Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-14 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on July 14, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSP 05-1594: Lot Split (KLINGER/BANK OF THE OZARKS, 372) LSD 05-1508: Large Scale Development (BANK OF THE OZARKS, 372) LSP 05-1598: Lot Split (VANTAGE SQUARE, 175) FPL 05-1575: Final Plat (BRIDGEDALE, 569) FPL 05-1548: Final Plat (PIPERS GLEN S/D, 374) LSD 04-1295: Large Scale Development (ST. JAMES BAPTIST CHURCH, 524): LSD 05-1588: Large Scale Development (PIEDMONT PLACE APARTMENTS, 366): LSD 05-1593: Large Scale Development (NELSON'S CROSSING, 174) PPL 05-1429: Preliminary Plat (THE HAMPTONS, 608) R-PZD 05-1599: Planned Zoning District (ZION GARDENS, 137) FPL BRIDGEDALE ACTION TAKEN MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Candy Clark Jill Anthes Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 2 Christian Vaught Sean Trumbo Nancy Allen Loren Shackelford Christine Myres James Graves STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Renee Thomas Jeremy Pate Brent O'Neal Kit Williams Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 3 Tape missing the beginning. Chair: Chair: Staff The motion carries. The subject property contains 3.6 acres. It's located east of crossover and near the Walmart Neighborhood Market Shopping Center. The property is a very long piece of property with a quite a bit of frontage on Crossover Road. The applicant has submitted a request to subdivide the piece of property into 1.09 and 2.51 acres in order to. The next item on the agenda is a large scale development with a 1.09 acre piece of property. So in order to process that project on the 1.09 acres the applicant was required to submit this lot split. They will be dedicating right of way for a total 59.5 feet of right of way where the existing right of way does not meet the Master Street plan requirements. It's a little bit more than the 55 feet requirement but if you take a look at the survey, the right of way line is a bit greater than normal and it will just even things up on that property line to dedicate 4.5 extra additional feet. Staff is recommending approval of this lot split at this level with a total of seven conditions of approval including dedication of right of way. We've also made a note hearing condition two that access and location of curb cuts for the adjacent and principle arterial streets shall be evaluated at the time of development of proposed lots. We will be looking at the access onto the smaller tract with this next item but future development of the tract to the north will need to be reviewed for access. Additionally they are proposing to dedicate a twenty-five foot ingress egress easement as well as utility easements at this time for development of the property and there are four plat revisions. But besides that we are recommending approval at this level. Chair: Ok. We have the applicant here. Would you introduce yourself, tell us about your Applicant I'm Jerry Kelso. I'm with Kraft and associates representing the owner. Basically I think Suzanne has pretty much gone over all the items on this. It's one piece of property we're dividing into two there on Crossover Road. Name?: Are you in agreement with the conditions of this? Applicant: Yes. Name? You want to ask Brad if he has a comment? Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 4 Brad: I have no comment. Name?: Ok. Chair: Are there any comments from the public on lot split 05-1594? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the commission and let the commissioners discuss it. Commissioners? Name? Sounds pretty straightforward to me. If Staff approves it, I don't have any problem. Name? I'll go and propose that we approve lot split 05-1594. Name? Second. Chair: ??? that a formal motion? Name? Yes I'll make a motion that we approve and we're approving it at this level. Lot split 05-1594. Name? I'll second. Chair: And I'll concur. Moving to the related second item on the agenda, Large Scale Development 05-1508 Bank of the Ozarks. If we could have the staff report on that one. Staff: Certainly. Again this proposal is for the 1.09 acre tract which was approved. The surrounding properties include, the majority is commercial property to the south and west with vacant property zoned Cl to the north and residential property to the east. That property is somewhat buffered from this development with a quite a deal, large flood plane and associated ?? area along that area. We have received comments from adjoining property owners, two adjoining property owners from ?? Shopping Center as well as Mr. Bocks who owns residential property to the east, thank you and no, they have no objections to this. The request is to construct a bank of approximately 5,175 square feet with 26 total parking spaces. The street ?? that are requested, or are proposed are as follows. Staff has worked with the applicant to coordinate the alignment of the existing driveway along the south portion of that property. It currently accesses property to the south and will be realigned with this development so that is directly across from Citizens Drive. In doing so we will be, staff will be providing screened dumpster trash enclosure area for, not only their dumpster enclosures but the existing ones to the south which is currently not screened. Staff finds that that will be a great improvement to the area, especially with the realignment of that drive. Staff is recommending approval of this large scale development at this time with a total of 18 Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 5 conditions of approval which include planning commission determination commercial design standards. We have elevation boards here and I believe you have some in your packet as well as a material sample board that we can pass along if you care. And staff finds that these elevations presented do comply with commercial design standards. Of course the existing driveway to the south of the property will need to be realigned with the proposed development and the lot split filed prior to issuance of any building permits so that we can create the 1.09 acre tract before we issue a building permit on it. The proposed location, elevation of the free standing sign as submitted in your packet does not comply with standards, or sign ordinance but we will ensure that at the time of they submit application for sign permit that that sign will comply with all of our standards. There are several requested revisions which have not been addressed from technical plat including slight modifications to zoning districts on the plat, the addition of one additional 88th space and confirming that there is five foot green space area to the north of the property between the parking and the north property line. But besides that, staff is recommending approval of this large scale development at this stage. Chair: Are there any comments from engineering on this project? Name? Ah, yes the only comment I have is in relation to the screened dumpster area just to remind them that that cannot be a structure such as a concrete wall. It needs to be a fenced type structure. Name? And I think that's what we presented to Name? We've got the applicant here if you would, you don't have to introduce yourself again, if you could tell us about the project. Applicant: Ok. Obviously this is a bank building. There's been a definite cooperation with the property owners to the south to align the drive and get some shared access with a dumpster. So all that's been worked out. Other than that, we concur with all the requirements, conditions of approval. I will take any questions that you might have. Chair: Do we have any public comment on Large Scale Development 05-1508? Seeing none I'll bring it back to the commissioners. Name? Mr. Chair. I have a question of the applicant. Where on this survey plat to we have the trash dumpsters that we're talking about? I don't see Applicant: They're right there by your thumb. At the end of the driveway. Name? Back here? I don't see them. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 6 Applicant: They're over here. Name? Oh. Ok. Applicant: ?? Take care of the ... Property. Name? Will they be shielded from the street? Applicant: Yes. There's a fence in there presented in your elevations. Discussion with several voices. Name? I don't think that we've, we've only got one side of the building on that. Name? Here they are. Is that it? Name No. Name? Did you... Name: Unfortunately our architects only brought you six copies... Name? Ok. Sorry I haven't seen Name? We got them over there at eight o'clock, I guess they didn't get to you. I'm sorry. What we're proposing is a six foot wooden fence with one by fours at the top to kind of dress it up a little bit and we'd, to get to the dumpsters. Name? This brings them out toward the road .. Name? Right. Name? Ok. Name? Well, and some of the questions I had about materials for the building ??? I see it's, Oh you do have a materials board, great. Name? You guys haven't seen this either. Name? That's a ?? metal roof Name? And the gutter downspouts and window frames. Name? And then we have band of concrete that runs around ... Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 7 Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Staff: Name? Name? Staff: Name? Name? the top like a freize? No ma'am. No. It's actually right here. This band here and then these little bands. Above the window. There and above the windows. Ok. And then the base is actually stone but I couldn't get that to stay on the board. 1 know. You understand. But it's a natural stone that comes from Hackett, Arkansas. It kind of gives it a base and then a middle and the top. Like good classical architecture. I have a question for staff. We have two curb cuts, one is proposed to be shared access and then the north one is not shared. Is there going to be any access into the northern lot? This we're leaving here? The southern access, you're correct, it's not shared but they are providing a stub out with cross access to the north so that any development to the north could tie in and utilize this drive right here. Ok. I didn't see that. Thank you. I have a question for staff. The distance between these two curb cuts. I don't know what it is. Is it sufficient? Itis sufficient. The requirement between curb cuts on a collector I believe is forty feet and this is not in the Design Overlay district so they don't have to meet a 200 foot distance. So this is probably 170 feet approximately. And I was going to put you guys on the spot. I know you hadn't seen it any earlier than we did. But we've got a finding that we've got to make Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 8 on commercial design standards and I don't think that anybody had seen that particular side of the building before on the items that we had before on the packet and I wanted to get staff's recommendation on that particular rendering. Name? Well, do you have, that board, you've had that for several weeks. Name? Right. Name? It's just a black and white version of the color, the colors are the same all the way around. We don't change materials on the back to save money or anything. It will look the same all the way around. Name? Ok. I think what we had before was the front doorway and this one is the back side. Name? And I'm sorry I was late getting the actual plat elevation Name? No that's fine. Name? plat elevation but I dropped the six copies as requested this morning. Name? The applicant is providing different materials, is separating or breaking up the building facade both with m?? elements as well as different materials vertically and we feel that it would meet the commercial design standards based on this new presented elevation. Name? I think it's very nicely detailed. Name? Yes. Name? And ?? the color palette. Chair: Do either of you have any other questions? Name? Yea I did. I know there's a lot of wetland and low area in the back. Is there any kind of screening, it looks like there's a, is that just a curb or is that a wall? Applicant: That's just a curb. ?? natural elements or trees and things like that that we're leaving undisturbed so natural screening is better than anything I know of. Name? Absolutely. Name? Is staff ok with the additional copies that were brought? The 26 copies? Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 9 Staff: Yes we are. Name? Ok. And you all agree to the conditions of approval? Applicant: Yes. Name? I think the building is a beautiful building and it certainly meets the design standards. I agree with staff. With that. Are we forwarding this? Name? We are recommending approval at this time. But if you feel like there are some unresolved issues or anything that you'd like the planning commission to take a look at as well, you're welcome to forward it. Name? I don't see any do you? Name? I don't. I'm happy to approve it at this time. Name? I'll make a motion for approval of Large Scale Development 05-1508 with the finding that the elevations comply with design standards. We have agreement with the other conditions. Name? I'll second. Name? And I'll concur. Name? Thank you. I appreciate it. Have a nice day. Name? The next item on the agenda is lot split 05-1598 and it's ?? square. If we could have the staff report on this item. Staff: This project is located at Parkview Drive north of Joyce Boulevard. The property is zoned residential office and contains approximately three and a half acres. And applicant requests approval of a lot split to divide the property into four tracts of .98, .98, .89 and .64 acres respectively. Public water and sewer are available to each proposed lot and adequate right of way exists from Parkview Drive, a local street and a private drive as well. The owner of the private drive would provide a twenty foot wide access easement along the frontages of three of these lots, 4H, 41, 4J to the nearest right of way. The surrounding land uses are multi -family residential and office. And its surrounding zoning is RMF24 and residential office. Staff is recommending approval of Lot Split 05-1598 by the subdivision committee with the following conditions. Condition number one is including some minor modifications to the plat that are needed prior to ?? . Condition number two states that due to the lack of frontage for lots 4H, 4I, 4J required for residential uses and RO zoning Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 10 district, residential units shall not be permitted on these lots with the filing of this plat. Condition number three cross access between the lots shall be evaluated and likely required at the time of development and condition number four, the property owner of the private access drive to the east of lots 4H, 4I, 4J shall provide a minimum twenty foot wide access easement along the lot providing access to the nearest right of way. And then condition number five is the standard condition of approval. Chair: Do we have any other comments from staff or engineering? Name? Yes, sir, I'd like to just real quickly, kind of clarify condition number two, if I could, residential uses. In our zoning code under zoning district RO- residential/office it allows combination of a couple of uses; single family, two family, as well as office type spaces, professional office and studio type spaces. We do have a lot width minimums however for residential uses that have to front onto a public street. The lots that are in question don't actually front onto a public street. It's essentially a drive -way parking area for the adjacent multifamily residential development. So that condition essentially reflects our code requirements to not allow a single family or two family residential units on those lots. So essentially by filing this lot split, they give up the right to allow those types of residential uses on this property. We did, we do require access to those and that's the purpose of the access easement. Name? Thank you ?? Any comments from engineering? Name? Yes just that at time of building permits for these lots we will have to confirm that each lot has legal access to one or two. Name? Are there any comments from the public on Lot Split 05-1598 and ?? Seeing none I'll bring it back to the commissioners. Commissioners. Name? Question for staff on number four. ?? property owner of the property to the east shall provide, ask them for an easement. Have we done that? Has that been done? Name? We're working on that. Mr. Lindsey owns that and he's doing a lot split so it's just a matter... Name? It's a pretty good chance he'll approve that Name? Just wanted to make sure that wasn't a different owner. Name? And Jeremy, the Park Oaks Drive is the non -right of way street that you were talking about. That those three lots face. