Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-29 - MinutesMEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Thursday, December 29, 2005, 9:00 a.m. A meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, December 29, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED: CONSENT: LSP 06-1863: Lot Split (HILLCREST VILLAGE/EMERALD AVE., 291): LSP 05-1645: Lot Split (COUCH, 489) NEW BUSINESS: ACTION TAKEN: Approved Approved LSP 05-1777: Lot Split (JORDAN RENTALS, Forward to Planning Commission 366) p.4 FPL 06-1859: Final Plat (HICKORY GLEN, Approved 403) p.8 FPL 06-1876: Final Plat (CRYSTAL SPRINGS Approved III) CCP 06-1858: Concurrent Plat (REPLAT OF Forward to Planning Commission STONEWOOD S/D, 100) p.14 CCP 06-1857: Concurrent Plat (REPLAT OF Forward to Planning Comm PERSIMMON PLACE S/D, 437) p.16 LSD 06-1872: Large Scale Development Approved (CRESCENT PLACE APTS., 137): p.17 ssion CCP 05-1807: Concurrent Plat (HAYS/DOT Forward to Planning Commission TIPTON, 475) p.29 ADM 06-1898: Administrative Item Approved (SEQUOYAH COMMONS, 524) p.33 PPL 06-1870: (Preliminary Plat (THE Forward to Planning Commission HAMPTONS (REVISED), 608) p.40 Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 2 PPL 05-1749: Preliminary Plat (ST. JAMES PARK S/D, 321) p.46 LSD 05-1806: Large Scale Development (APPLEBY LANDING LOTS 2&3, 251) p.59 LSD 05-1827: Large Scale Development (WESTERN SIZZLIN, 557) p.3 LSD 06-1799: Large Scale Development (VILLAGE APARTMENTS, 289) p.68 R-PZD 05-1619: Planned Zoning District (WESTBROOK VILLAGE, 284) p.78 R-PZD 05-1735: Planned Zoning District (PADDOCK ROAD S/D, 526) p.82 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Christian Vaught Audy Lack STAFF PRESENT Jesse Fulcher Andrew Garner Brent O'Neal Forward to Planning Commission Forward to Planning Commission Tabled Approved Forward to Planning Commission Forward to Planning Commission MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Suzanne Morgan TAPE BEGAN AFTER MEETING WAS IN PROGRESS. TIIEREFORE, NO ROLL CALL, ETC. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 3 Vaught: Item was that? Anthes: Item Number 14 LSD 05-1827: Large Scale Development (WESTERN SIZZLIN): MOTION: Vaught: I'll make a Motion we Table LSD 05-1827. Lack: I'll Second. Anthes: And, I'll concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 4 Anthes: The first Item of New Business is LSP 05-1777: Lot Split for JORDAN RENTALS. Will the Applicant come forward? Just have a seat. Could we have the Staff Report? Fulcher: Yes. This property is located east of Leverett Avenue and extends north to the terminus of the adjacent street. The property is in the RMF -24 Zoning District. The site is approximately 7.7 acres. The Applicant proposes to split the lot at approximately 0.93 and 6.74 acres. This appears to be the second lot split for this tract since 1995. And the Applicant requests a created tandem lot within RMF -24 Zoning District. The Applicant has submitted a Conditional Use request to the Planning Commission to create a tandem lot with access through the existing apaitment complex via an access easement. Building setbacks for a tandem lot are minimum twenty - foot on all sides. They are not adjacent to the right-of-way. Additionally, the Applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Application to request approval to convert the storage building into a detached dwelling unit. Staff is currently evaluating whether the Ordinance would allow such a request to create these multiple tandem for and multi -family units. This is background on the site. It is north of the University of Arkansas Agricultural Farms and to the south is mainly surrounded by apartments, town homes and multi -family units and the same to the east. And, to the west, it's vacant fields. And, most of the surrounding zoning is RMF -24. Right-of-way dedication would be required along Garrett Drive, the collector, which requires seventy feet of right-of-way. And to the west it's Leverett Avenue, a collector street that also requires seventy feet of right- of-way. Park fees have been paid for the existing multi -family units on both lots, so at this point it's understood that additional fees will not be assessed with the Lot Split. Staff does recommend forwarding this Lot Split to the Planning Commission with Conditions. Lack: Anthes: Condition Number 1. I wanted to bring to your attention that, Approval of this Lot Split is subject to Planning Commission determination of the Conditional Use Permit for the Proposed tandem lot or the dedication and construction of a city street to provide adequate lot frontage, as required by the RMF -24 Zoning District. That's the main Condition I wanted to bring your attention to and I'd be happy to answer any question you may have. Could we have a copy of the Report from the Applicant? Subdivision Committee December 