Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-03 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held in Room 219 of the City Administration Building at 8:30 a.m. on February 3, 2005. Items Discussed Action Taken FPL 04-1318: Copper Creek Phase II Page 2 PPL 05-1368: University Village Center Page 6 PPL 05-1377: Hancock Estates Page 10 LSD 05-1376: Meadow Place Condominiums Page 16 Members Present Approved Forwarded Forwarded Approved Members Absent Candy Clark Jill Anthes Loren Shackelford Staff Present Staff Absent Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Suzanne Morgan Matt Mihalevich Brent O'Neal Subdivision Committee February 3, 2005 Page 2 FPL 04-1318: Copper Creek Subdivision Phase II was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services Inc., for property located at the northwest intersection of East Zion Road and George Anderson Road. The property is currently zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre, containing approximately 38.45 acres. The request is for approval of an 84 lot subdivision. Anthes: Good morning, welcome to the Thursday, February 3, 2005 meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. We have four items today. The first item is old business, it is FPL 04-1318 for Copper Creek Phase II. Will the applicant come forward? Pate: This request is for the Final Plat of Phase II of Copper Creek subdivision. It contains approximately 38.45 acres. The request is to approve the Final Plat with 84 single family lots proposed. This property is located at the northwest intersection of East Zion Road and George Anderson Road. It is zoned RSF-4. There are 81 single family lots, one lot for storm water detention, one lot for a 3.12 acre park and one lot for a proposed future tennis court. The Planning Commission did approve the Preliminary Plat for both phases I and II of this subdivision back in April, 2003. That was for a total of 131 lots. This is the second phase of that. The right of way being dedicated for this property includes right of way on East Zion Road and George Anderson Road, both of those are collector streets requiring 35' from centerline and street improvements along those streets have also been inspected by our city inspectors. The Parks and Recreation Board voted to accept land for this property and deeds, will, of course, need to be received prior to signing the Final Plat. For tree preservation, the tree preservation plan approved for this subdivision requires a total of $4,050 contribution into the tree fund. Staff is recommending approval of FPL 04- 1318 with 14 conditions of approval. Most of them are self explanatory. Number one, the deed for the park needs to be received prior to signing the Final Plat. Number two is a standard condition, a sign shall be posted at all stub outs as determined by staff, to indicate future extensions of streets. That is for property owners there to know that those streets will be extended. Item number three, within two years of Phase II Final Plat approval if Phase III has not been constructed the cul-de-sacs there will need to be constructed as deemed appropriate by staff. We fully anticipate Phase III continuing on. Item number eight, the Final Plat shall be submitted to the Planning Division to verify all final revisions are correct prior to application of any signatures. We just want to make sure that before they go out and try to get owner's signatures and utility's signatures that we have had a chance to look over it one final time after this meeting to ensure that all of the notes are correct, spellings are correct, and everything is dimensioned as it should be. That's all. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Do we have other staff reports? Subdivision Committee February 3, 2005 Page 3 Mihalevich: Parks comment, the park size the developer has provided is about one acre more than is required and it will be the responsibility of the developer to bank that. Moore: Mihalevich: O'Neal: Anthes: Moore: Anthes: Shackelford: Clark: Moore: That is for Phase III. We just wanted you to know that it is your responsibility to keep track of that kind of thing and to submit that to us. We had one other comment about the detention pond. We felt that maybe it should be fenced for user safety around it. I have some of the revisions submitted by the applicant for a few punch list items. Brian, if you could also provide me a detail for your modified curb and just note on the plan for the swale that the rip rap is to be native stone. These items need to be completed or well under way prior to signatures for Final Plat. Thank you Brent. If you would introduce yourselves and add anything that you would like for comments. Sure, I'm Brian Moore with Engineering Services and this is Gary Brandon, the owner of the project. The only one that we would like to talk about on this is that the street lights shall be installed prior to signing the Final Plat. I talked to Jeremy a little bit before. We have paid for those and Jeremy and I talked about if Ozarks would verify that we have paid for them. We can't control when they put them up. Would any member of the public like to address FPL 04-1318? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comment and bring it back here. Commissioners, let's first talk about Parks comment about the detention area. Normally we don't encourage fencing those areas. I would note that this is directly adjacent to park property in this case. I will concur with you that in the past we have not even really thought about fencing those areas in. I think it is ok like it is. If we did want to look at the fence I don't know that we would want a fence more than the part that joins the park area. Are you all thinking of doing anything like that because of the proximity to the park? We haven't. There are two sides on that. Sometimes people don't want fences because you can't see and you can't have access. I don't know what the answer would be. Subdivision Committee February 3, 2005 Page 4 Clark: Is Parks wanting an actual fence or just some type of deterrent from going into the park and into the detention pond? I guess it is a safety issue. Anthes: We have discussed this a few times, but not in many projects. Normally we come to the conclusion that we don't want a fence, we want that open visual, we don't want to put boxes around detention areas. Moore: I would like to say too that it is a detention pond, not a retention pond. There won't be water in there unless it is raining and if it is raining hard I don't think people are going to be in the park. Anthes: Does staff have any comments about that? Pate: Of course there is always the option if it becomes an issue later that the Parks Department could install a fence in that location, a split rail fence or something if it does become an issue if the developer is not planning on installing one now. Anthes: That would be ok with me. Shackelford: I concur with that I think the fact that it is not going to hold water on a permanent basis, I don't know that I want to give up the fenced in look in this area. I think it will be fine the way that it is. If it is a problem down the road the Parks Department can address it at that point. Anthes: Staff, we don't have a problem with the street lights? Clark: Should we amend that to read the applicant shall make arrangements for the installation of all street lights? Pate: That is fine. We understand the electric company has their time schedule and it is quite a ways out for some of these developments. Shackelford: Obviously, I wasn't able to attend the last meeting. This is under old business, was this heard at the previous meeting? Pate: It was not heard. It did not receive it's final inspection and so it could not be heard. Shackelford: With that being said, I am going to make a motion that we approve FPL 04-1318 with all conditions as stated except for number five. I would like number five to read "Verification from public utilities that street lights have been paid for and are scheduled for installation prior to Final Plat." Clark: Second. Subdivision Committee February 3, 2005 Page 5 Anthes: I will concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee February 3, 2005 Page 6 PPL 05-1368 University Village Center was submitted by Steven Beam of Crafton, Tull & Associates for property located at the southeast corner of 15th Street and Beechwood Avenue. The property is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 7.45 acres. The request is for a commercial subdivision containing three lots with one lot to be utilized for detention. Anthes: Our second item today is PPL 05-1368 for University Village Center. Pate: This property contains 7.45 acres and is located at the southeast corner of 15th Street and Beechwood Avenue in South Fayetteville. Adjacent developments include the Crowne Apartments directly to the south and the Randall Tyson Indoor Track Center and Baum Stadium to the north. The applicant is proposing to create a four lot commercial subdivision for future development within the C-2 zoning district. The site currently is a large field with access both onto 15th Street and Beechwood. To the east is a tributary to the Town Branch Creek, which is the eastern boundary to the property. That is where the location of most of the existing tree canopy, floodplain and floodway is. Surrounding properties are zoned I-1, RMF -24 and include the uses that I mentioned before. With this subdivision water and sewer lines will need to be extended to serve each of these lots as well as street improvements around this curve of 15th and Beechwood for the frontage of the property. Those street improvements would include any necessary pavement, curb and gutter, storm drains and 6' sidewalks. For tree preservation, the existing canopy exists at 7.3%, as I mentioned, most of that is located within the floodplain and floodway area along the tributary to the east. Preserved is 4.6% and almost all of which being removed is along the right of way which is where the street improvements are being constructed. Those trees are volunteer species and are very low priority species. Staff is recommending forwarding this PPL 04-1368 with a recommendation for approval to the Planning Commission with 14 conditions of approval. I mentioned item number one, determination of street improvements and we are recommending Beechwood and 15th Street be improved 18' from centerline with pavement, curb and gutter, 6' sidewalks and storm drains