Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-15 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Friday, October 15, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSP 04-1247: (DUFFEL, 527) Approved Page 2 LSP 04-1249: (MYERS FAMILY TRUST, 404) Approved Page 5 LSD 04-1259: (LOWE'S GENERATOR, 135) Approved Page 7 ADM 04-1272: (LSD EXTENSION: The Crowne) Approved Page 14 LSD 04-1245 (RAPIDO RABBIT CARWASH, 440) Approved Page 16 PPL 04-1246: (LEGACY POINT PHASE IV, 475) Forwarded Page 33 PPL 04-1244: (BELCLAIRE ESTATES, 169) Tabled to next meeting Page 20 R-PZD 04-1154: (CLIFFSIDE, 526) Forwarded Page 37 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Candy Clark Jill Anthes Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Alison Brady Renee Thomas Dawn Warrick Matt Casey Brent O'Neal Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 2 LSP 04-1247: Lot Split (DUFFEL, 527): Submitted by ALAN REID for property located at 10 CROSSOVER ROAD.. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 3.36 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 1.50 and 1.86 acres. Anthes: Good morning. Welcome to the Friday, October 15`h meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Our first item on the agenda this morning is Lot Split 04-1247 for Duffel. Will the applicant come forward please? Have a seat. And this one is Leif. Olson: That's mine. Right. Lot Split 04-1247 was submitted by Alan Reid for property located at 10 Crossover Road. This property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre, and contains approximately 3.36 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 1.50 and 1.86 acres respectively. Applicant requests this lot split in order to create a new single family or two family lot. Public water and sewer lines are accessible to the proposed lots and currently serve the existing home. There will be 55 feet of right-of-way dedicated from the center line of Crossover Road. And staff does recommend approval of Lot Split 04- 1247 with the following conditions: the dedication of 55 feet of right away from the center line of Crossover Road to the subject property, the owner shall construct a side walk or pay money in lieu to be determined by the Sidewalk Coordinator at the time of the development, all existing proposed utilities shall be shown on the plat prior to filing, standard conditions of approval -parks fees in the amount of $555 for one additional single family lot to be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit. And that's all I have. Anthes: Thanks Leif? Any other staff comments? Duffel: Is this on this, what he just said on here? Anthes: Yes, the conditions are shown, if you turn the page, they should be right here at the top. Excuse me, can you introduce yourself and your project, just because we're on television. And then, if you want to tell us anything you'd like to add to the staff report. Duffel: I'm Roger Duffel. No ma'am basically, we made a lot of improvements. We've cleaned it up quite a bit. It's quite a bit to keep up, and I want to try to make it available to someone else, maybe to enjoy while we're enjoying there. Anthes: Because this is your house? Is that where you live? Duffel: Yes ma'am. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 3 Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this lot split? O'Neal: Madam Chair? One other thing, they do need to show the location of the actual service lines for water and sewer to the existing building. Anthes: You'll need to instruct your surveyor that on these plans, to show the actual water and sewer connections to the existing building. Clark: Would that be a fourth condition? Anthes: Well, I believe that on the conditions, we do say, "existing and proposed utilities shall be shown on the plat prior to filing." Clark: Existing, okay there we go. Anthes: But you need that to the existing house as well as to the new lot. Duffel: Is that on there? Anthes: Yes, it's to this one right here, but it's to both the lots. Anthes: Are there any other comments? Clark: I have one just simply because of where it's located. A one family or a two-family lot, or house? I mean, this is an interesting lot -split because it goes around, wraps around your house. So I'm kind of curious what you are thinking about, with all the utilities and its going through here, where you put a house. Duffel: Well there's actually, I would say, two possibilities. One right behind the house because of the tree line there, and then also there's a possibility there right to the side of the house. Clark: But you're just looking at one structure for the time being? Duffel: Yes ma'am. Pate: This zoning district only allows for one single family home on this property by right. Duffel: Okay, as far as basically, it could be two different places, but one place. Clark: Okay. Anthes: And then, I have just one question for staff and that is: this meets all the requirements for a curb cut going out onto Crossover Road? Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 4 Pate: The existing curb cuts obviously are there for the lot to serve the existing home. Additional curb cuts along Crossover Road for this separated tract here, this tract to you, would need to meet those requirements. They do have 118 of frontage, it looks like they could easily meet that requirement. Anthes: Comments or motions? MOTION: Shackelford: Madam Chair I make a motion we approve LSP 04-1247. Clark: Second. Anthes: I'll concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 5 LSP 04-1249: Lot Split (MYERS FAMILY TRUST, 404): Submitted by CARL MYERS for property located at 1436 MT COMFORT RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 0.22 and 0.29 acres. Anthes: The second item today is another lot split. It's LSP 04-1249, for the Myers Family Trust. Will the applicant come forward? Morgan: The applicant requests approval of a Lot Split for a .51 acre tract into two tracts of approximately .29 and .22 acres respectfully. There was a property line adjustment filed to create this tract. And it is currently vacant. It is located on Stephens and Mt. Comfort Road. There are currently water and sewer lines accessible to each of the proposed tracts. Mt. Comfort Road is a local street on the Master Street Plan, which requires 25' dedication from center line, there is currently twenty feet, we are requiring an additional five feet to be dedicated to meet this Master Street Plan requirement. Adjacent properties are single family to the north, south, and east. To the west is institutional and is currently vacant. Staff is recommending approval of this lot split with six conditions to include dedication of right-of-way, development of proposed lots are limited to single family residential zoning requirements, and modifications to the plat. Anthes: Thank you Suzanne, are there other staff comments? Would you introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Myers: I'm Carl Myers, and we intend to build a single family house that we oriented toward Stephens, although it would be set way back, it would be back on this part of the lot. Then another one facing Mt. Comfort. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this lot split? Seeing none, I'll bring it to the commissioners for comments. Shackelford: Question real quickly for staff, I didn't understand on Condition three, zoning designation to the west and southwest shall be modified to reflect P-1 zoning. Morgan: The plat currently shows the zoning to be RSF-4, it is actually institutional, owned by the University. Shackelford: Okay, thank you. Myers: Okay, I'm sorry I don't understand what you're saying. Anthes: Your surveyor, Alan Reid, will need to adjust this plat to show the P-1 is the actual zoning on this. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 6 Myers: Okay, you want that changed. Anthes: As well as there are some other modifications under conditions. Myers: Okay. Clark: Where does the sidewalk, are we talking about sidewalk on Stephens or on Mt. Comfort? Condition #4. Morgan: At the time that the building permit is requested for each of these lots, the Sidewalk Coordinator will recommend the location of the sidewalk or a fee in lieu. Clark: Okay, so both sides. Morgan: Money in lieu for each location. Or construction. MOTION: Shackelford: Madam Chair, I'll make a motion we approve Lot Split 04-1249, subject to the submitted six conditions of approval. Clark: Second. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you very much. Myers: Thank you. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 7 LSD 04-1259: Large Scale Development (LOWE'S GENERATOR, 135): Submitted by Brandon Knight of Roger's Electric for property located at 1050 ZION ROAD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL. The request is to approve the installation of an above ground generator. Anthes: The third item on the agenda today is a Large Scale Development for Lowes Generator. That is LSD 04-1259. Will the applicant come forward? Lawyer: I represent an adjoining land owner, so I'm not the applicant. Anthes: So, is this one straight forward, do we need to hear it? Do we expect that he's going to want to show up, or do we suspect that they're not sending someone? Thomas: I don't know that he was planning to show up, he is located in another state and wasn't sure that it could be approved at the subdivision committee level. He was going to try to find someone local to be here. Anthes: Alright. Let's hear it. Morgan: Lowe's retail store is located north of Zion Road and east of College Avenue. Recently, Lowe's applied for a permit to erect an above ground generator located east of the existing structure within a fenced area that currently screens equipment on the property. Ordinarily, a development of this nature would not be required to receive Planning Commission approval for a Large Scale Development, based on the Unified Development Code development ordinances. However, a section of the City of Fayetteville Fire Code §94.05 Flammable and combustible liquids go through the large scale development process of the City of Fayetteville for installation of above ground storage tanks. Lowe's is requesting that with their permit, which they have submitted. Similar large scale developments for the Fayetteville Municipal Airport and Fayetteville Fire Station have recently been processed through a large scale development based on this fire code requirement. Surrounding land use consists of C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, as well as R -O, Residential Office. When this large scale development was approved for Lowe's, there was dedication of right-of-way on Zion Road for a total of 34 feet from center line. However, as that was prior to the Master Street Plan requirements, Zion Road in this location is a collector and requires 35 feet from center line, and therefore, staff is requesting that an additional five feet of dedication with this large scale development be made. Adjacent