Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-16 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Friday, July 16, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. LSP 04-1133: (LOT 11 CMN Il, PH. I) Page 8 PPL 04-1125: (LOT 5 springwoods, 247) Page 10 PPL 04-1126: (LOT 3 springwoods, 247) Page 38 CCP 04-1132: (MACERICH, 135) Page 2 LSD 04-1114: (HILTON GARDEN INN, 173) Page 4 Jill Anthes Alan Ostner (tardy) Christian Vaught (recused from springwoods) STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Allison Brady Matt Casey (tardy) Suzanne Morgan (tardy) Mike Rozelle ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Tabled Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded MEMBERS ABSENT Loren Shackelford STAFF ABSENT Renee Thomas Dawn Warrick Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 2 CCP 04-1132: Concurrent Plat (MACERICH, 135): Submitted by STEVE POWELL for property located at MALL AVENUE AND GEORGETOWN SQUARE DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL, and contains approximately 94.79 acres. The request is to approve the concurrent plat of the subject property with 4 commercial lots proposed. Anthes: Welcome to the July 16, 2004 meeting of the Subdivision Committee meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. We have one Commissioner that is late this morning and we need to start with a different agenda item. There are some items that we have to forward to Planning Commission and we can do that with only two members present. We would like to start today with item four, CCP 04-1132 for Macerich. Will the applicant come forward please? Pate: This is a Concurrent Plat for Macerich for property located at Mall Avenue and Georgetown Square Drive. The parent tract is part of the overall Northwest Arkansas Mall tract. There have been three lot splits on the subject property, two of which are Dillards tracts I believe and the third of which is the Brandon Mall project which the Planning Commission approved a project on late last year or early this year. Since there have been three lot splits on that property it is required to go through a formal platting process all the way to the Planning Commission. This Concurrent Plat fulfills those requirements. The applicant is requesting approval for the Concurrent Plat for a four lot commercial subdivision on the Northwest Arkansas Mall property in anticipation of future commercial development. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 94.79 acres. The original mall tract contained 109 acres. As I mentioned in your staff report, it has been split three times and a Concurrent Plat process may be utilized by an applicant if there are no public improvements or right of way dedications at the time of the requested subdivision of land, such is the case in this particular request. The proposed tracts are larger than one acre and will require Planning Commission approval at the time of development. Therefore, dedications and public improvements will be evaluated at the time of development. Staff is recommending that this Concurrent Plat be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with five conditions. As I mentioned, condition number one is a Large Scale Development shall be processed at the time of development for each of these lots. Item number two notes some revisions that do need to occur prior to going to the full Planning Commission. Items three through five are standard conditions of approval. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Do we have any other staff reports on this item? I will bring it to the applicant. Would you like to introduce yourself and talk about your project? Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 3 Reid: My name is Alan Reid and I will be representing Macerich Ltd. On this Concurrent Plat. I think Jeremy pretty much covered everything. We are just trying to get three tracts to develop on. Lot 4 is the remainder of the mall. It has already been developed, as most people know. I think that we've pretty much covered everything. There won't be any dedication of street right of ways. All of these streets are private mall roads and we would just like to move forward with the project. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any member of the public like to address this Concurrent Plat? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. Vaught: It seems pretty straight forward. Lot 3 doesn't have any public road frontage, is that a concern at this time or is it one that we will address at Large Scale? Pate: Currently Georgetown Square Drive is a private road. Therefore, it is not anticipated specifically that this lot will be allowed to access that road. However, those agreements will have to be made at the time of development. In the C-2 zoning district there is not a frontage requirement. Obviously, they have to have some means of access by some means of access easement or something. Vaught: I will make a motion to forward it to the full Commission. Anthes: I will concur. We'll see you in a few weeks. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 4 LSD 04-1114: Large Scale Development (HILTON GARDEN INN, 173): Submitted by THE MEHLBURGER FIRM for property located at LOT 13B OF CMN II BUSINESS PARK. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 7.25 acres. The request is to approve the development of a 74,838 sq.ft. hotel with 172 parking spaces proposed. Anthes: While we are waiting for our third Commissioner, we are going to have another change in our schedule here. We would like to look at item five, a Large Scale Development for the Hilton Garden Inn. Would that applicant come forward please? Pate: This is a Large Scale Development for the Hilton Garden Inn for property located on Lot 13B of CMN Business Park II directly west of the Fuddruckers restaurant currently under construction on Van Asche Drive. The property contains approximately 7.25 acres. The applicant is proposing to construct a three story Hilton Garden Inn hotel consisting of approximately 120 guest rooms, two meeting rooms, a board room and guest restaurant along with auxiliary development. The subject property does have frontage onto Van Asche Drive and is surrounded, as I mentioned, to the east by the Fuddruckers development. To the north and west primarily by floodplain and drainage associated with Mudd Creek. This site was split from the original Lot 13 earlier this year. Sufficient right of way in this location has been dedicated. Therefore, no further right of way is required. Also, the streets have been improved with this particular subdivision including sidewalks and streetlights. For those driveway curb cuts and approaches proposed sidewalks will need to be constructed through those drives per our city codes. The tree preservation has also been approved for this project in past developments with the Final Plat for this CMN Phase II. We still require tree preservation plans on each of these developments as they come through to ensure they meet those requirements. As you can see on this deed restricted area called on your sheet C-1. Staff is recommending that this Large Scale Development be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with a number of conditions, 14. This is a commercial development. Therefore, it is required to meet the City of Fayetteville commercial design standards. The first item is Planning Commission determination of commercial design standards. I do have a couple of drawings I can pull out. Staff does find that the proposed structure meets those commercial design standards. However, the Planning Commission will need 2406 color elevations of all four sides of the building. Those do need to be submitted for Planning Commission review with cardinal directions and materials labeled on those drawings. Any proposed signage shall be approved through the appropriate sign permits and are subject to commercial design standards. We also recommend that any wall signage or monument signage proposed for this project need to be shown in those color architectural elevations for review of commercial design standards. There Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 5 are a couple of plat revisions that still need to occur. There is a proposed utility easement in which a retaining wall is shown to the northeast of this site. That does need to be modified and revised. Structures are not allowed over utility easements. There are a couple of other comments, five bicycle racks and an additional tree, etc. That's staff's recommendation. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Do we have other staff reports on this item? Rozelle: I think most of the engineering comments have been satisfied or will be satisfied with the construction plan review. I don't have anything new to add that they haven't heard already. Anthes: Thank you. Would the applicant introduce yourself and tell us about your project please? Riggins: My name is Frank Riggins I'm with the Mehlberger firm in Little Rock. We are here representing Area Hospitality of Fayetteville, an LLC out of Moulden, Illinois. They will be the owner and developer of this piece of property. As Mr. Pate described, this is 7.25 acres. We are preserving in greenspace, you might say, 5.2 acres of this site. It will be a three story structure with a brick masonry veneer around the first story with then a drivit material. On the upper two floors it will have a pitched roof of composition shingles. We will be sharing an access drive with the restaurant to the east. We also have one additional drive on Van Asche. We, of course, have read the comments and intend to comply with those and feel like we can. If there is any other information that is needed we certainly will submit it to the Commission. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any member of the public like to address LSD 04-1114? Seeing none, I will bring it back for discussion. Do you want to start with commercial design standards? Vaught: Sure. Pate: We do have a couple of drawings, they are just not mounted on boards. We will need the boards to show the Commissioners and the public. Anthes: We like to have the materials labeled on those and if you would like to bring a sample board that is always useful as well. Signage, any signs that are proposed on the site or on the buildings we also like to see. In general, it looks like it is very much in keeping with our standards. It is broken up fairly well. Riggins: The retaining wall that is in question over the easement, Jeremy is that right there? The screen wall that we are proposing is right here of brick Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 6 masonry. The dumpster will be sitting in that loading area so we are proposing a wall there just to screen that area. Pate: Mr. Riggins, if you would like to work with Mr. Casey, our staff engineer, there are potentially a couple of alternatives to access this sewer line, which I believe you are trying to extend around the building. There is a potential to coming around here as opposed to going all the way around the building to relieve that area. That might be something that you discuss with our staff engineer before Planning Commission. Riggins: We will get some shots on that manhole. Anthes: Typically on the trash enclosures we do not like to see them from the main drives. I think that the way that you have this tucked back in here is probably meeting the intent of that. There are several items on number ten that need to be added to the drawing. I can't tell from here Jeremy is do any of these drives have the possibility of lining up with other developments that we've got around? Pate: There is not currently any development on the lot directly to the south of this. There is a Logan's restaurant on that lot but it access Mall Avenue which is further south. This development that does come in on this lot, lot 16, they are required to access Van Asche Drive and most likely will have to line up with this somewhere in that location. This actual drive to the east was approved with the Fuddruckers restaurant and is recorded as a shared access agreement. They are utilizing that access there and then proposing one further to the west that does meet our criteria. Riggins: I might also add, there is a note here about adding the bike racks on the site plan. We do show our bike racks on here. Is there any specific language that we need to add to that? Pate: I've found two on the site plan. Riggins: Ok, I believe that there are four on there. Pate: If there are five on there that is acceptable. Anthes: I believe you can put two of those together in the same location, they don't have to be scattered around. Are there any other questions or comments? Vaught: What is the area called out as future parking? Riggins: That is a stray note that was left off of a previous site plan. That should be eliminated. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 7 Anthes: Are we meeting retaining wall heights? Pate: On your grading plan it should be noted as far as the height. Riggins: Included in this set of drawings are retaining wall sheets that show those heights. I don't think we exceed 10'. Anthes: There is one here that is almost 12'. Riggins: We will massage that and get that down to 10'. If we find that we need to exceed that 10', is that a variance action? Pate: It is a waiver request from the Planning Commission that this Planning Commission when it is forwarded on will have to make a finding on. Riggins: We will try to get those walls within that 10' limit. MOTION: Vaught: I make a motion to forward this to the full Planning Commission. Anthes: I will concur. We will look for those changes that we discussed. Riggins: Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 8 LSP 04-1133: Lot Split (LOT 11 CMN II, PH. 1): Submitted by JAMES KOCH for property located at LOT 11 OF CMN BUSINESS PARK II, E SIDE OF STEELE BLVD & N OF JOYCE BLVD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 6.53 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 3.75 and 2.78 acres respectively. Anthes: I'm in a quandary. Pate: The Lot Split applicant has arrived. You could review that. We cannot approve at this level with only two members present, you can only forward items. That is something that we have the opportunity to do. Anthes: We are going to go to item number one, LSP 04-1133. James, you will have to indulge us. We are not going to be able to approve it today with two commissioners. We will have to send it forward but it will likely be on consent. Jeremy, can we have the staff report please? Pate: This is a LSP 04-1133 for Lot 11 of CMN Business Park. This property is south of the Bristol Park apartments and fronts onto Steele Blvd. The applicant requests approval of a Lot Split for the 6.53 acre tract. The applicant does intend to split the lot into two tracts of 3.75 and 2.78 acres. The site is currently vacant with commercial development anticipated in the future. Additional right of way is not required at this time. 70' of right of way was dedicated with Steele Blvd. Because we do not have three Planning Commissioners available today, staff will be recommending this item be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval. We only have one condition of approval, which is a standard condition for Plat Review and Subdivision comments to apply. Anthes: Thank you. Are there other staff reports on this item? James, would you introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Koch: My name is James Koch with CEI Engineering and the Lot Split that you see here is of course, Lot 11 Steele Crossing. The north tract will remain in possession of the sellers, Charlotte Steele and Marjorie Brooks. The south lot, Lot I IB will be Mr. Pack's lot. