The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-03-02 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on March 2, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSD 05-1809: Large Scale Development (THE LOFTS @ UNDERWOOD PLAZA, 483 Page 4 Forwarded LSP 06-1911: Lot Split (TERRY, 141) Tabled Page 10 PPL 06-1940: Preliminary Plat (COBBLESTONE CROSSING, 246) Page 15 FPL 06-1943: Final Plat (CLABBER CREEK III, 244) Page 26 LSD 06-1939: Large Scale Development (BELLAFONT II, 175) Page 3 LSD 06-1941: Large Scale Development (NORTH STREET CHURCH OF CHRIST, 362) Page 30 LSD 06-1944: Large Scale Development (COMBS ST. CHURCH OF CHRIST, 524) Page 36 LSD 06-1924: Large Scale Development (MALCO THEATRE, 173) Page 38 Forwarded Forwarded Tabled Tabled Forwarded Forwarded Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Christine Myres Sean Trumbo Nancy Allen STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Brent O'Neal/Engineering Sarah Patterson/Urban Forester STAFF ABSENT Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 3 Garner: Madam Chair, before we get started, the applicant for Item #5 called last night and requested it to be tabled until the next meeting. Myres: For anyone in the public here for LSD 06-1939 for Bellafont II has been tabled until the next meeting. If you are concerned with that, you don't need to stay. Jeremy, do we need to make a formal tabling motion for this? Pate: Yes and the meeting will be March 16, 2006, same time, same place. Allen: I move to table LSD 06-1939 until the March 16, 2006. Trumbo: Second. Myres: I will concur. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 4 Old Business: 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: Just some background; some of the Commissioners may have not been here for the Lofts Underwood Plaza. This was tabled at the previous meeting mainly because there is a large power and easement along the eastern property line and there was some discrepancy between what the utility company requested as far as the width of the easement and what the applicant wanted to provide. Since that meeting, we have met with the utility provider and had previously met with the applicant so we feel like we understand the issues now and are ready to talk about it. This property is located at 607 Dickson Street and is zoned C-3, Central Commercial. The majority of the site is developed and contains some commercial structures and a parking lot along Dickson Street. The surrounding zoning and land uses, you are probably all familiar with what is going on on Dickson Street, just to the south of this site is a SWEPCO Fayetteville substation; George's Majestic Lounge is immediately east; and Underwood Jewelers is to the west. The applicant is proposing a mixed use development as depicted in Table 2 on page 2 with a mix of commercial, retail and office space, restaurant space and residential condominiums. There are 80 condominium units and approximately 9400 s.f. of commercial retail office; and 9400 s.f. of restaurant. Staff is recommending forwarding this project to the full Planning Commission with the following conditions and issues to address. The site plan and the landscape plan haven't changed since the previous Subdivision Committee, so these conditions of approval are the same Staff recommendations. Commercial Design Standards — Staff finds that th mixed use building meets Commercial Design Standards. We did feel like we wanted to see some more elevations of the parking garage structure and the potential visibility of it from the surrounding streets and we did talk about that at the previous meeting. Some of the Subdivision members were okay with what was there. Staff's recommendation is that we would still like a little bit more information on that and not just see that parking garage. Condition #2 — Planning Commission determination of street improvements, same as previously. Street improvements include reconstructing, repair, and replacing the sidewalk and landscaping that might be damaged along the Dickson Street frontage during construction and constructing the pavement for Powerhouse Avenue as a full City street section on both sides with curb and gutter, to be replaced as determined by the City Engineer on the east side of Powerhouse Avenue. Those are the Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 5 main conditions of approval. We would be happy to answer any questions you might have. O'Neal: No comment. Patterson: I think my comments were originally addressed and are found in the conditions of approval. I need them to specify on-site areas for delivery and storage of construction materials. Mitigation will be required on this site equivalent to six 2" caliper trees at the time of final Certificate of Occupancy. The six trees must be planted in a three-year maintenance and monitoring bond with the City. Myres: Would the applicants please come up and introduce yourselves. Applicants: Rick Alexander, owner. Rob Sharp, architect. Sharp: We have had a chance to go through the conditions of approval and we had a few clarifications that we wanted. One of the issues is the right-of- way along Powerhouse. The information in your packet is from the old Master Street Plan, that has been amended recently, so that right-of-way dedication is out of date. If you could review that and make sure we have the new right-of-way dedication. That relates also to requiring a sidewalk along both sides. When we sat down and looked at the right-of-way that exists with the Planning Staff, it looked like we had room for two drive lanes and a sidewalk on the east side of Powerhouse Drive, but there is no room without getting additional right-of-way from George's to do a sidewalk on the, I'm sorry, there is room for a sidewalk on the west side, there is not room for a sidewalk on the east side. If and when they develop that property, we could get that sidewalk at that point in time. Right now, we couldn't do it without additional right-of-way. Also, there is an existing curb thing that does make an edge on that street, it has a structured edge. Asking us to build a sidewalk on that side is going to be very difficult to do. The other thing we are having problems with is planting additional trees on Dickson Street, because of all the storm sewer and utility easements. It is a very difficult place to get trees in and when they did the improvements, they put in as many as they could - it is going to be hard to put any more in with any chance of them living. I don't know if we can work through that with the requirements for street trees. Myres: l think just meet with the Urban Forester and work out a plan. Garner: We did feel like there may be, we need to look at it closer before Planning Commission, but I feel there is room to plant maybe one or two trees along the frontage, but we will take a closer look at that. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 6 Sharp: Pate: Sharp: We are willing to as long as they have a chance to live. As far as the parking deck, we have done some additional drawings that show the parking deck in context with the other building, which I think will address your concerns about whether it When you see the parking deck in context, I think you will find it meets Commercial Design Standards. These are the new ones. These are all four elevations. Staff's initial concern prior to this meeting is that we have not seen an overall drawing and our concern was the visibility of the parking deck. This is the Dickson Street frontage; it is set back further, but there will be essentially a concrete parking deck in that location. And what we have done on that is the parking deck as it faces north onto Dickson and east onto Powerhouse, we have almost completely concealed it as much as possible. It matches the building, it is as attractive as it can be. On the south side where it faces the substation, we have not done much because it is already more attractive than the substation. And where it faces west, it is a half block up University Avenue and it sits lower, so we it addressed there feeling as there is development of the west of our property, our property will become concealed. We also planted trees along the west and south property lines to help screen the parking deck. Myres: So it is the front elevation that Staff is most concerned with? Pate: This is the north elevation. I think they have done a very good job of concealing the parking deck on the 4th page, Powerhouse there, last page of the packet with the Powerhouse frontage. Myres: And you can hardly see the parking deck. Sharp: And it is a full half block off it, so you'd have to really be looking for it. Myres: And with the land falling away..... Pate: The Dickson Street frontage is what we were more concerned about. Sharp: On the north and south, there are street trees in that Underwood parking area that we are adding that are also going to screen that, so it is going to be as screened as it can be. Allen: Sometimes I think that even low to the ground, shrubs and gardens and those kind of things draw the eye away from that. That can be as effective as trees in certain places. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 7 Sharp: The other concern is we do want people to know there is parking back there, so we have to give them a glimpse of a parking structure, but we understand what you are saying. Alexander: We want to encourage them to come to park there. Sharp: For further information, there was some talk about Commercial Design Standards and blending in a little more with the existing context and we have done some additional work on the first two floors on Dickson Street to show how that ties into the other projects and these drawings are here. Myres: How many parking places in the parking deck? Sharp: 283. As you are walking along the sidewalk, there is an architectural interest — show windows and things to attract your eye. As you get farther away from the project, the overall mass blends in with the other buildings in the area. If you get far enough away and see it, you will see the full nine stories, but because everything on Dickson Street is varied, it is going to be a part of that. We have made efforts with materials and things to blend into the context of Dickson Street. Allen: I wasn't at the first Subdivision meeting, so this is Underwood's and this is the new building and parking deck showing? Sharp: That is Qdobe. That is standing across the street. Those are the drawings that show the latest renditions of the street front. Myres: My only concern was the, I assume you have read and agree with all of the conditions of approval, the lighting fixture cut sheets.... Sharp: We are searching for alternate fixtures, but will meet the ordinance cutoff. Pate: Typically at the time of building permit. Myres: Okay. Pate: The only other big issue that we discussed last time and Staff had not had the opportunity to meet with AEP/SWEPCO. There are some plans for much larger lines to go from the substation north through downtown. They are currently 69kv and they plan to be 161kv, which is a much larger voltage and much higher height and clearance requirements. We had a meeting yesterday with AEP/SWEPCO representatives and they are going to at least attempt to look for a different routing instead of downtown across Old Main, but there is nothing promised at this point. It was our opinion that because it is an electric easement, not just a general utility Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 8 easement requested by all utility companies, that the applicant and electric company could work that out. It should not slow down this process. The Planning Commission determined whether there is a 50' foot or 25' easement required for this project, because it is a utility that is existing. They do have some blanket and prescriptive easements according to their attorney and they will utilize those as necessary and work through with the property owner to ensure that the proper clearances as mandated by National Standards are in effect when the building specs go through our building safety division. But as far as Planning Commission review of the project, I think we can proceed forward. Myres: That really does concern me. I didn't realize they were planning to bring that much electrical power rate through the middle..... and where does it go? Pate: Springdale. Alexander: Right through the middle of town. Sharp: We want to clarify that we are willing to give electrical easement off the south side of our property and the west side of our property where it directly serves our property. What we are not willing to do is grant easements to these transmission lines; they are not service lines for our building. They are lines that go to Springdale, so we don't feel that there is any rational nexus to our project. This is not something triggered by our project. It is some overall strategic plan that SWEPCO has had for a long time that as Jeremy said, we are perfectly willing to work it out with them at a future day. There used to be days on Dickson, there used to be buildings right up in those lines before us. We are making this situation better, we are moving 25' off their lines, we have done a lot to accommodate them and we are just not willing to give them a half a million dollars worth of property to get something we don't want. Myres: I'd hate to see any electrical service of that size coming through downtown. I don't know if there is anything we can do about it. I think the next step is to ask for public comment. Is there anyone from the public that wants to speak to this LSD? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee. Trumbo: I am going to make a motion we forward LSC 05-1809 to the Planning Commission with the understanding that the applicant will be getting with the Urban Forester to work out the tree issue and also get together with Staff on the sidewalk issue. That will be done before Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 9 Allen: I will second. Myres: I will concur. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 10 LSP 06-1911: Lot Split (TERRY, 141): Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at 4122 N HUNGATE LN. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 3.47 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 1.21 and 2.26 acres. Garner: This site is located at 4122 Hungate Lane, east of the Fayetteville City limits, within the planning area. The property consists of approximately 3.5 acres and is developed for one single-family dwelling and accessory structures. The surrounding property consists of rural residential and agricultural property within the planning area. Adjacent Master Street Plan street is North Hungate Lane which is a local street. Water is available to each tract and septic systems will be utilized for both of these parcels. Tract B, which is just under an acre and a half does have certification from the Washington County Health Center for a septic system and we have that attached to your Staff report. Staff does recommend approving this lot split with a couple of minor conditions. I wanted to call your attention to Condition #2, the plat should be revised to show a 20' utility easement on the northern property on both tracts. Looking back in my notes and saw this was a comment from the utility companies. Other than that the conditions are standard and we would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Applicants: I am Darlene Terry, owner and Brian Bunch, Blew Bates & Associates. Terry: (inaudible) — it would take our shed and our garden. Bunch: This is an easement. If they wanted to lay out the utility line, they have a right to go up and down this easement. Myres: You don't have to demolish anything or change anything. They could go through your garden to put in a line of some sort. Bunch: We have some issues with the plat that we had originally submitted. The road was labeled incorrectly as Hunnington Lane and it is now Hungate Lane. The right-of-way is drastically different. It went from 90' to 40' so what we wanted to do was recalculate the lot size. The basic shape of the split is the same, we wanted to go to the 40' right-of-way instead of 90' for a gravel County road. I have new copies of that here. It changed the acreage due to going back to the right-of-way. Garner: You guys did call me and tell me there would possibly be some changes like this. Since this isn't a planning area, we do look at streets — City standards are required a minimum of 25' from the centerline right-of-way. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 11 Pate: Terry: Pate: Myres: Bunch: Pate: Bunch: Pate: Bunch: Pate: Terry: Myres: Terry: Garner: To add to that, you might contact the County because they typically will require 30' from centerline. So, while you won't, I agree the right-of-way shown in the original plat is pretty dramatic. The County will likely require 30' from centerline right-of-way dedication which might change that somewhat, but not drastically. But contact the County to find out their standards; ours are a minimum of 25', but if you are on a gravel road, they usually require a 30' right-of-way for maintenance. The road would run practically through my porch. It would be way up there. I don't think so; I think you are quite a ways away. It is a right-of-way, it is not necessarily where they would actually build pavement. It is an area for sidewalk, curb. So we would need to dedicate that portion to the County? Correct. Are we under their guidelines or your guidelines? Both. Although you require 25', they require 30'. You are approximately 70' from the porch to the right-of-way line. The actual street would be located even further west of that, so you are over 70' away currently. I was told that this was a private drive. It is not supposed to be a road, it was a supposed to be a private drive owned by the Reagans that live down the road. It is listed as Washington County Road 4030, so it is definitely a County Road. We appreciate the update. I also had a question about the 75' over here. We wanted this to be 40' and he said there had to be some kind of easement for utilities, but it is a driveway. I don't see the other neighbors having to give up their driveway. I don't understand that. There is a process you can go through to create a tandem lot and that may be what your neighbors have done. If you have a lot you want to create without the requirement of frontage which is 75', you have to go through a Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 12 process to create a tandem lot, which would be a conditional use permit, but that is a process you could go through. Myres: And then you don't have to have that.... Terry: What if we don't put a driveway there? Pate: Because you are splitting a lot, City and County ordinances require a minimum of 75' of frontage onto that public right-of-way. Other than that, you have to get waivers or variances from the City Planning Commission, which is a step above this commission and the County Planning Board. Terry: But is there is no driveway there. Pate: Regardless whether there is a driveway there. Bunch: So we could call for a variance to reduce the road onto a gravel County Road? Pate: I'm not saying it would be approved, but you could approach that. Terry: I don't understand why they want it. I don't see the other neighbors losing sections of their land for that because they put in a driveway. Myres: If you extended this south boundary line to the west and split the lot that way without a right-of-way, then what you would have to do is to get a conditional use to call this a tandem lot which means you could have access to that lot through the front one, which means you could just put in a driveway. You wouldn't have to have frontage, but because these are two separate lots, this one has to have access to the road out front. Pate: You would also by State law have to extend utilities to that lot, public utilities, not just private service lines, so you would be extending the public water main, 263. Terry: So why does our 75' come up our side and part of it off the neighbor's side? Pate: Because you are splitting your lot. The 75' is because you are splitting this tract, you are required to have a minimum amount of frontage for the new tract that you are creating. Terry: So if we went straight across the middle, we wouldn't have to have that? Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 13 Myres: If you split it this way. Pate: If you split it east to west, you wouldn't have to. Terry: There is access to this from the Lanehan's right here. He owns this land here, too. His house is right here and he has access to this through his land that he already owns. There is another acre back here. It was a five -acre lot. My father-in-law passed away — adjacent to the house back here and we took the house that was in front. He had an acre back there already which left four acres to split, so he does have access to his house from the little road that runs on the other side. Pate: Is this tract going to become part of the ownership of the tract to the east? Terry: Yes. He is going to do a deed on all of it, so it will all be his. Pate: All of these discussions should have occurred at Technical Plat review, not at this level. Bunch; I wasn't there. I'm new. Terry: I didn't know I was supposed to be here. Pate: I would recommend tabling this item. Allen: I would certainly agree. All this could be worked out — try not to panic. Bunch: To clarify then, if this property has access to which Tract A is going to become a part of, it already has legal access to it, we could just split it down the middle without the 75' arm coming out to the County Road. Pate: No, you would have to have at least a frontage, but we need to sit down and understand what configuration this lot is, if it has adequate frontage, property line adjustment could occurring instead of a split. This has created part of Tract B owned by Jason Wayne Terry and already has adequate frontage in some other property and it could meet that frontage requirement without having to go to Hungate Lane for that. We don't know that with the information we have in front of us right now. O'Neal: If you could also label the size of the water line. Bunch: One other question. If we did a property line adjustment, would you still require a utility easement across the north line? Myres: I think that is a separate issue entirely. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 14 Garner: The property line adjustment wouldn't really kick into effect. The utility company is looking at. Allen: I move to table LSP 06-1911. Trumbo: Second. Myres: I will concur. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 15 PPL 06-1940: Preliminary Plat (COBBLESTONE CROSSING, 246): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located NE OF CRYSTAL SPRINGS PHASES I & III. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 60.28 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 195 single family dwellings proposed. Pate: This property contains approximately 60.28 acres located east of Salem Road, adjacent to Crystal Springs Phase I and Rockhaven Subdivisions to the east. It is zoned RSF-4, recently annexed and rezoned as part of the Zacconti property. This is a preliminary plat for 196 single-family dwellings with one lot for detention. As you may remember, the Planning Commission and City Council did recommend and approve Master Street Plan amendment for Raven Lane and for Gypsum Drive, both of which bisect this property. Also, the surrounding development includes the Laureate Fields Subdivision which was approved to the east and the school district has not purchased. In your packet is a letter from the school district stating that they have essentially withdrawn that approval. That was important for Staff and Planning Commission because there were stub outs approved; these stub outs did not line out with those and if someone else had bought this property, there would obviously a bad situation there, but the school district has withdrawn that approval for Laureate Fields and so we are basically on a clean slate with street stub outs in that area. Master Street Plan streets, as I mentioned, this property is unique in that it has no frontage whatsoever on the existing streets. There are two stub outs that exist currently that allow for access, but there is no actual frontage. There are two Master Street Plan streets that traverse this site — Raven Lane which is the north/south street on the west side of the property and Gypsum Drive which was moved to the north as part of the Master Street Plan amendment. That is the one that curves east/west and dedication of right-of-way, 70' of right-of-way is required for both of those collector streets. All other streets are internal, local, residential streets. Staff is actually recommending that a couple of those even be reduced further. Some of those wouldn't necessarily have to be your full 28' wide streets. They don't carry a lot of traffic. They could be decreased to 24' wide streets with 42' right-of-way and that way, it would save on pavement and traffic generated on those side streets aren't needed for 50' right-of-way. It is City policy for all subdivisions greater that 100 lots to submit a traffic study, in an effort to better understand the overall impact that a proposed development will have on surrounding streets and intersections. This applicant has chose not to submit that traffic study and instead they have submitted a letter recognizing the need for improvements to the surrounding area, especially at the intersection of Salem Road and Mount Comfort Road. And because the majority of this traffic will go through that intersection, although there is the potential to travel south and then east in a very round about way to get to Deane Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 16 Solomon Road. The applicant has proposed to contribute $80,000 for necessary improvements at that intersection without a traffic study to evaluate the full impact. Staff is recommending the following. This is a recommendation from our City Engineer's Office and City Planning. The developer will contribute to the City the estimated costs of the following improvements: a) the cost of a traffic signal at the intersection of Mt. Comfort Road and Salem Road; b) The cost of the required improvements to create a left turn land on Salem Road onto Mt. Comfort Road to make that a fully functional intersection with the turn signal. Also, the developer shall construct the following improvements: c) a left turn lane at Salem Road and "Street A", the Collector Street, to be coordinated with the development of Rockhaven Subdivision. Again, this property has no frontage on the street so there is not the typical street improvement adjacent to this property, so we have to look at other intersections and off- site street improvements. If you follow the — it used to be Gypsum Road, I'm not sure what it will be named now, but if you follow that out through Rockhaven Subdivision all the way to Salem, that project is not under construction yet and we are recommending that a left turn lane be constructed. With regard to connectivity, the applicant has indicated connection in all directions, one to the south where the existing street stubs, one to the west which is Gypsum, another to the west, where the approved Collector Street is, and to the north and one to the east, which is the alignment with the Master Street Plan street. Staff is recommending one further eastern stub out to the very northeast of the property to allow for another street connection to the school property. We did speak with the school district and explained our recommendation there. We feel it would actually be detrimental to only have one street headed out if there is a school developed here, all traffic and stacking for dropping off kids would have to be on one collector street as opposed to having at least two different alternatives. So we are recommending that at least an additional street stub out to the east. We don't really have a preference on which ones of those it should be. It seems like any one of those to the north would work. With that Staff is recommending forwarding this preliminary plat with a recommendation of approval to full Planning Commission. There are nineteen conditions of approval. Item #1 is the determination of off-site improvements that I just went over; item #2 is the connectivity which is the determination of whether the Commission feels there should be another stub out; item #3 is the appropriate street width which is the recommendation to decrease some of those to a 24' street width instead of 28' which is currently shown. The rest are pretty standard. There is one I would like to explain. Item #4, the applicant shall submit a guarantee which could be a letter of credit, bond or cash of $1,000 per lot prior to recordation of the final plat for contributions to an interim solution to the wastewater capacity concerns in the Owl Creek/Hamstring Creek basin, if the improvement if required. You will see that on other projects in this Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 17 agenda. Any project in the Owl Creek/Hamstring Creek basin, which is the west side of Fayetteville essentially, this condition has been placed on projects in the past and will be in the future until the wastewater treatment plant is completed. With that, we are recommending this be forwarded for approval. O'Neal: No Comment. Patterson: I have three conditions. Identify on-site areas for the delivery and storage of construction materials. Mitigation will be required for this site in the amount twelve 2" inch caliper large species trees. I recommend you get those on site at the time of final plat. When it does come through for final plat, I will need an on-site planting plan to show the species and location of those trees. A three-year maintenance and monitoring bond in the amount of $3000 will be due at that time. Applicants: Blake Jorgensen with Jorgensen & Associates; Charlie Sloan with the developer and owner of this project. Jorgensen: I would like to first say that I did have the on-site storage on the drawing. It just didn't come out on the print. Sloan: We had the list of conditions of traffic study for down there; (inaudible) and I said why not just pay towards a traffic light and be done with it. At the time, I did not own property in this area, but I knew there was a problem. I have told them why don't you just put a traffic signal there, you would solve a lot of problems, since it is not a State highway. The number we picked is a number Tim Conklin had given me for a traffic light put in by the City of Fayetteville and that is where we picked up the $80,000. We will pay that for the light. Obviously there are other projects coming through behind us, we would like to set a precedence and maybe we can get that intersection fixed in our lifetime. That is the reason we came up with that idea. My question is, the cost required to improve and create a left hand turn lane from Salem Road onto Mt. Comfort, first of all, I don't know you have the right-of-way there and number two, there is a left hand turn lane, pretty much, everybody turns left — they are trying to get back to the bypass. How are we going to determine an open check book of a cost? If we are creating that turn lane and paying for the traffic signal, where are we with future developments coming through, that we know are coming through. We don't mind making a contribution, we just want to know what the contribution is. It was our idea to do the contribution rather than spend the money for the traffic study. You would have to do another traffic study when the next development came through and so on. Instead of paying consultants, let's build the road and be done with it. Number two, was the connection to the east off that, we did talk Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 18 Pate: with the school and we placed the connector street where the school requested to split the traffic in half. They do not have a design, they don't know if we are going to be going into the side of the building or what, if and when they do build the school there. We had talked with them — they really didn't care for the connection to be there. We didn't know quite what the rule was. I thought there was some kind of maximum, like 1400' to have to make a connection, or less than that. Also, Staff is recommending that we reduce the size of the streets so we are going to route school traffic through the residential neighborhood that could be smaller streets, trying to recommend that we do smaller streets so that we can slow down the traffic. We just don't see the necessity. There is 20 acres north of us that one day will develop and that connection will be made. By then we would know what we would tie into, but it is not a deal killer for us. That was the reason it wasn't put on the plat. The only thing that is open ended for us is the fact that we thought we do the $80,000, we just picked the number of $80,000 because that is what Tim had told us, so we knew we would have a fixed cost. We don't know what you mean by a left hand turn lane as far as cost on that. We would like to get those determinations. I think those are the only questions we have on the conditional uses. To answer your first question, is there a right-of-way present and how much would it take to put a turn lane in. That is exactly what a traffic study would have shown us — how much right-of-way is present and how much would it take to actually get the turn lane in. We would be willing to have your engineers take a look at that. We typically do depend on the applicant's engineers to propose a cost estimate for off-site improvements, especially when we are looking for contributions instead of you building it. I would note that the City has funds for I believe a starting engineering study, an engineering design on Mt. Comfort Road from essentially the bypass to Rupple for four and five lane sections to be constructed sometime in the future and those engineering designs are under way, I believe... Brent? O'Neal: I believe they are beginning this year. Pate: And that would be part of the contributions from this subdivision as well as other properties in this area that access Mt. Comfort. You will see North Street Church of Christ, in the future you will see properties further up Salem that will have contributions as well. Crystal Springs IV which is coming soon, almost 300 lots directly off of Mt. Comfort Road, will also have contributions and their traffic study is underway right now. Those are all things we are taking money -in -lieu of the improvement right now so the City can do improvement all at one time as opposed to trying to piecemeal this together. To have the traffic signal at Salem, I think the left Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 19 Sloan: turn lane is critical there to actually make it fully functional. Again, it is something the City would actually construct with funds from this development as well as other developments coming in the future as Mr. Sloan mentioned. As far as the costs go, we would need the design engineers to prepare cost engineers prepare cost estimates for us and have Engineering review that. We will have our engineers do that then - I think we can work closely with your Staff to get this thing resolved. Once again, I know eventually we would need a turn lane there, but once again I think when the traffic hits your T into the street, you are not going straight, you are turning left or right, so if the light turns on, you don't need a left hand turn lane light at the intersection. Once again, I beg to differ on that. I think you will need a left lane off of Mt. Comfort onto Salem if you are coming in from the west, but I don't see T into a street and have to have a left hand turn lane. The light turns green everyone is going to tum left or right. That was my question. We can let the engineers take care of it. This is