Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-13 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on April 13, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 06-2016: Lot Split (LAZENBY/RAZORBACK, 560) Page 4 ADM 06-2051: Administrative Item (KEATING OFFICE BUILDING, 290) Page 8 LSD 06-1995: Large Scale Development (NANTUCKET III, 563) Page 10 PPL 06-1998: Preliminary Plat (THE HEIGHTS @ PARK WEST, 208) Page 14 LSD 06-2012: Large Scale Development (MARSHALLTOWN TOOLS, 643) Page Forwarded Forwarded Tabled Forwarded Tabled LSD 06-1973: Large Scale Development Tabled (MT COMFORT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 361-322) Page PPL 06-2011: Preliminary Plat (BUNGALOWS @ CATO SPRINGS, 600) Page PPL 06-2010: Preliminary Plat (WEIR ROAD S/D, 244) Page LSD 06-2009: Large Scale Development (STEELE CROSSING RETAIL CENTER, 134) Page Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 2 LSP 06-2025: Lot Split (METROPOLITAN BANK, 371) Page LSD 06-1993: Large Scale Development (METROPOLITAN BANK/MISSION, 371) Page Forwarded Forwarded Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 3 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Candy Clark Sean Trumbo Audy Lack Hilary Harris STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Matt Casey/Engineering Sarah Patterson/Urban Forester STAFF ABSENT Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 4 New Business: LSP 06-2016: Lot Split (LAZENBY/RAZORBACK, 560): Submitted by LANDTECH ENGINEERING for property located at RAZORBACK ROAD, BETWEEN BAUM STADIUM AND REVENUE OFFICE. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 8.79 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 6.23 and 1.14 acres. Morgan: This property is located on Razorback Road, its approved development for Lazenby apartments as well as commercial area in front along Razorback Road. A little bit of history, the PZD expired for this project prior to the issuing permits for the commercial building on this property due to additional right-of-way dedication required by the state, which would result in move backs on set backs and utility easements. Therefore, this applicant has brought forward a new PZD request for 2 commercial buildings on the property and that was heard by the Subdivision Committee and forwarded to the Planning Commission. The applicant request to split the property to subdivide this Tract C from Tract A. It would create a lot approximately 1.34 acres. The applicant has dedicated easements, shown dedication of easements further requirements of the city as well as the utility companies. As well as showing an access easement, 28 foot easement from Razorback Road to Tract A which if Tract C would be split from the overall track would not have any frontage. The applicant at this time is requesting a lot split as well as this revised easement plat, which shows additional dedication of the utility easements and an access easement to access Tract B, which is currently developed for residential use. Staff is recommending approval of this lot split request with eight conditions of approval. One being Planning Commission determination of adequate access. Staff finds that the proposed Tract A, which does not have frontage on a public right-of-way, has sufficient access by way of a proposed access easement to be provided across an existing driveway that extends from Razorback Road to Tract A, which would be adequate for these apartments. Approval of the requested lot split/easement plat is subject to Planning Commission approval of R-PZD 06-1921, and will be filed after we are sure. Clark: Engineering, any comments? Casey: No comments. Clark: Ok, Sarah -Tree and Landscape? Patterson: No comments. Clark: Don, why don't you introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 5 Hillis: My name is Don Hillis, with Landtech Engineering. Ball: Ronnie Ball, with Lazenby property. Hillis: What we are doing, of course is, combining the two of them because during the processes, we had an easement plat signed and approved, and then they requested a couple of more easements, but rather than do a new document, we decided to do a revised easement plat and combined the two as a track split. As and easement plat recorded all at one time. The one Item I'm having trouble with right now, Suzanne is getting with the Highway Dept. recorded document. They record them, and they have not recorded that document as of yet, for the right-of-way. But we will keep on trying, but I have no problem with them. Morgan: I assumed it was a recorded document? Hillis: It has not been recorded, as of yet. I can't find any recording of it as of yet, and they are a little slower with it. Morgan: Ok, maybe there's a different way of referencing it as dedicated. Hillis: That's about it, as far as going on. The apartment complex has been completed and now we are just splitting off the commercial site now. Clark: Thank Mr. Hillis, anything from you Mr. Ball...no Clark: I will bring this out for public comment. No public comments bring it back to the commission. Suzanne, do we need to change a conditional of approval based on it not being filed with the state yet? Morgan: We could, I guess I was under the impression that had been filed. Hillis: Excuse me Suzanne, the document I've got right here calling out, does dedicate the right-of-way, because it does omit that from this piece of property, so in essence, they do have a recorded, would be recorded on this document also. Morgan: I think that would be sufficient. We may want to revise that just to reference any document number of previously recorded to dedicate any right-of-ways or easements, just so we make sure its being documented well. Lack: When I saw this at an earlier subdivision committee and had some concern on building setbacks off of the line which we soon might be a split, might come thru a split later and I see that its been taken care of. It looks like Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 6 the rear property line adjustment there or maybe the reduction of the building, not sure all how you got it there, looks like it works. Hillis: Combination Ball: We keep on losing buildings. Lack: So, I think this is what we anticipated at that time and we will find that it's in compliant. Clark: We haven't seen the large scale come thru for the commercial development yet, have we? Hillis: Yes mam, it's been thru. It's going thru Planning Commission the same time this is. Clark: Where is the entrance and exit off of? Hillis: I can show you, I brought a copy of that, just for the purpose if you needed it. Lack: I think this is what we saw at Subdivision. Clark: OK Hillis: So, here is the entrance and here is the Phase II Lack: When we reviewed this, this use to be the building here, and that was 2 buildings. When the state did the hwy thing, it actually eliminated that building. It can't be there anymore. Clark: So, is there only one entrance and exit into this property? Lack: Yes Hillis: Yes, it's always been that way. Clark: Ok, and it's already been approve there. Hillis: Yes Clark: Your about the only people they've ever done that to, so be proud. Ball: Original, they were saying we had them too close together... Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 7 Clark: Anything else? Lack: I would like to make the motion to approve this Lot Split, with the verification of keeping up with the verbage on what we will need to change for the Hwy Department. Morgan: I would suggest revising it to say reference document number of any previously recorded deed which dedicated right-of-way. So if there is one, then we will reference the number. Clark: So, will that be part of your motion Commissioner Lack? Lack: That will be part of my motion. Clark: Commissioner Harris, do you concur Harris: Yes. Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 8 ADM 06-2051: Administrative Item (KEATING OFFICE BUILDING, 290): The request is for a major modification of the approved Large Scale Development on subject property. Clark: I will be accusing from this, Mr. Trumbo will be sitting in. Trumbo: May we have the staff report please. Morgan: This request is for a major modification of an already approved Large Scale Development located on a 1.5- acre site on Township Avenue, between College Avenue and Gregg Avenue. The property is zoned C-2. The approval was giving September 12, 2005 by the Planning Commission for approximately 11,806 square foot sales office space with 66 parking spaces. The applicant has asked staff is it is possible to add residential units to this building. This is a use -by -right with in the C-2 zoning district. If all density requirements RMF -24 is met, and the area of the residential property within the building does not exceed 49% of overall area. The applicant requests the addition of a second floor within the already approved building for 3,490 square feet living space for apartments. Addition to that, the applicant is proposing a fifth apartment on the second floor, which will require the roof line to change and increase the building, in such a manner for 1,781 square foot apartment. Which would leave a total of 11,686 square feet of leasable sales office space. That is within the total residential area, 45.12 % of the building is acceptable limits. The additional modifications include: exterior of the structure, the applicant has provided this packet which details those changes, staff finds that they will give additional articulation to the building and will be a benefit to the structure. In additions, we have looked at parking spaces for this sales office, 59 parking spaces are required. Which will be 7 spaces for the residential units, although the applicant can tell us the exact number bedrooms and spaces required per bedroom. We find that there is ample space on this property. Staff is recommending approval of the applicants request for the major modification to add 5,271 square feet of residential space for up to 5 apartments and the approved structure, with the modifications detailed in the packet. With three conditions, applicant will need to submit any new plans to the Building Safety Division and Planning Division for approval and since residential additions are being done, Park fees are required. The amount of $393 per unit and all other conditions of approval from the approved large scale will remain enforced. Casey: No comments Trumbo: Is there any revisions from Tree and Landscaping? Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 9 Patterson: No comment Trumbo: Is there any public comments on this Administrative Item for Keating Office Building. Seeing none, will bring it back to the Commissioners. Harris: A question, there is no revision on the tree and landscaping part of it. Patterson: No, it just going to be to the building. Harris: And the staff finds that the roof line change answer articulation or something else to that vent? Morgan: With the addition to the four part vents already approved structure, they will be adding windows to the north and south of the building and for those, it will add articulation. As for the roof changes, we don't find that it will make much of significant impact to the look of the structure and addition because of the second story they will be adding windows to the west elevation. We find that that will be acceptable. Lack: I believe that it is use -by -right and it definitely does act to the articulation and looks better, its makes its design stand on its own, go ahead and make a motion that we approve, and I am in agreement with staff recommendations as they are. Harris: Seconds Trumbo: Concurs Subdivision Committee April13, 2006 Page 10 LSD 06-1995: Large Scale Development (NANTUCKET III, 563): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS for property located at WOOD AVENUE, NORTH OF 15TH STREET. The property is zoned RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNTS PER ACRE and contains approximately 3.68 acres. The request is for 45 multi -family dwelling units in Phase III of the project. Morgan: This large scale development is requested with property approximately 3.67 acres located on Wood Avenue, just north of 15` street. East of this property is development which was built out from the late 90's up even to this last year for Nantucket Apartments. Senior apartment living area and the applicant request addition to this, third phase. The applicant is proposing to tie in to an existing right-of-way Scrimshaw Cove. Within the Nantucket development as well as Wood Avenue. The over proposal is for 42 units residential development, the property is zoned RMF -24, and the proposed density is less than 12 units per acre. The applicant will be providing parking spaces as well as bicycle racks, a pool and a detention pond. The applicant has indicated that the plans will be revised to show the addition of three units north of Lighthouse Way, for a total 45 units. I believe the applicant just given those revisions. Staff did not have this to review are comments are based on a previous submit plan. Some of the comments are like to change, one of which was the parking spaces, but with additional units, that will not be a problem anymore. As a right-of- way to be dedicated 25ft from centerline on Wood Avenue is required. In my notes in condition number 5, had a requirement to dedicate 25 ft from centerline of Scrimshaw Cove. The right-of-way is not dedicated on your plans but based on the easement plat dedicated with the original development there is 45ft of right-of-way. Typically, we have either 40 foot standard right of way or 50. Since the Nantucket development was planed unit development, 45 ft was acceptable at that time and Staff would be willing to remove that condition of approval. Clark: Which one was that? Morgan: Condition #5 to allow the 45ft right-of-way to remain. With regards to street improvements, there has been a discussions for years trying to get a connection from Wood Ave to 15th street and with this development, this applicant would be construction that connection. Which will allow particular movement from Huntsville to 15`h. Just detailing the street improvements proposed this would include 14 ft from centerline from Wood Ave, along the property frontage that would include sidewalk, curb, gutter, and storm drain. South of the property to 15th street curb, gutter, and 14 ft from centerline. From the northern property line of this property down the 15th