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this LSP 04-1133? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the Commissioners. This looks pretty straight forward to me. MOTION: Vaught: I have no further questions on this so I will make a motion to forward it to the Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 9 Anthes: I will concur. Koch: Ok. Thank you. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 10 PPL 04-1125: Preliminary Plat (LOT 5 springwoods, 247): Submitted by PATRICK HARGUS for property located at DEANE SOLOMON ROAD, LOT 5 IN springwoods PZD. The property is zoned C-PZD, COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 30.77 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat for Lot 5 of the springwoods C-PZD with 47 single family lots proposed. Anthes: Let's take a five minute recess, we are trying to get a third Commissioner here for the next two items. We have a situation where Commissioner Vaught had recused from the original PZD vote on this parcel and therefore, we would like to have another person present to hear it in his place and so he is going to leave. We do have another commissioner on route here. However, we did go downstairs and talk with Tim Conklin. We can get started with just me here talking about the project since we do have to forward them anyway. We are going to get back on track and then Alan will come in as soon as he can get here. Would the applicant for PPL 04-1125 for springwoods come forward please? Can we have the staff report please? Pate: The next two items on the agenda are the first two lots proposed for development in the overall springwoods PZD property. The first of which we will review is Lot 5, a Preliminary Plat. It is located on Deane Solomon Road in the springwoods PZD. It is zoned C-PZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District. This particular property contains approximately 30.77 acres. The property is currently vacant, located east of Deane Solomon Road, north of Clabber Creek and is surrounded on the south and east by Lot 8, which is a permanent greenspace lot. Just in the last week or so, a 404 Permit has been issued from the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers signifying the criteria for impact to regulated areas by preserving and enhancing sensitive land within Lot 8 allowing for development of the lot in question. The applicant, today, for this Preliminary Plat is requesting approval for a residential subdivision with 47 single family lots proposed. Connectivity to the vacant property to the north along with two outlets onto Deane Solomon are also proposed. Lot 48, which is the most southern lot, is to be retained as a first flush filter strip for storm water discharge prior to entry into Clabber Creek. The onsite storm water will be directed to recharge existing and created offsite wetland areas in an effort to enhance and promote hydration of the wetland. The developer is conducting a study to prove that detrimental impact will not occur by the lack of detention for this particular lot. Detention is required with new development, our ordinances state unless the developer can prove that it will not have a detrimental impact. Should the study prove otherwise and detention be required on this property this project will have to come back through our public review process. Additionally, as part of the overall 404 Permit which we just recently reviewed in our offices to review and look over and as was proposed with the rezoning to C-PZD for the subject property, an offsite buffer area Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page I1 between this Lot 5 and the tributary east of the site is proposed. The buffer of trees and herbaceous plants is planned to be within a conservation easement further restricting development activities. The right of way proposed for these particular interior streets is 50' for all of he interior streets. Right of way for Deane Solomon was dedicated with the Final Plat of springwoods C-PZD subdivision. The street along Deane Solomon Road will need to be improved a minimum of 14' from centerline including pavement, curb and gutter and storm drains along the property's frontage onto Deane Solomon. The curve in Deane Solomon at the north is also being realigned within the existing right of way. Interior streets are proposed to be either 24' or 28' in width and vary as per the plan. All of them have 50' of right of way. Parkland dedication for this particular property money in lieu of land was recommended by the Parks and Recreation Board in the amount of $26,085 for 47 single family units. The tree preservation requirements for this lot, there is 3.34% existing canopy on this particular lot. There is mitigation required and staff is requiring that a street tree planting plan be submitted to the Planning Commission prior to Final Plat. Staff is recommending forwarding this FPL 04-1125 to the full Planning Commission with 17 conditions. I won't go over all of those but a few I will. Development of this lot 5 as well as the following lot 3, are subject to those covenants approved and recorded as part of the overall zoning and subdivision plat for the C-PZD. Item number seven, as I mentioned, a street tree planting plan conforming with those specifications set out in the City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code and Landscape Manual shall be submitted for review prior to Final Plat as a method to meet both mitigation and landscaping goals. Keep in mind, this is a PZD site. Development within the floodplain shall require a formal floodplain development permit issued by the City of Fayetteville. Subdivision area signs shall be permitted in accordance with applicable city codes. No structures, including signage, shall be erected within utility easements. I mention that because currently at the northern entrance there is a multi use temporary construction easement that goes across the property in about that location and that is located within that. I anticipate that that easement will be vacated and go to the north but it does meet the requirement for the Final Plat originally. With that, I will turn it back over to the Commission. Anthes: Are there other staff reports? Brady: I would just like to mention that you need to stay in touch with Steve Hatfield concerning the easement. Rozelle: Conflict between the proposed storm sewer and the box culvert on the south end of the drainage swale. The proposed pipe appears to be going through it and I just want to make sure it stops at the box culvert. It looks like they have met all of the other comments that need to be shown on the Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 12 drawings. From what I have understood from Matt, they are in the process of studying the culvert under Deane Solomon Road to determine what size that needs to be and that will be incorporated in the design of Deane Solomon roadway. They are aware of the street improvements on Deane Solomon. On floodplain, we will need to show minimum finished floor elevations on lots backing up to Clabber Creek or any lots where existing grades are below the base flood elevation. Show a separate floodplain line indicating the 100 year flood based on the current FEMA map. I'm not sure if that is shown on this plan yet or not. We will have a floodplain easement established by meets and bounds. They are going to be doing some fill and the boundary of the floodplain will be probably off of all residential lots from what I understand. That requirement may not be necessary at that point. They will be required to get a floodplain development permit for filling in the floodplain and a LOMR-F will be required for any of the lots affected by the FEMA floodplain. That is all of my comments at this point. Anthes: Would the applicants introduce yourselves and give your presentation please? Tarvin: I'm Joe Tarvin with EGIS Engineering. Hargus: I'm Patrick Hargus with EGIS Engineering. Holt: I'm Drew Holt with EGIS Environmental. Anthes: Would you like to say anything about the project? Tarvin: We do agree with staff comments. Hargus: All of Matt's comments are shown in this revised drawing. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address PPL 04-1125, Lot 5 of springwoods? Seeing none, I will bring it to the Commissioners for comments. I guess I have a few questions initially about how we are looking at the different lot developments on this C-PZD. Jeremy, when this original PZD came through Planning Commission we had a lengthy discussion about how we would see the development plans on the parcel. Normally with a PZD we see the entire development laid out at the time of the original approval of the Rezoning. Because of the size of this particular tract of land we were assured that our ordinances allowed for this to come through sort of in an incremental process. However, I'm very concerned that we are now seeing these things as pieces and parts and we are not seeing an overall conceptual plan for the development of the entire site. I don't understand how these parcels work together. I don't understand how these roads work together. I don't understand how you Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 13 are addressing the public amenity, the frontages, the access to the public amenity and to me, I feel like I don't have enough information to evaluate these individual parcels as part of the whole. Can you shed some light on what is required since we have approved this whole PZD as one tract but we are seeing these individual parcels? Pate: It has actually been approved as nine separate tracts. That is what came through as the Preliminary Plat with the original C-PZD. With that subdivision of land they designated specific uses for each one of these. For instance, Lot 5, the only use permitted on Lot 5 is single family residential and the same with Lot 3. Lot 1 is permitted for commercial/office type uses. The uses specifically were designated along with the covenants for overall architectural treatments in some regard, what type of connectivity. For this particular lot staff has recommended connectivity to the north but not to the east or south because of the wetlands that are present there and the crossing of a creek which would potentially have a detrimental impact and would not really meet our goal of preserving lot 8. As far as the road network, these particular lots and you will see on lot 3 with the next project, there was actually a proposal to connect two portions of lots with a road. Staff recommended that connection not be made because it would have to cross a wetland there as well. Therefore, there is going to be a pedestrian connection on that one. There are nine specific lots within this subdivision. We do not have anything in our ordinances requiring the developer to submit the development plans all at once for everything here. I know I'm aware of speaking with these engineers specifically, that lot 1 is currently being worked on. That is really the extent of what has been presented to us. Hargus: You have summed it up quite well. We weren't required to show the total development over the entire Final Plat of springwoods, it is just as we develop each parcel. Anthes: I understand that but I'm still disappointed that I'm not seeing a site concept that is showing. It doesn't have to be full engineering on all of these parcels but I know that you are looking at the entire thing. To evaluate these individual lots I would feel a lot more comfortable if I understood your concept for how the entire site is going to come along beyond just basic land use and zoning in that area. Part of the reason why is that when I'm looking at these parcels we have this lot 8 which is the conservation easement, which there has been a lot of public comment about and a lot of concern. What I'm seeing here is residential lots who's backs face it and will likely have fences and everything else. To me this is a public amenity that the citizens of Fayetteville have worked real hard to get and we are backing up backdoors to it. We are not looking at that in a way that that amenity is shared. I pulled a lot of development plans off the internet this morning in anticipation of this comment looking at ways that Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 14 other developers have used greenspace with perimeter roads and things like that that gives that amenity back to the community at large. I wondered if you had considered any of that in these plans. Tarvin: Part of the reason that we are doing what we are doing was preference by the Audubon Society. They are very concerned that this site be controlled as far as access goes. They want to be able to control how people come in and go out of it. One of the problems with putting perimeter roads around it, it makes it more difficult for them to do that. Regarding the fences, this is something that we agree with but we have to be very careful that we don't stop the migration of animals. That is one of the concerns is that we put in barriers to animals. The second thing is that they do want to control access. How