29, Page 5 ?: Varsgold: Lack: Varsgold: Lack: Varsgold: Lack: Anthes: Varsgold: Anthes: Vaught: Fulcher: 2005 Yes, Ma'am, I do. On the sewer main that crosses across Tract A, you need to show the utility easement. And, we also need to confirm that Tract A has legal access to water. It looks like there is a waterline that runs along the east property line. Are you aware where that is, exactly? At the property line on the east side, the waterline goes just to the second driveway of Tract B and we would extend the waterline, the main city line all the way out to Tract A property. Okay, so it doesn't quite reach Tract A? That's correct, yes. Okay. There's already an easement on the east side of the property on Tract A and Tract B to provide for that. And, the sewer's already on the property. Yes. Thank you. Would you introduce yourself and give us your presentation? Yes, I'm Billy Varsgold. I'm representing the current owner, and also will be the future owner of Tract A, basically. The whole purpose is basically to split off this single-family home from the apartment complex, Tract B, and make a second lot out of it. There's no construction, changing of anything being done on the outside. The only thing we would like to do, is make a small apartment out of the smaller unit. And, some restoration and some cleaning up of the property. He mentioned that there is on the west side open field. There's all the **** apaitinent buildings there, too. So, there's no open field there. And, the north side, there's a sixty -foot right-of-way for a possible future City of Fayetteville street. That's basically it. Thank you. Would any member of the Public like to address Lot Split 05- 1777? Seeing none, we'll close the Public Comment section. Commissioners? I have a question. On dedicating the right-of-way along Leverett, are these buildings winding up in the building setback a little bit? It looks like they are. When you look at the drawing, it does appear that, yeah I see the building you're referring to, they're not allowed to be in the building setbacks. If they are, that would require a Variance from the Board of Adjustments. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 6 Vaught: It looks like, by doing that, it's pushing all of them into that building setback, at least a portion of them. I don't know. I was just wondering if that was something we could take care of or something they've got to go to the Board of Adjustments for. Fulcher: They would have to go to the Board of Adjustment and ... Vaught: I'm looking here ... Varsgold: Uh, huh. Vaught: ... and we're requiring you today to get an extra five feet of right-of-way. And, it's 22.3 feet to the corner of this building and supposed to be 25 feet back. So, you'd have to go to the Board of Adjustments to get a Variance for these buildings being in the building setback. Varsgold: Even the fact that it has no changes on this lot? Vaught: Right. We're changing the property line, basically, either that or get an extra five feet along Leverett to make it 35 feet. So, that's pushing them into the building setback at 25 feet. Varsgold: Uh, huh. Vaught: So, it's just a ... they're going to grant it. It's just another step you have to do. Varsgold: Okay. Does this have to be done after the Planning Commission? Fulcher: It could be done after, it could be a Condition of Approval of the Planning Commission that has to be taken care of. Varsgold: Okay. Just like the waterline, basically, that goes afterwards? Fulcher: Right, before you could do any building it would have to be granted. Varsgold: Okay. Anthes: And the reason why is that that would now become non -conforming and we'd need to do the paperwork ... Varsgold: To bring it into conformance. Okay. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 7 Fulcher: Is that something we'd typically put as a Condition or is that just something that as long as they are aware of it, we don't worry about that? Vaught: Anthes: Lack: We could put it in as a Condition, I mean, to make it clear. I think that might be a good idea, even though it is required by Ordinance. Comments or Motions? We can make the Planning Commission determination here for the Conditional Use Permit? Vaught: No, we're recommending it be forwarded. Lack: Forwarded. Vaught: Because it is a tandem lot and this is a little unusual in the fact that they are creating a tandem lot for multi -family units. And, at this point, we're not really even sure of our recommendation of whether we're in support of that or not. And, we'll have to come up with that before Planning Commission because the Ordinance reads for a tandem lot requires it to be residential, the way I read it. So, we'll have to determine that. But, at this point, we feel like it should be forwarded on because the Subdivision Committee ... you know a Conditional Use has to be Approved, regardless, for a tandem lot. MOTION: Lack: I will move that we forward Lot Split 05-1777, Jordan Reynolds, with the additional Condition of Approval that a Variance for setback be sought and looking for a determination from the Full Planning Commission is on the tandem lot. Vaught: I'll Second. Anthes: And, I'll concur. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 8 Anthes: The next Item of business is FPL 06-1859: Final Plat for HICKORY GLEN. If the Applicant would make their way forward and have the Staff Report. Garner: Yes, Ma'am. This property contains about 4 acres. It's located between the northwest corner of Wedington Avenue and Lewis Street. The site is zoned RSF-4. It's surrounded by established single-family neighborhoods. It's directly adjacent to Wedington Avenue, the four -lane state highway that has been a primary factor in the design of this property. Applicant requests Final Plat Approval to create a seventeen -lot subdivision with sixteen single-family lots. The Planning Commission granted Approval of the Preliminary Plat on April 11 of this year. Surrounding land use consists of single-family homes to the north, east and west and Wellington Avenue, as mentioned is directly to the south. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets is Wedington, a principal arterial, Lewis Street, a local street. There is an existing seventy-three percent tree canopy and they have preserved nineteen percent with this development. On site mitigation is required at thirty-nine trees to mitigate. Discussion, Public Comment was taken, emphasized drainage problems and what the Applicant was planning to do alleviate some of those problems. Staff is recommending Approval of this Final Plat, with Conditions. Condition Number 1 is our Standard Dedication of Right-of-way. Condition Number 2 is sidewalk construction or guarantee. Condition Number 4 is Lot 4 shall be an unbuildable lot for the purpose of pond water detention. Other than that, the Conditions are pretty straightforward. I also wanted to point out, Condition Number 9-F, that structures on Lots 8-13 shall face Wedington Avenue. And I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Anthes: Thank you. Do we have any additional Staff comments about the drainage? Lack: There was an issue with the detention pond. I'd like to ask the Applicant if there's been any issue resolved on that? Cheznic: Basically, what they did was that they took the detention pond ... whoever graded it, graded it too small ... so they have since increased the size of it Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 9 and we've gone out and surveyed it. I can't honestly say I've actually checked it out. That's the only thing. Anthes: What is Staff's ... Lack: It would just be a Condition before we sign the Final Plat. Anthes: Okay. Cheznic: And, how would that read? How would you want it to read? Lack: That the detention pond ... volume of the detention pond and the proper function of the pond will be verified prior to signature of Final Plat. Anthes: If you would introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Cheznic: My name is George Cheznic. I work with Project Design Consultants. I'm representing Mr. Jon Brittenum, who's the owner of the property. Basically, this is a Final Plat for a residential subdivision. We've gone through. The water meters are in the right locations. The sewer taps are in the right locations. The lots, the size, the frontage, everything has been covered. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any member of the Public like to address this Final Plat 06-1859 for Hickory Glen? Seeing none, I'll close the Public Comment section and bring it back to the Committee. Commissioner's? Vaught: I just have a question on Condition Number 2. It says, "All interior sidewalks may be guaranteed". Or is instead, it shall be or ... Garner: Maybe it should read, "shall be constructed or guaranteed". Vaught: Okay. Patterson: I have a comment for Tree Preservation. At the Approval, this was, like Andrew said, thirty-nine mitigation trees are required to replace it on site. The Applicant and developer have chosen to use our residential on-site mitigation option. So, they will be planting those thirty-nine trees along the rights -of -ways and in some of the building setbacks of those lots. Along with that, a three-year maintenance bond is required to monitor and maintain those thirty-nine trees. And, that is in the amount of $9,750. That bond is due before signature of Final Plat. Anthes: Thank you very much. Are there other comments or questions? Motions? Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 10 MOTION: Vaught: I'll make the Motion that we Approve Final Plat 06-1859 with the fourteen, plus the two additional Conditions of Approval, one for the detention pond volume and function and testing before pending requirements and the second for the payment of the three-year maintenance bond of $9,750 for the Tree Preservation Bond for Final Plat. Lack: I'll Second. Anthes: I'll concur. Thank you. Anthes: The next Items is FPL 06-1876: Final Plat for CRYSTAL SPRINGS III If the Applicant will come forward and may we have the Staff Report? Is this yours, Jesse? Fulcher: Yes, Ma'am. This is for request for the Approval of the Final Plat on Crystal Springs Phase III. It is a residential subdivision with one hundred and one single-family lots Proposed and is located east of Pyrite Drive on Crystal Drive. Right-of-way has been dedicated in the amount of fifty feet for all interior streets, except for Laborbite Drive, which is a forty -foot right-of-way. Raven Lane has seventy-foot right-of-way. And, thirty-five feet from centerline was dedicated along the frontage of Deane Solomon Road. There was considerable discussion, which I'm sure the Applicant may be able to go into more detail than I can. It was before I was here but this Item did go to the City Council to get an extension to Deane Solomon Road. So, there will be a connection to the east. And, that was through City property and that was why it had to go to City Council. I believe there's also a cost -share with the City on that. That has been constructed with sidewalks constructed. Parkland dedication was covered in 1994. It was dedicated for 575 lots, which included this phase. Connectivity has been provided to the north. A section of Raven Lane has been built within the seventy-foot right-of-way, including sidewalks to the south. This connects to the west to Crystal Springs Phase II and then the connection to Deane Solomon Road to the west. Within the Preliminary Plat, a mitigation was required and a deposit of $6,750 into the Tree Escrow Account, this required before the signing of the Final Plat. With that, Staff is recommending Approval of the Final Plat, with eleven Conditions of Approval. All those comments are fairly straightforward. If you have any specific questions, I'll be happy to answer those. Anthes: Thank you, Jesse. Do we have other comments from Staff? Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 11 Patterson: Yes, for Tree Preservation, they originally were Approved to mitigate using the $6,750 deposited into the Tree Escrow Account. Since then, the Applicant and I have talked about actually planting those trees on site, similar to the last project. So, that needs to be changed in your report. That $6,750 will actually be a three-year maintenance bond that will be deposited before signature of Final Plat. The twenty-seven trees will be located in the rights -of -ways of the roads that they created. There are still a few more revisions that we're working on for the Tree Planting Plan but once those have been finalized, then I'll be ready for signature. Anthes: Thank you very much. Jeffcoat: Yes, Tom Jeffcoat, Milholland & Company. This is Phase III of Crystal Springs. Most of the Conditions of Approval are pretty standard. They have been satisfied. There has been final inspection so Comment Condition 3, of course is taken care of. Condition 2, Sarah just spoke of and we're finalizing that. And, Condition 1, we won't even talk about that. There were enough problems with that when that came through. Otherwise, we're satisfied and ready for Approval. Anthes: Would any member of the Public like to address this Final Plat, 06-1876 for Crystal Springs Phase III? Seeing none, I'll close the Public Comment section. Commissioner's? Vaught: I just have one question. On Raven Lane, on the south end, does that ... construction ... it's a weird property line. And, I assume that's the property line there? Right here? How it just cuts here. I couldn't tell where the property line was. Jeffcoat: The property line comes along from 16 up and across ... Vaught: This is the property line right here? Jeffcoat: Yes. Vaught: And, why wasn't this constructed to the property line? Jeffcoat: We're getting ready to do that in Phase IV, where it's in the process now of being ... Plans being submitted. Vaught: Is that something we bonded or until construction or something we're okay waiting until Phase IV on? Brent, do you have an opinion on that? O'Neal: This is where the creek crosses. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 12 Jeffcoat: You're right. Vaught: Oh, okay. So, there's a creek there? O'Neal: Yeah, they've got to prepare ... Vaught: So, they've got to build a bridge? Jeffcoat: Right. Vaught: Okay. O'Neal: Madam Chair, I do have some comments. On your Standard Note 1, it says, "include a note". I believe it was just copied and pasted. From my Standard Comments, you actually need to have just a Note stating total linear feet of streets and the sidewalks. It says, "include a note", instead of actually having a note. Jeffcoat: Oh, okay. Got you. Okay. I see. O'Neal: Also, again we just request that a sidewalk be constructed along the frontage of Lot 152 and 153 to connect the sidewalk. It is just a request. On the Street Table, just to show the sidewalks to be at the right-of-way, with the proper green space, sidewalk widths, street widths, per the Master Street Plan. Also, we also on this one need to include a note as to the proper function of the detention pond. There has been some question about it. I think it ... Jeffcoat: It does line the floodplain. It does ... O'Neal: Yes, I ... Jeffcoat: ... there is backup water there. O'Neal: Right. Just verify volume ... Jeffcoat: That's being taken care of. O'Neal: ... is at proper function. Jeffcoat: Yeah, it is. Sure. Anthes: So, did you want us to add a Condition of Approval about the function of the connection? Is that what your request is? Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 13 O'Neal: Yes. Vaught: On the sidewalks of Lots 152 and 153, there is not sidewalk there. Why? O'Neal: Well, since it's a forty -foot right-of-way, it's only required to have it on one side. We're just requesting that they go ahead and place it on both sides. And, it's just a request. Vaught: Okay. O'Neal: It's not a requirement. Anthes: Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions? Motions? MOTION: Lack: I'll make a Motion that we Approve Final Plat 06-1876, Crystal Springs Phase III, with the eleven Conditions of Approval, with the revision to Condition Number 2 to be a three-year maintenance bond in the amount as stated. And, a request from Engineering that sidewalks be provide along the frontage of Lots 152 and 153 and verification of the graded structure prior to signature of Final Plat. Vaught: I will Second. Anthes: I'll concur. Thank you, Mr. Jeffcoat. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 14 Anthes: The next Item of business is CCP 06-1858: Concurrent Plat for REPLAT OF STONEWOOD SID. May we have the Staff Report, please? Garner: Yes, Ma'am. This property is located north of Diane Road and east of Crossover Road, northeast Fayetteville. It is located in the Stonewood Subdivision, the Final Plat of which was Approved in 2001. Due to floodplain, it was located in Lots 114, 117 and 119. There was not enough total area at that time for creation of Lots 115, 116 and 118. Subsequently, the floodplain map has been revised and so at this point they have enough buildable area they have Proposed to Replat Lots 114, 117 and 119, creating the three additional lots that were originally anticipated with this Plat. It's a pretty straightforward project, I believe, with Parks and Tree Preservation taken care of with the previous subdivision. Staff is recommending forwarding. Condition Number 1, which references the Tree Preservation Report and, Condition Number 2 just references that all Conditions from the Approval of the Final Plat are enforceable by law. So, we are recommending forwarding this. Anthes: So, what is the reason for forwarding, rather than Approving this? Vaught: It's actually a Preliminary Plat and it's a concurrent plat where it's replatting lots so it's ... it's essentially a couple of lot splits but technically it has to be heard by the Planning Commission. Anthes: I see. Do we have comments from Parks or Engineering? If you could introduce yourself and your project. Brock: My name is Chris Brock with Jorgensen and Associates. I'm here representing the owners of this project and I believe that pretty much covers it all. I'd be happy to answer any question you might have. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Would any member of the Public like to speak to this Concurrent Plat, 06-1858, a Replat of Stonewood Subdivision? Seeing none, I'll close the Public Comment Section. Commissioner's? MOTION: Anthes: This looks pretty straightforward to me. I will move to forward Concurrent Plat 06-1858 to Full Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 15 Lack I'll Second. Vaught: And, I'll concur. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 16 Anthes: Our next Item is CCP 06-1857: Concurrent Plat which is a REPLAT OF PERSIMMON PLACE S/D. May we have the Staff Report? Garner: Yes, Ma'am. This is similar to the previous Item in that there was an Approved Final Plat for Persimmon Place Subdivision that created 154 single-family lots. Subdivision was filed and development has begun. There is **** development permits required. However, Lots 28 through 32 and 155 are affected by the one hundred -year floodplain. This Concurrent Plat is to remove the rear property lines of Lots 28 through 32 such that they won't be affected by the floodplain. The result of this modification is that Lot 155 has been increased in size. This is a non- movable lot reserved as detention and common area to be maintained by the Property