st. will be looking for 20 foot clear pavement, so that there's adequate driving surface for two-way vehicular traffic. The applicant will meet condition 1C states that the applicant shall construct a 6ft sidewalk Subdivision Committee April13, 2006 Page 11 adjacent to the Master Street Plan right-of-way for Scrimshaw Cove. I don't believe it was previously discussed; however it is a right -a -way adjacent to their property, which typically requires sidewalk construction. The applicant will be relocating a driveway on the property to the south, it is current restaurant use. The applicant has shown on the plans the relocation of that driveway. The applicant can address the specific criteria for the distance of that driveway from the intersection, so that it meets our requirements. We have requested the applicant provide proof of the ability to develop on the "tag" portion located approximately at the proposed location Lighthouse Way, or shall file a quitclaim deed or quiet title for that property prior to issuance of a building permit. The reason for this requirement is that with survey of the property, there is a little tag of property left out that we just need some clarification to. There are some minor revisions that I've stated in here, everything else, if you have questions, I will be happy to answer them. Casey: No comments at this time Patterson: Yes, I have three conditions of approval. I need you to include the City of Fayetteville standard notes of protection of trees and natural areas, with the diagram that coordinates with that. Mitigation will be required on this site for the removal of 13,907 square feet of canopy. This is equivalent to 43caliper large trees. The Landscape Plan depicts the placement of 40 of those 43 trees to be planted on site. Assuming that the remaining 3 will be paid into the Tree Escrow Account in the amount of $750.00 before the issuance of a building permit. All 40 trees shall be planted and a bond in the amount of $10,000 deposited with the City before issuance of Final Certificate of Occupancy. Clark: Any one else?...go ahead and introduce yourself. DuQuesne: My name is Jorge DuQuesne, I work with Project Design Consultants. Basically this is an extension to the existing residential physility out there for the elderly. It is a Federally Funded program and because of that, we are required to do 44 units which is why the late revision on it. We apologize for that, and understand the Tabling, if that occurs. Now, the tree landscape preservation wall should be modified because as the result of adding these buildings, we will actually be removing more canopy. So we will be making those modifications to the plan. We will have room onsite, so we will be planting on site for those tree mitigations. I do have a question, the 6ft sidewalk adjacent to Scrimshaw Cove, there is a big headwall in the middle. Do you guys want us to build up to the headwall? Morgan: We will have to look at that in detail. Subdivision Committee April13, 2006 Page 12 Clark: DuQuesnc: Casey: DuQuesnc: Clark: Morgan: Clark: DuQuesnc: Morgan: DuQuesnc: Clark: DuQuesnc: Clark: Is there room between the back of the curb and the headwall No, you got a little bit a room, but very little. No You can see it from here, you might be able to squeeze a sidewalk thru there, and I guess we will have to do handrails otherwise. But there is nothing to connect it too. There is a fence on this side of the road, there is a wood fence privacy fence, and then on this side, it turns into a cul-de-sac and there's a dumpster in it, somewhere in this area. And this is a church property over here. Let's just modify that condition if feasibly Ok Working with conjunction with the City. The other question I had was for the relocation of the driveway. I know the property owners here right now, and we have yet to discuss it with them, but it is a requirement because of the way Wood Ave connects into 15th Street. But my question is more along the line as what does it mean construct a 6 ft sidewalk at the right-of-way line? As shown on your plans, Iam just detailing it... See we have that 45 foot right-of-way in that area and I know we showed it, but we were under the impression that we had to go and get additional right-of-way from that property owner. Which would be a tough deal to do. Until they develop, that is the reason why we showed that sidewalk. Now, right now, there is only 40ft so by the time we put in the 14 ft, you will have very little room between, or 6 ft which will leave no grass area between the back of the curb and sidewalk. I don't know how that will affect us. If we can not obtain the additional right-of-way required, are we required to put in that sidewalk? Lets let that question hang in the air for a little bit, anything else? Nope, that's it. Anyone in the public would like to comment on this Large Scale Development 06-1995? If you would, step up, introduce yourself, and make your comments. Subdivision Committee April13, 2006 Page 13 Reagan: My name is Bill Reagan and I own the property just west of this proposed development. It seems to be pretty well run development that is there now. My only concern is that the back of my house is pretty close to Wood Street, and I was wondering if there is any other way to gain access to this new development. Starks: My name is Willard Starks and I own the restaurant this is between his property and 15`h street. My concern is if he puts that right -a -way thru to 15th street, my parking lot exits right next to where that proposed right-of- way is going to go thru there. There's pretty big group of trees on this property, the ones who just spoke, and there's going to be a traffic hazard there. Besides that, there's a lot of wild life habitat in that small tree area. We got barn owls, red tail hoops, this is been a wildlife area for quite awhile. I like looking out my widow and seeing that wildlife roost in there. I don't see the need for the road there. He has an access in and out. I don't see how he has to get out on 15`h street. We got enough traffic problems on 15th street, the way it is. Clark: Anyone else from the public would like to comment? Ok, no one, I will bring it back to Subdivision. Now, this has been an on again agenda, off again agenda, Now I have a whole new plat this morning. And its not even 10 o'clock yet. So, what preference steps do you want to take with this?, table it, since you seem to have some substantial issues with the right -a -ways, sidewalks, and chatting with neighbors. Morgan: Our recommendation was to table, so we can address these comments and bring back to this meeting. Clark: Commissioner Harris and Commissioner Lack, do you concur with that? Lack: I would concur with that. I'll make a motion to table LSD 06-1995 until the next meeting of the Subdivision Committee Meeting. Clark: Will that be sufficient time, Suzanne? Morgan: Yes, it will be. Harris: Seconds it Clark: We will table this until the next Subdivision, we have new plats to look at and hopefully you are will have most of this resolved. Subdivision Committee April13, 2006 Page 14 PPL 06-1998: Preliminary Plat (THE HEIGHTS @ PARK WEST, 208): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at HWY 112, NORTH OF I-540. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT (R-PZD 05- 1796 PA -1) and contains approximately 19.86 acres. The request is for residential subdivision with 100 single family dwelling units. Morgan: The subject property is 27.62 acres, its located south of HWY 112 and east of Deane Solomon Road. The property is zoned R-PZD 05-1796, Planning Area 1 of the Master Development Plan. This is the first proposed development within the recently approved Master Development Plan for Park West, which encompasses approximately 139 acres. This request before you is for 100 lots S/D which 47 lots are multi -family or town home. Remainder will be for single family, detached lots. With the total of 3.62 units per acre. The applicant is proposing several realignments to the Master Street Plan. Which would include the relocation or realignment of Collector Street or Deane Solomon to the east, and the reclassification existing Deane Solomon Road to a local street. Also the relocation of East -west Collector street which is planned would be south of this property. With these relocations, especially the Deane Solomon, the applicant would request several vacations for the existing right-of-ways, in order to, restrict access from the existing intersection of Deane Solomon and HWY 112. These vacations and amendments will need to occur prior to recordation of the Final Plat. The applicant is also has received approval for a lot split to create this property and the staff is working on timing for to when to get that filed in relations to these vacations and Master Street Plan amendments. With regard with connectivity, in addition to the realignment of several of the existing streets, the applicant will provide a street stub -out to the southeast of the property. This street, Street '5', will connect to a future street that will eventually connect with an east -west Collector Street. Additional connections are being made to Hwy 112 to the north of Deane Solomon Road and Honey Lane. With regard to street improvements, staff has several recommendations. There shown on condition 3 in your staff report. The include assessments for signals at Hwy 112/ Van Asche and Hwy 112/Park West Blvd which is the east -west collector street. To be pro -rated through various phases of development. This was discussed, street improvements was discussed in detail at time of R-PZD approval. However, at that time we did not see certain amounts for each of these Phases. Therefore, we will need to take a look at that and see what is appropriate for the developer at this time for these traffic signals, based on the trip generation for this development. The intersection at Street '1' and Honey Lane will need to be fully constructed. The existing portion of roadway from Hwy 112 to Honey Lane will need to be removed and street improvements constructed on Hwy 112. The Applicant will need to submit an estimate prior of recordation of the final plat, or assessment, Subdivision Committee April13, 2006 Page 15 including the widening of the existing Hwy 112 roadway to 18ft from centerline with pavement, curb and gutter. It is appropriate to have that assessment submit by the applicant so we can review that amount approved with the preliminary plat. So, if the applicant submits that, it would be appreciated. Jefcoat: We submitted it this morning. Morgan: Street '1' shall be improved along the project frontage (on the east side) for a minimum 14' from centerline, as well as, improvements to Deane Solomon will need to occur as indicated on the plat. We have a condition requesting Planning Commission termination of appropriate street widths. Staff finds that the proposed right-of-way and street widths are appropriate. However, the applicant is showing an alley between, with in that center block, which has the town homes on it. If the Applicant wanted the 2 way alleyway, the width would have to be 16 ft. Jefcoat; We have it indicated as a one way alley Morgan: That's fine, it will need to be signed and striped as such. With regard in request for development, the applicant was approved 91 dwelling units within Planning Area 1. In order to modify the number of units within planning area, the applicant will need to submit a letter in writing stating which units will be or planning area will decrease approximately 9 units to allow this planning area to increase 9 units. We will need to have that on file. The applicant will need to dedicate 55 feet right-of-way from centerline on Hwy 112. The plat currently shows approximately 40-45 ft right-of-way. Therefore, anticipate some changes with some revisions to those lots to the north will be slightly smaller or street shifted order to provide that additional right -a -way. There are comments from the parks Division and urban forester, condition 25 includes many modifications requested to the plat. If you have any questions, please let me know at this time. Staff is recommending forwarding this to the Planning Commission and we have received comments for one adjacent property owner who is here to day with regards to concerns from this adjacent development. Casey: Just a clarification on condition number three (B) the last sentence says the "The existing portion of roadway from Hwy 112 to Honey Lane shall be removed and the street improvements on Hwy 112, including sidewalk shall be extended to the west of the exiting right-of-way for Deane Solomon. Those approved, they just need to be included in that assessment cost estimate. Not actually constructed. Patterson: I would like you to re-evaluated tree canopy that is south of lot 78 and 79. They may be removed at some point for the extension of that road. But Subdivision Committee April13, 2006 Page 16 right now, I would like them to be fenced off. The entire canopy along there. Trees number 956 and 958 are located near the detention physility southern edge of it and I think they are marked as preserved, but they are within extensive grating, so that needs to be revised. Either to pull the grating back or remove those trees. Mitigation is going to be required on this site, for the remove of 110,414 square feet of canopy. This is going to be equivalent to 380 (2) inch caliper large species trees. Staff recommends utilizing the Residential On -Site Mitigation option for these trees. At the time of Final Plat Mitigation Planting Plan shall be submitted to the Urban Forester for approval. Jeffcoat: Tom Jeffcoat with Mel Milholland Company, Tracy Hoskins Paradigm Development, and Chuck, who is a member of our staff at Mel Milholland and Co. This is a part of R-PZD on Park West that went thru concept approval. This is Phase I of that development and it is a 100 lots subdivision and did we say someone from the public was here? Morgan: Yes sir. Jeffcoat: Did you want to get them first, before me. No, ok...I thought that was procedure. Ah, and we agree with all the comments, conditions of approval, that have been so well advised here. A lot which I believe are things that have already been done or discussed. We just need to confirm some of these letters and get something's to Suzanne. Like the street lights and road way improvements that was discussed as part of the PZD. We will go over