prior to signing the Final Plat. I believe that is consistent with the street improvements that were installed with the Crowne Development directly to the south. Also, condition number two, this is more informational, assessments shall be made as each of the proposed tracts develop for the cost of the future traffic signal at Razorback and 15th Street. These assessments will be based upon the use that is proposed on the lots and the traffic generated from those uses. Item number three, lot four shall not be utilized for substantial purposes other than detention for this subdivision. That has been included as a note on the plat. Item number four, direct access to Beechwood and 15th Street, both are collectors, shall be limited to the two entrance drives proposed as seen on the plat along with future indirect access to the south through Crowne Drive. With the development of the Subdivision Committee February 3, 2005 Page 7 Anthes: Mihalevich: O'Neal: Anthes: Beam: Anthes: Clark: Beam: Clark: Anthes: Pate: Crowne properties, with the rezoning of this property there have been several items before the Planning Commission, we fully anticipate those connections to be made through Crowne Drive which is to the south. For mitigation for tree preservation, the developer is responsible for planting 21 mitigation trees. Those have been located near the detention pond area and have been specified for trees that would be appropriate along the floodplain and the creek area. I believe that is everything that I have. Thank you Jeremy. Do we have other staff comments? No comment from Parks. One thing I just noticed on Lot 2 since it is adjacent to the floodway and the floodplain, we need to establish a minimum finished floor for that lot, 2' above the base flood elevation. If you would like to introduce yourselves now and tell us anything that you would like us to hear about your project. My name is Steven Beam, I am with Crafton, Tull & Associates. As Jeremy mentioned, the property is going to be platted into four lots. Three of which would be intended to be developed in the future with Large Scale Developments and then the fourth would be for strictly detention. An extension of utilities to serve each of the sites. It is pretty straight forward platting. The intent is to bring in some commercial and retail development into this area to kind of create a community atmosphere with the Crowne so that those residents don't have to travel too far to eat out on a weekend or to do some of their shopping and things just to kind of create a community atmosphere. Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address PPL 05- 1368? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comment. Are there any comments for Commissioners? I only had one about Lot four, which they are going to just keep as detention so you are really only going to be developing three? Yes Ma'am. Great. That was my question. I had a question. Was there not a trail in this area that we dealt with with the Crowne? It is further south. This is a small tributary to the actual creek that runs south of this property and the trail has been developed on the west side Subdivision Committee February 3, 2005 Page 8 and is in the process of being designed and developed on the east side of Beechwood Avenue. Anthes: Ok, so there is no way to connect to it on this except with sidewalks. Pate: That is correct. If you look at this map the trail is actually down here along the creek. This is the property. Clark: There is not going to be any access off of Crowne Drive? Beam: There are two drives. There is this drive and this drive that Jeremy made reference to. These are the only two drives off of 15th or Beechwood. Clark: Ok. Anthes: It looks like it would be nice if it actually came across from Madison Drive in an intersection to there. I guess we'll see that at the time of development. Clark: Pate: I have a question that is not necessarily related to your project. In terms of the stop lights at that intersection, will just these three potential plots be assessed or are you going to go back and assess the current land owners right now? We would not assess current land owners but as development comes through and they bring the need for the traffic signal that is when we will make the assessment. Clark: Some would argue that there is a need now without this development. There is no way to go back? Pate: Our Transportation Department is definitely keeping an eye on it as far as traffic counts. The Crowne was assessed a certain percentage based on their number of vehicle trips that will go through that intersection and other developments in the area we will look at the same things. Clark: So all of the new developments are going to pay the cost of that signal? Pate: Correct. Clark: Ok. Anthes: We have a street improvement determination, did you want to make a comment on that? Subdivision Committee February 3, 2005 Page 9 Shackelford: That was going to be my question. Has the applicant reviewed the recommendation that is going before the Planning Commission for street improvements? Beam: Yes, it being the 6' sidewalks, curb and gutter and such and that was our intent just to continue with what was done with the Crowne. They saw cut that pavement and