the first time I have seen that we were going to construct anything; we thought we were making a contribution to the City, we don't mind doing whatever we need to do on it, but I would hate to put a left hand turn lane and wait two or three more years to get a street light there. Allen: Have you met with the Ward Four about this project? Sloan: Oh yes, we have met with the Ward Four, we actually had the Crystal Springs homeowners association come and supported us on this project in order to reroute the streets to get a collector street out of their neighborhood, even though it is about half in and half out, since there are two streets that run parallel but still feed through their neighborhood, trying to relieve some of the traffic through their neighborhood. The reason that discussion came up was talking about different roads and Mt. Comfort Road needing to be widened, curb, and gutter and everything. We had talked about in the immediate future, right now while we are waiting for the traffic signal there, it would let people get onto Mt. Comfort Road off Salem, plus it would allow the people who live on Mt. Comfort Road to get out of their driveways if there were breaks in the traffic. That would extend the life of that road until the City came up with funds to construct it like it should be. Myres: Hopefully these are things that can all be worked out. I know there is some public comment on this project, so I will invite that now. If you would like to come to the podium sir, and introduce yourself. Mussic: My name is Jerry Mussic, I am general manager for Razorback Park Golf Course. I guess I have to tell you that we are excited about the Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 20 development that is going out in that area. It sure is going to have a positive impact on our business. However, at the same time, we have a very grave concern and that is Clabber Creek being designated a wetlands and the limited work that can go on. I have not seen anything on this development relative to the detention ponds, whether they are required, what size they are. The only thing I know is that at the present time we have developments east of us, Crystal Springs III — as I understand your development is more toward the west side of I and II there I think there is another development that has been approved to the east of you. I don't know if it has been approved or not, but I know it is in the planning, being considered. Sloan: The one east of us has been canceled. We received a letter saying it was canceled. Mussic: The only one going north of just what has been completed on Phase II would be you. Now we are getting a bunch more to the west of us. I can tell you we had an inch and a quarter rain the last of January. We had more water on our course than we have had in three inch rains in the past. Part of the problem is not yours; it's nature and an animal called beavers. They have the west part of that property completely dammed up; we have across our cart path across #14 green, the water is totally up to the bottom of that bridge. Any additional water has to raise at least 18" before it can go over the bridge, and with the quarter and an inch rain, we had two holes that were not playable for two days. That is affecting our business. And so I am very concerned about the detention ponds that have been built. I know in a couple of cases I have been told by an informed source, a source that I consider reliable, that some of the detention ponds to the east side of Deane Solomon were not built at the same level that some of the ones on the west side are being required. I don't know what's going to happen. In some ways I can say it may be a blessing for us that it will hold that water off for awhile, but by the same token, I know what happened with we had an inch and a quarter rain after four months of no rain. I don't know where to go with this or who to talk to. I feel we need to make the Planning Commission aware of, I know they are aware of it because we have talked to them several times. I'll tell you, every time we talk about a development there, I am going to be here to continue to echo our concerns, because it doesn't take much for us to be out of business for three or four days. We have seen three or four inch rains, and it has taken us three days for us to get back in business. That's before we had any development out there. But by the same token, until we get one of those big events, we don't know what those detention ponds are going to do for us. We are working right now with the people to the west and south of our course to maybe make one of our current ponds a detention pond for some of that development. That will work out well for us and for them. Our intentions Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 21 are not to be a problem for development. We are very much pro - development. We really want to be a part of it, but we just want you to be very much aware of what the economic impact that has on us at the golf course. I don't know where to go with this from here, how to approach it. I just know we have the concerns and this last rain event heightened our concerns. Myres: I suggested earlier before the meeting started that he might want to sit down with Engineering and talk to them. Sloan: We would be very interested in showing you what we have. If there is something we need to over compensate for. Right now is the time.... Mussic: That is why I am here, to make you aware of it so we can sit down together and look at this thing and then come to some agreement that what we are doing will do the course. All the surface water off the development that is immediately north of us, is running onto our golf course. There are no detentions at all on that property. Myres: If it is any consolation, Mr. Sloan and their company has proposed a retention pond, almost three acres which is different than detention. Retention is wet and that means that it will be contained and not allowed to seep out. Mussic: If it is a retention, then my next question would be, if we have another year like we had to two previous years, that pond will be full and you get a big rain event and all that water is going to come off of there. Sloan: We have space in that pond for our runoff. We have done this before — we have actually increased the size of the pond by 30% on one project, because I don't care what the engineers' calculation is, you still have the potential to flood somebody out. We did that on another project; we had the space, I came back and requested through Engineering to change the design and we actually increased the pond by 30% and made the neighbor and myself feel a lot more comfortable. I don't want a call at 2:00 in the morning saying you are flooding me out. We have done that before, it is a real minor expense to make it bigger. Mussic: As you know, Clabber Creek from where the development is, Springwood, I think it is, to the east of us or something like that — to us, there isn't three foot of fall down through there, so the water just doesn't move very fast and so with the beaver dams exacerbating the problem now, all at once with an inch of rain, we've got two fairways we can't even get on to. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 22 Jorgensen: Mussic: Myres: Splatser: Pate: Splatser: Pate: O'Neal: Splaster: Myres: Splatser: Pate: Splatser: Myres: Trumbo: Well what we could do is hopefully create enough size so that we could retain our water longer than is required. That is all we could ask you to do. That would certainly be amenable to preventing that problem for us. We appreciate it. Is there any other public comment? My name is T.O. Spalster (?) and I own adjacent property to this. When I was here before in dealing with this, we talked about adjusting a road there and I could not follow — I have a hearing problem and I could not follow what the adjustment was. I heard you mention moving a road, but I simple couldn't hear well enough to follow what you said. My property is just to the west of this and the road was scheduled to cut through my property and the property north of me. It was going to be referred to Engineering about moving it. Do you live in the County? Yes, I live in the County. It has been moved north. Basically it is coming out, I believe this is your property right here, This proposed collector street once it bends to the west, it will go back north and head to Salem Road. So it will miss my property here? Yes, it appears to. My property is on Kendall Drive and it is the second property. There is one on the north right here and mine is just down to the south of it. This street used to jog over a lot further south, I believe it went right through a structure actually; that has all been shifted to the north. We would be happy to sit down and look at it in more detail if you would like. Is has been moved. Thank you — that is all I needed. Anyone else? Committee? The extra connection to the east, Jeremy, where are you recommending that go? Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 23 Pate: Likely either Zacconti Drive or Napoli Drive, one of those that are further to the north away from the collector street. I think it would defeat the purpose if it were adjacent to the collector street. One further to the north. Again, to allow for the school or whatever development that occurs on that property to have at least two means of access back to the west. Because obviously this connects to another school and there will likely be parents or other traffic between the two. Trumbo: Do you still think the road should be 24'? Pate: If one of them connects through, it should be 28' at least to the collector. We are looking more at, for instance Burgundy which is a 50' right-of- way, but there are probably only ten lots on it; Millstone could probably be reduced. If one of the two, if Zacconti were stubbed out to the east, that would just remain what it is, a 50' right-of-way. But the others could shrink to 24' and actually gain lot area by doing that. Myres: Even Napoli and Millstone. Pate: And even potentially Burgundy, and Courance and Verona. Trumbo: You are talking about being reduced. Pate: Correct. Trumbo: I guess Zacconti would be the one, if that is what you would want. Sloan: Would that sufficient for the next twenty acres to connect through? I'm asking about the future, but if we go to the Zacconti connection, will that — I don't really remember what that depth was, but there are twenty more acres that run across the north part of this that actually comes out on Salem Road. I guess my question is for Mr. Zacconti and them, because we have an option on it, it may not sell — he may do it himself; if we make this connection now, do you think that would be sufficient for them in the future? Pate: The connection to the north? Sloan: To the east. We are making another connection to the east which we don't quite understand why, but we are going to make another connection to the east — do you think that will be sufficient for them or do you think you are going to come back and ask for another one, a third one in the future? I'd like to make this work; if Zacconti uses that northern part and make the connection and make it work for everybody, we will recommend going there. If we are going to have to put a middle one somewhere else, then Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 24 Pate: we still question why we have to have three connections to the east in the future. What is the rule. I want it there because I want it there? Or is there a rule about it? We have a policy that City Council established and it is looking at connectivity and allowing for the most connections that are feasible for both pedestrian access and vehicular access. For instance, if you are going to school and you live in Lot 16, you have half a mile to get there as opposed to if there was a stub out, that you could actually walk to the property next door, that would allow for both vehicles and pedestrians to get there. As far as your question about would there ever need to be another connection, maybe the same amount but nothing really more than this right here. Myres: Normandy connects to the north already. Sloan: If Normandy came straight on up, would they have to put another connection to the east. That may be way off in the future. If Zacconti drive would be sufficient then we would take it.... Pate: It may very well be sufficient. Jorgensen: (inaudible). It would be more sensible, the next road that would be parallel to Zacconti would be 150' north so you would two roads that would stub out to the east in proximity to each other. Pate: We likely wouldn't recommend another one across the property line. Jorgensen: The probability is that it may be where it lies, Salem if you have two stub outs to the east that are in proximity.... Pate: I think the challenge is here. If you look at this subdivision for instance, you have done the exact same thing within your own development — you've done them 150'-250' apart because you have lots stacked in there. It should be no different in the next development over; theoretically all these would stub out and you would just continue the grid in this area. We are just simply asking for one more connection. Myres: And that is at your discretion. Trumbo: I will make a motion to forward PPL 06-1940 to the Planning Commission. We are going to have your engineers give us the information needed for the left turn and stoplight, stub out to the east — probably going to be Zacconti, more clarity on the detention (retention) pond. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 25 Jorgensen: Are you talking about both turn lanes. We are doing ours and then two additional ones? Trumbo: I think the turn lane Staff is talking about .... Jorgensen: Off of Gypsum onto Salem, then also Salem to Mt. Comfort. We need to do two studies? Pate: The one onto Salem, which is your street A, that would be constructed — that is the only construction we are requesting. The other is just contribution - we wouldn't recommend constructing a turn lane at this point off of Salem onto Mt. Comfort. That would be a contribution. Trumbo: We are going to change the other streets to 24' sections, but you want to leave Zacconti. Sloan: But we could leave the others at 28' if we wish to? Myres: Yes. Sloan: You are just saying Zacconti if that is what we stub out; we need to go back and make sure it stays 28' Allen: And I'll second your convoluted motion..... Myres: I will concur. Pate: I would like to mention if you would get with Engineering; I'm not sure they reviewed the retention pond — there are some waivers from the finished elevation of a structure — 100' from that. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 26 FPL 06-1943: Final Plat (CLABBER CREEK III, 244): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located W OF RUPPLE RD AND SALEM, N OF CLABBER CREEK PHASES I & II. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 34.78 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of a residential subdivision with 110 single family lots. Applicants: Kipp Hearne with H2 Engineering and Blue Barnes with ? Pate: This is the first of three final plats for Clabber Creek Subdivision Phases III, IV and V. This is Phase HI. This is a request for final plat approval for Phase III. The preliminary plat was approved in September of 2004. The majority of the construction has taken place and the final inspection has taken place with punch list items to be taken care of for this development. This is for 110 single-family lots on approximately 35 acres. Not a whole lot of unique situations on this. Obviously you have reviewed it at the preliminary plat level, the street stub outs, the connectivity and street widths and all of that was determined at that time. Park land has been dedicated for all three tracts and the applicant has agreed to indicate access easements in various locations to access from the subdivision into the park and future trail at Clabber Creek. One thing has changed between the preliminary plat time and now and that was a City - directed and desired change: Rupple Road at the time of approval for this property was a minor arterial requiring 45' from centerline; as you know Rupple Road has changed to a principle arterial with a boulevard cross section. During construction plan review of this project with the understanding that looking at a principle arterial and boulevard cross section, City Engineering approached these gentlemen to try and go ahead and construct this improvement even though they weren't technically required to do so, and the City would cost share the difference in that improvement. That did significantly delay their project. They were able to work on site, but for this particular issue, it did delay their project. What they are requesting is a little atypical in that a waiver would have to be granted by the Planning Commission because this work is not finished because we delayed them so much. Everything in the subdivision has been finished; the bridge is not yet finished — probably a few months left to work on that and the improvements to Rupple Road. Knowing all of that Staff is recommending that this final plat be forwarded with the recommendation for approval. We did have a couple of concerns and they have addressed those already with notes on the plat and conditions of approval. What we did not want to occur was all of the construction traffic for each one of these 100 or so homes have to come through one street in Salem Village, Thames Drive that we see there on the east side of Rupple Road, so the applicant will requiring all contractors and builders with their heavy construction traffic to go ahead and utilize the existing access that they have for construction which is up to the north off of Lierly Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 27 Lane. That's what was utilized for construction for this overall subdivision — it will be continued to utilized as such for that heavy construction traffic. That would be a condition. It is on this final plat and when it is signed, it will be entered as condition of approval as well. Signs will be placed at that drive indicating that requirement. Obviously the bridge cannot be used until it is finished from south Rupple Road. Once it is finished, it will be utilized for construction traffic. The waiver request is for waiver of guaranty requirements for completion of improvements. Staff is recommending that the applicant submit a guaranty for street improvements to Rupple Road south of N Thames Drive to the north property line of Phase III. That is a typical improvement for what's not constructed and then another condition is, no certificate of occupancy, meaning homes complete and ready to be occupied, shall be issued until all the required improvements are completed and approved by City engineering. That way we have an assurance that if someone occupies a home, their access is going to be guaranteed and ready to drive across that bridge. That takes care of condition #1 and #2 and because it is a waiver, it does need to be forwarded to the full Planning Commission. A couple of other things that should be noted with the bridge over Clabber Creek, we were able to work out with the applicants — they were amenable to sizing that height requirement to allow for a trail to actually go under the bridge, so it will be a great separated trail there. They were very willing to work with us on that as well. We appreciate that. Sarah has some conditions — there will be mitigation trees that will be planted on site which is also a good thing and we recommend forwarding this final plat to Planning Commission with recommendation for approval. O'Neal: No comments. Patterson: For tree preservation, the original plan for Clabber Creek was for Phases III, IV and V. There was a total of 691 2" caliper trees required for the mitigation of these three phases. Since they are just bringing Phase III through right now, that is what we are looking at. They have submitted an on-site mitigation plan that has been approved. They are going to get 324 2" caliper trees on this Phase III. These are going to be located within the detention ponds, street rights-of-way and interior of the lots. This will require a three-year maintenance and monitoring bond in the amount of $81,000 to be deposited with the City before signature of final plat. We are going to bank, as the final plat of Phases IV and V come through, they will try to get the remainder of the 691 trees on the site. If they cannot locate them all of the site, then money -in -lieu will be used to take care of the remaining trees. Myres: Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on Clabber Creek? Seeing none, is there any comment from the applicant? Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 28 Hearne: Maybe just one comment. On condition of approval #2, where it does state no construction traffic, I guess to reflect that directly with what is on the plat, we have it reflected as no heavy construction traffic. We are talking about a short amount of time here until Rupple Road is complete and the intent here is to keep all of the heavy trucks, all the delivery trucks, and concrete trucks off of Thames. We will have those guys come in from the northwest. We do have vehicular traffic that will need to be brought through that direction. Myres: You are amount two months out with the bridge? Barnes: A little over three months. Right now the bridge construction is the only thing that is going to delay us out beyond sixty days. The improvements north of the bridge will be complete in the next thirty days — everything north. Even beyond this boundary of Phase III, all the way to the boundary of Phase V. The bridge construction right now is the issue of that day, sixty to seventy-five, worst case is ninety -day period. We currently have vehicular traffic that comes through there for bridge construction and Rupple Road construction and that is the reason we requested that. We can't shut off all of our construction traffic because then we can't complete the bridge structure and the Rupple Road structure. Hearne: We will put up signs if we need to out in front. Barnes: The intent was for us to control mixed -type of deliveries — concrete -type of deliveries. There would not be large, heavy truck traffic coming through the site. Trumbo: Do you want to change that to no heavy construction traffic? Hearne: That is what is reflected on the plat. We are a little disappointed that we are not requesting approval here at this level. I do understand that you need to go to the Planning Commission. Is this an approval of the final plat with just the waiver being approved at the Planning Commission? Pate: The whole final plat has been sent to the Commission because there is a waiver of the requirement. Barnes: Will that be reviewed by the Planning Commission? On the agenda? Pate: It depends on the three members here, if they would like to put it on the consent. Myres: We can certainly discuss that when we get to agenda. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 29 Barnes: I think the thing for us, Jeremy, is that we have nearly a million dollars invested out there, and we had the full intentions of completing Rupple and the bridge, not only for that investment, but also for the feasibility of this development and for these homes. That is the number one priority for us right now is those completions. Allen: I would like to make a motion to send this to the full Planning Commission — FPL 06-1943 subject to the 19 conditions of approval, altering condition #2 from no construction traffic to no heavy construction traffic. I think we will discuss that at our agenda meeting, the possibility of consent. Pate: For the tentative agenda would you like me to put it on consent? Myres: Then if somebody objects, we will take it off. Trumbo: I will second. Myres: I will concur. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 30 LSD 06-1941: Large Scale Development (NORTH STREET CHURCH OF CHRIST, 362): Submitted by FREELAND KAUFFMAN & FREDEEN, INC. for property located at 3281 MT. COMFORT ROAD. The property is zoned P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contains approximately 9.10 acres. The request is for a 24,369 s.f. church building. Applicants: Gary Jackson with Hight, Jackson & Associates, the architects. Dirk Thibodaux with Freeland -Kauffman & Fredeen. Mark McHaverty with the North Street Church of Christ. Garner: This property is located on the west side of Fayetteville on Mt. Comfort Road, east of future Salem Road. The site is approximately sixteen acres and it zoned P-1 institutional to allow for the proposed church use. The site is currently undeveloped farmland, surrounded by single family homes along Mt. Comfort Road and undeveloped land. The applicant proposes to construct an approximate 39,000 square foot church building with a 650 seat auditorium. Currently the plans show 453 parking spaces and a future auditorium which is not a part of the LSD. As this project is located with the P-1 zoning district, a church is a use allowed by right and typically we see churches that have to get conditional use permits, but this is allowed in our right, so a conditional use permit is not required. There is a building elevation of the church building on the podium back there. Note, this is not a commercial development so it is not subject to Commercial Design Standards, but Staff does find that it is an attractive building and compatible with the neighborhood. Right-of-way dedication will be required 45' from centerline along Mt. Comfort Road. As you can see the lot just has a very small tag portion of the lot that actually touches Mt. Comfort Road and the proposed church would be accessed off of that tag and there is also a 20' access easement in the east corner that will be used as well to access the property. Staff does recommend to table this project with the plans before you here. The main issue is that they are proposing 453 parking spaces, well in excess of the total allowed by ordinance and a conditional use permit would have to be processed and approved to allow that. I believe we talked to the applicant yesterday and he has some additional plans that show how the parking would be phased in, but at this point with the plans we have, we recommend tabling it until a conditional use permit was processed. We want it to be phased in separately instead of going that route. Additionally, the southern access point off the access easement — as you can see, they are taking up the full access easement to construct their driveway. They would require grading on the adjacent property owner's property and we would request that they obtain permission from those property owners and provide that to us, so we could understand it. That main access point is allowed, no it looks like from the northern access point as well, they have grading on the adjacent property owners as well. That was the second condition. We also had comments at Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 31 O'Neal: the Technical Plat Review meeting from the Fire Department — they have requested an additional meeting to talk about fire hydrant locations and I'm not sure that meeting has taken place, but we wanted to make sure that it takes place and that adequate fire and emergency access is provided before we approve this project. There are some pretty straight forward conditions. At the Technical Plat, it was also requested that the sidewalk be shown at the right-of-way line, not only on the flag portion of the property that fronts Mt. Comfort, but I believe we were also asking for an assessment for street improvements between the two access points. We need to see that assessment. Also, on both of your drives, you have to show that sidewalk continuous through the drive. On the grading plan, you need to go down the grading plan checklist to make sure you put all the items from the checklist on the actual grading plan sheet. On the utilities, I would like to hear if you have talked with Chief Currie or the Fire Department on the location of the hydrants. Thibodaux: I was a little confused — at the Technical Plat meeting, I met with Chief Currie prior to the meeting and so what happened, we discussed — and I think that is where the confusion came in — it wasn't that we were going to meet, but that we did meet. We met before the meeting and he determined to locations. Really, he had no comments and we had already met and discussed where the hydrants needed to be. He was happy with the layout as far as being able to move around the parking lot and where the fire hydrants need to be located. So the plans in front of you do have the fire hydrants located where we had discussed prior to the meeting. Pate: Where exactly. Thibodaux: There is one near the trash dumpster and there are two hydrants located near the front doors. They are probably easier to see on the utility plan. Myres: You will have to provide a plat to show exactly where they are — please. So there isn't any question on that. Allen: The plans are almost the same size as the church Patterson: Most importantly, after calculating the canopy calculations that you gave me, the square footage, I found them to be quite different that what you had originally shown. If you look in the report, I calculated your existing tree canopy 37.76%. You would be reducing that down that to 34.66%. By ordinance you have to preserve 25%, so no mitigation would be required on this site. That is significantly different, so if you revise your calculations to match those and please check my numbers as well. With Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 32 that being said, you would also need to revise the landscape plan to remove the mitigation chart stating that those trees were required to due mitigation purposes. One comment I had about tree protection fencing, especially along that access onto Mt. Comfort, the Dockery property, we discussed the trees that are very important there, and I would ask that the tree protection fencing follow the property line of that entire length where construction would be so we can give all of those trees the best chance of survival rather than following each tree around its drip line. I think the grading was mentioned by Andrew earlier, but on the southwest corner there, the Dockery property there, you are grading on his property, very much into a tree that is there. That grading needs to be pulled back and off of.... Thibodaux: We have adjusted the plans in a couple locations. One thing we have done is adjusted the grading plan so that we have two retaining walls, actually three small retaining walls. One is at the main entrance, where you are speaking of, there is a curb — the retaining wall would keep us from grading onto adjoining property. We also have put a retaining wall next to the access easement. Along the access easement where it gets tight, the retaining wall was put on both sides, so we are not grading onto adjoining property. So in all areas on the grading plan now, we are no longer grading on adjoining property. The amended plans I have with me also show the future parking as shown on the plans you have in front of you, but even with the future parking we were greater than the allowed parking, so what we did on the plans I have is rather than having long strips of parking, we made them islands and so they would be green space islands that when the future building is constructed they could take those islands out and go back to parking. So the parking count now is 211. The retaining walls keep us from grading on adjoining property. I have these plans if you want to look at them but I know right now you were dealing with the plans that were submitted at Technical Plat. Myers: What is the procedure. Garner: I guess we could take a look at the plans. It sounds like we probably need to take a closer look at all these issues. It seems like there are too many issues to approve right here. That would be my initial thought on it. Myers: My thoughts are that we should probably take your recommendation to table so that all those questions can be seen, to be answered and then is this approvable at this level? Garner: It is. Myres: So that means you'd have to come back to us just one more time. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 33 Pate: McHaverty: Pate: McHaverty: Pate: McHaverty: Pate: McHaverty: The thing we specifically need is the cost estimate for the frontage here. Could I address that please as a representative of the owner. I don't understand why we are being assessed that total length when our property is only — I think that is about 50'. You required us to buy an additional, to acquire another 70' so that we would have a 70' frontage which we had to buy this property just to do that. We don't necessarily as I understand have to use that access down there, so we could omit that. I just don't understand why we are being assessed that whole length. A couple of different things. I don't know — you could argue it, but I don't know if anyone would agree that you are only having an impact for 50' with a 650 seat auditorium church. We always look at off-site improvements, Cobblestone or whatever the project we had earlier, had absolutely no frontage and we are looking at off-site improvements — a traffic signal, turn lanes, off-site, because they are impacting that infrastructure. The church traffic generated, the traffic generated by this particular development whether it is a church or a subdivision is impacting Mt. Comfort Road. It is likely impacting other places off site as well, however, this is the most local impact that we feel is appropriate. There is very little frontage here, as you mentioned. As far as double access, I bet the Fire Department would require a second point of ingress/egress to allow for this project of this size. Does it have to be a paved ingress/egress? Yes, according to State Fire Codes. I have seen I thought grassed fire lanes previously. I haven't seen them in a few years. We have had a lot of discussions about that with the State Fire Marshall and that is not something that they are willing to approve. We think it is very reasonable actually for an assessment here, not the actual improvement, but the assessment by the City to be able to actually create turn lanes and create improvements on Mt. Comfort Road, which will benefit the Church at some point in the future. Because at this point, as you all know, Mt. Comfort Road is in excess of its capacity. And I understand that, but it still seems arbitrary. I don't know how your church traffic which happens a few hours at a week. It is a 600 seat auditorium but you are going to have traffic come in, of course they all arrive about five minutes before it starts and they all leave about ten minutes after and it just seems very arbitrary. I don't know how.... Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 34 Myres: McHaverty: Pate: McHaverty: Pate: McHaverty: Pate: Thibodaux: Pate: Thibodaux: Pate: Well, it is not, whether it seems to be arbitrary or not. As Jeremy said, it is very typical to assess adjacent developments whatever character they are. I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be some assessment, but to get the whole length just because it is there doesn't jive with the amount of traffic flow that we may be adding as opposed to a subdivision that could be in that sixteen acres. Ultimately the Planning Commission makes that decision whether they feel this requirement meets our rational nexus calculation. If you would like to present something different to the Planning Commission, you are welcome to do so. And they would make that decision that would go before the whole Planning Commission though. Also, the access drive we are using over here on the west, I think we tried to originally design that with two lanes exit and one lane in. We were told we couldn't do that. Is that by code? I think you have had a width problem onto adjacent properties is my understanding. You are going to have to have approvals for all of this as well, it is off of your property. So if I can get an easement or something written, then I could do that. Certainly. We need to get approval for access into the right-of-way since it is not on the adjacent property owner, it is within the right-of-way? If it is in the actual existing right-of-way, no. But if it is on this owner's, Mr. Clemens' property, then yes. The radiuses are within the right-of-way, I guess that is my question. Where the proposed drive flares into Mt. Comfort, it is the flares that are possibly crossing boundary lines, but those radiuses are within the right- of-way, so they are not necessarily on adjacent property. So the point we would be looking at is if we widen the road so much, that we with grading or whatever reasons would be on adjoining property, we could get a retaining wall to get it to fit or agreement from the adjoining property owner, then we could go back to that wide entrance where it was a three - lane entrance with two exits out. Exactly. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 35 McHaverty: Is that 20' access road on the east side, is that 20' width required by State Fire Code? Pate: Yes. Myres: Fire truck width. Allen: I move to table LSC 06-1941 to the next Subdivision Committee meeting, two weeks from today, March 16`h Trumbo: I second. Myres: I will concur. McHaverty: What is the submittal date for the revised ..... Pate: March 8`h Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 36 LSD 06-1944: Large Scale Development (COMBS ST. CHURCH OF CHRIST, 524): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at 350 S COMBS AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.30 acres. The request is for a 4,700 s.f. church building as previously approved. Garner: This project has gone through Large Scale Development approval twice and has had approval of conditional use permit and Large Scale Development previously. The plans are the same plans that were previously approved, unfortunately the permits were not able to be obtained before the approval ran out, so these plans are before you again for LSD approval and the conditional use permit in tandem with this item. The only difference is — the ordinances we reviewed differently is the lighting ordinance is now in effect, so at the time of the building permit, we would need to review the plans for lighting ordinance issues. This project is a 4,700 square foot addition to the existing church, the Combs Street Church of Christ which is located at 350 S. Combs Avenue. The site is approximately 1.4 acres and zoned RMF -24. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets include Willow Avenue, 4th Street and Washington Avenue, which are designated as local streets in our Master Street Plan. The site would be accessed from 4th Street. Staff does recommend forwarding this to the full Planning Commission with conditions of approval. Condition #1 Planning Commission determination of street improvements. These are the same street improvements that were recommended when it first went through which include sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 4' minimum sidewalk with 6' minimum green space from the curb along Washington, 4th Street and Willow Avenue and replacing any damaged portions of the sidewalk. Street improvements recommended are along 4th Street from Willow Avenue to Combs Street to be improved to a 20' street section and the existing roadway overlaid to provide new pavement section for the entire 20' width. Other than that, there is some tree preservation conditions and other conditions are standard. O'Neal: Make sure you show the sidewalk at the right-of-way edge. Applicant: For the ones we are replacing? O'Neal: Yes. Applicant: I think the one we had discussed previously, that sidewalk is staying where it is — it is in good condition. Patterson: If you will look in your report — the canopy calculations have changed slightly — if you would make those revisions for the Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 37 Applicants: Clark: Garner: Myres: Allen: Zachary: Allen: Zachary: Myres: Allen: Trumbo: Myres: Mitigation will be required in the form of sixteen 2" caliper large species trees. These trees must be planted and bonded in the amount of $4,000 before final Certificate of Occupancy. The bond will extend for a three- year monitoring period to insure the health and longevity of these trees. After the three-year period, the Urban Forester will inspect the site and finding 90% or more to be in good health shall release the bond. Steve Clark with Clark Constructing. Robert Zachary with Combs Street Church of Christ. One thing we would like to request and I'm not sure we can do it or not. I think one of the Staff's comments on the last review that we add a privacy fence along the south property line between the Church building and Mr. Zachary's property. I hadn't had a chance to talk to him to make sure he didn't need that fence and the Church really prefers not to simply because he stores the lawnmowers and some of the equipment at his garage. So if it is within the power of the Planning Commission to eliminate the need for that fence, I think Mr. Zachary concurs that he just as soon it not be there. I am looking at the landscape plan and I don't think a fence would be mandatory. I think there are plantings along there, it looks like as well. So no fence. It certainly is handy for you Mr. Zachary. I have a privacy fence up.... No, I meant to get to the Church. I had a privacy fence up and the Church put up another fence; I removed mine, but they put an access gate in there where you can come in there and drive the lawnmowers out, so it works real handle. Is that the only change we need to make? Is there any public comment. Seeing none, I will bring it back. I will move to forward of LSD 06-1944. I will second. I will concur. We will try to put it up front on the agenda. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 38 LSD 06-1924: Large Scale Development (MALCO THEATRE, 173): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at LOT 9B, CMN BUSINESS PARK II, PH. I. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 12.92 acres. The request is for a 42,000 s.f. motion picture theatre. Applicants: Chris Suneson and Mike Morgan with McClelland Consulting Engineers. Pate: This is approximately 13 acres located at the southeast corner of Joyce Blvd. and Steele Blvd. As I mentioned, it contains approximately 13 acres — to get your bearings, directly to the east is the back of the Wal-Mart Super Center; the remaining properties to the west and south are currently undeveloped although Mud Creek is a little further to the south and to the north are McCallisters, Party City and other developments. This is a proposed for an approximate 42,000 square foot motion picture theater seating approximately 1,900 people. The applicant, as you know, on the south side of their plans, have also planned for an expansion area to be constructed some time in the future. Also proposed, allowed with the total number of seats, parking is based on the number of seats proposed; allowed is a maximum of 613 spaces. They are proposing 530 for this site as well as the nine bike racks that are required and shown on the plans. Additional right-of-way is dedicated on Joyce Blvd. for the principal arterial classification. Four street improvements — as you know, a theater has one of the highest peak hours times because a 100 seat theater lets out and everyone leaves at the same time. Because of that we did request a traffic study. We discussed specifics on the traffic study. Initially, we were looking for something more encompassing; we have seen some concept diagrams on other projects in this area. The applicant is proposing a boulevard cut on Steele Blvd. to allow for access onto Steele, so that will be concurrent with this development. Though the proximity is relatively close for a signal, because of this peak -hour traffic, and because property from the south would access this point, because the boulevard is to be cut here, properties from the west would also be required to align with this boulevard cut, so that there aren't future boulevard cuts, there is a likelihood that a signal would be located in this area which would benefit the traffic movement in this area, especially at peak hour periods. It would allow for gaps for that traffic to get out, especially going left. We did request that the applicant provide a traffic study - provide a letter, including preliminary results at this time. And what we are recommending, from what we have right now, is that a contribution of 50% of that traffic signal be contributed by Malco, this developer, for that signal to the entrance at Steele Blvd. Our Transportation Division is still looking at proximity to the other location. Obviously if the signal was not installed, that money would be returned. With looking at future expansion and plans for development in this area, access for instance from Joyce Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 39 O'Neal: Morgan: from properties to the west is going to be difficult because of the grade change. There likely will be a lot of traffic that will come on Steele Blvd. You can walk right down the middle of Steele Blvd. right now — there is little traffic, but with this development, we are simply setting up essentially an escrow account for development in this area. This is a very large development and having such peak hour times, the number is a little higher than we would anticipate for a restaurant or from a small retail store. But we would be looking at assessing all of these developments their proportionate shares as well. I believe that covers most of the traffic concerns. Their access is proposed on Steele Blvd. in one location and onto Joyce Blvd. There might be a potential for another access point to Joyce although that is something that we are going to have to review in quite a bit of detail. I think more likely that as they laid this site out, it is going to be from the access points that you see here. There are some great challenges with Joyce Blvd. being so high and falling down toward the Creek. There is some visibility and site distance problems with the proximity of this intersection. Staff is recommending forwarding this Large Scale Development to the full Planning Commission with a total of 19 conditions of approval. There are a couple of items I would like the Planning Commission specifically to discuss. Skip to item #2, I already stated Staff's recommendation at this point, without further information for the street improvements, one half of the cost of an $80,000 traffic signal, a $40,000 contribution for this development. The $80,000 was supplied by our Transportation Superintendent. The other issue that needs to be discussed is Planning Commission's determination of Commercial Design Standards. Hopefully, the Planning Commission will agree, Staff feels their primary elevation, what they view as the front facing Steele Blvd. is well articulated. It has several different layers and levels, materials, and we find that is certainly compatible with Commercial Design Standards. However, there is another front facade, even closer to the street — Joyce Blvd. there is a front facade and because it does face the front, it needs to be developed as such. So we are recommending some modifications to the north elevation specifically which I believe this elevation here - if we could label those as well. We recommend forwarding this on but with some elevation changes to the north elevation. I think incorporating some of the column features or some of the articulation shown on the front elevation, that would be acceptable to the Planning Commission. With that, I believe the rest of the Conditions I don't feel need to be discussed unless someone has questions about those. First question, has the drainage plan and the grading plan been submitted to EGESS (?)for review? We have not submitted them at this time. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 40 O'Neal: We need to make sure that happens before.... Morgan: We wanted to receive your comments before forwarding them on in case there were any changes. O'Neal: I had hardly any comments on the drainage report. It looks like it should. Since this is in the CMN there is limited detention requirements here. I believe everything you are showing is correct. We need to make sure the drainage and the grading is forwarded to EGRESS for their review as well. On my site, can you guess my comment? Morgan: Sidewalks continuous through the drives. Brent, we will make sure that is detailed for you correctly. O'Neal: On the grading plan, a few contours to adjust — that is very minor. On the utility plan, if you could show where the fire line does enter the building and label that. Morgan: Just so you are aware, the fire line is going to be routed from the middle tree island on the north parking field back into the building. O'Neal: So it is going to tap off of Joyce and come into the building and back out to the? Morgan: Yes. O'Neal: On the connection to the water line behind Wal-Mart, there is a existing fire hydrant there, so you may be able to pull off of that fire hydrant and hook onto that connection and then just resent the fire hydrant. That is something you could look at. It will move your connection point a little further north. Also, I noticed you had this utility easement and access easement that extends north to Joyce. I'm assuming these are out lots to be developed at a future time? What you may consider doing is T-ing that water line and extending it to what will be your north property line. We will probably make them loop the water line and they would have to come in and tear up your drive to make that connection point. So if you would "T" it there and extend it to the north edge of your parking lot, you won't have to worry about them tearing up your drive. On the valve shown on the fire hydrant at your northeast corner, those aren't really required. It is not a bad idea to put them there in case there is a problem with the water line that adds an actual loop that would be able to keep your building in service. So it is just really up to you how you want to route those. Patterson: After reviewing the inventory that you gave me and the arborist's reports, I would suggest changing the priority of your trees to "low" — you really Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 41 only have one that was a significant size; the rest are in fair to very poor shape. This will reduce your mitigation number down to thirty 2" caliper large species trees. With the first submittal we had discussed planting these tress on site. I'm not sure if that is the intention. They need to be clearly marked on the landscape plan as mitigation or some sort of — so we know that they are not counted as landscape as well. My next comment is — did you get all the trees on site? Morgan: No, we have not. We had talked with Patty about planting within these larger landscape islands, there will be some stress to these trees and if they do die, we don't want missing teeth in there. There is a possibility of planting some of them, but we will probably have to pay a fee -in -lieu, for lack of space. Patterson: That is what my comment says — that it is either thirty 2" caliper trees, $7,500 paid to the escrow account or a combination of both. We can work through that. It looks like you might be able to get most on the site. Tree protection fencing must follow the drip line when possible, but in those large islands, if you would follow the back curb so they stay out of that completely. Revise the Standard Notes for Tree and Natural Area Protection to include all 14 notes — there are 11. Sunseson: Can you provide us with an electronic copy of that. Patterson: I'll see what I can do. I think it is important that you look at Suzanne's landscape comments — her landscape report as well. We had some concerns about the tree species. Sunseson: You don't like loblollies? Patterson: I don't think you are going to want to plant loblollies as street trees. Sunseson: They are so stately. Patterson: No one will be able to see that neon frontage or any of these pretty buildings. We definitely want a shade tree along your street right-of-way and also suggesting a little more variety with the green ash. I can show you some examples of green ash in a cluster. Sunseson: Would you be inclined to put the same sort of species that we are putting in the large tree islands, like cherries and persimmons. Patterson: If you are interested in doing that, persimmons have a fruit that is pretty messy and nasty. We can look at that. I am also for replacing natives. And one thing I didn't have on my comment sheet but I would like to Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 42 coordinate the boulevard cut with us, my division. I don't how many trees that will affect, but we very well might want to come get them out and relocate them somewhere. If you will give us adequate time to get that planned. Myres: I am going to invite public comment. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee and applicants. My only request is that when you bring this forward that you mark your cardinal directions please underneath... Morgan: Architects don't know which way is north Myres: I have to agree with Staff's comments about north elevation. I think it is a very important aspect of the building and needs to be at least as attractive as the front. Morgan: We had spoken with the architect about that and I had spoken to Suzanne about her initial comments. She made reference to that she really liked the columnar nature of the front and speaking with the architect, they are not opposed to adding columns. Myres: So addressing these two sections that are — I know there is some articulation because it looks like this section comes forward — but doing something to echo along the bottom. Allen: Is there a way to break up the roof line? Morgan: There may be an opportunity with the mechanical screening, I'm not sure exactly where they are going to be located. Allen: Just a little something because this is so visible. Myres: Creating that same stair step effect, so that this actually looks like a block.... Allen: It would be nice to mask this too. Myres: I know architects hate to be told what to do..... But that definitely does need some improvement and I think it would go through full Planning a lot easier if those things are addressed before we get there. There are six more commissioners with strong opinions. Pate: I do want to reiterate Sarah's comment to please flip through your report because there are revisions in the landscape report as the tree preservation report further back. And one of those, to make sure the applicant is aware, we anticipate some lot splits in the future to create these out lots that are Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 43 being developed. Keep in mind you have to keep your minimum percent of green space on this site. I know you are tight, so those lots lines will have to be adjusted accordingly so you maintain a minimum 15% of green space on this property when you split that out in the future. Keep that in mind. Allen: Which elevation has visibility to residences? Morgan: None of the surrounding properties. Allen: I must have misunderstood. Pate: The closet residences are across Steele Blvd., a couple of blocks over. Myres: It is an apartment complex. They are presently looking down on the back comer of Wal-Mart. Anything would be an improvement. We are really excited about this. Morgan: Before Planning Commission, I plan to concentrate my time with the architects on this northern facade. This is going to face Wal-Mart and this will face south. Would you all consider this meeting to ? for Commercial Design Standards for the southern facade. Myres: There is a little bit of a problem with that as well. The land to the south has not been developed at all. Where does it actually sit on the lot? Morgan: It will sit right there on the lot. Myres: And that is going to be visible coming up Steele. Morgan: We will have the trees, but this stay down below it and then will have an expansionary to the south of it which could be temporarily planted with trees if we needed to cover some of that. Allen: We don't consider that part of our Design Standard with the plantings. I'm sure there will be some discussion about it. I think you could do some fairly minor modifications. Myres: Concentrate on this and maybe bring this into congruence with the rest of this than it is right now. Trumbo: I would like to make a motion that we forward LSD 06-1924 to the Planning Commission with its 19 conditions of approval. Allen: I will second. Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 44 Myres: I will concur. Morgan: I sure appreciate you forwarding this. I do have a couple of questions and would like your advice on the best way to approach them. Regarding the 50% contribution of Malco toward the traffic signal. There is going to be a lot of development out here — Peters & Associates does not warrant the traffic at this time at this level of development. Is there a better equation to use for Malco? They may contribute 50% of the overall traffic load, but then again, they may not, depending on what is built out on either side of Steele Blvd. Is that a flexible number at this point? Pate: The only way we are going to know a more concrete number is if there is a full-blown comprehensive traffic study, which is what we discussed earlier. That is the only way to understand and anticipate what kind of growth, looking at conceptual drawings, retail, restaurant, combinations of different types of use and see what traffic is generated through that intersection. That would give us a better idea from a traffic engineer's perspective of what percentage number. Morgan: In our pre -application meetings, we talked about those things being up in the air. There is no telling what actually may be built out there. So we did pare the report down to assess the two entries we have here, specifically the curb cuts — the stacking distance for it and whether or not a deceleration lane off of Joyce was warranted. We specifically pulled the study back from being a full traffic study and my understanding is that that has been reversed. We need to go back and have Malco perform a full traffic study for this area? Pate: Not necessarily unless they take issue with our recommendation for a traffic signal. Morgan: I honestly think Malco would like to have signal. It gets people in and out and you gain a couple seats per screening doing that, so I think they will make money back. So I don't think that is the item yet. The full traffic study though, when others come in here which will definitely be pending... Pate: We still feel that there is a need for a comprehensive analysis out here. That can build on the one that was done by CMN before. Obviously, no one knew what was going to go in CMN when that traffic study was originally performed, so they just assumed some uses and indicated where signals might be necessary. That is why we have some of the signals we have now — the five that they contributed to at that time. And we installed what we have out there currently in addition to the one we have at Lot 17 Subdivision Committee March 2, 2006 Page 45 at Van Esche and Mall. I agree, it is difficult to anticipate exactly what is going to go on but traffic engineers do make some assumptions. Morgan: At some point in the future, though, if our client's contribution level is determined to be somewhat less than that 50%, then that money would be refunded to our client. Pate: Only if it is done before this Planning Commission decides what that contribution is. At this point with the information we have, we feel that it is a fair assessment for this particular development to contribute those funds and we would collect the other 50% from other developments that would go through that intersection. Morgan: Thank you.