those and work them out and that Tracy is in agreement with this assessment with this development. As part of that, we will get them done for you by the next submittal date. Clark: I will now open it for public: PPL 06-1998 The Heights @ Park West... I am Marty Bennitge and we have property adjacent to this. I think we have lived there for more than 15 years and I think it's too dense a development for that spot right there. I think it will cause precarious traffic situations. Even where we are, there's a traffic hazards are there. Also, it's on the hillside slop and we are concerned about the right adjacent to our property. We would like to request a buffer and also that the plats adjacent to us be of larger plats that they got in that area. He guts some larger lot plats twice as large as what he has planned next to us. We would like to request those would be the larger plat next to us and a buffer. Clark: Where is your home in relation to the development? Subdivision Committee April13, 2006 Page 17 Bennitge: It's on the southeast side of the development. We would like the larger lots there, instead of the smaller ones, and a buffer please. And I believe that the project is too dense for that area and will cause traffic problems. Clark: Hoskins: Ok, anymore comments from the public, none...I will bring it back to the Subdivision. When we brought this thru, we had preliminary approve for 91 lots by the ordinance itself. We got a 20% leeway, as long as we are willing take another area. We are over by 9 lots, as opposed to what actually came thru with. Well, 2 of those lots we added out here, kind of outside the Planning Area. Then another additional couple of lots were created because we had decided to remove the house that was there, we didn't think it would artistically fit in the neighborhood. There are 4 of the 9 lots there. Basically by adding a little bit of dirt, to these two corners and taking what we had as a lot before, making it three lots. So, that's were 5 of the 9 lots came from. What we presented here is almost exactly as in our concept PZD. As far as the size of the lots, the reason these are bigger over here because we do have some terrain issues. These are hills, very hilly area. That's why the center section of Deane Solomon is so dangerous. Which is why we offered to remove that intersection at our own expense, reconstruct Deane Solomon Road over here. To get rid of the dangerous traffic situation so this development actually improves traffic situation, not hurts it. I believe the staff will agree as well. Again, the reason these lots are bigger, is to the nature of terrain. Larger lots are on the outside, were the smaller lots are in the middle. Clark: Why is there not stub out to south? Hoskins: This is Deane Solomon Rd stub out is over here. There is a single family house here. Clark: Does staff have any connectivity issues in that direction. Morgan: We did not raise any. Pate: With the phase that's you really can't see to the south and the east. There might be a stub out from that area. This approximately 900 ft or so. Hoskins: We had a portion in here; next Phase will have other stub outs. There's lots of connections, we provided with a lot of things. Clark: I remember when the R-PZD came thru. The whole concept had a whole lot of connection. Have you preceded with the amendments with the Master Street Plan, have we gone to street commission. Subdivision Committee April13, 2006 Page 18 Pate: That is scheduled for street committee next Monday, I believe. And it will be before the Planning Commission. Clark: So, what if it doesn't happen. What if they decide "No" they are not going to let you do this? Hoskins: Which Street are you talking about? Clark: Deane Solomon, etc...because I agree that needs to be done. Jefcoat: I think the concept the City Council has approved it, because they approved the PZD, so this is a matter of formality. Clark: My question was should this be done, before. Are we getting the cart before the horse? Pate: I don't believe so. We typically take the Master Street Plan amendment before. We did discuss before Deane Solomon with Planning Commission and City Council when it came thru as a PZD. We all recommended that it be realigned, because it is a dangerous intersection there. Jefcoat: And it's sort of like the vacating of the properties is that we are filing the applications and turning them in, but it really can't be done until it constructed prior to the final plat. Clark: Have you talked to the neighbors? Hoskins: The concept PZD has basically been approved, and we have talked with lots and lots of neighbors at that point. We have not come back and talk to individual neighbors about this piece of that PZD because we would be just repeating what we. Clark: What Mr. Hoskins is explaining Mrs. Pinkelton, is that the whole concept has already been approved by the City Council. What they are doing is putting in there first Phase of construction. And if they make the street improvements, they are going to take that dangerous intersection at Deane Solomon and fix it. So, your Traffic situation on this part of the property ought to be improved. At least, that's what we all talked about when we went back thru the R-PZD many months ago. In terms of density, they rezoned it; the City Council has already approved it. But Mr. Hoskins and Mr. Jefcoat will be leaving here in just a minute and I sure they will be happy to visit with you about what they are going to do specifically. Mr. Hoskins is just nice kind of guy and he will do that. Subdivision Committee April13, 2006 Page 19 Lack: Harris: This looks larger than life from what we saw as a concept plat and PZD. I do appreciate staff bring a copy of that PZD so we can look at it. I am thrilled that we are going to realign Deane Solomon Road and that it came thru in that manner. And to align those intersections with the development across, north of 112. I will make a motion to forward the Preliminary Plat, 06-1998 The Heights @ Park West with the stated conditions and approvals. In the relocation of Deane Solomon Road, which I am very pleased to see, does that create for you, any sense of insert Island from this part of the subdivision. That their isolated over here and separated by it? Hoskins: This is where the current Deane Solomon Road, which is dangerous, we are re-routing it to Mariette and Bellclair Estates here. This road will remain, it will just be closed between Honey Lane and 112, so these folks will no longer come out and turn to go that way. They will turn and go out this way. As far as creating an island here, it does create an island, it just surrounded by streets kind of like this street or that street. Jefcoat: This is a residential development Clark: This will give larger lots and larger homes Hoskins: Yes, its kind of a funny shape block, I guess. Harris: Was there a motion? I second it Clark: I will concur with hopes that you will chat. Hoskins: Sure Clark: Thank you, this will be forwarded to the Planning Commission, so you will have another change to make public comments. Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 20 LSD 06-2012: Large Scale Development (MARSHALLTOWN TOOLS, 643): Submitted by JAMES KOCH for property located at 2364 SOUTH ARMSTRONG AVENUE. The property is zoned I-2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 28.88 acres. The request is for a 75,000 square foot building expansion, 10,000 square foot storage building and improved drive aisle to the existing facility. Garner: The subject property is located at 2364 South Armstrong Avenue. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial. The property is developed with the Marshalltown Tools facility containing a 124,863 square -foot building and 50 striped parking spaces. The site is surrounded entirely by developed industrial property zoned I-2, with undeveloped City property immediately to the east being zoned R -A, Residential -Agricultural. The applicant proposes to develop a 75,000 square foot addition to the existing building and construct a new 10,000 square foot storage building. As part of this development a new curb cut and drive aisle would be provided off of Pump Station Road, and 30 new striped parking spaces would be provided for a total of 80 striped parking spaces on the site. Right-of-way being dedicated is 45' from centerline right-of-way for Armstrong Avenue along the project frontage; Pump Station Road currently has adequate right-of-way. Staff is recommends approval of this large scale development with conditions as listed in your staff report. I'll highlight a couple of these: Subdivision Committee determination of street improvements. The Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trails Master Plan identifies a 12' multi -use trail within the St. Paul Railroad right-of-way at the south portion of the property. This trail, which is already constructed west of this property to Morningside Drive, would connect to Combs Park to the east. Dedication of this right-of-way as a multi -use trail and access easement has been requested by the city and agreed to by the applicant. Staff is willing to acceptance of this easement or land for trail use in lieu of sidewalk improvements as it would provide a needed and desirable pedestrian connection. Condition number 2 is several plat revisions and call out 2c there, parking for this development shall be provided as depicted on the 11"x17" handout provided in your hand out. Condition number 4 brings to the applicant's attention, that there is a city ordinance that states razor and/or barbed wire fences are prohibited if visible from street right-of-way or a residence. Also, the applicant would be installing some landscaping and helping to bring the parking lot up to code, you can see that on the landscaping plan and site plan. There are some conditions some standard notes that need to be added to the landscape plan. Those are the main issues I wanted to cover. Casey: No comments Patterson: Tree Preservation waiver has been signed on this. Subdivision Committee April13, 2006 Page 21 Pate: Koch: I would like to add something to this. I would like to express the City's gratitude in discussing the owners of this property, Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Pineo. Their willingness to discuss the trail on the south portion of the property. It's an important connection from trail that is already constructed to west of Armstrong Ave and would connect to the property currently owned by the City of Fayetteville. Which would provide a much needed trail connection. A final link with that portion, and their wiliness to work with us in lieu of a sidewalk along Armstrong Ave which the City will construct sometime in the future, I think they should be commended for that. My name is James Koch; I am representing the Marshalltown Tools expansion. This is a simple expansion to the existing industrial warehouse and manufacturing facility. They are adding enough warehouse space to help keep up with there business that's growing. Add a little bit of shared access in parking to help facilitate that transition and make the development comply with the City of Fayetteville code. Clark: I will now open it for public comments for LSD 06-2012 Marshalltown Tools....Ok, no comments, will bring it back to the Subdivision... Clark: You are making one additional curb cut? Koch: Yes, that is an access to Pump Station Road Clark: To the north Koch: Yes, that's right Clark: It's well enough, far enough away from the other one? Koch: Yes, let me show you... (He showed her) Lack: I did have a couple of questions I wanted to verify and that I am not missing something. There were a couple of lines I was not sure what they were, and that they weren't significant. Koch: There is no signifigance to those lines.... Harris: I wanted to comment to Mr. Pate on the trail connection, and Thank you for doing that. Harris: I move that we approve LSD 06-2012 with the conditions as listed. Lack: I will second that Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 22 Clark: I will concur. Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 23 LSD 06-1973: Large Scale Development (MOUNT COMFORT PRESBYTERIAN, 361-322): Submitted by HRH ENGINEERS, INC. for CHURCH property located at the NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE MOUNT COMFORT ROAD AND RUPPLE ROAD INTERSECTION. The property is zoned RSF-1, SINGLE FAMILY - 1 UNIT/ACRE and contains approximately 2.86 acres. The request is for an 8,795 square foot church building. Garner: The property is located at the northwest corner of Mount Comfort Road and Rupple Road. The property is zoned RSF-1. Currently contains the existing Mount Comfort Presbyterian Church. Surrounding land use and zoning Mount Comfort Cemetery is located to the north and west. Rural residential are located in the south and east zoned RSF-1 and R -A, Residential -Agricultural. The applicant proposes to develop a new 8,795 square foot church building sanctuary and proposes to improve the parking lot for a total of 53 parking spaces, with the additional 14 parking spaces in the future. The building is depicted there. There are also processing a conditional use permit with this church as it is in a RSF-1 zoning district and to allow addition or expansion of this use. Right-of-way being dedicated, 45' from centerline along Mount Comfort Road and 55' from centerline along Rupple Road along the project frontages. Staff recommends forwarding large scale development to the full Planning Commission with the following conditions of approval. Condition #1, Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends that a 6' sidewalk be constructed along the project's Mount Comfort Road frontage at the right-of-way line. Sidewalk is already constructed along Rupple Road. Condition #2, a conditional use permit will be filed. Condition #3, it lists several revisions that are required to be done before Planning Commission or issues that need to be addressed. So, applicant please take a look at Condition #3 and make sure that these are addressed. 