Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-03 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Friday, September 3, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSP 04-1171: (Quality Life Associates, Inc., 289) Forwarded Page 2 LSP 04-1172: (MONG, 519) Approved Page 10 LSD 04-1128: (THETA TAU HOUSE, 443) Forwarded Page 12 LSD 04-1198: (SKATE STATION, 639/640) Forwarded Page 18 LSD 04-1142: (LAZENBY WAREHOUSES, 520) Approved Page 21 PPL 04-1176: (CLABBER CREEK PHASES 3, 4 & 5, 283)Tabled Page 24 PZD 04-1175: (RIVENDELL, 522) Page 43 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Christian Vaught Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Suzanne Morgan Rebecca Ohman Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Forwarded MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 2 LSP 04-1171: Lot Split (QUALITY LIFE ASSOCIATES, INC., 289): Submitted by QUALITY LIFE ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 2623 N GREGG AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 6.43 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 5.43 and 1.00 acres respectively. Anthes: Welcome to the September 3, 2004 meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee meeting. The first two items on the agenda have been tabled at the applicant's request and will not be heard this morning. If you are here for either of those items, I'm sorry, but we will not be hearing those this morning. The next item on the agenda is LSP 04-1171. I believe Suzanne has the staff report on this one. Morgan: Yes. This is a request to split a 6.43 acre tract located at 2623 North Gregg Avenue into two tracts of 5.43 and 1.00 acres. A little bit of background on this property, in 1995 the Planning Commission approved a Lot Split and Conditional Use Permit for a tandem lot to the north of the same tract. Access to the tandem lot was provided by a 25' access easement on Gregg Street through the subject property. An additional 1.68 acres of the property was adjusted onto this northern tandem lot in 1998 resulting in the current tract you see before you. In 1999 the Subdivision Committee approved the second and third Lot Split on the subject property. Additional right of way dedication was required at that time in order to provide a minimum 60' lot width with city right of way. These lots were not recorded however, at the county and therefore, are void. The existing lot does not have frontage on Gregg Street. Again, because there is that division with the Arkansas Missouri Railroad, but it does have a portion of frontage on Jocelyn Lane, which is an unconstructed right of way on the southeast corner. In 1999 the Subdivision Committee approved the proposed Lot Splits which were never filed with the condition that additional right of way would be dedicated. At this time the applicant has not shown additional right of way in that configuration for each of these lots. Staff does recommend dedication of right of way to reflect the previously approved plats. Surrounding land uses include single family residents to the north with the zoning of RMF -24. To the south is C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and 1-1, Light Industrial. Located to the south are the old Farmer's Daughter and to the east are Lakeside Village Apartments and Sunbridge Center zoned RMF -24 and C-1, and the university farms located to the west. Staff recommends approval of this Lot Split at the Subdivision Committee level with six conditions. Planning Commission determination of adequate access to each lot. Second, adequate right of way shall be dedicated to provide required frontage for each lot reflecting the previously approved Lot Splits. Third, construction of any type in the floodplain or floodway will require a grading plan and floodplain development permit. A public sewer main shall be extended to each of the proposed lots prior to filing the Lot Split. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 3 Fifth, Parks fees in the amount of $555 for a single family residence shall be issued prior to building permit approval. Condition six is a standard condition of approval. Anthes: Thank you Suzanne. Are there additional staff reports? Casey: The conditions of approval state that the sewer shall be extended to each lot. I believe the applicant is going to request that that be removed from the conditions. They have provided easements for us for our future trunk lines that are going to be coming through this property as part of the overall wastewater treatment plant project. Sewer will be available to this site within the next few years. Currently, the property is separated from the existing sewer by the railroad and Gregg Avenue. In order for them to be able to serve these lots they would have to bore approximately 120' or more to be able to get through both of these right-of-ways. After Plat Review we've had conversations that I believe I could support the removal of that condition at this time. They do have sufficient acreage to be able to support a septic system. They would, if you as a Commission, decide to waive that requirement, they would have to provide the conditional letter from the Health Department for the one acre tract but for the other tract they have plenty of acreage to support a system without that conditional letter at this time. Anthes: Matt, would they then be required to tie into the sewer when that went through? Casey: Yes Ma'am. I need to check with our consulting engineers out of Dallas that are doing the line work to see where along here that a smaller line will be stubbed out for connections in this area. They won't be able to connect directly to the main line, it is just too large, but periodically there will be connection points installed for places like this. Anthes: Will there be impact fees at that time? Casey: Yes, there will be impact fees at that time. That is a requirement for both water and sewer at the time of connection. Warrick: I would just like to add that our Trails Master Plan shows several trail corridors in this area. I would like to see some coordination with Steve Hatfield on that. Anthes: Are there any other comments? Would you introduce yourself and tell us about your project please? Faccett: I'm Johnny Faccett, I'm the Chief Operating Officer for Quality of Life. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 4 Alexander: I'm Fran Alexander and I'm CEO for Quality of Life. Anthes: Can you tell us a little bit about your project? Alexander: It is designed as a transitional home. After research we discovered in the Fayetteville area there is a need for housing for women with disabilities. For the purpose of helping them to relearn their daily activities of daily living. Four women would live in this house. They would have to pass guidelines for admission, which would be fairly strict in that they have to be medically stable. There will be no medical services provided in the facility. Any medical services which they need will either take place in our office, which is across Gregg Street or they would be taken to an appropriate place. Mentally they will be stable, as well as physically. Faccett: This is a program for women who are learning the skills it takes for them to be independent. They will have cognitive disabilities and physical disabilities. They won't have drug or alcohol problems whatsoever. We will be focusing more on restoration and stabilization. Our ultimate goal is for them to be transitioned back to their families or to independent living where they can live on their own. ??: Very likely, our daughter Kathy who is in a wheelchair will spend a good part of her life there. She has been like this for 22 years. We are just trying to help other people who need these services. When Kathy was injured there were 85% of the people died because there were no services. It was recommended that we unplug the respirator. Now 65% of the people live thanks to improvements in medical sciences and medical services. We are just trying to keep people from going through what we have for 22 years. Anthes: Before we open it up for public comment I need to explain that we are considering only the Lot Split today that has a different conversation than when we consider the Conditional Use that will go before the full Planning Commission. Warrick: This is a two fold request that the applicants are making of the Planning Commission. You are right, today we are considering the land division of this 6.43 acre tract of land. The request is to create a one acre tract of land which will be suitable for the development of the single family home. Staff has made recommendations on conditions in order for that to meet the city's ordinances with regard to frontage and access. The next step in the process would be to take this to the Planning Commission as a Conditional Use request for what we consider a cultural or recreational type facility within a residential zoning district to allow for a single family home to have 24 hour services to assist in the care of the residents. Four individuals would be permitted to reside in the single family home in this Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 5 zoning district regardless of any additional approvals. The reason that this would go before the Planning Commission as a Conditional Use request is for that 24 hour care to be provided in the home as the applicants have described. A single family home is permitted by right and four individuals are permitted to live in a single family home in this zoning district. Right now, today, we are looking at the division of property and determining whether or not creation of this proposed one acre tract is appropriate and consistent with the city's regulations and determining whether or not creation of this proposed one acre tract is appropriate and consistent with the city's regulations. Anthes: So the comments that we can hear from the public today should be reserved to the division of land and if they want to speak on the use they need to come back and speak at the Planning Commission meeting where that is being heard. Warrick: That is correct. The Conditional Use request will be carried forward to the meeting on September 13`h. Anthes: Thank you Dawn. To recap that, we are looking only at division of land today. If you would like to address this item we will open it to public comment in just a moment. You need to keep your comments solely to the division of land and not to land use. If you do want to speak to the project and the land use we will be happy to hear those comments at the September 13`h Planning Commission meeting, which is Monday night and starts at 5:30. Would any member of the public like to address LSP 04-1171 for Quality of Life Associates? If so, please come forward. Beard: I'm Marsha Beard. I own the property adjoining this. It used to be the old Farmers Daughter. It is in a commercial area, although I'm totally restructuring the property for my own personal residents. I purchased the property about a year and a half ago and part of the reason I wanted it was because of the look, not only of the property, but of the entrance into the property. Here are some pictures showing here is where you turn from Gregg. The thing that really sold me on the property is it was like you were in the middle of nowhere but you are right in the middle of town. I'm a single, divorced mother with a son and I've always wanted to live out in the country but in my current status I didn't feel like I wanted to live out there by myself with my son so this was the best of both worlds. I bought the property a year and a half ago. I got the appraisal based on what it will be like when I finish it and it is going to be a million dollar property. My concern with the Lot Split is there are a lot of bad traffic patterns already trying to get out onto Gregg from Jocelyn. In fact, the intersection of Sunbridge and Gregg sometimes gets backed up past Gregg so it adds more traffic into that area. It is a concern and a hazard. The un - gated railroad tracks there adds another safety issue that may need to be Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 6 addressed. My main concern too, is just the development of one of the few remaining wilderness areas of Fayetteville. This next picture will show where this is about where the place will be built that they are proposing. This is the drive going on up into my residence. The rest of the pictures show what I'm doing to develop my own property and the concern that I have that development of this might detract from the value of the property faster than I'm developing it. The way that they have laid out on the property, I don't know if that is part of this or not, but they have what is now a pretty scenic thing, a concrete block wall almost touching the gravel road as you are coming into there. Instead of being nice trees and things coming into this area you are going to see a concrete block wall. That's all I have. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners for comments. Lets try to get some questions answered about what we can and can't review. I believe that traffic and roadway conditions are things that we can look at. Warrick: Traffic and access are considerations. Anthes: The property is currently zoned RMF -24. Warrick: The density is certainly permitted. The land use would be permitted whether or not the one acre were developed with a single family home or otherwise. That would be a consideration at the time of permit to determine if the zoning was in place for a multi -family residential development in this location. Again, a lot of it does stem back to access and whether or not the Planning Commission believes that there is adequate access, even with this split to provide for the new tract. The existing single family home that is on the site obviously, is accessed. This driveway that goes into this property is utilized by three properties. There is a single family home to the north. The home that Ms. Beard is working on to the south as well as the existing single family home on this tract of land are all accessed from the existing driveway off of Gregg Street. The only portion of that property that is dedicated right of way is a small section just off of Gregg Street that is called Jocelyn Lane. Staff is proposing that that right of way is widened out so that improvements can be made within a public right of way in the future. Another issue of course, is that there is a significant amount of floodplain and floodway crossing this property and the properties to the north and south with the creek that runs along the west side of the railroad tracks. There is a low water crossing that is a part of the entry drive providing access to these three sites. Certainly, it would not be utilized for the proposed lot. The proposed lot is on the east side of that bridge. However, it does provide access to the other lots. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 7 Anthes: Thank you Dawn. Matt, can you talk about any expected increase in traffic and the railroad crossing issue? Casey: There is quite a bit of distance in between where you actually pull out onto Gregg and the tracks of the railroad. I don't believe that the amount of traffic coming over those railroad tracks would warrant any kind of signalization or warning signs on the railroad itself. It has room enough there to back up traffic between Gregg that those vehicles waiting to pull out onto Gregg and the tracks to accommodate some of the traffic. As far as the turning movements out onto Gregg it is a very busy stretch of highway but the Highway Department is working on the plans for the widening of Gregg all the way from Township to Johnson. They are already working on the portion in Johnson now. This will become an improved highway along this stretch. As far as the amount of traffic generated, as Dawn said, it is zoned for multi -family. This would be a relatively low impact compared to what a full multi -family development would be. I don't have any concerns with the volume that would be generated on this type of development. Anthes: Thank you Matt. Also, with the right of way dedication, would any street improvements be required with development on this property? Casey: Not with a Lot Split. If we, in the future, see a Large Scale Development, which I think may be in future plans, then we would be looking at improvements along this right of way. Vaught: I have questions on the sewer issues. This lot has not been perked yet has it? I imagine if you aren't going to connect to sewer you are going to have to put it on septic. My concern is due to the restrictions on the site with sanitary sewer easements up there, they are going to rip up your tank when they put the lines in and I'm worried about you having enough room for a leach field. Also with the floodplain issues. I know that there are some requirements dealing with how close you can be to a creek with a septic system. Casey: There are certain setbacks from property lines and sources of water and also natural water ways. I'm not familiar with what they are. Before this lot could actually be split they would have to have that conditional letter of approval to submit to us. Vaught: I worry about, that we are making a tract here that I guess could be used after the sanitary sewer is put in but if they can't put a septic tank on it there can't be construction. I guess this split would be conditional on the state approval of the septic design? Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 8 Casey: We can ask that that letter be submitted prior to Planning Commission. With this waiver it would have to go forward to the full Planning Commission. Anthes: Ok. Are there any other comments? Shackelford: I was thinking along the same thought process as Commissioner Vaught. I think that if we take out condition of approval number four regarding the sewer main that we probably need to replace that with some sort of condition that we have confirmation from the state that there is adequate room for the septic system. Regarding traffic, I look at this property and it is zoned RMF -24 right now, which is a use by right of 24 units per acre. I think that a single family house is a lot less intrusive development in this area. I think that I would be in support of this. Warrick: If I can just add an observation. The configuration of right of way and frontage that staff is proposing to ensure that each of these two lots containing a single family home and a proposed single family home has 60' of frontage, restricts the use of the property to only two single family homes because of the requirement for additional frontage on right of way for anything containing three or more multi -family residences. That would ensure that unless additional development, which would require additional infrastructure installation unless additional development came forward through you as the Planning Commission, we would not see anything more than two single family homes on this 6 9z acre tract. Shackelford: That infrastructure development, as I look at it, would be significant. Warrick: It would. It would include a water crossing and street improvements. Shackelford: I'm assuming the applicant is aware of that? Faccett: Yes we are. I might add that we have addressed the sewer issue in two different manners. There is a septic system, in effect, the water is purified and then the second thing, we would also be amenable to a holding tank with a regular pumping of the holding tank. We would make a contract with someone who would drain the holding tank at an appropriate time. I know that it could cost well over $50,000 to build the street. This will allow us some temporary alternative to the sewer. I think on one of our applications we show a holding tank and we are in contact with the Health Department. Anthes: Essentially we are talking about rewriting condition number four. Shackelford: Matt, can you help me out? The letter that we require from the state on sanitary septic systems, what is that called? Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 9 Casey: It is just a conditional letter of approval. Vaught: Does that look at the septic design or is that just a perk test? Casey: Now instead of doing perk tests they dig test pits and they have a soils methodologist analyze the soil itself so they will need to have that done and that report will need to be submitted to the Health Department and the Health Department will approve the septic system based on the amount of area that they have available and the report from the soils methodologist. Vaught: Do they look at the floodplain? Casey: That will be considered in the setback condition and the amount of area that they actually have for the installation. Faccett: There is a substantial amount of this area east of Skull Creek that it out of the floodplain laying on the eastern side. There s no reason why a lateral line could not be put there. MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we forward LSP 04-1171 to the full Planning Commission based on staff's comments with the stated conditions of approval, condition number four being rewritten that in lieu of public sewer main connection a conditional letter of approval from the State Health Department must be obtained prior to the waiver request for a septic system going to the full Planning Commission. Anthes: I would also like to add that then the connection to the sewer will be required with all applicable fees at the time it is available. Shackelford: Add that to the motion the connection to public sewer system must be attained once system is available in this area subject to all costs associated with that connection. Faccett: As to the $555 parks fees, I believe the check was submitted with the application. Vaught: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Faccett: Is there anything that you would require that we have not submitted prior to the Planning Commission? Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 10 Anthes: That is something that you can work with staff on. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page I1 LSP 04-1172: Lot Split (MONG, 519): Submitted by WILLIAM RUDASILL for property located at 523 SHILOH DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 6.71 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts containing 3.01 and 3.70 acres. Anthes: The next item of business today is LSP 04-1172 for Mong. Will the applicant come forward? Jeremy? Pate: This property is located at 523 Shiloh Drive west of I-540. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6.71 acres. A property line adjustment was filed last week to create this subject tract for split. The applicant requests approval of a Lot Split for this tract to create two lots of 3.01 and 3.70 acres, tract 2A and 213 on your plat. The site 2A, 3.01, contains a two story hotel. That entire development is to be sited on lot 2A. The remaining lot, lot 2B is vacant at this time. It does front onto Shiloh Drive and lot 2B also fronts onto Old Farmington Road, both of which are collectors on the Master Street Plan. Right of way is required to be dedicated along of Old Farmington Road in the amount of 35' from centerline. The right of way along Shiloh Drive, as I understand it, exists in excess of 35' from centerline at this time. Staff is recommending approval of LSP 04-1172 at the Subdivision Committee level with one standard condition of approval. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Do we have other staff comments? Casey: I would like to add a condition of approval. Asking for additional easement around the fire hydrant that is shown to be located directly on the property line. They have adequate easements around the mains themselves but the hydrant seems to be located outside of the existing easement. I would like to have at least 10' surrounding that hydrant. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this Lot Split? Hill: Good morning, my name is Bob Hill. I'm with the Nickle Hill Group. With the condition that you just mentioned, was that mentioned in the last revision or is that something that just came up today? Casey: In the Plat Review comments we asked for easements a minimum of 10' on each side of all mains. The surveyor is showing easements on the property, most of them are existing. However, this hydrant is located outside of those easements that he has shown. We are just asking that it be filed on this plat. Hill: Is that something that has to come back to another meeting? Casey: No Sir. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 12 Hill: Ok. Can this be filed today? The reason I'm asking this is there is a buyer, a seller, a bank, a title company and myself that are meeting this afternoon at 2:30 to close on a transaction. A lot of people thought that that was going to happen and that that had been done. Is this something that can be filed today or is this something that has to be redrawn and redone and come back to you? What do I need to tell everyone? Casey: That easement does need to be shown on the drawing. I'm not sure as far as timing if your surveyor can get that drawing turned around and to our Planning staff by a certain time. I'm not sure what kind of down time we will have between now and then. Pate: Other than that comment the plat is clean. If you can get that back in today I believe we can take care of that for you. Hill: As long as we can get this thing filed today. If the engineer can make that revision and bring that back to you guys today. Pate: Have it signed by the owner and bring it back to us should the committee approve the Lot Split today. Hill: Thank you. Anthes: Christian, do you have any comments? Vaught: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 04-1172 at the Subdivision Committee level with the conditions of approval as stated. Shackelford: With the second condition being an additional easement a minimum of 10' surrounding the fire hydrant? Vaught: Yes. Shackelford: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 13 LSD 04-1128: Large Scale Development (THETA TAU HOUSE, 443): Submitted by RON HOMEYER for property located at 1322 W. CLEVELAND AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.93 acres. The request is to approve a 6,000 sq.ft. fraternity house with 12 rooms and 26 parking spaces proposed. Anthes: The next item is LSD 04-1128 for the Theta Tau House. Will the applicants come forward? Pate: This property is located at 1322 W. Cleveland Avenue. It is zoned RMF - 24 and contains approximately 1.93 acres. There is currently a fraternity house located on this site. The applicant is proposing to demolish that house and construct a new one consisting of approximately 6,000 sq.ft. with 12 rooms and 26 parking spaces proposed for this development. This use is a use by right in the RMF -24 zoning district. The density with this development is approximately 6.2 dwelling units per acre which is well below the 24 unit maximum. Each room is intended to house two students for a total of 24 students on site. The 26 proposed parking spaces would not be allowed by ordinance. For 12 bedrooms a maximum of 16 spaces is allowed. A Conditional Use request has been submitted to go to the full Planning Commission to allow for this extra parking. Based on the demand expressed by the number of students living on site as well as the potential future expansion of this house. The Conditional Use Permit will track concurrently with the Large Scale Development and be heard at the full Planning Commission meeting. Surrounding properties include undeveloped property to the north which is zoned RSF-4. To the south is the U of A parking lot, which is zoned Institutional. To the east and west is single family homes and multi -family dwellings to the east as well. Those are zoned RSF-4 and RMF -40. Water and sewer are currently available along Cleveland Street and will be utilized for the subject development. 