HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-17 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on August 17,
2006 at 9:05 a.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN
LSP 06-2174: (MCMAHON, 291) Approved
Page 4
LSP 06-2042: (Biggins, 141) Approved
286)
Page 7
ADM 06-2214: (VASQUEZ, 520) Approved
Page 10
ADM 06-2222: (BELLAFONT II, LSD, 175) Approved
Page 13
LSP 06-2200: (MAYES, 491) Forwarded
Page 22
LSP 06-2175: (ROGERS, 404) Forwarded
Page 30
LSP 06-2194: (MCDONALD, 367) Approved
Page 34
LSP 06-2188: (METROPOLITAN NATIONAL Tabled
BANK, 439)
Page 36
LSD 06-2189: (METROPOLITAN NATIONAL Approved
BANK, 439)
Page 37
LSD 06-2198: (FUEL FARM @ FLEET, 565/604) Approved
Page 43
LSD 06-2197: (FAYETTEVILLE DIAGNOSTIC Approved
CLINIC, 212)
Page 47
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 2
ITEMS DISCUSSED
LSD 06-2150: (MEDICAL OFFICES/SPRING
WOODS, 586-247)
PAGE 50
LSD 06-2195: (PRATT PLACE INN, 520)
PAGE 61
LSD 06-2168: (WEDINGTON PLACE
COMMERCIAL, 401)
PAGE 89
ACTION TAKEN
Approved
FORWARDED
TABLED
R-PZD 06-2191: (UNIVERSITY CLUB TOWER, 135) FORWARDED
PAGE 98
R-PZD 06-2190: (WOODBURY,137)
PAGE 109
TABLED
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 3
Jill Anthes
Lois Bryant
Hilary Harris
STAFFPRESENT
Jeremy Pate
Andrew Gamer
Suzanne Morgan
Jesse Fulcher
Matt Casey/Engineering
Sarah Patterson/Urban Forester
Glenn Newman/Engineering
MEMBERS ABSENT
Candy Clark
Christine Myres
Sean Trumbo
James Graves
Alan Ostner
Andy Lack
STAFF ABSENT
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 4
LSP 06-2174: Lot Split (MCMAHON, 291): Submitted by TIM & JENNIFER
MCMAHON/MCMAHON FAMILY LLC for property located at N OF TOWNSHIP
ST., W OF COMMON DR. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4
UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.91 acres. The request is to divide the
subject property into two tracts of 1.55 and 0.36 acres.
Anthes: Good morning. Welcome to the Thursday, August 17th, 2006, meeting of
the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. We
have 17 items on the agenda ... no, sorry, 16 items on the agenda this
morning. The 8th item, the Lot Split 06-2188 for Metropolitan National
Bank, has been requested to be tabled, so if you're here for this item you
might want to go enjoy the rest of your morning. Our first item of old
business is Lot Split 06-2174 for McMahon. Will the applicant come
forward, and can we have the staff report, please?
Fulcher: You bet. This is for property located at 1036 East Township, between
Sherwood Lane and Common Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4 ...
Anthes: Alan, you can come up here.
Fulcher: ... with that portion of the property located in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay
District. Currently there is a single-family dwelling on the property. It's
approximately two acres and the owners are requesting to split the
property into .36 acres and 1.55 acres. The existing home would end up
on a smaller tract. Although it's a 2 -acre tract, it only has a hundred foot
of frontage. In the RSF-4 zoning district, there's a minimum 70 -foot lot
width requirement. So the smaller tract with existing home is proposed to
remain on the 70 -foot wide tract, while the remainder of the property, the
one and a half acres, will be a tandem lot with only 25 feet of frontage
onto Township. With this item a conditional use has been requested for
the tandem lot approval, which will be heard at the Planning Commission.
This item will have to be forwarded on to be heard concurrent with that
item. If the conditional use is approved, that will allow this lot split to be
approved also. So staff is recommending that this item be forwarded to
the Planning Commission with seven Conditions of Approval. Right-of-
way dedication 35 feet from centerline is required for Township with this
lot split. Additionally, parks fees would be due for a new single-family lot
paid prior to the issuance of the building permit, and that's all I have.
Anthes: Are there other staff reports?
Pate: No.
Anthes: Will the applicant introduce yourself and give us your presentation?
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 5
Reid: Okay. My name is Alan Reid. I'll be representing Tim McMahon in this
tract split and conditional use. As was covered by the staff, we're
basically trying to split off the house with a small piece of property
allowing Mr. McMahon to build a new structure in the rear of the
property. It's a very narrow, long piece and he just feels this would be a
better use for that ... that piece of property.
Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any member of the public like to address
this Lot Split 06-2174 for McMahon? There's no public comment.
Commissioners?
Harris: Madame Chair.
Anthes: Yes.
Harris: Mr. Reid, would you just ... here ... so the ingress would be here?
(Referring to document.)
Reid: Yes. There's an existing driveway ...
Harris: Okay.
Reid: ... in this 25 feet, and that would be the ingress for the new lot. And in
return, the new lot then would allow the existing lot to be accessed also.
Harris: Okay.
Reid: I've given that an easement over that 25 feet ... just to the green line there.
(Referring to document.)
Harris: What's the topography in this area?
Reid: Actually, I believe it lies in the Hillside Overlay District, but when I put it
on my USGS quad sheet, I got a drop of about 20 feet from the northwest
comer to the southeast corner over 800 feet, which wound up being
around 5 percent. It's closer to the Hilltop than the Hillside.
Anthes: I just have a question of staff. This ... we see ... occasionally see a tandem
lot with this kind of configuration where it's so narrow and so deep and
the throat is long. It's not what I'd call the normal one. Is there anything
governing those distances in our codes?
Pate: Not the actual distances. There are minimums that you'll see with the
conditional use request that the applicant must meet; for instance, the
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 6
distance from the house to the paved driveway and where trash is
collected. That will likely be required to be brought out to Township
instead of trash service come all the way into ... into the lot. I mean, those
are things we typically will review with a conditional use request and you
would see in findings there.
Anthes: Thanks, Jeremy. Further questions?
Harris: I would. Just in that when we recently denied a similar lot split, it seems
with the kind of narrow throat easement that was into ... I mean, access
into it, was the Faye Jones house. And that had to do with the top ... as I
recall, it really had to do in part with the topography and the fear that that
was too much traffic going in and out of that particular ... it that not a
concern here?
Pate: Staff, I believe, recommended approval of that lot split as well, and we did
not find any concern here, especially when they're sharing a driveway and
not having two different driveways and two different turning movements
on the same property.
Harris: Okay.
Bryant: Madame Chair.
Anthes: Ms. Bryant.
Motion:
Bryant: I move that we go ahead and forward LSP 06-2174 on to the Planning
Commission for consideration of the CUP 06-2176.
Harris: I second.
Anthes: I concur.
Reid: Thank you.
Anthes: Thank you.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 7
LSP 06-2042: Lot Split (RIGGINS, 141): Submitted by BLEW BATES AND
ASSOCIATES for property located at 4206 HUNGATE RD. The property is in the
PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 7.44 acres. The request is to divide the
subject property into two tracts of 2.35 and 5.09 acres.
Anthes: Our second item this morning is Lot Split 06-2042 for Riggins. May we
have the staff report, and will the applicant come forward?
Morgan: This property contains approximately seven and a half acres. It is located
on Hungate Lane, north of Old Wire Road. The property has been
subdivided several times since 1985, and this is the third and final lot split
submitted for this property. This lot split was tabled at the Subdivision
Committee meeting on June 1st of this year. Staff had requested
documentation verifying that Hungate Lane was either a private or public
road. The applicant has contacted the Washington County Road
Department and confirmed that it is a private road; therefore, the applicant
is requesting a waiver of lot width requirements. The City requires in the
Planning Area that a lot have 75 feet of lot width on a public street, public
improved right-of-way. As this Hungate Lane is private, they are
requesting that waiver. Additionally, the applicant has also submitted a
letter with concerns regarding dedication of right-of-way. Hungate Lane
is designated a minor arterial on our Master Street Plan, requiring 45 feet
of right-of-way dedication from centerline. Certainly this ... as the
applicant has pointed out, the dedication of this right-of-way, however,
will not ultimately result in County maintenance of those portions of the
road, and it is not a public road at this time. Staff is, however,
recommending that the applicant dedicate the 45 feet with a note on the
plat stating that this road is not constructed to the County standards for a
residential subdivision and the maintenance is the responsibility of the
current and future property owners and that this road will not be accepted
for maintenance by the County unless it is constructed to their standards
and specifications. We are recommending forwarding this lot split to the
Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval with eight
Conditions of Approval, first being determination of the waiver request.
Staff does find in favor of this waiver request. As you can see on the plat,
the resulting tracts will have sufficient amount of frontage on Hungate
Lane when it is dedicated as a public street. Additionally, the second
condition is in regards to the right-of-way dedication, and public water, I
believe, will need to be extended, but engineering can elaborate on that,
and we are recommending forwarding.
Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Morgan. Engineering?
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 8
Casey: As she said, the 2 -inch water line will need to be extended to serve each of
the tracts. It's currently stopped short, so that will need to be done prior to
filing the split. Also, just an observation, since the last submittal we had
asked that the septic location be noted on the plat. Looking at that, it's
just on the east side of the house that's shown on Tract A. I know it's hard
to determine in the field the exact dimensions of that, but it looks like it's
going to be very close to the property line. I just wondered if you've run
that by the Health Department. They have a 10 -foot setback from
property lines. I just wanted to make sure that we're following their rules
and regulations as well.
Bunch: Right, yeah. We will be ... you know, we'll be able to ... without digging
the lines up, we really don't know, you know, where they actually lay.
This is our best estimation of where it is, where the lines actually stop, and
we're within 10 feet. But we'll ... we'll verify that again. And the water
line is, I believe, the applicant has told me that it's either done through
another engineering firm, or it's almost completed, so we're on the ball on
that.
Casey: Okay. That's all I have.
Anthes: Thank you, Matt. Anything else? Will the applicant introduce himself
and give a presentation.
Bunch: Bryan Bunch, Blew, Bates & Associates, representing Mr. Riggins. He
would just wish to split this 2.35 -acre tract off, mainly to give to his son
who is wanting to purchase the house and the land that goes with it, and he
would just ask that that be acceptable.
Anthes: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this lot split
for Riggins? There's no public comment. Commissioners?
Bryant: Madame Chair. One thing of clarification for me, please. Currently right
now Hungate is a private road?
Morgan: That is correct.
Bryant: And it's one day going to become a dedicated street ... or public street?
Morgan: I believe that whenever the street is improved to County standards, at
some point it will be maintained by the County, and we have it designated
as a minor arterial on our Master Street Plan.
Bryant: Okay.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 9
Anthes: Nothing? Motions?
Motion:
Harris: Madame Chair, I move that we recommend Lot Split 06-2042 (Riggin) to
the Planning Commission for approval, with Conditions of Approval. Do
we need to list those out?
Anthes: No. We can just say subject to Conditions of Approval.
Harris: Subject to Conditions of Approval.
Bryant: I'll second.
Anthes: I'll concur.
Bunch: Thank you.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 10
ADM 06-2214: Administrative Item (VASQUEZ, 520): Submitted by JUAN
VASQUEZ for property located at 1920 W. STONE ST. The request is to construct a
single-family home on an existing nonconforming lot of record platted pre -1970.
Anthes: Our first item of new business is Administrative Item 06-2214 for
Vasquez. Will the applicant come forward? Can we have a staff report?
Fulcher: Yes. This is, to me at least, a unique item to be heard at Subdivision
Committee. This is a property at 1920 West Stone Street, zoned RMF -24
residential multifamily. The parcel was platted 1957 as a 50 -by -125 -foot
lot, which is ... pretty much was the normal size of this subdivision, the
West End Addition. The applicant here, Mr. Vasquez, the property owner,
recently purchased this property intending to build a single-family
dwelling on it. However, given that the property does not meet the
minimum lot width requirement, which is 60 feet, it's an existing
nonconforming lot. The UDC does cover nonconforming lots in uses and
structures; however, in this case, since it was platted within a subdivision
prior to 1970, it requires that the Subdivision Committee approve the
request to the applicant, which will allow him to actually be approved for
a building permit. He'll still have to go and pull all the appropriate
building permits, provide the site plans, and be approved by the
appropriated divisions. However, at this time if he came to the Planning
Division with a building permit, we couldn't approve it since the lot
doesn't meet the bulk in area requirements. So pretty much you're
okaying the existing lot size as it is. Staff is recommending approval of
this item with three Conditions of Approval. Item Number 1 just covers
the building permits. This will actually ... allows a structure to be built
within 5 feet of the side property lines as opposed to 8. That is within the
code that allows for that. Since it is such a small lot, it allows for a little
reduced side setbacks. Items 2 and 3 just refer to the existing structures,
and Number 3 just referring to the driveway width to be reduced to 12 to
16 feet, given the width of the lot, which should be sufficient for vehicles
to enter and exit on this property.
Anthes: Thank you, Jesse. Are there other staff comments? Morning.
Vasquez: Morning.
Anthes: Is there anything you would like to say about your application?
Vasquez: Well, I just come and see because I'd like more on it. I'd like to build a
two-story house ... and only I can get 22 feet, and I'd like to get, like,
some more feet, 26 feet.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page I1
Anthes: Okay. I believe this item is just for the lot width.
Fulcher: I'm working with Mr. Vasquez. The problem is, since it's zoned RMF -24,
you have a 20 -foot building height, and above that your side setback starts
stepping in. So to actually put a building footprint on there, you've got to
stay approximately 23 feet high to be able to meet your setbacks. So that
really is a struggle to do when you're trying to do a two-story structure.
So right now he's maxed out at 23 feet, which we've discussed. We'll
kind of mess with the pitch of the roof. So he may end up having to go to
the Board of Adjustment to request a variance for a few more feet ... a
reduction in his height, I guess. He'll still have the 5 -foot setbacks, but it
will allow him to go above 23 feet if they approve that request.
Anthes: And staff would recommend that course of action rather than a rezoning?
Fulcher: We haven't discussed necessarily which would be the best course of
action. It would meet some of the, I guess, fundamentals of why we have
the RSF-8 Zoning District historically platted lots. That could be a
request; however, the Board of Adjustment item may also be a good route
to go, so we can discuss that with him.
Anthes: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this
Administrative Item for Vasquez? There's no public comment.
Commissioners? I have an additional question. On the 50 -foot lot width,
that is a permissible width for a residential lot in other zoning districts; is
that correct?
Fulcher: In the RSF-8, it is a 50 -foot lot width, but typically 60 feet is pretty much
the minimum for even the smallest lots.
Anthes: But in the RSF-8
Fulcher: 50 feet would handle 5,000 square feet.
Anthes: And can you tell me how the rest of the adjoining properties are built out,
because we can't really tell from the aerial here.
Fulcher: Mostly single-family homes. There's a couple of plats on here. Almost
all the lots are 50 -feet wide, 125- to 150 -feet deep. It is a majority of
single-family homes, older homes constructed between the ... as far back
as the `60s, probably.
Harris: Madame Chair.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 12
Anthes: Yes.
Harris: What we're being asked to look at today, very specifically though, is
simply whether or not he can build a single-family on this 50 -by -125, and
then in terms of height issues, you'll be working with the applicant at a
later time?
Fulcher: Yes.
Harris: And what Commissioner Anthes just cleared up is that we do have some
zoning areas of which 50 is permissible, the RSF-8?
Fulcher: Yes.
Harris: Right? Okay.
Motion:
Harris: Madame Chair, I'd like to move that we ... now may we approve this at
this level or do we send it to ...
Fulcher: It can be approved at this level, yes.
Harris: I move that we approve Administrative Item 06-2214.
Bryant:
I'll second.
Anthes:
I'll agree.
Vasquez:
Thank you.
Anthes:
Thank you.
Vasquez:
Thank you very much.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 13
ADM 06-2222: Administrative Item (BELLAFONT II LSD, 175): Submitted by THE
BARBER GROUP for property located N OF JOYCE BLVD, AND W OF VANTAGE
DR. The request is for approval of the Commercial Design Standards for Building `F'
and attached parking garage within the approve Large Scale Development, LSD 06-1939,
Bellafont II.
Anthes: Our fourth item is Administrative Item 06-2222 for Bellafont II. Would
the applicant come forward? Can we have a staff report?
Garner: Sure. This property is located on the north side of Joyce Boulevard. It's
west of Vantage Drive and it's zoned C-3, Central Commercial. It
contains approximately 25 acres over the whole site, and the Bellafont
Phase II, Large Scale Development 06-1939 was approved in March of
this year by the Planning Commission for development on the property,
and due to the large number of buildings in the overall Mixed Use
Development and the ... the elevations presented were rather small, the
Planning Commission decided to require the facades of the buildings to be
approved individually with larger scale elevations, and so what we have
before us here is Building `F.' They have the detailed elevations for your
approval. And just as background as well, the Commercial Design
Standards for this project were approved as far as compatibility and
transition, and what we're looking at is mainly just the details of the
facade for your review. Planning staff is recommending approval of the
building elevations for Building `F.' You'll also note there is a parking
garage structure attached onto the side of that, and we do find that it meets
Commercial Design Standards on all four sides, and we'll be happy to
answer any questions you might have.
Anthes: Before we go forward, are we also considering the elevations on the
parking structure, or only on the tower?
Garner: All of it.
Anthes: All of it. Okay. Are there further staff comments? Will you introduce
yourself and give us your presentation.
Maddox: I'm Bob Maddox with PSA Dewberry, representing the Barber Group.
Cooper: And I'm Bryan Cooper, here with the Barber Group.
Anthes: Is there anything you would like to say about your project?
Maddox: Well, this is the first building in Phase II that we're doing. There's three
buildings in Phase II ...three groups of buildings: the office tower, the
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 14
parking garage, and retail structures, and then also a condominium
building. What you see before you is the office tower and the parking
garage for the office tower. And the materials have been unaltered since
we presented to the Planning Commission and received a Large Scale
Development approval, so if you have any questions on those I would be
happy to answer them for you.
Anthes: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this
Administrative Item for Bellafont H? There's no public comment.
Commissioners?
Harris: Madame Chair.
Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Harris.
Harris: May I ask, just again, a point of clarification. So what we're being
actually asked to look at today, the Planning Commission has already
found in favor of Commercial Design Standards, the Full Commission
simply wanted to be able to look specifically at larger elevations
considering the scale of the project; is that correct?
Garner: That's correct.
Harris: So what we're being asked to look at, though, is, again, a review of
Commercial Design Standards?
Garner: Not the full review, but just mainly the detail facades, if you find that there
are unarticulated surfaces that need to be changed or something like that.
But the compatibility of this development and the transition of it, we were
able to look at that when the whole project came through. So we're not
looking at this in relation to other buildings. We're just looking at each
individual facade, any concerns you might have from the right-of-way.
That's mainly the main issue.
Harris: Okay. And I'm sorry, I don't mean to be a believer at this point, but ... so
compatibility and transition in terns of ... well, that's not what we're
considering?
Garner: Right.
Harris: We're simply looking at the articulation of this fagade?
Garner: That's correct.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 15
Harris: Okay. Thank you.
Anthes: What would be helpful going forward is we generally ask for materials to
be labeled on every elevation. So I know that we were handed this one
later, but ...
Mattocks: Okay.
Anthes: ... but we have a lot of drawings that don't have those drawings labeled.
Maddox: Okay. So ...
Anthes: And I know you're going to have to come through with more buildings, so
I thought I would mention that.
Maddox: Right. And, now ... what's happening now is this a fast-track project and
they are ready to start the foundation work as soon as we get a permit.
The entire building will be permitted at a later ... at a later date.
Anthes: Okay.
Maddox: And we had agreed ... we had a conditional approval from the ... for the
Large Scale Development, and that was that we would present elevations
prior to permitting for each building or group of buildings.
Anthes: As I recall, the elevations were varied ... for this tall and the drawings we
got (inaudible) ...
Maddox: Yes, that was one ... part of the issue.
Anthes: Would you identify on the site plan that this in yellow (referring to
document) is what we're looking at.
Maddox: Yes. This is the parking garage right here, and then this is the office
tower, and this piece that projects out here (pointing on document) is a
porte cochere that ... where you enter the building with the automobile.
Anthes: And what is this ... these elevations of the parking garage, what do they
face? What's on this side?
?: Lindsey's building.
Maddox: This ... the Lindsey building is located on ... to the west of the property.
Adjacent to it there's a large tree preservation zone on the Lindsey
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 16
property that runs the full length of the west boundary of the site, and if
you'll notice on the office building elevations, there's ... the north and the
south faces of the office building are completely covered with ... clad with
pre -cast panels. On the east and the west side of the building, which you
can't view from the roadways, the pre -cast extends only partway down on
the east and the west sides of the building. Part of it is where it comes up
against the office building. The other side is where it's away from the
road and shielded by the tree preservation zone.
Harris: Okay. So the Lindsey building is here and the tree preservation area is
here (pointing on document)?
Maddox: Right.
Harris: Is that right?
Maddox: Correct. And the only true street frontage on that building is on Stearns
Street on the north side.
Harris: Here (pointing on document)?
Maddox: Yes.
Harris: Okay, and this is Joyce?
Maddox: Yes.
Anthes: On the west elevation, can you identify what's happening here at the
ground level?
Maddox: Okay. What ... okay, on the west elevation of the building ... This is
actually showing the basement. It's a ... it's a stepped plaza and the office
building is on the upper portion of the plaza, which is 14 feet above the
lower plaza, and that's just ... so this is the plaza grade that you're seeing
across here (pointing on document) and that's basement that's being
shown down below there.
Anthes: If I'm to understand correctly, this is the west elevation?
Maddox: Well, the west elevation ... okay, the west elevation is right here (pointing
on document). And let me see exactly ... okay, this is a loading dock.
This building links the tower and the parking garage. It's a two-story
element and there's a loading service area right in here that's completely
enclosed. So this is a loading dock here that you're seeing (pointing on
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 17
document), and this is a service drive where you can back a semi back in
here into a service yard. It's screened. It has a ... it has a gate that shields
it from Stearns Street, and I believe there's an elevation in here that you
should have that shows that.
Anthes: And so there's actually a parking deck that attaches to this at this plane or
is this view from ...
Maddox: If you could look at the north elevation, it would clarify what we're
what you're seeing here.
Anthes: This one?
Maddox: Yes. Okay. The two-story element that projects out and links the office
tower with the parking garage is this element right here, and ...
Anthes: So we were looking at this face, but this building actually attaches?
Maddox: You were looking at a section through this two-story building here, and
that's what you're seeing is the loading dock area out here.
Bryant: So this is the loading dock area (referring to document)?
Maddox: Yes.
Bryant: With the gates that's going through the front?
Maddox: Right.
Bryant: Okay.
Maddox: And then this separate elevation right here (pointing on document) shows
the screened wall around the loading dock area and then the gate ... it's a
sliding gate that ... it shields the rest of the dock when it's not in use.
Bryant: Okay.
Maddox: I think it's ... what you're looking for ( pointing on document).
Anthes: I'm looking what the ground floor elevations as you walk around and
making sure that we have, you know, what the pedestrian is going to see
as they move around the building is what I was first checking for. But my
question for staff is how you found for a positive recommendation on this
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 18
parking structure. This one looks way more stripped down than what
we've ever accepted anywhere else.
Garner: I think if you look at the north elevation there, they have ... you know,
that's the main concern is the ... when you see it from Stearns Street. So
as you can see there, you know, the building was fine as you're going
along the building. You have at this point the loading dock, which was a
potential concern, and then they provided the detail of the gates and how
that would be screened. And then the parking structure facing Stearns
Street is actually wrapped, and this extra detail ... whereas on some of the
other areas, your typical parking garage, you know, would just be the
ramps. So they have the ramps screened facing Stearns Street. So I think
that helped us find in favor of it facing Stearns. That was the main
concern when we first looked at it was that north side.
Maddox: And that being the north side.
Anthes: And what is this material? Is this a pre -cast?
Maddox: It's pre -cast ... architectural pre -cast panels.
Anthes: And it has some sort of a design motif that looks like it's carrying over in
the building. Is that what we're seeing here?
Maddox: Right. It's the same ... it's the same ... same textures and colors as the
office tower.
