drive be overlaid with asphalt and widened to a minimum of 20' from the project site east to 54`h Street. This has been discussed at several levels at both Council and Planning Commission and that is staff's recommendation at this time. Money in lieu of land is recommended by the Parks and Recreation Board for this development in the amount of $13,775. There is some mitigation required for tree preservation in the amount of $13,475. The applicant is proposing stubouts within the development to the south and the west for future connectivity. Staff is recommending forwarding this Preliminary Plat to the full Planning Commission with 12 conditions of approval. I will answer any questions. Anthes: Are there additional staff reports? Casey: I need the applicant to show the sidewalks on the southwest portion of the site. It appears that there was a section that was omitted from the plans. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 6 Just show that along the stubout to the south. Also, on the southern portion. Graven: Along the north and east side of Lot 10? Casey: Yes . Graven: Do you want those to go all the way to the south property line? Casey: Correct. Anthes: Would you need it on Lot 9 as well? Casey: Yes, it would need to extend all the way to the property line on Lot 9. It is shown on the northern part of Lot 9 but it needs to be on the west portion as well. Also, as the conditions of approval state, we are making a recommendation that Tackett be overlaid, widened a minimum of 20' from the project site east to 54`h. Graven: That's just the south half of West Tackett or are you talking about the entire width? Casey: The entire width of Tackett will need to be 20' pavement overlay all the way to 54`h. This is consistent with the previous recommendations when we have seen this project before with the rezonings and PZD submittals. Anthes: Thank you Matt, Craig do you have anything? Camagey: Nothing additional. Ostner: I have just one question, from 54`h to the project western boundary? What's the exact length of this overlay for Tackett? Casey: They are currently showing to widen Tackett 14' from centerline along their portion and overlay that northern portion as well in front of their site. We are just asking that that continue 20' all the way to 54`h Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this item? Wonnacott: Melissa Wonnacott, I live at 655 Genevieve. The question I have is, they would have to widen from 54`h to the edge of their property is what you are recommending correct? Anthes: That's staff's recommendation at this time. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 7 Wonnacott: We would also like to add, I don't know if this is the appropriate step or if we need to wait until it goes to the full Planning Commission. I went around to a few of my neighbors, I didn't get to all of them, we are asking that this development, we understand that you are probably going to approve the development. 54`h is 16' wide at it's narrowest point to get to the subject property. There is a bus stop that stops at 54`h and Tackett. If they develop this property to get a semi truck of studs they can't even turn a semi truck at that corner to get to that point. I have some pictures. I know that a few of the people are aware of it. We are asking that either the city fix 54h Street or it has been recommended to me that you pay half and they pay half because in 6 years that I've lived there the City of Fayetteville has not touched 54`h Street, Tacke t or Genevieve in any sort of fashion of taking care of our roadways. We are all happy that they have decided to do single family homes but god forbid that another kid get killed like Eric did on the road. Even just putting in a culvert and widening 54h Street by 2' or 3' would make that much of a difference. When you annexed the whole property in you agreed to take care of roadways and you never have. I don't know if you want to enter this into documents now or if you would like to wait until Planning Commission to do so. There are about 10 of us from the westernmost part of the neighborhood that is going to be the most affected by this development. Anthes: You can give that documentation to Jeremy and he can make sure that all of the Commissioners get a copy. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back and ask for your presentation. Graven: My name is Terry Graven, I'm with Keystone Consultants. This is Mr. Chance and Mr. Tuggle. I think we've addressed all of the recommendations from the city from the last meeting with the comments from Matt to extend our improvements to North 54`h I think we are going well above and beyond what's necessary for the site. If you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them. Ostner: Matt, have you looked at 54`h and what sort of evaluation would you make on the status of that road? Casey: I've looked at 50 and it is currently below our standards as a lot of streets in this area are. Our recommendation was to widen Tackett to 54`h Anything beyond that would be beyond what should be the burden of the development. If the Planning Commission sees 54`h as an unsafe traffic situation that is certainly a basis for denial of the development. At this time I don't believe that the city has any plans for improvements to 54`h Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 8 Ostner: We did tour out there a few months ago. We were looking at a different plan. It is a narrow street. I am concerned about developing this project without brining 54 lb to a safer standard. Clark: I didn't tour but I know where it is. I share that concern. Ostner: She brought pictures. It is a cozy little country way. A lot of people do go down that street and some people go fast. Anthes: Regarding construction traffic to the site. Because these drawings were not extended to 54th, are you convinced that you have adequate means to have the trucks stay on this road without grading these corners or making conditions out there worse than they are? Matt, are you comfortable they can handle those radiuses there at 54t"? Casey: If Tackett is widened to the 20' there should not be a problem. I know 54`h is currently used for a lot of construction traffic in the area. Persimmon Place Subdivision and some of the others going in along Persimmon and along 46"', it is easier for them to go to 54th to Wedington and make a left hand turn than it is to go to 46th. It currently has a significant amount of construction traffic on it. Clark: What is the likelihood of the city moving to improve 54th now that there is development in that area? How do we go about finding that out? Casey: It is not currently on the CIP list of street projects. That comes from the Street Committee. They assign priorities and put projects on the list. As we see development along 54th it will be getting more and more improvements, just like this development is improving Tackett. We will see developments come along 54th that will improve portions of 54[11. Clark: There is no way to look into the future and see when that is going to happen. That concerns me. I will be honest about it, that concerns me. I know it is not necessarily your burden, it's the city's burden at that point but it still concerns me. Graven: Another recommendation may be to stop our improvements just to the west side of our entrance instead of improving that all the way to our west property line would be to improve N. 54th that same equal distance. Casey: I believe he was asking that the street improvements on Tackett stopped at their entrance and that same distance of improvements be applied to 54th. Anthes: Would that do anything really to help us? Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 9 Casey: That is probably 250' of street improvements. 54th out to Wedington may be a half mile long. That would be a small percentage. Chance: 54th up to the bridge is wider than it is on the other side of the bridge. I think that is what the neighbors are concerned with is that portion between the bridge and that side. Anthes: Jeremy, you've looked at this more than the rest of us. I would like to understand whether you feel like that would be useful and appropriate and the other thing is how does that then affect our policy of connectivity going to the west on Tackett? Pate: I don't think it affects the policy of connectivity simply because the connection is still going to be made. There are not a lot of outlets in that direction. Tackett actually dead ends into the development. As far as the precedent for exchanging one improvement along the property to another. We would have to look to see if it is really going to help the situation at all. If it is only 250' it is not going to help that situation at all because you are still going to have a bottleneck between the bridge and this specific area that is improved. It has been consistently recommended that the adjacent property be improved because in the future, because this is a new development that property would most likely not be improved because it has just been newly developed. I believe that is part of the emphasis for typically the developer is bearing the responsibility of improving the streets adjacent to theirs. It is something that we can look at prior to the Planning Commission meeting and report back to you guys at that time. Anthes: I would agree with that assessment that no matter what happens with Tackett in the way of the dead end, this is the opportunity to get this portion improved. Without this happening with your development there will be no way to ever get that improved. Whereas, there may be ways to get this work done. I appreciate you coming up with that idea and we can continue to look at it. What do either of you think? Ostner: I'm concerned, on that same note, that if we allow the development now it could be 10 years before 54th is improved. Our CIP list goes out 5 years. I don't see this being a big priority because it is dangerous but it is relatively a low traffic year. There are thousands of people all over this city that are a higher priority. I think 54th needs to be looked at with this project, if it is a cost share or something up to the bridge that would make it safer. I think most of the problem is on the north side from 54th northward to the bridge. What would it take to look at a cost share by the Council to request something like that? Warrick: The Planning Commission can make a recommendation and so can staff but the obligation of city funds can only come at the direction of the Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 10 Council. Really it would need to come through the street committee of the Council for some type of recommendation and their analysis of this particular area for a recommendation for the whole Council to consider a cost share. This particular piece of property the Planning Commission recommended and the City Council zoned the property for the single family development. At this point in time we need to provide the applicant the conditions under which they can build a single family development. They are zoned and they have the right to do that. If those conditions include offsite improvements, which the Planning Commission has the ability to assign to a project, we need to tell them what those offsite improvements will be. There is specific direction under the code with regard to determining the necessity for offsite improvements. It is found under §166.07. With regard to roads it has two specific sections. It talks about when a subdivision has access only to unimproved streets, which this one does, and when the access to the subdivision is only by way of unimproved streets. Those are two degrees of the same but I am just going to take a minute and read some of this because I think it is very pertinent. This is under a clause stating Determining necessity for off-site improvements. When a proposed subdivision has access to paved streets or roads only by way of substandard or unimproved roads or streets leading from the subdivision to the paved streets or roads, the subdivider shall be responsible for contributing this proportionate share of the cost of improving the substandard access roads or streets to existing city or county