Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-14 - MinutesSubdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on September 14, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN R-PZD 06-2196: (WEST FORK PLACE, 565/566) Forwarded Page 3 R-PZD 06-2169: (6TH & WOOD, 524) Forwarded Page 17 FPL 06-2104: (THE COMMONS @ WALNUT Approved CROSSING, 555) Page 25 FPL 06-2232: (MOUNTAIN RANCH I, 478) Approved Page 30 FPL 06-2211: (CLABBER CREEK IV, 244) Forwarded Page 33 LSD 06-2237: (BANK OF THE OZARKS 6TH Forwarded ST, 558) Page 41 PZD 06-1884: (WESTSIDE VILLAGE CONDOS, Tabled 439) Page 46 R-PZD 06-2212: (STADIUM CENTRE TOWN- Forwarded HOMES, 557) Page 57 Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 2 James Graves Andy Lack Sean Trumbo STAFFPRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Matt Casey/Engineering Sarah Patterson/Urban Forester Glenn Newman/Engineering MEMBERS ABSENT Candy Clark Christine Myres Lois Bryant Alan Ostner Jill Anthes Hillary Harris STAFF ABSENT Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 3 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 RSF- 4, SINGLE FAMILY- 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 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. Lack: Welcome to this Thursday, September 14th, convening of the Subdivision Committee. The first item on our agenda today in old business is R-PZD 06-2196 Planned Zoning District for West Fork Place. May I have the staff report, please? Fulcher: You bet. This item was heard at the previous Subdivision Committee meeting on August 31 st. At that time it was tabled to allow time for the applicants to rework some items for the Urban Forester on the tree preservation reports and also to make some minor changes for the planning staff regarding the booklets and plats. Those changes have been made. The Urban Forester can address those issues that have been corrected and responded to since that time. The request is for a planned zoning district, large-scale development approval, on 14 acres south of Huntsville Road and south of Helen Street. It's bounded on the south by the White River. It would be an extension of the Watson Addition, which has been developed for probably over 30 years. They're requesting 29 single-family units and 32 family or multifamily units, resulting in a density of approximately 4.2 units per acre. There are five planning areas in this planned zoning district. Planning Areas 1 through 3 will have all the residential uses. Planning Area 4 will be the greenspace, which will be maintained by the property owners association. Then Planning Area 5 will be dedicated as parkland. Since the last time we reviewed this there are some changes to the parkland numbers. They had to rework one of their street sections where it required them to move the units around a little bit, so the original proposal was for dedication of 6.48 acres of parkland, now it's 6.08. However, based on the number of units that they have, they're actually only required to dedicate 1.39, so they're dedicating above what they're required, but I just wanted to note that minor change in that dedication amount. Staff did review this project for connectivity for future development; however, the east side is fairly limited. Obviously the properties to the north are already developed and that's what it will be connecting to. The property to the south and east is bound by the White River, so that pretty much leaves the connections to the west. There is a right-of-way along the west property line, so if in the future property to the west along Happy Hollow and 13th Street be redeveloped, there will be an opportunity for connectivity at that time. Based on the changes that were Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 4 made since the last Subdivision Committee meeting, staff has recommended that this item be forwarded to the Planning Commission with some items to address, again, some minor revisions to the plats and to the booklet, which is itemized in Condition of Approval Number 13. There are also some comments from the Urban Forester itemizing Item 4. A few determinations: Condition Number 1, determination of street improvements. Staff is recommending an asphalt overlay of Ray Avenue from the intersection of Huntsville to the interior street where they will be picking up the extension of Ray Avenue. Also that a 4 -foot sidewalk be constructed on the north side of the private alley which is shown in Planning Areas 1 and 2. That alley will be private, although staff is recommending that a sidewalk be constructed there for more pedestrian connectivity between the parkland and the sidewalk that will be constructed in the public right-of-way. All other public streets, including the public alley -- or the private alley, shall be constructed to city standards and be maintained by the property owners association -- that is for the private alley. Condition Number 3 is determination of waivers from the street design standards. There is a waiver of the street radius at the northwest part of the property. They're requesting a hundred -foot radius where 150 feet is required. Engineering can explain that a little bit more. There's also -- based on looking at the revised drawings, they've shown where Jerry Avenue will be, which is to the northeast of this property. The existing Jerry Avenue, to where their easternmost street is about 130 feet from, that does not meet the minimum jog standards between those two streets. We will need to review a waiver for that. We did not get that information reviewed in time to request that waiver, so we're just requesting that they submit that and having Karen review that. I believe that all the other conditions of approval are fairly straightforward. If you have any questions, just ask. Lack: Thank you. Engineering? Casey: I'll just expand on the waiver as requested for the minimum radius. On the west side where the street comes in, Ray Avenue, and curves to the east, there are some large gas main appurtenances in the way, and if we lay that out as 150 -foot radius it would require the location of all that infrastructure. With the configuration that's shown, we feel comfortable supporting that waiver request. Another one, and I don't believe it is mentioned, with this reconfiguration over on the east side, from what we saw last time, it's quite a bit different. The public street is actually the through portion of this odd intersection, and if you could see, the street actually falls where the sidewalk is shown and that creates considerably less radius than what is required. This, like I said, has changed considerably since the last time. I spoke with our City Engineer yesterday Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 5 about this configuration and we're not in support of what is shown. We don't feel that that meets the intent of what we need to see there. I feel that the traffic is going to tend to not follow the public street. It will go forward on down the private alley, and if that's the case, we probably need to look at making that a public street down through there if it's going to be configured in this way. So right now we do not support the plan as shown. That's all I have. Lack: Thank you. Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. Many of the revisions that I had during the last submittal have been addressed. There was an error on the tree preservation plan that you are looking at, a computer error, and they submitted an older version, so that will need to be updated for the next submittal. They did give me a copy -- several copies -- if you would like to see those. There is one revision still needed for significant tree number 40. The grading still needs to be pulled back in order to preserve that tree. There's quite a bit of grading within it. And then just some other statements. Tree canopy shared by landowners is found to be a high priority. All canopy along the northern property line should have every measure taken to ensure the health and longevity of the tree. Mitigation is going to be required for the site in the amount of 50 2 -inch caliper large species trees. The applicant will be utilizing the residential onsite mitigation option. A three-year maintenance and monitoring bond, a letter of credit, or a check will be due in the amount of $12,500.00 for the mitigation trees before the last certificate of occupancy in this development or as each lot develops. That's all. Lack: Thank you. Are there any member of the public that would like to speak to this item? Yes. Please step forward. Madison: I'm Sue Madison and I believe you all have a letter from us about this development. Of course we knew there was vacant property behind Helen Street and that something would happen to it, but we also knew that it was zoned residential single-family, four units per acre. And frankly, this proposal would seem to conflict with that, as far as I can tell. I mean, it certainly is not what neighbors would have been led to believe would happen with the property. Because rather than a neighborhood of single- family homes, it is indeed multifamily in places, or attached, as they're choosing to call it. I would particularly object to the access at the east end of Helen, because there was absolutely no warning to neighbors that there would ever be a street there. Originally, Jerry was platted and more or less stubbed to go to the south. The city chose to vacate that at the request of an owner, which, to me, would imply that the city therefore gave up any access south of Helen at that east end. This is a platted residential lot. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 6 There's no indication that it would ever be a street. Helen is basically one block long. It is quiet. There is good connectivity to Huntsville Road from both Ray and Jerry. I don't see that adding the access at that east end is going to improve anything as far as traffic flow or connectivity. It merely provides a loop. If we were going to have connectivity, that cul- de-sac would be stubbed out to the east or there would be some provision to access Happy Hollow Road right there by where the city recycling facilities are through there. You have my letters, so I've enumerated our other issues with the project in that letter, but I would ask that you please consider this neighborhood that's small and quiet. We've had some fairly well-to-do neighborhoods in Fayetteville that didn't end up having access into those neighborhoods even when it had been platted, whereas this modest neighborhood, there was never even a platted street there. Do you need my address or anything else? Lack: No. Thank you. Madison: Okay. Thank you. Lack: Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will ask the developer for their presentation. Scott: Good morning. My name is Art Scott with Project Design Consultants, and with me is Mike McDonald, the developer on the project. I think we're in agreement with virtually all the comments from staff. On this east access, we were just discussing we could slide these units a little bit, keeping the same number of units and adjust that to make it satisfactory to engineering staff in just that location. So we're okay with -- I agree with Mr. Casey's assessment on this here, that probably would lend itself to people coming down the alley rather than staying on the main public street. McDonald: Probably just these units to allow some access through here. If Parks decides to put a parkway down into the park down in there, we would have a way to come between these units when we slide these units together as well. Lack: I'm not sure that I understand how you're thinking about modifying those units. McDonald: Attach -- Scott: Oh, probably attach two here and make it two 4s instead of four 2s. Like similar to this -- or actually probably similar to this. And that way we Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 7 would gain a little space over here that we could move this over and also provide an access easement through to this -- this is six acres. I don't know if that was mentioned. There's six acres of parkland dedication here along the river. And so I think that will work out good for both of those situations. Lack: Okay. Scott: I think the only other thing we're probably in disagreement on is the overlay of Ray Street. The pavement itself is in good shape structurally, it just has some places where there's been a lot of utilities crossed through there that weren't done real well. So we feel like that there's no problem with the structural integrity of it or safety of the traffic. It's just some -- a few bumps in there where the utilities weren't covered up well. McDonald: And we think the traffic we're generating wouldn't necessarily be going up and down Ray, it would be coming straight out to Happy Hollow. Lack: Okay. Would you point out to me on a plan here someplace where your -- where Ray -- Scott: This is Ray Street here and this is the back of that subdivision. Lack: Right. McDonald: Ray runs right there where the fences are at. Scott: No, it runs straight out. McDonald: Okay. What is it you're asking us to overlay? Scott: That's it. All the way up to Huntsville Road. McDonald: Okay. And this is Jerry over here? Scott: Uh-huh. Lack: Is that it? Scott: Yes. Lack: Mr. Casey, would you mind to address the overlay of Ray Street and the need for that. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 8 Casey: We feel like the path that the majority of these vehicle trips are going to be taking is up Ray to Happy Hollow, and in our opinion it is in need of overlay, and that that impact that this development is going to have on it would warrant the addition of that pavement -- or the improvement of that pavement. Lack: Okay. Does the road appear to be structurally adequate at this time? It's just a matter of the paving is not adequate at this time or it's deteriorated? Casey: I believe just an overlay would be sufficient to make that improvement, to bring that up to standards, if that's what you're asking. Lack: Yes, sir. And did you understand from the applicant's description how they were proposing to modify the cul-de-sac location? Casey: No, sir. I couldn't see what they were pointing at to get an idea of what they had in mind. Scott: What we intend to do there, Matt, is to take those four two -unit buildings there around that cul-de-sac and turn them into two four -unit ones. Casey: I heard that. Scott: And give me space to move that road over one way or the other. Lack: If I may, I think what I'm understanding is that you're planning to realign the alley to -- Scott: Exactly. Lack: -- attach to the cul-de-sac and not align with the in road. Scott: Yes, sir. I think we can work that out with staff before we even resubmit. We can talk to Mr. Casey about that and make sure he's okay with that. Pate: Mr. Chair. Lack: Yes. Pate: Am I under the understanding that would essentially create a "T" intersection, basically a stop sign, on that short area right there of the extension to Helen Street and then might likely go right on the public street; is that correct? Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 9 Scott: A stop sign coming into the development? Pate: Correct. Scott: Yeah, that's probably the best idea. Lack: Commissioners? Trumbo: Mr. Casey, now do you kind of get what he's wanting to do there? Would that be something you would be amenable to after taking a further look at it later? Casey: It's going to be difficult to say without seeing it on paper. I hate to leave it up in the air like that, but without seeing something in front of me, it's really hard to comment. I think that would be a little bit closer to what we have in mind. Just sketching here on my plan, I think we can come up with a way to eliminate that little cul-de-sac altogether if you're open to suggestions -- Scott: Certainly. Casey: -- that might -- and I know this is not the time and the place to be redesigning, but I do have a suggestion if we could cover that at some point that might make the whole situation better. Scott: We'll do that before the re -submittal. Lack: And is staff comfortable with that? If we get through all the other items and get through density and the other issues today with this one item of the alignment of those streets, would staff be comfortable to have that modification if we choose to forward this? Casey: Yes, sir. Lack: Thank you. Trumbo: Mr. Chair. Lack: Yes, sir. Trumbo: I have a question regarding density. I guess it's for Mr. Fulcher. In the vacation of Helen Street that Ms. Madison brought up, are you comfortable with the density proposed here? Do you think it's appropriate? Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 10 Fulcher: It's very consistent with what you would see with an RSF-4. It's approximately 4.2 units per acre. RSF- 4 is four units per acre. There are actually small areas of C-2, I-2, and R -A also on this property, so it's not exclusively RSF-4, but the density proposed is consistent with that zoning classification. Trumbo: Thank you. Graves: Mr. Chair. Lack: Yes, Commissioner Graves. Graves: Question for staff as well. Are there in this neighborhood any other duplexes or attached dwellings like those that are being proposed in this particular application? Fulcher: There are duplexes actually on Helen Street. I can't remember the specific number. I believe there's -- if you look on your close-up maps in the packet, there are at least three there on the south side of Helen Street and closer to the Jerry Avenue intersection. Graves: What about these four-plexes like are being proposed, where there's actually four dwelling units attached together? Is there anything else like that out there? Fulcher: No. I believe the highest density use would be a duplex in this area. Graves: My other question is on this connection to Helen Street. We've had situations arise in the past in some other neighborhoods, most recently one right off of Mission, where there was a space between two homes that the city had right-of-way to construct a street, but it looked like just a wide, you know, yard or park -type area in the neighborhood and there wasn't any signage or anything unless you had gone to the county and looked at the plat to advise the neighbors that a street would be constructed there. Are we talking about the same situation here? Fulcher: Probably a little bit of a difference in that had you looked at the plat for Glenbrook Subdivision, the one off of Mission, it actually stated that this was a street easement on that lot, a 50 -foot wide street easement, whereas this one was just a platted lot. As the citizen said, if you had gone and looked at the plat for Watson Addition you would have seen -- depending on when you looked, you would have seen two stub -outs, one for Ray and Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page I1 one for Jerry, but you would not have seen a street easement or right-of- way across that platted lot. Graves: Which gives me even more pause about connecting right there. We have both in Candlewood, I think, and in the Glenwood area we hesitated at pulling the trigger on constructing a street somewhere, even though we had the right-of-way to do so, where the neighbors didn't really have a way of being advised that the street was going to go through there without going down and looking at the plat. And it sounds like here, even if they had looked at the plat, they wouldn't necessarily have been put on notice that a street might be constructed there, and I have a real problem with that. I'm also curious as to why staff isn't requiring a stub -out to the west towards Happy Hollow or having the applicant check into somehow connecting through the C-2 lot, the C-2 area, to the west. We've had other developments where we've, even if there wasn't a street there, we've required them to look into the feasibility of being able to work through a parking area for a neighbor or something of that nature to connect to another thoroughfare. Here we've got a C-2 lot to the west that bounds on Happy Hollow Road. I don't know what the layout of that C-2 lot is at this point, but I'm just curious why staff hasn't recommended some kind of a stub -out or connection to the west or an attempted connection to the west. Fulcher: The right-of-way for Ray Avenue is actually adjacent to the west property line, so there's really not necessarily the need to stub -out. The right-of- way will be available for the connection since it is adjacent to the property line. Simply someone stubbing out from the west to the east could "T" into the Ray Avenue extension, so it is available for a connection. In most cases you need a stub -out because the right-of-way isn't adjacent to your property line; in this case it is. When you get further to the south of Ray Avenue you get into more -- there's topography changes. It starts to slope into the White River floodplain area and there's also a drainage area at that point, but the ability to connect to the west is there. Graves: Well, I guess whenever I look at the way they've got the street planned here, with the curve that's there, I don't necessarily see much of an opportunity without some kind of reconstruction there at a later date to really connect to the west. The way they've got it drawn right now, you're going to have to do a lot of tearing out if you were ever to connect to the west. There's not really an opportunity just to go in and lay a street down to the west without doing a lot of modification, it doesn't look like to me ,anyway. I guess I would be interested in staff and/or the applicant's comments about that. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 12 Pate: In our opinion it's much like a connection to a street that's adjacent to your property. If you have a larger piece of property and a street is in front of you, you will obviously have to make that street cut. But anything adjacent to that property -- obviously when it starts curving back to the east, if there is not right-of-way dedicated in that location, that would not occur. But all the way -- the length -- that C-2 property to the west covers from halfway between Lee and Helen Street all the way down to where this street begins to curve east because of the topography and because of the gas appurtenances there. So anywhere along that connection, assuming they can meet the 150 -foot jog in street location, would be available for a developer to construct to that street or connect to that street. Graves: The other thing is, without stubbing anything out over there, you may be getting yourself in the same situation we were just talking about to the west, where someone developing that property to the west doesn't have notice that there might be a street that comes through there connecting to Happy Hollow at some point. I mean, if you don't actually have a stub - out there or any signage and it's just a street that curves over towards the east like it's drawn right now, then there's not really anything that advises anybody that there might be some intention later on to go through to the west over to Happy Hollow. Pate: I think we have that challenge with every property that's adjacent to a street that's not developed, though. Every property that has a right-of-way adjacent to them, highway on 16, frontage on 16, or frontage onto Ray, or any other street in the City of Fayetteville, ultimately has a right to be able to connect to that public right-of-way. Obviously, we do look at street stub -outs oftentimes, especially those that are not constructed, and this is a unique situation, but anyone adjacent on the west side of Ray Avenue, if the -- if any of those properties there adjacent to that were to redevelop, such as the Tyson complex, they would have the ability to connect to that street as long as they met our requirements for street design. Our recommendation for another connection at this point in time was based on the number of units proposed -- I believe it's 58 total dwelling units -- and to provide for a secondary means of ingress and egress. There is very little ability to connect to the east. We believe that the ability is there to connect to the west and eventually to Happy Hollow Street in the future with a redevelopment of that commercially zoned property, but it is ultimately the Planning Commission and City Council decision whether you feel that that connection to Helen is appropriate. Graves: Well, I'm not going to support this project for the reasons that I've already outlined. I think there needs to be a connection to the west or at least a planned -- an actual planned connection to the west. I don't think it's Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 13 appropriate. I do think with the number of units there needs to be more than one way out, but I don't think that the way out that's planned right now, going through a platted lot, is the way to do it, and therefore, either the number of units should be reduced or the -- or another connection and a different way out needs to be planned. And I don't think that four- plexes are consistent with what's already out there. And I don't think I'm going to vote to forward it today because of the issue concerning the alleyway and the cul-de-sac. My fellow commissioners, they may want to go ahead and forward it and allow that redrawing to come forward at the full Planning Commission and let us consider a new drawing for the first time at the full Planning Commission. I don't like to do that. I never vote for that. So that will be my vote today on that, on whether it gets forwarded, but even at the full Planning Commission with the way -- just the general plan of this, I won't support it. Lack: And I wonder about on the west and the idea of stub -out or the idea of connectivity. When Ray was platted previously, it extended directly north and south, and basically "T"-intersectioned or connected in a 90 -degree manner so that there was a full connection along the property line of the road so if somebody wanted to tie in from an adjacent property line they could tie in along that full property. I wonder if that would be possible here as opposed to the curve. Scott: I think it was the gas appurtenances that are on both sides of that curve ,actually. We kind of went between them and that's the reason why it's configured that way and then we just lined up with the Ray right-of-way on the north. It actually stubs a little bit into our property there. And then actually there's a dirt road that goes down through there to that junkyard in the back over there. It's kind of been used as an extension of Ray Street. McDonald: You know, we tried to work with what we had there. You know, we're sort of proud of this project. We believed it met with the long-term goals of infill and revitalization. It's low-income housing. Obviously, we talked to some local bankers about setting up some housing fairs and so forth and pre -qualifying folks for these homes, and we believed this project met the overall goals of the city. It has a nice area of parkland, and we have tried to work with what we have there. So, you know, I'm disappointed that the stub -out causes you that much concern. I understand your concern, but we certainly think it's a good project. Lack: I had wondered about the potential to stub -out to the east. I know that the terrain -- I can see the grading -- I know that the terrain is somewhat more severe to the east off of the Planning Area 2 section from where the cul- Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 14 de -sac is, but I don't know that it's not possible to do that. Is that a potential? Pate: I believe that one of the reasons is Jerry Avenue used to extend just as far as Ray does past Helen. That's all existing right-of-way south of Helen Street currently. Jerry Avenue used to do that when this was platted in the `60s and was vacated in 1996 per the construction of that home you see there on your map. I believe that's one of the reasons it was vacated, because of the proximity of that lot to the actual floodplain and slope down to the river. The river is heading generally north in that direction and comes very close to that area. It would be a very tight squeeze to get any kind of connection in. We can re -look at that. We have -- I believe at the last meeting we provided some maps showing the topography -- we may have that with us today -- but it was showing the topography of that -- in the floodplain and floodway of that area. Fulcher: I think this is the topography change we're talking about, where it drops off on this east side of the property, and the river actually bends up following somewhat the property line at that point. Trumbo: That's into Jerry? Fulcher: That's Jerry right there, yes. Trumbo: And there's a house -- Fulcher: Yes. Trumbo: -- south of Jerry, so they can't go through there? Fulcher: That's where the right-of-way used to go, approximately just on the east side of this house, before it was constructed. Lack: I think I would probably have a little less concern about that connection, but certainly it's never a palatable idea or a first choice to take a platted lot and make a cut -through to another district or another section of a subdivision, but I'm not sure that it would kill the idea for me. Trumbo: Mr. Chair. I'd concur with you, too. I'm not crazy about the idea, but I would go ahead and be in favor of letting the full Planning Commission hear it. I'm not excited about the idea of forwarding this without the changes that Mr. Casey needs, either. If he's comfortable with that, getting that done between now and the Planning Commission, that's probably going to sway which way I'm going to vote. Do you have an -- Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 15 Casey: Well, I've got something drawn here if you all would like to see what I have in mind. I'm sure -- Trumbo: Well, I guess my question is, are you comfortable with getting this redrawn in time if we do forward it to the Planning Commission and you're comfortable with -- Casey: If I'm not comfortable with it, I would like to hold off putting it on the agenda until we get it worked out -- on the agenda for the full Planning Commission. Scott: That's fine with us. McDonald: We'll have it done in time for the turn -in. Lack: What is the re -submittal deadline? Pate: It's Monday morning at 10:00 a.m., and assuming those revisions don't come in, we could simply not put it on the agenda. Motion: Trumbo: Well, I'm going to make a motion to go ahead and forward this to the Planning Commission. Can we do it without a recommendation of approval, Jeremy, just for a forward? Pate: You can. Lack: Are you going to make determinations on them? Trumbo: I'm okay with the waiver for the 150 to 100 -- or the radius, I believe it was. The 4 -foot sidewalk, that's ADA minimum; is that right? Yes? Casey: Yes, sir. Trumbo: Okay. Lack: The overlay? Trumbo: Yes, I'm in support of the overlay, if engineering recommends that be done, of Ray Avenue. And in agreement with the other 19 conditions of approval. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 16 Lack: I'll second that motion. Graves: I'm opposed to the motion for the reason stated, that I don't like to consider new drawings for the first time at Planning Commission level. On the recommendation that was mentioned in the motion on street improvements, I'm in favor of the overlay, although I'm not in favor of the layout or the design of the street as indicated on the west. And I'm also -- on the waiver, I'm just not in favor in general of the way that the loop was constructed, so my vote is no. Lack: Thank you. Scott: Thank you all. Graves: Thanks. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 17 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 multifamily units. Lack: The next item on the agenda today is R-PZD 06-2169, 6th Street and Wood. May I have the staff report? Garner: Yes, sir. This item was tabled at the August 31st Subdivision Committee meeting mainly to address concerns of our Engineering Staff and Urban Forester regarding onsite detention and tree preservation. The Subdivision Committee also expressed concern regarding lack of internal connectivity between the quad-plexes that were proposed. And since that meeting the applicant has revised their site plans substantially. They've added a loop driveway through the lot and they have increased their tree preservation numbers. Our engineering division is -- when we were publishing this report last night they were still reviewing it, so we'll give you an update on where they are with their detention and drainage here in a minute. The property contains just under two acres. It's located on the south side of 6th Street. It's about 300 feet east of Wood Avenue. It is zoned C-2 and it's generally flat with the exception of a significant slope directly adjacent to 6th Street, which was -- that slope was constructed as part of -- when 6th Street was improved, and so for the right-of-way for 6th Street in that section is very large. It varies from about 72 feet to 82 feet from centerline. The surrounding land use consists of residential development on the north side of 6th Street and to the south it's rural residential. There is some mixed commercial directly east of the site, and single-family residential to the west. The applicant requests rezoning and large-scale development approval for a residential development. The proposed use is for 20 multifamily units and five buildings. They're proposing Planning Area 1, which is the five buildings over 1.37 acres, and greenspace over .33 acres. The greenspace is located within a 40 -foot drainage easement through the central portion of the site. Access, as mentioned, would be provided with two driveways directly off of 6th Street that provide a loop through the property. The density over the whole site would be 11 units per acre approximately. Staff has expressed reservations about this project and we discussed this at the previous Subdivision Committee meeting. Our reservations are just that this project may not really meet the intent of the planned zoning district ordinance. It is just a single use. It's a rather typical multifamily development that's not providing for many of the provisions within our PZD ordinance. The primary reason the applicant is processing a PZD is because of the excessive right-of-way along 6th Street. They would like to push their building setbacks closer to the street Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 18 and they also want to present elevations of the structures for the decision - makers on this project. We are recommending -- Well, I'll also note public comment. We did receive comments from adjacent property owners that were objecting to this project, discussing such issues as increased traffic, reducing the tree cover, increased noise, loss of the neighborhood character, increased crime and decrease in property value, and we did have public comment stating those issues at the previous Subdivision Committee meeting. We are recommending forwarding this item to the full Planning Commission meeting. Condition Number 1, I just included in there that "The revised drainage report shall meet approval of the Engineering Division." We were in the process of looking at that last night when we were printing this out. We did have -- Condition Number 4, "Revisions to be completed prior to Planning Commission." Some of these are pretty minor. Condition 4(b), we wanted to see a cross- section showing how the buildings would lie in relation to 6th Street. We're recommending this just because of the slope coming off of 6th Street. 4(c), we feel like the fire department and the solid waste division need to take a closer look at this revised site plan for the layout of emergency access and trash service prior to Planning Commission. And I did talk to our solid waste division last night and showed them quickly this concept and they were okay with it. I haven't gotten a chance to talk to the fire department about it, but our concern was just some of the really steep slopes in these driveways going down in there. One of the issues, 4(e), with this revised layout, some of their parking spaces from the driveway are dimensioned at only 18 feet and when you would park a car behind the driveway some of the spaces would actually stick out into the drive isle and we don't feel like that's safe, so we feel like some of spaces should be increased. And 4(f), I just noted that the grade on some of the private drives and some of the parking spaces is very steep, but I think our engineering division wilt expound on that. Those are the main issues I wanted to cover. Lack: Thank you. Matt, do you have anything to add? Newman: Yes. Glenn Newman, staff engineer. I do have a little bit to add to that. I have written up comments. I was able to compile them later last night and I would just like to pass these up to you if you don't mind. You can look over those. Andrew went over most of our concerns. The largest concern that we have is the detention. We've gone back and forth a few times with detention on this project. They have shown detention. The situation is, we're using the access between -- or connectivity between the development as a weir. Evaluating the submittal they presented, when we do have a load flow, load storm event, we're getting 10 inches of water over that roadway, a 10 -year event, about 13 inches, and the 100 -year Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 19 event is about a foot and a half. We feel that's not a safe condition to have access, people walking through that at that time. So our biggest concern is the detention. If another method is able to be determined and to be evaluated, we would reconsider that. The other issue mentioned is the grading overall. I believe retaining walls in a few areas would fix the parking problems that I see on the grading plans. Some places they have it three to one for the secondary vehicle parking. It seems extremely steep and sometimes that's not perpendicular to the vehicle, so it's on a crawl slope also. So just for convenience of the public that will be using this facility, I feel that may need to be reevaluated. And the other major item I have is Item 14, water lines, to extend an 8 -inch water line on the drawings as we've discussed previously, but with the new layout they have shown a little different method. If you have any questions on those items, I'll be happy to explain them further. Lack: Thank you. Do we have any public comment on this R-PZD 06-2169? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the developer. McDonald: I'm Mike McDonald, again, with Hometown. Of course, Art Scott, again, with PDC. I guess at the last meeting the general consensus were we were pretty close to being technically correct, but the project didn't meet the spirit of the community and so we took some input from staff and redrew this thing. We did show the weir that was described to you to actually access rather than having two driveways, show some connectivity between the units, and added a -- well, we're going to put an arched pedestrian bridge and put some river rock in there and we were trying to show a sidewalk out, you know, to somehow connect this development to the community around it, which was, as I understood it, one of the overwhelming messages of the last meeting and that's the reason that we made these changes. Art would have to address some of the specifics that have been brought up, but that's the reason we are where we are. Anything, Art? Scott: I think the driveway on the east side that enters 6th Street is around 6 to 7 percent. It's not optimum, of course, you know, but it's certainly safe and typical, I think, of a lot of driveways in Fayetteville. There is some steepness to some parking for that one -- the two units on the southeast corner that should we add a retaining wall would take that away as a concern. I think the flow over that low-water crossing here could only really be addressed with a culvert, box culvert, through there. The situation with this site is is that it's near the bottom of a drainage area that extends all the way up to Mount Sequoyah, so there's a lot of offsite flow that comes through there. So to do detention is -- I think we've been -- we've disagreed with staff over even the need for detention, but we added Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 20 it because they requested us to do so. I think that we can -- you know, if they don't like the low-water crossing we'll just culvert it so that it passes underneath the drive, at least for the 10 -year storms. So that's something we can easily address, I think. McDonald: We thought up to a two-year storm would go through. Did you agree with that, up to a two-year storm would go through without covering the road, or did you have different -- Newman: No, sir. The drainage report indicates that it is topping the road on the two-year storm. McDonald: On the two-year storm? Newman: Yes, sir. So it was 10 inches above the road. McDonald: Okay. Newman: The road elevation is 65, I believe, is what they have for the roadway. McDonald: Okay. Newman: But I did review that last night and it is topping the road at the two-year storm also. And we -- I believe recently we've had some issues in the city with that type situation and we want to avoid that with the weir. McDonald: Well, we may have erred on the side of trying to be less technical and trying to create too aesthetically pretty of something there with the low- water crossings, so if we need to redo something there, I guess we can. Lack: Is there -- Before I go on, is that the extent of your presentation? McDonald: Yes. I might say that staff is correct. The reason we primarily used the PZD process was because of the 70 -foot one side of the right-of-way, our side of the street only 70 feet. This certainly is a downzoning. It's zoned C-2, and so we don't feel like we're doing anything extraordinary the other way, but that is the primary reason for the PZD was that with regard to the water we did add a fire hydrant and then proposed to bring the water to our buildings. We have private service. There is another fire hydrant directly across the street, I believe, and so we felt like that the water was taken care of and I think that would be the extent of our -- Lack: I realized as I was going to public comment that I did not ask Tree and Landscape Committee for a specific report, so, Sarah, if you would -- Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 21 Patterson: All my revisions that I currently needed with the previous submittal have been addressed. There is just one: if you would remove the note stating that right-of-way trees will be relocated at the developers' expense. That's not needed. Mitigation is going to be required on the site to bring the canopy back up to the required 15 percent. They have requested and been approved to utilize the residential onsite option. With the current canopy calculations we're only looking at two 2 -inch -caliper large species trees and those trees should be bonded for $500.00 or a letter of credit or check at the time of certificate of occupancy. Lack: Thank you. Fellow commissioners? I guess I have a couple of questions about one . Glenn, when you say that you notice that there's an alternate method of satisfying your Item Number 14 to extend an 8 -inch water line, are you satisfied with that alternate method? Newman: No, sir. They have extended a 4 -inch instead of the 8 -inch that we have requested. When they changed the layout it was -- each time that they've addressed the layout we've had different changes in there, but we've requested an 8 -inch, I believe, from the initial reviews consistently. McDonald: And that's basically an 8 -inch looped all the way through. You know, of course, we're going along a right-of-way and we feel like the primary purpose of the 8 -inch is to provide fire protection, and we're adding a plug along the right-of-way, is that correct, Art, and there is a plug across the street from this development, and, therefore, we felt like all we had to do was get our residential water to our units since we had fire protection at the street here. And so that's been the issue with looping the 8 -inch water all the way through the development. Newman: If I can clarify that a little bit. We're not asking for the entire loop. McDonald: Okay. Newman: We're asking for the 8 -inch -- basically, to follow the path would be fine -- of what you have presented, and terminating just on the west side of the crossing or the ditch -- McDonald: Okay. Newman: -- and placing a fire plug in that location. We're not requesting to tie back in across 6th Street to tie it in in another tap. McDonald: Okay. That makes sense, doesn't it? Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 22 Scott: Uh-huh. Yeah, yeah. Newman: Thank you. McDonald: Thanks, Glenn. Lack: And the other question that I had from your presentation was, if we installed a box culvert to handle the 10 -year storm, will you then provide a drainage structure, a weir, at the other end of that so that we are maintaining that detention? Scott: Yes. We'll stay with the concept of detention and just cross a larger storm through that area. McDonald: We want it to be dry detention. Scott: Yeah, dry pond. Lack: And is Engineering satisfied with the 10 -year storm being maintained underneath and anything more than a 10 -year storm going over that? Casey: I think that's something we're going to have to discuss with our City Engineer before we can get you an answer on that. Lack; And you mentioned -- And I may have missed the grade at the west drive. You mentioned the east drive was 6 to 7 percent. Did you mention what the grade is at the west drive? Scott: The steepest section there, it gets to approximately 12 percent, which I think is the maximum for asphalt, but this is -- you know, cigar *** streets are constructed that steep all over town. Lack: Okay. Tntmbo: Mr. Chair. Lack: Yes. Trumbo: A question about the drives. What's the -- it sounds like we're going to be coming straight up. Are we going to be on a plateau -- Scott: Yes. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 23 Trumbo: -- at the top there to have line of site of traffic? Scott: And that's why it is -- I'm sorry to interrupt you, but that is why it's a little steeper than it could be, is because we flatten it out at the top, too. Trumbo: Come up and you can sit there? Scott: Yeah. And there is very good site distance in both directions here, so I feel comfortable with the safety of it. Trumbo: Can you talk to us about the retaining walls? Scott: I think staff is recommending a retaining wall at the southeast portion of the site where that driveway going there is steep. That's something that -- that's a concept that I think we can do and it will work fine. McDonald: We plan on owning these buildings. We're keeping them. We're not trying to sell something to somebody else here. We plan on maintaining these ourselves. Obviously, if we determine we need a retaining wall there, we're fine with that. Scott: That is fairly steep in there. Trumbo: I guess Item Number 11 on your list, what would you recommend? If you're not happy with three to one or five to one, what did you have in mind there? Newman: Part of the situation is also the crawl slope. If a vehicle is not, you know, in one direction we're kind of leaning on part of it. Matt may be able to give a better acceptable answer for what's being allowed when we get in these conditions. Casey: Typically on a large-scale development we don't like to see any driveways steeper than 10 percent, and that's something that the fire department has been consistent on as well if it's something that they're going to be accessing. Now, I think what we're talking is from the main driveway up to the garages, so we may have some working room there to be able to go steeper, but three to one is a very excessive slope for a driveway pad. But I would say no greater than 15 would be something that I'd be comfortable with. Trumbo: Is that a possibility? Scott: Yes, it is. We can add a wall that will make it less than 15 percent. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 24 Lack: Commissioner Graves. Motion: Graves: Well, it sounds like they've answered most of the questions I had in the affirmative, that they're agreeing to do these things, so I'll move that we forward R-PZD 06-2169 to the full Planning Commission with the stated conditions of approval and including the changes that have been requested by the staff, including engineering and Tree and Landscape. Trumbo: I'll concur. Lack: And I will concur as well. Scott: Thank you. Trumbo: I'll second. Lack: Thank you, gentlemen. McDonald: Thank you. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 25 FPL 06-2104: Final Plat (THE COMMONS @ WALNUT CROSSING, 555): Submitted by PATRICK HARGUS ENGINEERING DESIGN ASSOCIATES for property located N. OF HWY 62W. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DIST., and contains approximately 6.45 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of a residential subdivision with 58 single-family lots. Lack: The next item on the agenda this morning is Final Plat 06-2104 for The Commons at Walnut Crossing. May I have the staff report, please? Garner: Yes. This item was tabled at the applicant's request at the August 31, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting to address Condition of Approval Number 5(b) regarding the width of the driveways. And on September 11, 2006, the Planning Commission approved an administrative item to allow for 16 -foot driveways in the overall Walnut Crossing Subdivision. The staff has changed Condition of Approval Number 5(b) for this final plat to reflect the 16 -foot driveways as the Planning Commission approved for the overall Walnut Crossing development. This property is identified as Lots 137 and 138 of the Walnut Crossing R-PZD and these lots were rezoned and subdivided separately into 58 single-family lots by a separate PZD called The Commons at Walnut Crossing. It's just the northernmost portion of that overall subdivision. They're requesting final plat approval and they have met every -- the main issues, inspections, and so forth. We are recommending approval of this final plat. The only condition I wanted to point out was that Condition Number 5(b) has been changed to reflect that driveways shall be allowed to be 16 feet per city codes. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have about this. Lack: Thank you. Engineering? Casey: No comments. Lack: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: No comments. Lack: Thank you. Is there any member of the public who would like to speak to Final Plat 06-2104? Seeing none, I will ask the applicant for a presentation. Hesse: I'm Kim Hesse with Rausch Coleman. Hargus: And Patrick Hargus of Engineering Design Associates. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 26 Hesse: I think everything is pretty clear. I was working with the staff on those comments on Item Number 5 and I guess I still need a little bit of clarification on those. If you remember when we brought this through, these are private drives and the homes were really tailored to fit the size and the shape of the lot. It is very tight. Most of the homes are within 10 foot of the back of the curb of the private drive, and so the grading and the configuration of the way the house sits on the lot is very specific. The comment states that the -- any home that is adjacent to the public street shall face the public street. What I wanted to point out is that a few of these are adjacent to a public street, but do not face the public street. And I don't know if the staff had a chance to look at the original submittal. What we're looking at are some sides of the homes on corner lots. I mean, they are actually facing, and I'm talking about this particular lot. This one is not facing the public street. This one is facing the inside, the drives going out the back, so that we could get a full two cars parked outside the garage. We've got a few other side -facing. And then the comment also states that other than the three lots they all access the public drive. I believe that's correct. I just wanted to point out that we do have a shared drive here. I do believe all these homes face the public street. Yeah, ultimately they access the public street versus the private, and that's these shared drives. I didn't mention that to you, Andrew. I was looking at the individual homes. So I would request that we have a side adjustment to that one note for those specific situations. Garner: That's fine with me (inaudible). Hesse: And the only other item I'd like to subject, or request I should say, there's a statement, 5(e), it's says prior to signing the final plat they want us to place the street signs that specify no parking. What we would like to do is -- it will be take two to three weeks to order all of these signs. I wonder if it's not too much to keep up with if we could have that note state that the signs be installed prior to occupancy permit. I know that's harder for you keep up with. Garner: I'm not sure about that. Our solid -waste division requested that specifically, and so I'm not sure if we can authorize that at this point. I don't know. Mr. Pate, do you have an opinion on that? Pate: I think probably we can confer with our solid -waste division, but obviously occupancy is when that's going to be utilized. The issue is that none of us sign off on occupancy permits, so it is very difficult for us to keep up with that. That's a building safety function. But I think in house we can work out something. It may take an extra step to get your occupancy permit so that solid waste will have to be able to sign off on Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 27 that and ensure that everything is done, so the timing may just be delayed until that point. But I think we probably could go along with that at this point. So prior to issue of certificate of occupancy being issued for any of these, even the first single-family home in that subdivision. So that will give you ample time to get those installed. Hesse: Uh-huh. And I will note just for clarification, we will be putting "No Parking" signs, period. It won't specify any specific day. We will not allow any parking on the private drives. It's too difficult to -- you know, they park one day and they leave it there for five and you can't really control it unless you just totally remove all parking, so that's what we chose to do. That's all. Thank you. Lack: Fellow commissioners? Trumbo: Mr. Chair, a question for staff. Do we need to -- on 5(a), do we need to go through and specify the exceptions that Ms. Hesse pointed out to us? Garner: Yeah, if we could have her expand upon those, you know, and have it for the record. Can you provide -- I mean, right now, or do you want to -- Hesse: We could. Now, this plan was submitted -- I don't know if you just want to state that the homes are configured the way we submitted them. Graves: Weren't there some we made where it looked like it was the front of the house from either side in that one? Trumbo: We have some numbered exceptions, so -- Hesse: 137 and 141? -- 147 and -- Trumbo: Did you say 137 also? Hesse: Yes. Graves: 137 and 147. Trumbo: And 147? ?: 164. Hesse: 164, 172, and 183. And I think we've -- this one right here, 171. Maybe I need to -- 171 will have kind of two facades, but the actual front will be on the private drive. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 28 Graves: So it was 137, 147, 164, 171, 172, and 183? Hesse: Yes. Graves: It was not 141? I think somebody said 141, but it's not? Garner: Right. Graves: Okay. Garner: And did you say 154 as well? Graves: 164. Hesse: No, 154 is fine. It will face the front. Garner: Okay, okay. Trumbo: We have 154 written in the conditions. Hesse: And that was for the -- Graves: That's on the access -- Hesse: That's for the access, yes. Trumbo: Is staff okay with the verbiage on the "No Parking" signs? Pate: I guess we can just change that to "prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy" and strike "signing the final plat." Trumbo: But the condition states that "no parking allowed on the street on trash days," and I believe they want it changed it to "No Parking." Is staff okay with that? Garner: That's fine. Trumbo: Okay. I don't have any other comments. Lack: Comments? Motions? Motion: Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 29 Trumbo: I'll make a motion to approve Final Plat 06-2104, The Commons at Walnut Crossing, in agreement with the stated conditions, adding the changes that we have made here. Graves: And I'll second. Lack: I will concur. Hesse: Thank you. Lack: Thank you. Trumbo: Thank you. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 30 FPL 06-2232: Final Plat (MOUNTAIN RANCH 1, 478): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOCIATES INC. - ROGERS for property located at SE OF RUPPLE AND PERSIMMON INTERSECTION. The property is zoned RSF- 4, SINGLE FAMILY- 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 59.88 acres. The request is for a final plat of a residential subdivision with 118 single-family dwelling units proposed. Lack: The next item on our agenda this morning is Final Plat 06-2232, Mountain Ranch L May I have the staff report, please? Fulcher: This is the final plat request for Mountain Ranch Phase L It's approximately 60 acres with 118 single-family dwellings proposed. This is just south of the Boys & Girls Club, and actually the southern extension of Rupple Road bounds the west property line and extends up to Permission Street, bounds the north property line. Those were improvements that were to be made during the preliminary plat of this development. Sufficient right-of-way has been dedicated for Persimmon and Rupple to meet Master Street Plan requirements. Obviously, all infrastructure is in at this time. Park fees in the amount of $65,490.00 are due prior to signing the final plat as outlined in Condition Number 5. Staff is recommending approval of this final plat at this level with approximately 18 conditions of approval. Condition Number 1 is an assessment for future traffic signal at Rupple Road and Persimmon Street in the amount of $4,729.73 prior to signing the final plat. Item 3 is just some minor revisions to make to the plat that staff needs to look at prior to applying signatures to it. Then Item Number 8, including a note as far as access for Lots 79 through 80 and lots 11, 22, 33 and 34 not accessing directly to Persimmon Street or Rupple Road, but rather assessing to the interior streets. All the other conditions of approval are fairly straightforward. If you have any questions, please ask. Lack: Thank you. Engineering department? Newman: No comment. Lack: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. I would just add a -- request a note to be added to the final plat that states "The developer has chosen to utilize the residential onsite mitigation option and will be responsible for 351 large -species trees to be planted onsite. A tree mitigation planting plan has been approved by the Urban Forester." That could be added to the signature. Based on the revised submitted calculations, the developer is responsible for planting trees, 351 2 -inch caliper, on the site. A three-year bond, letter of credit, and/or check Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 31 in the amount of $87,750.00 shall be deposited with the city before the signature of the final plat. That's all. Lack: Thank you. Is there any member of the public who would like to speak to Final Plat 06-2232, Mountain Ranch Phase I? Seeing none, I will close the public comment and ask the applicant for a presentation. Hopper: Tom Hopper with Crafton, Tull & Associates. I have two comments that I would ask the engineering staff if they would allow me to sit down with them. In Item 3(e), 39-44, the "finished floor elevation of 1247 or higher," I will agree with that if I can't convince them that it should be 1244, which is shown on the plat. I think once we look at the contours that they'll see that 1244 would be sufficient, but if they don't agree with that then I'll accept the 1247. And as far as Item 6, the chart on the back of the third page of the final plat does show we've got 6,000 square feet of buildable area and we are in the process of going ahead and filing the letter of map amendment. The conditional letter of map amendment has been met, but the final letter of map amendment along the Owl Creek that runs along the north side is in the process of being filed and that will be done immediately. Lack: Okay. Fellow commissioners? Graves: Mr. Chair. Lack: Commissioner Graves. Graves: I'm inclined to move to approve this. I just have a question for staff if they have any suggestions on 3(e) on how we would go about accommodating the request if we were inclined to do so. Pate: We would restate that "Elevation of Lots 39 through 44 shall be approved by the City Engineering Division prior to recordation of final plat." That 1247 number, I know, is stated in our staff report at this time. That's what our storm water engineer stated as well, and that very well may be the requirement, so I just want to make sure that Mr. Hopper is aware of that, but if it's something that be discussed at engineering level, that's fine to change that. But it does have to meet with our city ordinances, obviously. Motion: Graves: Okay. Otherwise I believe that the plat complies with what we approved at preliminary plat and so I'll move to approve Final Plat 06-2232 for Mountain Ranch with the stated conditions of approval, including the Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 32 change on 3(e), and I believe Tree and Landscape's comments were encompassed in Condition 14. Trumbo: I'll second. Lack: And for clarity, the change on 3(e) would be? Graves: That it must be approved by Engineering staff prior to recordation of the final plat. Lack: Thank you, and I will concur. Hopper: Thank you. Lack: Thank you. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 33 FPL 06-2211 Final Plat (CLABBER CREEK IV, 244): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at N OF CLABBER CREEK III, W OF RUPPLE AND SALEM VILLAGE. The property is zoned RSF- 4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 34.78 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of a residential subdivision with 83 single-family dwellings proposed. Lack: The next on the agenda this morning is Final Plat 06-2211, Clabber Creek IV. May I have the staff report, please? Morgan: Yes. This phase of Clabber Creek is north of Phase 3, which was approved. The final plat for that phase was approved in March of this year. The applicant requests final plat approval for this phase, which contains 22.25 acres and would allow for the construction of 83 single- family dwellings. The road improvements for Rupple Road adjacent to this phase have been completed and the applicant is currently working on Phase 5. I believe streets have been cut in, though not paved at this time. Staff is recommending forwarding this item to the Planning Commission due to a phase change. With the approval of the preliminary plat, phase lines were shown on the whole subdivision and that was what was approved. With Phase 3, some -- Phase 3 was approved slightly different than as shown on the preliminary plat, but all of the street connections that were approved within that original phase were being shown as Phase 3. As approved with the preliminary plat, Phase 4 had a street connection north to Lierly Lane and a street stub -out to vacant property to the west. With this revision for this proposed phasing, they will provide those two street connections within Phase 5, and so staff felt it appropriate to take this to the full Planning Commission so that they can decide whether it's appropriate to approve this portion of the entire subdivision without those two connections at this time. Staff is in approval of this modification, are in favor of this modification, seeing that the streets are already cut in in Phase 5 and we don't anticipate any significant delays which would prevent the street connections to Lierly and a stub -out to the west. So we are recommending forwarding it with conditions. And I do have additional comment sheet from the engineering division that I'll hand the developer, if you wouldn't mind. So with the Planning Commission consideration, we'll just be looking for a revised plat that will address those comments as well as the planning comments in your packet. That's all. Lack: Thank you. Engineering division? Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 34 Newman: My comments you have in front of you. They're very minor. They're mainly drafting and easement comments. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to go over those with you. Lack: Thank you. Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. I have a few conditions of approval. There was a drafting error on the tree mitigation plan which I've already spoken to the engineering firm about. The mitigation trees are shown along the east side of Rupple Road. They need to be shown within the boulevard section in the west side. The east side is not their property. If they could revise that. If you would add a note onto the mitigation plan also stating that "Phase 4 is required 169 trees." I don't think that's stated anywhere on that plat. The original approval for this plan was for Phases 3 through 5. A total of 691 2 -inch caliper large species trees are required for the mitigation. As each phase finalizes, a separate planting plan will be submitted for approval. At the final plat of Phase 5 any remaining trees that were not able to be located on the site will be paid as money -in -lieu into the city's tree escrow account. The developer has chosen to use the residential onsite mitigation option for Phase 4. 169 2 -inch caliper large species trees will be planted within the street right-of-way and on the interior of the lots. This will require a three year maintenance and monitoring bond in the amount of $42,250.00 to be deposited with the city before the signature of final plat. That's it. Lack: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will ask the applicant for a presentation. Hennelly: I'm Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering, and Bleaux Barnes, the owner. The only comment I'd like to make is, we would -- well, we understand that the phasing on this is slightly different than what it was at the preliminary plat. The timing of Phase 5 coming through, I mean, there's already -- there's curb poured out there. It's well on its way. It's about 45 days out from being final and it will probably be coming through in the November meeting. We would like to see if we could get approval at this level rather than going forward to a full Planning Commission. All the punch list items with the exception of cleaning out some of the storm drain boxes from the final inspection have been addressed and taken care of, so really would prefer to get this approved at this level if we could. Lack: Thank you. Fellow commissioners? Graves: Mr. Chair. I have a question for engineering staff. There's a number of items listed in Condition 12 in our packet for suggested revisions to the Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 35 final plat before a Planning Commission consideration. Was the handout that we just received with six more items, should that just be -- are these just additions to that list, I guess? Morgan: Yes, those are just additions. Graves: Okay. Morgan: Condition Number 12 is just the items that I found for planning. Graves: Okay. And then on the Tree and Landscape, you mentioned an error that was on the plat. I think most of the things you mentioned were in stated Conditions 3 through 6, but I'm not sure I saw anything addressing maybe that first item you addressed about an error on the plat. Patterson: Number 3 is addressing the error. Graves: Okay. I wanted to make sure. And then just a question about the applicant's request about the ability of subdivision to approve waivers on phasing at this level. Pate: We would prefer it be approved at this level, as most final plats are. Also, we happily put it on consent. However, the phasing lines are determined by the Planning Commission at the time of preliminary plat. So to modify that, it does need to go back to the Planning Commission. We are happy to put this on consent as long as all the other conditions there are met at the time of Planning Commission. Graves: Okay. That's all my questions. I'll make a motion unless anybody else has questions. Lack: I guess the only question that I would have is, it seems -- and I'm trying to make sure that I'm clear on which street it is that we're not accommodating at this point within Phase 4. Barnes: Lierly that comes from the north that has connectivity through Phase 5. Morgan: There are two -- I don't know if you saw, but in your staff report there's an approved phase line map and a proposed phasing. And you can see on the proposed phasing with the large Phase 3 and Phase 4, and Phase 5 identified up on the northwest corner where it says "Phase 5," that street to the north and west is what was originally in Phase 4. Lack: Okay. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 36 Barnes: Of course, the development north of us, too, where current conditions onsite for their construction is similar to our current conditions. They have curb down. They're prepping for final paving. We're in the same process: Curb and gutter down. Prepping base for final paving. I feel like with the problems they've had north of us, we'll beat them to a final plat phase. We feel like we'll have asphalt down and we'll have approval -- construction approval onsite prior to them having approval. Lack: So on the phasing plan, the original approved phase lines, this connection is supposed to meet up? You're bringing it to the property line -- Hennelly: That's right. Lack: -- for it to meet up with the adjacent -- Barnes: There was a smaller number of lots in the original preliminary plat, I believe, in Phase 5. Rather than having 60 lots in Phase 5, there was a smaller number of lots. Maybe that number was 43 lots and the phasing just allowed a more numerical number going through from three to five. Lack: Okay. Suzanne, do you know the status just for -- I guess, just for a feeling, do you know the status of the development to the north? Morgan: I know only what they told you. I haven't personally been out there. But I know that maybe -- Pate: A final plat was submitted this morning for that Lierly Lane Subdivision. I'm not sure if they're ready for that final inspection yet. So that application may not be accepted, but we're checking into that right now. Hennelly: I think maybe engineering could help us with the status of that project. Casey: There has been many -- have been many construction issues out there. They've not paved yet. They're required to construct the north half of Lierly, as the Planning Commission determined Monday night. So there are many issues yet to be resolved before that final plat can be processed. Morgan: There is a condition, at least on Phase 3, we conditioned any construction traffic to go through Lierly Lane even back in March, through the subdivision to the north. And so at least the road was cut in enough that we were directing traffic through there until Rupple Road was finished. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 37 Barnes: Yeah. And full intentions for us is to complete Phase 5. I mean, again, it's priority at this point now that the -- you know, the construction process has been completed on Phase 4. It's priority for us to complete Phase 5 and bring it back before this body for a final plat approval. Lack: I think my concern with that is just that we never know what's going to happen from day to day, and we can't always predict that, and I think that's a very important connection for the city. I'm uncomfortable with adding any kind of flux on when that would happen or that ability to happen in a timely manner. Hennelly: I think that the time issue is going to be a wash anyway. If staff is willing to put it on the consent agenda for Planning Commission, the revisions that we need to make, we'll be close to having the plat ready for signatures the day after Planning Commission anyway. So it's probably no problem if it's going to be put on consent agenda. Lack: I guess what I would be speaking to would be more the waiver as opposed to whether we -- which certainly would temper what we do at this juncture, but I wouldn't want to pass it, which we can't do, but I'm not sure that I would be in favor of a waiver to hold off on the stub -out. Barnes: I mean, I guess what I might add is -- I mean, we have spent the last seven or eight months, you know, what we feel like what's been a good relationship between the City of Fayetteville and staff and engineering, helping construct Rupple and providing that access into Phase 4. We have a large investment in Rupple and, of course, obviously the reason we want the phasing of 4 is so we can sell lots, you know, to recoup that investment. There were several items as far as access through Clabber Phase 4, through Clabber Phase 5 that we did. We did remove dirt from Clabber Phase 5 back during the construction phases of Phase 3. So I feel like we've -- you know, we feel like we've done a great job and we're going to continue to proceed with Phase 5. I mean, that's only at our interest, to be able to sell lots. This is a very marketable neighborhood still and there are lots of interested buyers for lots. So, I mean, it's in our interest to complete and make those improvements and have a product we can sell. Lack: Sure, and I have every expectation that you will. Barnes: Sure. Lack: Please don't think I'm doubting your intent. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 38 Barnes: Sure, sure. Graves: Mr. Chair. Lack: Yes, Commissioner Graves. Motion: Graves: I think we've -- not on a final plat necessarily, but I believe that we have accommodated, you know, juggling of timing on some things before. In fact, recently around the Harp's -- I believe it was around the Harp's area we had a situation arise where we had required a connection through and they came in and asked us to sort of juggle when they had to build that. Of course, that's a situation where conditions could change, but, you know, we had faith that the applicant was going to do what they represented they would do and make that connection and just do it at a little bit later time than what was originally planned. And so for that reason I'm going to move to forward Final Plat 06-2211 to the full Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval on the waiver requiring, though, as a condition -- I think it's stated this way -- but on Condition 12 requiring that before this gets put on the full Planning Commission agenda that all those modifications to the final plat would already be made, incorporating, also, the six items that were handed to us in memorandum today by the staff engineer as a part of that Condition 12. That's my motion, and then I would also request that if that's done that staff consider putting this on the consent agenda. Trumbo: I'll second. Lack: And I will concur with the idea of sending it forward. I think when we talked about the area by Harp's on 16, I remember that, but we did have faith that that would be completed. We also set regulation into that motion to ensure that it was completed. Graves: I don't have a problem amending my motion if you want to put some kind of a time line on Condition Number 1 on the waiver. Hennelly: Well, I would like to add in that even the location of that stub -out to the north was not nailed down when the preliminary plat came through. It wasn't until after the subdivision to the north was approved that we adjusted that location, and so it was never really critical to the phasing of this, but rather just listed as a condition that we coordinate with that developer to align those two. So, I mean, if the concern is that the connection or the connectivity is not going to be made, I would suggest Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 39 that in this phase, sure enough. For Phase 4 it was never critical to the approval of Phase 4 as it was shown on the preliminary plat. Lack: But it is shown in Phase 4 on the approved phasing plan? Hennelly: It is. Barnes: But at that time there was no improvements to the north of us. It was a stub -out for future connectivity. Hennelly: And I think the location of it is different than what it was shown., because one of the conditions was that we coordinate with that developer to the north and align it with where their location was, so really the location of that in relationship to the phase lines is arbitrary. Graves: I take it that you're less concerned about where it's located so long as it's aligned and more concerned that it actually happen. I mean, I take that from your comments. And I'm open to an amendment on the motion. I can't remember how long we gave the folks at Harp's to -- at the Harp's area. I don't remember the name of that particular application other than it was around Harp's. But that particular one, I think we gave them six months or a year or something like that to either get the phase done that they were -- get the project done that they were doing or go ahead and build that connection. So if you want to do something similar to that, I'm open to an amendment on the motion. Lack: If I recall correctly, it was tied to another activity. So it was tied to another approval, and that might be the catalyst here. You feel like -- you've stated that you would be able to have this into place before the adjacent or the property to the north has Lierly Lane to the border. Would that be a palatable amendment? Ask Jeremy, even, if that's -- Barnes: Well, one of the things I might add, Lierly comes through a final plat phasing and then they have a construction period to go through too of, you know, 120 days, 160 days of construction, and the current conditions onsite now allows construction traffic. I mean, it allows for each and everyone of us to drive through there today. It's a gravel -base road, curb and gutter is down. So, I mean, and we're not prohibiting traffic through our development to Lierly. I mean, they can drive through there today. Currently we do, and inspections does, engineering does. So over a period of four months that they're going to have construction in there of homes, they have the ability to drive through there. We will not prohibit that. I mean, they currently do now. Once Rupple was completed, they choose to use Rupple. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 40 Pate: I think probably rather than trying to craft a condition here, we can -- if there's one member uncomfortable with what the Planning Commission did, we typically take it off the agenda -- so we could probably -- take it off the consent agenda. We could probably just put this on the regular agenda and potentially put a condition of approval and work with the applicants to find out what best works with their time frame as well, rather than going -- hashing through that right now. Lack: Okay. And I wouldn't be opposed to seeing it on consent if that condition were added through that packet. Pate: Okay. We will try to come up with something then. Hennelly: I would agree. Lack: So I will concur. Hennelly: Thank you. Barnes: Thank you. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 41 LSD 06-2237: Large Scale Development (BANK OF THE OZARKS 6TH ST., 558): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOCIATES/RUSSELLVILLE for property located at NE CORNER HWY 62W AND FINGER RD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.96 acres. The request is to approve a 4,352 s.f. branch bank with associated parking. Lack: The next item on the agenda this morning is Large Scale Development 06- 2237, Bank of the Ozarks, 6th Street. Garner: This property is located at the northeast corner of One Mile Road and 6th Street. It's zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The owners are proposing a 4,362 -square -foot bank building with 23 parking spaces. The property would be accessed through a curb -cut on the southeastern corner of the site onto 6th Street and a curb -cut on the northwest corner off One Mile Road. The property was previously developed for use a gas station that is not currently in use. The surrounding zoning consists of Wal-Mart to the south on the other side of 6th Street, commercial development to the east, another bank to the west, and then residential development to the north. Right-of-way being dedicated with this development is 55 feet from centerline for 6th Street, a principal arterial, and 25 feet from centerline for One Mile Road. Staff recommends forwarding this large- scale development to the full Planning Commission. We typically would recommend approval at this level, but there's some numbers that need to be worked out with tree preservation, so we don't feel like we should approve it until we have those numbers in place. We are recommending forwarding this with a recommendation for approval. Conditions, Number 1 are determination of Commercial Design Standards. We find that the elevations comply with Commercial Design Standards. This is essentially the same bank building that they have had approved, I believe, two times already in the city. Condition Number 4 is related to cross -access. That just describes in that condition that access easements shall be provided along the eastern property line and along the entrance driveway to allow for future cross -access when development takes place to the north and east. Those are the main issues I wanted to highlight, and please let me know if you have any questions. Lack: Thank you. Engineering? Newman: Yes, sir, I have a few comments, if you would. I apologize, I have a few written ones here. Overall, my comments are generally addressing drainage. Property to the east, I believe we need to -- the applicant needs to take that drainage into the system. Their driveway entering 6th Street appears to be blocking offsite drainage, so they need to review the drainage in that area. The intersection of One Mile Road and 6th Street Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 42 needs to be changed to a 30 -foot. They're showing 20 right now. And the other items to be looked at on there is an increase in the utility servitude or utility easement on the south side of the property to 30 foot to accommodate the new water line. If you have any other questions, I'll be happy to go over any comments that are on that list. Lack: Thank you. Sarah, do you have comments? Patterson: I do have some comments. On the -- you know, this project has attempted to preserve all canopy on the site, which I commend them for. Unfortunately, the utility company asked for a 20 -foot utility easement along the northern property line. The trees are still considered preserved, looking at their canopy calculations. By ordinance, any trees, canopy, that falls within proposed utility easements has to be counted as removed. The questionable part of this for me is, kind of running up the eastern side and a portion of the northern side, there is a statement that there was a possible 15 -foot easement. I'm just going to need some clarification. If there is an existing -- the way our ordinance reads, if there is an existing utility easement on the site, the trees do not count against the developer. So that's where I'm really kind of dumbfounded. The word "possible" makes me need to look into that further to see if that isn't an actual platted easement. If so, this may be only a minor detail. If not, I did some very rough calculations that they would be removing, you know, possibly about 6,500 square feet of canopy, which would drop them below the required 15 percent, which would then, again, require mitigation. So I just felt uncomfortable with these questions, moving this forward. That's something that I think we can easily work out before, you know -- and maybe the applicant can help, once they do come up here -- but I think that's something we can easily work out. And really, the rest of my comments kind of fall upon that. You know, if mitigation is going to be required we'll need the tree canopy calculation revisions, and then we'll also need to see mitigation trees on their landscape plan. So that's kind of the gist of my concerns. Lack: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this item? Seeing none, I will close public comment and ask the developer for a presentation. Krenz: Good morning. My name is John Krenz. I'm with Crafton, Tull & Associates. I guess I could start out by addressing what engineering had said about the problem with the possible drainage from the east. We've been out there since then and I think we tend to agree that something might need to be done. When it's built it may or may not have a problem, but I think there is a possibility it would, so we're going to add an area Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 43 inlet right on the -- well, inside the property line as far as we need to to take care of that. And the main other comment was with landscaping things. I wasn't aware that anything in an easement could not be included for canopy. That would remain, so -- Patterson: The canopy would maybe remain temporarily. I mean, once you put in an easement, it's up to those utility companies. You know, even if this didn't have anything to do with your project, if they needed to come in there to extend services they would remove all of those trees to get what they needed. So that's the way the ordinance is written and that's why. Krenz: Okay. Will that -- Patterson: Do you know about that possible 15 -foot? Krenz: I don't. I guess that needs to be looked into further to see. You had said on that, even if it is an existing easement that is there, that would still not count against us because it's existing? Patterson: It doesn't count -- if there's an existing easement on your project site, it does not count -- any trees found within it does not count against you. You know, you bought that property with those easements on there. Any that you are proposing for this project you have to count the canopy removed for those. So, you know, if that 15 -foot easement does exist and we can find that platted, then the majority of those trees to the east are within that and would not count against you to be removed. Those to the far west, those 2 16 -inch silver maple and 14 -inch hickory, would still have to be counted as removed, but in my opinion would not drop your percentage below the 15 percent and would not require you to mitigate. So we're going to just need to look into that 15 -foot easement. I know that probably there's no way we can get that entire easement removed. I know the utility company was pretty adamant about wanting that for future connection. Also I'll mention there's a discrepancy on my site analysis tree preservation page. It's stating that that's a 20 -foot proposed utility easement along the north and east, but apparently on all other pages that's a 25. Krenz: Yeah. That's our fault. We -- Patterson: So it's a 25? Krenz: Yeah -- well, it will be a 30 now. ?: The 30 that I'm looking for, is that on the southern property line? Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 44 Krenz: So that there will be a 30 there and the rest of them will be a 25. Patterson: 25? Krenz: Yes. Patterson: Okay. Lack: Fellow Commissioners? Trumbo: Question for staff. On the cross -access agreement, you're not recommending a stub -out to the east? Garner: Not at this time. We're just recommending that they have an access easement which would extend all the way to the eastern property line. That way if the property to the east develops they would have right to tie into the bank's driveway on the eastern portion and then as well on the northwest corner. We recommend that whole driveway being an access easement, extending into their property, you know, so we don't feel like a full -- you know, paving a stub -out is necessary because we're not sure where they would need it and where the next property would want that. Trumbo: Okay. Pate: If I may add, if the applicant is uncomfortable with that and want to provide that stub -out to assure themselves of where that's going to be at this point in time, that's certainly something that can be done. Right now, the way this project is aligned, the parking specifically, the most preferable place would be directly across from their parking area. But if you align that directly it's probably not going to work out very well with a future development simply because the angle of the road does not follow the angle of the -- it's not parallel to the parking area. So we wanted to leave that a little bit open and let, obviously, this property owner understand that there is going to be a connection, because they will file an access easement on their own property, but to have the ability of that property to the east which likely will be redeveloped at some point in the future. Trumbo: And that's why you're asking for the entire length? Pate: That's correct. Trumbo: Okay. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 45 Graves: Mr. Chair. Lack: Yes, Commissioner Graves. Motion: Graves: Given that we've approved this design previously and the layout is also extremely similar to what's been approved previously and we're kind of down to something that we could approve at this level, absent some misuse concerning calculation on the Tree and Landscape side of things, I'm going to move that we forward Large Scale Development 06-2237 to the full Planning Commission with the stated conditions of approval, with a recommendation in favor on Number 1, the Commercial Design Standards, and on Number 2 for the street improvements, also adding a Condition 22, incorporating items 1 through 9 as letter -- as number 22(a) through (i) from the memorandum we received today from engineering. That's my motion. And then again, as with the last item, I would recommend that if we can get the tree mitigation issues worked out that staff consider placing this on our consent agenda for the full Planning Commission. Trumbo: I'll second and I agree with the consent agenda if possible. Lack: I will concur and I also agree with that. Krenz: Thank you. Lack: Thank you. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 46 PZD 06-1884: Planned Zoning District (WESTSIDE VILLAGE CONDOS, 439): Submitted by TODD JACOBS CRITICAL PATH DESIGN for property located at S. OF WEDINGTON, E. OF RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI- FAMILY- 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 23.63 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 352 attached dwelling units and 74,255 square feet of nonresidential space. Lack: This item on our agenda this morning is R-PZD 06-1884, Westside Village Condos. Garner: Yes. This property -- this item was heard at the March 16, 2006 Subdivision Committee meeting. The development proposed at that meeting consisted of 420 attached dwelling units disbursed in 14 apartment buildings and 128 townhouses. At that meeting the Subdivision Committee discussed that including nonresidential uses in the project would be highly desirable for the introduction of so many residential units. So the applicant has met with staff many times and has substantially revised the whole site plan, including nonresidential uses, and have now introduced several new building types and a new layout. The March 16, 2006 Subdivision Committee did recommend forwarding this item to the full Planning Commission; however, due to the large amount of changes in the project, staff required this item to come back before the Subdivision Committee. Additional background on the property is just under 24 acres. It's located on the east side of Rupple Road, south of Wedington Drive, and it's north of the Boys & Girls Club. It's zoned RMF -24. It's generally flat and undeveloped. The applicant is requesting rezoning and large-scale development approval for a mixed-use development. And all the land would be under a common ownership or property owners association. It's not anticipated that they would subdivide the property. On Page 2 there in your report we have Table 1, which lists the proposed development number of units and the amount of nonresidential space, which is a total of 352 residential units. Just under 50,000 square feet of retail space. Approximately 19,000 square feet of office space. A 5,000 - square -foot civic building. And then just under an acre of greenspace throughout the property. The development would be accessed off of Rupple Road with three mixed-use buildings and there would also be live/work units disbursed mainly along the main street extending east into the property. There would be 73 townhouses throughout the development and then also 168 residential units would be in apartment buildings that are flat buildings. As mentioned, there would be a civic building, 5,000 square feet, around a greenspace. And the access into the property, as mentioned, would be off of Rupple Road with one main street, Meadowlands Drive, extending east and stubbed out at the easternmost Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 47 boundary of the property. Three other public streets would extend north from Meadowlands Drive to the northernmost boundary of the property. These streets would feature parallel parking on both sides of the street and some of the streets would have perpendicular parking on some of the exterior portions of the development. A pedestrian greenway starts at Rupple Road and traverses east through the entire project. There are a number of interior sidewalks around most all of the buildings that provide well-connected walkways and greenways throughout this development. The project does propose, as mentioned, one public street stub -out to undeveloped property to the east and, as mentioned, the Boys & Girls Club is adjacent to the southern border of the site. Staff does not find that the proposed connectivity is adequate. We do feel like that without additional provision of street connections we cannot support this project. We do recommend stub -outs between units TG -28 and TG -20, as shown on your plat, stub -out to the east to allow for cross -access. We also recommend that the three north/south streets be extended to the northern property line to allow for a more connected web of streets throughout this development and throughout this area. Street improvements that we are recommending, there was -- impact fees for Rupple Road are based on a contractual agreement agreed to by the city as part of the final plat for this subdivision, and we've listed those in your conditions of approval. Additionally, they are now proposing nonresidential units and there may be additional improvements warranted by the traffic generated from the commercial uses on the site. We do recommend tabling this project to come back to the Subdivision Committee again. There are just a large number of revisions that need to take place. We are in agreement with the concept and so forth proposed, but there's just a large number of, mainly, items with the booklet and clarification. This is a large-scale development, so we are having to review it for the detail that we would typically see on a large-scale development and some of that detail is not in there at this point. In the conditions, there are issues to address or discuss today. Condition Number 2 is determination of street improvements and, as mentioned, we may need to assess or evaluate additional assessment other than the contractual amount based on the nonresidential use as proposed. Condition Number 3 is determination of adequate connectivity. We are, as mentioned, recommending additional connections. Condition Number 4, you can actually just delete that from your report. That was just a typo. It's just a duplicate of the previous one, for some reason. We did add Condition Number 6, that "Due to the very large and complex nature of this project, a detailed review of all aspects of the site and landscape plans shall take place prior to issue of building permits." We are reviewing it, as mentioned, for a large-scale development, but it's just such a large and complicated project. We do anticipate that we will be continuing to review it in detail throughout the construction process. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 48 Condition 7 is that pedestrian walkways and sidewalks and landscaping as shown on the plans are required as part of the development. And let's see. We have a number of revisions to the PZD booklet listed in Number 11. Then Condition Number 12, street width shall be modified to a minimum of 24 feet for two-way access in all instances. And this is based on the number of units proposed. Multiple uses and design standards found in our PZD ordinance. Condition Number 14, solid waste service. There are numerous areas on the site that have not indicated provision of solid waste or show trash enclosures. We need to make sure that the applicant review all the buildings and confer with our Solid Waste Division to ensure that adequate space and turning radii are provided. Condition 15 are plat revisions that need to be completed. I think that highlights some of the main things from the Planning Division. Our Engineering Division wanted to also add a condition of approval basically stating that the review for grading drainage, water and sewer, were conceptual only and a detailed review will be performed at the time of the construction plan submittal. And the conceptual review and approval does not guarantee that additional infrastructure and easements will not be required. And I'll let engineering expand on that if they need to. But those are the highlights that I wanted bring forward to you. Lack: Thank you. Engineering? Casey: I think Andrew did a good job of explaining that. I just wanted it known that this is a very large and very time-consuming review that can't be done at this time. So when it gets to that point, I just wanted you to be aware that some revisions may be required as far as layout and infrastructure. So I didn't want that to be a surprise, if needed. So that's all I have. Lack: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes, I have some revisions. We need to identify the location of the mitigation trees on either the tree preservation plan or the landscape plan. For bonding requirements I need to know their exact location and to make sure that they are not found within utility easements. Mitigation is going to be required on this site in the amount of 19 2 -inch caliper large species trees. These will be planted back onsite. A three-year maintenance bond, letter of credit, or check equaling $4,750.00 shall be deposited with the city. The landscape plan is very busy, so I'm going to continue to review it as well, but I did see some things -- for parking lots, typically 8 feet is our minimum for tree planting spaces. I saw some that were 4 and 5. Also along some of the green spaces were 4 -foot green spaces where some trees were planted and I think that that would be a bad move and not supported by staff. 6 feet is kind of small for a tree. 8 feet is best, of Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 49 course. So we may need to look at utilizing more urban tree wells. Of course, those utilized our structural soil and would be a 4 -by -4 rather than a linear long greenspace. So if you would just look at that and see how that will change the configuration of some of your parking areas. Pate: Mr. Chair. Lack: Yes. Pate: Let me add to that as well. You'll see you've got eight pages of conditions on this project. I think many of those can be removed with some revisions. I think in concept we're, over all, supportive of this project. We were supportive of when it first came through. The applicants with the advice of some the planning commissioners decided to pull that project and come back with some commercial and more mixed uses, and I think everyone is supportive of that idea, with the addition of some street connections for this project, or at least stub -outs. Currently the only access is Rupple Road. I think that should be alleviated, at least with some availability for future connections to the north and to the east. With that, the conditions as stated just went through Number 10, Number 11(a through y), Number 12, 13, 14, 15 (a through h), 17, 18, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, all really have to do with just plat revisions, both the revisions and clarifications. A lot of those probably can go away once this comes back before you. So hopefully we can get to that point. That's ultimately the reason we're tabling this. I know the applicants are trying to get this project going forward as well and we're certainly supportive of the overall concept. We just want to make sure that the Planning Commission has a full and complete plan in front of them so they can pass it on to the City Council. Lack: Thank you, Mr. Pate. Would any member of the public like to address this Item PZD 06-1884, Westside Village Condos? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comment and ask the applicant for a presentation. Jacobs: Good morning. I'm Todd Jacobs with Critical Path Design. Nock: John Nock, one of the developers. Alexander: Rick Alexander, one of the developers. Jacobs: I think we were here about two or three months ago, maybe longer than that, with this project, and it looked good. I think everyone thought it was a good project. One of the planning commissioners asked us to look at adding some mixed use. With that idea we looked at the entire project as a Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page SO whole and we went back and looked at this as kind of a new urbanism project. And John and Richard have hired some top-notch planners to help us work through this as a new urbanist project and that type of infill for this area, so with that it is a very, very complex project. I think most of the comments are, like Mr. Pate said, pretty minor. They're just booklet stuff. I think John can address the connectivity and the commercial aspect, as far as the money goes, for the contract. With this project we're just extremely excited to bring a new type of project to the City of Fayetteville and it's something we feel very strongly about in our firm, and the developers do as well. We've spent a great deal of time in trying to figure out how new urbanism works and how does it work for the City of Fayetteville. It's new to us and also a lot of people have read about it, but how do the details work with it? As far as the comments go, I think there's not a lot on there I see that changes dramatically anything in here, but we basically tried to set this up as -- with higher density, with the new school being here, and providing a certain amount of mixed use commercial where people can use some of their day-to-day uses and not have to get out onto Wedington and go to your typical strip mall or something like that. We don't expect it to solve all the problems of congestion and suburban sprawl we've got, but we've also -- another thing is, we want to create an environment that is very strong for the people who live here to give them those amenities. I'll point out a couple of the big ones that we set up. One is the pedestrian greenway that we've set across through as an access going through the property and hopefully will continue to the east as future development infill occurs. So there would be public access all the way across, through, up to the mixed use, and then hopefully we'll work out the transit stop with the university and Ozark Transit providing a place to use mass transit to get places. Another big one was to set up -- actually have a village green area to provide an area for people to meet, have block parties, small recreation. Even though we have the Boys Club to the south, it's a very -- you know, it's not a passive, it's active recreation, an area just for people to meet, to get together. Hopefully the civic building will serve as a meeting point for people so you can get to go meet your neighbors. With the mixed use here we've got three stories. Typically, what you have at the bottom would be retail, the second above, what you see in the booklet with the elevations, would be apartments, condos. They're smaller so people can actually afford them. That's something that these developers are striving for is to provide some attainable housing in this area. So density might be a little bit scary because it's a very complex and busy plan, but to actually provide a good place for people to live and provide the amenities that go with it that people should expect. I'll let John address a couple of items and his thoughts about the project. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 51 Nock: Thanks, Todd. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you guys. Again, as Todd pointed out, and as Mr. Pate pointed out, we appreciated the timing when we met last time because it was right after the Dover - Kohl was here and the 2025 had been presented to the City and there was this real opportunity to look at what the future of Fayetteville was and we thought, "Okay. Here we have the Planning Commission buying in, here we are as developers buying in, and here are the division of the city all buying into what we can do, so let's make it happen on this project. Let's not wait for the next one." So it does take time and it does take money, and we went ahead and spent both of those to redo this. We ran a little bit of a risk of over -designing and sending, as you've commented, a very complicated and very structured design, but the idea is that if you're going to do it right it takes a little extra dollars and a little extra time to get there. On a couple of the issues, we had some discussions with some various channels in the city, I think we had also talked to Mr. Pate at one point as well, that on the Rupple Road we talked about this impact fee that was already set up under contractual obligation and we certainly understand there needs to be another look because of the addition of commercial space. Since that time we have had discussions, as I mentioned before, about giving right-of-way so that if this road is expanded in order to incorporate a median across the front of that like the rest of Rupple is planned, we would be able to help with that, and so that might be in the consideration of whatever -- some of that impact might be added. The other thing is on the connectivity. We always want to make connections everywhere we possibly can. There's a couple of proposals that we would like the staff to consider as they go forward with this. One is, to the immediate east we've limited that to just one access point into what is right now undeveloped acreage. Of course, we don't own that, but a utility company, Ozark Electric, owns that space and right now their plan in the future is to have that for their utility trucks for parking, from what I understand from direct conversations with them, to have their utility trucks and potentially to have a south access to what is Persimmon today, the newly built Persimmon. And so we're a little bit leery about putting road connections that are eventually going to be for a very well designed residential mixed-use area that's going to be connected to utility trucks for access. I'm not sure those uses might be the best for the City of Fayetteville long run, and so we did limit it to one for that reason, and that would be the extension of Meadowlands Drive, which is a public road. The property to the north is owned by Airways and it also is for commercial application. What we did, because we don't know what's going to happen in the future, is we terminated on these public drives that are listed, and there are three of them that go to the north. We terminated them with greenspace. Our hope is is rather than doing an ugly -- just blacktop and curb that stops, that looks like it was something that was Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 52 forgotten, instead make that greenspace and we might be able to apply instead some sort of an easement there that if it's ever developed 30 years, 50 years, something like that in the future, they could certainly do that. If it was a tree that had been planted or shrub that had been planted by us over that period of time, then that might have to be removed, but we don't have an ugly outset sitting there. So that would be one of our things to suggest to staff as they look at some of these recommendations. We certainly believe in connectivity, but we also have to be aware that some of the adjoining uses we may have no control over and so the utility trucks coming through this project might not be what we're really looking for. But handling that in the form of some sort of an easement issue might be okay. That way, it doesn't encourage poor connectivity, but instead allows for something that you then get to look at when it comes before you and at that point in time and see if it's appropriate. So those are just a couple of issues there. Alexander: Rick Alexander, one of the developers. In response to our meeting with the Planning Commission, however long ago it was, we did go back and look at putting in some commercial. We really hadn't thought of it before it was suggested to us. After we did go back and look at it, it seemed to make sense. What we're trying to do with this site is take advantage of the fairly large-scale capital improvements that are already there, vis-a-vis, Rupple Road, new K through 7, and directly adjacent to the Boys & Girls Club. So when we were discussing this project originally, that seemed like the perfect site to bring this kind of density to because of all of the infrastructure that's already in place or going to be in place, and also because of the proximity to both Wedington and the bypass, so this seemed like a good place to do this project. We have done a new urbanism project across the street. You may or may not have seen it, Rupple Row. We want it to also compliment that and build something here that would ... on that part of the road and that environment over there. I agree with John on the connectivity. We're certainly not opposed to it. What we were trying to do is not have a dead end, so to speak, into a pasture, that's both ugly, and so if we can handle that by way of an easement, the city could have its connectivity guaranteed in the event that you all or the Planning Commission or the city ultimately wants it, but the project could be more attractive. And I think we wanted to avoid the use of those streets basically as a thoroughfare for the utility trucks. We've talked with both the utility company and Airways Freight. Neither of them have any plans to sell the property. They have been approached by multiple buyers. They have turned away all comers. They don't plan anytime in the near or even distant future to develop those properties. I know personally the chairman of Airways Freight and he's says absolutely nothing is going on there and John has talked with Ozark Electric. So Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 53 we're not against connectivity, but we think a way to handle it in this situation might be to give the city or whatever kind of guarantees it needs by way of easement and that way the city can be satisfied that in the event that it wanted to do it, it could, but in the event that it didn't want to do it, it's not just stubbed out. Most of the other issues, we agree with the city. I think we can resolve all of those. The added impact fees for the commercial, we're not objecting to that. We understand that. We welcome an opportunity to work through that and hopefully we can keep them as low as possible. Nock: I don't know if we would welcome them, but we certainly understand. (Laughter) Alexander: We understand that we're going to get them, and we're not complaining about that. So we would like to go as fast as we can. I think this was the first time I saw the list of things, so, obviously, we've got some work to do, but we would like to do it and get back in front of you. Nock: If there's one more comment I could make, Mr. Chair, that I forgot a second ago. In reading the notes there was a particular comment made, and I don't remember the details of it, and then also, again, there was a comment about some of the tree layouts. Just to give you a little bit of background on where this design and how it came from. Todd mentioned this. Critical Path Design is taking this from where it was to where you see it, but involved in that process and after the last meeting we had in this forum, we immediately contacted Dover -Kohl. Of course, we were all on that emotional high of seeing the 2025 plan and how that was going to affect the city, and we asked them what they could do to be involved to oversee our project. They politely declined because they didn't want to have a conflict there, and we understood that. So then our next question was, who do you recommend? At that point in time is when they recommended that we go in and talk to a heavily sought-after firm called Thomas, Banglor & Walsh, who is one of the premier new -urbanist development groups in the country, and invited them to come to town and review the process. We have also gone and toured several of their projects, and I'll be honest with you, I learned quite a bit in those processes. If someone had told me that you would use a 4 -foot greenspace or a 6 -foot separation between buildings, I would say, "Boy, that's awfully tight and it doesn't work." And then when I saw it and I saw how it did work, and when you have the natural landscape tied with the vertical construction and how you use the materials of the environment as well as some of the opportunities to come in here and really design it appropriately, it was really breathtaking. And the thing -- It was more Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 54 than it just looked good, the people that live there loved it. And so there are some things on here. For instance, there is one of our public streets here that does not meet the current city standards. I would assume that Dover -Kohl, when they gave us the 2025, we all assumed that there would be certain city standards that would probably not be the most -- would not be the perfect cookie cutter in the future to fit all of the new -urbanist style developments that will come through. And so we appreciate the flexibility we've had in the past and would encourage it on this project as well, because there will be some things that don't fit exactly the current city standards for public streets or greenspace or others. And I'm not an expert on how they have done it in other areas, but I know there are experts that we've used and others that can be made available. So I'm learning and I think it would be great for us to look at some of these opportunities and see if some of these new proposals that we're seeing out there that are being used in other areas, if they're appropriate for Fayetteville as well. We're proposing it because that's what the expert gave us. Ultimately it's still up to the city and those that are responsible to see if it's something that's good for Fayetteville as well. Lack: Thank you. I have one comment before we all share our thoughts. I was on the Subdivision Committee that saw this the first time and I applaud your embracing the commercial. I hope that it does what we all think that it should and enlivens and enhances your development. I believe that it will certainly enliven and enhance Rupple Road in this area. I think that this commercial is certainly needed in the area, and so I just wanted to thank you for embracing that. Jacobs: Thank you. Nock: I appreciate that. Alexander: Thank you for the suggestion. Lack: Fellow Commissioners? Graves: Mr. Chair. I would echo. I was not on the Subdivision Committee that saw this the first time, but I'm appreciative to the developers for responding to the comments of my fellow commissioners and I'm almost viewing this sort of like a concept plat at this point, even though I know you're ready to go forward with an actual plan since we're going to -- I think it's clear we've got to table it today with all the things that need to be done to the plat. I just wanted to give you my thoughts, that I do think it's a good project. Then once we iron out some of those things, I would be in favor of forwarding it to the full Planning Commission to consider. I Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 55 am in support of staff's concerns with regard to connectivity. I don't know how you might be able to work that out with staff with creating something that's attractive, but that also places neighbors on notice that there might be a street that goes through there someday. We continue to have problems with that from past situations, past developments from the `80s and `90s that were developed with just simple easements recorded on a plat, and then neighbors built on adjoining properties and didn't know that a street could come through right next to their house. And so the good thing about a stub -out is that it lets everybody know there might be a street that comes through there. But I understand the concern that a typical stub - out might not fit with what you're envisioning here, and so I don't know what you might be able to work out with staff between now and the next time we see this. Or I might not see it again at Subdivision, you might get three different people the next time this is on the agenda. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe you'll get a good feel from everybody before you get in front of the full Planning Commission about how they feel about the project. But I do think that the connectivity needs to be there or at least a plan for connectivity and how it's worked out as far as making it attractive, but yet putting adjoining landowners on notice that there might be a street there. I'll leave it to more creative minds than mine and will be happy to look at that and consider it whenever it's done. So other than that, I don't really have any further comments today on the plan. I think it looks like a great plan. Trumbo: Mr. Chair. I would agree with Commissioner Graves, there needs to be more connectivity other than just the one to the east. I understand your concerns. I wouldn't want the utility trucks coming through here, either. I don't know if a stub -out is appropriate, possibly signage of some type, but an easement definitely. The density I don't have a problem with. Are these going to be apartments or more of a condo or do we know? Nock: Both. Just both. Trumbo: Mixed? Nock: Uh-huh. Trumbo: Okay. Well, the project you've done across the street is fabulous. Nock: Thank you. Motion: Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 56 Trumbo: And I remember that was one of the first new -urban projects I saw, at least when we were talking about moving things up to the road and facing the road, and the row of houses, they look great, and I'm sure this project will too. So you've just got to get a few of these things worked out and come back, so I'm going to make a motion to table. Graves: I'll second. Do we need to put a date on there? ?: That is a good question, how long it would take to do the review. Do we know that from the city's side, Mr. Chair? Pate: Most of the review has been done. It simply -- the comments are listed out here and really we can't go any further with another review until some of these items are addressed. So once we get revisions back in, we'll go through this process again and hopefully many of these conditions will disappear from that. ?: Okay. Very good. Thanks. Lack: Jeremy, what would you suggest for a time frame? Pate: I would rather not table a date specific, just because we would have to put it on the agenda, and if the applicant is not ready for that agenda, simply put something on the agenda that it's not going to be there. From the public's perspective, there's no one here at this meeting, so I don't think that's going to be a big issue. There's really no one affected by this project currently, as everything around this is under construction, so I would say just table it and leave the date unspecific and we can go from there whenever the applicants can get back to us. Graves: So moved. Trumbo: I second. Lack: And I concur. ?: Thank you. ?: Thank you. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 57 R-PZD 06-2212: Planned Zoning District (STADIUM CENTRE TOWNHOMES, 557): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at OLD FARMINGTON ROAD, W. OF ONE MILE RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY and R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE and contains approximately 2.45 acres. The request is for Master Development Plan for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 24 attached and detached residential dwelling units. Lack: The next item on the agenda this morning is R-PZD 06-2212, Stadium Centre Townhomes. May we have the staff report, please? Fulcher: This is for a residential planned zoning district on approximately two and a half acres on property that is zoned RSF-4 and R -A. There was an approved large-scale at the beginning of this year, if I remember correctly, for Stadium Centre Retail. It consisted of a single large retail building which shows up on the very south of the site plan for this project, the back of that building does, (inaudible). Looking at the vicinity map you can see that this is kind of the back side of commercial zonings along 6th Street, but this area is fronted on Old Farmington Road and adjacent to Sandra Street in that existing subdivision there. Surrounding land uses to the north, east, and west are R -A, RSF-4, whereas the south are C-1 and C-2. The applicants are requesting this planned zoning district with 24 attached and detached residential dwelling units on the two and a half acres resulting in a density of approximately 9.8 units per acre. Included on Page 2 of the staff report are most of the bulk and area regulations proposed from the project booklet. The minimum lot width would be 17 feet, minimum lot areas are 1,200 square feet. As you can see by looking at the plan, these will be townhomes and single-family on individual lots, would be a preliminary plat for this, creating each of these lots with attached and detached units. Staff has received quite a few e-mails and some letters from adjacent property owners, and also this morning from a few of the neighbors who were in here that could not stay for the meeting, but also had some comments. We've included those in the staff report. Most of them have to do with increased traffic on Sandra Street for their existing neighborhood there, and Old Farmington Road, noise and safety on some of the unimproved roadways and the additional multifamily units in this area. Staff has outlined, I think, some -- obviously within our condition of approval, some minor items within the plat and booklet to address, but I would really like to just touch on Condition Number 3, which are some of the larger items which may be typical for a PZD and specific to this project proposal. First is the use of a private street, Street A, which connects Old Farmington to Sandra Street. The UDC requires when you connect two public streets that it should be connected by a Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 58 public street. They're currently proposing a 25 -foot private street. Staff would recommend that this be revised to a public street to meet the requirements of the UDC within a typical right-of-way road section. There may be an opportunity to review something other than that if the applicants would like to pursue that and provide some justification for a different right-of-way section. Looking at units 1 through 12, each of those currently are utilizing an individual 12 -foot drive. We've seen some different projects in the past where we end up with some of these smaller lots. Typically we propose some type of shared driveway to reduce the number of curb -cuts along the street there for safety reasons. If we recommend the same thing here, which may require flipping some of the units, so rather than the shared wall being -- the garage is actually being the shared wall. So you can actually have a shared driveway to reduce those number of curb -cuts on the street. Sidewalk location currently, again, is shown on the north side, which would be crossing all of those curb -cuts. It seems more appropriate that that sidewalk should be located on the south side, where there's only three or four driveways to cross. Other than that, there really are no impediments for the sidewalk and it would be better for pedestrian movement. Another issue would be parking. When we look at some of these smaller lot developments, this obviously has single -car garages for each unit. I believe each unit to be two-bedroom. So you end up with adequate parking for the tenants that live there, but there's no overflow parking for quests. Any number of quests that came over for these 23 units really have nowhere to put their vehicles at. We've requested them to look into maybe some parallel parking or some just additional parking areas just for quests to be able to utilize. As far as offsite improvements, the applicants have presented improvements to Old Farmington Road consistent with what we've seen with Scottswood Place, which was another PZD just to the east of this, which is improvements from centerline, curb, gutter, sidewalks, storm drains. Also looking at improvement to the intersection of Old Farmington Road and One Mile Road. If you drive out there and you try to -- if you're going east and turn south onto One Mile, it's not really conducive to a safe turn across there, so we've asked for some diagrams and amounts of right-of-way to create a safe traffic movement there. And really getting into the PZD application, the compatibility and transition of this development, as I stated, to the south is commercial developments, but to the north, east, and west are your average RSF-4-type development, 8 - to 12,000 -square -foot lots, and then some larger -lot residential -agricultural across the street. This is looking at 10 units per acre, 17- to 25 -foot wide lots, 30 -foot wide lots. In trying to create more of an appropriate transition between the uses, they have actually started to show that on lots 1, 23 and 24. They've pulled those units apart, making those single family. So maybe the uses are getting there as far as compatibility, but Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 59 when you look at lot size and things like that, you're going from an average 80- to 100 -foot wide lot. Across Sandra, two 17- to 30 -foot -wide lots. Maybe increasing those lot sizes and increasing the number of detached dwelling units could increase that transition and compatibility. And then item "J" in our staff report has to do with cross -access to the retail center. As a condition of approval with that large-scale development, cross -access to the north was to be evaluated at the time that this tract developed. If a few of the commissioners may remember, this came back as an administrative item, a major modification to the large scale, where they extended the east part of the building, eliminating the potential for that cross -access, but providing cross -access potential on the west side of the building, and that was to be evaluated when this came through. Right now they're not showing that. They are showing pedestrian access -ways on either side of the building. But from that condition of approval that cross -access really should be shown to evaluate whether that is appropriate with this residential development connecting to the commercial development and pretty much creating the link between Old Farmington Road and 6th Street. Those are really the big issues that staff feels needs to be addressed before this item should proceed forward to the full Planning Commission. So at this time we are recommending that this PZD be tabled for the applicants to have time to address those issues. And also Condition Number 1 talks about re -notification to the property owners. When we received back the notification forms there was no information as to the type of project, it merely referenced a location, and so we don't feel that those neighbors were appropriately notified as to what the proposal was for and we would request that those neighbors be re -notified. Trumbo: Mr. Chair. Lack: Yes, Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: I apologize. I have what might be perceived as a conflict of interest with this project, so I'm going to recuse at this point. Lack: Okay. Thank you. Trumbo: I apologize to the applicants. ?: Thank you. Lack: Engineering? Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 60 Casey: I've just got a couple of revisions that I need to see on the re -submittal. Tom, if you could show a drainage easement that encompasses the storm sewer system. Since this is not located within public right-of-way, we would like to see drainage easements and extend that through the detention pond. Also we need to pull the handicap assess ramps back to the tangent part of the curb and not have them hit the streets at an angle like that. Hennelly: Okay. Casey: One additional item. The storm sewer, the flow along the ditch on Old Farmington Road just to the east, there's not any sort of storm sewer culvert shown under Sandra. I'm just a little concerned that that water is going to be -- we need to make sure that that water is captured and conveyed through the side if it is flowing in this direction, which I suspect it is. That's all I have. Lack: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes, I have some revisions. I would ask that you add a tree mitigation chart to the tree preservation plan to specify what is going to be required. There is two identical tree canopy calculation tables. If you would just remove one. When we originally saw this, a lot of the trees along Old Farmington were shown to -- the sidewalk kind of maneuvered around them, and now they've all got X's. I know there's the potential that we'll lose a lot of those, but one of my comments is that you will work with myself and the sidewalk coordinator to try to preserve those or as many as we possibly can. I know with the improvements it may not be possible. The large-scale development for the Stadium Centre was required to plant 24 trees for mitigation and they were originally shown in the this detention facility. Currently I can only locate 21 of those 24 trees, so if you could just revise that and put those other few on there. I would like to see street trees planted along Old Farmington Road, another reason why we might try to save anything that's existing. Any gaps where we do have to remove trees, I would like to see some planted back. I think we can utilize mitigation that was originally required for the large-scale development since this is the same ownership. The trees that you have marked as landscape trees, I think, can also count towards your 107 trees required for the large-scale development of the Stadium Centre, the commercial retail section. Like I earlier stated, you only proposed 24 trees to be planted on the site, leaving a total of 83 trees to be paid into escrow, and I was thinking if we could try to get more of those 83 onto this site by utilizing some of the other options, the landscape trees and the street trees along Old Farmington, we could lessen the amount of money to be paid in lieu. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 61 For this PZD in particular, only four 2 -inch caliper large species trees are required for the mitigation. Those are shown on the site. As long as they don't fall within the detention easement that was just recently requested, they should be fine in their location. A letter of credit, bond or check shall be deposited with the city in the amount of $1,000.00 for these four trees for a three-year time period. That's all. Lack: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to speak to this item 06- 2212, Stadium Centre Townhomes? Sorrels: My name is Jerry Sorrels and I live on Sandra Street. Excuse me, I have asthma and it's kind of hard for me to talk. But anyway, more of my neighbors would be here today if it wasn't scheduled at 9 o'clock in the morning. And I really can't say anything any different than what's already been brought up from the staff and so forth and so on, except there is narrow streets, there's deep ditches, there's no sidewalks. Traffic is heavy. People cut from Shiloh Street all the way to 62 down Old Farmington Road so they can miss the traffic lights at 62 and Wal-Mart. People come into Wal-Mart coming down Old Farmington Road. The traffic is a lot heavier than what people think it is out there. And I and most of my neighbors feel like that 24 units in that two- acre plot is just a little excessive. That's about all I've got to say. Lack: Okay. Thank you, sir. Barnes: If I could, I'd like to give an overall scope or view. Tom Hennelly with H2; Bleaux Barnes as an owner; and Mike Jones as project manager. One of the things as a land developer and as a division we have of Our One Home housing -- Mike provides that service and builds homes for us -- we try to build attainable housing, affordable housing. This is the only way we've been able to achieve that. We've had some previous projects in the past in Fayetteville. We've had some in the Benton County areas. And typically as we go through these discussions, we want to keep that individuality as best we can. When we talk about doubling up drives, we want that individuality, because we are out there marketing these as individual family homes. There are two-bedroom, two -bath, 1,350 square feet. This price range is going to be from 120 to 130,000. To us that is attainable. We were here before you with Clabber Creek Phase 4. Homes that will be constructed in Clabber Phase 4 will be from 160,000 and up. So we don't find that to be attainable. So this is one of our designs and one of our solutions to try and provide attainable housing. We feel like we've tried to, based on meeting with the community, with two separate set meetings, we've tried to enhance the cosmetics of this with brick, rock. It's been at the request, I believe, of staff and the community that we front Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 62 these to Old Farmington Road versus having these front this drive that we're going to discuss, whether it be private or whether it be public. And so I just want you to understand that that is our intent is to go out there a sell a single-family home and try to make it affordable and attainable. Okay. We'll we address these one by one. Hennelly; I would like to just follow up to what he said, that there's been some reference to these as multifamily dwellings and I think they are more attached single-family dwellings than multifamily. We're obviously not in agreement with staff on the recommendation to table this. The notification that was sent out, I think you'll find by looking at the responses from some of the neighbors, while they may not be particularly flattering to the project, they certainly understood the scope of the project. We had met with them on several occasions. The one adjacent owner, Hannah and Josh Moody, we met with her individually and she was certainly aware of what was going on, may not be in agreement with it, but was aware of what was going on -- meeting dates and times. So to table this, you know, on that regard, I think, is probably inappropriate. We are in agreement with almost all the conditions of approval. For improvements to Old Farmington Road, to the intersection of One Mile and Old Farmington Road, that certainly will improve the level of service of that intersection. We would like to request and submit the appropriate paperwork to the Planning Commission for a waiver on the private street request as opposed to public. The main reason for that is, we've gotten the idea every time we've submitted any project, not just with this developer but all the H2 projects that we've brought through, backing residential units up to public streets is not something that it seems the commission -- some members are more vocal about it than others -- particularly want to see. And in doing that we thought, you know, facing these to Old Farmington Road was really what everybody was wanting to see. In doing that, it's difficult to justify the cost of building a standard city street to service the backs of these buildings. It functions more as a private drive slash alley than it does a public street. We do think that making that one way, keeping it the same width as we've got proposed there, making it one way from east to west where the assess to this development would come in from Sandra and go out onto Old Farmington Road would prevent any additional traffic from this development driving on Sandra because they would be entering on that rather than existing onto Sandra. That would provide for parallel parking, which was another concern that planning had. We would -- it would leave a 13 -foot wide open lane. We would move -- again, in agreement with the condition to move the sidewalk from the north side of the street to the south side of the street would reduce the number of pedestrian traffic conflicts that would be with the curb -cuts going into those units. As Bleaux mentioned, this project has been done before in Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 63 other locations. The driveways have been combined and it really gives the look of a duplex, just a mass of concrete that sometimes is difficult to keep the utilities out of. So you have may water meter boxes and that type thing poured into the concrete drives, and this look does give quite a bit more individuality to the units, which is the reason that that was being proposed. To address one of Sarah's comments, we did initially have that sidewalk along Old Farmington Road curve and then snaking through the trees, and we received some comments about the creativity that was behind that, and maybe they just wanted it straight, so that's why we revised it. We were kind of pulled in two different directions as to try and preserve those trees or put a straight sidewalk in. But really the number of conditions and the level of these I don't think are sufficient to hold this up at this level. I think, you know, with a waiver request for that drive, we would certainly be willing to provide an exhibit showing a connection from the commercial development. We're opposed to that and I think that certainly the neighborhood would be opposed to that. The connection of that commercial and retail center to Old Farmington Road, we think, will do nothing but increase an existing traffic problem. It won't do anything but exacerbate that problem. Barnes: And if I might add, at that time when that modification come back before this planning body or the subdivision body for the commercial development, we understood the intention that there may be connectivity, and those residents on Old Farmington Road don't want that connectivity. We choose not to want it coming through this drive and through this area. Hennelly: I guess my point is that the conditions that are listed and the -- I don't really see as being severe enough to warrant any major revision to the project rather than just some minor revisions to the plans and maybe some clarification of what we're proposing, along with a request for a private street. There are commercial developments that are around town that have been brought through recently that have a street, I guess, and that in some instances in commercial developments may not be as clearly defined when they connect parking areas within the development, but they do connect to public streets and they're still considered private streets. They have street names and no right-of-way dedication and that type thing. We are just proposing this as a private street and feel like that is certainly appropriate. The rest of the conditions we don't have a problem with. Can make revisions and can have what we feel to be a good project before Planning Commission on the appropriate re -submittal date. Lack: Thank you. Commissioner Graves. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 64 Graves: Mr. Chair. I tend to agree in most respects. I know for a fact that we've approved projects in the past that had, whatever we call it, a private street or an alleyway or whatever, that connected two public streets together. I know we've done that. I remember that we've done that on other projects and I've seen other developments that have that in them. And when you have that it seems like it also addresses, at least to some degree, the parking concern expressed by staff. So to a great degree I would tend to agree with the applicant; however, I think that the staff ought to be able to review and evaluate the offsite improvements that are being considered, and it sounds like they haven't seen a drawing of what's going to be done with the intersection of Old Farmington and One Mile Road. I also don't have the notice that was sent to neighbors. I agree that it seems when I read through some of the comments from neighbors that some of them seem to know what's going on and some of them specifically said they didn't know what was going on. I don't know if the ones that said they didn't know are ones that live within 100 feet, but the notice requirement is there to protect the city and to protect the applicant from a lawsuit, or whatever, later on by someone claiming they had no idea what was being done near or to their property or whatever. So I have a little bit of concern about that part of it. Is this an example of what actually went out? Lack: That's the notice. Barnes: Yeah, and we did sit in their neighborhood meeting also. Kipp Hearne represented H2 and Mike Jones represented our organization and we sat in their neighborhood meeting with these elevations with this proposal. Graves: The problem is, and I'm not arguing with you, -- Barnes: Sure. Graves: -- the problem is that -- not knowing who attended the neighborhood meeting and whether it was everyone that lived within the 100 -foot radius, and looking at what the notice said, I'm not sure that if you didn't -- if I lived within a 100 feet and didn't go to the neighborhood meeting I might not know. I would personally tend to be curious enough to try to find out, but not everybody is, and it's having the written documentation that you told somebody as opposed to -- I know, for example, that I'm sure you did talk to -- whatever the lady's name was -- Barnes: Hannah Moody. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 65 Graves: -- Hannah Moody. But having the written documentation or the proof by certified mail that the notice went to Ms. Moody is better than an anecdotal description that you talked to them. Hennelly: I would agree, certainly, that a better job of describing, going into a detailed description of the project, could have been done. The -- I think the simple title of it, the Stadium Centre Townhomes, obviously gives them a description of what's being done. They were notified of the meeting date, the meeting time. I think that proper notification had been -- particularly when you consider the Ward 4 meetings and the neighborhood meetings that were attended and this project was discussed -- even if you didn't consider those, I think we fulfilled the legal requirement for notification of the project and, you know, obviously, the name of the project, and everybody who needed to be notified was notified of the time, the date, and the location of this meeting. Lack: I would like to ask Mr. Pate, as our resident authority, what is the legal requirement for description of a project, or is that spelled out? Pate: I'm not sure that it is spelled out. We noticed, obviously, with one of those responses -- and most of the people who did respond back to us actually came into the office to find out what the project was about, so they were notified of whom to contact -- but most notices that go out describe, at least briefly, what the project consists of, if it's residential, if it's commercial, if it's all attached units, or something of that nature, much like our description in our agenda states. It's just a really -- a very -- pretty vague, but it at least gets the idea across, and this one specifically only noted the parcel number and, I believe, -- Graves: The address. Pate: -- the address on the property, so it really didn't -- It's right below "Project Description," but it doesn't really give that project description at all. Hennelly: And we would be certainly happy to hand -deliver plats to all the adjacent property owners within -- you know, by the end of the week, by tomorrow, and re -notify them of the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. I just feel like that the legal requirement has been -- and we certainly want them to be able to have their say, which is the reason we've gone to all the Ward meetings and the neighborhood meetings, you know, because of that. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 66 Graves: I think, you know, after talking through this, I think that I agree. I'm don't think that I'm willing to hold it up, based on the notice. If the notice -- if we want more in our notice, then maybe we need to modify our ordinance on what's required to be in the notice, but it seems to me that at the very least the neighbors were notified that there were going to be some townhomes built on that parcel and that we were hearing it at Subdivision today and I think that that would -- my personal opinion is that would satisfy an inquiry as to whether they were notified about what was going on. Obviously, if we were to forward this to the full Planning Commission today, my suggestion would be that it might be more descriptive in the notice that goes to them about the Planning Commission meeting. Hennelly: Certainly. Graves: I also tend to agree with the applicants' comments about shared driveways. I think those wide swaths of concrete -- you know, you see them -- for example, there's several of them behind the Supercenter up north in Johnson that have these huge swaths of concrete that aren't particularly attractive, and I understand, again, that we're attempting to create parking areas for guests of folks who might live in the neighborhood. But if we are, for sake of argument, saying that this is going to be a private alley -type connection going through the neighborhood, then, you know, you could use that for parking. Hennelly: Well, the common drive changes the elevation, because you have to have stacked garages at that point. You know, we're spreading the garages out and trying to give that individuality. You have to force two garages back to back in order to have a common drive area, and that's -- you know, that's simply the -- I mean, that's what we're trying not to -- we're trying to look as much as we can as a single-family home. Pate: Just for the record, we're not recommending any wider than our normal curb -cut. We're recommending a standard 24 -foot residential curb -cut shared by both units as opposed to the 12 -foot curb -cuts that are separated by, I think, a 10 -foot greenspace right now. And I also do want to clarify, look back at notification requirements. It does say a description of the project or request is required under all notifications. Graves: I guess, you know, we can quibble over what a description is. I agree that under the term "Description" in the notice it's not particularly descriptive. But it does have the title on it of what's being built, along with notice of the meeting. Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 67 ?: Right. One of the things I would like to address is the improvements to be made to One Mile, Finger Road, and Old Farmington Road. I am a resident of Farmington. I have traveled this road back and forth. We're in agreement with the engineering that obviously there needs to be some type of improvements made. I mean, we've come forth and said, "Yes, we'll help with those improvements." So I think, you know, that's the responsibility of the Engineering department and Tom and his engineers to sit down and decide what's best at this time to make improvements to that. There are improvements there that need to be made. As the development of Scotts Woods back to the east, and if this were to develop, those are going to be widening areas of Old Farmington Road that are going to help, and I think that's one of the single tools that's going to widen Old Farmington Road at this time, you know, are some improvements and some development as it occurs. Hennelly: And it's my understanding from -- and, Matt, you can jump in if I'm misstating something -- but it's my understanding that Engineering's major concern is the radius of that curb at the intersection of One Mile and Old Farmington, and we're certainly in agreement to widen that radius as much as possible within the available right-of-way. And, you know, the simplicity of that -- we would certainly be willing to provide an exhibit for full Planning Commission to show what we're intending on doing, what right-of-way is available, you know, based on courthouse records and that type things, but didn't really see that that depiction would be necessary at this level, but we can certainly provide that. Lack: I think that the private street, as Commissioner Graves said, we have approved that. We see that from time to time, even, in connection. The fact that it does connect, if I'm right, Sandra Street would almost be an extension of that. That being a private street certainly helps me to be willing to accommodate the idea of the individual driveways. If it were a public street I would probably have a little more difficulty adding that many curb -cuts, but downgrading the size of it and the character of it being more like an alley would help to accommodate the additional driveways. I'm torn on accepting staff's recommendations on the notification or a logic of the idea that notification was provided, if not as clear as it could have been, and I don't know that I'm willing to make that more legal determination. I think that that's something that we do have a legal responsibility or legal requirement to make that notification, and so I'm definitely torn on that one. ?: I might add that Mark Brandon and his family lives directly across the street from this proposed project, and I don't see -- I mean, we physically have sat in their living area, because it directly affected them. I mean, Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 68 they were obviously right across the street, and at the time that we sat with them we were looking at two connections out to Old Farmington Road and not accessing to Sandra, and that was one of the things -- they described that we were going to have vehicular traffic coming out and shining lights right into their windows of their home. And Mark, I mean, he has nothing here opposing that, but we've sat in his living room and discussed, you know, vehicular traffic and lighting. Graves: The discussion is not whether you told people. ?: Sure, sure. Graves: The discussion is whether we can prove what you told them. That's the issue. ?: Right. Lack: It's a legal requirement for a certain document to be -- Hennelly: While I'll sit here and fully admit to you guys that we could have done a much better job of writing a more detailed description on that, I think the fact -- again, the fact that they were notified of the time, the place, and the nature of the meeting, I believe the name of the project provides some level of description that townhomes are going to be built on there, I think that the intent of that requirement was met, while maybe not as well as it could have been. Again, we would be willing to re -notify with plats to everybody within 100 feet and do that, you know, in time for them to review that and respond at Planning Commission if that was a concern. One other item that I would like to address is letter ( h.) under Condition Number 3, the compatibility and transition. We did initially have all these units attached where they were adjacent to that RSF-4 development, we did try to separate those units to create whatever level of transition you can do on up to a half -acre parcel, but do feel that, you know, overall, going from a commercial retail center to an RSF-4 and R -A area, that this does provide transition in that regard. Graves: Mr. Chair. Lack: Yes, Commissioner Graves. Motion: Graves: For the reasons that I've stated I'm going to move to forward R-PZD 06- 2212, striking Condition 1 and leaving the other stated conditions of Subdivision Committee September 14, 2006 Page 69 approval. There's only two of us here, so I don't necessarily think that we could reach a consensus anyway on how those conditions could read, and some of them may be worked out between now and full Planning Commission on some of these things. So I would leave the conditions as they're stated, although I've already stated for the record my disagreement with some of staff s recommendations on some points. Lack: Thank you. And I will concur with that. I think one thing I would like to see at that meeting is the proposed improvements of the intersection, the offsite improvements. And I think we can definitely look forward to discussions of density and appropriateness of density in this single node along Old Farmington Road. ?: Thank you for your time. Lack: We will be adjourned. (The meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.)