Harris: Madame Chair. So to go back to the loading dock area, the staff ... the
details ... so the gate is what allows you to find that there's enough
articulation there, is that it, the kind of...
Garner: Yeah, I think ... yeah, I think that's part of it is that just having a blank
concrete loading dock wouldn't be acceptable, but having that screening
there and having that gate there, we feel like that's appropriate.
Anthes: Obviously, the east elevation, this is what shows, and then the building sits
in front of this intersection; is that correct?
Maddox: Yes.
Anthes: So it's in this kind of alignment ... I mean, basically what you would see
are those piece ... paths, right?
Cooper: Yeah. You won't see ...
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 19
Maddox: Correct, yes. Uh-huh.
Anthes: Okay.
Cooper: That's kind of confusing, yes.
Anthes: Even if you dot in that building (inaudible) or something so we can
understand how these are in relationship to one another.
Maddox: But you can see from this (referring to documents) ... you can see from
this elevation here if you were ... this section you were asking about was
looking the opposite direction of this one with the building behind.
Anthes: Got it. So the only really visible section of what I'd consider an
articulated surface is this section here on the west. It's next to the
property line and abuts a tree preservation area, and can you tell me what's
on Lindsey's property that ... remind me what's on that ... the east side of
his property that might could view this.
Garner: I believe it's a drive out on that side of the building.
Pate: People on the east side of that property ... there's a ... adjacent to the tree
preservation area is a parking area to serve the office tower, and of course
that's the back of that building as well.
Cooper: And there would be a large retaining wall.
Pate: Yes. In order to save that tree preservation area there was a large retaining
wall constructed.
Anthes: Okay.
Maddox: Yeah. It's about ... it's about 5 -feet high along the east boundary of
Lindsey's property.
Anthes: Okay. All right. Well, normally I would have a concern about this
section. I think with the site specifics, we're probably doing okay.
However, if ... on future buildings when you're coming back, if you have
that kind of an elevation in a visible area, I think we would have a lot of
questions about it.
Maddox: Okay. And we realized that it needed to be screened in order to do what
we did.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 20
Anthes: Okay.
Harris: Regarding that issue, I do actually have a question about that. As we go
higher in this City, I mean, the fact is that that area will be visible from
many parts of the Lindsey building. Now, if you're just walking around
the building that won't be true, but certainly somebody sitting out on the
balcony having lunch will see that. Is that to be taken into consideration,
or is it just at the walking level, at the pedestrian level?
Pate: It is only from the public realm. We ... our ordinances do not discuss
anything ... if you're on private property you've made that decision to go
onto private property and I'm assuming whatever you see from there is
whatever you've chosen to see from there. So it's only ... our ordinances
only apply to those views that are visible from the public realm.
Harris: Okay. Terrific.
Anthes: Are there further comments?
Bryant: One other question. What, pray tell, is this (pointing on document)?
Maddox: All this material here is cast -stone material. This is ... this is a one-story
element. There's a studio in here that can't have any daylight in it. This is
... this is a cast -stone wall across here. It's the same material as ... which
this is cast stone all the way up to the third -floor windowsill.
Bryant: Okay.
Maddox: And then from there above, it's stucco. And that material there is a cast -
stone material. It is a high-quality material that's there. And in the future,
if ...
Garner: Then the material board, too, if you wanted to point out some of that
aspect.
Maddox: (He stands and points on display) The material will be similar to this
color -wise and this is ... this is like a hardened -stone material, but this ...
what we're talking about here is even a step up from this, but color -wise,
it's basically the same as that one, that being your wall material for your
color for your ... rest of the tower.
Anthes: And the glass that's depicted here in the tower, is that ... can you see
through that? Does it have any reflective ...
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 21
Maddox: This is non -reflective gray -tinted glass, and what ... you get a light
reflection, but it's not a mirror -type reflection.
Anthes: Good.
Maddox: The shading is primarily for comfort and ... well, it's appearance, but also
for the air conditioning.
Anthes: Any further comments? Motions?
Motion:
Bryant: Madame Chair, I move that we approve Administrative Item 06-2222 with
one condition of approval.
Anthes: I'm sorry. I second. I guess I'll state that this ... the condition of approval
states that it's determination of Commercial Design Standards. As you
know from my earlier vote on this matter, I don't believe that these
buildings meet our Commercial Design Standards for compatibility and
transition. However, that's not what we're voting on today, we're voting
on the materiality of the ... and the articulation of the facades, and I will
have to find in favor of that. Do we change the condition of approval to
clarify that this is not a broad-based application of Commercial Design
Standards?
Pate: We can do that. Determination of the building elevations
Anthes: Yes.
Pate: ... as presented to meet Commercial Design Standards.
Anthes: Would that be accepted as a friendly amendment to your motion?
Bryant: That will be.
Anthes: Thank you, sir.
Maddox: Thank you.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 22
LSP 06-2200: Lot Split (MAYES, 491): Submitted by BLEW, BATES &
ASSOCIATES for property located at 445 N. CANVAS ROAD. The property is in the
Planning Area and contains approximately 3.11 acres. The request is to divide the
subject property into two tracts of 1.61 and 1.50 acres, the smaller of which being a
tandem lot.
Anthes: Our fifth item today is Lot Split 06-2200 for Mayes. Would the applicant
come forward, and may we have the staff report?
Morgan: This subject property is Lot 21 of the Canvas Mountain Subdivision. It's
located west of ... excuse me, east of Starr Drive, north of Wyman Road.
The subdivision is located in the Planning Area, and although portions of
this property are shown in the maps attached to the staff report as being
located in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District, these regulations cannot be
enforced in this Planning Area. The property is developed for a single-
family home, as well as a pool and accessory structures to that home. The
applicant requests to subdivide the lot for sale for a single-family
development. The proposed property is ... the proposed lot is 1.5 acres of
the overall 3.11 -acre property located in the rear of the tract. As this
property will not have any frontage onto a street ... a public street, the
applicant requests a waiver of the 75 -foot lot width requirement. The
applicant has proposed a 30 -foot access easement to ... for ... to serve as
access to that property. There is an existing driveway on that access
easement at this time. Canvas Mountain Subdivision was platted with a
variety of lot sizes and shapes. As you can see on the, I believe, sixth
page of your agenda, or a couple of pages into your agenda, there is a ...
your staff report, there is a map of the overall subdivision. Lot 21 is
marked. That is the subject property. And as you can see, the properties
to the north and south have a similar lot configuration and size. Based on
that, staff finds that the proposed lot is not compatible with the
surrounding properties, particularly in size and the manner in which it is
being subdivided. We have a received a lot of public comment from the
surrounding neighbors. Also included in the staff report is a petition
against this lot split signed by 17 homeowners within this surrounding
area. We also have a letter from an adjacent ... a representative from an
adjacent property owner listing concerns regarding drainage, as well as
compatibility and history of lot splits ... that here is no history of lot splits
within the subdivision. Also handed out to you this morning was a
colored packet of photos supplied by one of the neighbors just addressing
that although there were ... have been drainage problems on this property
and affecting his property, as it is adjacent prior to the clearing of the back
portion of the property, he's afraid that any development of this back
portion will just accentuate any ... all of the drainage problems that are
existing. Staff is recommending forwarding this lot split to the Planning
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 23
Commission with a recommendation for denial. Mainly, we do not find in
favor of the waiver request for lot width requirements. We have listed six
conditions to address and discuss, though, but that is not a condition.
Anthes: Thank you, Suzanne. Are there further staff comments? Matt?
Casey: Just that sewer service is not available. This is in our Planning Area and a
public water main will need to be extended to serve the rear lot. That's all
I have.
Anthes: Okay. Sarah?
Patterson: (Shakes her head negatively.)
Anthes: Introduce yourself and give us your presentation.
Bunch: I'm Bryan Bunch with Blew, Bates & Associates, representing Ms.
Mayes. They want to split off the back half of their lot because it's just ...
you can see how long it is, and it's too much for them to try to take care
of, and plus it would make it, you know, more marketable. They have a
building site back there already that they haven't ... you know, it's just a
natural building site, a flat spot before it drops off, so that's just kind of
what had got them started thinking about this. We just request that they be
allowed to split off the back portion of the 1.5 acres. They've already had
septic approval for it, so, you know, it will sustain a residence. I guess I'll
address any other comments as they come up.
Anthes: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bunch. Would any member of the public like to
address this Lot Split 06-2200 for Mayes? Please some forward and state
your comments. Just use the podium there.
Toothaker: Thank you. My name is David Toothaker. I am the resident of 4128
Mural Drive. I am the west side, downhill neighbor of the Mayes. I don't
know the actual lot number, but it's the 7.1 -acre lot to the west border of
their property. The photos you have from Ms. Morgan are compliments of
me. Those are photos taken from my property. Let me start by just
quickly saying I am very much for what I consider to be responsible
development. I'm not here to try to destroy development on Canvas
Mountain or anyone else's desire to split lots. My wife and I did not sign
the petition in the neighborhood for that reason. Because if you look at it
closely, it says it's against all lot splits; we are not. We're simply against
this one for some very substantial reasons, not to mention the fact that it
seems ... just looking at the plat, which I've had a chance to view with
Ms. Morgan, it seems to be incompatible with the neighborhood, but
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 24
specifically the drainage issues onto my property. Several years back the
Mayes cleared the back half of their property. You have photographs of
that from my property boundary and theirs to see the adjacent properties
are completely wooded, and theirs is on a significant grade. I don't have
privy to that information, and I trust you do, but that property was cleared
and at that time the drainage problem that did exist on our property was
exacerbated by that, forcing my family to invest a significant amount of
additional money in the construction of a cantilever retaining wall and
drainage system that you have pictures of there from my property. So that
cantilever wall, approximately $33,000.00 of my own expense, a great
portion of that was due to increased drainage problems that we noticed
once that property was cleared. But my concern is very simple. With the
addition of ... oh, and I wanted to make a couple of comments about that
as well. I understand that 3 acres could be a lot to take care of Everyone
else in the neighborhood takes care ... most of us take care of that or more,
and with the clearing I understand that mowing that is certainly a bigger
challenge. I sympathize with that. There may be a natural building site in
many people's eyes to that piece of property; I've yet to find it, and I live
next to it, because of the severe grade. It may be at the top of the property,
it may be small, but it would put it very few feet away from the Mayes'
current home. So I'd like for you to consider that as well. But
specifically, I live with a great concern that putting a roofiine and that
drainage, putting a septic system in that drainage and putting all the other
...patio and everything that would ... and a gravel ... and an asphalt
driveway, which is according to the covenants not be graveled, it's been
proposed by them, would definitely create an additional drainage problem
onto my property that I've already spent a lot of money to solve, and I just
see that as ... this approval of this would cause me to spend a great deal of
money dealing with that drainage and problem. That's why I come.
Thank you.
Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Toothaker. Would any other member of the public like to
speak? Good morning.
Mayes: Good morning. I'm Linda Mayes. I want to hand you these, too. These
are the (inaudible).
Anthes: Now, are you the applicant?
Mayes: Yes.
Bunch: Yes.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 25
Anthes: Oh, okay. If you would please sit up here, I'm taking public comment
right now for people not in association with the application.
Mayes: Okay.
Anthes: Would any member of the public ... other member of the public like to
address this Lot Split 06-2200 for Mayes? Seeing none, I'll close the
public comment section. Did the applicant have additional comments?
Mayes: Yes.
Anthes: Okay.
Mayes: Let me kind of go down this so I'll have it. If you'll look at your plat
there ...
Anthes: (Motioning to microphone) You need to move it. It's kind of weird.
Thanks.
Mayes: Okay. 16 of the 32 lots are an acre and a half, and that's what we're
asking to split. The property does drop off the back. It's not that severe.
All the houses ... we are on a mountain like this. Okay. My house is on
this side of the mountain. I'm wanting to split the lot off this side of the
mountain. The way my realtor was talking, the property prices out in our
area have skyrocketed. A lot down the street for 4 acres is going for
170,000. That puts us up in a price range that is almost impossible to get.
We don't have that kind of homes. We're not a Savannah or whatever, but
anyway, her idea was to split the lot off from the top, 2 -acre -and -a -half
lots, which is what 16 of the lots in the neighborhood are, and then we
could try to sell our property. We've bought a farm. We are moving.
We've been there 27 years. We've raised our kids there. We love this
subdivision. We do not want to harm it in any way. But this would give
us a more marketable piece of property if someone can afford to build ...
by that 3 acres, that's the way we're going to list it, but if they don't want
to buy the 3 acres, we have an option that makes our property more
marketable at an acre and a half, which is what the realtor said most
people want ... two halves. About an acre and a half is all they want to
maintain and can afford this close to town. Now, as far as drainage
problems, we've never heard anything about any drainage problems from
the Toothakers. He did put in a retaining wall. Where this house ... we
would be putting a 50 -foot setback off of our property, which puts it over
a hundred yards, the size of a football field, away from my house. It also
would be a hundred yards away from his house, the size of a football field.
My house is closer to the two adjacent lots. If you'll look on your map
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 26
here, this green area, my lot is 21. The cul-de-sac is right here. There is
an easement into a 200 -acre farm here that could be developed tomorrow
with a thousand, five hundred houses on it and they would have access
right through our road, which they could, you know, be an acre, half -acre
lot. It's already approved for a septic tank. It already has water and it
already has electricity. It already has a drive. Nothing on the front road
would ... no one would even know it was there. It already has a separate
drive with a retaining wall, entryway. Nothing at the front of the road
would stop. I spoke to all the neighbors on the top. I did not speak to that
side of the mountain because there's only one lot which is ... or two lots,
one's not built on, but Mr. Toothaker's lot ... I did contact him and told
him what we were doing. The other lots are all an acre and a half. I didn't
feel like I needed to speak to them because they have an acre and a lot. I
don't know what their complaint would be. You know, theirs is an acre
and a half, also. The covenants require for me ... the covenant is ...
Number 3 only requires for me to get Jim Lindsey's signature, which I
did. I called him. He said he put that covenant in because of the larger
lots. He knew it was close to town and that he would approve any lot split
that there was because there's anywhere from 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, and 7 -acre lots
up on the top and he knew they would want to be split later. You've
already approved a split lot on Lot ... I think I have it written on there ...
Lot 4. You approved a split lot of two and a half acres three years ago for
J. R. Arnold. There's already a tandem lot in the subdivision. It is Lot 3.
And I think that's just about it. Do you have any more questions? We
have no homeowner's association. Never have. No one wanted to be. I
was the first home on the mountain, tried to start one. Everyone said, "We
live out here in the country and we don't want to follow any rules." All
the lots in yellow on your plats are people that are out of ... in violation of
the covenants for one reason or another. You know, we just feel like that
we should have the option to sell off our property and split it and make it
more usable to someone. If someone wants the three acres and they want
to keep the whole thing together, well, that's the way we're listing it. We
won't sell the acre and a half without the house first selling, and give the
person the right for the three acres. But if they want or can't afford, which
is a big thing in our area, property, like I said, 170,000 for four acres is a
lot of money.
Anthes: Well, we're going to have the discussion with the Commissioners and
we'll get back with you if we've got questions.
Mayes: Okay.
Anthes: Hillary, do you have any comments?
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 27
Harris: Let's see. I want to sort of sort out what we're looking at. The covenants,
of course, are nothing that the City enforces, and again, so what I ... I
think what we're really looking at today, in terms of the staff findings so
far, seems to be ... the major issue here seems to be the zero frontage on a
public street, correct? And would you ... I'm sorry, was it Jesse? Whose
was this?
Morgan: Oh, that was mine.
Harris: Suzanne. I'm sorry, Suzanne. Zero frontage, that was the problem, and
it's not compatible with surrounding area?
Morgan: Yes, that was our finding.
Harris: Okay. Do you mind just elaborating on that a bit more?
Morgan: Certainly. With any lot split, and of course the Planning Area does not
have zoning, but we do have a requirement that every lot have 75 feet of
frontage on a public street, and if it is less than that, we do evaluate it in
terms of compatibility. It's helpful to think of the things that we review
with tandem lot conditional use permits in the City, those types of findings
... adequate access, etcetera. Certainly this applicant is providing access
back to the property; however, the lot itself will not have frontage. And in
reviewing the overall subdivision and the lots to the north and south of
this, they are all similar shape, sizes. Most often in the Planning Area, we
look at subdivision of lots that are not within an overall subdivision, but
just parts of lots that have been split out and subdivided over time. So in
this area there is a standard size and ... of the lots, because of how ... in
the manner of the subdivision. And so in review of just this proposal, we
did not find that a house on a lot in the rear of this property would be
compatible with the surrounding 3 -acre -plus lots to the north and south.
Harris: Thank you for that.
Anthes: Normally with a tandem lot we do see a dedicated access, that it would
have a tail that would belong to that lot and then a different piece of
property, so I am troubled by the zero frontage and would follow staff s
recommendation on that. I do have a question. This cul-de-sac that is at
the end of this road, is this actually a stub -out to the north, and this would
be a road that could be constructed in the future?
Morgan: It appears that there is an easement to the north. I am not sure that that is
dedicated right-of-way or if the lot lines actually go ... or if it is an
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 28
easement, and it would have to be dedicated for right-of-way in order to
construct that street to the north.
Anthes: I'm sorry. Do you have anything, Lois?
Bryant: Well, currently the only thing that ... one of the main things that troubles
me with this right now is the covenant.
Anthes: We cannot ... we cannot consider the protective covenants, so ...
Bryant: Well, that's ...
Anthes: That's an internal
Bryant: Internal to them.
Anthes: ... to them, uh-huh.
Bryant: And the other that did trouble me, that when I did go out and look at this it
looks more like it just kind of dead ends out instead of an actual cul-de-
sac. And this driveway does ... this asphalt driveway on the side here runs
all the way up the side of the hill?
Bunch: To the back.
Bryant: To the back?
Mayes: It runs all the way to the property, yes.
Bryant: If this were split, would this remain
Motion:
Anthes: I think this one's pretty complicated and the whole Planning Commission
needs to see it. I'm going to take staff's recommendation and move that
we forward Lot Split 06-2200 to the full Planning Commission with a
recommendation for denial.
Bryant: I'll second.
Harris: I concur.
Anthes: Okay. We'll see you in a couple of weeks.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 29
Mayes: Thank you. Do you want to keep those?
Anthes: If you would like, I'm going to give them to staff. Is that all right?
Mayes: That would be great.
(At this point Hillary Harris leaves the meeting.)
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 30
LSP 06-2175: Lot Split (ROGERS, 404): Submitted by BLEW, BATES &
ASSOCIATES for property located at LOT 23, MAXWELL ADDITION. The property
is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.00
acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 0.36 and 0.64 acres.
Anthes: Let's see. Is this the one that was forwarded? This one has to be
forwarded; is that right?
Morgan: That is correct.
Anthes: Okay. Then we'll go ahead, because we can do that with two people. All
right. Our next item is Lot Split 06-2175 for Rogers. Suzanne?
Morgan: This lot contains one acre. It is within a platted subdivision of the
Maxwell Addition. It's located within the City and zoned RSF-4. The
applicant would like to subdivide this property to create two single-family
lots, one of which is a tandem lot because it does not meet the required 70
feet ... 70 -foot lot width of the building setback and 56 feet at the right-of-
way. The applicant is proposing a shared ... excuse me, an access
easement on the larger tract or the conforming tract in order to reduce the
number of curb cuts that will ... or curb cuts on Maxwell Drive. Staff is
recommending in favor of this lot split. We are recommending forwarding
it, however, because it does require a conditional use permit to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission. A similar situation occurred on
another one -acre tract within this subdivision. If you look at the overall
plat, most of the lots are approximately ... I believe they're 90 -by -145 in
dimension, and there were two one -acre lots, however, on the corners of
Maxwell Drive, one to the northwest corner and one to the southwest
corner. The property to the northwest corner was subdivided in 1989 with
a conditional use permit granted to create a lot split ... or, excuse me, a
tandem lot so that two homes could be constructed on that one -acre overall
property, and a similar request is now requested for this one -acre lot, and
staff finds that it is compatible. We have had a lot of questions from
neighbors just wondering what was going to be constructed here. The
most that can be constructed on one tandem lot is one single-family
dwelling. And then the second ... or the other resulting lot, conforming
lot, could have one single-family home, and if a conditional use permit is
requested it could have a detached dwelling unit. So the maximum
development that could occur on this one -acre tract is three single-family
dwellings.
(Hillary Harris returns to meeting.)
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 31
Anthes: Okay. Thank you, Suzanne. Are there other staff comments? Good
afternoon ... well, it's not afternoon yet.
Bunch: It's a little early now.
Anthes: Good morning again. If you would like to give us your presentation.
Bunch: I'm Bryan Bunch with Blew, Bates & Associates, and my client would
just like to split this lot for two single-family dwellings as shown on the
plat.
Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this Lot Split 06-2175 for
Rogers? Please come to the podium.
Richards: My name is Joyce Richards and I'm the president of the local
neighborhood association. And I think none of you were around in 2001-
2002 when on Hendrix we had the triplexes built, which has always made
us a little leery, a little weary, because that had to do with the zoning map
which had the errors in it at that time, and partly, I think, because of what
happened to us and those were errors that were on the map, and so the
triplexes were allowed to be built, and then I think after that time the
planning office and Tim went ...
Anthes: Ms. Richards, you really need to address this property.
Richards: Okay. All right. We just don't want multi ... you know, this to lead to
multi -family housing again. And if it's just two houses I think we have no
objection. I think there was a little bit of concern about that detached
garage, which maybe could be turned into something else. But I don't
really understand why it's detached and why it's not connected to the
house, thereby making it part of that house and maybe not another
structure that could be lived in.
Anthes: The only thing we have in front us is the lot split and we don't have a plan
for development, so I ... there was a comment, though, made during the
staff report about a secondary unit. Can you describe that?
Morgan: Whenever the original lot split plats were submitted to the City, they did
have proposed building locations on them with one building shown on that
northern tandem lot and two structures shown on the southern lot. Staff
made comments stating that at this time we are not reviewing any building
permits nor approving any locations of structures. If at any time the
applicant would like to ... excuse me, if the lot splits were approved, the
applicant could construct and request building permits for single ... one
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 32
single-family home on each lot. If anything more were requested, if a
detached dwelling unit were requested or if, say, a two-family dwelling
unit were desired on that southern lot, a conditional use permit would have
to be granted, which would require Planning Commission review, etcetera.
So I hope that can enlighten you a little bit on how the discussion came up
with the ... how many dwelling units there were going to be.
Anthes: Jeremy.
Pate: Just to clarify, though, this approval, should it be approved , does not grant
any more than one single-family home on each of these lots, period.
Richards: Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you.
Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Richards. Good morning.
Miller: Hello. I'm Stan Miller. I live directly behind the lot in question, and
years ago, Jim Parrish, the owner then, told me there never could be
anything built on that lot is why he bought it, being he was going to make
a little park -like out of it, and I'm just wondering why that ... how that
changed. And also, I was concerned about the two ... two houses, which
that's ... a lot split is fine with me, but as long as it's just two houses it
would be okay, but there have been a lot of deals going on around there
that they approve something and then they build six- or eight -unit
apartments right in the neighborhood, and that's ... I just wanted to make
sure that it's going to be two single-family homes.
Anthes: Okay.
Miller: Because the lot right now is awful. They've got tree limbs all over the
place and trash. I'm going to call the City to have them clean it up, but,
thank you.
Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Miller. Would any other member of the public like to
address this item? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section. I'd
like to follow up on Mr. Miller's comment. I actually used to live two
houses ... in a house two houses away from this lot and I watched for
years the owner dump and bury housing materials and all sorts of things
on that lot. It was used pretty much as a dumping site. What ... and I
believe several people had commented to the City during that time about
those ... those practices and I know there was aerial photographs that the
City had in the GIS Department where you could see these products, you
know, this ... basically rubbage ... stacked up on this site. Is there
anything ... any kind of cleanup for those lots that's required in order for
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 33
them to be sold as buildable lots or is there any kind of recourse for that
kind of material onsite?
Pate: As part of this process, no. I'm assuming through our building permit
process that we would ... that they would have to provide foundation plans
and ... or either housing plans to ensure that it would meet our codes, and
of course those would be inspected. As far as cleanup of a lot, we could
discuss with code compliance if it's ever been entered as an actual
complaint and see if there is any history of that, if you would like for us to
do that. I'm not sure if there is any ... if there's not a violation right now
that we can see through any planning or engineering code or building
safety code, I'm not sure that there is any recourse that we could have at
this time, but we could certainly take a look at the history of that if there is
one.
