Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-17 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Friday, September 17, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN PPL 04-1176: (CLABBER CREEK PHASES 3, 4 & 5, 283) Forwarded Page PPL 04-1187: (LOT 1 OF SPRINGWOODS PZD) Forwarded Page LSD 04-1174: (FAIR PARK CENTER, 287) Forwarded Page LSD 04-1182: (STEAK & SHAKE) Forwarded Page LSD 04-1183: (BRANDON/HASH MALL SOUTH) Forwarded Page LSD 04-1185: (NOODLES) Forwarded Page R-PZD 04-1181: (WALNUT CROSSING SUBDIVISION) Forwarded Page 28 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Christian Vaught Loren Shackelford Candy Clark STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Suzanne Morgan Steve Hatfield Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Brent O'Neal MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 2 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 257 single- family lots proposed. Anthes: Welcome to the September 17`h meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first item of business is old business, PPL 04-1176 for Clabber Creek Phases III, IV, and V. Would the applicant come forward please? Morgan: This is a request for an approval of a Preliminary Plat for three phases of Clabber Creek. It is approximately on 75.11 acres and is zoned RSF-4 and to be subdivided into 257 lots with 252 lots for development of single family homes. This proposal was heard by the Subdivision Committee at the last meeting of September 3, 2004. Discussion and public comment were taken regarding internal street configuration, traffic safety as well as connectivity, parkland and alignment of Rupple Road. The plat before you reflects alterations in street alignment and lot configuration to include an adjustment of alignment of stubouts, internal streets and reduction of access to Rupple Road. Staff does recommend forwarding this Preliminary Plat to the full Planning Commission with the following conditions: Subdivision Committee approval of internal street configuration, conditions placed on this are thirteen to include item one, Subdivision Committee approval of adequate connectivity to adjacent properties. 2) Subdivision Committee approval of appropriate internal street configuration. Staff does find that a north/south connection between Oak Valley Street and Bramwood Drive which is located at approximately this location within this long row of lots continuing that north/south street, lots 168 and 169. Other conditions include item seven, utility easements along the rear of all lots should be reduced from 20' to 10' in width. This will allow for utility access within those lots. Also, access is to be restricted to interior streets for those lots fronting on Rupple Road and street lights are to be placed a maximum of 300' apart on infrastructure to be placed within the subdivision, as well as Rupple Road. Anthes: Are there any other staff reports? Casey: I don't have anything new to add since the last meeting other than there has been some discussion amongst staff about the possibility of the city cost sharing to widen Rupple to the full four lane section that is on our Master Street Plan. That is in the preliminary stages right now so I don't have a recommendation at this time. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 3 Pate: As you are aware the Subdivision Committee voted to table this item the last meeting. Revisions have been made which the Landscape Administrator finds to be suitable. Lots one through fifteen, street configuration has changed north of Lot 14 to preserve some additional trees there. Additionally, the lots have been extended by about 20' to 25', they have been enlarged in that location, which was one of the recommendations as part of our last Subdivision Committee meeting. Anthes: Would you guys introduce yourselves and tell us about the changes that have been made since our last meeting? Bates: I'm Geoff Bates, the engineer on the project. Barnes: I'm Bleaux Barnes here for BMW. Wray: I'm Curtis Wray, BMW. Bates: One of the main things that we did was shift everything over and increased all of these lot sizes to save the trees along this back line. There are trees here so we moved this intersection here to save all of those trees. We got rid of the long, straight line streets. We got rid of this long cul-de-sac. Anthes: Also, is this now a trail connection? Bates: There is a detention pond here. There will be access right there. Barnes: We did what was asked before when we were tabled. We made a conscious effort to meet with city staff and redesign. City staff had input, Dawn had input. This is the redesign we came back with. The initial design we had 256 sellable lots, we now have 252 sellable lots. We feel like we have made a conscious effort to try to help with the elongated streets that we had before. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any member of the public like to address this Preliminary Plat? If you would come to the podium and sign in. Scott: My name is Robert Scott. My wife Shannon and I have a contract on a property within Salem Village which will join the Rupple Road extension. We have some concerns with respect to Rupple Road. We understand that it is going to be a minor arterial, which s a fairly heavily trafficked road. We also understand that when the Salem Village subdivision was approved that instead of dedicating a full 45' easement for Rupple Road only 35' was dedicated. Also, the road was to be straight with the extension to the south and Clabber Creek, it moves it even closer than off center of the dedicated easement to the Salem Village subdivision so there are several single family homes there that will be exposed to the traffic of Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 4 a minor arterial and we have safety concerns about that. What we wanted to request to be considered was perhaps a different arrangement for getting traffic through there. For example, moving Rupple Road over, bending it or something else. Second, that a plan for mitigation of the negative impacts to the adjacent property owners caused by Rupple Road be fully worked out before the subdivision is approved and that would include things like a fence, trees, things like that, to both create a barrier to make it safer for the adjacent property owners and create a barrier by cutting down on noise. The third thing, we have a question on what is the traffic estimated to be on Rupple Road a year from now, two years from now, five years from now. It seems like it will just keep going up so we think that is something that is to be fully considered before this subdivision is approved. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Scott. Would any other member of the public like to speak? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the committee. Perhaps we could have Ms. Warrick or Mr. Casey address Mr. Scott's comments about Rupple Road and our Master Street Plan. Warrick: I will start. Salem Village is a subdivision that was originally approved as a development in 1995. Rupple Road was on the city's Master Street Plan as a minor arterial at that time. It was discussed when that project went through the development review process. It was approved in it's configuration with accommodations being made for the extension of Rupple Road as a minor arterial. In 1998 when the Final Plat was filed it was still on the Master Street Plan and still recognized as such. The extension of a minor arterial is something that we see in various locations throughout the city in order to provide a circulation system within Fayetteville in order to get people from place to place. One portion of Salem Village that was the western edge of Salem Village was designed in a manner in which the alley way behind the structures is the closest thing that will adjoin Rupple Road itself. The road will not, based on this development, be any closer to Salem Village than the existing edge of that subdivision. This is not pushing the road any closer to the development than it would have been had that street been built when Salem Village was originally developed. I'm not sure what else to add on that. That is what I know just looking back on the history of the project back in March or May of 1995 when Salem Village was originally approved in this configuration. There was quite a bit of discussion with regard to Rupple Road being a minor arterial and whether or not the developer of Salem Village would actually be doing any construction on Rupple Road. It was determined at that time that they would not. They would be making a monetary contribution to the improvement and extension of Rupple Road. Because of the constraints that this developer is going to have to undertake with regard to building a bridge over Clabber Creek. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 5 Anthes: As these kinds of extensions and traffic studies, we would say that as we do other subdivisions in town, that is a minor arterial and we are requiring the same of this developer as we would of other developers? Warrick: Yes we are. In fact, in order to provide access to this site this developer will actually be building more than what a different developer may be doing. Because of the location of this project it has to have access and extending Rupple Road is really the only appropriate way to do that. Therefore, they will be building the bridge that nobody has undertaken in the past to make that connection. As Matt mentioned previously, the city is looking at the possibility of cost sharing to widen this street to it's full minor arterial section. At this time normally we look at just the improvement being a residential street section, 28' with sidewalks shifted quite a bit away from that so that in the future the street itself could be widened to the full 48' section. The City Council is interested in ensuring that we have street infrastructure in place when the need is there as opposed to after the fact. That is something that we feel is appropriate to look at with the rate of growth that we are seeing and with the amount of traffic that is being generated by the new development is certainly something that needs to be addressed so the city is looking into the possibility of going ahead and making this a full minor arterial at the time that this street extension is built with this project. Anthes: Thank you very much. Commissioners, are there any comments regarding these issues or any of the items? I guess we will look at the conditions of approval. Condition one, looking at adequate connectivity to adjacent properties. Is there any comment on that? Shackelford: I was just going to comment that I think it meets what we are looking for connectivity. There is adequate connectivity to the north, west and really because the barriers that Clabber Creek has, there is not any ability to connect to the south. I think it meets the issues there. Anthes: The main issue of course, is the north south street. A lot of changes since our last meeting is the internal street configuration. Do we have any comments on these changes. Vaught: My only question would be what the applicant felt about the connectivity recommended. Bates: We would lose two more lots and get the long, straight streets again which we were trying to avoid. That is why I moved this over. It would've been the same thing north and south as we had east and west. Warrick: I was just going to add that we did meet with the developer and their representatives and I think that we had some good conversation about Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 6 potential modifications. They did take a lot of direction from staff and came back with a project that addresses a lot of concerns that were mentioned at the last Subdivision Committee meeting. We don't have any blocks of houses that are longer than about 1,000 feet so it is well within our block and lot structure as far as between our minimum and maximum range. The only recommendation that we thought would merit at least discussion, and this is solely up to the Subdivision Committee, was the possibility of extending that central north/west street further to the south just because what we saw was that the block of lots that basically starts with 251 and travels all the way through to lot 65 towards the west, we looked at that as a potential long block. Having that break basically half way through it was something that we thought would merit a discussion. With the width of some of the lots I think you might be able to do it by just losing one and shifting things around and fronting a couple of the lots on that. That was just a recommendation to review. We are not dissatisfied with the configuration that the applicants brought back to us. We believe that they did follow the direction of staff and the Subdivision Committee from the last meeting but that was just the last item that we felt merited some discussion. Anthes: Just looking at this, I understand the developer's hesitance here based on some other things we've talked about earlier. You could make a connection through and do a shorter block here. Commissioners, do you believe that is necessary? Bates: I don't think it would work because the corner lots have to be bigger and there is not enough room. Bates: We were asked to make a conscious effort to look at the street design and we have done that with staff's recommendations. We are at a point that anymore lot loss is going to hinder the offsite improvements that we have to make and improvements through the subdivision. We came back through here with the loss of four lots, and I know that is not the issue, but it becomes an issue for us. How many improvements can we continue to make minus lot sales. We feel like we have come back with a good design and staff and Geoff have both been involved with this design. Shackelford: I think that this proposed design meets what we asked them to do. I think there is a lot of traffic calming that has been created by the new development, the new design and the length of that block given that there is some right angle turns associated with it, I don't really have an issue with that so I think that I would support it as it is drawn on this second drawing. Anthes: Can you tell us about the street sections now on these? Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 7 Bates: This is a 28' street and I believe everything else is 24'. Barnes: No, this is 28' here, here and here. We have the 28' sections based on Matt's recommendations to Geoff once we designed the reconfiguration of the streets. Anthes: Matt, that meets your approval there? Casey: Yes, we like to see the streets that are going to carry the largest amount of traffic to have that wider section. Warrick: The other thing that they have done is instead of just going to a standard 40' right of way they have gone to a 42' and I believe that is to include sidewalks on both sides of the narrower streets as well as the wider ones, which staff appreciates. We did encourage them to include those sidewalks on both sides, which is not part of our adopted section for local streets. Some of the other changes that I think are significant and positive that we've seen in this we've eliminated one access to Rupple which was a good solution to the number of curb cuts that were proposed there. As Jeremy stated in the tree preservation review earlier, the connection to the west was made to the north to provide additional tree preservation possibilities around Lot 15 and still have that connection to the west was also important. Anthes: Those are all very positive changes. The sidewalks was a major issue and the fact that the development will have that on both sides of the streets are very good. Vaught: Have you guys reviewed these? Barnes: Yes. Vaught: Do you have any issue with this? Barnes: No. MOTION: Vaught: I appreciate the work you guys have done. I know we asked you to go back and look at it but I think this is greatly improved but I think it is going to benefit the city and everyone living here. I especially appreciate you working to save the trees and the street design. With that, I will make a motion to forward this to the full Planning Commission. Clark: I will second. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 8 Shackelford: I have one question. The trail connectivity, does that need to be shown on the plat? Hatfield: I think that is one of the conditions. Morgan: There were several Technical Plat type comments, just because this was a new drawing that we had to review again. Warrick: This was a really quick turn around from the time that we met to the time that they needed to get this in so that we could distribute this for you. We have a couple of plat updates that we still need to get on that and we can work with Geoff and get that taken care of. Shackelford: I will concur. Anthes: Thank you. We will see you in a couple of weeks. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 9 PPL 04-1187: Preliminary Plat (LOT 1 OF SPRINGWOODS PZD): Submitted by PATRICK HARGUS for property located at LOT 1 OF THE SPRINGWOODS C-PZD. The property is zoned C-PZD, COMM. PLANNED ZONING DIST. and contains approximately 30.77 acres. The request is to approve a preliminary plat for a commercial subdivision with 22 development lots proposed. Anthes: Item number two is PPL 04-1187, Lot 1 of springwoods PZD, will the applicants come forward? Vaught: I will be recusing from this item. Anthes: Thank you. Pate: The subject tract is Lot 1 of the C-PZD for springwoods approved in October, 2003. As you know, the property was formerly zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial before being rezoned and designated for specific uses under the Planned Zoning District designation. Lot 1, the subject lot, was designated in the rezoning process, for Use Units 12 through 17 and 25 which are itemized on your plat under use units allowed. Those are your typical commercial, office type restaurant and eating place type uses. Lot 1 consists of approximately 47 acres, 34% of which does have tree canopy. The remaining area existing is grassland and wetland areas. The zoning of Lot 1 allows primarily for commercial land use as mentioned previously. The property is currently vacant located west of Shiloh Drive and I-540 north of Moore Lane and bound on the north and west by Lot 8 preservation area. A 404 Permit has been issued from the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers for the subject property identifying the criteria for the impact to regulated wetland areas by preserving and enhancing wetland areas to Lot 8. This proposal is a Preliminary Plat approval for a commercial subdivision with 22 lots proposed. Lots 5 and 9 are retained as regional detention for this entire subdivision with the exception of lot 22, which is identified as a lot reserved for Audubon use. The remaining 19 lots are proposed for commercial and/or office use subject to the restrictions in the covenants for the Final Plat and the PZD which are attached. A draft of covenants for this particular Lot 1 has also been submitted addressing proposed building materials, height, signage, lighting and landscaping among other items. All proposed development within Lot 1 shall meet or exceed the minimum standards in our Unified Development Code for commercial development. The applicant has also presented some dramatic architectural examples of how the subdivision is intended to be developed, along with some photographs of existing development which has been provided for the Planning Commission. Anthes: Would you also like to give the Landscape Administrator report? Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 10 Pate: Sure. Currently there are two options for commercial subdivisions with regard to tree preservation. One is to go through and survey every tree on the site and determine the feasibility of design with regard to preserving those trees. The other option the applicant has is to do an infrastructure only tree preservation plan. It is up to the Landscape Administrator to recommend whichever one of those. Potentially, it could have the best and highest tree preservation. In working with the staff with EGIS I have recommended that they go through an infrastructure only option and they have worked very well with citing the easements along lot lines so as to not unnecessarily remove tree canopy as well as the actual primary street that is proposed through this subdivision is located for the most part, outside of a tree canopied area. The existing canopy is 34.76% and preserved is 29.55%. With this option all tree canopy removed, the developer at this time with infrastructure development prior to Final Plat does have to compensate into the tree fund for those trees removed and then with the development of each individual lot that lot owner and developer will provide a separate tree preservation plan. A couple of other things in the staff report, I will let Matt go over proposed street improvements. There are a few unique things because this is the overall PZD project along Shiloh Drive. Additionally, with regard to connectivity, the property of course, is bound on the west by existing wetlands and future mitigation areas. Staff is not recommending any connections to that area. They have provided an east and south connection to Shiloh and Moore Lane. Staff is recommending forwarding this Preliminary Plat to the full Planning Commission. There are a number of conditions, 20 in fact. Most of those I believe are fairly standard conditions. Street improvements, 6' sidewalks along interior streets as well as a trail. Mr. Hatfield may be able to talk about that a little bit more along Shiloh Drive which is identified as part of the trail master plan. Of course, as I mentioned, development for Lot 1 shall be subject to those regulations approved as the overall zoning and subdivision plat for the PZD. Individual developments shall utilize design elements per our commercial design standards to achieve compatibility, a sense of unity and a recurring identifiable theme within the commercial subdivision as a whole. That is really the purpose of presenting these photographs to you to see what types of development they are expecting there. Each of these lots will come through the Planning Commission for Large Scale Development review and all will be subject to the design overlay district criteria. I can answer questions that you may have about the other conditions. Anthes: Are there other staff reports? Casey: As Jeremy mentioned, this project is unique in that street requirements as discussed when this came through as a PZD, our recommendation was that when Lot 1 develops the entire frontage of Shiloh Drive be improved. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 11 That includes lot 1 frontage as well as Lot 8. The applicant has shown on these revised plans the street improvements to extend offsite from Lot 1. We will be seeing the street improvements along Shiloh Drive for the frontage of Lot 8 and Lot 1 to be adding curb and gutter as well as a trail that Mr. Hatfield could probably discuss. Originally at Plat Review we just saw improvements along Shiloh across Lot 1 and they stopped short of the full frontage. That has been corrected and extended the entire distance. We don't have offsite sheets showing the entire lane but it will be done. Warrick: Just a clarification, when we are talking about Lot 8 and Lot 1, Lot 8 is the 125 acre preservation property and Lot 1 is the entire tract of land that we are looking at for this subdivision. We are not looking at Lot 1 of Lot 1, just to make that clear. Hatfield: Shiloh Drive has been shown on the Trails Master Plan as a trail corridor. I have a couple of comments concerning the amount of easement. It looks like we are showing 16'. Our typical standard cross section for a trail is 12' with 2' shoulders, which is a total of 16'. My only question would be normally on this type of trail we will have signage. It has to be a certain number of feet off of the trail so we may need to work out the details of how we maintain that signage if it isn't within our easement. Typically it is 2' off of the shoulder so I would like to work that out. Also, any signage and the stop signs for the vehicular traffic coming out of the development, I would like to be able to coordinate the location of those stop bars so that they are not stopping right in the middle of the trail. Anthes: Are there any other staff reports? Will the applicants introduce themselves and their project? Hargus: My name is Patrick Hargus with EGIS, here for the developer Hunter Haynes. Haynes: Hunter Haynes, Haynes LTD, the developer. Barnes: Manuel Barnes, EGIS Environmental. Anthes: Are there any comments in addition to the staff comments? Hargus: I do have a question for Steve. Were we correct to assume that that 16' trail needs to go the entire length of Shiloh, even in front of Lot 8? Hatfield: That is correct. Hargus: I guess the other question I had is we had placed that inside the right of way where it fronts Lot 8, is that acceptable as well? The reason we did Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 12 that is that it would further impact the wetlands if we put it on the other side. Hatfield: I haven't studied it. Is it on the edge of the right of way? Hargus: Yes. Hatfield: Then that is fine. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the committee. Jeremy, with regard to the regulations and covenants, obviously, we haven't had a chance to review those. Have you reviewed those and is there anything that we need to point out? Pate: I have looked over those. The first section that you have, the one that has a draft on it, is the draft covenants for this subdivision. The last covenants are filed, that is the ones that went through with the PZD. With this, the developer actually probably knows a bit more. I did notice that they did address some building heights, materials, they are limiting, those would all fall into our design overlay district requirements for materials. Those are on page five of the covenants under Article VI, landscaping, driving, parking lots, sidewalks, building heights no taller than 75' or six stories. Building materials, lighting, signs, etc. Anthes: Are you satisfied with those requirements? Pate: Yes. Anthes: It appears to me that the developer is showing 16' private public access easements along Shiloh Drive, that is what you asked for correct? Hatfield: I believe so. Pate: I believe if I understand it correctly, the trail is 12' wide with a 2' shoulder on either side for a total of 16' with signage another 2' off, that just needs to be worked out at the exact location. Haynes: On your signs, how many signs would you typically put on that long of a frontage? Hatfield: We have certain restrictions on curve radii if we have any curves that are under 90' we have to have a curve sign. Stop signs at all intersections or yield signs, hazard signs for a drop off. Haynes: Are those the signs that you were referring to for the trail system? Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 13 Hatfield: There may be at some point informational signage as well but mostly directional. Pate: I would mention as well as part of the plat that you see in the notes as number one and number two, as well as I believe one of the other notes that mentions fencing, we were looking at a lot of similar conditions as lot 3 and 5 with regard to interface on this development and the wetlands. They have essentially complied with all of the requirements as set forth by the Planning Commission in those meetings and approvals of the Preliminary Plat. We will see the same type of fencing required with those lots facing onto this wetland area, Lot 8, as well as a vegetative transition zone, just for your information. Barnes: I might go ahead and mention that there has already been the installation of about 2,000 feet of green forest trenched silt fence between the proposed development and the protected conservation area, Lot 8 on this commercial Lot 1. Anthes: We are recommending forwarding to the full Planning Commission so we will have the ability to see this there. It looks to me like this is fairly straight forward. We have one main road, you have complied with the drainage requirements, worked with Engineering and the visibility to the conservation easement may be talked about as we talked about on the other lots. Shackelford: Have you guys had a chance to review the proposed conditions on this? Hargus: No not yet. Shackelford: I was just asking if prior to the full Planning Commission review if there was anything else that we needed to visit about at this level. Pate: I would mention that staff and the applicant has worked quite a bit on this project in particular, numerous site visits regarding tree preservation. Also, they have two bus turn offs here within their street improvements on their new street. Hargus: Did you have any particular questions for us? MOTION: Shackelford: I just wanted to take this forum to have any conversations on any other issues prior to it being forwarded to the full Planning Commission. With that being said, I will make a motion that we forward PPL 04-1187 to the full Commission. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 14 Clark: Second. Anthes: I will concur. We will see you in a couple of weeks. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 15 LSD 04-1174: Large Scale Development (FAIR PARK CENTER, 287): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at MCCONNELL AVE, EAST OF I-540 AND NORTH OF FAIR PARK APARTMENTS. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.39 acres. The request is to approve a commercial development of 27,502 sq.ft. Anthes: The next item on the agenda is LSD 04-1174 for Fair Park Center. Will the applicant come forward? Pate: Just before the meeting I passed out these smaller elevations for your review. This property you have all seen before, fairly recently, back in October of last year. The Planning Commission granted approval of a Large Scale Development on this property for the Metro Collision Repair Center off of McConnell Avenue facing onto I-540. Subsequent to those approvals, the developer did submit for and obtain grading and drainage permits, they filed an easement plat dedicating right of way and filing of record all utility easements and tree preservation easements and essentially got everything to start construction. There is a new project on this property. The current project is entirely a different nature though the tree preservation and grading and drainage will still remain applicable. Due to the changes proposed though, a new Large Scale Development is required. Just as a reminder, this 2.39 acre site is accessed from McConnell Avenue west of Garland Avenue. The site is located between the Southwestern Bell facility to the north and Fairpark Apartments to the south. The property does have frontage onto I-540 and McConnell Avenue, located within the Design Overlay District and is zoned C-2. With this proposal the applicant is requesting approval to construct an approximately 27,502 sq.ft. retail outlet center which is envisioned by the applicant for users that require limited display and retail area with storage for warehouse space for their product lines in the back. Fifteen different use units are proposed, each to access from separate points, both in the front and the rear. Due to the nature of this business proposed a Conditional Use Permit is required to allow Use Unit 21, warehousing and wholesale within a C-2 zoning district. Storage is allowed for retail and commercial businesses as we have reviewed in several projects recently, and it is allowed by right as long as the area of storage is secondary to the principal use. Based on the applicant's description of the project, there is potential that the storage space in each of the proposed 15 units might exceed actual retail display commercial space, a situation which would not allow Planning to issue a building permit or to issue a Certificate of Zoning Compliance unless each individual business then requested a Conditional Use. Staff finds that it is more appropriate for the applicant to request a use of this nature at this time. They have done so, their Conditional Use request is in process and this will need to track forward with that Conditional Use process to the next Planning Commission. Staff also recommends that each unit and tenant have a set minimum percentage of area dedicated to retail Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 16 commercial use should the Commission find favorably to allow storage use on the subject property. That will be further investigated and listed in the findings for the Conditional Use. Most of the right of way and utility easements have already been granted and recorded. McConnell Avenue, the same street improvements as you saw on the last Large Scale, improvements approximately 14' from centerline. The tree preservation is exactly the same as what you saw the last time. There are 34 new trees to be planted on this site. Staff is recommending forwarding LSD 04-1174 to the full Planning Commission with 15 conditions of approval. Planning Commission determination of street improvements, the waiver request for the required 200' between curb cuts. Staff is in support of that and the Planning Commission did vote in favor of that request in the last proposal. Planning Commission determination and approval of commercial design standards. They have provided elevations and material samples here today. There were some changes from Technical Plat Review and staff is comfortable with the changes that have been made. Of course, the Conditional Use request does need to be approved prior to the Large Scale. A complete landscape plan per Chapter 172 and Chapter 166 identifying, by ordinance, the landscaping plant species and size to be indicated at this time for Planning Commission review. I believe everything else is pretty standard. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Can we have additional staff reports? Casey: I might add that the site does currently have an active grading permit issued and some of the construction work is already done with the previous Large Scale. The pond has been installed, some of the retaining wall has been installed and the water main has been extended. Construction has ceased at this time though to obtain the approval from the Planning Commission of this revised Large Scale. Anthes: Thank you. Would you introduce yourselves and your project? Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Engineering. Ramsey: I'm Jim Ramsey with Paradigm Development. Hoskins: Tracy Hoskins, Paradigm Development. Anthes: Do you have any comments to make in addition to the staff comments? Jefcoat: No, we concur with all of staff s comments. We will provide the sidewalk entrance off of McConnell Avenue and the repairs. Note nine about the metal fence chain link on the north side of the property, we will correct that and work with you on that. I'm not sure exactly what was indicated there. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 17 Pate: There was a security fence there along the north. Jefcoat: There is an existing security fence there already that does not belong to us. Pate: Ok, so this is not a proposed chain link security fencing with screening slats and/or vegetative vines? Jefcoat No it is not. That is with the vines, that was previously because of the need for the use that was previously used so we will work with you on changing that. That won't be a problem. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the committee for questions. Clark: Jeremy, tell me more about the trees. I'm seeing that we've got 40' and 35' trees labeled here and these are judged as fair? Am I going to see some of these saved with the development? Pate: Probably not. I'm not sure if you were here for the last Large Scale Development here. Essentially, the grading and drainage permits that have been issued, I believe everything has been removed already on the site. They have recorded tree preservation easements per the last Large Scale Development approval and per that recommendation by the Landscape Administrator and the Planning Commission, 34 new mitigation trees are required to be planted on site. Those are located, as you can see, on your plans here. The ones that are Clark: I've got the mitigation. I know where the mitigation trees are going to go. Pate: The ones that are preserved are located along, there's a small are along Fulbright and then there's a larger area there outside of the detention pond proposed. Clark: Okay, so these trees have already been removed? Pate: Yes, that's my understanding. Anthes: Okay, let's go through the conditions. We have a determination of street improvements. McConnell Avenue is improved 14 foot from center line and six foot sidewalks. That looks pretty standard. The second condition is a waiver request for the 200 foot between curb cuts in the Design Overlay District. We don't have a lot of choice on this piece of property from the looks of things. And let's look at commercial design standards. If you'd like to tell us about the materials. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 18 Jefcoat: Well, here they are. We found a piece of laminate, plastic laminate, that looks similar to the metal, so we brought that instead of the actual metal. And also the brick that we were using, turns out that the one we cut is on one of the greyer bricks, they actually have more of the color in them to... Anthes: So it'll appear more like the drawing. Jefcoat: Yeah, it'll be more like that. Mixing some block and some brick, and then also an efface system. The metal trim and the canopies will both be silver color. Anthes: What kind of signage will you be allowing on this building and how will it contribute to the facades? Jefcoat: What we're shooting for is this: small, similar signage, not random type signs, but a standard sign over each unit in the space above the canopy. None of them sticking up above or anything like that. Anthes: And we're in the Design Overlay District, staff any comments about signage? Pate: Correct me if I'm wrong, I believe one business is allowed, each business is allowed one wall per sign in the Design Overlay District. Warrick: That's right. Casey: I think that overall the project meets the standards. The only side that you know we would have an issue with would be the back side, but I believe that backs into a pretty big hill there doesn't it, with some tree coverage? So I don't think that's going to be visible from 540. I think that the front half will, and I do think that that meets our design standards. Pate: I would mention as well the grade there between the property to the south, which is in Fair Park apartments and this property, there is a retaining wall there and quite a bit of change in grade. I remember Matt and I were looking at, I believe it is 10-12 feet in some locations. Casey: Yeah, I think that will screen most of the back, even at this far end because of that huge tree and then the grade as well. I'm comfortable with it. Clark: The back of it I have no trouble with, the front of it I have a little bit of trouble with only because one half of the, it doesn't look very articulated on this side of the. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 19 Jefcoat: That's the end of the building. Clark: That's the end of it? What does the front of the building look like? Jefcoat: Similar, only longer, like this right here. Extend it the whole way down, it looks like it flattens off, then it arches right here. Clark: That looks great. Anthes: The rest of these look fairly straight forward. Any other comments? Shackelford: I have one question. Tom, how big is the project that was originally approved for this? Jefcoat: I think it was around, right at 10,000 or 12,000 SF total. Ramsey: No, no, it was 15,000, and then the offices were about 3,000 and then a 2 - story area of another. Shackelford: Just curious, I couldn't remember. Pate: 15,000 SF and a 4,000 SF office. Casey: The configuration was very different is what I remember, because it had that small access down the side and all the parking was in the rear. Jefcoat Which is one of the reasons why we decided to change what we were doing on this site. We thought this was more conducive, better use of the property. Shackelford: Seems to fit on the property better. Clark: This would be the second project that I haven't seen the preliminary hearings on, and just tuning in today. As with the other one, it looks like the changes you've made are great. I have no questions whatsoever and in that vein I will move that we forward LSD 04-1174 on to Planning Commission with stated conditions of approval. Shackelford: I'll second. Vaught: I'll concur. Anthes: I'll see you in a couple of weeks. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 20 LSD 04-1182: Large Scale Development (STEAK & SHAKE): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC for property located at LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE CONCURRENT PLAT OF THE NORTHWEST ARKANSAS MALL. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.10 acres. The request is to approve a 4,180 sf restaurant with 51 parking spaces proposed. Anthes: Fourth item today is the Large Scale Development, 04-1182 for Steak and Shake. You know the drill, you're here. And this one is Suzanne's. Morgan: The subject property Lot 1 of the concurrent plat of the Northwest Arkansas Mall approved by the Planning Commission on July 26, 2004. The property contains 1.1 acres and is zoned C-2. Surrounding properties are also zoned C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial. It is located east of Mall Avenue and north of Georgetown Square drive, which are both private drives of this location and part of Lot 4 of the Northwest Arkansas Mall concurrent plat which contains the majority of the mall property, approximately 100 acres. There is an existing access off of Mall Avenue Drive onto this property. This property has been used for several different things including gravel parking and that is the access by which it has been used. The applicant proposes to construct a 4,180 Steak and Shake restaurant with 51 parking spaces, to offer inside seating as well as a drive-through. Additional cross access is proposed to the north and east for future developments and connectivity. Building materials consist of efface, stone wainscoat, awnings as well as lights to illuminate projected comers of the structure. Mall Avenue and Georgetown Sq. Drive as previously stated are private drives at this location. Staff is not requesting that these be dedicated, however, we do request an access easement along Mall Avenue from the existing right-of-way to the north of this property line such that public access will be available at all times, and unrestricted. Staff does recommend the LSD be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with 15 conditions of approval. I'll just kind of go over those for you. The first condition of approval addresses Planning Commission determination of sidewalk construction along the property boundary to provide pedestrian access. Staff does recommend construction of a six foot sidewalk along Mall Avenue and Georgetown Sq. Dr. located at the property line. Item #2, Planning Commission determination of adequate and safe access to the subject property. The Fire Department has expressed concern with only one access provided to this sight. Staff will continue to meet with the applicant to resolve any outstanding issues regarding to access prior to Planning commission consideration. There is a memo in your staff report from Chief Curry, regarding the access issues. If access is provided to Georgetown Sq. Dr., street improvements shall include a 20 foot wide paved service adjacent to the property with pavement section to sustain weight of emergency vehicles. Item #4, Planning Commission determination of compliance with design standards. Commercial design standards -staff feels or recommends compatibility Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 21 with adjacent developments with use of similar colors as well as building materials. And to specifically address materials, color, lighting on projecting corners and compatibility, I've included commercial design and development standard requirements in that finding for you to easily refer to. Also prior to the Planning Commission consideration the concurrent plat of the Northwest Arkansas Mall subdivision shall be filed for record, I believe we did receive that this morning prior to this meeting. Also, dedication of access easements as previously mentioned for the full width of Mall Avenue as well as access easements within the property to allow for cross access to the north and from the northern property to the east, as well as any additional off-site utility easements for the extension of the proposed sewer. The majority of the comments, some are particularly obtaining to landscaping, which I will let Jeremy handle. Pate: For Tree Preservation on this site, there are no trees currently existing. That requirement was waived. With regard to the landscape plan, there are two small comments, index and plans shall include the size of all trees and plants do need to be legible on the landscaping. Anthes: Are there other staff reports? Casey: I'll add a little bit on the sidewalk issue. I met with our sidewalk administrator, Chuck Rutherford, and Mr. Moore out on the site during this week to discuss the sidewalk issues. Staff feels that sidewalks can be provided along this site as well as the next LSD we'll be seeing to the north. Georgetown Sq. Dr. and Mall Avenue are private drives and they will be providing access to this site, and we feel like pedestrian access should be provided as welt. I might add that the curb radius at Georgetown Sq. and the Mall intersection, they did have depressions in the curb for future handicap ADA ramps to be installed. So it appears that when these private drives were constructed, they anticipated the construction of sidewalk in the future. So our recommendation would be a six foot sidewalk located adjacent to the curb where there's adequate space and that the ? will permit the construction. And that's all I have. Anthes: Thank you Matt, Parks? Vaught: Question if you don't mind Matt. Georgetown Sq. side only? Casey: Georgetown Square and Mall Avenue. Vaught: Okay thank you. Six foot sidewalks, is that on Anthes: Applicants introduce yourselves and your project. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 22 Moore: I'm Brian Moore with Engineering Services, Jay Snapple's here as well as Mike Stennett, who's the owner of this Steak and Shake. Really, I think there are only two major items on this. To give you a little history of the sidewalk, Mall Avenue and Georgetown Sq is not our property, it's Mace Rich's property. We can try to get an easement from them to put the sidewalk there, our property line actually ends here and here, it's about 15 feet shy of the curb on the south side and probably 10-15 on the west. We can try to get some kind of easement from them to put that, but that was the only reason that we really feel like we may not be able to put the sidewalk in. They're a pretty big corporation and sometimes it's not as easy to deal with. That's the one issue. The other issue is the two accesses. Mike here would love to have the second access up in Georgetown but the grades just prohibit us from doing that. There's about a six to eight foot drop from the curb up to the edge of our curb. So, he would love that. In fact, we tried to put it before our first submittal, and you just can't make it grade out right on the side like this. What will happen in the future, we've got an access to the east that this is also owned by Mace Rich, and we'll have cross access agreements with them to where we can get access over here. Further to the east, it is a little bit less that they will have to access Georgetown Sq. for this site. So it will kind of be like the Best Buy parking lot if you will, you know they have the one access, and then you have to turn east to go to Best Buy and west to go to the shoe store, and there's two accesses on the end. That's kind of how it will actually end up being. This will actually function, I believe, as a city street once we get the property to the east built. There may be some way that we can provide a temporary S132 access and maybe go ahead and do the Georgetown. We'll get with Mace Rich on that to maybe give the Fire Department access that way until that property is built. That's really all I've got. We agree with all the other comments and have no objections whatsoever. We'd be happy to answer any comments you have. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this LSD? Please come forward and sign in. Matthews: My name is Will Matthews. I own the McDonald's restaurant right adjacent to the project and first of all I'd like to say, I'm not opposed to the project, I think the project's going to be nice. Certainly got a great engineer, Mr. Moore, and I admire his work. But I do have some concerns. When we developed our project back in 2000, Mr. Conklin required certain things of McDonalds, a number of things, and a couple of them really related to the exterior design of the building and the color scheme for the building, and he asked that we adopt the same color scheme of neighboring properties. Those being Wal-Mart and also Best Buy, but I think it used to be Service Merchandise when we did our project. He was really adamant about that, in fact, our typical color scheme is a white building with a red roof and he did not want that, in fact Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 23 he asked that we look more at the rose tone bricked colors, block colors, and he asked that we used more of a burgundy color originally. In addition, he required, he had some restrictions on our signage. Although it's not in the overlay district, we could have had a 30 foot sign out there. He asked that we use a monument sign, which we did. I feel we complied with all of the requirements, in fact we've really worked hard to keep our landscaping up. We've replaced the famous tree in the driveway a couple of times already. I would ask that as you look at this project, I noticed that other Steak and Shake projects typically have a white building with some red on it and some black and white awnings. I would ask that you look at that, I don't know if that would actually meet the design standards that we were forced to meet in that same area. So other than that, I feel like it'll be a good project, but I just hope that you hold them to the same standards as we had to have with our project. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Matthews. Would anyone else like to speak? Seeing none, I'll close public comment and bring it back to the Commissioners. Vaught: Madam Chair, I'd like staff to address the design question. Warrick: I'll start. Mr. Matthews is absolutely right. When we saw the McDonald's project at the corner of Mall Avenue and Joyce Boulevard, staff was very insistent upon that project being compatible, which is one of the criteria under the City's commercial design standards. Compatibility between adjoining developments. You'll notice in our recommendation with regard to Planning commission, consideration of promotional design standards, we do find that this project needs to be more compatible. The white building with awnings and black and white is the proposal before you and do not feel that that is consistent with the color schemes or materials that are used in this area. Clark: So is that something that we change at this level, or when it goes on to Planning Commission? Warrick: If the Subdivision Committee would want to see revisions, we certainly need to give the applicant direction. Clark: And what are the prevailing color schemes in that area? Warrick: That area, the Mall Avenue, is a rose colored block or brick, the adjoining developments of the east is also a brick structure. The bank, which is east of the McDonalds, basically what we have out there are earth tones, with reds and tans that are not your primarily type colors, but more of an earth tone gradation. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 24 Vaught: I see the next project, which is next door but does not have that comment, so similar to that, and Warrick: The project to the north is a different, it's a different type structure, but it also does play more to the surrounding developments. It ties in with the colors and materials in some of the developments, including the mall and some of the colors that are down on the Joyce Street area. Vaught: I guess my question would be for the applicant. What do you guys? Moore: We'd love to try and change it before Planning Commission if that would be okay. Warrick: We'll be glad to work with ya'll on that. I'm not sure what you have the control over doing, but I'm assuming that we can modify some materials and a take a look at some options. Moore: We're working with a corporate architect, so we can give it to him, and I'm sure we can come up with something. Warrick: Is your restaurant dog friendly? I see you have a little critter out here? Moore: They like to stay. Clark: Madam Chair? I am more concerned with the adequate safe access that the fire chief has pointed out. What powers do we have with regards to private streets? Anthes: I'd say that the applicant's comment about possibly providing the S132 laying through the next property seems like it would be a good compromise. What do you think? Warrick: I think that maybe a good solution, we have scheduled a meeting or are scheduling a meeting to meet with the representatives of the fire department early next week. We want to make sure that we're not negating any of their concerns. We have our own concerns with regard to the number of conflicts that are caused by additional curb cuts on streets whether they're private or public. So we're not necessarily at odds with our recommendations, but we want to make sure that we're consistent and that we address the safety issues with regard to firea s well as conflicts ont eh street. So like I said, we're going to meet with them early next week and I feel like we'll have this resolved by the tiem it gets to Palnning Commission whether it is okay the way that it is, or whether we do need to provide some sort of alternative through that lot to the east. We'll be sure to make sure that everyone's on board. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 25 Anthes: And Matt do you concur with the comment about the grading between this project and Georgetown Sq. Drive or do you think that can be accomplished? Casey: The maximum driveway grade that will be allowed by the firecode is 10% and I don't believe that we can squeeze a 10% drive in this type of slope, so I would agree with Mr. Moore's comments. Vaught: Madam Chair? On access, I just have one question about the first, as you come in the entrance, the first cross access to the north being so close to that entrance. Is that an issue or is that ... Because here's your entrance and exit and this is very close, and I know that access is an issue with the site to the north of this as well. Is that an adequate design or would it be better served if we moved it from that intersection? Warrick: If I'm understanding you, your concern would be the proximity of the connection, the cross access to the north being very close to the access in. Vaught: Yeah, because if this is a really busy lane, that could be a very difficult corner to use. Warrick: I would say that because there's relief in another cross access on the east end of the site that's not as problematic as it could be if this was the only way for the property to the north to get out onto Mall Avenue because they have a means of coming on the eastern cross access, they can cue up with the other traffic leaving the site. Anthes: I guess I'd like to ask Brian about that. It looks to me like these north accesses were lined up with your drive that goes right to your building. However, there might be an opportunity just to consolidate those into one central one. Can you talk about that? Moore: I think I'd rather have two just on the, kind of what Dawn was saying, if I put it here and if there is something backed up, we kind of have in and out on both. You can always come down here but you can use this one if there's no traffic. Pate: I would mention too that plane's a bit deceiving because the improvements there, the curve lines stop at the property line. Natural street is still further on, so there is a little more stacked up distance than it looks. Shackelford: That brings me to my next question. You guys have got a lot work ahead of you if you're going to redesign commercial design standards, try to get Mace Rich to agree to cross access to the east, talk about sidewalks on Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 26 their property and the easements there. Is it feasible you can do all that between now and Planning Commission. Moore: Yeah, I believe it is. We've already been talking to Mace Rich about the sidewalks and they're trying to run it up their pole. Shackelford: So that's not anew, that won't be anew request for the corporation. Moore: Correct, we've already talked to them a little bit about it. Pate: I would add to that that the access easements that are required for the conditions of approval, to even access this property along Mall Avenue, all the same portion of access easement really. They're requesting access easements along Mall Avenue because it's private anyway to even access vehicularly, this project. Moore: And that will probably be taken care of with the cross access agreement like, it's called a DRGE agreement, is what they called it on the Gary Brandett's project on the north side. I don't know if ya'11 remember that one. Anthes: Well, you know, as far as looking at it from a Planning Commission standpoint, we really need to see those sidewalks, and if you can use our comments to sway their corporate office to assist you there, it's something we'd really need to see. Shackelford: Also I think that the access through the other property, the SB2 to alleviate with the Fire comments is going to be very important. Anthes: I'd agree. And I would concur with staff comments about modifying the material use. The intent of compatibility and the recurring unifying identifiable theme of our overlay district, it sounds like you guys are willing to look at that too. Clark: Do we need to make that an explicit part of the conditional use, the approval? Number #4 says that we need to determine the compliance. Do we need to be more specific and give them more guidance in terms of forwarding on to corporate, who really likes to see something from Steak and Shake? Moore: I think what we could do is go and take some pictures of the surrounding buildings for them and say that we need to meet this color scheme. Clark: Do we need to put that in this condition? Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 27 Bennett: Steak and Shake has dealt with situations like this before. We have other Steak and Shakes that are of other brick styles. We can get something worked out. Anthes: We'd sure like to make sure that all of these things have been addressed before Planning Commission hearing because otherwise we'll just be talking in circles. Okay. And also the landscape plan comments, make sure that those are clear and we can read them. Anything else? Clark: Do ya'll have any issues with the other conditions? Okay. Shackelford: Mr. Chair. Based on the comments that we've made, I think you guys got a lot of work to do between now and then, but good luck. I'll go ahead and move that we forward to full Planning commission LSD 04-1182 with the revisions and comments that have been made by the staff. Clark: Second. Vaught: Third. Anthes: See you in a couple of weeks. Warrick: Madam Chair, just a side note. If for some reason we don't get, that they're not able to make the revisions that they need to make by our deadline, which is what, Tuesday morning, we will send it forward to Planning Commission without things that have been addressed here being resolved. Anthes: Thank you. That would be great. And the applicant's well aware of that condition. That's pretty standard. Mr. Shackelford is leaving us, but we still have our three Commissioners as required to proceed. So we will hear LSD 04-1183. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 28 LSD 04-1183: Large Scale Development (BRANDON/HASH MALL SOUTH) Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC for property located at LOT 2 OF LOTS 1,2 & 3 OF THE CONCURRENT PLAT OF THE NORTHWEST ARKANSAS MALL. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1. 10 acres. The request is to approve a 11,552 s.f. professional office building with 40 parking spaces proposed. Anthes: Yeah, come on in. And here's your mike. Morgan: This property is Lot 2 of the concurrent plat for Northwest Arkansas Mall, it is located to the north of the Steak and Shake. It's zoned C-2 and is approximately 1.02 acres. Applicant proposes to construct an 11,552 SF two-story professional office building with 40 parking spaces proposed. Access to the property is located from Mall Avenue, again, by way of two cross access drives from Lot 1. There is a 2nd floor walkway proposed to the north of the structure to allow for emergency access and that's reflected on the site plan. Again Mall Avenue is a private drive. At this location staff requests access easement across that drive. Staff recommends that this large scale be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with the following 15 items, many of which reflect those addressed with the Steak and Shake LSD, with regard to six foot sidewalk along Mall Avenue, access, appropriate access for safety as well as Planning Commission determination of compliance with commercial design standards which were somewhat commented upon previously with regard to similar colors and compatibility with the surrounding properties. Again additional easements along Mall Avenue as well as within the development and for the extension of the proposed sewer main shall be reflected on the site plan. There are several, I believe three, conditions reflecting the Landscape Administrator's comments. Anthes: Thank you, Suzanne. Jeremy, would you like to follow that up? Pate: Essentially the same comments. Tree Preservation requirements are waived on this project as well, there are no trees currently existing. I would mention that there is some landscaping the mall maintains currently at the corner there of Mall and the north street. It's not showing on our plans, but there is existing landscaping and I just want to make sure that that is protected and maintained, as well as the landscaping within that boulevard there, in the private drive. Otherwise, the same comments as before, index and plans shall include the size of all trees and plants do need to be legible on the landscaping. Casey: The sidewalk comments are going to be the same as the previous Large Scale that we've discussed. I might want to add that the development plans do show a walkway from the second floor to the north, and a sidewalk shown that would connect very nicely with the sidewalk that we Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 29 are requesting along Mall Avenue and along the private drive to the north as well. The landscaping that Jeremy just mentioned, for the installation of this sidewalk, a portion of that may need to be removed and resituated from that construction, but there's adequate room within that area to install the sidewalk. One of the reasons, I didn't add this before, it's more applicable to this project, but one of the reasons for the staff's recommendation for the installation of the sidewalks is that during lunch hours when people in the office building may want to walk over to the mall, and may want to go to the food court, or Sears to leave their vehicle to have worked on, or do some shopping so the pedestrian access in this area is something that we're highly recommending. That's all I have. Anthes: Thank you Matt. Parks? No comment. Anthes: Would you like to introduce your project? Moore: Sure, I'm Brian Moore again with the SI, Gary Brandon. One of the owners of this project is here also to answer any of the questions that you have. I think Item #2 about the access is the same as the previous one that we talked about. We will get with Dawn and the fire chief to see if we can come up with some solution to that before Planning Commission. And again with the sidewalks, we'll get with Mace Rich to see if we can't get some kind of access or easement that we can put sidewalks along the curb line. Do you want to address the walkway, or are you? Brandon: No, this walk way out of the second flood is something that's kind of maybe so, maybe not. I don't want it, my partner does. So... Moore: Is that a required item, I mean, I wouldn't think it would be but I mean if we wanted to leave that before Planning Commission does anybody have a problem with that I guess? Anthes: Well, I kind of like the idea that you are, it's kind of pedestrian connected. You're coming out of the second floor of the building maybe encroach upon the other people trying to get in their cars. Brandon: I'm afraid it's going to encourage people to park over here in the mall, and we're going to have problems with that. They're really picky. Because we're on the north side of the mall. Clark: But then again, you're giving them connectivity to a potential shoppers. And it would mitigate possibly that huge grading issue as well. Ascetically mitigate it as well. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 30 Anthes: I don't know if this is anything that we can really regulate, but I would certainly like to see it, I like the idea that any kind of this stuff that we can get is good, especially when we have a shopping situation and an office building, so people will get out, go across the street and use it without getting in their car. Clark: And just from an ascetic point of view, it looks different from anything that's out there, and that's quite appealing to me because I avoid that area because it all looks the same. And this doesn't, I think this would be great. Moore: But that's what ya'll like. Clark: Just the building itself is going to be a great addition out there just in your color schemes and what you're doing. But it's your choice ultimately. Anthes: Again, you know, with staff comments and with what we said the last time, about the sidewalks and the access. Clark: The access really bothers me. Vaught: I have one question about the access. On the, what is this, the northeast side corner, is that a hammerhead or is that a stub out? Brandon: That is actually two parking spots. Clark: So none of the above. Vaught: So it's two parking spots? Brandon: Yes. Vaught: I guess I was looking for possible cross access to the site that's eventually going to be to the east to hopefully alleviate something. I don't know if that's possible. Clark: In the last property we talked about there was, they were going to go for some connectivity. Is it not possible? Moore: Well, I know that it's needed just because of this start of the slope. So you're probably already building right back here, and I don't know... Anthes: And this is nestled against it. Moore: Correct. You won't have any, you'll end up if you have that, you're going to have to come and go south and it really doesn't function sense you've Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 31 got it right here also. And in fact, I think in talking this morning, Gary and I would actually like to move our detention pond up a little bit and just get rid of those two parking spaces. Vaught: Do some landscaping on the southeast corner? Moore: I think it would make that corner look a little bit better if there were green instead of Clark: Green out there, how unique. That would be nice. Vaught: Just with access being such an issue, you know the more points you have the better obviously, but I know we're limited with this site because the grade around it's so severe, that's what I think the access with the property to the south, although it's a different project, is very important because that directly affects this one, how it plays out. So kind of look at them together even though they're not. Anthes: This thing's completely isolated without this one too. Clark: Well, I really do understand what the Fire Chief is saying in terms of emergency vehicle access and especially as we're building that whole area between two private streets. I'll be very interested to see what you all and staff can come up with before Planning commission, because I think that's going to be a critical issue. Warrick: Madam Chair? If I might, I'd like to request similar information on the sing age, the proposed monument signs, I'm assuming for this property and also for Steak and Shake, because I don't think we have elevations on those yet. Vaught: And won't those have to be located on the plan. Warrick: They are actually located on the plan, we just haven't seen the drawings. But based on the location proposals, I take those to mean that we're looking at monument signs. Moore: Do you need to see that before the Planning Commission. Warrick: We'd like to see it with Planning Commission. At least a schematic, it can be modified slightly, but just materials and where your displaced surface will be, your wording doesn't necessarily have to be on there. Anthes: That is something we should discuss at Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 32 Clark: And we also usually discuss screening for the dumpster. Is this in here someplace? So is it an issue with the private road? Oh, surely, you're going to screen your dumpsters. Moore: Yeah, there's a note on there. Clark: Oh there it is, okay, thank you. Warrick: Around here, but no gate, because you can't see it from the street. Vaught: Overall, I like the project. I think it's a good looking project and in a good location, it's going to fill that lot. So subject to the changes, I'll make a motion that we approve Lot Split 04-1183. Clark: I'll second. Anthes: And I'll concur. Thank you. See you in two weeks. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 33 LSD 04-1185: Large Scale Development (NOODLES): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at LOT 18 IN CMN BUSINESS PARK II PHASE II. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 7.57 acres. The request is to approve an 8,734 s.f. restaurant. Anthes: The next item on the agenda today is LSD 04-1185. Can we hear the staff report please? Warrick: This subject property is located within the CMN II Phase II subdivision. This is on Mall Avenue, although it is south of Joyce Blvd. This is Lot 18. It is north of the deed restricted wetland area along Mud Creek, also within that area there are tree preservation designations. The property contains, about 53% of the site is within this deed restricted preserved wetlands combination area. The property is currently zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 7 'h acres. Surrounding developments include Old Navy and Home Depot to the north, Mud Creek to the south, a vacant lot to the west, College Avenue is at the far eastern edge of the lot. You will notice that this lot has most of the property there along Mall Avenue and then a long tail that extends eastward and intersects out to College Avenue. That easternmost portion of the property is within the Overlay District. None of the proposed development area is affected by the Overlay District designation. The applicant proposes to develop a new restaurant on this property. As the property is zoned R -O, an accompanying Conditional Use request has been submitted. Staff is recommending that Conditional Use. Much of this lot is fully restricted because of all the environmental issues surrounding it. We have found that many of the properties that are zoned in this area for more commercial or office type use have been developed for restaurants. This particular lot is zoned for office use but we feel that the restaurant use is compatible. It is consistent with the surrounding developments and it is appropriate in this location. More importantly, it fits this site, which is a strange configuration. The proposed restaurant contains 8,734 sq.ft. with an attached 2,370 sq.ft. outdoor sitting area. The outdoor use area is adjacent to the trail corridor and preservation area on the south side of the property. The applicant proposes a connection to the trail to allow pedestrians or bicyclists direct access to the development without having to travel past the structure along the sidewalks and the main entrance. One curb cut is proposed allowing access to the parking lot which contains 106 parking spaces. It is within the allowable range for this development which is between 102 and 144 spaces. Four accessible parking spaces and four bicycle racks are included within the parking area. Water and sewer are available along Mall Avenue. There is already adequate right of way existing for both Mall Avenue and College Avenue, therefore, no right of way dedication is required. Street improvements are in place as Mall Avenue is a newly constructed extension. Both streets, Mall Avenue and College Avenue are on our Master Street Plan with College Avenue being Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 34 designated a collector and College Avenue or Hwy. 7113 being designated a principal arterial. With regard to tree preservation, as I mentioned, most of the site is preserved and deed restricted. There is approximately 30.24% existing canopy coverage. The applicant proposes to preserve 28.35%. No mitigation is required because it exceeds the 20% minimum. Staff has not received any public comment with regard to this application. We are recommending forwarding this to the full Planning Commission. It does need to track forward with the accompanying conditional use request. We do propose 15 conditions of approval. I am going to go through a few of those that we probably want to discuss. The outdoor dining area is designated as two different sizes in the different documents and we just need to resolve exactly what that is. It modifies the parking calculations by three spaces. Either way, it should not modify the site plan, it just needs to be documented. We are also dealing on this particular property with regard to the secondary access request from Fire. The applicant is proposing to utilize a utility and access easement which adjoins the property on the north side. There is a very large sewer line in that easement and it is constructed so that service vehicles can access that. The applicant has had a conversation or two with the Fire Marshall with regard to utilization of that as a secondary fire access and it has not been completely resolved at this point in time. That is part of the ongoing conversation with regard to our code requirements and ensuring that we have adequate access and secondary access as they request. We will need to look again at the accessible parking spaces. There are two at the southwest corner of the property. There is not enough backing space that I can see. Jefcoat It is in excess of 24'. Warrick: I measured 24' to the building. There is still not turning room because you can get all the way back but you are still having to do about a five point turn to actually get back into the lane of traffic. Jefcoat: I think your scale may be wrong, we will go over that. Warrick: Let's look at that a little bit more before Planning Commission because I want to make sure of that. Jefcoat The road entrance is 24', you can just take that comparison and know that it is in excess of 24'. We can put another scale to it and make sure. Warrick: The Planning Commission will need to determine compliance with commercial design standards. We do feel that the elevations for the structure complies. This is a fairly eclectic proposal. If you are familiar with the Noodles restaurant on College Avenue the applicant in the past several years has gone back and created several different facades that are Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 35 immigrated that form the face of this building. This is a similar situation. Using a variety of materials and putting together a building that looks probably more like several buildings that have been grown up together over time. Anthes: Will those elevations be in our packets? Warrick: Yes. We do have some questions with regard to the proposed foe ruins, those that are located within utility easements must be removed. There are a couple along the front property line that are within utility easements. Also, any structure that is over 30" in height is required to meet setbacks and again, cannot be located within utility easements. I'm not familiar with the type of construction or the way that these structures may be anchored to the ground and I'm looking for the applicant to work with the building safety division with regard to any permitting requirements to ensure public safety. The last thing that we would want would be these foe ruins coming attractive to kids and pretending like they are playground equipment and have some sort of accident. I have a little concern with that and would like the applicant to look into those issues with the Building Safety Division. The proposed monument sign, I did not find a location on the site plan for that so we do need to indicate where the proposed monument sign is. We do have elevations that appear to be appropriate. I have a question about the indication of the three heavy lines at the east end of the entrance. They weren't called out as anything and I wasn't sure what that was to designate. You've got your measurement at 24' and then you've got your dashed line. Jefcoat: Those are conduits. Warrick: Thank you. Development of any type, storage construction material or equipment shall not be permitted within the deed restricted area or within the designated floodway. A floodplain development permit shall be obtained in order to grade or to install proposed hardscape structures and infrastructure shown to be located within the designated 100 -year floodplain. It looks like a portion of the parking lot, and maybe the corner of the outdoor sitting area, are affected by the 100 -year floodplain so those would need to be addressed with the proper permitting. We do need some more detail with regard to the complete landscape plan. That information does need to indicate species, size of all landscaping plants, spacing, edging, mulch and irrigation, as well as planting details. The last comment I have before the standard conditions with regard to the floodway and floodplain designations. I just have a question because one of the areas appears to have the line symbol for floodway but is indicated floodplain and vice versa. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 36 Anthes: Thank you Dawn. Jeremy, can we have the Landscape Administrator's report? Pate: The tree preservation area on this property, as Dawn mentioned, the deed restricted area does satisfy the requirements for tree preservation and tree protection fencing has been shown on these plans so for that area. We, of course, will go through the same process as we typically do before grading permits are issued that fencing will need to be inspected. As far as a landscape plan, we just need to see the standard details and requirements that we require before Planning Commission review. Anthes: Are there other staff comments? Casey: Thank you for adding the runoff filtration devices. Jefcoat: I trust that will be adequate. It was a pretty nice solution for that and I think it will help real well. Warrick: If I might add, it would be appropriate to add a condition that the connection to the trail be coordinated with Mr. Hatfield here so that he understands the impact on his trail. Jefcoat: We think that's an excellent combination and we would like to see more developments tie their systems into the trail. Hatfield: I absolutely agree and I appreciate the efforts to do that and I look forward to working with you to make that connection. Anthes: Would you like to introduce yourself and your project? Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat, Milholland Company. Benham: Gillian Benham with Benham Architects. Jefcoat: As far as the conditions of approval, the verification of the outdoor dining area, we will get with the architect and make whatever adjustments on the correct sizing and square feet of that. I gave you some additional materials this morning on the weight of the fire truck and the support system. The ruins that are shown on the plat, the location, yes, we are aware that one of them should be in the easements and the one that is located in the multi -use trail easement was just an accident. We do have proposed signage that is not shown. It is a monument sign. We will need to take a look at what we are proposing if that is on the north end of the property and we will show that. The designated location of that would be on the end of the property, which would be the northwest corner. There has been some confusion, we will have a larger plat of just the site area for Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 37 development. On the whole property the floodplain lies just outside or along with the deed restricted easement. They are one in the same so that should clear that up so you can see it a little better. Other than that, we are in agreement with all the conditions of approval and will make the appropriate changes. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commissioners for comments. Clark: This construction entrance, is that going to be the primary entrance to the property? Jefcoat: Yes. Clark: So there is only going to be one entrance off of Mall Avenue? Jefcoat: We are trying to keep the construction entrance and coordinating with other entrances so it helps to compact the ground. People get used to seeing entrances in one location so it is good to coordinate those together when we can. Clark: I think this is a very unique site plan with the building on one end and the parking all segregated, which makes the connection to the trail even better and more aesthetically pleasing. Vaught: On the sign, does this utility easement run the whole length of the property that the trail is in? Jefcoat It follows alongside the trail, you can sort of follow the line in there. Vaught: I was thinking if you were going to put a sign in this corner. Jefcoat: No, it is not up there. There is a utility easement for the sewer that runs along the north property line but the only easement that is along Mall Avenue at that point will be the water utility easement, which we will not be in it. Vaught: My second question is on the shop lights on the side of the building. I know parking lot lighting has to comply with our lighting ordinances, do those have to as well? Warrick: They would still need to be shielded, directed downward, and away from adjacent developments. Vaught: The fall can't be exposed below the level. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 38 Warrick: That is not an adopted ordinance but we do encourage that. Anthes: I have a question about the large sign. Have you calculated the area on that sign? Warrick: I have not. Our wall signage is pretty generous though. That is the existing wall sign that they have on the property on College Avenue. The big issue on this is that this property is zoned R -O not C-2. Therefore, there is a much more restrictive sign allowance and so we will have to look back at that to ensure that we are still within the allowances. Hoskins: We may have the calculation for the total square footage in our letter. Warrick: We'll look back at that and ensure that we have the right information. You have got overall dimensions listed here and chances are that would not comply with the R -O zoning district, which is rather restricted on the amount of signage that is permitted. We may need to work on that before this goes forward. Clark: The access for safety vehicles is something that is going to be shown and addressed when it comes to Planning Commission? Jefcoat: Yes, we will more thoroughly address it with the fire chief. We had indicated previously here that this would be an all weather service secondary access for fire. In addition to that, we are planning on proposing to the fire chief, these concrete pavers, we are proposing to use a paver that is a lined paver and it is a concrete that supports fire trucks, obviously, and that is what we are planning on putting in addition to the existing gravel that is already a service road there. I think that will satisfy his needs when he sees that he is not going to bog down in the existing roadway that is there. Anthes: I guess we need to have comments on commercial design standards and the foe ruins. My question is that these smaller scale ones that seem to be in the parking lot, I don't have as much question about. The rather large aqua duct type structure, where is that proposed to be located? Jefcoat In this area here. Warrick: There is also one on the north side of the entrance drive that is in that easement. Anthes: Dawn, do you have any comments about the sort of deteriorated look of that and that it is so large and what other property owner's around would think? Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 39 Warrick: I think that because it really is part of the development, part of the commercial development, it can be approached and addressed with regard to commercial design standards. I am more concerned about the safety of it, which I think can be resolved in looking at permitting and building code requirements for that type of element. It is obviously, part of a theme for this development and I don't believe that our commercial design standards restrict that, I think it is something that we just need to look at to see to what degree it is appropriate and if it goes too far. I certainly don't want, if we have elements like this within developments they need to be addressed with regard to commercial design standards for appropriateness and if it gets too much, I could see somebody wanting to do a Disney theme restaurant and really have some wild sort of add ons or elements within the parking areas and things. I don't think that we are really looking for Disney World out there with regard to our commercial design standards, we are looking for compatibility. Certainly, if the Planning Commission feels that having this type of element in the parking lot is not compatible with adjacent developments, we don't really have these anywhere else. Just because we don't have them anywhere else doesn't necessarily mean that they are not compatible. They certainly carry on a theme within the development itself. I don't know that that is a direct answer but I think it is certainly at your discretion. Clark: To me it screams insurance liability. That is nothing that we have anything to do with but I would think an insurer would have some issues with it. Vaught: I think if done correctly this could add interest to the site if they could make it so it is not just a big parking lot to the north. Benham: That is the purpose of it. It will be engineered, it is not intended to be anything that is unsafe or unstable at all. Most of it will be tilt up concrete on a steel frame. That is the idea behind the construction. Warrick: I think it would benefit the city if we were able to insure that there were some sorts of conditions on it with regard to them not becoming signage, not becoming elements within the parking lot that detract or draw attention. I think it would be inappropriate for these to be circled with Christmas lights or anything that could become problematic. Anthes: I think I have a question. I'm not sure how I think about it but because of the scale of it, it is as tall or as long as huge parts of the building. Vaught: Are these drawn to scale? Jefcoat: Yes. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 40 Anthes: It is big. I'm thinking that we just had Steak & Shake to go back and handle some minor color changes for compatibility because we felt like a white building was not necessarily compatible with surrounding buildings. I don't know to what degree these kind of parking lot elements would be viewed as compatible with the surrounding developments. I don't know how I feel about it. Clark: They compliment the overall design of this property but I certainly understand what you are talking about with the overall integration for that whole area. Anthes: In CMN Business park itself. Vaught: They are large. If they weren't as tall as the building it might be different but I think the rest of the building is great. I kind of look at it as an extension of the building, kind of carrying it more through the site. They are awfully large, I don't know if that could be cut down a little bit so they are not as intrusive to the rest of the area. Benham: The intention was to have them out there as basically a sculptural fact, it is something to add interest to the parking lot in addition to the landscape. Clark: To me it is the scale that almost competes with the building itself. That is unfortunate because the building is so unique and well articulated. Maybe it would be more palpable if it can be scaled back or incorporated more within the building and not necessarily the parking lot. I understand what you are going for. Benham: The intention is to carry some of that around the site. Clark: If that is to scale, that's big. Warrick: Has this project gone before the review committee for CMN? Jefcoat Yes. Warrick: They do have a review committee, they do have covenants and design standards and we always, when we have a project out there we want them to go to that board first. That is good. The second is the area surrounding your outdoor eating area, what does that wall look like? How tall is it? What kind of visual access are people going to have to the trail and to the deed restricted area? Benham: On one side, the west side, it is about 8' tall and it does have some penetrations with wrought iron. The purpose is to shade people from the Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 41 setting west sun but then it is open on the backside and that will be visible from the trail also. We put a wrought iron entrance down here by the trail so as people come up the trail they will be able to see in and enhance that. It is closed on the west and this is all open. It has the building on the north side which will help also. Anthes: Dawn, you had a question about the area of that parking in the front? Warrick: It is just listed in two different locations with two different dimensions. I'm assuming there were some areas that were taken out for one but I'm not sure. Jefcoat: The first time it came through Tech Plat through we had one dimension and of course, then we showed the building several feet in another direction, shifted it, that caused for a larger patio area to be possible. Warrick: Ok, so it is the larger number. Anthes: So this has been through CN/IN's review and were there any comments about the parking lot foe ruins or anything from them? Jefcoat: Not that I'm aware of. Vaught: Staff, are we seeing a restaurant without a parking variance? Warrick: Yes, we are seeing a restaurant that is within the range. Vaught: I assume it is probably because the lot is so restricted they can't do much more. Warrick: More than half of the lot is deed restricted. Clark: Do we need to put in another condition of approval to coordinate with trails? Warrick: I proposed to add that and I will make that a condition when it moves forward to the full Planning Commission to coordinate the trail connection. Clark: The rest of these conditions you all are in agreement with? Anthes: My only real comment was the commercial design standards, I'm not quite sure about the size or the compatibility of the ruin elements. It would be obviously, at the will of other Commissioners and me. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 42 Jefcoat: If it is the size issue, the size issue from plan or from different angles you don't get near the size effect. The building has size and mass to it at any angle but this particular element has only mass to it from one direction and that is the direction you are seeing it from. If you are looking at it from any other angle the building is still going to have mass but that element will have less. Anthes: My largest question was about compatibility with adjacent land owners. If they have a review committee that has reviewed it then I suppose that they have had their say in it. Clark: It is your choice, I don't know that we have that much control over it at all. To me it screams "Climb on Me!" That is insurance, that is not Planning Commission. Anthes: I imagine there might be additional discussion about that when we get to Planning Commission. MOTION: Clark: Based on all of this, I would recommend that we forward LSD 04-1185 with stated conditions to the full Planning Commission. Vaught: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Commissioner Vaught was asking that the materials be labeled on the elevations for the entire building prior to Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 43 R-PZD 04-1181: Planned Zoning District (WALNUT CROSSING SUBDIVISION): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC for property located at THE NORTH SIDE OF HWY 62W, EAST OF LAYNE STREET. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 52.98 acres. The request is to approve a Residential Planned Zoning District with 137 single family lots and 6.47 acres of "cluster homes". Anthes: The last item this morning is R-PZD 04-1181 for Walnut Crossing subdivision. This one is Jeremy's. Pate: The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. The applicant owns several larger tracts of land in the area and general vicinity of the subject property which is located in west Fayetteville north of Hwy 62, 6`" street. It borders Washington County limits as well as the Farmington City limits. The Property Line Adjustment and Lot Split have been processed to create the subject 52.98 acre tract. Prior to Planning Commission review both of these actions do need to be filed before this project can proceed. A little explanation of legal descriptions here and the property that we're looking at. There are really two different legal descriptions that we're looking at, their 52.9 acres that is proposed to be developed. A portion of that is in the City of Fayetteville, a portion of that is in the City of Farmington, so this does have to go through the City of Farmington process. There is, I believe, approximately 38.88 acres located within the City of Fayetteville, which is the only area of course that can be rezoned from R -A to this PZD, so we will be looking at two different proposals. Densities, I've tried to include both the density of the overall tract, the rural density, and the density of what's actually being rezoned for your review. So, based on those comments, the two legal descriptions do need to accompany the proposal. Brian, we just need to make sure we get both of those from you. One for the rezoning to the unique R-PZD zoning district and a second one for the actual preliminary plat that's being processed which will include the couple of lots in Farmington. The City of Farmington has been notified and will be reviewing development separately from the City of Fayetteville. We've been corresponding, the applicant's been corresponding with their administration, and we've received some e-mails in the planning division as well. This property consists primarily of agricultural property, currently, with several significant trees and an area of high-priority canopy falling along property boundaries, old fence lines, and within the proposed parkland or along the creek. As I mentioned, surrounding property is all Residential Agricultural in nature, and its primarily either Washington County or the City of Farmington. There is one subdivision to the south, a small subdivision called Stapleton subdivision, which is in the City of Farmington. The applicant is requesting a rezoning, and the preliminary plat combined for a residential subdivision to the R-PZD zoning district. The proposed use of the site is for a single family and cluster development Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 44 consisting of 136 single family lots and 44 cluster homes on two larger lots. A 5.02 acre public park is proposed as well as a large tree preservation area along the flood plain of the creek and within the site. The proposed land uses are Use Unit 1, Use Unit 8, which is single family dwellings, and Use Unit 9, two family dwellings which would be the units there on the cluster homes. This results in a proposed density of 4.63 dwelling units per acre on the 38 acre site. And as I mentioned, I included a note there on the real property, the actual almost 53 acres, the density is really only about 3.4 dwelling units per acre. The developer is proposing a mixture of lot sizes and types as you can see from the plat. Some of the lots are arranged such as they face on the public streets. Others are accessed from rear alleys. Typical lot sizes and proposed setbacks are much smaller than those allowed in typical zoning districts that we have in the city, thus, the need for processing a Planned Zoning District. Two of the lots are proposed for cluster homes in two family units. Both of these lots will require Large Scale Development approval and final designs have not been formulated at this time. However, the conceptual plans indicated are intended to provide an idea of the development to occur there in the future. Something that is unique about this project, other than that part of it's in the City of Farmington and part of its in the City of Fayetteville, is that the sole existing access to this property is through Farmington from Hwy 62. The applicant, again, has been in contact with the City of Farmington and will present the project to both the Planning Commission and the City Council there prior to final approvals from the City of Fayetteville. I believe they are slated on meetings already for both of those. Also, with regard to access and connectivity, the Master Plan currently indicates an east/west collector street in the area of the proposed development. It's actually, on the Master Street Plan, about 600 feet south