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 11 Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Chair: Name? Name? Staff: That's correct. If you go out there, it looks like a public street. It's curb and guttered. But we'll get the access easement for that. I don't see any reason to discuss this to death. I don't have any problems with it. I think it's really straightforward and the applicant is accepting our conditions of approval so I would like to move for approval at this level of Lot Split 05-1598. With conditions? With all conditions as stated. I second. And I concur. Thank you. Thanks. The next item on the agenda is final plat 05-1575 Ridgedale. If the applicant would come up and we'll have the staff report. The applicant being... Mr. Melville. Is anyone here for this item 05-1575? We'll move on to the end of the agenda. This will be item number eleven now. Moving on to the next item on the agenda, final plat 05-1548 Pipers Glen. If the applicant would come up and we'll have the staff report on that one. This project is located at ?? Center Road east of ?? Drive. The property is in a planning area and contains approximately ten and a half acres. To get more detailed the property is located east of Burlington Park, subdivision south of ?? road and it's contiguous to the city limits on the west and surrounded by an unincorporated area to the north, south and east. The east of the Fox Hunter Estates subdivision is to the north and south of the properties residential and agricultural in nature. The project would subdivide about ten and half acres into nine single family lots with each lot approximately one acre in size. Access to eight lots is gained from the existing streets to about ?? drive. This ?? with the Burlington Park Subdivision to the west and lot number nine, approximately two acre lot with existing barn, shed and a farm presently containing ?? feet of frontage on Fox Hunter Lane. Water lines have been extended to several developments and private septic ?? will be utilized by each lot. Fifty feet of ?? Drive would be dedicated, right of way would be dedicated on to the Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 12 Chair: Name? subject property and a minimum of thirty five feet of center line of Fox Hunter Road would also be dedicated. Street improvements required for this project involve extending ?? Drive from where it was subbed out with the ?? Park Subdivision into the project site. And as background, the preliminary plat for this subdivision was approved on August 23, 2004 with conditions and staff recommends approval of this project with the following conditions. Condition number one involves making revisions to the plat, relatively minor issues. Condition number two requires the existing commercial enterprise on lot one to be removed and this was a requirement included in the ?? assurances recorded in October of 2004 and we just need proof of that being completed by the, before signing the final plat. Condition number three is a final inspection of the required improvements showing ?? prior to sign of the final plat. Condition number four is requiring that subject permits be issued. The remaining conditions are standard conditions of approval. Ok. Are there any other comments from other members of staff or from engineering? Just real quickly. You may remember this was quite controversial for the size of the project that it was. This preliminary plat was appealed to the City Council, a bill of assurance was offered by the owner of the property. We do have a copy of that filed bill of assurance in our files but did not include it for you. But essentially it includes the no further resubdivision of the lots that are under two acres, no access easements would be provided to other properties to allow access to adjoining property, no commercial enterprises shall ever be utilized on the property. Only single family residences will be allowed on this property. No mobile homes or temporary structures. There's a minimum square foot area of 3000 square feet for all homes on the lots and the existing commercial structure as mentioned shall be removed and we'll verify that prior to signing the plat. Chair: Are there any comments from engineering? Name? Yes. Just that we confirm the construction of the sidewalk which extends into Barrington Park. We also need ?? and construction cost estimates prior to signing the plat. Chair: Thank you. Would the applicant introduce themselves and you can make any comments about the project that you would like. Applicant: Good morning. My name is Justin Jorgenson and ?? have basically covered everything. The two issues I can really talk about are the subject system data that should be wrapped up here pretty soon we'll get that to you and the sidewalk, we're working on those... and that's the... Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 13 Name? Applicant: Name? Applicant: Chair: Name? Chair: Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Chair: Name? Chair: Name? So you're going to complete these... Yes Ma'am. To tie into what's there from Barrington. They had to redo this driveway when they did this. They've done that and they're just going to pour the rest of the sidewalk there. Are there any comments on Final Plat 05-1548 Pipers Glen? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commissioners. I know there was a lot of public comment about this but I think the bill of assurances seems to be very thorough and from what I remember, covered most of the concerns I was aware of in that subdivision. Are there any questions for staff, any changes of note. It doesn't look like it from the conditions from the preliminary plan and what we're seeing on the final plat. Shawn? I have one question about the septic system. Is it, this is obviously going to be put into the City of Fayetteville sometime. Will the septic system be able to hook up to city sewer at that time? These are not proposed to be a decentralized system. These are individual septic systems. Ok. So their on each lot. Alright. Thank you. Any more comments? Motions? Are we approving at this level? That's the staff's recommendation. Ok. In the absence of public comment and with the presence of the bill of assurance and the concurrence with the conditions of approval I'd like to move that we approve Final Plat 05-1548 for Piper's Glen subdivision with all the conditions of approval as stated. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 14 Name? I second, Name? And I concur. Name? Thank you. Chair: The next item on the agenda is Large Scale development 04-1295 St. James Baptist Church. Do we have the applicant here? Name? Chair, I see the applicant. I can grab him if you'd like. Chair: I see him out in the hall. You can come on up with your project and we'll have the staff report. Applicant: Sorry to keep you waiting. Name? That's ok. We were a little quicker than we told him. Staff: This property is located at the southeast corner of Rock and Willow Street. It also fronts onto Walker. The property is currently zoned RMF24, multi- family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately 5.20 acres. The St. James Missionary Baptist Church has submitted a conditional use request and large scale development plans for construction of a 26,500 square foot church on the subject property. It is ?? four under which a church is located requires a conditional use in any residential zoning district. The conditional use will be heard at the full planning commission as a separate item to this large scale development request. Staff has been meeting with the applicant and their representatives since early in this year to bring forward a project that would meet the needs of the church and benefit the community while also meet the city ordinances. The property was originally platted as part of Hills addition in 1905 with many small residential lots but he did not develop it in that manner. Along with the lots were a system of platted alleys and a forty foot wide street, southern Avenue that also did not develop. These rights of way were formally vacated by the city council on a separate request May 17, 2005. Staff did recommend approval of those vacation requests. And as I mentioned the property is located south of Rock Street, east of Willow and north of Walker Road. The only street with any sort of improvements in this area is Willow Street. I believe the planning commission and council at least did visit this site on a couple of occastions. Rock Street is also very steep, does not have curb, gutter or sidewalks in that particular location. Walker Road is passable with one vehicle in many of the locations on that street that actually goes to the east of this property and adjoins other properties. It only functions currently to serves single family homes in this area. The site contains no wetlands or flood plain but does contain a significant slope exceeding 20 percent in several locations and it does have a 92 Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 15 percent tree canopy existing currently. The site is undeveloped with some existing disturbed areas and old driveways where, I believe, probably older homes used to be located along Willow Street. This proposal is to develop a 26,500 square foot church on the property with 199 parking spaces to serve parishioners. The existing church is also located within this neighborhood. It has grown beyond the capacity at the original church in which they are located and maintain, thus the request for this proposal. The proposal is to construct a single building on one elevation with a couple of different parking paths on other elevations utilizing a series of retaining walls to mitigate these slopes which is quite severe in some places on this property. Access is proposed from all three surrounding streets. There are no improvements currently proposed on Walker other than the driveway entrance. Other street improvements are proposed along the street frontages. A traffic study has not been performed by the applicant though our trip generation software generally indicates that the 24 hours ?? volume for a church of this size would produce approximately 989 vehicle trips on a given Sunday. The surrounding land use and zoning, almost all the surrounding land use and zoning is RMF24. Most of which however is developed as single family homes either combined lots or small lots. To the north is the exception which is of course the housing authority's housing project. The current zoning would allow for multi -family development up to 24 units per acres for a maximum of 124 units and of course, as I mentioned, this request also has a conditional use request tied to that. The water and sewage proposed to be extended to serve this development. A minimum of 25 feet from center line is required along all the adjacent streets to the property for dedication. Planning staff have received a few public comments by way of phone calls regarding this project primarily inquiring as to how large the church was going to be and how much traffic was involved. At this time staff is unable, is also unable to confirm that public notification was sent. We simply don't have copies of those notices, Steve. We just request proof of public notifications that was notified for this meeting. If that ?? we would have to come back by bylaws to this meeting. So I just want to make sure that we got that. I couldn't locate that in the file. Staff is recommending denial of this large scale development 05-1295. We have several concerns about the project, many of the concerns have to do with the increase in traffic and the site development plans presented on the property. It's very difficult, number one for staff to segregate the large scale development and the conditional use. Without the conditional use request for this property we cannot even review this as a large scale development for a development of this type. So we've sort of done a look combined recommendation in here leading to the conditional use for compatibility as well. The specific findings on the large scale development, there are at least a couple. Traffic concerns in creating a dangerous traffic conditions without offsite improvements are a concern. I think some of those concerns could potentially be addressed with a traffic Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 16 study evaluating the existing conditions and proposing offsite street improvements. But due to concerns of the compatibility on the conditional use, staff is recommending that both of these items be forwarded on to the full planning commission for review without necessarily recommending a full blown traffic study at this time. If the use is something the planning commission is comfortable with and then there are questions about the offsite street improvements, maybe at that time we could look at a traffic study. I simply think that requiring a five thousand dollar traffic study and then we find the use incompatible. That would be just a waste of time and money for the applicants. And we would recommend that this be forwarded on to the full planning commission to review both the conditional use and the large scale development. And again, if the planning commission found that the conditional use was appropriate and this site plan was appropriate in that area, we could then look at conditions, ?? conditions on the project so that it would not create that dangerous traffic condition. With regard to some of the other comments in your packet. We've got, of course with 200 without 200 parking spaces proposed, heavy peak periods of use, we did some traffic generation numbers with our software, the, as I mentioned almost 1000 trips in a 24 hour period on a Sunday would be noted. Approximately 300 it looks like, 250 to 300 average weekday trips from the property. Again that's assuming very few variables. There are a lot of other variables to put in that, the natural traffic in here would analyze, but we did put those numbers in there for you. The associated conditional use request for the project is further of concern. And of course, as I mentioned is tied directly to the large scale development. Churches are often found compatible with residential uses. I don't think there's any questions about that. Staff often recommends that churches be located appropriately in residential neighborhoods. They serve the community typically, they fulfill the, they provide a safe haven and fulfill a service to the community that oftentimes other business cannot. However, the inherent challenges of this site, with the topography, the tree preservation required, the access, the substandard streets that access this property and combined with the height, peak traffic volumes and the high intensity in a very quiet neighborhood surrounding this project do not represent the typical components of compatibility that we see in a conditional use. We did recommend some options that might aid in creating a more compatible development. We have discussed some of these options with the applicant and their representatives on at least a few occasions with staff and administration. Options... would aid in creating a more compatible development would include bringing the building closer to the street to address the streetscape, utilizing more traditional open design principles that this neighborhood really has developed in this manner with the exception of the HUD housing to the north. The existing church is actually right up against the street and that's probably within the right of way if not close. The existing church that this would be moving from and Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 17 a lot of these developments in this area are do address the street in this manger. Breaking the finish floor of the building into different elevations to alleviate the, alleviate the hillside grading, especially the mass grading on the hillside. Again there's about 20 feet of retaining, I believe it is broken into two walls, two ten foot walls now as opposed to the original proposal for a 20 foot retaining wall on the south side, is that right? Applicant: East. Staff: East side. Breaking the finished floor that, the best place I can probably liken to that that has any sort of relationship is St. Joseph's, the old school there and church. It's broken into several buildings that can be placed at different elevations with associated parking to provide functions for different areas. That would again, aid in preserving a lot of the high priority tree canopy, the significant trees which currently aren't proposed to be saved. Other things, providing on street parking to reduce the number of parking spaces required on the actual property thereby hopefully reducing the grading as well. Evaluating proposing offsite street improvements and again those would hopefully reduce the potential for future traffic accidents, congestion and conflicts. Again the public comment that we received, really had to do with how much traffic would be generated in this area and would there be parking on the street and blocking on the streets. And so again those are things to consider. Several of the goals of the general plan 2020 include things I have just mentioned as well as manage nonresidential development within an adjoining residential neighborhood just to minimize nuisances, minimize through traffic on minor residential streets and identify areas of environmental concern, protect and preserve environmental resources. With regard to the tree preservation plan and evaluation that for compliance with our city ordinances, it's obvious that the intent is to get to the 20 percent requirement the way it's proposed currently though, it doesn't quite meet that. It's about 17 percent when you look at the actual easements that are platted through, shown to be proposed through some of the high priority trees. Additionally our ordinance states specifically that high and significant trees take priority over lower priority canopy. All of the trees proposed, most of the trees proposed on this site are the lower priority canopy, some of the smaller trees. None of the significant trees, 24 to 36 inches in diameter are proposed to be preserved with this plan. That's another concern staff has and we've voiced that with Mr. Clark on a couple different occasions and tried to work through some of those issues. At this time staff is recommending that both the conditional use and the large scale development be forwarded to the full planning commission for review and comment and with that I will be happy to answer any questions. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 18 Chair: Are there any comments from engineering? Other than what Jeremy just went through. Name? Some minor comments on the location of services. ?? elevations on the retaining wall are a little bit difficult to read. Clarification on the sewer whether it's public or private, where that point ends. The other comments I would reserve until ?? planning staff. Chair: Are there any comments from the public on this item? If you would step forward and give us your name and your address and give us your comments please. Feinstein: May name is Andy Feinstein. I live at 515 East Rock. I'm the neighbor immediately to the east of this project. We share about 400 feet of common line. We're not opposed to the church being a new neighbor. We do have concerns about the intense impact this will have on the landscape there. We're looking at a severe drop off right next to our property. We have the separating alleyway, thank God that will remain as a buffer. But we're looking at two ten foot walls, five feet behind a barn that we have currently. We're faced with a dilemma here. We'd much rather see a church in this location than one hundred and some units of multifamily housing. We're sort of, a case of the lesser of two evils. We don't oppose this directly as a large scale in this area. We do have some strong concerns about what we've seen on the plans lately. And I think I can address them with a very short list I'd be willing to share with you all. Some time ago we anticipated we would not be able to control what next to us, we planted a row of Virginia pines along our common line. That has grown into a nice visual buffer at this point. We would like to see that trend continued on this project by placing am evergreen screen buffer along our common line at the top of these walls. We assume that there would be an opaque screen fence for security and safety reasons. It would be nice if that was done tastefully, to blend in with a vegetative buffer along that area. And I think the site plan could benefit from increased landscape planning fronting Rock street as well to soften the impact of, probably meeting the city minimum. We would ask that it goes beyond the minimum requirements and really nice and appropriate landscaping along Rock Street frontage as well. We have concerns about site lighting. We weren't real clear what the intention was there. But we wondered if they would entertain the idea of a lighting system that is placed on a timing system that somehow was integrated with a security system as well so that these lights are off, let's say 45 minutes to an hour after the final evening service. We are very concerned about light pollution in this neighborhood. We are blessed not to have big mercury lights at this point. We'd like to know that when the church is not in use that the lights can go off. I have concerns about the dumpster location. It's about as close to my house as they could have gotten it and it looks like it would be a Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 19 challenge for the truck driver to back up out of there. We're suggesting at the end of this ?? that's in front of the building. If we could just tuck it in right here. The truck could come in, pick it up and get back out. A much more ?? I don't know where your kitchen's going to be if that creates a problem with the facility to have that there as opposed to here. It's just something I hope can be looked at. I really don't look forward to hearing the pickup early in the morning clanging around there. I don't know what the intent for the location for the air conditioner compressor units are. I don't know if they're going to be roof mounted or ground mounted. I wondered if you could look also at that southwest corner to place those a/c units. And I wondered also if we could eliminate the drive onto Rock street. This is a traffic area. It is extremely steep. I don't know if the plans indicate it. But the parking for the housing project is 90 degrees to the street. There are people backing onto Rock Street to leave their parking spots. This was probably a project approved prior to the requirements that parking not be ?? onto the street. It's an existing condition that has to be dealt with. I think one way to mitigate that would be to eliminate drive onto Rock Street. Those are my concerns. Chair: Thank you. Sir, if you would state your name and your address. Conhagen: Good morning. Thank you for my time, for your time. My name is Jeremy Conhagen. I live at 545 East Rock Street which is beyond the project, up the hill past Walker. However, this is a dead end street and myself, the city ?? and everyone else the loops up there has two ways to get home. One is Rock, the other is Walker. As has been stated, Walker is for all practical purposes a one lane street. The projects do have signs that say tow away zone, no parking on the street. This is routinely violated which turns Rock into a one lane street. I call every time I see a car and get it towed. Emergency vehicles, fire and ambulances have Rock Street to use, period. It's a very steep street and my main concern is the access to Rock Street. If we could, we would love to meet with the applicant and their representatives. We haven't been approached. I would love to get together with them before the planning commission meeting and see if we could work these things out but it wasn't really my responsibility to contact them. If I hadn't been contacted, through all of the adjacent land owners have been contacted. But there are other people affected by this, due to the nature of the one lane street. And we'd love to get with them. If there were two entrances down on ??, which is a flat street, the one on Rock Street could get eliminated. A little more setback with the vegetative screen, an evergreen vegetative screen on Rock Street to mitigate. Because, lets face it, we're giving up a city block of forest and I too feel these would be compatible neighbors if we can get these issues resolved. And the lighting as been stated. Downward focused lighting rather than outward focused lighting and, of course in the past, this isn't a commercial district. This isn't a strip mall. The lights stay on Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 20 Chair: Staff: Chair: all night were originally designed to create security. But with the advance of anti -intrusion detection and security systems, I don't feel that lights on beyond ten, eleven p.m. whenever they shut down, are necessary. Other measures can be taken and like I say, we'd like to get with the applicants and their representatives and work these issues out as a neighborhood so that we can welcome them into the neighborhood I think they could make a good neighbor. But the way this is planned right now, Rock Street is barely usable for emergency vehicles and one more entrance with another couple hundred cars every day and a thousand cars on Sunday is going to significantly jeopardize my ability to get access to emergency vehicles in case they're needed. And as I said, we are by no means the only person on the end of the street. So we'd like to recommend getting together with the applicant and the rep. A number of good recommendations have already been made by the city concerning significant trees. There are some trees worth keeping there. Landscaping can change this. We'd love to have them. Thank you. Thank you sir. Are there other public comments about this project? Seeing none I'll bring it back to the commissioners. Commissioners. I do have a question for staff. A procedural question. Jeremy mentioned. you mentioned in your report several times that you were recommending forwarding it to the planning commission. We've also got in our packet a recommending of a denial and then we've got a mention of this public notification issue that might require it to be returned to the subdivision committee so I need to straighten all that out, figure out what we would do here today. What our options are today. The written staff report essentially indicates staff's position for our recommendation for the large scale development as a whole. However, we do feel, because the conditional uses attached to this that this subdivision committee should forward it on to the full Planning Commission for their full review as opposed to making that decision unanimously at this level. We do feel it warrants the full planning commission's discussion. With regard to the notification. We typically get copies or originals of the return receipts by certified mail and in looking through the folders we have not been able to locate those and so I just need to get with Mr. Clark. If they provided that, we'll continue to, and if you forward, we'll continue for ?? planning commission. If they did not notify as required by ordinances, they would be required to notify in a timely manner and then return to this level again. I would like to give the applicant an opportunity to address some of the public comments that have been made and the staff comments as well as this issue about notification. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 21 Applicant: The issue of notification, I know that we sent out notifications on our original submittal which was months ago. I believe we sent out notifications on this one but we sent out notifications so many times that I can't give you an absolute that we did. I'll go home, go back to the office and verify that. If not, then we will return to you after we do proper notification. Name? I don't know, I know we've discussed this before. Applicant: Chair: Applicant: Yea. We discussed it at the vacation of the right of way and staff and I have been discussing it for, I think you said early 2005, I think we first started conversations in the middle of 2004. So it's been in process for quite some time. It's a challenging site and I have advised my clients from day one that there are a lot of issues with the site to develop. And I'm, I know what you guys would like to see and I know what's easily approvable and I know what's going to be difficult and I told them up front this one was difficult. Would you like to comment on some of the other issues, some of the members of the public made or some of the staff made? Well it's, where to start is the question. Comments from the neighbors. Downward lighting is an ordinance. That's what we will do. I will talk with the owners and see if they want to put, have the expense of the timer system. It may be that they want to have a switch. I don't know but that is something that is doable and most churches are looking to economize the dollars spent and typically will not leave the lights burning all night because they see it as a waste of money and an annoyance to the neighbors. One of the things I know Jeremy was referring to is that the existing church was down, he thought within the right of way. Actually, I think that's the St. James Methodist Church. The St. James Baptist Church actually has a parking lot between the building and the right of way. So this one, the existing church does set back but that's kind of an inconsequential notation. Access onto Rock Street. I think it's critical that they maintain that. For one, fire access, fire department says the drives cannot exceed 17 percent. Name? Actually, Steve, they would like 10 percent for commercial type access so that's one of my comments as well. Applicant: And I believe all of our drives or at least the primary drive off of Rock Street meets that standard. The drive off of Willow Street certainly does not and the one off of Walker is steeper than that. Name? Just a quick review looks like they are 19 and 20 percent respectively on those two. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 22 Applicant: With Willow and the Walker Street. We've got numbers at hand. With the screen fence, I suspect that's a requirement. We'll work with the neighbors as far all the neighbors, the comments that Andy had, we'll work with them. I don't know whether the dumpster, relocating to the other side is something that's doable. It needs to be at the end closest to the kitchen area so they don't have to walk the entire length to get to it. Name? Again that also goes back to, you know, access of the steep slopes. That should be coordinate with solid waste. Applicant: Right. So that, this theory with where the church is and where the primary drive is, maintains fairly flat levels and something that's doable for all purposes. Name? Once it's graded. Applicant: Once it's graded. Trees. we've looked at. We've tried to split the church. We've tried to do separate grades and maintain a single unit because one of the things they were insistent on, they wanted the church to be in a single building. They don't want to have to exit this building to go to the fellowship hall. Sunday's apparently to them a meeting day where everybody comes in, they cook, they spend a lot of time at the church, they provide food for many of the people in the neighborhood, so it was important to them that they maintain the single building. I've looked at three or four or five different options trying to come up with something that was closer to what the city's desires were and I have not been successful or I have not been able to change anything that made a difference in the amount of slope or the amount of grading that we did. You know if we put it down here and brought it back up the hill, we still, we ended up being ten or twelve feet deep here and then you've ?? and it just didn't work and then access was difficult. I'm open to suggestions, I'm open to other ideas. I don't want to say that this is the only choice we have but this is the only thing that I've been able to come up with that was even close to providing the parking and the square footage that the church wanted. Issues of moving. The whole reason the church, they bought this piece of property a few years ago from McElroys. They want to stay in the neighborhood. This is where they've been. They've been in the existing building and the church for years. They support the neighborhood and some of the lower income families. I had encouraged them to look at alternatives. The cost of site work is such that they could have afforded another piece of property. They keep telling me that this is where they want to be. My hands are tied. I've got to present it to you guys as my clients instruct. We recognize the challenges. I'll answer questions. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 23 Name? This is a question for Jeremy. This came through as, first we saw it as a vacation request for all the easements is that right? Name? That's correct. Name? That puts us in a, kind of a sticky situation. We could have aparlments now. Could this have come through? This is just for my clarification. Could this have come through as a ?? Name? Certainly. Name? I wish we would have done that now but that's not here nor there. There are significant challenges here and there's frankly too much for us to tackle, I think as a committee. I would, the furthest I would go would be in favor of forward it on to the planning commission, but it sounds like it might even need to go back and meet with staff again and see what else can be worked out. I'm not sure. Name? I think the issue of the notification may bring it back to use. It might not but it might if that wasn't... Name? If that's the case it's unfortunate simply because I think we'll have much discussion to continue, it will just be essentially a procedural item required by ordinances. The applicant has definitely been talking with staff and brought in a portion of the congregation, the pastor and we've met on a couple of different occasions on this property. The, kind of the history behind the vacation request, it's something we definitely wanted to see at least resolved one way or the other. The church is spending money with Mr. Clark, obviously as their representative. If there was no vacation option, if that was the property, if the rights of way were not going to be vacated at all, then the conditional use and large scale would have been a moot point. Staff recommended that go forward. We recommended that, not based on the development plans at all. Based on the specific findings. Those rights of way had not been utilized for a hundred years and were not going to be utilized whether this was a multifamily, a single family or some other conditional use type of development. So we made those recommendations entirely separate from this development plan. Of course this now does allow for the applicant to at least present these plans in accordance with city ordinances for setbacks and not have to build streets internally. Name? In turn, to boil this down. It looks to me like most of the staff's concerns relate, although they're tied together, relate less to maybe how it's designed, but rather relate to where it is and the fact that it's not compatible with the neighborhood in staff's opinion and that it's, would create a traffic situation that's untenable in that area so it has more to do, it Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 24 seems to me, and anybody on staff can correct me, but it seems like most of staff's comments have to do with where this project is which is an important factor to consider but also, I think affects whether this committee should forward it or not. If it's a situation that it's engineering and design issues, granted the slope is part of that, but engineering and design issues that need to be further worked out, then it would seem to me that it would be appropriate to keep it here for another go around and give some time for Mr. Clark and the developer to try to, to try to adapt the design to concerns and try to meet with the neighbors and so forth. But it's a situation that can't be changed which is where it's located and the fact that's it's slope and traffic, it seems appropriate to forward it and let the Planning Commission and the City Council decide, is this what they want here. Do they want this church here or does the church need to look at other options. Name? I would agree. Name? One thing related to the traffic. The church exists today, the church is located caddy corner, across from this site. The church parks on Sundays apparently, I haven't been there myself, but from what I understand, every street within, probably a quarter mile 77 it has traffic on at least one side, if not both sides. If there's room for two ?? traffic, that's where they park. They simply have outgrown the facility that they have and that's why we're trying to move it off. The traffic issue, the traffic is there whether they're here or whether they're in their existing building. So to argue that we shouldn't do this because of traffic constraints, beyond the immediate frontage, the traffic is there either way. So, I'm not disagreeing that it creates a tremendous amount of traffic, but it has and it does and it will continue to regardless. At least you're adding more parking than is existing at this point. We're getting the parking off the street. The traffic's going to be there. We're proposing to widen the streets as necessary. I think it would be appropriate to widen Walker down and then from Huntsville Avenue is just a block or so to the south, so you can get from Walker to Willow and then to Huntsville pretty quickly. Same thing by going to the west, you get to Thompson, not Thompson, College. So you know, it's not ideal. Name? No. Name? From what I'm hearing. It doesn't matter how you twist or tum the building or change or modify the plans, that the concerns of staff regarding traffic and slope and canopy are there. Name? Correct. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 25 Chair: Name? Chair: Staff: Name? Name? Name? Chair: Name? Chair: Name? Name? Name? And so it seems to me, I'm not going to make a motion because I'm chairing today, but it seems to me it would be appropriate if unless there are comments about curb cuts and things like that would require to stay with Subdivision, it seems to me they ought to be forwarded and let the Planning Commission and City Council decide is this what they want there. Do they want this particular project there with whatever issues might be attached to it. Agreed. And with that I'll make a motion that we forward LSD 04-1295 to the Planning Commission. And Jeremy do we need to make any kind of recommendation of whether we're forwarding it with a recommendation of denial. I seriously doubt that you've made up your minds on that. So again there will be a staff recommendation. If there is, not to interrupt the motion but if there is any more information that you would like from staff or from the applicant please let us know. I do think, and I know we're in the middle of a motion but I think that it sounds like it's very important that you meet with some of the other surround folks, possibly even the ones that may not be directly adjacent because they are affected by this and they are interested in what's going in there and it sounds to me like if you could organize a meeting or something with the neighborhood, that would be very beneficial to you. So I'll keep my motion as it. And I will second. I concur. Mr. Chair. Yes. If I could ask Mr. Clark, could you provide us with the square footage of the existing church? If that's possible. The concern about the traffic is that, that building will likely be reutilized and the parking issue will still be there for that with the addition of the church. Will you also get them the information on the public notification otherwise it's going to come back here anyway. Absolutely. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 26 Name? Thank you Mr. Clark. Name? Thank you. Chair: Staff: The next item on the agenda is large scale development 05-1588 Piedmont Place Apartments. If the applicant would come forward and we'll hear the staff report. The subject property is located near the southwest corner of Weber Avenue and Melmar Drive down by FCC Investments. Project site contains 1.43 acres. It is currently zoned RMF24 and just May, last May the city passed an ordinance to rezone this property from RSF4 to RMF24. With the bill of assurance offered by the property owner. That bill of assurance states the development on this property will consist of no more than 32 units. All structures on the property will be no greater height than two stories. The applicant did at the time that the City Council was considering this item, the applicant did a proposed site plan as well as elevations and we have submitted those elevations to you and that site plan and you also have the proposed elevations and site plan. The proposal at this time is to construct four two story apartment buildings on subject property. There will be 30 units total with 28 two bedroom apartments and two three bedroom units, with 51 parking spaces where 60 are required. Fifty one parking spaces are within the minimum or allowable spaces, thirty percent below required. The applicant has required one access to the property from Weber Avenue and staff is recommending that a drive isle be provided to connect this property with the property to the north. The parking lot area within this property adjoins parking lot of the Moriah H apai tments and we are recommending that access be, that there be cross access at the north west corner of this site where there is currently a stub out at a hammerhead turn around. We find that with the addition of a potential 200 and 620 vehicle trips per day, the increase in volume of traffic onto Weber Avenue specifically may cause a dangerous traffic situation and find that allowing another point of access and another ability for these residents re exit to the north to the streets to the north would be beneficial for this property and this area. Surrounding land uses are mostly multifamily residential uses except to the south where there is a small single family residential development. At this time staff recommends forwarding this large scale development to the Planning Commission. The main reason for that is that there were several items which were requested to be revised at the technical plat meeting which have not been addressed. Therefore we would request that this be forwarded with those revisions all addressed. Before I address the conditions of approval I would like to state that we have received responses from the surrounding property owners as they were required to be notified. We did receive 12 responses. Of those, six responded favorably, two responded objectionably to the project and four were Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 27 indifferent. With regard to conditions, we are proposing forwarding with recommendation with 23 conditions. Of these, staff recommends that, again, access be provided from this property to the parking lot on the property to the north. We do feel that the applicant has complied with all the conditions of the bill of assurance that the proposed building elevations do comply or are compatible with those presented to the City Council at the time of the rezoning. There will be a parks fee in the amount of $11,790 for the addition of thirty multi -family units. We would like to mention that in condition five the structures will need to be separated with ?? to satisfy the City of Fayetteville building code requirements so that when this is submitted for review that they will need to meet those requirements as determined by the building ?? division. Item 15 discusses all of the items that need to be revised on the plat and if you have any questions I'll be glad to answer those. Chair: Are there any further comments from staff or from engineering? Name? Yes. On the tree preservation report, there are several very large trees currently located on this property. The initial recommendation was to look at the means to preserve these. However, in visiting the stie and looking at the condition, there are definitely some questions regarding the condition and health of these trees. Staff did recommend an arborist be employed to look at the condition and based on the arborist report, most of those large trees are in severe decline and have disease or decay. So it's not typical that we recommend 48 inch maple trees come out or 38 inch elms but in this case I think it's warranted due to the significant decline. Development around a lot of these trees would put them in danger of creating a hazardous situation as well. There is one large tree near Leverett Avenue that the applicant is proposing to preserve and staff's recommending with that mitigation on the property. Chair: Any further comments from engineering. Name? Yes. As to Leverett Avenue, the sidewalk constructed along the entire frontage at the right of way per the master street plan. The driveway at ?? needs to be also, per city code. On the grading plan, we need all items from grading plan check list. On the water and sewer, we need those centered and those easements that are provided. Also need a little bit more clarification on locations, sizes of water meters. Have that coordinated with the meter division. Chair: If you would introduce yourself and if you've got any comments about your project. Applicant: Sure my name is Birch ?? I work with Project Design Consultants for the civil engineering firm on this project. A couple of comments, Mariah H. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 28 There have been discussions with the property owner of Mariah H apartments and it is my understanding that they are averse or they disagree with access front due to them having owned this property at previous time and not being able to build on it, they feel that, since we were able to make it through that allowing us access into that parking lot would not be, they wouldn't appreciate it. Name? So how do we get around that one? Is it just a recommendation that they have connectivity? Staff: It is a recommendation. Their proposed thirty units and typically to meet fire code would require two points of access but I've not heard anything contrary to this from the fire department. We're recommending two points simply because this will place all traffic on Leverett Avenue and have to go right or left onto Leverett. Name? Is the ?? portion the part that's not constructed right now. Name? The ?? portion is the part that no ?? will be allowed to be parked in. So that means that allows for fire trucks to do some kind of turn in there. Name? Sitting trucks? Name? Actually ?? Just said this was ok .. hammerhead. Basically (inaudible) Name? Ok. So what sort of. Name? It's fine with us. Name? Right now it's stubbed out, it's going to be stubbed out at the property line. Name? Well, it looks like it's stubbed out, I guess it is. But it's really more of a hammerhead and this would be the logical place to ?? Name? Dumpster. Name? It's a complete turn around so the dumpster can pull in and back around. Chair: Are there any public comments on large scale development 05-1588 Piedmond Place Apartments? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commissioners. Name? Jeremy if Mariah H will not grant cross access, what's your feelings on that as far as moving forward? Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 29 Staff: Name? Staff: Name? Name? Staff: Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Again it's something we don't have a strict requirement unless the fire department requires it. It's a recommendation for connectivity. The other option is recommendation for denial of the project if you feel it creates a dangerous traffic situation on Leverett. That's something the planning commission is bound to decide. There have been situations in the past that property owners have been required to purchase easements or rights of way to construct those. Again it's our recommendation that that connection be made. Ok. Is Leverett here scheduled to be widened? Not that I'm aware of. Didn't think so. I'm assuming Mariah H only has one entrance, exit onto Leverett itself? No they actually connect all the way over to Garland. They go through there. Ok. And they also open onto that east west street that's to the north. Melmar. What were the tech plat issues that we had requested be made? There was a mention of tech plat that we asked be revised. That's correct. At the Technical Plat meeting we pretty much make all the technical comments on the plat. Many of those such as locating the sidewalk at the right of way, correcting use, number of units on the plat, things like that were not made. And I have listed those in item 15. Ok. All of them are there? You are all in agreement with those? Yea. One of the big changes at Tech Plat was the reduction of two units due to the ?? area ratio. So actually, when the City Council looked at this the first time, they were actually looking at more units than what there is here now. Six instead of four. Ok. You know the way some things are crammed in, this looks spacious to me and very low density. I recommend that we forward. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 30 Name? Staff: Name? Staff: Name? Staff: Name? Name? Chair: Name? Chair: I have a couple of questions. Jeremy you mentioned that we have in the past required that applicants purchase an easement. I don't remember that so I'm not sure how we would phrase a condition if we were going to do that. I think honestly if the planning commission feels that it is imperative for a second means of access for this project to be approved then that would be the condition of approval you would place on the project. Is that they would purchase an easement of some kind to go across. To gain a second means of access. I think it's likely impossible to the south or to the east or the west. So really the only other option is to the north there into that existing parking area. Because Melmar goes over to Garland, does it not? Correct. And that would be another way out. And then my other question was, we were submitted with the current proposed elevations and the bill of assurance, I noticed in the condition stated that staff's finding that they match. There are few little difference but I assume based on the condition that everything's ok. That's correct. There were specific conditions or requirements from the bill of assurance which have been met and then the plans presented to council weren't specifically addressed in the text of the bill of assurance but they were obviously part of the intent. What the City council reviewed. And we feel that the building elevations are very similar and that the layout of the structures are similar, they've actually reduced the parking in front of the building so that there is no parking on this proposal which we find is better, or more beneficial, at least to the streetscape that what was proposed. Well my inclination is to continue to stick with staff's recommendation on having that access out to the other side to, my fellow commissioners are pretty disagree with me on making a motion to forward to the planning commission. Does anybody have any other comments? Motions? If we were to insist on that connectivity at this level, I don't know what... Well, I think that the motion would just state that it would leave condition one in rather than taking it out and forwarding it. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 31 Name? We would let the full Planning Commission decide on that issue. I agree with that. Name? Yea. That was my intent. Name? Ok. Name? I'll make a motion to forward large scale development 05-1588 to the full Planning Commission for consideration. Chair: With all the stated conditions. Name? With all the stated conditions. Name? I'll second that. Chair: And I'll concur. Thanks. Name? Thank you. Chair: The next item on the agenda is large scale development 05-1593 Nelson's Crossing. If we could have the staff report on that one. Staff: Yes. This property is located, bordered by Joyce Boulevard on the north and Shiloh Drive on the east. It's adjacent to the Spring Park commercial subdivision. A portion of the site is within the design overlay district. The property has street frontage and ingress/egress on Joyce Boulevard and Shiloh Drive. The site is zoned C2 and it's surrounded by commercial development on all sides. The applicant proposes to construct a retail and office shopping center ?? on this elevation ward consisting of 62,650 square foot retail building and a 5,486 square foot retail building with 233 total parking spaces. Parking is proposed in conformance with our ordinances and ?? dedication would require a total of 35 feet from the center line of Shiloh Drive. Currently as planned, the plans show 25 feet of center line from the right of way on Shiloh Drive and this isn't in compliance with the master street plan and compliance with this plan is included as a condition of approval. The project is located in the design overlay district and I'll go over some of the findings for those at this time. Regarding green space, the applicant has not complied with the 25 foot green space requirement along all rights of way within the design overlay district. The plans show 15 feet of green space along Joyce Boulevard and along Shiloh Drive with the required additional dedication of 10 feet of right of way the project would have, it looks like 15 feet of green space. So compliance with these requirements is included as a condition of approval. Signage, hasn't been depicted on the plat or elevations at this time. The other big issue is curb cuts and at this time the applicant hasn't Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 32 complied with the curb cut requirements that require a minimum of 250 feet from an intersection and 200 feet between curb cuts. And the proposal utilizes two curb cuts on Joyce Boulevard, one on Shiloh Drive on the east and one on the shared access easement on the western border of the site. And the eastern most curb cut on Joyce Boulevard and the curb cut on Shiloh Drive do not meet the minimum distance from an intersection, 250 feet. Additionally, the curb cut on Shiloh Drive does not meet the minimum distance between curb cuts. Cross access is proposed to the west with an access drive connecting from Shiloh Drive, across the southern border of the site to a shared access easement linking north and south to Joyce Boulevard. Lighting, it hasn't added to the plat indicating compliance with lighting and we'll discuss the elevations in a minute. They have some building elevations and building materials and we'll see those here. There are some other issues regarding site coverage is required with 25 percent open space and we just need that to be included on the plat. The design overlay district also requires pedestrian access from the street to the entrance of the structures and we also need that to be on the plat. It's not currently shown. With those issues summarized I will go over the conditions and we are recommending forwarding this to the full planning commission and with a fairly lengthy number of conditions to go over and I'll just try to highlight some of these. Condition number one, planning commission determination of commercial design standards. Staff finds that the elevations need to ?? commercial design standards. It's shown the elevation, it's a well articulated structure and originally had some concerns with it being, you know, tieing in with the other development in the area and the red brick. ?? discussion we're looking at its basically is due to the scale of it and it's not actually in the Spring Park Subdivision, it has own design theme to stand alone. So that's how we made that determination. Condition number two requires an additional right of way dedicated for a total of 35 feet from the center line along Shiloh Drive. And tying into that condition is number three, with an additional dedication of right of way it would cause the project to violate a 25 foot green space requirement so would require the plat to be revised to show 25 feet of green space. It is a request to revise the city be mapped to show the design overlay district boundary in condition four. And then condition number five is related to curb cuts. And the eastern curb cut on Joyce Boulevard we're recommending that it be moved to the west approximately 30 feet to line up with the driveway immediately west of the proposed curb cut and this would eliminate a violation with the design overlay district curb cut requirements for 250 feet from intersection. It would also, at this point we need to scale that out a little bit better but it would eliminate the violation with the 25 foot green space requirement along Joyce Boulevard because the design overlay district boundary comes through almost at that exact point so if you move, and they would have enough green space if they moved the driveway to the west, there would be enough space there. Condition number six is related to curb cuts Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 33 on Shiloh Drive and really any curb cut on Shiloh Drive would be in violation of the design overlay district standards and we do recommend that there be a curb cut along Shiloh Drive for connectivity. It's just a matter of where it be placed and what violation would be... Name? Would be the most desirable violation. Staff: Yea. So we've identified a couple of options there as possibilities. That's recommended for the planning commission determine that. We also recommended pedestrian access from the street frontage to ?? structures. I have also mentioned briefly about requiring, a note about lot coverage or the percentage of ?? on the site needs to be provided. And I'll just skip down to condition number 13 that says that if all requested revisions are not received by the revision deadline, this will not be, proceed to the Planning Commission. Also, condition number 16, just wanted to make sure that all roof mounted utilities will be properly screened. The front of the building is, the roofline ?? with screen, utilities in the back. We just wanted to make sure that you wouldn't be able to see them in the rear as well. That summarizes all the planning issues. Chair: Are there any further comments from staff or from engineering? Staff: Yes, ?? of the hotel formerly on this site, evidently the trees were removed prior to approval which constituted a violation of the tree preservation ordinance. The one tree that was proposed to be preserved initially in the technical plat review, that's when we found out that that had been removed and ?? The developer of the property has removed trees above the minimum required. Proceeding approval of tree preservation plan, again was a violation of chapter 16704. Our code does address that requiring an additional 10 percent of total area of the property forested ?? to be reforested. There is not an option to pay money in lieu because of that violation you have to reforest. There are additionally some discrepancies between if you scale off the plan what the calculations are for the tree canopy and then look at your site calculations they are about half of what they should be so if you could take a look at that. And then final mitigation number will just come from that plus the 10 percent and we can determine ?? mitigation numbers with revision submittal forward to the Planning Commission. Chair: Other comments from engineering. Name? The only comment I had is in relation to water services. That the individual occupiers of the building, are they going to have their own water meters or is this going to have a master meter for the entire building? Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 34 Name? I don't have an answer to that at this point in time. We'll work with you. If we have to go to individual meters, if we've gotta get a lot more water line extended around.. Name? Right. Name? So I'm anticipating that it will probably be some kind of a master meter. Name? Ok. Name? But I don't want to make any promises I can't... Name? Alright, as you pointed out, it's awfully congested in the rear. So any services would probably have to come from what would be the front of the building so we'll have to look at that when you have a bit more information. Name? What I would, again no guarantees at this point but would be to come off of this east side. There's a water line that runs up there and ?? either a meter bank ?? the west side, or a master meter over there for the entire site. Name? Ok. Name? The ?? easement has been vacated (inaudible) . it doesn't have to go through all the other utilities. Name? Depends on if it's actually ?? utilities or if it's sanitary sewer easement. That's exactly what would have to .. Name? The only utility ?? is the sewer line and we couldn't find the actual easement. If you guys have a copy of it somewhere on file. But I suspect it was strictly just a sewer easement but I think 99 was constructed ... (standing too far from the mike) Chair: Any further comments from staff. Alright if you have any comments as the applicant. Applicant: We have some... first off, Shiloh Drive, I understand that it is currently shown as a collector street on the master street plan. However as I understand it that the city made a conscious decision back when C&M moved in that it would never be extended beyond the creek simply because it was too expensive and they were alternate access points. Am I correct in that recollection? Is staff aware of that? May have to research it. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 35 Staff: I know that lot that C&M did not construct a, they have a subdivision there and did not construct to connect to Shiloh, that is correct. Applicant: So it was our thoughts was that since this really, even though it shows up, it continues to show up on the master street plan as a collector street, we should be able to get some type of a waiver to allow us not to dedicate the initial ten feet to make it a collector size right of way. We may have to go procedurally for something on that, that's going to be our request. Access points, I have some reservations about moving this existing drive, moving the drive that's out on Joyce, the one that falls in the overlay district further to the west. It wouldn't meet the 250 foot setback. However with the service area coming around the back. If we shift it over, that means the trucks would have to try to dodge through the parking lot to get lined up. Right now it comes over and basically it's a straight shot up and out. These existing drive falls in this location. We are moving is slightly to the east. Slightly more of a violation than currently exists. But from a parking standpoint and a traffic flow standpoint it makes a lot of sense to do that. Name? Well is there any, and I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I know that both of those decamp onto the south side of Joyce which only goes east. Applicant: No, there's an island, the island stops in here. Name? Oh, so you could turn left from that driveway. Applicant: You could turn left. Name? There's an existing turn there now. Applicant: Ok. Here's the existing drive right here and we're just shifting it a little bit. So we really feel like... Name? That would mitigate the location if it was only going one way. So people coming west could turn left into that. Applicant: Correct. Name? That is a tremendously busy intersection. Name? Is that a turn lane there next to the island? I remember... Name? Yes. Name? I think so, yea. I know there's one further down. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 36 Applicant: Name? Applicant. Name? Applicant: Name? Applicant: Yes there is. One of the things we didn't show on this because we don't know what's happening yet but the same developers have acquired this corner lot and once the first buildings are built, the tenants will be moving into those buildings and then this site will be demolished and it will be redeveloped. When that happens we're going to provide, these will be our only access into the sites. We're prepared to, again I can't promise because it's, we can't make it, but we intend to close these access points. So that will eliminate this corner island and will provide us significant improvement in the traffic flow and the congestion in that area. I don't think there's actually any access out to ?? currently but... And what's the actual distance from the comer to thi I don't have my scale. I don't know. It looks like ... One hundred and eight feet? I was going to say it may even be a little further than that because we're looking at ... So it looks like it may be 210 to the edge? So that's a 30 foot violation. So what does that?? that's 220. So we're not really too far off. If there ever, the question that came up, I don't know if you want to deal with these or just let me ramble on what my thoughts are. Chair: I need to give the public the opportunity if there's anybody out there first. Before we kind of get into the ?? There's probably not anybody. Is there anybody from the public here who would like to comment on large scale development 05-1593? Seeing none, we can get into our discussion now. Applicant: The other thing and we knew the overlay district cuts through somewhere along this line. We've plotted it and looked at it and we've moved this triangle, we've done different things and eliminated this parking at one particular time in order to meet the 25 foot setback. Like this is our drive. We didn't try to push anything further but when I started looking at leaving this little green space, I thought we're so short on parking as it is, we're having to use the available reduction in parking. So I thought well, it makes sense at least to come in and ask for a variance or a waiver of this 25 foot for this small section right here so that within the overlay district. We'd meet it everywhere else but if we could get this one to, is that a waiver or is that a variance? Waiver, for these nine parking spaces. We could sure use the parking. Name? Question. Jeremy are you all, is the city just asking for one curb cut off of Joyce now? Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 37 Staff: No. Name? We're just going to move that existing one? We're going to move it west? How far and how far from the. Name? Looks like it'll be thirty feet from where it's located now. Name? It would have to be 30 feet in order to meet the 250 foot setback right? But the drive also needs to line up with an island, so I think staff's recommendation was, is to shift it 62 feet which would get it over here and lined up with this alternate drawing I think is what your recommendation was. So and again, to do that, to try to get trucks to make those turns is really tough to do inside a parking lot. Name? I think it's going to be important to show that because, see this is going to be a very busy development. Name? Looking at the corner and then show... Name? Show how much room is in the existing here proposed and I don't know what it's called where you put those in the road where nobody can get on them but it separates, you know what I'm talking about. Name? Median. Name? Median. Because you might have a lot of traffic coming in off this entrance and we don't want it to back up, back into the traffic. The right of way's not there, that would Name? I suspect that people, you know a lot of drivers are not very bright in how they try to do things. But I think when they see it backing up here in alternate drives they would be tempted to go one down and use these alternate entrances. Name? You see a lot of crazy things right around here so.. Name? We work just down the road and I see it every day. Name? Well, we want to make sure it flows for you. Name? I agree with you 100 percent. Name? I personally don't have a whole lot of trouble with 30 feet. But I think it definitely needs to be discussed. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 38 Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Applicant: Name? Applicant: Name? Staff: Name? Name? Name? Name? It needs, you're going to have to have some kind of waiver or variance for a curb cut on Shiloh. All this is going to have to have access to get back out onto 71 through there, so I agree with that. Right and there is an existing drive currently, well there's actually two existing ?? One into the center in property and then the other one was into the Golf USA building. And of course Golf USA will be closing that access to have it all internal. On the curb cut on Shiloh I'd be more inclined to think that the curb cut being proposed is better than trying to move it. Because moving it puts it really really close to another curb cut and you're still leaving it like it is. You're still 200 feet away from the intersection which is better than having two curb cuts that close together. I agree. That makes a lot of sense. In addition to all the hundreds of things that you have to do before you come to full Planning, could we have also some indication of where this next curb cut on Shiloh is? Well it's into ?? Ok, right there. It does show. Ok. So we're moving away from the one that will be staying by moving it to where they are. So the problem with that Shiloh curb cut, I'm not real clear on it, is that they're too close together. No, right now it's that it's too close to the intersection. And they're asking for a waiver to put it.. It's also too close to the adjacent curb. In the overlay district we're 200 feet between curb cuts. If we move it away from the intersection, then you put it right next to Well, and you know, you've got to have that curb cut on Shiloh. I can't see that you can get around that at all so it's the lesser of two evils. Moving that curb cut south puts you in the same situation again with what you're talking about over hear where you're lined up straight with the building and you don't have a drive isle between the future development and the building. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 39 Name? Right and we had looked one time about moving it all the way down to here but boy that was even worse. Because we still really need a corridor into the development so.. Name? I'd be inclined to leave the curb cuts as they proposed on Shiloh and Joyce because it is just the way it lines up with the building and so forth and the way the property is, I just think that it makes more sense. Because you've essentially got a violation almost anyway you go or you've got traffic stacking and having to jog around inside the parking lot. Name? What would it be? Is it a waiver or variance on the right of way along Shiloh. Or is there any option for reducing that? Name? There is. The Planning Commission could recommend either a ?? right of way or a master street plan amendment for the entire section of Shiloh. But that would then have to be forwarded to the City Council for approval. Name? For the reduction, it has to go to City Council? Name? Correct. Name? Ok. Is that stated as a waiver or is it. Name? It's a, it's called a lesser dedication of right, it depends on how you'd like to proceed with it. Either a request to, well staff will take a look at it. On Shiloh Drive, maybe we can just ?? the entire master street plan along ?? Name? My only other question is that you have a lot of things to comply with before full Planning Commission. Do you think you can get them done? Applicant: I will do my absolute best and if I don't, ?? I will do this Name? Including the updating the tree preservation to the additional 10 percent? Applicant: Yes. Name? It will be on this? Applicant: Yes. Name? Ok. Name? On condition number one, the commercial design standard? Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 40 Name? I don't have a single solitary idea. I know the architect. I'm prejudiced in his favor already. But the idea of Tuscany in the Ozarks is always appealing. And I think it will really improve the looks of that corner. Name? We're already dramatically?? As soon as the rubble's gone it will be much better. Name? But there's obviously plenty or articulation. There's a wonderful variety of materials, the color palette is very appropriate. I know there are ?? about doing something that's sort of themed like this but I find it very attractive and I think it's going to be a huge improvement for that part of town. Maybe it will give some other builders and developers some ideas about what they can do besides reflected glass and steel. Name? I have another procedural question. Since I don't normally have to chair these meetings, but on forwarding this to the full Planning Commission do we need to make any, if it's the feeling of the commissioners that are here, for example on the curb cuts, do we need to make those kind of findings here and forward it that way? Name? For the minutes and for the record and also for the Subdivision meeting report to the Planning Commission and that full body.. . Name? We may need your help on what's a waiver and what's a variance and things like that on fashioning, refashioning the conditions of approval and making this motion. Because we've got first of all a green space, second of all a right of way dedication assuming that there was a motion to leave the curb cuts as they are. So we would need to know how to state the conditions two and three regarding the green space and the right of way dedication if we were to find on five and six that the curb cuts would stay the same. Name? Does considerations for variations from the design overlay district considered variance that are granted by the Planning Commission. Name? So if we were to find that way, commissioners, it would be a motion finding on number one that they didn't meet commercial design standards, number two recommending variances from the right of way and green space requirements and on number five and six allowing them to leave the curb cuts as proposed and granting again, is that a variance also, from the design overlay standards. Name? I'm in favor of all those. Name? One statement I want to make and this is related to the trees that we're taking down. They hired a outside demolition contractor who was not Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 41 used to this and he was not instructed to take those trees out. We'll pay the penalty. We understand that but just for .. it was one of those things. We made provisions and tried to save that tree that was the one nice tree on the site. One afternoon I looked over to see how the demolition was going and I didn't see the tree anymore and I thought Oh, no. You know I hated that. But those things happen sometimes and you proceed on. But we apologize for that. Name? Well in twenty years, nobody will notice. Chair: Are there any other comments, or motions? Name? Well the first curb cut on Joyce. I have some safety concerns and I would like to note that for the full Planning Commission. I would agree that if they, if you all and they agree that that's a safe ingress and egress right there, a curb cut out, I'll go along with that so I'll make a motion that we approve, or we forward LSD 05-1593 to the planning commission in favor of agreement with condition number one, staffs findings of commercial design, in favor of commercial design standards, with number two ?? Name? Recommending a variance of right of way and the green space requirements. Name? I'll agree to that and number three? Name? That's two and three. Name? Two and three, ok. And I'll go ahead with number five and make a recommendation that the curb cuts proposed stay as they are and grant a waiver and/or variance, whichever is needed there. Name? And also number six. Name? Number six. Name? Yes and number six. And all other conditions of approval as stated. Name? And I'll second. Chair: And I'll concur. Name? Mr. Chairman. On condition number four if you could also ?? the design overlay district boundary on the site plans as well, that will give a lot better idea Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 42 Name? I think we'll probably drop it into the plan also. We've had it on our drawing before to show exactly where it's coming through here. Name? We've got a drawing in the ?? it's hard to Name? It's hard to relate that to where the building was. Name? I think the curb cuts across the street from Joyce, too would be beneficial to see as recommended by commission. Name? Yea, I would agree. Name? Yes, as much of those adjacent streets as you can get on there or on a drawing. Chair: Thank you. Applicant. Thank you. Chair: Lets take a five minute break. Staff: The adjacent master plan street for this particular property is ?? road which is a collector requires 35 feet from center line per master street plan requirements. Interior rights of way are proposed at 40 feet with a 28 foot wide street and 42 feet with a 