Anthes: Well, I think it would be a good idea just because of the people that would
now be purchasing to buy this property. They might not know that there
were trenches that were filled with all sorts of things underneath what
might be their new home.
Pate: Sure.
Anthes: Are there any other comments?
Harris: So will we put that as part of a motion?
Anthes: I think that's not something that we can require in terms of a lot split. I
was just asking staff to ...
Harris: Okay.
Anthes: ... check it out.
Pate: And we'll have to do that.
Motion:
Harris: I would move that we recommend forwarding Lot Split 06-2175 with a
recommendation for approval subject to conditions.
Bryant: Second.
Anthes: And I'll concur. I guess we'll see you at the Planning Commission.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 34
LSP 06-2194: Lot Split (MCDONALD, 367): Submitted by KEVIN T. & MELANIE
J. MCDONALD for property located at 2016 and 2032 N. GREGG AVENUE. The
property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI -FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains
approximately 0.72 acres. The request if to divide the subject property into two tracts of
0.37 and 0.35 acres.
Anthes: Item 7 today is a Lot Split 06-2194 for McDonald. Will the applicant
come forward? And, Andrew, this one is yours.
Garner: This property is located on the east side of Gregg Street between North
Street and Township. It's zoned RMF -24, 24 units per acre. The owner
proposes to split the tract into two tracts of .31 and .33 acres. The tracts
currently contain two multi -family buildings with a total of eight
residential units. Each are two-bedroom units, so there's two four-plexes
on this property. It is noted that both of these structures are located within
the front building setback, and that's just a note for the applicant and for
the record, that if they need to get a building permit they would have to get
a variance from the Board of Adjustment before they could do that. We
are recommending approval of this lot split with conditions. We did note
that with this lot split both of these lots and the existing structures and
parking would meet our code requirements, so there's not a problem with
that. There are some revisions to the plat to be included before we record
it and those are noted in Condition Number 4. I will be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Anthes: Thank you, Andrew. Do we have we have further staff comments?
Would you introduce yourself and your project?
Casey: No comments.
Anthes: Would you introduce yourself and give us your presentation?
McDonald: I'm Kevin McDonald. I'm a property owner, and this is a lot split of two
... there's two existing four-plexes on this ... on one legal plat, and we're
requesting this lot split so each four-plex is on its own legal description.
That affects financing and it affects operating costs.
Anthes: Okay. Thank you, Mr. McDonald. Would any member of the public like
to address this lot split? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment
section. I have a question. Andrew, will you please clarify what's going
on with these front setbacks.
Garner: It's an existing nonconforming situation. If you look at your plat there,
you have ... the centerline of Gregg Avenue is the line right in the middle
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 35
of the dotted area, and then you measure off 45 feet from that and that's
where their property line is shown, and then you can see measuring 25 feet
from their property line and they have it called out there as a 25 -foot front
setback and it runs right through the corners of both of these buildings. So
that's an existing nonconforming situation that doesn't really ... doesn't
really affect the lot split, but we noticed it on the survey.
Anthes: Okay. So basically we're not exacerbating any kind of condition by
splitting the lot?
Garner: Right. The side property lines have ... they have appropriate setback
between the buildings off the side, which that would be the concern if they
would be changing.
Anthes: Hillary, Lois, do you have anything?
Motion:
Harris: Madame Chair. I would move that we approve ... we can approve this at
this level, correct?
Anthes: Yes.
Harris: Thank you. I move that we approve Lot Split 06-2194 with stated
Conditions of Approval.
Bryant: I'll second.
Anthes: I'll concur. Thanks.
McDonald: Thank you.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 36
LSP 06-2188: Lot Split (METROPOLITAN NATIONAL BANK, 439): Submitted
by MCCLLELAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at SE CORNER
WEDINGTON AND RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.15 acres. The request is to divide the
subject property into two tracts of 1.12 and 1.03 acres.
Anthes: Okay. Our next item is Lot Split 06-2188 for Metropolitan National Bank.
That has been ... the applicant has requested that we table this item
indefinitely. Do we need a motion to that effect for this? I guess we do.
Fulcher: Yes.
Motion:
Anthes: I'll move that we table this lot split indefinitely.
Bryant: Second.
Harris: And I concur.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 37
LSD 06-2189: Large Scale Development (METROPOLITAN NATIONAL BANK,
439): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located
at SE CORNER WEDINGTON AND RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned C-2,
THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.12 acres. The
request is for 3,505 s.f. bank building with associated parking.
Anthes: Moving on. Item 9 is Large Scale Development 06-2189 for Metropolitan
National Bank. Will the applicant come forward, and Jesse?
Fulcher: Yes, ma'am. I have a small elevation and large elevation board here. As
much as the Commissioners may have seen of the same elevations, this is
the fourth large scale we've reviewed for this same bank here, just a
different location. This property is located at the southeast corner of
Wedington and Rupple. They're requesting a 3,500 -square -foot bank with
23 parking spaces. This is on a larger tract that we may see in the future
as a lot split to create another buildable lot on the east side of the property,
but as of now, they're just going to build this on the west side of the
property and hope to bring that lot split through in the future. Right-of-
way is required to be dedicated 55 feet from centerline. The majority of
that has been dedicated in the past, but I believe there is a small portion
that will be required to be dedicated by warranty deed. Staff is
recommending approval of this Large Scale Development with nine
Conditions of Approval, in addition to our standard Conditions of
Approval. Condition Number One, Subdivision Committee determination
Commercial Design Standards. Again, this is the fourth time we've
reviewed these elevations, they are well articulated and are ... in the
staffs opinion they comply with Commercial Design Standards and
they're recommending approval of that. Item Number 2 is referring to the
shared drive which is on the east side of the proposed bank that's going to
support a proposed property line and is lined up from an existing drive on
the north side of Wedington. That would be the only access onto
Wedington. With future development they would share that drive and
share one point of ingress/egress onto Wedington. We would also
potentially look at ... or restrict that to right in, right out, given the distance
to the street light at the intersection there. That would allow people to go
out onto Wedington and add eastbound and allow eastbound traffic to turn
into that section, but would not permit left turns out of there, which would
put you right in a turn lane at the intersection, so that restricted movement
should help with traffic movements. I mentioned right-of-way dedication.
Item Number 5 is referring to screening on the southern property line
adjacent to that residential property, and they've shown that on the
landscape plans. That's all we have.
Anthes: Thank you, Jesse. Do we have further staff comment?
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 38
Casey: One item. Some drainage revisions were requested at the plat review level
and we did not receive the revised drainage report. We need that to get
those items addressed and ...
Suneson: We'll be providing that through the engineering review process with the
revisions requested.
Casey: Well, normally that's required with this submittal when they're requested
at plat review, so ... we can review them at the construction level this time,
but from now on we want to see them with the re -submittal.
Suneson: Yes, sir.
Casey: Thank you.
Anthes: Sarah?
Patterson: Yes, I have a few revisions that also need to be addressed before a grading
permit is issued with the construction plans. We have talked about this a
little bit, but I would ask that on these revised plans the grading is pulled
back along the shared access drive. There's some grading over onto the
east that they are going to pull closer so that it does not affect that lot as
much ... not really that lot, but that side of the lot as much as they're
currently showing, so I need that to be revised with the submittal that you
gave me yesterday. And that should change your tree canopy calculations,
which my report reflects the bit of change from what is shown in front of
you. They actually did have a little bit more existing tree canopy on the
site at 50 percent, and they are going to be saving a bit more at 24 percent.
The tree protection fencing and the silt fencing, it needs to follow the
limits of the grading right as close as it can get to the grading lines. I'd
like to see it across that entire eastern portion. The trees that are going to
be included, I appreciate that you have identified them on the plan with
just minimal information. What I do need is an actual chart that depicts
the species, the diameter. I'd like the spread of the canopy in square feet,
condition, action, priority, those type of things. As this ... this project is
currently proposed, no mitigation is going to be required for the site.
That's all I've got.
Anthes: Thank you. One question before I go to the applicant's presentation.
Considering the amount of revisions that don't appear on these plats, you
still feel like they're in good enough condition for us to approve today?
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 39
Fulcher: As far as planning goes, I know we're all right. If the rest of staff is ...
wants to see those revisions, we can forward this on to Planning
Commission. It really depends on their comfort level, I believe.
Anthes: We can see this again at Planning Commission if you would like to see
those changes made.
Casey: I don't think the changes will be significant enough to cause the
Commissioners to need to see it again. It would basically be the write-up
from what he's got shown.
Anthes: All right. And Sarah?
Patterson: They submitted a revision of the grading to me yesterday, which I can
show to you guys now. All it's doing is pulling those lines a little bit
closer to the access drive. So I have seen it. There are still some minor
revisions, but I feel as well that they can be addressed at the construction
level.
Anthes: Okay. Great. Will you introduce yourself and your project?
Suneson: Good morning. My name is Chris Suneson. I'm with McClelland
Consulting Engineers. We are proposing for Metropolitan National Bank
a branch bank which is prototypical of other branch locations in the area.
We are proposing about 3,500 square feet of building with the associated
drives and parking, and the landscape requirements as needed by code.
Anthes: All right. Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address
this Large Scale Development for Metropolitan Bank? Seeing none, we'll
close the floor to public comment. Commissioners? We can start with
Conditions of Approval if you would like. The first one is Commercial
Design Standards. Do we have any comments on those? I think this is the
same bank that's been approved in other locations.
Fulcher: We've just held the elevation boards pretty much throughout.
Suneson: And we appreciate that, too.
Anthes: Okay.
Suneson: I would note one change in the elevation, and I think it might have been
noted on one particular area. In the rear of the building there is a
screening that is ... I believe it's indicated as a board -type fence in that
area. On this particular branch and other locations we are upgrading that
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 40
to be more architecturally compatible with the building. So you'll see
more of the red brick and perhaps some delineation of architectural
elements within more of the lines that you'll see in the rest of the building.
Anthes: All right. With that change I think I could support that condition of
approval. I have a question about the right in/right out, and I guess this
would go to Mr. Casey. Do you believe that the geometry of this drive
supports the right in/right out? Would it be a sign only or would you like
to see something else to control that?
Casey: I'm not sure that signage alone is going to keep people from using that in
the way that ... against what the signs would say. I would prefer to have it
more ... I`m sorry, I can't think of the word ... configured to where it's
forcing the people to make a right-hand turn out, maybe some sort of
island in it, but that's just opinion only. People will still use it despite the
presence of the island and if they get it in their head to do that, so ...
Anthes: Jesse, could you go through your recommendation on that, that drive onto
Wedington?
Fulcher: Uh-huh. Just as far as what we would recommend for controlled access,
what we're trying to prevent is someone trying to take a left turn out of
there when there's access to Rupple. You can hit the traffic light at that
point. And if you're trying to go north on Rupple or west on Wedington,
that's available to you at a controlled point. Whereas, if you try to take
left out of that drive there, you would end up in the turn lane for traffic
that is actually trying to turn or as you're trying to get into a through lane,
and it just creates a traffic conflict there that really isn't needed, and I
think with controlled access we can prohibit that from happening.
Anthes: Okay. Normally I like the kind of cleanest arrangement of an intersection
as you can and would normally like to support what's shown in this
drawing. I think with Wedington Road, the amount of traffic on
Wedington Road, and the proximity of that intersection, this is going to be
a really difficult thing without something that physically deters a car from
making that left turn. How do you feel about that?
Harris: I agree.
Casey: Madame Chair.
Anthes: Yeah.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 41
Casey: One comment that just came to mind is the development of this adjacent
lot and the impact that that restriction might have on it. If they have to
share that drive, in order for them to turn west coming out of that lot,
they're going to have to go through the bank parking lot to Rupple. That's
something I hadn't thought of before until just now, but we could be
looking at an additional drive access then to ... further to the east possibly
for the next development or, you know, if we ask that they share this drive
that could be a ... that could be a concern.
Anthes: Well, we're not looking at the lot split today, but how do we ... how do we
cover that condition if we do not want to have to cross that access to the
next parcel to Rupple? Because that makes sense to me, to have inner -
connectivity between these two developments.
Fulcher: The driveway ... the rear of the bank where the canopies are located at the
drive-through, south of that is a two-way ... approximately 24 -foot drive
aisle which will cross this proposed property line if it is ... the lot is
actually split there, which would provide that drive to continue on to the
east. It should provide an easy connection without actually having to go
through the bank traffic to get to Rupple Road.
Anthes: I'd like to see that connection. It looks to me like there's a grade inlet or
something there on that corner that might need to be relocated to allow for
that future connection.
Suneson: That's entirely possible. In fact, the proposed property line that you see
on the site plan will have an access easement in order to provide access to
the proposed, indefinitely in the future, lot to the east, so I believe that all
those conditions that we just discussed could be covered within that access
easement.
Anthes: Okay. Where do we have trash collection? Is that back in here?
Suneson: We will not have a Dumpster on this particular bank site. The bank
contracts because of the sensitivity of the documents that they process
every day. They have a contracted trash -removal service that will be
providing a ... the actual physical removal of the trash.
Anthes: Okay. So what's within that fenced area?
Suneson: That will be a mechanical enclosure.
Anthes: Okay.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 42
Motion:
Anthes: I'll move that we approve Large Scale Development 06-2189 subject to
the conditions as stated, finding in favor of Commercial Design Standards
requesting the grading and plat revisions as requested by staff and
indication on this plat for an east/west connection at the southern drive,
which may cause relocation of this drainage structure, and a right in/right
out configuration to be approved by Mr. Casey in engineering.
Bryant: I'll second.
Harris: I'll concur.
Anthes: Okay. Thank you.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 43
LSD 06-2198: Large Scale Development (FUEL FARM @ FLEET, 565/604):
Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 1525 SOUTH HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD. The
property is zoned I-2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 0.37 acres.
The request is for a fuel tank site at the City of Fayetteville Fleet Operations location.
Anthes: Item 10 today is another Large Scale Development 06-2198 for Fuel Farm
@ Fleet. Jesse. Is the City basically the applicant here?
Fulcher: Yes, the Fleet Division. This typically would not be a Large Scale
Development request, but there is a section, and we've included this
ordinance section out of the Fire Code, Chapter 94.05, which requires that
aboveground fuel storage tanks go through the Large Scale Development
process, and that's what's bringing this forward this morning. This is for
the Fleet Division down on Armstrong, between Armstrong and Happy
Hollow, south of 15th Street. It will consist of three aboveground storage
tanks. They'll range in size from 6,000 gallons to 15,000 gallons. The
tanks will hold gasoline, diesel fuel, and a bio -diesel fuel, which is a
mixture that is to be implemented within the City's Fleet Divisions. I
mentioned that 94.05 requires that the aboveground storage tanks go
through Large Scale Development. As far as right-of-way, sufficient
right-of-way exists for Happy Hollow and Armstrong. It does not need to
be dedicated. A Tree Preservation waiver request has been submitted and
approved by the Urban Forester. Ultimately, staff is recommending
approval of this Large Scale Development at this level with three
Conditions of Approval: one, that just that all conditions determined
necessary by Fire Code and Fire Department must be met. And Item
Number 2 actually requires an exemption to be granted by the fire chief
and the Subdivision Committee, because the storage tanks will be located
in the front yard of the facility within the 94.05 Code that requires that the
aboveground storage tanks be located in the rear yard of this facility. We
received an e-mail this morning from the Fire Marshall saying that it was
okay to have this located in the front yard of the facility, and that will
leave Subdivision Committee approval of that requirement.
Anthes: Thank you, Jesse. Do we have any other staff comments?
Casey: No comments.
Anthes: Sarah, did you say that you had submitted
Patterson: A tree waiver has been submitted and signed. There's no trees to be
affected here.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 44
Anthes: Okay. Thanks.
Suneson: There is the one, but we aren't touching it.
Patterson: Right.
Anthes: Would you like to introduce yourself and your project?
Suneson: Once again, my name is Chris Suneson with McClelland Consulting
Engineers, and I would yield to staff ... staff review of the project. It
pretty adequately covers what we're attempting to do here.
Bragg: I'm David Bragg, Fleet Superintendent for the City of Fayetteville. I'm
basically here to answer any questions.
Anthes: Is the addition of this tank basically because of going to the bio -diesel fuel
or did you need it anyway for the ...
Bragg: We actually need it anyway because this has been an ongoing project to
move from a contractor -owned facility ... it's being closed on Razorback
Road ... to get the fuel facilities on City property and closer to the major
users to cut down travel to the fuel facility.
Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this
Large Scale Development 06-2198 for the Fuel Farm @ Fleet? Seeing
none, we'll close the floor to public comment. Commissioners, comments
or motions?
Harris: Madame Chair, I do. I have a question on Condition Approval Number 2,
and I recognize that Fire Marshall Williams has already indicated his
approval, but the location of the aboveground storage tanks within the
front yard of the property, could somebody educate me on ... is that an
aesthetic issue? Is that a public health and safety issue?
Pate: I think it's primarily a public health and safety. We're very ... staff is very
limited in our review of this, as is the Planning Commission. We very
much rely upon the Fire Marshall to make his recommendations on these
types of applications. The only ... we've only had a couple of these in the
last few years. One was at the airport and most recently, which a fueling
station there. I think it's more about public health and safety, and to be
honest, it would be very hard to find the rear yard of this facility anyway,
because of the way the overall facility is laid out. So we felt that in terms
of a planning perspective, it allows for adequate access for those vehicles
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 45
that will have to utilize these tanks, and so we were recommending
approval based on the Fire Marshall's recommendation.
Bragg: I actually am puzzled by that comment, because I would personally say
that the location ... the proposed location is the rear yard of the facility.
Anthes: Okay. All right.
Motion:
Bryant: Madame Chair.
Anthes: Yes.
Bryant: I make a motion that we approve LSD 06-2198 with all three Conditions
of Approval.
Harris: May I ask another question before I second?
Anthes: Sure. Go ahead.
Harris: Just so I really understand, in terms of ... Hang on just one moment. The
zoning in this location is ...
Pate:
I-1.
Harris:
... I-1. May I ask a ... just for my further education, not
Anthes:
Well, we have I-2 shown on ours..
Harris:
Yeah, we do have 1-2.
Pate:
I believe it is I-2.
Anthes:
Is it I-2? Okay.
Suneson: My mistake
Anthes: That's okay
Harris: This is located on Happy Hollow ... my point is something along these
lines. It's a public thoroughfare, and I'm coming back to ... is this, in
terms of an Industrial Zoning, to have aboveground storage tanks very
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 46
present and visible? Are there any concerns about at all in this zoning
area?
Pate: I don't believe so. I mean, if you actually ... it is shown as Happy Hollow
and Armstrong. This area of Happy Hollow is essentially an entrance into
a lot of the City's property where their storage of ... that's where our Solid
Waste and Transportation Divisions are.. Our Parks Department is in this
area. We have all of our recycled materials that also come here and our
solid waste mulching area ... that's what I was trying to think of ... which
is what ... the customers do come when mulch is available. So these are
... these uses and functions and, in general, industrial facility and area are
very prevalent in this area already. I don't think this will be a detriment in
terms of the character of what's adjacent to the right-of-way in this area at
all.
Harris: Okay. I will second the motion.
Anthes: Okay. I'll concur. Thank you.
Suneson: Thank you.
Bragg: Thank you.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 47
LSD 06-2197: Large Scale Development (FAYETTEVILLE DIAGNOSTIC
CLINIC, 212): Submitted by PATRICK HARGUS ENGINEERING DESIGN
ASSOCIATES for property located at 3344 N. FUTRALL DRIVE. The property is
zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 1.11 acres. The
request is for an addition of approximately 4,000 s.f. to the existing 2 -story medical
office building.
Anthes: Our 11th Item is Large Scale Development 06-2197 for Fayetteville
Diagnostic Clinic. Will the applicant come forward? And, Suzanne, this
is yours.
Morgan: This is ... there's currently a building, a two-story medical office building,
on the 1.11 acres. The site is Lot 7 of the North Hills Medical Park
Planned Unit Development. Typically, we do not see Large Scale
Developments for additions less than 10,000 square feet on properties
greater than an acre. However, this property is located in the Design
Overlay District and by ordinance requires Large Scale Development
review. The applicant proposes a two-story addition to the southwest
corner of the structure. That addition is approximately 2,500 square feet
and approximately a 1,500 -hundred square foot addition to the front of the
building, the north portion of the building. It is a second -level addition to
match the height of the existing second story surrounding that ... that
portion. With the addition of the southwest corner ... or to the southwest
corner, the applicant will be realigning the canopy that overhangs the
sidewalk that bisects not only this property but goes across all lots within
this subdivision, and that canopy will be overhanging the property line
into the greenspace; however, we do have a letter from the president, I
believe, of the POA for this subdivision allowing that relocation. So we
don't have any concerns with regard to that. Just to quickly review Design
Overlay District requirements, the applicant will ... by the subdivision of
this property and development of the property, the applicant is meeting
greenspace requirements, curb cuts, and access has already been provided.
The applicant will abide by the requirements for signage and lighting
within this property ... or within this zone as required in this zoning district
and by the outdoor lighting ordinance. The exterior appearance of the
building is something that we've requested Planning Commission to make
findings on. Staff finds that the addition is compatible with the existing
structure with the requirements of the Design Overlay District, which
require an overall theme for developments as well as natural -looking
materials. And with regard to landscaping, the applicant isn't proposing
any additional parking than what is provided for the overall subdivision,
so we have not reviewed for the landscaping requirements for parking lots.
We are recommending approval at this level for this proposal with a total
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 48
of 10 ... excuse me, 11 conditions ... rather 10, and the first condition,
however, being determination of Commercial Design Standards.
Anthes: Thank you, Suzanne. Are there further comments?
Casey: No comments.
Anthes: Sarah?
Patterson: I just have one slight revision. If you would just revise the canopy
calculations on your plan to reflect those of mine. I think, really, the only
thing we were missing is the square footage. It wasn't shown on there at
the preserved canopy, I think. And other than that, they're removing four
maple trees that are around 6 inches in diameter, and they have a pretty
wooded site with newly planted trees, so there is no mitigation.
Anthes: Thank you. Will you introduce yourselves and your project?
Hargus: Hi. Patrick Hargus from Engineering Design Associates.
Kwasny: I'm Tim Kwasny with Key Architects.
Anthes: Will you spell your last name?
Kwasny: K -W -A -S -N -Y.
Anthes: K -W -A -N ...
Kwasny: A -S -N -Y
Anthes: ... A -S -N -Y?
Kwasny: Yes.
Anthes: I'll need to replay that in the minutes. Do you have anything to tell us
about the project?
Hargus: No. Just as stated. It's a 4,000 -square -foot addition to the Fayetteville
Diagnostic Clinic located in North Hills Medical Park, PUD.
Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this
Large Scale Development for Fayetteville Diagnostic Clinic? Seeing
none, I'll close the floor to public comment. Commissioners?
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 49
Motion:
Anthes: This one looks extremely straightforward to me. The Commercial Design
Standards are just an extension of the existing building, which it looks like
it ...I could find in favor that. As far as ... there's no additional parking,
there's no mitigation required, and I'll just move for approval of Large
Scale Development 06-2197 subject to the conditions as stated.
Bryant: I'll second.
Harris: I concur.
Anthes: Thank you.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 50
LSD 06-2150: Large Scale Development (MEDICAL OFFICE/SPRINGWOODS,
586-247): Submitted by DIRK THIBODAUX FREELAND KAUFFMAN & FREDEEN,
INC. for property located at LOT 11 OF LOT 1 IN SPRINGWOODS C-PZD. The
property is zoned C-PZD, COMM. PLANNED ZONING DIST. and contains
approximately 1.66 acres. The request is for an 11,974 s.f. office building.
Anthes: Item 12, Large Scale Development 06-2150, Medical Offices at
Springwoods. Jesse?