installed a curb and sidewalks and storm drainage and such. Clark: Ok. Anthes: Are there any other comments or motions? Clark: I will make a motion that we forward PPL 05-1368 with a specific determination that street improvements will be made as specified in condition one. Shackelford: I will second. Clark: That goes with all the other conditions. Anthes: I will concur. We will see you at Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee February 3, 2005 Page 10 PPL 05-1377: Hancock Estates was submitted by Art Scott of Project Design Consultants for property located between Rupple Road and Salem Road south of the Salem Heights subdivision. The property is currently zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre, and contains approximately 15.2 acres. The request is to create a single family subdivision with 46 single family lots proposed. Anthes: Our third item of business today is PPL 05-1377 for Hancock Estates. Will the applicant come forward? Scott: Good morning, I am Art Scott with Project Design Consultants. This is Trevor Bowman with our firm. Morgan: The subject property contains 15.2 acres. It is located between Rupple Road and Salem Road just south of the Salem Heights subdivision, which is under construction currently. To the west of the property is Clabber Creek Phase I, as well as Holt Middle School. To the south and to the east are currently developed as single family residential areas and are zoned R- A. The applicant proposes to create a 47 lot subdivision with 46 single family lots. Two of these lots, including a larger lot with an existing single family home, will access Salem Road. This property was recently annexed into the City of Fayetteville in August, 2004 when the city incorporated all islands located within the city. Subsequently, in November, 2004 the applicant received approval for rezoning 14.94 acres from RSF-1 to RSF-4. Looking at the development of this property we did realize that a 30' strip of property was zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, adjacent to Rupple Road. However, this will not impede the development of this property for single family use. Water and sewer lines will be extended to serve this development. The adjacent Master Street Plan streets are Rupple Road, a minor arterial, as well as Salem Road, a collector. There is also a collector, Morning Mist Drive, that runs through Clabber Creek and is actually continued north of Clabber Creek at the intersection of Morning Mist and Rupple Road within the subdivision of Salem Heights. There is a jog there and no extension of that collector through this subdivision is required. The applicant is proposing to dedicate right of way in conformance with the Master Street Plan. Connectivity proposed is to the north through the proposed Salem Heights, which is under construction. To the west to Rupple Road, to the east and south to Salem. Staff is recommending that an additional connection be provided to the Harden property from either the north or the east to allow for the development of this property without additional connections onto Rupple Road. This will possibly reduce the number of street connections onto Rupple Road. Staff is recommending forwarding this Preliminary Plat to the Planning Commission with 15 conditions. Of which, condition number one, Planning Commission determination of appropriate street connectivity. Staff is recommending an additional connection to the Harden property. Condition number two, Planning Commission Subdivision Committee February 3, 2005 Page 11 determination of street improvements. Staff is recommending widening Salem Road 14' from centerline with all associated improvements. Rupple Road at this time has been constructed and staff is recommending construction of a 6' sidewalk along the right of way for Rupple Road. An assessment will be required for improvements of Rupple Road. These have been outlined in a memo from the Engineering Division. Condition four, lot 41 shall be an unbuildable lot utilized for the purpose of storm water detention and maintained by the P.O.A. The applicant shall coordinate with staff to make final revisions to the Preliminary Plat prior to Planning Commission consideration. We are just going to go over a few of the technical plat comments that were not addressed on this plat. Access to Rupple Road shall be restricted from each adjacent lot. Again, there will be a few homes or lots on Salem Road that will access Salem Road. As for Lots 41 and 47, they will access the interior streets. Scott: We can put a label on that. It is our intention. Morgan: There are parks fees as well as some comments from the Landscape Administrator, and I will allow them to address those. Finally, I just want to mention that street lights will need to be installed or guaranteed with a maximum separation of 300' along all streets and this includes Salem Road as well as Rupple Road, prior to Final Plat. Anthes: Thank you Suzanne. Do we have other staff comments? Mihalevich: Yes. On January 3`d the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended accepting money in lieu of land in the amount of $24,975 and the fees are due prior to signing the Final Plat. Anthes: Thank you. Brent, do you have anything? O'Neal: Yes. I just discovered that the assessment memo is incorrect. I was going off of the published agenda. There are actually 46 single family lots. That changes the assessment values slightly. I will be glad to issue a new memo after this meeting. Morgan: There are 47 total lots, one is for detention and one is Lot 32 off of Salem Road which has an existing single family home. Shackelford: Would Lot 32 work into the rational nexus calculations since there is an existing house on it since it access off of Salem Road? O'Neal: It would not be included in the assessment for Rupple Road bridge. Anthes: Art, do you have anything else that you want to say about your project? Subdivision February 3, Page 12 Scott: Anthes: Scott: Anthes: Clark: Pate: Anthes: Committee 2005 Shackelford: We had left off the stub out to the Harden property because we already had a north and south stub out. We felt like we have adequately addressed connectivity. I know that is a separate piece of ground. If this board insists on it he would probably like to do it from the east. There is one tree that would be affected but it could be accomplished. Ok. Is there anything else? No, that's it. Would any other member of the public like to address PPL 05-1377? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comment. Does staff have a preference about the stub out north or east? Is there a strong feeling either way? From the Landscape Administrator's perspective, I have looked at both knowing staff was recommending it, we have at least one of the connections to be made. Again, as Suzanne mentioned, it is really to keep so many curb cuts from occurring on Rupple Road, which is a collector. It could potentially be another Crossover Road in the future. It is going to be heavily traveled once it goes north and continues south all the way to 6th Street. It will be a major north/south corridor in the city on the west side. That is what we are trying to do, is plan for the future at this time. We feel that a connection to these properties as they develop in the future is important. From the Landscape Administrator's perspective, I did look at the couple of trees here and tried to see what the easements would do. It potentially would take out some of the canopy here but maybe we can work with you on what easements and stub outs and utilities would need to be made. As far as preference, either one would really facilitate what we are looking for. I think probably future construction in this location of that pond would be a little bit more difficult. Although, they may or may not keep that. We see ponds filled in all the time for development. It may be something that can easily be addressed or not. Either one really would facilitate what staff is looking for. Ok, let's start with conditions of approval. We are talking about item one. Commissioners, do you have any comments to add? I am going to concur with staff on this. Especially given the location of the school and all of the traffic that is in this area. I think anything we can do to reduce the number of curb cuts necessary on Rupple Road is very much to the benefit of the city. I am fine with either curb cut, the one to the east might make more sense because of the topography of the land as far as easier development. I know you are giving up a couple of trees but Subdivision Committee February 3, 2005 Page 13 either one would be ok to me as long as we had access to develop that land without coming off of Rupple and getting closer to that school. Anthes: It looks like it might be easier for the lot configuration as well without losing a lot. Clark: I think the east is a logical choice. Anthes: Condition number two is determination of street improvements. Are there any comments on the widening of Salem Road? Clark: Congratulations, you finally get to do it. Scott: Does that also include in front of Lot 32? Pate: Yes. Shackelford: That is the length of your property. Anthes: Everything else looks pretty straight forward. Shackelford: Condition number eight, we have fallen on this a time or two at the full Planning Commission. As I am reading this, the developer has the option of a combination of both on site and cash in lieu as part of their tree preservation, is that correct? Pate: That is correct. Shackelford: For the record I wanted to make that point. Pate: Just as a follow up, I didn't really mention much about trees on this project. We have been on site several times and they hired a Certified Arborist to come and look. The trees around the existing homestead, some of which, are very large. Ms. Patty Erwin, an arborist, did go out and take a look at those. The trees in that location are in the worst shape of any of the trees on the property. They are preserving all of those. However, in keeping that area as preserved and Lot 32, there is an amazing mixture of species on this site with just a random assortment of trees. They are preserving 19% so mitigation will be required. I think the numbers come up to 124 2" caliper trees. What we don't want to see in these on site plantings is the trees just stuffed in there so much so that they can't grow. That is why I, as Landscape Administrator, have been recommending potentially a combination and getting all the trees on the