Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-28 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on September 28, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN FPL 06-2262: (SALEM HEIGHTS PHASE II, 284) Approved Page 9 LSD 06-2253: (ECLIPSE DISPLAYS, INC., 602) Approved Page 3 LDS 06-2265: (MAYNARD, 717) Forwarded Page 18 LSD 06-2108: (DRAKE STREET APTS., 289) Tabled Page 23 ADM 06-2271: (THE VILLAGE APARTMENTS, 289) Approved Page 31 LSP 06-2264: (TACO BELL ON COLORADO, 401) Approved Page 35 LSD 06-2254: (TACO BELL ON COLORADO & Approved 16 W., 401) Page 35 R-PZD 06-2213: (SUNBRIDGE VILLAS, 290) Forwarded Page 40 Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Sean Trumbo STAFF PRESENT Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Matt Casey/Engineering Glenn Newman/Engineering Sarah Patterson/Urban Forester MEMBERS ABSENT Candy Clark Andy Lack Hillary Harris Christine Myres James Graves Alan Ostner STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 LSD 06-2253: Large Scale Development (ECLIPSE DISPLAYS, INC., 602): Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at 602 PUMP STATION RD. The property is zoned I-2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 9.60 acres. The request is for 39,000 s.q. of warehouse and office space with associated parking. Trumbo: Good morning and welcome to the Thursday, September 28, Subdivision Committee. Our first item on the agenda is Final Plat 06-2262. Is the applicant present? Audience: Our representative is not here yet, sir. Can you postpone us? Trumbo: Okay. We'll move you down one. Audience: Okay. Trumbo: We'll go to LSD 06-2253, Eclipse Displays, Inc. Go ahead and come up and have a seat, please. Morgan: This property consists of approximately 10 acres. It is located north of Pump Station Road and zoned I-2, General Industrial. The surrounding properties are also zoned industrial and some are built for that zoning. The applicant requests approval to construct a 39,000 -square -foot warehouse building for Eclipse Displays, Incorporated, for trade show exhibits and storage. There will be ancillary office use within the building. The applicant has shown on the site plan the appropriate number of parking spaces for this use, as well as the landscaping required. Because this property is being developed for industrial use, commercial design standards are not required to be reviewed for this structure. The applicant is proposing a metal structure and I believe they have included elevations of that structure within the packet, though. An additional 5 feet of right-of-way is to be dedicated on Pump Station Road, a minor arterial. Staff is recommending approval of this large-scale development at Subdivision Committee with a total of 17 conditions of approval. All conditions are fairly standard and straightforward. We are recommending Planning Commission determination of street improvements and for a 6 - foot sidewalk along the property line, which the applicant has shown on the site plan. Trumbo: Thank you. Engineering, any comments? Newman: No comment. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 4 Trumbo: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes, I have few conditions of approval. I would recommend that you revise the fencing along Trees 2 and 3. I think you and I spoke on the phone about those. They are within a utility easement, but if you do intend to save them, I think fencing would probably be your best bet. Waller: Okay. Patterson: If you would revise Tree Number 8 to show removal. I know that it wasn't included in the calculations, but you need to go ahead and show that on the plan that it is removed. And fix the tree preservation fencing to follow the limits of grading around that detention facility, rather than the drip line. You are grading just a little bit within some of those tree canopy, so just fix that a little bit. I need you to include -- for the construction drawings the City of Fayetteville has 14 standard notes for protection of tree in natural areas, also with a fencing diagram that shows how that tree preservation fencing will be installed. That needs to be on your construction drawings. Waller: Okay. Patterson: Mitigation is not going to be required on the site as long as the preservation numbers are kept above the minimum 15, which they currently are. That's all. Tr umbo: Is there any member of the public that would like to speak to this item? If so, come on up to the podium, please, and introduce yourself. McKee: Hello. My name is Elizabeth McKee and I live on City Lake Road. I currently rent this property for my horses and I have my horses on there. And my husband and I have rented this for many years, so, of course, we realize that it was always intended for industrial and we don't intend to try and block that in any way, but I did want to mention that it does -- it's very near the trail system that Fayetteville has put in that we're really pleased about, and those trails are designated as equestrian. I also rent a piece on the corner of Pump Station and Morningside, which is where it becomes City Lake Road, so what I'd like to ask that you all consider is that, perhaps -- the sidewalk is maybe not so much used there, so I don't mind how wide the sidewalk is -- but if there could be a little more of easement left and if possibly you could even incorporate areas where horses can ride through there and join the other parts of the equestrian trail. I haven't seen your 17 conditions, so I don't know about that. This land is also heavily wooded, very beautiful trees, so there might be a Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 possibility that you could think about retaining some of those. It's near -- I don't think it adjoins, but it's quite near the West Fork of the White River, which, of course, we're all struggling to keep that from being polluted and from being trashed out. You all may be aware that there is heavy dumping going on in the land adjacent to that. Which Pony Club and I'm speaking of the Boston Mountain Pony Club, which is a member of the U.S. National Pony Club. It's a non-profit organization for youth -- does clean-ups in those areas, although it's so heavily dumped on, it's actually beyond what we can do, but the city has brought in -- what do you call those big containers that hold material? They brought one of those in for us and we filled that about a year ago and they've had one there recently, so I know that you all are trying to clean that up. But anything that you can do that would make it possible for horses to still ride through there would be helpful. I think there may also be a sewage issue, because there is quite a stench at the back of that property right now and I know that machines have been in there working, so I'm not sure if that's tying into one of the other lines that we're doing. Is there anything else that I could answer for you all that would be helpful about that? Trumbo: We'll get back to you if we have any questions. Thank you. McKee: Okay. Trumbo: Would anyone else like to speak to this item? Go ahead and introduce yourselves and tell us about your project. Waller: I'm Chris Waller with Blew, Bates & Associates, engineer on the project. Johnson: Richard Johnson with Eclipse Displays. Waller: I think the project is pretty straightforward. It is zoned Industrial and so we just propose a -- I think it's a 39,000 -square -foot, you know, building to be used for industrial reasons. You know, it's pretty much open field. There are a few trees on it, significant trees, that we are trying to save. We are proposing a detention pond to, you know, limit our runoff to pre - developed rates. Any other questions you might have? Trumbo: Commissioners? Anthes: I have a couple questions for staff. We don't see a great number of industrial projects, so I need to be clear about a few things. Are bike racks required on industrial projects, because I didn't see any on the plat? Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 Morgan: Bike racks would be required, but that only comes into play if they have 25 or more spaces, so they are proposing, I believe, 24 spaces. They did not meet that requirement. If the proposal comes back at the time of building permit and they've added an additional space, then we'll make sure that we get bike racks in there. Anthes: I would just encourage the applicant to even consider putting in a bike loop for people that might want to use it out there. The existing fences they're showing on the plat, are those to remain? Morgan: I believe that they have comments showing removing existing fences at least along the west property line. Waller: The south -- the entrance -- the main. The south will be. Morgan: Are you referring to a gated entrance? I'm sorry. Anthes: Well, no. There's just a lot of fences running through the property. There's a square in the back. There's a lot of -- Johnson: Those are barbwire. They're mainly just in a -- most of those would remain. It's just the front, I'm sorry, the front here. I had it turned around. Anthes: Okay. Do we have requirements about -- I thought barbwire fences were something that were normally removed when we had projects. Morgan: Yes, that's correct, and I'll double check the ordinance here. There is a note, though, to one of the fences on the west property line that says, "Remove existing fence." I don't know if it was erected by the adjacent owner and encroaches in the property or not, but -- Anthea: If you would just check on that. Morgan: Sure. Anthes: To follow up on one of Ms. McKee's questions, and I guess -- I don't know who to ask here. Maybe Sarah would know. Do you know, is there a city equestrian trail that's slated to go near this property? Patterson: Well, the trail that is in that area currently, I know Matt Mihalevich has been working on it. It is equestrian. It's an actual paved trail, but they do have equestrian side buffers for horses to still ride. It follows the old railroad path. As for going along Pump Station Road to connect, I'm not Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 -- I do not know if that's planned. Anthes: Did you find something? Morgan: Yes. I didn't know if you wanted me to respond on that question of the trail. But as for barbed wire, razor or barbwire fences are prohibited if visible from the street right-of-way or a residence, unless and except barbwire fences are used for agricultural purposes. So I believe, according to that, if it's behind the building and it's not visible, then it would be sufficient to stay there. Anthes: Okay. And do you know about the trail? Morgan: I don't know about the trail. I'm sorry. I hadn't heard about it. I wasn't quite clear where it was on the property. If it's in the north portion of the property near the creek, then there wouldn't be any disturbance there. Anthes: I think Ms. McKee indicated that it might be a street connection along Pump Station. I'm not sure. Usually that kind of trail, I wouldn't think, would be a sidewalk connection, it would be more of a -- Garner?: Yeah, I'm not aware of that. Anthes: I don't know, but can we check on that before final -- Morgan: Sure. Anthes: That's all I have. Thanks. Tr umbo: Okay. Any questions? Bryant: Mine have been answered. Because my main question was also about the horses in the pasture, and that's been covered. Trumbo: Okay. Any motions? Motion: Anthes: Yeah. Mr. Chair, I'll move that we approve Large Scale Development 06- 2253 for Eclipse Displays, based on the conditions as stated, finding in favor of the recommended street improvements and just asking that staff check -- monitor the bike rack situation, check on the fences and the trail prior to final plat. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 Bryant: I'll second. Trumbo: I'll concur. Thank you and good luck with your project. Waller: Thank you. Johnson: Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 FPL 06-2262: Final Plat (SALEM HEIGHTS PHASE 11, 284): Submitted by LANDTECH ENGINEERING for property located W. OF RUPPLE RD., N. SIDE OF EARNHARDT DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY- 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 2.87 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 14 single-family lots. Trumbo: Okay. We'll go back to the first item, Final Plat 06-2262, Salem Heights Phase II. Are we here? Come on up. Morgan: This property is located adjacent to Salem Road. In 2003 the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for Salem Heights of 89 single- family lots. A condition of this preliminary plat was that a Letter of Map Revision be approved by FEMA for the lots proposed within the floodplain. At the time that the applicant installed all the streets and was ready to plat this subdivision, that Letter of Map Revision was not yet approved, so the applicant was granted phasing of this development by the Planning Commission and platted Phase I of this subdivision. At this time the applicant has received approval for -- or received an approved Letter of Map Revision and is now requesting to plat Phase II of the subdivision, which consists of 14 single-family lots. Planning is recommending approval of this final plat with a total of seven conditions. Most are being addressed with comments on the final plat. We do have a requirement that sidewalks along the north side of this adjacent street be installed or guaranteed prior to the recordation of the final plat and in accordance with the condition placed on Phase I prior to application of signatures: "Sidewalks along the frontage of Lots 75 and 76, which were to be maintained as tree preservation in Phase I of this subdivision shall be constructed." I don't know if the applicant is aware if that's been done yet or not, but that will be inspected prior to allowing signatures on the final plat. Trumbo: Okay. Engineering? Casey: Just one comment. If the applicant could clarify that between Lot 78 and 79 is a 20 -foot -wide drainage easement and not just 10 feet. Only one side of it is labeled 10 feet, so I just want to make it clear that the entire easement shown is drainage easements. Gabbard: I think it -- yes, yes, I can do that. Casey: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Trumbo: Tree and Landscape? Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 10 Patterson: Yes. Tree mitigation was required with the original approval of this, but a payment into the tree escrow account was made at the final plat of Phase I, so they are good on Phase II. Trumbo: Would any member of the public like to speak to item Final Plat 06-2262, Salem Heights? Come up to the podium, please, and state your name. Smith: Pardon? Trumbo: State your name, please. Smith: Shawn Smith. Trumbo: Mr. Smith? Smith: Yes, sir. Trumbo: Okay. Smith: I live at 3627 Donnington with my wife, Lisa, and my family. There's also supposed to be a proposal on this subdivision for a sidewalk to go through. When we purchased our lot in Phase I, Lot 14, at Salem Heights Subdivision, the cul-de-sac was a dead-end cul-de-sac, and since then another developer has purchased some field behind us and has built a through -street which in turn affects our lot and our grading of our backyard. We have spoke with City Engineering, Ron Petrie, and have requested that the developer purchase a temporary easement from us to re - grade the side of our lot to enable a sidewalk to go through, and we want to request that they purchase this easement from us and make all of our greenspace in between the sidewalks and our curb in our yard the same as the front yard. And I have pictures if you guys would like to see them. Trumbo: Okay. Smith: These are our existing yard. Trumbo: If you want to just leave them up here. Smith: This is where our dead-end cul-de-sac was and they put a through -street, and you can see the depth of the grade and how they're going to have to change the grade of our backyard, and this is the lot before we purchased it. Trumbo: Okay. Would anyone else like to speak to this item? Please come up. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 11 Worth: My name is Aaron Worth and I'm with the group that's building the houses in there, and I built the house for Mr. Smith, and the sidewalk that is on the side of his house does need to be put in and we would be glad to put that in. The problem is the -- on his property behind the sidewalk there is some grade work that needs to be done, so if the city would let us move the sidewalk in, we would put it there, or if we get the permission of the owner to grade it, we would do that at no cost to the owner and make it meet all the city requirements. Trumbo: And what was your name again? I'm sorry. Worth: My name is Aaron Worth, and I'm with the group that's building in that subdivision. Trumbo: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Worth. Any other comments? I'm going to close the floor to public comment. If you'll introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Gabbard: Yes, sir. I am Leonard Gabbard with LandTech Engineering. As Suzanne pointed out, Phase II is, of course, being now brought before you because we did get a Letter of Map Revision based on a field that took all of those lots out of the floodplain. We have met with city staff on the issue that's come up in public comment on the sidewalk, and I sent a waiver to Mr. Casey asking us to vary the greenspace behind that sidewalk to make it about 2 foot. That would allow us to stay in the right-of-way of the street and build a sidewalk. Right now, what has happened is there is infrastructure on that lot that's been put in, an irrigation system, and I won't speak for you, Matt, but in our conversations with each other we both, I guess, agreed that that would probably be the best way to attempt to try to go, so at any rate, I'll turn it back to the commission. Anthes: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Trumbo: Yes. Anthes: I don't see anything like this on this plat. This seems to be a different project. Can you tell me what we need to do? Morgan: This situation is on Phase I of the property -- or of the project, and I don't know if Mr. Casey has additional information on the status of this. Casey: The applicant was told that we had to have this issue resolved prior to signing the final plat for Phase II, and I thought that it was going to be Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 12 processed as an administrative item along with the final plat for Phase II. I guess that procedure has not been done, but if we could, I would like to get your input on whether you would support the greenspace reduction in this area. It's staff's preference that the greenspace remain consistent through the area, you know, if possible. That would be consistent throughout the subdivision and the tying in to the adjacent. But the applicant requested that we bring it forward to you and asking for a variance of the required greenspace width in that area in order to be able to construct it. As was stated, to be able to construct the sidewalk -- Let me back up a little bit. As you can see on the plat for Phase I, it's there in front of Mr. Gabbard, that street was never intended to be a dead end, it was a stub -out that was required with the subdivision. There was probably a 30-, 40 -foot section that was not constructed because there was a spring in that area and that portion of the street was bonded when Clearwood Crossing came in. They built up to the property line and then we had this developer go back in and construct that gap after Clearwood Crossing was constructed. The section of sidewalk that is in question is in this gap area where the street was constructed. Unfortunately, the grading for the sidewalk was not done daring the Phase I construction, so that leaves us in the position where if we put the sidewalk where it needs to be, then the slopes will need to be laid back into Mr. Smith's yard and the irrigation system will need to be adjusted. Anthes: I guess I need some clarification. If the administrative item needs to come before you sign final plat, do we table this item and wait for the administrative item or can we go ahead and pass it and make it contingent on the administrative item coming through? Gabbard: Matt, did you get the waiver? I submitted it on the day I turned in this for this Subdivision Committee. Did you receive it for the sidewalks? Casey: I'm sorry. I don't know that I've got a copy of that. Anthes: And for Mr. Smith and Mr. Worth, the reason why we're having this discussion is that the project -- I mean, the problem that you guys have raised is not part of the final plat for Phase II, and so we really shouldn't even be discussing it today. Casey: Would you all like to see that as an official administrative item, asking for a change to that final plat? Anthes: Is that something you guys can handle by staff? Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 13 Casey: Uh-huh, if -- I would like to have your input on the record to be able to do that. I'm a little uncomfortable making this decision without your input and that's why we wanted to bring it forward to you in some form or fashion. Anthes: Well, without a drawing or recommendation it's kind of hard to look at what you're asking for. Casey: I understand. Anthes: As a general rule, I would support what you have discussed, which is consistency. I'm also very concerned about 2 -foot grass strips, because they're very difficult to maintain and generally just don't work very well. I know other places where they've put them in they end up paving them because they're too hard to deal with. So that's going to be a little flag for me. So obviously, you know, if we could keep consistence, it's better, but I don't understand the ramifications of it without a full report. Casey: If I may, what it comes down to is the property owner has asked for a large sum of money to be able to grant that temporary grading easement, and the builder of the sidewalk is not willing to pay that amount just to lay that slope back and adjust the grades. Anthes: Is there any way for staff to evaluate the actual cost of doing that and negotiate that? Casey: Well, the builder was going to do it at no cost to the property owner; however, the property owner is asking for a large sum amount just for the easement for them to be able to do the work. Anthes: It sounds like we're going to have to hear it, huh? Morgan: If you would like to see that as a condition of approval, if that is contingent -- if getting that approval is contingent upon filing this final plat for Phase II, then I would think that they are somewhat tied together if that's how that was written. Casey: I would prefer that. Morgan: So we could potentially, if you think this is an issue that needs to go before the full Planning Commission, forward this with the condition that be evaluated prior to that meeting if you choose. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 14 Gabbard: I would much prefer doing that as to table it, because I could be in front of the Planning Commission much quicker. Anthes: If I might, could I address Mr. Smith? Trumbo: Sure. Anthes: Mr. Smith, could you come to the podium? Smith: Yes, ma'am. Anthes: I think it's the desire of staff and, I'm guessing, this commission that we have this sidewalk constructed in alignment that would be equivalent to the alignment in the rest of the subdivision. The cul-de-sac that you saw, I'm assuming, was one of our temporary cul-de-sacs that's signed and platted as being a temporary connection. Morgan: Actually, I believe that this was just constructed as a stub -out. Anthes: As a stub -out. So you should have been aware that there was a future street in that area as part of -- when you purchased your lot. Anything you could do to make this work, because I think it's in the best interest of your entire neighborhood, would certainly be helpful. Obviously, I can't tell you what to charge for your easement, but if you could be reasonable about that, I'm sure we would appreciate it. Smith: We were told, ma'am -- if I could, we were told that that was a dead end cul-de-sac, that no one was going to finish the through -street when we purchased there, or we would have purchased a different lot. If I could approach you and give you some more photos, I'll -- Anthes: We are really familiar with that kind of condition, but -- Smith: I'll explain to you our purpose of request for money. This is a concrete drainage ditch that runs through the middle of my backyard and it is on Phase I and it runs the full length and actually runs through several backyards, and we have been trying to reconcile this difference with the developer since February 28th when we closed on this property. And we have asked for removal of this concrete drain and they keep blaming you, the city, saying the city required easement, and we have went through with engineering and we have simply requested that they remove the concrete drain out of our backyard and please put up a privacy fence for us for our trouble, because that's the only thing we've been waiting for all year long. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 15 And at that request, they denied it, so we turned over a monetary issue then. Trumbo: Okay. Casey: Do you want me to address the drainage? Anthes: Sure. Casey: That drainage was installed because at the time of the construction of this development the property to the south was undeveloped. There's a large amount of acreage that sheet -flowed across that property and onto this subdivision. This was installed to capture that flow to keep it away from the backs of the houses and direct it into the storm drain system. Since that time, Clearwood Crossing has been developed to the south. Their street and infrastructure system now intercepts that flow that did go into this ditch. So Mr. Gabbard has submitted to the city a certification that that drainage channel is no longer necessary. So in our and the city's opinion, it can be removed at any time and we have the certification from the engineer that it's not needed; however, you know, it's an existing ditch and that's not something that the city is going to go in and physically remove. It will be up to the individual property owners. Anthes: I have a question, Ms. Morgan. The Planning Commission doesn't usually mediate disputes between who pays for removal of concrete and that sort of thing. However, it would be in the best interest of everybody to have this negotiated and worked out and then let us hear the sidewalk and this together. What do you think should be done or what's your recommendation for the process? Gabbard: Suzanne, I would like to just input that I would -- if it could be done where this was approved today at Subdivision Committee, you still have full control over signage of the plat and recordation, until, if you choose, this sidewalk issue is resolved. That's all I have to say. Morgan: It may be simpler to -- we do have to resolve the sidewalk issue before we can sign the final plat. So you have an option of approving this final plat with the condition that that be either resolved or come before you as a separate administrative item, or you can just forward this on to Planning Commission, if you would like. If you don't feel comfortable tabling it and resolving it at a later date, with just three members, which may not be as bonded either, so -- I'm sorry that's the best recommendation, but those are the -- I think the options that are available. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 16 Trumbo: Ms. Anthes? Anthes: You're asking me a question, because I'll -- Trumbo: Anything else? Garner: I might just add on what Suzanne was saying. I agree that, especially if it's a greenspace issue, that where there's a -- you know, this sidewalk and the greenspace may be altered from our standard section. I think that's something that we would want the Planning Commission to look at. So I agree, I think probably the best option would be to forward it. We could add that condition, the Planning Commission determination of the sidewalk issue, and have the Planning Commission, you know, look at that in tandem with the final plat. Anthes: Mr. Garner, what if we added a condition that said that the sidewalks shall be installed or guaranteed prior to recordation of the final plat and with the standard section, and then the rest of your verbiage. If for some reason we can't get there with the standard section, then we could forward it to the Planning Commission. I'd just rather take care of as much business as we can today and then let staff take care of the negotiation if we can. Would that be adequate? Garner: Yeah. That sounds good. Morgan: You may want to just specify that we're referring to sidewalk also that has not been completed on Phase I just to -- in that condition. Anthes: All right. Let me give it a try. Morgan: We'll certainly note that -- understand the intent. Motion: Anthes: All right. Let's see. I will move that we approve Final Plat 06-2262 for Salem Heights Phase II subject to the conditions as stated and with an additional condition of approval that actually is an extension of Condition 3: sidewalks shall be installed or guaranteed prior to recordation of the final plat, including the section of sidewalk that has not been completed at Phase L This sidewalk shall be installed for the standard street section continuous with adjacent sidewalks in the area. If this cannot be negotiated, this item needs to come to Planning Commission for administrative review. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 17 Trumbo: You got that? Bryant: It sounds good. I'll second. Trumbo: I'll agree. Gabbard: Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Trumbo: Thank you. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 18 LSD 06-2265: Large Scale Development (MAYNARD, 717): Submitted by MILHOLLAND COMPANY for property located at SE. WILLOUGHBY AND MCCOLLUM. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and contains approximately 2.95 acres. The request is for extended development, grading and entrance paving for an existing industrial use structure. Trumbo: Our next item is Large Scale Development 06-2108 -- no, I'm sorry, 06- 2265, Maynard. Morgan: This property is zoned Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial, I-1 and is located at the comer of Willoughby Road and McCollum Avenue in south Fayetteville and the property consists of three tracts, one of which was developed under a building permit review for an industrial use. The applicant had installed access to the adjacent streets by way of a gravel access, and staff had addressed that with the applicant in that when final paving occurred it needed to be done so within a year for a large-scale development approval to come forward. The applicant would like to establish access onto Willoughby, a state highway, as well as McCollum, providing access for the existing building and for future development of the two adjacent lots. In order to obtain approvals for this access, a large- scale development is required. The subject property or the proposed development as shown on the plats is very conceptual. According to the applicants, it is proposed for approximately 7,800 -square -foot footprints with, I believe, two stories, as well as employee parking, which is not at this time delineated on the plat. The proposed use, according to the representative, is for a warehouse use appropriate in an industrial area. Staff would just request that the plats be clarified, as they do state that these are office buildings, and that parking as shown would not be adequate for such a use. The applicant is showing one plat with a property line adjustment, so I'd just like to note that we'll need a formal application or formal application for a property line adjustment submitted either prior to deeding or redoing the deeds for these properties, or construction if it is located in one of the setbacks. Staff is requesting Planning Commission determination of street improvements per the recommendation of the sidewalk coordinator; staff recommends that the applicant pay money in lieu of construction of a 6 -foot sidewalk along Willoughby and McCollum Avenue; that McCollum Avenue be improved 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drains adjacent to this property; and that the intersection of McCollum Avenue and Willoughby be improved with the radiuses of curb and gutter. All improvements affecting state right-of-way shall be subject to a AHTD approval. With regard to the landscaping, the applicant is requesting waivers of the required landscaping. The applicant has provided the number of trees and shrubs required, but is requesting a waiver of the 15 -foot landscape area to allow to the north a total of six Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 19 parking spaces to encroach within that landscape area, and to the northeast for the driveway to encroach within that 15 -foot landscaped area. As you can see on the plat, McCollum Avenue right-of-way is diagonal at the corner of McCollum and Willoughby and cuts across the property. Staff is recommending in favor of the waiver request at the northeast of the property, finding that this is an unusual right-of-way and that there is