Fulcher: This is Lot 11 out of Lot 1, Springwoods, the original C-PZD for
Springwoods, and this is the original Lot 1 which was recently final
platted creating 22 lots. This is Lot 11 out of those 22 lots. This is the
first request for a development within Lot 1. Their request now is a
12,000 -square -foot medical office building with 55 parking spaces. All
the street improvements and right-of-way for Moore Lane and Shiloh,
were dedicated and done with the final plat. The interior streets also for
Foxglove and Chicory Place were also constructed prior to the final plat
being recorded. Pedestrian access is required. That's in the Design
Overlay District. All of Lot 1 is subject to the conditions of the C-PZD for
Springwoods and also the Design Overlay District, so pedestrian access
had been provided. Additionally, three bicycle racks have been provided
for multi -modal access. All of the other Design Overlay District
requirements have been met. There is a fencing requirement for lots
within Lot 1 that are adjacent to the Audubon. That lot, which is Lot 8.
This lot is not, so that fencing requirement is not needed for this
development approval. Overall, staff is recommending approval of this
Large Scale Development with 15 Conditions of Approval. Condition
Number One is determination of the Commercial Design Standards. I did
leave ... the board on the ground here, I think, was our initial submittal.
The upper submittal here (pointing at display board), they've added some
of the bollards. I believe you can see around the building, provide some
additional articulation. This banding across the window was also added to
break up the ... the main facade was made up of glass, and just to break
that up some, provide additional articulation. The main item that we've
asked to be addressed for the Commercial Design Standards is included in
here, 161.24. It's a Design Overlay District requirement for Commercial
Design Standards and requires that all structures be architecturally
designed to have front facades facing all street and highway right-of-way.
Because the streets were already laid out, they ... you're pretty much
setting your building design and you're building around the infrastructure
that's already there, and I guess based on the function of this facility,
they've got their drive-in and drop-off areas, I believe for patients, I would
assume, and of course that's located away from the street right-of-way. So
the building has been designed to face away from the right-of-way, so
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 51
what we've requested is to create some type of entry feature or awning
similar to what's shown on the west side of the building to be presented on
the east side of the building, which would bring the building into
compliance with that requirement for that to be architecturally designed to
have that front facade. Item Number 2 is the sanitary/sewer assessment. I
believe it's required ... the Hamstring basin here. And Item Number 3 is
two revisions looking at the two-way entrance drive off of Chicory Place,
if it's possible, and I believe that it is, to move that drive further to the
north to kind of line up that drive aisle a little bit better. And then also just
an irrigation to be added to the landscape plan. That's the only two
revisions that we have. I believe all the other Conditions of Approval are
fairly straightforward.
Anthes: Thank you, Jesse. Do we have further staff comments?
Casey: As Jesse stated, the public infrastructure was installed as part of the
overall commercial subdivision development, and that includes the
drainage infrastructure, so the drainage was accounted for in the original
design; therefore, there's not any offsite improvements or detention that's
required for this development.
Anthes: Okay. Sarah?
Patterson: I just have a few revisions. If you would revise the canopy percentages on
the plan to reflect those in the report. There's really only two small trees
on this site. They're saving one. By staff's calculation I am getting that
you only are required one 2 -inch caliper large species tree for mitigation.
I think the plan reflects that you are required too, so if you would revise
that on the landscape plan. I also need you to specify which of those trees
is going to meet that mitigation requirement. As stated, mitigation will be
required. A three-year maintenance and monitoring bond will be required
in the amount of $250.00. This shall be deposited to the City in a letter of
credit bond or check by building permit. That's all I've got.
Anthes: All right. Thank you. Will you introduce yourself and your project?
Matlock: Yes. My name is Travis Matlock with Freeland, Kauffman & Fredeen.
We're constructing the two-story medical office plaza and I'm here to
answer any questions if you guys have any.
Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this
Large Scale Development for Medical Offices at Springwoods? Seeing
none, we'll close the floor to public comment. Commissioners?
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 52
Harris: Madame Chair.
Anthes: Yes.
Harris: May I start with just an informational question. On Condition of Approval
Number 11 it says, "Construct a 6 -foot sidewalk along Joyce Boulevard."
Is that ...
Fulcher: I would just remove that.
Harris: Is that just a ... I mean, is that just a typo? I'm not losing my mind?
Fulcher: Yeah, yeah. There was a 12 -foot trail, actually, constructed as part of the
final plat.
Harris: Okay. Okay.
Matlock: The existing trail along Shiloh, and we are constructing the sidewalk along
Chicory to connect to the existing trail from our office building.
Harris: Okay.
Anthes: So, Condition 11 just disappears entirely.
Harris: Okay.
Anthes: I have a question about this Dumpster location. It's in the back of this
project, but obviously is closest to our most active right-of-way at Shiloh
Drive. That's normally not something we necessarily like to see. Had you
looked at any other locations for that?
Matlock: Yeah. We've ... to try to put it out of the way of the parking and away
from the front of the building, there was really no other place that we
could ... and keep all the trash trucks separate ... because the only other
places are really around here where they have a patient drop-off area, and
so we were trying to get it away from the building and also stay out of
utility easements and setbacks that are required too, and that was the only
place that kind of lent itself to that.
Anthes: And what is the proposed screening material on that?
Matlock: I think they're using the same type of material that's going to be used with
the building.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 53
Anthes: So this is a masonry screening?
Matlock: Yes, ma'am.
Anthes: And as far as Commercial Design Standards, Jesse, has the east elevation
as presented to us this morning alleviated your concern from the original
recommendation?
Fulcher: The very first elevations that we saw did not have the band in the middle
of the building between the first and second floor and it did not have any
of the bollards. That's what we initially reviewed and we had concerns
with the large amount of glass, pretty much a singular material, kind of a
... even though it's glass, it's still kind of blank and unarticulated, almost
as if you just thought of it as seeing (inaudible) something like that. So
once they added that band in there and brought some of those other
materials into those bollards, we felt that it was articulated enough to meet
Commercial Design Standards.
Anthes: So you've reviewed the new elevations and you don't have a problem with
any of them?
Fulcher: Other than ...
Anthes: Wasn't there a comment about the east side?
Fulcher: Yes, providing some type of entry feature awnings so that it is
architecturally designed to have the front facade facing the right-of-way.
Anthes: And right now it's just ... there's a door, but there's no projection and
you're looking for a projection?
Fulcher: Yeah, when you look at the western side with the awning or canopy shown
there.
Anthes: Wait, west or east? I thought the staff report says east.
Matlock: This west/east ...
Anthes: So that's really the west?
Matlock: Because it's kind of at a cockeyed angle right here. This is considered the
west elevation, and that's the east. And what we have done, is all these
light bollards that were along the west have been moved over to the east
side. All signage has been taken off of the west side and the only place
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 54
that you have signage that, as you can see, that denotes the building is on
the east side and the north side. And we don't have a projection coming
out like the drop-off, but ... I mean, moving those bollards and putting the
signage up and taking that off, is that not enough to kind of designate ...
designate the main entrance?
Anthes: I'm a little confused. These columns here that you're calling
"bollards," ...
Matlock: Yes, ma'am.
Anthes: ... they're lighted?
Matlock: Yes, ma'am. They'll have the drop-down or
Anthes: So basically they're light fixtures. They're not integral with this building
fagade. So to me that's not part of the building design and is not part of
what we would assess for Commercial Design Standards. We basically
need to be looking at this building as if it exists without these light fixtures
that sit away from that building in front of it; isn't that true?
Pate: These are permanently ... these are permanent fixtures, however.
Anthes: But they're not in a row with the building?
Pate: They're not attached to the building, that's correct. But as part of the
elevation of structure, it's not like landscaping that will die potentially and
go away. It is a permanent structure that would be required to be installed
as part of the building permit for this overall structure.
Anthes: But it is on the other side of this sidewalk away from the building?
Pate: It is. That's correct.
Anthes: And how would we treat this different than any other light pole anybody
else would erect?
Pate: I think because it is associated ... the actual design of that feature is
associated with the columns that you see on the western side, which is the
applicant's primary entrance to this structure.
Matlock: Yeah. It's not like a typical lighting pole where it's a big, tall metal pole.
You have the wrapped column ...
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 55
Anthes: I understand.
Matlock: ... that matches the same facade of the building.
Pate: And what staff is recommending is that something on the east side also be
associated much like the west side, because our Overlay District
requirements state that all structures shall be architecturally designed to
have front facades facing street and highway right-of-way. We felt that
there ... something additional, at least over that entrance, even though it
may not serve as a primary entrance, would be appropriate in that location
to meet our design standards.
Anthes: Okay. And what were staff comments about the south elevation?
Pate: I believe staff was supportive of the south elevation. It is not front into
your right-of-way and there's an existing lot adjacent to that that will also
be developed in the future.
Anthes: So you're thinking that would not be seen from Shiloh Drive just because
of the development on the adjacent lot?
Pate: There will be an adjacent lot developed ... yes, an adjacent lot to the south
that would be developed.
Anthes: Although, that may or may not occur within any period of time?
Pate: Sure.
Anthes: I don't know. I can see that from Shiloh Drive, I bet. I don't know. Lois,
what do you think?
Matlock: Let me ask you guys this. If the canopy is the one big thing that is kind of
holding everybody up on the front facade ...
Anthes: It's not.
Matlock: It's not? Okay. That's fine.
Anthes: It is a thing.
Matlock: Okay. Just checking.
Anthes: I mean, what I'm doing is I'm looking at this as if we would look at, you
know, any other building.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 56
Matlock: Sure.
Anthes: And if we saw a building that was solid, unified, one material, just, you
know, EIFS with a score joint.
Matlock: Uh-huh.
Anthes: This actually has less articulation than EIFS with a score joint in that even
in those buildings you would have windows and penetrations and some
sort of rhythm that would be created by that. Since this is solid glass, we
don't even have that. So ... and then I was thinking that a lot of these
other things that were happening on the building were integral to the
building, and now I feel like that they're actually stepped away from it,
and while they contribute to the composition, they're not necessarily the
same ... you know, part of the elevation itself. I just want to be fair in that
we ... we judge this, you know, and apply the same standards we've
applied to other projects. And normally we ... we ask for some sort of
articulation, whether that's ... I can see you have some sort of stepping in
and out here. Is that ... the glass actually just turns?
Matlock: Yes, ma'am.
Anthes: And then there's these corners?
Matlock: The big corner columns that basically designate as the ... you know, the
four corners of the building.
Anthes: And then the glass is ... you just have a black spindle and a gray glass?
Matlock: Uh-huh.
Anthes: So where is this brown that's shown ...
?: That's what I was about to ask.
Anthes: ... the elevation?
Matlock: That is a stucco material that has the natural -looking ... the color of it will
be the natural -looking ... the brown of wood. So basically it's a ... it will
be put on there with stucco, but the color of it will be the natural ... the
natural color.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 57
Anthes: So this horizontal band at the floor, the initial space with the floor, that's
not standard glass? This is something solid?
Matlock: Yes, ma'am. Here, here, and here (pointing on documents). It is
something solid. It's not just going to be a different colored glass. It will
... you won't be able to see through it.
(Commissioners Bryant, Anthes and Harris review documents.)
Matlock: It will have the brick along the bottom and the stucco material wood color
around the middle and then the same type band going around the top of the
building also. The only place that it's not above the top are the two
elevations where the building address and everything ... the signage of the
building ... to designate those as the two entrances ... the two main
entrances.
Anthes: And these horizontal bands,. that actually kind of ... it's a thin projection
from this facade?
Matlock: Yes, ma'am.
Anthes: And that material, is it this?
Matlock: Uh-huh,
Anthes: Is that metal?
Matlock: Yes, ma'am.
Anthes: Okay. How long is this facade? 145 feet?
Matlock: Yes. It should be about that, yes, ma'am.
Bryant: That explains this. That makes it a little bit more clear.
Anthes: Yeah, it helps. It helps. I guess I still have some concern about that south
elevation. There may be a building there in the future, but I feel like we
need to ... we need to evaluate this project as if it's going to stand on its
own, and I believe it will be visible from Shiloh Drive.
Matlock: Right.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 58
Anthes: And since that's the most major side, I feel like we would be inconsistent
with other decisions if we didn't ask for some additional articulation on
that side.
Matlock: Okay.
Anthes: I'm not sure if...
Matlock: Even though that it doesn't basically meet the design standard of facing
the road, even ... just because you can see it from the road and it doesn't
face the road, I think the Design Standards say that any facade that faces
the main road. Is that not correct?
Anthes: I guess we'll get clarification from Jeremy on that. Because I thought we
had looked at things when we could ... when it was visible.
Pate: That's quoting from ... you're quoting, I believe, from the Design Overlay
District ...
Matlock: Yes.
Pate: ... requirement that all structures shall be architecturally designed to have
front facades facing the street, highway right-of-way. I believe you're
referring to actual Commercial Design Standards, which are also
applicable in that anything that is visible from the public right-of-way
needs to be articulated.
Matlock: We're both quoting from the same book, different chapters.
Anthes: Different chapters.
Harris: Is this the south where it says the north?
Matlock: That will be ... that will be the south, yes, ma'am.
Anthes: I believe that is.
Harris: So that's the south.
Anthes: So we do have some vertical ... it's just very hard to ...
Harris: It's hard to
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 59
Matlock: It's hard to look on the elevations, but that is the south. Here is ... this is
the portico that's the drive-through on what's ... what we're calling the
west side.
Anthes: Okay. I feel a little better about ... better that it's turned that way.
Harris: I think when we can see the (Inaudible)
Anthes: Okay. So I guess our question is still coming back to staffs
recommendation about an entrance feature on the east ... on the east side.
If you can't ... functionally, I guess, putting a projection on the building
would ...
Matlock: The only thing, it would really be small. It would be, you know, a small
canopy that would be ... you know, it really wouldn't stick out over the
landscaped island or anything like that. At the most it would be a 5 -foot
projection out from the building.
Anthes: I'm just not sure what we're doing by requiring that if people can't really
use that entrance if it's not permanent and we ... you know, I think you
would end up with people coming in that door and being confused about
where they were going.
Matlock: Well, when you come into the door ... the architectural layout of the
building, as you come into the door there is a waiting room up in this area,
and being that there ... that this is a patient drop-off, there also is a waiting
room on both ends of this building. We're signing these two right here
that face the two streets, then designating them as the main entrance by the
signage, and this is just considered as a patient drop-off for the people who
have, you know, a harder time getting up to the building and just want to
park right there.
Anthes: I see. So it is really a main pedestrian entrance, and that's why you're
asking for that additional ...
Matlock: Right.
Anthes: That makes sense. And then are you saying that you're also moving ...
since this is the east elevation, then these ... the lights aren't showing up
here, but they're actually being proposed?
Matlock: Right. The ... and that change has happened after ... after we had this
middle, the architect, Haynes Limited, came down and met with Jesse
about all this. These bollards right here have been taken off of this side
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 60
and are basically put here and right here, around the corner (pointing on
documents), to kind of designate that as ... and using those as the lighting
bollards to try to show that that is the main entrance to the building.
Anthes: Okay. Except for, it looks like on the west, we still have the two retain
that are holding up the canopy?
Matlock: Right:
Anthes: And then maybe one other on the side?
Matlock: I think the only other one on that side is just the ...
Anthes: There's something showing up on this elevation which would indicate it
over here, right?
Matlock: Unless it's this one ....
Anthes: Maybe that one showing ..
Matlock: ... right here that you can see from that west elevation.
Anthes: Okay. All right.
Matlock: Because there are no more on that side. Come on, it's just a simple little
medical building.
Motion:
Anthes: Just a hard one to read, that's all. Okay. Additional comments? I'll move
that we approve Large Scale Development 06-2150 subject to the
conditions as stated, finding in favor of the Commercial Design Standards
and recommending with staff that the addition of the canopy entrance
feature on the east elevation would benefit the project.
Bryant: And I second.
Harris: I concur.
Anthes: Thank you.
Matlock: Thank you very much.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 61
LSD 06-2195: Large Scale Development (PRATT PLACE INN, 520): Submitted by
CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE WEST END OF
MARKHAM ROAD, WEST OF RAZORBACK ROAD. The property is zoned C-PZD
05-1670 and contains approximately 72.1 acres. The request is for development of a
seven -bedroom inn, restaurant, cabins and accessory structures with associated parking.
Anthes: Okay. Item 13 is Large Scale Development 06-2195 for Pratt Place Inn.
Will the applicant come forward, and Andrew?
Garner: This project was ... this property was rezoned to a Commercial Planned
Zoning District in November of 2005. The Commercial Planned Zoning
District zoned the property to redevelop the historic farmhouse into a
seven -guest inn and a 60 -seat restaurant. Separate residence for an
innkeeper was included, as were tennis court, cabin, swimming pool, valet
parking and overflow parking. And as additional background, there were
several concerns from the public when this came through the Planned
Zoning District process, and comments related to substandard roads,
drainage, noise issues and tree buffers were a lot of the concerns that we
had, and many of these issues were addressed in the Conditions of
Approval that the City Council adopted, and these are also carried forward
into this Large Scale Development, so we have pasted and allowed all
those conditions into this ... body of this report and also attached them as
well for your reference. The property contains 72 acres and there are
several structures on the property, including a barn, a 5,000 -square -foot
Victorian farmhouse that is on the Arkansas Register of Historic Places.
There's single-family homes at various addresses, pasture, several camp
cabins, timberland and trails, and access is limited from Markham Road,
which connects east to Razorback Road. And we have also included in the
body of your staff report all the zoning criteria that was included. It starts
on Page 2 and over into Page 3 of your staff report. You can see what was
allowed by City Council. And their proposal is now to develop the
property as was proposed with the original Planned Zoning District to
develop and redevelop the historic farmhouse into a seven-guestroom inn
and a 60 -seat restaurant, and this Large Scale Development would also
approve a separate residence for the innkeeper and the ancillary uses for
the tennis court, the pool, the parking, and the overflow parking as well.
And adjacent Master Street Plan streets are Markham Road and Sang
Avenue, and right-of-way from Markham Road would be dedicated in
accordance with the Master Street Plan requirements with this property,
and per the approval from the City Council, access to this property is
limited off of Markham. It cannot be allowed off from Sang Avenue.
And street improvements that we are recommending with this
development include improving Markham Road from Cross Avenue into
the property to be improved to a minimum of 20 feet pavement, and the
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 62
existing pavement will need to be evaluated and improved if deemed
necessary by the City Engineer, and drainage improvements associated
with the widening are recommended. We are recommending underground
storm drainage if deemed necessary by the City Engineer on the north side
of Markham, and we are also recommending that a 4 -foot sidewalk be
constructed adjacent to the curb on the north side of Markham on top of
the storm drains. Water and sewer service are available to the property. A
sewer line would have to be extended to this property as part of this
development. And the Tree Preservation issues, the site contains a lot of
existing tree canopy and there are areas of dense canopy and open pasture.
There are some areas of anticipated tree removal with this development
and street improvements, and also extending the sewer line, but they are
meeting their minimum requirements for tree preservation, and we are
recommending forwarding this project to the Subdivision Committee, with
many ... we are recommending forwarding it to the Full Planning
Commission with many Conditions of Approval. The main reason we're
recommending forwarding it is because they have not had a boundary
survey conducted, and that's one of our standard requirements for all the
Large Scale Developments, and that's listed as Number 1 there, that we
have to have a boundary survey and the legal description has to be
approved before this go to the Planning Commission. Other conditions to
address, Condition Number 2 is Planning Commission determination of
street improvements, and I've mentioned those already. Planning
Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards, and we have
the elevation boards here of the restoration of the farmhouse, and we find
that this is consistent with the elevations that were approved by City
Council. We also noted that this development is subject to all Conditions
of Approval of the approved C-PZD 05-1670, and those are attached to
this report, and we have also included many of these in the body of the
report to make it clear on some of these issues regarding, you know, issues
such as outdoor music and hours of operation, restaurant capacity, and the
number of events per year, and also access to the inn shall be limited to
Markham. We also have the phasing called out as Condition Number 15
that was approved by City Council. Those are some of the main issues
that we have on this project and we'll be happy to answer questions you
may have.
Anthes: Thank you, Andrew. Matt, do you have anything?
Casey: As Andrew stated, we're recommending that curb and gutter and
sidewalk ...
(From the audience area someone states that Mr. Casey can't be heard.)
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 63
Casey: We're recommending that curb and gutter and sidewalk be installed along
the north side of the public street. The sidewalk that was mentioned we're
recommending is 4 -foot wide and that will be installed at the back of the
curb to minimize the amount of grading that's going to impact that area.
The storm drain will need to be evaluated with a construction plan review
to determine the extent of what's necessary. That could be installed along
the north side there as well. If you've got any questions about that, I
would be glad to answer them.
Anthes: Thank you. Sarah?
Patterson: Yes. I have several revisions that need to be completed to the Tree
Preservation Plan. If you would revise the canopy percentages on the plan
to reflect those in my report and include the square footages of the canopy.
A one-page site analysis report needs to be turned into me immediately. I
do appreciate that you have inventoried those trees that are going to be
affected by this, but I do ask that you include a separate chart that
indicates their species, diameter, canopy spread, and square feet,
condition, and the action, whether they're to be removed or preserved.
And there are several trees that appear to be counted as preserved, but I do
not think will make it through the development process due to the amount
of grading that's going to be around them, such as trees Number 129, 136,
249. Those were just a few that I saw that are going to need to be either
worked around, grading pulled back. It's mostly in the areas where you're
proposing surface parking. The tree protection fencing needs to follow the
limits of disturbance, the grading lines, utility easements, and/or the
canopy drip lines. There's some areas where the fencing just kind of
stops. The idea is to create a full enclosure around all canopy that we're
wanting to preserve. So if you would just revise that. The area for onsite
storage, it does seem that it's proposed for an area that's mostly cleared
but it does seem like it could affect some of the canopy around the wooded
area. We just want to make sure that that's fenced off and very well noted
that that is the area that they need to do all of that storage and cement
truck washout and things like that, so if you would just make that a little
clearer. They are dropping canopy percentage around 3 percent, so no
mitigation will be required.
Pate: Madame Chair.
Anthes: Yes.
Pate: If I may add a few things, too. This project came through the process back
in the fall of 2005. This was the only Planned Zoning District that ... if
you may remember, the PZD was amended about that time. This was the
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 64
only project that went through only the City Council before they changed
it to go ... come back through the Planning Commission, so you do not
have the history that a lot of other Planned Zoning Districts you will have.
The City staff worked with the applicants through this process and
recommended Conditions of Approval to the City Council. There were 16
Conditions of Approval that were originally recommended. Through the
process of this application being reviewed at the City Council level, the
City staff and neighbors worked together along with the applicant to come
up with additional conditions, as directed by the City Council, and there
were nine additional conditions approved with the zoning of this property
for the Planned Zoning District of Pratt Place Inn. Those additional nine
... those are all included in your staff report, the 16 original conditions and
the additional nine conditions. Those included specifically hours of
operation for the Pratt Place Inn and restaurant. The restaurant capacity is
limited to 60 dining seats. That includes all areas including indoors, porch
and outdoor patios, decks, etcetera. The number of gatherings and events
for assembly occupancy was also required. No more than four gathering
events per month. The barn occupancy and capacity, Item Number 4 in
those conditions, the requirement was to bring it up to the intended
assembly occupancy status for compliance through our code. Our Fire
Department and Building Inspectors have been working with the
applicants, and I believe most of that work has been completed. And
additional conditions including ... included limiting access to this property
from Markham Road so all access would be restricted from Sang Avenue.
Additionally, existing structures were required to be demolished and
removed prior to a Certificate of Occupancy for the Inn and restaurant,
and those are listed also. Most of those included project ... or properties,
structures, that utilized septic tanks or were not on septic or sewer. Sewer
connections were also required as mentioned in the phasing, and street
improvements is the last condition. I'd like to touch on the street
improvements a bit. The Condition of Approval reads, "Street
improvements to Markham Road and any other surrounding streets shall
be determined by the Planning Commission," obviously at the time of
development. "These improvements may include the widening and repair
or reconstruction of Markham Road to a minimum 20 -foot width into the
subject property to allow for emergency access. Dedication of right-of-
way to meet Master Street Plan requirements, appropriate storm drainage,
lighting, sidewalk/trail and other surrounding or adjacent street
improvements as determined by the Planning Commission to be
appropriate in," and this is important, "in alleviating the impact of the
increase in use and traffic generation, while minimizing the impact to
existing street and neighborhood character and wooded hillside, shall be
determined by the Planning Commission and constructed at the cost of the
developer." That was specifically inserted with the comments from the
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 65
neighborhood to not diminish the character of this wooded hillside area.