Master Street Plans are arterial streets with Zion Road and College Ave. There is sufficient right-of-way dedicated on College Avenue to meet Master Street Plan requirements. In the staff report I have included a picture of the proposed area for the location of the generator. And, staff does recommend Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 8 approval of this request with three conditions of approval, one of which being right-of-way dedication, and two standard conditions of approval. Anthes: Thank you Suzanne. Do we have other staff comments? Seeing none, I'll open it to the public for comment. Would any member of the public like to address this Large Scale Development? Clark, B.: My name is Bill Clark, I'm a resident of Fayetteville, I'm an attorney in Springdale. And I'm representing Margaret Blair, who's here today. She's an adjacent land owner, probably the only adjacent land owner to the property. She sold the Lowe's property to them a number of years ago. A portion of it anyway, a number of years ago, and she's a good neighbor to Lowe's. Her bedroom window, she thinks, is one or two football fields away from this generator. She has received the notification letter, and that is it. She's heard nothing from Lowe's, she's received no information as to safety, although this lady this morning did assure us that the City of Fayetteville is making sure that this is a safe generator. She has no idea as to the hours of usage of the generator. I think it's termed a stand-by generator. We're not sure what that means. Does that mean it's going to run only when the other power source is down, or is it one that's going to run constantly? She has no idea about the volume of noise, the noise that she will experience. Without those questions answered, we would like for you to pass this to some other meeting where we can meet with the Lowe's people and hear what they intend to do with this generator, and how noisy it's going to be for her. One other point is that she is selling approximately 16-19 acres of her property to a man by the name of Terry Cox, who I understand is either in the process of or about to begin to develop that property, which is even more adjacent to the property if that's possible -closer to the generator than her bedroom window. He intends, we believe, to have residences and office space there. It's going to be, Mr. Cox ensures us, a wonderful development that will enhance the quality of life for people who live there. Without questions answered by Lowe's, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful of Lowe's, we just haven't heard from them. They've been a great neighbor all along. Without those questions answered, we think this Commission ought to pass that so that these issues can be addressed. Anthes: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Clark: Thank you. Margaret, did you want to say anything? Okay. Thank you. Shall I sit down? Anthes: Yes please. Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Commission. I guess we'll start with staff. Has Lowe's given us any indication about the hours of use or the noise levels on this generator. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 9 Morgan: Not that I'm aware of. Anthes: On the other two projects that we've recently approved that had generators associated with them, were there any comments about noise generation and hours of operation? Pate: No ma'am, neither of those were indicated in those applications. Anthes: One was at the airport, obviously, which is already noisy. Pate: That one's a little bit different in the fact that it was just an above ground storage tank fuel system, so there wasn't really a generator type... Clark: It wasn't a generator. So, this is a strange question, and I know we're in a heightened sense of security, but why does a lumber yard need a generator? Pate: I am not aware of the reason for Lowe's needing a generator. Clark: Did they clue you in on that? Morgan: No. Clark: They just want one, huh? I think Mr. Clark raises a very good question that I would like to have answered as well. Since nobody's here to answer those. Anthes: I guess I have a question about ordinances and what's applicable here Jeremy. Clark: Would the noise ordinance apply to this? Pate: Yes. Essentially this would not be before you except for that clause in the Fire Department's code that states anything with above -ground flammable, combustible, materials, does have to go through our Large Scale Development process. Something that we have a hard time reviewing simply because it's, as a Large Scale Development, it's not your typical type of development. As you can see from the photos, it's your typical generator that's behind the fence already on the site. So we do look, because it is Large Scale Development, right-of-way, Master Street Plan right-of-way, dedication is required. And that's about the extent of what we look at for this application. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 10 Anthes: So what you're saying is that we look at it for placement, screening, all these different things, but items such as noise generation and hours of use are not anything that this body can address. Pate: Not with a Large Scale Development. Obviously, the public has asked some questions, and typically the applicant is here to answer those. Because of that case, staff would feel comfortable forwarding this on to the full Planning Commission or tabling it until the next Planning Commission at whatever meeting you would like. Clark: I have another question since this is a Fire Prevention code, because it has flammable liquids, right? Pate: Yes. Clark: A generator? This is going to be a gasoline powered generator, correct? Is there any type of any ordinances that deal with setbacks to such a large amount of flammable material? Pate: Not in our zoning code. No. Clark: Okay, so you can just build right on up to 600 gallons of flammable material? Pate: It's really based on, again, these Fire Department codes. Clark: That makes me a little nervous, Jeremy. Anthes: I guess the problem here that I see is that we'd really like for Ms. Blair's questions to be answered and yet I don't believe it can affect how our vote needs to go because of what we need to look at and what we're allowed to look at. Clark: Well, it could, in that we could table it and ask the Lowe's representative to be here at the next Subdivision Committee meeting. Anthes: Exactly. But, it wouldn't change how our vote would go, because we're not allowed to vote based on those conditions, right? Clark: So. I think it'd be the polite thing to do. Shackelford: Madam Chair, I agree with you. Obviously in this situation, we wish that the applicant was here to answer your questions, but my understanding of our review on Large Scale Development, the things that we review in this situation, I'm not too sure. I think the noise situation should be dealt with Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 11 the noise ordinance, and we're basically to look at setbacks, screening, that sort of thing. Clark: But we can send this on to the full Planning Commission with the underlined request that the Lowe's folks be there for the Planning Commission. Anthes: I have a question Jeremy. Could we add a condition of approval that talks about the fact that Lowe's needs to provide this information to the adjacent property owners? Clark: Because we do get to look at screening, right? Anthes: It already is screened. Clark: It's behind a fence. Pate: Right. Clark: We can look at other types of screening if there are other mitigating factors, like noise, or I mean, we've looked at all types of screening. And to get the answer to what type of screening, we'd need to know, we'd need to have some of these questions answered. Pate: It's a little bit different in that it's not a conditional use request. Clark: True. Pate: The discretion of the Planning Commission is less with a Large Scale Development than a Conditional Use request. Obviously this type of, like with any mechanical or utility equipment ground and wall mounted, we see that condition of approval typically within a Large Scale Development. This one is, obviously, as you can see by this photograph, located behind obscure fencing already. And so staff's comfortable with the level of screening that is currently there for visibility and right-of-way. Shackelford: And quite honestly, the generator is, if you will, use by right. The reason that we're looking at it is because of the above ground storage facility for the diesel fuel that's going to run the generator when it's needed. Clark: But staff wants us, your recommendation is for it to go to full Planning Commission. Pate: Staff's recommendation at this time is for approval at this level. We feel that it meets our development ordinance requirements. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 12 Anthes: Staff can provide the contact information to the adjoining property owners. Pate: We'd be happy to provide Lowe's contact information to the public, to get those questions answered. Clark: Sounds like our hands are tied. Anthes: That's what I see. Comments or motions? MOTION: Shackelford: Madam Chair, I'm going to move that we approve Large Scale Development 04-1259. To the folks in the audience, obviously, we wish that the applicant would have been here. Our staff is telling us our ? for reviewing this is more screening, location, that sort of thing, not noise. But I would encourage the city staff to relay all contact information for Lowe's to you, so that you could go through those items. But I do make a motion to approve this item. Anthes: I'll second. Clark: Not me. I would prefer the applicant to be here because I have other questions to ask, and they're not, so I can't recommend it. Anthes: Okay. Clark: I think it only needs two anyway, so. It only needs a majority, right? Pate: No. To approve anything, at the Subdivision Committee level, it takes all three votes. Anthes: So the motion fails. Pate: We need a motion to either table or forward to the full Planning Commission. Shackelford: Commissioner Clark? Clark: Do you want to hear it again, or do you want it to go to Planning Commission? Anthes: I feel like Planning Commission agendas are pretty long, and this is Subdivision Committee work. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 13 Pate: It will delay the applicant to table. Obviously, it's two weeks from today is the next Subdivision Committee meeting. Clark: I'll reconsider my vote then, at this point, but with, I'm not very happy about it. So I will vote for the motion. Anthes: Okay, motion passes. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 14 ADM 04-1272: Adminsitrative Item (LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION): Submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. The request is to extend the approved Large Scale Development for "The Crowne" apartment complex. Anthes: The next item of business is ADM Item for the Large Scale Development Extension. That's Item ADM 04-1272. And this is for the Crowne Apartment Complex. Would the applicant come forward? Jeremy? Pate: This is a request for a Large Scale Development extension of the one year that is allowed by our unified development code. On October 13`h, a couple of days and one year ago, the applicant did secure approval of Large Scale Development 03-32 for the Crowne, a Large Scale Development plan for an apartment complex, consisting of 444 dwelling units. This is located at Beachwood and 15`h Street in south Fayetteville. Currently, Planning Commission did vote 8-0 to approve that development with conditions as recommended by staff and included in your staff report. At this time, approximately 75% of the project is complete or under construction with building permits granted. I think approximately 290 of the 444 building permits have been granted at this time. There is an attached graphic in your staff report showing the location. The area in the darker graphic there is what has not been constructed or is not permitted at this time. Many of the public improvements required of the developer with this Large Scale Development have been completed or are near completion, including sidewalk construction, trail construction within the parkland on the west side of Beachwood, detention ponds and standard street improvements. An approximately seven acre park has been dedicated to the City of Fayetteville and additionally extensive clean up efforts along the creek have taken place. As I mentioned, the unified development code does state that a Large Scale Development is valid for one calendar year, in which all permits must be received. Prior to the expiration date of that point, one year calendar year, the unified development code does allow an extension of up to one year, and the applicant had requested that in time, even though we're looking at this item a couple of days after the Large Scale approval date. Staff is recommending approval of the requested extension for this Large Scale Development, and the applicant shall be allowed until October 13`h, 2005 to receive all required building permits. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Do we have any other staff comments? Would the applicant introduce yourself and your project? Kelso: Yes, I'm Jerry Kelso, and I'm with Crafton, Tull & Associates. I'm representing the Crowne. As you can see, it's a very large project, a little less than 300 units are permitted, have either been constructed or are under construction. As you know with these big, large projects like this, revenue Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 15 needs to start coming in before they start building on the other ones. So that's the reason why we're here. Anthes: Thank you Jerry. Would any member of the public like to address this administrative item? Seeing none, I'll close to public comment. Commissioners? MOTION: Clark: I understand. I have no questions. And I would move we approve ADM 04-1272 as stated. Shackelford: I'll second. Anthes: I'll concur. Thank you. Kelso: Thank you. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 16 LSD 04-1245: Large Scale Development (RAPIDO RABBIT CARWASH, 440): Submitted by MARK RICKETT for property located at WEDINGTON DRIVE, E OF THE PROPOSED IHOP RESTAURANT. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.68 acres. The request is to approve the development of a 4,630 sq.ft. automatic carwash with 22 parking spaces proposed. Anthes: The fifth item we'll hear today is Large Scale Development #04-1245 for Rapido Rabbit Carwash. Would the applicant come forward? It's missing -applicant day. Olson: Yes. This Large Scale Development was submitted by Mark Rickett for property located south of Wedington Dr. and west of I-540. This property is zoned C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.3 acres. The request is for the development of a 4,630 SF car was facility with 22 parking/vacuum spaces. Background -in June of 2004, the Subdivision Committee approved the Lot Split of this property. It is a 1.3 acre site. Right-of-way being dedicated: the development of this will require a dedication of 55 feet of right-of-way from the center line on Wedington Dr. The adjacent Master Street Plan street is Wedington, which is classified as a principle arterial. Staff does recommend approval of this Large Scale Development with ten conditions of approval. Anthes: Thank you, Leif. Are there other staff comments? O'Neil: Yes ma'am. We have a verbal agreement between the applicant and the adjacent property owner, which is IHOP. The applicant and the representatives of the adjoining IHOP have come to a verbal agreement on the shared improvements, being the drive, the water, and a shared detention pond. A signed agreement between both parties shall be provided prior to permitting of either project. The agreement should detail which developer is responsible for each of the improvements that are being shared by the projects in the event that one of the projects does not proceed, the other developer will be responsible for the construction of all the required improvements. Anthes: Thank you. I guess I have a question of Leif. How does that enter into our record of this meeting in a binding way? Clark: Should that be another condition of approval, as stated? General: Yes. Clark: Then I will move the inclusion of that as stated. So that would be our I Ith condition. Did you follow all of that? Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 17 Rickett: Yes, we've met this morning. Anthes: I'll second. Do you approve the addition of that condition? Shackelford: Yes. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address Large Scale Development 04-1245? Seeing none, I'll close it to public comment. Commissioners? Clark: Is staff comfortable with the screening for the dumpster facility? Because it seems like it's kind of visible. Pate: The original dumpster location was actually out front. We had been trying to work with both of our solid waste divisions so that they could access this location, and the applicant so they can actually move back as far to the rear of the property as possible. There is a privacy fence to the south, those apartments there. They are required to screen that from this commercial use, or screen this commercial use to that area. Staff believes that adequate screening is provided with this plan. It will not be up near the front of the right-of-way and visible there. Anthes: Will there be gates on this enclosure? Pate: I'm not sure if gates are proposed. It looks like just on three sides with materials compatible with the structure. Access may not be visible from the right-of-way. So if that ends up being the case, then we'd expect to see something to screen that access. Rickett: I can do that. Anthes: So to start with the conditions of approval. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Interior sidewalks will also be constructed from the existing sidewalk along Wedington Drive to the proposed structure. Do you agree with that condition? Rickett: Yes. Anthes: The second is commercial design standards. Do you have comments? Clark: Well, I did notice the roof was red. Anthes: But it's not in CMN Business Park. Clark: Boy aren't you lucky. Planning Commission is haunted by red. I am fairly comfortable that it meets the design standards as well. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 18 Anthes: Well, it's definitely a box. Clark: Yeah, but it's a carwash. Anthes: I'm not sure that a carwash is much more than a box, I believe that you have articulated the facades with these propped up gables on all sides. And you've broken up the expanse of finishes on the wall. Looks like you've got a base and other material. Clark: Is this the back? Which view is this? Rickett: That would be the rear I suppose. Clark: Because I'm noticing you dropped the awnings on the back side. Is that my imagination or is it true? Rickett: Yeah, the awnings are on the front. Actually, that would be the eastern side that you were looking at. Clark: That's the eastern side. Rickett: The one you were looking at before, that would be the west. I believe that is the way that the building is oriented. Clark: Is there going to be any type of screening? IHOP is to the east. Rickett: No, IHOP is to the west. Clark: Okay. So there's no screening on either side, just the fence on the back, by the apartments? Pate: Correct, the screening requirement is only to property zoned and utilized as residential. Clark: Right, okay. It's a box, it's a wet box, but it's got some articulated points on it that I appreciate. Shackelford: I'm okay with the commercial design standards. Clark: Yes, I am too. Anthes: So, we are in the design overlay district. Looks like anything else in terms of the conditions is pretty straight forward. Are there any other questions or comments? I guess I have one and that is there's canopy lighting on the south side of the sight. That's adjacent to what you said is the residential Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 19 area? Do we need to add a condition that talks about directed downward and away from those structures? Pate: That's actually an ordinance requirement within the design overlay district. Regardless of whether it is a condition or not, they have to comply with those requirements. Anthes: Okay, thank you. Clark: Okay. Anthes: I personally would like to see a gate on that dumpster just because it is visible. Rickett: We can do that. MOTION: Clark: Then, Madam Chair, I move that we approve Large Scale Development 04-1245 with all stated conditions of approval including the new one that was entered into the record. Shackelford: I'll second. Anthes: I'll concur. Thank you. Clark: Thank you. Rickett: Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 20 PPL 04-1244: Preliminary Plat (BELCLAIRE ESTATES, 169): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC for property located at HWY 112. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 39.86 acres. The request is to approve a Preliminary Plat of a residential subdivision with 99 single family lots proposed. Anthes: The sixth item we'll hear today is PPL 04-1244 for Belclaire Estates. Will the applicant come forward? Scott: Good morning. I'm Art Scott, with Project Design Consultants. This is Cleve Branson, representing the development. And based on some discussions we've had with the neighbors, in realizing that the meeting is going to be cut short today, I think we want to table this today, and move it to the next Subdivision meeting, because there's some changes they are requesting that we probably didn't understand in the process. So we are going to request that this be tabled at this time. Branson: I'd like to apologize to the neighbors. Futral: In cutting this short, we have people here from the public to respond on this who have left their jobs, you know. I've taken off work today; she's taken off work today. We'd like to stand up and talk about what has happened here. Anthes: No problem. We'll take public comment on this item. Don't worry. Anthes: What he is asking for is that he understands that because of some questions of the neighbors, and I'm assuming the Parks Department comments, that they are requesting to table this item, so that they can get back to the neighbors and work through this. We are happy to hear public comment today, however. But it sounds like we also will table the item. Futral: Okay, what does that mean that we table the item? Anthes: Excuse me, you know what, we're not supposed to be talking to the public. Just a second. Can I go through proper procedure and then I'll have you come to the front and introduce yourself and state your comments? Thank you very much. I guess we need to hear the staff report on this item. Suzanne? Morgan: The applicant requests approval for a Preliminary Plat for Belclaire Estates, formerly known as Leigh Taylor properties. This property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Hwy. 112 and Howard Nickell Road. The property contains approximately 40 acres, and is within the RSF-4 zoning district. The request is to subdivide this property into 101 lots with 97 for development of single-family homes. The Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 21 surrounding properties are within the planning area and within the city zoned RSF-4, as well as R -A. Just a little bit of background, 30 acres to the north was recently annexed into the City and the total tract of 40 acres was rezoned RSF-4. Rights-of-way to be dedicated with this property include both fifty foot and forty foot rights-of-way within the development and fifty five feet from center line of Hwy. 112. Connectivity proposed includes connectivity to the east. There is one stub out to the east, as well as two connections to Hwy. 112 to the south and to the west. Those connections are approximately 800 feet from either direction of the intersection of Hwy. 112 and Howard Nickell Road. Connectivity to the north is not proposed, there is an intermediate strip of property which prevents connectivity to the existing streets to the north. The Parks and Recreation Board recommended dedication of land in the amount of 2.38 acres for 99 single family units on September 13, 2004. The applicant proposes money in lieu of parkland dedication. When the Parks and Recreation Board and developer are unable to agree on a recommendation to the Planning Commission, the developer and Parks Advisory Board make separate recommendations to the Planning Commission who shall determine the issue. Tree preservation, there is an existing 17.3% canopy. The preserved canopy is 8%. Mitigation therefore, is required. Staff recommends forwarding this Preliminary Plat to the Planning Commission with the following 17 conditions. Of which, Planning Commission approval of appropriate street connectivity, is Item #1. Item #2 addresses Planning Commission determination of dedication of park land or contribution of money in lieu of dedication. Additional conditions address improvements, street improvements as well as dedication of right-of-way. Item #6 addresses improvements at the intersection of Hwy. 112 and Howard Nickell road to create a 90° intersection, which was discussed with the annexation and rezoning of this property. This shall be approved by City Engineering and constructed by the developer. A proposal of improvements shall be submitted prior to Planning Commission consideration. Improvements shall also be coordinated with the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. And several of these items, conditions do address tree preservation, which I will let the Landscape Administrator address. Also, Item #14, the Tree Preservation area long the north property line is also an established 50 -foot wide buffer, as offered in the Bill of Assurance with the property's rezoning to allow for this development. We request that the applicant include notes explaining both on the Preliminary and Final Plat. This requirement for a 50 foot buffer is to allow for all potential homeowners in this area to understand those restrictions on those affected lots to the north of the property. Anthes: Thank you, Suzanne. Jeremy, can we hear other comments. Pate: Certainly. The applicant and I and the former Landscape Administrator have met on-site several times in regard to this project, both through the Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 22 annexation, rezoning process and when we actually got down to development. The highest priority portion in the canopy is through a natural drainage area, that currently comes down from the northwestern portion of the site. As you can see on your plats, thy are retaining a couple of lots actually set aside to be owned by the Property Owner's Association that will be Tree Preservation lots for that drainage area. Additionally, the canopy along the northern and the eastern boundary is all being preserved, as well as that canopy along Hwy. 112, even though they can't count that as preserved canopy because it's designated right-of-way. Until such time, though, as those streets are improved, or something requires the removal of those trees, we'd like to see them remain until that does occur. There is removal of canopy and mitigation is required for this development. The notes that I've included as conditions of approval really just address some changes in the calculations and the way they've done that because less the right-of-way, their canopy numbers actually go up from what they put in their plats. I also just wanted to make the point that in Condition #14, that Suzanne mentioned, the Bill of Assurance that the council accepted from the owner is included as part of your staff report, and #5 in that Bill of Assurance states that a buffer area will be provided along the north property line 50 feet in width, no structure shall be built within this buffer strip. Actually, that's a deed restriction on any of these lots. That front onto that buffer area. One of the lots that do is already a tree mitigation lot, the other would be the backs of these lots, but again the setback has all changed, and this is Tree Preservation area as well. So, no construction will occur with the development for infrastructure of this subdivision. Anthes: Thank you, Jeremy. Would the applicant introduce yourselves and describe the intent with what you would like to do between now and the next meeting? Scott: I think we had a misunderstanding on the effect of this final Tree Preservation around the north. I believe the neighbors wanted that to be a no -cut area owned possibly by Parks or POA or something. We have it actually as a Tree Preservation area to the northwest, and a Tree Mitigation area on the northeast. And I think that they are adamantly against that. They didn't want people's yards right there next to them, so I think that's a big point of discussion we need to have with them. There is some discussion we should have with Parks I think involving that area, if Parks would take it. From what I understand, they want to be able to clear and use parks for parkland, so I think it's an issue we need to work closely with them on. Anthes: It sounds like this might substantially change your site plan, or at least require a redraw before we would see it. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 23 Scott: Right. It would require the reduction of six or seven lots and redraw that portion of the site. Anthes: And would you be willing to hold a public meeting with your neighbors. Branson: Absolutely. I'm Cleve Branson, and I'm representing Leigh Taylor properties and I'm guilty of not communicating well enough with Art on my intents on that buffer zone, and I take full responsibility for that. I certainly want to make our neighbors happy and satisfied, and I think if we do have a no -cut area in there, it will increase the property values on both sides of that property line. I was a little unsure, and I had communicated that with Charly a little bit, about you know, who would own that piece of property? And how to go about best handling that. And I actually don't know at this point, and I'm looking for a little instruction and guidance from the Planning Department I guess on that. But, we might have to reposition some of those lots, the north lots, and delete five or six of them like Art has said, but we're willing to do that, and certainly I know we've got our neighbors here that are upset, confused about it, and to them I apologize that they have to miss work and come to another council meeting for my inability to communicate my wishes to Art properly. So, I apologize to them, and we would like to table this, and work with our neighbors, and redraw this a little bit to satisfy both parties. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Branson. I think what I'd like to do is go ahead and get Park's comments on the record, and then we'll get some neighbors to talk on the record, and so you'll have their comments in order to respond to them for your redraw. Branson: Sure, sure. Brady: As far as the parkland dedication, I'm a little unclear if the northern boundaries, if those are going to be counted as Tree Preservation. If those are, it can't be parkland dedication as well. Parkland is needed for a neighborhood park, with neighborhood park uses, such as open play areas, picnic tables, that type of thing. And that's what the Parks Board has recommended, and I guess ultimately that will be up to Planning Commission to determine that. If there's going to be redrawing and changes on this, please call us and work with us. I mean, we're more than willing to try to work something out on that. Branson: And I guess I would just like to ask, and maybe this is not the format, I mean, I gave that fifty foot, and it's of record, free and unencumbered. I understand that, but if we expand on that, could any of that be considered part of the 2.3 acres that the Parks Department was wanting to have us include in this particular subdivision. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 24 Anthes: I believe that what she's saying is that Tree Preservation areas are not considered parkland. Branson: They are not. Shackelford: They can't be both. Branson: You can't do. Okay. Anthes: Are there any other staff comments? I'll open it to public comment, if anybody would like to address PPL 04-1244, please come to the podium. Futral: I'm Charlie Futral, I live at 3804 Woodside Drive. The southern border of my property is the northern and the northeast corner of the Belclaire Estates that is being discussed here. The 50 foot green space buffer, nature preserve, no vegetation cut zone, you know, all those definitions, that is right up against my border. I've got a, you know I want to say, that we have as a neighborhood, and we've got several people here that have taken off work, and you know, that have come. We've been involved in this process from the beginning. We've come to the initial public meetings. They asked for meetings with the developer, which he's done, he's come out and you know, we had dinner out at Carol Electric and talked about this process. We've been involved every step of the way, and we've been very active. And we've also made compromises. We've made compromises. We've made compromises in our thinking. We've tried to be fair and be educated. That doesn't mean that we're absolutely perfectly together as a group, but we set under our oak trees out there, and Bill Forbess's yard after the meeting with the developer and literally talked about it. And we agreed there's a lot of smart people in our neighborhood, and we have you know, retired professors and PHDs and people that work with the school system. It's just a diverse neighborhood. We realized that we need to come down to three points on this thing and try to make it simple and try to be clear. We were concerned about density because of safety. And that relates to the traffic problems and the study that the developer's gone to, the extra lengths he's gone to, you know, and so on. We realized and we came to realize that he could not match our neighborhood. Most of our neighbors are on one, one and a half, three acre lots. And he can't sell, this cannot be a one acre lot development with 40 houses. We came to realize that you're going to have to have a larger density. The Bill of Assurance says 99, most of us wanted less than that. We expected it wouldn't go under 80 probably. At Planning Committee meetings and at meetings with the city council, various people, I'm talking about commissioners and people that sit in these positions, said you know, maybe 85 lots, maybe 90, and so on. The builder has said to us directly that he expected the planning process to probably reduce his lots by 10%. So we're at 99 lots in the Bill of Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 25 Assurance, that's what was given to him, he said that out on at Wedington it was an expectation that that would occur just because of the formal development process in any city. The other thing was connectivity. That seems to be resolved. That was Woodside Drive; we wanted our neighborhood to remain as it has for the last 25 years. Many people spoke of the need for our neighborhood to keep the way it looks, the way it feels, you know we walk our neighborhood, I think there' thirty homes in the neighborhood, something like that. So that's what we came to, when we got down to the last vote, I was asked by Cleve, you know, what do we, you know, do we need to meet with you? The mayor asked him to meet with us. Talked to many neighbors, they said, I don't see what we're, we don't need to do that if we could just get some resolution on it. And I asked about the 50 foot zone, I said, look, what we're wanting is for that to be a separate, free, unencumbered 50 foot zone. If you have the lot lines of ownership up against our lot lines with only covenants on them, just like you have a setback covenant, you've created further conflict. Your developers will come in and cut the scrub, the trees. They will cut and apologize later. It does not protect us and our neighborhood. What we want is for your lot lines to start 50 feet away from our border, and your northern lot line would be at the southern end of that border. It would be a free and unencumbered 50 foot without individual lot ownership by householders. The definition of that has been very difficult to achieve, obviously. I submitted a letter, I'm going to read it to try to get some clarity and make this briefer. I apologize that we all have to be up here doing this again. We though this was resolved. And we came and provided support for this development at the city council meeting. We were asked to, we felt like it was our duty to compromise as well and to recognize and do our part. So here's my statement on this, and I would like to read my statement, and read Cleve's words at the meeting, and then provide the solution as I see it. Really simple, to the point. "I adjoin the Northern border of Belclaire Estates. Forrest View estate neighbors have been very involved with this development since the first public notice. We have had group meetings with the developer and with education on both sides we have made compromises. Before the last & final approval by City Council, Cleve Branson and I discussed the dedication of a 50 foot wide strip of land running east to west along the entire northern border of Belclaire Estates. He initially indicated he would put tree preservation covenants on the building lots he was going to sell in this area. I said that would not work and was not enforceable or acceptable to our neighborhood. Cleve said he would check with his partner & engineer to see if they could do this without impacting their development plan. Two days later he called me and announced that they would dedicate a 50 foot strip of land the length of their northern border without any lot ownership involved. He asked that neighbors come and speak for the development at the City Council vote. We came to the meeting and went on record for the development while listening to the agreement by the developer at the Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 26 meeting to dedicate the 50 foot strip apart from building lots. The most northern back lot lines would fall 50 feet to the south of Forrest Hills Lot Lines creating a free standing 50 feet. Belclaire's northern most development lots would border the southern edge of the 50 foot strip of land. This would allow a green barrier between the neighborhoods that would add separation and beauty for both. This land would be designated in the final surveys and development plat as a green zone, nature preserve, with no cutting of vegetation or trees allowed. This would be a green area with specific preservation language placed upon it to assure that it would be left as a nature preserve and uncut. His northern most lot lines being separated by 50 feet from Forrest Estates lot lines, would not fall into the inevitable border conflicts of having unenforceable lot covenants. The intention was a nature preserve of green space where trees, scrub, and greenery would be untouched, a natural green barrier, defined in the development covenants but not part of the lots for sell. There are other green spaces in the development and a detention pond not owned by building lots. We ask that you require the developer to follow through with his stated intent to set aside an independent 50 foot strip of land along northern border without ownership by building lots. Also to include language in the development that designates this as a nature preserve with no vegetation being cut along with preservation of all trees of any size. The purpose is to provide a permanent nature preserve, a green vegetation barrier between the neighborhoods." At the last City Council meeting, I got a tape of the actual words being said. This is not the summary tape as presented on the Internet and is appropriate for most City Council meetings. I went to the City Clerk, she provided me with a tape. I went last night, spent time and transcribed to the best of my ability, an actual certified transcript would be possible from the City Clerk if any of you would like to hear it. This is from the 8/17 City Council meeting when this was passed. Yet here we are listening of course to what it is, and it's exactly as it was stated at that time. "But I want to make it perfectly clear that we intended that to be a green space to separate the subdivisions that give them some privacy that they are wanting, so we are happy to do that." "Alderman Thiel: Are you asking that this serve as part of the parkland dedication? Mr. Branson: Actually, I hadn't thought about that. Alderman Thiel: That's not your intention, then? Mr. Branson: It was not intended that way. I don't know what the parks department has in mind for our subdivision. They will let us know later. Certainly, if they looked at that 50 foot strip, and decided that it could be part of it, that would be great, as far as I'm concerned, but certainly, I'm not going to hold anybody accountable for that. I'm offering it freely and unencumbered." Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 27 Futral: That's a direct quote from that meeting. These lots as they were being presented and they're being tabled at this particular division was not unencumbered. It's encumbered by the ownership of those houses, essentially is what that is. The intent was obviously not to have building lots up against our border, or for this 50 foot, you know, to be there. I did a couple of things that are important here, possibly. And it's very simple. You've all seen this plot, you know, of what was there. This is the northern border, this is the 50 foot zone that we're talking about here. Conceptually, if you just slide this whole picture 50 feet this way, that means your street drops 50 feet, and you lose these four lots, this lot, possibly this one or this one. That's a total of seven lots. And it's just by just doing that. They will go in with their CAD systems, and they will restructure the sizes of these of course, and they will make it work. You know, a better, tighter deal. It's a very simple operation and it doesn't affect the total process here. But it solves what was intended and what could go on, you know, from the very beginning. I've taken time to go out and take photographs of our neighborhood. I'd like for ya'11 to just at least look at them. This is the McWhorter's house, that's Woodside Dr. where the connectivity was being talked about. If you walk through the end of Woodside Dr. and look back at Woodside Dr., this is what you would see. And what's important about that is that you can see that those woods are not real thick, that these woods are scrub. This is directly behind my house. There's not a federal tree preservation law that will protect that little tree there that's two inches thick as we look at this. The top picture is a picture of McWhorter's house from 50 feet inside the zone. The bottom picture is very important here. The bottom picture is what has happened along one of our other borders. Not on my property, but to my neighbors. That's Clear Creek you're looking at. It has a 25 foot green protection zone. But those protection zone is owned by the property owners, so what's going to happen is they're going to plant trees later and apologize and go on. It's not enforceable, and there's no police to come back and put a tree or scrub back in place. When you do that, this is what it looks like. You lose your zone, you know, you lose the neighborhood. We've had a, we're protected because we've been surrounded by woods and greenery and shrubbery, and that's really what we're looking at here. And I think that these pictures kind of get a sense of it, but a no -vegetation cut zone is different than just Tree Preservation. Anthes: Could we get you behind the microphone so that we can get you on tape? Futral: Oh, I'm sorry. We know that the sizes of these houses are going to be good. 2400 Minimum SF, that the quality, I think, will be good. This is a big issue. And it's one that we tried to make simple, our issues and our concerns, and we did that. And I appreciate your consideration. We've been told from the beginning that this meeting now is the process where the rubber meets the road, that this committee is the one that actually Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 28 comes and makes the final decisions: how many lots will be in this development -it couldn't be decided upon any other meetings, how the development's laid out and whether it meets requirements and guidelines. And I ask that you would put this in there and keep it as a nature preserve with some language that holds the development. You know, even if it's POA that owns it, it's important that POA have language, covenant language, that says, this is meant to be a no -vegetation -cut zone, all vegetation is allowed to grow and be, just like woods are, a natural zone. And it will, and the trees and the saplings that are in there will grow to be trees and so on, and it will be a beautiful place that will still separate the neighborhoods. And we hope that ya'11 would honor the intent and the decision making process that's gone on in this long development process. Thank you for hearing me. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Futral. Would any other member of the public like to address this Preliminary Plat? McWhorter: My name is Gail McWhorter, and I live at 3791 Woodside Dr. And again, my southern property line backs right up to this development, a good chunk of it because we're kind of stretched out. And I just want to agree with everything that Charles has said, that we were completely 100% against this development when it first came up. We have learned, we've studied, we've explored, and we've investigated. They have come back and given us other information. There's a lot of compromises we have made on both sides. These men have done what they needed to do to help us to learn. But we just want to protect the quality of our neighborhood and our property. And I think it just comes down to this buffer zone. And what we understood it to be and what it's being presented as now, and we just want ya'11 to thoroughly understand and investigate that. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. McWhorter, Clark, J.: You can see we're out in force today. We'll try to be brief from here on out. First of all I want to thank the Planning commission and the Subdivision Committee for not allowing the connectivity to our neighborhood. I think that was a great thing that you did for our neighborhood. And I know I speak for the rest of us that we really appreciate that, and I simply want to on the record, my name is John Clark, I own about three and one half acres on the northern border also, and I just wanted to go on the record as saying that we think, that I think that, the 50 foot preservation area, separate from lots, is very important and I hope that all we're experiencing is a communication break down, and that his intention was to do that and as, since I've heard what I've heard, I do believe that now. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 29 Anthes: Thank you Mr. Clark. Maybe what we should do is if, I'll just see a show of hands of everybody that is in agreement with these statements and then if anybody has something additional to add. You can come up and speak. So, this is the last call for public comment on PPL 04-1244? Forrest: The last time I was before the Planning Commission was some years ago. Anthes: Please state your name please first? Forrest: Pardon? Oh, I'm very sorry. Thank you. Bill Forbes, I live on Forest view, right next there. The last time we were, I was before the Planning Commission, the young man who sits right over there and these gentlemen tabled it, and he stood up, and he said, I want you guys to have a meeting, get with these people, and talk to them, and lower the amount of houses you're going to put on there. They put on a barbecue, we sat there and listened, and it took us twenty minutes to figure out, they didn't lower the amount of lots they were going to put on there at all. They were still going to do exactly the same thing. Most of us took notes; we put all of our notes together. We signed it and gave a copy of it to the alderman. I'm sure it's of record over there. Do you have a record over there of all the notes that were signed? What we were told was going to be on the Bill of Assurance once again, Mr. Branson had a breakdown of communication. What he told us he did not put in the Bill of Assurance. He put some of it in there. He left out the 3 -car garages and an egress to 112, masonry walls around the perimeter. I agree with everything everybody has said and we'd like to preserve the integrity of our neighborhood. And I believe Mr. Branson is putting in those Bills of Assurance, on paper, exactly what he wants to put on there and telling us something else. Thank you. Anthes: Mr. Forbes. Are there any other comments? Seeing none, I'll close public comment. I guess I just have a couple of questions before we accept any motions. From what I understood Mr. Branson's comments to be at the beginning of this meeting, is that they are going back and redrawing are expecting to lose about seven lots to create that tree buffer on the north side of this property. Is that correct? Branson: We're going to do what it takes to create that tree buffer. Anthes: And our big question at this point is how that is owned and maintained. And under what provisions Parks may or may not accept that property, and so that's something that needs to come back to staff and work through. Sounds like city council has already accepted a rezoning to RSF-4 with the Bill of Assurance, and so that density has been set by City Council. That's not something that's really open for discussion here. And the connectivity issue was solved. So, we're really down to this 50 foot zone. The Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 30 developers have expressed a willingness to restructure their lots to allow for that to happen, and we just have to work through city processes to see about how that can be done, what the ownership can be, if Parks can own it, how it will be maintained, that sort of thing. Is that how everybody understands it? Clark: I have a semantic question. What's the difference, Jeremy, since you're a landscape administrator, between a vegetative no -cut zone versus a Tree Preservation zone? Pate: Probably not a lot if it's a distinct and separate lot. Within a residential sub -division, for instance they've shown on some of these lots that the specific lot is a non -buildable lot. They're not going to put any structures on it. It's owned by the POA, and it's actually separate and distinct. The POA would own that and maintain or leave it as it is. As shown around the entire east, west, and north side of the property here with Tree Preservation areas. Those are not easements; those are preserved during the construction of infrastructure, which is a requirement of a developer through the Preliminary Plat process. Those would not be easements because single family homeowners are exempt from meeting Tree Preservation requirements. Because they own that property out right. Clark: Maybe what I'm getting at is there seems to be a semantic issue if nothing else. Because what I'm bearing the neighbors say is that they don't want anything cut along the northern border. What I'm reading in the Bill of Assurance is that we're just going to provide a buffer area. Well, how do you define buffer area? Neighbors want you to say don't cut a thing. Are you prepared to do that? Branson: Well, I think, the Bill of Assurance was amended just prior to the last meeting and the verbiage at that particular meeting was, without reading it, I'm sure it's what Charlie read and I tried to clarify that and expound on it that night. But, the question I bad with Charlie and I think he would agree is that I didn't know who would take ownership of that 50 feet. I felt like somebody did, but I didn't know how that would be handled that night and I guess that's still an issue. But the no -cut is fine with me. Semantics are very, very important it would seem, and I would encourage, as we go back through this since we're going to table this, that you sit down and incorporate some of their verbiage, the neighbors' verbiage, so they'll know. I mean, we hear people say things all the time and when you really see bow it manifests, it's nothing like that. Branson: Oh, I know. Clark: But, they're still within the definitions of some of the words they used. So, I would encourage you all to agree on a set of words and maybe Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 31 amend the Bill of Assurance and then I think this'll go. I really do. It seems like everybody has compromised. You all have compromised. Neighbors have compromised. We're on to the last sticking point here and to save that one inch tree. Branson: You bet. Clark: I'm for it. Anthes: Jeremy, I do have a question about if there's an amendment to the Bill of Assurance, does that require City Council action? Pate: Yes it does. Brady: Madam Chair? Could I add one thing? Anthes: Yes. Brady: I just wanted to make the developer aware that if this changes significantly, it may have to be reviewed by Parks Board again. Anthes: Hopefully, with a more positive result than last time around. Clark: It sounds like we're dangerously close here to an agreement. Dangerously close. If we can just get some verbiage together everybody will be happy. Anthes: And a redraw. Clark: And a redraw. Yeah, definitely a redraw. Shackelford: Madam Chair? Anthes: Yes. Shackelford: I assume the applicant has had enough feedback to know what we expect between this meeting and the next meeting. So at his request, I'm going to make a motion that we table PPL 04-1244 to the next regularly scheduled Subdivision. Clark: Boy, do I concur. Anthes: I do too. Thank you very much. Clark: And thanks to the neighbors who came. Audience: Thank you all. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 32 Anthes: We have two additional items to hear today, both of which staff has recommended forwarding to full Planning Commission, which only takes hearing by two Commissioners, so I'm going to excuse myself and Commissioner Shackelford, would you please chair? Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 33 PPL 04-1246: Preliminary Plat (LEGACY POINT PHASE IV, 475): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at DOUBLE SPRINGS RD AND LEGACY POINTE PH. I -III AND S OF OWL CREEK.. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 29.29 acres. The request is to approve the Preliminary Plat of Phase IV of the subdivision with 77 single family lots proposed. Shackelford: Sure. Alright the next item that we have on the agenda is PPL#04-1246 for Legacy Point Phase IV. If the applicant would please come forward? Clark: Which one are we doing? Shackelford: Legacy Point. Clark: Legacy Point, okay thank you. Shackelford: If you would please introduce yourself for the record? Sloan: I'm Charles Sloan, the owner and developer of this property. Clark: We keep meeting. Jorgensen: My name is Jeff Jorgensen, I'm with Jorgensen and Associates. Shackelford: Okay. Let's go now if we can to the staff report. Jeremy, if you would please? Pate: The Planning Commission recently saw this subject property of 29.9 acres as a rezoning request, annexation and rezoning request. At that time, back in, earlier this year, I don't think I have the date here, as I mentioned the tract was zoned to RSF-4, single family residential, four units per acre. The property accesses to the east Legacy Point Phase II, which also accesses Double Springs Road. Persimmons Street, which is a Collector on the Master Street Plan, does bisect this site, and it is shown to be constructed through the proposed subdivision with the required 70 feet of right-of-way dedication. Surrounding properties include single family homes and agricultural lots. The applicant is requesting a preliminary plat approval for a residential subdivision with 79 lots proposed. Two of the lots are proposed for detention, with the remaining 77 to be utilized for single family homes. This resultsi n a total density of 2.63 dwelling units per acre, which does meet the maximum density as set by the applicant with the offered Bill of Assurance with 2.9 dwelling units per acre. All streets within the proposed development are proposed at 28 feet in width, connecting to the stub -out from the west, part of Legacy Point II. Applicant is proposing stub -outs to the north in two locations, to the south in one location, and then the Master Street Plan stub -out to the east as Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 34 well. There are no trees existing on this property, therefore Tree Preservation requirements were waived. Staff is recommending forwarding this preliminary plat as all preliminary plats must be forwarding to the full Planning commission with the recommendation for approval with nine conditions. Item #2, the developers shall provide a minimum of 1.85 acres of parkland to meet the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. I'll have Allison go over that in just a moment. But where that parkland actually is, it's off-site. They are extended an existing park. I believe that's all. Shackelford: Okay, thank you very much. Allison, would you like to address the parkland issue? Brady: Sure. As Jeremy mentioned, the parkland that they're dedicating is off- site. It's directly east of the Legacy Point Parkland that we currently own. And they are dedicating an excess and have indicated that they wish to bank that for future development within the same quadrant. Shackelford: Okay. Any other staff comments at this time? O'Neal: Mr. Chair, there's a few comments from the tech plat review that need to be addressed. Shackelford: Okay. Clark: And those would be? O'Neal: In particular, location of water meters and sewer taps. And a twenty foot drainage area. Clark: So you all know this? Sloan: Yes ma'am. He has told us that, and it just didn't get plotted on this. The changes have been made, it's just that when we printed this thing, unfortunately there's... Shackelford: So the updates from plat review have not been... Sloan: All but that. That's about all. Shackelford: That's all. Sloan: Yes sir. And most of the other comments have been taken care of, it's just that one particular. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 35 Shackelford: Okay. At this point I'm going to ask for public comment. If there's anybody here that would like to address Preliminary Plat 04-1246, which is Phase IV of Legacy Point. If not I'll close it to public comment and bring it back to the Subdivision Committee. Clark: Where is the park going? Sloan: The park is an extension of the existing park we have. Phase I, down by the creek. Pate: If you look in your packet, there's actually a map. Sloan: Right here. We had dedicated 3.9 acres on the first three phases of Legacy. So, it's along the creek where they had indicated they wanted a trail system. So we went to the adjoining neighbor and were acquiring the south half of his property across the creek, extending that by about 4 acres I believe it is, roughly, to extend that part. So we'll have about an eight or nine acre park out there. Clark: Okay, great. Sloan: One of the comments we had had from, I think, from one of the neighbors out there was traffic concerns. We have purposely held off on this project to work with doctor Hayes and his family on the project to the east of us. We tried to make the connection from Persimmon to 54`h Street, which would be a major connection to alleviate a lot of problems in this area. And then we had talked with the Highway Department about, I know they're going to extend HWY 16, but we've asked them to consider maybe, a traffic signal put in early, instead of waiting for three years or so. So we've talked to and indicated we'd like to work with them on that, to help that particular area. Clark: The staff is pleased with street connectivity at this point? Pate: Yes ma'am. Shackelford: Question for the applicant. There are stated nine conditions of approval. Have you reviewed these and are in agreement with them? Sloan: Yes, we're fine with them. Shackelford: Commissioner Clark, you have any other questions? MOTION: Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 36 Clark: I'm just pleased to forward this. I make the motion that we forward this on. Plat 04-1246. Shackelford: I will concur with the comment that the additional changes from technical plat review, if they could be shown on the plat before the Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 37 R-PZD 04-1154: Planned Zoning District (CLIFFSIDE, 526): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC for property located at THE EAST SIDE OF HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD, SOUTH OF THE CLIFFS APARTMENTS. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 26.30 acres. The request is to approve a Residential Planned Zoning District on the subject property with approximately 48 two-family and 15 single-family lots proposed. Shackelford: Okay, the final item that I have on the agenda this morning is R-PZD 04- 1154, Planned Zoning District for Cliffside. If the applicant could come forward. If you would please introduce yourself for the record. Scott: My name is Art Scott from Project Design Consultants. Shackelford: Okay. At this point, I'm going to ask for the city staff report, if you would please. Morgan: Yes sir. This item has actually been tabled at a Subdivision Committee previously. I believe in August and we're working with the applicant and it is now before you again. The applicant requests a rezoning and preliminary plat approval for a residential subdivision with a unique R- PZD zoning district. The proposed use for this site is residential development consisting of 111 single-family residential dwelling units, of which 15 are single family detached and 489 are two-family attached townhouses. This site is currently vacant and zoned RSF-4. Floodway crosses the subject property from north to south. In addition a 50 foot electric and a 50 foot water easement overlapping each other to create a 75 foot easement which runs east -west across the property. The proposed development again does include single family and two family dwellings, use units eight and nine, which I have listed specific lot numbers proposed on a chart in the staff report. The total proposed dwelling units on the 26.114 acre site is 111, therefore a density of 4.25 units per acre. The developer proposes an unconventional subdivision, with both single family detached and two family attached dwelling units. Lot sizes and setbacks are proposed to be slightly smaller than those allowed in the typical RSF for a zoning district, therefore the need to process and R-PZD. The vacant site is located in east Fayetteville south of Cliffs Apartments and north of Happy Hollow Elementary School. With the exception of Cliffs Apartments and the school„ the surrounding property is currently developed for single family use. Property to the east extending to Crossover Rd. is developed for one single family home on a very large tract of land and may be further developed in the future. Access is proposed to the east and the south. No connectivity is proposed to the north to Cliffs Apartments, there is a Tree Preservation easement along Cliffs Apartments just north of this property. Happy Hollow Road is adjacent to this property to the west. The developer of Cliffside is dedicating right-of-way on Happy Hollow Rd. Requirement is 35 feet Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 38 from center line, is a Collector Street on the Master Street Plans. A transition between Happy Hollow Rd four this location and to the north, where greater than 35 feet from center line was dedicated may need to be coordinated with our engineering division. The only available on-site street connection from this property from the proposed development is west to Happy Hollow. That's really the only available because of the Tree Preservation to the noth and no development to the east. One access for development of 111 lots, however, may create a dangerous traffic situation. Therefore, the applicant has coordinated with the Fayetteville School District for dedication of 50 feet right-of-way west of th School property and south of the subject property for an extension of Ray Avenue. Currently, there is right-of-way for Ray Avenue extending north of 4a' street, but not to this subject property. So with that dedication, a street can be built which will connect to the existing Ray Steret and will provide two means of access to this property. The City is recommending street improvements on Happy Hollow Rd, including, as well as, construction of a 50 foot right-of-way, 28 foot wide street, south of the subject property, on the right-of-way to be dedicated by the school. The applicant is also proposing a dedication or parallel parking on that street, in order to provide additional parking for the school. And for functions which they have at that location. As a note, there is a plan, a future signalization at the intersection of Happy Hollow and Huntsville Rd. Tree Preservation, there is an existing 88% tree canopy preserved at 25.4%. What is required with a PZD, therefore no mitigation is required. Parks did request money in lieu of land on July 12`h, and a pedestrian trail connection. There is currently a trail located north on Cliffs, and, I believe, a trail on the property to the south. And the applicant is proposing a trail through portions of their Tree Preservation area through the