sufficient greenspace between the actual constructed intersection and this right-of-way that would not have been there otherwise to provide that landscape buffer. We are not in support of the waiver to the north, finding that there is sufficient property in order to construct the parking area. The applicant does not have any firm construction plans at this time for these buildings and we would request that that parking be moved outside of that 15 -foot area, and perhaps that parallel parking be installed along the 15 - foot greenspace, which could provide some visitor parking along that area. At this time we're not reviewing commercial design standards. The applicant has stated that these will be industrial buildings. If at the time of building permit we review this and it is more an office use or commercial retail -type use, we will require that this come back to Subdivision Committee for further review, and we have conditioned this application as such. I believe I've hit all of the highlights. If you have any questions, let me know. Trumbo: Thank you. Mr. Casey? Newman: No comment at this time. Trumbo: Sarah? Patterson: Yes. Mitigation is going to be required on this site. They're removing -- there's a lot of cedars and smaller less priority -- lower priority trees on the site. Mitigation for the project is going to equal 17 2 -inch caliper large species trees. They are proposing those on the site, I think along the south line. A three-year maintenance and monitoring bond is required in the amount of $4,250.00. This shall be deposited with the City of Fayetteville in the form of a letter of credit, bond, or check before final certificate of occupancy of each of the buildings. That's it. Trumbo: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to speak to this item Large Scale Development 06-2265, Maynard? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment. Please, introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Jefcoat: Yes. Tom Jefcoat, Milholland Company. As Suzanne stated, this project was a condition of approval of a previous project where Phase I or the Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 20 existing industrial building and the Maynard building is located. During the site approval, that project -- the grading for that existing structure and the walkout bottom floor pretty much dictated the development of the rest of the site and its orientation, and there is an existing front wall of that building that acts as a retaining wall. The condition of approval of the development of the first phase was that a permanent driveway be established. It exists as a gravel driveway now and the proposed location is -- for paving that is pretty much in the same location as it exists today, other than the fact that the entrance onto McCollum is near the intersection and we have relocated that further south to remove it from the intersection. We had originally proposed a double entrance there for truck traffic as a turnaround and delivery, but the widening of the south entrance and aligning it with the rear of the buildings is adequate for that and we've made that change. So we're stating that the previous development on the property has set the guidelines for the two future lot developments in the fact that the grading in the front wall is previously located and to utilize the existing two lots, that theme or that character has to be carried out in order to grade the property for development. The road -- the permanent road installation, asphalting and developing that road, in order to do that so that it is a permanent situation, this development has come forward as a large-scale development for the extension of the existing wall, grading of the lots, which pretty much sets the building pads and provides for an entrance and drive to the future development of the two lots. The two waiver requests that -- or conditions of approval that are concerned is the additional development or the additional improvements on McCollum Road. McCollum Road leads to Scurlock Industries in the back and in 1994 Scurlock made a cash donation to the -- or paid to the city for the improvements of McCollum Road. Those improvements did not occur until 2002, so the improvement -- and the city made those improvements, so McCollum Road has been improved in '02, and the additional improvements of widening that road -- the actual condition of the road is very good. It does not have curb and gutter or drainage. There are some utility conflicts with widening the road beyond the south property line that the city did not take care of at the time of the extension. If we widen the road and put it in at this time, those utilities will still be a conflict to the south. So we're asking in our waiver that those improvements be escrowed, be funded at this time, so that when McCollum develops in the future that money will be there. We're not proposing not to make the improvements, we're just asking that the improvements be escrowed and deferred until the entire road could be developed further south. The other waiver, the landscape waiver, we are accomplishing the intent of the landscape with the trees. Spacing the adequate number of trees and shrubs to provide screening is achieved by staggering the parking spaces that we have shown on the plat. Two groupings -- or a grouping of two staggered Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 21 still gives us the tree space and the shrub spacing, and the cause of the previous development and the configuration of the property, it limits that area in front for visitor parking and handicap parking. Parallel parking can be achieved, but it will still be in the landscaping. So the same waiver will exist whether it's parallel or perpendicular parking, just the extent into the landscape area. I don't know that there will be a difference, because the greenspace will still be absorbed in asphalt in the parking spaces whether it's parallel or perpendicular. But landscaping is achieved, so that is the waiver that we're asking for, and we can do either, but the waiver would still be there. Trumbo: Thank you. How does staff feel about the escrow of the funds for improvements to Willoughby Road? Have you all talked about that? Morgan: To McCollum Road? Trumbo: I mean, to McCollum, yes. Morgan: Engineering may have an opinion on this, but I'm not aware if McCollum is -- if further improvements on McCollum are part of a city project. I mean, if that were something that the city were intending to do within the next five years, which is how long we can hold that money, then, you know, that might be a possibility, but I don't see any future -- the property to the south, I don't believe, is developed, but further south of Scurlock they are currently developed and we probably wouldn't be able to require that they put in those improvements at this time, but -- so holding that money may not be utilized anytime soon. Casey: At this time there's no plans for any improvements by the city to McCollum and our recommendation are that the improvements be made in conjunction with this large-scale development. Trumbo: Okay. Commissioners? Any comments? Motion: Anthes: I move that we forward Large Scale Development 06-2265 to full Planning Commission based on the conditions of approval, Condition 1, finding in favor of staff s recommendation, but asking staff to reevaluate the utility infrastructure in relation to the applicant's request, and we would certainly be willing to hear it if staff changed their recommendation between now and Planning Commission. Finding on Condition 2 to deny the waiver of the parking in Part A and approve the waiver in Part B, and all of the conditions as stated. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 22 Bryant: And I'll second. Trumbo: I'll concur. Jefcoat: Great. Thank you. Trumbo: Thank you. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 23 LSD 06-2108: Large Scale Development (DRAKE STREET APT., 289): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOCIATES for property located at SW. CORNER OF GREGG AVENUE AND DRAKE STREET. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI- FAMILY- 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 12.02 acres. The request is for an apartment complex with 240 multi -family units. Trumbo: Our next item is Large Scale Development 06-2108, Drake Street Apartments. Morgan: This property is located south of Drake Street and west of the Arkansas - Missouri Railroad and Gregg Avenue. Staff has seen this proposal several times in review, and since our original review they've purchased property to the south and enlarged their development, which has allowed some proposals of streets through the property. I think sheet C1.02, the overall site plan, is a pretty good site plan in order to look at in relationship to the general comments. It shows a good overview of the entire property to the south, including the Village Apartments, which is the next item on the agenda. The applicant proposes on this 12 -acre property a total of eight buildings and 240 units with 408 bedrooms. There will be sufficient parking built for all of those units. The applicant is proposing several connections to the adjacent properties. They are proposing connection into the property from Drake Street and continuing that private drive down to a proposed right-of-way, Quality Lane. This would be a new street with a new connection onto Gregg Avenue across the railroad. Staff did meet with the applicant and the representatives from the railroad out on site, and they did seem amenable to that connection, recommending that it be fully gated, signed, and marked. And that street, Quality Lane, would continue south through the Village Apartments, which, I believe, is redoing their site plan in order to accommodate this street, and it would stub -out to the south. This stub -out would provide access to the properties to the south which currently utilize Jocelyn Lane, which connects to Gregg Avenue across an un -signalized railroad crossing, and it's located where you can see this connection and the cul-de-sac -- the right-of-way for a cul-de-sac. Two additional connections are proposed to the university property to the west and that will allow for connectivity to Quality Lane and then eventual connectivity to Gregg and Drake Street. Quality Lane is proposed at 28 feet, a 28 -foot -wide street within a 44 -foot right-of-way. We have requested Planning Commission determination of this reduced right-of- way. The reason for this proposal is that typically you see equal amounts of right-of-way on either side of the road in order to provide 6 -foot sidewalks and adequate greenspace. The applicant is providing a trail to the east of this road and would request that that serve as the pedestrian walkway instead of installation of a sidewalk and a trail. Staff finds in Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 24 favor of that proposal. We are also requesting that Jocelyn Lane be abandoned. Currently Jocelyn Lane provides connectivity and access to Gregg from Quality Life facility -- it looks like a single-family home tucked in the woods there -- and then it comes out and provides connectivity to the south, which can now connect onto Quality Lane. So we would request that an approved -- perhaps bollards or something. We'll take a look at what exactly type of restriction we would like to place on that access. We would like to maintain the bridge and access for pedestrians, but we just want to restrict vehicular access from everyone to the west except for that single -family -type house. There are street improvements -- Anthes: Suzanne, could I interrupt you? Morgan: Sure, yeah. Anthes: Jocelyn Lane on our area vicinity map looks like it's not even anywhere near this property. I don't understand. Beam: Flip back. She's talking about this sheet here. And she's going into kind of the coordination between the Drake Street Village, which is just to the south. Anthes: So it's really part of the next item more than this one? Morgan: I think -- We were hoping to condition it, that removal on this project. They are quite tied together because of the construction of Quality Lane, and once Quality Lane is constructed through there, we just want to make sure that that is the primary access so that there's -- We believe that it will be safer with a new railroad crossing, and the railroad representatives, too, had suggested that they would like to cut off access as much as possible on this access to Jocelyn Lane. Trumbo: Can you show me where exactly? Beam: This continues on -- Trumbo: Okay. Beam: -- and crosses abridge. Trumbo: That bridge right here? Beam: Yes. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 25 Trumbo: And the house is here? Beam: Yes, sir. It comes on up and there is one resident here and then the University of Arkansas property there. Trumbo: So you're wanting to put up something to restrict access back onto this? Morgan: Yes. Beam: Matt Mihalevich would like to keep it in place to -- as a trail connection over to this shopping center. Morgan: We'll try to get better visuals of that for the next review. Trumbo: Okay. Anthes: You know what would be really helpful, too, is if north was in the same orientation on all the sheets in the packet. Beam: Sometimes that's difficult. Morgan: We are requesting improvements on Drake Street 18 feet from centerline. The applicant is -- as with all standard improvements, the applicant is proposing bus turnout and the improvements stop, I believe, where those state improvements are proposed to end, so they'll meet together. There may be a requirement for evaluation of some cost share or something at that point. We'll look at that. But the applicant is proposing to do full improvements along this property line. We are recommending tabling this project due to the concerns presented by the Urban Forester and her recommendation for denial for this proposal, and I will let her address that. That's all I have. Trumbo: Mr. Casey? Casey: Suzanne mentioned a potential for cost share. I just want to clarify that. The request was made to the applicant to show improvements for the entire frontage of the property along Drake Street; however, they were stopping short to coordinate with what the Highway Department has planned for their Gregg Avenue improvements, which would extend partway down Drake onto this site. So the portion that they are not constructing we are asking for a cost estimate for that, for an assessment to be paid for that amount. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 26 Beam: I didn't understand that from Tech Review, but we can -- I don't think that's an issue. Trumbo: Sarah? Patterson: This site has about 37 1/2 -percent canopy cover. They did do an inventory of the site and found a range of high-priority all the way down to low - priority canopy. I realize it's in a tight area, but as Suzanne mentioned, I had a preliminary meeting with this applicant before it came through our system, and since than, at Technical Plat, I think I've been pretty consistent with my denial of the tree preservation. From that 37 1/2 they are proposing to preserve about 9 percent. If you look at the tree preservation plan, a few of those -- about three of those trees are along Drake Street. They're sandwiched between a parking lot and a utility easement. I realize utility easements are hard to get on a site with this much density, but I don't feel confident that those three trees would make it through the development process. They have also proposed a tree preservation area that kind of buffers the trail corridor, which I'm always in support of to keep that area kind of protected from the street, but included in that tree preservation area is a proposed storm water drainage pipe that we know will create disturbance and there's also either an existing -- is that existing sewer? -- a proposed sewer -- 20 -foot sewer easement that's also going to go through that area. So, you know, the plan says that they're going to preserve 9 percent. I don't feel confident that that would happen. I made a recommendation at the last Technical Plat. There are some trees on the site, some butternut, hickories and such, that may not meet our significant requirements because of their size -- they're a bit smaller, but I would like to see the preservation of more trees on the site and some more greenspace of sorts. That pretty much is what's leading to my denial of this tree preservation plan. Trumbo: Thank you. Casey: Mr. Chairman. Trumbo: Yes. Casey: Can I add one thing? If the applicant could label for the next submittal the retaining wall heights. I just realized that they are not labeled and I want to make clear that 10 foot is the maximum allowed by our grading ordinance and anything above that would require a waiver request to the Planning Commission. Thank you. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 27 Trumbo: Okay. Would any member of the public like to speak to Large Scale Development 06-2108? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and bring it back to the commissioners. Well, obviously, we have a recommendation for denial on the tree preservation. Beam: Can I speak to that? Trumbo: Please. Beam: Kind of to the project in general, this project initially was only going to include about eight acres, or maybe 8.75. I can't remember. Maybe -- we'll just say nine acres. We picked up this additional property on the south in order to allow for the Village Apartments project, which you're going to look at next, to eliminate a connection to Jocelyn, which would have required a substantial bridge structure that was already approved by the Planning Commission, a substantial bridge structure and major disturbance along Scull Creek, significant amount of grading that would have had to take place in the creek. And by this project coming in and being approved, we were able to eliminate this Jocelyn access on the Village and that's why Village is coming before you, to do a large-scale modification to allow the connection out here to Gregg. And I say that from the standpoint of kind of a tradeoff. We can protect this area and obviously cause a little bit of disturbance to this area. It is a -- as Sarah has pointed out, there is a substantial amount of canopy on the site. At the same time the site is sloping with the current zoning that's on the site and meeting handicap accessibility standards. We're kind of right in that difficult area from that handicap accessibility standpoint. There are provisions within the accessibility codes for a site that's over 10 percent in slope that you don't have to provide accessibility to all the ground floor units and you're given more flexibility in your grading in allowing steps and things. With this site we are in that range of between 5 and 10 percent on our slopes, 5 percent kind of being what we look at for your maximum accessibility slope. So when you get in between that 5 and 10 percent range, you have difficulty with accessibility -- or meeting accessibility without substantial grading and you don't have the benefit of the leeway in the code of having greater than 10 -percent slope and not having all your ground floor units accessible. We've made these buildings as walkthrough, you know, with breezeways to try to help in that and aid in the flexibility of our grading by only creating one side accessible and being able to provide steps on the other side. And then too, from a mitigation standpoint -- or I guess I say all that to -- we're trying to do everything that we can to preserve as many trees as possible on the site. It's a difficult site and -- but we have, I mean, met the mitigation requirement. If you look on the landscape plan, it will be a heavily Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 28 landscaped area. Also, with the building architecture we've tried to create something that's not as -- create something a little more earthy with the exposed timber, with the heavy use of rock, and so I know that it's not the most desirable layout, but we are meeting the mitigation requirement and we are -- I think that we've done everything within our power to be able to preserve as many trees. There are a lot the trees that are marked as preserved that we're going to great costs with walls and things to try to preserve that Sarah is not convinced that it will be successful, but we're not counting those in our preserved. If you look at the tables, they'll say "preserved, but mitigated for." We're not counting that canopy in our preservation, but we are going to the expense of doing our best to preserve those trees. So with that I would just, I guess, look to your all's favorable outlook at the length that we've gone to try to make this an attractive development, both from an architectural standpoint, but also just trying to pull back and make it as earthy as what we possibly can with the heavy landscaping and with the architectural design. So with that I'd answer any questions that you all have. Trumbo: Let me back up. We need to get your name for the record. Beam: Oh, I'm sorry. Steven Beam with Crafton, Tull & Associates, and Reid Can. Tr umbo: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners? Anthes: What is the resulting density in this? Morgan: It meets requirement. Beam: It's going to be, I think, 20 units per acre. Morgan: 20. Beam: 12 acres and 240 units. And the zoning is 24, I believe. Anthes: Just a question. Is there any way to combine these two requests so that they -- we can see them together, or are they separate applicants? Beam: They are separate applicants and the ownerships would prefer -- I mean, they are certainly willing to do the necessary coordination, but obviously one group's financing doesn't want to be tied to another group's. Anthes: Is every building the same on this site, and then are they the same on the other site as well? Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 29 Beam: As far as architecture? Anthes: Uh-huh. Beam: No, ma'am. They're actually two -- there's two different building types. They both look similar to this. One of them includes two-bedroom units and the other one includes three-bedroom units, and I think they have both have one -bedroom units. The three-bedroom units are the larger buildings and they are three stories. The two-bedroom units are the smaller buildings and they're just two stories. But it will be similar architecture. The rock will be on the first floor. On the two-story buildings you just wouldn't have -- Anthes: Just looking at the general layout, it appears that there is a great amount of hard surface on this site. Has anybody calculated the ratio or the percentage of hard surface and does that meet our requirement? Morgan: For site coverage? Anther Uh-huh. Morgan: Yes, I have looked at that. I think it's on here. Sorry, there are just so many notes. Are you guys aware of the site coverage at all? Beam: Uh-huh. I don't -- Morgan: It looks like building area is 26 percent of the site, sidewalk area is 7 percent, paving is 26. So your total greenspace would be 37 percent of the site. Anthes: Boy, it sure doesn't look like it if you're just looking at the map, which I think would lead into what some of Sarah's concerns are. Beam: There's a large portion of the site that's floodway. It's kind of into that greenspace area. We're not trying to hide anything. Anthes: Well, I certainly would hope that your retaining walls are 10 or below and that you wouldn't propose anything over that. I would tend to be in favor of the right-of-way width for Quality Lane to allow the trail instead of a sidewalk. Obviously in support of Matt Mihalevich's request to make that connection through onto Jocelyn. I guess my prejudice against this project is I really, really, don't like streets that are parking lots, that are streets that are parking lots in developments. I know that we don't have a specific Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 30 ordinance against that, so I guess there's not much I can say about that except that it just -- Beam: These are not publicly maintained. They are private. Motion: Anthes: I understand. It's still in the landscape and they're not -- yeah. It just looks like, the way the site is laid out, is that you put the greenspace, but you had to do because of the floodplain and floodway, and then you crammed every possible amount of hard surface you could into this other part of the site, and that's compromising your tree preservation numbers. And I guess I would like to see you try to work that out some more and support Sarah's request that we table LSD 06-2108 in anticipation that you can come to a more amenable resolution with the Urban Forester, and I will make the motion to that effect. Bryant: And I will second. Trumbo: I'll agree. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 31 ADM 06-2271: Administrative Item (THE VILLAGE APARTMENTS, 289): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOCIATES regarding a revision to the approved Large Scale Development. Trumbo: Our next item is Administrative Item 06-2271, The Village Apartments. Is the applicant present? Beam: We are here. Anthes: The same one. Fulcher: Luckily, you all pretty much described most of my projects. There's not much left for me to do. But this was originally approved back in December 29, 2005. The number of units, buildings, parking spaces, everything is exactly the same. The modification really is about the access to the site. As they alluded to in the last project, Jocelyn Lane was going to be improved from its gravel road status to a public street with a bridge across Scull Creek and then continue north to have a stub -out before the Gregg Street Apartments came in for future development of those sites. Now that those have been acquired by a different set of developers, access was going to be provided from Gregg Street still, but without the connection over Scull Creek. They've just moved it to the north. It's going to run south through to Gregg Street Apartments into the Village Apartments granting access to them to a public street and then stub -out to the south, as has been stated, for future development of those properties. The connection -- a stub -out, a 24 -foot -drive stub -out in this property is still available to the west for potential development of the U of A farm properties. The only other thing is they've moved the buildings and parking lot, the actual developed site, a little bit to the east to remove the need for a retaining wall on the west property line. Other than that, it's exactly the same project. Really, just the access has changed. Although staff is fully supportive of these changes, we would like this item to proceed in tandem with the previous item, obviously, so it could be understood by all those reviewing it. And since that previous item was tabled, staff would actually like this item to be tabled so that it can show up at the next meeting with Drake Street Apartments. And there's four conditions of approval, pretty much stating that all the original conditions of approval shall remain in force with this modification, and then also show the extension of Quality Lane all the way to the property line. I believe it stops short, just have that extension all the way to the property line, and street stub -out signs placed there. And that's it for this project. Trumbo: Thank you. Engineering? Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 32 Casey: Just one comment. If this is approved, I need to see revised construction plans for review and approval. Trumbo: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: No comments. Trumbo: Would any member of the public like to speak to this item, Administrative Item 06-2271, The Village Apartments? Seeing none, I'll close the floor and bring it back to the commissioners. It sounds like this is very much dependant on what we get done on the other project. Beam: I would ask that this -- The only part that really ties to the other project is the extension of Quality Lane. So that we could move forward with construction drawings on Matt's -- Matt's review of construction drawings, I would ask that this project be approved with the condition that whether the other project be approved or not, Quality Lane be constructed out to Gregg Street. I mean, the full plans are shown on these drawings and the applicant is okay with that requirement being placed, you know, that should the Drake Street not be approved that they would bear the burden of constructing Quality Lane out to Gregg. If we could approve this project with that particular condition, I would appreciate that. It allows me to move forward with Matt's construction drawings. Trumbo: Commissioners? Anthes: I'm glad you brought that up, because I was going to ask a similar question. Your applicant is willing to pay for that extension if the other project doesn't go through? Beam: Yes, ma'am. Anthes: Okay. Is Engineering all right with that? Trumbo: Staff? Approving it with that condition? Fulcher: Would we be going back to the original -- the Jocelyn Lane extension or bringing Quality Lane down from the north? Beam: No. It would be Quality Lane in lieu -- it would remain in lieu of the Jocelyn Lane extension. Fulcher: Okay. As long as that access is conditioned in there to this project. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 33 Anthes: What do these buildings look like? Are they as handsome as the ones in the previous? Beam: I do not know. We did the architecture on the other project. We did not do the architecture on this project. I'm sorry. I apologize. I can't tell you. Trumbo: Motions? Motion: Anthes: Yeah. I would rather not hold this applicant to the other applicant's approval if they're willing to pick up the street if that project doesn't go through, so I would move that we approve Administrative Item 06-2271 with the conditions as stated and adding a condition of approval that says that the extension of Quality Lane from the property line to Gregg be constructed to city standards by this applicant should the Drake Street Apartment project not be completed. Is that what you need? Morgan: Would your motion also include the removal or blockade, I guess, of Jocelyn Lane to not allow access through that? Anthes: Yes. Morgan: Okay. Anthes: And however the trail needs to work. Morgan: And railroad crossings? Anthes: Yeah. However you would like to word that, you can do that. Morgan: Okay. Beam: Do we also need to address a waiver on this particular project at this time or is it just -- Anthes: Is there a waiver? Trumbo: Is there a waiver? Beam: It's the same 44 -foot -wide right-of-way. Anthes: Uh-oh. If there's a waiver, does this need to go forward? Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 34 Morgan: We haven't really addressed it as a waiver, but just determination of appropriate -- Trumbo: Are we talking about the trail again? Beam: It's for the same reason, the trail is, yes. Trumbo: Just an extension through this property? Beam: Yes, sir. Anthes: If we can say that we're in support of constructing a trail in lieu of the sidewalk and reducing the right-of-way without calling it a waiver, I think we can approve it here. Beam: Okay. I like that plan. Bryant: I think it's a second. Trumbo: I'll concur. Thank you. Beam: Thank you. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 35 LSP 06-2264: Lot Split (TACO BELL ON COLORADO, 401): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOCIATES, INC. - ROGERS for property located at NW. CORNER OF WEDINGTON AND COLORADO. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.26 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 1.29 and 0.76 acres. LSD 06-2254: Large Scale Development (TACO BELL ON COLORADO & 16W., 401): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOCIATES for property located at NW. OF WEDINGTON AND COLORADO. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.26 acres. The request is for a new restaurant on the subject property. Trumbo: Our next item is LSP 06-2264, Lot Split, Taco Bell on Colorado. Is the applicant present? Just have a seat. May we have the staff report, please? Fulcher: It's kind of da ja vu. We reviewed a lot split and large-scale for Taco Bell on Wedington a few months ago. You all remember that. From what I understand, they've chosen a different property that's two blocks to the west at Colorado and Wedington this time. The first part of this proposal is the lot split to subdivide the 2.26 -acre tract into 1.3 and .75 acres. With that, 55 feet from centerline is required to be dedicated by warranty deed for Wedington Drive, which is a state highway. Both properties will have access along Colorado and then obviously the front tract could be accessed by Wedington or Colorado; however, with the design proposal that we'll review, access to Wedington is not provided. Water and sewer are available to each of these tracts and will be extended according to the City of Fayetteville regulations to serve the developments. Staff is recommending approval of the lot split with four conditions of approval. Do you want me to go ahead with the large scale? Trumbo: Yes, please. Fulcher: To be constructed on the southern tract, the .75 -acre tract, would be a 2,200 -square -foot Taco Bell restaurant with 24 parking spaces. I think you've seen these elevations and material boards before. It's the same ones we reviewed on the previous approved project. Looking at your site plan you can see, with the Arvest Development to the west of this site, they actually did have a stub -out for connectivity between commercial developments to this tract. They will connect to that and you can see that on the site plan. They will also provide connectivity to the north for future development of that 1.25 -acre tract, and then they've got the single access onto Colorado Drive. Staff is recommending approval of this item with determination of Commercial Design Standards. We are still supportive Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 36 of these drawings that we've seen before. And then the two stub -outs, the connection, and then providing the stub -out to the north. And then Condition of Approval Number 3 refers to the sanitary sewer assessment area, which is determined by the Engineering Division for that cost. All the other conditions are fairly straightforward. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Trumbo: Thank you. Mr. Casey, any comments from engineering? Newman: This is Glenn Newman, staff engineer. I'm assisting Mr. Casey with this. I'm not sure if the applicant is aware -- we discovered yesterday when I was talking with the -- Shannon Jones with the water and sewer engineering department, that on the east side of Colorado Drive there's an existing 8 -inch water main. I know previously that information was not provided and we were unaware and we had asked that you extend an 8 - inch line to the second tract. That is no longer necessary. You can cross or bore the road to Colorado Drive to provide service, and I believe also there's a fire hydrant at the intersection of Colorado and Wedington. So there were some -- the drawings indicate what we had asked for previously; however, after additional information has been provided, the 8 -inch water line extension is not required. In addition, sanitary sewer service will need to extend the 8 -inch main south instead of coming across that where the property or the lot split is indicated at an angle. Other than that, I have no additional comments. Thank you. Trumbo: Thank you. Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. I have three conditions of approval for the large-scale. I need you to add the tree canopy calculation numbers that are found in my report onto the plan. They are all adequate, but I'd just like some additional numbers placed on the plan. Mitigation is going to be required on the site in the amount of six 2 -inch caliper large species trees. They have plans to plant these on site. A three-year maintenance and monitoring bond will be required in the amount of $1,500.00. This shall be deposited with the City of Fayetteville in the form of a letter of credit, bond, or check before the final certificate of occupancy. Those are all my comments. Trumbo: Thank you. We are discussing Lot Split 06-2264 for Taco Bell and Large Scale Development 06-2254 for Taco Bell. Would any member of the public like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I'll close the floor and ask the applicant to introduce himself and tell us about his project, please. Ely: My name is Jonathan Ely. I'm with Crafton, Tull & Associates. I don't really have a whole lot of other comments regarding this. I'll answer any Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 37 questions you've got. The only thing I would like to show you is, the drawings you have, there have been a couple of changes that are going to need to be made to them: One being the southern drive is too narrow for the fire department to get through, so we've increased the size of that drive. The other being the greenspace in the front of the building has been removed by the owner. They don't like to have any greenspace right in front of their building, so they've requested that we replace it with sidewalk, and I've got revised drawings here if you would like to look at those. Trumbo: I guess I want to hear from staff. Were you aware of these changes? Fulcher: Which drive did the fire department have you expand? Ely: The southern drive. We had it as one way. We had it as a 14 -foot. They've requested that it be 20 foot to get their trucks through there. Trumbo: Are we talking about onto Colorado? Ely: No. This drive right here. Trumbo: Oh, okay. Okay. Fulcher: Were you still able to maintain the 15 feet of greenspace there between the right-of-way? Ely: Yeah. Fulcher: Where did that space come out of? Were you all providing more than 15? Ely: Yeah. I think we had more than 15 and we shifted the drive closer to the building there. Fulcher: So you lost some greenspace between the building and the drive? Ely: Yeah. Trumbo: So we're talking about just the greenspace there, not -- Ely: Yeah. Anthes: Where -- but this is shaded like it's concrete right there, but you're saying this all would be concrete? Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 38 Ely: No. In the front portion we had some green spaces here. Anthes: Oh, here? Ely: Yeah. We had some little planters there and I guess they've had problems with irrigation system and mildew on that building frontage and they would rather just leave it sidewalk was their reasoning on that. Trumbo: Are we okay with that? Fulcher: Yeah. The greenspace removal in front of the building, as long as they're maintaining their pervious service area, that's fine. As long as the 15 feet is retained between the right-of-way and the parking area, which it looks like it is, that's fine, also. Trumbo: Okay. Commissioners, would you all like to discuss the lot split first? Motion: Anthes: Okay. I'll move that we approve Lot Split 06-2264 subject to the conditions as stated, but noting that the plat needs to be revised to remove the 8 -inch water line per engineering comments and that the sewer main needs to be -- the 8 -inch sewer main needs to be extended per engineering comments, and that the plat needs to be changed to reflect that. Bryant: Second. Trumbo: Excellent. I'll concur. Now we'll discuss the large-scale development. Commissioners, comments? Anthes: I just have a request in general about the commercial design standard portion of the Taco Bells as they come through. We've seen this elevation before, we've approved it before. I don't really have a problem with the building itself. I'd just like to ask that the submissions follow our requirements that the materials be labeled on the drawings in the future. And also the bell doesn't meet our signage requirements the way it is now, and we keep asking this to be revised so that we can see what the building is really going to look like. Unfortunately, we sort of, as a commission, have stated that we like the bell up there better, but it doesn't meet our sign ordinance, and so if we could see the actual elevation that we know is going to be built instead of the one that we have to keep saying, "Oh," you know, that would really help us. Trumbo: Yeah, that's on the sign. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 39 Motion: Anthes: Other than that, I would be willing to find in favor of commercial design standards and, therefore, I will move that we approve Large Scale Development 06-2254, subject to the conditions as stated and excepting the revised plat with the 20 -foot southern drive -out to meet fire requirements and the reduction of greenspace on the east side of the building by the building entrance. Bryant: Second. Trumbo: Commissioner Bryant seconds. I'll concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 40 R-PZD 06-2213: Planned Zoning District (SUNBRIDGE VILLAS, 290): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. for property located at NW OF SUNBRIDGE DRIVE AND VILLA BLVD., VILLA M/H PARK. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI -FAMILY- 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 20.92 acres. The request is for 129 detached and 40 attached residential dwellings. Trumbo: Our final item today is R-PZD 06-2213, Sunbridge Villas. Is the applicant present? Please have a seat up here. We're ready for you. Come on up. Staff report, please. Garner: Yes, this property consists of an existing trailer park on approximately 21 acres. It's located northwest of Sunbridge Drive and Villa Boulevard. It's zoned RMF -24 and developed with 141 mobile -home lots. Surrounding zoning and land use consists of two-family residential to the north, office and commercial to the south, mixed-use commercial to the east associated with the College Avenue corridor, and multifamily development to the west. The applicant requests rezoning and preliminary plat approval for a residential development in an R-PZD zoning district. The proposal is to remove the existing mobile homes and utilize existing streets and infrastructure to develop 169 dwelling units and a community greenspace area. Table 2 on Page 2 of your report lists the breakdown of the units, and as you can see, there would be 129 single-family detached units, two duplexes, nine quad-plexes, and then a clubhouse with a common area on just under -- the greenspace area would be just under one acre. The overall density on the property is proposed to be approximately eight units per acre. This development would subdivide the property as mentioned and the common parcels would be retained under a common ownership and maintained by a property owners association, along with the streets and sidewalks, which would be private. Access to this property is provided off of Villa Boulevard which goes along the eastern portion of the property and it connects Sunbridge Drive and Drake Street to the south and north respectively. Existing streets through the mobile -home park would be retained in their current grid pattern. Some of these streets have existing 4 -foot sidewalks as shown on the plats and they would be retained with the development, along with some additional sidewalks that would be required to ensure that all the streets have sidewalks on at least one side. We are recommending that the existing street system be overlaid with pavement, a new asphalt layer, with the details and specifications to be determined by our engineering staff at the time of construction. Right-of- way dedication is not necessary because they will be able to utilize the existing street infrastructure. They are proposing 169 dwelling units; however, we don't find that -- there's 28 new units on this property and there's already existing traffic from the 141 existing mobile homes, so we Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 41 don't find that additional offsite traffic and street improvements are necessary based on the fact that traffic is being adequately served in this area. We are recommending forwarding this PZD to the full Planning Commission with some issues and conditions of approval. Condition of Approval Number 1 is determination of the street improvements, and as mentioned, we are recommending an asphalt overlay on streets within the project. Condition Number 2 is tree preservation conditions, and I think Sarah will go over those in a minute. Condition Number 3, drainage improvements are required within the development to meet current requirements of the City of Fayetteville drainage criteria manual. The proposed storm sewer improvements will need to safely convey the 100 - year storm flow through the site and minimum floor elevations will need to be established for each lot adjacent to open channel or swells. Condition Number 5, I wanted to bring up is that driveways will be required to meet the city standard driveway requirements for 10 feet between drives with a minimum 5 feet between the drive and the property line. And there's also a condition on Number 4 that curb -cuts shall be limited to a maximum width of 16 feet. Condition Number 6, there are a number of revisions to the plat and booklet that need to take place before Planning Commission, so if the applicant can just take a look at those and make sure those are addressed before the next submittal. And that covers all I wanted to go over. I would be happy to answer any questions. Trunbo: Thank you. Engineering? Casey: I have nothing further to add. Trumbo: Thank you. Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. There was a computer malfunction, so I have my reports right here. They did not make it into your packet. I feel like I need to clarify just a little bit on this project as to I am in support of the tree preservation plan for this project. They are dropping quite a large amount of canopy, from 27.8 percent down to 6 percent. A certified arborist was hired to do an inventory of the site. Found several significant trees, most of which were found in poor condition. A lot of the tree species on this site are what we would consider less desirable and/or invasive. Also, by ordinance, any canopy that's found within a proposed building footprint has to be counted as removed, although if the applicant takes certain measures during the building process, I do feel that many of these trees will live through the building of the homes. So the number is low, but I do think that it would be quite a bit higher. I do think that mitigation on the site will be to the best advantage for the entire city and for the area. As for conditions of approval, the tree protection fencing is going to be kind of extensive and it Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 42 is kind of odd-looking on the site, following all kinds of different lines, so I'd just ask that the coordination of the installation of that be coordinated with myself, the Urban Forester. Mitigation will be required on the site. The applicant has requested onsite mitigation in the amount of 342 2 -inch caliper large species shade trees. All of these trees can be located onsite, but staff feels that this may compromise the health and overall stability of the trees. I would recommend utilizing the onsite mitigation incentive which allows the Urban Forester to grant a 20 -percent reduction if -- according to the type of trees that are asked for for mitigation and for also the size constraints that we may have. So I would suggest that you utilize the 20 percent. By my calculations, that would decrease the onsite mitigation down to 273 2 -inch caliper large species trees, which is still a very large number to get on this site and still be a great benefit to the area. A three-year maintenance and monitoring bond, letter of credit, or check in the amount of $68,250.00, which is coordinated with that 273 trees, shall be deposited with the city before the last certificate of occupancy in the development or as each lot develops. Trumbo: Thank you, Sarah. Would any member of the public like to speak to this item, R-PZD 06-2213, Sunbridge Villas? This is the public's time to speak. Would anybody like to speak? Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the floor and ask the applicants to introduce themselves and tell us about their project. McDonald: I'm Mike McDonald. With me is Art Scott, our engineer for Hometown, and this is Gene Housley, who is -- Housley: Gene Hensley. I'm a property owner. Trumbo: Thank you. Would you like to tell us about your project? McDonald: Go through it? Staff stated it pretty well. Basically what we're doing is forming a PZD. We've got mostly single-family homes that are going back in here. We do have two duplex lots that we're putting in and then nine four-plexes that we're proposing to go back in there. Largely, we're trying to use the lot structure that's there now. We've -- Gene is the current owner of this property and has done something similar to this before not too far up the street. We think this would be good for the overall area as long as we can do it in the right way. Trumbo: Are you all in agreement with the conditions of approval? McDonald: Yes, sir. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 43 Trumbo: Commissioners? Anthes: Yes, I have a couple of questions. There's a reference to home occupations in the PZD booklet. Can up clarify that? Housley: I didn't understand. Trumbo: The PZD booklet that was given to us, one of the uses would be home occupations. Is that what you're alluding to? Anthes: Yeah. It's probably by conditional use, but I didn't understand the intent. It's on the bottom of Page 10 of the booklet. Garner: The zoning criteria does specify it as allowed as a conditional use in all the planning areas. I'm not sure exactly -- I don't have the booklet in front of me, what you're looking at, but -- Scott: That appears to be someone wanting to do business in the home, and that's not the intent there. That really means just homes, for occupancy. Anthes: But our code would allow that, right, in the RMF -24? Garner: Yes, but as conditional use. Anthes: Okay. So that would be something we would support hearing. Garner: Right. Anthes: Would somebody please clarify this whole issue of trash collection and the Dumpster? Garner: You can see on their plans they are proposing Dumpsters for all of the quad-plexes and they're proposing to have standard residential carts for all the other houses, and I have talked to our solid waste division and that's what they are recommending. And they originally had wanted to have carts for all of the quad-plexes, and on further discussion with our solid waste division, that's not allowed by ordinance as a standard, and so they revised their plans to show Dumpster pads. McDonald: I think that's pretty standard with what Travis has us do on our other properties around town. If there is a duplex he'll allow each side to have their own individual service, but if it gets to be more than a duplex, he asks us to put a Dumpster there. Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 44 Trumbo: Can you show us where they're going to be? Anthes: Where are the Dumpsters on the plan? Are they this little square that's -- Is that what that -- Scott: Yes, that's it. Anthes: So basically the Dumpster sits in the middle of the front yard between the driveways? Scott: It will be screened and will have to have a gate on it. Anthes: Is there any other option? It looks to me like if the Dumpsters could be -- you know, even if they could be collected for both units in an area, you know, that wasn't directly on the front, it sure would be nicer. I wouldn't want my front yard to have a Dumpster in it. McDonald: The four-plexes that we're probably looking at do enter from the front. The lower units you can go out the back door, but the upper unit has to come out the front. Right now there's not a rear entrance, so maybe they could design those with some type of rear -entrance as well so that they could go out back to dump their trash, but otherwise they would have to go all the way around the building, and maybe that would be more feasible. We can sure look at that. Anthes: That would be much appreciated. Also, another question. Does that mean that the quad -units would not be allowed to have recycling containers or would solid waste be amenable to letting them put recycling containers out by their driveways so they could partake in -- McDonald: I've never asked Travis that. I apologize. I don't know the answer to that. Garner: I'm not sure what we typically do on quad-plexes as far as recycling. I don't believe we -- I think it's just a Dumpster pad, and I don't know if anybody else knows any more than I do. Anthes: It sure would be a nice thing to ask. If solid waste would allow it. If they're running the truck through the neighborhood anyway and a resident could take advantage of it, it would seem like it would make sense. McDonald: And we have several four-plexes around town and when we have a Dumpster, you know, unfortunately the biggest problem gets to be with other people using the Dumpster, and if -- I'll ask Travis if there's a Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 45 scenario where he could have a recycling out there. You know, they're pretty particular about what you put in the recycling boxes. If you put the wrong thing in there, they leave them out there and it gets scattered everywhere. Trumbo: We still have the trucks coming through and picking up the recycling? McDonald: Exactly. Anthes: Obviously it reduces your cost for Dumpster emptying, because it can greatly reduce the amount of trash that goes in those. McDonald: If we could get them to use them properly, it would be a benefit, as long as it's not blowing all over the neighborhood. We'll talk to Travis about that. Trumbo: Thank you. Morgan: If you could contact Brian Pugh. Travis is no longer -- McDonald: Oh, is he gone? Morgan: Yeah. McDonald: Well no wonder I can't get anything done. Sorry about that. Casey: If I might add, the locations that are shown at those four-plexes would be very difficult for the trash truck to actually get to as well. So I don't know if they've seen the proposed location of them, but I can't figure out how a truck is going to get in there and turn. McDonald: To be honest, we lost our argument with Solid Waste sort of late in the game there, and so we need to do some homework on the location of those, and we'll do that. If we did revisit that with Brian and Solid Waste agreed to let us use conventional service, would you have any problems with us using conventional service for a four-plex, if Solid Waste didn't have a problem with that? So, okay. We'll try to work that out with Brian. Thank you. Trumbo: Other comments? Motion: Anthes: I'll move that we forward R-PZD 06-2213 for Sunbridge Villas to the full Planning Commission with a finding of a positive recommendation on the Subdivision Committee September 28, 2006 46 street improvements as stated by staff and requesting that the applicant contact Brian Pugh at Solid Waste and resolve the Dumpster trash collection and recycling issue prior to Planning Commission. Bryant: Second. Trumbo: I'll concur. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Housley: Thank you. Trumbo: Good luck on your project. Do we have any announcements? Okay. We're adjourned. Thank you, staff. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.