you do that is something that we are still working on. How do you do both at the same time? That was one of the reasons that they were concerned about the trail that was to go down the creek because it, in essence, allowed free access. They want this to be accessible to the public because there would be no point in having it if it weren't accessible. But they want to control it so that the integrity of the site is kept. Having the homes back up to it helps to protect that. As far as access goes, in Lot 1 the developer is giving a lot that is actually located on I-540 for the Audubon to build on. Right here in this corner the developer is giving Audubon 2+ acres of property to build their Audubon center. The access that the Audubon desires for it is through this lot right here. It has also been discussed, and I think agreed upon, that there will be a trail built from the city trail system that will also come down and give access. Audubon wants to have control. They do want to be sure that not just anybody can come in there and do damage, that's the main concern. Holt: One of the things that the Audubon Society was interested in was not necessarily controlling who came in there but it was how they came in and the times that they came in. In working with the Parks Department, the Parks Departments utilizes a hard surface trail system for bikes, strollers and all of that kind of stuff. The Audubon Society discussed with us and discussed with the Parks Department as far as that not being something that they really wanted to have in there because it starts to disrupt the environment. It is really not a situation where they want to restrict access from the public. It is that they want to help monitor it and create the correct blend. This is the first time that they have done this so they are monitoring it and holding it very gently to come up with the correct equation for the amount of people to come in, the times and so on and so forth. I think that really is their concern and ours so we addressed both of them. Anthes: You can understand my dilemma. In looking at this we don't quite understand what they are asking for as opposed to what the city would normally ask for and yet, we are supposed to evaluate the development of Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 15 regulations and weigh those things. We are not privy to all of the information. It would be very helpful if we had something from Audubon that talked about what their desires are or if they have coordinated that with Parks and we have a determination from Parks that you guys aren't working at odds with each other but are working together. Brady: It is my understanding that we are keeping the option open for the multi use trail to go along the sewer easement that is in negotiations to be relocated to the north. Steve Hatfield, our Trails Coordinator, has been handling all of that so I apologize for not having all of the information but that is my understanding on the trail. Haynes: Steve has been involved in meetings with the Audubon Society and discussions and that is when we got into the hard surface trail systems and how working with Audubon they want it to be more of a pedestrian trail and not where you can utilize bicycles and that type of stuff, but be able to tie that into the access for the public and the hard surface trails. If you could basically put feeders up to the city trail system so it allows people access into it, pedestrian traffic at that time. Anthes: Do you have an overall site concept for how you believe this entire property will develop? I know it is not engineered. Hargus: At Preliminary Plat there was in place a conceptual how each lot was developed and how it tied together. Anthes: Is that something that you would be willing to bring to the Planning Commission and share with us? Holt: I think we have it right here. Hargus: It was a preliminary to that. Anthes: I'm looking for an illustrative master plan. Haynes: I could describe it to you very easily. Anthes: If you would I would like to hear it. Haynes: Here on Lot 1 you kind of see this is your frontage road. What you have accessing on Lot 1 is you come in off of your frontage road, it comes in and accesses back out such as to maintain the integrity of this. This multi- family lot right here you have access off of Moore Lane and then also off of Deane Solomon. We have not perfected the roadway systems inside this one but they will be specific for Lot 2. Lot 3 and Lot 5 you see. Lot 6, this is the tractor dealership. There is access that we are going to come Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 16 through, we haven't finalized on this one yet. Right now what we are proposing is a single roadway in, kind of splitting up these lots in here and accessing Lot 7. We haven't done anything with Lot 7 as of yet. That is really the jest of it. We will be utilizing Truckers Lane to access Lot 6 and we understand that there will need to be improvements for that. Hargus: You talked about connectivity between the individual lots. By virtue of the fact that we have greenspace in between you can't get connectivity directly from Lot 3 to Lot 4 or from Lot 3 to Lot 5 because you've got creeks and things. You've got green area acting as a buffer between the two. Anthes: I understand. This is a lot different than most of our developments in Fayetteville where we have a pretty strict policy of connectivity. Because of the wetlands area and because of this conservation area. Haynes: It would make our life so much easier to do connectivity, just to blow through but when you start to do that you have destroyed the wetlands area. When we started this process we knew that we had to accomplish a couple of goals. One was the citizens of Fayetteville really wanted to have this space protected. That was one of the big ones and that is why Audubon Society expressed interest. We are not just going in and doing a development. We are also taking care of what the citizens want. They want a public use and greenspace. We have really tried to accomplish that to make it something that would fall into place. Whenever we do this I actually have aerial shots of the site and then I have Patrick overlay everything on top of it so you can see. I'll be happy to get you that. Anthes: That would be great. I look at this as being close to the interstate and where we are developing and I'm looking at this very kind of suburban office park sort of condition of these entrances and the maintenance of those, which of course, a lot of maintenance. Can you tell me about those entrances? Hargus: Those are just simply entrance signs that introduce the subdivision by name and they would just be shrubs planted around a very low signage. Anthes: Which wouldn't necessarily have to be in a median right? They could be on either side right? Hargus: I suppose they could be. Tarvin: There was a requirement that there be two lanes on one side and one lane on another. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 17 Hargus: Yes, the configuration of this is required, two ins and one out on the other side. Ostner: What about the median? Haynes: The way we did the median is if we were going to be required to separate them like that rather than paint lines and create confusion why not utilize that as a way to create signage for the individual subdivisions. With three lanes it would be confusing without striping it. Ostner: It works all over town. Pate: I would mention that the location of these have been somewhat coordinated. There is a street coming through with Crystal Springs III which is south, that will match up directly across from this southern intersection. There is a development going on that has just been submitted recently, to the west on the Schlegel property that was recently annexed and they are intending to also line up with this intersection. The developers here, even though west of Deane Solomon along this area is part of the springwoods development, that is something that is anticipated for a connection in the future to make for a safe intersection. Anthes: Will there be a connecting street that goes along the border of the north of this property? I noticed we have a stub out for connectivity here. Pate: Staff has recommended a stub out. There is vacant property directly to the north that is agricultural. We are recommending a stub out for future connections there. Within this curve, no. We would not probably recommend a street connection come through out of that curve. Probably the actual improvements they are improving a dangerous situation already which many citizens came to comment about with this development, as well as with the properties for Schlegel that were in for annexation and rezoning. We are anticipating that this will help reduce the danger there with that curve. The actual road east/west here will be evaluated at the time that this develops. There is a provision for a future connection there. Ostner: This was a PZD but right now we are looking at a Preliminary Plat. Does that mean that they have massaged other things of our mandatory requirements like setbacks and road widths? Pate: Yes. Ostner: Do they have to get waivers for those? Pate: No. It is part of the C-PZD as one of the conditions of approval with that when it went through Council it was noted that setbacks will be Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 18 determined at the time of development. They listed their setbacks here as shown as 30' as opposed to a typical residential 25' and 8' on the sides. I believe most of the standards are being kept up with a 28' wide street and 24' in some instances, within a 50' right of way. A lot of those standards have been applied. Anthes: Can you provide for us at Planning Commission a table or something that shows what is normally required and how many of those things they are going to alter? Pate: Just a comparison to a typical RSF-4 zoning district? Ostner: Yes, the RSF-4 requirements with a regular Preliminary Plat. Anthes: There is something on this site that I am a little disgruntled about and that is we are trying very hard to use wetland techniques and you have got a lot set aside and those types of things but yet you still have a big flat bottom concrete ditch that runs through this entire property. Can you talk to us about from an engineering standpoint why that is preferable to other drainage methods? Hargus: Simply because we want to collect as much water as we can onsite and spill it directly into the existing wetlands to keep the wetlands hydrated and assure the viability of this existing wetland. That is the benefit of collecting the water and directing it to it. Haynes: In this particular instance the lots out here on this particular project are very flat. We have a difficult challenge in water moving down towards the creek anyway. Anthes: And you are saying that the flow would be extremely slow if there was anything other than concrete there? Haynes: Right. We want to try to keep the hydration patterns that are there and continue with it even though we will be hard surfacing areas by utilizing it and developing it. We want to maintain the level of hydration that is on the wetlands there. Ostner: That really confuses me because with development comes lots of hard surfaces and runoff shoots up. Anthes: You are building roads, driveways, streets... Ostner: So there is going to be a lot more running into this purely because we are developing it. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 19 Haynes: But you need to collect it and manage how you disburse it back into a specified wetlands area, an area that requires that water. Ostner: Right, but collecting a lot more. There is no concrete ditch now, obviously. The wetlands are operating at an ok level, it is not starved. If you did not do a concrete ditch we are going to feed it a lot more water simply because of asphalt and roofs. Tarvin: The reason that we are putting the concrete invert is because it is so flat that you could maintain a grade. If you didn't have the concrete invert you would have puddles. Ostner: Are you talking the trickle channel or just a 5' path? Tarvin: No, just the invert is concrete, it is grass on the sides. Ostner: How big? I guess I'm trying to imagine. Tarvin: I believe it is 8' but it is sized to take on storm events. You have to have it sized to be able to pass major storm events. We could keep it as a trickle but during 10 to 15 to 20 year storms it wouldn't work. Ostner: I'm just talking about the concrete being trickle. Hargus: I shouldn't say flat bottom, it is not. It will be a slight V to create a trickle down the middle. Haynes: What is the surface area of the concrete? Hargus: It is 8'. Ostner: The reason I'm asking is that the type of water that sits on a concrete channel is exposed to lots of sunshine and lots of bacteria which will solidify, isn't the best kind of water to be dumping into. It might be wet but it doesn't contain any nutrients. Since we are getting a lot more water already I'm just not understanding that at all. Hargus: The wetland is a nutrient trap. We want to trap the nutrients. Holt: That is correct. The wetlands will act as a filter to pull the flow into Clabber Creek. They are nature's filter. Ostner: I'm still not understanding the reasoning behind the flat bottom ditch at all. Why couldn't it be a regular creek that was exposed? Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 20 Hargus: Mostly because of the slopes. The slope is so flat out there if we tried to do it in grass or vegetation we would create ponding, we would hold mosquitoes and everything else. Ostner: This isn't bad. Hargus: A part of the mitigation plan is not only are we keeping existing wetlands but we are creating more wetlands. Not here but elsewhere like over here and over here. We are actually creating more wetlands but we prefer to create them here in the greenspaces as opposed to in the back of people's yards. Haynes: What is the grade on that ditch? Hargus: It is about V2%, which is a minimum of concrete. Ostner: You are talking longitudinal grade, not lateral? Hargus: Not lateral. Tarvin: It is 6" to 100'. With only 6" of fall on 100' if you try to do that without some sort of a hard surface you are going to have erosion, you are going to have low spots. It is not going to be easy to maintain. Ostner: It just sounds like it is going to look flat and low and gathers water. This just does not fit to me. This seems over engineered. There is such a wall of we're doing nothing and we're doing too much when you look at the drainage patterns. This drainage easement could integrate different methods that would make it look like this. It would look like an old creek. It would be earthen and plants and it would have a puddle but it would dry up, it wouldn't be huge. Anthes: The way this is constructed in here if people are fencing their backyards we are going to have a fence and then this concrete thing and this other fence. Hargus: If you did that it would be purely aesthetic. It wouldn't be as functional as it is now. I understand the balance between aesthetic and function. Frankly, the only people that would see it would be these residences. It wouldn't benefit anyone else. Haynes: How does that affect our engineering plan having that concrete or not concrete? Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 21 Hargus: It affects it because what we are doing is we are directing the water of the subdivision to hydrate the wetlands, which is what we want to do, which is part of the master plan. Haynes: Environmental is on this also? Holt: This has been shown to us to be the best way to keep the water from being cut off from Lot 8. Are there other ways to do it? Probably. This has been shown to be the best way. Tarvin: From hydraulic characteristics of the flow if you went to grass it won't carry as much so it would have to be enlarged. Rozelle: Just to throw out what our engineering ordinance is actually going to specify, the fact that it is a public drainage easement, it is intended to carry the 100 year flows and it backs up to residential lots. It does create a maintenance problem for the city in the future if we don't have that concrete channel in there. Although, I understand the ecological benefit of the natural channel. We do get series of calls and complaints about channels that aren't, that do tend to hold water and because impossible to mow and maintain. The City's Transportation Department would be responsible to maintain that and then our ordinance, basically for a channel this flat, not saying I agree with it or disagree with it, but there would be some kind of a waiver of our engineering drainage ordinance to allow something otherwise. It is certainly something we can look at in our future ordinances to provide other alternatives without a waiver. We need to look at that I think and verify if that would be a situation that would cause a need for a waiver if we were to take away the concrete. Ostner: When a developer builds a subdivision and there is a drainage area through the land they have to concrete it? Rozelle: They have been required in the past. Fairfield subdivision is a good example and typically, if it is a larger drainage area and a natural creek we do not mess with that because it is jurisdictional waters. Where it is not jurisdictional waters they do tend to go ahead and concrete that. Ostner: This is not jurisdictional water, obviously? Rozelle: That is my understanding. The location where they are putting this is not an existing channel from what I can tell. I haven't been out there on the site myself so it is not currently jurisdictional waters. Ostner: We concrete the small ones and leave the big creeks is what you are saying? Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 22 Rozelle: Yes. Anthes: We are looking to this property as a demonstration of a lot of best development practices and certainly we want to be very cognizant of the fact that this Lot 8 is really near and dear to the citizens of Fayetteville. We just want to be sure that we are thinking about this in the right way. Haynes: When we decided that we wanted to move forward with the City of Fayetteville on this property, the day that it became public, it became sport for everybody out there that this was not going to work because you are developing inside a very sensitive area. The protection and preservation of Lot 8 is paramount to our ownership group and to EGIS Environmental because we own the property and we are developers so it becomes paramount to us but then we've included these guys and EGIS Environmental to help protect and ensure that the environmental sanctity of Lot 8 is protected for the citizens of Fayetteville and the Audubon Society and for the Corp. of Engineers. All of that has come into the mix and come into play as we have done this. Anthes: Let's change subject for a minute. What is the affect of density on this parcel? Hargus: Basically it is two per acre. Pate: 1.52 units per acre based on 30.77 acres and 47 single family homes. Anthes: Personally I still don't understand the access thing with Audubon and the controlled, these lots backing up to Lot 8 just really bother me. Hargus: I can address that if you would like me to by just using your example here. I think in this example here you have a development and then you have greenspace. If you think of the entire C-PZD as one development and then Lot 8 is this greenspace for this development and this development. That is the character of Lot 8. Anthes: What is different about the way that these plans address it is number one, there are no cul-de-sacs. All of the development actually turns and faces and uses that greenspace as an amenity and as part of the streets and everything else, it doesn't put backyards to it. It really celebrates that and links it in with this pattern of natural and unobstructed green systems. That is what I'm not seeing in this plan. Without seeing the overall illustrative concept plan I really can't see it. What I'm seeing is that we have individual discreet parcels that happen to be part of a bigger piece of land and they are being developed individually and the backs of them are lining up to what happens to be this amenity but nobody is really going to see it unless they come to one controlled access point. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 23 Haynes: As far as the individuals inside the development? Anthes: Both. Haynes: The individuals inside the development it is almost like a personal experience. If you live in the subdivision you have your own personal experience that happens with this. With the public you have points of access that are controlled by the Audubon Society. We are trying to create the equilibrium from how to best control the two together. That access comes from either at the learning facility that they are building on the 2.5 acres that we have given them or through the different trail head systems that interconnect with the Audubon pedestrian trails inside of Lot 8. It is not something that is a huge public display or private display where everybody sits back and you have homes looking out across. It is not really that. It is it's own intimate experience at the same time. It is not where you are thrusting wildlife into this limelight. When we were doing the covenants it got down to the type of lighting that we use. We had to meet the city requirements for the amount of lighting that we have to have but then at the same time we have to work with the Audubon because you don't want to introduce too much light. You don't want to use that artificial light around the different species and that kind of stuff. It has been really, really tough and it would be a real easy sale when you go and try to create a viability with a project if you spice this thing up and lay it on the table. At the same time you have the potential to hurt more than you can help on that. That's where we weighed it at and that is really where we have had the Audubon's input throughout this process. When we took this thing on it became sport. I'm not end all be all on environmental. I know that Collins is not and I know EGIS isn't. We all can learn stuff. Audubon was kind of the higher archy in among us and we came to them for help. How can we make this viable, how can we make this work? I just wanted to address that. Anthes: I understand that we have a study under way for detention and we are waiting for a result to understand everything there. Let's go to conditions of approval. Tarvin: The understanding that we have on detention is that it has already been shown that if you provide detention that you will increase the flood level. The runoff from this lot and lot 3 both are gone before the floodway gets here. If you delay this with detention then you increase the impact of the flood. That has already been determined. Hargus: It has been determined in the preliminary drainage report that was submitted. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 24 Anthes: There is still some understanding that... Haynes: We are penalized if we don't come up with the correct results. Yes Ma'am. Anthes: Ok. Can you tell me about the internal sidewalk system here? Hargus: They are 4' on either side and it abuts the right of way line. Anthes: They are set back how far from the curb? Hargus: It is a 50' right of way line so 25' from centerline of the street. I can't remember but there is probably about 6' or 8' between the back of curb and the sidewalk. Anthes: So there is enough for street trees? Hargus: Yes. Ostner: These are all 28' streets? Hargus: No. This is a 28' street section from here to there because of this connection. Then it transitions back to a 24' street. I kept this 28' until that transitioned at a tangent. At this tangent it transitions back to a 24' street. That keeps this flow as a 28' for through traffic. Pate: We do prefer to see the smaller streets when you have the residential traffic. Anthes: Are your covenants going to call for street trees? Haynes: We have a list of species of preferred and non -preferred trees from the Audubon. Hargus: Part of the mitigation is we will be putting street trees. Pate: Prior to the Final Plat of this particular lot a street tree planting plan, as mentioned in the conditions, will need to be applied with the submittals to meet both mitigation and landscaping requirements. Anthes: That is condition seven. Do you have anything else Alan? Ostner: Street lights shall be installed with a maximum separation of 300' along all streets. How is that going to work? You all talked about lighting impacting the Audubon. What are you all putting up? Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 25 Hargus: It is a downward light that is shielded. It will not spread beyond and into the Audubon Lot 8. Haynes: Basically we came and found out what your requirements were and we went to the Audubon Society and asked how can we make this work. We knew it had to be a downward and basically light up the street and stays in line and leaves Lot 8 undisturbed. Anthes: Are these pedestrian scale lights, is that what we are looking at? Haynes: Yes. Hargus: We will do whatever the city requires. Haynes: Ultimately it is what the city requires but it is how we can take that and massage that into a lighting package that fits and protects the wildlife area. Ostner: I believe the city requirements are basic and they aren't really tailored to fly really high. We want to make sure they are in the developments. I was just asking how that was going to be adapted. It doesn't seem to really mix with this project. Tarvin: All the way through this thing we have been balancing city requirements with what we really would like to do. There are certain things that we have to do and that we can't get around and so we do those. Where we can improve we will. Haynes: When you asked earlier about having a table of comparisons between this verses a standard one a lot there isn't variation, we have come into the city and said what are your requirements and then gone off and done our own research and said ok, how can we try to make this mix? Can we do anything with this so that we can accomplish this over here? It is not economics, it is being able to make the Audubon Society happy. They always get given something at the end of the construction phase. They get five acres in the back or something like that. They don't want to have a piece of property, as much as they are going to put into this and as much publicity as this particular lot is going to have and this development is going to have as the first time the Audubon has worked with this. They really wanted to try to work hand in hand to come up with something that was unique and to get any help from the city that we could. Anthes: Let me just ask you about this street design here. Usually you see this kind of curvature when you are responding to topography and you have got a lot of flat land out there. Can you just tell me why we have these really curving roads? Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 26 Haynes: This is just from a study standpoint. When I go into a subdivision a standard grid subdivision is set up where you are all on right angles and everything is just a standard grid. It really doesn't create an intimate setting. This is my humble opinion. I'm sure there are better ones out there. It is intimacy, it is expectations when you are driving around a curve. You are not going home and going down a straight line grid and you are going to take a right into your house and take a left when you get out. It comes more natural. Hargus: It is safer too. It slows traffic down when you have curvilinear streets as opposed to straight streets. Anthes: I'm just looking at this as part of a C-PZD which indicates to me a certain level of our vanity rather than suburb. This looks like a real suburban street pattern to me. I know that we are balancing, we've got a lot of balance going on in this entire project and that's why, again, I really want to see the overall illustrative plan and analyze it. Again, we are responding to a grid at Deane Solomon Road, agricultural land that is flat and has been there a long time and we are integrating it in a mixed use situation. To me this looks like a very suburban street pattern with squiggly streets and cul-de-sacs and that kind of thing which tend to be sort of exclusive to one another. Haynes: I'm not a fan of cul-de-sacs at all. I don't like cul-de-sacs. In tying to the whole theme of what this development is it is combining a natural setting with a commercial piece. Granted, in a commercial environment everything is grid, everything is set up as easy functional, it is all the framers that go with that. Then when you start combining that as a natural setting, it flows, it does respond to topography, it does do all of these different things. I lived in St. Louis when I was growing up in an area that used to be outside the city that as the city grew it was swallowed up. It was very similar to this, it used to be vacation homes to everybody. It was an urban environment. You were in the heart of St. Louis but it was very organic. That is my past claim to coming into the development of this tract. Tarvin: All of this really adds to the cost. For instance, this right here, it would have been so much easier and cheaper from a surveying standpoint whenever we go to staking all of these lots if that was a straight line. Audubon said can we make it look a little more natural. That is why this is this way. That sort of falls the same way here. If we came in like this, this naturally has to be like this. We wouldn't have a right angle so we had to curve some to come in at a right angle for safety. Haynes: You are not actually responding to topography but actually to property just for flow. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 27 Ostner: The last comment that I want to talk about and it is something that you and I have touched on in other meetings. I am in the middle of reviewing the master plan so I'm talking about the terms that they are talking about street experience. You all have talked about how important it is, just now. Deane Solomon street experience is poor. We have got fences all along here now. No one faces it, there are no eyes on the street. It is not the greatest experience. You have turned your back on that part of the property. That upsets me. We see that everyday, backs of subdivisions facing out. We turn all of the faces internally and we have a degradation on the perimeter of our street experience. Hargus: I think that is a magnetism of the fact that that is a collector street. When it is a collector street you want to control access so that you can control traffic. On collector streets you want to be able to have controlled access. I'm sure any City Planner would probably agree with that. You don't want people backing up on a higher speed collector street. Ostner: Does anyone face the street now with these homes? Hargus: No. Ostner: I'm talking about are there other properties that have frontage on Deane Solomon right now? Tarvin: This will have, this is going to be medium density residential right here as part of the PZD. It will face that, it doesn't have enough depth not to. Ostner: We've got highly successful collectors all over town that people face. They don't face the other way. Haynes: That all gets into a clientele perspective on who the user group is. Anthes: The user group of that street is the City of Fayetteville and all the citizens of the City of Fayetteville. What we are talking about is a street experience where you have major arterials in cities all the time where you have beautiful homes that face them and that contributes to that street. It doesn't if you are going down a wall of fences that is created by a channel of back yards that face it. Ostner: There are ways to get out on collectors without backing up into them. Hargus: Jeremy, can you correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that we were directed not to empty each lot onto Deane Solomon? Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 28 Pate: We do have a policy of limited access, access management onto collector and arterial streets. That is with driveway cuts essentially. There are streets that do share accesses, a common driveway on a property line or something to access that to limit that number of curb cuts. It is not entirely restricted but it is something that we have to look at for the safety of motorists entering and leaving each home and also those that are traveling along Deane Solomon or any other collector street. Anthes: Sure, but you can service a home from a rear alley situation that is off of here that dump cars onto the main collector and still the homes open to and face the street without backyards being on them. Ostner: You don't have to back out of the driveway. Most of our collectors people turn around before they get out onto the collector. I understand that is a policy and we apply that. There is a lot of talk of changing that policy. It is not completely successful. That is part of the rules that we are dealing with right now. Haynes: I will forward down here the aerial that you requested, as long as you understand that it is a work in progress. Anthes: I understand but I believe you have set your site concept pretty early and there would be minor engineering changes and that kind of thing. Haynes: The concept is in place but as far as how many feet between this and that we are constantly working with the city on developing that piece. Anthes: You might think we are being kind of tough here and asking about a lot of things that we might not otherwise but this development is high profile and you have known that since the moment you took it on. It is under a lot of scrutiny and it has the potential to be a demonstration for the city about how we can do all sorts of things right. When we see things like fences backing onto streets instead of contributing to the life of those streets and cul-de-sacs and wider street profiles and some of these things and when we know what we are trying to move to as a city we would like to kind of ask you to consider those things when you are looking at those future parcels on this site. Ostner: On those same notes, I really wish someone from Audubon could be here on Monday night. I would in fact, like to request it formally. Haynes: That shouldn't be a problem. They, unfortunately, couldn't be here today. Tarvin: We asked. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 29 Ostner: There seem to be so many design decisions that are forcing this development to turn its back on the natural areas. Haynes: I would appreciate that and so you would almost have to get it from me. A lot of these are taken into consideration from input by Audubon. That would help me a lot too. Ostner: It just seems very different. We perceive this as park like and we are hearing that it is not park like. Not that no one can see it, but it is personal. We are not going to have streets that you can peak in. We are not going to have a wide open walk through. Haynes: You will hear that from them, not from us. Ostner: It is very new and it doesn't fit easy with me. Tarvin: You said just what I was thinking. The example that was shown there would be in my mind, something that is much more open, that is really a park that you can just drive up and pull off the side of the road and get out and have picnics and really have more access to it. The way they view this thing is it is extremely delicate. I guess they are just as concerned as we are. We are very concerned that the hydration of this thing not be interrupted. We don't want this thing to die. It is literally a living organism. They are concerned as well because they are going to put a lot into it. I think their view of it is that this is so delicate that they want to be sure that it is really in their hands. Hargus: I think you are exactly right Joe. These developments here are 100% man made developments. They have the luxury to design their own natural spaces. This one we have to design around a natural space that can't be touched or we will destroy the wetlands. There is a difference between that type of development and this type of development. That is 100% man made, this is man made trying to balance with something that has to be preserved. Anthes: I would somewhat like to differ. They are not always 100% manmade. Hargus: They had the luxury to design their greenspaces and their wet areas and can put them anywhere they want. We have to design around what is there. Anthes: They are added toward it. Haynes: I'm going to let Audubon speak to that when they are here. From my understanding and from dealing with them from the get go is this is the first time this has been tried. This is a first for a national organization. As Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 30 such, it has got the spotlight. They are really trying to establish. They don't have a book to go back to or they don't have a point of reference to go back in their mind and go how do we do it this time? They never have. They really want to protect it and not shield everybody from the public and make it just private personal experience but I think in the intern that is the way they want to limit it. They want to take everybody's hands and say this is really delicate and let me show you how. It is almost like teaching a child how to ride a bicycle. Ostner: They might not have done it but other groups have done it a lot. Haynes: But this is the Audubon. Ostner: I'm just saying that this is still a development, it is still a city even though it is Audubon. There is very little integration. There is virtually none, in fact. Haynes: I think you guys will find the Audubon so anxious to get involved with the city and make sure everybody is on the same page and make sure that the city is involved in the process and knows what is going on. They need the city as much as the citizens desire to have an Audubon center. It is a true marriage. I think you will find that when they get up and voice that. Holt: If I might add too, this is all regulated by the activities that take place inside the existing wetlands is regulated by the Corp. of Engineers permit and the mitigation plan that has to be designed, the things that can and can't be done inside the wetlands or inside the creeks up front. We are working towards a design that takes that into account, that takes into what the Audubon ultimately wants. It takes into what Mr. Haynes is desiring as well as what the city wants. We are working towards that. It is a process that is very complicated. It is still a work in progress. Haynes: We are trying to make sure nothing gets burned and nothing gets stolen. Anthes: As a personal preference and as a development preference, I would like to see lots that incorporated facing the street and contributed to Deane Solomon as well as to the interior of your project and connectivity rather than dead ends and that sort of thing. I just want to state that. There is nothing in our ordinances right now that can request you to make those changes. Ostner: This is a PZD, we are allowed latitude on lots of things. These are %z acre lots. There is more than enough room for a looped driveway or shared driveway so people did not have to back out. It is not a minor or major arterial, it is a collector, which is twice the volume of a local street, maybe Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 31 a little bit more. It is not a major, major road. I think that is an important thing to do. I just wanted to do. These are not tiny, cookie cutter 70' lots. Haynes: That was my choice on the lot size. I wanted nice large lots. I can't stand when folks, it is not my personal preference to go and stack houses. Ostner: The only reason I'm bringing that up is lot size talks about dialogue with the street. Really narrow lots have difficulty having looped drives or turn arounds. Really wide lots have an easy looped driveway or little hammerhead turn around. That is historically the way it is done. Anthes: Which are the commercial lots here? Hargus: Lot 1. Anthes: The residential development that adjoins the commercial development won't be more dense? Haynes: Yes it will be. Tarvin: This is a higher density here. These are the two single family lots. Anthes: I'm commenting on what you just said about nice, large lots and you don't like to pile them up. Frankly, to me that is a little bit of a distressing comment because you are building commercial density and then you are going to put large lots next to them where you don't have a lot of people are going to get in their cars and move around because you don't have that density next to a commercial area. I would be hoping we would be seeing a lot more density as we are approaching the expressway. Pate: Lot 4 is designated for multi -family. The one that is actually adjacent to the commercial lot is dense. Tarvin: As you begin to approach I-540 your density does increase. Ostner: You are also doing multi -family across the street, is that correct? Tarvin: Right. Ostner: Are you going to build a concrete canyon again? It is kind of working that way. I would really like to avoid that where there are fences on both sides of the road and nobody facing the road. Haynes: This entire group of multi -family does face Deane Solomon. Anthes: Then they are going to look at the back fences across the street. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 32 Ostner: It only faces it really because it is such a narrow parcel. It adds asphalt. You've got asphalt here that nobody is facing. Ostner: You are duplicating asphalt, you are building extra streets. Anthes: Jeremy, would you remind us of a PZD of the street configurations and how we can make requests and requirements like this? Pate: As a part of the PZD obviously, there is latitude with regard to the development at the Planning Commission level when this is discussed more fully. The Planning Commission can look at making specific requests or conditions of approval for that Preliminary Plat. Obviously, we still have to stay within certain parameters. It is not just a free for all for either side of the table. Thais something that is the balance and the dialogue that we have to have here, which I believe we've had a pretty good dialogue here today at the Subdivision Committee level. As far as removing that street all together I believe that would take us back through the process because it would change quite a bit of both the engineering side of things and Technical Plat Review utility comments, etc. Ostner: What do you mean removing the street? Pate: If you remove the interior street, is that what you were looking at? Anthes: It would be a reconfiguration. Ostner: I'm not really talking removing it as much as using this as frontage. Pate: We do have developments that have collector streets and houses do front onto those in the City of Fayetteville. On a collector street we do like to see shared drives if possible, as you mentioned, so it is not entirely not possible to develop in that manner. Obviously, you would be seeing another public street however, with the backs of houses on it with that interior street. Ostner: You would back up houses to that. It would be a new plan. I'm not just talking about turning the house around. Ms. Chair, what would you like to do? Pate: Obviously, the comments reflected here, if you choose to forward this, will go to the remaining commissioners to vote for this project or against this project. Anthes: Then we are even deeper into the process. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 33 Pate: True, which is really at the detriment of the developer if you get to that point. Ostner: The things that we are talking about is really committee work. It is not full Commission tasks. Anthes: Are you as a development team willing to consider any of these issues? Haynes: As far as realignment and as far as time line goes, one of our concerns in going through this process with the city was we could only get so far without owning the property. We got approval of the PZD and got approval for a nine lot basic subdivision. Tarvin: With the street configuration as you see. Anthes: If you check the minutes of that meeting I was very clear in that meeting to state that I did not want to see those streets in that configuration and that we would be looking at them very specifically when they came through. I knew when I saw that original plat that I was unhappy with the street configurations. Ostner: I believe we were given the explanation that this is preliminary, don't worry, these streets are just ideas. Haynes: We started that process and we closed last year on this and have been working full steam non stop getting this to the stage where we are right now. I think we are open in discussing and doing things along that nature. As far as trying to go back and reconfigure something where we have come so far with it so far and have so much money. It is not money and time that we have spent with EGIS Engineering but also money and time of owning the property and servicing debt on it and doing everything that we have done. If I had the luxury I would love to do that but the amount of money it costs per day is staggering. I think I would be more than happy to listen and work with you in trying to establish some stuff but as far as if you want me to go back in and try to realign and reprogram the street layout it's not possible. Anthes: I would certainly want to do that on future parcels coming through. Ostner: The thing about this is you start a pattern immediately. This is unique because it is almost undeveloped. Once you start turning in no one wants to face someone else's backs so you keep repeating and everyone else keeps turning in too. Haynes: It also goes back with the experience that you are having right here. You are not necessarily turning yourself, you are just by virtue of your Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 34 positioning of your home and what you are looking out on but at the same time you are looking out onto Lot 8 at that time. Anthes: Right but we have to evaluate these as a contributing factor to the City of Fayetteville and to the street patterns of the City of Fayetteville, not just within your internal development. We are looking at how it contributes to the experience of people going by on Deane Solomon, going by on I-540 and all of those different things. Haynes: I understand that you guys have a serious balancing act. Ostner: I was trying to think of my list to require them to make changes to come back to Subdivision but I just can't think of it. Pate: I have a few of those things. We do need to see an illustrative aerial with changes, the comparison table between a typical RSF-4 or RSF-2, I can look at whatever density we are building at and compare that to what you would typically see in this particular development with regard to setbacks, frontage, street configuration as far as widths and that type of information. Audubon representative if possible to address the access and use of that site protecting the integrity and monitoring of that site as mentioned by the applicant. Then the notes about the street experience and backing up fences onto Deane Solomon and how that can be addressed. Anthes: What about in our regulations about what constitutes sufficient evidence to come back to Subdivision or get forwarded to full Planning Commission? Pate: The Commissioners here today vote to forward this on. Typically if there are comments that just cannot be addressed before the Planning Commission level. If you feel like these comments can be addressed and presented to you for the full Planning Commission as opposed to just two of you today then that is sort of how you make that vote based on the comments presented today which will be presented next week in total to the full Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, at that time, if they are not satisfied could vote to table and you are going to have two more weeks to come back and look at some changes. Haynes: From our side I think we can address what is mentioned before that to your satisfaction. If not, we will suffer the consequences. Ostner: I think most of the things that are on that list are committee work. I would like to table this. The questions for Audubon are huge. They dominate the design. Audubon is supposedly driving this system. It doesn't seem to go with what I thought was explained to me four or five months ago. Haynes: In what regards? Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 35 Ostner: I don't know why this street can't be here? Why you can't drive along the edge. Hargus: That would be single loading street. That would be an economical liability. Usually you want your streets doubled up for economy. If every street was single loaded that would put many developers out of business. Haynes: The other thing that it also does is it goes back to the experience with the Audubon Society, which they can explain too. It is introducing a vehicle along a natural border to this natural area along with headlights and that stuff, where it can and where it can't. Anthes: We don't understand where it can and where it can't. To us we are looking at it and there is a big piece that it is on it and that met Audubon's approval and then all of a sudden there is another big stretch that can't. What does that mean? There is a stretch of this road that fronts the wetlands that they seem to be ok but all of the sudden when we get over here they are not ok with it anymore? Tarvin: This is going to be a lot. Ostner: Is this curving the lot line? Hargus: We did not have this drive here. We did have it double loaded. We were asked by the city to align this drive with this drive which did not give us enough room to double load the street right here. That is exactly what drove this piece. Anthes: You are telling me that the fact that that road is not a perimeter road has as much to do with the economics of building the street as it does to the contributing nature of the plan? Hargus: That and it is driven by what the city has recommended for us to do. Anthes: I don't buy it. Ostner: What do you mean the city has recommended? Hargus: That we put this drive here. The property was already platted before we realized that we had to locate this drive at this point. Anthes: I personally would like to get answers to a lot of these questions and have you guys look at this and address them at a committee level. That is because we are looking at setting the standard for numerous additional lots on this property and I don't want to get this thing so far along where you Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 36 guys have engineering so far along on all of these lots that the overall development pattern and concerns of how to address these roads and other things isn't set early. To me it is better to slow up this first one and make sure that we get everything talked out and get it right so that the other ones can go through easily than it is to put these through piece meal and have this conversation every time. Haynes: Basically the questions that have been posed to us that Jeremy mentioned earlier are the questions that you would like to have. Anthes: And our concerns about the general attitude of how this contributes in the entire overall development and illustrative plan for this site and Audubon's concerns so that we can understand and evaluate it affectively for this lot and for the future lots so that this process will not be so painful at every time. Haynes: It's particular to Lot 5? Anthes: This particular question since we are looking at Lot 5 is but we are going to have these same questions on every lot so we may as well hash it out now. Haynes: Cool, when is the next time we get to rumble? Ostner: Two weeks. Haynes: I am new to the City of Fayetteville process. Us being able to hash it out before the Planning Commission, how is that different just from a pure educational standpoint? Anthes: It is the purview of this committee to make sure that a certain amount of information is gathered and questions are answered and the development packet is ready for proposal before the entire Planning Commission. What Alan and I are saying is that we don't think it is ready because we think some of these issues are too big for us to make an adequate evaluation of this particular project and make that recommendation to forward it. Haynes: If I understand correctly, if I come back in two weeks and I have answered all of the questions that have been proposed along with Ken here as well. I answer those questions for you to your satisfaction so that you are able to propose this to go onto Planning Commission. At such time in that planning packet, the questions that could possibly arise from not being in a position that you all feel are necessary to continue, those would basically be not curtailed, but answered in that packet at that meeting, is that correct? Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 37 Anthes: Jeremy and other staff will work real diligently to make sure that they understand these concerns and that all of your responses are documented and we have the minutes from this meeting and we have any revisions to the drawings or anything that is ready like those additional illustrative plans, all of those things will be in place and then you will have your day. Haynes: How does that put me at the Planning Commission? I'm two weeks with you guys and then where? Anthes: The following Monday will be the Planning Commission meeting. Haynes: So it leaves me two weeks out, is that right? Ostner: You have to wait a week anyway for Planning Commission so it is just a two week delay. Haynes: We can do this, this is no problem. I am going to have to figure out if I understand correctly, will it be the same two of you next time? Anthes: Yes, would you agree to come? Ostner: Sure, I would like to. We are going to have to get somebody to fill Christian's spot anyway. It would be best. Anthes: You can direct your comments to Jeremy through staff and if we have some things that really need to be worked out and we want to make sure that this is going to fly through next time we are available. We can come in and talk with him. Jeremy is the man. Haynes: It's two weeks from today, same time, same place? Ostner: Yes. I will make a motion that we table this as per our comments. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 38 PPL 04-1126: Preliminary Plat (LOT 3 springwoods, 247): Submitted by PATRICK HARGUS for property located at LOT 3 OF springwoods PZD. The property is zoned C- PZD, COMM. PLANNED ZONING DIST. and contains approximately 30.77 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat for Lot 3 of the springwoods PZD with 36 single family lots proposed. Anthes: Our last item of business today is PPL 04-1126 for lot 3 of springwoods. Jeremy, will you read the staff report? Pate: Sure. This specific property is located south of the Lot 5 property. It is Lot 3 of the springwoods C-PZD. There are planned 36 single family lots on this particular property. It is very unique. It is two almost separated properties surrounded almost in entirety with designated wetlands. It has been a challenge for the developers. I know that we have worked with them in several instances to look at different street configurations to access this property. What you see before you obviously, is what has been submitted. 31 lots will be accessed from a single entry point off of Deane Solomon dictated obviously, by those existing wetlands on either side. The remaining five lots are accessed from a separate entry onto Deane Solomon. Staff did recommend against a vehicular access between these two points and instead recommended a pedestrian connection, as shown, with a trail and foot bridge to cross those wetlands. The potential impact of a street crossing and the benefit of that, the impact and the pedestrian connection still allows for connectivity for both bicycles and pedestrians but does not have the impact of a street section through there. I won't go through the rest of the transition zones but much like the property to the north surrounding each of these lots are vegetative transition zones for that transition for storm water discharge into those wetlands for rehydration. Obviously, covenants have been filed with this and we expect to see at the time of Final Plat even more restrictive covenants for this particular lot as well as Lot 5. Again, for this particular development the 50' right of way is shown for all streets and 24' streets as opposed to the 28' because these are not through streets in either case. For the parkland dedication, the Parks and Recreation Board for this development recommended money in lieu of land in the amount of $19,980 for 36 single family lots. As with the other site, Lot 5, staff is requiring that a street tree planting for both mitigation and landscape requirements for the C-PZD be submitted prior to Final Plat. Staff is recommending forwarding this PPL 04-1126 to the full Planning Commission with 15 conditions. I don't think any of them are overly significant. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any other staff comments? Brady: I just have the same comment regarding the trail as previous. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 39 Casey: I don't know what comments were made on the previous development that was discussed. Anthes: What we would like to hear about is how drainage will be handled. Casey: The applicant is currently doing a study to support their plan for no detention on this area. We have not seen that. I imagine that we will see that sometime during the construction document phase. If, however, it does not come back that their study will support no adverse impact downstream then we will probably see it again here because it will be a change to this Preliminary Plat. I am hoping that they have done enough work to be comfortable with their study at the stage that it is in. I assume that that is the case. We will be seeing that with the submittal of their construction documents. Anthes: Who does review that document? Casey: I do. I do have a question for the applicant. Here on the north side of the proposed street near Deane Solomon there is a portion of the wetlands shown to be within the right of way. Has that been addressed with your mitigation plan? I know in the previous project it had some areas identified that were going to be encroached upon and I just wanted to make sure that we didn't overlook this little piece. Hargus: I'm not sure. Haynes: I don't see that as an issue with the 404 Permit. It is something that we can make the Corp. aware of and they will be aware of it and it will be noted to that file. I don't see that in the overall scheme of things that it will be a problem. Casey: I know we don't have cross sections of the street submitted yet so I'm not sure what kind of slopes we are going to be looking at in the area. The sanitary sewer is located along through there. If that is an issue it could probably be pulled in the greenspace between the curb and the sidewalk if needed to lessen the impact. Pate: Just for clarification Matt, that is an easement, not the right of way, the right of way is actually only 50'? Casey: That is correct. It does give the other utilities the free right to go in there and install their facilities and they may not be aware that it is a wetland issue. Anthes: The applicants are present, would you like to introduce yourselves and your project? Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 40 Tarvin: I'm Joe Tarvin with EGIS Engineering. Haynes: Conner Haynes, developer. Holt: Drew Holt with EGIS Environmental. Hargus: Patrick Hargus with EGIS Engineering. Anthes: Do you want to tell us about your intent here? Haynes: Our intent is to develop a single family residential node inside one of the lots that is designated in the C-PZD master plan. This is Lot 3. This is the progress that we have made so far in working with all of the individuals that we spoke with before as well as the City of Fayetteville. We are here today requesting that you allow us to go forward to the Planning Commission. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any member of the public like to address this Preliminary Plat? Erf: My name is Jeff Erf, I live at 2711 Woodcliff Road. I have some questions about this study that is being done to determine whether or not detention is necessary for the site. Will that be completed before this project appears before the Planning Commission for final approval? I heard construction plans. I'm not sure what the time line is for that. Casey: Construction plans are submitted after Planning Commission approval and the final details of the plan are done. Anthes: It is my understanding that if it doesn't meet the requirements as the plans show then the whole project will be back. Casey: That would be considered a major modification to the Preliminary Plat and it would have to be reheard at this level. Erf. It is not clear to me, I'm not familiar what this study is going to encompass. Will it look at just flooding or does it also look at the possibility of because everything is channeled and directed offsite are you looking at dewatering the wetlands? Hargus: No. Erf: So you are just strictly dealing with flooding? Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 41 Tarvin: Yes. What the study will show is that the floodway, so to speak, from the entire drainage basin will get here after the runoff from the development has gone away. If you detain the runoff on the development that you can in affect, cause the runoff from this to get there at the same time this gets there and it makes the matter worse. Erf: So what you are saying is that there will be less water percolating down? Tarvin: It is timing. Erf: Right, but the site will be less permeable after development, correct? Tarvin: Portions of it, yes. Erf: Significant portions of it and your channeling all of the water offsite. On this lot and the previous lot some of it is going directly close to discharging into the wetlands. On a major storm event then do you expect the water to be detained in the wetlands or just go right on through and go directly into Clabber Creek? Tarvin: I would say it would depend on the intensity of the storm event. The runoff volume will be more as a result of the higher seed factor for efficient runoff. I can't say that the provision of detention is going to change the volume of the water. All it will do is change the rate that it leaves the property. It will change when it leaves the property. Erf: There is less opportunity for percolation into the ground water if it is not detained. Tarvin: It is not going to drain anyway because of the soil. The soil is a very high plastic clay and the reason it stays wet is that water cannot percolate, it actually runs along the top of that strip. Anthes: Perhaps you could go on with your questions and I will make sure we get them all answered. Erf. Ok. You just are looking at flooding, you are not addressing the issue of possibly dewatering the site. Then could I ask, it wasn't clear to me from looking at the materials on file, what steps you are taking to ensure that the quality of water that comes off this site isn't detrimental to the wetlands. Holt: Wetlands are nature's filter so I know that we are concerned about water quality. Ultimately, I see the biggest concern regarding water quality is the water that ends up in Clabber Creek or Wilson spring or in the stream systems. The desirability to run storm water from residential or Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 42 commercial streets or whatever, into and through a wetland is more desirable than taking the water from those areas and directing it directly into Clabber Creek. If I might add, this site differs from Lot 5 in that we have a natural drain already in place that we are going to be utilizing to move the water through and down into the wetland area right before it enters into Clabber Creek. Another difference is that there is an existing water line that is acting as a dam right now. That, in essence, is a detention. It is acting as a detention area right now as it island we will only improve upon it. Erf: One final comment. I'm concerned about all the channeling and the curb and gutters. Preferably, I would like to see more sheet flow rather than adding energy to that water and pushing it out there and let it naturally percolate rather than directing it to wetlands. Have you all considered using oil traps on the storm water catch basins? Tarvin: No. Erf: Thank you very much. Anthes: Since there is no other public here I will bring it back to the board for discussion. I have a question about these entrances with the medians coming off of the road here. I don't have as much problem with the layout of this particular parcel in that it is an island of developable property within this bigger parcel. I do have some concerns that it is a really low density right near a major commercial node, but I know that has been approved. The issues I have with the street configurations again, are these bulb cul-de-sacs. I would like to see something more like a plaza that you could turn around on that the lots could be regularly shaped in front. I understand about staff not requiring this connectivity and handling that with a footbridge because of the wetlands issue. Normally, if this was a piece of property without that we would really like to see the road going through. I too, am very interested in what happens with these environmental reports but I'm sure that Matt will handle those capably when they come in and hopefully they will prove out to be the way you want and you won't be back here. As far as conditions of approval, I'm assuming you have the same sort of setback condition on the sidewalks that will allow for the street trees and that the street lights are going to be shielded and directed downward like your other ones and that you will be providing a street tree planting plan later in the process. Those are my big questions. Do you have any Alan? Ostner: I just want to look at this, is this another drainage easement through the center again or is this pretty much the same? Hargus: That is just utility easement. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 43 Ostner: Is there a concrete drainage channel like the last piece of property? Hargus: No. The water discharges here, here and here at three points to make a spread across that wetland area. Ostner: What is dewatering the site? Tarvin: Let me address that in general and Matt, please help me if you will. When we first started meeting with Audubon the number one concern they had is they wanted the same amount of water to come in as close as possible to the same locations, no change in the amount, no change in the location. That has been our intent all through this. At the same time, we had to work within the development ordinances because we can't violate those either. That is what we have done. We have tried to balance those two sides to maintain what the Audubon was asking for. Haynes: Not just the Audubon but because those are regulated areas, the Corp. of Engineers, the Federal government, requires that you maintain the status of the wetlands that you are either mitigating, that you are creating or enhancing or preserving. There is a time frame after that, a monitoring for five years. The owner is required by the Corp. permit that has been issued to monitor and maintain the mitigation site for a period of five years. That involves having to go out on an annual basis and evaluate those areas and come back with a report to the Corp. If after that five year period the site is failing in any way the Corp. could extend that. You have that level of assurance that we are doing everything we can to make sure it is working on top of the Audubon that is going to want to make sure that the project is functioning. Hargus: You are looking at a graphic representation of Lot 8, the Audubon lot. All of those different hatches represent the different types of zones within Lot 8. There are zones to be preserved, zones for newly created wetlands, zones for existing wetlands and of course you can break down the wetlands into different types or subtypes of wetlands. That is what that represents. It is basically a reflection of the 404 Permit. Tarvin: Let me just throw in for the credit of the developers, when this first started this strip was much narrower, this wasn't even there. The reason this was widened and made the way it is is that Audubon had hoped to acquire this property up here to extend it and they had hoped to acquire property to the west. The actual acreage that is included in Lot 8 is more than what was required with the City of Fayetteville agreement when they bought it. Haynes: That represents a huge, the wetland mitigation, which was our responsibility in which every citizen who chooses to incorporate or try to Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 44 do work in a wetlands with the Corp. of Engineers that is responsible. There is no getting out of that. It does represent a large number. Ostner: I believe you all created a wetland. Haynes: The Corp. Permit requires that 11 acres of wetland to be created where those 11 acres are to be created has yet to be determined. They will be created somewhere inside that blue pinstripe that you are looking at. Ostner: Ok, so that is not all, it is well above the 11 acres? Haynes: That is correct. Anthes: Some of that will be green area? Haynes: That is correct. We will determine where the 11 acres is at and then the remaining blue pinstripe turns to greenspace. Holt: In the information packet for the 404 Permit it outlines exactly what the requirements are and it breaks it down into the different types of wetlands and subtypes and all different species and plants and trees. Ostner: In the legend green says non -wetland riparian zones, prairies, utility easements, etc. Could you all describe how you picture that? It is not quite a park but it is not going to be developed. Haynes: That is an area, you have right now out there obviously, existing wetlands. There are three or four different types of wetlands. On top of that you also have native prairie in some areas that have not been disturbed. The Audubon has a desire to recreate some of that natural habitat. You are looking at, the initial driving factor was the Arkansas Darter that is found in Wilson Spring, which is surrounded by a lot of preserved area. The initial intent of the mitigation plan is we don't want to do anything that harms that fish which has come to light to exist not only in Wilson Spring but the other two creeks, Clabber Creek and that unnamed tributary that comes down. We are planning in conjunction with the Audubon's view different types of habitats trying to restore the area back to what it was before the farmer got out there and plowed and cut hay. You are going to see low areas, wet areas, wet areas that have woods on them. Wet areas that have grass in it. You are going to see prairie areas that are wet, you are going to see prairie areas that are dry. You are going to see riparian buffer, which is the entire site, because it is a buffer to those creek systems. That is going to be open areas, it is going to be wooded areas and it is going to be grassed areas. There is going to be habitat improvement for the bird species for the mammal species. It just goes on Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 45 and on and on. That is where we are trying to get to that point. We haven't exactly got there but that is where we are trying to get to. Haynes: Basically, the Corp. has come to us and said we understand what you want to do. This is what you have to do in order to do what you want to do. EGIS Environmental has gone in and identified the areas which this mitigation will occur inside of Outside of that, what happens as far as what you are asking with repairing some of that stuff, it is kind of somewhat of what has happened in the last 13 years out there. Mother nature is going to do what she wants. We go in and supply and set up exactly what the Corp. wants us to do inside of there and then after that those different areas and zones mother nature and the wetlands and species, it is an organism. It will take over and shape and work and protect and do as it wants. Ostner: My question was a little more rootamentry. That was very helpful. Such as if people walk in here is this going to be so delicate? This is not really wetlands that you are calling out as green. Haynes: It won't be like a greenspace like a park or a place where you would go walk or run your dog or go have a picnic. It really won't be that way because mother nature will take care of herself. It will not be a place that is mowed and groomed. Perceivably, yes. Five years from now I doubt that you could get through there unless you had a machete. Hargus: I know through talking to representatives of the Audubon that they are not opposed to the public not totally accessing the site. They are amenable to it but they want to be able to dictate how that access is taken care of. Ostner: That sounds very difficult and I'm very interested in how that is going to work. Tarvin: As far as this piece goes I don't know the answer to your question. That was added to give them access if they should expand. I don't know what they are going to do with that. It is on the other side of Deane Solomon Road and it is in the street right of way. They were wanting to expand. Ostner: I'm just trying to envision. We have had developments come through that call out areas that are green and they get walled off. I don't think the public necessarily wants a paved walking path but a dirt trail, known as a rugged trail, would be fine for a lot of people. I'm just wondering about access and fences and whatnot. Haynes: I don't think you'll see fences around it. There will be the ability to walk into it. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 46 Holt: They are real concerned to be real honest, this is my interpretation of what they have going on. Their concern is for 1) Liability purposes. Kids going out there and folks going out there drinking and doing whatever out there. That is one of the major concerns. That is, unfortunately a reality in today's world. 2) Is just trying to figure out that equilibrium between what is the correct mesh on having people out there and keeping it natural as if nobody is there. Ostner: Real quick on that very same point. Fences. What kind of fences can these people have? What are they allowed to have? What are they required to have? Hargus: We don't know what is going to be on any of those lots that back up there. There could be kids with four wheelers. They don't want four wheelers going back there. You have to have some type of barrier at least to stop that type of traffic. Anthes: What I was wondering is if the subdivision covenants could handle talking about some sort of fence that would be allowed that would prohibit the access that you are saying is necessary and yet provide a visual connection. Haynes: Yes. We have gone so far as the type of fencing and material that is used and we prohibit certain type of fencing materials. Ostner: Board fence? Haynes: There are particular species of wood that cannot be used that the Audubon could not be used. Ostner: But board fences would be allowed. Anthes: Those are opaque. Ostner: That doesn't compute to me to back up to a nature preserve wetland yet block out every single thing. Haynes: Here is the situation. You own a lot, you have purchased a lot and you are going to build a home on it. As a homeowner, one of the things that we have discussed in our covenants is requiring some type of limited access. You, as a homeowner, and it goes back to if I take away your right and say you can't build a fence of any kind back there. I have to give you a little bit of authority because this is your home. At the same time, what individual would build a fence where you couldn't look out on a Audubon property? Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 47 Ostner: Someone who builds a fence and sold the house. Then the next guy winds up with a fence and he didn't really choose it, wishes it weren't there and it stays, it happens everyday. Anthes: What I would like to see, particularly because this is surrounded on all sides pretty much by a barrier, that in this particular lot, and it would probably work for the other parcel that we just looked at is that you carefully consider the height of fencing, what the intent of that fencing is and visual connectivity so that even if you couldn't get a four wheeler through it or whatever that you would be able to see through and across this area and likewise, that people from Deane Solomon could see through into that area so that it is more contributing to the city in a visual way even if there is not a direct access. Haynes: I know we filed covenants for the entire PZD. As far as the individual Lots 3 and Lot 5, those are in process but we haven't filed those yet, right? Hargus: We will get through those as we file the Final Plat. Haynes: Can I ask a question then? The same question that you were posing earlier in Lot 5. If it is in my covenants that I call out certain fencing materials and I call out heights and different things, I have to give the individuals who are going to be using these lots a little choice in what goes on but I do pull out a uniform thing where you do have visibility, I know I'm digressing to something that has already been tabled and that is fine, but would that address some of my questions with Lot 5 as well as Lot 3? Anthes: It could help. Haynes: Ok. Anthes: I think we are going to still have the problem facing Deane Solomon but it helps us with this edge a lot. Haynes: With that other edge too, let me play with it a little bit. Tarvin: If it were me I wouldn't have a board fence. Hargus: I would envision a rail type fence. Tarvin: If you buy a lot next to an Audubon preserve I can't see doing that. Anthes: You have the ability in your covenants to restrict that so that that can't happen and that's what we were asking you to consider. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 48 Haynes: That may very well be one of the things that I come back with just to give you a heads up. Hargus: Is that your comment that you don't like privacy fences? Ostner: I don't think that they fit with this development. In fact, I'm also not an animal specialist but I'm also wondering about a solid barrier that small animals can't migrate through. Hargus: House cats can actually influence the habitat. Haynes: You can do things with the fences to enhance the ability for animal migration. I may just do away with board fencing all together in the covenants because they are visually aesthetically very unappealing, on a personal note. This is not prone to it at all, when you do a board fencing you cut down your airflow in the back, you get a real stagnant environment that is not too enjoyable. '/2 acre lots should be a large enough scale. A lot of times that I've seen them utilized a lot in Rogers is when you get that urbanization feel. You get those grid lots and those houses backing and stacking on each other. What you will probably see on Lots 3 and 5 is altered language in the covenants restricting board fencing. I will call out a design or a schematic of a fence that can be used that restricts vehicular access or alternative vehicle access. Anthes: Personally it is just the visual connection that is important for me so however you get there is up to you. Alan, do you have the same concerns on this one? Ostner: I think I'd really rather see them together. We are asking for an overview. Haynes: From a developer's standpoint you have slowed me down on Lot 5, which I will adapt and answer the questions and I fully expect to satisfy your guys' requirements next time. How you handle this one is entirely up to you. Hargus: I'm concerned about the cul-de-sac issue that you have. If we have different types of turn arounds, could that satisfy your vision? Like you said, we could do plaza type turn arounds, which would be more aesthetic than a bulb type cul-de-sac. If we could do that even on Lot 5 then that would help us not have to change the configuration. There is only one cul-de-sac on Lot 5, the rest of it was through drives. Anthes: I would love for you to consider it. There is nothing in our development ordinances that says you cannot build a cul-de-sac. However, I think in this kind of development and the fact that you are making this a standard and you are in a new urban condition, you've got the C-PZD going on. If Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 49 you would consider building those in a way that is in a different sort of pattern we would really like to see that. Hargus: I think that would be an equitable switch. You could achieve the same thing. Anthes: There might be a way to do those with a contrasting paver. There are all sorts of things that could happen there that could be an amenity for the people who live around there and the kids who live around there. Ostner: Do you see a problem with Fire? Pate: The Fire Department is the primary concern. They have specific International Fire Code regulations that they have to follow by state law. We would have to look at those. Anthes: As long as it as their turning radiuses then that's fine. Ostner: This is a PZD. Pate: That has nothing to do with state law through, let's keep this in mind. Ostner: I understand. Just as a physical built entity this could be looked at like an apartment complex, no offense. I'm just looking at a square as opposed to a big circle. Apartments pass their muster all the time. Anthes: As long as they can make the turn within their dimension then they are ok. It is a design issue so you'll just have to look at it. Hargus: It may take a little of the property away from these lots. These are large lots but we will consider it. Anthes: We would just appreciate it if you would consider it and look at it and see if it works for you. Haynes: We have fences in the covenants, which I will address. Ostner: I've got one other question. At the entrance off of Deane Solomon the applicant has stated that Planning required a dual exit, two plus one, that does not add up to me at all with five lots. Pate: It is not a specific requirement. If they have an island in the middle, which has been submitted to us, they have to have a minimum 20' clear on one side for the Fire Department. If the desire is to keep that island in they definitely have to have 20' clear. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page SO Anthes: On this one I would really like to change that. Haynes: You guys are adverse to islands on entrances, why? Ostner: They don't work. They look great for five years and they don't work. They are not big enough to be properly landscaped and if you put a sign in it anything you grow gets above the sign. They either get forgotten about or concreted or something. Hargus: These are 12' wide. They would support vegetation. Ostner: Is there a sign on them? Hargus: There is a sign but I would not expect it to be a gaudy or large sign. It would be just basically a small sign that introduces the subdivision. It is very convenient to people who live in those subdivisions, especially when people are coming to visit them that have never been there. Ostner: I don't have a problem with the sign. I'm just saying that on a 12' piece of dirt you put a sign in it and suddenly things get really tight. You have to have grass or something tiny in front of it otherwise, it is overgrown in a year. I'm just asking for careful consideration. Anthes: In this particular situation especially for five lots having those turning lanes seems excessive on this particular entrance. It sounds like you are putting in a lot of costly infrastructure that probably isn't needed. Ostner: If this were changed to a 24' street opening onto Deane Solomon and you've already grabbed extra right of way for your median and for your turn lane, you keep the extra right of way, put the sign on the side. Anthes: It would save you some money. Ostner: I think it would work a lot better. Anthes: Comments or motions? Ostner: Do you want to see this here again? Anthes: If they are willing to look at those changes between now and the time of Planning Commission and are willing to look at the covenants in terms of allowing the visual permeability of this site I would be willing to forward this one. Pate: Are you expecting a draft of covenants now? We typically only see that at Final Plat. Subdivision Committee July 16, 2004 Page 51 Anthes: We could put it as a condition of approval. Haynes: We will address fencing. Ostner: I just want to think carefully that we are not basically giving incremental approval to Lot 5. Haynes: Once something has been tabled there is no going back, is that correct? I'm not trying to get any special treatment or trying to figure out anything on this thing but if I was able to address on Lot 5 the same things I'm able to address on Lot 3 is there any way that we can see them at the same time? Anthes: We need you to come back with the previous one. There are a lot more questions with that one because of the street configurations with the lot frontages and all of those other things. This one is such a unique situation that it is this disconnected island. Haynes: If you let me go with this one at the Planning Commission I think a lot of what I'm going to have to do right here on this one is going to be the same things that I'm going to be hitting with you on Lot 5 as well. Anthes: Do you just want to do them together? Haynes: I would rather keep on track. Pate: I would mention too that it is sort of luck of the draw that these came in at the same time. We have even more of these lots to review as well. Haynes: You guys are going to be seeing a lot of me coming up. With what we have been able to establish on Lot 3 I think it would make Lot 5 easier to accomplish what you guys are wanting to see. Ostner: I think this can be addressed with covenants. The drainage is significantly different, the frontage is different on Deane Solomon so I will make a motion to forward this to the full Planning Commission. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you very much.