property and what can't be made up should be made up in a contribution. We have been looking at trying to plant more around detention pond areas to help those Subdivision Committee February 3, 2005 Page 14 become more usable or at least, visibly nice spaces as opposed to large lawns that are not used. Clark: What is Lot 37 and 38? Scott: It is really an arm to the detention pond. Clark: So an access easement? Scott: For driving in. Anthes: Is the applicant pleased with the way that the tree mitigation is written? Scott: Yes. Anthes: Are there any other comments? Shackelford: I have one other question. We talk about lots that access off of Salem Road causing a curb cut there. Is Lot 31 the only lot that will access off of Salem Road? Scott: Except for obviously, the existing house. Shackelford: There will be some restriction on Lot 30? Scott: There will be a note on the plat that Lot 30 shall not access Salem Road. Shackelford: Ok. Pate: The memo that was passed out earlier, we will include that in the staff report and have those numbers in the actual staff report for assessments at a later date. The applicant has received a copy as well. Shackelford: We will rework all of these assessments based on the lot count is now 47 minus 2 so it will be 45 lots. Clark: You all have seen this memo about the assessments including the bridge and everything that is in the memo? Those are some pretty hefty numbers. Scott: Yes. Shackelford: With that being said, I will make a motion that we forward PPL 05-1377 to the full Planning Commission with condition as stated with the exception of condition one that a stub out be required to the Harden property as noted. Subdivision Committee February 3, 2005 Page 15 Clark: Second. Anthes: We will be seeing a revised drawing for that before Planning Commission. I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee February 3, 2005 Page 16 LSD 05-1376: Meadow Place Condominiums was submitted by Mandy Bunch with EB Landworks for property located west of the Nadine Baum Center, south of the Walton Arts Center and municipal parking lot. The property is currently zoned C-3, Central Commercial. The request is for approval of a condominium development containing 30 condominiums and associated parking spaces. Anthes: Our final item today is LSD 05-1376 for Meadow Place Condominiums. Will the applicant come forward? Bunch: Good morning. I'm Mandy Bunch here representing Brian Reindl and Reindl Properties in the development of the Meadow Place Condominiums. Anthes: Staff report from Jeremy please? Pate: This is a Large Scale Development for property located west of the Nadine Baum Center, south of the Walton Arts Center and municipal parking lot and behind the commercial building otherwise known as the Reindl building. There is an existing 60,000 sq.ft. warehouse building which has gone and is undergoing extensive renovation to create a combination of living and work spaces in this downtown area. Several businesses have been located on the property in the past couple of years and the area has definitely seen a pick up in pedestrian traffic and businesses in the area. Currently, the remainder of the site is in various states of disrepair consisting of one story metal warehouses, gravel parking, drives, loading docks, several things that are back in there that have been accumulated over the years. The applicant is proposing to take all of that away and construct a three story 30 unit condominium development in two new buildings on the property. This property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial. The structures would house a total of 60 bedrooms with 60 parking spaces proposed immediately nearby. Additionally, the parking lot north of the existing commercial building is being refurbished as part of an agreement with the City Council and a land swap. I will let Parks go over that a little bit. It has to do with the trail corridor that is directly east of this property. Surrounding properties include the municipal parking lot to the north, the Rivendell PZD site offices and warehouses to the south, the Nadine Baum Center to the east and the Frisco railroad to the west. Street improvements, all that is required with this development are 6' sidewalks along the Meadow Street frontage to connect to the future trail. There are several sewer lines and associated easements that lie underneath the existing buildings that will be removed. Realignment of these sewer lines has received initial approval by the Water and Wastewater Superintendent and formal easement vacation requests have been distributed. Assuming these project goes forward you will likely see in the very near future a request to vacate some of these easements so that the utilities can be realigned. I will let Parks discuss their portion of the Subdivision Committee February 3, 2005 Page 17 Mihalevich: Anthes: Mihalevich: Anthes: Mihalevich: Anthes: O'Neal: Anthes: project. Other than that, tree preservation is waived on this site. There are no existing trees on the site. There were some in this utility corridor that have been removed with approval by the Landscape Administrator this past Summer I believe. Staff is recommending approval of LSD 05-1376 at the Subdivision Committee level with 10 