Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-30 - MinutesMEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Thursday, November 30, 2006, 9:00 a.m. A meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED: OLD BUSINESS: LSP 06-2342: Lot Split (WINKLER, 562): p.3 Forward to Planning Commission PPL 06-2233: Preliminary Plat (HIGHLANDS Tabled AT RUPPLE, 205/206): p.8 R-PZD 06-2281: Planned Zoning District Tabled (HOLCOMB HEIGHTS, 245): p.9 NEW BUSINESS: ADM 05-2383: Administrative Item Tabled (METROPOLITAN NATIONAL BANK): p. l I LSD 06-2300: Large Scale Development Tabled (CENTRAL UNITED METHODIST, 484): p.16 LSP 06-2306: Lot Split (BLAZER, 562): p.25 Approved FPL 06-2261: Final Plat (LAKEWOOD S/D Approved (ZION RD. PZD), 137): p.27 FPL 06-2356: Final Plat (CLABBER CREEK Approved PH. 5, 244): p.30 LSD 06-2279: Large Scale Development Approved (CLINTON RETAIL CENTER, 134): p.34 PPL 06-2302: Preliminary Plat (WEDINGTON Forward to Planning Commission CIRCLE): p.40 Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 2 R-PZD 06-2349: Planned Zoning District (WESTBROOK VILLAGE, 284): p.46 R-PZD 06-2299: Planned Zoning District (RUSKIN HEIGHTS, 370): p.49 MEMBERS PRESENT Candy Clark James Graves Hillary Harris STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Matt Casey Sarah Patterson Glenn Newman Forward to Planning Commission Forward to Planning Commission (recommending Denial) MEMBERS ABSENT Christine Myers Sean Trumbo Alan Ostner Christian Vaught Audy Lack Lois Bryant STAFF ABSENT Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 3 Clark: Before we get started I want to alert everyone in the audience to a change in the Agenda. We are going to move in New Business Number 9 on the Agenda, which is Large Scale Development for Central United Methodist Church to the 5`h Item on the Agenda. And then we'll take it in order from there on. But, before we get to New Business, let's start with Old Business. We're going to start with LSP 06-2342: Lot Split for WINKLER, 562. May I have the Staff Report, please? Garner: This property is located at the northwest corner of School Avenue and 11`h Street. The eastern half of the property is zoned C-2 and the western half is zoned I-1. The northeastern portion of the property contains bus depot and the southeastern portion contains a one-story brick house. The owner proposes a property line adjustment and a Lot Split of the two parcels resulting in three tracts of 0.35, 0.34, 0.32 acres. All tracts would meet zoning requirements if split. We have noted that both structures on the lots are in a front building setback and prior to Building Permits for development on these lots, they would be required to obtain Variances from the Board of Adjustments. This Item was Tabled at the previous meeting because the Applicant was not present. The Applicant is here today. We didn't see any issues with this Lot Split. We have noted from our Engineering Staff that water is available to each of the tracts. Sewer is available to Tract 3 but does not appear to be available to Tracts 1 and 2 off of the public sewer lines and that a sewer line shall be extending to those tracts. That is reflected in Condition of Approval Number 2. One other notes, as well, on the Conditions of Approval, in Condition Number 5, if you could please strike out 5-13, C & D, those have either been addressed or are not needed. So, all of the other Conditions of Approval are pretty straightforward. Let me know if you have any questions. Clark: Thank you. Would anyone from the Public like to comment on Lot Split 06-2342 for Winkler? Seeing none, I'll close the Public Comment section. Is the Applicant present? Come on up. You get to come up here today. Introduce yourself, please and tell us about your project. Winkler: My name is Steve Winkler. Clark: Hi, Steve. We're real friendly in the morning. Winkler: I'm sorry I didn't make it last month. My name is Steve Winkler. I've lived in West Fork for the last two years and then I lived in Fayetteville for thirty prior to that. I've owned this property on the corner for about ten years and the bus depot for about two. There are two different zones there so the zone is ... Tract 1 is in I-1. I wanted to split it off because this doesn't fit in because of the topography with the Tract -3 because there's about a twenty-five or thirty foot difference in elevation and there are Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 4 different zones. The border applies **** is simply, there's no project planned there. It's simply to eliminate a ten -foot wide leg that goes off to the north just to kind of clean up the properties lines. There is nothing going on. It has no value to any property there. It's just to make it more symmetrical and clean it up. That's the only reason that's there. There's no Building Permits planned for any of this. I wanted to be able to sell Tract 1, separate it from the C-2 zones that are down in South School from the industrial zone that's up on the higher property. Most of it is currently being used by the Sale Barn for a parking lot. That's all it is. Clark: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Winkler. Have you read over the Conditions of Approval and do you agree with Staff's findings? Winkler: Yes, I understand that I'll need to have sewer line extended from School Street west up to the property that's Tract 1. That would make it have sewer available to it. Clark: Is that accurate, Andrew? Garner: Madam Chair, yes. Another comment as well. Engineering Staff originally recommended that sewer be extended to Tract 2, as well and I think ... I've talked to the Applicant about it and he ... that's the portion of the property where all they are doing is the property line adjustment. So, he doesn't feel like it's necessary to extend a sewer line to that tract. It's really our Engineering Division's determination on what really needs to be done on that. I will let Engineering staff cover that. Clark: Okay. I was remiss. Engineering, would you like to make a comment? Casey: Good morning. It's our policy that we try to make all non -conforming lots ... bring them into compliance. The tract that we're talking about is non- conforming because it doesn't have access to sewer. So, with this property line adjustment and lot split, we are recommending the sewer be extended to each line. Winkler: May I make a comment? Clark: Sure. Winkler: It does have access to sewer but not to the public sewer. It's on a sewer, of course. Casey: That's what I'm referring to, is access to public sewer. Clark: So, Staff is recommending an access to sewer for Tracts 1 and 2? Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page S Casey: Correct. Clark: To extend it? Winkler: Well then, I'll have to withdraw my ... if they want me to build a sewer line to the bus depot, which has a sewer now, in order to do this little ten - foot lot split, with this ten -foot property line, it's just not feasible. I can just leave the little legs on up there. I mean, why would I ... Clark: This is not my favorite way to start the morning. Do we need to Table this and let you all get back together again and talk about it? Pate: It's entirely up to Engineering. Winkler: Is it possible to provide an easement there from the sewer ... whoever needs to get into that sewer ... coming from the bus depot. Clark: Mr. Casey, what would you like to do? Casey: We typically do not recommend private easements with the private sewers. The sewer crossing of the properties is a violation of both our Ordinance and the Health Department Regulations. So, we would like to go ahead and stick with our original recommendation to provide sewer access to each of the three lots. Clark: Commissioners? Graves: Madam Chair, I ... it sounds like there's a disconnect between Staff and the Applicant and I'm going to Move to Approve it with the Staff's recommendation to extend the sewer line. If the Applicant's telling us that he's then not going to do the lot split ... Winkler: I'll do the lot split but not the property line adjustment. Graves: Okay. Winkler: The lot split's not affected by the bus depot. Graves: Well, one of the Conditions we have on here is that, prior to recording the lot split, the sewer line has to be extended to both tracts, per our Ordinance. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 6 Winkler: If I withdraw my Application for a property line adjustment, we're no longer ... the bus depot is not longer a discussion ... it's no longer involved in here anywhere. I'll just resubmit the whole thing. Graves: Help me out here, Staff. It either needs to be withdrawn or we need to ... or I'm going to move forward with Approving it with the Staff's recommendation in compliance with our Ordinances. Garner: I think we could possibly Table it. It sounds like the Applicant would want these Plats redrawn. I don't know if that's appropriate ... Graves: I'm not going to need to Table it. It's already been Tabled once. And, it's already been on our Agenda twice. So, I'm going to Move to Approve it with the Conditions we've got stated here. There may not be a Second for that Motion but I'm not going to be inclined to support a Table that's already been Tabled once. This could have been hashed out over the last ... the last time it was on the Agenda and since the last time it was on the Agenda. All this could have been hashed out. Harris: Madam Chair? Clark: Yes. Harris: I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Graves on this. I would like to either forward this on with ... in compliance with our Ordinance or if there's some other way that Staff can propose that we can address this today. Pate: My advise would be that we just simply Forward this on to the Full Planning Commission. If it can be worked out before then, we can put this on Consent's and hopefully all of those issues can be addressed at that time. Clark: Okay, what we're going to do is make the Motion that we Forward this in it's current configuration. You have two choices, meet with Staff, you can withdraw if you want to, you can work it out and bring it to the Full Planning Commission. If you work out all your issues, we can probably put it on Consent and won't have to go through this again. If you can't work out your issues, however, I will give you fair warning that statues pretty much requires this sewer line extension. So, they're kind of got their hands tied and it's going to be up to you what to do. But, you can make all those decisions after this fair meeting. Winkler: If Engineering says they need a sewer extension to these two tracts, I understand that there's none that go up to Tract ... upon the hill. There's none there. So, in order to make this a valid split, you'd have to run sewer Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 7 there. But, the other one ... they're meaning to install a new sewer line? Is that what you mean? Like rip up the ground and put in a new sewer line? Casey: Yes, you'd have to put in a new 8 -inch public sewer main that would go to each of these lots. And, that could be just one line that would extend and hit both of those tracts that do not currently have access. Winkler: Thank you. Clark: And, they will meet with you as much as you would like for them to in order to work it out before Planning Commission. Do I have a recommendation? MOTION: Graves: Madam Chair, I'll Move that we Forward LSP 06-2342 to the Full Planning Commission with the stated Conditions of Approval as revised in the Staff Report, striking subparts B, C & D from Condition 5. Clark: Thank you. Ms. Harris, do we have a Second? Harris: I'll Second. Clark: I will concur. Thank you, Mr. Winkler. I hope you can work it out. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 8 Clark: The next Item on the Agenda is PPL 06-2233: Preliminary Plat for HIGHLANDS AT RUPPLE. I am told that this is Tabled due to revisions that were not provided. Is there anyone from the Public who would like to comment on the Highlands at Rupple? Seeing none, we'll move on to the third Item on the Agenda. Pate: Madam Chair, we do need to formally Table this Item. Clark: Oh, yes. MOTION: Graves: Madam Chair, I'll Move that we Table Preliminary Plat 06-2233 for the reasons stated. Clark: Ms. Harris? Harris: Do we need a time on that? Clark: No. Harris: I'll Second. Clark: And, I'll concur. All right. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 9 Clark: The next Item on the Agenda is R-PZD 06-2281: Planned Zoning District for HOLCOMB HEIGHTS. Pate: This particular Item was also Tabled at the last meeting. We are actually asking that this Item to be Tabled at this time, as well. We had a meeting late yesterday afternoon with Engineering to discuss drainage issues. I believe, hopefully by next revision deadline we can have all of the drainage issues worked out with detention. This Applicant is attempting to provide some fixes to some existing drainage problems in that area. So, we are working with him diligently to provide the necessary improvements for this project. It's been presented twice before. Obviously, if there's any Public Comment, we would accept that, as well. But, we are recommending this be Tabled, also. Clark: Okay, anybody from the Public wish to ... does anybody else on Staff have any comments? Great. Anyone from the Public want to comment on R- PZD 06-2281, Holcomb Heights? All right, seeing none, it's been requested to be Tabled. Do I have a Motion? MOTION: Graves: Madam Chair, ordinarily I would say we need to discuss the Items that aren't involved in the detention design and drainage so that that's all hashed out beforehand. But, it looks like previous Subdivision Committees have already recommended in favor of street improvements and waivers. So, for the reasons stated, which is specifically for detention design and drainage calculations, I'll Move that we Table this Item to the next Subdivision Committee. Clark: Ms. Harris? Harris: I will Second. Clark: Do we even have an Applicant here? Pate: I don't believe so. Clark: Okay, the only information I was wanting to know about this, and maybe you can put in the notes for the next Subdivision Committee Meeting, I wanted more information on the units that were going to be provided in Planning Area Number 3. And, in Planning Area Number 4, one of the uses was an eating place? Planning Area Number 4 is the green space. That kind of confused me but we can talk about it later. Do you want these? Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 10 Pate: No, you can hold onto those, if you would, please. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page I1 Clark: All right, next Item on the Agenda is ADM 06-2383: Administrative Item for METROPOLITAN NATIONAL BANK. Then afterwards, we're going to skip down to Number 9, Large Scale Development 06- 2300, a Large Scale Development for Central United Methodist Church. I will be recusing from both Items. Graves: Moving to Item 4, Administrative Item 06-2383, Metropolitan National Bank. May we have the Staff Report on that Item? Fulcher: Yes, sir. This is property located south of Mission Boulevard and west of Crossover Road. The Subdivision Committee Approved a Large Scale Development in April of 2006 for a 5,000 square foot bank and 33 parking spaces. The Applicant's have brought forward this Administrative Item for a Major Modification to the Site Plan. There are 2 parts to this, one being the relocation of the structure approximately 5 feet to the west. That's due to the grading changes proposed with the relocation of the curb cut, which is the true Major Modification to the Site Plan. They're proposing to relocate this 150 -feet to the west. As it was originally Approved, the driveway for this bank would line up directly across Mission from the entrance into the Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market and associated shopping areas in there. Based on information provided by the Applicant and Southwestern Bell Communications, there is an existing trunk line on the south side of Mission that runs parallel to the street to this property and would have to be relocated due to the curb cut into this property. Ultimately, that's due to the change in elevation from when the improvements were done to Mission Boulevard by the Arkansas State Highway Division. They changed the grade between Mission and this property to where it slopes up into this property and that trunk line is in that area and would have to be relocated. Based on a cost estimate provided by SBC, and also agreed to by the Applicant, it is approximately a $300,000 cost to relocate this trunk line. Ultimately, Staff wants more information on this. We want to be sure that there are no other options. We really want to see this curb cut lined up directly across from the Neighborhood Market given the amount of traffic that comes out of there and also the surrounding properties around this bank. There's actually another one to two acres that will be developed in the future, which will increase the amount of traffic more than what the bank will be putting out onto Mission from the south side of the road. So, we are recommending that this Item be Forwarded to the Full Planning Commission and prior to this Item being placed on that Agenda, Within Condition Number 1 we requested some additional information from the Applicant, some construction drawings, plus the cross sections and necessary grading, the depth of the utility Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 12 line, so that we can evaluate other alternatives prior to recommending a relocation of this drive. If you have any questions, please ask. Graves: Thanks. Do we have any Public Comment on this Administrative Item 06-2383, Metropolitan National Bank? Seeing none, I'll close the Public Comment section and ask the Applicant for your report. M. Morgan: Mike Morgan with McClelland Consulting Engineers. The survey that was provided to us did not have this trunk line ... I didn't find ... it was not brought up here in Tech Plat. When they began mobilization, they brought their trailer out to the site. There is a concrete line that you can see ... there's approximately 4 to 6 feet of slope along this grant line that's adjacent to Mission Boulevard. And there is a concrete line, looks like the corner of a box. They asked what that was. SBC came out and said, that's one of our major communication trunk lines. Inside that box, is called a duct -run. There are at least 2 pair of 150 2 -pair copper cables that are telecommunication lines. There are several fiber optic lines and some other communication lines within there. We asked what the feasibility was to either bring this thing down so we could get over the top of it. They want a minimum of 18 -inches of separation between the two. It was basically a joke. It can't happen very quickly and it's very expensive to do. There's a manhole here and a manhole here. And, this whole line would have to be either moved back into the slope or moved down. It currently exists within the AHTD right-of-way. They did not move them when they actually constructed the road because of the extreme amount of cost and coordination involved. We asked them for a preliminary cost estimate and they said it could take up to a million dollars. When they finally broke it down ... we had to actually pay for them to create an official work order to do it. They came up with $299,000 and at least a six-month lead-time actually to have the construction. Metropolitan Bank would much rather have it lined up with the Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market, but the $299,000 and six months is not feasible for this piece of land and for this development. They do understand that this will develop one day into an overall commercial center up here and they did not want to just put a 30 -foot offset up here. They feet that the 150 -foot, Number 1, it clears this manhole. Where it goes deeper, the land slopes back up, which covers up this trunk line. So, we are able to get clearance here. We can provide the investigations that we did do, showing the profiles. We're right inside that duct -run when we bring our driveway down. To miss it, you would have to be over 10%, which is not allowed by AHTD, nor fire service, nor City of Fayetteville's regulations for driveway slope. Because we're able to bring in here, it's higher, we're able to raise the site. So, raising the site, we had more grades here, pushed the building over five Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 13 feet to accommodate that. That will allow us to construct this. It will be a little odd having this drive for the short term. But, once the rest of the development fills out, this will be just an access drive to connect Metropolitan Bank. Metropolitan just will not have direct access to Mission Boulevard off their site -proper. Graves: Do we have anything from Engineering? Casey: No comments. Graves: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: No comments. Graves: Any other comments by Staff? Pate: No, sir. Graves: We'll bring it back to the Commissioners. Harris: Mr. Chair, just so I'm understanding, or Mr. Pate, what we are being asked to decide on right now is sort of provisional in a way? I mean we're just ... because what you're really asking for is that prior to its going to the Full Planning Commission, you actually needed quite a bit more information. Is that correct? Pate: A Major Modification can be Approved at the Subdivision Committee if all three members are present. We knew this Item was going to ... one member was going to have to recuse so this would have to be Forwarded to the Full Planning Commission, regardless. We don't have a recommendation of Approved, however or Denial on this particular Application. In this Forwarding, which is atypical, we would like to see and have Engineering review some cross sections to see if there's even a potential and maybe we can recommend Waivers of our slope, of our driveway as it meets the street or something else, as opposed to moving the actual driveway so that it is not lined up with the one across the street. So, we just want to make sure that we have all the information and can make an informed recommendation to the Full Planning Commission. Graves: I guess I'm curious why we wouldn't just Table it to the next Subdivision Committee to give the opportunity to get that information and possibly get it Approved at the Subdivision level. Pate: That is a possibility, as well. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 14 Graves: I mean, would the Applicant have any problem with that? M Morgan: No. If we could find a solution that would allow us to have that curb cut there, that would be great for Metropolitan. They'd have their access. I think it would be quicker to go to the Planning Commission but I don't have a disagreement with Tabling it until ... unless we were unsure that all three Commissioners cannot not vote at the next Subdivision Committee Meeting. Pate: The one other thing I would add, too, is that if a Waiver would be sought from our own Design Standards. That could not be Approved by the Subdivision Committee so it would have to go Forward to the Full Planning Commission anyway. Graves: I just don't like Forwarding things to the Full Planning Commission when we didn't have a recommendation one way or the other at Subdivision for Approved or Denial. M Morgan: Can we get an Approval to Forward if, in the meantime we satisfy Staffs concerns? Because we have the cross sections. And then once we go before the Planning Commission be on Consent Agenda? Pate: Yes, that is a possibility, as well. Harris: I have to say, I agree with Commissioner Graves on this because in Full Planning Commission we occasionally run across something that really hasn't been **** thoroughly or comprehensively enough at this level and fills the Planning Commission, then winds up doing sort of Committee work on. Unless Commissioner Graves or Mr. Pate, you can really convince me that we need to Forward it on, I would really prefer to Table it. Graves: I would, too. Harris: That would allow Subdivision to do what it needs to do. M Morgan: Is there a risk that we would not be able to have a full vote until the next Subdivision Committee Meeting? Pate: Typically, the Subdivision Committee members rotate out. So, the next Subdivision Committee, theoretically would not be the same three members sitting here. MOTION: Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 15 Harris: I will Move, then to Table Administrative Item 06-2383, Metropolitan National Bank to the next Meeting of the Subdivision Committee. Graves: I'll Second or concur or whatever I'm supposed to do when there's only two of us. M Morgan: Thank you. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 16 Graves: The next Item on the Agenda, as amended is LSD 06-2300: Large Scale Development for CENTRAL UNITED METHODIST. May I have the Staff Report, please? Morgan: This subject property consists of approximately 6 acres and it is located south of Lafayette between Highland Avenue and St. Charles Avenue. The majority of this lot is developed for the Central United Methodist Church. The Applicant Proposes two structures south of Lafayette, one being a 2 -story Youth Ministry Building and the other a total of 5 -stories parking garage with 275 vehicle spaces. This property is located in Main Street Center. It's a fairly recent addition to our Zoning Code and I have listed on Page 2 the Zoning District Requirements. The Applicant's Propose how the Applicant's Proposal meets those requirements or does not meet those requirements. The one Item that does need to be addressed by the Applicant is Minimum Buildable Street Frontage. This is not an Item which the Planning Commission can grant Waiver's on. It's a Board of Adjustment issue because it's Bulk and Area Regulations. We made a Condition in the Proposed Conditions of Approval that the Applicant work to address the buildings that need to meet that requirement and then you won't have to get a Variance. The Applicant will be dedicating a right-of- way on Highland Avenue to meet Code requirements. We are requesting street improvements consisting of modifications to the sidewalks, either repair or replacements. The Applicant has indicated on the Site Plan compliance with our Proposed recommendations for the sidewalks. There have been several meetings between Staff and the Applicant with regard to trees and how the buildings will be positioned on site with regard to preservation of the existing tree canopy. I'm sure the Urban Forester will further describe her recommendation but at this time the recommendation is for Denial, therefore Staff has recommended Tabling this project to explore the viability of other options for development of this site. I will pass out two handouts, which the Applicant has given us with regard to other options that they explored when this issue was presented to them, which they felt either did or did not meet their desire for this site. You are welcome to look at those. We are recommending Tabling but we have listed approximately 20 Conditions of Approval or Items to address. Of those, I've discussed the recommendation to revise the Bulk and Area Proposal. Also, in looking at the parking garage, it appears that the dimensions are not what the Ordinance requires. I'd request that either the Applicant look at modifying those slightly to comply with our Ordinance Regulations or submit a Waiver Request for your review at Full Planning Commission. Also, the Urban Forester has identified in a Landscape Review that a Waiver would be required to allow an 8 -foot sidewalk, with tree wells where the Ordinance states that this must be a 10 -foot sidewalk. That's all I have. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 17 Graves: Thank you. Engineering? Casey: No comments. Graves: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. As Suzanne mentioned, there is a Landscape Report in your packet with a few Revisions and Conditions. The one that is outstanding is the Landscape Waiver. Our Ordinance says that the Urban Tree Well can be used with a 10 -foot sidewalk. I think we've discussed. You're going to use an 8 -foot. We just need to go through that Waiver process. I would typically support something like that. For the tree preservation, first I'd like to note that on the Plans that you're looking at, there is a miscalculation that myself and the Engineer found yesterday. The total site area has decreased a little bit because of the Master Street Plan right- of-way. With that change, the existing tree canopy numbers ... this is all reflected in my report, which is in the Staff Packet ... but the existing tree canopy is around 27% and the existing tree canopy preserve is up to 8.96%. In this area of town, the minimum requirement is 10%. As Suzanne mentioned, we've had lots of meetings, we've met on site. I feel pretty strongly that ... you know there are 21 identified significant trees that are found on the site. There are 4 only of those 21 that are to remain and those are under -story Red Bud species and one Sugar Maple, I believe, that are found over in the already developed part of the campus. There are several Post Oaks. They had an arboress come to the site. Many of the trees are in poor condition but there are several that are found to be fair or in good shape. With this being, in my opinion, one of the last wooded areas in the downtown area, I feel strongly that we can possibly try and get that percent saved up one more percent at least to the percent minimum required in this area. The Applicant has Proposed to ... which I believe it's reflected on your Plan ... to add some additional ... for their mitigation trees, rather than our 2 -inch caliper required trees, they have said that they would put in some 6 -inch and 8 -inch and some of the larger tree species so that we have some more mature trees on the site. This is an option but I am to look at preservation first. In the Packet that Suzanne handed you, they did do several layouts showing what could work and what couldn't work. On Layout 5, there is the potential to save a cluster of Post Oaks between the two buildings. This would require the removal of the gray house that's on the corner of St. Charles and Lafayette. Speaking with engineers and the other Planning Staff, we looked at this. We think that there is potential to maybe utilize the parking deck wall for the retaining wall and maybe save those trees. So, the reason I am Denying it as it is, is because it does not meet the minimum and I think it possibly could. I would like to Table it because I'd like to see ... Layout 5, they just kind of shifted the buildings around ... I'd like to see after we Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 18 worked out grading, the detention pond and things like that. This Plan might not work. I just don't feel like I have enough information to say that it will or it won't. So, I'd just like the opportunity to do that if possible. If you have any questions, please let me know. Graves: Thank you. Is there any Public Comment Large Scale Development 06- 2300, Central United Methodist Church? Please step forward to the podium there. Introduce yourself and make your comments. Corley: Katherine Corley and I have a house directly across the street from this, Lafayette and Forrest. I agree that the trees across from the parking deck are nice. So, I don't want to look at just the parking deck. I'm probably the only one affected because I'm the only one that has a residence right there. I'm also concerned about the entrance being right there on Lafayette, which I think is how the Proposed Plan is. Obviously, I have not seen the other solutions that are in your Packet. I sure would be concerned about losing the house on the corner of Lafayette and St. Charles just because that is neighborhood preservation. I'm just wondering how we can get trees yet still keep that house. I don't know if there's been enough work but that would be a concern, as well. Thank you. Graves: Thank you. Is there any other member of the Public who would like to address this Item? Seeing none, I'll close the Public Comment section and bring it to the Applicant for presentation. Jorgensen: Blake Jorgensen, Jorgensen & Associates for Central United Methodist Church. This project's been a product of years of work, not necessarily the last couple of months but years of planning from the church. They've hired several different design teams to develop this. As this layout **** you can see, there are six different options we tried to explore. When we came through Technical Plat, we revised the original layout. We had a playground located east of the Proposed Student Ministry Building. I think this is reflected on Layout 2. What we've done is modify that option to provide more green space through the suggestions of Patty Irwin, the artist we hired. We felt that, although we are removing trees, our intentions are to Propose a mitigation that's going to have an immediate impact in terms of maturity and also is going to mesh well with the Proposed landscaping we're going to have in combination with the grading that's required for this site. We'll try to go through these layouts as quickly as we can in order to get you up to speed. Layout 1 that you see is what we'd like to Propose. The reason we feel it's better than Layout 2 is because it would provide better green space in between those two buildings. It would also provide a buffer between each street with the landscaping we have Proposed. Layout 3 was another alternative we Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 19 pursued. Basically, we wanted to slide our Student Ministry Building to the east along Highland so we wouldn't have to receive a Waiver on the twenty-five to zero -foot setback line. But, that doesn't allow us to Propose any landscaping right in that area. It did maximize the area for the Proposed playground and the landscaping we intended to put in there. Layout 4 was ... I'm trying to reduce the aisle -widths within the parking deck. By squeezing the parking down, we also had to go up another level, which maximized the 6 -story requirements on building height. This still does not necessarily preserve the trees. The reason we have to put a retaining wall along the parking deck is to allow for open-air ventilation. This is a design that you see very commonly with parking decks. There's a Design Code in terms of fire, that you have to have a certain percent of each level open to air. You can see it when you the U of A, the whole area is open-air. That's why the big cut there with the retaining well. So, even on Layout 5, that's why we had the retaining wall there and that's why we can't utilize the actual parking deck wall as a retaining wall. We have to have a cut provide for that ventilation. Therefore, that's why that retaining wall is there. The **** indicates there's limestone in those areas bearing from 8 -feet, 15 -feet. Their recommendation is, when you make that cut, you'll have to probe laterally ninety degrees. Basically, the goal is to make sure there's no striations in that strata of limestone. So, they're going to have to blast out and over -cut to get to a safety level in which they can backfill to put that retaining wall in. So, even this option, sliding and removing that building, is going to require a significant excavation process. So, those trees aren't guaranteed to live through that process, which may require blasting. We don't feel this is an option that the church wants to pursue because that requires removing the existing faculty members inside that building. They have nowhere else to displace these people so we don't like this option for lots of issues, traffic concerns and we really don't feel that those trees can be preserved through this measure. We understand that Staff hasn't had the chance to really evaluate this with us. We don't have a problem meeting with them and trying to describe why we feel it doesn't work. But, this layout has been analyzed by our architect, the parking deck structural engineer, which is Garver ****. These people couldn't show up due to the weather. They weren't certain they could make it here to expand on this. We have evaluated this option and have concluded that it's not viable because 1, for safety issues on traffic flow. Also, we don't feel that it preserves those trees. Is it a possibility? Yes. But, it is not certain we can preserve those trees through that construction process. Ultimately, the church does not want to lose that house, so we don't like Option 5. Option 6 was just a matter of flipping the buildings. Same issue. There is potential to preserve those trees more so on this one, just because the Proposed Student Ministry Building is located a little further south. The cut won't be as close to a few of those trees but it doesn't preserve all of them. There's no Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 20 guarantee on that. This also requires a Variance and it looks like, no matter which route we take, even Option 5, we have to get a Variance on this 75% building frontage. We know that there's a toss up between **** trees and a Variance. That's something that you have to make judgement call on. We definitely do not like Option 5. In terms of the sidewalk that Sarah and I had talked about, we wanted to go to an 8 -foot sidewalk because we wanted a little landscape strip between the Student Ministry Building and that sidewalk just to plant more trees, which shows up on those renderings we've provided. All-in-all I hope we're ... there's a lot of material here that I'm sure you are getting swamped with. I know it's a lot to throw on you to try to analyse but we've spent a lot of time trying to evaluate the best option. We feel that Layout 1 is our best option at this point. Graves: Thank you. Back to the Commissioners for discussion. I have a question for Staff. Is the main holdup here ... looks like from our Report ... is this Tree Preservation Plan? We're juggling a lot of different layouts here but it looks like the curb cuts and so -forth remain relatively the same. We're flip-flopping buildings but the buildings remain the same size, I think. I know that Staff hasn't had a chance to evaluation all the different layouts, necessarily, but is the main holdup the Tree Preservation Plan? Pate: Yes, I believe so. The primary reason we're recommending Tabling this is that the Subdivision Committee cannot Deny a project at this level anyway. It could be Forwarded on with a recommendation one or the other. What we felt was more appropriate was to look at one of the other options. I believe specifically Number 5 was mentioned. Because that would change detention calculations, it would change the grading plan, we would need to do another Staff Review in terms of engineering and planning for many of those issues if the Site Plan did change. So, we want to be able to again, present you with an informed decision. We don't even know if the detention pond on Layout 5 would work there. So, without that knowledge, we cannot recommend just saying to you, let's Forward it with the recommendation for Number 5 at this point in time. That's why we would recommend this be Tabled. Probably Engineering, the Urban Forester and the Applicants and Engineer get together to see if that layout is feasible in terms of just a practical standpoint. Graves: You know, we try at this level to do the rolling up our sleeves and dig into the different drawings and so forth and then Planning Commission level, although it may feel excruciating sometimes to the Applicant. It actually ... a lot of this type of stuff has already been done. It would be tough for me to justify to my fellow Commissioners that I Forwarded something to them when we're juggling five or six different potential layouts that affect the main thing that Staff is concerned about which is the Tree and Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 21 Landscape Plan. It sounds like, both from Staff's Report and your presentation, that you both agree that there are a number of possibilities out here that need to be evaluated a little bit further. I don't like to hold people's projects up but at the same time, this Subdivision Committee meets again in a couple of weeks. That gives two more weeks for you to get with Tree and Landscape and hopefully you all can settle on one of these layouts. Then this Committee can roll up their sleeves and work on that layout, instead of trying to work on five or six different layouts and give you comments and feedback on a layout that you may not even end up using. Jorgensen: Right. Well, I know you haven't had time to read through each one, but the only option we can consider at this point is Layout 1 and each Layout, 2 through 6 indicates why we can't consider those. It's up to our client, certainly, to decide whether he'd rather move forward with the recommending the Denial or to have more time to consider this. In terms of us, we've evaluated Option 5. Options 2, through 4 and 6, we don't even want to pursue. And Staff, as I understand it, it's either Layout 1 or Layout 5 for us. Those other ones were just included just to say, here's what we've done. We've tried to look at other ways but Layout 5 is not an option for our client for many reasons and also in terms of us. But, we have taken the time to consider the grading, the drainage on it, and it's one of those things ... we didn't present the full extent of it because automatically the client didn't want that. Graves: Well the deal with picking which layout based on Tree Preservation, it's possible, or at least my understanding from the Report from Tree and Landscape that you'll get into Layout 5 and she might agree with you that it turns out it's not feasible. At that point she might agree that it's appropriate to plant larger caliper trees in mitigation. Right now she stated her priority is preservation. But, if it's not feasible to preserve them, then she may agree with you two weeks from now and say, yeah we can forward that now and they're right, that wasn't feasible. Instead I'm going to agree that they should plant 4 and 6 -inch caliper trees instead of 2. The difficulty here is, we've got ... even with two layouts, they are pretty dramatically different. It's hard for us to do the work we do here without knowing which layout working with. And, I know you've got an opinion about which one you want to go with but I think it sounds to me like a little bit more work with Staff might be in line. Two weeks from now you may have Staff s recommendation, which is a good thing to go before Planning Commission with. We can vote on it today, too, if that's what you want us to do. I'm the only one that's talked so far. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 22 Harris: I agree with Commissioner Graves. I think we still ... even if it boils down to two layouts, I think there's still conversation between Staff and Applicant at this point that we would have to have resolved. Jorgensen: We have no problem getting in and working with everyone. We've done for over a year now. This is kind of like the bottom line for us. Not saying we're not going to pursue it more. I have no problems sitting down and going through each evaluation and sitting down and looking at Layout 5 seriously with them. That's fine by me. It's ... it's the timeframe for the client, though. Swam: Commissioners, I'm Brian Swam, the Administrator at Central. Our concerns about Layout 5 are not just about the tree preservation. It has to do with the loss of the building on the corner. We use that heavily for staff offices. To lose that building and displace those staff, we have no place to put those staff. So, it's a logistical issue for us, as well. It was also brought up by one of the speakers earlier that it's also an issue of neighborhood preservation. We would like to keep that house for now as a buffer in the area. We believe that that's a favorable thing for the area and for this project to keep that house in place right now. So, there are issues besides the tree preservation at play here in Layout 5 that I think need to be considered. I just want to make sure that you understand that we have considered other angles on this, as well. The issue of us losing it for staff offices is a critical one because we have about twelve staff members in there now. I have no place to put them if we lose that house. It would be a real logistical challenge for our church to continue functioning if we were to lose that particular building right now. Jorgensen: I think that we need to at least take the time to sit down with Staff and I guess get into it a little further, at least the grading and drainage. Without presenting a more logical, as opposed to a verbal conversation with them, I think that we need to take the time to sit down with them. It won't hurt us to have a few weeks to explain Option 5 a little more. That's not to say that they are going to agree with why it doesn't work. But I think that we can sit down and at least explain why we feel it doesn't work a little better. Graves: I understand. And, again, if you want us to move forward today, we can. If Layout 1 is it, and that's the only one that's feasible, then we can certainly ... Swam: We just don't see that Layout 5 can work is the issue. And, we can explore it with Staff but I understand the Urban Forester can only consider tree issues on this, but there are other issues I've indicated that are at play and I'm not sure how that factors into the process and the decisions of the Staff. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 23 Jorgensen: I just think we need to take time to sit down and explain Option 5 a little further. Because they've only seen this for only a few weeks, a week at all. And, I think that we need to explore it with them a little further. That's not to say that we want to take that option but it's a matter of them knowing why it doesn't work for us. Because you can look at it and go, yeah, it might work. But until you actually get the numbers behind it ... they're just looking for a little more sound judgement call ... and saying we have Option 1 and 5. We'll take the time to explore it further. Harris: I think that that is a really good idea because, while as you're even speaking, I'm very sensitive to losing the space and the impact that it has on your operation. I'm also sensitive to the neighbors speaking about losing that house, for all of us. But, I'm also really reminded of the conversations during the Divinity Project because the Century United Methodist Church functions so iconically in that conversation, not wanting to lose certain view sheds of that church and so forth. I mean it really functions in a very important way for downtown. So, I think it's important for us to go ahead and have this conversation, for you guys to finish out the conversation between you and Staff and then let us do our work at a different time. Jorgensen: It's a lot to throw on you guys with a little time. Graves: I guess I would ask if there's any more Staff comment after hearing the dialog today? There may not be. Pate: In terns of the other issues, I don't think there is anything else that's really outstanding for this project. I would say that your initial comments were right on point, that it may come to a meeting with Urban Forester and Engineer and determining that that Option is simply not feasible from a practical standpoint. There may be a recommendation for Approval, but at it stands today, with what information we have, if you were to Forward this, at least our recommendation from Staff, it would be for Denial for this Large Scale Development. You may have a different recommendation based on the Site Plan you see in front of you right now and taking all of our other Ordinances into consideration. But, our recommendation would have to be for Denial today. Graves: As far as from the Planning Commission, Jeremy just explained the Staff's position and it's primarily based on the Tree Preservation issue, which, as we said, it could very well dramatically change based on supportive information. Jorgensen: Sure. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 24 Graves: From my standpoint as a Planning Commissioner, as far as going through these Conditions, I would certainly be in favor of the Waiver Request for the 8 -foot sidewalk. As far as the layout where the curb cuts are located, and so forth, those don't concern me, either. As far as the project, I think it's a good project and having the parking deck will obviously help the church and downtown. So, I think all we're hung up on here ... Jorgensen: Sure. Graves: ... sounds like is just either satisfying the preservation requirements from the Tree and Landscape perspective, or satisfying Tree and Landscape that that's not really possible and moving on from there. Jorgensen: Sounds good. Harris: I agree. So, is the Applicant amenable then to Tabling this? Swam: Yes, we are. MOTION: Harris: Then I will Move to Table Large Scale Development 06-2300, Central United Methodist Church until the next meeting of the Subdivision Committee. Swam: Thank you. Graves: I'll agree ... Second ... concur. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 25 Clark: Our next Item on the Agenda is LSP 06-2306: Lot Split for BLAZER. May I have the Staff Report, please? Garner: Yes, Ma'am. Before I get started on this, we got a call from Mrs. Blazer just before we came up here. She wasn't sure her surveyor was going to be able to make it. Oh, he's here. Okay. I'll go ahead and get started. This property is located at 705/715 South Church Street at the intersection of 7`h Street. The homes on the property were built in the 1950's, prior to current zoning regulations. It was originally platted as two 50 -foot lots that were combined as one lot over the development life of the property. It contains approximately 0.34 acres and is Zoned RMF -24. To the north of this property is Wiggins Methodist Church. To the south, east and west, single-family residences. On November 6 the Board of Adjustment Approved Variances to allow for a reduced lot width of 50 -feet at 715 South Church and a reduced front setback of 7 -feet at 705 South Church, bringing the existing non -conforming structure into compliance and to allow for this Proposed Lot Split. They do Propose to split this parcel into two equal lots of 0.17 acres each. Staff does recommend Approval of this Lot Split and Conditions of Approval are relatively straightforward. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Engineering? Casey: No comments. Clark: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: No comments. Clark: Thank you. Would anyone in the Public like to comment on Lot Split 06- 2306, Blazer? Seeing none, please introduce yourself, sir and tell us about your project. Buescher: My name is Gene Buescher with Survey One. As Judith Blazer requested, we Proposed this Lot Split as mentioned previously. We feel that it's compatible with surrounding properties. Therefore, I ask for Approval. Clark: Thank you, sir. Commissioners? Harris: Madam Chair, this seems fairly straightforward to me. Does Mr. Graves have anything else he would like to say? Graves: No. Harris: I would then ... we can Approve this, right? At this level? Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 26 Clark: Yes. MOTION: Harris: I'd like to Approve Lot Split 06-2306. Graves: I'll Second. Clark: I will concur. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 27 Clark: Our next Item on the Agenda is FPL 06-2261: Final Plat for LAKEWOOD S/D, ZION RD. PZD. Garner: This property contains just under 14 acres. It is located west of Crossover Road. It is immediately northwest of the intersection of Randall Place and Zion Road. On September 20, 2005, the City Council Approved R-PZD 05-1599, which was Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for Zion Gardens with 95 residential lots, included 76 single-family detached and 19 attached or detached Town Homes. Two lots were included for easement, open space and tree preservation. The Applicant now requests Approval for the Final Plat for the Zion Gardens PZD, which they're now calling Lakewood Subdivision. It is consistent with the Approved PZD. The City's Inspection for this Final Plat has occurred. Water and sewer have been extended. Right-of-way being dedicated with this Final Plat is 35 -feet from centerline along Zion Road, 25 -feet from centerline from Randall Place, in addition to the various rights-of-way for the internal streets. We have a couple of Conditions of Approval. We are recommending this to be Approved at this level. Condition Number 1 is the private drive in front of Lots 57 through 65 will be within an access easement. Additionally, signage indicated to be one-way from west to east shall be installed prior to filing the Final Plat. There are some Conditions regarding tree preservation. One of the Conditions of the PZD is Condition Number 3 that construction of homes on Lot 66 through 76 shall require pier and beam foundation system. We are to count trees preserved in this area as Preserved. Building Permits for these lots will require details for alternative foundations. Those are the main issues I wanted to bring up. Please let me know if you have any questions. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Gardner. Mr. Casey, Engineering? Casey: No comment. Clark: Sarah, Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. Based on the current calculations, the developer is responsible for 137 2 -inch caliper large species trees that will be planted on the site. As mentioned earlier, the homes on Lots 66 through 76 are going to be built with a pier and beam foundation system, which has been noted on their Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 28 Final Plat. A bond, letter of credit or check in the amount of $34,250 shall be deposited with the City before the signature of Final Plat. The amount is held for three years to insure the health of the 137 trees. Clark: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Would anyone in the Public like to comment on Final Plat 06-2261, Lakewood Subdivision? Seeing none, please introduce yourself, gentlemen and tell us about your project. Hennelly: Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering. Lamberth: Mike Lamberth. Hennelly: We don't have any problems with the Conditions of Approval, just some clarification on Condition Number 1. That private drive is not scheduled to be constructed until the homes ... those are some of the first homes that are going to be constructed. We can install the signage but just want to make sure that that drive doesn't have to be constructed prior to the filing of the Plat. Garner: I don't remember if that was a Condition or not in the PZD. We'll look back at that and see there were any Conditions regarding that. Hennelly: Okay. But we can certainly put the signage up for it, as is indicated in the Condition. Pate: I think the only Staff concern from that perspective is that if it is going to be constructed lot by lot, we certainly would not support that. It needs to be all constructed at one time and not for each lot. Hennelly: Right. The drive will be constructed all at once and ... how many of those homes are going to be constructed at one time? Lamberth: Three. Hennelly: There will be three of them started immediately but that entire drive will be constructed as soon as the Building Permits are granted. Pate: Madam Chair? Clark: Yes, sir. Pate: If we could add to that Condition Number 1, the private drive in front of those lots shall be constructed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on any single home on Lots 57 through 65. I think that would suffice. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 29 Clark: Okay. Anything else? Hennelly: No, Ma'am. Clark: We'll bring it back to Commission. Commissioners? I think I was on the first subdivision that saw this PZD to begin with. It's very nice to see it coming through. I still thank you for making the concessions on the streets, the alleys and one-way streets in particular. Graves: Madam Chair? Clark: Mr. Graves? MOTION: Graves: I'll Move to Approve Final Plat 06-2261, Lakewood Subdivision with stated Conditions of Approval, including Condition 1 as amended. Harris: I'll Second. Clark: And, I'll concur. Thank you, gentlemen. Hennelly: Thank you. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 30 Clark: The next Item on the Agenda is FPL 06-2356: Final Plat for CLABBER CREEK PHASE V. Gee, it seems like 500. Okay. Morgan: This subject property is located west of Rupple Road. It is the 5`h and final phase of Preliminary Plat that have been Approved for Clabber Creek. It contains 60 single-family lots and the Applicant requests Approval for the Final Plat. We are recommending Approval at this Committee with 12 Conditions of Approval. There are several revisions that need to be made and we'll work with the Applicant to get that done before filing. Clark: Thank you. Engineering? Casey: Yes, there is one comment I'd like to address. On the west side of the property, it's currently labeled a 25 -foot Ozark easement and building setback. That also needs to be a drainage easement. The Applicant has constructed a drainage ditch along that property boundary draining public water and we need that to be added to the Plat. Clark: Thank you. Does that need to be added to Number 9? Morgan: I believe that that is in an attached ... Clark: Is it in this? Hennelly: It should be in there. Morgan: It's the last Item on Number 9. Clark: Okay. Anything else? Casey: That is all. Clark: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. Army Corp of Engineers required wetland tree and shrub plantings on dedicated City parkland and planting of shrubs and trees as required with that Permit along Clabber Creek. These shall be completed and inspected prior to recordation of the Final Plat for Phase V. Mitigation trees located within the boulevard section of Rupple Road shall be planted by April 1, 2007. The trees species shall be coordinated with the Urban Forester, as they are part of a plan for the entire Rupple Road. Clabber Creek came through as Phase III, IV and V, originally altogether. What we have done for tree mitigation, as each one finalizes, they have put together an on-site planting plan. The understanding was that at the end of Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 31 this last phase, any tree that couldn't be located on site would be paid as money in lieu. That has occurred. For Phase V, they will be planting 115 2 -inch caliper large species trees that will be planted in the street right-of- way and interior of the lots. This is going to require a three-year maintenance bond for those 115 trees in the amount of $28,750. That leaves the remainder, equivalent to about 97 trees, which is equivalent to $23,250, which needs to be paid as money in lieu into the Tree Escrow Account. That money will be used to plant trees within a one -mile radius of this development. That's it. Clark: Thank you very much. Would anyone in the Public like to comment on Final Plat 06-2356, Clabber Creek Phase V? Could we hear from the Applicant? Okay, introduce yourself again, please. Hennelly: Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering. The only questions I would have, I'm wondering if there would be an option to either post a letter of credit or bond for the items required in Condition Number 1, similar to the mitigation trees? The deadline date that was put in Condition Number 2, rather than requiring all that to be planted prior to the Recording of the Plat? And then, the other question I had was on Condition Number 4. It was my understanding that the parks boundary signs were already installed or they were when we started the survey. I didn't know if those were ... if some of them had been knocked out and that's what caused this Condition or if there are additional ones that are being required? Morgan: No, if you've got them up, the ones that were originally required, that's ... Hennelly: I think they were put up. Morgan: ... I just ... comment Hennelly: Okay. Okay, but there's not any additional ones that we're talking about? Clark: Ms. Patterson, what about the request for the money issue? Patterson: To ... Clark: Or Ms. Morgan? Patterson: Oh, I was just trying to rephrase the question. Clark: Can we do what he wants to do or, no? Hennelly: The letter of credit. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 32 Morgan: The letter of credit for Number 1, for Condition Number 1, for those trees to be installed and then install them by April 1, 2007. Hennelly: Yeah, just simply to not hold up the recording of it until this can ... particularly with the weather being the way it is and that type thing. It may take awhile to get all those planted. Patterson: The boulevard trees we gave until April because of the planting ... during the planting season. Hennelly: Right, I'm just talking about the ones required by the Corp in Condition Number 1, being able to either post a letter of credit for that. And then also, putting a deadline like April I on the plantings and allowing the Plat to be recorded before they actually get planted to guarantee that they will be. Patterson: You don't think that they would be able to be planted before the recordation? Hennelly: It's not that I don't think they will. I just don't know that they will. Patterson: Okay, I talked to the landscaper earlier ... a week and '/2 ago and that's what gave me the impression it would. I sent that comment ... Hennelly: We intend on doing that, not stringing it out. I'd just rather not have that for whatever reason, be something to hold up the recording of it and the sale of the lots. Patterson: I don't know. Jeremy is that something we can take a bond on? That's a Corp Permit, I guess, really. Pate: Typically, the only thing that ... by Ordinance, the only thing we can take a bond for incomplete improvements and requirements is final layer asphalt and sidewalks, unless a Waiver is granted of that Ordinance by the Full Planning Commission. So, that would require this to go to the Full Planning Commission if a Waiver or Bonding Ordinance were required. Clark: Could the Applicant bring the Waiver to Planning Commission if it becomes clear they're not going to have those plantings done? Or do they have to bring it all in total? Pate: Yes, if it were Approved at this date and we found out prior to the revisions for Planning Commission, basically what they'd be doing is Appealing the Conditions of Approval from the Subdivision Committee to the Full Planning Commission, which we have done before. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 33 Hannelly: That would be fine. So, we'd be gaining Approval of the Plat today, with this Condition Number 1 as it reads and if we found out that we couldn't do that, then we would bring an Appeal of that Condition to the Full Planning Commission. Clark: And, we'd have it in the record that we are aware of that, and if that could happen, we don't Oppose it. Hannelly: That would be fine. Clark: Okay, if that will work, it will get it done here. Comments? Concerns? Anything else, Mr. Hannelly? Hannelly: No, Ma'am. MOTION: Graves: Madam Chair, I Move for Approval of Final Plat 06-2356, with the stated Conditions of Approval. Harris: I'll Second. Clark: And, I will Approve and let the record show that we know this Applicant may Appeal. Thank you. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 34 Clark: Our next Item is LSD 06-2279: Large Scale Development for CLINTON RETAIL CENTER. Morgan: This property is located north of the Party City development located on Steele Boulevard north of Joyce Boulevard. The Applicant Proposes to develop a portion of the lot at this time, clarifying that the additional property may be subdivided at a later date but will certainly be developed at a later date. The Proposal is for a retail building approximately 1,800 square feet with associated parking. Staff has evaluated this property and Proposal in terms of Commercial Design Standards and Staff finds that the Proposed elevations are in general compliance with the requirements of Chapter 166.14. We find that the northeastern elevation that will be visible from the right-of-way, however, would require some modification. We Propose that the colors and the **** view Proposed on that building be modified slightly to match the design of the elements of the northern portion of the structure. In looking back at the Minutes for the project to the south, there was concern expressed with regard to the northern elevation of that building that it would be visible from the right-of-way and the Commissioners had addressed that they just wanted some additional articulation. We feel that CMU is appropriate building material for that northern elevation but the portion that can be visible from the right-of-way, perhaps using different colors and articulation. Staff will be amenable to evaluating that prior to Building Permit. This Subdivision Committee finds that if that is required or necessary. Clark: Suzanne, are you calling Elevation B the northern elevation? Morgan: Yes, I am. And, really looking at the Site Plan, only a portion of only one, I guess the easternmost side of Elevation B would be visible from the right-of-way. We have also put a Condition in here for Planning Commission Determination of Appropriate Screening. The Staff is recommending a more substantial screening of the north. The Applicant has indicated shrub planting along there. Those shrubs will probably only reach a height that will not screen the building substantially. So therefore, we request the addition of Evergreen Trees that will, within two years, sufficiently screen the property from the adjacent residential property. Condition Number 3 is Planning Commission's Determination of Appropriate Access. Staff recommends Approval of the Proposed driveway being centered on the lot at approximately 80 -feet south of the new curb cut to the east to Steele Boulevard to be within the Shogun development. The sight distance from this curb cut is adequate and the utilization of only one curb cut instead of two will reduce the potential traffic conflicts. There is an Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 35 aerial photograph in your Staff Report, which you can view and see the development of curb cuts along Steele Boulevard. There is just one existing and now one with Shogun **** Proposed. So, we feel that with those three curb cuts to this property, it will not create a dangerous situation. We've included a Condition that was required with the Final Plat of CMN Business Park with regard to **** Permit from the Corp of Engineers. With that, we are recommending Approval of this Large Scale Development of this subdivision. Clark: Thank you, Suzanne. Engineering? Casey: No comment. Clark: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. A Tree Preservation Waiver form was submitted and signed. Clark: Okay. Anyone in the Public like to comment on this Large Scale Development 06-2279, Clinton Retail Center? Jones: Yes. Clark: Please come to the podium and introduce yourself and make your comments. Jones: Good morning. My name is Phillip Jones. I am the broker selling the Reserve Steele Crossing, the property immediately north of it. I also live there. I have three areas of concern. The first is the noise of this. The back of this building is going to be approximately 30 -feet from my bedroom window. I don't know if there is any type of shielding that can handle that, but I doubt it. The secondary concern is the noise. As I understand it, one of the Proposed tenants for this is a dry-cleaner and I think that would create some very obnoxious fumes coming off of it. The third area is the drainage. A good part of this lot is going to be covered up with asphalt or building and will be dropping directly onto our property. Whenever I originally became aware of this project, was when the engineer visited our property and was wanting a right-of-way for storm drainage. Apparently, they've decided they don't need to do that now. It was my understanding that the originally thought they had to have some storm drainage before this could be built. Thank you. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Would anyone else like to comment on Large Scale Development 06-2279, Clinton Retail. Seeing none, I'll bring it back. Please introduce yourself, please Mr. Morgan and see if you can address those issues as you go through. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 36 M Morgan: You bet. My name is Mike Morgan with McClelland Consulting Engineers. We have had a chance to read Staff's comments. We agree with Staff's comments. Will have ... Mr. Kemp view it ... speak with Staff prior to being issued a Building Permit to make sure that the eastern side of Elevation B is taken care of satisfactorily. We also can include additional screen. I think to address Mr. Jones' comments, the first one with noise, the additional screening would help the visual barrier and it should help ... I don't know how much noise would be generated from this development. It would probably be minimal but that additional screening will go a long ways to at least visually block, if not block the auditory emissions from this building. We have included the 12 -foot landscape buffer that is required. There's a 13 -foot drive aisle back there, so the building itself is 25 feet away from our property line, which is another 25/30 feet away from the edge of the closest building on the north side of this property. It is an allowed use within the current C-2 Zoning, so I don't think there's going to be a problem with that. We do want to be good neighbors so as this does develop out, we would like to address any concerns that Mr. Jones or any other resident may have. As far as fumes from the dry cleaner, I believe they go through a permitting process and had emission standards that will be met prior to operation. Grading and drainage, Mr. Brian Shaw is speaking with the owners of Bristol, now it's called The Reserve. We are coordinating that with Staff to utilize and to meet the Final Plat requirements of CMN Phase 1 that do not require detention for this property. However, because of the existing condition that is Bristol, The Reserve, we're having to route our water in a different way. We'd like to **** flow everything to the south and west, collect it into a series of storm pipes and directly release it along the southwest corner of this vicinity. We would and have employed Ryan Mountain with Egess as our Environmental Specialist to make sure that the spirit and intent of to perform for Permit is met here, as for all of the other developments in CMN Business Park. We appreciate Staff recognizing the single entrance into the site off of Steele Boulevard. That is the correct location for Shogun's proposed curb cut. **** 80 -foot separation between the two. And this would act as the only entrance into the site. We can turn in some additional information regarding the grade changes between our site and Party City's site to insure there's no possibility for cross access to the south. We can certainly provide that grade change and specifically address that issue. I am available to answer any additional questions you may have. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Morgan. Commissioners? Well, let me deal with Mr. Jones' questions first. We're going to have buffering. You've agreed to put in the Evergreens, the taller buffers that we're asking for? Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 37 M. Morgan: Yes. Clark: What about fencing? Is that a possibility along this back side? Morgan: It's certainly an option, if you'd like to recommend it. We felt that screening with just vegetation at this time would be appropriate. M. Morgan: We'll talk about it. Clark: But, there is an ... there will be an Evergreen screen along the whole back of the building. In terms of the tenants, I'm not sure this Board can do anything about that, but I know that dry cleaners have to go through their own approval process. And, drainage, what I understood you to say, Mr. Morgan, is that you are going to try to drain away from the apartments and go towards the south? M. Morgan: That's correct. Clark: Okay. M. Morgan: There will be no increase of water flowing ... this land generally, there's a high point approximately in this location and it generally flows this way now. There will be some drainage but it will not be increased from what they're already receiving from this ... Clark: I will point out that Statute says that drainage in a development can be no worse ... cannot be made worse by the development. So, that's something that Engineering will monitor as they go through the process. Mr. Casey, would you like to comment on any of the drainage issues? Casey: Mr. Newman can answer that better than I can. Clark: Mr. Newman? Newman: We had Tabled this a month ago because of the drainage issues that were required. Initially it was a direct runoff from the CMN Business Park. The Applicant has reviewed and is, as he stated, requiring right-of-way for a direct discharge. And, in the concern of the neighbor, he is actually going to be capturing, with curb and gutter, all of the water except that buffer area that he was describing, the 10 -feet on the north side of the property. So, it should actually be decreasing that area of runoff to that property. I'd be happy to answer any additional questions you have. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Newman. Planning Commissioners? Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 38 Graves: Madam Chair, I would just also point out for purpose of the surrounding residents that just the fact that there is a Noise Ordinance in the City. There's also **** Law and if there was a problem with noxious fumes or something of that nature, with a tenant, then obviously the tenant would have other actions beyond the Planning Commission. As far as a Large Scale Development, the Planning Commission is somewhat limited. This is an allowed -use in the zone that this property is currently zoned. They're not asking for any Waivers to build the building any closer to the property line or anything of that nature. So, they're complying with the City's Ordinances as far as the way the building is being Proposed and the zoning of the property. Clark: Yes, nice to have an attorney on the Planning Commission. I forget about the Noise Ordinance, but if it's an issue, there you go. Any other comments or concerns? Graves: I would agree with Staff's comments on the Commercial Design Standards. If we're going down through the findings we would make, I would agree with those comments. I would think that the Evergreen screening is appropriate. If I were a neighbor, I would rather see trees than a long fence. I also agree with the Proposed access to the site. Clark: Ms. Harris? Harris: I don't believe I have any other comments, other than what Commissioner Graves just said. I would agree with all that he agreed with. Clark: There you go. Pate: Madam Chair? Clark: Mr. Pate? Pate: Just for clarification, sounds like this may be Approved at this level, what we'd be expecting from the architect are revisions prior to Building Permit for that, basically the one plain. It's pointed to in the diagram, Elevation B the one plain facing the northeast. That's really all that we were discussing. While the material may be appropriate, what we'd probably be looking for is maybe some different colors to match the front side of the building, different colors of CMU and potentially bringing those column features around adjacent to those shop doors that are around each one. So, that's really what we'd be looking for. Maybe utilizing the same material, just different colors of application. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 39 Clark: I think Staff makes a good point. That is going to be visible from a thoroughfare. Graves: Madam Chair? Clark: Mr. Graves: Graves: I Move for Approval of Large Scale Development 06-2279, with the stated Conditions of Approval, including a finding on Number 1 in accordance with the recommendations as was further clarified by Mr. Pate. A finding in favor of the Proposed screening on Number 2 and a finding in favor of Proposed access on Number 3. Clark: Do I have a Second? Harris: I'll Second. Clark: And, I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 40 Clark: The next Item on the Agenda is for PPL 06-2302: Preliminary Plat for WEDINGTON CIRCLE PZD. That would be Ms. Morgan. Morgan: Yes. This property is located north of Wedington Drive, just behind The Harps that is located on Garland. It was Approved in February of 2006 as a Master Development Plan by City Council. With that Approval for Zoning Regulations and such, the Applicant has now come forth with a Proposed Preliminary Plat just to subdivide this property into 8 lots, 2 of which will be Tree Preservation lots and 6, which will be buildable lots. The ultimate build out of this development will have mixed-use, primarily residential with a maximum 6 -story building on each of these lots. With review of this Proposal, Staff is recommending that the interior driveway be constructed as a private drive, though in accordance with City regulations for standards for parallel parking, width and such. When this was reviewed as a Master Development Plan, we hadn't evaluated the street and there were recommendations or Conditions that were made that was up to the Planning Commission to determine at the time of development whether it would be public or private. With Staff s review of this Proposed driveway, with the Waivers that it would take to Approve it, there's a street jog that is less than 150 -feet coming off of Wedington and with the radius around the interior circular drive, we are recommending that this be a private drive. With regard to street improvements, Staff is recommending the closing of Mount Comfort Road between Garland Avenue and North Street, as well as the installation of at least one traffic - calming measure on James Street. As the properties further develop, we will be reviewing Large Scale Developments and recommending further traffic -calming measures at that time. I have handouts here that show exactly where those street improvements are requested. Sorry, to jump back to recommending that the street be a private street, that will require a Waiver Ordinance which requires that any street connecting one or more public streets shall be constructed to existing street standards and dedicated as a public street. So, it will require a Waiver. Clark: Is that it? Morgan: I think that's it. I'm looking through the Conditions. I think that's pretty much it. Clark: Engineering? Casey: No additional comments. Clark: Tree and Landscape? Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 41 Patterson: Yes. Staff Approved the Master Development Plan for this site with the Condition that the Applicant would preserve 18.4% of the canopy and mitigate up to the required 25%, which is an additional 81 trees. The Applicant said that they would add and additional amount of trees to screen the property on Wedington, which equaled to about 65 trees. This is the Approval that I'm looking for. The project is a non-residential subdivision. The Applicant has chosen to utilize the tree preservation for entire subdivision option, which would require that the Tree Preservation Requirements are taken care of at the Final Plat for this structure only. The laws established by this Preliminary Plat, when they come back through the City's planning process, would not have to follow any tree preservation as defined in Chapter 167, they would be exempt from those requirements. I do have concerns. There is a tree cluster, I guess, along the eastern property line that is behind Harps. That is a portion of the canopy that was originally included in that 18.4% of preserved canopy. It's now being showed to be within a quite a large utility easement. Ordinance won't allow us to count this as preserved, so we need to find that amount of canopy somewhere else on the site so that we still have the 18.4% preserved canopy, potentially to the west where you have a tree preservation lot. Maybe we can add some additional canopy in there somewhere. We just need to find that canopy. On the Tree Preservation Mitigation Plan that was Approved by City Council for the Master Development Plan, the 65 trees that I mentioned earlier for the screening along Wedington, were found in the State Highway's right-of-way. Since those are out of the disturbed area for this project, Staff would like to see those planted before Final Plat. Again, this will take permission from the State Highway Department since it is not a city street. I would ask that you would revise the Tree Preservation and Mitigation Plan to state how many of the mitigation trees will be able to be planted before Final Plat so that we know how many will have to be put upon these separate lots. There is some confusion about the mitigation note you have on there. If you would just look at those on the separate individual lots? The Applicant will be required 81, 2 -inch caliper large species mitigation trees at the time of Final Plat. A Tree Mitigation Planting Plan is going to be required to be filed with this Final Plat depicting the general location and showing and timing and how the remaining trees will get on the site. Lastly, the 18.4 preserved canopy number needs to be placed within a Tree Preservation area on the Final Plat. This will distinguish physical bounds and insure the preservation through future development. If you have questions, let me know. I think, Tom, you and I just need to sit down and figure out ... this is kind of an interesting project ... how we can have it all lined out. For landscaping comments, they're pretty minimal. The landscaping requirements will be looked at when each of these lots come back through our planning process. They are planning on planting trees Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 42 down that main drive, whether it be public or private. So, that will meet our standards. Clark: Ms. Patterson, all of your comments are covered in your Conditions of Approval, correct? One through eight in our packet? Patterson: Yes. Clark: Okay, I would just note for the record that these are to be dealt with before this comes to Planning Commission because they're not in the called out Conditions of Approval. But they are ... you need to look at them before they come to Planning. Anybody else? Mr. Pate? Would anyone in the Public like to comment on Preliminary Plat 06-2302, Wedington Circle PZD? Please introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Jeffcoat: Yes, Tom Jeffcoat with Milholland Company. I have Blue with me, also a Project Engineer on this project. We've gone through a very lengthy process of getting to this point through the Master Development Plan process and it is a very difficult site the handle. We have resolved many of the drainage issues with Engineering. The road configuration, being a private road, this ... we realize that the additional roads that would come in future developments **** off here would likely be private street. I'm not sure that our client would object to this being a private street so I think that's a fairly acceptable Condition of Approval. We have met with the utility companies and outlined some of the problems and have worked with them very diligently during the installation of this particular infrastructure part so that, as the future developments come through, those are less difficult to work with. Sarah had mentioned the cluster of trees on the east property line. I'm not sure that she's seen the latest Plat. We moved the utility easement so that that particular cluster of trees would be avoided from a utility easement. But, as these individual lot developments come forward, it is very likely that the footprint of buildings may change and that easement can be even moved further away from trees. We'll work with each of those developments as they come through to try and insure that that particular cluster of trees, and other clusters of trees are protected. One of the things that we have done at this point is that while there's only 18.4% Approved in the Master Street Plan and that what we're required to do, at this particular infrastructure point we have managed to limit the grading for the infrastructure as much as possible and in the interim between now and final development, I think we're preserving something like 34% of the tree canopy on site. Of course, that will continue to be reduced as each lot comes through for development. But our client understands and we will work also that as the footprint of buildings are finalized and things, if additional tree canopy can be saved, we hope to increase that 18.4% even more. So, we will work toward that Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 43 end. We appreciate your consideration and we look forward to your Approval and the Approval of the Full Planning Commission. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Jeffcoat. Now, the first Condition of Approval is for offsite and we're talking way offsite street improvements. Staff is asking that you all go all the way down to North Street and close off one of my favorite cut through's in Fayetteville. Are you okay with that? Jeffcoat: Yes, we met with Staff and Engineering and several different options were looked at. This is one that Staff Engineering Department recommended. Our clients were present and we have worked through the logistics of that and we have no problems with that being one of the Conditions of Approval. I do, however think that there are ... we have already met with some property owners that would be effected by that cutoff and there may be some additional considerations of ... I think there's one street in particular or maybe an alley there that will become a dead-end. There are some possibilities of working some other arrangements out. We will work Staff and the neighbors at that point to accomplish a happy resolve. Clark: Commissioners any questions? I have one question. The entrance off of Wedington, what's your turning radius to the left or to the west? Because that looks ... I couldn't figure out how wide it is. Is it ... safety vehicles like emergency vehicles, will they have the necessary turning radius? That's my question. Jeffcoat: Yes, they do. In fact, I think Blue can probably answer this better than I can since he's actually working on the individual design of that street at this time. I believe we have met all the City standards or we are striving to come as possible to doing such of the stack -up distance at that intersection. Other than that, I think all the grades, all the radius's of the curves, both vertical and horizontal are all met. Clark: That's a very challenging piece of ... topographically it's a challenging piece of property. Jeffcoat: Yes. Clark: That was my only concern, was the turning radius going sufficient for an emergency vehicle? Jeffcoat: Yes, there was a traffic study done by Hall on that and their study was only on the ... well, I did include all the roads, actually and the turning circle and we have worked with Glen on exactly how that should function and how we'll approach that in the future. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 44 Clark: Okay. This is another example of infill where you're being asked ... you have minimal improvements to do because it's already developed, so you're being asked to do improvements elsewhere, which I think an interesting we're going to start seeing more of. Commissioner's, we're being asked to forward this to the Planning Commission. How do you feel about Condition Number One, street improvements? And that is my favorite cut -through in the world. Pate: I'm resentful. Clark: I'm telling you. Mr. Pate? Pate: To give you a little history on that, that actually was not discussed when this came through the Planning Commission. The City Council required this project to go to the Street Committee to discuss traffic improvements in that area and that's where that determination came about and then went on to Full City Council. So, it was a little bit different than you've seen. That's why you have not discussed this prior to this meeting but that's what the City Council determined was appropriate for this particular development. Graves: Madam Chair, there's no question that cars are shooting in from all different directions right there and it's a terrible safety situation right there, both on North Street and on Garland. That doesn't mean I don't use it all the time but ... Clark: Yeah, one of those terrible drivers. Graves: Yeah. But, I would agree with the need for that particular set of improvements. Clark: That's one of those sad things we're going to see in our quaint little city. Anything else? How about Number 2, letting it be a private street? Graves: Yes, I agree with that, as well. Harris: How steep is that street going to be when it's built out? Jeffcoat: I think the steepest portion is right at 9%. Clark: Anything else? We are going to Forward this to the Planning Commission so you'll have time to work out the tree numbers with Sarah. MOTION: Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 45 Graves: Madam Chair, I will Move to Forward Preliminary Plat 06-2302 with the stated Conditions of Approval, including adding Conditions 19 through 26 to correspond with eight Conditions of Approval listed in the Tree and Landscape report and Findings in Favor of Staff's recommendations on Numbers 1 and 2. Clark: Okay. Do I have a Second? Harris: I Second. Clark: And, I will concur. Thank you. Jeffcoat: Thank you. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 46 Clark: The next Item on the Agenda is R-PZD 06-2349: Planned Zoning District for WESTBROOK VILLAGE. Where is Jesse? Fulcher: I'm right here. Clark: There you are. Fulcher: In the introduction of the Staff Report it says, "this contains 0.71 acres." It is actually 1.38 acres. It's two separate tracts. Each of them are approximately 0.71 acres. I think that's probably where that mistake came from. So, this is approximately 1.38 acres. These are two out -lots that were platted with the original Salem Village PUD. The Salem Village PUD has retained the zoning of RSF-4, however it was not developed at RSF-4. Density is somewhat higher, between 5 and 10 units per acre, average 40 -foot lot size. However, under the PUD Ordinance, the zoning did not change as it does with the PZD Ordinance that we have today. The Applicants have come forth with this Planned Zoning District request for rezoning Preliminary Plat Approval with 11 single-family lots on Lots 1 and 2 of Salem Village. There actually was a development Approved on these by the City Council February of 2006 for 7 single-family lots. That was never constructed and the Applicants have come back with the request for 11 single-family lots within Planning Areas 1 and 2. And then Planning Area 3 is approximately 4,500 square feet of green space on the northwest corner of the southern tract. When this rezoning came through, the Parks Division for Salem Village did not assess Parks Fees for these two tracts and therefore, Parks Fees in the amount of $6,105 will be due for these 11 single-family lots. This is similar type development based on the drawings and plats you have before you as what has been constructed in the Salem Village area. The smaller lot widths would be smaller home designs. There are elevations included in your Packet as part of this PZD request. With those Items, Staff has recommended that this Item be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review with 17 Conditions of Approval. Individual lot access is obviously prohibited from Salem. Each of these tracts will have access to an alley for rear access. If you look in the southern tract, the two western tracts, I believe 10 and 11 should have a shared driveway. As they begin to come together, it would be appropriate for a shared driveway for those two lots. I believe all other Conditions of Approval are fairly straightforward. If you have any questions, please ask. Clark: Thank you, Jesse. Now, they are Conditions of Approval, not issues and concerns to discuss, right? Fulcher: Yes, Conditions of Approval would be appropriate. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 47 Clark: Although, issues and concerns to discuss is very different. Engineering? Casey: No comment. Clark: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes, the Tree Preservation Plan was Approved with the Original Plat for the Salem Village. The trees that are in this area are not going to be disturbed by this so if they are within a right-of-way, a Waiver has to be submitted and Approved. As for landscaping requirements, this is coming through under our new Chapter 177 that does require street trees. And I think the lots have existing trees except Lots 7, 8 and 9. They're missing some trees along Clabber Creek Boulevard. So, they have showed on a Landscape Plan that they will be planting these three trees. I would recommend that potentially going ahead and getting them planted by Final Plat. Since these are rear -loaded lots by the alley, I think they could probably be planted in the right-of-way and that way they would be taken care of. The trees must be bonded for a three-year term to insure health. The amount will equal $750 and this can be a bond, letter of credit or a check that needs to be deposited with the City before the signature of the Final Plat. Clark: Anything else? Patterson: No, Ma'am. Clark: All right, before we get started on this, Jesse, we're now talking about 1.38 acres for this whole development? Fulcher: Yes, Ma'am. Clark: Beats 0.71 acres. Fulcher: Yes, absolutely and that changed the density calculation quite significantly, also. Clark: What is it? Fulcher: It's approximately 8 units per acre. Clark: Okay. Fulcher: With 11 units on 1.38 acres. Graves: What is the density on the joining PZD or whatever that's built out there? Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 48 Fulcher: I believe it is approximately ... it's about the same. They were 40 -foot lots. The majority of the lots were platted at 40 -feet. I don't believe that on the plat their actual density calculation is listed. But, looking at the lots and the area, including the Park Land Dedication, it was approximately 6 to 9 units per acre for that development in Salem Village. Clark: Okay, would anyone in the Public like to comment on R PZD 06-2349, Westbrook Village? Seeing none, please introduce yourself and tell us about the project. Scott: I'm Art Scott with PDC and with me is Lex Broyles, the developer. Broyles: Good morning. Scott: We concur with all these Conditions and seek Approval. Clark: Or Items of Discussions. It's a kinder, gentler Planning Department. Do you know how it does fit in with what is there in terms of density? Scott: I'm a resident. I live in this neighborhood and it's very similar to what the remaining ... the houses will look very similar. We have met with the POA out there and have a signed letter from them that this is going to be a similar price range, similar look with everything that is currently out there. Clark: Well, when we got our Agenda, it indicated you were putting 11 single- family lots on 0.71 acres. I thought that was very creative of you. Now that I know it's almost double that, I feel much better about the development and my comment about tiny lots goes away. Commissioners? This looks very straightforward and ... MOTION: Graves: Me, too. I was concerned about the density but with the clarification, I'll Move to Forward R PZD 06-2349 to the Full Planning Commission with the stated Conditions of Approval. Harris: I'll Second. Clark: And, I will concur. Thank you, gentlemen. I'm just taking a guess that the next Item is going to take awhile. So, we're going to take about a five or six minute break so we can stretch our legs and get ready. We'll reconvene in about ten minutes. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 49 Clark: Our last Item on the Agenda is R-PZD 06-2299: Planned Zoning District for RUSKIN HEIGHTS. Now, ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you how this is going to work. We're going to have the Staff Report. Then I'm going to open it to Public Comment. Each and every one of you are invited to speak. We will ask that you come to the podium and state your name so that we can get it on the record. I would encourage you not to be repetitive. If you'd like to just agree with what has been said, whoever is speaking can ask for a show of hands. We want to hear everyone's comments but we would like them to be unique and building upon the argument that you are making either for or against this project. I will also point out that this is not the end of this song and dance today. This project should go forward from the Subdivision, will then go to Planning Commission, then it will go on to City Council. All areas involve Public Comment. So, this will not be your only opportunity to give your comments on the record. I would encourage you, if you have an interest in this project, to continue your participation. We are only 3 members of the 9 member Planning Commission and all 9 members need to hear comments either for or against projects. And, we don't get Minutes from the Subdivision. So, what you say here, you will only say to these 3 Commissioners. So, if you are to be continued to be interested in this project, please come on to Planning Commission when it gets there. It may be Tabled today. It may be Forwarded on but this is not the only opportunity for Public Comment. I thank you for being concerned citizens and I welcome your comments but please play by the rules. If you have questions for the developers, please ask them to the Chair. I'll write them down. Then when all Public Comment is finished, we'll allow the developers to give, I hope, a brief presentation. I also hope it will address Public Comment, as well. If not, I promise you I will continue to find answers for your questions. Civility is the key word, especially since I have a horrible headache. So, let's keep it nice and civil and we'll get through this as judiciously as possible. So, having said all that, Mr. Garner, your report, please. Garner: Okay. As we get started here, just to clarify, there's been a lot of confusion about how many units are being Proposed and that sort of thing. This project is Proposing 295 residential units, a density of 10.3 units per acre over the site and 58,500 square feet of non-residential space on the property. So, I just wanted to get that out there and that's what the project is Proposing, what we're looking at today. The property contains just under 29 acres. It's located on the south side of Mission Boulevard, approximately 'h mile west of Crossover. It is Zoned RSF-4. It's hilly with the majority of the site in the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District. Surrounding zoning and land use is somewhat mixed. To the north, there is Mission Boulevard Baptist Church, Westwood Gardens Plant Nursery and some single-family residences. Then to the south, east and west, Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 50 mainly single-family residences with a commercial shopping center, as well, to the west. To the west it's Zoned RSF-4 and C-1. The Proposal before you is to rezone the property for a Residential Planned Zoning District. Also for a Preliminary Plat to subdivide the property into lots. They are also requesting Partial Development Approval for a portion of the property. As mentioned before, they are Proposing 295 residential units, a density of 10.3 units per acre over the site and 58,500 non- residential square feet. The project is a design in a traditional neighborhood development, with a variety of housing types and land uses in a defined area, rather than a typical sprawling type of subdivision. The Proposed zoning criteria and Site Plan allows for more dense layout of single-family residences and mixed with multi -family dwellings along Mission Boulevard and the mixed-use flats and also interspersed with Live/Work townhouses and commercial and non-residential space throughout the property. The Preliminary Plat Approval is to subdivide this property into 68 lots and the development Approval Proposed at this time is for 57 residential units. 28 would be attached, 29 would be detached and 19,000 square feet of non-residential commercial space. So, that's depicted on Table 2 there in your Staff Report. That is what we have reviewed in detail for development Approval. As background into access as to how this project would flow, there will be 3 entrances off of Mission Boulevard with a 4`h point of ingress and egress. Off of Greenview Drive to the west, there are a number of well connected streets and alleys that generally follow the topography of the site. There are also a variety of street cross sections that are Proposed. They are designed to calm traffic and encourage pedestrian activity on the streets. These street - sections are generally more narrow than what the City's Master Street Plan calls for, with small curb to turn radii that are consistent with concepts of the Institute of Transportation Engineers and Smart Code. They do not meet the City's Unified Development Code or Master Street Plan criteria. So, they are requesting Waivers for their streets. Parking for this project is mainly Proposed to be on -street. At least one parking structure is planned for the mixed-use area near Mission Boulevard. All parking lots would be interior to the mixed-use and residential lots. Most of the residences will be provided with private parking, either in alley - facing garages or driveways. The amount of off-street parking does not meet our Unified Development Code Requirements, so the Applicant is also requesting a Conditional Use Permit Approval to allow on -street parking to count for our required off-street parking spaces. We have Table 3 there in your Report, lists where all the parking spaces are provided. We do need a clarification from the developer on some of the parking spaces to be provided in the next submittal. The project phasing is anticipated to be built in six phases with the build -out identified in 2012. As mentioned previously, Mission Boulevard is the principal arterial that is adjacent to the north side of the property and Greenview Drive is a local Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 51 street adjacent to the west side of the property. The Applicant is required to dedicate 55 -feet from centerline right-of-way along Mission Boulevard. The Applicant requests a Waiver from that right-of-way dedication to reduce the amount of right-of-way being dedicated in order to accommodate utilities along Mission. The Applicant has indicated to Staff that they are preparing a Formal Waiver Request with an exhibit showing the Full Master Street Plan improvements to Mission Boulevard without the full 55 -feet from centerline right-of-way. In order to do that, they would have to have the sidewalk and green space would be in a pedestrian -access easement. So, that is a Waiver Request for the right-of- way dedication that we will be looking for. We need an exhibit to show that that's possible. Street improvements that we are recommending with this project include improving Mission Boulevard with a three -lane section from where it currently stops east of this site, with a complete sidewalk connection, as well all the way west to Greenview Drive. We need to have that coordinated with our Engineering Division to determine if a continuous turn -lane or a turn -lane at major intersections is more acceptable. We are also recommending a traffic signal assessment for Lisa Lane to prorated as each phase of development comes through. One of the Conditions we are recommending is that the Applicant pursue Arkansas Highway Department Permits to construct these improvements to Mission. If the Highway Department will not allow these improvements, then assessments could be determined to be paid at that time. We want to be sure they move forward and try and construct the improvements with this development. We are also recommending that Greenview Drive be improved from Mission Boulevard south to Viewpoint Drive to 14 -feet from centerline, improvements with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and storm drainage. One of the other big issues with this project was the parks. When this went through the Park and Recreation Advisory Board, the Board voted to accept Ruskin Tower and surrounding land, which would be a 30 by 30 viewing tower to be a public park. The tower shall be built at a cost of no less $259,200. If the cost to build the tower exceeds this amount, the developer will pay the excess and if the cost is under that amount, then the City would retain the excess amount. Also regarding the parks, there are several public accesses that will be formally dedicated for public use on this property. One is a trail corridor located near the western boundary of the site through a tree preservation area. Another one is a public access easement. The developer is calling it Spanish Steps. It would lead from what's called the Market Pavilion kind of in the southern part of the site, walking up through the property up to Ruskin Tower. There is also a public access easement for the Village Green, which is just a central green space at Ruskin Heights. All of this will be easements that the public will be allowed to enjoy. Solid Waste Service has reviewed this Plan and they have indicated to us that they feel like we'll be able to service these Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 52 residences from the rear of the structures provided that 26 -feet clear is maintained to allow room for the trash truck and the arm to pick up the carts. If the 26 -feet is ever encumbered or blocked, it's at the discretion of the Solid Waste Division to provide trash service to the front and then at that point parking might have to be removed along the street. But, at this point, we are anticipating that we can serve it through the alleys as platted on here. We have received a lot of Public Comment on this project. I'm not sure if you're aware but this went through ... outside the City's review, they also went through a series of public meetings to get input from the Public on this project before they even submitted anything to us. Many of the issues that Planning Staff has received are discussed with concerned property owners include compatibility with surrounding single-family development, adverse impact to traffic, pedestrian safety, adverse visual impacts and hillside and erosion impacts. We will include copies of all Public Comment for the Full Planning Commission and City Council. Staff does recommend Forwarding this to the Full Planning Commission. There are several issues and Conditions of Approval to address. We'll go ahead and I'll highlight some of these. I've mentioned some of them already. Condition Number 1 or issue number 1 to discuss is Determination of Street Improvements. I've gone through our recommendation for improving the streets in the area. Condition Number 2 is right-of-way dedication. They are requesting a Waiver, as mentioned for lesser dedication of right-of- way along Mission Boulevard. We have noted here that we haven't seen an exhibit on how the street improvements would work with a lesser right-of-way dedication. So, we need to make sure we see that and are okay with that before it gets on the Planning Commission Agenda. Condition Number 3 is a Determination of Waiver from the minimum Street Design Standards. 3-A is a Waiver to allow 15 -foot curb -return radius at all street intersections and driveways. City Code requires 30 -feet for streets. Engineering Staff has reviewed this request and is in favor of the request, finding that the minimum effective turning radius, as depicted in the exhibits provided to Staff, provides evidence that traffic pedestrian safety will work with the streets and the radius as Proposed. 3-B is a Waiver to allow different street cross-sections than are required by Master Street Plan standard. We recommend in Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 53 favor of several of these. A couple of these we do not recommend in favor of and I'll call those to your attention. Letter I on Page 8, we do not recommend in favor of the street cross-section for Street J, finding that a minimum of 24 -feet back of curb to back of curb, with on -street parking on one side, is needed. They Propose, I believe 22 -feet. So, we are recommending that be increased. Also, on the alley cross-section, the Unified Development Code required a minimum of 12 -feet of pavement for a one-way alley or 16 -feet for a two-way alley. This Proposal requests a Waiver of these requirements and Proposes a 12 -foot wide pavement section for two-way traffic on the alley. The Solid Waste Division has indicated they would support the pavement section for trash pick- up, due to the provision of 26 -feet of clear space. However, Planning and Engineering Staff do not find in favor of a 12 -foot, two-way alley that services numerous residences on this steep slope, finding that even alleys that are used less frequently, there might be some justification for reduced width but at this time, we're only supporting a 16 -foot pavement section for two-way traffic. We can get more detail if we need to on that. I wanted to bring to your attention in Condition Number 9, the Conditional Use Permit for the parking spaces. As mentioned, they are requesting to be able to count their on -street parking spaces for some of their required spaces. We are in favor of that Conditional Use request, finding that the needed parking and additional demands for parking can be provided on street safely, with the design as drawn. They are requesting a Waiver for 50% of their parking spaces be compact spaces. Our Ordinance allows for only 35% to be compact. We are not recommending in favor of this. We recommend Denial of this. We don't find that there is justification for the Waiver. If parking spaces are provided with inadequate size, it would result in future requests for more off- street parking instead. Condition Number 11 is Commercial Design Standards for the commercial portion of the Live/Work structures. As mentioned, they are requesting development Approval for some of the Live/Work Townhouses and these would have commercial development in them. We have reviewed these elevations for **** Commercial Design Standards. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 54 Also wanted Planning Commission determination on the overall compatibility for the development theme. We are recommending in favor of the architectural design and the Commercial Design Standards. We have elevations here. And we would be happy to go over them with you. One of the other Conditions I wanted to bring up, we are recommending that a minimum building setback of 10 -feet adjacent to any exterior property line be provided. In some of the places it's not provided in their zoning criteria. We just want to make sure that there is at least that 10 - foot building setback providing an additional buffer. Most of it is already buffered as designed with alleys and with the green space on either side of the alleys. But, there are some sections we feel there should be more space. There are a lot of issues here for the Applicant to go over that we don't want to go over in detail but these can be handled in revisions to the booklet or on the plats. Those are the main Items and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Engineering? Casey: I had a couple of clarifications on the Conditions of Approval. On Condition 3-A, the Condition states that the Applicant request a Waiver to allow 15 -foot curb -return radius. I want to clarify that they're not all 15 feet. They vary from 5 feet on up to 13. I see one here. There's varying dimensions there is what I'm trying to get at and I don't want that to be limited by the Condition of Approval. Clark: Five feet? Casey: Yes. Clark: Five feet? Okay. Casey: They have provided Engineering with the effective turning radius's at each of these intersections. And, they're shown ... I'm looking at Sheet 6 in the Plans ... they've drawn those on the Plans and they show that the effective turning radius, with the configuration of the parking, is actually greater and meets our requirements. So, the curb is actually is actually further back away from where the vehicles will actually be traveling. I know that comes as a surprise to you, that we'll support that, given the projects. The other clarification I wanted to make is on 3-D. That's the K -Values. For your information ... I guess to explain it ... is the severity of a vertical curve, whether it be a hump or a sag curve. They are asking for Waivers of that and we can support that. I want to make sure that they're using a 20 Miles Per Hour Design Speed instead of a 15 that was mentioned in their Booklet. 15 is just not something we can support. We don't feel that Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 55 that's a reasonable speed. Also, Street J, they are requesting the width of that to be 22 feet. That corresponds with this Condition. If we support the Waiver for the K -Value, they're going to need to increase that to 24. Because if you're coming over a steep crest vertical curve, you're side distance is not as great as it would be. And, if you're in a two-way yield situation, as they Propose, that could cause an accident because you couldn't see the car that you're going to have to yield to. So, if we support the K -Value reduction, we need to have the 24 -foot width on that area. That's all I've got. I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have. Clark: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. My Reports are not in the Staff Report packet that you have but I believe Condition 24 addresses the comments within my Tree and Landscape Report are brought into this. I think there are an additional 9. As for landscaping comments, future Lots 2 & 3 are going to be required to go through a Large Scale Development process and at that time, and at that time the landscaping requirements will be assessed. NEW TAPE STARTS HERE — SMALL GAP IN PATTERSON'S PORTION. **** is going to be required at the time of construction drawings. There is going to be a Waiver that needs to be submitted. To utilize the Urban Streetscape option, this is similar to the Central United Methodist Church. The Ordinance says that it needs to be a 10 -foot sidewalk and the Applicant is requesting something smaller, I believe an 8 -foot. But, they need to submit a Waiver Request for that, as well, which would generally be supported. If you would look at the symbol that you used for the required large species mitigation and the large species landscape tree, I think they've been inverted. If you'll just double-check that and revise that. As for tree preservation, as mentioned, only the 11 acres at this time were looked at. If you would remove the note on the southeast side of the project that states, the canopy along the property line will remain, there's another note there that refers to Lot 68, as tree preservation and tree mitigation. So, it's a little repetitive. I think that other note can be removed and the note that refers to Lot 68 will suffice. Clark: How many Conditions do you have, Sarah? Patterson: Oh, I'm sorry. There are 4 on the Landscape Plan and there are an additional ... yeah that's another page ... there's another Report that I handed you that is actually my Tree Preservation and that has 5 Conditions at the end. Clark: Okay. And, you're moving to that now? Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 56 Patterson: If you would look at revising the Tree Preservation fencing that's along that westernmost ingress/egress off of Mission, it looks like the fencing is further back than it would be necessary and maybe there's some additional canopy there that can be saved at this time. So, if you would revise the preservation fencing and quite possibly your tree canopy numbers with that. Mitigation is going to be required on this site in the amount of 256, 2 -inch caliper large species trees. The Applicant has requested and been Approved to do a combination of on-site and money in lieu. Currently, they are Proposing 112, 2 -inch caliper trees to be planted on the site, leaving a remainder of $36,000 that would be due at time of Final Plat to the Tree Escrow Account. This does not include any of their landscaping requirements that are now required through our Ordinance. They will be planting street trees along all public and private streets, as well. So, there will be many more trees. At the time of Final Plat, a Tree Mitigation Planting Plan will be required for review and Approval. All trees that can be planted before signature of the Final Plat should be, leaving only the remainder of those that need to come at time of development of the individual lots. A three year bond, letter of credit or check in the amount of $28,000 is going to be required before signature of Final Plat to insure the maintenance and health of those 112 mitigation trees. That concludes my comments. Clark: Okay. Anybody else on Staff? Pate: Just a couple of quick comments. As you were handed, so were we, an exhibit for the Condition Number 2, Waiver of Master Street Plan right-of- way dedication. I think we need a little bit more information before we make a full recommendation. What we're looking for is, on the Proposed Section, the full improvements that would be required on a Master Street Plan, such as shown up in the middle diagram, there, within the actual Proposed right-of-way, because we are Proposing improvements to this street, not what you see there, which is basically remaining. I think ... it looks like it all will fit in within that right-of-way, however. So, I think that will be a positive recommendation in terms of that Condition Number 2-A. I think that's it. Clark: Anybody else? All right, thank you. Now, we're going to turn this open to Public Comment. I will remind everybody that what we are looking at today is not the full Proposal. We're looking at 57 residential units, and 19,182 square feet of non-residential commercial space. A Planned Zoning District overall with 295 attached and detached planned dwellings and 58,500 square feet of commercial space once it is built out. Today will not be the only hearing. They have to come back for every section. I will now turn it over to Public Comment. Please introduce yourself before you speak. Okay folks, I know somebody wants to talk. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 57 Kavammi: Hi, my name is JoAnn Kavammi. I am one of the co-chairs for ROOT School Neighborhood Association. Although the Plans of the small sub- area that you're looking at today does not directly affect us, the project, as a whole, does. There are just a few things from a neighborhood standpoint that I would like to have put forward. First of all, people in this area of town buy here because they enjoy yards and gardening and trees, especially the trees and privacy and space. Most of us do not want to be those commuters that come from way out of town to live in town. We want to be close, where we can walk to work, at least I walk to work, but have a rural feel. And, that's what this whole neighborhood ... actually both sides has sort of provided. And, by creating a very high density in here, you will be destroying what has actually deterred, I believe, city sprawl because people get a rural feeling and can live in these neighborhoods. By keeping with what's there already ... I think these guys clearly have very nice architectural plans and things ... if they kept with the flavor of both neighborhoods that they're impacting, they actually could deter urban sprawl and enhance our area, rather than taking away from it. A couple of things ... and I won't address the whole thing, but I'm guessing to do their construction, and I don't know this, this is just a guess on my part, their construction will try to go through their access onto Greenview. As these guys I'm sure are aware, trying to come on and off of Mission is a nightmare, a pretty serious nightmare, actually. Our streets aren't meant to handle that. They're narrow, they don't have sidewalks and I think it's going to cause congestion and safety issues in my neighborhood while they're even building on the other side. We also have the drainage issues, which I'm sure people from the Park Place neighborhood will have more to speak to. The project as a whole will have some very serious repercussions in our neighborhood. I wanted to address something I just heard right now. They're asking for a Variance so the roads can be narrower, which makes it harder for emergency vehicles. But, yet at the same time, they're depending on street -side parking for this very dense development. To me, this seems like it's a recipe for disaster, if there were an emergency up in this area. Also, I'm a little confused about the PZD, I guess, because we're only talking about one area. To me, this is a whole project. I guess you guys can do that but to me it's a whole project, it's not just one little piece at a time because each piece will affect how the rest of it progresses. The other thing is, I would ask that, instead of taking money in lieu of trees and green space, that the City keep with keeping the City green and full of trees and keep ... I mean those Codes are there for a reason, to protect our slopes. This is all ... just about the whole property is in the Hill/Slope Ordinance and with the trees. And, the whole idea was that we didn't have to see houses, that people could build on slopes responsibly, not as dense, but at least responsibly and we would have trees visible as opposed to a sea of houses. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 58 I think this is not going in that direction. This is just a neighborhood viewpoint. You're going to hear from all the neighbors. Thank you. Oh, one other point, I think the City needs to be aware that, as neighbors we felt we haven't been dealt with totally fairly. The Surac they had in the summer was great. We were able to voice our opinions. The opinions we're voicing now are the same ones we voiced at the Surac. I would like to commend them. There were a few things that they did put in. But the majority of it was ignored like that it was too dense back then. We were very concerned when it went to the Planning Commission and we saw a tape saying that we had all been notified and we were in favor of this tower. We went around to all the properties that adjoined us and, I don't think we found one neighbor who was in favor of that. So, I think that was a miscommunication, which makes us more wary, also. Thank you. Clark: Thank you, Jo Ann. Just for reference, just raise your hands, how many of you are here to oppose Ruskin Heights? ?: Repeat that, please? Clark: How many of you are here to oppose Ruskin Heights? How many of you are for it? Okay. We have an idea of the lay of the land. And, that should make some of you who are speech -anxious a little less anxious. You know everybody doesn't have to talk. But, come on up. Harter: Hello, my name is Allison Harter. I'm a resident of Park Place. I just have a few questions. I would like to know how many people they plan to having living in this area. In Park Place we don't have ... I don't think we have over a thousand people and I've heard that there could be a lot more than that. I would like to know how they plan to provide for The American Disabilities Act. I'm a Park and Recreation Director from Minneapolis a long time ago and I don't see any provision for people climbing a tower if they have a minor injury or unable to climb it at all. I also don't see in the Plan where the stairs going up would be providing for accessibility, as well. And then, I was referred to many developments in Fayetteville by Jeremy Pate and Andrew Gardner to see what this would look like and in going and visiting every one of those locations. One of the things I noted was they're more level and this is straight uphill. In the level area I can understand smaller streets and a little more density because it could handle that and walking traffic. But, if you were on the east side of this, and had to walk uphill and over to the west side to get to the small walking trail, pushing a stroller, you probably won't do it. You'll get in your car and drive over there. But, again, there's street - parking so they'll be limited access, as well as van access for a handicapped person. So, I ask that you look at this seriously for density Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 59 and accessibility, small streets as well as other communities in Fayetteville that are more level, as opposed to straight uphill. Thank you. Clark: Thank you. Sherman: Hi, my name is Latrice **** Sherman. I have lived in Park Place subdivision for 20 years. Our property is going to be impacted by your Proposed subdivision on the north and on the west side. I realize that Fayetteville is a growing community. I'm also aware that developers are in the business to make money by compressing as many people as possible into the smallest area of space. I appreciate and applaud the Ruskin Heights people because they are planning a dream and this does look like a dream. I do not condone the extreme density that they are planning. This was Zoned single-family and I do not think that multi -family and commercial should be in this area at all. Within the radius of the intersection of 45 and 265, we already have mass pandemonium because of so much traffic and their idea of putting in a larger area or roads is a great idea but it's not going to happen very quickly. Also within this area we have 6 schools that are already bursting at the seam with students. There is no place for more students to go unless another school is built. That is not possible any time soon, either. We already have over 20 restaurants. We have 30 retail stores. We have numerous medical facilities. We have tanning salons, beauty and nail salons, pet care, veterinarians, liquor stores, gasoline stations. We do not need any more retail space. I just appeal to the Planning Commission not to pass this because we have so many people that will be impacted by this much more traffic and by more density. Thank you. Clark: Thank you. Connor: Hi, I'm Don Connor. I live on Shadow Ridge. I have some problems with this in the fact that it doesn't meet the 2025 Plan, if you want to start with that and that none of this area is targeted for infill or growth in the 2025 Plan. They talk about preservation of open spaces and all they're really wanting to do is completely do away with open spaces here, with the exception of a very small part of the existing forest there. 2025 also says existing use is to be retained without change. So far, this just doesn't fit with it, when the goal of 2025 is to discourage sprawl. By putting this in here, if it turns into an apartment complex, essentially, it's going to encourage sprawl because people are going to want to move away from the area and find another place to live and rent out their houses or something like that. It's not in keeping with 2025 in the fact that there's no affordable housing in this, none whatsoever. I mean, the cheapest houses that they're talking about are in the $320,000 range, for the least expensive house they would offer for sale up in there. These people that Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 60 are putting this together are not the builders of this. They're just here to sell lots. So, we don't really know exactly what it's going to look like when it gets down to it. Because, when they sell that lot, it's the builder that gets to do whatever they want. They can have some guidelines that they might have to adhere to but other than that, we really don't know and when you've got lots that are 20 feet wide in some places, my living room's bigger than 20 feet wide. So, that means that they're going to have to go straight up because the smallest residences they have are 2,000 square feet. If you've got 2,000 square feet on a 20 foot -wide lot, it's going to have to be pretty tall. So, they're probably talking about trying to see if they can work in six -story buildings. I know they spent a lot of money for this property. You know they spent 4.2 or 4.3 million bucks for this property. I don't think the residences around it should have to be responsible for them making a profit. Just because they made a bad investment, doesn't mean we should have to suffer. The traffic is abominable. They're wanting to put traffic over the top of Shadow Ridge, View Point, Greenview, that sort of thing, going over to Rock Wood Trail to get rid of the excess traffic off of Mission. It's just not practical because we have a walking pedestrian -friendly neighborhood. This will take away from our quality of life and reduce our ability to be a walking - friendly pedestrian -type neighborhood. All the services we have, we're a community, we have our services close to us. We have everything available. We've got restaurants, shops, you know that sort of thing. So, we don't need to have to worry about going down there. One of these guys lives in my neighborhood and he did mention that he's never even walked down to Tim's Pizza from his house. So, I doubt seriously that anybody would be walking from the top down to the bottom then back up again if they use this place for that. Then there are the construction problems that we'd be dealing with. I mean they're probably going to have about 100,000 yards of undercut building the streets and that sort of thing out of here that will have to be taken out. What's that going to do with that hill slope? The survey that they have from their geological survey doesn't agree at all with what the University of Arkansas's geological survey is. They had a traffic study that consisted of two hours worth of traffic study on a Friday afternoon when they had Columbus Day the next Monday, so a lot of people were out of town. So, there's not much traffic study involved. I think they'd find out there's a whole lot more traffic than what they've tried to indicate. They've told us that a lot of these people will just have one car that will live here. I guess that means that they won't have anybody visiting them or won't have any significant others, things like that or husbands or wives. On the south side of their property, their idea of a buffer is an alley for a buffer between the neighborhoods and their development. Also on their construction, they're Proposing a construction entrance on Greenview, which would really devastate Greenview. It's not in the greatest shape as it is. All we need to Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 61 do is tear it up a little bit more with dump trucks. Then there's the rock blasting problem because Park Place down there is a quarry, used to be a quarry. So, that means that they've got a whole stack of limestone they're going to have to figure out how to put sewer through. What's that going to do to the structure of the hillside? All of us that are uphill, are we going to slide down? We're kind of curious to know about that. I'll let other people make some other comments. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Connor. Bishop: My name is Matt Bishop. I live in Park Place. First I want to say, I want to thank the developers for at least certainly being available at all times. They respond to emails and calls very quickly. I have just two issues and I'll try not to be too duplicative. Number One is the access from Mission. It's my understanding that's a State Highway and that neither the City or the State has committed to do anything for it. Getting either of those two entities to commit will probably be a several months, if not a year process. Then you will have the time in doing the work, several months or a year, minimum. Then, during those several months, you've got access to schools. They're going to be building and accessing, I assume, from there from Mission, as well. And, without a commitment from either the City of the State to fund, or at least to build this, I would ask that, before you forward it on to Planning Board, you have some kind of commitment from either of those entities, whoever is in charge of that road. Second, as the gentleman before me mentioned, the developers are simply selling lots. Now, they're got exterior materials here. They've got some beautiful designs and if that's the case, that's fine if that's the way they look. However, without covenants in place, you have no idea what it's going to be. I would ask that before you forward it on, that you have some very specific covenants, which would allow for it. I'm sorry, I said two. I have three things. Specifically, right in here, butting Park Place, one of the things ... I know it's been referred to as sprawl, Park Place and some of the other neighborhoods, but right here, the way it looks on this chart, that doesn't mean necessarily **** how it's going to look. Every one of these buildings could be 3 -stories and are right up against this road. Again, these are just lots. Without covenants in place, we have no idea what the final look of the materials will be. Now, I'm sure they have wonderful plans but they are not doing the building. Thank you. Clark: Thank you. Teas: My name is John Teas. I live at 1532 East Shadow Ridge Drive. I'm five houses from the development. You mentioned to say things quick and that we would have more opportunity, two more times to bring this out publicly. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 62 Clark: At least. Teas: I would like to do that then because it is getting late here and I have a lot of things I really want to go over. But, the main reason I'm here are the cuts and the public accesses. Our neighborhood is an old neighborhood. It's been there 50 years. This is Shadow Ridge and Ridgeway with a median that I think is called Ridgeway View Park. It's been called a lot of things but over 50 years it was dedicated there and there have been a lot of problems trying to get it one way. Right now it's just left natural and on top of Ridgeway is viewing area for the same reason why most of us moved there, for the view, for the wilderness feeling of it and so forth. So, that brings us down to this public access. I am requesting myself all the accesses out of the development not go in. Greenview is there now. It has been a public access for 50 years up to the park area in our neighborhood. The other area is up Rock Wood. There are some other roads further down. They're all accessed. So, there are approximately 37 different public accesses to our neighborhood and park area. So, there is no need for more public access. I'm not sure how many now would be going into the public accesses coming out. I'm talking about trails and roads. All of them will be an invasion of our neighborhood, a complete invasion. It's a quiet neighborhood. There are no cars now. There are fewer walkers these days. And, it's just a very nice place to walk around and enjoy yourself. There is public parking now on Rock Wood that somebody privately has donated so people can walk and jog around up there, instead of parking on our lawns, which would happen if those accesses to the development go in. If the tower goes in, and say it turns out to be a tourist wonderment, they would not drive up from the bottom of Ruskin Heights. They would quickly see that that tower is very close and very level to Shadow Ridge. That would mean that people would come up Greenview and park along Shadow Ridge. We're not prepared for parking at all. And, even when people have a party or something, they park just a little off the road on the lawn. New people coming in, I can see disaster in our lawns. So, I request again that all those cuts just be eliminated, especially that street that's going to be going through to Park Place. If it goes through and cuts across Ruskin Heights, and then cuts across to Greenview, it's giving them a special privilege to go over Mount Sequoia, even though people have fought roads going over Mount Sequoia four times now. Here comes the fifth and the road going over Sequoia has been there all along from Greenview up. This would accentuate it. People would use it. And our neighborhood would be bisected by this traffic coming from 45. These trails and things will cause a problem for ... they're obvious. For instance, the parking of the cars on the lawn would be one. The trash that people bring in, bikes, cars, these are all things we just don't have a lot of now. There's even talk of paving a trail right on Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 63 that median. This would all be perpetuated by these cuts from Park Place and your development. They talk also of putting lights. These are things that are so foreign to our neighborhood. I don't know how many of you know the neighborhood but you've got to go up there. First of all, you'd better be in a car to go up because not too many of you are going to be able to walk it. It's too steep. It is the top of the hill there. It is a natural area where our neighborhood is. It's a viewing area and I hope it stays that way. So, obviously, all I'm asking again is no trails and no streets going out of the development. Thank you. Clark: Thank you, sir. Bishop: Hello, my name is Cameron Bishop. I live in Park Place Subdivision. When the question was asked, are you here for or opposed Ruskin Heights, I think that's a hard thing to answer because I raised my hand for opposed; I don't want to say that I'm opposed to the development as a whole. I'm opposed to aspects of it. I think there are ways that we can work together to tweak this development to make it more beneficial for the area. One of the things that was discussed during the Surac was the importance of like butting like. I think when we talked to the developers about what they envisioned and what they saw, they communicated that usually what they see most affected is when you put like to butting like, whether it be single-family homes with single-family homes or multi- family homes with multi -family homes. So, we were hoping and expecting when the development was published, that that was what we would probably see, the single-family homes lining these subdivisions that were also single-family homes. If you look at a lot of this development, up through this area, which I believe would be the Park Place area, you're seeing a lot of town homes and condos and commercial abutting the single-family homes. I think one thing that I really would like to see, and I think would be more beneficial from a noise perspective and a commonality perspective, is to see those more converted to single-family homes. One of my concerns is, being a real estate attorney in the area, the thought of those possibly being condo -related buildings, I really just don't see a very active condo -market here. What I'm hearing from the real estate agents and developers that I deal with is that the condo market is pretty dead. They show condos but they don't sell them. And, I think the possibility is that if those lots are sold and we don't have covenants in place to regulate what can be built there, what we'll see is some rentals put up that are with a focus of turning a profit instead of maybe the quality that these developers are hoping to see. So if, as has been mentioned before, we could see some covenants that are put in place that could really show us what the restrictions and guidelines on those would be, I think that would give a lot of people comfort. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 64 Clark: Thank you. Kelly: Good morning. My name is Thad Kelly. I'm a resident of 1659 North Viewpoint. I'm right up from Greenview. I applaud the developers for the density. I think that Fayetteville does need density, however, on this kind of hillside, I think it's a little ambitious. The real concern I have is improving Greenview. I live on Viewpoint. It's a 40 to 50 year-old neighborhood, no curbs, no gutters, no sidewalks, poor drainage. And, it would just really impact negatively our neighborhoods, especially if Greenview is accessed by the construction, as well as when are they going to improve it? And, that would be for you, Chairman Clark, as to when that portion of it. On their brochures, they show that as Phase VI in the year 2012. However, you put a construction road in, most people can drive on a construction road, and as soon as they know there's a cut - through, they'll take it. Thank you. Clark: Thank you, sir. Wade: Hi. My name is Kathy Wade. I live in Park Place. I attended a couple of the SURET Meetings and so I've been interested in this from the beginning. I liked the idea and I was impressed with your efforts and with the amount of money you spent to put on that **** because it wasn't cheap, I'm sure. But, I'm concerned because I don't feel like a lot of this is what you presented with the amount of density. But, I have a couple of specific things I want to talk about that I'm concerned about personally. One of them is the traffic recommendations. I understand you are to put a signal, hopefully, and turn -lanes down from Ruskin Heights to 265. That doesn't address anything from Ruskin Heights into town, which is where an awful lot of traffic is during the day for school children when people are taking their children to school with all the schools in the area. That's the only place people can go to get to six schools and for the people who are going to go to the junior high and high schools. They can only get there from Mission. So, I'm concerned about the traffic from Ruskin Heights. What is the plan to go west into town? I'm also very concerned about runoff. There have certainly been a lot of runoff problems in other hillside neighborhoods that have gone in. When Boardwalk went in, there were runoff problems into Park Place and a lot of those people had to spend a lot of money to do work. When the neighborhood went in between Boardwalk and Manor Drive a couple of years ago, they have had runoff problems there. I have a river in my yard right now from the rain yesterday. So, I'm certainly concerned about what that's going to do to my property when you put in an awfully lot of concrete and take the trees and grass away what that kind of increased run-off that's going to be. The third thing that I want to talk about specifically is the tower. I did not get any notification of that meeting or Proposal to Parks and Rec. I'm very Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 65 concerned about a public tower where anybody can walk up with a pair of binoculars and look down into my yard and my windows at my child and take a picture of him. I'm very concerned about that aspect of that tower, that peeping Tom's could use that. And, I'm sorry, there are scary people in the world. And, they could do that. That makes me very nervous as a parent. Thank you very much. Clark: Thank you. Enrique ?: I have been a resident of Park Place for about 6 years and resident of Arkansas for about 40 years. I'm very depressed to see this project presented to us. A copy of a European design for an American **** design based upon projects in cities usually where the ground formed by the Glaziers with granite foundations which do not represent the geology of this area. Because I've lived in this area for almost 40 years, I'm familiar with the geology of the Ozark regions. The Ozark's are very porous sedimentary rocks that do not resemble the granite rocks of the northeast of this country or Europe. The fundamental principals of building on this area have to be totally different. Anybody who tried to drive with black ice in winter through Mount Sequoia will find that it is next to impossible to prevent the collision with all the cars parked on the streets. I live in Park Place and I am going to be the recipient of the runoff water and sedimentary **** and sinking **** of the most **** of my west side. The existing houses already on the hills are suffering the erosion of ten years of poor development. When you add to that the huge volume of the towers, the roofs, the **** driveways, the severe congestion of the area, I cannot imagine a worse disaster. It would be the worst ecological disaster I have witnessed in the Ozark region in 40 years. Clark: Thank you, sir. Sherman: My name is Fred Sherman. I live at 2134 Camelot in Park Place. I don't know where to start. We're going to have commercial development in a single-family area. I bought in this neighborhood fully expecting that the neighborhood would be developed similarly to my neighborhood. It protects my property values and I really don't think that there's a place for any kind of commercial development. I don't know what you're going to do with the traffic with your restaurants and your retail stores when 40 - foot semi's want to pull up that hill and service restaurants, bring food to them, etc. I don't know how a fire truck's going to get up there. I spent $15,000 reworking my foundation because my house was about to slide off this hill. Our roads, water permeates underneath the asphalt roads and are deteriorating in Park Place now because of the drainage issues. I can't believe that Planning has recommended Approval for this project. Not only that, but the fact that you are Waiving almost every Ordinance