Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-31 - MinutesSubdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on August 31, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN LSD 06-2168: (WEDINGTON PLACE Approved COMMERCIAL, 401) Page 3 R-PZD 06-2190: (WOODBURY,137) Forwarded Page 10 ADM 06-2247: (MALCO) Approved Page 21 LSP 06-2122: (FEDOSKY, 167) Approved Page 25 LSP 06-2217: (HOMESTEAD HOMES, 282) Forwarded Page 28 FPL 06-2215: (STONEBRIDGE IV, 608) Approved Page 31 FPL 06-2104: (THE COMMONS @ WALNUT Tabled CROSSING, 555) Page 33 FPL 06-2216: (BELLWOOD I,361/400) Forwarded Page 39 FPL 06-2155: (LEGACY POINTE PH. IV, 475) Forwarded Page 44 R-PZD 06-2196: (WEST FORK PLACE,565/566) Tabled Page 47 R-PZD 06-2169: (6TH & WOOD, 524) Tabled Page 58 Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 2 Candy Clark Hilary Harris Christine Myres STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Matt Casey, Engineering Sarah Patterson, Urban Forester Glenn Newman, Engineering MEMBERS ABSENT Sean Trumbo Lois Byrant James Graves Alan Ostner Jill Anthes Andy Lack STAFF ABSENT Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 3 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 if for a retail center with 3 buildings totaling 55,434 square feet. Clark: Welcome to your August 31st, 2006, Subdivision Planning Commission. I guess that's a good time to ask people to turn off their cell phones and their pagers, please, because when they go off they make a nasty sound on cable access television and we certainly can't have that. The first item on the agenda is old business, Large Scale Development 06-2168 for Wedington Place Commercial. Can I have the staff report, please, Jesse? Fulcher: You bet. This was actually heard at the previous Subdivision Committee meeting on August 17th and was tabled at that time. The Subdivision Committee members could not find in favor of the proposed commercial design standards. Here is the improvised elevation board, the original materials board, then there's the older elevation board there. The proposal is for two retail buildings totally 55,000 square feet, with 259 parking spaces. It's mostly one large building that will connect on the east side of the existing Harp's building and there's a smaller retail building to the south -- to the south end of the parking lot. In our staff report we covered some of the items that the applicant, I guess, revised on their commercial design standards on their building. Most of the items -- The brick pilasters has been brought up. They've modified the roof line, created some more arches and did some more depth in the principle facade, and the most important thing that we had a problem with at the first meeting was pulling those materials along the eastern facade there, which faces onto Steamboat, and then, also, more articulation on the smaller retail building. So with all of those changes, and then also staff has recommended two more changes, which is just bringing some awnings around on a few sides, and I've detailed those out on the retail building and also on the north end of the larger retail building. With those changes staff is recommending approval of this project at Subdivision Committee, finding in favor of commercial design standards. The other determination at the previous meeting was determination of number of curb -cuts and their locations. The previous Subdivision Committee members were comfortable and found in favor of those. Other than that, there are 14 other conditions of approval. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Clark: Thank you very much. Would anyone from the public like to comment on Large Scale Development 06-2168, Wedington Place Commercial? Okay. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 4 Seeing none, do we have an applicant? Come on up, gentlemen, and introduce yourselves, please, and give us your presentation. Danish: My name is Josh Danish. I'm with Ken Shireman & Associates, Architects. Ely: I'm Jonathan Ely with Crafton, Tull & Associates. Clark: Tell us about your project, please. Danish: At our last meeting -- Jesse summed it up. We tried to add a lot more articulation to the front facade, particularly in the cornice line, varying the heights of the parapet to the building. Clark: Jesse, could you put the before pictures up higher, please? Fulcher: You betcha. Danish: And just tried to make the individual storefronts more unique, give it a little bit more of an organic feel rather than the sort of rigid elevations on the front. And then we just pulled the same treatment around to the east side of the building and to part of the north side of the building. On the north side we've got assisted living. There's already an existing 6 -foot privacy fence between the two. But part of the north elevation will be slightly visible to Steamboat Drive, so we pulled the same sort of treatment around on that portion of the north side. Clark: Okay. Danish: That's all. Clark: Okay. Commissioners? Pate: Madame Chair. Clark: I'm sorry. Pate: If I could have Jesse point out where we're recommending awnings in addition to that, I think that would help. In our recommendation we're recommending a few more things than they have shown here as well. Fulcher: The addition of the awnings would be on this east elevation or actually -- let me bring it around -- this east elevation, which faces out onto the right- of-way, just to address it as a facade, since it is in the Design Overlay Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page S District, to bring these same front features to this side, bring these larger awnings here. This north elevation is slightly visible from the right-of- way as you're heading south, and we've requested these smaller awnings that you find on the rear here, along this facade. And then on the smaller retail building, again, these larger awnings, pulling those just on the north and then on the south elevation. Those are the four places. Clark: Okay. Jeremy, I'm sorry. I was remiss. Does any other staff have comments about this development? Pate: No. No, ma'am. Clark: Mr. Casey? Casey: No comments. Clark: Okeydokey. Now, all right. I want to know how you feel about those awnings. Danish: I don't think we have a problem with that. Myres: What kind of awnings? Danish: They're going to be -- well, what we have drawn anyway are canvas awnings. They're intended to be used by the individual tenants as far as any kind of logos or anything like that that they want to put on. Clark: Jesse, point out the old outbuilding south elevation, please. Fulcher: This here. Clark: Okay. So you just added one new band to that? Danish: The brick pilasters, also. Clark: Okay, the pilasters. Pate: That particular structure was a little tricky. It's not actually fronting onto a right-of-way anywhere on the site plans you can see, but because it's sort of in the middle of the property you can see it, it's quite visible, because most of the property surrounding it is a parking area. So the Subdivision Committee prior to that did feel that it should be more articulated on all of those sides because it was somewhat visible, and so that's why we directed the applicants to come back with as well. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 6 Clark: Okay. What about the north elevation from the northwest -- the northeast? The second one on the top. Fulcher: This breaks back down to the south if you look at the -- Clark: It's really this end that I'm more concerned with? Fulcher: This end? Clark: Yeah. Fulcher: This is the back of the Harp's building. This is actually a service area back here, which is not visible from any right-of-way. Clark: Okay. It has no frontage at all? ? No. Clark: Okay. Danish: That's the north side that's got the privacy fence between it and the assisted living. Clark: Is this not the property that is by the senior center that we talked about a path for to make sure the seniors could get to Harp's a long time ago? Fulcher: Uh-huh. Pate: Uh-huh. Clark: Okay. What are we doing about it, because we made promises? I know you weren't a part of it, but promises were made. Danish: Sure. Fulcher: Well, the vehicular access, obviously, has been provided. This is the Taco Bell site where that originated from, and so you have the vehicular access across to the Harp's. Clark: This is it, right? Fulcher: Uh-huh. This is Harp's right here. Clark: Okay. And this is the senior center we're talking about? Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 7 Fulcher: No. It's -- Clark: No, it's right here? Fulcher: Yes. Clark: Right there. Okay. So where was the -- this was the path? Fulcher: That was -- that's the vehicular drive. Clark: Where's the bank? There's the bank. Well, they were also walking and that's what they were concerned about. Pate: One could walk from the senior center now down -- I believe it's Steamboat Drive -- and take the sidewalks that are part of the retail frontage there all the way into Harp's essentially, because this building does connect directly to Harp's. Clark: And they do have car passage as well? Pate: Yes. Clark: It's just ironic. I was on that Subdivision when we were dividing this lot and promises were made. Danish: Sure. Clark: So staff is -- Jeremy, you remember the discussion, I know. Pate: Yes. Clark: So that's going to be an okay thing for the seniors? Pate: Yes, ma'am. I think it will be much better than the grass path that they've been using currently. Clark: Ladies? Harris: I was on the Subdivision when we looked at this. Hello, again. Danish: Hi. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 8 Harris: Last week, or whenever that was. This has been Subdivision summer for me. Danish: ? Congratulations. Harris: Thank you. I think the articulation -- the further articulation, especially on the south elevation, is commendable. The outbuilding -- and would you just go -- for me one more time. From Harp's, that's all just sort of back of house? That's all -- no right-of-way, no -- Fulcher: Exactly. This -- Steamboat would be actually running this direction -- Danish: It would be this part. Harris: Okay. Thank you. Fulcher: -- and then Wedington is on the front side of this section. Harris: Okay. Fulcher: So, yeah, there is no right-of-way. It's just the parking lot for the senior center (inaudible) Harris: Okay. Clark: Commissioner Myres? Myres: Well, it was -- when I first looked at the big boards I was a little dismayed, even at the changes that have been made, but it -- maybe it's the color. Clark: Well, by comparison, there are changes. I'm just -- I'm trying to figure out how it all orients to the site. Myres: We'll it's certainly an improvement over the original. Clark: Commissioners? We are being asked to approve this at our level; is that true? ?: Yes, it is. Clark: You're helping, huh? ?: Yes. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 9 Clark: Do I have motions, comments, concerns? Myres: Would you remind me, somebody, of what the materials are made of at Harp's? Pate: They consist, I believe, of the same EIFS-type materials with either -- I believe it's a brick band that also is sort of a base band with columns as well, so it's -- Myres: So this is going to blend? Pate: Yes. Clark: Is that it, Jesse? Fulcher: Yes. Clark: See, Jesse was brilliant. Harris: Madame Chair. Clark: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I will move that we -- we can -- we are approving this at this level; is that correct? Clark: Yes, we are. Motion: Harris: I move that we approve Large Scale Development 06-2168, Wedington Place Commercial, with finding in favor of Condition 1 and all other conditions of approval. Clark: I have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Myres: I'll second. Clark: I will concur. Thank you very much. Harris: Thank you. Danish: Thank you. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 10 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 a R-PZD with 67 single-family dwellings and 45 multi -family dwellings. Clark: The next item on the agenda is R-PZD 06-2190, Planned Zoning District for Woodbury. Mr. Garner has that one. Garner: This project was tabled at the Subdivision Committee on August 17th, and the main issues for why it was tabled were to address tree preservation plan and the site layout. Since that time, the applicant has met with Urban Forester and Planning Staff. They've provided a site plan and provided some more tree preservation areas, one in the west central portion of the site and one in the southeastern portion of the side, and staff is now in support of the site plan and the tree preservation plan. As additional background on the property, it's about 11 1/2 acres. It's located on the south side of Zion Road. It's just over a quarter mile west of Crossover Road. It's generally flat and is developed for rural residential/pasture uses. Surrounding land use and zoning consists of Zion Gardens R-PZD under development to the north, which is a similar -type density and similar development to this. To the south it's undeveloped, to the east is multi -family development, and to the west it's a single-family residential street off of Taliesin Lane -- Taliesin Way -- which is a cul-de-sac, and the applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property from residential - agricultural to R-PZD and are also requesting large scale development approval with this project. Their proposed use of this site is for 45 multi- family units and two buildings adjacent to Zion Road, and 67 single- family dwellings in the southern portion of the property. And the central focus of the property in the middle of the site is just over an acre common area and greenspace, and access into the site would be directly off of Zion Road with one curb -cut into a central street called Woodbury Drive, which goes down the middle of the property and it provides access into the multi- family dwellings at the north, then it goes around the common area and comes back together again at the southern portion of the part -- on the southern portion of the site and stubs out to the south. There are private streets that go east and west from Woodbury Dive around the perimeter of the property, providing access to all of the single-family dwellings. The density of the property in Planning Area 1 for the single-family dwellings is about 8 1/2 units per acre, and then the multi -family dwellings, the northern portion side, the density is about 17 units per acre. The phasing that is proposed is to develop the roads and infrastructure in approximately eight months to a year from approval, and full build -out of the residences within three years of approval. Street improvements that staff is Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page I1 recommending include adding curb, gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage along the south side of Zion Road and extending those improvements approximately 220 feet to the west to tie into existing street improvements at Taliesin Lane. We are recommending forwarding this project to the full Planning Commission with several issues and conditions of approval. Condition Number 1 is Planning Commission determination of street improvements, and we've mentioned those already. Condition Number 2 is Planning Commission determination of offsite drainage improvements in lieu of onsite detention, and I'll let our engineering staff expound on that in a minute. Planning Commission determination Number 3 is regarding street connectivity. Staff recommends in favor of the stub -outs as shown. This condition here recommended an additional stub -out to the south in the vicinity of lots 41 through 47. That has been provided and it's called out on their site plan, and it lines up with the existing driveway to the south, that stub -out there. Conditions 4 through 6 are related to the street right-of-way and access easements and private drives, and the requirements for that. Just a note, not to get into too much detail, but Woodbury Drive is -- they're dedicating right-of-way from back -of -curb to back -of -curb and they are putting the sidewalk in the greenspace into a pedestrian access easement adjacent to that, and that's not typical, and the reason we're recommending that and agreeing to that is because of the density of the site and the development. They're proposing -- the utility easements are really tight on this property and the utility companies would not be able to have enough space if they had the right-of-way that big, so that's a way to be able to fit in the utility easements along Woodbury