24 foot wide street with locations where the street dead ends or as a short connector street. There are street stub outs proposed and developed property to the north and the east of the subject property. The train and existing development surrounding this property do prohibit connectivity to the west, south and southeast as well as the existing subdivision and parkland ?? to the south. Staff is recommending improvements along the frontage of ?? road to include a total of 14 feet from center line with curb, gutters, storm drain, street lights and six foot sidewalks constructed at the right of way line as well as the interior street and improvements. The parkland dedication required money in lieu for this property seeing as there's a park directly adjacent to this to the south. The parkland fees in lieu in the amount of $71,595. Mitigation is required and there are comments in your packet regarding true preservation plans. They do need to be revised before this proceeds to the full Planning Commission. Staff is recommending forwarding this item to the full Planning Commission with a total of 21 conditions. As I mentioned just now, recommended revisions to the submitted tree preservation plan. There are several discrepancies I continue to find in those calculations. I'm just not sure where that's coming from so if you could just please make sure those are taken care of before the deadline and if not, we'll just Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 43 delay that project. There's pretty detailed comments in there so we're not going to go over all of those. Planning commission determination of adequate lights ?? street design. Staff is recommending a couple of revisions for possible all cul de sac streets be constructed at 24 foot width within a 42 foot right of way with sidewalks on both sides of the street. Additionally staff is recommending removal of the slight eyebrow, there shown at lots 75 and 77 just before the cul de sac we feel that would be a situation, a very odd configuration and could produce some traffic conflicts in that area especially with the small cul de sac in the area directly adjacent to it. I mentioned onsite street improvements directly along ?? Road. Additionally at the technical plat review meeting an offsite evaluation of ?? road was requested from the applicant. It's not been conducted. It has been quite awhile since this has been in technical plat review, this project for whatever reason has not come back to us for quite some time but at this time the proposed development would result in approximately 1290 vehicle trips perday on ?? road which is a significant increase. It's more than most of the phases of Stone Bridge Meadows increases out there, not totally combined but individually. With the annexation and rezoning of this property it was discussed in some detail about the offsite improvements that would be required of this development on ?? Road and that's essentially why staff requested that evaluation. At this time we're not prepared to make a detailed recommendation because we don't have the evaluation of what ?? Road is like, Bridge Dale subdivision is improving a portion of that, the city is improved a portion of that that's located within the city limits and we're simply looking for Robert Troad and ?? Road to be evaluated. If a proposal or evaluation is not provided staff will do that prior to planning commission in our own evaluation. There are a couple of plat revisions and access easement needs to be shown to the lift station off of the private drive that is to be constructed. A few of the lots are unbuildable as I mentioned. One for storm water and one to be owned and maintained as if ?? essentially from the subdivision. ?? those in another phase. They are extending the sewer, extending to the north, but that's just an additional amount that's going to be entering the system here so we'll need to complete analysis of lift stations in this series. There are several and your adding another one at 132 lots, 130 residential lots. We also need an analysis of the water system. The current configuration that you have, it's not a true ?? system. I know as this area develops we'll be able to make connections but right not as it's shown there's no valve separating the two connection points that you have along ?? Road. So if there is a problem with one line on ?? Road, this entire subdivision is going to be without water. But we are taxing the system in this area with all these developments to we will need to have this study. Bring this to our consultant who has the water model and have this information input and see what it does with our water system. Other than that I have no other comments except just to confirm that the water and the sewer mains are centered within the ?? east. The Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 44 street table, the street widths, the green spaces and sidewalks don't add up to right of ways. That needs to be revised. Chair: Would the applicant like to introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Applicant: I'm Glen Carter with ?? and this is Jason Apple. We have ?? the rights alone with this project. But we've been trying to get that last determination accomplished and we think we're near that so we wanted to come back to subdivision committee and move on with the project. Its our intent and desire to comply with the creek preservation ordinance in every respect. Jeremy mentioned there are a few discrepancies in what we've done and we'd like to meet with him and iron that out and we don't see that as any significant problem. There's also I guess a misunderstanding with study on ?? Road. We were asked to be there and ?? about what we were asked to do. We did go out and get information on the road. We, our understanding was to show the ?? on the plan which was not shown before and we did that but apparently we need to do more than that. But we've got measured road widths and we understand we need to improve the road and we want to comply with that. It's not a problem so whatever you'd like us to do there, we're trying to pay money in lieu of construction. That's our stance on that. Other than that we would like to entertain any questions you might have or comments. Chair: Bruan: Is there any comment on preliminary play 05-1429 the Hamptoms. If you would step forward sir, and state your name and your address and give us your comment. My name is Chuck Bruan. I'm at 1525 Roberts Road. My property is the property is right north of exits of Street G and Street A. My primary concern is the curb from ?? Road where it connects into Roberts Road and then the entrance of Street G onto ?? Road. It's a distance of approximately 112 feet. It's a sunken road and I've lived there for approximately 13 years. I'm well aware of the traffic patterns there. You know, with its new construction and new buildings it's a lot more. That turn with that small amount of footage, I feel there's a dangerous situation especially since I've lived there and I've heard certain, the cars, the screeching. Also that road is the main access exit outside this whole development area when the road on ?? road, the bridge there, when it floods which it does several times a year and the road on River Meadow, there's a structure in the middle of it and it's hard for a lot of people to get in and out of there especially with the hill. So a lot of people in the area now are using Roberts Road there and we're going to have a lot more. As the plan I see here, there's no exit other than Street G and Street L. The new plan shows a street going north but there's no connection there now and I don't know how long it will be before there will be one. But anyway Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 45 on that ?? there's going to be approximately 128 with people going through that curve in the morning and the afternoon. That's what ?? this development. And I believe there's some problems with visibility there. My house is an acre of garden and I have the hedges there for privacy an that road is sunken and that is a problem there and that's what I'd like to have addressed. Chair: Thank you. Braun: Thank you. Chair: Are there any other public comments on preliminary plat 05-1429. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the commissioners for any questions they may have. I've got several. One of my questions is, it's probably directed at staff on Street B and then when it turns over to Street A, both of those links, at least on the map and I don't know the scale of the map. It looks fairly long without any kind of an intersection. So my question was whether those meet our requirements as far as having straightaways like that through a subdivision without any intersection. I'm talking about south of street C as you have Street B going down and as it intersects with Street A going over to Street I. Name? Street I to where Street B is connected is approximately 650 feet or so. Chair: What is our standard Name? Our standard block length varies from 400 and 1400 feet. I would say that Street B is much longer. We did discuss the gap ?? potential to construct Street F over to Street B to create more of a grid network there and alleviate some of the concern, especially with Street B. It's approximately 1000 feet in length there, the length of Street B. That is something we had discussed with the applicant at a previous meeting as well. I think we probably make a safer situation there. We've seen ?? that is there. We're actually evaluating many subdivisions right now for traffic control measures because of long streets without any intersections. Name? I've certainly driven through plenty of subdivisions that have basically raceways. Chair: My other question is the distance between Roberts Road where it intersects ?? and Street A and also the distance between Street A and, sorry, Street G and then the distance between Street G and Street A. Because Street G and Street A look to me on here like they're pretty close together coming out on ?? Road. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 46 Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? The north property line from Street G is approximately 150 feet to the center line and center line to center line between those two streets is about 250 feet there. A little bit bigger than it appears to me. That bothers me as well. They seem awfully close together. I would almost prefer to see Street A, or straight over to Street A and continue on to Street B and Street F as a connector through there from Street A to Street B and you've got a block ?? Street I that would intersect. We did look at this and connecting this and tried to make that work and it just takes out so many lots to do it it just didn't seem feasible to do that. ?? going across here to connect here and taking away this access entirely. Taking that out. So we'd only have one access to the subdivision? Well, we can't do that. Well you'd have this ?? connection up north. Those two access points seem awfully close together to me. What kind of a traffic snafu would it create if G ran straight north and came in at the intersection of Goff and Roberts. The biggest issue is that it would probably create a Y to make a 90 which is possible. That might alleviate some of Mr. Bruan's concern of exactly where these ingress and egress points are. It would still provide two entrances. And they would be further apart. If you shifted Street G over to line up better, then it would be further away from Street A. I know it's not really our job to redesign people's subdivisions but, if you could look into that as a possibility, maybe with some... Sure. Our thoughts were that this curve should be avoided for, it'd create an unsafe situation when you have an intersection coming into a bend like that. Right. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 47 Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? So we wanted to stay as far away from that but we needed to have two entrances just to try to let traffic out. I mean having everybody stacked up at one would create a difficulty and I think that's how we got to this position here. Some people will choose to go down Goff ?? instead of going up towards 116. But I think there might be a better solution to this situation even given the fact that is was, you know coming in at a curve. This road has to be improved anyway. With Street B and Street A being so close together, my other concern is they end up stacking up anyway because that B, the folks on Street A turn out on to Goff ?? and people on Street ? are sitting there waiting, they're just going to have to sit there and ?? You know especially in the morning when they're going into work and so forth. It's just a concern. I'm not he engineer. You guys know more about it than I do, but I'm just, I could foresee a situation where you've got people, you've got stacking up along Street G waiting on traffic off of Street A all the time because they're so close together. We'll sure look at that. But I understand the concern about trying to get everybody out of there. It seems to be like if we extended Street G it would make a worse intersection than if we left it here, just because of the fact that a Y, I'm not familiar with that turn so... Well it's not a real sharp turn, but the way that it's presently constructed, obviously it's a country road. It's a farm road. It would likely require, if that option be utilized, Street G went straight creating essentially a T or three way intersection there. ?? Three way stop. That would be more desirable, do you think? It would probably ?? us sit down and take a look at the design criteria, design speed for ?? collector street. Just need to determine if that's compromised by looking at realignment Staff would more than be happy to sit down and look at those alternatives. Especially if the Planning, Planning Commissions job is to make recommendation, while it's not to design a subdivision, if their concerns are safety, it's definitely your position to make those recommendations, so staff would be more than happy to sit down with the applicant and look it over with them. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 48 Name? I just have a concern about Roberts Road and Street G and Street A just kind of being clustered up together there and I really do think, I don't know if the lots could be realigned somehow but I do think that from a safety standpoint on Street B, I believe Street F needs to carry over to Street B. ?? have a traffic ?? affect on this intersection there. People can slow down than they do if they know they can just race all the way down to where it intersects down here. Name? Jeremy you said that the maximum was 1400 feet? Staff: Right. That's the acceptable range. Correct. Name? I was just curious because I think, how far is it on Street B? Name? It's about 1000 feet. Name? It's basically a drag strip. Name? What they do on a lot of the ones we use to see approved, ?? 800 feet and they've got curves or something that slow it down. Whenever it's straight like this, I can't recall when we've approved or forwarded that that was longer than say 800 or so. Staff: That's exactly correct. There are several that we've seen that at the limit or longer at the 1400 and they do have curves or something in there. Name? It's just sort of straight shot combined with the length that caught my attention. Name? And we're being asked to forward this Jeremy? Name? I have a question, a different question. With the bridge over on, Jeremy help me out, Staff: On ?? Mountain Road? Name? Yes. We are currently taking assessments on that. Will that be looked at with this project? Name? I believe this falls just out of that assessment area. Name? There will be a lot of traffic coming that way tho. Name? I agree. That is something that we could look at in evaluation of Goff? Road if this subdivision would like to, as I mentioned, contribute to an Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 49 assessment. That might be something we could look at in lieu of making improvements. It depends on the valuation of Goff ?? Road. Name? It might be a good trade off. That bridge needs to be repaired soon. Name? There are several subdivisions you'll be seeing soon. Stonebridge Meadows Phases four and five are coming your way on Goff ?? Road so there is a lot of traffic being generated in a very short period of time this year. Name? Yea. I would rather see, unless the improvements are just absolutely necessary, some assessment maybe put toward that bridge. Not actually just an option. Name? Also, just to hit on that point about the improvements of Goff ?? Road. We do have our survey for the widths of the road just to let you have that so we have done that study. Just, we just didn't know that you guys needed it, needed to see it before the meeting. Name? Mr. Chair. Based on the comments that we've received and the revisions that have to come in, the revisions for this project to be due on Monday, I don't think that would probably give enough ample time for staff to get with the applicant to look at redesign on the subdivision, especially access concerns and also an evaluation of the bridge assessment versus, because it's outside the bridge assessment area, that might be something we could trade off as far as the relationship to Goff ?? Road. But I think we also need to meet the intent of the council and the annexation rezoning ?? making improvements to the street system, so, with the comments we've received, I think it's probably more appropriate to come back to this level after we've kinda flushed out some of the issues. Name? It would probably save you some trouble down the road as well. When are their changes then due to come back to subdivision ?? Name? I don't think I have that schedule with me. Name? I just want to make sure they have plenty of time. Name? I understand your suggestion that we make these changes and come back to subdivision committee? Name? Correct. Chair: Really, my suggestion would be to take a hard look at this area right here and what you can do about the Street B situation, the length of it and work with staff on it and then come back to this level. It may be, it wouldn't be Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 50 the first time that you come back and say, we couldn't get anything worked out, and if that's the case then you can take your chances with the full Planning Commission at that point. But I think that there's still enough issues here that are up in the air that you guys appear willing to take a look at at least and work with staff on that it would be beneficial for you to come back to the subdivision level before you go to the full Planning Commission. Is there a motion to that affect. Name? Mr. Chair. Chair: Yes, Name? I just want to clarify one thing on the water system. Chair: Yes. Name? I would be more comfortable with the subdivision if this was a loop system at this time. Name? If it was what? Name? If it was a loop system. Name? Well, we have, you made that comment earlier and I remember we looked at that. We looked for another way to loop and we noticed in the subdivision to the south, there is a water line to the south there. Course it comes back into the same line so I don't know any way that we can loop that. But we'll certainly like to work with you and do whatever you like. Did you see that, did you notice that the water ?? comes down to that southeast corner? Name? Yes. Name? So what's your inclination? What did you want us to do or look at? Or is that for us to determine? Name? Yes. Name? I didn't know if you had any specifics like, we want you to go here. Name? We'll look at whatever you propose. Name? Alright you want to make it? Name? Yes. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 51 Name? I will move that we ah Name? Table. Name? Table, preliminary plat 05-1429 until such time as suggested improvements have been explored. Name? Ok. Name? I will second. Name? And I'll concur Thank you gentlemen. Chair: The next item on the agenda is PZD 05-1599 Zion Gardens. If the applicant would come forward and we'll have staff report. Staff: This project is located northwest of the intersection of Randall Place and Zion Road. Property is zoned RO residential office. It contains approximately thirteen and a half acres. The request is to approve a preliminary plat of residential planned zoning district with 95 townhomes attached and detached on the property. Surrounding land uses consist of single family residences and open undeveloped pasture. Details on the project, the applicant proposes 97 lots as follows, 76 lots, lots 1 through 76 would be detached town homes. Eighteen lots, lots 77 though 95 in the southeastern portion of the south side are to be either detached or attached town homes and lots 96 and 97 would remain undeveloped for easement, open space, tree preservation. The lots will ?? the streets and have access off the rear 16 foot public alleys with the exception of lots 66 through 76 that will front the tree preservation area. The project is designed to give a neighborhood feel behind ?? street and provide adequate sidewalks providing garden areas to be maintained by the property owners association. As this is a planned zoning district, it will be a rezoning and I will go over some of the zoning criteria for this project. Some of the criteria hadn't been provided by the applicant yet and staff has suggested some possible zoning criteria in the staff report and to be clarified and provided by the applicant as well. All the lots would be designated for city wide uses by right, city wide uses by conditional use, single family dwellings and home occupations and it is mentioned that lots 77 through 95 would be allowed to have multifamily dwellings as well. The density is approximately seven units per acres. The ?? area regulations haven't been provided at this point and staff provided a table with some possible recommendations for lot width minimums and lot are minimums and those sorts of issues. Applicant is proposing setback of twelve feet with zero side and rear setbacks. Applicant needs to provide height requirement, or height regulation as well as the building area or the percentage of the lot that would be allowed. Access to the site as mentioned is from Zion Road Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 52 and Randall Place and the project proposes a stub out to vacant property to the north and its direct access to Zion Road, a collector street to the south and the east it's direct access onto Randall Place, a local street and staff is also recommending a stub out to vacant property to the west. Staff is also recommending an evaluation for improvements along Zion Road from the project boundary west to Old Wire Road to include, a look at the road surface and storm drainage in that area. The project would improve Zion Road and Randall Road along the project frontage with the master street plan standards of 14 feet from center line, curb and gutter, 6 foot sidewalks at the right of way along the storm drainage. Tree preservation is required on the site there. Besides mostly open pasture, there are some trees in the southwest corner and along the property lines. Staff is recommending this project to be tabled. Revisions submitted did not reflect those requested at technical plat review and I will ?? recommendations ?? recommend that it be tabled at this time. There were several comments that hadn't been addressed from the technical plat review and as mentioned all the zoning criteria needs to be included on the plat and flushed out exactly what they want to do with this project so that needs to be determined and there's several ?? added to the plat and as well as mentioned ?? evaluation ?? road conditions, drainage condition as well the tree preservation numbers haven't been revised to reflect ?? plan and since technical plat we had some pretty substantial revisions to the plan and some, the tree preservation numbers just need to be updated to reflect that. The legal description was reviewed by city ?? division and they had some comments ?? so it resolved that issue. Staff is also recommending a stub out to the west and we're requesting that be included on the plans. Also requesting that the right of way line along the length of alley two which is the southernmost alley extend to reflect that the ?? proposed parking spaces are not part of the right of way. We also requested that the plat be revised to make it more readable and clearly there was a long layer or two that were turned on in autocad or something that showed up on this so some of the lot lines are skewed and some of them are actually bisecting through units and so request that to be looked at. Some of the other conditions I wanted to bring up here. Condition number five, staff recommends that ?? Lane be revised for a total of 50 feet of right of way. It is a through street and would extend to the west at some point and it connects directly onto Randall Place. And we're also requesting planning commission determination of appropriate street width for Frontier Elm Drive, that's ?? Well actually Lantana Lane is one we're requesting Planning Commission to look at. That's ?? feet and we had recommended that it be 50, so still look at that. We also recommend that this plan provide some sort of western access to the tree preservation area starting at Lantana Lane and some type of meandering path through the trees and ending up at the sidewalk connecting at Fredonia Lane. Those are the highlights I wanted to call to your attention at this time. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 53 Chair: Are there any other comments from staff? Name? Yes. A couple of clarifications. Item number five, the Lantana Lane which is north south street. Staff's recommendation, ?? at the speed of 50 for a right of way of 28 foot wide streets ?? access north and be a through street. Number six, sort of the same condition, staff is not necessarily leaning one way or another on that one. It's going to be a through street a 24 foot wide street. Would accommodate two way traffic obviously with onstreet parking. I think the one heading north, there's significantly undeveloped property to the north could become, there's at least 80 acres and then some in that area, so it could become a major street sometime in the future without any other access to Zion Road south. So that's where my recommendation's coming from there. There are quite a few comments on the tree preservation plan. We met with the applicants after technical plat review meeting to look at increasing the canopy. There is not proposal to go from 12 and a half down to point five percent. And they have significantly increased the canopy in their efforts. ?? things to be able to count some of that as preserved however have not been presented. We've discussed it and I think we know where everyone's going but it's just not been presented to the commission or staff formally as part of this ?? packet and of course that needs to be submitted for you to be able to recommend approval of the overall project so I have included those comments here in the packet, about eleven comments on the tree preservation plan as well as some comments on the landscape plan, which the landscape plan was not submitted either as requested so that and the revisions that did not come forward, I think probably because there's significant work done to try to meet the goals of this PZD just didn't get made in time to get to this level. So we're recommending that it be tabled. Chair: Are there any comments from engineering? Name? Yes. I'm going to prepare detailed comments for both of these tabled items and provide them to the applicant. I'm just going to go over a couple of the items. If we could go ahead and I usually don't request that but if we could have a separate sheet for the utilities, I believe that would be beneficial. And we'll also be looking at that improvements on the design road on the drainage. The other comments as I stated we'll provide in detail. Chair: Would the applicant introduce yourselves and let us know about your project. Applicant: Jeremy ?? with H? Engineering. We are representing the applicant for Zion Gardens and the project's been well introduced. As far as comments. We were just disappointed yesterday that this thing would be tabled so we're really here to see what the concerns are and address those as well as Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 54 possible. Just to clarify, you all mentioned Zion Road, the street condition that you ?? the street condition and drainage. What exactly are you all looking for there. Chair: We can get into a discussion after we get the public comment but if you have any additional comments to staff's reports you ?? Applicant: No. Chair: Is there any public comment on PZD 05-1599. Thank you. If you would introduce yourself and give us your address. Lea: Thank you. My name is John Lea, spelled L -E-A. I live at 2770 East Randal. And that's Randal spelled with one L. We have two concerns as property owners in this situation. The first is the storm water runoff across our property. We've got a significant issue with the runoff come across from Zion down Randal place, through a culvert in front of my property, across my property and then out to Lake Fayetteville. We have had a significant issue within the last two years caused by the development in the area of 265 and Zion Road and we're not ?? capturing this run off water. In the last two out of three years that runoff has completely washed out that culvert which can be substantiated by the ?? ... had to come back and rebuild that culvert because of the flow that is now coming down through that area. I contacted the city engineer about this and I had Mr. Petrie come out and take a look at that and he totally acknowledged the fissure and the immense amount of erosion that is now taking place on our property as it flows all the way through from Randal Place out to Lake Fayetteville and acknowledged the need for immediate repair to that situation before further development could go forward and we agree with that. We have made ?? aware of the situation and we've been trying to work with them and the city in some way to get this issue fixed but we feel strongly that we could not support, nor should the city support any further development in this area until this situation is rectified. My second concern pertains to the entrance on Randal place themselves. Randal place is as you cited in your opening comments, a narrow side street which is now used as the development has grown as a bypass for the light at Zion and 265. There's a very steep sharp curve in Randal Place and you could probably check there was a car in the ditch there yesterday because people constantly underestimate how sharp that curve is coming around that particular location. We've had grave concerns about the entrance being right at the location of that curve, coming out onto Randal Place. It's a blind corner there, they are not able to see the entrance and exits from that area. Again, my mailbox which had no issues for 12 years living in that area has been totally ?? twice and it's a large ?? mailbox and it's been totally knocked down as has my fence twice from out of control vehicles around that corner just in the last two years. So we've got us a difficult Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 55 Chair: situation with the location of that ?? right on Zion Road. We have again recommended to the engineers and the architect that ?? entrance and exits could be located onto Zion Road which is slated for improvements and is much more suited to handle the type of additional traffic ?? is Randal Place particularly in the current location next to that sharp curve on Randal. So that is our comments pertaining to this. As I say, we're not necessarily anti -development but we've got two very serious issues that need to be addressed before we feel as property owners, we can support this type of development. I have written that up in the form of letter to you and to the Planning Commission. Thank you Mr. Lea. Are there any other public comments concerning RPZD 05-1599. Seeing none we'll bring it back to the commission. I believe the applicant had a couple of follow up questions to some of the comments of staff. Applicant: Sure. What I was asking about earlier was the evaluation you wanted on Zion Road. Staff: Initially an inventory of what is there and what could be done to alleviate 950 vehicle trips per day. One is obviously evidenced right now, the potential improvements right now at the curve that there's that concern there. Obviously, probably ?? know more about traffic patterns than we do. We don't live there. And so it's evidence like this that really helps us as well as your investigation of what is existing out there. We have suggested looking west to Zion, to Old Missouri because the city did street improvements there at that intersection in the recent past. To the east has actually been improved very recently with the Fayetteville Athletic Club expansion so there would be an access to a major arterial there at the light to the east. However traffic traveling west, as you know Zion Road is a very narrow road when it continues on west to get to College Avenue. So again we're looking for adequate street standards to be accomplished where there are substandard streets in the area. And again, that's based on a real proportionality test on how many lots, how many vehicle trips per day are generated by your proposed development. An assessment of generally what is there and a lot of times we see proposals from a developer about what they feel is appropriate. Traffic studies sometimes are utilized to do that very same thing and if they are not, then staff makes the best recommendation we can from what we can see out there. Applicant: ??? With the 50 foot right of way stub outs that you guys are requesting, I guess I'd just like to make sure that we can just dedicate 50 foot of right of way, not actually stub the street out at this time but put the dedication there so that that can happen in the future. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 56 Name? That's something yes, that can happen, and assess... exactly I think the biggest issue right now is Lantana Lane showing, the biggest thing showing the 24 foot wide street and we're recommending that be a 28 foot wide street. It looks like there's room. One of the other comments is that lots 18, 17, 34, 48, 66, and 65 all have some extra space in there that's not encompassed in the lot and that was one of the comments. When you said to buy property, everything is to be included in something and owned by someone and be created as the legal lot of record. Part of that can be encompassed within the actual lot. Part of it with an extension of right of within 50 feet. But again we are recommending that ben a 20 foot wide street, Lantana Lane stub out to the north. Applicant: I guess that's about it. I've got a lot of comments to review, take a look at. Name? I think there's also, this is one of the ?? on the back side? Obviously there's some concern about ??? owners I think you may have been referring to both of them where this alley comes out in this curve and also, I don't know the distance here or the scale or anything but the distance from where this curve is to where the street actually comes out Frontier Elm also. From Frontier Elm to the curve? To the alley. Name? The traffic pattern there on the alley along the north was designed specifically for exit only. And the reason for that is because of exactly what Mr. Lea stated. We felt that it was a dangerous situation that had to have a vehicle coming north on Randal trying to turn into that close to that curb whereas if they're coming out there, they're able to see both directions south and east on Randal and make a more safe maneuver through that intersection. The one on Frontier Elm where it connects we felt that, just because of the lot configuration it is a, there is a line of vegetation right there along the road. It's not just the configuration of the road but the presence of those trees right there along the east and the south side of Randal. Name? And I see that you guys have a copy of this. There's an addition to the list of things under the recommendation section they've also listed some things before that about things they would like you to report on and clarify with them as far as you ?? height and percentage of allowable building area on the lots and things of that nature. So it may not be included in this other list over here so just wanted to make sure that you guys are aware of that and get that to staff as well. Name? On the plus side, you don't want this to be a totally negative experience, the fact that your units ?? the outer line is great. I love the idea of the alleys so that you have back loading, parking, back loading garages. There are no, I'm assuming guest parking on the street would be allowed. But you probably will have the residents parking behind. The roundabout Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 57 in the middle is a good calming device for traffic so that you don't get the drag strip affect and then you have side alleyways decant into, or side streets that decant into those part way down so that's, I think the streets have been really well planned on the interior. This amenity of the, it's not really a park, but the tree preservation area is a tremendous thing because it will maintain, and the setbacks will maintain that kind of rural character of Zion Road where you still have a very, fairly dense development setback. So it won't impact the feel of driving down Zion as much as it would if it was smack dab up against the road. So I think there are a lot of good things about this as well as difficulties that have been identified. We look forward to seeing it again. Name? (too far from the mike) Tree preservation area... is that something you all want paved? Name? ?? connect the sidewalks between Lantana Lane and Begonia Lane and to provide pedestrian access obviously falls about 66 through 67 since that street has been removed. Name? I guess more ADA requirements than anything else. But I'm wondering whether or not that ?? be Name? We recommend a hard surface and again, we'll work with you to locate that appropriately. Name? And just to address another comment that Mr. Lea had. We had ?? come out there on his drainage problem and we have also met with Rob Petrie. We've done the calculations to figure out how inundated this property is in fact and it is the drainage structures there are undersize. We've made a proposal to engineering to replace that 36 inch culvert with a four by eight box culvert to prevent that water from topping around the road and washing out the ?? again as well as ?? the piping the water all the way across his property. So we do have that as part of the plan as well. Name? One other thing that I would ask for when you guys come back is some renderings of the actual units themselves because I know that's something that the full commission will want to see as well. Name? We do have some. We also have ?? brochure. Name? ?? next time because they'll be back. Chair: Are there any other comments from the commission, staff? Are there any motions? Name? I'll make a motion that we table PZD 05-1599 Zion Gardens. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 58 Name? Until such time as Name? Until such time the applicants are prepared to come back. Chair: Is there a second. Name? Yes, second, sorry. Chair: I concur. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is Large Scale Development 05-1595 Lofts at Scull Creek if the applicant would come forward and we'll hear staff's report please. Staff: Thank you sir. This property is located in central Fayetteville at Ash Street less than a quarter mile east of Leveratt Avenue. The property is zoned RMF24 residential multi -family, 24 units per acre and ?? industrial I1. It contains approximately 1.66 acres. This site contains Skull Creek which is a northwest/southwest running stream that bisects the southeastern corner of the property and the flood plane and associated flood plain ?? are located in that portion of the site. This ?? area in the western border of the site contain a number of high priority trees. The site is currently undeveloped with some disturbed area associated with past grading activities. The applicant proposes to construct 15 for sale condominiums with a total of 37 bedrooms and 26 parking spaces. The development has a density of nine units per acre. The onsite parking is proposed in compliance with the parking ordinance as depicted on the plat. The lot does not meet the required lot width/street frontage of 90 feet required for multi -family development and the RMF24 zoning district and the waiver request from the applicant's representative to allow for approximately 41 feet of lot width has been attached to this report, enclosed. As mentioned this site is mainly surrounded by residential development on three sides and undeveloped land to the east. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets include Ash Street which currently dead ends right at the property entrance and Chestnut Street as designated as a local street and it has right of way along the eastern edge of the property. Staff has a few comments from the property owner to the north, expressing concern related to flooding and past construction in the floodway by the applicant on this site, illegal trespass from neighbors and also emergency access issues. Tree preservation is required and staff is recommended forwarding this project to the full Planning Commission and I'll highlight some of the conditions of approval that we're recommending with this. Condition number two, planning commission determination of a waiver of the required lot width street frontage to allow for approximately 40 feet of frontage on Ash Street. Condition number three, applicant shall dedicate right of way for a total of 25 feet from the center line of Ash Street and Chestnut Streets by warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 59 So that Ash Street also has a total of 20 feet of right of way from the center line. Conditions five and six are related to development in the flood plain. Condition number five requires that an elevation certificate is required prior to issuance of the building permit for each structure. Condition number six requires that no livable areas allowed below the minimum finished floor elevation of the structure. Garages are the only portions allowed. Those are the conditions I wanted to highlight for you. Chair: Is there any other comments from staff? From engineering? Staff: No comment. Chair: If you guys would introduce yourselves and let us know about your project. Scuznos: I'm George Scuznos, project design consultant, civil engineer for the project. This is Tim Cooper, he's the architect with Cooper and Associatea and Jessica Andrews, she's also with Cooper and Associates. We would like to mention that we actually do have 27 spaces which would be one above the 26 recommended. So other than that I am here to answer any questions you may have. Chair: Ok. Are there any comments from the public on this project? If you would state your name and give us your address. Hart: Good Morning. I'm Peggy Hart. I am representing myself and my husband Edward Hart. We live at 715 West Poplar. We have lived at this property north of the proposed development since 1993 and our main concern is runoff since we live downstream. We used to have a drainage problem from runoff from the trailer park to the west and the lot south of us even though it was vacant. In 2000 Poplar Street was lowered and widened. Drainage was improved and it has done a lot to stop the flooding problem in our area. And since the work has been done, we've had no more problems until April of last year when truckloads of fill were brought into the property to the south. Suddenly when it rained, the south end of our property started flooding. After we talked with Matt Casey in the city engineering department, we discovered that a grading violation had occurred. Although the owners were asked to remove the dirt, the dirt was simply moved around. The fill is still there and we still have flooding in the south of our property when it rains heavily. If flooding occurs now from the three days worth of fill dirt that was brought in, we can only imagine the amount of runoff that buildings and paving will cause. Lastly, we wonder if the developer strictly will adhere and honor the city ordinances, codes and conditions the planning commission and staff set forth. With one violation already committed, we strongly question the developer's sincerity. Thank you. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 60 Chair: Are there any other public comments concerning this project? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the commissioners. Name? How many parking spaces did you say there were? Scuznos: Twenty-seven. Name? This says eleven, oh these are guests. Ok. One in front of each... S Fifteen garage spaces. Name? And this is the updated... S I believe so, Umhm Name? ...site plan. So it's been reduced to 37 bedrooms instead of how many? S It use to be, I believe, 39 bedrooms. Name? May I ask you something about the site. S Yes please. Name? The site's kind of an unusual site. First of all it has Skull Creek going down through part of it and that kind of cuts this whole corner of the property off which won't even be developed. It will basically be left natural. Then the owner is also paying parks fees instead of, yea, dedicating land money in lieu and he's actually donating a trail border for Skull Creek that's approximately 30 feet or so onto the property. And then this is a floodway here, so this will all be green space as well so, actually, as far as the area goes, land area, if the flood way wasn't there and the creek wasn't there, there could be a lot more density actually put on a piece of property like this so it's actually fewer units than could be seen upstream and in a different situation. Name? I hate to put you on the spot with math. But if you were to guess the percentage of imperviable surface compared to drainable surface on the property, what would you say it was? S Right about between forty and fifty percent. I mean just judging by the numbers, by the look of it. Name? I'd say it's less than that. Name? I would yea Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 61 S Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? S Chair: Name? S. Name? S Chair: Name? S Twenty five Well the stuff that you've left is probably sixty percent. Indicating a 67 percent green space, percent of green space. Yea. The other issue that, you know would probably be best to be mentioned here is the actual buildings are being built on the flood plain, so what we had done here, we had not modified the actual grades. We haven't raised the site any. And that was just to avoid any potential problem down stream that may occur from raising the site to get everything out of...\ So you're staying at grade? We're staying at grade. Would staff or the applicant one, care to make any comments concerning the public comments we heard about the flooding and other issues to the north. Well, we have seen the gravel. They are pretty immense and they don't look very nice. I can say that I know the owner, as far as I know, the owner that we're actually working for, didn't close on the property until probably four months ago or something. I'm not sure when that was put on there but I think it was put on there before that. So I don't think they had anything to do with that portion of it. I'm not sure but we're going to, obviously the owner's going to follow code and I mean, you know... Hopefully the city will see that they do. Exactly. Any other comments commissioners? I guess we need somebody to speak to how the drainage will work since the applicant's here and she's having trouble with the previous owner but can you all speak kind of in layman's terms with how this water's going to not come onto her property? Well as you can see from the parking lot, we've actually diverted the water. It will follow down the parking lot in between the buildings and it Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 62 Chair: S will hit that hammerhead there at the end, at which point it will actually be diverted off to the creek side which would still, it would hit the floodway which would usually would be flooded anyway in the ?? flow. So hopefully we are trying to get that water out before any, you know, if we delay it, it's a potential to actually worsen the situation. So what we'd like to do is just to get it out as quickly as possible so it doesn't affect the downstream areas. So that's what we'd prefer to do. Ok. I know that city code requires that no extra water that's leaving this property goes onto anyone else's so I understand that and I want to make sure the public understands that with her, especially with her specific problem. So hopefully that will get relieved soon. And we also might be able to alleviate her problem with the actual grading of those rock where we level it out where, because they are pretty immense and they are blocking the flow from actually... Name? That would be ... S That would reach and that would probably also assist in that. Name? That would be great. Have you all read the conditions that the staff has recommended as far as the offsite improvements with sidewalks and things of that nature? S I haven't seen ?? but the one thing was the situation with Ash Street right here, it's kind of an unusual situation as well because Ash actually comes down and then stops, ?? and then this picks back up and goes into a rural industrial area right here near the skating rink and so forth so. And to actually I guess be in code, you'd have to extend this down and there's not going to be any further, at least we don't think that that will be extended so that's kind of what... Name? Staff is also recommending some sidewalks be put in at the right of way and into the, through the proposed drive. Can I give you all, don't want a problem with that either. Ok. Name? Are we forwarding this? Name? Yea. I'm ready to forward it. Name? We appreciate your helping the neighbor as soon as possible. Name? I'll move to forward LSD 05-1595 to the full Planning Commission with all conditions and recommendations as stated. Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 63 Name? I second. Chair: And I concur. Name? We'll see you again. Name? Thank you. Chair: For the record on our agenda it says 05-1595 and on our packet it says - 1593. She moved to forward 1593 but I just want to make sure... Name? No didn't I say 95? Chair: Or 95. Yes you did but the packet says 93 so I was just going to make sure we correct that. Name? Oh. Well which is right? Chair: Correct that. The next item on the agenda and the last item on the agenda is the final plat 05-1575 Bridgedale. If the applicant would come forward and we'll hear staff's report. Staff: This property is located at 1341 Roberts Road north of the subdivision we heard earlier ??. the property is zoned RSF4 residential single family. It contains seven acres. The request is to approve a final plat of a subdivision to allow for the sale of lots the 25 single family lots proposed. This property was annexed and rezoned in August of 2004. A year later ?? construction of the streets interior retention, water and sewer lines have occurred and been inspected and therefore the request is for a final plat document to be filed at the county. Right of way dedications will be with this final plat document and there are proposed 18 conditions of approval. Staff's recommending forwarding this final plat. The initial tree preservation plan that was approved for this property, the applicant indicated that he wanted to pay money in lieu and that's how that project was approved. I sent that ?? an onsite mitigation plan, an onsite mitigation plan has been submitted. Comments have been received by the applicant and they are working on revisions which they indicated would be finished today. Of course that plan will need to be reviewed in final by the landscape administrator and forwarded onto the Planning Commission for final approval. There are a number of conditions most of which are directly from the preliminary plat. Staff report that you saw originally includes a letter of ?? 51 mitigation trees. Of course all conditions of approval including outside improvements to a bridge, I'm sorry to Gull??? Road will just need to be verified before signing the final plat. Parkland dedication fees in the amount of $13,875 assessment for $5500 for an unconstructed portion of North Point Street stub out on the property and Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 64 then there are some specific requirements that was placed on the project at the time of preliminary plat regarding the offsite detention which is located in the planning area. With that I'll be able to answer any questions. Chair: Are there any comments from engineering? Name? Just that we did a final walk through on the punch list items yesterday. There were a few minor things that need to be completed before signature of final plat. Chair: Thank you. If the applicant will introduce themselves an let us know about the project. Jeffcoat: Tom Jeffcoat, Mulholland Company. This subdivision has been completed and the few minor inspection comments are being dealt with. The tree planting for the mitigation is, should be in Jeremy's office before noon and the owner is installing, meeting with the landscaper to install those trees. Subdivision should be ready for public sales as soon as we can get everything signed and ready to go. We agree with, most of the comments are, have been addressed and were done so at previous plat reviews. They're just repeated comments in most cases and that's it. We're in agreement. Chair: Alright, there being no public, unless one of our camera people want to talk, we'll bring it back to the commission. Any comments? Name? Well this is just north of the subdivision that we just looked at and discussed the intersection at Roberts and Goth Farm and I don't know what my point is making that observation but it's just more traffic. I don't have any issues with this. Name? And we're forwarding this, or staff's recommending we forward this final plat and that is because, are there some changes from the preliminary plat, or I can't remember. Did we put a condition on it back when we did the preliminary plat? Name? It was for the review of the mitigate, the landscape mitigation, onsite mitigation plan. Name? Alright. Then everything else is essentially the same. Name? Everything else should be essentially the same. That's correct. Chair: Is there a motion? Subdivision Committee July 14, 2005 Page 65 Name? Name? Name? Jeffcoat: Name? Chair: Jeffcoat: Name? Name? Name? Name? Chair: Jeffcoat: Chair: Staff: Chair: I agree with... So you're forwarding this to... Planning Commission and actually we'll, if everything looks good on the mitigation plan we'll probably propose this to be put on consent since there are not really outside ?? issues. Ok. I was just wondering if you could make a condition of Jeremy's approval on the planting plan or whatever. Either way. I would be more comfortable with it going to the planning condition since that was not the condition of approval that was, originally it was going to be money and those plans have changed. Since there's a change, we usually forward it, but he's right since it's a relatively a non issue, it ought to be on the consent agenda. I can't promise that but it ought to be. Sure. I don't see why it shouldn't at this time. So I'll make a motion that we forward final plat 05-1575 to the Planning Commission. With all conditions. With all conditions as stated. And I'll second. And I'll concur. Thank you. Thank you. That's the last item on our agenda. Are there any announcements? If you could forward to me, actually I'll probably send an email out about the retreat. I believe ?? sent out something recently about ideas of where to go for Commissioner Anthes as well and I'll try to send out an email today confirming where that is and when that is. Any other announcements? We're adjourned.