A development of this nature typically would require a 20 ... probably a
28 -foot -wide street with curb and gutter, sidewalks on both sides at the
right-of-way line. Staff and City Council did not feel that was necessarily
appropriate in this area, and through our development review process, we
have made recommendations to you as a Planning Commission. I know
the applicant ... speaking with the applicants over the last few days, the
sidewalk and storm drainage that has been recommended is a concern to
them and they do feel that that would not meet the intent of what has been
approved. That is ultimately up to the Planning Commission to determine.
As of right now, there's been a cross-section presented to us that does do
most of the improvements on the north side of the street, which would
have a 20 -foot wide section from Cross Avenue north into this property,
and then utilizing ditches on both sides. Those ditches currently as shown
in the cross-sections that we have, and Engineering can confirm or deny
this, hopefully confirm this, they are 10 -feet wide, as shown in those
cross-sections, which would obviously have quite a bit of disturbance on
either side of those streets. I think potentially that could be something
worked out. The applicants have also discussed putting in a mulch trail
within the overall wooded area for pedestrian access. Staff does feel it is
important to have a pedestrian access; however, in this area, because of the
width of the street and the potential for ... the potential for events
occurring with multiple traffic movements here. So just wanted to give
you a little bit more background in terms of that, and of course we are
recommending this be forwarded to the Full Planning Commission, both
for the survey and for the fact, in my opinion, that this is quite a unique
project with a history that, especially of zoning, the Planning Commission
has not seen in the past.
Anthes: Thank you, Jeremy. Will you introduce yourselves and your project?
ArcherJa: Jane Archer, one of the owners.
ArcherJu: Julian Archer, owner.
Farmer: I'm Kale Farmer with Crafton, Tull & Associates.
Anthes: And is there anything you would like to say about your project?
ArcherJu: Well, as Jeremy Pate was saying, we have the distinction of being the only
PZD request to have gone first to the City Council and then come to you.
After the City Council experienced the process and probably some of the
issues that you encounter on a weekly basis, they decided that it would be
much nicer for you to deal with these issues than the City Council, and so
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 66
as a consequence, the procedure was revised and we have the distinction
of being the only one to have gone through, and after extensive hearings,
four separate City Council sessions, the PZD project was approved by a
vote of 7 to 1 on the City Council with the conditions that Jeremy Pate
mentioned. So we now find ourselves before you with these requests
really relating to road widening, the drainage, and the sidewalk issues.
We are in accord with widening it to 20 feet. We are also in accord with
the second bullet there, a concrete apron. The issues that we would take
with the planning recommendations, and this is to try to preserve the
character of Markham Road as it is now. I don't know if you're familiar
with it or have driven along it. Markham Road, after Cross, is a dead-end
street. It dead -ends at the top of the hill at our property. There, Sang goes
off to the left or the south and dead -ends in that direction. For that reason
we do not think that a sidewalk is appropriate. We know that Fayetteville
is very much in need of sidewalks in residential areas, especially walk-
through residential areas, but the people who reside there do not walk and
it's not an area that people, you know, walk through getting to another
area. This is especially the case after Sang, in that we own the property on
both sides of the road, and it dead -ends just about, I guess, 300 feet along
there in coming right into our own property. We would prefer not to have
a sidewalk at all. This is also the sentiment of the neighborhood, I think. I
would like to put before you a petition that was addressed to the Planning
Commission in 1995 when we sold a lot, or we proposed for sale a lot,
along Sang Avenue, and everyone in the neighborhood was opposed to
putting in curb and gutter and concrete sidewalk. So I would like to
present this to you. Granted, it is from 1995, but it is exactly a similar
situation. So you have the sentiment of...
Anthes: Do you have an extra copy you could give to staff?
ArcherJu: They have it, yes. They've been informed of this. So that was the
universal sentiment at the time, and the reasons are just as compelling
today as they were in 1995. When you go along Markham from ... west
from Razorback, the first half of it you have residential ... a residential
community, but the second half to the west we own on both sides of the
road and we have very intentionally kept it with a rural aspect. I mean, if
we had wanted to change, we could have put that property up for sale, but
we have not. We very much like keeping it as it is. There's one piece of
property between Cross and Evangeline Lane, a private drive, that we do
not own. It belongs to Amber and Fran Alexander. But that reflects
exactly the same character as we have. So in this widening, what we
would like to have is going it to 20 feet, having a ditch there. It's just
moving the ditch over to the north. The widening would not be on both
sides of the road, but rather only on one side, on the north side of the road,
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 67
which is the most practical place to widen it, and I believe that City staff is
in accord with this if we will draw up the plans to reflect it, widening it on
the north side, simply moving the ditch over 3, 4, 5 feet, whatever it
requires. That ditch has served this road without any complications for
over a hundred years. Let me just give you just as a point of background,
this particular property still exists as it does exist because it's been in the
family for 106 years. Other wise it would have gone the way, I think, of a
lot of other areas in Fayetteville. So you have a very rural character when
you cross the bridge after the houses and start up on either side of the
street. So we would like to keep a ditch as opposed to a drainage system,
and finally, no sidewalk at all, because we do not see it serving any
purpose whatsoever. If you should require a sidewalk, we would request
that it be done as a mulch sidewalk rather than a concrete sidewalk in that
that is what was allowed along Cross, between Markham and Halsell, that
goes back about 8, 10 years and it's functioned very, very well. It's a very
nice, natural sidewalk, and the reason that that was allowed was the very
same reason that I'm putting before you right now and, that is, that keeps
the rural aspect of this area. So those are my comments right now.
Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Archer. Any member of the public like to address this
Large Scale Development 06-2195 for Pratt Place Inn? Please come to the
podium. Good morning, Mr. Schaper.
Schaper: Good morning. Lynn Schaper. I'm the adjoining property owner to the
east. Morning, Julian and Jane. Commissioners, you just passed the 2025
plan. What designation of land use is this area in the 2025 plan?
Pate: I believe primarily residential.
Schaper. Yeah.
Anthes: Although this has been ... the C-PZD has been issued for this site, so we're
not looking at the zoning.
Schaper: Right, I understand, but the Land Use Plan now is at variance with the
zoning as passed for this area. So I think we need to be very careful about
over -commercializing the PZD, and I have a bunch of concerns with this,
mostly to do with noise and traffic. Now, part of the PZD is what's
known in the neighborhood as a party barn, which has a capacity of almost
400 people, and the hours of operation for that and for the restaurant are of
great concern in terms of the noise that can be generated. So could you
review for me the conditions on the hours of operation on the party barn
and the restaurant and the sale of alcohol and the consumption of alcohol.
I understand the condition is that no alcohol is sold in the party barn, but
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 68
certainly with the weddings and charity events ... in fact, there's an event
in two days from now in that barn that should bring a whole lot of people
up there, and I'm sure alcohol is going to be served. My concern, of
course, is, you know, late nights, people who have been drinking, a 20 -
foot road with ditches on either side, and the noise that might result, of
course, from music. What are the conditions on music? So all of those
things, could we review those, please?
Anthes: We'll get back to you on that.
Schaper: Get back?
Anthes: We take all public comment first and then we'll address your questions.
Schaper: Okay. Well, let's see if I have any more, then. Mainly around the
operation, you know, the hours of operation, the capacity, outdoor music,
indoor music, because in that barn, if you open the doors, indoor music
becomes outdoor music, and then certainly the hours, and the potential of
200 cars going home with drivers who have been at a party drinking quite
a bit, and I know what happens when drivers go in the ditches, like they
are on the side of Markham Road, and it's not a pretty sight, and I don't
want to listen to sirens every time we've got an event up there.
Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Schaper. Mr. Williams.
Williams: My name is ... my name is John Williams and I live across Sang Avenue
from this property. I would like to say that for 36 years I have felt
extremely fortunate to live in this neighborhood. It's quiet, it's private,
it's ... it has all the qualities that several neighborhoods in Fayetteville
used to have, but no longer have, and I think it's important for Fayetteville
and the Planning Commission and others who have concern about
maintaining this quality to make every effort to save this quality in these
special areas. The reason I'm here is that I am concerned about protecting
the wonderful quality of my neighborhood.
Anthes: Ms. Archer, were you please going to speak? Thank you.
Williams: I have ... I have a hearing problem and it's certainly exaggerated ... I'm
talking about the problem in this room, Madame Chairman, and I would ...
one of the things I would request is that something be done to this room so
people can understand what's being discussed. I come here fairly often
and I have to wait until the next day to read in the paper what has taken
place. So I mention that at this point because I ... I've had this problem
this morning. So if I repeat something that has already been said, I ... I
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 69
would apologize, but I would like for it to be ... you can interrupt me if
you say that you and your committee understand the point that has ... that
I'm trying to make,. Okay?
Anthes: Go right ahead.
Williams: I wrote to Jeremy, Mr. Pate, the Director of City ... Current Planning. I
wrote to him on the 14th of this month, and I've enclosed a copy of a letter
I wrote on September the 17th, 2005, regarding this ... regarding the Pratt
Place Bed & Breakfast. I asked him to provide ... provide copies, so I
assume he did, but ...
Anthes: Is it this one on the flecked paper?
Williams: Yeah, and it says ... yeah, that's it, and ... but it refers to a letter that I had
written about the same subject on the 17th of September, 2005. This is a
letter addressed to Mayor Coody and the City Council, but it's ... it's
based on my concerns about the Pratt Place and what might happen. I
would start out by saying that the letter is regarding the Pratt Place Bed &
Breakfast and 60 -seat restaurant and parking lot. I would have no
objection to a bed and breakfast if that were all that is implied. However,
a restaurant with 60 people and parking spaces implies much more. I have
the following concerns. Would the increased traffic on Markham Road
require it to be widened? I'm against this because it would change the
character and quality of the neighborhood. I did ... and I also support Mr.
Archer's request that no sidewalks be placed on that because that would
also, I think, add to changing the character of the property along Markham
Road. And it says, then, that "I am against the widening or extension of
any street that might result from this proposed restaurant." I believe, here
again, that Archers ... that the Archers share my concern, and I would like
some ... I'd like some decision regarding this to the extent you can. In Mr.
Markham's ... excuse me, Julian. I've known the Markhams as long as
I've known Julian ... in Mr. Archer's letter regard ... in ... to Jeremy Pate,
it's a revised modification. In Article ... in Paragraph 10 Mr. Archer
writes, "Vehicular access and egress to the Pratt Place Inn: All vehicular
traffic, automobile, delivery vans, garbage and pickup will access and
leave Pratt Place from Markham Road, though the routing of vehicular
entrance and egress to Pratt Place Inn is shown on the plat." In other
words, what Mr. Markham is asking or stating his preference that no
traffic be turned onto Sang Avenue, I think that those of us who live along
Sang, if traffic is brought ... if more traffic is brought onto Sang Avenue it
would destroy or damage the special quality that our neighborhood enjoys.
So I'm not only, I think, speaking for myself, but I'm speaking for people
in the neighborhood. In addition to Mr. Archer's saying that, the writer's
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 70
description of traffic along Sang remains as ... coincides with our ... with
our ... with our wish of not including traffic along Sang. Jill, do you have
what I'm looking at?
Anthes: We do. We also have the plat with the Large Scale Development and it is
not showing any access onto Sang Avenue.
Williams: Okay. Now, what I would like to request is that an addition ... adding to
that paragraph, I request that construction vehicles be required to use
Markham Road only and not ... and be ... and not be allowed to use Sang.
The reason is that we like Sang the way it is. It's ... it isn't yet damaged
by heavy traffic and we would like very much for it to remain the way it
is. Also, I have a question about condemnation of private property to
enlarge or widen or extend any street in the area. I ... I would like ... I
would hope that the City would honor and respect ownership of private
property, and I see evidence that they are claiming property that does not
belong to the City. I would request that that not be ... not be done. I
would request that the City does not claim property that they do not ... that
belongs to somebody else. So, thank you very much.
Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Williams. We will go through all the questions that you
and Mr. Schaper and any other resident has after we close the public
comment.
Williams: Thank you, and you will send us a copy of those?
Anthes: We can get ... Mr. Pate, do we get Subdivision Committee minutes these
days?
Pate: We can provide those, yes.
Anthes: You can always also get a copy of the tapes, the videotapes, from any of
these meeting at the Government Access Channel.
Audience: The Government Access Channel. She said that you can get a copy of the
tapes at the Government Access Channel.
Williams: Would that require me to have an Internet?
Audience: A VCR. Maybe a VCR, but I've got one for you.
Anthes: And we can get printed ones, too. I'm just telling you.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 71
Williams: I would like a written response. I can read better than I can hear. Thank
you.
Farris: Hi. I'm Dr. Felecia Farris. I reside at 2215 Haskell Heights. I live at the
... near the very dead-end of Sang Avenue. I'd like to agree with Mr.
Schaper about the difficulty we have sometimes on Markham after parties
have gone on at the barn up on Markham hill with cars in the ditch. Lynn
Wade, who resides on Sang, has tried to make documentation with various
pictures and has a nice photo album of many of the cars that have been in
the ditch there. So for me personally, my idea and preference is not to
have any more ditches there. The question I think that needs to be
addressed and looked at, possibly, is the large-scale parties and especially
any parties that may be going on in the barn in the future, especially
associated with Razorback games. Persons walking down the hill,
especially in conjunction with traffic, where are they going to be walking?
You know, a sidewalk there would be good. I don't think a mulch trail is
going to hold up on a grade. You know, it nicely holds up on that flat
surface on Cross Street, but I don't know if it's going to hold on a slope,
and that's going to be ... that's kind of a two -plane slope there that ...
where it's ... where I'm visually thinking it's going to be. Now, I know
that Mr. Williams' thought is that ... is that he doesn't really particularly
think that he would like to have a sidewalk, and I think as we coalesced as
a group in making these plans we kind of talked about a meandering
sidewalk through the woods there. We have a tremendous amount of foot
traffic that goes up and down Markham. We have the cross-country ...
university cross-country team, we have the high school cross-country
team, and we have a whole slew of people who rent from Mr. Archer to
run on his mountain, and people run in the street, and those of us who live
up there on the hill know how to drive that mountain ... or that road to go
up the hill and very much respect those persons, but if we could, and we
talked as a group, encourage them to run on the sidewalk, that would be
very, very nice. But people aren't going to run on a mulch trail. It's not
going to be well kept. The one on Cross Street is not well kept. That's an
ankle -breaker. I ran cross-country in college. You would want to ...
prefer to run smoothly ... in transition smoothly. They're not going to
move for a short transition for two ... for a hundred yards and then back on
the road. So ... but I can get with my neighbors and we can maybe give
you what we would prefer as a cohesive group, but I'm speaking for
myself. I think a sidewalk with traffic out of the barn, if they're going to
be at a barn party and going to the football game, or, you know, walking
downhill, I can't ... you know, they're going to want somewhere to walk
on the side of the road. They're going to need to for traffic reasons. The
other aspect of it, when he has overflow traffic at the barn, are they going
to be walking down the hill, going to use the parking lot at the corner of
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 72
Markham and Razorback, another instance when a sidewalk might be
necessary as something to look at. I think when I looked at the sidewalk
plan or the curb plan versus the ditch plan with Mr. Tim Conklin, the curb
plan uses less tree ... or there's minimal tree loss, and that was a consensus
plan with our group when we were looking at the PZD, and that is what,
you know, my preference would be. And those of us that live in our little
neighborhood, that was overwhelming ... the biggest aspect that we
wanted. There are a tremendous amount of leaves that come down that
mountain and out of those woods there, and how are we going to deal with
the leaves that are in the ditch? We already have in that ditch a blockage
problem when we have a big rain, and there are many times that things get
clogged up. How is that going to be handled and approached if that ditch
fills up and there's a blockage? So that's another reason why the curb and
gutter system would be better. The petition that Mr. Archer brought to
your attention, I started living there after the fact, but as I understand the
history with my neighbors that live there, that petition or the discussion ...
I don't know about the petition, I haven't read it ... but they were mainly
interested in that there not be any curbing and sidewalking on Sang. That
was ... where all of us live is on Sang. I'm not ... you know, don't know
that that necessarily really speaks to Markham, that's just my
understanding, but I wasn't living there at that time frame, so I don't know
that ... how much that really speaks to how people ... persons' impressions
are when using that petition to speak for everybody on Sang. Jeremy can
help to speak to this issue when we ... when we organized that
tremendously difficult list, and I don't think you three ladies can really
understand how difficult and hard times it was to come up with that list of
agreeable things when we battled over this bed and breakfast, but that
heavy -construction traffic coming in to the back door to the project has
been ongoing for three weeks or a month now, and it shouldn't be. The
spirit of the agreement was they were not to use the back door of the
property to come up and down the hill. You can barely get two cars up and
down Sang, but concrete trucks and lumber trucks and trailers with heavy
equipment are coming up and down Sang. So it's ... should be coming up
and down Markham to go to the construction site, but you're having to
slow down and let them pass, and that was not the spirit of the agreement.
Mr. Conklin was the one that said this was where it needed to be
addressed. Thank you.
Anthes: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to address this
item? Good morning.
Koger: Yes. My name is James Koger. I own two and a half acres on top of
Markham hill. We also live on Loren Circle, which is at the bottom of
Markham, have lived there for seven years. I've lived most of my life in
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 73
Fayetteville and on that side of the town, and my wife works at the
university and we use Cross and Markham to get her to work lots of times.
Markham is very narrow at this point. The ditches that we keep
referencing on Markham continue to erode. If you go up there and look at
those ditches, they are 5 -feet deep in some areas. The new overlay that the
City has put on it, if you go up there and look at it closely you'll see where
that overlay is already starting to crack close to the ditches. People having
to pull over to pass each other puts the stress on the asphalt, the new
asphalt there on ... by the ditches, and is already deteriorating that road. I
am a developer and a residential homebuilder. I just completed a
subdivision on Mount Comfort Road, which I was required to do curb and
gutter and drainage, which I'm all for. I think everything in Fayetteville
should be brought up to code and we should do it correctly. Letting things
sneak through, not doing them correctly, is, number one, not fair to us
people that are paying. You know, I ... it cost ... it was like $1.2 million,
basically, that I gave to the City of Fayetteville and infrastructure once my
subdivision was finished. Obviously, I made money off of selling the lots.
The people buying these lots are the ones that incur that cost: the people
moving to Fayetteville, the residents already here upgrading homes.
Markham has been ... hill ... Drive has been a problem for quite some time
and I think it's really, really a bad idea not to curb and gutter both sides of
it and go ahead and do drainage. That is a steep grade. I believe it's in
excess of 15 percent. Water running down those ditches. There's nothing
to break the speed of that water. It just increases and increases, eroding
back to the asphalt and, of course, to the woods on either side. A curb and
gutter and sidewalk on at least one side, I think, is imperative. As Felecia
noted, we have not built on the land up there yet. We plan to. We travel
up there a lot because it's nice, quiet, serene. Sometimes we just walk out
and sit in the middle of the land, just not have any noise, and to be out in
the middle of nowhere in the middle of Fayetteville. Many times meeting
traffic is quite a problem on Markham. The runners all run out on the
asphalt. Nobody gets over in the woods and tries to run or anything.
There's many times we just, you know, pull over and stop and let them go
by. If that road is maintained in the same situation, no curb and gutter, no
sidewalk for these people, they're not going to go in the woods. They are
not going to go on a trail that has mulch on it. That's just not going to
happen. So what we're going to have is difficulty in driving, and there's
been three people killed on the university campus crossing streets. I
shudder to think what will happen on Markham with the all the people
running and stuff if there's not a sidewalk for them to use. I think it's an
impending disaster there. To ... you know, let's be fair. Let's have
everybody play to the same rules is what I'm saying. If, you know, we
don't have to curb and gutter and do storm sewers and everything on
Markham, then I want a notice at the next subdivision I do I can, you
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 74
know, leave open ditches and, you know, not be required to do, you know,
the right thing. And this whole situation is very scary. I don't know if
you all have been up there and looked at the site or not, but where Sang
veers off to the left and goes up on Markham, that is kind of a demarcation
point to where, basically, only the people that live back up there use that
road. You don't have people running up there. That road not being
curbed and guttered, you know, I understand that. It's very narrow and we
do not need traffic coming up Sang and accessing by the water tower
there, which Ms. Farris pointed out is definitely one of the stipulations of
the Pratt Place Inn., that the Planning Commission rezoned that.
Anthes: City Council.
Koger: City Council, I'm sorry. I have talked with Council members and there is
a great concern about the situation up there, things not being atoned to like
they were promised. Sang Avenue is an old, old, old street. If you drive
up there there's many dips in it. Some of the drainage under it is already
deteriorating. These concrete trucks and heavy equipment that is going up
there is doing nothing but deteriorating the road further, and that was just
not supposed to happen. So here we are in a situation to where the Inn has
not been approved, not being built, and we're already violating agreements
that were made with the City of Fayetteville. Already, things are being
done that weren't supposed to be done. So what kind of red flag is that for
the future? Just think about it. What kind of red flag is that for the future
that's coming up? Thank you.
Anthes: Thank you. Good morning, Fran.
Alexander: Fran Alexander. As Julian pointed out, my daughter and I own the
property that begins on Markham at Cross and goes to Julian and Jane's
property to the west. Between Markham and Halsell, my daughter and I
own about 3.37 acres, I believe. And her home is down toward the Halsell
end. The situation, as I understand it ... and I have not looked at the
drawings intently and I do not know exactly what Engineering is supposed
to do with the ditches and the road widening ... when this project went
through, it was my understanding that there might be road widening to 20
feet. I think the road is about 18 feet now. Andrew, do you know?
Garner: I'm not sure.
Alexander: The 20 -foot widening is one thing, the ditching 10 feet on either side is an
entirely different issue, and what I want to understand is what the actual
recommendation is for the grade, 3 to 1, 4 to 1, what they're
recommending for this road, because that ditching, if it is widened to
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 75
prevent having such a deep side, will definitely impact our property.
Because as you continue to hear, "the north side of the road," "the north
side of the road," well, that's our property. So I want a very clear
understanding of what this ditching actually will do to impact our side of
the property, and what that does to the actual right-of-way there. Also, on
the sidewalk issue, I feel like we're ... fits and starts on sidewalks in
Fayetteville have been a problem. It seems to me that if there is a
sidewalk put in that it needs to be part of an entire system of pedestrian
use, and it's always been my impression, and this evidently is wrong, but
it's been my impression that if we developed our property then we would
be in charge of putting in a sidewalk, but if Mr. Archer and Jane are
developing the property, why would they be putting a sidewalk on our
property? I don't quite understand that, so I do need an answer to that. It
seems somehow out of context that our property would be involved with
their development as far as sidewalks go. I agree that I don't want
concrete sidewalks along that road, but if they are to come, I think they
should be part of a system. The people who have spoken today are
absolutely correct: you have to dodge the joggers. Either the joggers need
to have a specified place to be or these pedestrian paths need to be
designed so they fit the joggers. I'm not real sure what should happen
there. But if there has to be a trail, I think we need to talk about that a lot
more. So anyway, those are my main considerations, but I do need to
know how this is going to impact us. And the tree situation, I really want
to keep that canopy over that road. This is my big hang-up is keeping
those roads cooled off and we want the trees to stay as close to those roads
as possible. Thanks.
Anthes: Thank you, Ms Alexander. Would any other member of the public like to
speak to this item?
Schaper: I just have one more question.
Anthes: If you would come to the podium.
Schaper: I don't know, because I haven't seen the proposed plan, what the route of
the sewer is going to be that goes up. The sewer connection as I ... as I
understand it now is in the northeast corner of my property, and I would
like to understand where it's going from there, if it's going to come along
my property or if it's going to go up through Julian's property, and I want
that to be clear. Thank you.
Anthes: All right. Would anybody else like to speak?
Koger: I'd like to add one more thing.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 76
Anthes: We really only get one chance, so come on.
Koger: Okay. Another issue up there that I forgot about earlier is, I understand
that people live up there underneath the water tower that water pressure is
an issue already. So we do ... as more development happens, obviously
that's going to continue to be a problem, and I believe the Fire Department
wants 8 -inch mains to be able to support fire hydrants, which I'm all for
fire hydrants and fire protection, but if we do an 8 -inch main up there, I
would like to definitely, you know, have a study done as to what it's going
to do to water pressure for people already living there. That could be a
really serious ... you know, serious situation. Thank you.