Drive. Let's see. One of the other comments that we are making is Condition Number 11. A, we are recommending that mixed use be allowed in Planning Area 2. We're recommending that they change the zoning criteria to allow some sort of convenient shopping and just local type of commercial for this neighborhood and in this planning area as a conditional use permit in the event that that is ever an option or something that becomes marketable. You know, on this part of Fayetteville it is -- there is some -- a convenience store, I think, on Crossover Road about over a quarter of a mile to the east, and other than that, they're a pretty long way away from shopping and those sorts of goods. So we do feel like it's appropriate for this neighborhood to at least have the option in the future as far as the zoning to allow that. And those are the main issues. I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Clark: Thank you very much. And -- well, Mr. Casey, you've gotten the big introduction. What does engineering have to say? Casey: The first item is addressing the offsite drainage improvements. As we discussed last time, the agreement was made between our city engineer Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 12 and the applicant to contribute to the offsite drainage improvements that the city is participating in just north of here through the project -- the Zion Gardens. It's an offsite sewer -- storm sewer extension to the north to alleviate some drainage issues that we've been having in that area. That dollar amount has not been determined yet. We'll have that for you by the time this goes to Planning Commission. As you can see on your plan also, the next item that was discussed at the last meeting was the stub -out to the south. Instead of -- we've rearranged that configuration to just be a simple stub -out and with the alleys coming off of that. That way it's -- there will be a barricade there to obstruct the traffic, but it's also -- will be very visible and know that that street is planned to continue on. That's all I have. Clark: Anybody else? Patterson: Tree preservation. Clark: Okeydokey. Sarah. Patterson: This is a vast improvement over what originally was submitted for the Subdivision Committee to look at. Originally they had about 5 percent canopy preserved, and the majority of that, I felt like there was a high probability that utilities, structures, and roads would highly impact those trees and quite possibly they would not make it through the process. We had some meetings, sat down. I had some concerns along the west property line. They're abutting some single-family residents. Thought it would be nice to try to preserve some trees in those areas. So we've worked the plans. They've reduced some of their buildings and we've got two areas that are going to be just for tree preservation. All the utilities and alleys and structures have pulled out of those. I'm pretty confident that most, if not all, of those trees will make it through the process and add greenspace, you know, for this development for those people to enjoy. So with that, I am in approval of their tree preservation. I do have four conditions of approval. I just need the areas for onsite storage to be identified. The other is, mitigation trees cannot be planted in any kind of utility easement and I'm worried about those planned along the private drives, because that is acting as a 40 -foot or 50 -foot everything kind of easement with the utilities and all, so we need to look at that and see if we can relocate some of those trees. Maybe we can utilize the public streets, Woodbury, if -- maybe count some of those landscape trees towards your mitigation. The removal of 49,775 square feet of canopy is equivalent to 228 2 -inch caliper large species trees. I'd like to get this hammered out before, you know, the next submittal to know if we are going to be able to get all 228 onsite. It is a tight site with a lot of utility easements, so we Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 13 need to look at that. There is the possibility of doing a combination of money -in -lieu and planting. Mitigation trees must be planted before the issue of a Final Certificate of Occupancy. A three-year maintenance and monitoring bond, letter of credit or check shall be deposited with the city. After the three-year time, the Urban Forester will visit the site and release the amount finding 90 percent of the trees healthy. And that's all. Clark: Thank you, Ms. Patterson. And -- okay, I'm not -- in my packet I'm not finding -- Are these new? Oh, there they are. Okay. Because I found your original two. All right. Thank you. Anybody else? All right. Would anyone from the public care to comment about R-PZD 06-2190 for Woodbury? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. Gentlemen, please, introduce yourselves and tell us about your project. Hennelly: Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering. Thompson: Jeremy Thompson with H2 Engineering. Boskus: And I'm Roger Boskus, with Miller, Boskus, Lack, Architects. Thompson: I guess the intent of this project was to provide a community that really encourages walking, and that's something I think the developers have really done very well, having rear alleys to all these units and having all the fronts of the units face into shared courtyard areas with sidewalks, you know, running throughout the property to a central gathering area, and also the location of this site. It's in close proximity to Lake Fayetteville and all the parks and trails that are in place there. Also, within walking distance of some commercial stuff to the east, as well as Fayetteville Athletic Club. So I think they provided a real good community feel to this thing. And also, they're shooting for a pretty -- a very affordable price range from, I believe, 140 to $200,000.00 units. So that's another target that they've got there. That's kind of the intent of this project. I would like to comment on -- Andrew mentioned Item 11 (a.) in regards to allowing some -- some small commercial conditional uses in a multi- family area, and at the time we submitted this we were not in agreement with that, but we have come to grips with that and are wanting to go ahead and approve those conditional uses in that area today, so we would like to go ahead and say we're in agreement with that. Clark: Anything else, gentlemen? Boskus: You know, a very important aspect to this is that the -- all the units are oriented towards the street for security and for, you know, just interaction amongst the residents in this kind of proximity. There is a couple of Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 14 things mentioned about the units needing to be 6 feet apart for fire code. We're aware of that and we plan on abiding by that. Most of the -- of what we call -- each unit has its own public space and private space. Each of the units will have somewhat of a private courtyard, if you will, where the adjacent unit doesn't have any spaces looking into their private outdoor courtyard. If you all have been to Harber Meadows, I think they've done a nice job of that. We're kind of mimicking that. That's kind of a local model that we looked at. The other thing is that these porches are out towards these green courtyards. There is one thing that I'm concerned about, and there is a mention of, that the overhangs can't be encroaching on the utility easements, and the 15 -foot utility easement that's from the back -of -curb towards the front of these units is for cable, electric, and telephone. And it's -- you know, we've kind of hashed through those things. I think if there's any way to have a little bit more flexibility in that, I'd like to see that. We're dealing with inches on these units, literally, because of the density, and we're trying to really make it as close to the street as possible with these porches, and the 2 feet really just has to come out of the porch itself on these units or out of everybody's a little bit. And it doesn't see like much, but when you're dealing with a 5 - or 6 -foot porch to begin with and you start having to really hone in on these things, it really does have an impact spatially on some of these. So if there is any way to be flexible in that requirement, I would like to request that. Other than that, I think everything else is very good. I think, you know, that the conditions are fine. Clark: Anything else? Thank you, gentlemen. Jeremy, will you please -- or, Andrew, address the issue of the setbacks and the overhangs onto the easement. Pate: I don't think there's an issue with setbacks, because, obviously, this is a Planned Zoning District and they're indicating their own setbacks. The easements are an issue, though, that can't be really waived with a Planned Zoning District. Per our ordinances, any portion of a structure has to be located outside of an utility easement. If not, the potential result is that if that utility easement has to utilized, that structure may be removed, which can be an overhang or porch, at the owner's expense, which is why those structures aren't located within the utility easements. So I'm not aware of a way to allow that as part of a Planned Zoning District even. It's not part of that particular ordinance. We do grant vacations all the time, or the City Council looks at vacations all the time of small portions of overhangs and rights-of-way, things of that nature, but as far as just sort of a blanket okay to do that, I don't believe the city at this point -- Planning Commission -- has authority to do that. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 15 Clark: Okay. So you have two weeks before Planning Commission to try to work something out on that one, but I didn't think there was any latitude. Commissioners? Motion: Myres: I'd like to recommend that we forward this to the full Planning Commission. Clark: You're recommending what? Myres: Forwarding it. Clark: Okay. Myres: To the full Planning Commission. Clark: Do I have a second? Myres: R-PZD 06-2190, with all conditions as stated. Clark: Do I have a second? We're not going to forward it yet. I have some questions. Harris: Yeah. Clark: But the motion is made. Harris: I will second. Clark: All right. Then before we do -- before we take the final vote, I have a couple of questions. There's only one entrance into this fine place? Thompson: Yeah. We have the one main access point there on Zion, but we also have an, I guess, emergency access to the east into the apartment complex to the east. But we're not intending to funnel traffic through there at all. We'll have three bollards in there, locking bollards, just for emergency fire access. Clark: What are the key of "bollards"? Hennelly: They come in handy. (Laughter) Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 16 Clark: Well, someone discovered it and you're hanging onto it. Okay. So these are private streets, completely, and how wide are they? Thompson: The private streets are 20 feet, back to back. Clark: Okay, and that's -- everybody is okay with that for emergency vehicles? Garner: The fire department as reviewed it and is okay with it. Clark: Okay. Pate: And interior streets, they are public, so not all streets are private. Hennelly: And really, the design challenge on this was with the entrance of Zion Gardens at the northwest corner and then the intersection of Randal Drive at the northeast corner. There was really no good way to line the entrance up with either one of those streets to provide two, and the only way -- and provide sufficient distance between them if you didn't line them up, so really only entrance was possible to provide the -- you know, the safest access into the site. Clark: Because I had a question about why it wasn't lining up with Randal, or whatever this street is going to be called, but that makes --- that makes sense. No connection to the west? Pate: There's a single-family subdivision already platted. Clark: It's already there? Pate: Uh-huh. Clark: Okay. Pate: There's a public street stub -out to the south, as you can see, and we're recommending another stub -out from one of the alleys to the south. The property to the east is actually already developed, too, an apartment complex where the applicants were able to secure a secondary means of access, which is crucial to the this project to have at least an emergency access into this thing. Clark: Okay. I've got to tell you, the books that you guys put together for our PZDs and PZDs in general are superior. I mean, they're great. This is every information -- every bit of information I needed was there, and I Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 17 commend you for that. They've only gotten better as we've gone through this process. And I say that in light of some of the ones that are coming after you that I won't say that about. Harris: Madame Chair. Clark: Yes. Harris: When you're finished. Clark: Okay. Harris: Because I don't want to -- Clark: Go ahead. Harris: -- pass this by first. I'm generally really in support of this project. I think it's exactly what the city is asking folks to come forward with. I do -- I just have a couple of questions. I'm not clear where we're asking for the mixed use. Where was that? Do you mind telling me again? Garner: In Planning Area 2. Harris: Okay. Garner: We're just wanting to retain the option if some portions of those multifamily buildings would ever be converted in the future for some type of neighborhood store. Harris: Okay. Clark: Would you call out those use units, please? I meant to ask you that. 12, 13, 15, and 16. It's too early for numbers. Harris: Okay. 12, 13, 15. Garner: Yeah, 12, 13, 15, 16. Do you want me to read them -- what they would be? Clark: Yeah. Garner: Okay. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 18 Hennelly: And we're not proposing those uses, we're just agreeing to allow them as a conditional use under this zoning. Harris: Correct. Okay. Garner: Unit 12 is offices, studios, and related services, Unit 13 is eating places, 15 is neighborhood shopping, and 16 is shopping goods. Harris: Okay. And may I ask just a further question of the Urban Forester. So at the moment you aren't completely satisfied with where they are? You're asking, though, for further delineation into the project about the 228 2 - inch calipers; is that it? Patterson: Yes. Harris: Okay. Patterson: They're showing several of their -- they're showing all mitigation trees on the site, but a lot of those are located within the private -- within or along what would be the right-of-way of those private streets. Harris: Okay. Patterson: That private street also acts as a utility easement because, like we were saying, it's such a tight site, so utilities will be running in there. By ordinance, mitigation trees cannot be planted within utility easements for obvious reasons. So we just need to sit down and try to work that out. It may be something where they may not be able to get all 228 on site, so we may be looking at a combination. They have a lot of area they can plant within those two areas that they're preserving trees as well, so I think we can probably work that out easily. Harris: Okay. Boskus: I was going to respond to that, too. The one thing we are trying to achieve, too, and why a lot of the trees wound up in the utility easements was because I don't like having sidewalks right up against the curb. I mean, it's very uncomfortable, anybody that's walked down those type of sidewalks, and that was something that was done early in the project, and we looked at that and I said, "We've got to do away with this. Let's get these as far away from the curb as possible and let's get the trees between the pedestrians and between the street." Well, unfortunately, that puts about 300 trees right on the street, and which happens to be in the utility easements, so I hope we can come to a reasonable resolution there. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 19 Harris: Okay. Clark: Creative engineering. Harris: Madame Chair, may I just ask one final question? Clark: You may ask two if you would like. Harris: Thank you. Okay. We've got 67 single-family and 45 multifamily, and this is just an educational question for me. We have one point of ingress and egress, and I certainly have seen other projects come through the Planning Commission that that would seem to give us more pause than it seems to be giving us here. Can you explain to me why that's true, why that this is all right in this instance? Garner: I think -- I mean, we would have concern for it as -- I mean, without the emergency access to the east. That was -- they do have a full -street stub - out to the south if it's ever developed, which would provide another way of connection out to the south. And then to the east they -- by the time the first, you know, unit is developed, they will be able to access that, you know, emergency vehicles will, and that was -- our fire department was okay with that. Harris: Okay. Pate: Additionally, if I may add, if you look on the maps of the very last page of this particular project, in our staff report you can see that this particular property is bound on essentially three sides. One is by an already platted subdivision and developed subdivision to the west off of Taliesin Lane. One to the east, which is the multi -family development. Zion Road has been mentioned and you can see in the site plans where those streets are planned. It would be very difficult -- we probably could have put two streets in. The developers probably could have done that, but they would have been in such close proximity to either one of the streets that are planned, either Randal, which is there, or the street across the way to the north. So the potential for turning conflicts there, we thought, was more -- is more of a safety factor than actually providing just one entrance at this point. And as Andrew mentioned, we would have a full public street stub - out to the south so that when property, as you can see, is not developed to the south, could potentially tie in back to either Crossover Road or Zion Road. Harris: Thank you. I appreciate that. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 20 Clark: But that was a very good point, because usually we do have two. Okay. I have a motion. I have a second. Any more comments, questions, concerns? Then I will concur. See you at Planning Commission. Boskus: Thank you. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 21 ADM 06-2247: Administrative Item (MALCO): Submitted by McClelland Engineers. The request is for a major modification of the approved LSD06-1924 for the Malco Theatre located east of Steele Blvd, south of Joyce Blvd. Clark: Moving on to new business. The first item on the agenda is Administrative Item 06-2247 for the Malco Theater. (Loud noise) That was an exciting noise. Morgan: In March of this year the Planning Commission approved a large scale development for Malco Cinema. Part of that -- the discussion was obviously Commercial Design Standards and compliance of those. The applicant requests major modification to change the -- not necessarily materials, but the design of the structure on all sides. A lot of the discussion at the Subdivision Committee when we were considering this large scale development was focused on how to make this structure less box -like with breaking up the roof line with a stair step effect. Also, just using different materials to create patterns on the building to break up the large -- a potentially large unarticulated wall surface, as well as wrapping materials around to the north elevation to make it more of a front facade, even though that is not their entrance. The applicant did work with those comments and at Sub -- excuse me, at Planning Commission. The Planning Commission felt that the modifications were appropriate and did approve this large scale development. The applicant now requests modifications to that, using the same color palette, but changing some of the design from smaller columns to larger brick columns, fewer but larger columns. Also, creating a tower in the middle of the front feature in order to draw attention to the front doors. And staff has evaluated all of these modifications and we do find that the proposed elevations do meet our commercial design standards, and we are recommending approval for this modification. The applicant also noted that this theatre is going from 12 screens to 10; therefore, they've reduced the size of the structure somewhat and they've removed 36 parking spaces in order to comply with the parking regulations. With our recommendation for approval, we are recommending that all conditions of the original large scale development be enforced and we would like to note that all accent lighting must meet our outdoor lighting ordinance, which includes removal of the proposed neon as it would be exposed lighting that is not allowed by the outdoor lighting ordinance. That's all I have. Clark: Thank you. Anyone else? Would anyone from the public like to talk about Administrative Item 06-2247 for Malco? I didn't think so. Seeing none, bring it back. Is the applicant with us? Don't be shy. Come on down. Jesse, please point which are old and new. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 22 Jesse: This left one is new. Clark: The left one is new? Morgan: That's right. (Laughter) Clark: That one is the new one, that one is the old one. And you did that very well. Thank you. Introduce yourself, please, and tell us about the project. Suneson: Good morning, everybody. This is -- I'm sorry. My name is Chris Suneson with McClelland Consulting Engineers, and we've been requested by staff to bring this project back for the modifications they discussed. Let me just add that Malco, as well as the architect and myself, are very excited about the revisions. As the architect's letter points out in your package, you know, this is really -- it's a contemporary look that harkens back to theatres of yore, and especially with the vertical element of the marquee sign, it just -- it reminds of the big cinema-plexes of yesterday, and we believe that it will be an excellent addition as revised for the city. Clark: Thank you, Chris. Commissioners? Myres: I think it's a huge -- obviously, a huge difference, but a great improvement. There was something stodgy about the -- stodgy, but acceptable, about the original. This is much more exciting and it does remind me very much of the golden age of movie theaters back in the `20s and the `30s, which some of you may not be able to see, but I see it. And I really appreciate the different color blocking on the rear facade. Because as you -- you know, I drive up Steele Boulevard fairly frequently and I've been trying to visualize this in place and thinking about that back facade, which is very visible -- Suneson: Yes, it is. Myres: -- until that, you know, space starts to fill in some more, and I would much rather drive past that than the very horizontal and kind of boring one that you proposed originally. Clark: It's early in the morning, or I would be much more enthused. It's such a vast improvement over what we approved and kind of reluctantly, and had been beaten over the head with, might I add, since then. The east elevation, even though it backs up to Wal-Mart and truly has no real Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 23 visibility supposedly, that is such an improvement as -- I mean, all the facades, I think, are just absolutely better. I do have one question, however. You've gone from a 12 screen to 10, and I noticed on the site plan there is a designated expansion room. What are we going to do about adding back the parking places should you choose to expand? Suneson: We have -- I believe it's approximately 20 percent overage allowable by code, as is right now, if you'll turn to your site plan in your package. Clark: Yeah, I didn't do that. Suneson: So let me just give you that. Clark: If I turn to my site plan, I'm going to kill someone. Suneson: Okay. Clark: Because it's huge. Suneson: Well, please, don't. You all need 11 -by -17 copies of these plans. Clark: Yeah. Well, (inaudible) Suneson: And we would support that if staff -- Pate: There's a chart on Page 1 of your staff report. Clark: Yeah, it's right here. You've got 517 with the proposal now. Suneson: That's correct. Clark: So that's going to be okay if they expand, Jeremy, or Suzanne? Morgan: Currently they're proposing 509 spaces. With the number of seats that they're proposing they could have 517. When they expand, then they can just add more parking and we'll we redo the calculation numbers. So -- Clark: So there's space available to do that? Suneson: Yes, ma'am. Clark: Great. Well, I think this is -- I don't know what motivated you to improve this, but I commend it. You certainly have done it, and I like it. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 24 Myres: It's a whole lot -- Clark: Are we approving this at our level or are we passing it on? Morgan: That's our recommendation at this level. Clark: Now, you did notice that little lighting thing? Suneson: Yes. Clark: Because I know that's supposed to be one -- Suneson: From what I understand from the architect, the product representative guarantees us that the lighting for the neon is actually dark -sky compliant, and we would be willing to submit products, metals, and cut -sheets as normal process in the building permit in order to waive that requirement. Clark: Staff? Pate: Staff couldn't wave any requirements of the Unified Development Code. We could certainly take a look at what you're proposing, and if it does meet our codes with no exposed lighting -- I don't know if there's -- there may be potentially a shield or a cover over that neon, but that's something we could certainly work through at the building permit process. Clark: So we don't need to modify that recommendation at all? Pate: I don't believe so. Clark: Okay. All right. So we're approving this at our level? Pate: Yes, ma'am. Motion: Myres: I'll recommend approval of Administrative Item 06-2247 for Malco Theatres. Harris: I second. Clark: And I will concur. Thank you, Chris. Suneson: Thank you, Staff. Thank you, Commissioners. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 25 LSP 06-2122: Lot Split ( FEDOSKY, 167 ): Submitted by ALAN REID for property located at 3849 N. SALEM RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 56.64 acres. The request is to divide the subject tract into two tracts of 42.5 and 14.14 acres. Clark: The next item on our agenda is Lot Split 06-2122 for Fedosky. Can I have my staff report, please? Garner: Yes. This property is located on the west side of Salem Road. It's north of Howard Nickell Road. It's at 3849 Salem Road. It's outside the city limits within the Fayetteville Planning Area. The owner proposes that the 56.64 -acre lot be split into tracts of about 42 1/2 and 14 acres. The two tracts would meet the requirements for single-family lots in the Fayetteville Planning Area. Both tracts would be served by septic systems. Water service is currently provided to Tract B and a 4 -inch public water main would need to be extended to serve Tract A prior to recording the lot split. We are recommending approval of this lot split at this level with some standard conditions of approval and some minor revisions to the plat. And I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Clark: Thank you. Anybody else on staff? Casey: No comments. Clark: Okay. Great. Would anyone from the public like to comment on Lot Split 06-2122 for Fedosky? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. Mr. Reid, please, introduce yourself and tell us about the project. Reid: My name is Alan Reid. I'm representing Ed Fedosky on his tract split application. The property lies in the Planning Area of Fayetteville, bordering on the Planning Area of Johnson, I believe. He does have road frontage along the east side and he's just wanting to more or less cut out his house and associated buildings from the rest of the property into two pieces, like he said, and I'll just answer any further questions you might have. Clark: Thank you, sir. Do we have any questions or comments? It's very clear cut. Myres: It is. I just have one question just to be a pain in the neck. Salem Road is the only through street that goes past this; is that correct? Reid: That's correct, yes. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 26 Myres: But it does go all the way up? Reid: Yes. Myres: So that there would be access from Salem to the new -- Reid: Right. His property borders entirely along Salem Road on the east side. Myres: Okay. That's all. Clark: Do I have a motion? Harris: I'll move that we approve -- Hutchinson: I have a question. If -- Clark: Well, yeah, but you need to come to the front and state your name. And you should have done it sooner, but that's okay. I won't hold it against you. Hutchinson: I couldn't understand all he had to say. Clark: Okay. Hutchinson: My name is Debbie Goodman Hutchinson. I live on Hutchinson Lane. I adjoin to the Fedosky place. And where is the roads going into this place? Where's the split. Are they actually coming off Salem? Clark: It's all fronts -- in all his frontage on Salem. Hutchinson: Okay. Clark: And I'll be happy to give you my plat if you want to see it. Because you look like the kind of lady who would like to -- There you go. Hutchinson: Thank you. Clark: You're very welcome. Okay. Now, you woke me up, so there you go. Okay. Myres: Good. Clark: Anything else? Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 27 Myres: No. Clark: Do I have a motion? Motion: Harris: I move to approve Lot Split 06-2122, Fedosky, with all six conditions of approval. Clark: Okay. Myres: And I will second. Clark: I will concur. Thank you, Mr. Reid. You might need to talk to the neighbors as you go out, if you don't mind. Thank you. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 28 LSP 06-2217: Lot Split (HOMESTEAD HOMES, 282): Submitted by NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., for property located at 2834 HUGHMOUNT RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 9.95 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 2.03 and 7.92 acres. Clark: The next item on our agenda is Lot Split 06-2217 for Homestead Homes. Morgan: This property is located on Hughmount Road. It contains approximately 10 acres. And this property, as well as other properties to the north and south, are just large tracts of land developed for either single-family homes or used for pasture. This particular property abuts the Cherry Hills Subdivision to the west, particularly the treatment system area of that subdivision, and to the east is Clabber Creek Phase 5, which is currently under construction. The applicant requests to subdivide this tract into two lots, creating a smaller 2 -acre tract and a larger 8 -acre -- approximately 8 - acre piece of property. The 8 -acre tract is proposed to have 50 feet of frontage on Hughmount Road. The applicant requests a waiver of the 75 - foot requirement, stating that due to the unknown location of the septic system they do not want to potentially encroach on that septic system with the 75 feet, and with the potential for future development, 50 feet is what is required for a local street, and so the applicant stated that they would just like the 50 -foot frontage in order to potentially extend a street through there. Staff has reviewed this and we are recommending forwarding this project with a recommendation for approval to the Planning Commission. This has to go to the Planning Commission due to the waiver request. We believe that 50 feet is sufficient means of access for ingress and egress to this property whether it be developed for future subdivision or homes or just as is as an 8 -acre tract. We do have some minor revisions requested, and with that I'll let any other staff make comments if they have any. Clark: Thank you. Other comments. Engineering? Casey: No comments. Clark: Okay. Anybody else? Patterson: No. Clark: Would anyone from the public like to comment on Lot Split 06-2217, Homestead Homes? Okay. Now, none of you are going to scare me again, right? Nobody wants to talk about this? Okay. Then I'm going to bring it back. Please, introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Creekmore: I'm Doug Creekmore, Northstar Engineering. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 29 Ging: And I am Terry Ging with Northstar Engineering. Clark: Please tell us about your lot split. Creekmore: Just a basic lot split on Hughmount Road. One is about an 8 -acre tract and one a 2 -acre tract and a house. The owner is selling that and he's going to reside in the house. Ging: We have tried to locate any type of proposed location of the septic system down to the south of that house and have found nothing. We've been able to find the septic system, but as far as any type of as -built -on, what was ever put in there, we have no idea. Therefore, we're giving that as much room as we can to keep from ever trying to dig into and or disturb that septic system. Clark: Okay. Anything else, gentlemen? Okay. Thank you. I'll bring it back to the Commission. I have a question for whoever is sitting behind me. This is part of tract 2, this little -- it's kind of like a tandem lot, kind of? Morgan: Yes. Clark: Okay. See, you learned something. So you're wanting just 50 foot frontage here, and it's going to the entrance and exit for whatever happens here? Creekmore: Yes, ma'am. Clark: And you think the lateral lines may be that far to the south of the house? Creekmore: They could very well be. We do have the septic tank located, which is here, and we didn't (inaudible) -- Clark: Okay. It's there. That's (inaudible) tine. Creekmore: You know, a 75-, 100 -foot line. We're just trying to stay off of it. Clark: I don't blame you. Okay. That was my only question. This will come to full Planning Commission, so we may have some other questions at that point because of the waiver. Any other questions, comments, concerns? Harris: No. Clark: Motions? Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 30 Motion: Myres: I'll move that we forward Lot Split 06-2217 to the full Planning Commission with recommendation of approval and the eight conditions of approval as stated. Harris: I second. Clark: And I will concur. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Creekmore: Thank you. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 31 FPL 06-2215: Final Plat (STONEBRIDGE IV, 608): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at E OF STONBRIDGE PHASE III, S. OF ROBERTS RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 9.24 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of a residential subdivision with 6 single-family dwellings. Clark: The sixth item on our agenda is Final Plat 06-2215 for Stonebridge IV. Jesse. Fulcher: You bet. This is Phase IV of Stonebridge Meadow Subdivision near the Stonebridge golf course, which is south of Huntsville Road. The property contains approximately 9.2 acres. The applicants are requesting final plat approval, which will contain six residential lots. Lot 7 is to be dedicated as park land at -- for Phase 4 and Phase 5, and then Lot 8 is reserved for future park land dedication with future phases. 50 feet of right-of-way will be dedicated for River Meadows Drive, which serves this phase of the project. With that, fairly straightforward, staff is recommending approval of the final plat with four conditions of approval. Condition Number 2 is regarding the deed for the park land due prior to signing of final plat. Clark: Okay. Anybody else? Pate: No comment. Newman: No comment. Clark: Okay. Would anyone from the public like to comment on Final Plat 06- 2215, Stonebridge Phase IV? Great. Coming back. I'm assuming that this big whole area is 7 right here? Thompson: Yes. Clark: Okay. How many more phases have we got to go through with this? Thompson: I believe we've got -- well, there's a decent amount of land remaining. I don't know how many phases that will be broken up into. Clark: I think Commissioner Myres and I have been doing this same development since the day we got on the Planning Commission. Myres: Yep, the very first -- very first day. Clark: And this is a very straightforward and final plat. Gosh, I feel like we've given birth to this. Do I have a motion? Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 32 Myres: I'm just glad to see it go off to school. Thompson: Exactly. Clark: Are we recommending approval at our level, Jeremy? Pate: Yes. Clark: Okay. Do I have a -- any questions, you all? Harris: No. Myres: Do you want to do it or me? Harris: Go ahead. Motion: Myres: Okay. I will recommend that we approve Final Plat 06-2215 for Stonebridge Phase IV with the nine conditions of approval as stated. Harris: I will second. Clark: I will concur. Thank you very much. Thompson: Thank you. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 33 FPL 06-2104: Final Plat (THE COMMONS @ WALNUT CROSSING, 555): Submitted by PATRICK HARGUS ENGINEERING DESIGN ASSOCIATES for property located NORTH OF HWY 62W. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 6.45 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of a residential subdivision with 58 single- family lots. Clark: The next item on the agenda, Number 7, Final Plat 06-2104, The Commons at Walnut Crossing. Mr. Garner. Garner: This property was identified as Lots 137 and 138 of the Walnut Crossing Subdivision with the Planned Zoning District that was approved in January of this year. The property contains about 6 1/2. It's located in the northwest portion of the Walnut Crossing Subdivision. They're requesting final plat approval. We didn't have any major issues on this. We are recommending approval. We have several conditions here that were related to the original PZD approval and we just -- for the record, just decided to include these as conditions of approval even though they are requirements of a PZD. This is nothing new that we are including these conditions. I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Clark: Thank you. Any other staff? Engineering? Casey: No comments. Clark: Trees? Patterson: Just for background. The PZD was approved in 2004. This phase of the project didn't have any trees on the site. At the time of the final plat for Walnut Crossing, they did turn in a tree planting plan and they are going to be planting a 180 2 -inch caliper trees on the site. So although this site didn't have trees, there will soon be trees. Clark: Good. Thank you. Anyone else? Would anyone from the public like to comment on Final Plat 06-2104 for The Commons at Walnut Crossing? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. Please, introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Hargus: Patrick Hargus. I represent the engineer and the owner. Hesse: I'm Kim Hesse with Rausch Coleman Development. I do have a couple of questions about the conditions of approval. It seems like these were almost taken from Walnut Crossing versus The Commons. The main ones that I'm referring to are the reduced driveways in The Commons drives. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 34 The few that do enter the main street -- I just went through these conditions from back in December and I don't remember that ever being discussed. When we brought through the -- the Walnut Crossing, it wasn't proposed to do the reduced drives, but it was requested by either the Planning Commission or the City Council, I forget. Clark: Which number are you on, Kim? Hesse: It would actually be -- Clark: 5 ? Hesse: It might be -- 5, yeah. Clark: Okay. Hesse: Since we do have that as a requirement for the main part of the subdivision, which is Walnut Crossing, it's really not a usable driveway. We are required to do it. We're putting them in that way, but there's not enough room for a car to get in and get in their garage. And I don't remember it being mentioned in his part and I'd like to avoid that problem the second time around. It looks like it was actually a part of this, I just don't remember it ever being discussed. Clark: I don't remember yesterday, so somebody else will have to fill in the blanks here. Pate: This is a very typical condition of approval for any lots that are smaller than our typical 70 -foot wide lots. It's on more projects than just The Commons at Walnut Crossing, or Walnut Crossing. If there's a proposal that we could take a look at, what we're trying to -- what we're trying to prevent is, essentially, almost a continuous curb -cut. We have other projects in town that that has occurred where those conditions were not placed and it has been very unsuccessful and it creates pedestrian problems. The safety of pedestrians is certainly important. And what we are recommending, basically in the rear, access alleys. The access is certainly up to the developer to try to figure out how that works and we don't really have any issues with that. That's what alleys are typically utilized for. The ones onto the public street are the ones that we have primary concerns with. And that's -- that's something that sometimes is addressed at preliminary plats and sometimes addressed at final plat just to ensure that whatever -- because, obviously, those things haven't been constructed yet, and it would not -- Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 35 Clark: Okay. So which lots would it affect? Hesse: 151,152-- Clark: 51,152-- Clark: Okay, those. Just on this common -- Hesse: 153, 154. Clark: Just on Holland Avenue? Hesse: It also would affect 190 and 191 and 192. 193, 194, and 184, are shared drives. That's not a problem. And I would say it will mostly affect 190 and 192 and 152, 153, because they're so short. Clark: Okay. So this is new for me. How do you propose we proceed, Mr. Pate? I understand the issue if it's not going to be a usable driveway. Hesse: If I may, I'll rephrase that. It's usable, but I don't think the result will be favorable. I think what's going to happen is people's front yards are going to be muddy because they're going to be driving over and off the driveway. If the best way is to solve this, Jeremy, is to come back in a separate meeting to ask for some sort of a variance or waiver on future driveways before we (inaudible) them, maybe that's the way to do it. There's -- obviously, the majority of these homes aren't affected by that. There's just a few. Clark: What would your pleasure be? Pate: That would be one way. The concern I have is that, of course, it's all in the final plat. You know, it's note in the final plat that's listed and that's a recorded document, too. Clark: Well, it's not official until we approve it, right? Pate: Correct. Clark: But we could table it and come back? Pate: We could do that or we could forward this on to the full Planning Commission and -- Clark: You don't want that. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 36 Pate: -- and potentially there's a -- we could maybe look at a typical lot layout, if you have a proposal that you think works, as opposed to the 12 -foot driveway. Or maybe it's a 14 or 16 that would work with the radius. I understand your concerns. I think we talked about that on the other development as well. So we're trying to work through some of those issues. But maybe we could forward this on to the full Planning Commission, and if it's worked out, put it on consent if we can alter that condition of approval, and if not, then we can just let -- allow the Planning Commission to discuss it. Clark: It's up to you all. There's a long time between now and the next Planning Commission. Pate: It's longer, though, between now and the next Subdivision Committee. Hesse: Our options are to go to the full Planning Commission or table it and it could be approved at the Subdivision? Pate: Yes, it could be. Clark: If you can work it out it could go on consent at Planning, but I can't -- that's with no guarantees. Anybody could pull it off consent. So it's your choice. Who am I to -- Hesse: And we're talking a month's difference probably for the next Subdivision? Pate: It's two weeks from today. Hesse: Yeah, but we haven't met that submittal. Pate: To make the Planning Commission you would have to have all your revisions in by Monday morning -- Clark: Tuesday. Pate: -- Tuesday morning, sorry. 10:00 a.m. Hesse: But to make the Subdivision -- if we were to table, go to the next Subdivision, we don't have that submittal. Pate: It would be next -- Clark: You have longer. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 37 Pate: -- Wednesday, I believe. Hesse: I would prefer to do that Motion: Clark: Okay. So by applicant's request we will table Final Plat 06-2104 to the next Subdivision, and it should be old business at that point, so it will be early in the agenda and you can work it out. I'll make that motion. I'm bold. Hesse: Are there any other comments that I can prepare for? Clark: Yeah, I have -- well, I don't know that they'll ask, because I won't be here. Hillary might. She's coming to all of them. What's that? Hesse: Parking. Clark: Oh, well, how cool. Is that parking as well? Hesse: Uh-huh. Clark: Okay. And I just have concerns about the frontage, but we're talking about the same lots, so -- is this -- this is not an R-PZD, correct? Pate: It is. Clark: It is? Pate: Uh-huh, Clark: Well, I'll be darned. It doesn't say it here, but okay. Oh, there it is. All right. Good. So you can (inaudible). I don't have any more questions. Harris: I'll second the motion. Myres: And I will concur. Clark: Do you all have any other questions for her? Harris: No. Myres: No. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 38 Clark: Okay. Get together with staff, work it out, and then come back. Thank you. Hesse: Thank you. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 39 FPL 06-2216: Final Plat (BELLWOOD I, 361/400): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at W. OF RUPPLE RD., N. OF WEDINGTON DR. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY- 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 19.88 acres. The request is for a final plat of a residential subdivision with 77 single family dwellings. Clark: Our next item on the agenda, another Final Plat, 06-2216 for Bellwood. Morgan: This property is located along Wedington -- excuse me, north of Wedington along Rupple Road. It is zoned RSF-4 and the applicant proposes 77 single-family dwellings on this property, which consists not of 19.88 acres, but 26.3. What was originally approved for this preliminary plat was 76 single-family lots, and as you see on the page just before your maps in your staff report, along Lot 9, which is the southern -- along the southern boundary, the property jogged further to the west. And the applicant is in the process of getting approval for a preliminary -- or excuse me, a property line adjustment to basically square off that southeast corner of the property, and doing so would allow them to create an additional lot in that subdivision on that corner. The lots are more than the 8,000 square feet required in this zoning district. Staff if in favor of this property line adjustment and the addition of one additional single-family unit in the subdivision, finding that the infrastructure that's already built is adequate for that. Anyway, because of the change, though, we are recommending that this be forwarded to the Planning Commission for just official approval for that modification. And I believe that there are several fees that are required for this project due to the reconstruction of Rupple Road in this location, so we will expect those fees and such prior to filing this final plat. Clark: Thank you, Suzanne. Tree and landscape, do you have any comments? Patterson: Yes. The developer was originally approved when this was to make a payment into the tree escrow account in the amount of $21,000.00. Since this final plat, I've discussed with Chris Brackett and the applicant to see if utilizing the residential onsite mitigation option would be possible. From what I understand, they are going to try to utilize that. They have 84 2 -inch caliper trees that can be located on this site. I have yet to receive the tree planting plan. Right there it is. I knew I would be getting it. I spoke with Chris Brackett yesterday. So just some notes will need to be added and I'll look over this and make revisions, but revisions will need to be made. Hopefully, I can get those to you today so that they can be made for the Planning Commission. Clark: Great. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 40 Patterson: Thanks. Clark: Any time you're in bold and underlined and it says immediately, I don't pay attention. Anybody else from staff? Casey: Yes. One item that Planning Commissioners need to consider on this. The original submittal had a lift station that was proposed in the northwest corner of Lot 78 there near the detention -- on the detention pond lot. You can see how the pond kind of has a little square cut out of it. That was supposed to be a lift station. However, with the development of the subdivision to the north -- I'm sorry, I can't remember the name of that -- Pate: Oakbrook. Casey: Oakbrook Subdivision -- it gave this developer an avenue to be able to serve this site without that lift station, which is always a benefit to the city. Any time we can eliminate that, it's a good thing. However, at this point we've got Bellwood ready and completed ahead of Oakbrook. So we've got the sewer. It's installed. It's not been tested and not been accepted, and we do not have the easements platted for it. So at this time this subdivision does not have sewer. We've got all the infrastructure within the sewers -- I mean, within the subdivision is installed; however, it's not connected to the public system yet. So one thing we need to consider is -- or we need to make a decision on is whether or not to allow this to be signed off on prior to that connection being made. And if we do sign off on it, do we make a condition of accepting a bond in the amount of the lift station cost so in the event that the subdivision to the north does not ever get platted and accepted, then we have the means to be able to install that lift station. So this was something that was discussed with Jorgensen. I've not heard a response since that meeting as to whether things have been worked out or not. Garrett, do you have any additional information? Hafeman: Yes. Yes, I do. I'm Garett Hafemann, Jorgensen & Associates. Clark: Thank you. Hafemann: Yes, Matt, we're still pursuing this. We do have two avenues. I mean, obviously, the preferred avenue is -- we do have a signed contract with the property owner to the north. We do have payment. We were going to pay for half of that sewer to be installed. We are still waiting to receive the signed easement. If we cannot -- if we do not receive that signed easement, then we will certainly have to go to road two, which is the bond for the lift station. Right now we are still trying to switch off, you know, Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 41 money for easement. So, you know, that's where we sit right now. And it's not a negotiation issue, it's just a matter of trying to get the two parties at the table to sign on the doted line. That's where we sit with that. Clark: Okay. Any other staff comments? Casey: I would make a recommendation, if you're open to it. If you all feel comfortable with us proceeding on with signing this final plat once all the punch list items are complete, I would recommend that we go ahead and take the bond, and if they do get the easement in place, you know, that can always be released, so that way we're covered. Hafemann: So we could release the bond with the easement if we do require that? Casey: Yes. Hafemann: Okay. Clark: We'll craft a condition here in just a minute. Anybody else? Anything else, Matt? Casey: That's it. Clark: Okay. Would anyone from the public like to comment on Final Plat 06- 2216 for Bellwood? Okay. Jeremy, my favorite condition -crafter, how would we write that? Pate: I think we will -- I'll probably have to sit down with Matt, to be honest with you, to come up with some language and put it on the conditions for the Planning Commission. I'd be concerned about timing, also, for a building permit so that we don't have something connecting to the sewer before we've got sewer lines accepted. So we'll probably just need to sit down and work out that as well. Planning signs off on building permits. Engineering doesn't typically look at -- once they sign that plat, it's kind of out of their hands. I want to make sure that they're comfortable with us going forward. So what we will do is make a condition, an additional condition of approval, regarding the sewer system and likely include that as a bond requirement before engineering signs off on the final plat, and we'll probably include some language on the timing as well. Clark: Okay. We'll just put that in the minutes as an expectation to be there for Planning Commission. Pate: Correct. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 42 Clark: Okay. Casey: One additional thing just for clarification. This would be considered a waiver of public improvements. Clark: Okay. Casey: So I don't know if that matters in the wording of that condition. Clark: Okay. We'll let you two sit down and work it out before -- or you three -- before Planning. Hafemann: If we do acquire this easement prior to Planning Commission, I mean, is this going to be something we can just have removed at that point? I mean, will the easement have to be filed or -- Casey: Yes. Hafemann: Okay. So filed prior to Planning Commission? Casey: Filed prior to signatures on the plat. Hafemann: To signatures on the plat? Clark: If you get it all wrapped up before Planning, it might even go on the consent agenda. Hafemann: Okay. That would be great. Clark: That would give you some incentive. Hafemann: Well, we'll -- trust me, we would like to get it done. Clark: Any other questions, comments, concerns? Myres: I think you've answered all mine. Motion: Clark: Then I'm going to entertain a motion, and let's hear if she can make it this time. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 43 Myres: I'll move we forward Final Plat 06-2216 for Bellwood to the full Planning Commission with the 19 -- Clark: 21, actually. Myres: -- 20 commission -- conditions of approval -- 20 commissions of approval— Clark: With the expectation of a possible -- Myres: -- and the expectation for a 21 st regarding the sewer system. Clark: Very good. Harris: Second. Clark: Okay. And I will concur. Thank you very much. Hafemann: Thank you. Patterson: Madame Chair. Clark: Yes. Oh, hello. Patterson: Can you pass that back? Clark: Okay. Hafemann: Now, that was quick. Patterson: There's your comments. Hafemann: Thanks. Patterson: Just let me know if you have any -- Clark: She's good. Hafemann: That's really quick. Myres: When she said immediately, she didn't -- Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 44 FPL 06-2155: Final Plat (LEGACY POINTE PH. IV, 475 ): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at E. OF DOUBLE SPRINGS RD., AND LEGACY POINTE PHASES I -III. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY- 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 29.29 acres. The request is for an approved final plat of a residential subdivision with 77 single-family dwelling units. Clark: The ninth item on our agenda is Final Plat 06-2155, final plat for Legacy Pointe, Phase IV. Morgan: This subdivision is ready for your approval, obviously. It is located south of some vacant property and just west -- excuse me, east of Legacy Phase I, I believe. And -- excuse me, Phase II. Persimmon Street cuts through this and then will continue through Phase V of Legacy Pointe, which has been approved for preliminary plat. The applicant requests approval of a modification made from the preliminary plat. The street furthest to the east had extended north and stubbed out, and that was shifted during construction due to some issues with detention, and engineering can review those. So as you can see on the page just before your maps, that was what was originally approved, and they are just requesting that it be modified. Staff finds that adequate access and connectivity is being provided even with the shifting of the streets and is in favor of that. And we are recommending forwarding this item with the recommendation for approval to the Planning Commission with a total of 16 conditions of approval, and we do have some minor modifications that we requested the applicant make to the plat prior to Planning Commission consideration. Clark: Thank you, Suzanne. Engineering? Casey: I have no comments. Clark: Thank you. Tree and landscape? Patterson: A waiver was signed, so no comments. Clark: Thank you very much. Would anyone in the public like to comment on Final Plat 06-2155, Legacy Pointe? Okay. Bring it back. So you're moving a whole pond, huh? Hafemann: Well, we just kind of mirrored the pond in that connection street. We really -- it was just a -- it was better -- it worked out better for drainage design, not to mention the adjoining property owner to the east of us asked us to do that for future planning of their project. Like I said, we didn't really lose any lots, we just shifted our connection straight. We saw a better drainage solution for what was a problem in that area and it just Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 45 worked out better for the design and the construction of the project. I do have one question, though, on the Condition of Approval Number 5. Is that standard or is that just -- or am I just reading that wrong about the sidewalks? Morgan: That's a standard condition of approval. Hafemann: Okay. Okay. I just didn't see it on the other one and that's why I just -- Clark: Your sidewalks are indicated, right? Hafemann: Yes, yes, they're indicated. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some special stipulation that I wasn't seeing. Clark: You have to have special sidewalks. Hafemann: Yeah, I guess. Clark: They're very expensive. Okay. Commissioners? Oh, would you like to introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Hafemann: Garett Hafemann. Again, I'm just asking for a -- I suppose this one is going to have to be forwarded to the Planning Commission, also, because of the change, so I'm just asking for your questions. Myres: The main thoroughfare here, it's looks like is Persimmon, correct? Hafemann: That is correct. Myres: So -- and this hooks up to -- what's over here? 2? Hafemann: Phase 2 of Legacy Pointe. Myres: Okay. It's like a racetrack. Clark: And those lot -- the block lengths are not in excess of the 1,500 -foot maximum, are they? Morgan: No, none of the block lengths in there are greater than the 15 -- or 1,400. Clark: 1,400. Okay. I have a question, possibly for engineering, or anybody who wants to answer it. This is a final plat for 77 additional single-family dwelling units on Persimmon in the list by the wastewater treatment plant Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 46 that's not completed. Do we have capacity to handle this on the existing system? For the record. Casey: Yes, ma'am. That was looked at with the approval of the construction plans and that has been reviewed by the engineering division, as well as the Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services. Clark: Okay. Just wanted to get it out there. Anything else? Casey: That's it. Clark: Okay. Ms. Harris is going to do this one. Motion: Harris: I move that we forward, excuse me, Final Plat 06-2155 to the full Planning Commission, with conditions of approval 1 through 16, with recommendation of approval. Myres: And I will second that. Clark: And I will concur. Thank you very much. Hafemann: Thank you. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 47 R-PZD 06-2196: Planned Zoning District (WEST FORK PLACE, 565/566): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. for property located at THE END OF RAY AVENUE, S. OF HUNTSVILLE ROAD. The property is zoned RFS -4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains 13.92 acres. The request is for a Master Development Plan of a Residential Planned Zoning District with 58 single-family dwellings: 28 attached and 30 detached. Clark: Our tenth item on our agenda, R-PZD 06-2196, Planned Zoning District for West Fork Place. Fulcher: This is a request for a residential planned zoning district. It's on approximately 14 acres located south of Huntsville Road. That's the Watson Addition Subdivision there. It's made up of four streets there. The property is zoned predominantly RSF-4; however, there is some C-2 Commercial, I-2 Industrial, and R -A Agricultural on property closer to the White River area. Specifically, the request is for 30 single-family units and 28 two-family and multifamily units, resulting in a maximum density of 4.16 units per acre. All of the residential units will be in Planning Areas 1 through 3, Planning Area 4 will be community greenspace for those residents, and then Planning Area 5 will be dedicated park land. And this will not subdivide the property. Rather, this will be commonly owned ground, probably maintained by a POA. Kind of jumping to public comment and maybe going back to some of the items in the staff report, there's couple letters in the staff report with some comments sent back from the neighbors. Some of the main items were increased traffic, specifically onto Huntsville, increased noise, and decrease in property value and the addition of multifamily units in the area. There's more of a specific letter near the end of the staff report. I think we've addressed -- pretty much covered those items in the staff report, but they may lead to some more discussion after this. What they've utilized here is a loop street system. As you -- if you look at your -- any of the maps that you have, Ray Avenue, which is the western north - south street, Jerry, being the eastern north -south street, Ray actually was stubbed out to this property. You can see the right-of-way, and that's what they'll be utilizing. It's unconstructed right-of-way, actually. They'll be constructing that from that intersection with Helen, looping that through the subdivision with two private streets coming off there, and then they're going to bring that back up to Helen Street. And actually, Jerry Street, once the once the addition was platted in the 1960s, Jerry Street also had right-of-way that extended to the south for connectivity to this property, is what I found, and those plats are included in the report. But actually in 1996 that right-of-way was vacated, so it resulted in this property that the request is for, only having actually one public right-of- way to connect to, which is probably one of the main reasons why they're Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 48 utilizing an un -built lot along Helen Street for their second point of ingress and egress. Obviously, with the number of units, and obviously for safety as far as accessibility for emergency vehicles, sanitation vehicles, two points of ingress and egress are very important. So the loop street system is being utilized rather than just a dead end cul-de-sac with maybe some type of emergency access. The conditions of the streets in the area, Jerry Avenue, Ray Avenue, Lee Street, and Helen Street, are very wide, actually, very wide streets and in fairly good condition. They do not have curb and gutter. There is a small portion of sidewalk that actually stops halfway up Jerry Avenue. But overall, the streets are very wide and in fairly good shape. To the park land, based on the number of units they have, the Park and Recreation Advisory Board determined that a dedication of park land be required at 1.39 acres. The applicants are proposing to dedicate 6.5 acres, approximately, on the south of this property. Based on the number of comments that the Planning Staff has, the Urban Forester, I believe, has some comments that she'll make, and Engineering, also. We're recommending that this item be tabled at this time so these items can be addressed. Let me go through a couple of the conditions of approval or issues that they should address prior to returning to Subdivision Committee. Item Number 1 is determination of street improvements. As I mentioned, the roads are in fairly good shape. The only one that has had some patchwork done and it looks like it could be improved would be Ray Avenue, and so staff has recommended that that be overlaid from where they're going to actually connect with the new street, which will be to full street standards, curb, gutter, sidewalks, to overlay that up to the intersection with Huntsville. Obviously, the loop street through the project will be a city standard, public, full improvements, 4 -foot sidewalk on the north side. The other two streets will be private, although staff is recommending that a 4 -foot sidewalk be constructed on the north side for the private drive, allowing more pedestrian accessibility, and that should be located within an access easement. Since it would be on, possibly, POA -maintained property, it would not be public, and so laying that within an access easement would allow others from the neighborhood to utilize that. There is a request for two waivers on street design standards, which is listed in Condition Number 3. Number 4 is Planning Division, changes to the plat and to the booklet that we need to see. Condition Number 11 is referring to an attached document from the Engineering Division requesting some changes. Other than that, I think much of the rest of the statements are fairly standard. Clark: Wow. You mentioned a booklet. Did we get a booklet? Because I don't have a booklet. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 49 Fulcher: You not have a booklet? Clark: I just have a plat. Why don't we go on and ask for other --- well, I'll look at that. I'm not going to read it now. I'll go on to ask for other comments. Staff? Engineering? Casey: Yes. In your staff report there's some items that I have requested that be added. One item I want to address is the -- there are two waivers of the minimum street standard requirements. One of them is the centerline curb radius. The standards call for 150 -foot minimum. The request is to reduce that to 100 feet. Upon review of the plans this morning, I found something that I did not see in a previous review, and that's the -- that they're trying to miss some aboveground gas main impertinences. After looking at that, I'd say that we would be in support of that waiver request. Before, I was not, because I didn't really see any hardship there, but as shown on these plans I do not believe that they can get 150 foot in there. And the reduction would not, with the traffic speeds in this area, create any kind of traffic safety hazard. The other request, though, is for our -- our minimum street standards call for a 100 -foot minimum tangent between reverse curves. That's when you're in a curve going one way and then you have to turn in the opposite direction, there needs to be 100 feet in between. And you see that over toward the east side, just south of Lot 7 and 8 of the existing subdivision. I do not see any reason to support that. I believe those changes can be made to be able accommodate our requirement there. Also, I'm not asking that they provide the horizontal curb data for each of these curbs. Easement is a minimum of 10 feet on each side, while water and sewer, if it's deeper than 10 feet it needs to be -- the easement width needs to be proportional to that depth. There's some areas, one off one out in the northwest comer, the private drive, just south of Lot 2 of the existing subdivision. The sewer main is right up against that house almost. Let's see. All grading -- this is from our grading ordinance -- grading must be set back a minimum of 5 feet from property lines. It looks like all along the north they could be grading right up to or over the property lines. The -- between Lots 2 and 3 of the existing subdivision, there's an existing ditch that flows down through there. There's a house proposed right in the path of that drainage, and the grading that's going to be associated with that will cause problems on Lot 3, and offsite improvements will be needed through there to be able to make that work. We need to have that addressed. I would like for them to show the sidewalks for their frontage along Helen. Alley entrances, we would like to see those constructed as commercial driveway aprons. And also we need to see some storm sewer added at the low point of the private alley Number 1. That's all I have. Oh, I'm sorry, it's not. There's one other thing that didn't make to this e-mail I sent Jesse. We had requested Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page SO that the -- on the plat that they show the location of -- I believe it's Jerry Street -- to the east and north of Helen, so we can evaluate the offset distance between the proposed street and that, and that has not been shown. There may be a waiver request needed there as well. That's all I've got. Clark: You sure? Casey: I promise. Clark: Okay. Casey: For now. Clark: Okay. Urban Forester? Sarah, do you have anything? Patterson: Yes. I'm recommending tabling this item due to the number of revisions that I need. I started to look at it and with the time constraint for the applicant to get these in for the Planning Commission, and my review and -- I didn't feel comfortable sending this forward to the Planning Commission until it was perfect or very close. A lot of these revisions are going to change quite a bit of their street preservation calculations and such. Canopy found within utility easements cannot be counted as preserved. There's several areas along the east, southwest, and including tree Number 19 that are found within those easements. Existing tree canopy calculations have decreased since the original. I think at Technical Plat I reviewed them at an existing value of 10 percent, and now they have unexplainably dropped to a 7.8. I just need explanation on that. There are several trees that I am doubtful of a survival and those are those found along, typically, the property line to the north, in particular trees 21, 22, and 28. I just wanted to add a condition that, you know, at the time of building or certificate of occupancy for those buildings, if the trees have been assessed to be in poor condition and/or dead, mitigation will be required in addition for those trees. Just noting that tree canopy shared by landowners is found to be high priority. All of that along the north should be considered such. Utilities and utility easements need to be shown on the tree preservation and grading plan so I can see how they interact with our tree canopy. Trees 40 and 50 are not supported by staff for preservation due to the extent of disturbance in grading within their critical root zone. They've pretty much got grading through them. A fourth or less is shown to be protected. I will not support that. Just a side comment, I would recommend choosing a variety of green ash that is resistant to ash borer, and possibly using a second species to mix in as well. Likely, a mitigation bond and monitoring bond will be required for Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 51 the mitigation trees. They have shown quite a few of those trees on the site and are still proposing, I believe, to get all of those trees onto the site, which I do support. But those revisions will need to be addressed for tree preservation. Clark: Thank you. Anyone else? Pate: Madame Chair. Pursuant to the comments you received today from staff, I don't feel this is ready for a full Planning Commission review and would recommend the applicants come back with revisions to the next Subdivision -- hopefully, to the next Subdivision Committee to forward this on -- before we forward this on to the full Planning Commission. I would certainly hope you would take any public comment that has been -- that is here today, and hopefully, also, discuss any issues that you have so the applicants can address those as well. Clark: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Would anyone here like to comment on R-PZD 06-2196 for West Fork Place? Okay. Seeing none. Applicants, please, introduce yourself and briefly tell -- and we're not going to talk about everything that we just mentioned, because we're going to table this sucker. McDonald: You bet. We agree to be tabled. Clark: Good. McDonald: We're going to go back and address all these. All we would like to know if you have any other comments that we need to be looking at, like Jeremy just said. Clark: Introduce yourself for the record, please. McDonald: I'm Mike McDonald with Hometown. Scott: I'm Art Scott with Project Design Consultants. Clark: Okay. Do you all have any questions? Because I have a couple. The greenspace in Planning Area 5, that's going to be your -- or Planning Area 2 -- Where is it? Where's the mark at? Planning Area 2 -- oh, no, Planning Area -- Fulcher: Planning Area 4 would be the -- Clark: What's 5? Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 52 Fulcher: Park land dedication. Clark: Park land dedication. How are folks going to get to this park land? Are you have some type of access easements? Scott: Yes, ma'am. It's -- we're going to access it on the east side of these properties here with a footpath, and also maybe between these two here. Clark: Okay. Fulcher: If I may add? Clark: Sure. Fulcher: The -- this adjoins -- this portion of the park land adjoins public right-of- way, so that it will allow public access through the public street. Clark: Are you going to clear out -- I actually drove down that street yesterday. What a scary thing if you go too far. If you make the turn, you're pretty good, but if you go too far it's an interesting place, and it was kind of scary and I expected big dogs, but they weren't there. What type of relationship is this going to have -- because that's a junkyard. I mean, that's a good, old-fashioned junkyard. And you're talking about obtainable housing, you're talking about possibly a place where kids are going to be. What are you going to do, guys, anything, to screen it from that junkyard? Scott: Well, we're trying to leave as much in this area as we can of the natural vegetation. We think -- and that's one reason we didn't what to access here, actually, at one point, because we thought these folks really shouldn't have to look at a junkyard when they come home every day. But as it turns out, those are really the only place we could the second access into this public -- Clark: Can we require any type of screening between -- I mean, this is a big, gnarly, dangerous, looking junkyard. No joke. Fulcher: The one thing that may matter is the elevation change. And I don't know -- this area, I believe, is higher than the junkyard, which is predominantly within the flood plain, and I'm wondering even if a 6 -foot wood -board fence or anything would actually -- the elevation change -- Clark: Don't junkyards have to be -- I mean, not you all screening -- but don't junkyards have to be -- have a fence around them? Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 53 Pate: They typically would. This is a preexisting non -conforming use. I believe it's still all zoned agricultural in this area, or industrial, so some of these uses are allowed, but this situation has been here for many decades, I would say. You can see it in our older aerial photographs of what this use has been. So I think this will be, certainly, an improvement to that property. Clark: I'm just concerned that if we're not screening it adequately you're going to have vegetation disturbed in the construction process. I could see your area of building through some of the trees as I was trying to turn around, thanking God that I had bought a four-wheel drive, and I just thought, this is -- if you've got a kid -- tailor-made -- tailor-made for exploration, but really dangerous, and I don't know if you've even contacted these landowners to see what responsibility they have. And also, runoff into the river was kind of -- there's water back there. That was a concern. Maybe this is a code compliance concern and nothing I should talk to you all about, but I was very concerned about how the neighborhood was going to access your green areas and if you have easements and what type of screening you were going to do behind you. McDonald: We -- we actually drove the park bus with everybody on it down through this property up on the other end. Clark: I bet that was fun. McDonald: Yeah, it was. I lead them down through. I had to coax them a couple of times. But like you mentioned, this area is much higher than the area down in here. Obviously, this is a floodway and part of the park land dedication, and so I don't think a fence down here does any good. You're going to be looking right over the top of it. But, you know, that's one of the comments we'll be thinking about. I don't know how you -- Pate: We could potentially look at mitigation trees, maybe even evergreen trees along that area. Clark: That would be good. Pate: Because they would -- depending on the species, they could get larger in size. So potentially work with Sarah to diversify some of those species, and maybe along the street on that area. Clark: That would be good. Now, are these -- is the loop technically an interior street or an alley or a private drive? Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 54 Scott: This is an alley and this is -- Clark: So just this part that's going to do that is going to be your street? Scott: Yes. Clark: Okay. And the turning radiuses for emergency vehicles and stuff are, we think, okay? Fulcher: The solid waste -- I received an e-mail from them regarding the private cul-de-sac -- Clark: Of course you did. Fulcher: -- that they need a 42 -foot radius. That's included in our comments in the staff report. Clark: Okay. Very unique. McDonald: Well, we think it's a good project that meets the city's long-term goals, you know, in terms of affordable housing and we've already -- Clark: What kind of cost are we talking about? McDonald: For those, probably, the -- of course, there's several different types of units in there, but they're probably in the mid -100s, like 140 and to -- something like that -- 160 for some of the smaller units. Clark: Okay. McDonald: We've already had some contact with some banks in the area that are proposing that we have a housing fair and maybe pre -qualify some folks for some of these houses, and so -- Clark: That would be great. McDonald: We think it's a good development. We want to go back and address your comments so that you'll be proud of it, too. Clark: And the flood plain, this is -- is this what I'm looking at as flood plain? It doesn't encroach any further in? McDonald: No. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 55 Clark: Because, gosh, that was wet. That was way wet. Ladies? They didn't get to go journey with me yesterday. I just did it all by myself. McDonald: You can get to the property a little bit better from the Jerry Street end -- Clark: Now I know that. McDonald: -- and you won't have to drive in -- don't go through the junkyard. Clark: Okay. I think everyone should go through the junkyard. It's just incredible. McDonald: It's not good for me. Harris: My question is, what -- this conversation you and Jeremy are having about -- this is a junkyard back there, and what is the city allowed to ask for in terms of the developer? I mean, you're talking about mitigation, mitigating trees. I mean, to -- or -- I agree, I don't think that a 6 -foot fence is going to do anything. You'll look right over the top of it, and for that matter, you'll look right over the top of trees for a couple of decades. Pate: To be honest, the -- usually, the onus is on the person that's creating the problem, not the one who's -- not the residential property that's hopefully improving the use on the property. If, for instance, this were a PZD for the junkyard, you would certainly see a -- or a development plan for the junkyard, you would certainly see screen requirements from adjacent properties. Putting that burden on the developer for a residential property is not typically something that the Planning Commission does. We have no screening requirement for residential properties. We do have for non- residential. For instance, commercial uses, you've seen wood -board fences, and berms, and combinations of things like that adjacent to residential uses. I believe this would probably be more for the protection and improvement in land value for the actual property owner, currently. As you'll notice, this is not a preliminary plat. This is much like the Woodbury project, where you saw it's all one big property. It's a large scale development and all the property would be held under a common ownership. So no one is really buying property here, they're buying the unit, essentially. It may be single-family, it may be multifamily, but it's all under a horizontal property regime, essentially. But we can take a look at what vegetation is out there and maybe look at finished floor elevations to see what visibility is going to be. I think you're going to be able to see it whatever you do here. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 56 Clark: But maybe code compliance could get them to do something. Because I thought they had to be -- have board fences around them. Fulcher: It was an approved large scale in 1967, something like that. Clark: Ajunkyard? Fulcher: Yeah. Harris: Because my concern is, and I understand that it's not -- the onus is not on the developer of this property, but to put obtainable housing, inclusionary housing, where the price makes it appropriate -- and I understand that. I'm not in any way arguing that -- at the same time, you know, I'm mindful of the kind of Mike Davis planet of slum scenario here. I mean, you know, here we are putting affordable housing next door to the junkyard and I'm wondering, what, if anything, can be done. And I'm not saying that these folks need to do it, but again, if it's a code compliance issue, I would really like to follow up on that. Pate: Okay. Harris: Because this is one of the first times we're looking at something in the mid -100s that has, I think, a lot of character to it, and yet, we're -- you know, by virtue of the economics of it, it's right next door to a junkyard, which has profound safety issues for children. Clark: And it's a bad stereotype. I mean, you're absolutely right. Harris: It is. Clark: But the land is affordable -- Harris: You bet. Clark: -- because the city does not have a cohesive affordable housing policy in place, yet, and you guys get no breaks whatsoever. Harris: That's right. Clark: And that's something we need to address. Harris: That's right. Clark: That's my soapbox. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 57 Harris: And I'm not in any way saying I'm against this. I'm really trying to address the context of it. So I appreciate the project. Clark: Will there be a POA that will -- I mean, these folks are going to be buying units, so you're going to have a POA that -- McDonald: Yes. Clark: Okay. Because we did not get the booklet that outlines all the stuff, which I really would have appreciated, because that's little bitty print. Pate: I don't think the POA information has been established yet. It typically is not until a later date. But we can -- we did include in our staff report, which obviously you also did just get this morning, some information about that. So I'm sure at the Planning -- once this does get to Planning Commission, you will have a little bit more information about that. Motion: Clark: Okay. Well, then we are going to table this until all these issues can be worked out. We'll leave it up to staff to bring it back, and I will make that motion. Do I have a second? Harris: Second. Myres: I'll second. Clark: Thank you, gentlemen. Harris: Thank you. Scott: Uh-huh. Thank you all. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 58 R-PZD 06-2169: Planned Zoning District (6TH & WOOD, 524): Submitted by N. ARTHUR SCOTT for property located at 6TH & WOOD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.80 acres. The request is for rezoning and development approval for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 20 multi -family units. Clark: The final item on our agenda is R-PZD 06-2169, Planned Zoning District for 6th and Wood. Garner: This property contains just under two acres. It's located on the south side of Sixth Street. It's about 300 feet east of Wood Avenue. It's zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. It's generally flat with the exception of the significant slope directly adjacent to Sixth Street, which is above the overall property. The site is undeveloped with 65 -percent tree canopy coverage. There's a really large right-of-way for Sixth Street. In this vicinity it varies from about 72 feet to 82 feet from centerline, and a lot of that right-of-way was required for the slope mentioned, and when Sixth Street was constructed that right-of-way was required. Surrounding land use and zoning consists of residential to the north, single-family residential as well to the west. To the east is commercial. There's a thrift store, the closest commercial use there. To the south it's rural residential. The applicant requests zoning and large scale development approval for 20 multifamily units and five buildings. Access is provided directly off of Sixth Street. Each of the five structures is a four-plex with each unit having one garage parking space and one driveway parking space. The zoning criteria allows for a density of 11.11 units per acre with a 10 -foot building setback off of Sixth Street. Staff has expressed reservations about this project, in meeting the intent of the Planned Zoning District ordinance. It is a single -use. It's a rather typical multifamily development that doesn't particularly provide for a lot of greenspace or preservation that we typically require or look for in our PZDs. The main reason for the applicant proposing a PZD is because of the excessive right-of-way for Sixth Street, and also they wanted to bring forward elevations and plans of the structures for the neighbors and for appointed and elected officials so they can see what is proposed. We have received public comment from three adjacent property owners objecting to the project, discussing issues such as traffic, reduced tree cover, increased noise, neighborhood character issues, crime, and property value issues. We did receive one letter from a property owner that did not object to the project. We do recommend tabling this. There are issues to be addressed from our Engineering staff, as well as from the Urban Forester, related to tree preservation areas and tree preservation plan, and also comments from the Technical Plat Review Meeting in which our Engineering staff made Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 59 regarding detention on the property, which have not been addressed. I will -- that's the main issues and I will let other staff make their comments. Clark: Okay. Who wants to start, other staff? Engineer? Newman: We've -- Clark: Oh, you've got to introduce yourself. It's your first time for us. Newman: Glenn Newman, Staff Engineering. Clark: Hi, Glenn. Newman: On the previous review we had asked for detention design to be provided. On this review there was no revised drainage report. They did submit the original comments again in a residential planned zoning district booklet stating that they were not planning to do any detention. We are not in favor of that, so we are asking to table it based on that issue, definitely. At that point -- I have not completed the review. I've noticed that they have addressed approximately half of our comments, but there's a few more items that I would like currently to sit down and look over after the detention is addressed. Clark: Okay. Thank you, Glenn. Tree and landscape. Sarah? Patterson: Yes. Similar to the last project that -- as I was reviewing this there were several revisions that I was going to need. The first, by viewing the aerial imagery and by visiting the site, they're proposing that there is 65 -percent canopy cover. By being there and looking, I think that there is potentially more than that. So I just would ask that they reassess. I know some of that is ground vegetation, but anything that's 3 inches and at a height of 10 feet should be shown on the plan as canopy. Staff could not find the information for Tree 95, to see whether it was counted as preserved or were not. With regards to the grading in the vicinity to the structure, I would not support the preservation of this tree if it has been counted as such. Trees numbered 104, 105, 70, and 29 will not be supported for preservation unless the fencing is revised to follow the grading lines in that area. Trees 40, 32, and 33 will not be supported for preservation due to the amount of grading and disturbance within their critical root zone. I would ask that you revise the mitigation proposed chart on the tree preservation plan. It does not match the values used elsewhere. I removed the note for Group A along the right-of-way. I have asked for the location of the trees that are going to be affected by this development, either by grading or the installation of the drives, within that right-of-way Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 60 to be shown. This has been a city -maintained area with lots of greenspace and trees, and I would just like the possibility of knowing what will be in -- kind of in the way so that we can move that if we so desire. Mitigation will be required on this site. The value is still to be determined. As for the other revisions that I'm waiting for, the applicant has been -- has requested to do residential onsite mitigation. I guess that will be determined on how many trees, if they will be able to fit all of those on the site. It is a tight site. Clark: Okay. Anybody else? Pate: No, ma'am. Clark: Great. Would anyone from the public like to comment on R-PZD 06- 2169. Please, state your name and give us your comments. Sturdivant: Hi. My name is Adrian Sturdivant. We -- I'm here on behalf of my family. We just bought a home down in this area and I'm new to this, so if you all will bear with me, I -- Clark: Sure. Sturdivant: I've never done anything like this before. Initially, I have a question for the Commission. Is -- what -- since I'm new to this -- what is your -all's view for this area of town in general? I mean, how do you all view this? I mean, I've sat here through the whole meeting and I -- you know, I've had time to read in your stuff, and I'm wondering if this is included in the revitalization of south Fayetteville, this whole project. Is this -- is apartments appropriate to this area? In my opinion, driving the neighborhoods, many of the homes are already being remodeled, redone, upgraded, beautified. The area is really, in my opinion, a part of historic Fayetteville -- and Mount Sequoyah, the back side of Mount Sequoyah, granted. So, anyway, that's my first question, I guess. I don't know if it was concise enough. Clark: You've got to talk up. Sturdivant: I don't know if it was a concise enough question, but that's kind of a number of questions rolled in -- Clark: Well, go ahead and finish everything, and then we'll answer all your questions. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 61 Sturdivant: Okay. Additionally, I'm -- a number of my neighbors that I spoke to, we really don't feet that, you know, apartments in this part of town is a good thing, but -- I guess, except that right now they would look really beautiful, but as you know, and I've been here for 25 years at the campus off and on, at the school, on businesses in this area, apartments 20 years down the line don't usually look so good nor add quality to a neighborhood. This neighborhood is a high-quality neighborhood. Within blocks of this there's a number of old Victorian, or Victorian -like structures with beautiful yards, and the neighborhood is old and established. And I really don't feel that apartments are conducive, especially with some of the traffic concerns there at the corner of Sixth Street and Wood, adding -- what is it? -- 20 units, I think. Is that what they're proposing? It's already a hazardous corner to begin with, going from four -lane or whatever it is, you know, from the upgraded Sixth Street to the old, narrow Sixth Street going into 71B. And so -- I mean, these concerns are mine and my neighbors', and I just wanted to express them, because we don't really feel like this an appropriate use for our neighborhood. So I think I've said everything I need to. Clark: Thank you very much. Sturdivant: Thank you for your time. Clark: We'll address your questions and concerns in just a second. Anybody else? There you go. Please, introduce yourself. Doty: I'm Linda Doty and I live at 510 Huntsville Road. And my property is -- faces the intersection of Sixth Street -- I'm sorry, of Wood Drive and Huntsville Road. And that is the direction that that new traffic would go to go to downtown or to north Fayetteville. That traffic would come directly in front of my house, turn left, and for that reason I'm concerned about this use of the property. I just feel like that our neighborhood doesn't need that density of occupancy right there on that corner, and that the apartment building, as Adrian said, would decrease the property value, and I would like to see our neighborhood to remain more single-family dwellings than be an area of apartments. We have duplexes, apartments, low-income housing, brand-new, huge, units going up on Huntsville Road, and my question to you is, do we really need more apartments in that area? Is that the best use of the property? You folks have a tremendous job, I admire you for what you do and the decisions you have to make here, but I'm just asking that you consider is that the best use of that corner for that property Do you want that traffic coming in and out of there every day? Do you want all those people right there on that corner? Is there something else we could do with that property that would better suit our Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 62 neighborhood and keep it the way it needs to be, a single-family neighborhood, and improve south Fayetteville? Do we want apartments on every vacant block in south Fayetteville? I think the answer to that is no. So I just ask you to consider this. Clark: Ms. Doty, before you sit down, do you all have a neighborhood association in that area? Doty: Yes, we do. Clark: Okay, and have you heard anything from these developers? Doty: I have been on vacation and I didn't have time to contact the neighborhood association, but I really intend to -- Clark: Okay. I'll ask them in just a minute. Doty: -- to see what their feelings are. Clark: Thank you, ma'am. Doty: You're welcome. Clark: Okay. Seeing that there is no more public in the audience, how about the developer? Oh, do you want to say something else, Andrew? Come up to the front. You have to be official. Sturdivant: Yeah, I had one more question that -- She spurred my thoughts. This area of town is really close to the square. It's walking distance to the square. And as downtown is developing and some of the older homes up and around the square become more business oriented, people who live in and around the square, we all walk to the farmer's market. I'm sure you all are local residents or live close or go there frequently. That was part of our incentive as a family to live in downtown because we saw the revitalization of this whole -- east of Archibald Yell area. And I just -- we want the character of that neighborhood, that walking distance -- at least that's what my family wants when we moved here, and I'm sure many others would agree -- to be maintained, to have that center -of -town feeling. I'm not -- like I said, I'm not so opposed to apartments. Everybody needs a place to live. But, you know, my lot that I happen to have right there is an acre and a half long. It's a long, narrow, lot. It's a beautiful piece of property with lots of trees, you know, and I think that this character, this neighborhood, this walking distance, this inner middle - of -town -type feeling should be maintained and I don't -- like I said, long Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 63 term I don't feel that apartments really fit that downtown area as far as the 20 -year plan of revitalizing the south Fayetteville area. So, anyway, my feeling about keeping the town and the center, I guess, is what I wanted to express. Clark: Okay. Thank you very much. And can we hear from the applicants? You're back. Myres: You look very familiar. McDonald: Once again, we're agreeable to being tabled until next week until we address all comments. I assume it's evident that this was zoned commercial previous to this, and there are some small commercial businesses adjacent to this, and this is actually what we considered a downzoning, to go to residential. I'm Mike McDonald with Hometown, again. Clark: And Art Scott is right with you. Have you all met with the neighborhood association? McDonald: We have not. Clark: Will you make an effort to meet with the neighborhood association? McDonald: We will make an effort to meet with them. Clark: Thank you. All right. Do you all have -- I have a whole bunch of questions. Myres: You go right ahead, because I'm sure your questions are my questions. Clark: Thank you. Cause I live just past this. McDonald: Oh, my goodness. Clark: Yeah. Congratulations, gentlemen. Scott: You're going to love how these buildings look, by the way. Clark: Well, I like the buildings, but I am just absolutely amazed. Page 5 of this wonderful book, as opposed to the last book I was missing, this is a wonderful book. This says, "The capacity for Sixth Street is approximately 9,000 average trips a day. In 2001 the count was already 9,100." That's bigger than 9,000. "But the city's improvement of Sixth Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 64 Street and Happy Hollow Road intersection should reduce the amount of cut -through traffic along this residential section of Sixth Street by directing more traffic along Highway 16 to the south. Who was on drugs when they wrote that? Cause it's not. I mean, do you really -- does the city really believe that? Pate: The City Council has actually appropriated several million dollars in an endeavor to do that. Clark: And you know what it does, it makes turning right onto Huntsville even nicer. I did it this morning. I was backed up behind traffic doing it this morning. If you go any afternoon you'll see traffic backed up at that little construction/combat zone doing the same thing I'm doing. And I've had this argument with other planning commissioners. What is my rationale with gas prices at $3.00 a gallon to go all the way down 15th, when cutting through is so easy, straight to the bypass. I just read that last night and thought, "That is incredible." If any -- and I'll stand up to anybody to say this, and I will request staff go sit at that corner and look at how many people make a left-hand turn onto Huntsville coming from Elkins. It's not going to happen. So how are we using 2001 numbers, saying there's no impact to a 20 -- to a 20 -unit development? I don't get it. Pate: The 20 unit -- 20 dwelling units does not produce a significant amount of traffic. It is our -- staff s opinion, obviously, through our Engineering Division and the City Council, who appropriated that money for that improvement, along with the state, to improve that intersection, including signalization, that most, if -- not all, obviously, but a lot of the traffic that is traveling from Elkins and from property to the east is going to I-540 in some form or fashion if they're headed north. 