3a, there is some ownership or title information for the property. The county records shows that this parcel is ownership of school district number 34, which I am not sure what that means, but needs clarification on and the church needs that too. Condition #4, the retaining wall and playground area on the south side of the church appear to be located in the front building setback. If these portions of the site are over 30" in height and in the building setback they shall require a variance. This variance would be required to be approved by the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment. Staff would recommend modification to the grading plan and the use of handrail to get the structure below 30', thereby eliminating the need for a variance. Those are the main issue I wanted to bring forward. Casey: Condition of approval number one, I would like to amend that condition to allow some flexibility with taking money in lieu of the construction of the sidewalk. Currently, Mount Comfort is slated begin design this year from improvements from just west of this side all the way east to 540. So if we Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 24 can have that read for construct or money in lieu. Also, like to add a condition of approval stated in the findings of what water is available to this site. The sewer will have to be extended from offsite. I would like to add that condition that the center sewer be extended to this site, development. Patterson: I need you to include canopy calculations that are included in my report to the tree preservation plan with your next set of revisions. Mitigation is going to be required on the site in the amount of (10) inch caliper large species trees. Please add a note indicating that those trees will be planted back on site. Please revise the landscape plan. You need to specify which 10 trees, like those along the northern property line are going to fill the mitigation requirements. For issuance of Final Certificate of Occupancy all 10 trees shall be planted on site and a 3yr bond filed with the City in the amount of $2,500.00 to insure the health of the trees. Bodine: My name is Dave Bodine with HBH Engineers and I am representing the interest of Mt Comfort Presbyterian Church. What we are doing simply is the demolition of the existing fellowship hall and construction of a new church sanctuary/ fellowship hall. The existing building that remains on site will also be used in the fellowship manner. We tried to meet all the setbacks and right-of-way requirements put forth to us by the City. Have worked with staff and be happy to answer any questions. Clark: Would anyone from the public would like to make comments on LSD 06- 1973 Mt Comfort Presbyterian Church...No, we will take it back to the committee. Clark: This is your current entrance here? Bodine: That's correct. Clark: Cause that just looks like one dangerous way to get in. The Rupple Road entrance would seem to be an improvement to me and its not currently existing, is it? Bodine: No Clark: Cause you got three different intersections coming in here, Mt Comfort is no fun on a good day. I am very pleased to see that new entrance in here. Assuming that these 2 go to the cemetery? Bodine: That is correct. Clark: Is money in lieu of the sidewalk acceptable? Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 25 Bodine: Yes Clark: Talk to me, Andrew a little bit about this retaining wall number 4, I didn't understand it. Garner: It's kind of a walk out basement type of playground area and if the retaining walls over 30 inches in height, or any structure in the setbacks, will require a variance. We are recommending that they lower the retaining wall to below 30 inches and use a handrail, which will make it not a structure, which would eliminate the need for a variance. Tanner: Working with recommendations from staff, we have made that change to the building set and it not longer... Clark: I need you to identify yourself, so you will be in our record... Tanner: David Tanner with (didn't understand him) We have made that change; it is below 30 inches now with a top rail. Clark: And the reason it has to go to Full Planning, we can not approve it at this level is because of the conditional use, correct. Pate: Correct Clark: Mr. Lack, Ms. Harris? Lack: I think the building will make nice addition to side. I think that the condition that exist with the entrance that aligns with Rupple Rd now, will be corrected when Rupple Rd as it will be realigned with the existing intersection at the north side. I see a 30 ft utility easement on the plat as well, and if I can ask for staff comment on that, that the building actually sits within that 30 ft utility easement. Garner: There is an overhead electrical line and easement associated with that line. There is condition of approval referencing that, that it would have to be relocated and the easement vacated prior to issuance of the building permit. Condition number 5. Lack: Very well, I have to say if they film anymore civil war movies at this location they are going to have to crop very hard. Clark: I think it will be a nice addition. Do I hear a motion? Lack: I will make a motion to forward LSD 06-1973 Mt. Comfort Presbyterian Church with the stated conditions of approval. Adding to condition number 1, to allow flexibility for money in lieu, and adding additional Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 26 Harris: Clark: engineering and tree/landscaping comments. Second Concur Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 27 PPL 06-2011: Preliminary Plat (BUNGALOWS @ CATO SPRINGS, 600): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF CATO SPRINGS ROAD, WEST OF CLINE AVENUE. The property is zoned RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT (R-PZD) 05- 1797, BUNGALOWS AT CATO SPRINGS, and contains approximately 5.52 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 30 single family lots. Garner: The property is located on the north side of Cato Springs Road west of Cline Avenue and contains about 5.52 acres. The property is being used for large lot rural residential uses with one single-family dwelling and a number of accessory structures. It was rezoned from RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre to R-PZD 05-1797 (Bungalows at Cato Springs) zoned December 20, 2005 and R-PZD allowed for single-family development with maximum of 30 lots and this time the applicant is bring forward the Preliminary Plat for 30 single-family lots. The type is a more traditional type of single family uses with higher density in some areas and more affordable units on the Westside adjacent to Cato Springs Branch Creek. The property is little bit more back ground that the Cato Springs Branch Creek has 1.5 acre preservation and trail area associated with it. Other issues with this development are that the 30 lots will be required to dedicate 45' from centerline right-of-way along the Cato Springs Road. With street connectivity, a conceptual proposed street layout was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council with the re -zoning of this property, with the condition that street connectivity would be further evaluated at the time of development. At this time Staff is recommending in favor of adding a street stub out to the northern boarder of this site for future street connectivity. We are recommending forwarding this to the Planning Commission with conditions of approval. Condition #1 is determination of appropriate street connectivity. Condition #2 is Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends an assessment be paid to the City for the cost of widening Cato Springs Road to 14' from centerline including storm drains, curb and gutter, pavement and sidewalks. A cost estimate for this improvement should be submitted to engineering staff with the revisions prior to Planning Commission. Condition #3 list several issues or plat revisions that are minor should be corrected prior to the Planning Commission. Wanted to bring up condition #5, building separation shall meet all applicable building codes, and may result in a greater separation requirement than five feet, the amount proposed as part of R-PZD 05-1797. Building Safety has the final word on that. Condition #6 just states again that this project is subject to the Master Development Plan, statement of commitments and Architectural standards. The Architectural standards would be reviewed at time of building permit according to the concepts that were presented with the PZD. Condition #7 is discussing driveway access, as you can see on your plat there is one central public street and alleys long on the exterior property and we are specifying that all driveways would be access from Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 28 the alleys except for lots 18 and 19. If a northern street stub out would be required then all the lot would have to be access of an alleyway. Those are the main issues I wanted to bring forth, would be happy to answer any questions. Casey: Just a question with the applicant. Mike where you able to work out the storm sewer issues to eliminate the.... Morgan: We are still working out the details, we can submit during the engineering review that our time of concentration and the creeks time of concentration do not coincide and we can get by without the detention scenario. Casey: How about the storm sewer that was running between the lots that had a 5 ft drainage easement, has that been address. Morgan: We have taken out the storm sewer system. We would like to do a sheet flow down the alleyway and then do something a dissipater so comes down directly into the stream with out going subsurface. Patterson: On site areas for delivery, storage, construction materials needs to be identified on the Tree Preservation plan. On tree number 18, please revise then fencing detail to follow the limits construction from grating. The City of Fayetteville standard notes for tree and natural area of protection need to be included on the Tree Preservation plan rather on the landscaping plan. Mitigation will be required on this site. 31- 2inch caliber large species trees. The Landscape plan should be revised to indicate that these trees are to meet the mitigation requirements. They will be planted on the site as street trees. All 31 trees must be planted as depicted on the landscape plan and a 3 yr bond shall be deposited with the amount of $7, 750.00 before signature of Final Plat. Morgan: My name is Mike Morgan with McClelland Consulting Engineers representing the client for the Cato Springs PZD. We agree with the large majority of staffs comments. We would like to discuss comment number 1 regarding street connectivity. We've gone thru a review process with the street as shown a couple of times. We have a concern, not only with the lost of two lots if we do connect to the north, but it would be a very tight residential subdivision connecting to an I-1 zone. This industrial zone were to develop as by right, there would be a large amount of traffic going thru this very dense neighborhood. We do have a right -a -way adjacent and connecting along our entire eastern property line incase one of these houses did become vacant there would be a chance for cross connectivity on to Cline. Cline does project all the way to his northern property line per the Master Street Plan. But we would like to have a conversation about that and try not to have required stubbing to the northern property line. Also, for lots 18 and 19, the utility companies have asked that we Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 29 show our proposed building footprints and for us to connect via 1, driveway would make us have to reconfigure this. I am just wondering the reasoning behind the shared driveway requirements. Garner: The lot width for these lots in the cul-de-sac, we just felt it would be safer as far as having one curb cut opposed to two. Morgan: We have proposal right hear, as far as possible from lot 18. I don't know if we could write it in. Pate: A typically lot width on a cul-de-sac like to is approximately 70 ft and these are small. We do have to address these PZD's with much smaller lot widths and that's why that recommendation reads as it does to share an access point. Clark: Well, that makes a go point. You have both alleys dumping onto here too. Clark: Anyone in the public would like to comment on PPL 06-2011 The Bungalows @ Cato Springs. Seeing no one, I'll bring it back. Let's talk about condition number 3J. What staff is calling for are shared driveways. I like the alleys; I think they are really cool. This is not going to dump onto Cato Springs Rd, right? Morgan: No Clark: The only entrance you have is right here? Morgan: Thanks right. Clark: What type of barriers? Morgan: Currently, the utility plan we have to driveway coming in. I notice in staff recommendation they recommend a barrier. We will certainly add very least a wooden barricade saying not access, but we would like to put a landscape burn in there. Clark: That would be good. Clark: Where are the alleys coming in, what's the stacking distance going to be like coming out. I am wondering if that intersection is too close. Do we have a rule on how close they can be? Garner: Yes, for local streets its 40ft between intersections. For intersections, you would measure between centerline to centerline and this is 140 ft. Clark: Ok, you nailed that. I guess I am partial to that tree that has to go away. Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 30 Morgan: We had an independent tree investigation and they found that it was in a very poor state. Clark: You are loosing some of your trees because of this easement, aren't you? I remember when this came thru; you got credit for preserving a lot of trees. Morgan: Correct, we can not count for or against us because it's in existing easement. That easement will remain as we develop since its part of a larger, and the trees will remain. Now, if the trees become a danger to flow of Cato Springs Branch, they can be removed by the right of the easement. Pate: Subdivision Committee April13, 2006 Page 31 I think that with the way it's laid out, I didn't have any concerns with that. I did have one concern with the western most dumpster, that it does actually faces the street and would have a lot of visibility into and I would like to ask if it would be possible to rotate it and place it adjacent to the other dumpster. Which would alleviate that. Lack: We could coordinate that with Travis Dotson, and see if he will allow us to move it and double stack it here. It would seem that they would appreciate, that a truck would hit both of those at the same directions, oppose to having to tum around to get to the other dumpster Subdivision Committee April 13, 2006 Page 32