Anthes: Thank you. Going once, going twice ... okay, we'll close the public
comment section and I think what we'll do ... I'll try to hold this closer. I
know this room is hard to hear in and I tend to speak softly anyway. Let's
start with some of the questions of the public. Mr. Schaper, to go over the
hours of operations, that's Condition of Approval Number 11, "Hours of
operation: Pratt Place Inn restaurant and barn' hours as utilized for
private or public events shall be from 7:00 a.m. until 12:00 a.m. Friday
and Saturday, 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday."
That's how it's written. I don't believe that this panel has anything to say
or do about alcohol use or serving, so that's something we can't address.
As far as the street recommendations, what staff has recommended, and it
goes to Planning Commission for determination, are the following four
street improvements: "Markham Road accessing the subject property
from Cross Avenue into the property shall be improved to a minimum 20 -
foot standard. The existing pavement will need to be repaired and/or
reconstructed as required by the City Engineer." The second item is, "A
concrete or pavement apron shall be required adjacent to the gravel drive
from the parking lot." The third item is drainage. "Staff is recommending
curb, gutter and storm drains on the north side of Markham Street from the
project site to Cross Avenue." And the fourth item is, "A 4 -foot concrete
sidewalk on the north side of Markham Street from the project site to
Cross Avenue on top of the storm drains," and I believe they clarified that
during the report to say that that would be at the back of curb without a
setback to try to minimize the cross-section. So that is how it's written
right now. Noise, obviously the City of Fayetteville had a noise ordinance
and that's what works for that, and then you've got an hours of operation,
right?
Pate: It does, and there's also an additional condition that was approved and it
required by the City Council that no amplified outdoor music shall be
permitted at any point on the property, and it states further that the
property is surrounded by single-family residences and the potential for
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 77
noise generation from the proposed development has been voiced as a
concern. That was Condition Number 5 that we included in this report.
Anthes: Okay. And then the sewer route is shown on the drawings that we have.
A sanitary sewer route starts north and east of your northeast property
corner and it goes through what I can tell is all Mr. Archer's property. Is
that true.
Pate: Yes.
Anthes: All right. Let's start on ... There were some other questions Mr. Williams
had. One of the questions was, who would pay the cost if it became
necessary to widen Markham, and the applicant will need to pay for any
street improvements that are recommended as per this project. Let's see.
Obviously the use ... the C-PZD has been issued, and so the use with this
kind of capacity and occupancy is part of what's already been ... the City
Council has already permitted, so that we're not revisiting that at this time,
but we are charged to look at is with the configuration of that use. I'd like
staff to answer the question about the "no traffic onto Sang." From our
plat, and these aren't the easiest to read, they're ...
?: (Inaudible.)
Anthes: I'd like staff to answer it ... I don't see where there's actually a real
access. There's a water line and some sort of a dash line, but it doesn't
look like there's access, and if we have construction trucks what is the
issue there?
Pate: It was agreed as part of the City Council's approval to not allow it for
access into the site for the restaurant or the barn for ingress and egress
from Sang Avenue. All access was to be from Markham Road as
indicated in the proposed Planning Zoning District at the time it was
proposed. I am assuming, and this is the first I've heard about that, but
I'm assuming that construction traffic has been part of the bringing the
barn up to code and installing the new fire hydrants and water lines;
however, they should be utilizing Markham Avenue with any point of
construction process or any access to this site whatsoever for those uses
from Markham Avenue.
Anthes: So is that a code compliance issue?
Pate: If ... Yes. We have a complaint and we will certainly take a look at that.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 78
Anthes: Okay. And then if there is actually a way to get onto this property, would
we propose a barricade in order to discourage future use, because,
obviously, people know there's another way in or out.
Pate: There is access to residences in that area, I believe, from Sang. There's an
existing structure that is proposed to remain. This limited to the Inn, the
restaurant, and the barn, specifically from the those areas, and it goes into
further detail including guests, service vehicles, which would include all
types of mail, solid waste, any kind of service type of vehicle, etcetera,
from that Markham Road only.
Anthes: Is staff proposing signage then, because how would a first-time guest to
this area know that we're not supposed to use that?
Pate: It would have to be clearly indicated that Markham Avenue is the ... there
is proposed signage for the project that was approved by the City Council.
It was not ... it's not specifically indicated, but the sizes, for instance,
were indicated and where those signs would be are also indicated on the
plat.
Anthes: Okay. And a question of Mr. Casey. On the street recommendations, it
looks to me like you've tried to keep this as narrow as possible, narrower
than our normal recommendations due to the nature of the property.
Casey: Yes, ma'am.
Anthes: I do have a question to follow up on Ms. Alexander's comment. It does
appear that the entire south side of the street is within the Archers'
property, where on the north side of the street does traverse part of the
Alexanders' property. Can you speak to the recommendation to place the
sidewalk and the drainage system on the north?
Casey: Let me ... I don't believe you have a copy of this. This was part of the
original submittal. That drawing there shows the proposed 20 -foot section
as well as the ditches that were shown. By placing the curb and gutter and
the sidewalk and storm drainage on the north side, we could possibly
reduce the amount of disturbed area and maybe even pull that ditch in
close to the road. What they show there is a 3 -to -1 slope, which when you
grade out those ditches, you know, depending on that depth, could become
very wide, and by putting it in a storm drain and pulling that sidewalk up
close to the curb, it could minimize that area that's going to be impacted.
Anthes: Okay. And can you say where that work would occur and is that within a
right-of-way that already exists?
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 79
Casey: That should all be contained within the existing right-of-way along
Markham.
Anthes: Okay.
ArcherJu: May I help clarify some things?
Anthes: We'll get back to you with any questions. The situation about the curb,
gutter and drainage and the road width. I guess I usually like streets to be
as low impact as possible as long as they still safely serve the needs of the
community that uses them. I feel like with the addition of this restaurant
and the barn and the Inn and the incredible amount of foot traffic from
runners and walkers already that use the area, I'm sympathetic to the
request to put in a real sidewalk in this location. And then just for the
reasons stated here today with people, you know, running off and there's a
lot of cars in the ditches, that would seem to say that curbs and gutters are
probably warranted in order to keep cars on the road. I don't think that
that should extend at Sang Avenue at all, that that should be constrained
within Markham because that's where the load and traffic would be. I'd
like to know other Commissioners' comments on that.
Harris: Absolutely. I agree on that. You know, I've argued before with other
PZDs that were more residential, or at least a section of them was more
residential and was going to remain that way, to allow for some leniency
in the sidewalk and curbs and gutters and so forth, but ... and I'm also very
sensitive to the arguments among some of the neighbors that they would
rather that not happen. You know, it's more in keeping with Markham
Hill, it's more in keeping with Mount Sequoyah, and living on Mount
Sequoyah myself, I have a great deal of empathy with that argument.
However ... well, and I will also continue that analogy, because Mount
Sequoyah has a lot of ... it's a destination point for a lot of joggers and
walkers, too. Having said that, I am increasingly in support, I think, of
some help on Mount Sequoyah because I increasingly see people who
kind of can't think for themselves appropriately due to physical challenges
or, perhaps, sometimes age or other issues. They probably could do well
to have a sidewalk on Mount Sequoyah. So I think I'm very persuaded by
the argument that we do need to go ahead and follow the staff s
recommendations on that. I would like to follow up ... I'm sorry.
Commissioner Bryant, would you like to say something on that issue?
Bryant: Well, I ... from looking at it and having driven through there, I'm inclined
to also go with the agreement of the sidewalks, and just looking at some of
the drop-offs in the ditches on the side, you could keep a towing company
in business. And also looking at it from the point of view that we are
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 80
looking at a bed and breakfast barn to use, that is going to increase more
traffic, and for me the idea of the curb and gutter and the sidewalk, even
with the runners and joggers, that would kind of also give me a little bit of
a safety net as far as safety for the travelers and the joggers up and down
that road, because we're about to put more ... with this request, you're
about to put more traffic on that road than what's already there.
Anthes: I have a question for staff about that, too. Do we have a Condition of
Approval about lighting? I mean, it says that all ... all lighting shall
comply with City's lighting ordinance and they shall submit a lighting
plan, but it's not talking about what's actually required by ordinance.
Pate: Those are referring, I believe, to the actual structure and any full cut-off
lights. We have not recommended any street lights in this location at this
time.
Anthes: And how is that different from a regular subdivision?
Pate: Mainly ... primarily in due to trying to limit ... minimize impact. Like you
require an additional utility easement along the right-of-way, which would
require probably anywhere from 20 ... 15 to 20 feet additional exclusive of
the right-of-way for electric companies to install that type of facility along
Markham.
Anthes: Okay.
Harris: May I follow up on something that Commissioner Anthes said about the
sidewalks and about agreeing that there's any ... probably on Markham,
perhaps not to go around to Sang ... and I'd like to pick up on something
Ms. Alexander said; that is, that ... if I'm characterizing your remarks
correctly, that you're not against a sidewalk, but you would like to see it as
a part of kind of system, put a system of pedestrian ...
Alexander: I prefer no sidewalk.
Harris: You prefer no sidewalk?
Alexander: But if there was one, it seems it should make sense.
Harris: And I guess what I would just like to ask Mr. Pate, would it be part ... I
mean, are there plans on the board now to have other sidewalks going up
in that direction?
Pate: I'm not aware. I don't know if, Matt, if you have any knowledge of that.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 81
Casey: I don't think we have a set plan for that, but as other developments occur
or other building permits are issued, then sidewalks will be required on
those properties.
Harris: So just a ... (Inaudible.) If a sidewalk ... maybe it's here and ...
Audience: Could you please speak up?
Harris: Yes. How much ... how many feet of sidewalk are we talking about?
Anthes: 4 feet is what is recommended.
Harris: That's width, but how many running feet, if you will, of sidewalk, or how
far is this going to extend?
Anthes: Just to Cross Avenue in the recommendation.
Garner:
(Inaudible) 150 feet approximately.
Audience:
We can't hear you all.
Audience:
We can't hear those answers.
Garner:
Approximately 150 feet.
ArcherJu:
No. It's about ...
Garner:
No, that's a different scale. Sorry.
? Casey:
61 ...
?
600?
Garner:
Yeah. Approximately 650 feet.
Anthes:
650 feet is the answer.
Audience:
From where?
Anthes:
From Cross Avenue to their project.
Audience: There would be no improvements from Cross Avenue back to the
University for (inaudible)?
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 82
Anthes: That's right. That's right. The thing about that is that I feel like if we're
adding additional people, it's a vertical ... it's a pretty good slope ... for
not recommending lighting, we've got to give some people a place to go
other than a ditch when a car is coming up that road, or when, you know,
all these people start exiting this facility after an event. You've got 60
people in there and they all need to leave at one time, and some of them
are going to walk home ...
Harris: I absolutely agree.
Audience: (Inaudible)
Bryant: And there's also ... there's also the capacity, I believe it said, of around
376 if he has an event in his barn, so that's capacity in there. We're
putting a lot of traffic on that one road.
Anther Uh-huh.
Harris: May I ask a question? Again, just ... these are educational questions for
me in some ways. The determination to take the sidewalk ... or to
recommend the sidewalk extending from the Archers' property to Cross
alone, how does that become the end point for the recommendation?
Pate: It's part of our discussions with the City Council when we looked at this
project. We went out and measured street widths south of Cross and north
of Cross. South of Cross was in excess of 20 feet in some locations and at
least 20 feet had already been widened. North of Cross it reduces
dramatically as far as the street width. There are the mulch trails that Mr.
Archer spoke about in areas along Cross. I believe they extend to the
north primarily. And the City actually improved south of Cross many
years ago in that location, widened and actually removed quite a few trees
in that location. I think that's part of why the neighborhood is ... some of
the neighborhood is certainly against a whole -scale widening of this street
section, and so that was certainly discussed as part of the City Council
review in four separate meetings on this item. This is one of the major
items of discussion. And for the Planning Commission Full Review, we
will certainly provide you with any minutes if you would like to have
those for that discussion.
Anthes: I think that would be helpful to have City Council's recommendations
or minutes in our packet.
Harris: May I have one more follow-up on that, again, just to let me know
something I don't know?. Are mulch sidewalks ... are they ... how do they
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 83
fit in with the American Disabilities Act ... Americans with Disabilities
Act?
Pate: I don't ... they do not meet our typical standards for ADA requirements in
most applications.
Harris: Okay. And so if you ... if ... when we do recommend mulch sidewalks,
what is the thinking that the provision is for people in wheelchairs?
Pate: There would not be any, to my knowledge.
Harris: Okay.
Farris: Could ... May I ask a question? So from about ...
Anthes: We're really not supposed to have an exchange. Are we not getting to
something?
Farris: Well, I will take this back to our neighbors and it may be (inaudible) some
helpful stuff in regards to coming to the conclusion that, well, we have or
we may not (inaudible). It's ... 18 feet is about the rough average right
now, right there about the midsection of Cross to where it (inaudible)
That's about the rough estimate of what that road is. You're talking about
only making it 22 feet wider?
Anthes: 20 feet is what the recommendation is, a minimum of 20 feet.
Farris: It's not a big visual change?
Anthes: Right.
Farris: Okay.
Anthes: And again, I think that what Matt has done when he's gone out there, from
what I understand, is that Engineering has looked at trying to balance the
need for a safe ingress and egress from what level of use has been
approved by City Council, but still keep the right-of-way as tight as
possible to minimize the impact on additional grading and tree removal so
we can keep as much canopy as possible on that road.
Alexander: But, you know, the thing that ...
Anthes: We really ...
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 84
Alexander: I know, but you haven't ...
Anthes: ... can't do this back and forth.
Alexander: I know, but you haven't ...
Anthes: We're going to have a Planning Commission meeting on this item as well.
Alexander: Yeah, but if you don't (inaudible)
Anthes: If you're going to speak, I need you to come to the microphone so you're
in the minutes.
Alexander: What I don't want you to miss about what I asked you is what does this
have to do with our side of the property when Mr. Archer owns land on
the south side of the property? Why does the side ...
Anthes: I did ask that question and Matt has already answered it.
Alexander: Well, no, he talked about the design. He didn't tell me why it was ...
Anthes: No.
Alexander: ... on Alexander property instead of on Archer property.
Anthes: He said that it's within the City's right-of-way, which the city can choose
which side it works on ...
Alexander: Okay.
Anthes: ... when it's right-of-way for the ...
Alexander: The City can choose?
Anthes: Yes.
Alexander: All right. That's what I needed to know.
Anthes: And what he ... he provided us sections and those sections showed ... Well,
go ahead, Matt. You want to just restate it?
Casey: The intension of that was to try to reduce the amount of disturbed area,
and by putting the sidewalk up against the back of a curb and putting
storm sewer, we could potentially reduce the amount of width that's
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 85
needed to be disturbed for that ditch that was proposed. If we get a
sidewalk and a ditch, it's going to be extremely wide.
Anthes: But also, didn't you indicate that because of the existing ... the way the
grade was that you felt the north side was also a minimum ... a minimizing
factor?
Casey: Correct.
Alexander: But that's north of Cross?
Casey: That's on the north side of Markham, west of Cross.
Anthes: Which is on your side of the street rather than Mr. Archer ... or in the
Archers' part of the street.
Alexander: Yeah. That's what I'm trying to understand is, since it's his property
Okay.
Anthes: The reason why is because they were trying to minimize the amount of
disturbance, and you are welcome to go and go over those sections with
Engineering.
Koger: Can I just say one more (inaudible)?
Anthes: Oh, you've got it. We still have four more items after this.
Koger: I think a major, major point is being missed here that can be a potential
catastrophe. If these improvements are only made to Cross and not on
down to where the street is already curbed and guttered ...
Anthes: We understand that. Please, we have to have a rational nexus calculation
for any development as you well know. We can not ... require every
single developer to take the project far beyond the boundaries of that
project. We do recommend offsite improvements when they're ... when
they meet the amount of impact for that particular project. And as a
developer, you well know if we asked you to improve Mount Comfort all
the way back to I-540 for your project, you wouldn't have been real happy
about it.
Koger: What you all ... what you did ask me to do was improve Mount Comfort ...
Anthes: Okay. We're not talking about your project. Please, we need to have you
sit down.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 86
Koger: We were asked to improve it back to the Rupple Road intersection and we
spent $10,000.00 improving Rupple Road intersection. That's a long
distance in there.
Anthes: I understand. You may have had a lot more units than this project as well.
We need to took at that with staff. Okay. I think we covered most of the
questions. I believe the recommendation from staff, and obviously, with
the amount of comment, it's a good one, that the Full Planning
Commission see this project. I would ask staff that they make sure to
include, like we said, the City Council minutes or at least a revised ... a
condensed version of them. If there's four meetings in the report, we need
to make sure that the applicant has their boundary survey and associated
legal description prepared before that meeting, and that you make the
changes on your plat recommended by the Urban Forester prior to
Planning Commission. Is there further discussion?
ArcherJu: May I make some observations?
Anthes: We really ... you've made your presentation, and if we ask questions you
can, but ...
ArcherJu: Okay. I won't make any.
Anthes: We will ... we will have a full hearing at Planning Commission and ...
ArcherJa: It's just to set some misinformation straight here. There are no trucks at
all going on Sang of ours, any traffic of any kind except our own car going
to our own house, which is accessed by Sang and a little tower road. The
trucks that people are hearing are garbage trucks and recycling trucks.
None of our trucks are going there. They have no reason to. They would
be going out of their way to go there, and have no place to go. The only
access is up and down Markham that our heavy trucks are using.
Anthes: Well, that is something that this board can't really do, so ...
ArcherJa: I know, I know, but it's just
Anthes: If the neighbors would like to ... you know, if there's a complaint there
and they would like to talk to you or if they want to go through code
compliance, they can do so. But I appreciate your intent that it remain on
Markham. Oh, Matt, can you talk about the water pressure and the main
and what the standard procedure is there?
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 87
Casey: With the proximity to this tank, the water pressure is not going to be as
great on top of this hill as it will be at the bottom. That's just the way the
pressurized system works with the tanks. However, the impact of this
development ... there will be no adverse effect. There already is an 8 -inch
line going to the site that was just recently installed to provide fire flow.
The domestic use will be relatively low, and with the proximity to the
tank, that should not ... that should help the neighbors as it wouldn't in
another part of town. The tank will provide that consistent volume that's
necessary to be able to provide the water in this area.
Williams: Madame Chair.
Anthes: Mr. Williams.
Williams: A great deal of the pressure variation depends on whether the athletic
department is watering all their fields, so I'd like to make an informal
request that you visit with the athletic department and ask them to
schedule times when it doesn't affect our pressure.
Anthes: I know just the person to send this ...
Williams: That's a joke, but it's true.
ArcherJa: Also, I do think it's important for us to say that, rather than have a
sidewalk go up there, we would forbid any joggers and the track team, the
university track team, from coming up there. It's been a great pleasure for
us to have them there, but if it means building a sidewalk for people that
we allow to come up there, we would retract that and not allow them to
come up there if we didn't have to build a sidewalk.
Anthes: I appreciate that, and yet, I would say that, with the load that you are
proposing just for these events within your facilities, that I feel that that
probably warrants that ...
ArcherJa: But there would be no foot traffic at all.
ArcherJu: That we forbid the track team from training up there.
ArcherJa: There wouldn't be any.
Audience: It's a City street, public use.
ArcherJa: No, but it's ... it goes only to our property.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 88
Motion:
Anthes: Okay. We're going to stop this back and forth right now. We just can't
continue doing that. Okay. The Full Planning Commission will hear that
and we can make that decision. I, however, will move that we forward
Large Scale Development 06-2195, Pratt Place Inn, to the Full Planning
Commission subject to the 20 ... the 35 conditions as stated, with an
additional condition of approval that limits construction traffic and
entrances to Markham only, and finding in favor of ... what do we have
here ... finding in favor of Commercial Design Standards, and with the
recommendations on street improvements as per staffs recommendation,
although, I would like for staff to revisit the section and determine ... and
verify that the north side versus the south side of the street is more
appropriate just to make sure that we've revisited that issue. And I guess
that's my motion.
Bryant: I'll second.
Harris: Concur.
Anthes: Okay. We'll see you in a couple of weeks.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 89
LSD 06-2168: Large Scale Development (WEDINGTON PLACE COMMERCIAL,
401): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOCIATES INC. - ROGERS for property
located at NW OF STEAMBOAT DRIVE AT WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is
zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 6.45 acres.
The request is for a retail center with 3 buildings totaling 55,434 s.f.
Anthes: Okay. Item Number 14 this morning ... no, this afternoon ... is Large
Scale Development 06-2168 for Wedington Place Commercial. Will the
applicant come forward. And let's see. Whose is this one? Jesse.
Fulcher: Yes, ma'am. This is the final lot for the Wedington Place Commercial
Subdivision located between Colorado and Steamboat on the north side of
Wedington Drive. This is somewhat of a familiar lot. We reviewed a
Taco Bell Large Scale Development on the .73 -acre lot. This is the larger
tract to the north and west of that lot, approximately 6.45 acres. The
applicants are requesting two separate retail buildings totaling 55,000
square feet with 259 parking spaces. This will complete the cross -access
drive that was required as part of the Vacation for the .73 -acre tract that
will connect Steamboat Drive to the Harp's development and all the way
to Colorado Drive. A sufficient right-of-way was dedicated with the final
plat for Wedington Place Subdivision for all of the interior streets. There
is currently portions of a 6 -foot sidewalk adjacent to this property that was
constructed. There will be a requirement to finish out that sidewalk,
connect those portions, and all the standing portions that were damaged
during construction would have to be replaced. The property is within the
Design Overlay District. They have met all of those requirements,
including the distance between curb -cuts. Again, pedestrian access is
being provided from the street right-of-way to the main structures.
Additionally, seven bicycle racks are required based on the number of
parking spaces. Staff is recommending this item be forwarded to the Full
Planning Commission with 15 Conditions of Approval. Condition
Number 1 is determination of Commercial Design Standards. Staff is
looking for some revisions to the proposed building elevations. We are ...
find that the southern elevations of the main building, the larger building,
are compliant with Commercial Design Standards. Although, looking at
the east elevation, as shown on this board, the southern portion of that is
articulated, but the rest of it is blank and unarticulated, and that fronts onto
Steamboat Drive, and we would request that more of those architectural
elements be pulled down that building elevation. And then looking at the
smaller outbuilding, the retail building, the south elevation faces onto
Tahoe Place and also is visible from Wedington and we've requested
additional articulation be provided on that elevation as well. Condition
Number 2 is determination of curb -cut and their location ... the number of
curb -cuts and their locations. There are ... looking on the site plan, there
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 90
are three curb -cuts proposed. The southern one is the one that was
required to provide that cross -access to Harp's development. The middle
drive is an extension of the drive that is along the front of the Harp's
development and also would provide that access in front of the buildings,
which is typical ... separates the parking areas from the pedestrian areas of
the building front. And then the northern access is, again, a continuation
of the rear access behind the Harp's building for delivery and ... methods
and also connects ... there's another connection between Steamboat and
Colorado. And also the northern building, if you look on there, it's kind
of a separate building, it's got its own parking area, and that drive will
provide access to that building as well. Staff is in support of the number
of curb -cuts and the locations, although they do not line up exactly with
some of the curb -cuts that already exist. Given the layout of the other
properties and the function of this property and also that Steamboat is not
a through street, there's no traffic actually on this street, we don't feel that
it would pose a ... or create a dangerous traffic situation, so we're in
support of those locations as well. I think all the other Conditions of
Approval are fairly straightforward.
Anthes: Thank you, Jesse. Are there further staff comments?
Casey: Just one comment. I just wanted to point out that if the Taco Bell does not
actually get constructed, which I've heard there's a possibility of that, the
draining plan as shown will create a hole in that area where the Taco Bell
would be. We need to have that addressed. So if you can just provide that
information one way or the other, whether the Taco Bell is going to be
constructed or ...
Ely: It's not.
Casey: Okay. If that's the case, then we need to probably address that grading
and drainage in that area.
Ely: All right.
Anthes: Sarah?
Patterson: A tree preservation waiver has been signed.
Anthes: Could you identify where the proposed Taco Bell ... which lot was it?