standards. The subdividers proportionate share of said costs shall b determined by the Planning Commission. Generally, that is looking at a substandard road adjacent to the property and requiring that it be improved along that frontage to city standards. That is what you are looking at on Tackett on this particular project. The second section in this part of the code states that When a proposed subdivision has direct access to, or fronts on existing road or street, which is below current standards, the subdivider shall be responsible for contributing their proportionate share of the cost of improving said street or road to existing city or county standards. The Planning Commission determine that subdivider's proportionate share. All of this is based on a rational nexus sort of finding. The amount of improvement has to be proportionate to the impact of the development that is going to be installed. There is not a lot of development out there. There is not a lot of traffic generated on 54`h Street. This will change that condition, maybe not substantially, but we can look at traffic counts to determine what the current traffic condition on 541h Street is and project the traffic for this development to look at the change of how this development will impact the current traffic condition on 54`h Street. That is something that we can do by crunching some numbers and making a few predictions. Ultimately, they have the right to develop and the Planning Commission needs to determine if the amount of improvement that they have shown and the amount that is being recommended by staff is adequate and in proportion with the amount of Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page I1 impact that this development is going to cause on the surrounding infrastructure. Clark: I understand most of what you went through. How far can we mandate those improvements? I understand the frontage issue. Warrick: This is specifically addressed for offsite improvements. Anthes: I would like to request that staff, in preparation for the Planning Commission meeting, to look at various options and to come up with what we have done in similar instances. Look at car counts and give us some guidance as to proportionality. Warrick: I don't know if we are going to find similar instances. We are directed to look at these individually. We do have situations where we have required offsite improvements that are not immediately adjacent to a project site. That is part of the contemplation here already is to take the improvement offsite to where Tackett intersects 54`h Street. We can look at that more specifically and get you some numbers with regard to those traffic counts to help make that evaluation. Anthes: Also, if you would make an additional assessment of this trade at the northern edge of this road verses 54`h. Matt, if you could give some guidance as to what would be the most advantageous for the area. Graven: My concerns are where do you draw the line with offsite improvements? We are already doing a substantial portion offsite. Anthes: That is why we are asking for staff to do the research and the comparison and help us better understand the situation and make some sort of judgment. The full Planning Commission will make that assessment. Clark: I'm not mitigating some of the steps that you all are willing to take. That is very admirable. I also have to pay attention to the concerns of traffic, the neighbors, etc. It seems like your development is ahead of the city's street department. I'm not sure how to mitigate that because it is you're your responsibility. If we can do a cost share or come up with some sort of compromise, maybe we can make everybody happy and safe. I have another question. Talk to me please, Jeremy, about tree mitigation. As I look at this lots and lots of healthy trees are going away and you are paying $13,000. Explain it to me please. Pate: Mr. Carnagey, our Landscape Administrator will do a better job than I can. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 12 Camagey: There are some trees that will be removed on this project as part of the construction. Most of those will be in the middle of single family residential lots or to put in their detention pond. We are trying to work to save some more trees on West Tackett Road. I think at the time of construction when they do submit their plans if we can look at an opportunity to align the sidewalk with the road in one direction or another to save some of those trees along the street that is certainly an opportunity to reduce the amount of canopy that they are proposing to remove. Right now their mitigation plan is to pay into the tree fund. The city will use that money to go back into that area and replant trees. Clark: I understand the philosophy but that doesn't mean I have to like it. There are a lot of trees here that are large trees that are going to be removed. I am just wondering if there is any flexibility. I know it is easier to knock them over to get all of your equipment in but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Graven: We can remove the improvements as far as sidewalks and save a few trees. If you want the street improvements the trees are going to have to go. Clark: I can't believe all of those trees are along the street. Graven: Not every single one of them are. There are some along the north side of Lot 14 for drainage issues. A few of those may be able to be saved. It is just when you get out there in the field and start doing some grading. Clark: I understand that it is easier to get rid of the tree than to grade around it. It doesn't mean I have to like it. Graven: As far as the ones on West Tackett most of those fall within the improvement. Camagey: That is a condition of approval that the developer does work with staff to try to save as many of those trees along that street as possible. The other area of greatest concentration of existing trees are along that western border and they are proposing to preserve the majority of the trees along the western border. Clark: Majority is an interesting statement since almost half of it is going to be removed. We are going to only end up with 9% canopy when there is almost 13% now. I know the mitigation fund exists and you can pay, etc., but that is just something personally I don't like. Getting rid of the unhealthy trees or the smaller scrub trees is one thing but when I'm looking at 12" or 16" or 18" trees that are going away that concerns me. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 13 Graven: Several of those along the north line of lot 14 are at fair or poor condition at best. Clark: If they are dead that's fine. Camagey: If I may again, I have looked at a of these trees and they are in marginal condition. Especially in that corner around where the detention pond is. One of the reasons that we put the condition of approval to try to save those street trees along the street are those are in the best shape. If we can do everything we can to save those trees that will reduce the amount of trees that they are removing. Again, the trees are in marginal health. It is an old fence row and it is hit and miss as far as good to high quality trees. Clark: I'm still seeing a 20" good white oak that is going to do. The 32" is dead, that's fine. Did you do these determinations of tree health? Camagey: No, this came from the developer. However, I do go out on site to check this and that white oak that you just referred to is one of them that is marked that we should take a look at when they go to put that road in. Warrick: One thing that staff does have the ability to do, as Craig said, at the time of construction review we will look at the ability to reroute the sidewalk if necessary and shift things around. They are showing on there the standard street improvements. If we can then that sidewalk can meander around good trees and we can make some adjustments. At this point in time it is not engineered and we are not to that point. Clark: I guess I'm just voicing my future concern because I will see this again I think. Anthes: Let's just look at the conditions of approval here. We discussed street improvements and staff is going to look at this a little further between now and full Planning Commission. We've asked that you revise your drawings to show the 4' sidewalks continuous on both sides of lot 10 and continuing along the western boundary of lot 9. You are revising your building setbacks per item three. If you could on the tree preservation plan show us the canopy to remain clearly on the drawing, that would be really helpful for the full Planning Commission as well. Graven: You mean as far as these trees shown over here along Lots 11-14? Anthes: Is that the only preservation area? Camagey: Right. Clark: By the time that it gets to the full Planning Commission we should know? Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 14 Warrick: No, that will not occur until after construction plans are submitted. That is a step after Preliminary Plat approval. That requires a little bit of trust in staff. Clark: We trust you guys a lot. It is those bulldozers that I have trouble with sometimes. Anthes: Is there any other discussion? Ostner: I would like to propose another condition of approval. We are going to see this again at the full Planning Commission and there will be much more discussion. I would like to add condition of approval 13) 54"' be improved from Tackett northward to the bridge to a safe standard or a cost share be worked out with the city to improve 54`n Clark: Basically improve 54`n north from Tackett to the bridge by any means possible, including cost share or whatever? Ostner: Yes. Clark: It could mean we can talk about the changes that you wanted to make, redirect, etc. Once we get some of the studies from staff that may help give us a clear indication. We can't ignore the safety aspect of it. I don't think your potential residents would want us to ignore the safety aspect. Anthes: The other thing of course, as you well know, traffic and safety concerns are one of the reasons listed to deny the Preliminary Plat so we want to make sure that we have done research to address this issue so that we can do everything we can to get you through this process. Clark: At 5:30 at Planning Commission a lot more neighbors show up than at 8:30 in the morning. MOTION: Ostner: With that added condition of approval, I would like to move that we forward PPL 04-1081 to the full Planning Commission with the 13 conditions of approval. Clark: Second. Anthes: I will concur, thank you. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 15 LSD 04-1065: Large Scale Development (FAY. AIRPORT FUELING SYSTEM): Submitted by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE for property located at 401 ERNEST LANCASTER DRIVE. The affected property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and contains approximately 40 sq.ft.. The request is to approve the installation of a self serve fueling system. Anthes: The next item of business is LSD 04-1065 for Fayetteville Airport fueling system. Will the applicant come forward please? Boudreaux: Good morning. Pate: The applicant probably can describe this project better than I but I will attempt a little bit. The Fayetteville Municipal Airport recently installed a self serve fueling system at Drake Field in south Fayetteville. This consists of a 20'x20' concrete pad with two 1,000 gallon fuel tanks with pumps, a credit card reader and appropriate federal, state and local safety measures are all located on that pad. The state has licensed this operation. All federal, state and local regulations concerning sale and dispensing of the fuel and location of the system have been followed. Users are limited to those with access to the port. Typically that is pilots are based out or visiting the City of Fayetteville. Ordinarily the Planning Commission would not see a development of this nature. It doesn't fall within our one acre rule for this type of development. However, based on fire codes, I've included §94.05, Flammable and Combustible Liquids. It says that the Fire Department does require the installation of permanent above ground storage tanks for combustible liquids to go through the Large Scale Development process for review. The Fire Department has approved this development. The municipal airport and the Fire Department were not aware of this section in the code until recently. Thus, the application for this Large Scale Development to get Planning Commission approval. Surrounding land use around the airport is primarily agricultural. The river is to the east. The City of Greenland surrounds much of the airport property as well. There is one condition of approval that is required with any Large Scale Development and does have to be addressed with this project. I've spoken with our land agents and they are looking at it currently. Staff is recommending approval of this Large Scale Development at the Subdivision Committee level. Right of way along Hwy. 71 adjoining this property does need to be dedicated a minimum of 55' from centerline for the entire property boundary. A lot of that has already been dedicated. It is taking some research to see what has. It is such an undeveloped part of town that we are trying to find out exactly what has been dedicated. I have been apprised that certain portions of that exceeds our requirements and certain portions will need to be dedicated. Anthes: Are there other staff reports? Would you like to make a presentation? Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 16 Boudreaux: Not unless you have questions. Anthes: Is there any member of the public who would like to address this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Pate: This is probably the best way to see what's there. It is a 20x20 concrete pad. Ostner: It helps in the refueling. Boudreaux: Absolutely. We actually doubled the amount of fuel sold in the 10 weeks that it's been in operation. It is just like you going to the gas station. You swipe your card and you pump it into the wing. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion we approve LSD 04-1065. Clark: Second. Anthes: I will concur. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 17 LSD 04-1078: Large Scale Development (BOTANICAL GARDENS OF THE OZARKS): Submitted by MANDY BUNCH for property located at HWY 265, W OF HEARTHSTONE INTERSECTION AND N OF ZION ROAD.. The affected property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 6.44 acres. The request is to approve the development of Phase IA of the Botanical Gardens with office and meeting room facilities, garden areas, and a parking facility with 28 parking spaces proposed. Anthes: We will move onto item five, LSD 04-1078, the Botanical Gardens of the Ozarks. Morgan: The applicant requests approval to construct Phase la of the Botanical Gardens of the Ozarks. This will be a city wide use by right. The site is 6.44 acres. The overall 90+ acre property bordering the Lake of Fayetteville west of Stonewood subdivision and west of Crossover Road. It is within the R -A zoning district. The proposal consists of construction of approximately nine gardens, accessory structures including a studio workshop which will have office space and a meeting room. A greenhouse, 4 bike racks a 28 car parking lot with additional space for bus parking. Right of way to be dedicated is additional right of way along Hwy. 265, 55' from centerline to be dedicated by warranty deed. This street is a highway principal arterial. With the Large Scale Development street lights are required, however, should they be required at this time they would be located outside of the Master Street Plan right of way, which would be approximately 40' away from the pavement at the street and consequently fail to sufficiently illuminate the road. Staff is recommending the installation of one street light at the drive aisle at the intersection of Hwy. 265 and the installation of electrical facilities stubbed out for future streetlight installation in accordance with our ordinance requirements for streetlights. The applicant is proposing to construct a 6' sidewalk through the driveway and staff recommends that construction for the sidewalk adjacent to Hwy. 265 for the length of the 6.44 acres, the project site boundary, pursuant to city code with the timing and funding of this requirement to be reviewed by city staff. Additionally, there is currently a barbed wire fencing paralleling Hwy. 265 for the length of the property, staff recommends that the fence be removed prior to the final Certificate of Occupancy for Phase la. No mitigation is being required with the tree mitigation, no trees are being disturbed with this. Staff is recommending forwarding the LSD 04-1078 to the Planning Commission with 11 conditions. Planning Commission determination of the street lights, the sidewalks and the barbed wire fencing. I've already somewhat reviewed staffs recommendations and can certainly review those further with you. The plat be revised to satisfy all tech plat comments from the Parks Department. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 18 Ohman: From Parks, all conditions have been met from Technical Plat and that condition can be struck. Anthes: Mandy, would you like to give your presentation? Bunch: My name is Mandy Bunch, I'm with EB Landworks representing the Botanical Gardens this morning. They are proceeding with a very small piece of their original Phase I. They are heavy into fund raising efforts. What they are trying to do is create some interest in the community and want to do that by starting this small project. We feel like this is the minimum amount of parking to support this facility at this point. We are also sharing parking with the adjacent trails. That has been part of the negotiations with the Parks Department. We hare having to relocate a little piece outside of the maintenance drive area. In the future there will be a large rerouting of the trail system in that area that has undergone a lot of scrutiny with a berm system. The trail will actually go through this parking area. This parking is deemed as temporary through here at this point. We have gone with a circular path to maximize opportunities for drop-offs, etc., but also to support the construction of the first big phase. There is a large parking lot and structural facilities in this area where the gardens are proposed now. This is the overall master plan for the gardens. It has gone through the Council and parks and everybody else at the city. This little structure that we are proposing is a tiny piece of this master plan. The garden area is in this location. As you can see, in the future that is where our structure will complex will be with several buildings and then the parking will stretch out from that between the drainage area and then a tree line that we are looking at now. This path is the path for the relocated bike trail. That is part of the discussion and our concern with the sidewalk system. We've talked with Mr. Rutherford several times and the reason we ended up with him before the public meeting scenario, showing the sidewalks through the drive. One thing that we are definitely trying to do is minimize the cost that the garden is incurring with this phase since it is temporary. There were initial discussions about relocating the other trails at this point and we worked our way through that but the sidewalks still seem to be an issue. We are not totally against sidewalks. There will be a totally different pedestrian circulation trail available when the first big phase goes through. Basically what we are trying to do right now is to keep from installing infrastructure that will have to be removed. One other thing that we talked about yesterday was moving the sidewalks to the right of way and we will definitely have to work around the existing tree line near the highway when we do that. There is a waiver that we are requesting that the barbed wire fence not be removed at this point and the sidewalk not be constructed at this time. Also, not having to install three streetlights. By ordinance there is one required here and then down by the creek as well. We felt like proposing one at this intersection would be an appropriate spot at this time. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 19 Warrick: I met with two representatives of the botanical gardens yesterday with the city administration with regard to streetlights and fence. Mandy, I don't know if you have had a chance to talk with Carl or Cathy since then. We need to probably regroup before this gets to the full Planning Commission. The reason that the conditions are stated the way they are is the meeting with the botanical gardens representatives. One of the representatives from the board stated to me that they will bring down the barbed wire fence and probably replace it with something like a split rail. They understand that that is really something that does need to happen with this phase. They also talked about instead of installing all three of the streetlights installing one at the entry and providing the connections so that the others can be installed in the future at the appropriate spacing. They were agreeable to doing that so our condition reflects that. The third thing is the sidewalks, and that is our most open ended issue right now, but there was an agreement between the botanical gardens society and the administration that we would continue between now and Planning Commission to look at that and look at primarily the issues of funding and timing as to the installation of that sidewalk. It is agreed that the city needs to see the sidewalk installed. This is the project where we need to look at the requirement being applied. Because of the unique conditions of this project we will again, continue to address funding and timing. This is a Large Scale and with any Large Scale we need to look at those infrastructure improvements. One of the differences in this is that this is city owned property. If the Botanical Gardens Society does not install any of those required improvements the requirement for that does fall back on the city as a property owner. We need to work together to make sure that these requirements are satisfactorily achieved. That is why there is a little bit of an open ended issue on the sidewalks. We had that discussion yesterday and have not been able to further resolve it but we will get there before the Planning Commission meeting. Anthes: Is there any member of the public who would like to address this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners for any discussion. Ostner: Condition three is a waiver, are we just leaving that as it is and dealing with it at Planning Commission? Anthes: From what Dawn was just saying we can remove that. Warrick: They have agreed to allow us to continue looking at funding and timing. It is stated as completely as we know to state it right now. It will change, most likely, before you see it as the full Planning Commission. Staff feels that it is important to continue place the condition and I think that we can work with the Botanical Gardens Society to reach a reasonable solution as Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 20 to how to properly time it based on their funding and any assistance that the city may be able to provide. Clark: Is it mandated that they be concrete and 6'? I know it is standard but is it mandated? Casey: I believe it is in our ordinance that it has to be Portland cement concrete and for this type of roadway classification yes, it would be 6'. Clark: Would it be possible to get a variance for that? In other words, I understand the fact that these are temporary sidewalks. Bunch: I don't think that we believe that the sidewalks are temporary. Warrick: These would be permanent sidewalks along Hwy. 265 at the future right of way point. Clark: This wording confused me. 6' sidewalks through the driveway. I'm thinking way too literal obviously. Bunch: No, it is literal. The way that we are required to construct them is where the sidewalk is actually the focal point of the drive and not the vehicular traffic. It doesn't end with ramps. Ostner: If your driveway skirt has to run up hill your sidewalk has to be level to be ADA compliant. That is why they say through I believe. Bunch: In this particular case we will be working with the city and the Highway Department to make everyone happy. Anthes: It looks