25' of right of way is required to be dedicated with this project. Additionally, the developer is required to improve Cleveland Street 14' from centerline including curb, gutter, storm drains and 6' sidewalks located at the right of way line. Parks and Recreation Board recommends accepting money in lieu of land for this proposed project in the amount of 51,965. For the tree preservation report, there is an existing canopy coverage of 43.3% preserved is 26.7%. No mitigation is required. There are several conditions listed within the tree preservation report and those do need to be indicated on the plat before this goes to the Planning Commission. I won't go over all of those but essentially, the trees to the west here that are located along the west property line, there are utility easements to the far west and parking encroaches on quite a bit of that. The developer is making every effort to ensure protection of those trees with a retaining wall as well as tree protection fencing. Those trees may not be counted for preservation due to the extensive construction occurring in that area but I would just like to mention that the developer is making Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 14 every effort to save those trees. We have received public comment from several neighboring residents. Some of which, do object to this proposal and are included in your packets. Primary concerns are the potential impact on the value of neighboring property, primarily to the north. There is a desire for screening along the east and north property lines to alleviate the potential detrimental impact caused by increased parking on the subject lot and concerns about slope and drainage onto adjacent properties. To address one of the concerns staff will be recommending as part of the Conditional Use request to see how appropriate this increased parking is on this property, that a combination screen fence and vegetation be located along the east and north property lines. Staff is recommending forwarding this Large Scale Development to the full Planning Commission with 15 conditions of approval. I will go over a couple of those for you. The plats shall be revised to reflect the maximum 19' length stall. Staff is recommending that the parking stalls be reduced to 17' when fronting onto greenspace. We can look at those locations. That is to reduce impervious surface coverage and also to shift the parking lot to the east a bit to allow more adequate room to save those existing trees on the west side of the property. The applicant shall coordinate with the Fire Mashall's office to verify the requirements of fire protection for this project prior to Planning Commission. The landscape plan shall be revised to reflect all conditions of approval as noted on the landscape review sheet which is attached, prior to Planning Commission. There are a few items that need to be addressed such as tree selection species. A continuous planting of shrubs is recommended to be installed along all parking areas fronting onto adjacent property. The applicant shall revise the tree preservation plan to incorporate those conditions of approval as noted on the attached tree preservation and protection report prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Item number six also deals with the tree preservation plan. The developer shall be required to protect the existing trees directly north of the proposed development. Those are trees itemized as numbers 203 through 206. Until such time as the removal of these trees is deemed necessary and unavoidable due to future expansion. On the tree preservation plans you may note that there are future expansion plans for this development, which I don't believe would require a Large Scale Development. It is less than 10,000 sq.ft. and requires less than 25 parking spaces. That is something that we just want to make known at this time. Also, I mentioned number seven, the developer shall make every attempt possible to ensure the long term protection of existing offsite trees along the western boundary. I believe that the rest of the conditions are self explanatory. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Are there any other staff reports? Will the applicant introduce themselves and their project? Homeyer: Sure. I'm Ron Homeyer. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 15 Manuelson: I'm Kenny Manuelson, I'm the project architect with Perry, Butcher & Associates. ??: I'm Shannon ???, an intern at Perry, Butcher & Associates. Anthes: Would you tell us about your project? Homeyer: I guess we may be increasing the parking but obviously, there will be more people there. We are concerned that right now the road runs along the property to the east there that we have been parking on. We are going to landscape that edge over there and hopefully by increasing that landscaping over there that will give them a buffer. I think that this is going to be a major plus in that their existing house is rough. I think their new house is going to be a real nice addition to that neighborhood. I do want to make sure that there is a buffer. Right now their nose is right up against that existing property to the east. We are proposing to landscape that to give them a buffer there with trees and all sorts of stuff to soften that a little bit. Shackelford: Is that what staff is addressing in condition number one? Pate: In a way. If you look at the first map of Theta Tau in your staff report you can note the single family residents to the east sort of in this cut out here of the property. That is specifically the resident that has submitted a letter asking for a privacy screen consisting of potentially a combination fence and vegetative screening there due to the potential impact of parking headlights coming into the house at that level. I do agree that currently that driveway is potentially along that property line. Shackelford: Have you seen these conditions of approval? Homeyer: No. This is the first time I've seen them. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address LSD 04-1128? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Subdivision Committee. Shackelford: Do you have any concerns or comments regarding condition number one? Homeyer: I don't have any major objections to reducing the stall length to 17' to get away from the trees. Pate: Currently the stalls are shown at 20' in length which is beyond our maximum allowed, 19' is the standard allowed, 9'x19' is the standard space. We are actually requesting that in certain locations that could potentially go down to 17'. That is allowed when you are fronting on Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 16 greenspace. That would allow 2' more room for these trees potentially. You could reduce 3' there because you are at 20' right now. Anthes: You would put a wheel stop in the front of the curb. Vaught: I have questions about future expansion, not that it is before us now. If it requires additional parking where are you going to propose parking in the future? Homeyer: We would be basically coming along the east side of the property and parking in front of the house. Vaught: This retaining wall that you are going to put, this is just the catch basin for the drainage at this time? Homeyer: It is all underground. When I design a project normally I try to look at possibly expanding a project. All the time projects are built without any thought to future expansion. They may never build this. All I'm doing is kind of setting aside the possibility. This may never be built, I don't know about that. We really haven't done this proposal, we actually added that into this because I didn't want that to complicate the issue. I wanted to go ahead and get this and be thinking about that. This is my first time through this process. This is daunting from an outsider's view. This is really a daunting process. I didn't realize it was necessary for us to show that but I also didn't know what was involved with the tree ordinances and all of this stuff too. This is just, we have actually added those in and went through meetings with Jeremy and things like that. I really can't speak to how or if they wilt ever build that. The house is designed with the mechanics there. That would be an idea. I may be causing the house some problems that don't exist just trying to anticipate the future success of this house if it is going to be needed. Anthes: I would certainly agree that architecturally they are adding greatly to what is existing at the house. I do have some question about how it is contributing to the neighborhood as a whole and the compatibility with the adjoining property owners in that the setbacks off of the street, we've got this parking lot in the front, we've got single family homes that are next to it. I'm wondering whether you had considered maintaining that setback that was there and parking in the rear so that you could be more compatible with the neighbors. Homeyer: It really is impossible. Just as far as visually, my initial design really was to set the house further back on the property and come into the property on almost like a boulevard onto the property and then go into the parking lot area. As we got into issues with respect to this little grove of trees in the back which we have tried to save and also got into issues with respect to Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 17 distance required for turn around and all of those issues. All of those things actually brought all of this stuff forward quite a bit. The tree issues, the fire truck issue. Honestly, I think that this is going to be just a wonderful way to come into this property and I think I would almost want it to kind of establish an attitude of estate. I really don't think it is advantageous to bring it forward and take the parking behind or something like that. I just don't think that will work very well. Anthes: I don't know about any estates that have parking lots in front of them. As a neighbor, one thing is to look at compatibility with adjoining neighbors and we do have people who create this pattern of single family homes now those will be adjacent to a parking lot with a lot of people coming in all hours of the day and night. I actually find that that kind of parking lot is visually obstructive as well as could be destructive to the adjoining property owners. Homeyer: The other thing is the property directly to the east is a great big apartment complex. This residence that is between this and that one, as far as the neighborhood is concerned, there are dormitories, across the street there are apartments to the east of this property and this is going to be the nicest architectural building down there. With respect to the trees and we are adding to the trees that are there already. If we get the fire truck access further onto the property it also doesn't let us expand the house if we bring it forward because the property is so narrow. The other consideration is we have to completely demolish the existing house before we build the house. The plan is for the fraternity to go on until this other house is built and then the fraternity members move into the house and then the existing building will go. Anthes: Staff, what screening, I'm looking at the conditions of approval where you are talking about screening along this eastern property line. Is that something that we can require? Pate: That is really as a part of the Conditional Use to look at if the number of spaces proposed over the maximum allowed by ordinance is appropriate and compatible with this area and what types of screening, for instance, do we want to look at, privacy fencing or screening for buffering that specific use. That is something that we recommended as part of the Large Scale. It would be more appropriate at the time of Conditional Use. Obviously, this will track forward with that Conditional Use. Anthes: So we will see this together? Pate: Right, it will be together. Anthes: Are there any comments? Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 18 Vaught: I think it is to the point where we need to forward it and have discussion at the full Planning Commission as far as conditions for the Conditional Use. Seeing that together will help us decide. It will also give the applicant time to review the conditions of approval. That is a motion to forward this to the full Planning Commission. Shackelford: I will concur and second. Anthes: I do have some comments about the site plan but we will see you at the full Planning Commission. Thank you very much. Homeyer: This hammerhead right here, that is not parking, that is the Fire Marshall's requirements. If we move that out there we would have to turn it sideways which would give a much less appropriate view. This paving on the site is probably at least doubled because we have to take a road around this house and then provide a full fire truck turn around in the back of the site. Honestly, this destroys that whole site. Vaught: Just for the record, I tend to agree. I like it better in the beginning. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 19 LSD 04-1198: Large Scale Development (SKATE STATION, 639/640) was submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at 2283 S SCHOOL AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.46 acres with a 16,625 sq.ft. indoor skateboard park and a 5,000 sq.ft. warehouse proposed. Anthes: The next item of business today is LSD 04-1198 for the Skate Station. Would the applicant come forward? Pate: A little background information. First of all, this property is located at 2283 S. School Avenue. It is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.46 acres. In April, 2003 the Planning Commission unanimously approved both a Conditional Use to allow warehousing on this property and a Large Scale Development as is currently submitted. A tree preservation plan was approved as noted on the submitted site plans as was the landscape plan and grading and drainage plans. Floodplain development permits and grading and drainage permits have been issued for this project and the necessary grading to begin construction has been accomplished. Essentially, what we are reviewing today is a new Large Scale Development because the old one has expired prior to building permits. Unknown to the applicant, the Large Scale Development plans for this expired April 15th of this year. A couple of weeks ago the applicant came in to ascertain the applicable permits and was made aware of that. As I mentioned, the subject property is located on South School south of Cato Springs Road north of 24th Street. It is bound on the south by property zoned I-1 on the north by C-2 and to the west and east by RSF-4. As I mentioned, the property is currently under development. If you go out there you will see what is occurring. Subsequent to the approved, but not expired, Large Scale Development plans. The site does contain several groupings of tree canopy, particularly the high priority canopy and riparian corridor along the creek that flows west onto the property. As noted on the tree preservation plan the majority of the trees at the front are being preserved per the approved tree preservation plans. The applicant is proposing to reinstate the approvals granted by the Planning Commission for both the Conditional Use and the Large Scale Development approximately 16 months ago. The proposal is to develop a 16,625 sq.ft. indoor skateboard park and a 5,000 sq.ft. warehouse utilized for the storage of wooden ramps and jump boxes used by the skateboard park operators to create varying setups for the park users. The ramp components are stored when not being actively utilized by the skateboard facility. Warehousing is a Conditional use in the C-2 zoning district, thus requiring both the Large Scale Development and the Conditional Use to be heard by the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending that LSD 04-1198 be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with eight conditions of approval. Item one, approval shall be subject to the approval of a Conditional Use for storage and warehousing in a C-2 district. Planning Commission Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 20 determination of compliance with commercial design standards based on the elevations submitted and approved in April, 2003. Item number four, sidewalk fees in the amount of $1,854. Staff is recommending that this money be accepted in lieu of construction of a sidewalk across this site. The topography and the drainage channel in this area restrict the construction of a 6' sidewalk and required greenspace. The existing 4' sidewalk would remain for pedestrian use. I have included the minutes from the last Planning Commission meeting on these items. We probably won't have a lot of time to review them today but we are recommending that these items go forward. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Are there other staff reports? Casey: As Jeremy mentioned, the construction has already started on the project. We issued a grading permit sometime last year and they broke ground and have been underway for quite some time now. I guess there were some construction issues regarding the building that has delayed the actual building permit being pulled. In the meantime, the grading permit has expired so that will need to be resubmitted and reissued through this process. The construction plans have already been reviewed and approved. We just need to reissue the grading permit if the Planning Commission approves the Large Scale. Anthes: Would the applicant introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Clark: I'm Steve Clark. I was the original engineer on the project and still am. Neal Crawford was supposed to be here. Since I'm here on another project and he didn't show up I came up to cover for him. As has been discussed, Neal is doing this for himself. He is contracting it himself. He has a small construction company and he didn't realize that his approval was going to expire in April. He was under construction well before that but got into some issues with the metal building people and the price of steel and this and that and one thing after another. Anyway, bottom line is he is here today for approval so he can complete his project that he has already started. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, we will close it to public comment. Shackelford: I have one question of staff. The conditions of approval as they are stated now, are they the same conditions that we approved previously? Pate: They are. They have been updated to reflect current conditions. The Conditional Use conditions are also included in your packet to review as well from the last submittal. MOTION: Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 21 Shackelford: From what I remember when we heard this the first time, there was quite a bit of discussion. We did depend on the Subdivision Committee a great deal at that time. They worked hard to reach some compromises and alleviate some public concern. It was a project that I think was very well put together by the time that it was all said and done. We are basically looking at the same project we were then. This does have to go to the full Planning Commission. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we forward LSD 04-1198 to the full Planning Commission. Vaught: I will second it. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 22 LSD 04-1142: Large Scale Development (LAZENBY WAREHOUSES, 520): Submitted by LANDTECH ENGINEERING for property located at RAZORBACK ROAD, S OF 6TH STREET. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 1.14 acres. The request is to approve a 19,200 sq.ft. storage facility with 8 storage spaces and 20 parking spaces proposed. Anthes: The next item of business is LSD 04-1146 for Lazenby Warehouses. Pate: This property, you may remember, was formerly attached to the Lazenby Properties Residential PZD which was approved back in November, 2003 allowing a mixed use residential and commercial project on Razorback Road. This Large Scale Development is for the contractor storage, essentially, two buildings comprised of 9,600 sq.ft. for a total of 19,200 sq.ft. storage facility with eight storage spaces. Part of the approval process when it went through the Residential Planned Zoning District, it was noted just prior to the Planning Commission meeting that this use, the warehousing storage use is not allowed within the use units of a R-PZD. Therefore, a Property Line Adjustment had to be processed and approved to remove this portion of the property out of the actual project. That has occurred and Use Unit 21 is allowable and permitted by right in the I-1 zoning district. The 1.14 acre tract is owned by the applicant also who owns existing warehouses directly to the west of this property, which are developed as existing warehouses and accessed off Beechwood Avenue south of 6"' Street. It is in a part of an overall tract owned by the applicant. The entire property is zoned as I-1. There are no existing trees on this particular portion of the site. Therefore, a waiver request has been submitted and approved. As I mentioned, the applicant proposes to construct two additional contractor storage buildings. The property is accessed again, through the existing storage facility and will likely be developed in keeping with the existing structures. There are some greater setbacks that we had to work with the developer on because this is now zoned from I-1 to R-PZD, it is a residential district and therefore, there are increased setbacks with regard to this use. There is a 50' setback as opposed to typically only a 10' setback. The applicants did have to go back and revisit their site plan and move the one building there to the south outside of that 50' setback. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a view of the green screen composed of a combination of evergreen trees and privacy fencing along that residential zoning district there. Staff is recommending approval of this LSD at the Subdivision Committee level with six conditions of approval 1) A detailed planting plan shall be submitted for the combination landscape and fence screen to be installed along the rear of the property prior to the issuance of building permits. 2) The developer shall coordinate with the Solid Waste Division to ensure compliance with all requirements prior to building permit. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 23 Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Are there other staff comments? Would the applicants introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Hillis: My name is Don Hillis with Landtech Engineering. We are the engineers for the project. Ball: My name is Ronnie Ball, I work with Mr. Lazenby on the project. Anthes: Are there any comments that you have? Hillis: Just one. We have been talking with staff and are in agreement with them. We have done all of what they have asked for and have moved forward allowing more greenspace between the apartments and the storage, added more trees to screen it off more. I think it is a good project. It will look nice. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this LSD for Lazenby? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners for discussion. Vaught: Why don't we have the elevations to look at? Pate: It is because this is an industrial project within an Industrial zoning district. Therefore, commercial design standards are not applicable. Vaught: It is one thing to look at, for me I was looking at backing up to this R-PZD zone, just wondering if there was anything we had for that. Pate: There actually is a requirement for the screening because it is a non- residential use adjacent to a residential zoning district. Therefore, the requirement for screening is there and that is what we have worked with the applicant to accomplish. Shackelford: Jeremy, access to this will be through the other adjoining? Pate: Correct. Shackelford: As I drove out and looked at this that was kind of my only question. Anthes: I think that this additional setback and the screening will really accomplish what the intent was when we approved the PZD. Are there any other comments? MOTION: Shackelford: I will go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSD 04-1142 subject to all the conditions of approval. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 24 Vaught: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 25 PPL 04-1176: Preliminary Plat (CLABBER CREEK PHASES 3, 4 & 5, 283): Submitted by GEOFFREY BATES for property located at W OF RUPPLE RD & SALEM VILLAGE & N OF CLABBER CREEK PH. 1 & 2. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 75.11 acres. The request is to approve a preliminary plat of the subject property with 259 single- family lots proposed. Anthes: Item number nine today is PPL 04-1176 for Clabber Creek Phases III, IV, and V. Morgan: The applicant requests approval of a Preliminary Plat for Phases III, IV, and V of the Clabber Creek subdivision. The Final Plat for Phases I and II of this subdivision were approved by the Subdivision Committee on June 18`h of this year. The subject property contains approximately 75 acres and is zoned RSF-4. Development includes 259 lots. The property is located north of Clabber Creek, phases I and II of the Clabber Creek subdivision. Salem Village and Salem Meadows are located to the east and the northeast of this property. Surrounding zoning includes RSF-4 to the south and east and the Planning Area to the north and west. Water and sanitary sewer shall be extended to serve this development. Additionally, rights of way will be dedicated within the project boundaries include 50' and 40' street sections. Dedication of right of way for Rupple Road, a minor arterial, requiring 45' from centerline located east of the property. The total right of way however, shown for Rupple on these construction plans is 80' where 90' is required. This is an issue which will need to be looked at and resolved prior to Planning Commission. No other Master Street Plan streets are identified within the subject property however. Connectivity is proposed in all cardinal directions from this subdivision. Currently the only means of access is through adjacent subdivisions from Salem Road. The applicant proposes construction of Rupple Road adjacent to the property and across Clabber Creek by bridge in order to provide a direct means of access from the minor arterial, Rupple Road. Internal street configuration and connections include long, straight streets that may contribute to and compound a dangerous traffic situation by increasing the speed of traffic. Staff recommends forwarding this Preliminary Plat to the full Planning Commission with 12 conditions of approval which include Planning Commission determination of adequate connectivity to adjacent properties. Planning Commission determination of appropriate internal street connectivity. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for a cul-de-sac length greater than the allowable 500'. If you look up on Street "G" measures at 689' in length. Additional conditions address tree preservation and parkland. I will let those be discussed individually by Jeremy and Allison. Condition number nine is verification of lot width at building setbacks for lots 201 and 202. The remaining conditions are standard conditions of approval. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 26 Anthes: Thank you Suzanne. Are there any other staff comments? Brady: We just need to coordinate for the park boundaries with Steve Hatfield. Pate: I do have several comments that will require revisions prior to the Planning Commission meeting. One of the findings that the Landscape Administrator is required to make with regard to Large Scale Developments and Preliminary Plats is whether the size and shape of the existing tract or lot reduces the flexibility of design. The Landscape Administrator, my finding, is that the size and shape of this overall property do not reduce that flexibility of design. I'm primarily concerned about a large dripping of trees from approximately 203 to 213 along the western boundary. That is shown. Those trees range from approximately 18" to 40" in diameter. There is significant amount of canopy there. That is approximately 1.4 acres based on my calculations in that given area, all of which are primarily elms and oaks. The tree preservation plans as submitted to show these trees to be preserved with construction of the infrastructure. Although, the infrastructure does not necessitate the removal of these trees, the creation of the lots of the subdivision in this configuration would not allow for the construction of a standard house. Therefore, those cannot be counted as preserved in that specific area. Mr. Bates has actually given a graphic here showing exactly one of the things I wanted to see, to have a building footprint or an envelope essentially, along where construction would occur and anywhere where that building envelope could go with a standard house the trees could not be counted. Bates: That is a worse case scenario box. It may not be shaped. They could put a house on there that could miss the trees but there are about four trees that would probably be lost. Pate: That is something that we take into consideration. A lot of the trees that are shown for preservation on this property potentially the tree is on the side of the lot and the individual property owner could remove that tree but it really needs to be left up to that individual property owner to do that. With this configuration of lots there is no choice but to remove trees for those homes. We are recommending that the applicant revisit either the lot layout, the size of lots or putting an easement along that back property there. Obviously, we need a lot configuration that you could construct a home on which will preserve these trees. That is the bulk of my comments. Casey: I do have one comment I would like to make. They are showing Rupple Road to cross Clabber Creek to the south to the existing Rupple along Clabber Creek Phase I. I just wanted to let the Commission be aware that we have assessed project in this area in the past for that bridge so that money would be available to be given to the developer at the time of Final Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 27 Plat after construction of this roadway. I can't give you an exact amount at this time but there have been a few subdivisions in there that have had those assessments for the bridge. We assessed Wildflower Meadows, or will, at the time of Final Plat. Clabber Creek Phase II, Salem Meadows and Salem Heights paid for a percentage of this bridge construction. With the construction of that those monies would be turned over to the developer for that construction. Morgan: I do have one condition that I failed to mention. Number four, an approved Property Line Adjustment shall be filed at the county to remove lot 259 from the subject property prior to consideration of construction plans. That lot contains a large easement through half of it. It is un - developable and in the future does not allow future subdivision of that property and we are requesting that it be removed from the overall property. Anthes: Thank you Suzanne. Now would you all introduce yourself and your project? Bates: I'm Geoff Bates, the engineer on the project. Barnes: I'm Bleaux Barnes. Bates: Suzanne, on lots 201 and 202, what am I supposed to do? Morgan: Verification of lot width at the building setback. You have noted it at the right of way and it is less than 70'. We just need to verify that you do have 70' of lot width at that building setback. Bates: I'm sure there is, that is a huge lot. The other thing you said you had a question or concern about the right of way for Rupple? Morgan: Yes. Rupple Road is on the Master Street Plan identified as a minor arterial requiring 90' of right of way. Bates: We are giving 45'. Warrick: The issue isn't on your side for the right of way. You are providing the 45' from centerline. However, on the side adjacent to the Salem Village development there is inadequate right of way so what we have is a constrained street section that does not meet the city's master street plan for a 90' right of way with the standard improvements for a minor arterial. Anthes: So they need to dedicate an additional 15' on this side? Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 28 Warrick: I think that we need to look at that. I think that our Engineering Division and the developer can get together and Planning as well to determine what the best case is going to be for that. What we have right now is a situation where the greenspace and the sidewalk width on the east side are not going to match the greenspace and sidewalk widths on the west side. It is a question as to whether or not the street should be offset so that we can have a uniform configuration of street improvements or whether we just have differences on either side of centerline. Bates: Isn't the developer only required to give half the right of way from centerline? Shouldn't Salem Village have given 45'? I thought that was an ordinance. Warrick: I believe that project came through prior to our current Master Street Plan and they complied with the ordinances that were in place at the time. What we have now is a situation that we have a minor arterial called out and in order to build a minor arterial we need to determine the best way to do that whether it is utilizing the existing 80' of right of way that is shown or whether it is requiring an additional 10'. Bates: There is 20' additional right of way that I think Salem Village has back in here. Warrick: They have some alley ways. It is not part of Rupple Road though. Barnes: Dawn, you might also add too that we are constructing a 36' wide street. That future right of way, that future green would be for expansion of roadway, is that correct? Or is that just for the balance of cosmetic of green and green? Warrick: The roadway is more than just the street section, curb to curb. The roadway includes greenspace and sidewalks on either side. That is what we need to address. I think we just need to sit down together and decide what the street section is going to be and whether or not we are going to utilize 80' of right of way or look to obtain a full 90'. Shackelford: Dawn, who is going to sit down and decide this? Warrick: Planning, Engineering and the applicant. Shackelford: For the record, for what it is worth if you want my opinion great, if you don't then you can ignore it. I don't particularly... Anthes: Wait. Would any member of the public like to address PPL 04-1176? Sir, will you come forward and stand at the podium? Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 29 McFarr: My name is James McFarr and I live north of that property. Several years ago the sewer that was running along Mt. Comfort they said was at 98%. They put a lift station in when they did Salem Village. How close are we on the percentage of sewage for this project? Is there enough sewage to carry these 255 homes or are they going to come through Salem Village and pump it back up because they have a lift station there. Anthes: Mr. McFarr, if you will just tell us all of your comments and then what we will do is get them all together and answer. McFarr: I just want to know if there is enough sewage and when they build the bridge across there for Rupple, are they going to do something to Clabber Creek to carry this extra water that is going to be shed because all of the houses are going to be built and there is no land to absorb this extra water? That is the only things I'm really worried about. Anthes: Those are good issues, thank you very much. I know you have sat here for a while to have your time to talk. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and let's address Mr. McFarr's questions. Matt, can you talk about the sewage capacity in that area and what has been done? Casey: I can't give you the numbers but there is remaining capacity in the lift station that this will be going to. Their plans show installing a new lift station that will pump over to the Salem Village area and enter into the Crystal Springs lift station which is what I was referring to as having plenty of capacity at this time. I want to inform you that this is another route, just like earlier in the agenda, for trunk lines for the new wastewater treatment plant. They will be running right along Clabber Creek here. The plans will be to take this new lift station that they are going to build out of service when that is constructed. This project will be relieving all of these lift stations in the area. Most of them will be abandoned all together and the sewage will be going directly into the trunk lines and taken to the plant. Anthes: What is the time frame on that? Casey: It should be operational in three years. That is the plan anyway. Anthes: Can we talk about parks and do you have any comments about Clabber Creek? Brady: No, just the drainage outflow will need to remain on their property. All of the parkland dedication requirements are being met with this development. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 30 Bates: How exactly do you want this to happen? Do you want to just sit down and talk about it or how do you want me to show it? Brady: We can sit down and talk about that. Anthes: Matt, how is that outflow calculated and are we meeting all city requirements? Casey: The developer's engineer is showing two rather large detention ponds on the south side of the project which will intercept all of the storm water runoff from the development and a requirement of the city, there are three detention ponds, excuse me. The requirements of our division are that there be no increase in flow from the site. The flow will have to be detained in these ponds and restricted to at or below the existing flow leaving the site at this time. Anthes: Those calculations have been met? Casey: They have submitted preliminary drainage designs that show that the pond sizing is proper for this design. We will review the detailed drainage calculations at the time of construction. Anthes: Do these ponds allow outflow in trickle like some of the other projects in this area? Casey: We will have to coordinate with Parks on that is discharged. Normally we see some sort of wear structure or just a pipe coming out of the ponds but we will have to be sure to get that in a way that is satisfactory to the parks property and where it is dissipated and causing no erosion control on this parkland. Anthes: We have had some other properties that have been developed in this area where we have had some problems with that. Do we have a new way to handle that in place so that we don't end up with those? Casey: I don't know if there is new ways but there is new awareness of things that don't work. We can definitely work through that towards the design process. Anthes: I agree with Mr. McFarr that we have had had some very severe problems with some outflows in subdivisions in that area and I would want to look at this really closely as we go forward. Are there any other comments or questions? Barnes: I have a comment if I could. At this time I would like to discuss that Rupple Bridge a little more with a little help from Matt. Obviously, that is Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 31 a large body of water that we are going to span and that is going to be a very expensive bridge to build. I would just like to make a comment at this time that the money that is being collected and/or what will be collected, is a small percentage of what that bridge will cost to construct. We are making a conscience effort to try to provide something more in order to develop this property. I also, in regard to the trees, I thought I understood the tree preservation to be during the process of development to try to protect as many significant and quality trees as we could to allow the opportunity for lot owners/home owners to choose to have those trees. That is what we have done by not allowing infrastructure to go through that body or grove of trees. It will then be a home owners decision whether he wants to remove that tree or not to construct his home. He may choose to build a smaller home to save trees or a larger home. What we are showing here now is a 3,000 sq.ft. home so that would be 2,500 sq.ft. of living with 500 sq.ft. of garage. That is a large home. Bates: That is a footprint that would be all one story. Barnes: That is correct. It could be reconfigured to save trees. Developers love trees too. We like trees on lots. Those are good lots to sell. Vaught: I have a question on the third detention pond lot. Which one is it? I see two marked, I don't see the third. Bates: It is lot 192. Vaught: Is it marked un -buildable on