Ely: It was this corner here.
Anthes: All right. Would you introduce yourself and give us your presentation?
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 91
Ely: I'm Jonathan Ely with Crafton, Tull & Associates.
Danish: Josh Danish with Ken Shireman & Associates, Architect.
Ely: We feel that this project is fairly straightforward. This lot has already
been designed. It's already been cleared. So we don't feel that we're
doing anything but improving the area by adding this center. As far as the
grading, with that extra lot there it's already in kind of a hole. We realize
something is going to have to be done to create ... to keep from creating a
big pond there. I haven't talked with the owners, but I imagine there's
going to be some extra dirt left over from grading this site and that they
will probably want to use it to fill that site and bring it up and make it
easier to develop in the future. The owners are common between this lot
and that lot, so it shouldn't be too big of a problem to complete that in the
construction phase.
Anthes: Mr. Casey, is that ... do you need drawings, though, that show that?
Casey: Not at this time, no.
Anthes: Okay.
Casey; We can hold off until the construction drawings. I just wanted to point it
out at this time so it's not a surprise later.
Anthes: Okay. Would any member of the public like to address this Large Scale
Development for Wedington Place Commercial? Seeing none, I'll close
the floor to public comment. Commissioners, I guess we should start with
Commercial Design Standards. Now, Mr. Pate, this is ... this retail center
is the site ... adjoins the side of Harp's that we let go blank before, right?
Pate: Yes.
Anthes: Okay.
Pate: Is attaching to that center, yes.
Anthes: I see that staff has recommended forwarding this Large Scale ... we need
to see full elevations with all the materials later on, though, at a scale that
we can read in all of our packets. So these won't cut it for Planning
Commission, okay, so we know. This little building, this is this one over
here?
Ely: Yes, ma'am.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 92
Anthes: Okay. I'm sorry, but I have a problem with almost every elevation there.
We've got to do something about that. Let's start with that one first.
That's the small one.
Harris: Can I borrow yours?
Anthes: Sure.
Harris: I dropped mine on the floor and I can't find it. Thank you.
Anthes: Let's look at the individual out -lot. It looks to me like all four of those
elevations need improvement in order to meet our Commercial Design
Standards. Would you concur?
Bryant: I concur.
Harris: Absolutely.
Anthes: Now, these ... Jesse, could you maybe point out what you were talking
about?
Fulcher: You bet. This is the south elevation that's facing the parking lot,
obviously, and you can kind of get the depth of that face right there. This
is the east elevation which is shown here. They started their articulation at
this point, but as it goes back to the north along Tahoe ... or Steamboat,
excuse me ... that articulation is lost. This is kind of that separate
building that has its own parking lot that's on the north side of the
property. And then this would be the north elevation, which is facing off
to the north property line.
Anthes: What are our recommendations as far as that north ... or what are staffs
recommendations as far as the north elevation?
Fulcher: The north elevation is ... we are not recommending additional articulation.
That is going to be facing a buffer area between the residential property to
the north and there will be a 6 -foot privacy fence and vegetation provided
for a buffer between the commercial and residential development.
Anthes: Okay. Mr. Pate, to follow up on that, I know that fencing and vegetation
does not substitute for Commercial Design Standards, but as this does not
face a public way, what is that?
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 93
Pate: Steamboat Drive sort of cuts to the east in this direction, and so visibility
to that north side, especially with the building `C' as shown, is going to be
almost impossible from the right-of-way. I think the additions to the front
facade, the east facade of building `B' an building `C,' that corner should
probably be wrapped at least, kind of what they've done on the ... started
to do on the east elevation of the larger structure. But in most situations
that north elevation simply will not be visible, in our opinion.
Anthes: Okay. Frankly, I can't find that, really, any of these elevations meet
Commercial Design Standards. I don't know if that's worth tabling and
having them come back to Subdivision, or do we feel like we can get
enough work done between now and Planning Commission to have
supportable elevations?
Harris: I agree with Commissioner Anthes that these are not articulated well
enough, and so, whatever the procedural process is for that. With ... I
understand that staff is saying that north elevation ... I think ... I have a
suspicion that the Full Commission might disagree that the north elevation
is ... I think there might be some conversation. I won't say it would be a
disagreement, but there might still be conversation. But I certainly think
there would be over the other elevations.
Anthes: I think, you know, obviously, if there's a visibility issue and we can wrap
an acceptable treatment from the front facade onto the line that's visible
on the north that that would work. The question is, do we even have
anything that we can point to that says do it like that because that would,
you know, meet our standards, and I'm not sure that I see it anywhere yet
on the building.
Harris: I would agree with that.
Anthes: How may linear feet is this fagade; do you know?
Ely: I don't know off the top of my head.
Anthes: It's a pretty, you know, long ...
Harris: It's a long span.
Anthes: ... series of repetitive elements and
Ely: It's probably ... it's probably a couple hundred feet at least.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 94
Anthes: I'd like to hear from ... we have a representative from the architectural
firm here.
Ely: Josh here.
Anthes: What do you think your willingness and the client's willingness is to
revisit these elevations?
Danish: I don't think ... I don't think there's a problem with revisiting the
elevations. We did ... obviously, as was stated, on the north elevation on
the opposite side of the property line I believe there's assisted living.
There's a 6- to 8 -foot privacy there and a buffer. What we tried to do with
the entire center was match what was done with the Harp's that's adjacent.
As far as the materiality ...
Anthes: Were you gone for the discussion on the Harp's?
Danish: We don't have ...
Anthes: They had a really hard time getting through the Commercial Design
Standards. It might not be your best mile.
Danish: Okay.
Anthes: Well, let's go on to the curb -cuts.
Harris: Madame Chair.
Anthes: Sure.
Harris: I think this was one of the largest numbers of curb -cuts that I've been
privileged to see the staff recommend, and it is because they all are
addressing different needs on the location, is that right, and hence, they're
in the appropriate location for what their function is?
Pate: Correct. This is not a single -use bank or a single -use restaurant, which
we oftentimes see design three or more curb -cuts. This has a significant
amount of square footage of use, and the actual options for connectivity
and cross -access between Steamboat and Colorado Drive, I think, will be
beneficial to the overall circulation patterns in this area.
Anthes: And what about the misalignments?
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 95
Pate: We've discussed that internally. In order to align these ... align these
curb -cuts, there are two ... a couple of things would have to happen.
Number one, the circulation pattern overall would have to change.
Number two, they would have to request waivers of our design standards
for separation. They've actually met our design standards for separation.,
for 200 feet of separation, I believe, on all of these, whereas, the others ...
the other older developments did not. So those are Pre -Design Overlay
District requirement construction, I believe. So I think that they are doing
every effort to meet our regulations that we have on the books, and as
Jesse mentioned, Steamboat Drive dead ends into, I believe, a house, and
is not on our Master Street Plan to ever go forward, so there's not a lot of
through traffic in this area. So turning movements would be, I think, not
as big of a problem if this were a through traffic street.
Anthes: Okay. I guess those are the only two that we're asked to make findings
on. Are there any further comments about the site plan? Is trash removal
... there's a Dumpster back in here and here?
Ely: Yes, ma'am.
Anthes: Okay.
Ely: And for the building up front, there will be one here.
Anthes: And what's the screening material on this?
Ely: It will be similar to the building. It will be a similar facade with a gated
front.
Anthes: So it's a masonry enclosure?
Ely: Yes.
Anthes: What is this little element here?
Ely: That's going to be a backup generator. The tenant for this building here
will require a backup generator. It will all be located ... enclosed in that
area ... enclosed in fencing.
Anthes: A question of staff. Do we have any noise regulations or specific
requirements for generators onsite?
Pate: Not that I'm aware of.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 96
Anthes: Okay.
Harris: May I ask about the ... where the trash enclosure locations are in terms of
just the transition to residential. Is there a prescribed distance between
something like that, between a trash enclosure and where the assisted
living facility, I guess in this instance, would be located?
Fulcher: There's nothing specific addressing the distance between a trash enclosure
relates looking at ... the distance a structure has to be from a property line
is what we're looking at, and it's outside of the setback requirement in this
location, so ... but, yeah, there's nothing on the books that specifically says
a trash receptacle has to be a certain distance from a property line or a
residential dwelling or anything like that.
Pate: I believe the assisted -living center also has trash Dumpsters that are
utilized also as trash service as well.
Harris: Okay.
Anthes: Well, it looks like our sticking point is Commercial Design Standards, and
as a Subdivision Committee we have to decide whether we feel like that
we have enough assurance that we won't be doing committee work at
Planning Commission if we forward, or whether we think we need to see
if again at this level.
Bryant: My personal opinion is we need to see it again at Sub Committee level just
for the sheer fact that I would hate for it to get all the way to the Planning
Commission after much discussion, then you start all over again.
Anthes: A question of staff. If we can work this out, and has it come back to
Planning Commission ... I mean, to Subdivision, can we approve it here
rather than forward it?
Pate: Yes.
Motion:
Anthes: Then I will move that we table Large Scale Development 06-2168, finding
that we would like to see the Commercial Design Standards, and hopefully
it can be approved at this level without going to the Full Planning
Commission.
Bryant: I'll second.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 97
Harris: And I concur.
Anthes: Thanks.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 98
R-PZD 06-2191: Planned Zoning District (UNIVERSITY CLUB TOWER, 135):
Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOCIATES INC. - ROGERS for property located
at N OF LOWE'S, E OF THE NWA MALL. The property is zoned R -O,
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 16.11 acres. The request is for 13
story/approximately 200' tall building with a maximum 83 dwelling units and both
surface and underground parking.
Anthes: Okay. The 15th Item today is R-PZD 06-2191. It's a Planned Zoning
District for University Club Tower. Would the applicant come forward?
Do you need a break? Are you okay?
Harris: I could do with a ...
Anthes: Let's take a quick five-minute break while everybody shifts around.
?: Thank you.
Anthes: We've been here for a while.
Break: There was a brief recess.
Anthes: This next item is R-PZD 06-2191 for University Club Tower. Suzanne?
Morgan: This property contains about 10 and a half acres. It's zoned R -O and C-2.
The C-2 property contains about 6.9 acres and the property zoned R -O is
3.5. It is located to the east of College Avenue. The R -O property is
actually Lot 11 of the approved Timberlake Office Park, which will have
an access from Zion Road by way of a new street that will be built within
that subdivision. This proposal is for a rezoning and large scale
development approval for an R-PZD. The proposed use of the site is for a
multi -family condominium building with maximum 83 units. The height
proposed is 13 stories, or 200 feet, and the facility will offer a pool, health
center, and other resident ... other amenities, including a walking trail on
the property for the use of the residents. The residential structure will
provide additional housing and a regional commercial node. It has been
intentionally proposed to be vertical in nature with a smaller footprint to
preserve natural land and tree canopy. The close proximity to commercial
services is proposed to be a benefit to those who reside on the property as
well as the commercial structures ... or commercial businesses surrounding
it. The building has been oriented in a north/south direction in order to
minimize heat gain and will install devices to reduce the cooling loads.
With regards to the elevations, the applicant has provided several
elevation boards. I'm sure they'll be happy to go through those with you
and discuss the proposal. With regard to architectural or design standards,
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 99
this is a residential building and we do not review Commercial Design
Standards for residential units; however, staff will make specific findings
on this project for Planning Commission consideration as required in the
ordinances found in Chapters 161, 166, and the General Plan 2025. I've
included the ... the different items for which we're to make findings and
the staff report, though those findings have not been included. Let me go
through the Conditions of Approval or conditions ... or items to address,
and maybe we'll get through the project that way. First, is determination
of street improvements. This ... the adjacent project for Timberlake Trails
Office Park did a calculation study on traffic counts, and based on that we
recommended just improvements, design road on that frontage. We were
informed that the proposed condominium building, those numbers were ...
traffic counts were included in that report; however, staff is still trying to
determine whether those improvements were sufficient for this
development. We do not have the specific numbers and so I'm not ... I
need to verify that the 83 units is what was proposed in that ... taken into
account in that study. Condition Number 2 addresses access. The
property will have access from the public street that will be built in
Timberlake Office Park, and staff is requiring that that street be
constructed and inspected, approved and dedicated prior to issuance of
building permits for this project so that we can ensure adequate public
access to the site. The applicant is also proposing a connection to Lowe's
parking lot; however, the applicant proposes that this connection be a
gated connection for emergency use only. Staff recommends the removal
of this gate, which restricts access, in order to provide ease of ingress and
egress from both properties and alleviate any congestion at the intersection
of Timberlake Road and Zion Road intersection. Condition 4 addresses
the surface parking proposed. This applicant has proposed two levels of
parking interior to the building, as well as 48 surface parking spaces, and
staff is recommending the reduction of those parking ... surface parking
lots in order to tighten up the area which will be graded and increase
preservation of canopy on this property. Condition 5 addresses signs. The
applicant has proposed in the booklet ... the project booklet ... that the
signage will comply with commercial design ... or commercial
requirements. Staff recommends that instead this applicant ... or this
project comply with residential multi -family requirements for signage.
That has been ... those specific requirements have been listed in Condition
Number 5. We just find that for a residential building commercial signage
requirements are very lenient ... or I guess it would allow more signage
than you would typically have for a multi -family development. Condition
6 is in regards to reflective glass. The applicant has not proposed
reflective glass and we just want to make it clear on a condition of
approval that that will not be used. Condition 9 addresses owner
information. Mrs. Blair was ... is the owner of the property that was
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 100
developed as Timberlake Office Park. I believe from information given to
me by the applicant that they've sold a portion of her property to Zion
Holdings; however, that portion which was sold was never subdivided
through the City with a lot split. Therefore, Mrs. Blair would need to sign
application as owner. We will be collecting parks fees for this project in
the amount of $ 56, 440.00 based on 83 units. That number may fluctuate
at the time of building permit depending if they have less ... fewer units
proposed. And there will be a pedestrian walkway, I think, as previously
mentioned on this project, and we anticipate that that will ... and are
recommending that that be constructed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. There are several comments in here just in regards to ...
Anthes: What ... Suzanne, what Condition of Approval ...
Morgan: What number was that? Let's see. 17 was Parks Fees. 15 was the
pedestrian walkways. I haven't covered Conditions 10 through 13, as
they're in relation to the tree preservation, so I believe Sarah will cover
those. And we have requested in Condition 21 that the slopes be re -
vegetated to prevent erosion from this site in accordance with accepted
practices from the City. And 22 and 23 address revisions requested to the
booklet and to the site plan. Condition 24 has some ... we have some
requests for landscaping ... revisions to ... or, excuse me, revisions to the
landscaping plan. The applicant is proposing to use existing trees along
College Avenue and Timberlake Road to count for their one tree per 30
feet, and we would just request that they be more specific and show
exactly where the trees are located and their size and species. And that's
all I have.
Anthes: Thank you, Suzanne. Matt?
Casey: No comments.
Anthes: Sarah?
Patterson: Yes. I have several revisions. There's a discrepancy in the tree
preservation calculations between canopy removed and canopy preserved.
I used the 58.15, but I'm not sure if that is the accurate one. If you look at
it the other way, it's over 60 percent saved. So if you would just clarify
that. Finding most of the site to be a wooded hillside, all canopies should
be recognized as a high priority for preservation according to Chapter 167.
If you would just revise those plans as well, or the calculations. This has
been revised since when I originally saw it at Tech Plat. There is an
increased amount of what I consider unnecessary canopy removal around
the proposed structure. I don't know if that was for the installation of the
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 101
trail, but I would revise ... I would ask that you revise the fencing to
follow the grading lines and let that be the limit of disturbance. You
know, it's my understanding that this project is aimed at a considerable
amount of tree preservation and a minimal impact on the hillside, so I
would just ask that the walking trail be routed where possible to save as
many trees and to disturb as little as possible and I would be willing to
help coordinate that with you. I would also ask that additional
considerations for reducing the surface parking grading and alignment of
private drives should occur to take advantage of that preserved canopy
with this Planned Zoning District. And the canopy is well above the
required, so no mitigation is going to be necessary.
Anthes: Thank you very much. Do we have any other staff comments? Mr. Pate.
Pate: I just wanted to ... Madame Chair... if I could elaborate on Condition
Number 4, I believe, I think both Sarah and Suzanne touched on that in
reducing some of the surface parking areas, which we find to be a bit
unnecessary. Understandably, there probably should be some guest
parking, and primarily around the small roundabout covered drop-off area
is a primary ... a good location for that. We are recommending that the
private drive not dip so far north, essentially, and that parking in that be
removed ... I'm sorry, not dip so far south... and the parking in that area be
removed. That would potentially ... I don't think it would ... it looks like it
would not ... not mess up the grading very much in that area, I don't
believe. I think there is much more tree canopy that could be shown as
preserved, specifically, those significant trees ... I'm looking at the Tree
Preservation Plan ... but those significant trees, 165, 104, 164, 199,
potentially 123. All of those that are being shown to be removed could
potentially be added to the preserved canopy calculations. So Sarah and
Suzanne and I have both discussed that as well. Additionally, the parking
area on the west side, that was initially shown at Technical Plat Review as
a potential overflow parking area. They have formalized that now to be
shown as a full paving section. And again, I think the numbers of parking
areas, based on the bedrooms, are adequate with the parking structure, and
I believe, in my opinion, what's been discussed on this Planned Zoning
District is that the point is to make a very low impact, and I ... I simply ...
staff is simply encouraging that to the fullest extent possible.
Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Will you introduce yourself and tell us about the
proj ect.
Ellis: My name is Daniel Ellis with Crafton, Tull & Associates.
Burgess: I'm Wes Burgess with Crafton, Tull & Associates.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 102
Chapman: I'm Dave Chapman.
Anthes: Are you the project owner?
Chapman: Yes, ma'am.
Anthes: And who is going to give us the presentation?
Ellis: I think I'll go ahead and start. I think staff did a very good job of
describing this project. It is a 13 -story, approximately 200 -foot tall
condominium project. It is strictly for ownership by the tenants of the
building. It's not intended to be a rental type of a facility or a commercial
type of a facility. I think staff is looking at access through the Lowe's
parking lot, and we'd like to add that the condition of the sale of this
property is that that access cannot be public and can't be free-flowing.
Lowe's has specifically stated that is has to be gated, it has to be restricted,
and it's for fire access only. And we have talked to them in great lengths
about that and they are not willing to budge on that issue. So we would
like to try find a different solution, if possible, to handle that, but the real
estate contract is very specific, that ... in regards to that ... in regards to
that issue. And that will signed at the time of closing, which will happen
after large scale and PZD approval of this property.
Anthes: Further comments?
Chapman: I believe I can just speak up. I don't a have any problem with anything
that was said other than ... I mean, with any of the comments that have
been made that ... but the one thing that I know that has to be is Lowe's is
going to require that that be emergency access only and gated. Lowe's has
this as their parking lot. They say, "This is not a public road, this is our
parking lot," but they will allow it be an emergency access.
Anthes: Okay. Would any member of the public like to address this PZD 06-2191
for University Club Tower? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public
comment. Before the Commissioners start talking about this, I'd just like
to ask staff, this is a big project, and yet, I'm wondering whether it's really
ready for Planning Commission. We have a lot of site plan revisions that
we're talking about. We're talking about asking them to revisit their
access drives and parking in a way that could substantially the site plan.
We've got an egress issue in that we're proposing 83 units that only have
one way in and one way out, if what we're hearing today is true, and that
feels inadequate. And we don't really have a full staff report with
recommendations that make me comfortable one way or the other about
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 103
making a recommendation to Full Planning Commission without the
findings based on current codes, regulations, and the General Plan. So can
you allay my fears about that?
Pate: Sure. I'll try. I'll start with the last first. The Subdivision Committee
never gets those findings with the PZD. Those are zoning type items, and
so those are already made for the Planning Commission to determine and
then further on to City Council. We do typically try to include those just
so that you know that's what's coming in terms of the zoning associated
with the Planned Zoning District. And those include things such as
project flexibility, regard to distribution of land uses; is it compatible with
surrounding land uses; is it in harmony, have a creative arrangement.
Does it have a variety ... achieve a variety of housing types? Does it
coordinate with urbanization of new lands? Is it open space? Does it
provide as otherwise not required by conventional land development
regulations? Are natural features taken into consideration? Are the
guiding policies of the City Plan 2025 taken into consideration? And is
there a better utilization of the site characterized by special features of
location and topography? Those are the 10 items under our zoning criteria
that we usually make findings on. There are additional items in Chapter
166 that we also make findings on typically for the Planning Commission.
That's a very typical practice to do that. In terms of the site plan layout
and modifications, I think most of those won't change the overall site
layout with the exception of removal of parking areas and the associated
grading and essentially showing the tree preservation plan much tighter to
the limits of grading is what we would expect to see there. The ... I think
the primary change would be what staff was recommending, and that
would be a shift of the alignment of that main driveway to the east. As far
as site plan layout on the gated access, I think that's simply an agreement
to disagree between the applicant and staff at this point. We feel that it is
important to have full access there. There is an access easement present
for a future connection.
Anthes: There is an access easement?
Pate: I believe so. And I believe that's been provided to us by Mr. Chapman as
well. I understand that Lowe's has concern about full access there. We
have a concern about 83 new dwelling units, plus the residential office
subdivision using one point of ingress and egress in an area which has a ...
currently has a hill, that sight distance we've all talked about with
Timberlake Office Park, and so we certainly have a concern about that.
And I don't know that we've ... that staff has recommended a one-way in
and a one-way out for 83 dwelling units before. So that's a note on the
plat and something that I'm not sure how well we'll be able to get around.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 104
Other information that needs to be provided: owner's signature, north
arrow. Those are very minor things I think we could work our way
through to get to the Planning Commission. Revisions, of course,
reviewed by Monday morning, 9... or 10:00 a.m. So we are now into
Thursday afternoon, but we felt that it was sufficient enough to go ahead
and forward onto Full Planning Commission, but that is the Subdivision
Committee's call.
Anthes: Okay. Commissioners?
Harris: Madame Chair. This is, for me, the first ... excuse me ... PZD of this, I
think, significance that I have seen at Subdivision level, and so I would
need some direction in terms of what we are finding here.
Anthes: Well, basically we're looking at configuration, because the zoning criteria,
we don't usually see it, and that's what Mr. Pate was referring to. Okay?
Harris: Uh-huh.
Anthes: So is that ...
Pate: Yes. I believe a lot of the detail work and committee work that's done in
Subdivision Committee is primarily, in a Planned Zoning District, has to
do with the overall site plan and layout. As three voting members of the
Planning Commission, obviously any concerns with the zoning of this site
in terms of what you all are aware of and what we look at with any kind of
PZD are certainly taken ... not taken lightly by the applicants, nor staff as
well, and so any direction you can give to them in terms of that, and
obviously, you don't have staff s findings. You may not agree with staff's
findings on this project. That's simply the way it goes. But we would
provide those to you in detail at the time of Planning Commission to
review fully the zoning implications and things of that nature. In this
report we've simply provided what the Planning Commission is allowed to
look at without our specific findings.
Chapman: And I may be speaking up at a wrong time here, but getting back to the ...
this access easement, let me just briefly ... I started dealing with Margaret
Blair in 1994 trying to buy this entire acreage for this very project. And at
that time, Lowe's ... I think Lowe's owned this land at that point ... well,
I'm sure they did. And in the process of getting this access easement,
Lowe's bought this land so nobody would use that access. That's the only
reason that Lowe's bought this land was so this would not be used. And
the only way that they're willing to sell it to me, and they will let it be
used as an emergency access easement, will be if this is not a public road.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 105
And really, I think it's better having all the traffic coming up here away
from down at the stoplight than having ... I mean, people that live here
aren't going to want to drive in and out through the Lowe's parking lot to
get into their residences.
Anthes: Right. It's just the issue of whether we would ever recommend 83
dwelling units out of this ...
Chapman: And 83 is some ...
Anthes: ... going in and out. I mean, if there's a wreck or something happens ...
Chapman: We're talking 60 -something at this ... well, this emergency access now
allows two ways in and out to this subdivision, which right now only has
one way in and out. This will allow, in case there's a problem with this,
for them to get there this way. So we are providing an additional access to
this subdivision, which does not have one, unless we can provide that.
Anthes: Got it. What is the effect of density?
Chapman: Can you refer to ... I want to go back to this 84 units.