of this. Staff is recommending a Master Street Plan amendment to move that essentially to where they have located it along the overhead electric power lines there and get it out of the creek and flood plain area. The proposed collector street is aligned, now, with this development to connect to Alberta Street to the west, which is in Farmington and eventually connect to Ruppte Road to the east. Another stub -out is also proposed to the north. All the interior streets are loop streets within 50 feet of right-of- way with no dead ends. The two northern blocks are served by private alley drives. All the lots served by the alleys are prohibited from having street front facing garages, and access must be provided from the rear. Those alleys, as I mentioned, are private to be maintained by the POA and are 12 feet in width within a 20 foot access easement. No off-site street improvements are recommended for this development. The developer will be required to build a street from Hwy 62 including the creek crossing to the City of Fayetteville standards. I might mention that I believe the Highway Department is improving Hwy 62 in this location in the relatively near future. I'll let Steve go over the Parks recommendation here in a moment, as obviously, though, you can see a park is located on Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 45 the site plan. For Tree Preservation there is existing an 11.25% canopy coverage. Proposed is 8.56 % and because it is less than the 25% required that entire 11.25% must be mitigated for or retained. Staff is recommending the Tree Preservation as it's shown. The applicant has gone out of their way, actually, to work with utility companies to route utilities and streets in order to preserve the trees on this property. A draft of protective covenants is included in your packets. They address some of the architectural details, fencing, interface with the public park. Having said that, staff is recommending this PZD be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with the recommendation for approval. There are 14 conditions placed on this. I would like to add one condition to that, that the Property Line Adjustment and the Lot Split shall be filed prior to the revision deadline for this to go to Planning Commission. And that's to create these legal lots. The other items allow uses in this PZD to be restricted to Use Unit 1, which should be added to the plat, with City-wide uses by right, allowing for extension of utilities. Use Unit 8, Use Unit 9, single family and two family dwellings. #2, I've already mentioned, Lots 137 and 138, the cluster homes that shall be required to go through a LSD and subject to all applicable development ordinances. We do need to, with this development, set the setbacks, the maximum building height and the density which is determined by the number of units proposed there because this is the time that we're zoning the property. The new Large Scale will be subject to the restrictions set forth here. Anthes: Do you have recommendations for that? Pate: They've actually shown setbacks, I believe, already on the plats, and the density is determined by the number of units they have. In Lots 137, they have 30 cluster homes proposed, and in Lot 138 they have 14 cluster homes proposed. Anthes: And heights? Pate: I'm not sure if we have building heights, but that might be something we just address now. #3 I've spoken about, the Master Street Plan Amendment to relocate the east/west collector approximately 600 feet to the north. Staff is in support of this request. It does meet the intent and purpose of the Master Street Plan in this location. Planning Commission determination of parkland determination, Parks and Rec Board as I mentioned, is recommending parkland to be dedicated for this project. One item that is worthy of discussing today, so before Planning Commission we can iron out the details, #5, the Planning Commission determination of Residential Lot Access management. Due to the smaller lot widths proposed for this project, on those lots that aren't accessed from rear alleys, staff finds that there needs to be a coordinated plan sensitive to pedestrian and vehicular safety, general attractiveness and convenience Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 46 presented by the applicant for access to each lot to ensure a dangerous traffic situation isn't created. Essentially, our concern is your standard 24 foot wide residential drive on a 55 foot lot, or 50 foot lot, you're just going to have a street of driveways, and that's really the concern. Miss Hesse, I believe, has come up with a couple of options, and we'll probably discuss those today. A detailed street tree planting plan does need to be submitted for final plat. We have actually a good working drawing already. Solid waste does need to be involved to coordinate the best means of access to the alley loaded lots. Pedestrian access is shown across one of the lots there. It's actually not labeled as a lot, but south of the public park, there's a trail shown. And we just want to have that within an access easement and coordinate that with the Landscape Administrator. #9 are plat comments that just need to be addressed and revised prior to Planning Commission. Primarily, breaking up the Farmington lot and the Fayetteville lots, probably better for you guys for tax purposes. And also adding these as lots, the two Tree Preservation lots, there, just go ahead and add those lots and notes that those are unbuildable. I believe that's all. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Are there other staff comments? O'Neal: Just one item. I'd like to let you know that we need to coordinate the development of the creek crossing with Mike Rozelle, our Flood Plain Administrator. Make sure that all the requirements are met for that crossing. That's all I have. Hatfield: Parks has no additional comments that haven't already been stated before. I do appreciate the additional public access, pedestrian access to the one side of the park. Anthes: Would you introduce yourselves and your project? Hesse: I'm Kim Hesse, with Coleman Homes Development, and Brian Moore with ESI Engineering. Just some drawings to show you kind of better where this is located amongst other subdivisions on Hwy 62. The city limits line is about right here. As you head west on Hwy 62, there is a small subdivision here that's a cul-de-sac. This is a large subdivision; I forget the name of the subdivision to the east. Anthes: Magnolia Crossing. Hesse: I believe that's right. Anthes: It's the one that's further east, but north? It's Magnolia Crossing. Hesse: And, this is a subdivision within the Farmington area. There's a new Farmington Elementary School being built right here, and then to the north Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 47 of that, that's part of the land for the Fayetteville Waste Water treatment plant. What we've tried to do with this development is doing the cluster housing concept to preserve the large areas that are in the flood plain. We also own some property to the west. We do not own the properties to the east. But this being within the City of Fayetteville, having the sewer capacity with this lift station. We're developing this at this point, and our plans are in the future, to develop this to tie in to the roads to the west. Our concept is to develop housing more for your workforce type of buyer. Clark: Does that translate into affordable housing? Hesse: That is affordable housing. It is starter housing. Clark: My God, it's a red-letter day. Hesse: We're trying to put these between $95,000 and $120 or $130,000. We are, as you can see, doing your standard single family home here. Doing the rear alley access here to try to keep the driveways off. What we're proposing on these are the 15 foot front setbacks. That will bring the house closer to the street, and have a larger setback in the back where they can park outside of their garage as well as in their garage, and not park within the alleyway. And in the future, we will come back with a townhome concept here which will be sold for individual home ownership. We do not intend to have any rentals in here. One thing that the Rauch Coleman development does, is that they build all the homes. So we will build every home on this development. What that allows us to do is kind of control the POA and to control the standards of the housing. We will place all of the trees, we will put in all the fencing. Everything will meet the covenants word for word because we'll be the ones doing it. To completely maintain the POA up to 90% to sell out 90% of the lots, and that way we can keep control over some of the problems you might find in larger subdivisions. I don't think I have a whole lot else to add. This shows our tree canopy areas. We are doing some trees and it's in the backs of these lots. We do have some canopy. We're trying to keep the trees as much as anybody. Obviously, I'm environmentally sensitive, but as well, this is all open agriculture with cross fencing. And you have your typical fence row trees, and you know you think there's 120 acres of rooftops, we've got to have those fence row trees to kind of break it up and to provide some sort of shade in the subdivision. So we are trying to maintain as much as we can. Some of the trees are actually off-site that we don't have any control of. But that's our intent to really save as much as we can. Some of the best trees are in this area which is why we've decided to keep those out. We are working with the City of Farmington, since the rest of this development is in the City of Farmington; we're working with them to develop a trail, running along the creek, to connect to the park, which is further to the west. And so, we're going to connect Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 48 this parkland with our trail that we'll be building. We will be going to a Planning Commission on Monday and the City Council two weeks after that. They will have to, obviously, accept the right-of-way dedication for this street to this point. And they understand that we are building this to Fayetteville standards. This will be a no -rise bridge, because, obviously, the issues with flooding of this creek. We have pulled completely back from the flood study. We were doing a flood study, and we realized that it could come further to the north, so we've pulled back for those reasons. Thank you. Anthes: Brian, you have anything to add? Moore: I don't think so. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this R-PZD? Come forward and sign in. Wilkes: My name's Steve Wilkes and I'm an adjacent property owner to this development. I live at 4188 W. 6th St, which would be east, and I suppose just a little bit south of the proposed development. My wife and I don't have any objections to the development, but I do have some concerns that I wanted to address. I've been more and more concerned with the amount of development on 6th St. Not that I'm opposed to it, but it's the traffic, the tremendous increase in traffic. Actually our driveway would be, I suppose there's a little trailer house, so there would be two driveways toward Fayetteville with this new proposed street. So I'm concerned about the speed limit on 6th St. There's a one -mile stretch between the Wal-Mart stop light and the City of Farmington that is 55 miles per hour. Everything on either side of it is 40 or 45 miles an hour. So in practice, what happens is the folk coming to work from Lincoln and Prairie Grove and so on and so forth in the mornings, they hit that 55 mile an hour speed zone and they go to 70, and they go to 70 just instantly. So, I'm becoming more and more concerned. I've seen a couple of accidents on our road, a couple right in front of our house. I've lived there for about seven years now. I think we'll start to see more and more. So, I'm hopeful that we can all work together to get that speed limit lowered, and start to recognize that this isn't really a through highway anymore. I mean, of course it is, but it's also a residential street, or becoming one as more and more houses come in. So that's my greatest concern with this, that I think that we have to manage this growth in a way that keeps this a livable area. I do have some other concerns. We actually live on Farmington Creek, on Farmington Branch. The creek runs about 75 feet in front of my house. We own both sides of the creek, you could say, for about five acres. My concern is just that we continue to address the flooding in this creek. It's gotten worse and worse as development has progressed on that corridor in that valley. We got the property and the creek never flooded, now it Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 49 floods regularly. And in fact, I'm getting ready to spend $11,000.00 that I'm not happy about at all on reconstructing our bridge, which is our only access. It's flooded twice this year alone, and both times we were told, "Those are 100 year floods." Well, we're getting 100 year floods about every three months now. And I know that the people in Farmington suffer with this worse than we do. So my concern now is that if we're going to pave yet another field, how fast does that water run off and where does that water go? And what are those people that happen to be unfortunate enough to be downstream from that water do about it? Our property joins this, and we would be slightly upstream from it, so I'm not particularly concerned for myself, although we have a 2,000 Square foot barn that is very close to the development and is a wet weather creek that runs behind it. So I would want to ensure that we don't do anything that would kind of raise, or lower the flood plain for us so that that barn becomes vulnerable. It's never flooded, I don't expect that it will, but if that little creek suddenly starts getting more and more water all the sudden, now I got a bam that's in danger, so I certainly don't want to see that happen. Pretty much, that's my concern. And then I have one final one. I'm all in favor of affordable housing, believe me, but I'm also concerned about comparable properties, and my property value. And sometimes when you hear the word affordable housing, you also have to think rental houses in ten years. You know, you see subdivisions go in and young families, my son-in-law's a Fayetteville Firefighter and they're trying to buy their first home. I'm glad we're having homes built like this, but I also see that these subdivisions after 5,6,7,8 years, it's rental house after rental house after rental house and pretty soon that whole area is not what it was intended to be. So I have a concern there as well. We have a very nice home and a very nice property on our little slice of heaven in that valley and we don't want to see that degraded. Those are my comments, and I appreciate that. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Wilkes. Seeing that no one else is in the room, I think that's all we have for public comment. Commissioners is there any discussion? I guess the first thing I'd like to do is have Matt talk about anything you see about the traffic on 6th, and what procedure might neighbors go through in order to request a speed limit reduction in that area. Casey: I'm not sure what the procedure is, but they would need to coordinate that with the Arkansas Highway Transportation Department. And as Jeremy stated, this is a section of roadway that will soon be under construction for a widening project. Anthes: I would think that the developers of this property would share your concerns for the speed on that street. And it might be something that you could contact your Highway Commissioners about together to talk about. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 50 Shackleford: Madam Chair, as far as access to it. Won't eventually there be some collector streets coming from the north on up to Wedington through this area that this road will eventually connect to? Pate: We don't have maps of that, but the City map's actually a good one. Rupple Road comes south in a relatively close area there. Shackleford: You'll be hooking in up to Wedington can be an option for people, because this is the Wastewater Treatment Facility, is that correct? Moore: And here's the future Rupple, it goes right through here. Shackleford: So once all that's done here, you'll also have that access to hopefully take traffic away from 62? Hesse: I guess it all goes to 62. Clark: I mean, it's the state highway, so. And I agree with you, the speed limit is ridiculous, and it is a take -your -life -in -your -own -hands proposition. But that's something that the state's going to have to regulate I'm afraid. But I think the City of Fayetteville and the City of Farmington can help do that. Anthes: And also, you know, because this development has shown a connection in all cardinal directions, I think we're meeting the intent of our connectivity. Clark: We're giving them options, they're still going to go to 62, but we're giving them options. Moore: Eventually they may not. Anthes: Depending on how bad it gets down there. Matt, can you talk about any expectation to increase Farmington Creek, the detention plan, and so forth. Casey: Mr. Moore might be able to help me out here on his design, but the City requirements are that they will not be able to increase the amount of flow after the development that leaves a site, and they do have a detention pond proposed there along the south portion of their development. And as we stated here earlier, they will need to coordinate the design of the creek crossing with our Flood Plan Administrator and one of the requirements that the City has is that there will be no rise in the 100 -year base flood elevation in this area, and they'll have to prove that this development will not impact that negatively. Vaught: Madam Chair, I have one question on that. How does the detention pond being in the flood zone affect the design? The detention pond's mostly in Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 51 the flood plain, or the flood zone boundary. Does that affect the design? Because it's seems like there's a big flood, and it's not going to be doing anything if it's under water. Clark: Does it affect the efficiency? Casey: No, it won't, because that area will be built up on this side. Vaught: So the flood zone will hopefully switch to over here? Casey: It will, yes. Vaught: So this will still regulate. I was just thinking if this was flooded, it was going to do any help. Casey: Currently our requirements do allow the detention ponds to be constructed under your flood plains. Anthes: Now as far as homeownership versus rentals, I don't know that we have any way to talk about that. Wilkes: I understand, but it's still a concern that we live next to it. Anthes: Okay, let's look at the conditions. I guess the major one I flagged when Jeremy was presenting was Condition #5, about the residential lot access management. Have you all thought about that and do you have any ideas about what you're going to propose. Hesse: Well, we looked at doing the shared drives. We have a little, our issue with doing a shared drive is, typically our conflict here is they're going to have a limited yard space, they'll have large park and large open space. A lot of people use their driveway, their kids play in their driveway. I think it's going to be a negative for the homeowners to not have t heir own driveway, where they'll have their basketball hoops and their kids bikes and you know, it's just, I'm afraid we'll be taking away more from them then we feel comfortable taking from them. What we've looked at doing is trying to flip these houses around so that the driveways are banked together, and you still have a larger run space in between. I think it was the driveways more than the curb cuts that were the issue. At first it was more curb cut, and we had ways of doing, you know we could do the roll over curb, which you don't see the curb cuts, or for str5uctural reasons we could pour this all monolithically, since we will be building every house, we'll know exactly where every driveway is, we'll be able to pour the curb line monolithically with the drives. I don't know that that's so much an issue as it is the amount of drives. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 52 Anthes: Well in addition, I think that our sidewalks need to go through the driveway, I believe is the way we have to have it done. Clark: Are you going to mitigate that at all with street trees? Hesse: We're going to have one tree per lot plus we'll have additional trees in through here. It's on the second sheet. But basically we have street trees. Clark: I understand what he's saying if you look at it and you see a sea of driveways. That's not very aesthetically pleasing thing. I have a question. Did you guys explore the option of using a similar, alley type loading system for this part of the development and maybe changing the street around to front the park? You know, a street here, but if you move this here, have the houses front here, and use the alley access through here. Hesse: We did look at that, and part of what would draw people to this development is after all, the three different types of housing and you don't have just a consistent through out the whole development. So we really wanted to try to interject three different types. That's how we started. At one time, we started with the alley here, and actually the homes didn't even have an alley in between them, they were right on top of the park, which we thought would be a great amenity, but due to the fire marshal's reasoning, we couldn't do that. This has been through several different layouts, and we did it, we've tried several different things, and I believe the fire marshal is supportive of this layout, and we're getting closer with all the different departments. Anthes: It sounds like that this housing type has been built by this corporation before, and perhaps if you could bring photographs that would show the houses in place with the driveways, it would help us visualize what we're looking at. That would be very helpful. I share Jeremy's concern with the number of curb cuts. I happen to live in the district in Fayetteville with a shared driveway and it works really well. But I don't have kids with basketball hoops. And I understand that there's a differentiation there. But, you know, limiting, in a really pedestrian oriented area, which you're doing a lot to create that atmosphere here, it does kind of, it's kind of working in opposition to that with that number of cuts and the widths of cuts. Have you thought about not doing a standard 24 foot with a double car garage instead, and minimizing the width of that? Hesse: Yes, definitely, we really can go to the much narrower drive at the curb cut and then just widen it enough to get them into a double car garage. We do have some that are single car garages. So we would not, regardless, put in a 24 foot wide drive at the street, it may widen out to 20 once you get close to the house. Like I say, just enough for them to get into their driveway. But we would totally accepting to go with a 12 foot. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 53 Pate: That's one of the things that Kim and I have spoken about. It really helps with the proportion if you're looking at a typical 70 foot wide lot with a 24 foot wide drive, a 12 foot wide drive with a 55 foot wide lot, proportionally; it's more in keeping with what we'd typically see with residential design. The reason I think we need to bring this up now, is if you go out to start construction once this is all approved, then in order for the city to permit something, we need to understand what the expectation is now so that the standard permit procedure, is you know, well, we've got to have the 24 foot drive, 10 feet from the property line, so those are the types of issues that we really need to get hammered out right now. Anthes: So the city permitting, they need to hear from the Planning Commission that we're supporting a different configuration. Pate: I believe so. It is a Planned Zoning District which allows that flexibility, and this is one of those situations where I think we can utilize that. Anthes: Definitely. I just would appreciate anything we could do to. Clark: Would that be a conditional use? A stated conditional use? Pate: It's a PZD so it would just be a condition of approval. Anthes: And then, if there was opportunity at some point to try some shared ones too, see how it works out, I think that would be positive. Pate: I believe with the Planning Commission approval, that condition of approval should be in the staff report and we can probably discuss between now and then to get that. Anthes: How to word it right so that it works for you. I have to say from a site planning standpoint, this is one of the best plans I've seen come through. You know, at the onset I know you guys have done a lot of work. We have connectivity, we've got streets that aren't long and straight creating a lot of traffic hazards, we've got this incredible central public park, we've got an alley system, we've got a diversity of housing types, we have connectivity, we have all sorts of things that we're looking for. I do want to ask you about this public park, and what's going to happen along this back rear property line of those houses? Hesse: We don't want it faced with proxy fences and neither does the Parks Department. So what we'll be doing is putting in, probably a rail fence, no taller than four feet and it will be an open type fence. What we'll be doing with these houses as well as these, we'll have almost a front fapade on the back as welt as the front. This will have the garage, but the back Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 54 will actually be the better looking fagade with porches, and the idea is to get them to interact with the park, and so we've. Anthes: Is that something that we need to also state? Pate: It's actually included in the covenants and the city is the third party of the covenants within a Planned Zoning District. They have stated essentially what Ms. Hesse just mentioned, that it will be a split rail fence. We don't have anything really about the facade, that's not something we get to review when we're looking at preliminary plats. Clark: I have a stupid question about the covenants. How long are restricted covenants in effect? Forever? Anthes: Well this one is probably, I believe it's written for 30 years, and then unless there's a request to change, it's automatically extended on a 10 year basis. Clark: I just say that for your benefit Mr. Wilkes. These covenants seem to be very straightforward and seem to alleviate some of the issues you might have should this turn into rental property. The covenants will still be in effect I'm assuming. So they're still going to be pretty restricted and even if it turns into rental eventually, it's going to be nicer, or they're going to be violating the covenants. And I really think this speaks well to affordable housing, which we are just, we play such semantic games with, this could actually be a true representation and manifestation of something people can afford, which is great. Anthes: And with amenities that are, that any subdivision would be looking for at any price. We do probably need to make a comment about the determination to make the Master Street Plan Amendment to relocate Wilson Drive. It seems fine in relationship to this single project. It looks like it lines up with street developments, and it gets it out of the flood plain, so. Anthes: Do we need a different diagram from staff that shows that connection and how it shifts? Would that be useful? Pate: Yes, we can get something together for the applicant. Sorry, the reason we don't have maps this time is because of legal description issues, we're still trying to work out the PZD legal versus the Preliminary Plat legal, it's been a little difficult. Clark: In terms of the housing itself and the concept of a PZD, can you tell me a little about what the houses, what the vision will be for this community once it's done? Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 55 Hesse: As far as style? We're trying to go with a Crestwood style design, these are the alley, these are two examples of the alley, some will be two story. What we're doing is we can switch the rooftops around, we'll have five different foot prints for the alleys. We'll change the types of roofing and the fagade to make it look different, although the inside's basically five standard footprints, and this is an idea of that. This is an elevation of a front loaded house. This is another one that actually shows the park elevation, it's awfully dark. This is another elevation of a corner lot, for example in one of these areas; the garage will come in from the side. So that's basically the look the concept that we have. Clark: I would truly encourage you to bring these to Planning Commission to be able to show people, and I've got to say for the record that this is a 52.98 acre development and you actually have renditions and concepts and ideas, where I've been told before, gosh that's really expensive, and we just can't really do that. So I really appreciate this, I think it gives me a greater vision and I think it will help the Planning Commission get a better feel for this development and help the neighbors feel a lot better about it. This looks really good. I don't think it's going to hurt your property value at all, to be perfectly honest. I'm real pleased about it. Hesse: What I have planned on doing is having a PowerPoint here not to bore everybody, but just to show these pictures. And we'll have elevations. I've got an illustrator doing a bird's eye view so you can see what it looks like from the roof tops. And we're doing elevations of both housings. Clark: I just think that's super, I truly do, and I think it'll help us visualize it much better. Anthes: The only other thought I have is those number of curb cuts, if you could just work with staff to craft something that talks about minimizing those. Hesse: What I'd like to do, this is revised from this one. This is what we want to do with the side setbacks. What'd we liked to do on the alley ways is have a total of 15' side set back, five on one side, 10 on the other, so that this house has a little bigger side yard than this side. And they're not 7 Yz', that'll do a little bit more for the one side of their house. Clark: And they don't look so uniform. Hesse: We'd like to do that, we'll probably flop it when we get to the alleyways, do some different things. So we have 15' on the back on the front, 20 on the back here, with five and 10, these we're requesting 20 front and 20 back. And 7 ''/2' sides. And it may work with shared drives if we could do a five and a 10 there as well. We could try to play with that with some of Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 56 our footprints. So if I was to request five and 10 in this area, would that be acceptable do you think? Anthes: I don't have a problem with it. Clark: I don't have a problem with it at all. Hesse: That way where we do have an opportunity to do shared drives, that gives them a little more room to turn and get the side to grow. Anthes: What about, I didn't ask about sidewalk widths. What are you doing? Moore: It's on the street chart, over there to the right. Hesse: It looks like most of these show four foot. Anthes: And what is it setback from the road? Hesse: It's right at the right-of-way. So there's a six foot green space, and a four foot sidewalk and six and six here. Ten foot green space, six foot sidewalk on both sides here. Anthes: On the collector, correct? Well, I always like to see a wider sidewalk than four feet but that's my, I lose on that one. Clark: Yeah, there's other things here. Hesse: We may add a sidewalk or a trail here, just to get these guys a little closer to the park. Clark: What about a sidewalk here along this street? Is there going to be a sidewalk. And how wide is that one? That's six, okay. Hesse: We may work with Parks, they wanted a wider one there for trails, and obviously this could combine later for a trail that goes all the way to the east. But another thought is that this would be better if we pulled this up from the power lines. Anthes: That's what I was going to ask. Do you have overhead electric lines here? Hesse: They're very tall, but still you're under them in this scenario. Anthes: And they exceed our size for relocating underground I'm assuming. Subdivision Committee September 17, 2004 Page 57 MOTION: Clark: Having said all of this, I will enthusiastically recommend the approval, or that we forward R-PZD 04-1181 on to full Planning Commissions with conditions as stipulated. Shackelford: I concur. Anthes: I will too. Thank you very much. Any other announcements? No. We're adjourned. Thank you.