Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-16 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on February 16, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 05-1781: Lot Split (LUTTRELL, 320) Page 3 LSP 06-1873: Lot Split (IVY/RAY, 526) Page 5 LSP 06-1929: Lot Split (CARPENTER, 723) Page 7 LSP 06-1930: Lot Split (BRANNAN, 204) Page 8 LSP 06-1931: Lot Split (BRISIEL, 526) Page 9 PPL 06-1920: Preliminary Plat (DEPALMA ADDITION, 487) Page 11 LSD 05-1827: Large Scale Development (WESTERN SIZZLIN, 557) Page 15 C-PZD 06-1921: Planned Zoning District (LAZENBY/PHASE II, 560 Page 25 R-PZD 06-1922: Planned Zoning District (SCOTTSWOOD PLACE, 558 Page 37 LSD 05-1809: Large Scale Development (THE LOFTS @ UNDERWOOD PLAZA, 483) Page 46 Approved Tabled Tabled Approved Approved Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Tabled Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Christine Myres Jill Anthes Audy Lack STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Suzanne Morgan Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Brent O'Neal/Engineering Sarah Patterson/Urban Forester Jeremy Pate Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 3 LSP 05-1781: Lot Split (LUTTRELL, 320): Submitted by BLEW SURVEYING for property located at 5583 & 5391 W. WHEELER RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 8.68 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into four tracts of 2.07, 1.74, 2.16, and 2.71 acres. Fulcher: This was actually an item we started working on the end of last year about November with the applicants. There were some issues that we didn't have resolved at the time - ownership of the access road back to the properties. Since that time it appears those items have been worked out. They will build and dedicate the required right-of-way to meet the maximum Street Plan requirements. The property is located south of W. Wheeler Road, along the eastern side of a proposed extension of 54th Street which is a collector street. Currently it is a 3 -acre tract and a 5.6 - acre tract; they are going to adjust those and then subdivide Tract B into three tracts of 1.58, 2.06, and 2.57 acres. As I stated, the right-of-way will be dedicated on Wheeler Road along the frontage and also a right-of-way will be dedicated along the west property line for the future extension of 54th Street. Water is available to each tract from Wheeler Road and each tract is greater than 1.5 acres; therefore, we do not require septic system approval prior to approval of the lot split. With those items, Staff is recommending approval of LSP 05-1781 with three conditions of approval: Number 1 — that the right-of-way shall be dedicated on Wheeler Road and 35' from the centerline from the existing access drive for the extension of 54th Street with this plat and the 20' paved access shall be provided from the intersection of Wheeler Road South to give access to all the lots providing at least 75' of paved frontage for Lot 5-D, to meet that 75' frontage requirement; Number 2 — Washington County approval prior to filing the lot split. Thomas: Deric Thomas with Blew Bates & Associates. I have no comments. Luttrell: Rick Lutrell, property owner and I don't have anything to add. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this lot split for Luttrell. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners for comments. Myres: I think I was sitting on the Subdivision Committee the first time and it seems as though they have corrected all of the deficiencies that were present at the time, so I will move for approval. Anthes: O'Neal: I forgot to ask for additional Staff reports because of the lot split. A lot of times they don't have them. I only have two things. The water line that runs down 54th Street, if you could show the entire extension of that to the end and also label the size of Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 4 it.. Also, if you are agreeable, the 25' setback that you have noted along the future 54th Street, if you could show that as a utility easement as well. That would be a better solution for the future extension of 54`h Thomas: I think we have 20' UTE along 54th Street. You want a 25'? O'Neal: Yes, the setback is 25' and we are asking that you show that the entire thing as a utility easement. Anthes: Are there any additional Staff comments? Okay, Christine... Myres: I would like to move for approval of LSP 05-1781 for Luttrell with the conditions for approval and the comments made by Engineering. Lack: I will second that. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 5 LSP 06-1873: Lot Split (IVY/RAY, 526): Submitted by DEREK HILEMAN for property located at 518 RAY AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.49 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 0.18 and 0.31 acres. Garner: This property is located at 518 Ray Avenue just south of Happy Hollow Elementary School. The site is just under a half acre located in a RSF-4 zoning district. The property is surrounded north, south, and west by similar sized single-family lots and to the east is a small strip of multi- family zoning with six duplexes. The applicant requests to split the lot into tracts approximately 0.30 and 0.18 acres. The lot split would result in a tandem lot, the 0.18 -acre tract would be proposed to be accessed off a 20' access easement onto Dockery Lane to the east. The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for creation of the tandem lot to be heard by the Planning Commission. The proposed tandem lot does not meet the minimum lot area of 8,000 square feet required for a RSF-4 lot requirement. In order for this lot to be created, approval for a nonconforming lot would also be required by the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment. We have received a phone call from an adjacent property owner to the east who commented he would not allow an access easement through his property to this proposed tandem lot to the east. For that reason, Staff is not supportive of the requested lot split or the Conditional Use Permit finding that the lot split does not meet the minimum zoning criteria and the tandem lot is not compatible with other single-family properties developed in the area, as far as the size and the surrounding lots. We are recommending that this lot split be tabled to address the access easement issue and it should not be forwarded to the Planning Commission until appropriate documents have been provided showing access easement allowed through the property to the east. O'Neal: The only comment I have is to show the sewer manhole at the end of the sewer main. Patterson: No comment. Thomas: Deric Thomas with Blew Bates & Associates. Can we adjust the size of Tract H2 to make it conforming and then reapply? Garner: You could adjust that and that would eliminate having to get a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Anthes: But we would still want to see the documentation on the approval of the access easement. Would any member of the public like to address this lot split? Seeing none I will close the public comment. Commissioners..... Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 6 Myres: Well, do we want to table it or.... Anthes: I think I would like to see the minimum lot size met and obviously we need to be able to get to that lot. Myres: So if he revises it, is that a new application or a revision? Garner: It would be a revision. Lack: I will move to table LSP 06-1873 until such time that the access easement can be delivered and the lot H-2 can be brought up to City standard. Myers: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 7 LSP 06-1929: Lot Split (CARPENTER, 723): Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at 3275 DEAD HORSE MOUNTAIN RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 23.96 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 21.94 and 2.02 acres. Anthes: It looks like Staff is recommending tabling. Do we need to do a report? Fulcher: We don't have to at this time. Anthes: Let me ask if any member of the public is here to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion to table. Myres: I so move. I move to table LSP 06-1929 indefinitely. Lack: I think the recommendation states table until applicants can provide an access easement agreement allowing access to the property. And I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 8 LSP 06-1930: Lot Split (BRANNAN, 204): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at 3339 HUGHMOUNT. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 38.68 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 34.17 and 4.51 acres. Morgan: This property consists of approximately 39 acres and is located in the Planning Area with all surrounding properties within the Planning Area. It is located both on Hughmount Road and Weir Road which are designated local streets on the Master Street Plan in this location. The applicant requests to subdivide the property; this is the first lot split of this property since prior to 1985. The applicant requests to create two tracts, 4.51 acres and 34.17 acres. Staff has reviewed this request and finds that it meets our criteria for lot area and lot width. Both tracts are greater than 1.5 acres, therefore we are not reviewing septic system approvals at this time. Staff does recommend approval with three conditions: Number 1 addresses some minor plat revisions. I would like to comment on 1-D that a 25' utility easement was shown adjacent to the right-of-way. I believe that at tech plat, a 20' was requested and I don't know if things have changed. I would suggest that the utility easement could be lessened if the applicant so chooses. Number two states that County Planning approval is required. O'Neal: No comment. Patterson: No comment. Jorgensen: Dave Jorgensen with Jorgensen & Associates and am here to answer questions on this. We are in agreement with all the comments. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this lot split, LSP 06- 1930 for Brannan. There is no public comment. Commissioners.... Lack: No comment. It is rare that we see a condition that would require a less than what was given. I will move that we approve LSP 06-1930, Brannan with the stated conditions of approval. Myres: I will second. Anthes: I have a question of Staff. This says that, the Staff report states that there have been no divisions to this land since before 1985, so basically Tract A could be subdivided. Morgan: Correct, either Tract A or Tract B could be subdivided an additional two times, perhaps. Any further division would require Subdivision approval. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 9 LSP 06-1931: Lot Split (BRISIEL, 526): Submitted by TIM BRISIEL for property located at 639 HAPPY HOLLOW RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.40 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of .20 acres. Garner: This property is located at 639 Happy Hollow Road, approximately 300' north of Huntsville Road. The property lies within the RSF-4 zoning district. A variance was granted by the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment on January 9, 2006 to allow for the subject lot split as proposed with a lot width of 61.63, a variance of 8.37'. Staff is recommending in favor of this lot split. It would divide the 0.4 -acre lot into equal Tots of 0.2 and 0.2 acres. Tract B currently contains a single-family dwelling and Tract A contains several accessory structures. Staff is recommending that this lot split be approved by the Subdivision Committee with conditions of approval. Condition #1 — all property owners of record shall sign the lot split document prior to recordation. Condition #2 is the existing accessory structures on proposed Tract A would have to be removed prior to recording of this lot split. Condition #4 is that the following revisions shall be made to the plat prior to recordation: an access easement between the two proposed lots shall be called out and dimensioned. As you can see there is a shared driveway between the two lots that needs to be called out as an access easement to be documented for the future. O'Neal: Same comment that I had at Technical Plat with the meter location for the existing structure — it will have to be relocated or a new water meter be set for the existing structure and the existing meter be re -addressed for the new lot. Patterson: No comment. Applicants: Deric Thomas with Blew Bates & Associates. Tim Brisiel, property owner. Thomas: If we want to access just off the street frontage, do we have to keep that existing drive as an easement as well or just do both? Would that make it easier? Garner: It is however you want to handle it. If you want to access it off a different point, you need to remove that existing driveway because it is located on a property line which isn't allowed by the ordinance — that is shared access easement. Myres: I assume you are going to provide driveways to both lots? Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 10 Brisiel: Yes, that would probably be the cleanest and best way to do it, because there will be two separate houses in there. We agree with all the other comments. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this lot split, LSP 06- 1931 for Brisiel? There is no public comment. I do have a question for Staff. Personally, the idea of a shared drive seems like a good one to me, particularly in a situation where the lots do not meet the minimum frontage, therefore require fewer curb cuts onto Happy Hollow Road. Lack: I would concur with that if it that would be amenable, that you could have a single curb cut and then split off so that that easement wouldn't have to come deep into the property. Happy Hollow Road carries a good bit of traffic and would be a better condition for the residents. If that would be acceptable. Anthes: Any other comments. Garner: Basically what they need to do is label it as an access easement and show the dimension of width of the driveway before it is recorded. Brisiel: Is there a minimum dimension? Are there width requirements there? Garner: I believe the driveway, there are width requirements — it has to be a minimum I believe of 10' wide, I don't know if anyone knows off the top of their head. It can't be more than 24' wide. Myres: I thought it was 12'. But maybe that's someplace else. Anthes: Maybe 24' if shared. We can double check it for you. Any additional comments. I will move to approve LSP 06-1931 subject to the conditions of approval as stated with the additional comment about the access easement for a shared drive. Myres: I will second. Lack: I will concur. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 11 PPL 06-1920: Preliminary Plat (DEPALMA ADDITION, 487): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at S END OF ANSON STREET. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENT. PLANNED ZONING DIST. and contains approximately 10.04 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 5 single family lots. Garner: This property contains ten acres and is located at the south end of Anson Street on Mount Sequoyah. It was zoned R-PZD 05-1798, Residential Planning Zoning District. This property was included as an out -parcel in the Biella Estates Preliminary Plat that was approved in September of 2005. This site is an undeveloped wooded hillside and to the south and east. The Mount Sequoyah Preserve City Park is south of the property and property identified to be donated into this preserve as part of Biella Estates and the DePalma Addition is immediately east of the site. The applicant requests a residential subdivision with five single-family Tots in confor- mance with the R-PZD requirements that were approved. To access this site, the applicant proposes construction of a 20' private street, a 20' access easement extending through the end of the Anson Street cul-de-sac through the site, and ending in a cul-de-sac on this property. The waivers for the width of the private driveway and for the length of the dead end street were approved as part of R-PZD 05-1798. Adequate right-of-way does not currently exist for vehicular access into this site off of Anson Street; therefore, an access easement is required from the adjacent property owners. At this point Staff is recommending tabling this preliminary plat. The major issue to address is the determination of adequate sewer service and Engineering Division does not recommend in favor of the sewer system as proposed which would be a low-pressure sewer service and recommends that this item be tabled from appearing before the Planning Commission until an acceptable solution is presented to Engineering staff. Brent bas included a memo attached in this report. The other major condition to address is that proof of available access into this site off of Anson Street is required to be submitted. I have looked at the proposed access easement but haven't seen anything signed by the adjacent property owners. Those are the two major issues that we feel need to be addressed before this can be on the Planning Commission agenda. Condition #5 is that the property owner of record, Anthony De Palma, shall sign the Preliminary Plat application; and condition #7 — the note on sheet one should be revised to state that the gas streetlight would be installed at the time of final plat. There are several tree preservation conditions there; Sarah may want to hit upon them. Other than that, they are pretty straight forward conditions. O'Neal: Kipp, on this access, make sure it extends all the way down to the south property line so we have clear access. What we are proposing is a lift station site in the southwest comer of the park land dedication that is Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 12 labeled as 2.5 acres. It would then pump back up as shown here on this plat to the manhole up in the subdivision to the north with an additional easement dedicated on this south property line of the park land, extending eastward. This extension of the sewer main would not be required at this time, just a dedicated easement to the east. Anthes: On the park land? O'Neal. On the park land. Until such time that sewer becomes available to this location, this is probably the best solution that we can come up with. We are presently looking into other solutions that may be presented but right now this the only thing that is generally accepted in the City at this time. Patterson: I have three revisions that need to be made to the Tree Preservation Plan. I need you to identify on-site areas for the delivery and storage of construction materials. I also need you to remove one of the tree canopy calculations — there are still two charts with different values, one is preserving 94% and one is preserving 80 something percent. I am not sure which one is correct, so one needs to be removed. And also, just a reminder that you need to remove the canopy that is found within the building footprints of these lots. Hearne: Kipp Hearne with H2 Engineering and Jeremy Thompson with H2 Engineering. Again, we are trying to create five large tracts here for the De Palma estate. We had a conversation with Engineering Staff yesterday and becoming aware of their position with the sewer. I wasn't aware that you guys are requesting the extension of the cul-de-sac down to the very south property line. O'Neal: It is not an extension of the cul-de-sac, but an extension of an access easement. Hearne: Just an easement. That won't be a problem for sure. This 2.5 acres with Park Land dedication, it is closely related to the Biella subdivision and certainly we don't have a problem identifying sections of this property allocating it for this particular development versus Biella. Is this just an administrative issue, maybe with Parks? Anthes: If you look at the Park Land dedication as contiguous, the line of the map appears here, once that is given to Parks, it is one continuous property. Hearne: And the other property surrounding this will all be donated as well. It was promised during the BOA platting process. We are aware of this requirement from Engineering and our understanding is that we won't be put on the Planning Commission agenda until this issue is worked out, but Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 13 it sounds like we need to get together with Engineering Staff and present a workable solution for the sewer. Anthes: What the recommendation is, is that we will table and you will come back to this committee before you will go to Planning Commission. Garner: I think we are comfortable that, if you want to forward it to Planning Commission with the condition I think the way it is worded, I could have of said "forward it". We do feel comfortable as long as these are worked out. As long as Engineering is satisfied with the solution for the sewer service, we are okay moving forward to this point, but it won't be put on the agenda until they are satisfied with it. But there again it is what you feel comfortable with as well, if you want to come back and see the solution before it goes to Planning Commission. Anthes: Is anyone here to speak for PPL 06-1920? There is no public comment. Myres: If it is just a matter of satisfying a requirement by Engineering for a change that will occur and they won't pass it on until that is taken care of, I don't see any reason we can't recommend to forward with that condition. Anthes: I guess what I am worried about is the fact that the access easement actually has not been worked out. To me, that sounds like a make or break on the project. Hearns: We are working with the two adjacent property owners that have the contiguous property. We have visited with both of them and have given exhibits to them and we don't see any reason why we won't be able to work that out. I think that is a goal we can set for ourselves as well, along with the sewer, to have it worked out before going to the Planning Commission. Myres: I think you should. Anthes: There are numerous things here that are sort of make or break situations for the project and I guess I'd like to hear what Audy thinks before we forward it in a weakened state. Lack: I think the only concern that I would have with it right now with not going ahead to forward it is that it will be seen by a different Subdivision Committee that would not have as good a grasp on it as if it came to the full Commission, the three of us would be there have had this preliminary. It seems like I have seen this before in Subdivision and the land owner, one of the two land owners you are talking about negotiating the access Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 14 Hearn: Lack: easement was pretty concerned with the addition and with the development of the land, the extension of the street to begin with. Mr. Farrell - or do you remember who that was? They both expressed to us, at least, that they wouldn't object to this extension at all so they were in favor of the development itself. They just wanted to work out the details on the access easement. I would suggest that it is not going to go any place, and I can trust Staff to make those judgments. There are some very clear cut judgments that if these things are not in place, then it does not go forward. Even if they are in place, it seems to be fairly easy. So I would be in favor of sending it forward. That is a motion. I move that we forward PPL 06-1920, DePalma Addition, to the full Planning Commission with the stated conditions of approval. The Planning Commission determination, adequate sewer service to be determined and that Engineering be happy with that before it comes forward, and the access easement be in place before it comes forward as well, as well as the tree committee comments. Myres: I will second. Anther I would prefer to see it back at this Committee, but you have a majority vote. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 15 LSD 05-1827: Large Scale Development (WESTERN SIZZLIN, 557): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES INC. - ROGERS for property located at 3070 W 6TH ST., HWY 62 W @ ONE MILE RD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 3.32 acres. The request is to approve an 8,348 s.f. restaurant and a 5,000 s.f. retail building on the property. Fulcher: This property contains 3.32 acres and is located one block west of the corner of Sixth Street and One Mile Road, across from Lowe's and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The site contains an abandoned single-family structure and some mature trees, located mainly in the center of the property. The applicants are proposing to construct a 9,000 s.f. restaurant, a 5,000 s.f. retail building with a combined total of 159 parking spaces. In addition to this Large Scale Development request, the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for 159 parking spaces where there are only 144 allowed, so they will be going forward with the Conditional Use to Planning Commission for an additional 15 parking spaces. They will be dedicating 55' from centerline along Sixth Street, and will need a warranty deed for Sixth Street being a state highway. Street improvements will include a 6' sidewalk located at the MSP right-of-way line along the entire property line frontage. Cross access has been provided with two adjacent developments, the lot that is to the West was the Liberty Bank which provided cross access and to the west of this development was Stadium Center retail development. They have a stub out as well, so there will be cross access that will allow access all the way to One Mile Road and the stop light there. The north property line of this property borders a single-family neighborhood; therefore, a combination of fencing and vegetation is required. We propose a six foot tall wood privacy fence and a dense vegetation screen as shown on the plans there. Since this item does require a conditional use for the additional parking, this item won't have to be forwarded if you choose to do so, to the full Planning Commission and we recommended that with seventeen conditions of approval. We do have some elevation boards down here and also some additional 11 x 17s of the retail building and the actual restaurant. Patterson: I have four conditions for tree preservation plan. I need you to identify on-site areas for delivery and storage of construction materials, on-site parking, cement truck wash -outs and soil stockpiles. Second, I am not really comfortable with the spacing of the trees that are along the south and west property lines. I am all for you trying to plant all 40 mitigation trees on the site, but that is only if they can be spaced at an adequate distance. I think the large species trees that you have planned along the highway right-of-way are only ten feet apart which I think will create quite a visibility issue later on for your business as well as the health of the Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 16 O'Neal: trees. Also, along the west property line, the Amur maples, those are spaced pretty closely as well, so I would like you to look at that I think Jesse went into it a little more on your report. We are thinking to take every other one out or something like that. That might actually leave you a few trees that will not be able to be planted on site, so we will ask that you revise the landscape plan to show that and note that the remaining trees are going to be paid as money -in -lieu. That will be at the time of the building permit. We also discussed tree #65, a hickory. We talked about moving an additional parking space to the north of that tree to give it more space. I think we had that discussion in an earlier meeting. So I'd ask that you remove that. It will give that tree a little larger space to live. My last comment is that for the trees that are to be planted on this site, a three-year maintenance and monitoring bond will need to be deposited with the City in the amount of $250 per tree. That money is due at the time of submittal of Final Certificate of Occupancy. I have several comments... the first one is to confirm any utility easements that were required by any other utility companies and show those on the plans. On your sidewalk along Highway 62, you need to show that continuous through the drive entrance. On your grading plan you need to make sure you get every item on the grading plan checklist: The vicinity, owner contact information, adjacent owner information, acreage zoning, soil type, just follow that list and show everything on this. The grading plan needs to be a stand-alone document so all those items need to be shown on there. On the utilities — the sewer service for the restaurant needs to enter a manhole, so you need to see if you can realign that to enter the existing manhole or you will have to add a manhole in that line. On the proposed water line, if it is possible, we would like to see if you can align that to be just outside the highway right-of-way. If it's not, we can work with you on that. The other thing is there is another development immediately to your west that is in construction plan review right now and they will be bringing water to the north side of Highway 62 as well, so we need to have you go ahead and extend the water line to your west property line. That is going create a loop system that will benefit everybody out there, especially since you will have to have fire protection. I believe that is all my comments. Applicants: Scott Hood with Crafton Tull & Associates. Mark Bazyk, owner of the restaurant. Anthes: Do you have any comments to add the Staff report? Bazyk: I have questions but I can take them up with you later; I am curious about the bond and the trees and all sorts of things, but you all know what you are talking about - I flip steaks. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 17 Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this LSD 05-1827 for Western Sizzlin7 Lomas: Larry Lomas — I live at 3047 West Sandra. My property is north of this property. One of my main concerns is the fence. When the property was initially rezoned, probably 15-20 years ago, from agriculture, I think, to C- 2, one of the provisions was a privacy fence would be installed between the property and the adjacent residential properties should this ever be developed. I don't know if that was ever found in the minutes or anything else, but I was at the meeting and that was discussed, and that was part of the rezoning. Also, I have concerns about how close the restaurant is and the dumpsters and the delivery area are to the north property line, which is the property line adjacent to my property. I have a feeling that it is going to create some problems for me as far as odor control, noise.... Chances are that there will be employees that smoke and that is probably where they are going to be smoking and I think that is going to create some problems. I just have some concerns. I want to be a good neighborhood and I hope this restaurant wants to be a good neighbor to us and I hope they can do something to maybe lessen those problems and lessen the impact on me and my neighbors. I do want to emphasize that I think that a privacy fence will be necessary. Anthes: I do want to state that there is noted on the plans and in the Staff report that the north property line and the side borders to the single-family neighborhood, which puts in a requirement that there needs to be a 12' wide buffer strip and screening that will be a 6' tall wood privacy fence and dense vegetation. Lomas: But I still have problems with the dumpster. It is going to be right back there and you know they are not going to empty it every day and in the summertime when it is 100 degrees outside and it is full of vegetables and what ever else is in there, there is going to be an odor problem. I was hoping there would be a way they could address that so that I don't have to live with that odor problem day in and day out. Anthes: Would any other members of the public like to speak? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comments and we will address your issues. That was one thing I noticed when looking at this plat. While you meet the building setback requirement required by the City, you are very close to a residential area and you put all your parking in the front and pushed the building back as far as possible and with that delivery and dumpster area, that will be a noise and odor nuisance. It is very close to those properties. Have you considered any other layouts that might work for you? Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 18 Hood: We had originally considered putting it more towards the center, but feasibly we couldn't get the parking required to service the restaurant. Bazic: I spoke with Fayetteville trash department and we were talking about a compactor there, we don't plan to have dumpsters. They do have six day a week pick up. I spoke with Travis and in early discussions we were planning to lease a compactor from the City and he said they have six day a week or maybe it is seven. I was pleased with talking with him that we could address some of Larry's issues and your other neighbors, too. I had met with them before and tried to reassure them that we are going to plant as much vegetation and trees and, Larry, they have updated these plans from what I showed you the first time. But we have the trees packed so thick that Sarah is complaining about it. Anthes: Did you have comments about the north property. Patterson: The north is good. It was the west and south. Anthes: Can you speak then to how many times a day or week you will receive deliveries back there, and at what hours? Bazic: We normally receive deliveries twice a week and a semi backs up there. It is usually at 8-9:00 in the morning. They back right up to the dock and it is not a noisy thing, it is pretty quiet. The smoking deal — Fayetteville is no smoking; we discourage our crew from smoking. We don't like them hanging out the back. Not saying that nobody will ever sneak out the back without the manager knowing about it, but that area will be locked and secured and we work with our crew - save money, don't smoke, it's not good for you, you are working four-hour shifts, you don't need a cigarette — that sort of thing. They kind of get upset with us but more often they come back and thank us for being a pain in their tail. Anthes: I have another question of Staff. The access that is shown to the west, has that been coordinated with the upcoming development that is proposed there? The location? Fulcher: The development to the west and the development to the east were both approved and they are exactly measured off from the north property line, so they line up perfectly. Bazic: I have a question on that access. I was up on the property and it looked like the Liberty Bank had thrown some sod down from their parking lot to the line. Now I had assumed that we were going to asphalt right up to the line with the driveway. What happens when my driveway bumps into their sod? Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 19 Anthes: If it was approved with connection through, we will have to go out there and make an inspection. Bazic: They sodded that belt around, well, I was going to talk to them or wait until we got on site with our asphalt. Hood: The ordinance says we can't grade within five feet of the property line. O'Neal: You can grade within five feet of the property line, you just have to notify the adjacent owner. The only time you need permission to grade is if you are grading off your property. Myres: I remember approving that Liberty Bank plat and there was it was paved to the line. Bazic: Okay, good. Anthes: We will make sure Staff will take care of that. Bazic: It could have been an on-site landscapers or whatever and they just threw the sod. Fulcher: When we go up for review, those are the items we check for. If they aren't done we don't sign until they are corrected. Anthes: I have a question about the truncated domes. It looks like the arrows are pointing to the curb on where it intersects the Highway, and I am assuming that you mean this to be on the little ramp that is on the sidewalk. Hood: Yes, originally there is an existing sidewalk there and we put the truncated domes because we were going to put the sidewalk there with the widening of the street and it got moved and we just missed it. We can get that fixed. It is just moving the arrow. Anthes: I have a question for Staff for those. I'm seeing them pop up in neighborhoods and they are bright yellow. I thought you didn't have to do the bright yellow, is that true? O'Neal: Anthes: For ADA, they are supposed to be bright yellow. You only need them on streets; you don't need them on driveways. So if the applicant chooses to put them in, they could do a charcoal color as opposed to the bright yellow, or they could omit them entirely? Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 20 O'Neal: There are some acceptable variations to those, it is just that the ones readily available are the yellow ones. Anthes: Because this is on the driveway and not on a street corner, you aren't actually required to have them, but if you choose to have them, there are some options available. O'Neal: Correct. Lack: I have a couple of comments. I think to maybe help with the neighbors' concerns to the north, the property is to be cut down dramatically at their north, your south property line so the building and the dumpster and everything will be approximately 6' to 7' below the base of the fence and then there will be a 6' fence above that. That will help that condition somewhat. I think 20' is pretty shallow; it is pretty close to the back property line, but it does meet our regulations, but that is the extent of our boundary. Bazic: Lack: Bazic: Lack: Just a comment on the corporate specs on this building, they had a green neon on the north side and I nixed that. I was thinking about Larry and his neighbors and didn't want the neon on the north side. I appreciate that. It sounds like you have maybe met with them. Oh yes, I went out and showed them our first set of plans and tried to put their minds at ease about this. We do want to be a good neighbor. I was a little bit surprised that cutting within 10' of a 24' post oak would be acceptable? I am willing to accept..... Patterson: This site is very difficult — you can see where the majority of the trees are located in the center front. The applicant worked very closely with the certified arborist, walked around the property and all the trees the arborist thought were in the best shape for preservation, they are preserving. That island has actually increased in size since the preliminary quite a bit. The applicant has also talked with the same arborist about coming back and doing some follow up for the trees and maybe you would look at having the arborist on site when they do their cuts. It is always a good thing to have someone there. I'm sure you will be there, too. The hickories are a little tougher when it comes to stress, so I think they will be a little better, but having someone come do a follow up will be very beneficial to those trees. Anthes: Is the wrought iron fence that is shown around the hickory a recommendation so that the people won't run into it? Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 21 Hood: Patterson: Hood: Anthes: They are putting a small fence because there is a slight retaining wall. The retaining wall is only under 30". We don't have to put the wrought iron fence. I think there was a misunderstanding. To reduce the grading. They are going to have to retain a little bit. I had not seen the wrought iron fence. If it is over 30' we have to put something according to building codes, but it is fairly short. I don't think it is over 30" so we can move that. A question for Staff. It may not be appropriate for the large scale but maybe for the conditional use for the parking that we will see. It seems to me that the reason the building is located where it is and in such close proximity to residential property is because of the request for additional parking on the site. If they were requesting the additional parking with the conditional use, the building could be pulled forward, which makes me think we could think that we could look at what conditions we can place on that conditional use about delivery time and noise and that kind of thing. Would you examine that and see what you can do to address the neighbors' concerns in the conditions of approval? Hood: Another issue with moving the building is if we put the building in the center of the site, we are going to lose the trees. That was a big problem. Anthes: Yes, even if you are 10-20' you are.... Patterson: There is some existing grade out there a well. The house is on a little mound, the one that is there with the trees around it so we ran into that as well with some of those for preservation. Bazic: I had originally come to Crafton and Tull with the building sitting with all the parking up against the back; we worked real hard and it just pushed back when we were trying to address the concerns. But with every action, there is a reaction. Like Sarah said, the site is difficult. Lack: Question for Engineering, probably just for my education. Is C&P acceptable for underground detention? O'Neal: Yes. Anthes: Are there any additional comments? Lack: We have to look at Commercial Design Standards. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 22 Anthes: That's right, this is a building. It doesn't look like the elevations given here match the boards. Myres: Well, that is the office building. And that is the restaurant. Anthes: Okay, there are two here. Bazic: Let me draw your attention to one change that I know of. The theoretical flame band was a new thing that Corporate was wanting to do, and that has been nixed. That has been removed. That is anodized bronze. Myres: No flames ....it probably won't be quite as garish as it appears on the drawing. They never do exactly match the colors. Anthes: Do those call up for a neon tube; could you make sure the actual light source is denoted before Planning Commission, if that is a LED? It is always helpful to have a materials board and for the materials to be labeled on all elevations, rather than just on one. Fulcher: The material board is a requirement for Planning Commission, it really should have been for this meeting. Lack: What is the appears to be masonry material? Is it brick? Bazic: We had a materials board. This lists the materials. Anthes: Actual physical samples? Bazic: We have the brick samples and the different..... I provided them so they are around here somewhere. Fulcher: We will dig them up, then. Anthes: Also the other thing is if you would label the elevations with the direction rather than front. We have two fronts here on the actual Western Sizzlin building. It says front and front and right side and left side. We would rather have north, south, east and west. And the second front is the back (the north). Myres: That is the one that is approximately 6' below the grade, so what they will see, if they see anything over the fence, is the roof. Bazic: Just the roof top. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 23 Anthes: I have more concern with the retail building elevations than with the actual Western Sizzlin building. The two sides and the rear on this building I would say do not meet our Commercial Design Standards in any way. Hood: Those aren't the right ones. They addressed those issues, put canopies on the back and did some on the sides. Bazic: These newer ones are closer to meeting the ordinances. Myres: Who is the tenant on the west, the property on the west? Fulcher: It is three -building retail center with a large retail building in the back. It was approved separately from the front buildings. They actually haven't come through yet. Anthes: In reality, this building will be seen on all four sides pretty prominently, two sides face the highway, one directly faces an adjoining development, and the other will be seen from the front door of your property. So it seems we need to be very careful about what we are approving here. The canopies on that back side really don't indicate for commercial design standards in my view. There is not enough articulation on that facade. Lack: I would concur with that. I would say that while there are canopies, I still feel it would qualify as a large box structure which is the terminology in the ordinance and would ask for additional articulation. Bazic: I have the opened the doors up to the architects — do what they need to do. Anthes: There just needs to be more variation in the way the facade is done. Bazic: I see the O'Charleys building and that is a box with rock, brick and stucco. I'm trying to understand what the articulation is — is it texturing with different materials. Anthes: Changes in the depth and advancement of the planes on the side of the building. Bazic: One inch, five inches, a foot? Lack: I wouldn't feel comfortable presenting to design the building, and while I would try to give you suggestions that breaking up the facade in a visual manner is important. I wouldn't try to get into or try to design it. Anthes: But Staff could provide drawings of buildings that have been approved. (inaudible) Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 24 Lack: Changes in material, noticeable changes in depth, those are items that can break up the facade. Bazic: What about something like putting some tiles? Anthes: Well, it really not so much applied decoration as actual visual continuity of the main plane. Bazic: This was the first one that came out, the sides and back were pretty bare and after discussion with committee. Anthes: You definitely are moving in the right direction with that; we are just saying you might not be there yet. Okay? Myres: What you have done is good. It just needs to go a step further. Lack: I will make a motion that we forward LSD 05-1827 Western Sizzlin to the full Planning Commission with stated conditions of approval and also those of Tree and Landscape and Engineering, and Commercial Design Standards that we cannot make a determination of the retail center meets the ordinance requirement for Commercial Design Standards, while we feel that the restaurant is acceptable. Anthes: Therefore there is an expectation that the elevations you bring to Planning Commission will be revised. Myres: I'll second. Fulcher: Those are intended to go along somewhat with our comments regarding that the original submittal we made comments for additional articulation — that is what has been presented here. It shows what the applicant has attempted to do to increase the articulation of the building. Anthes: I will concur. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 25 R-PZD 06-1921: Planned Zoning District (LAZENBY/PHASE II, 560): Submitted by LANDTECH ENGINEERING for property located at RAZORBACK ROAD, N OF 15TH STREET. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENT. PLANNED ZONING DIST. and contains approximately 1.30 acres. The request is for 2 buildings with office, retail and restaurant space totaling 9,200 s.f. Morgan: This project may look familiar to some of you. It was part of an approved R-PZD in 2003. This PZD consisted of approximately seven acres and consisted of six residential apartment buildings as well as three commercial structures along Razorback Road. Within the past two years, the applicant has obtained permits for the residential structures and some are finished and others approaching completion. As for the three commercial structures, the applicant began the process of receiving building permits around August 2005. The project was to expire in November 2005. Upon Staff working with the applicant to get these permits issued prior to the expiration date, we found that the owner had dedicated right-of-way that was requested by the State Highway and Transportation Department. The dedication that was required was in excess of what the City would require on a principle arterial street from 7' to 14' in addition to our 55' from centerline. The result of this extra dedication that was required, in essence would not allow the applicant to build and construct one of the three commercial structures on this property. Any modification to an approved PZD would have to go before the Planning Commission and the City Council, due to the expiration deadline, they were not able to submit the materials in time. We are evaluating this 1.3 acres as a new PZD. It is part of the overall R-PZD but you can look at it as a separate planning area from the residential PZD; therefore, we have specific zoning criteria for this 1.3 acre parcel. The applicant has proposed zoning criteria in the booklet as well as on the plat, however, Staff has some concerns and found some discrepancies between the two. We have proposed in the Staff report, just after the vote sheet on page seven, some zoning criteria and we would request that the applicant review that and see if they have any concerns about it that we can address prior to Planning Commission. Some of the modifications between this little 1.3 acre tract and what was originally approved are that they removed a 5,000 s.f. building along Razorback Road. It was in the reviewing that the R-PZD shifted towards Razorback Road in order to screen the parking. Since that building is no longer there, parking is adjacent to Razorback Road; however, the applicant has provided a 41' landscaped buffer adjacent to the right-of-way as well as a 2' tall berm on which trees and shrubs will be planted. Staff feels that they are making a great effort to screen that parking since they can't do the building as approved. There have been an additional sixteen parking spaces added in lieu of that building and they have modified the building elevations slightly and in the project booklet submitted by the applicant on that last Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 26 pages and appendix, you can see the proposed elevations. Staff is in favor of these. I would like to add an additional condition that was not in your report for Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards — some of the modifications that the applicant added brick to rear view, for the western view, which is away from the right-of-way. It was originally approved as metal and additionally, instead of the windows along the front and side of the building going down to bottom of the structure, they have added a brick column along the bottom. At this time, Staff recommends that this item be forwarded to the Planning Commission. We do have some comments regarding the project booklet and the plat, trying to make sure they are consistent and that they reflect the correct information as required by ordinance. We will need as well revised elevations to show cardinal directions and a material sample board and an elevation board for this meeting. Planning Commission determination of street improvements is required. The street improvements on the original PZD consisted of a 6' sidewalk adjacent to the highway right-of-way. We are recommending that money -in -lieu be paid for this improvement and Staff is currently determining what width of sidewalk is currently on the plans for this side of the road and we will get that information to you by Planning Commission time. Anthes: Suzanne, can you clarify, are you actually removing some sidewalk that was proposed? Morgan: What was originally required was a 6' sidewalk along the length of this property and since the time this was approved, the State Highway Department will be redoing this area and realigning streets and widening the streets. So we are going to be requesting that money be given in lieu of constructing that sidewalk so that the State can construct it at the time that all the improvements are done and water lines are moved. We will be looking for a sidewalk to be built through the driveway though, when the driveway is constructed. The exact width of that sidewalk may be greater than a 6' sidewalk since there is a trail, I believe, that is going to come through one side or the other. As for signs, signs will be enforced per requirements of the R-PZD and in compliance with the C zoning district, commercial zoning district, and no free standing signs will be allowed. I would like to note that on condition #4 — if at any time the applicant should request to subdivide the commercial and residential planning areas, appropriate means of access shall be provided from the public right-of- way to the residential area. At the time that a planned zoning district is now created, we set forth minimum lots widths, minimum areas, etc. for each planning area, and when this was originally approved, what was approved is what was expected and this whole seven acres had X amount of lot width on a public frontage on Razorback Road and applicant has expressed a desire to separate or subdivide this commercial area from the Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 27 residential area. As long as public means of access is provided through an access easement to the residential area in the back, Staff does not feel that it is out of harmony, the purpose of this application and the ordinance requirements. Patterson: No trees exist on this site so a tree preservation waiver has been submitted and approved. O'Neal: No comment. Applicants: Leonard Gabbard, with Landtech Engineering and I will be happy to answer any questions. Ronnie Ball. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to speak R-PZD 06-1921 for Lazenby? There is no public comment. Commissoners..... Lack: I have a couple of items. Looking at what appears to be the back property line and the building sitting all the way back to the property line — am I reading that.... Morgan: What you are looking at is the back property line which is in essence kind of a planning area line. I believe that the applicant would like to subdivide this property off, so that would become a rear property line and in the zoning criteria proposed by Staff, we have set forth zero foot rear setback which would allow those buildings to be set right on that line. Lack: That was according to the plat, I saw a 20' rear setback and was concerned the ownership would likely change so as long as the zero back lot is acceptable and that would certainly work. Anthes: Can I follow up on that? Because we have a commercial to residential use there is a PZD, it might be a different situation, but if they do the lot split, I would assume that we would need the fencing and screening which would be required to separate those properties and those uses. I would think that a zero lot line condition would pre-empt them from being able to install that buffer. Lack: Preclude the 12' buffer zone? Morgan: There is some area on the other side of those buildings. This is right now a part of the overall tract and when the original PZD was approved, it was a residential PZD but obviously that was a majority of the residential in there was this commercial. At the time that is was approved, there was no discussion of buffering the residential from the commercial and I guess it is your determination of whether you feel that is needed. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 28 Anthes: I would think that may have been acceptable during the mixed PZD process because it was a residential PZD, but I would hate to set up the condition that when they went to split this off, they would then not be conforming with the ordinance; therefore, I think they have a lot line problem. Lack: But would the PZD - generally it does not trump other ordinances, but would it in this case: Morgan: This would still all be considered a residential PZD even if they subdivided this tract off. I'm trying to think of an example. Anthes: This was one of the very first PZDs we ever saw. And maybe hadn't been paying as much attention? And if this is coming to us again as a new PZD basically, I think we have the opportunity to take a look. Lack: I wonder in that it is all one land owner at this time, could we make the caveat or the requirement that the buffer strip could actually be on either piece of property if it were subdivided. Anthes: The problem is who maintains it, who pays for installation and maintenance? Gabbard: I guess I'm not following — what is the problem or what is the issue? Anthes: The issue is that we normally have a requirement that when there is commercial use adjacent to residential use, a 12' buffer with vegetative screening and a privacy fence is required by ordinance. Because this came through originally as a R-PZD which is basically viewed as all residential, although it has mixed use in it, that was not an issue; however, you are coming through again and we anticipate a lot split that would separate the commercial from the residential use and therefore I think that that requirement then should kick in. A zero lot line wouldn't allow the commercial area to install and maintain that buffer. Ball: I would lose the building if I cannot put a 12' back more on the building. We already lost one building and lost a thousand feet on another building. Anthes: What about your parking requirements? Gabbard: We just didn't need them. Ball: In the front we are wanting to move the sewer back is why the parking and the buildings moved back. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 29 Myres: And we are not sure exactly what is going to be going on here. Ball: I built a fence in the corner behind the revenue office to separate the revenue office and the apartments — I already built a 6' wood privacy fence along there to separate the revenue office and their parking area from the apartments. The fence is not the issue, it is not a problem to build a fence across there. It is not an issue that the apartment complex would manage the fence or maintain the fence. Gabbard: It all backs up to a parking lot. Ball: All of this is a parking lot, nothing but parking lot back in here behind these two buildings. Myres: With some green space. Gabbard: That would be enough room to fulfill the requirement of the 12' buffer behind this building but it is impossible to do it here without losing more building. They all want the right-of-way and want the 12" water line and we are trying to give it to them, but at the same time, it is encumbering us and giving us a hardship. Ball: So this is a thousand feet? I'm just looking at the 80' x 50'. Gabbard: You would lose almost a thousand more square feet off of that building to be able to move that. You could get by with the other building I'm pretty sure. Myres: As long as we knew who was to maintain this. Gabbard: If he does split it off; right now it is a R-PZD, so we are actually more of a residential planning zoning district because we have done away with one of the commercial buildings that was sitting right here. So we have lessened the impact of the commercial development on this site by that much. But the problem is because the first time it came through, we all learned, we all see different things each time. I guess the question we have now is that we've got this approved, what could we do — you have a buffer of parking and landscaping between the building and the back of that building. Anthes: Well to me what it does is we have to have a discussion about Commercial Design Standards and the back of that building becomes even more important. We also have an issue about the access that Staff is requesting from Razorback Road through to the residential area. Is this what goes to the back? Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 30 Gabbard: Yes, this all goes back to the back right through here. Anthes: You plan to install that no matter what? Gabbard: Yes. So we have access from a public road. Morgan: Staff's comment was just that if they choose to split it in the future, they would have to dedicate the easement. Ball: The easement would follow that road that is already there. Myres: And this parking is for these buildings? Ball: It is a combination of both. We really wouldn't want to put a fence across there, because these apartments have access to both sides and they look the same — we made them look the same, but obviously some of these people in the apartments could park there and walk to their apaiturents just as easy. Gabbard: The buildings here are made from the same material as the buildings so they blend together as a unit, even though their usage is different. Ball: When we did it, we used the same color scheme, the same design. The only thing we did in changing this was we added a little more brick under the windows. They originally showed to go all the way to the ground and then the back was to be just metal. So we decided to put a line around it to give it some definition and then brick the back to have it match the rest of the buildings. So that is what we have done to the outside of the buildings to try to improve them. Anthes: We could move to Commercial Design Standards if you'd like. Gabbard: We could. One question I would propose on that is how set is that property line and would it make a difference..... Ball: At this point when we went back and when it was coming to a deal for us, it was my understanding and we obviously have been on this deal a long time. We are trying to get this settled so to speak, so when we went to and met with all the people of the City, what we understood was that we were to reapply this as a new PZD and everybody kind of agreed on what we were looking at, and so trying to finalize and get this thing straightened out, we obviously wanted to take this and go ahead and put it into permanent financing and get it out of the way and not continue on leaving it as an open project while we continued to try to resolve all these frontage issues. So at that point we thought we were getting a new PZD at these Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 31 lines and so we went ahead and had an appraisal done to get it all refinanced and all that kind of stuff which is setting there waiting to be done for you all to tell us where the property lines are. But we had kind of given these property lines to the appraisal company. I don't really want to go through that process again if we can live with the property line. I'd almost rather lose building space than have to go back through all that and pay extra for that. Anthes: What I am concerned with is that because it is a new PZD and we are reviewing it as a separate parcel now, that even though the final work has not been done, I don't want to, with a new approval, approve something that would be a nonconforming condition with the ordinances. Ball: But I am talking about is it a new PZD or an old PZD? Anthes: It is 06-1921 which is a 2006 PZD. Ball: So then I can split this off and we just have to conform to the new PZD on this front part. Anthes: Let's step back and have Suzanne give us..... Morgan: There is a specific section that talks about buffering between residential RSF-4 and Commercial -type uses and we can look into this and give you a recommendation at the time of the Planning Commission. I don't have anything specific for you right now. Ball: You mentioned RSF-4, is a requirement that residential be screened or simply single-family residential has to be screened? Morgan: It does state single-family in the RSF-4 buffer and screening section under non-residential adjacent to residential. Ball: But this is multi -family. Anthes: We often require it between any residential. Morgan: If we were looking at this development on one large piece of property, they could potentially create a PZD, if this were not even developed and had a mixture of uses and certainly we would address buffering at that time — how are we going to place the residential adjacent to the commercial so that it fits well together. So again, yes, that was established a long time ago with the original PZD, we are looking at this as a new PZD but they are pretty tight with what they can work with. But we will go ahead and take a look at that and look at the buffer requirements. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 32 Maybe they can plant some things adjacent to some of the residential units. Garner: It is also a difference situation in the way the ordinance reads in that this is designed as a mixed use development as opposed to — the buffering generally applies to like the Western Sizzlin we were talking about before, where it is commercial abutting RSF-4 and that is what it was written for. I think the intent of the ordinance when you look back at the intent of what the buffering screen was and is it really necessary here where this whole unit whether there is a lot line here or not, whether it functions, whether it really needs a buffer or not. I think we can look back at that. Anthes: Normally I would agree that that was the intent, however, if you look at this with the lot split actually shown, the lot line on there, that clarifies the way it is actually functioning any way. It is functioning as a commercial partial in front of a residential parcel. It is really not functioning as a mixed use development. Morgan: And we will go out to the site; most of this is already developed and we will scan where the building is going to be and take some pictures to show you. Gabbard: The only issue of the buffer or putting up a privacy, I guess, one of the comments is we had trash compactors that the City didn't really like and we were try to move them around here where they were hidden better and there is a parking space at the back that backs up to those and that could almost be converted into a trash area for these two buildings that would readily be acceptable and available. And it would eliminate having to put trash out here where it is seen better and other than that, that is my only issue that trying to accommodate the trash issue, putting a fence through there would hinder us being able to accommodate that issue. Other than that.... Anthes: That would have to be a shared agreement as well. We would need some paperwork on that. Okay, let's go to Commercial Design Standards. I am having some problems with rear view and left view. Myres: Except they are right next to one another. The south view on the north building and the north view on the south building are separated by 30'. Anthes: All the sides are the same. Myres: Well this is the north view of the right hand building .... Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 33 Gabbard: And they look exactly the same. This is the front and this is Razorback Road, facing east. Myres: And the north side of building #10 which is this building here has windows. This side here. Gabbard: This side of the building faces the north and that is what you see when you come by the Revenue offices there. That side of the building is readily available to the site. Anthes: The south view is this one here. Gabbard: And when we originally went to Planning on this, there was another building, a long, narrow building here that had the front view on both sides, because you had a parking lot behind it where they would actually come in, but we were addressing the front view of it to Razorback Road. So you never really saw this side of the building either because it was hidden. We will change it to look like the side of the other one. Anthes: So you are saying that this would be the side that would face both the Revenue Office and the south side of the other building. Morgan: If that is a motion to forward, just clarify what sides and what buildings.... Myres: One of the things that Staff remarked on is that we need something besides left, top, bottom. We need the directions called out. Gabbard: We have the brick, the stucco, the color and all that we need. Myres: And this is the other problem which is the back of both buildings which is clearly visible from the residences and the parking lots and it just is too flat. Lack: I wonder though as we are looking at Commercial Design Standards and not overlay districts whether we have authority on the back of the building. Myres: Well, it is essentially a parking lot for the building. Anthes: Those residential properties look out on across the parking lot at those buildings, right? Gabbard: There is one that sits back behind two parking lots. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 34 Anthes: I certainly appreciate that you substituted the brick for the metal panel. I would like Staff to comment on the rear facade of a building that is not in an overlay district, as far as Commercial Design Standards go. Fulcher: That is how the Commercial Design Standards should apply to a rear view that's not a POD. Garner: The ordinance reads, I believe, visible from the right-of-way is what the ordinance requires. It is silent on the other facades. Fulcher: The Commercial Design Standards mention the elements to avoid or minimize include heavy concrete precision block walls, square block -like structures, metal siding which dominates the main facade, large out of scale signs of flashy colors. Morgan: If anyone is interested I have the originally approved standards. Anthes It doesn't matter at this point, it's a PZD. Myres: I don't have as much concern about the rear of this as I would if it was metal panels and there is quite a lot in terms of variation of slope and color going on with the roof; and in fact there are some trees and plantings and things going on back here which there appear to be, it is going to soften the view anyway. Anthes: Let me remind you though that landscaping and fencing does not mitigate Commercial Design Standards according to ordinance. Myres: That is just my opinion. Lack: Can you give me the numbers of the buildings? As far as our end elevations, the south end of building #9 will be articulated to match the north building of building #10. I'm okay with that. (inaudible) So the south end of building #9 would be my only problem with Commercial Design Standards. Anthes: On other findings — on street improvements, are there any comments on conditional use #2, accepting money -in -lieu for sidewalk along Razorback and the construction of the sidewalk through the proposed drive? Ball: The State is actually going to do that street. We will put the sidewalk into our drive, as soon as they tell us where and how wide, but we are going to pay money. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 35 Anthes: How I would like that condition to read is that the applicant will pay for the construction of a sidewalk through the proposed driveway to match the width of the sidewalk installed by AHDT, which will be 8' or 10', I think, which is larger than you are usually required to pave. Ball: Someone will tell us what width, correct? Anthes: Yes. We want to make sure that is coordinated. Do you plan to process the split of this parcel concurrent with this PZD. Ball: I want to split it if that is what I have to do. Morgan: It could run concurrent or it could go after, either way. Ball: It would be better for us if it was concurrent. It is going to be the quickest way. Morgan: You would need to submit the application and certainly the lot split would have to go through the standard review process and if you wanted both of these to both be at the same Planning Commission meeting, this PZD would need to be stalled in the process until that lot split was added. Anthes: Well, we have three things: we have a lot split, we have a PZD and have a conditional use for parking. Gabbard: So the lot split has just come up today? That is the first time I have heard that. Morgan: What was the conditional use on parking. Anthes: I'm sorry, that was the last item. Only two things. Gabbard: We want to proceed with what we have then if I have to go back and reapply and come back with a lot split, that is what we will do. Lack: We can address the zoning issues at that time. Anthes: Well, yes or no, if we approve this without that caveat, that means we are actually approving something that would be a nonconforming condition. That is why I'd like to get it taken care of now. Morgan: If the Commissioners have a problem with any of the proposed zoning requirements and criteria, it seems that the rear setback would be the issue and we can address that as well. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 36 Anthes: I would move that we forward R-PZD 06-1921 to full Planning Commission with the conditions as stated adding to condition #2 to match the width and alignment of the sidewalk to be installed by Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department and with a positive finding on Commercial Design Standards if they change the south wall of building #9 to match the north wall of building #10, and a change in the commercial planning area zoning criteria for rear setback of 12' to allow for the proper landscape buffer between commercial and residential uses. Myres: I will second. Lack: I will concur. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 37 R-PZD 06-1922: Planned Zoning District (SCOTTSWOOD PLACE, 558): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at NE OF OLD FARMINGTON RD.AND ONE MILE RD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 5.06 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 17 single family lots. Fulcher: This site is located at northeast of Old Farmington Road and One Mile Road. The property has been the subject of a number of code violations in the past. We are interested in seeing a project on this property. The applicant is requesting a rezoning Master Development Plan and Preliminary Plat approval for a single-family development and it is a combination of single family because the six units on the north end of the cul-de-sac, the three on either side are actually attached, so it will be single family with two three-family units also. The permitted uses other than our typical use unit one, will be single family dwellings and three family dwellings, although these will be on separate lots. They just happen to be attached units. The density proposed is 3.36 units per acre. There are quite a few different setbacks because of the existing right-of- way on Old Farmington, proposed cul-de-sac right-of-way, setbacks off the alley, setbacks for the attached, and setbacks for detached units. So there are quite a few setback requirements; that goes into one of our conditions — between transferring all of the, or making updates to the setback requirements in the booklet and the plat, there are a couple of items we want to sit down with the applicants and double check the numbers. It is just a matter of transferring them between the two items for future meetings. It is just so we have all those straight. As far street improvements, we are recommending 18' wide street sections from centerline with curb, gutter, storm drains and a 6' sidewalk at the right-of- way line; street lights every 300'. We are also recommending that these improvements continue somewhat offsite to the west through the intersection, One Mile and Old Farmington. Obviously, we don't want the 18' street section and then have it go back down to the old three section just across the stop sign. We request that those improvements be made through that intersection. Lot 9 will serve as a permanent tree preservation area. It will result in maintaining 29.28% of the existing 43.92% tree canopy. On January 19, 2006 the Parks Recreation Advisory Board recommended accepting money -in -lieu in the amount of $9,435 for 17 single-family homes. Staff is recommending that this item be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with twenty conditions of approval. Item #1 referring to the street improvements; item #3 — we are requesting that one large species tree be planted between the right-of-way and the homes on lots 1-5 and 13-18, typical with other types of requests for commercial — one tree per thirty linear feet along the right-of-way, we request that this be applied here to have those trees along the right-of-way in this situation; item #8 — it looks like a couple of updates to the plat, Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 38 trying to right out minor revisions, correcting some numbers — nothing major on those items. Patterson: I need a site analysis report for this project, I don't know if it just got misplaced. Add the tree protection detail to the Preservation plan. This should extend around all the trees that are marked for preservation. Fencing should follow the 20' utility easement to the north and the 20' access easement to the southeast. Please make sure your canopy calculations factor in the canopy removed for grading on Lot 9 Tree Preservation Area. Mitigation will not be required unless the canopy value falls below the required 25%. O'Neal: l need a clarification on where the trees are supposed to be along the right- of-way. Fulcher: In the condition, we requested they be, if possible, outside of any utility easements. I know there are utility easements along the front there. I think there is some room between the buildings. O'Neal: They would be street trees? Fulcher: More or less, but outside the right-of-way. O'Neal: There is a large diameter water main that crosses through there that won't allow any trees within that easement at all. I could agree to street trees in between the sidewalk and the curb. I don't think that would be a problem. I have the comment sheet from Technical Plat printed off and I have highlighted some things that need to be addressed and I've also noted some additional things. I will give this to you Kipp. The 36" water line, just reiterating that any amount of cut over that is going to be limited, so we will have to work with you at the time of construction. On the sewer, we will need to you to look at the downstream system to make sure that this system can handle the additional load. Check on the pressure flow to the nearest fire hydrant. On the grading plan, you need to add the soil type, the acreage and the zoning. Since this is a PZD, I would like to see the current and proposed zoning — you can notate them on this. On the drainage report, you are stating that you are going to do some off-site improvements — we will need to see those, what you are going to propose, a general layout and what you are showing the improvements to be. Show the water meters and the sewer tap locations. Call out these tapping locations for the proposed water line. Add a note that the contingent (inaudible) will be maintained by the POA. If you could, label your water surface elevation. That's all the comments. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 39 Patterson: I have one additional revision that I just spotted on the front page in your land use table, there is a symbol "tree preservation" and I think that calculation is incorrect. It is showing 1.14 acres preserved and that is only 22.35% and I think from our Tree Preservation plan, you are actually preserving 29.28%. If you could revise that. Applicants: Kipp Hearn with H2 Engineering and Bill Helmer with S&M, LLC. Hearn: Just kind of off the cuff here, the layout itself, how we arrived at this layout after looking at various options, our goal was to preserve as much existing canopy as we could in addition to preserving the steeper slopes on the north end of the property, minimizing grading as much as possible. Also, in an effort to try to keep with the neighborhood feel on Old Farmington Road, facing the houses, the single-family units out to Old Farmington Road and serving those from the rear with that alley. Going through the conditions of approval, I have a couple of questions and comments. Under item #1, the additional widening of Old Farmington Road, even though this is a collector street, we typically see 14' added or constructed with curb and gutter from centerline and I'm curious with the 18' in the area. Also, item B, under #1, we did look just off-site of us and we are a little concerned about the right-of-way availability to our west, or southwest along Old Farmington Road. I think it is only an existing 20' right-of-way from centerline. If we are improving to 18', certainly we would encroach upon that right-of-way with our grading to try to make any improvements. So that is an item we need to discuss. Item #3, in talking about the trees, the issue that Brent just brought up, we have shown on here from the proposed right-of-way, from the dedicated right- of-way, we are proposing that that be a utility easement all the way to our building setback, so a 40' setback and a UE. The electric company is actually encouraging us to try to push a general UE as far to the north side of that as possible to minimize, or try to encourage other utilities to stay as far away from their existing infrastructure as possible. We have that 36" water line with the 15' UE either side of that. So the only trees that could go out front there would have to be in the right-of-way. There was a question about the setbacks on lots 5 and 13, it states that it should be 20' — all that alley is actually within a 20' public right-of-way, so what we are proposing is a 16' of asphalt within a 20' right-of-way and the rear setbacks on all of those units do have a 20' setback. That is also a utility easement. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this R-PZD 06-1922 for Scottswood Place. There are none, so I will bring it to the commissioners for discussion. Let's start with the condition of approval #3. I'm concerned that what we are actually showing here, if Staff concurs with the applicant's statement, we have right-of-way that goes from Old Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 40 Farmington back to the setback line and again that would happen again on the alley line which would leave almost no area that trees could be planted around these homes, and I am concerned about that. Is there any comment from Staff— do you see any available area for planting. O'Neal: Are you talking about the alley way? Anthes: Either side, it looks like we have a problem on both sides. O'Neal: With the water and the sewer running parallel, that puts the entire width of the easement at 30'. As many people know, sewer and trees don't mix well, you end up with sewer backups due to trees, and also the problem of the root getting into the water system which is not desirable either so that is a difficultly that we have run into with trees within utility easements. I'm not saying that they wouldn't be there, trees can grow naturally anywhere but generally they would be removed if they were in our easements. Anthes: Do you concur with Mr. Hearn's statement that basically the entire width between Old Farmington Road, the back of curb and the setback line would be an easement? O'Neal: Yes. Anthes: The water line, I'm looking at the north side of the alley, would something be able to be done so that the UE could be decreased to less than the dimension of the setback that would allow tree planting back there? Hearn: If I could, we had that as a utility easement and it went through Tech Plat, the utility companies had requested a full 20' UE in the rear there. Anthes: Well, I have a big, big problem with this entire plat, because basically you are recommending a residential subdivision that really can't have any tree cover. Hearn: I really don't believe that we are required to have any additional planting to begin with if we have more than 25%, if we are retaining more than 25% canopy. Anthes: Right, but this is a PZD and we are looking at what the lot configuration and density you are requiring has to do how this thing would build out and if this thing is so constrained by easements and roads, I'm not sure that the lot configuration makes sense. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 41 Hearn: One more point on this. The electric company, SWEPCO, has an overhead transmission line. There is some debate over the accuracy of the easement. The initial position that they took, is that they had a 50' easement on the north side of that line whereby they wouldn't allow any structures or trees or anything be there to begin with, because of what that is carrying. They would certainly have an objection to any trees out there in the easement. Now in the rear of the lots, houses, we would certainly be willing to try to accommodate you for sure, but we are in a bit of dilemma when we have utility companies saying I need this here, here and here. It would be nice to have that and we want to be accommodating, but how do we balance that with.... Anthes: Are you saying the backs of these homes face Old Farmington Road and there would be fences or are those front elevations. Hearn: Front. Lack: What is our authority to reduce that easement to the back, that is currently a 20' easement. A water line? Anthes: That is what I was going to ask Staff, since that is a City utility. O'Neal: I think again, are you talking along the alley? I believe as Kipp stated that the utility companies asked that that be a 20' UE off the alley. They are constrained because they can't get in our easement that runs along the frontage. The only place they can go is along the alley. So that really limits their locations. Patterson: We have worked with utility companies before on planting trees within the easements. We can look along the alley — typically the utilities are going to try to put their lines in the middle of that 20' easement, if we try to locate planting spaces near to the front of the buildings, we might be able to get one per lot. Anthes: Of course that is the rear of the building. Patterson: The rear of the building. As for the overhead line along Old Farmington, we can talk with them as well about putting smaller trees, less than 25', but like Kipp says, they can be very particular about they want in those transmission lines. The cul-de-sac kind of with the alley, it looks like the water and sewer goes through that paved area and there is a small 10' UE, but we typically allow, water and sewer is a little bit different, but electric, gas, etc. will allow trees to be planted. They have to be at least 5' off. Keep in mind they are preserving a large portion in the back. The detention pond might be an area for tree planting. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 42 Anthes: Can I have a clarification on the drawing — the shaded area that is shown. What is that indicating? Hearn: That is everything over 15% grade. Anthes: So basically, all the single-family attached is on the hillside that is over 15%? Hearn: Yes. Myres: So this tree canopy will be above these units. Anthes: I have a second question for Engineering. The width of pavement that is recommended for street improvements on Old Farmington. Can you speak to the 14' versus 18' issue? O'Neal: Generally, we only see 14' of widening for developments. In this application I would have to confer with the City Engineer and Planning Staff and see if it would be....what was the original proposal? You've always had 14'? Hearn: 14'. Anthes: But Staff recommendation says 18' and then there is a problem in item B with the right-of-way availability to make that happen as it goes off site. O'Neal: We will have to investigate that further. Anthes: A comment in terms of your booklet — would you please make sure that the page numbers are contiguous to the end, I think you hop from page 9 to 43, because the elevations come from other document, so if you could clean that up for us, that would be helpful. Commissioners, if you would look at page 5 and at the current and proposed zoning requirements and setbacks and see if you have any comments on those. It looks like we have RSF-4 zoning on three sides and RA to the west. I'd like Christine and Audy to hear from you about density. I understand they are trying to approximate the density of a RSF-4 zoning district that occurs on three sides of this property, but because of the specific topography, the geometry of the site, the utility easements required on the site, and I'm just looking at it and have a hard time finding that this density actually works. Myres: It seems very urban for a suburban to me. I was looking at the things I liked about it rather than the things that maybe didn't work. Anthes: What about the street configuration? Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 43 Lack: I like the street configuration and I like the density. I think it is very close to a major commercial area, I think it is a walkable location and a good place to do density. With that I like getting people in, a good place to do density. And as it does kind of group the density and does not go over the RSF-4, then I think it helps to not get in trouble with the neighbors. Cutting into the hillside for the multi -family (single-family attached) is some intrusion, but still I don't see that it is an extraordinary amount of grading. So with the method of preserving the trees on the site and getting everything in the way they have, I think it is a plan that I am in favor of. I am disturbed about the idea even that residents can't plant a tree. It is not that we could require you to plant trees or to mitigate for those, but just a disturbance that these residents are going to be there for a long time and they can't plant a tree. The area is could be somewhat barren, even though it is backed up by a large tree canopy. I'm skeptical to think that the power company is going to allow much of anything, if they have a 50' easement, that is a high transmission line. I wonder how deep the 36" water line is and if 15" of each side of it is required. O'Neal: Fifteen feet on either side. Lack: Okay. Beyond that, we could look at increasing a setback for an area and just assume that people are going to build setback to setback in that area. If they don't build setback to setback, then they have that position available for plantings. Helmer: I will tell you that we plan to build all of the homes and of course I was hoping that we would be able to put trees in front. I was thinking more of between the sidewalk and the curb. I don't know if that could be worked out with the power company or not. Possibly, there might be a little bit that can be worked with them because there is a legitimate question about their easement. They do not have what they think they have; they may have some time of prescriptive easement. Their easement of record doesn't even go on this property. Myres: That is interesting — we can always hope. Helmer: If we could work something out, I would like to have trees there and make some plantings up around there that we could do.... Anthes: As an extension to that, I would like to look at — in your Master Development Plan booklet, you have proposed your housing types here and I know you have stated that the front of the buildings are actually on Old Farmington and it is a alley behind there. The plans that you showed, except for a couple, several of the plans have a front garage with a covered porch. Are those not building types that are being contemplated? Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 44 Myers: He has a key. Helmer: The ones that the front loading garages on the three that actually tell us what mod plans they are, 8553, 54, 55 — primarily these back here we will have to put one of those here and one here, but the way the garages are situated, since they are side by side, they could actually be front or back. We can just do the facade on the front and move them to the back. This one is the same plan and dimensions as this one so it could also, this side of it, be flipped to where the garage is in the back. Then you would just have windows seen. Myres: I like the way this is going to look, trees or no trees. Helmer: If we try to push back any further, then we are going to cut into our tree preservation. Myres: I think the constraints on this are largely because of utilities; it is not anything you chose to do. I think that within those constraints, you have done a really good job. Hearn: Yes, utilities and the severity of the slope and the tree canopy back here that we are trying to preserve. I think a little landscaping here between the right-of-way, along the cul-de-sac, that could be a nice addition. Anthes: So we will see that landscape plan as part of the LSD that comes through, are we going to see that on this site? Morgan: I believe this is a subdivision and PZD, so typically we don't usually see landscape. Anthes: This says master development plan. Fulcher: This is a preliminary plat and zoning approval. Garner: We would need to see it now .... Hearn: Is a landscape plan typically a requirement of a residential PZD? Morgan: Not of a plat. Hearn: We can reflect that on our Master Development Plan — the trees and can work with Sarah on identifying the type of trees that would be most appropriate. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 45 Anthes: I think just because of the peculiarities of this site, it would be helpful to have a landscape plan. Also if you could include the key with your booklet and then provide the other coordination between the plat and booklet. Any other comments commissioners? Lack: I would move to forward R-PZD 06-1922 with conditions of approval given that Staff will investigate the 18' from centerline on Old Farmington Road, present a finding of that to us at Planning Commission, and with regards to the inclusion of the comments from Engineering and Tree and Landscape and that the inclusion of the E-4, the residential unit types be included in the booklet. With the rest of the item #1, I would like to wait until we find out what street section we are looking at, whether we are looking at 14' and that the 18' was requested, and possibly hear a statement from the engineer about right-of-way, if the 14' street section from centerline is required. I think it is good that we go beyond that intersection if available. We need to investigate that with the information with what the street section would be required. Anthes: I assume you are asking for that to be complete and us have it with Staff recommendation by the time of Planning Commission. Lack: Yes. Myres: I will second. Anthes: I still have a little problem with the lot configuration on this piece of property, but you have a majority vote. We will see you in a couple of weeks. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 46 LSD 05-1809: Large Scale Development (THE LOFTS @ UNDERWOOD PLAZA, 483): Submitted by GARVER ENGINEERS for property located at 607 W DICKSON STREET. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.40 acres. The request is for a mixed use development with office, retail and residential space. Garner: This property is located at 607 West Dickson in downtown Fayetteville and is approximately 1.4 acres. The majority of the site is developed and contains some commercial structures and a parking lot along Dickson Street with undeveloped disturbed property behind the structures. Surround land uses and zoning are shown in Table 1. There is a SWEPCO utility substation just to south of the property; George's Majestic Lounge is to the east, to the west is Underwood Fine Jewelers; and to the north is the Dickson Street. The applicant proposes a mixed use development and the breakdown of the uses is shown on Table 2 in your Staff report — proposing two basic structures: A mixed use building that would be eight stories and a parking garage that would be five stories; the mixed use building would be approximately half restaurant uses and half commercial office uses for around 18,000 square feet; it would also have eight condominium units that would support a total of 110 bedrooms, parking garage will be five stories and would have 256 parking spaces and based on the uses, that is within the allowed parking requirements. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets are Dickson Street which is identified as a main street in the downtown Master Plan and Powerhouse Avenue which a local street with a variable right-of-way. The main issues on this site are the utility easement extending north from the substation into that side along the property. We are recommending tabling this item at this point mainly to address this issue and condition #1, we have spoken with the applicant and haven't spoken to SWEPCO, but it is our understanding that the applicant and the utility provider don't agree on the amount of utility easement that it requires for this large power line. We feel like we need to work this out and have a solution before we would forward it from this committee. Planning Staff needs to meet with SWEPCO and hear their side of what their requirements really are. That is condition #1. Condition #2 is Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards and compatibility with the surrounding commercial developments. I have printed out some color copies showing their proposed building and you can see on the back couple of sheets are the parking garage. Staff finds that the proposed mixed use building meets Commercial Design Standards and would be a great addition to the area. We still have some concerns on the parking garage and how it will relate to the overall structure and how it will be visible from Dickson and Powerhouse and feel that these elevations on the front need to incorporate the parking garage, or help us understand how the parking garage will be Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 47 Patterson: Applicant: Patterson: Applicant: Patterson: O'Neal: Applicants: Sharp: visible. We want to make sure that it meets Commercial Design Standards as well. Those are the two main issues. I have three comments for tree preservation. I need to have you identify on-site areas for the delivery and storage of construction materials. Mitigation will be required equivalent to six 2" caliper trees. Typically we don't allow redbuds because of their small stature, but this is one of those instances where we are dealing with small spaces, overhead lines, so I'm willing to allow those, but I would ask you to revise the table to read that they will be 2" in caliper at the time of planting, so we will have a little bit bigger tree. The redbuds we are putting in the easements — those can be 1"? Yes, if you want to use 1". I would suggest something larger than 1" as well to withstand what is going to be happening out there, but 1-1/2" to 2" is what we require. A 2" redbud is available. It is hard to find but it is available. I believe you can find it. At time of final Certificate of Occupancy, the six trees must be planted and a three- year maintenance and monitoring bond in the amount of $1,500 deposited with the City of Fayetteville. After the three-year period, I will inspect the trees and release the bond if 90% are found to be healthy. I have written some notes down and will cover my comments, there are just a couple. On your water service going up between the two structures, a portion of that needs to be a public main; it is shown as just as a fire line with meters coming off of it, so what we need to do is, number one, get the portion that is going to be public, which will be from the tapping point to a valve, at least 10' off the existing building. You will have to add a point of ownership valve where the private fire line would start and those meters would be on our side of that valve. I have a concern about the sewer, just to make sure that this sewer line doesn't serve anything to the west. I don't believe it does. I think everything was removed. Just confirm that. There are a few other little items and I will give this to you afterwards. Richard Alexander, one of the owners. Paul Davis with Garver Engineers. Rob Sharp, architect. Andrew, in your comment you mentioned an eight story building; it is a nine story building. Just so there is no confusion about the height. That is what is on all the elevations. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 48 Anthes: Any other comments? Alexander: Do you want to address the SWEPCO easement? Anthes: If you don't have further presentation, although I don't see any public.. I will ask for public comment. There isn't any so yes, we can open the discussion. Alexander: I think the hang-up that we anticipate and we have been discussing with SWEPCO, the applicant does not propose that 25' easement and let me explain why. SWEPCO, as I understand it through our discussions with them, is wanting to upgrade the service that currently exists there from 61,000 volts to 161,000 volts. They want to take the current power poles that exist there and turn them into 120' power poles which if I understand it, if they get what they want, that will march right through the downtown area, right through the historic part of downtown. I personally am not in favor of that. My problem with their requested easement is they are not proposing to service my project from that easement, they don't need that easement to service my project. The requested easement has no rational nexus to my project. The land in issue is approximately 5,000 square feet and it currently sells down there in the neighborhood of $100 a foot, that is literally a half a million dollars of property they are asking me to give with no rational nexus to my project. I am reluctant to do that for several reasons: one, we specifically pulled our project back 29' from their lines so that my project wouldn't be hard up against their lines. If I give them the 25' or 29' easement that they are asking, there would be nothing from preventing them to putting the line hard up against my building requiring an additional setback so that I could feel safe without having 161,000 volts next to my project. Additionally, the easement that they are requesting dead ends into the back of the Cadoba building so they would have to condemn that building in order to go any further and they would be, that sold for $1,700,000 or $2,000,000. That would be an extremely expensive proposition. In addition, we have already given them a 10' easement on the south side of the project and a 10' easement on the west side of the project. Those easements can more than adequately, frankly they only need to run a 2' line to service my project, so that is more than enough easement to allow them to service my project and adjacent properties. That easement at $100 a foot is approximately 3900', that is $390,000 that I am already dedicating to utility easement. I can't believe that the City would want that to go through the downtown area and so again, the economic factor of giving them a half a million dollars on top of the fact that I don't want those lines on my project or going through the downtown part of the City. They have multiple problems with the dead ending that they have not proposed to fix, so I would be giving them an easement Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 49 Davis: when they don't have the rest of the easement or the access that apparently they are wanting worked out. My dilemma is I don't believe the law requires me to do that, certainly if they can 29' they could take 60', they could take 160'. I don't want to give them that and I don't want to hold my project up because I don't want to give them that. I am perfectly willing to set my building off their line for safety reasons, but to give them easement in addition to that would only put my property at risk again. They could locate the easement wherever, they could locate the line wherever they wanted then and the easement they would have every right to do. That is our position on this. As far as the other conditions of approval that Staff discussed, I don't know that we have any problem with any of them do we? The trees..... The 120' frontage on Dickson Street requires four additional trees. We were hoping that we don't have to do anything in the way the repairs that have already been done to Dickson Street. There is an entry cut now so we are proposing to just widen the sidewalk. Sharp: The sidewalk or brickwork, we don't want to disturb that or add any new planters there. Davis: That is all part of the downtown enhancement project. I guess Sarah left. Morgan: I will take any questions you may have had for her. She had to go to a meeting. Davis: If we had four trees, we are redoing and making wells that .... Sharp: The reason there weren't trees planted during the Dickson Street improvements is because that area has a lot of utility and stuff there. It is not an ideal place for additional trees. Anthes: Staff needs to look at that — it is condition #12, Suzanne. I found your dumpster pad here I think. How is this served? It is a little hard to tell. Sharp: I had one more comment on the conditions. They were mentioned that the parking deck was unarticulated. The parking deck that faces Powerhouse is completely concealed. The side that faces the substation and the side that faces the back of the property look like a parking deck. We haven't done any architectural features on that. They mentioned Commercial Design Standards and I'd like Staff to look at that and make sure that parking decks are required to meet Commercial Design Standards, when it is purely a parking deck, that falls under more of an industrial use. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 50 Davis: And we are hard up against the substation so we are using the parking deck to screen the substation from the street. Anthes: I think what they are asking too is that .... Garner: On the north elevation where is the parking deck on that from Dickson? Davis: You can't see it at all. Anthes: Except down this lot, the access easement, you can see a little slot. Sharp: We are going to dress it up a little, but the other two sides are just (inaudible). They are not street facades — they don't face the street. Anthes: This property line occurs and this is the parking for his property and there- fore there is this drive. Alexander: They currently have power lines almost out in the street. This is his current parking, this is ingress/egress to the parking. His parking 20' ingress/egress. Anthes: Tell me about how the dumpsters are served? Sharp: They come in, pick up the dumpster and back out. Anthes: Is that for this whole site? That one place? Sharp: And that is based on the meeting with Travis Dobson earlier on in Technical Plat review. Lack: It seems pretty tight. Anthes: It seems real small. Alexander: It is tight, but the back part of this is parking so there won't be much trash generated there. The trash will come from this building. Sharp: Based on our calculations we will have to pull that dumpster three times a week. It is eight on Dickson but nine on the downhill side. Anthes: Commissioners, let's start with the conditions of approval. Any comments on condition #2, Commercial Design Standards for the record. Myres: I think it is a very handsome building. My only concern is scale, obviously in order to utilize the footprint, you have to go up. I really Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 51 appreciate Rob having these Photoshopped drawings going from Walton Center parking lot, to exactly what is going to do to the skyline up here. I would have also liked to have seen up Dickson Street and maybe from the University down. I can imagine what it is going to be like. It essentially dwarfs the buildings that around it right now, which it is going to do if it is nine stories. Anthes: Do you want to comment on the parking structure and Staff's comments. Myres: Well, in fact if this is basically the parking structure from the east which is down here, it is pretty good looking for a parking structure. It looks to me like it has an industrial factory-like look to it, which I'm sure was deliberate and I think it reminds me of northeastern mill towns a little bit. Anthes: You are saying that this side and that side are just - do we have a rendering showing that? Davis: That is looking through the substation. Anthes: Then this side is this too? Sharp: (Inaudible) University is over here. It is certainly visible, but we don't consider a street facade.... Davis: This is also several stories lower. You are dropping off fairly steeply from University Avenue, kind of going down in a hole there. Anthes: Is this the parking lot behind the street? Sharp: There are a couple of wooden houses there. It is mainly gravel parking. It does drop down. Lack: I think that the buildings are articulated well; the parking garage in that it is articulated individually from the condo building is a good thing and speaks to the sense of collage that you get with the downtown. I think it works well. I can't say that I am fond of leaving the parking structure fully exposed from the two sides, but I would feel a sense of grace would be appropriate giving what it does front and that is not a street frontage. The nine stories — we have a little bit of quandary in that with Commercial Design Standards, we look at appropriateness of buildings and we see meeting after meeting, you need some articulation on your one-story restaurant — we see those items, but as far as the appropriateness of scale, we have decide here how we judge this building and whether we judge this building as what our ordinances currently are, what our ordinances seek to be. The process that we are currently going through and as Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 52 Alexander: Lack: Alexander: Lack: Alexander: Lack: Garner: commissioners we have set forth and sent forth a proposal which would, in one way, make this building more compatible and in another way, totally deny the building because of the height regulation. I think legally, don't you have to consider in terms of the regulations that are? And that is why I say we have a quandary because of the regulations that are, looking at compatibility, we are not taking into consideration the projected environment that the building is set in. Well, again, my comment would be there is no guarantee that the City Council will pass height restrictions as proposed. As a developer, I have to design and plan on the basis of ordinances as they exist. It is impossible to guess what the City Council will do in the future, so I think legally we are required to plan as the ordinances exist and I think you are required to look at it as the ordinances exist. At the point in time that those ordinances change, if they do, then obviously... but we have been working on this project for over a year, and so whether or not one form or the other of those proposed downtown Master Plans, is, was, might be, who knows? You all are still debating at the Planning Commission. We have forwarded it. There is still going to be more debate, it is still going to go to the Planning Commission. I can tell you that there are multiple projects in the works that are eight, nine and above stories, you have to judge those at the time that you judge them based on what the ordinances are too. We have tried to design something based on our understanding of what the City has encouraged over the last many years, which is density downtown, urban environment. That's the theory behind this building. We did not design it with respect to what the City might do. And I think my comments were directed to needing to comply with that, legally this is the ordinance we have with no restriction of height at all on this project. And meeting that section of the ordinance, that is what we look at. That is what we are bound to look at. I think that if we are trying to get our arms around another section of the ordinance, then we are going to look at the compatibility and maybe another rule on Commercial Design Standards to speak to the building mass and height with what we would be required to regulate the ordinance, what are we required to dictate. It specifically doesn't call out height; it does call out a development is required to provide compatibility and transition between adjoining Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 53 developments, so under that you could talk about building height, scale as far as is it a good transition between adjoining developments. There is nothing specified in Commercial Design Standards about height, mass or scale. Alexander: In that regard, I can tell you that people around George's are proposing an eleven -story building; the people that own the train station are proposing a twelve to thirteen -story building; the people that have the option on the property right next door, which is me, are proposing to build in that scale, so as you look at the proposed projects and as you take in consideration that this is not the tallest building in the district, the tallest is Hillcrest Towers at twelve or thirteen stories on top of a hill as opposed to in the valley. Then you have Old Main which is however tall sitting on top of the tallest hill. So in terms of scale and scope, we took those things into consideration when designing this. We didn't build the tallest building we could build, we didn't build the smallest building we could build. And again, if you look at other buildings in the district, specifically Hillcrest Towers, this is in scale in any context far more attractive building, far less scale. In fact I think that Hillcrest Towers is one of the ugliest buildings in town. That's my personal opinion. Myres: That is a factor in when it was built. Sharp: We are in the position you are too, we are looking at the Downtown Master Plan and agreeing with the broad goals. We would like to see something come up and a lot of the design elements we have taken such as the setbacks and the details and materials have all come from the Dover Kohl Plan and so we are not saying that this is something that is totally the way the 1970 zoning law and we are going to move into a different world. This is going to be a transitional building. Alexander: And that transition is taking place on Dickson Street and will take place. Certainly the Barber Group is going to announce very shortly the Divinity Project as I understand they are calling it, up by the Pettis property. You've got multiple projects coming up and down the street in the future. Greg House is going to do another multi -story project down behind Colliers, so the division of the Downtown Master Plan in terms of scale and density, it is coming fairly quickly. We felt that this was compatible with that. Anthes: On condition #4 we are talking about lighting that doesn't meet the lighting ordinance. I'm sure that that can be resolved. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 54 Sharp: Anthes: Sharp: Anthes: Alexander: Garner: Alexander: Lack: We will use the light that they use in front of the Walton Arts Center, which we like — they used on the lighting trail. We find that it doesn't meet the lighting standards, so we will come up with one that does. Is there a different housing you can put in that? We will meet the law. I think the major outstanding issue here is obviously this utility question and it has a big impact on this project and I tend to agree with Staff's recommendation that this is something that needs to be resolved. I'm not sure it can be resolved in a two-week window and therefore I am going to agree with Staff and agree to table LSD 05-1809 for the Lofts pending that decision and ruling. And who would make that decision. In terms of how we proceed, does the utility company have the right to take as much property as they want at this stage? That is my question. That is what we need to determine. We are not sure either. As I asked the guy, what's to stop them from wanting 60' or 80'. I don't mind tabling it for two weeks, but I would like some direction on how — I mean we have pulled our project back in the event we lose that issue and I have to give them an easement. We don't propose to build our project in that area, so is it possible that we could move forward on that basis, because if they ultimately prevail and get the easement, my building is proposed well back from even the 25' from what they are asking. We are back 29'. So I would like to have, I don't know if you can resolve this at this meeting, I would like to leave the Commission with that question — can we propose a project that fits with what they asking for pending a resolution. And that may have to come from a court because at some point, if they want to take 5', 10', that is an economic decision. At a half a million dollars, I can tell you it impacts one greatly. I want to propose to the Commission that we will set our building back if I should lose that issue, I have not prejudiced the project, I haven't prejudiced the power company, I have not prejudiced anybody. They can come in and if the judge wants to tell, I'm sorry, you have to give them 25', then that's the way it is. I think my only concern with that is that I don't necessarily understand where the authority of the power company is there either and if we do find that if they do have authority to do that, to require whatever easement..... Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 55 Alexander: Well, I know that they can take it. As a lawyer, I know they can take it. They have to pay for it. Lack: I'm sure there are words that say that whatever easement is appropriate or necessary or something like that, but if we proceed with a development overriding their right, then it would put us in jeopardy. Alexander: I don't know if we are doing that or not. Maybe it takes two weeks to find out, but I am trying to articulate that look, I don't mind setting my building back and make my project comply with the worst case scenario, in my opinion, if I lose that issue, but I don't want to encourage that at all. Anthes: I don't know that we do either. Alexander: I don't know if the City does. But they can't go past this unless they condemn that building. Anthes: It is something that I feel like I would like to have an answer.... Myres: If we get to Planning, and this is still unresolved, we will have to table it there. Where do you want to table it? Alexander: I don't mind working on it at this juncture but I still want to ask the question, if I am willing to set it back so that there is no prejudice to anyone, why couldn't be move forward to our project? If I lose that issue, they get their easement. If I prevail on that issue, they don't get their easement, but it any event, my building is back. I'm concerned that if I set it back 29' and they build a power line hard up against my building, that's not cool. I don't think it is safe. Anthes: I have an issue that if they are not going to take that property, it might be nice to have your building grow in size and come out to that sidewalk. Alexander: We'll certainly use it as a plaza area, put trees. We originally had it out there. And my instruction to the guys was, maybe we need to pull it back to go forward. I don't want to hold the whole project up while that issue gets resolved. We had that building pulled closer to the street and in an effort to not hold the project up, we voluntarily set it back. So it is a real dilemma for us. I would even consider giving them the easement if they would bury the line. That's a whole other proposition. I don't want to encourage that. As a citizen I am against that. The very next thing is to go right by Gregg House, go down through all that part of the City. Myres: Which is heavily wooded which means the trees would all come out. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 56 Sharp: Alexander: Anthes: The other issue is in order to get a building permit, we need to have the easement plat worked out. We wouldn't file for that for several months and it may take every bit of that time to work it out with SWEPCO. I don't know that we need that we need to work it out now. I am willing to set it back; I have no problem with that. My feeling is that maybe we would prefer that you didn't if we could get this worked out. It could be very well if that you would indulge us and give us this couple weeks to try to work it out. What that looks like is increased parking availability in downtown which we are going to need. If you just work with Staff and see if we can have a better answer, I'd like to table this until the next Subdivision meeting and maybe we can move it through a lot more easily. Myres: Give us two weeks to get as much information as we possibly can. I'll second your motion to table. Lack: I think I would like to be specific, I think the next few weeks needs to bring to the Subdivision Committee, in my opinion is, what authority we have to override that utility easement request? It may take you months. Alexander: If they do what they want to do, I believe you will be dealing with that issue as far as that line goes through the City. Anthes: Do we have any announcements? Then we are adjourned. Subdivision Committee February 16, 2006 Page 57