conditions. Item number one, the formal easement vacation process does need to be submitted and approved by the City Council prior to building permit issuance. Staff will be recommending these vacation easements. Item number two, the developer shall contribute $11,790 for money in lieu of parkland prior to issuance of a building permit. Required bicycle racks shall be placed within 50' of the entrance and comply with all requirements of the City Code. Item number four, trash enclosures shall be screened on a minimum of three sides with materials that are complimentary to and compatible with the proposed building. As part of your staff report, because we are recommending approval I wanted to make sure that you had enough information. The first couple of pages have to do with parks and I will let Matt speak to that. The city resolution and agreement with Mr. Reindl. Flipping over, there is a tree preservation waiver form so you are aware that that waiver has been approved and then the Landscape report and the letter from Dave Jurgens, the Water and Wastewater Superintendent. With that, staff is recommending approval of this project. On November 16, 2004 the City Council passed a resolution approving an agreement with Reindl Properties exchanging property to construct the Frisco Trail. The agreement includes the removal of the power poles and overhead electrical lines within the future trail corridor at the expense of Reindl Properties. The agreement also requires that they install parking, cross walks, and landscaped area and drive lanes to the City of Fayetteville standards in the part that was exchanged. It is the corridor right between the existing buildings between the Walton Arts Building. Is that not Center Prairie Trail? Yes. It is confusing because it is called Frisco Trail now, it was Center Prairie Trail. Does this need to be updated with the new name? I don't know how big of a deal that would be because we kind of know it as both. Frisco Trail is the official name though. Engineering? No comment. Would you like to tell us anything else about your project? Subdivision Committee February 3, 2005 Page 18 Bunch: Not really. The building, there has been a little confusion with this and it has been kind of hard to show with drafting. Basically, it is a three level brick, beautiful building Rob has designed. The entry ways are three story high arches and so it is actually connected into one building with an open air courtyard. It is a little hard for me to show that in the plan. I wish I had some of the elevations with me. I know he is working on getting those to Planning to work with the Downtown Master Plan stuff. It is one building with interior courtyards. There will be one accessible entrance in this location and one that comes off of the parking in this location. It is a very efficient site. We have basically no room to move in any direction. There has been extensive work. I spent a lot of time with David Jurgens working on the relocation of the sewer lines. Clark: Those are some significant sewer lines. Bunch: There are some 12" lines that are currently under the existing building so he is pretty much ecstatic that we are cleaning up some of that. A lot of these larger lines will actually be off line when the new sewer treatment plant is in place. There is a tremendous amount of flow that comes in from the North Street pump station and goes in this direction out to the plant. There are some big lines and a lot of work to be done but I think that we are real proud of the project. It is going to be a good use. Clark: Acclimate me, where is Nadine Baum? Bunch: Right here. The trail will go in between. That is actually city property now. The deeds have been signed that this is the city's and this is the Reindl property. The railroad embankment is right here. Shackelford: Is there a city sign there? Bunch: There is a city sign at the driveway at Spring and West. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address LSD 05-1376? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comment and let's look at the conditions of approval. It looks like the easement vacations are forth coming, that makes a lot of sense. Money in lieu, bike racks, are the bike racks noted on the plans? Pate: They are shown. It is a little bit difficult to tell exactly where the entrance is but they just need to be within 50'. Bunch: I will need to check that distance. Anthes: Where are the waste receptacles, the dumpsters? Subdivision Committee February 3, 2005 Page 19 Bunch: Right back here. Clark: Now that you have acclimated me, I am familiar with this area and it definitely can stand to be revived and renovated. I think this is great project. It is a heck of an undertaking considering all the infrastructure that you are going to have to reroute, redo and realign but I think it will be a definite shot in the arm for the revitalization of that whole area. Shackelford: Is that a motion? Clark: You bet. Having said that, I will make the motion that we approve LSD 05-1376 with the stated conditions at the Subdivision level. Shackelford: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you. Are there any other announcements? With that, we are adjourned. Thank you. Meeting adjourned: 9:13 a.m.