in the Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 66 City that make it happen. After what I've seen Planning do, now excuse me for admonishing you, but I though you were here to serve the Public. I've been on the opposite side of this issue for 25 years. I'm in construction and development. But, this is not the right development and this is not the right place to do it. Thank you. Clark: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen. Please, please, please congratulate him outside. If you think he did a good job, please take it outside and let's not clap. This is not a chamber for clapping, please. It just hurt. Go ahead. Copeland: Thank you. My name is Milton Copeland. My wife and I live at 1600 East Shadow Ridge. There are four houses between and this Proposed property. I appreciate the very professional way the developers have presented this. There's a lot of pizzazz that's gone into it and there's nothing wrong with that. I also appreciate the complexity of such a major development, with hundreds of thousands of details that Staff and the developers have to think about and the Commission. But, I want you just to back off for a moment and I Appeal for a little common sense. I'll illustrate that with a couple of things. The last speaker refers to the Waivers that the developers are asking for. I appreciate Staff's presentation. It was helpful to me in getting an overview of the project. But, if there was a theme to that presentation, it was this Waiver and that Waiver and that Waiver and this Conditional Use Permit. Look, we're not talking about a small piece of property that people built around and now you've got an owner that needs a Waiver to get something done with his property. You're talking about a large development that before the property was bought, the Ordinances were on the books, these Ordinances that they now ask to be Waived. Now, why are they needing all of these Waivers? If they had looked at the law and looked at the property, they could have decided how much they could have paid for it and followed the law and made a profit. But, now they come and ask for this Waiver and that Waiver and Waiver. Just for an example, I think the same kind of common sense should be used on every single request for Waiver. Let's talk for a minute about that Waiver or Conditional Use Permit taking on - street parking to replace off-street parking. Now, why is that necessary? What's the justification for that? Well, ultimately, as far as I know, it's the density of the project. If they had known from the beginning they were going to follow the Ordinance, they just simply wouldn't have made it as dense. It's that simple. And, that's true of so many of these issues. And, that density, as the speakers have discussed, is a huge problem for all kinds of reasons and I'll not repeat any of that. My other illustration of this common sense business is the street that would connect this development to Greenview. Now, where is that street? It runs parallel to Mission with basically one property in between. It's not a block away like Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 67 streets usually are. There's the old Dillon's Supermarket property that's there and then the street coming out to Greenview right parallel to Mission. Now, common sense, how many street run parallel to another street with one property in between? Well, there's obviously one reason for that. One of our speakers asked, what about access west down to Fayetteville, to a school, to college so that you can get out more? Where's that access? Developers are taking care of that. They have built a street parallel to another street with one piece of property in between. It has one purpose. That's to relieve this enormous problem of getting out on Mission on Highway 45. Anybody who's tried that in rush hour knows that it's a long wait just to get out on Mission. Now they're going to add all these people living in this subdivision so they understand. They've got to give them other ways out, other than the artery. Mission is the artery street. But, instead of going just to the artery like you would expect a large subdivision like this to do. That's common sense. Go as quickly as you can to the artery and get all the folks that are going to live in your development out to the artery. No, they build a street parallel to that, with one piece of property in between it so that people can then find other ways west. They can even find two other ways to Mission so that they don't have to wait in their subdivision stacking up to get out on Mission. They can get to Greenview, turn right and go down and wait at Mission there and maybe beat some of their neighbors that are waiting to get out on the street out of the subdivision. Or, they can turn left and then immediately back to the light on the Viewpoint and get out down there in front of the cemetery and beat both their neighbors that are waiting on Greenview and on the other street. We're going to have an enormous problem there. But, you know what? A lot of folks aren't going to use either of those accesses to the artery. They're going to get over Mount Sequoia and there are two or three ways they can do that. They can come up Greenview and get on Shadow Ridge and use either Shadow Ridge and then back to Viewpoint, or they can come around on East Shadow Ridge where we live. I think most of them will take Viewpoint because they can go almost straight from Greenview, which doglegs back to the left up Viewpoint, straight over, almost a straight shot to Rock Wood. And, then I think the Rock Wood people are going to be awfully unhappy with the additional traffic. I just wanted to emphasize the nature of this neighborhood if you're not familiar with it. No sidewalks on any of these streets that we're talking about, basically. We walk but we walk in the street. Those are the trails that John Teas was talking about. They aren't sidewalks. They're on the street. And, these streets are narrow. No curbs. They are simply not equipped for this kind of traffic that we're going to see. And so, all I Appeal for is some common sense and ask these people to follow the Ordinances as they are written since they knew what they needed to do when they started this project. Thank you. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 68 Clark: Thank you, sir. Cole: My name is Elizabeth Cole and I'm a resident of Park Place. First I want to say that there are aspects of this project that I think are lovely and could benefit many areas around us if done right. I'm going to make this brief. The viewpoints that I'm concerned about is the density of residents and what's that's going to do with Root Elementary. I have two children in Root Elementary right now. Driving to and from Root Elementary every day is hazardous as it is. I'm concerned with the amount of density that this is going to dump on the street and in the school. I see on the poster back there, The Goals for 2008, Planned and Managed Growth. I feel like there is a situation now that needs to be managed and changed for the better before a new project is started. So, my point is, I'm very concerned about the density and what it's going to cause with the traffic situation. Being a parent at Root School, it's a problem now as is with the amount of population in the neighborhoods around it. Thank you. Clark: Thank you. Anybody else? Craft: Hi, my name is Bill Craft and I live on 1976 Greenview, so I'm ... I live on the top of the mountain there. First of all, I'd like to applaud the developers because they have communicated and I've visited with them yesterday that I'm concerned what I've heard from the City. I got a Certified letter and I've been out of town so I just it yesterday. In this letter you said that there are 30 acres in this project. Now, I heard this morning you all said there's less than 29 acres. So, how many acres are there? And my questions is, how many acres do you have? And, if you do have less than 29, actually tell us how much you have because that would determine how many houses you can build on on the land as how many acres you really have. But, I would also like to reiterate what everybody else is concerned of and that's the traffic. I have lived in the neighborhood for over 15 years and the winters are very severe here on this mountain and I live on the top of the mountain and when it gets icy and snowy, I can't come down the mountain. So, I just stay at home and I walk down the mountain. And I think a lot of my neighbors walk down the mountain and they park their cars down at the bottom of Greenview and Viewpoint because we cannot get off that mountain on icy days. So, what I can see from this project is that it would be a disaster trying to get up and down that hillside. I don't know where everybody would park to try to get down, first of all. I mean you couldn't put your car down there because there's not ... they're not going to have any parking. So, we've been fortunate the last three or four winters in that they have not been very severe. But, like I said, I've lived here on this mountain for over 15 years and I'm here to tell you, I can remember many years where I was stranded home for several days, maybe a week where my vehicle ... we could just Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 69 not get up and down that hill. I do have children and my children have attended Fayetteville Public Schools. There is a problem getting children to school in the morning. As parents, everybody's scrambling to feed the kids, get them dressed and get them out the door to get to school on time. It's very difficult to do that right now because you get down the hill and you just wait and wait. And, fortunately right now, Root School has hired or whoever she is, she sits there on Viewpoint by the graveyard and as I approach, she'll stop the traffic and let me onto Mission. If it weren't for her, sometimes, I'd sit there you know ten minutes. My son now drives and so he doesn't go down that way. He goes up the mountain and cuts across on top of the mountain. So, I think that's what you will find will happen is that a lot of people will eventually realize that they don't want to sit down there waiting to get onto Mission or 45. They will just start cutting up across the mountain, find an alternate way to get to their destination. Thank you very much. Clark: Thank you. Heck: My name is Paul Heck. I live in Park Place and also an architect in town. I want to commend the developers and the Planning team for what they've shown. It looks, in my opinion, really great. One of the things that's probably my biggest concern is the traffic. Of course, it's been mentioned several times. Probably my largest complaint from Park Place is there is only one way in and one way out. If there are ten cars in line or five, when I'm trying to get onto 45 taking my son to school in the morning, I have to basically have to wait. There is no alternate route. So, I commend you on providing several alternate routes out of the neighborhood. I think that's going to be a plus. As for the Ordinances and all the Waivers, sometimes there's just a better way to do things. I think that DBZ, the Planners for the site have a track record of providing good plans and good codes for this type of development. If you want to just research their stuff, I would go on line and you'll see that they have a great track record of this type of development. So, I have full confidence that it's going to come out really nice. My only other concern, I guess, is to go along with the affecting the hillside and everything. I'd like to see maybe something put into the covenants or the code, whatever is developed, for the requirement of maybe individual lots having to do an Technical Analysis and recommendations for footings and potentially even the requirement to hire an engineer to just do the structural development for those footings. I think that would help us as the surrounding neighborhoods, get a more comfortable feel for ... their houses aren't going to slide down, that they're not going to adversely affect the other neighborhoods and such like that. Thank you. Clark: Thank you. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 70 Hansen: Hi, my name is Jennifer Hansen. I live in Park Place. I also attended several of the SURET Meetings, was really impressed, spoke up that I felt that this was how Planning should occur, commend everyone involved in that process and continue to do that. And, I'm hopeful that the planning stages have not finished, that this is a further expansion of the planning process, that there's still room for change and open-mindedness. I first want to say that those of us that could attend today from Park Place, and you've heard from many of us but not all of us, probably represent at least one or two people who could not be here today. This is causing an established neighborhood, an extremely successful family neighborhood, call it whatever you want, it works really, really well. That's why so many people that move away move back into Park Place. Several of us have moved around Park Place. It works. Some of the changes that you have Proposed could really adversely affect that. One of the things that I want to share with you is some research that I have been doing for over a year on trying to improve the traffic situation, which has been mentioned several times. More than a year ago I was told and I quote, "Staff has put the entire section of Mission from Old Wire to Mission intersection to 265 as a high priority area and has recommended that the City go ahead and make improvements", knowing that this is a State highway, "go ahead and make improvements because of the importance of this heavily traveled artery and the hazardous conditions that currently exist". I have not yet spoken to one person in almost a dozen phone calls who has disagreed with that assessment. We have a hazardous traffic situation now. When I have said, well what could we lobby for? Who do we talk to and what can be done? I am told that what needs to be done to address the problem now, and I want you to really hear these next two words, at minimum to address the problem now is a signal and a turn lane. That's what's been Proposed to address the problems and the density and the traffic issue of this new subdivision and you're adding hundred and hundreds and hundreds of cars and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of trips and people coming in and out. We now, in our neighborhood, refer to the tower as the peeping Tom tower, not because we think it's going to be just a peeping Tom but because we're all sitting down there trying to look up and say, okay those people are going to be observing. What? Not everybody's going to be looking straight out at the horizon. It's a very unnerving feeling to think that people will be climbing the tower and looking down, but furthermore, there's another opportunity for trips in and out and higher traffic problem. Let's take each aspect of the traffic problem and address it carefully. One of the concerns that's already been mentioned was that the traffic count was done on a Friday afternoon of a holiday weekend. Friday afternoon from 4 to 6 is not our worst time. There are at least 10 other times, twice a day, where we have significant problems. Those are compounded by the fact that at least 5 schools, big Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 71 schools already exist on this road. We can't make those schools go away. We're stuck with them. They were there before this property was purchased. Kids have to get back and forth and that means school busses. This isn't just people driving kids back and forth. It's the stop and go of school bus traffic, which can get backed up so far and cause so much congestion that you can be stuck there for a long time. And, in frustration, many times people pull out across what is in several places along this road, already a blind crossing. You can't see on either side because of how the traffic flows. I also want to share with you that Michelle Hayward, the Principal of McNair, has told me to tell you, that if necessary she will video-tape the traffic on either side of this section and show you how dangerous this is. This is a great concern on the McNair side of 265 and '/4 mile on the opposite side the root side of 265. The last thing I guess I really want to address or to mention is on the outside ... right outside this room, is a sign and one of the points on that sign says, we will grow a livable transportation network. We don't have that now. Approving something without improvements in place to accommodate what could be a large amount of traffic increase is certainly not consistent with that Proposal. Thank you very much for your time. Clark: Thank you. Dedrick: Hi, my name is Joe Dedrick. I am a resident of Park Place. Candy, you told us not to come up and say anything if we were going to be repeating and so what I'm up here to tell you is that I'm pretty much in agreement with most of the people who have talked against the density and against the construction of the tower. Thank you very much for listening to everyone that is here. We appreciate you guys and we hope that you will listen to us and rule accordingly. Thank you. Clark: Thank you, Joe. For an insurance agent, that was short. Anybody else? Patrick: My name is Fred Patrick. I reside at 2479 Camelot. I just want to reiterate about the traffic problem on Mission. When my wife and I moved out here 20 years ago, we didn't have a problem. But now, we have a major problem getting out onto Mission. So, before you go any further, I think that needs to be addressed, a light out there, especially in front of the church, Fayetteville Christian School, right there. That really needs to be addressed. Thank you. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Patrick. Backus: I'm John Backus. I live at 1984 Greenview Drive. The density bothers me and if it would remain zoned like it is, I'd be happy. I've lived here all my life and I've lived on Greenview I guess since '84. Thank you. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 72 Clark: Dare I say, anybody else? Roberts: My name is **** Roberts and I would just like to applaud the developers for the development that's Proposed. I think it's great to see developments like this coming to Fayetteville. I would much rather see 295 units on 29 acres than 295 acres of land developed outside the City on 1 acre lots and all those people still driving into Mission and Crossover. I just think that you guys have done a good job and I appreciate this type of Proposed development. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Gilbert: My name is Pete Gilbert. I live in the Park Place Subdivision. I've just got one quick comment. I live right down here **** 94. Three times we've had major projects to get the water to go outside of my house. The last one cost me $12,000. I don't get water in the house anymore but the last night before I went to bed I went out and cleaned the drain. This morning when I got up I cleaned the drain. That's what I have to do to keep the water out of my house. To my knowledge, the City has done nothing at this point and it's not just me, it's other people on the street. We all have the same problem. It's a river. Thank you very much. Yeater: My name is Dairy Yeater. I'm am also a resident at Park Place. I am a new resident. I did not have the opportunity to attend any of the meetings that they referred to that had to do with the planning process. I am aware of the fact that the neighborhoods that surround my home are very family oriented, are wonderful places to be. That is why we chose our home. I had no idea whatsoever that a situation like this was on the horizon. It is a disappointment to me. It is something I can't comprehend. I do not understand why there is the need to put this development in this place. It is not the assumption that if it does not occur here that it will occur somewhere down Mission that will have the same traffic impact. There are other locals that would support a high-density development better than this. This area is zoned family dwellings for a reason and I hope that it stays that way because I enjoy Fayetteville. I think it's a very family- oriented place and I think that it needs to continue to be that way. There is a balance. There is a balance of placement. Thank you. Clark: Thank you. Anybody else? Going once. Going twice. Okay, we have now concluded the Public section of the hearing. I am going to turn it over to the developers for their presentation and ask that you address as many of the comments as you've heard and then we'll go back and address them all. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 73 Teague: I'm Brian Teague with Community By Design. I'm the Civil Engineer on the project. I'd like to thank the Staff and the 3 Planning Commissioners here today for taking the time to review the project. It's very complicated. I guess just I'll give you a little background. Developers have hired quite a team of consultants besides ourselves. In August of this year, as everybody knows, DPZ, who is one of the leaders in land planning throughout the world, came to town and did a SURET. About that same town, the City was in the process of developing the City Plan 2025. There was a lot of hype about that. The Planning Department even came down to the SURET and gave a presentation and presented the goals, the concepts of the City Plan 2025. And that, mainly, is what we have tried to follow with this development. It's been tough working with Staff to address a lot of the issues that the neighbors have brought up here today. We've spent over 100 hours in the last couple of months just meeting with various departments in the Staff and have made a lot of compromises but have come into agreement on most of the issues with this development. So, I want to try to reiterate that the City Plan 2025 is what we're trying to do here. If you'll look on the Future Land Use Map, you'll see the area that we're talking about, the Ruskin Heights area up there kind of highlighted as a neighborhood, Plan for Denser Neighborhoods. Anyway, I want to let some of the developers talk about some of the other issues. Davis: I'm going to go through kind of in the order of the issues as I heard them. Clark: If you'll introduce yourself, I would appreciate it, for the record. Davis: Oh, my name is Ward Davis. I'm with the development group for Ruskin Heights. I'm just going to kind of address each issue as I heard them. A couple of times I'll probably get the engineers to give more specific answers. This isn't in the order of importance of the number of how many times they came up it's just in the order of that I wrote them down. First off, the first thing I heard was narrow roads were a concern and the Waivers and that sort of thing that have to do with roads and turning radius's and so forth. In addition to having narrow roads to encourage slower traffic, one of the items in this City's Hillside Best Practices Manual is a recommendation for narrow roads with narrow turns on hillsides to prevent erosion, like people have mentioned. That's one of the reasons that we wanted to go that direction on this site. Now, the Engineering Standards don't necessarily support that but that's why we wanted to ... one of the reasons we wanted to go with the narrow roads. One thing that was mentioned was the quality that we as developers were going to sell lots. Primarily we hope to sell to individuals as opposed to builders. But I can understand that people are worried that if we sell a lot, what controls remain. We plan to have, and this is what we plan to have a tiered review process. We plan to have architectural code that people Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 74 follow, then an architectural review process, then after that, have covenants and restrictions that people have to abide by going forward. Like versus like, I'm looking at the map of the site. The vast majority of the site we have single-family homes along the edge. Pointed out there is a section of town homes that do, but Park Place I guess there are two single-family home sites, maybe three that have town homes near them but I'm also reminded of the fact that Park Place actually has a whole section of 4-plex'es and it's surrounded by single-family homes so that ... it also has an example and it doesn't ruin the neighborhood or anything. We've tried to be very sensitive to having like versus like and having the least dense forces of the neighborhood be adjacent to the surrounding neighbors. I'm going to want the engineers to talk more about storm water management. Currently you have a situation, and our office is on the site so we can see it this morning and last night. You have an uncontrolled storm water situation. It does pour down onto Park Place. After construction, we'll have storm water management and we will be collecting storm water. I can certainly understand people's concern daring construction. I want the engineers when I get done to address specifically what we plan to do during construction. I am well aware of the fact that developers in the past have made promises about storm water management during construction and not necessarily kept their promises. So, I understand that we're dealing with a trust deficit on that issue. It was mentioned that commercial is not compatible the area. I'm looking at the map now, as well. There's commercial immediately west of the site where the Eureka Pizza building is. There's commercial right here with Westwood Gardens and obviously there's lots of commercial. Then there's commercial across here, as well, then all the way over to Crossover. There is commercial in the area, not a ton but we're only asking for 58,500 feet, total, to be in the form of relatively small shops of retail. The tower is one piece where there have been lots of misconceptions. For one thing, people were thinking that the height of the tower is going to be a very tall tower. It's actually going to be below the hillside. Hilltop Ordinance restricted to height of 45 feet. So, it's not going to be very tall. Actually, there's a tree at the end of the ridge where the tower or the observation platform will be, which is about 65 feet tall. It's about 15 feet taller than the tower. As far as concerns about people looking into their homes, there are plenty of homes around town that have windows that 40 feet and so I guess you could have the same concern that your neighbor could look out of their window into your house, as well. This is not a real tall tower. It's not going to stand out above the other buildings. It's not a giant **** building. Brian, I want you to talk about parking a little bit and the volume of on -street parking places that we have and the reason that we like on -street parking. One of the reasons is that we like it because it slows traffic. That's one concern that we have on site. The two biggest issues, and I've kind of come back around to these, Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 75 are density and traffic. I'll take density first. We've kind of all lived through periods since I guess about the 40's with zoning around the country where you have density zoned in specific areas of the city and you have less density, for instance in RSF-4 in other areas of the city. It's left a kind of a negative perception of density because you have concentration of bad density. In areas of the country that have a mix of uses and have a variety of household types, you don't have that kind of same negative perception, for instance like Charleston, South Carolina or Alexandria, Virginia. I can understand the perception of density for density's sake as bad, density for the sake of variety where you can offer a variety of home types that satisfy consumers that have a variety of income levels and a variety of lifestyles could be very good. It certainly adds to a sense of vitality in a neighborhood. At the end of the day, one of the kind of central intents we have is that we want the neighborhood to feel like a neighborhood and to have a variety of interesting people living together. I want Brian and the engineers to talk about specific traffic Proposals. We agree that there is traffic on Mission. We also are aware of the causes of traffic problems in Fayetteville and around the country. First and foremost on the list is sprawl. The second is lack of connectivity. It was mentioned that, why would you have more than an access onto Greenview when people are just use that to get out onto Mission? That's specifically because we want to avoid a problem like Park Place has where you just have one exit and it does tend to back up. Also, we do maintain that a lot of the folks are going to be living here. If we were doing a project out in Goshen or all of the projects out toward the east side of town, they all pile traffic onto Mission. We have gone probably farther than most to hire a traffic engineer and get involved with trying to improve traffic on Mission, not just for this project but to have traffic be better after the project with the improvements to