15th Street with planned improvements, potentially, if the bond issue passes, and the state has appropriated funds -- matching funds, at least -- to improve other sections of Huntsville Road and 15th Street to allow for a better, more direct route to I-540 so that persons traveling in that direction will not go through some of these neighborhoods that are currently existing. Clark: Those improvements rock. They're wonderful. It's just made it easier to cut through without getting killed with people going to Happy Hollow. So I was just -- plus, we have the apartments going in just to the west of that intersection that are about to open up, several apartment -- Was that your project, Art? -- several apartment buildings there, so traffic -- traffic in that whole area still concerns me and I don't -- I'm very concerned about anything that's going to add to it, and especially when we're already over the 9,000 trips a day. The other thing I'm concerned about, and I think Engineering mentioned it, is the entrance and exits. There's only one Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 65 going into each side and they don't connect. So they're completely separated. And that's a heck of a grade. What is that grade coming off there? Scott: It's around -- 8 percent is, I think, what we're trying to design it to, so it kind of meanders down through there. Clark: And my question is about emergency vehicles. Because that grade -- I mean, it does meander, and that's a very good idea, but that still -- I mean, when you drive by it you're looking at the tops of trees. I don't see the ground very often, and that concerned me, because you're using the PA, your Planning Area 2, as your greenspace. So there's no -- you can't go from one side of these to the other; is that correct? McDonald: Yes, ma'am. Clark: Vehicularly speaking. Scott:: And that is a -- Clark: That's a big one. Scott: That's quite a drainage going through there. Clark: Is that where the culvert is -- that comes out? Pate: Yes. Scott: Yes. Clark: Because there's a big, old culvert as well. That's going to be really pretty. Connectivity to the east, is there any way you can connect through -- that's an empty field, by those commercials. Is there any way you can get an easement to go out, maybe, further down? Scott: I'm sorry,? What did you say? Clark: Because the building is down this way. Because the building is -- oh, that's your greenspace. Never mind. And the drainage ditch concerns me. Pate: I believe the property to the east is that property that there was a commercial venture planned and it failed. I think a lot of the concern about this property developing commercially is it's obviously been zoned commercially for quite a bit of time and not succeeded in developing that. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 66 It's currently zoned C- 2, which would allow a number of commercial uses and probably more traffic by right in this particular area. We agree with the applicants in that point, that it is downzoning this area for at least the uses and, potentially, the traffic generation if this were a shopping center or something on this property. The property directly to the east, I believe, is quite a bit a different elevation, too, than this property. It was filled and this property has not been. Clark: And you're not going to fill it, you're just going to -- Scott: Just appropriately raise the building zone of any flood concern or any (inaudible) concern. Clark: Well, you're going out the only way you can go, based on development to your south and your west, but I'm very concerned as well, and I think Ms. Doty mentioned that, coming out so close to the intersection of Wood, and that's just a heck of a -- that's just a big, old slope. Okay. Your tum. Harris: The lack of internal connectivity, is there no standard within the PZD that discusses that? Is it all right to have these two completely distinct areas? Pate: It's certainly allowable. Harris: Allowable? Pate: Sure. Harris: Okay. Would this, as a PZD, if I'm reading the PZD requirements correctly, would there need to be, for instance, landscaped entries and those sorts of things? Pate: Our PZD ordinance does not speak specifically to any of those types of things -- covenants or what landscaping is required. Any parking areas are required to be screened. We do require tree plantings along the right-of- way. In this case, actually there are already street trees along the right-of- way. When the city reconstructed Sixth Street, the grades were changed significantly. That's why there's so much right-of-way. Typically, Sixth Street would only require -- I'm not sure if it's -- Garner: It's a historic collector. Pate: Historic collector, so only 25 feet from centerline. These applicants are dealing with a situation where their property line is 82 feet from centerline, so there is a significant amount of property there -- Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 67 Clark: Wow. Pate: -- that is not being Scott: It's 140 foot (inaudible) Pate: -- is not being utilized as a typical type of development scenario, and a lot of that is because of the slope coming down onto this property. And so, obviously, the property there that filled their lot, that's a very expensive fill job, I'm sure, because to get it up and make it commercially viable opportunity here for commercial property, you essentially have to get up to the street level so that anyone can see you. These units will be quite a bit lower than the street, to be honest, and actually not very -- not very visible. I think we will probably discuss with -- before the next Planning Commission, or even before the next Subdivision Committee, discuss with solid waste and the fire department one more time just to ensure that they are comfortable with the access here, if there needs to be a connection between the two somehow, but the drainage is really the concern, I think, trying to cross that. As you can see, the large pipes underneath the highway, that's --. Clark: Uh-huh. Pate: -- that's something -- or under Sixth Street -- that's certainly dictating what can happen in that location. Clark: I was just -- I was worried about a fire truck coming down -- like, let's say, unfortunately there's a fire in the southernmost building. How the heck are they going to get back up there? I mean, that's creative driving at its finest. And usually, they're very specific about the space they need to turn their vehicles around. Pate: It may be the distance, and we can check on that. They may serve that from Sixth Street with just dragging hoses to that area. McDonald: We're adding one fireplug over here, and I think the other comment they had, and I'll try to quote the firemen at Technical Plat, but he said, you know, "We realize we can't require it, but we would love for you to add us a fireplug on this side of the street so that people don't have to drive across our hose if we pulled it down in there." I told him I hoped there wasn't a lot of driving across the hose repetitively for fires down there, but there -- I think there was a fireplug across the street on one side, and we're adding one on the other entrance. I believe that's right. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 68 Clark: I'm sorry, Hillary. I interrupted you. Harris: That's all right. I really understand the neighbors' concerns here. While I do want to emphasize that the staff agrees with the developer here that this is a downzoning, and it is, from thoroughfare commercial, you know, based on the other apartment/multifamily buildings in that area, I would sure have some reason for concern myself because I think there's some things there that are relatively abject and that are terribly unfortunate. So I also -- I do -- I understand that the drainage is dictating the site plan here. This kind of site plan does not normally lend itself, I think, overwhelmingly to a sense of community in the development. I would like now or at our next meeting a sort of discussion about what is really being done to allow for -- I don't -- we keep saying things like "trails" and those sorts of things, but any sort of community -- Andrew, I'm sorry, I didn't get your last name -- but the notion that -- that this is a part of a larger walking community, I think, is important. I think the building materials are important, too, for that matter, again, because of the sort of larger neighborhood and the multifamily structures that are there now that do not, to my mind, seem like a part of revitalizing that area, rather they're something that has to be looked around. So those are some of my concerns on top of what you're saying. Clark: I agree with you 100 percent. Because this is a neighborhood that's very definitely struggling to revitalize. Harris: You bet. Clark: You've got all of Morningside developing out as apartments. You've got all those apartments down that way, plus the ones further down Huntsville, and I think we are losing some of the neighborhood single-family character. Duplexes might be something different -- lower density, families. I don't know. That -- I don't own the property. Also, on your greenspace, is there any intent to put in, like, a small clearing for a community gathering area? The neighborhood could certainly use the western tree -- it's called tree preservation, and I want you to keep the trees, but some type of green amenities to pull people together. Because the purpose in my mind of an R-PZD is to establish more of a neighborhood community feel. And to me, this doesn't do it. That's why I think staff is right about questioning -- I know why you did the R-PZD, because of the setbacks and stuff with all the right-of-way, but the spirit of it is not -- you're using it in a very practical manner, but I'm sure you're capturing the spirit of it and I really hope you talk to the neighbors, and I hope the neighborhood association shows up to talk to these gentlemen. I Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 69 have dealt with them before and they're very open to listening to neighbors' concerns. And I hope you take this back to the owners of the property as well. It think this is an area that could be developed. It certainly is a pretty greenspace. But you've got to -- I mean, you almost need a parachute to jump off of Sixth Street to get to the bottom of it. That's just a heck of a grade. So good luck to you. But those are lots of concerns. And that big, old culvert just -- how are you going to disguise that sucker? I saw that yesterday and -- McDonald: We're not going to block it up. (Laughter) Clark: Well, you could always call that your water feature. McDonald: (inaudible) Myres: The whole side of Mount Sequoyah has a water feature at the right conditions. Clark: Well, you know, if you're doing -- Hilary is a realtor. She'll tell you that's creative selling. McDonald: I don't know if you remember where the Benton Ridge Subdivision is. Clark: They all blend together. McDonald: Okay. It's off of Highway 265 just -- Clark: Give me a landmark. McDonald: Just before you get to 265 and 16. Clark: Okay. Garner: By the cemetery. McDonald: Go up to the -- go up to the top of the hill. Clark: Okay. Gotcha. McDonald: And you turn in and there's a single family on each side as you turn in the driveway of Turtle Creek. The second structure on your left is a four-plex that will look like this. Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 70 Clark: Like that? Harris: Okay. McDonald: If you wanted to drive by and see what these buildings are going to look like, it will look largely like that, and that gives you a real good visual picture, probably better -- Clark: And that's the kind of stuff the neighbors need to see, too, quite honestly. McDonald: If they wanted to look at what we plan .. Audience: Could you tell me again, that location? McDonald: It's Turtle Creek Drive and it's -- if you turned up Crossover or 265 to the north off of 16, I believe it's going to be the first street on your right. There's a driveway and then a street at the top of the hill, and if you turn in that street, the second structure on the left is a four-plex. And what -- these have sort of an entry foyer inside them where you walk in, and then there's an upstairs, and it's a four-plex, where you have one unit here, one unit, and then two upstairs -- not true apartment style where you enter every unit from the outside. You do enter these units from the inside and have a shared foyer. Clark: That's what I thought in your picture -- and they -- if you plan a neighborhood association meeting and notify these gentlemen, they'll probably bring nice pictures and show everybody what you're doing -- what they're wanting to do. And I think if you work with this neighborhood you might be able to hammer out something they could support as well. Because this is a downzoning. Right now it is zoned for commercial. There's good reason no commercial has ever gone there. But this is their right as owners to do with their property. We just need to iron out the details and hopefully everybody can agree. Any thing else? Myres: Well, yeah. I've got to stick my oar in. I have concerns as you do about the spirit of the neighborhood that's intended, I think, by a residential PZD, and I also have concerns about the traffic. I used to live in that neighborhood down the road a ways, on the budget side of Mount Sequoyah, and I know that in certain conditions it's, you know, a water feature. I've had -- when I lived in the apartment I had my living room flood twice, even though there was sufficient drainage to take care of the normal flow. So I understand the concerns with water. And my main Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 71 concern is traffic. Since most of the traffic studies have been done, we've put in, I don't how many units, down from Curtis. Clark: About a billion, rounding up.. Myres: And then the apartment complex that's at -- presently renting, even though they're not -- they're pre -leasing -- just right across from Sherman, almost. Clark: And a lot of duplexes in between. Myres: And a lot of duplexes in between. And potentially, you've got 60 cars entering and existing this. I think it's -- as a four-plex with three bedrooms, I certainly would hope it would be a single family, but I would guess that there would be at least as many multiple rentals, college students, which I don't have anything against college students, I used to teach them, but it seems like, desirable property as this would be, would be very attractive to renting to students, so that you've got a lot of traffic going back and forth to school, going back and forth to jobs, going in and out at night to go to Dickson Street. And it's just a concern to me that Mashburn, which is a difficult intersection if you're coming out onto Huntsville Road, is right between these two driveways, and again, I understand the site planning is really dictated by that culvert and the water issues, but I really would like to see you try to take care of some of those concerns -- the connectivity issue. You know, I mean, it's probably going back to the drawing board, but I'm not happy with it the way it is. Clark: Are the parking numbers good? Garner: Yes. They're going as far under the ratio as they can, so -- Clark: I bet you are. Garner: They've got it. They just got it. Myres: Okay. Clark: Okay. Well, we gave you a list. McDonald: You did. Motion: Subdivision Committee August 31, 2006 Page 72 Clark: I would make the motion that we table this until you're ready to come back to Subdivision with revisions to meet everybody's wildest expectations of grandeur. Is there a second? Myres: I'll second. Harris: I concur. Clark: Thank you, gentlemen. McDonald: Thank you all. Clark: Anything else, Jeremy? Pate: No, ma'am. Clark: Then we stand adjourned. (Whereupon, the 8-31-06 meeting of the Subdivision Committee adjourned at 11:30 a.m.)