site. Staff did receive public comment at the August 12`h Subdivision Committee meeting, and we did attach those comments to this report. We have also received draft covenants from the applicant. Staff does recommend forwarding this R-PZD to the full Planning Commission with a total of 26 conditions, of which address both use units allowed. Staff does recommend use unit 1, city use units by right to be added to the plat as an allowable use in this zoning district. Item #2, Planning Commission determination of residential lot access management. Due to the smaller lot widths on single family lots, staff does believe that, does recommend that, for those lots, not utilizing shared drives, the maximum driveway width should be 12 feet. For shared drives, a maximum 24 foot width driveway may be constructed with a location to be coordinated with city staff. And that those driveways, shared driveways, may straddle property lines. Condition #3, Planning commission determination of off-site street improvements, with regard to the extension of Ray Avenue. Additional conditions address the proposed trail and Tree Preservation requirements. And there are several requests for modifications of the plat prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 39 Shackelford: Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Other City comments? O'Neal: Yes, Mr. Chair. Requirement on improvements on Happy Hollow be 14 foot from center line. We would like to see a six foot wide sidewalk on Happy Hollow to connect to the existing sidewalk to the north. Art, I don't know if it was just an error on the northeast corner, the cul-de-sacs are labeled as 26, I believe they're supposed to be 24. Is that correct Suzanne? Scott: I'm sorry, they're supposed to be 20? O'Neal: I believe they're supposed to be 24, is that correct? We don't have a 26 foot wide street. If you could just show those as 24. And also if Planning doesn't have an objection, on street 2, the north cul-de-sac, to reduce that to 24, if that's alright? That way you can gain a little bit of green space between your sidewalk and the curb. Just some minor revisions to the alignment of handicap ramps. They need to be at the curb radii, not in the middle of the radius. Shackelford: Okay. Any comment from Parks? Okay. At this time I'm going to open it up for public comment. If there's anybody that would like to address this residential planned zoning district? This is your opportunity. Seeing that there's no on here, we'll close it to public comment and bring it back to the applicant. First of all I've got two questions: The fifty foot right of way, one of my concerns when I looked at this the first time, was obviously density and how people were going to get in and out of this, but the 50 foot right-of-way has been agreed upon with the school and Ray Ave will be extended. Is that correct? Developer: Yes sir. We went through Fayetteville Public Schools and received a 7-0 vote and they're really excited about us providing some additional parking for them. And also, I don't know if you've been to Happy Hollow School at 3:00 or for drop off in the morning, but it's really congested and they're going to, I think this is going to allow them to have, be able to use our subdivision for a little bit of ease of access, to relieve some of that congestion. Shackelford: So you'll have ingress and egress to highway 16 from Happy Hollow and Ray, and you will actually in a round -about way have an ingress and egress to 45 through Cliffs. Is that correct? Scott: Yes. Pate: Mr. Chair? We might mention at the subcommittee meeting level we try to typically have a lot of these plat comments taken care of. There have been Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 40 some changes from the last Subdivision Committee, and that's kind of why we're seeing so many, 26 conditions and a lot of them have to do with plat comments. Hopefully, before the Planning Commission meeting, we'll definitely get all of these, all these revised. I think that's why we're seeing so many of revisions on this plat. Shackelford: Yeah, I think that's the record for the day, 26 conditions. Clark: Talk to me about trees, Jeremy. Pate: Okay, this is a difficult site to develop. Clark: Because it's like 88% wooded, right? Pate: Correct. And really the only part that is not wooded is the easement through which the electric lines go, the overhead transmission lines go and some smaller areas. In visiting this site, there are a couple of things that you have to look at, and most of them make almost all the canopy on site high priority. One, it's on a hillside, as is all the ? area. The apartment complex, of course, to the north, its land much like that was before it was developed I assume. Additionally, there is this floodway drainage area going through the property. My roll as Landscape Administrator, then, there are obviously property rights that are established with zoning of this. They could develop to four units per acre, which is about what they're developing at with this proposed development. So my role is to establish those areas that could best be preserved and those that are most important. When you have a whole site that's high priority, it becomes difficult. Working with the applicant, we right away established this floodway flood plain as an important ? corridor. That could also be a pedestrian link from both north of the Cliffs and the school. So you actually have a linkage here and that's the other reason for the trail through that area, so that we can provide that pedestrian linkage I think that will be a great benefit both to this neighborhood and to anyone who utilizes this area and sees the value of a Tree Preservation area. Additionally, surrounding the property as you can see on the plat you're actually looking at, these darker lines will indicate all the tree preservation areas that will buffer, be a use buffer, essentially, on the surrounding properties. Additionally, within the subdivision itself, there will be lots specifically called out, just like we talked about in the last subdivision, that are Tree Preservation areas. And those will be assigned lot numbers, maintained again, owned by the POA. Clark: Okay. So, a Tree Preservation area cannot be a park but it can be a common green space for an R-PZD. Pate: Correct, yes. It's just not owned by the City of Fayetteville to be maintained by the City of Fayetteville. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 41 Clark: Okay, so do we have covenants. Staff: Proposed covenants. Clark: And does it cover maintenance of the green space or the Tree Preservation area? Pate: That's one of the conditions of approval. Clark: Oh, one of the 26 mystics? Sorry, okay. Shackelford: Question applicant. We're joking, but there are a lot of conditions of approval. Have you reviewed these 26 conditions of approval? I know most of them, or a lot of them, are going to be addressed between now and the time the full Planning Commission review on this. A lot of them are technical, more technical type conditions. Scott: There doesn't seem to be anything here that's out of the ordinary. We have had some conversations with Planning in the last few weeks, and they've mentioned most of these, so. Shackelford: Well, there are three specific conditions that will take Planning Commission determination. Just so that you're aware of specific determinations the Planning Commission wilt be reviewing. Condition #2, regarding residential lot access. We'll have to make a specific finding due to smaller lot width. The staff is recommending a combination of shared driveways and reduced driveway widths. I don't know if you're in agreement or not? Scott: I think that was probably our only contention on this. And that's something that, that's a very narrow, we're putting two -car garages on each ofthese. Shackelford: That's something that I would recommend you're ready to address to the full planning commission because that is a specific determination and will have to be defined. Taking direction from City staff, the next one being Condition #3, the determination of off-site improvements. Staff s recommended a 28 foot street curb and gutter south of the subject property, the existing paved Ray Street. Staff also recommends improving the existing paved portion of Ray north of 4th Street. Some off-site improvements here that we'll have to find a specific finding of fact. And just for your information, that's something else that this Planning Commission will be looking at, so you should be ready to address that as well. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 42 Clark: Gentlemen, tell me about the residential components of this R-PZD. What's it going to look like? Developer: Three quarter brick. It's going to be a sharp subdivision. 1300 square foot on each side of the town homes, 1400 square foot minimum on the single family. Clark: I would encourage you to come to Planning, the full Planning Commission with as much of the conception done as you can. Developer: Oh, you bet. We have, our advertising company is working on that, so we'll have full color drawings. Clark: I mean, you don't have to do the elevations and all the expensive stuff. Developer: You bet. Clark: But let us know, because it's very integral to see if it will uniformly fit into this area. Developer: Certainly. Clark: And it will also let the neighbors see what to expect, and trust me, that could certainly head off some problems. I'm also interested, I will be interested at Planning Commission to talk more about these preserved spaces, what you want to do to them, what the egress and ingress will be to them. It seems like it's kind of weighted, well I guess you have a flood plain. What can you do with a flood plain? The northeast corner seems to be kind of, and maybe I'm just missing it, the closest, the flood plain would be the closest preservation area and over here. I think you just need to highlight that a little bit more. And let people see what the functions are going to be and what you see the function being as well. Developer: Sure. Scott: We're going to have some colored drawings, so that will look. Developer: You bet. Clark: Pictures are always good. With that said, do you have anymore? Shackelford: No, it's, I think there's obviously a lot of information here, a lot of things that we hope can be addressed between now and the Planning Commission meeting. Subdivision Committee October 15, 2004 Page 43 MOTION: Clark: It sounds like you and staff are on it. So I will move that we forward R- PZD 04-1154 with all of those conditions of approval directly to the Planning Commission. Shackelford: I'll concur. See you guys. Thank you for your time. Developer: Thank you very much. Scott: Thank you. Clark: Thanks. Shackelford: That's the last item that I have on our agenda this morning. Is there any other information or anything we need to do for the City staff. Pate: No sir. Shackelford: Seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.