Anthes: You know, we really don't do this kind of back and forth.
Chapman: Oh, okay.
Anthes: Let's just do our process and if we have questions that come up we can do
that.
Chapman: Right.
Anthes: That would be great. (Inaudible.)
Chapman: Well, you just asked about density and I was going (inaudible)
Anthes: Well, I asked staff about density.
Chapman: I wish I was more like those folks out there.
Anthes: Sometimes we're a lot more informal at Subdivision than we are normally
at Planning Commission, and it allows for some of this, but with the
length of this meeting we're trying to see what we can do.
Pate: Eight units per acre.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 106
Anthes: Okay.
Harris: Madame Chair.
Anthes: Yes.
Harris: To go back to my question, just so I'm understanding what we're trying to
accomplish here, are we then ... are we now looking at issues of
compatibility with surrounding uses and those sorts of things, or is that
something that the Full Commission does?
Pate: You can certainly discuss anything that's applicable with a Planned
Zoning District at this time. Certainly.
Harris: Although ...
Anthes: Because this is a fully residential project, we do not have Commercial
Design Standards.
Harris: Right. Right. And if I'm reading the packet right so far, you will ... how
would ... the staff, I'm referring to now ... is going to be making some
sorts of recommendations based on those two chapters of the PZD
ordinance?
Pate: Yes, uh-huh..
Harris: Okay.
Pate: We have provided you with a recommendation to forward this to the Full
Planning Commission for consideration based on those 20 ... 31
Conditions of Approval that we have as stated currently. And we
reviewed primarily the booklet that's been presented and the development
plans that have been presented along with the overall concept. We, as
staff, obviously have an idea of how we feel about flexibility,
compatibility with land uses, coordination, open space, guiding policy of
the City Plan 2025. We simply haven't written them down in your staff
report for Subdivision Committee to make a finding on currently.
Harris: Okay.
Anthes: You know what? What I feel here is that I really don't know enough to
really make any kind of recommendation one way or the other and that I
feel like it needs to go to Full Planning Commission to get that hearing. I
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 107
guess I would say that I would agree with staff that, you know, trying to
limit the amount of driveways and parking and limit the site disturbances
certainly should be a goal of the project and would like to see a revised
site plan that indicates those changes. I'm going to remain concerned
about one way in and out for an 83- unit ... an 83 -unit building and, you
know, I don't know what to do about that. But ... but I don't think that is a
great way to go, and I guess we'll be looking at whether the traffic
numbers that come out of this report ... you know, what staff decides to
tell us about ... about that. I don't know.
Pate: We believe what was accounted for in that initial traffic report. We just
simply haven't ... don't have that data in front of us as of this time.
Motion:
Anthes: Okay. I mean, saying all that, I mean, I guess I would move that we
forward the R-PZD to Full Planning Commission, but with absolutely no
recommendation from the Subcommittee whatsoever.
Bryant: And I will second.
Harris: I concur.
Anthes: Okay. That's all I know to do.
Chapman: I guess what I'm saying is it's not planned for 83 units. It's planned for
64.
Anthes: Okay. You need to talk to staff about that so they can revise their report.
Chapman: Just ... Do it where?
Anthes: Talk to staff about that so they can revise their report.
Chapman: (Inaudible) I'm not sure how we got to 80 -something (inaudible)
Anthes: Well, it might just be a typo. But your Parks fees and everything else are
(inaudible) on that number?
Chapman: Oh, yeah. Sure.
Anthes: So you would like to revisit that, I'm sure. Okay.
Chapman: (Inaudible.) It was supposed to be 64 units rather than 80 -something.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 108
Anthes: There's still going to be trouble with access.
Chapman: Pardon me?
Anthes: It would still be trouble with access.
Chapman: The one lane in and out?
Anthes: Yes.
Chapman: Okay. Thank you.
Anthes: I hope to have that debate.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 109
R-PZD 06-2190: Planned Zoning District (WOODBURY, 137): Submitted by H2
ENGINEERING, INC. for property located SOUTH OF ZION ROAD, AND EAST OF
TALIESIN LANE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and
contains approximately 11.66 acres. The request is for rezoning and development
approval for an R-PZD with 67 single-family dwellings and 45 multi -family dwellings.
Anthes: Okay. Our final item this afternoon is R-PZD 06-2190, a Planned Zoning
District for Woodbury. Will the applicants come forward, and Andrew?
Good afternoon. Have you guys had lunch?
Applicants: It is afternoon. We ...
Anthes: We just wanted ... we just wanted to (inaudible).
?: We offered some chips to them.
?: It probably wouldn't work well if (inaudible).
?: You were offering them to the wrong people.
Anthes: I don't think we can accept ... All right, Andrew.
Garner: All right. The property contains 11.6 (sic) acres. It's located on the south
side of Zion Road, approximately .3 miles west of Crossover Road. It's
zoned Residential -Agricultural. It's generally flat and developed for rural
residential and pasture use. A majority of the tree canopy is along Zion
Road. There's also some along the outer property lines. And the
surrounding land use includes ... to the north of the property across Zion
Road is the Zion Gardens R-PZD, which is under development. The south
is undeveloped land, to the east is multi -family residential, and to the west
is single-family residential. The applicant requests rezoning and large
scale development approval for a residential planned zoning district. And
the proposed use of this site is for 45 multi -family units in two buildings
adjacent to Zion Road, and 67 single-family dwellings in Planning Area 1,
which is around a 1.12 -acre common area with a clubhouse, pool, and
greenspace. The property would not be subdivided into lots. It would be
under one common property owner association. And access into this
property is directly off of Zion Road onto what they're calling Woodbury
Drive on their site plan, which is the main north/south public street. And
this road transitions into a one-way public street around either side of the
common area and continues south, stubbing out at the southern property
line. Private streets traverse east and west from Woodbury Drive around
the perimeter of the property, and access ... alleys off of those private
streets provide access into the separate "pods" of single-family residences.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 110
And the entrances for the two multi -family dwellings are off of a private
street and a courtyard for the buildings, and the garages for the multi-
family buildings are interior to the structures and shielded from the street.
The proposal includes a number of pedestrian paths between the single-
family units, providing connection generally going towards the central
common area in the middle. And all public and private streets are
proposed with sidewalks and lined with trees planted at a maximum of 30
feet apart. The proposed zoning criteria in the site plan allows for a more
dense layout of single-family residences than would be allowed under any
standard zoning criteria. The density of the single-family residences in
Planning Area 1 is 8.5 units per acre, and they have it in their booklet, all
the zoning criteria and on their plats as provided in duplicate. Adjacent
Master Street Plan streets, is Zion Road is the only adjacent Master Street
Plan street that's mentioned. It's a collector. The street improvements
that we are recommending with this development include adding curb,
gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage along the south side of Zion Road,
along the property frontage and extending these improvements
approximately 220 feet to the west to tie into the existing improvements at
Taliesin Lane. And staff does recommend tabling this PZD mainly to
address issues with modifications to the site and the Tree Preservation
Plan. And at this point, with the plan submitted for the Subdivision
Committee, we are not in support of the tree preservation plan and I'm
sure Sarah can get into more details about what we are looking for on that.
Other issues and conditions to discuss or address include street
improvements, which I mentioned already. Condition Number 3 is
Planning Commission determination of offsite drainage improvements.
Matt, do you want to jump in and briefly describe that one?
Casey: The development across the street to the north ... Zion Gardens, I believe,
is the name of it ... they were required to do some offsite drainage
improvements and the City of Fayetteville is cost sharing to extend those
improvements even further than what was required. The agreement was
made with this project to participate in those improvements for the City ...
to reimburse the City for part of their portion in lieu of detention for this
site. The improvements will take the water from this site and take it north
almost all the way to Lake Fayetteville. As far as the improvements to the
west, a complete review has not been done of their re -submittal, but the
requirement was that we reduce the amount of flow to the west to ... not to
exceed the pre -development, and that's something I'm working with the
applicant on now, to get that reduced down. At this time they are showing
improvements offsite to the west; however, the extent of that, I'm not sure
of. It's not shown on the plans. Maybe the applicant can explain that a
little bit.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 111
Hennelly: Yeah. We had anticipated there being some discussion as to the level of
offsite improvements to the west, so that's the reason we didn't get too
detailed, because there was going to be some determination both ... I think
at the time the traffic study was still out, and then once we got that back, it
didn't require or call for any offsite improvements, but we did see the need
for the improvements of curb and gutter and storm drainage to take care of
the requirement for not putting in detention.
Anthes: Is that all?
Hennelly: Yes, ma'am.
Anthes: Did you have some more?
Garner: I think those were the main issues. And there's a lot of conditions and
we'll be happy to answer questions about them.
Anthes: Okay. Sarah, I think you have quite a bit here.
Patterson: Yeah. For the tree preservation, they're showing about 18 -percent canopy
cover on this site, and this proposal in front of you specifies 5.48 percent
of that to be preserved. After looking at it very closely and talking with
Jeremy, a good portion, if not half of that portion, is canopy that I feel that
after the installation of all the utilities, the roads, and such, most of that
canopy will not make it through the development process. So not only are
the calculations a bit incorrect, but I just feel ... I think the 5 percent is too
low for a PZD. A lot of this canopy is located on the east and west
property lines, which in my opinion is a great place for preservation.
Some of the trees, you know, they benefit both properties, their single-
family development to the west just creating some kind of buffer, and
typically, you know, trees along property lines can be worked around to be
saved. So that's just something that we need to look at and work through
until I'm a little bit more comfortable with the numbers. Typically, for the
Planned Zoning Districts, I look for a high amount of preservation, and
what I'm currently looking at does not fit in my mind.
Anthes: Thank you, Sarah. Would you introduce yourself and your project?
Hennelly: Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering.
Thompson: Jeremy Thompson with H2 Engineering.
Martin: Jeff Martin, Martin Custom Homebuilders, developer.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 112
Thompson: And this project, I guess the intent of this thing through the design process
has been to create a development that really provides a sense of
neighborhood and community, individual pods of homes, but also a
development that encourages a lot of walking, gathering, sort of a
neighborhood feel, as well as this thing being put in a location where it's
also convenient to walk to activities. We have the Lake Fayetteville park
closely by, Fayetteville Athletic Club, a couple of restaurants, and that's
really the intent of this thing is to go after a community neighborhood -type
feel. That's a little on our ideas there. Tree preservation, that's an issue, I
guess. We've been talking with Sarah and Jeremy most of the week about
this as far as what we can do to better work with the preservation. Initially,
about ... I guess about half of the preserved tree canopy we were showing
was in utility easements that we were going to require directional boring
from utilities companies in order to ... to get a shot at preserving some of
that canopy,. That's ... as we talked through it with Sarah and Jeremy,
that's not going to be acceptable. So really we've got a few ... a few ideas
on areas where we can preserve some more canopy, and we hope to show
those to you all today and kind of get your thoughts on it and maybe any
guidance you guys would like to provide as far as the tree preservation
goes. I'll answer any questions you have and want to work towards a
successful layout.
Anthes: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this item,
Planned Zoning District for Woodbury? Seeing none, we'll close the
public comment section. As far as any additional ideas that you have
today, I'd really rather have you work them out with staff before they get
to this level and get a recommendation from them for us to work on. It's
really staff work and not Subdivision Committee work.
Thompson: Sure.
Anthes: Would you concur with that?
Harris: Uh-huh. I can concur.
Anthes: And I'd like to talk about connectivity here. Would staff go over their
recommendation on Item 4 again?
Garner: Sure. What we're recommending is that, in addition to the stub -outs as
shown, they do have one street stubbed out to the east and one to the
south. We're also recommending that they stub out a private street cross -
access potentially in the vicinity of, you know, the southwest portion of
the lot ... of the site. And you can see there on your site plan Lots 41
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 113
through 47, and that's the vicinity we're talking about. We feel like there
needs to be another connection there.
Anthes: Oh, in here somewhere?
Thompson: Yes.
Garner: Right. There's that peak parcel right there that is a large parcel with one
house on it. There's potential for development in the future on there, and
we feel like ... there's actually a driveway in that location. It shows up on
your sheet 205. You can see the house and existing driveway. It goes to
this property, and so we are recommending that there would be some sort
of stub -out there to allow for potential cross -access.
Anthes: Okay. And that doesn't change the number of lots or anything?
Hennelly: No.
Anthes: What about this area here?
Hennelly: There's an apartment complex to the east, and I would like to point out
that the access shown there in the northeast corner is not an open access
point, but rather an emergency access that we got a verbal agreement from
Lindsey Management to tie on in case of ... emergency access was needed
and the entrance was blocked. Because this property is a little bit unique
in that it's developed on both sides. The only place where we really have
the opportunity to connect is to the south and to the north, which is what
we've done. But as far as any permanent connectivity east or west, we're
really kind of limited in what we were able to do.
Anthes: Okay. So really this would never get us out to Crossover Road, you know,
eventually through any kind of development?
Hennelly: Right.
Anthes: Okay.
Hennelly: The On -Deck ... the center that has the On -Deck baseball facility in it is
immediately east of that, and then Key Corner Plaza Shopping Center with
a restaurant and a convenience store is east of that.
Pate: Madame Chair.
Anthes: Yes.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 114
Pate: I would also like to clarify, because we just talked about an item that staff
was recommending a full access point, and there's an obvious difference
in this in our opinion. One is that the applicant has gone to lengths to
contact the adjacent property owner. There is no existing access easement
or other access point to the east or to the west. So they have gone to the
staff's recommendation, discussing with them to provide another access
point. This is not ... this was something that was agreed to by the adjacent
property owner. Additionally, this project will have a full public stub -out
to the south as well as another stub -out that we are recommending to the
south. The project that we saw previously had no stub -outs and no means
of connecting to the south, the west. The only connection, really, that was
full access was one to the north. So I think there is a very big difference in
terms of what we're reviewing here, and just for the public's knowledge as
anyone watching this and for the Planning Commission, I certainly
wouldn't want to make any inconsistent recommendations because we like
one project and don't like another. If that is seen as what we're doing
here, I think we're giving these in terms of context to the situation.
Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Pate. I certainly would support this second one, and it
doesn't seem like it would be a hardship to the project at all to provide
that.
Thompson: No. We've shown an access easement there in the plans, but currently
have not actually shown a stub -out. The owner of that property to the
south is less than excited about us stubbing out something to his property
right now, so that really kind of led the reasoning for our adjustment
access easement shown at this point.
Anthes: I understand that, but, you know, we have terrible, terrible problems
unless we have it constructed with a sign there, "in the future," because
people don't expect it and it really blows their mind when it's just an
easement.
Hennelly: This one would be somewhat unusual and a little bit difficult because of
the proximity of the street to the property line running parallel and trying
to get your radiuses in. Really, all we would be providing would be a
curb -cut along the property line where I think that, you know, even if we
provided just a curb -cut without constructing radiuses and then put the
signs up there that indicated future right-of-way or future street extension,
I think we could accomplish the same thing. I think ... it would make it
difficult and look awkward, I think, once they ... if they ever did connect
to it, having those partial radiuses bored. That was the only reason we
didn't show.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 115
Anthes: You have similar proximity here, right? It looks very similar.
Hennelly: Right. We do have similar proximity there and the ... and that certainly
could be handled the same way. This being, you know, the property
owner that is selling the development to our client and this being a totally
separate property owner, we did feel like that was ... because it was along
a straight road, was more visible, and that type thing.
Anthes: Well, I guess, whatever staff would support.
Hennelly: We could do either one. That's ...
Anthes: Now, but if you can't construct the full radius and stub -out, do you often
collect for that, an assessment for that for the future, or how do you
usually do it?
Casey: I think it would be minor ... not worth collecting.
Anthes: Okay.
Casey: In looking at how that's configured on south of Woodbury, my preference
would be to see that just a continuous curb across there. I do understand
your concerns, though, with future extensions causing people that live
there problems, but from a constructability standpoint that's going to be
very difficult to do, and also they'll need to meet their 5 -foot setbacks
from the property line, which may further complicate things.
Anthes: Well, I think we need a very strong visual indication in these places that
this would occur ... could occur in the future, because we have ... we
experience a lot of heartburn otherwise when that goes through.
?: I understand.
Anthes: And then we're setting up future Commissions for big problems and future
staff. So if you could work with the applicant to come up with something
that's ...
?: Uh-huh. Sure.
Anthes: ... visually very clear, whether the curb steps down and there's signs or
whatever it takes to get it done, but it needs to be something other than just
an easement.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 116
Casey: Okay.
?: Okay.
Hennelly: The ... as far as a little bit of discussion on the tree canopy, this is, as are a
lot of projects that have been ... a portion of this project has been an
existing residential dwelling up in the northwest comer, and a significant
number of the trees were planted around a single ... a single home, which
makes it difficult to design around, because that wasn't an original part of
this property. So this project did have some unique design challenges to
try and overcome, and I think when you look at the nature of this
development and the amount of trees that are being planted for either
mitigation or required street trees, it's almost like a reforestation project
for this size parcel, understanding that the canopy requirements are less
than what you would normally see, but I think once, you know, in a five-
year period or a 10 -year period these trees will be of a significant size and
you'll see a much more canopy -covered parcel than what was here prior to
development or what would be here if this wasn't developed.
Anthes: Let me ask you about these configuration and these buildings. Is your
intent that the back sort of face these service courts and then the fronts
onto these walks.
Hennelly: Kind of a common area, uh-huh..
Anthes: Okay. So that's similar to what we saw in the original Aspen Ridge
proposal, correct?
Pate: I don't know that they had ... there were more pods all at the same
building, kind of just distributed throughout the site.
Anthes: So there's more variety in this unit type?
Pate: Yes, I believe so. Their elevations that are shown here, these are typical
single-family type elevations, and multi -family along Zion Road are also
shown in the elevation on the west. So it's obviously showing a
development pattern or style that's compatible throughout the overall
development, but there is certainly variations in that, so hopefully it would
create a better neighborhood as opposed to one single footprint or
elevation everywhere.
Martin: Let me if, I could, just complement what Tom was saying about the
landscape, and just give you just, again, a quick overview of this
community. It's not something that we've had here in Fayetteville before.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 117
It's a different concept. We got this concept from Irvine, California ...
Woodbury. It's a project very similar. It's a larger scale project out there
in Irvine, and I know that some of you guys are familiar with the planning
out there, but anyway ... so we took that here and, you know, the whole
intent of this is all ... it's all surrounded around the landscape and
community because you do have, you know, a higher density for a single-
family residential. Again, the other intent is to accomplish that, but also to
make it affordable. These homes will range from about 140 to up to about
200. So you're providing a residence for purchase at a very reasonable
price, in a very good location in Fayetteville, other than an out -of -range -
type location. So, and again, to further what Tom was saying, the thing
that makes this work and make it a really nice community is the landscape
plan, very heavily landscaped. I don't know if you guys had a chance to
see any of the photos that we provided from the Irvine Project. You know,
we've kind of, you know, just randomly put some trees and no detail and
landscaping plans here, but, you know, at the end of the day everything is
centered around here and keeping all these spaces as open as possible that
the ... there are not, technically, lots here. The property lines are at the
buildings and all the greenspace you see here is all common area. It's
landscaped and maintained by the POA. You know, I think at the end of
the project what you're going to see is, you know, especially five years
from now, 10 years from now, you're going to have more tree canopy than
is existing right now. So, you know, you're going to have a more
landscaped area, so ... And that's the whole deal. You want to encourage
community. You want to encourage a good, warm feel of home when you
enter this neighborhood. You know, I also noticed and maybe I'm kind of
going a little forward on this, that there was some recommendations that
maybe this is commercial services. You know, that would be completely
... that would be completely sideways from where we would want to go.
Because when we ... when our people are driving in we want them to feel
a sense of place. I mean, this is their home, and driving by any
commercial services, you know, that's kind of making it a little bit ... I
mean, to me it's a little sterile. So, you know, it's a residential place. And
so that ... I just wanted to give you guys an overview. You've seen some
of our elevations, they're not final, but that is a good idea of the
characteristic of the neighborhood. The multi -family or the attached town
homes, you know, that is not rental property. It's all for sale, livable
areas. They all have two -car garages. So, you know, we're encouraging
all off-street parking, and, you know, of course you can see some of our
color charts here and so forth. And so, you know, we've seen this very
successful in some other areas and wanted to bring that here to
Fayetteville. I've been here for 14 years and have seen lots of neat growth
and want to ... want to be part of making Fayetteville better and bringing
in some new residential places to live. So, anyways, I just wanted to kind
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 118
of paint that picture, cast that out for you, so you kind of know, you know,
what our intent is. And we did ... you know, we spent some time working
through the site plan and meeting with Jeremy and Sarah previously on the
tree canopy, and really we thought we were going the right direction based
on the input that we had in what we've got here on paper right now. And I
think, you know, just as of last Friday, that's when ... we're like, "Well,
we've got kind of go a different direction with the tree canopy
preservation due to the utilities and so forth." So our intent is to maintain.
We want to maintain it even better than the canopy and the landscape and
I ...you know, I'm all about working forward with you guys on this
because that's what makes this this project. So there's my overview.
Thank you.
Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Hennelly: There were some, like I said before, some real design challenges on this to
create the sense of community in the center of the project as well as get
the density to be able to provide these homes at the price point that is
obviously needed in Fayetteville, and that was a $140,000 to $200,000 ...
not price per square foot he was quoting there.
Martin: Oh, is that what I said?
Hennelly: No, he didn't say per square foot, but I just wanted to make sure that was
clear.
Anthes: I hope we're not up to $140,000.00 per square foot.
Hennelly: No, but To accomplish both of those and do that on a site that has the
configuration of trees the way they are was certainly difficult, and Miller,
Boskus, Lack did a great job in coming up with the ... kind of the
environment that they ... that Mike and Jeff were trying to accomplish. If
we were to take this common area that's in the middle of this project and
break it up in segment it all over the site where the trees exist, it really
creates a disjointed project without that community, without that central
location. We ... and I understand this is a staff issue that we need to work
through, but there are some very simple ... as Jeremy alluded to, we had
recommended some directional boring underneath some of these trees, and
that was part of the 5.5 percent of preserved canopy that we had initially
proposed. We understand that's not allowed by ordinance, and in looking
at this and taking a look at it, there are some very, very simple things that
we can do to get that percentage up to 6.6 percent just by moving a couple
of buildings to the end of the row and actually using the traditional
preservation numbers that are available. In reconfiguring this southeast
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 119
corner, we're able ... basically double the preservation by losing a unit,
and I think those are simple fixes that could possibly keep us on track.
The preservation number would be at 6.6 percent from 18 percent, and I
understand that that's not optimum. Ultimately, you would like to have
the existing canopy that would be required, but to keep in mind the
replanting that's going on and what was trying to be done with this
property, I think, needs to be taken into account.
Motion:
Anthes: Okay. Well, that's a perfect segway into recommending that we table R-
PZD 06-2190 to give the applicant and the Urban Forester time to work
out those issues and to come back to us with a recommendation that she
could support and you guys are satisfied with. I also want to say just to
the applicant that I encourage you to read our City Plan 2025 and take into
account its intentions. Commercial services don't have to be sterile. It's a
matter of design. They can be very well integrated into neighborhoods
and be very good neighbors and provide even more of the kind of
walkability connections that you've talked about in your proposal. I'm not
saying that one way or another in reference to your proposal today, but
have a look at it if you would. And, let's see, as far as determinations with
the motion to table, just saying that the drainage improvements and street
improvements we'll look at at the time, you know, after you've had time
to work those out to the west and to the north. Hopefully, those will be
ready at the same time Sarah's recommendations are ready and we'll have
the full project in front of us.
Hennelly: Okay.
Thompson: Okay.
Bryant: Second.
Harris: I concur.
Anthes: Okay.
?: How did we get so lucky?
Anthes: All right. I'll see you soon.
Audience: Could I say one thing off the record?
Anthes: Sure. Come on up here. Let me adjourn the meeting first.
Subdivision Committee
August 17, 2006
Page 120
Audience: My name is ...
Anthes: If there are no ... Hold on. Hold on just a minute. Okay? Are there any
announcements?
Pate: No, ma'am.
Anthes: Okay. We'll adjourn the meeting, and feel free to come up here and talk
to us.
(Whereupon, the meeting of the Subdivision Committee was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. on
August 17, 2006.)