the plat? Bates: It should be unless it got left off somehow. Casey: The detention ponds are on lots 155, 152 and 258. Shackelford: Regarding my earlier comments, on street width, I know we were talking about how we are going to address that and that is obviously, something that you guys are going to have to work through with staff. For the record, I don't particularly like offsetting a street. I think it causes dangerous traffic patterns. I don't know that I would support, obviously, I don't have a dog in that fight. But, for the record, my comments are that I don't know that I like to offset the street 10' to allow for mirror images of greenspace on each side of the road. I think that we need to look at safety and traffic patterns. What we are giving up on that offset to get the additional greenspace. Anthes: I have a few comments and then we will look at the conditions of approval. I appreciate that you have connectivity in most directions but I Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 32 do have some questions. These street sections, can we go over what street widths we have built here and our setbacks and our sidewalks? Bates: Almost all of them are 28' except the cul-de-sacs are 24' and I think maybe this little street here and here is 24'. Anthes: Do you plan to allow parking on these streets? Barnes: No, I believe we choose not to have parking in the streets. Anthes: If that is the case, 28' is really wide. That is a width that accommodates parking on one side of the street. The problem is we have recently heard from a lot of neighborhood residents who are coming through in subdivisions that have been built with these long, straight streets and they are calling them raceways and we are having a lot of problem with speeding traffic in those neighborhoods based on the width of the street and the configuration of the streets. I guess I need some information from staff about what we can look at. We have lot configuration and we can look at street patterns and I believe if we are not proposing on street parking here we have got a situation with long straight a -ways that are connecting through these neighborhoods. What latitude do we have to look at how this is designed and laid out? Warrick: I believe the Planning Commission can make a determination, should make a determination with regard to safety and the configuration of the street and the amount of traffic generated by the development. If the Planning Commission believes that the street configuration or widths contribute to or cause a dangerous traffic condition that would be grounds for denial of this project. Anthes: I, for one, am pretty concerned about it, especially in light of information that we have been hearing lately. Those street widths, we are talking about 28' with 14' lanes. That is wider than highway widths. Bates: It is not something that would be controlled by stop signs and speed bumps? Anthes: That would be something that you would have to work through with City Engineering. If you look at the streets in our town there is a count that has to do with width. You have to meet a whole lot of criteria to get a stop sign and as of now we have not allowed speed bumps in the community. That is something that comes from Perry Franklin's office. We are looking at this in terms of design and what we see is a design condition that might be exasperating traffic problems. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 33 Bates: I met with Engineering and staff before we did any of this. We went over this lay out. We did make some changes and we did decide to put this road in. We were going to access through this subdivision and this new subdivision but we decided it would be better for everybody to go ahead and contribute the money to build that bridge. We talked about street widths and all of that. Barnes: If I might add, if staff would support it we would love to construct and build a 24' wide street to eliminate that 14'. We would love for that opportunity. With the success that we have had with Clabber Phase I and Clabber Phase II with the infrastructure, that is going to dictate a lot of that to their neighbors. They control a lot of that. Shackelford: I understand where you are coming from. This is just something that has got a lot of conversation recently. It is conceptually something that we do need to talk about. The neighborhood that we are talking about was Barrington Park which has very wide, long streets. I actually built a house on Buckley and lived out there and watched it and I know what she is talking about. I see a lot of the same issues. This road A, if it stubs out for future development to the west if it is 28' long in that straight there could be some issues. I don't want to deny this project over the street widths but I think it is something that you, as a developer, ought to think about because it could be an issue within this project if you leave those at 28' width streets. Anthes: In this long, straight configuration. Also, we have a creek and a parkland dedication and all the backs of these homes actually back up to it. I'm not seeing connections through to that parkland and I think that is a missed opportunity for the residents in this neighborhood to have access and I would like to see that. We have got extraordinarily positive that you are extending Rupple Road and going for the construction of that bridge. That is something that this entire area needs. I guess we can work out the issues of the design of that with staff. I'm concerned though that Salem is backing up to it and whether we are ending up with a fence to fence condition along Rupple. The other thing is that these outlets Street A and C sort of line up but then kind of miss the outlets of Salem and we are not having cross access there. Is there any way to, I know that this is sort of an irregular arrangement. Bates: Those are alley ways. Barnes: The only connection to Salem is through James is that right? Bates: That is correct. Anthes: So this doesn't actually come out to Rupple? Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 34 Bates: No. Anthes: Ok, I couldn't tell from the drawing. Bates: We are required to put a 10' sidewalk along this line to get to the park. We have made the park dedication of approximately 40 acres that was dedicated to the city and we are getting this. This is to be part of a walking trail is my understanding so these will have access through or to this. Anthes: What I'm saying is if you live on Lot 219 and you want to get to the park, and you have made a substantial contribution to the city with this parkland, and therefore, you would think that that would be a substantial amenity for your neighborhood. If I live here and have to walk to here to get down to a street to get out to it because there are not connections here at some point it is not a big amenity to me. Barnes: We have easements through those detention areas. Anthes: As long as we could come through some how to make those connections. If we could work through making connections to the parkland I think that would be really beneficial for the residents of this area. Shackelford: Some of those irregular shaped lots could do a trail off the back of the cul- de-sac I would think. Barnes: That is not a problem. Anthes: I need to defer to a lot of the Landscape Administrator comments about these trees on the west side. He feels very strongly that we need to look at reconfiguration there. Leaving it up to the individual homeowner doesn't give us the kind of control we have as we look at it at this stage on those trees. Barnes: Control? Anthes: Well, we can designate a tree preservation area and reconfigure these lots to assure that those trees will stay or we can say we can leave them now and leave it up to individuals. As a city if we are looking at those as important trees that we want to remain the former is the way we can be most assured that those trees will continue to exist after the construction of these homes. Barnes: Then again, I might add, I thought the preservation for trees was designed to allow the people in the public the opportunity to choose to do what they Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 35 would like with those trees. I didn't realize that we were trying to control what trees we would or would not save. We are making a conscience effort during development stages to save this grove of trees. These people will then have the opportunity to choose what they do on that said lot. That is their property, that is their tree. Pate: If I could respond to that, I tend to agree with Mr. Barnes in a lot of ways there. There are a lot of trees, especially when we look at residential subdivisions, single family lots are expressly exempt from tree preservation requirements. If you want to go in and build a house and there is a big tree on it, even though it was preserved during the subdivision you don't necessarily have to keep that tree. That is what we have looked at over this entire 75 acres. The developers have worked to try to locate some of the lots where the trees are on the property line so you would have a buildable envelope within that area that you could go in and build a home, grade that site, and keep those trees. My concern kind of rests back on this larger group which is the majority of the trees on the property, as you notice by the numbers, they are only about 11% existing on 75 acres, that is 8 acres of trees that are existing on the property and 3 '/2 proposed to remain. 1 '/2 is again, from lots 202 to 213. I think there potentially could be, if the street widths are reduced in this area if it is not a through street that could add a little bit. We don't look at covenants or new zoning restrictions at the time of Preliminary Plat so it is not something that we could really rely on covenants or a Bill of Assurance for. It is really just the design of the project if there is a larger lot configuration. I am not sure exactly what size of homes this developer is looking at building on this lot. This will help in some of those determinations though. Barnes: More concerning to me is looking at this now as we are sitting here, we have got a street that goes through a grove of trees that we are going to lose approximately five or six trees. We could propose to move that intersection that is going westbound, that stub out, from A to C and save those four or five trees and bring that intersection through the west where there are no trees. Staff is supportive of that. That is saving four or five quality trees that could sit on a lot. Bates: If we reduced the building setbacks in the front to 20' instead of 25' that would save some of these others that were maybe 5' from the tree. Warrick: That is a violation of city code. We can't reduce that setback without the Board of Adjustment granting variances. Barnes: B being a narrowing street would help with that right of way and would help provide more greenspace on those lots. Is that correct? Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 36 Shackelford: Yes. Bates: Wouldn't the right of way be the same? Barnes: We could narrow it to a 40' right of way on that section of Street `B". Bates: That will give you 5' more. Shackelford: On this conceptual drawing we have to remember that those envelopes are I think, way worse case scenarios. I think that if you look at a 3,000 sq.ft. footprint there are very few houses that I finance that have 3,000 sq.ft. footprints. Typically, you go smaller and go up for a typical development. I also see situations on these types of lots that the homeowners do work very hard to save these trees because it adds value to the overall project. I understand where both sides are coming from on this. I don't think it is going to be as big of a concern in reality as what this drawing might show. I also support the ability to try to give as much room as possible to save those trees as we can. Anthes: I don't have any problem with discussing reducing that right of way to allow that. Do you? Shackelford: No. Barnes: I would dare say that those will be the first lots to sell. Shackelford: I would agree. Pate: I would agree with that as well. That provides a buffer to the west as well and that is really why these are significant and part of our discussion today. Typically, when we review these plats we use a 65x65 footprint because obviously, the buildable area is outside the walls of the structure. You have to get your equipment in there and around those lots to actually construct those lots. The 65x65 on a standard RSF-4 lot with a 70' width is what we typically use for that. That is where we are coming from. Anthes: Let's go through the conditions of approval here and make sure that we are covering everything. Connectivity, obviously, we are connecting to all three directions and then providing walking trail connectivity to the parkland. The internal streets, as they are currently configured, do have multiple connections to one another. I am still extremely concerned about the design of the street pattern and the length of these long, wide straight streets. In light of what we are hearing from other developments around the city and I believe we might be contributing to an unsafe condition there. The waiver request for the cul-de-sac length, commissioners, how do you feel about that? Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 37 Vaught: I don't necessarily have a problem with that. You are not looking at, the lots at the end are larger so I don't think that the traffic going down will be as great as it typically would. It gives access to the park too if you can do some easements through there. Also, just the unusual layout of the land. The land kind of dictates what they need to do to access that part of the property in a way. To me it is not a problem. I could support the waiver. Shackelford: I agree. I think it is site specific to this property given Clabber Creek. I think that the developer is doing a good job at donating the land and as we have stated earlier, if we could get some sort of trail or walkway access off the back of those cul-de-sacs to the parkway I think that is a very good compromise for everybody at the table. Anthes: I would agree with that. The property line adjustment to remove lot 259 could be straight forward and something you would be able to do. If we could work with staff on condition five to look at the right of way dedication and other site modifications that might be used to assist us with those trees on the west side. Again, to emphasize condition seven, that goes directly to the public comment that we had about outflows of water. Bates: We put our outflows, there is an existing ditch where both ponds are and that is where our outflow structure is. It is going to go right where the water has been going for years. Barnes: One thing that will help Clabber too is once there is a bridge and some drainage infrastructure corrected for this crossing it is going to eliminate some ponding that is there now. It is pretty marshy, it is pretty sprawl, that water just sits up there. Once we define that area where that water releases further west I think it is going to help a lot of things back to the east. All of that land has been pretty marshy for years. Those improvements as that road crosses that area I think it is going to help that also. Bates: The third pond needs a little checking on where we are going to do the outlet structure. Anthes: Matt, will you work with them on the clarification of that. Vaught: What was the consensus of the internal street widths and what are staff's thoughts on reducing those to 24' throughout? Warrick: If we were to look at a historic grid pattern in this neighborhood where we had a traditional lot and block type of arrangement staff would be able to support a 24' street segment for all of them. That is not what we are looking at in this configuration. There are not enough intersecting streets Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 38 and it is not what you would see in a historic lot and block type set up. We are certainly amenable to working with the applicant on making some modifications to street widths and looking at that. I think that would be the configuration that staff would be able to support if that were desirable to the applicant. We would have to look at block and lot dimensions that were more compatible with a 24' street. Vaught: What about reducing the right of way to 40' to provide some additional setback against those trees? Warrick: I think that we can certainly look at that. The issue with that though is that "B" continues to the north. When we look at the unknown we are looking at a stub out which is desirable and we do want to see a connectivity to adjacent future developments. We don't know enough about how that might be configured and we might have to have some sort of awkward transition in street widths at that location so I'm a little bit hesitant to say that. South of "A" street, just that southern section. I think it would be more desirable if we could look at something more uniform instead of just picking and choosing one or two streets that we would modify. It is going to be very confusing in the long run if we do this piece meal. Pate: I will add to that with our Master Street Plan street width requirements, the street sections located in the Master Street Plan of the General Plan 2020 call out specifically, car trips per day to carry a specific number of vehicle trips per day. If you utilize the lot, block system, it has more options to get places and therefore, you can reduce the street width. When you are carrying so many cars per day from all of these lots accessing on one road however, the 28' wide street becomes a local street as opposed to a residential street section. That is our guideline to go by. Shackelford: I understand the guideline but I think we are hearing from real life experience that this may not be working as well as what we thought it would whenever we drew these ordinances up. If we have any flexibility in that area I think it is something that we ought to at least look at. Anthes: the way that it is laid out with this grid I would really appreciate if the developers would be more amenable to going back and look at more of a lot block system with staff with a 24' street grid it is going to change this layout some but I'm very concerned about safety on these streets and I would prefer seeing this at Subdivision Committee level again after you had time to work through those changes. Bates: To me the easiest thing to do would be to put stops, three way stop, three way stop and a four way stop. They are not going to ever have time, unless they just floor it. They are just 800'. There is not enough room if Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 39 traffic dumps into all of these locations then there is no way that you could get the speed up. Anthes: Then we would have to go and work with Perry Franklin and have him analyze the situation and tell us whether under city regulations those stop signs would be warranted at those locations. Which, again, brings me back to the fact that I think that we need to hold off on this a little bit because there are a lot of questions. Barnes: Dawn, what is the minimum lot standard for the historic lot and block subdivision? Warrick: If you look at a traditional downtown or a more historical type neighborhood you see 50' lots. This property is not zoned to allow for a single family home on a 50' lot unless you choose to go through a PZD process. The lot size requirement for the RSF-4 zoning district is 70' of frontage and 8,000 sq.ft. lot area. Shackelford: I go back to this is kind of a property specific development with Clabber Creek and all the parkland dedication. I don't know that this lies out for a standard lot and block style development. Bates: You are going to have big cul-de-sacs that won't work with traffic. Anthes: The streets don't have to be straight either. You introduce some curves into those streets. You don't have topography here that dictates one way or the other. You have a big natural amenity that is the current situation that you could play up to. Shackelford: I think that dictates topography with this big natural amenity. Anthes: It drops off here. It just seems to me that there would be a way to introduce some curvilinear patterns into these streets that would also slow cars down. Balancing that against street widths, obviously, we see what you have already done. As a Planning Commissioner at this level, one of the findings that we have for which we can approve or deny a project is street configuration and perceived safety. I have some big concerns with it as it is currently drawn. Shackelford: I understand those concerns. If they have drawn it to the ordinances as they exist now regarding street width, I don't know that I'm in a position to tell them that they need to scrap everything they have done and redraw it. As the ordinances are written now and staff does not recommend reducing these street widths because the 2020 Plan and the ordinances in place call for those street widths. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 40 Anthes: In the current configuration. There is an alternative configuration that would possibly work that would allow that. Shackelford: My understanding is staff is supporting this development in the configuration that it is now with the street widths as they are. Is that correct? Anthes: It says Planning Commission determination of appropriate interconnectivity. I believe it is on us to make the finding. Warrick: Staff has found with regard to connectivity in your staff report. We are concerned about safety in this development. Because of the very straight, very long street sections that are wide we have seen in other subdivisions and are concerned that the design of this subdivision may be encouraging very fast traffic through a residential neighborhood. While stop signs are tools they are generally tools that are used after the fact when a design has failed within a residential neighborhood. If we can come up with a design that creates a slower traffic volume or traffic flow through the development, it is a more safe situation and you are not necessarily having to rely on those fall back tools such as stop signs. Shackelford: If staff is concerned with the traffic pattern as it is drawn but staff does not support reducing street width as an amenity or a way to alleviate that concern. Is that correct? Warrick: The adopted Master Street Plan requires a 28' street when you load in more than 400 vehicle trips per day. There are alternatives. That's staffs suggestion that we look at alternatives to provide additional outlets and options within the street configuration of the development. As I said, the lot and block system would provide for more connections, would allow for a reduction of street width. Vaught: Dawn, what do we do? You guys are recommending that we forward it to the full Planning Commission. That is why I'm stuck. It sounds like you guys want to work with the developers on the design a little more and hopefully alleviate some of these problems. What does staff recommend we do right now? Warrick: I will be glad to change our recommendation now to come back to Subdivision Committee if the applicant is willing to work on some solution. Bates: Normally I don't say anything but I came in with this plat before we did thousands of dollars worth of work and you all looked at this layout and you asked me to put a stub out here and a stub out here. We sat down before we started doing this layout and everything and everything was ok Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 41 with it. Now we get to here and there are a couple of questions and you are asking that we scrap the whole thing after we spent weeks and weeks on this? Warrick: I'm not saying that this would require scrapping the whole thing. What you have shown here is a start to a standard lot and block setup. It is just not quite there. Barnes: Obviously, Dawn, the character of this land dictates, the narrowness as we enter here dictates that. The number of lots that are drawn here has been dictated by the infrastructure that we have to provide to get to this land to develop it. The crossing of Rupple itself and then also the widening of Rupple Road to 36'. We have shown what we felt like was a good effort to try to make these improvements. I'm not saying that they are above and beyond, I don't know. We haven't been argumentative. Matt has said time and time that we have a small minimal amount to contribute but we said we will build the bridge, we will construct the bridge. Anthes: I'm totally in support of what you are doing with Rupple Road and the parkland dedication and the fact that today we have been able to work out those connections. You are must understand, we have a multiple tiered approval process for this very reason. We are charged as a Planning Commission, with looking at certain things. Traffic patterns and safety is a big one that we are charged with and if we are seeing something that was missed before, I hear what you are saying and I think that what Ms. Warrick is saying is that there might be some minor modifications that could get us closer there that would not require scrapping the project, but we would appreciate it if you would have a look at that with us so that we don't fall back on our job of identifying problems before they are built into aproject. Shackelford: My only concern is I don't consider going from this to a lot and block system a minor altercation. I just don't see that. Anthes: That is some sort of medium that we can work through. I would like to give them the opportunity to do that, to come to a compromise solution and come back to this committee with it. Shackelford: I struggle with this, and I have for the six years that I've been doing this, if we give direction to the developer, they develop something that is within the ordinances, there is something that is a new hot button, and quite honestly this street width and traffic calming is something that is very new to conversations that we have been having. I don't know that if they meet minimum conditions, they meet the ordinances as are drawn, I hate to scrap a project that has gotten favorable input to this point and ask them to Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 42 redraw the whole thing. If it is a minor altercation I'm fine with it but I don't know that we need to completely reinvent the wheel at this level. Anthes: Would you be willing to have them go back and try to make some minor modifications to try to come to a compromise that would work? Shackelford: Absolutely. Vaught: I would say to add to that, I think that Street "A" is the main concern and "C" is the secondary. The rest of it I don't have a problem with. I agree with Commissioner Shackelford's comments and I don't think, you know, I'm torn but I would not mind tabling it for two weeks just to see what you guys could do. I understand you are concerned and your frustrations with the process. There could be some minor things to do, I don't necessarily think that we should totally redesign the project. Bates: What do you have in mind? I don't even know where to start. Vaught: That is what I'm saying, work with staff. Obviously, they have got some ideas. See what you come up with. See if there is a way. If not, I would be fine seeing this exact same project back here. I would be willing to forward it to Planning Commission and let you guys see at that level how you do with the full Commission. That's what I'm saying. I'm not talking about indefinitely. Just give it a shot, give it two weeks. If you guys can't come to an agreement bring it back and we will see what we can do. I will forward it to the Planning Commission as a whole if you guys give it this effort and you can take your chances at that level and see how you do. Anthes: I think that is a really good compromise so I will move to table PPL 04- 1176 to the next Subdivision Committee meeting. Barnes: Is there not that opportunity or time for us to discuss that to allow this project to go forward? Obviously, we do have that time where winter is approaching us. We would like to be out there. We have several other stages to go through with Matt as far as construction drawings. Not being able to forward this today at this level knowing that we are going to sit down with staff and then get to the Planning Commission stage? Anthes: We need to have a project that we mostly endorse before it goes to the Planning Commission level. Otherwise, we are doing Subdivision Committee work at Planning Commission and we can't really do that. Barnes: Mostly it does besides two minor arterial roads that come through the subdivision. Anthes: I don't find that because of the safety concerns. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 43 Barnes: Ok. Vaught: This will give you a little more time to work with staff. What are the revision deadlines? Warrick: Tuesday because it is a holiday on Monday. Vaught: That doesn't allow enough time for you to really sit down and try to work these things for the whole Commission to see new plans. That is my primary concern. This will just extend the process two weeks. I know it is two weeks and I'm sensitive to that fact. Dealing with the level of concerns, I think that it is something that will be fair. Like I said, if you guys can't find changes, I will be fine seeing this again as it is and I will forward it to the Planning Commission and we will discuss these things at that level with the full Commission. Barnes: I just might ask Dawn and Jeremy at this time, do you see minor changes to these streets that is going to help limit these long stretches of streets? Anthes: We have a motion on the table that we need to take care of and shouldn't be having this conversation back and forth at this moment. Can I take your comments as a second Commissioner Vaught? Vaught: Yes. Anthes: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Shackelford? Shackelford: I tell you what, I will concur but I would ask indulgence. I would like to hear for my benefit, what staffs answer to the applicant's question, what minor alternatives you see to this as far as a lot and block configuration. Warrick: I've been sketching out some options and primarily it includes some additional north/south connections on these longer spans of double loaded sections. Shackelford: Ok. Anthes: Thank you. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 44 PZD 04-1175: Planned Zoning District (RIVENDELL, 522): Submitted by DENELE CAMPBELL for property located at THE NE CORNER OF CENTER STREET AND S. GREGG AVENUE. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The request is to approve a C-PZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District with 4,675 sq.ft. commercial/retail area, 13 dwelling units and 26 parking spaces proposed. Anthes: The final item that we will see today is PZD 04-1175 for Rivendell. Will the applicants come forward? Pate: This property is located at the northeast corner of Center Street and South Gregg Avenue, also bound by Meadow Street to the north. The property is currently zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The applicant is requesting a C-PZD on this site. The property is currently the site of several buildings that are leased for music and band practices. The applicant requests a rezoning and Large Scale Development approval for a mixed use redevelopment of this property. The applicant proposes to completely redevelop the site by constructing two multi -story buildings comprised of 4,675 sq.ft. of commercial retail area. There are 13 one bedroom dwelling units and 26 parking spaces located on site. Associated development also includes approximately 550 sq.ft. tea room and provisions for the continuation of the Center Prairie Trail through the subject property. As you can note on the elevations, probably most clearly, the two buildings are proposed to access the trail at grade, fully utilizing the opportunity for pedestrian connection to the downtown, University, Mill District and the Dickson Street area with continued construction of this trail network. Total proposed dwelling units, as I mentioned, are 13. Therefore, the proposed density for this C-PZD is 19.4 dwelling units per acre. This property is adjacent to public streets on three sides. Access to three parking spaces near the tea room is proposed from Center Street across from the existing curb cut. Access from Meadow Street allows for loading, two parking spaces and potentially, a dumpster location. For Gregg Avenue the applicant is requesting a Master Street Plan amendment to enable adequate parking to be located on site. The request is to reduce just this portion of Gregg Avenue to an alley classification allowing for full in parking underneath the proposed building. This particular section of Gregg Avenue does not currently carry a high level of traffic from Meadow to Center and improvements to the pavement section will actually widen the access to a minimum of 22'. Staff finds that buildings in this development have been situated to create a desirable pedestrian oriented front along the public trail to be coordinated with the Trails corridor of our Parks Department. A multi use easement is being granted to facilitate the construction of a new water line and a 12' wide multi -use trail. The trail is to be installed by the City of Fayetteville Parks Division. The developer intends to only build on the west side of the property, preserving the Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 45 eastern hillside as a natural woodland. A cohesive grouping of trees is being preserved in this 30x230 area adjacent to the existing development and along the steepest portion of the property. Staff recommends this project be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with 20 conditions of approval. I will go over a couple of those for you. They are Planning Commission determination items and will need at least some level of discussion today. 1) Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds that the submitted elevations for this commercial part of this development meets all aspects of Commercial Design Standards. Two and three are sort of combined, Planning Commission determination of the requested Master Street Plan amendment to reclassify Gregg from a Local Street to an alley. This facilitates pull in parking for the currently low traffic volume street. Planning Commission determination of a Vacation for Gregg Avenue right of way. As you notice on your site plans, this line here currently going through the existing building is where the existing right of way of Gregg Avenue is. Obviously, this project cannot go forward as proposed unless there is a right of way Vacation in this area, which has been submitted and is tracking concurrently. You will see that as part of the Planning Commission meeting. Staff is in support of that request. Item four, Planning Commission determination of parkland dedication, which I will allow Allison to go over if she would. Five, the applicant shall formally vacate existing utility easements along Center Street to facilitate new construction of stairs, walls, and garden patio south of the tea room. In our Technical Plat Review meeting I don't think there will be a problem with that. The utility companies seemed to express a relative sense of comfort level with that. We just need to process that easement Vacation prior to building permit. A couple of site plan revisions are conditions number six, seven. Mr. Clark, on number eight, if you could confirm the location of the right of way along Meadow Street. There was additional right of way dedicated on the north side of Meadow Street with that project. The full 50' I believe should be dedicated with this project and it is not what is currently measuring out. If we could just maybe get together and confirm that. Clark: We do have a copy of that dedication. Pate: Condition number twelve, I believe it has been relatively resolved. There have been ongoing discussions with the applicant and the neighboring property owner about a property line dispute, which is a civil matter. The City Attorney asked me to put a condition of approval on this project, however, such that if any dispute ever arises again or there is a legal decision reached that development of this property will not infringe upon the rights of the adjacent property owner. Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 46 Clark: He is addressing up here on the uphill side, on the east side of all of our trees. There is an old fence line that doesn't coincide with the legal description of this piece of property. The description was 50' either side of the centerline of the railroad tracks that used to be there. If you use that line it extends beyond where the fence line was. It is kind of a no issue in that we are not developing up there anyway. We don't see a big issue with that. Anthes: Are there any other staff reports? Brady: I just might go over that Parks Board did recommend a conditional combination of money and land based on the fact that the 20' utility easement goes through. If that doesn't go through then we will be looking at a combination of money and land. Shackelford: This $5,109 that you are recommending is assuming that the dedication occurs, is that correct? Brady: That the easement occurs. Clark: That would be the full fee? Brady: Yes. Anthes: Would the applicants introduce yourself and elaborate on the project if there is anything that you would like to add? Clark: I'm Steve Clark, the Engineer. Campbell: I'm Denelle Campbell the property owner. Clark: I think it is pretty self explanatory. Denelle may want to discuss her plans and thoughts are on it. Campbell: We have tried to get it as far along as we could with a very modest investment because we have so many questions that we are hoping that the Planning Commission can help us with. I haven't been able financially to maybe develop as much detail in my plans as I would like to be able to. I just can't spend that money until I know if I can afford to develop the project. Clark: We have provided the information that you are typically used to seeing. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to speak to this project? Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 47 McGuire: My name is Mark McGuire. I am with the Pettus Law Firm. I just wanted to make a real quick comment based on what Mr. Pate said. I represent the Longer Property Management, LLC and it is concerning the borderline dispute here. The one thing that I wanted to bring out is that we are not objecting to the project at all. The only comments that were made was just to bring the Commission's attention to the fact that there may be a potential problem. As I understand it, it is a non -issue at this point. I just wanted to reiterate that my client is not objecting to the project at all, we just wanted to bring it to the Commission's attention. Anthes: Do you agree that that dispute is in this area of the project? McGuire: Yes. Anthes: Thank you Mr. McGuire. Would any other member of the public like to speak? Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and bring discussion back to the Committee. Shackelford: My comments are I agree, I think that we are well within Commercial Design Standards with this project. As I drove out and looked at this property Gregg Avenue looks more like an alley than it does a local street at this point. I am going to be in support of the right of way issues. Parks and Rec. sounds like it is being addressed associated with that as well. I think that there is a lot of merit with this project. It is a very nice design. I think it is really going to add to the area of town. I am going to recommend that we forward to the full Planning Commission C-PZD 04- 1175. Vaught: I will second. Anthes: I just want to make a couple of comments. I do believe that this is a real positive addition to this area. I think we need to just make sure that we discuss the fact that Gregg Avenue is not platted to go anywhere north of here, right? Pate: Right of way has actually been vacated north of this. Meadow Street I believe, before the railroad abandoned it a long time ago. That property will never develop north of this as a street. Anthes: With that overlay bringing this to 22' that will more than handle the property generated by this particular property with backing out so we feel comfortable with that configuration. The fact that this is contributing to and building a big portion of the trail through there I think is extremely positive. I do have a question about this retaining wall situation along here. Do we know how tall that wall gets? Subdivision Committee September 3, 2004 Page 48 Clark: A foot or two. It is not really a wall. If you look at the existing bank through here, the ground is near vertical at that point. We anticipate that we will have to do a protection there and that will be some kind of a very short, stacked wall. Anthes: Excellent. This is really going to contribute to that area. Good luck. We will see you in a couple of weeks at Planning Commission. I concur. We stand adjourned. Announcements