to me like this temporary parking area and bus parking has curb and gutter all the way around it. I was going to ask Matt if this could be an asphalt drive with no curb and gutter that would save some funds and if it is a temporary situation. Would that provide a problem for drainage or anything else? Casey: Not the way it is currently designed. It could sheet flow across where it is labeled event overflow parking. I don't believe curb and gutter is required for parking lots. Bunch: One thing they talked about and discussed in a meeting with the Parks Division is that when you leave these open drain areas people tend to take their off road vehicles onto your property and destroy it. In this particular case, the Botanical Gardens are wanting to set an example with the landscaping and the way the parking lot looks. They are going to endeavor to do a lot more than what the ordinance will have. Also, we Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 21 feel that that curb is there for something structural to keep people from just taking off in the field because that is an open field. That was one of the main reasons. Parks told us they had to put up fences everywhere and gates. Anthes: That is a cost that you are willing to incur because of that? Bunch: Yes, I believe that's always been the case. Anthes: Also, Suzanne and Matt, the cross road with Hearthstone Drive and the drive into here, is that drawn the way you want to see the alignment of those lanes? Warrick: We generally prefer to have them directly across from one another so that people turning out, if there are people turning in or out of both of the driveways can see what the situation is and what's happening across the street. It is sufficient and meets what our expectations are. We don't have a flat out requirement for that but we've found it to be a safer condition. Bunch: We were pretty particular with the driveway placement. I believe it meets all of the necessary tapers from going across the street. There is some allowed since that one is kind of a split situation. Anthes: Let's go down the conditions. Does anybody have comments about the streetlights? Ostner: Like a lot of this, discussions need to be continued. Clark: It seems like there are a lot of negotiations about several of these conditions still ongoing. Anthes: I'm interested in seeing that streetlight happen at the turning point. Ostner: I would agree that that's the logical place to start. Anthes: Item two, the sidewalk construction, I understand what you're saying Mandy is you are talking about this internal walk and plus the walk out on the street. The redundancy is that what you are saying? Bunch: Right. Coupled with the closeness of the Springdale city limits up the hill. I think that based on the requirements of the ordinance, I think that it is the responsibility of whoever develops this project to construct the sidewalks based on ordinance. That's the only answer I can give you. Anthes: I really think that we have a policy of providing sidewalks along highways and major roadways and I don't believe it is the same as going in and Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 22 using the trail. That seems to be more of a property of the Botanical Garden. You would be entering a different kind of sphere when you use that. I am in favor of that sidewalk requirement along Hwy. 265 being enforced. Ostner: Are you saying that you would like for it to go ahead and be built and not wait? Anthes: Yes. Barbed wire fence? Warrick: My understanding is that The Botanical Gardens is in favor of taking that down. The timing might be something that we need to address a little more fully but they understand that that is not something that they really want as their entry feature once this project is up and going and open to the public. Anthes: Personally, it is an agricultural kind of fencing and this is an agricultural kind of place so I'm not tremendously bothered by it. It is an R -A zoning. Clark: It is the least of my concerns, honestly. Anthes: This project has been struggling for a long time. I think it is a benefit to the city of Fayetteville and a benefit to the citizens to get something going out here. I would hate for anything to be held up by the cost of a split rail fence. Warrick: We certainly would not require that they replace that fence. Fencing is not a requirement. It is just that the barbed wire fence is not allowed unless there is an agricultural purpose to it. This is not necessarily going to be agricultural. It is going to be a public facility that is there for tours. The property is zoned Agricultural. The use is something that is permitted in any zoning district under our city wide uses by right use unit. It is not listed under any of our agricultural use units. That is splitting hairs to some degree. I don't know that that is necessarily even going to be an issue. The one thing that I think is very important about this project is yes, this organization is struggling to get funding and yes, they are trying to get something on the ground. Staff is concerned that this may be the only thing that gets on the ground and if there are any problems in the future, which I don't predict, and I don't wish anything negative to happen to this endeavor because I think it is going to be a huge amenity to the city, we have to look at this project as a Large Scale today under the conditions that we are required to enforce as we would for any other Large Scale. We need to be careful about whether they may not be able to afford it. Other projects may not be able to really afford it but we place those conditions as the expectations of the city and our code requirements. I just want to be careful that we don't short ourselves on this because what we Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 23 expect to see in the future. The master plan is fantastic. I think this is going to be an enormous amenity to the city. I just don't want us to start short changing ourselves at the very first phase of it. Anthes: I know that this property is owned by the city and therefore, I think as the owner that we have more control over it. Warrick: We also have more responsibility to comply with our own regulations as well. Clark: I would think that as this part develops there would be incentive on the Botanical Gardens to get rid of that barbed wire fence which is not the most hospitable and inviting structure you can have to eventually convert to something more aesthetically pleasing. Can we put a time line on when that fence goes away? Warrick: Sure. Anthes: They said that it would be removed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy with this phase and I think that's fine. Warrick: That is staff's recommendation. We ca discuss that further with the representatives of the board. We can discuss that further with the representatives of the board and see if that is something that they feel that they will be able to achieve. Anthes: Now that I understand that they don't have to replace it. It is just the removal and they can get a couple of volunteers out there on a weekend and it would be out. I don't think that's an undue burden. Warrick: They do have some security issues and most of that is going to have to be building by building but that's something their board is addressing. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we forward LSD 04-1078 to the full Planning Commission. Clark: Second. Anthes: I will concur. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 24 LSD 04-1082: Large Scale Development (LOT 17E RESTAURANT): Submitted by JAMES KOCH for property located at LOT 17E OF CMN II BUSINESS PARK. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.69 acres. The request is to approve the development of an 8,741 s.f. restaurant on the subject property. Anthes: The next item of business is LSD 04-1082, Lot 17E restaurant that we don't know how to pronounce. Bois Deur. Carnagey; This Large Scale Development proposal is for property located at Lot 17E of CMN II Business Park. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.69 acres. The applicant's request is to construct a 8,741 sq.ft. restaurant. The subject property does have frontage onto both I-540 and Van Asche Drive and is located within the Design Overlay District. Parking does meet the minimum amount allowed by ordinance here. Surrounding land use and zoning includes to the north and east vacant. To the west is a commercial development currently being constructed for a Red Robins restaurant. All three lots are designated C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and to the south of course, is Fulbright Expressway. Right of way being dedicated includes 35' from centerline along the recently constructed Van Asche Drive. Street improvements does have Van Asche Drive being constructed as approval of the Final Plat for Lot 17. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets include Van Asche Drive as a collector and the Fulbright Expressway. Design Overlay District elements show that this project is meeting all of those elements except for pedestrian access from the street to the entrance of the structure. Tree preservation was approved for the entire CMN Business Park and this tot does meet those requirements. Staff recommendation is approval at this level with 10 conditions. Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds that the submitted elevation drawings are in compliance with the standards. The second condition is the monument sign must comply with overlay district requirements. The plat shall be revised to reflect the designated walk for pedestrian access from the street to the structure to comply with the Design Overlay District. The remaining six conditions are all standard conditions of approval. Anthes: Thank you Craig, are there any other staff comments? James, would you like to make a presentation? Koch: My name is James Koch with CEI Engineering representing the proposed restaurant on Lot 17E. We agree with the conditions of approval. The monument sign may or may not be something that our client wants to do. Right now we just want to comply with all of the Commercial Design Standards and certainly whatever would take place with the monument Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 25 sign would be to the scope of what is allowed by ordinance. The sidewalk, we'll make sure that we have a connection to Van Asche Drive. Anthes: Thank you very much. Is there any member of the public that would like to address this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Clark: What's the name of the restaurant? Koch: GravenGraven? my understanding is it is a Portuguese name and will translate to meaning the Golden Ox. Anthes: I guess we can go through the conditions. Commercial Design Standards, we do have elevations. I am a little troubled by the east end and also the south in general. Clark: Why are you concerned? Yeah, that is kind of blank. Anthes: I understand that we are looking at no blank, unarticulated wall surfaces and I think that we've got that on this building. We have started to make some articulation here on the south elevation but I'm not sure that it is enough. That looks like a back to me on the south. Clark: The south is incredibly unarticulated, it is blank. It seems to inviting the graffiti or something along with the east. Koch: On the south side of this particular elevation there is a considerable grade going back up to what is called a right of way line here and there is a very large area between this right of way line and highway department right of way line. We have got probably 75' of greenspace there. That is considerably greater than just about anything in there. I believe that what is proposed with why this property was dedicated was a flyover that will come in at a much different elevation than what the existing Fulbright Expressway is if in fact, that is something that happens in the future. Warrick: The flyover was actually removed from the Master Street Plan. Koch: What will be the use for that strip of property? Warrick: It is still dedicated as right of way for whatever purpose they end up utilizing it for but there is no plan in place. Koch: I guess it is just going to be greenspace for now. Clark: Are they planning on doing landscaping around the building itself? That would mitigate a little bit of that but not a lot. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 26 Anthes: We cannot consider landscaping as mitigation for Commercial Design Standards. Koch: I don't think it will be a problem to show more articulation there. Clark: On the west elevation what's that? Anthes: It looks like screen for mechanical equipment. Koch: That is the service entry and I guess that's where they would do some loading or unloading in and out of the building. Clark: It looks like a little jail. Koch: I believe that is a wrought iron fence kind of railing on that area. Clark: It seems like on the west there is a lot of things happening as opposed to the south which is very stark and this end to the east which is very stark. I agree with Jill's observations. Koch: Jill, will the brick that is indicated in these columns, would that make that more fully articulated? Anthes: I think that we have to evaluate it in total. That is starting to do something. Possibly Ken Shireman could go back and look at this piece a little more to see if we can maybe make this side a little more appealing. It does face the right of way and it is going to be seen by a lot of people and will be beneficial to the restaurant. I do have a question for Craig, I don't see anything here about the number of signs allowed in the ordinance and whether these shown on these elevations meet the size and requirements of our regulations? Carnagey: We can certainly add that as a condition. Warrick: There are two wall signs permitted and these appear to be sufficient, or smaller actually than what they would actually be able to. Carnagey: There are two wall signs allowed and it does give the dimensions. Warrick: We do have some original elevations that are somewhat different and they may help in some of your review. If you want to see what was originally reviewed and what the changes were and I don' know if you would like to use that as a starting point. Anthes: Are we talking about approval here or forwarding? Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 27 Warrick: Staff feels that it could be approved here, unless the Subdivision is not satisfied with the way that it is proposed. Anthes: I would like to see more articulation with the fagade and have the materials called out on the elevations and have the signs delineated as to what types they are to make sure they meet the Overlay District design standards. Ostner: This is flipped to make it have what you have today, the north and the south are the same but the east and west are reversed. Koch: This area right here moved so the entrance is facing back towards the west. Ostner: I like the way you have it currently submitted. One question, the west elevation shows a little area, this mechanical area, that's left off of this south elevation and should be shown so it looks different. Clark: It looks a lot less blank. Ostner: Something. Anthes: In the original elevations that looks like it was significantly more screened than it is now. Clark: That elevation seems to give more depth than this. Anthes: Is this a wood board fence that was replaced by that iron? Clark: That has an awning over it too now. Koch: We have the awning and then the privacy fence looking west. Anthes: I think this pilaster treatment rather than these exposed downspouts we are starting to get somewhere but the wall still appears to be quite blank. Anthes: Dawn, if we are not satisfied with the elevations that are shown and we need to see them again, is that something you guys would be comfortable reviewing or does that need to go to the full Planning Commission? Warrick: If you do not wish to approve it at the full Subdivision Committee we will forward it to the full Planning Commission. If you wish to approve it with conditions that staff further work out details then that is up to you. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 28 Anthes: Commercial Design Standards, comfortable with handling or Commission to see it? is that something that staff feels would you like the full Planning Warrick: We felt that it met our criteria for Commercial Design Standards. If you do not then it is appropriate to go to the full Planning Commission. Ostner: I understand my fellow Commissioners not being satisfied with the south elevation but I have seen much, much worse and I have seen us make requests that would make it look like this. I think it could look a little better. I think this passes commercial design standards. I don't see large unarticulated walls. I do see a blank area that is about 1/3 of the fagade. It is not even a complete wall. It has a wainscote and a cap. We ask for a wainscote and a cap and then we say we'll give you approval. Anthes: I am a little fussier with the Design Overlay District. Clark: I'm comfortable forwarding. I am just anticipating some of the other questions the other Commissioners are going to have about the two exposures that Jill has pointed out. If it passes Commercial Design Standards then ok. I am just looking ahead and I know who is going to say it. Anthes: We can approve it at this level if we are comfortable with it and we can put conditions on it for staff's further review if you feel comfortable with that. Lets move onto our next item and then come back to this one. Obviously, monument signage would be something that you all review. Warrick: A separate unique sign permit is required for each sign. We have to review that for all of the sign ordinance conditions as well as the Design Overlay District. We prefer to see them when we see elevations if they know what their sign is going to look like because there is the one criteria under Commercial Design Standards that states "Avoid or minimize large, out of scale signs with flashy colors." That is the only criteria that we can apply to commercial design standards with regard to the sign. Given the nature of this project I don't expect to see that. We will be looking for a sign that complies with the size, setback and height standards for a monument sign should they wish to have one and also that it has indirect lighting. James has said that you will revise the plat with the walkway. Are there any other issues about the site plan in general? Ostner: I was just looking at the parking. I'm happy that there is not more than 30% overage. Warrick: This is a restaurant in the CMN Business Park that is not requesting a Conditional Use for excess parking. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 29 Koch: The way it worked out was the Target parking ratio was pretty much met with the square footage. I believe we were right at the 1:100 sq.ft. so it will be interesting to see how parking fairs for this particular restaurant. Anthes: Are there any other issues on the site? Do we have dumpster and dumpster enclosure for this? Camagey: They are showing adequate dimensions and there is a provision here for screening as well. Warrick: This particular site is also utilizing cross access in two locations and does not have it's own designated individual driveway. Ostner: I have a question about that cross access. The turning radii seems huge right here, especially in comparison with the Red Robin which has a 4' or 5' radius and you guys have a 18' radius. Koch: That is so the trucks could get in and out of that development without running over the curb. Ostner: This is adequate for the trucks? Koch: Yes, our extended service access is the one between 17D and our development. Anthes: That is a 25' radius marked on this drawing, that's huge. Ostner: That's like a street where people can take it 20 if they have to. It just seems like when radii get big people drive differently. This radii in this tight parking lot coming off of Red Robin is sort of a traffic calming feature. I would love to see that reduced. Koch: The way we see them utilizing this access is coming in on that shared driving, making the entrance coming up the south elevation of the restaurant and then exiting perhaps at the other access drive. Anthes: Then that would say to me that this can definitely be tightened up since there wouldn't be a truck swinging out that way. Koch: I can make that change if that is a condition of approval. Ostner: It would also seem that the truck could do in and out here. That would allow this to get tighter. It is going to be used and it is going to look awkward. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 30 Koch: If you would like to see the radius similar to what Red Robin has then we can reduce that. That's not a problem. Ostner: I think I would. It would improve the safety of the project. Anthes: What about alignment there with the curb cuts coming out of Red Robin? We really don't have those aisles providing cross access. Have you all looked at that? Koch: Not really. What's driving this parking configuration is the building setback. The requirement that we had to meet with the 50' building setback from this line. We are just trying to get as much parking as close to the building as possible so we didn't have a lot of flexibility to take into consideration how we were lining up with the Red Robin's drive. We do share the access drive for the entire boundary there. Anthes: Craig, did you look at that? I know other restaurants in this area we have required them to shift their drives to line up. Camagey: We just looked for the shared access. We didn't look for the alignment on that edge right there. Koch: Typically I've met that type of condition whenever it was bordering a public right of way and not a private shared access . That's what we've got going all the way along that boundary. Anthes: I can understand that and yet I think traffic moves how it moves regardless of whether it is a private access or a public street. Cars see it as a street and they go across. Ostner: This is a very narrow street. I think it is close enough. This is a permanent dead end. If they could align it would be ideal. People are going to come once a day. Anthes: You are not concerned because you think the traffic volume is low enough? Ostner: Right. Clark: It doesn't concern me in the least. I think people who are coming are coming to one or the other. If you align them, we are talking about traffic safety, there would be a proclivity to scoot across which could cause people to maybe not stop. Anthes: Personally I would like to see them aligned. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 31 Clark: I would prefer it but I'm not really concerned about it. Ostner: The alignment would require this to be removed and it is pretty critical. Anthes: I guess we are back to Commercial Design Standards if there are no other comments on the site plan. Clark: I'm thinking that if you can narrow the curb you were talking about I can live with this not lining up, reducing that radius is a good compromise. Ostner: I would like to pose a question. Do you feel like designing by committee, laying it out for the minutes the instruction you would like to see or would you like to kick it to the full nine? Anthes: I think it is close enough and staff can evaluate the conditions we make. Clark: We have made our concerns pretty clear. Anthes: We can formulate a motion with some statements in it. Warrick: I was just going to say, just so everybody understands, we will talk to James. He will talk to his clients, they will bring us back some revised elevations based on this conversation that we've all had together. If what we see is not what we believe you all want to see we will tell them. If they don't want to make changes to it then we will bring it back to you. We will do our best to ensure that your intentions are reflected in the revised elevation that we get. MOTION: Clark: I will propose that we approve LSD 04-1082 with the following stipulations and provisions: Consideration given to site elevations, specifically on the east and the south exposures to receive more attention and detail and the turning radius at the intersection be reduced to match Red Robin. Ostner: I would second that motion. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 32 R-PZD 04-1075: Planned Zoning District (CAMBRIDGE CROSSING): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at LOT 6C, VANTAGE SQUARE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL, C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, and R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, and contains approximately 11.525 acres. The request is to approve the development of a Residential Planned Zoning District on the subject property with 58 units proposed. Anthes: Our final item of business today is PZD 04-1075 for Cambridge Crossing. Jeremy? Pate: This is a Residential Planned Zoning District located off of Joyce Blvd. It is lot 16 of Vantage Square. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 11.52 acres in total. You will notice that there are three submitted site plans. The smallest sheet shows the current proposal which is east of Vantage Drive, along with the remainder of the lot, which is a future Phase IL We are not looking at development plans for that right now. That will need to come back through our Planned Zoning District process once the development has been determined on that specific portion of this overall tract. The applicant is requesting a rezoning and Preliminary Plat for a unique R-PZD zoning district. The proposed use of the site is for townhouse style development consisting of 58 attached residential dwelling units. The site is currently vacant. The newly constructed Regions Bank, which is almost finished, is to the northwest as you can see there on your plat. Proposed land uses for this portion of the tract, Use Unit 1, city wide uses by right. That is essentially utilities, fire hydrants, etc. Use Unit 10, Three family dwellings. In a townhouse style development no more than three attached units, and Use Unit 26, townhouse development more than three attached units. This will allow them to have two attached, three attached, four attached. They have limited themselves to no more than four attached in the covenants and on the plat as well. The total proposed dwelling units is 58. The density is 5 dwelling units per acre. As I mentioned, the site is zoned three different zoning districts at currently, C-1, C-2 and R -O. The developer is proposing a subdivision with attached units with all access and services to be from the rear allies and dwelling units to be sited close to the street. I believe in your packets there are some schematic conceptual drawings and cross sections of what those would look like in a typical lot configuration. Lot 5 setbacks are proposed to be much smaller than those allowed in a typical zoning district, thus the need to process a Planned Zoning District. Surrounding land uses, to the north is a vacant commercial lot that the Community Bank owns. To the east of that is Community Bank and to the west of that is Regions Bank which is just newly constructed. To the south runs Mud Creek and the associated floodplain and the city trail system. To the east is Butterfield Trail Village. To the west is a vacant tract which is part of this property and the Regions Bank. Access is Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 33 proposed from Vantage Drive, which is a brand new street constructed with Regions Bank. Vantage connects north to Joyce Blvd. where a future traffic signal is planned. The developer of the Stearns Street Apartments, if you remember, the road bed has been cut in for Vantage Drive so this is under construction and will have more traffic in the future. A connection south of this will actually require a bridge over Mud Creek. Developers in the area are being assessed a proportionate share to construct that bridge sometime in the future. The primary egress/ingress to this property is from one primary point of access. The property to the east is developed, as I mentioned, with the Butterfield Trail Village. To the south is Mud Creek and to the north is the community bank and one vacant commercial lot. Staff feels that another street connection to the north would be too close to Vantage Drive and Joyce Blvd. That is a principal arterial and a collector street with a traffic signal in the future. Staff has recommended and the developer has shown on the plans to allow the alley to the south to also connect to Vantage Drive. That will at least allow the secondary means of access for those service vehicles, emergency vehicles, and residents of the subdivision to actually drive all the way around the subdivision just to get to their homes close to Vantage Drive. Interior to the project public streets are being provided within a 40' right of way. A 24' public street is proposed with sidewalks on both sides in most cases. You will notice on the north side there are not sidewalks there. All lots are prohibited from having street fronts facing garages and covenants are submitted and access must be provided from those allies. Those are considered private to be maintained by the H.O.A. They are 12' to 15' in width. At the Technical Plat Review Committee the utility representatives requested that they also be located within a utility easement. I just want to make sure those are labeled clearly on the plats. Jefcoat We have met with Ozark Electric and have the understanding that the easements are to be there. We will remove that. Pate: The only adjacent street to this is Vantage Drive, a newly constructed street. Therefore, improvements won't be necessary with the exception of the continuation of that 6' sidewalk for this property through the driveway. Staff is recommending that an assessment be made for the traffic signal at Vantage Drive, which is a collector street and Joyce Blvd., a principal arterial based on the number of units proposed. Additionally, an assessment is recommended for a percentage of the cost of the future bridge which I mentioned earlier. There are no trees being affected on this site at all. Therefore, the tree preservation requirements are waived. The Parks and Recreation Board is recommending accepting money in lieu of land, it states $32,190 for 58 single family units. This is actually going to be considered a multi -family unit so that number will change. As I mentioned, protective covenants have been submitted. This is the rezoning request and a development proposal. Therefore, it will need to Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 34 go to the full Planning Commission and to the City Council. Staff is recommending this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval with 16 conditions of approval. I have already mentioned most of those. The allowed use units in this PZD should be limited to Use Unit 1, 10, and 26 as noted. Future development of Phase II of the Cambridge Crossing PZD shall require processing approval of a new Planned Zoning District. Planning Commission determination of an appropriate offsite assessment for the future traffic signal. Staff recommends that amount be $5544 due prior to Final Plat approval. The amount for the offsite assessment for a future bridge crossing, staff recommends that the developer be assessed $41,167 based on the number of units proposed here. Again, those memos constituting that amount are in your staff report. There is a waiver request, Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for the minimum street standards for the radius of a curve. At the far east side of the property you can notice that there is quite a tight turn that does not meet our minimum standards at this time. However, because there will be no through traffic staff is recommending approval. There is not really a place to have through traffic nor connectivity to the south, east or north. Connectivity is being provided to the west so we are in support of that reduced turning radius. The parks fees will be due prior to Final Plat approval. I will let other staff go over the other conditions that primarily have to do with the other buffer which is behind the units on Mud Creek Trail. We feel it is very important to have a substantial native species of buffer between the actual alley and the back of the homes in a public trail system. Carnagey: We talked a little bit about this at Technical Plat and I believe the developer is in agreement that some sort of vegetative buffer is needed between the existing trail system for Mud Creek and this proposed development. In talking with the Parks Department we feel that the vegetation that will be going in there with that buffer should be compatible with the plant communities that area along and adjacent to Mud Creek. That is part of the buffer. Then a street tree planting plan. As part of our urban forestry management plan we are trying to encourage a greater degree of street tree plantings, especially along these newer subdivisions that are being built. We are just requesting that a plan be submitted that meets up with our city standards and our specifications. Right now they are showing a 4' planting strip. Our recommendation is that it be 5'. I believe that the applicant may have a response to that but that is what we are requesting. Ohman: In addition, Parks requests that as your drainage outflow pipes are designed and constructed that we coordinate with you as they would affect the public trail. Anthes: Thank you. Would you like to present your project? Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 35 Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company representing Tracy Hoskins. The two things that we may want to point out is there is likelihood that connectivity to the north will occur and that is one reason for the outside road to the north as that property is developed there would be connectivity to that property. The elevations and cross sections indicate 4'. I think that the planting space between the sidewalk and the back of curb has been revised to 5'. The elevations were created prior to that but I think that issue has been resolved. The planting area between the trail and the alleyway will be addressed at the time of construction plans. Native plants that are naturally occurring along the creek, sycamores might not be the most desirable plant so we will work with staff on doing something other than that. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners. Casey: The public street right of way is not shown in the southeast corner along that curb where the parking area comes off to the side. If you could show that right of way line and also remove the detention area from the public right of way. It has grown since Plat Review and it is now out onto the street as shown. That will need to be removed and it cannot be located within the right of way. Jefcoat Ok. Casey: Also, I wanted to discuss the assessments. You have a memo in your packet that I wrote that outlines the calculations for those assessments. The bridge over Mud Creek, the Master Street Plan shows Vantage Drive continuing to the south across Mud Creek. We use an approximate cost of a million dollars for those bridge construction costs. That was based on the downstream bridge improvements through the CMN Business Park. We took the estimated number of trips per day using that bridge and developed a percentage based on the design service volume of a collector street, which Vantage Drive is designated as. That was approximately 4.62% and that amount was $46,167 for the bridge and that same percentage was used for the traffic signal and the amount of was $5544. We used $120,000 for the approximate construction cost for the traffic signal. We based that on the recent construction at Sang and Hollywood on Sixth Street on the south side of town. That was a city project where the lane configurations were similar to that at Joyce and Vantage so the costs should be very comparable. If you have any questions I would be glad to answer those. Anthes: I have some questions about the street sections and parking. What are you proposing for guest parking? Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 36 Jefcoat: In the alleyways there is a parking garage and there will be some areas there for additional guest parking and the developer is considering two additional alternatives for additional parking, which will be some lots on the ends of the alleyways, particularly lot 58 which may not be developed but used for parking. Also, we've talked to Matt in terms of eliminating the detention area by ways of additional studies on the affects of Mud Creek. If that should occur we will have those detention areas available for potential parking at that time. Those are only alternatives that may be considered in the future. They are not planned. Anthes: Is it the developer's wish to try to handle this by making surface lots in the development rather than on -street parking? Jefcoat: Handle what? Anthes: Guest parking for all of these. Jefcoat: There again, guest parking would be in the alley in addition to the parking garage. Anthes: What are these additional lots that you are talking about creating a detention area and lot 58? Jefcoat We were merely talking about it as an alternative. It might be considered. The developer recognizes that certainly additional guest parking may be necessary. If that makes his development more attractive he is looking at those alternatives. They are not planned. Ostner: So you all are not looking at on street parking on the street sections? Pate: Just in review of the residential with alley cross section in our Master Street Plan, the residential with alley is a street type provided for traditional neighborhood developments with access to properties from rear alleys. These streets provide access to residential property and are intended to be used only by local traffic. The design service volume ranges from 100 to 300 vehicle trips per day at speeds of typically 10 or 15 miles per hour. They are showing 24' streets currently. Parking is allowed within that 24' local width residential and alley street because it is taken or insinuated I guess, that the parking is located off of the alleys so there is not a lot of turning movement off of the actual street. If a car is parked there you could potentially wait until a car goes around. There is adequate room as well. 9' lanes are recommended. By ordinance they would be allowed. It would not have to be marked or painted or anything but it would be allowed on the street. I just wanted to throw that out there for your knowledge. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 37 Jefcoat: I guess what I was considering is guest parking would be overnight. We have talked about in our covenants of restricting overnight parking in the streets. Anthes: I personally don't have a problem with them parking on the streets, even overnight. I would much rather in this type of development see that parking handled on the street, rather than to use lot 58 or greenspace area as surface lot. I would much rather that be a shared public greenspace that could be used by the residents than to have an asphalt lot. Jefcoat: As I said, that is not planned but it is a consideration. It may occur but it is not planned. Anthes: As a PZD we need to see this as it is going to be. I don't want to see major changes made to this after we go through the approval process. We need to do it now. Ostner: The on street parking is I believe an important deal. It is a traffic calming device and it is almost community building. No one is allowed to park on the streets. Basically, the fronts are the alleys. That shouldn't be. The alleys should be for your ugly day to day unloading and the fronts should be more formal to actually use the street. I think it is important to put on street parking on these streets to help it be alive. Jefcoat: That is one reason we've added sidewalks on both sides instead of the one side too. Ostner: Right, but if no one can park there it is difficult to use. They are sitting there for decoration. Jefcoat: Overnight guests would be in the back, not the front. Clark: I'm not seeing that in the covenants. Jefcoat: It should be. We've talked about that and it will be put in there. Ostner: I would say even overnight guests should be allowed to park in the street. You all are building an urban city setting and for this street to be empty all of the time, you drive faster. There is no one to look at because everyone is in the back doing their business. The front doors are locked up because there is no room to go out there. Anthes: I personally would like to not see that added to the subdivision covenants. I appreciate the Landscape Administrator's comments about making the 5' setback for the sidewalks so that the trees can be planted to have adequate Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 38 space for that. The other thing I'd like to see is that the sidewalk be increased to 5' which allows people to pass when they are walking and further promotes that congeniality on streets that we are setting up with a traditional neighborhood development pattern. Jefcoat: I think the owners think and I concur, that a 4' sidewalk in this case is adequate. We have provided sidewalks on both sides of the street instead of one. The 5' planting area is restrictive enough to the fronts of the buildings. We have our building setbacks at 8' now and we would be narrowing that setback. Anthes: This says 18'. Jefcoat It varies in different locations. I'm not sure if it is the same on both streets. Ostner: Sidewalks are a very important thing to me but sometimes I do wonder if in a residential setting if too wide of a sidewalk can be overwhelming. I would be willing to let this 4' stand. That is simply my opinion. Jefcoat: That is really the way we feel. A 4' sidewalk with a 5' greenspace gives us some space to do some planting in the front yards. Anthes: I'm thinking of people pushing baby carriages two different directions. Ostner: This way you have to stop and look at each other instead of just flying by. Clark: I think 5' for the planting space and the 4' sidewalk is a good compromise. In the PZD I'm interested in the greenspace. The purpose talks about open space, recreation areas and other common facilities. I'm missing that someplace. In other PZDs have dedicated greenspace within the community itself. I'm not seeing that here. Is that not the intention of the developer or am I just missing it? Jefcoat: Dedicate greenspace for... Clark: Recreational facilities, common green areas. Jefcoat No, we have the trail way there and we meet the minimum requirements for greenspace areas. Clark: Not the way I'm reading it. Provisions for more usable and suitably located open space, recreation areas and other common facilities that would not otherwise be required under conventional land development regulations. To me greenspace within a PZD is very important because it fosters that sense of community and interaction. Claiming the trail, I'm Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 39 not comfortable with because we are going to highly screen so the development doesn't encroach upon the trail so I have an issue with that. Maybe I'm the only one but I have an issue with it. To me this isn't necessarily my vision of a true Planned Zoning District. Yes, it is multiple density but I don't know that it meets the spirit that I'm comfortable with associating as a Planned Zoning District. Ostner: If that Lot 58 weren't called out as a possible parking lot but were a little pocket park it would seem to work with me a lot better. Clark: When you said the developer was open to making Lot 58 asphalt parking that opened my eyes. Jefcoat: He is only open to that if he has to. Clark: I'm holding out for greenspace. Sorry, I am. I have another question too while you're pondering that. We are going to screen the trail and how close is the trail from this development? Pate: I think it varies. Clark: What's the closest point? Jefcoat: 15'. Clark: What about screening on the east and the north? I know Butterfield Trail is on the east. With some of those residents having backyards that are going to look into this development. Jefcoat That is heavily screened and much higher elevation already. That existing screen there is not going to be interfered with. As far as screening the trail, we are not advocating screening, we're talking about an enhanced buffer to provide access and encourage access, not to screen it from existence. We are talking about enhancement landscaping. Certainly it is a buffer but it is to encourage use and access. Clark: If you are encouraging use from the community but to me if you are encouraging asphalt parking you need to encourage more greenspace. Ostner: It is a very good point. A PZD is a tool used to create different uses. Warrick: One thing that staff might suggest, and we can sit down and talk with the applicant further about this, would be the possibility of utilizing one of these narrower lots on the south side that is adjacent to the trail as a greenspace and a connection to the trail from the internal subdivision. It is one of the smaller lots so it may not impact the developer quite as much as Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 40 Lot 58 but it also has that very strategic location that it would be that pocket park that would provide access for the residents to get down to the trail and the buffer might lighten up, in that area that they can see the trail. I think the buffer is going to be a very good amenity both to the users of the trail and to the people who have homes in this subdivision that would have backyards. Most likely they would want a little bit of privacy off of that trail which will be utilized more in the very near future as it gets continued onto the west. By having the community access to the trail it kind of becomes a gathering point for the subdivision. I'm thinking somewhere around lots 11, 12, 10 or somewhere in the mid -block of the development. Jefcoat: We already have a split in lots 8 and 9, one of those two. Clark: I just think it is really important that we look at a PZD as not just an excuse to put more types of multi -family residential structures in one spot. You've got to meet the whole picture. To me part of the picture is to have more of a community based establishment facility. Right now the way I'm seeing it, it doesn't meet that criteria in my mind. It could I think. I think Dawn's idea is a very good one. I don't care how you do it. I think greenspace and promoting community is an important aspect to a Planned Zoning District. Jefcoat: There again, the detention areas, should we pursue that avenue and Matt has talked to us about it also, doing the additional study to eliminate the detention areas. Those would become more active greenspaces than just greenspaces. Clark: I would be interested to see how you would develop that into a community greenspace. That is the phrase I keep coming back to "community greenspace". To me a PZD is a micro community. Jefcoat: If we develop those as community parks. Clark: Not necessarily community parks, community greenspace. Jefcoat: They are greenspace. Clark: That is one of the things that I'm seeing that in lieu of greenspace you are going to be paying Parks and Recreation over $21,000. The other experience I had with a PZD they got around that by putting the greenspace in there. Warrick: No. Rupple Row did not get credit for their parks within the subdivision that they created. The developer of the subdivision prior to them who created lot 7 where that subdivision is going to be dedicated land offsite to Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 41 the Parks Department which was credited, banked. They utilized that. The land within that PZD is commonly owned by the Property Owner's Association for maintenance by the Property Owner's Association and cannot be credited as parkland dedication. Clark: You are still going to be stuck with the fee but I don't think the greenspace is mandated by the provisions of a PZD. The tree plantings, here's the bottom line. We have set through meetings with the Council and the Planning Commission wanting to know exactly what is going to be in a Planned Zoning District with as much detail as possible. I am kind of concerned about the lack of detail at this point to some of the finer points that I think are getting a lot of scrutiny on Planned Zoning Districts right now. Part of that would be the open spaces, the greenspaces and part of that would also be tree planting, especially along the streets. Are we going to put one tree in front of each lot, two trees, or what type of concept do we have for street trees? I know we pushed it back to say 5' for it but what are we going to do? Jefcoat: The requirement would be 30' and that is what we would propose. Ostner: That is almost every lot. Clark: I just don't see that on here anywhere. The trust issue is high but promise it and it shall happen, elude to it and it doesn't necessarily have to. Jefcoat: We could write that as a note on the plat. As far as developing a detailed planting plan that occurs later. Anthes: I have a question about the comments about the street trees. Craig, you had mentioned about wanting to do something different and Tom had mentioned no sycamores. I wondered whether you guys had had comments. Jefcoat: We were strictly talking about the buffer along the trail. What you commonly find in that creek at that point is a mass of sycamore seedlings coming up in there. Sycamores I don't think in that 15' buffer area, enhancement area, would be the appropriate tree. There are some other trees that we can use in there. Camagey: In my opinion I don't think we should restrict one particular species. I think we should leave it open. We are going to be working with the Parks Department on what they are going to be looking for. I would just want to leave it open. I understand Tom's consideration for sycamores and we will certainly have that discussion. To eliminate any one species at this point I think would be a little premature. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 42 Anthes: I think my concern right now is that you get these drawings coordinated and get everything on them before it gets to Planning Commission. I would like to see the architectural elevations coordinated with the plans so that we have accurate dimensions with reference to both. Jefcoat: Those were provided at the last Tech Plat meeting. Anthes: I appreciate that you have given us an elevation. It would be really great if you could call out some materials on it so we can understand that. Jefcoat: I think the covenants have covered the type of materials. I'm not sure that this would be appropriate to call out the particular types other than the materials that are in the covenants. Anthes: Just to give us an idea about the quality and what you are requiring. It is helpful to see it in a drawing form. That is helpful as another way of communicating it. Adding something about the street trees requirements in your covenants. Getting the right of way and detention areas cleared up per Matt's comments. The dedicated community green is something that I think we really do need to look at. I was looking at Lot 11 because it looks like that lot has a high percentage of floodplain but something in this area as being a dedicated trail connection and greenspace and then working with Matt to best use those drainage basin areas for community recreation. Again, the on street parking being encouraged rather than discouraged and then the last thing I had a question about was this possible street connection to the north. I know Jeremy had discussed that there would not be one and was concerned about additional curb cuts with the proximity of those curb cuts to one another along Joyce. If it got to Joyce and then another curb cut would be very close together when there is a signal for Vantage Drive. I am concerned that if we let this subdivision connect through some other lot that people are going to do that to beat the light and that they will cut through that commercial property in order to beat the light at Vantage. I think that we need to understand what is going to happen there before we provide a connection point to the north. Jefcoat: That will only occur when the development of that lot comes to you for review. Warrick: The way that this is configured there could be a connection, depending on the development of Lot 7A but I think we need to wait and see what that is going to look like. If it is appropriate then great and if it is not, if it would cause a conflict like you are suggesting then we would have control of that. Clark: I'm not seeing in the covenants any specifications for building material types. I think this is a great area for this type of development but I'm Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 43 really trying to pay a lot of attention to the details that we are supposed to follow in Planned Zoning Districts. I don't see anything that we have talked about today as major stumbling blocks to the development. I'm very supportive of it within the conditions that we have talked about. I'm just telling you that people are going to want to see as much specificity as possible because you are under a lot of scrutiny because of the Planned Zoning District. Ostner: One example of that, if I could piggy back on your covenants, number 22, I understand you have put them the way you wanted them. No mailboxes will be installed on any property a mail kiosk is installed for each property owner at blank. There are holes like that that need to be filled in. Where are the mailboxes going to be? Jefcoat: We are looking at two of them. There is one at the intersection on the north and then down at the turn. Ostner: You are going to do a kiosk concept? Jefcoat: Yes. Ostner: On the ownership of these properties these are 32' lots, a lot of them, and on that 32' lot could be a building touching both sides, a three or four- plex. Are these units going to be sold individually? Jefcoat: Units individually. Ostner: In my mind I would call that a condo. Warrick: It is actually a true townhouse if the land goes with it. If the land doesn't and it is just the unit within the structure that is just a condominium. When land is sold with it then you own the land in fee simple and the structure that is contained on it, you may have a common wall but it is a town home. Ostner: I was concerned that a landlord would have to own all four units. He can't live in all four so they would all be rental. Jefcoat: Right, it would be individually owned. Clark: That gives even more of a sense of community. Anthes: We have gone through the conditions with the exception of the determination of the radius request for the curve radius. I don't have a problem with that, do you? Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 44 Ostner: I'm in favor of their request. I think our code rule is counter productive, I think it is a traffic calming method to have tighter curves in some places. Anthes: Obviously, you are going to be working with Parks and Craig on items 7 and 8. We will be looking for that tree planting plan. Are there any other discussions or motions? Clark: You said that you were going to study the impact on Mud Creek about the drainage issues and the retention area? Jefcoat: We will look at that even more now. Clark: Do you have any idea of what type of time line we're talking about? Jefcoat: Not prior to approval most likely. We have looked at doing that and we are looking at six months or more to get that done, which would occur during construction and not at the Planning approval process. We will revisit that some more. Ostner: One last item before we finish this. On the empty lot to the north that is owned by Community Bank, Lot 7A, if that is developed I think it is important to look at connectivity. I understand that there is a fear of cut through. I think that can be designed to be not cut through. If it is slow and complicated you are probably going to take the street but there is a way. The reality is if we don't provide for vehicular access we are probably not going to provide for pedestrian, there is probably going to be a fence. The Braum's on 6`h Street back up to I don't know how many kids who have to walk a block to get an ice cream because of one board fence. I think that is important in the future. I appreciate the developer's willingness to look at that in the future. I wanted to put that on the record that I don't want it to be up in the air that if the option comes up and nobody talks about it and it doesn't happen. I think it is important to happen in the future with that future developer. That's all I have to say. I will make a motion that we forward R-PZD 04-1075 to the full Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval with the conditions and the comments and requests made today. Clark: Can I ask a procedural question? You are recommending that it goes to the full Planning Commission. Is it appropriate to recommend that it come back to this committee first? Warrick: Only if you feel that there are outstanding issues that this committee needs to address. Clark: I think that we have some outstanding issues personally. I think that when you forward it you get into some situations. We know what we have Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 45 discussed here and if it can be done quickly it can come back quickly and then go onto the Planning Commission. I think it ought to come back because we are the ones who raised the issues and we are the ones who need to see the issues resolved before we are comfortable sending it on to the full nine who may not share some of these concerns. I think that what we have asked for can be accommodated quickly. We are not saying that the development is bad and we are going to turn it down. We are just saying that there are some issues. Jefcoat: We are asking the developer to hold it up. We are talking about greenspace. We agreed to do that. Ostner: Exactly where is our bone of contention? Jefcoat: We've narrowed that down that it is going to be along the creek most likely. Clark: Possibly the retention areas. Jefcoat: The retention areas are not going to be addressed or eliminated until the study is done. That will only be an added bonus should that occur. Clark: Absolutely. Jefcoat: I think that we are looking at either tots 8, 9, or possibly 12 or 13. I'm not even sure that either side of the entrance of 17 or 16 would be highly desirable. My first thought was the space on 8 and 9. Clark: I just think that sometimes when we are at the full Planning Commission I will hear comments from one of the people from Subdivision that doesn't seem to resonate with the rest of the group and I don't think that is necessarily correct. I think that we have spotted the issues, we've spent the time doing it and that is what this level is for so I think we should be responsible and follow through. If that is out of line and is wrong. Ostner: No, that is quite appropriate. I was thinking that these are doable between now and Planning Commission. It is a balance. There is a waiting cycle. I didn't think these things required our second look. I was thinking that we talked about them and requested them for the record that we would like to see this on Monday night. Clark: I will be there. Jefcoat: If it is not there we know that we have an issue to deal with. Certainly we don't want to bring any issues up that would far lay some other issues that we haven't addressed or have an issue here. Subdivision Committee June 4, 2004 Page 46 Anthes: I think by virtue of the fact that it is a PZD will be seen at Planning Commission and then will be seen at City Council. It has multiple more reviews to go through the different bodies and therefore, I would not be in favor of holding it up for another month for these issues that I believe can be added and coordinated in time for our next meeting. Clark: I'm going to follow your safe advice on good faith knowing that my good faith wears really, really thin at times. Ostner: The added condition of approval would be to create a community greenspace facing the trail and more fully developed neighborhood covenants that fill in the holes and give us the details. The exact lot that would face the multi -use trail, the greenspace is still up in the air. We have talked about 8 and 9 and 7. We have talked about 12 and 13. Jefcoat: Another one that we haven't talked about that we originally did, was lot 1. That may lend itself even better. You have some adequate parking here and if this was developed lot 1 may be more desirable than any of the rest of them for access. We originally had that there. Ostner: That's the motion. Clark: I will second it. Anthes: We will see you at Planning Commission. Are there any other announcements or items? Meeting adjourned: 10:57 a.m.