Mission. That's according to our traffic engineer's study. We want to work with everybody to help get traffic improvements on Mission through. Brian, could you take over? Teague: I'll try to talk a little bit about the drainage. In the technical site, what we have up there is a bunch of neighborhoods surrounding undeveloped land up there, without any type of infrastructure to help control that runoff to go to the right places. So, I'm sure that there are a lot of problems right now without any development on the hillside because there's no way to control it. What we are, of course, Proposing to do is put in an infrastructure to control that runoff. All of our streets will have storm inlets and will catch runoff. The part of the site we're asking for development Approval of, the northeast side of the site over here, probably 90 or 95% of the runoff generated in that area will be drained down to this pond right here where it will be detained and will not increase ... our post -development runoff numbers will not be higher than pre - development numbers. That's just according to City Engineering Code Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 76 and how we're supposed to handle runoff. We're taking care of that problem. Other areas of the site will have a detention pond up front right here and possibly some kind of sensitive -design detention pond right here in this area, too. Basically the overall concept is, we're not going to increase runoff onto anyone and we're going to design to control off of that runoff. I'd also like to talk a little bit about why we want on -street parking. That kind of goes back to the whole concept of the development and back to what City Plan 2025 is asking for. It's a more traditional -style development where we don't have big parking lots, just like right down the road at the intersection of 265 and 45 where the Neighborhood Market is and all the other shops with the big, huge parking lot in front. What we want to try to do is prevent that situation from happening. You can do that if you design for on -street parking. We're providing enough parking places to meet City Code. There's enough parking there. It's just not off- street parking in a big, huge parking lot. Davis: ****. It just shows as a Waiver. Just tell the number of spots and so forth. Teague: Right. It just boils down to ... I think City Code requires you to have a certain percentage of your parking off-street in a parking lot and we are Proposing to provide that many parking spots, just do it on -street. There's room for those parking spots on the streets. That's just how we'd rather do it and I think that's how everybody would rather have it. I'd also like to speak a little bit about the traffic situation on Mission. We know that there are a lot of traffic problems along Mission. Without development, it's at capacity. That's what our traffic study has shown. What the traffic study says is that we can fix these problems if we could get a light put in and a turning lane, that this would help pulse the traffic and create in spots for other streets that come onto Highway 45 ... creating places for them to ... for the traffic to get onto Highway 45. I don't think there is a stop light between the intersection of Highway 265 and Highway 45. North Street is the next stop light. That's over a mile, probably. We're talking about close to the same traffic volume that's on College. There's a traffic light every block on College. So, we're convinced that traffic light would help alleviate a lot of those problems. There are a couple of things ... also all the Waivers that we're asking for ... something I mentioned earlier is that we were getting ... I mean we're trying to create a traditional neighborhood development. We're trying to play our part and move in towards what City Plan 2025 has recommended. City Plan 2025 recommends that we don't necessarily follow the Unified Development Code when we're designing our streets and designing our neighborhood. It specifically references that we use the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Manual for context -sensitive streets. That's what we've done. We've used those different manuals that call for narrower streets to try to Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 77 calm traffic throughout neighborhoods. That's where the majority of those Waivers are stemming from. Also, if we are going to develop on this hillside with slopes at 10 to 15%, just like the rest of Mount Sequoia, it's going to require Waivers. All of the other development that has occurred on Mount Sequoia, you couldn't do it and follow the rules set forth ... street standards in the Unified Development Code. That's too steep. I think there are two or three Waivers that we are asking for that just had to do with grade and how we're trying to handle it. More specifically, I'd like to discuss a little bit further some of the more detailed Waivers that we are asking for. Clark: We can ask you questions about those. Teague: Okay. Clark: Gentlemen? VanKeen: Hi, my name is Dirk VanKeen. I've seen many of you before and it's good to see new faces that weren't at the SURET process. We can get you up to speed on some of the traditional neighborhood design aspects that were presented during that process. They may alleviate some of your fears and make you understand where some of the design aspects are coming from. Density, of course, is a big one. But it is necessary that neighborhoods become more compact to be walk -able neighborhoods and also more sustainable in that way. We're too reliant on the automobile, is the basis, the first thing you start with when you design a neighborhood that was represented as country, pre -World War II but disappeared in the 50's. To address some of the specific issues, like Allison had questions about ADA, of course we embrace American's With Disabilities Act of 1984, I think it was. Any part that has access to people of normal mobility, they'll have a way to get there to get the same view or access to the same retail product in a wheelchair, in other words. So, that's all thought of. You may not be able to go up the steps, but you can get to that location above the steps on a slope. So, that's nothing unusual from what you see. I think that anybody that's familiar with the ADA Act will know what I'm talking about. And, we face many of the same issues that you have in Eureka Springs. But we have to, of course, do it for modern times. Guys, can you think of anything? You know, we had a lot of things come up from Don Connor that we should probably address that ... we'll just see if we can add a little accuracy to them. We are targeted for growth in the 2025 Plan, as shown on the Future Land Use Map. Our smallest residences are not scheduled to be 2,000 square feet. We plan to have, actually single-family homes that actually have a greater range than that, as small as 1,200 square feet. We don't plan any six -story buildings and housing does not begin at $325,000 ... Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 78 Teague: To address the six -story building, you guys should know the rules. Most of our site is covered under the Hillside Hilltop Ordinance which mandates that a residence cannot be above ... residential building cannot be above 45 feet and commercial cannot be above 60. So, know that we're not just doing that of our own accord. That's one of the rules and you've heard that we didn't ask for a Variance on that. $320,000, our minimum price, no attainable housing. Attainable housing comes from many forms. We would like to think that with 1,200 square foot units up to 3,200 square foot units allows for a wide mix of people and incomes. Only 23% of the households in this country are traditional families, meaning that they are parents and children. Practically every subdivision built in northwest Arkansas addresses only that group. You know we're attempting ... with 30% of our buildings being multi -family and 30% being single-family attached, or in other words, town homes, we're attempting to address the empty nest market and the young professionals which are relatively unfulfilled, unless you want to buy a $250 to $300 square foot condo on Dickson Street. So, we feel that there is a need for it. We look at this neighborhood as completing the neighborhood. So, we do feel that it is compatible, that it is supplying a product for a long overdue need. Some of the other things that we have from Don, will encourage sprawl because no one will want to live next to it. You know, I know that Charleston Place went through some of these same issues. They had 25 to 35 foot -wide lots. It's not become the highest priced new construction per square foot. They didn't sell it that way but demand for the product increased the resale prices of them. So, that's somewhat of a ... kind of makes people feel good about what's going up next to them and what kind of impact it has on their real estate values. Much can be said for Har**** Meadows in Springdale you know, which is also T & D -like. You know it's a little detached with it's retail with it's retail and it doesn't mix it's unit types quite as well as we would like but it also represents what, through resale values, have become some of the highest priced new construction per square foot. We're not Proposing that we would provide an overpriced product. We just know that demand will drive the resales up. Some of the other things, 100,000 yards of undercut. We don't have those numbers yet. Don doesn't have those numbers yet. We foresee actually having to add fill in certain areas and with the use of 3 and 4 foot structural stone retaining walls, much like you see around the town square area and you know, they're beautiful. They're a part of Fayetteville. Our bungalow homes set back off the street on a 3 to 4 foot rise, with a stone retaining wall coming up to the street. We envision many of those. The idea is to, with the small lots, we're enabling ourselves to make smaller cuts so that you don't see ... you want to do a big lot that **** level? Then therefore, have a 20 -foot retaining wall in the back of it. You do a small lot front to back and mind your slopes. You run your streets along Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 79 the slopes, rather than cutting across them. So, hopefully that addresses some of those issues. Traffic study, one car for every home. You know, I don't recall ever saying that but I think that it goes without saying that if you have empty -nesters and young professionals, and 60% of your units addressing that group, you will have a lot of one cars. But, I'm not rationalizing that. The project could be denser. It could be less dense. You know originally whenever we had this set through the SURET, the numbers that were thrown out there, I believe it was 343 minutes. We didn't cut that back because we thought it was unpalatable or that we just didn't like the money. It didn't look right. This project works. It is 295. It's not 5 short of 300 because it sounds better than 300. It's 295 because that is what works on this site and feels good whenever you're standing in the middle of the town square looking at the live/work units or walking down the single-family detached streets or standing in the middle of a bungalow court with all the small homes around it with the common green space. This was some of the most popular architecture in Pasadena, California in the 20's and 30's, whenever Craftsman -style architecture, which is what this project did. We've taken some of the most enduring architectural parts of Fayetteville and a few from around the country and incorporated them into one site. It's not homogenous. It doesn't appeal to one person spending $350,000 ... a couple and their kids ... spending $350,000 on a house that looks just like the one next door to it. I think actually I'm finished. Chasner: I have a couple of comments. Clark: You'd better be quick. Chasner: We can wrap it up. Clark: Go for it. Chasner: I just wanted to address a couple of quick things that I didn't hear covered. I'm sorry. I'm William Chasner with Community By Design. Graves: Will you guys address your comments here instead of out? Chasner: Oh, I'm sorry. In a former life, I worked for a rural transportation federally funded institute at the University of Arkansas where we did studies on school bus turning radii. We read those studies again before we designed this neighborhood. I believe all the fire truck equipment and all the ambulance equipment will work despite the narrow streets. I just wanted to add one thing that didn't covered on the on -street parking. Part of the reason we did on -street parking is in traditional neighborhoods ... streets for the past 50 years have been designed from highway standards. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 80 The engineers who did the work in college mostly were on federally funded dollars and they were building highways. And, when they became town planners, they'd largely write their codes from what they know from college and streets end up way too wide. We had this problem on Maple Street and the way we were able to fix it is by putting in these speed humps. You don't have that sort of problem over in the historic district because the streets are narrow, the curb returns are very tight and there's on -street parking. You don't have this problem on the newly designed Dickson Street because specific design considerations were taken into account, put traffic on the street, make the driver feel uncomfortable traveling over about 15 to 20 miles an hour, which is our target speed for this neighborhood. We want children to be able to walk safely in this neighborhood. I just want to address, not only do we not want huge parking lots, which I don't think anybody likes, those cars should be on the street in order to make the driver drive slowly. One thing that nobody addressed is that it's not in the part we're asking for development now, but in the mixed-use here and here, which is down at the bottom of the hill, there is a plan for a parking structure to the interior of all these buildings. You won't see it. But, in the future, **** TAPE CHANGES HERE AND NEW TAPE STARTS HERE **** street with no sidewalks. But, what we hope will be a very pleasant walk up the Spanish steps, maybe stop at the viewing platform for a moment, stop and get a cup of hot coffee, and continue on up to their house. So, I do feel like we've really tried to think carefully about this design. We're not just clumping in. I know the density sounds a little bit frightening but the other issue on density is most transit studies ... if you want to put a transit network into a suburban or rural area, the only way it works, and because the density is low, is to put smaller pockets of traditional type of neighborhood designs with some density with mixes of use of both retail office and housing so that there's a reason to have a transit stop there and a person who does not wish to use their car or who would like an opportunity to not use their car, may take the local transit system, get off at that destination and be able to address several of their needs within walking distance. So, that's kind of what we're trying to go for is to call for smart growth. That's what we're trying to get at here. I'm sorry to have extended the period here. Hooker: My name is Morgan Hooker. I'm one of the developers and I heard some concerns over the quality of construction and how we would control that. I would just encourage anyone, if they wanted to, rather than getting into any of the details here, stop by our office or call us and we would be happy to walk through that. Clark: We're going to talk about that in just a minute. Anything else? All right, I'm going to bring it back to the Commission. There are several issues on my list, some of which have kind of been addressed and some have not. I Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 81 will say to folks in the audience, a lot of your issues, especially with drainage and runoff are going to become more discuss -able as the development progresses, especially the development on the top of the hill, which we're not talking about today. We are talking about development in northeast corner. So, I'm not sure that their development and grading is something our Engineer is going to be able to reassure people on completely with regards to the runoff. But, I'm going to ask Engineering ... is Matt still with us ... is anybody still with us ... there you are ... I'm going to ask Engineering in a big, bold voice to talk about the drainage that they're putting in in this area we're looking at. Casey: Well, I can just give general answers at this time. The Applicant has submitted a Drainage Report showing the preliminary design for this first phase of development. It is the City of Fayetteville's policy that we not adversely affect the adjacent properties and we do not increase the peak runoff. The Report that has been submitted to our division for review shows that they are complying with those requirements. I will add that, although the storm sewer design is not complete at this time, the streets that are Proposed and the alleys will have storm sewer that will capture most of this runoff, as Brian mentioned earlier and direct it into the storm sewer system instead of letting it go uncontrolled into these backyards, which is a common problem in the City of Fayetteville where the homes back up to an undeveloped field with no control structures at all. So, I will say that this has been reviewed and will continue to be reviewed as the details fall into place. Clark: And, the good news is, as this builds out, homeowners will have an opportunity to see what type of grading and drainage we're actually getting because they're building this in phases. So, if this phase doesn't work, we'll have more to talk about in the next phase. But, they're going to be under the jurisdiction of the City and one of the guidelines we have is, you cannot make drainage worse. You cannot make it any worse than it currently exists. So, hopefully some of these problems will be addressed and taken care of. The other aspect, ADA accessibility, I think we've talked about that. That's a City and National requirement. Streets, let's talk about for a minute, then I'm going to refer this to Andrew or Jeremy. The commitment to improve Mission and Greenwood and the traffic light, what kind of a timeline are we looking at because that is a ... at least Mission is a State Highway? Garner: We are recommending that they construct those improvements as opposed to just paying an assessment. As far as the timing, we're recommending that as this development goes through, they would, for the traffic signal, they'd be having to pay ... if they don't improve it, they would have to put that in in proportion with the developments as they go in. So, we're not Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 82 anticipating that the State Highway Department would allow them to do these improvements with this first full section of development, but as it grows, I mean that's probably the point where the State Highway Department will find that it warrants a signal. But, we are requesting them to go through the Permit process with this first phase, at least try to get those improvements constructed. Clark: Any idea how many of the improvements on Mission would actually be completed with this phase of this development? Because traffic is a critical issue with me, as well. Pate: That's really going to depend on the Highway Department. What we will require with each phase is essentially ... it's called a Warrant Analysis. The developer would provide an analysis of the traffic being generated by this development. So, let's say the Highway Department was noted to anything in this first phase with these 57 lots, the second phase might come through, traffic would be generated most likely, so potentially that warrant would have increased or one of the warrants would have been met to meet the Highway Department criteria. That would be a subsequent information that would be submitted through the State Highway Department for review. It may very well be that they will accept the improvements right now as it stands. We simply can't answer that question until the Highway Department has reviewed that in full. And you'll note that our Conditions of Approval very specifically state, "they shall pursue all Permits". We will have to get a letter from the Highway Department basically stating that they will not allow this improvement to occur before we would take that assessment. Clark: What about street improvements on schedule to the west of this development? That was also pointed out that just in front of the development does not necessarily handle all the traffic flow. And, it certainly doesn't. Pate: We're recommending improvements, not a long way west but we are recommending improvements west to Greenview Drive, which is also in front of the commercial strip center that's currently located there. Clark: City have any plans to do further west into town? Pate: Not that I'm aware of. Clark: Okay. Would one of the Planner's please comment about the PZD processing and design commitments the builder's have to make? Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 83 Pate: Sure, there ... all of the commitments that are offered here in the Statement of Commitments and the Design Standards are required to be met by builder or any subsequent property owner for this Planned Zoning District process. That's one of the good things about the Planned Zoning District process is it's sort of a what you see is what you get type of Application as opposed to can I have zoning for C-1 on the portion of the property and RMF -12 on another portion of the property? We would not see a drawing. We would not see a Site Plan or anything. So, the Planned Zoning District development review process is a process by which a zoning of the land is tied to the Development Plan that's also presented. As you mentioned earlier, Ms. Clark, there's only a portion of this property that's being actually developed at this time in the first phase. Lot 65, I believe, which is the larger portion up on top of the hill to the south, is a future phase or development and it will have to come back through this public review process once again through a Subdivision or a Large Scale Development. So, we will look at all the street cross-sections and everything else again for that particular phase. Clark: So, in plain -speak, they have to show us what they're going to build pretty much and they have committed to that. If any neighbors are interested in more of the drawings, Planning has them available, as do the developers. So, there should not be any major surprises once it is fully developed. Geological survey not matching that of the U of A, do you know anything about that, Andrew? Garner: I'm not aware of that. Clark: Okay, I'm not sure what exactly that means but I'm sure we'll investigate it. Do we have a Trails Overlay into this project? Pate: There are some recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Board, I believe, regarding trail connections, a trail corridor located along the western boundary of the site that's on the portion that's not currently being developed. But, if you'll look, it's part of PA -6. There's 1.4 acres it looks like that's a ... that letter G, if you're looking on the ... I'm sorry, you're looking at a different page but ... Brian if you could point to the trail green space corridor? Yes, that area. Clark: Okay. Teague: The trail running right back through here ... connected onto Mission. Clark: Okay. Pate: Yes. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 84 Clark: All right, guys. Lots of Waivers. We're going to talk about that. Tower, we're going to talk about that. Traffic study, have you looked over the traffic study? Pate: Yes, we have a copy of this here and it will be in the Full Planning Commission Report. Clark: Was it done on the Friday before holiday? Pate: It was done on ... I don't know the answer, specifically to that question. But, they were taken on October 6, 2006. Clark: I would really suggest before you come to Full Planning Commission, you're able to really support the traffic study and convince people it was truly done with good methodology. Commissioners, it's our turn. Graves: Madam Chair? Clark: Commissioner Graves? Graves: Up front, I'll just state that I can't support this particular Proposal as it's currently submitted. I agree that it's too dense, both from a standpoint of exacerbating the traffic situation that's already there and from the standpoint of matching up with the surrounding properties. Primarily, I'm talking about the residential portion of it. I don't have a problem with the commercial portion of it. We do want to encourage mixed-use. This is an area that's not too far down the road from a commercial node that's growing at the intersection of Mission and Crossover Road. And, there is some existing commercial there in the nursery and the pizza place and dry cleaner's and all that. I'm very familiar with this because I live in this area. So, I do know that the existing housing is not nearly as dense as what's Proposed here. We're talking about 28, roughly 29 acres, and I'm talking about ultimately because you are asking ... I mean this is also an ask for rezoning. We're only talking about a little portion of the development part of it right now but we're also talking about the whole parcel when we talk about the rezoning. You're asking to rezone it at a density of 10 units an acre. We know part of that's going to be carved out with commercial. So, the part that's residential is going to be really dense. So, I have a real concern with the number of residential units that we're talking about packing in to this particular parcel. To me, just because you call it a PZD, doesn't mean it's not spot zoning, which is what it is. You're piping in an intense residential district that doesn't match up with the surrounding residential districts. Your comments with regard to perhaps having some kind of transit system or whatever are duly noted and Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 85 I understand what you're saying but I also know that this is a particularly sensitive area in the City that the City has gone to extreme lengths to protect in it's current character and state as far as not encouraging traffic cutting over the mountain and things like that. And, as you pack more houses in there, you pack more people in there with more cars who are trying to get out and they are going to find other avenues, which are going to include over the mountain. I mean, there's no question about that. It will happen. Ultimately, when you're on Mount Sequoia, if you've got to get to work in Fayetteville, you've got to make a left turn onto Mission somewhere. Whether you cut over to Rockwood, whether you go to Viewpoint, wherever you are going, you've got to make a left turn onto Mission. And, the traffic on Mission is terrible. You didn't cause that problem but the problem's there and this, without question, this project, as Proposed would greatly exasperate that, especially as fully developed. Not this particular parcel, perhaps but ultimately you're probably talking about 2,500 to 3,000 vehicle trips a day out of this one parcel with that number of residents that are all trying to get out on Mission one way or another. I for one am not comfortable rezoning the entire parcel with the understanding that there will be than many residences on the hope that the Highway Department would one day give us a traffic signal out there. And, I'm not even convinced that a traffic signal helps that much. Maybe it would. But, we don't know if they would give it to us or when they would give it to us or how many more cars we've got to pack onto Mission trying to turn left before we can get that traffic signal. The City's not in control because it's Highway 45. It's a State Highway. The State Highway Department gets to decide what traffic signals go on there. So, from the outset I come at it with that point of view. As far as walking down through the different findings that we would be asked to make, obviously I would be in favor of the street improvements that are being recommended. But again, I'm not convinced the Highway Department is going to let us make all of them or when they would let us make all of them. From the standpoint of right-of-way dedication, it looks like we would need some more information before Staff is comfortable making a recommendation to us, which we can then evaluate that recommendation and take action on. The Street Design Standards I am in support of. We do have a Best Use situation now for a Handbook that we have with our Hillside Overlay. It does encourage narrower streets. I understand what you're doing there. Not only ... I think one of you guys said it helps with not cutting down as many trees and clearing out as much, which helps with erosion control. From a standpoint of what it looks like when you're standing at a distance from a hillside and you're looking at it and you don't see big wide swaths of road going up a hillside, narrower streets help with that view looking up a hill, as well. So, I would be in favor of the Waiver of the street standards as far as that goes. I would certainly support Staff on their opinions regarding the specifics like on Street J, Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 86 which I think helps you on some of the other things you're wanting to do on inclines and so forth, as Engineering has mentioned. But, from the standpoint of generally would I support the narrower streets and with Engineering telling us they're comfortable with the tighter radii on turns, I would support that, as well. If Engineering is comfortable with it and we're convinced that emergency services can get adequate access, then that's fine. That's what those requirements are there for in the first place, really. From the standpoint of parking, my only concern again here is is sort of matching up what's there. I'm not convinced ... this is a little off the parking subject but that the types of homes that you're talking about putting in this ... and again we want to encourage mixed-use, so I'm kind of on the fence on this but the types of homes ... those types of homes aren't on Mount Sequoia. That's not what's there right now. There's not bungalows and townhouses and things like that on Mount Sequoia. Maybe there's a market for that and maybe there needs to be but it doesn't really match up with what's there and there's not a lot of cars parking on the streets on Mount Sequoia. There is a lot in this **** district, you're right. But this **** district is flatter. It's sometimes tough to park your car on the street on Mount Sequoia because you're clinging to the side of the hill. If you try to do it you have to cut your wheel and put your emergency brake and hope it doesn't slide. So, when you're talking about the speed-ness here, I don't know, the speed-ness and the curves and that kind of thing, I would just be real hesitant to rely as much on on -street parking as a primary source of parking for that entire parcel, knowing that the terrain for doing that type of parking is difficult. It's difficult to see when you're going to try to parallel park, especially from narrower streets, which I would encourage and what you Proposed. But then you're putting cars along the edges of those narrower streets, which obstructs views even more when there are cars and you're trying to ... if you're at an intersection and you're not only trying to look around the comer but you're also trying to see past the cars that are parked along the street, as well. It could just make for a difficult situation when you're talking about the curves and the steep-ness on those streets. So, I'm not necessarily opposed on the Waiver on the parking but I'd like to have more information about that. The Commercial Design Standards, I think the materials and so forth that we've seen look great. I don't have a problem with that. The other concern I have is that when I look at, for example this one section that we're talking about developing on the Tree and Landscape, the trees help a great deal with erosion control, as well. I know you're got to cut some down to build anything but at the same time when you see that there's an existing canopy of 16% on this one section and we're leaving 4%, which is only 25% of the trees, then it at least occurs to me when you're talking about steep hillside like this that that could affect things sliding down the hill. There is an experience -factor here with people that have built sort of at the bottom edge of the hill and Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 87 then people above them start having their yards wash out and their retaining walls lean over and everything else and lots of foundation work and things of that nature. It doesn't just affect the people that are buying homes on this parcel because when you cut the bottom out of the hill, the people on the top side of it start sliding, too. Clark: Closer. Graves: But, my main concern ultimately is most of this is driven by density. You don't need as much on street parking if it's not as dense. You don't have to worry as much about the traffic trying to get out of there if it's not as dense. You don't have to worry about a sort of a spot -zone situation where you're not matching up with what's around it, if it's not as dense. You don't have to worry about the City's policy of trying to protect Mount Sequoia as much if it's not as dense. It's all ultimately, the traffic situation, everything, is just ... I don't think that this density fits with where you're trying to put it. And, I can't support that density as Proposed. Clark: Commissioner Harris? Harris: I think density will become the focal point of this conversation because so many things shape out from it. Before I go there, Mr. Pate? Pate: Yes. Harris: Would you just address explicitly here the Planning Staff s understandings of this development's fitting into or not fitting into issues such as infill and revitalization as there are articulated in City Planning 2025? Pate: It would be less explicit than I would like. We haven't made actual findings for the zoning of this particular item as we do normally at the Planning Commission. But, in overall, as in any PZD, we would obviously look at what is surrounding. In our Staff Report it does reflect, we feel this is an area that has a number of mixture of uses. It's very close to a commercial center. There is RMF -24, one lot to the east that's developed 4-plexes in front of Park Place, C-1 directly to the west. Institutional uses and agricultural, actually a nursery to the north. So, I think there's a mixture of uses in this area that would support a different use than a single -use pattern on this property. So, in terms of just very generally, not withstanding what density this is, not withstanding how much intensity of uses, I think a mixed-use project on this property can be appropriately designed. Staff has actually recommended a **** single -use subdivision on this property formerly. It did not include the entire property but it also took out all the tree canopy and did not respect the Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 88 Hillside Ordinances on this particular piece of property. It actually never came to the Planning Commission. It never got that far. But, that was primarily on the southwestern portion of the site that we reviewed a Plan. So, in terms of just overall compatibility, we felt a mixture of uses in this area was compatible and that naturally 10 units per acre was not something that we felt was overly too intense for this area. Harris: I bring that up as the first thing to my fellow Commissioners, the first thing I want to talk about because I think this is going to be a conversation we're going to have a lot of in the next couple of years. We had City Plan 2025 that is a document that was the result of the citywide SURET's and it does say, in no uncertain language that the City values this vacation and full revitalization. And yet, I think a lot of folks are feeling that if they live between 540 to the west and 265 to the east, that they would prefer the infill doesn't happen next door to them. And, I understand that because it's a change. It's an absolute **** change in developments happening to this area. At the same time, I feel very much bound by the seriousness of the Citywide Planning process that is not codified in our City documents and Ordinances. That doesn't mean that I'm saying right this minute that I think that this project in it's current configuration absolutely adheres to the Standards that City Plan 2025 at least suggests as a sort of vision document. But, I do want to come out in front and say that I do feel bound by that document in terms of it's insistence that this City does not want to engage in endless suburban sprawl. We don't feel that we have the resources ultimately, either natural or economic to take infrastructure out in an infinite way. And so, I want to be mindful of that while I look at this process. What I will say today ... I mean this certainly ... we have a whole lot more to talk about as a Full Planning Commission and we have more to hear from neighbors and I suspect ultimately from developers, as well. I would agree with Commissioner Graves that I think the Commercial Design Standards are certainly in keeping with what the City is asking. I think, to use Commissioner Clark's terms, it's absolutely gorgeous, although you haven't said that about this project, so I won't put words into your mouth. Clark: Thank you. Harris: I would also agree with Commissioner Graves, I think to the extent that you said this and you may have had a caveat in this somewhere but I do think that the Street Waivers, generally speaking, are those that are traditional neighborhood development inspired Street Waivers. Again, this is what the City is asking you to look at and to do. So, I think the Street Waivers, generally, that is to say the internal Street Waivers, not what's going to happen on Mission Boulevard but internally, I generally think I would be supportive of those. I will say that I truly have heard Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 89 some concerns about the tower and sir you certainly mentioned that it's not that tall. And I think I would, tell you the truth, I would just have to go back and think through that. But, I did hear the neighbor's concern that ... you know I was reminded of the UT Austin Tower, you know. How tall is that tower? You know I did have that sort of sense of it. And I do think, as I say again, in a very straightforward way, I will have to go back and rethink that because I heard what the neighbors said and I ... and I live on Mount Sequoia, too and I happen to be on top and I look down. But, I've thought about that. I've tried to be very careful about when I look down because ... and sometimes when I think I've seen something I shouldn't I ... you know ... I turn the other way. But, not everybody does that. So, for me the issues are very significant issues. There are obviously traffic. And I don't quite know how we're going to resolve that because it's an ongoing issue ... everything we talk about. If the traffic problem is only tied to an issue of density then perhaps that's something that needs to be taken back to the developer. I think that my concerns about drainage are becoming more alleviated just listening to the City Engineer and so forth, but I can see ... I mean I absolutely see that that's an issue that if I'm sitting on that side of the mountain, I'm going to want addressed in very, very clear language. So, those are the things that I would say right now. Graves: Madam Chair? Clark: Yes? Graves: I do want to be clear that I'm not necessarily saying, for example, that I would only be in favor of 4 units an acre. Something denser than that I can be in support of. But, I think the current Proposal is too dense for the area. That's my opinion and I'm one opinion of 9 who will vote on this, plus the City Council but that's my opinion. It's just, for this spot, with regard to Residential Only, it's too dense. So, without knowing especially that we had something more in place to help with the traffic issues and things like that. And, what happens with these things is they get piecemeal'd in. We have the same thing with the Police and the Fire. They'll say, well this little piece doesn't really cause us to have that many more fire and police calls. And, this little piece doesn't really cause us to have that many more fire and police calls. And, before you know it, we've brought in 200 acres, and all of a sudden, well yeah, they're responding to a lot more police calls and so forth. The same thing here. I mean I don't think the portion that you're asking for Approval on development right now, that that part necessarily greatly exacerbates what is already a poor situation there. But, then as we bring in one little piece after another ... I'm sort of looking at it from the whole, too, all the traffic situation and not knowing when or if we could get Highway Department Approval to make some of the improvements that are definitely, in my Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 90 opinion, already needed out there. Then I have to in a way pretend like what if we don't get those improvements? What can that area take right now if we didn't get those improvements? And, I think that 10 residential units an acre for that parcel is too much. Clark: I will agree with Commissioner Graves. I've thought about this long and hard. I, too am a resident of that area and travel this street and feel sorry for anybody coming out of Park Place or Viewpoint, trying to get onto Mission, most of the day. As a matter of fact, a left turn is a ... oh my God, it is a disaster at times. Even if this were the only part of this development, I would have problems with the density. Simply because, and I think Commissioner Graves has articulated it very well, I don't have a lot of faith in this State, that they are going to agree with all of these improvements and that they are going to be made before you put this traffic on that street. If they have been looking, then they'd know that there is already a problem and they should have already widened this street all the way down to North Street, probably or even as far as Maple and Lafayette. It is a problem that is growing exponentially as the areas to our east develop. It's throwing more and more traffic out there and 10 units per acre in this specific part of this, strikes me as just incredibly dense, and for me, too dense. We are going to have this discussion so much. When we talk about infill, it's infill versus compatibility. That's going to be the discussion we have. Infill is so tricky and it's so difficult. So, compatibility's always going to raise it's head because, not in my backyard is a wonderful argument. It's good as long as it's somewhere else but not where I live. Well, I think these neighbors have a very good point this time. And I think when I look ... well, I know when I look at the developments surrounding this particular piece of property, just looking at it shows you that this density is incompatible with the existing homes that surround it. Could this be developed? Heck, yes. I think it's a beautiful piece of property. I think it could be developed. I think it could be a very good neighbor to the neighbors that are surrounding it. But, not in the current configuration as I am seeing it. I know new urbanism says you've got to go dense. But, it doesn't say how dense you have to go. I don't know that 4 is enough but I'm pretty sure RSF-10 is too much. And, that's just looking ahead at some of the other things that are coming after this. I also have real problems with connectivity. Greenview is an entrance to nowhere that solves the problem because you still have to get out on Mission. And, if you take Viewpoint to Mission in front of the cemetery, that's kind of a blind corner and the cemetery's there for a reason because that scares you. If you don't take those 2 modes of access out to Mission or to Greenview and on out, then you do have to go over the mountain. You have to go up Viewpoint, which has no curb, gutter, very narrow. Shadow Ridge, which people walk on, no curb, gutter, very narrow. It's getting you nowhere. And, especially when you're talking Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 91 about all this density. Park Place folks don't have a choice. They have to come out on Mission. These folks will have a choice and I ... if they had half a brain and lived in Fayetteville ten minutes, they're going to go away from Mission. They're not going to try to make a left turn. I already know a lot of folks who come out on Mission and turn right, go down to the corner to turn around to turn left to come back into town. But, even if these street improvements were made, even if you could tell me that, boom, the State was going to widen Mission as it should have years ago, I still am struck with the comment that one of the folks made today, that doesn't solve the issue further into town. You're still fighting to get to elementary schools and middle schools on both sides of this development. And, what you're doing is letting traffic go very nicely in front of this development but you're still going to get the same bottlenecks and the same problems further down the street. As a matter of fact, you're compounding the neighbor's problems further down the street with this level of density. I really have no problems with mixed-use. I think the mixed-use part you're wanting in front of Mission is going to be great and probably need it because we need to put more commercial nodes closer in for some of these growing neighborhoods. But, the residential density gives me great concern and great reason for pause. I know you all have to look at the bottom line. But, to me the density with the multi -family just really does concern me. And, if you could convince me it was really going to be under $125,000/$150,000 and it was affordable, I might sing a different tune. But, I don't think you can do that. And, you don't have to. The tower ... the tower raises questions that I have not thought of in terms of privacy. It seems like a really cool idea until you're the house next door that somebody's got a telescope aimed at. And, I'm not sure that we can address that. But, gosh it's a concern and I think it ... it could be a liability issue, as well. I love all the water features. I love water features. I think those are way cool. The tower kind of just ... I thought it was neat until I started thinking about the neighbor's concerns and yeah, that's a safety issue, I think. And, I'm not sure how you make a tower ADA compatible but, that's up to you all to decide. But, I don't know if that's even within our rights to necessarily talk about. Graves: Well, the tower, I think, would be an attraction, which I think is what you want, partly. But, that obviously brings more cars ... Clark: True. Graves: ... in and out of the development. Then we're back to the traffic situation again. I think it's a cool idea. I think ... you know I ... but the one thing we ... I can't talk about peeping Tom's with telescopes or ... but I can talk about traffic and I think that you all should think about how much of an attraction you want it to be and the fact that's going to pull more cars and Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 92 more vehicle trips each day in and they're going to be using Mission like everybody else to get in and out. Those are people that don't even live there. They're going to be looking for a place to park. They're going to be trying to pull in and out of the development. Clark: And, parking is a big issue. I share the concerns of the on -street parking. I know that people throw Dickson Street up as a model where we've made drivers so uncomfortable they slow down. Not necessarily. I mean I see Dickson Street ... I'm much more cautious because now doors open and boy, you're right there. And, I'm surprised people have not been injured with just you know people parking and throwing the door open to get out. And the cars are so close they're going to smash into them. The other thing that I am not in favor of is the Waiver you have requested for 50% compact cars as opposed to 35%. I think you're kidding yourself. This is a steep hill. People who live on steep hills tend to want to have 4 wheel drive vehicles. Those aren't compact. I think that's a clever way of getting around some of the numbers that you need for parking. I would absolutely not support that particular Waiver. Without that Waiver, you've got number issues. The retaining wall Waiver, I need a little bit more information on because I want to know what the impact of that Waiver will have on the sidewalks and the widths of the sidewalks. Hooker: May I speak? Clark: Yes, quickly because Mr. Graves has to leave. So, we need to get to a vote. Hooker: It shouldn't affect the sidewalk widths at alt. If you go to Eureka Springs and you see where the ... you're on the sidewalk, all we're doing is moving the retaining wall to the ... it's a little more intimate feeling but the sidewalks will still be there correctly. Teague: If I could on the Waiver for 50% parking, the development portion of this project, we do have some compact spaces but it meets the requirement, under 35%. Clark: But you're asking for a Waiver of 50%, if I read it right? Teague: Yes. That Waiver was ... we put that in there early on and honestly, it should be taken out. Clark: Well, there you go. You solved that issue. Okay. It also says that we're going to have a 4% max grade Waiver. Now, how steep are you going to go? Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 93 Teague: At the intersections? I believe we're going 6% is the max for the ... we've got three street doesn't have to follow that rule. Clark: Uh, huh. Teague: Then the oncoming street into the intersection does. And so, I believe it's 6%. Clark: Okay. And, there's no green space in this space? Or, is there green space in this space? Teague: Yeah, there's 4 different areas with green space in this space. Clark: In this area we're looking at? Teague: Uh ... Clark: This particular ... Teague: The part that we're asking for development Approval of? Clark: Yes. There's 4. Teague: The Market Square, green. The town home, green. Clark: Okay, I missed that one. Teague: And, then this green right here. Clark: But, we're still only ... in this particular, you're only talking about these two entrances off of ... in this space? Teague: Correct. Clark: Just those two? Okay, then that compounds my problem. I mean eventually if this fills out, you're going to have 4 because there's another one down here some place on Mission. And then the ... Teague: Greenview. Clark: Yeah. But, it's still emptying out onto a street I have absolutely no confidence in and have much frustration with, currently and I think it's going to be compounded. Jeremy, how would you like us to proceed? Pate: However you like. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 94 Clark: Well, that's nice of you. Pate: We've recommended this be Forwarded onto the Full Planning Commission. Obviously, we've made recommendations on Conditions. Those might need to be changed; it sounds like if they can be removed. We can also provide you with more information about retaining walls and break out the off-street versus on -street parking and we can give you some more information Forward to Full Planning Commission. Clark: Well, let's go through these determinations we need to make right now. I'm not going to vote in favor of this, but I will vote in favor to pass it onto Planning. Graves: I'll try to come up with a Motion here. Clark: Okay. MOTION: Graves: I will Move to Forward RPZD 06-2299 to the Full Planning Commission with the recommendation for Denial in it's current form for the reasons already stated, primarily related to density of the residential portion of the entire parcel, with the stated Conditions of Approval and findings as follows: On Condition Number 1, a recommendation in favor of that finding for the pursuit of improvements. On Condition Number 2, support for Staff's position that they need more information before they can give us any up or down recommendation on that Waiver request. On Condition Number 3-A, a finding in favor of the reduced turn radii for the reasons stated by Engineering Staff. On Condition Number 3 -B -i, a recommendation in favor of Staff's Proposal that Street J be a 24 -foot street, back of curb to back of curb for the reasons stated. On Condition Number 3-13-2, a recommendation in favor of sub -part. On Condition Number 3-13-3, a recommendation in favor of Staff's finding with regard to alleyways for the reasons Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 95 stated with regard to the services that would be accessing those alleyways. On Condition Number 3-C, recommendation for Denial on the retaining wall issue. On Condition Number 3-D, recommendation in favor of Staff's comments; ie, Staff is in support of values for the street and alley designs on the steep-ness, assuming Street J is widened to 24 -feet. On Condition Number 3-E, recommendation in favor. On Condition Number 3-F, recommendation in favor. On Condition Number 3-G, request by Staff for more information on stand-up curbs. On Condition Number 9, recommendation against Waiver in it's current form. Abandon Condition Number 10 — Strike Condition Number 10. On Previously Numbered Condition Number 11 - Commercial Design Standards, recommendation to find in favor. Then the other Conditions as stated, which on Condition Number 24, also encompasses a number of Conditions which the separate Tree and Landscape Report had. That's my Motion and I'm sticking to it. Clark: I guess I should ask you to repeat that but I won't. Do I have a Second? Ms. Harris, do you have a Second? Harris: Uh ... Clark: Well, I'll Second it and put you off the hook. I will vote in favor of the Motion. You can vote against it if you'd like. Harris: I'd like ... may we have a discussion? Clark: Sure. James has to leave. Harris: I'll be very quick. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 96 Graves: That's fine. Harris: I ... I believe that we have a project that is the first in it's category to be doing this level of infill this close to the City core, if you will. I want to mark some degree of the project here. And, in a recommendation to Denial, what I would honestly be signaling there is I don't think it would pass the Full Planning Commission in it's present form anyway. And so, with that in mind, what I'm actually saying is, I hope that there is some way that this could come to fruition. Because I think it's a terrific project. I think it's exactly what this City is asking. When I say exactly, by that I mean in it's general principals, whether or not it is in it's specifics. So, I would certainly like to continue discussion about this between Staff and Applicant at the very least, and also neighborhood and Applicant. So, with that as my rationale, I will concur on this. Graves: Madam Chair? Clark: Yes? Graves: I would agree with the comments just made by Commissioner Harris. I am not against a project of this nature. I'm not against the mixed-use aspect of it or the location of the commercial portion of it or anything of that nature. My primary concerns are driven by density and traffic, which I hope I've made clear. And, if you all decide to bring the project in it's current form to the Full Planning Commission a couple of weeks from now, then you already know sort of where I'm coming from when you get there. If you make some adjustments to it between now and then, then it's very possible that I would support this project because it is attempting to do what the City wants to do as far as infill. It is possible to develop this residential portion at a denser rate than RSF- 4 and accomplish both the goals of the City, the goals of your development and also, though, attempt to tie in perhaps a little bit better what's already there. Also, perhaps reduce to some degree the impact that the current Proposal might have on traffic on Mission Boulevard. I'm not saying I envy your position in trying to come up with the best way to do all those things, but I just want to make it clear that I am not opposed to a project of this nature at all. It's just that in its current form, we're continuing it through the process right now in Forwarding it onto the Full Planning Commission. All we have right now is what it is in it's current form, which I've given you feedback on of why I can't support it in it's current form and so my Motion was to Deny. We'll report that adequately, what the rationale was when we do Full Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee November 30, 2006 Page 97 Clark: Oh, yeah. It's your choice now. If you want to make changes, if you don't, you know how we feel. It's going to the Full Planning Commission. How we vote today is not necessarily how we're locked into voting in Planning Commission, depending upon what happens. So, I would also encourage you to talk a little bit more with the neighbors and maybe a little bit more with Staff if you want to. If you don't want to, go great guns. Others have done it before. Others will do it again. But, I really like this and I'd like to see it built the way it will benefit everybody. I like your vision and I like some of what you're trying to do. I just think it's a little too dense and no faith in the State to fix that road any time soon or even to allow you all to. We've seen other projects where the money is there to put up a light and the State says, no. But, I will concur, so we will Forward this to the Full Planning Commission and when you choose to submit is totally up to you guys. Thank you gentlemen. Jeremy has something for us. Pate: One announcement, December 5, 8:30 till 11:00, we will be having a developer workshop and everyone is invited to attend. Clark: I will adjourn us. The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m.