Owner's Association. Parks Fees have been paid for this project, as well as the Tree Preservation issues. However, no additional trees shall be removed in the process of this Concurrent Plat and no Tree Preservation Plan is required. Staff is recommending forwarding this, as well, to the Planning Commission, with Conditions of Approval. I just wanted to bring your attention to: Condition Number 1 — the Property Owner's Association would own and maintain Lot 155, the detention pond and, Condition Number 2 is floodplain development permits are required for any work within the floodplain. Other than that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Anthes: Do we have other Staff Comment? Chris BLack Chris **** with Jorgensen & Associates. When we originally Platted this, we showed the rear of those lots extending to the floodplain. And these lots do not require that property. There were no rear utilities so we just in essence moved that rear line out of the floodplain. Anthes: Thank you. Would any member of the Public like to address this Concurrent Plat 06-1857 for Persimmon Place? There are no Public Comments. Commissioner's? MOTION: Lack This one, as the other, seems fairly straightforward and I would move that we forward Concurrent Plat 06-1857 to the Full Planning Commission. Vaught: I'll Second. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 17 Anthes: And, I'll concur. Thank you. Item Number 8 is LSD 06-1872: Large Scale Development for CRESCENT PLACE APTS. May we have the Staff Report? Fulcher: This subject property contains 2.64 acres located at the southwest corner of Old Missouri Road and Frazier Terrace. It is Zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family. It's a partially undeveloped site with an existing single-family home and a small multi -family complex. The Applicant is Proposing to construct a multi -family development consisting of eighteen one -bedroom units, twelve two-bedroom units and six three-bedroom units. There will be twenty-four, within the drive into the complex, parking spaces, twenty-four driveway parking spaces and twenty-four garage parking spaces provided. Right-of-way dedication in the amount of thirty-five feet from centerline on Old Missouri Road and twenty-five feet from centerline along Frazier Terrace, although I believe that's already been dedicated along Frazier Terrace. Access will be provided from two curb cuts onto Old Missouri Road and bicycle racks are to be provided for multi -mobile access. Tree mitigation will be required for twenty-four two-inch caliper trees, planted on site. A three-year maintenance bond in the amount of $6,000 prior to the final certificate of occupancy. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended accepting money in lieu to meet Parkland Dedication requirements for the thirty-six multi -family units. Due to it's proximity to Lake Fayetteville Park and Mud Creek Trail, those park fees will be due in the amount of $14,148 prior to the issuance of the building permit. With that, Staff is recommending the Approval of this Large Scale Development with 18 Conditions of Approval, Subdivision Committee determination of street improvements. Staff is recommending that street improvements including curb, gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks be provided along the frontage of Old Missouri Road and Frazier Terrace. Frazier Terrace, again, may have been already brought up to full compliance with that. We will need cut - sheets for all outdoor lighting to insure compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. Again, the maintenance bond for the tree mitigation, Parks fees. And if any tree removal occurs on the large tree preservation areas in the northwest portion along Frazier Terrace, there may be some issue to that. But, as far as planting trees along the right-of-way, we didn't require any because of the existing canopy there. If any of that is removed, it may require planting additional trees to cover that fifteen -foot landscape area. That's all the comments I have. Anthes: Thank you. Do we have additional Staff Comments? Patterson: Yes. Anthes: Sarah? Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 18 Patterson: I have two Revisions that need to be made to the Plat. I might have overlooked it, but I need you to identify on site areas for delivery and storage of construction materials, on-site parking, cement -truck washout. And then also any areas that you think might need root -pruning or other preventative measures please make note on the Plan. And another thing I noticed as I was just looking over, on your Landscape Notes, it needs to state that, "trees will be two-inch caliper" at time of planting. I think it currently says, "two point five inch DBH", which is a bit of a difference. And then, as Jesse mentioned, the bond for the twenty-four trees planted on site. And, that's all I have. Anthes: O'Neal: Thank you, Sarah. Brent, do you have anything? Yes, a couple of minor comments. The sanitary sewer, I believe there's already existing apartments on this site. We just need to study the downstream system. If there's any increase in impact, which it may be pretty minor. I don't know the number of units that are in existence. We just might want to take a look at that. On the grading, if you could show a twenty -foot drainage easement through the detention pond. Also, it appears that you're Proposing an off-site concrete swale in that utility easement. You may have to provide conduits to cross underneath that for the utility companies if there's any crossing there. You may not have to remove anything at this time but in the general location if they cross underneath that, you may have to add conduits. So, you may need to coordinate that with them. Other than that, that's all I have right now. Anthes: Thank you. May we hear about your project? Jorgensen: Blake Jorgensen with Jorgensen & Associates, representing Switzer Properties for Crescent Place. We have met Technical Plat Review, Conditions of Approval and for Brent, I have submitted a Sewer Capacity Study and I was hoping that you had gotten that. That should prove that we have adequate capacity to service this new development. We have also submitted a Waiver for the detention pond. You requested a Waiver for the separation for one hundred -foot ... O'Neal: Setback, yes. Jorgensen: Correct. So, I've submitted that. And, on the Grading Plan, there should be ... it's probably rather faint on the copy you have ... but there should be a designated area for on-site storage. Patterson: Oh, okay. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 19 Jorgensen: And, it's in the northwest corner. Patterson: Okay. Jorgensen: And so, that should do it. Frazier Terrace does have curb and gutter on the northern portion. We have Proposed to do street improvements along Old Missouri Road. Anthes: Can you point out the area for the construction? Jorgensen: We've got some problems with our new printer when we ran these copies, Anthes: Thank you. Would any member of the Public like to address this Large Scale 06-1872 for Crescent Place Apartments? If you'd come forward and state your name? Hughes: My name is Mary Beth Hughes. I represent the **** Agency, representing Mr. Hurrera, owner of the property. On the map I received from Jorgensen & Associates, it's Number 5, 4108, 4110, 4112 and 4114 on Sunflower, we are to the west. I have two concerns and one is, because that is an incline, coming out the back of the property that we manage, going uphill to the property that will be developed. I don't want to go into a lot of detail, but we have a prior experience and an ongoing problem in conjunction with the Switzer Development at the moment. I want to make sure that there is no drainage that suddenly makes our apartments ... or not apartments, the townhouses that we manage, that they do not become wasteland because of runoff. That is an incline and I really would appreciate it if someone would take a look at that. Also, I would like to know where the sewer lines are going to run because again, we have an ongoing problem and situation where they were not connected to the mainline. They were connected to our line. And we now have raw sewage that comes into the backyard of townhouse that we manage because they did not connect with the City. It was allowed to happen. How it happened, I don't know. It was before my time. I just want to make sure that we don't suddenly start having problems with, the minute a parking lot goes in, it increases the runoff. We're all aware of that. You create a street, you create a river. Those of you who live in Fayetteville know what I'm talking about. Dixon Street, on occasion, can look like Niagara Falls. Of course, in the last six months we haven't had to deal with that. I just want to make sure that somebody is aware. And, for the record, that you look at the incline so that we don't have a problem in our backyards on that. And then I have a question for the panel. I'm kind of new at this. I don't recall, even as a child, when did we start retaining ponds? Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 20 Anthes: If you would just state all of your concerns, then we will address them all at once. Hughes: Because I don't know, I have been driving around and doing a lot and I just see some of these that are being placed almost in the backyards of some of this new development that's happening. And, is that not a health hazard? I mean, what controls are we guaranteed? What controls are by law, by declaration, by issue, whatever you want to call it to protect the people who are already there and the people who are yet to come? I'm not sure I'd want one in my backyard. I know of one off of Crossover right now, if you opened a window, you'd be looking right at the retaining pond. It's right below it, maybe with an eight -foot easement. I don't know. But, the two major concerns I have is going to be on the runoff and then where the sewer lines are going to run. And, I appreciate it. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Hughes. Do we have any more Public Comments on this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, we'll close the Public Comment section and let's being with answering Ms. Hughes questions. Perhaps, Mr. O'Neal, will you discuss the drainage and/or our policies on detention and retention? O'Neal: Well, our policy is detention. We do a lot of allow retention ponds under special cases. But, the apartment complexes with the water features, retention ponds have a normal water service. A detention pond is a dry pond. It will only hold water during a storm event and then releases the water at the rate that was the same or less than the pre -developed state. This property does have several, I forget how many, buildings ... Blake, you may jump in ... several apartment buildings right now. So, I don't have the Drainage Report in front of me but I believe they are over - detaining, which means they are holding back more water than they would be allowed to normally release. The configuration of the site, with the road that loops through the site, is going to catch most of the runoff, it appears and direct it into the ****. There will be less area that would directly run off toward the west. As for the sewer, the Applicant is extending a sewer main to the property. We have had several occasions in the past where it was just an agreement between property owners that sewer services were connected. By State Law now, that is not allowed. Sewer services, water services, cannot cross lot lines. So, each lot needs legal access to water and sewer mains. So, the Applicant is extending the sewer main to serve this property. Hughes: Might you address where that sewer line is going to be located? Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 21 Jorgensen: Yes, Ma'am. If you look on the western portion, the northwest corner of our Proposed Development, you can see our sewer main extension. It runs north into an existing sewer line. It runs east and west along the north side of Frazier Terrace. And, with this Proposed connection, we will, I guess, alleviate that situation where you have sewer backing up into your property. I would concur with Brent as he said we are reducing the affected drainage area. So, the area that is running onto your property right now would be greatly reduced and that water's going to be directed into our detention pond, which Brent has said, we are over -detaining, yet we are not releasing a volume of water that is more than the previous condition. So, we are reducing pre -development existing flows. So, it should alleviate your problem once we put in our development. Anthes: Ms. Hughes, if you have further questions, this Item, Jesse Fulcher is the Planner. And, you can call him at the Planning Office and he can go over this with you. Fulcher: Hughes: Fulcher: Anthes: Lack Anthes: Lack O'Neal: Lack Fulcher: Vaught: Lack I'll give you my card after this and you can call me. All right. Thank you. I can answer more specific questions, if you'd like. We need to discuss the street improvements. Condition of Approval Number 1. I need to ask Brent a quick question. Sure. Brent, what would be our ... I'm not sure what the exact paved width in these areas right now. What distance would we be looking at? It would be fourteen feet from centerline. Fourteen feet from centerline? Okay. I did not put that in that Condition. I think it looks pretty standard. It's an area that needs improvement so I'm glad it's happening to Old Missouri. I would concur that those seem appropriate. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 22 Anthes: I have a question about the Dumpster location. It appears to be facing Old Missouri Road. That's normally something we discourage. Jorgensen: It was initially Proposed to be located ... immediately reciprocal location of it for traffic flow and etc. But, it was in the building setback and so we had to put it in this location as we have a limited area that we could put it. And so, that seemed the most feasible in terms of where we could put it so we don't have to plan setbacks. But, I do agree that it is not necessarily the best case scenario for traffic flow. We feel that it will serve adequately. Anthes: Well, I think you can easily serve the Dumpster. But, I don't believe that it meets our intention that Dumpsters not be visible from major traffic right-of-ways. Have you looked at that, Staff? Jorgensen: We Proposed to do fencing that would, I guess, prevent people from driving by and seeing a Dumpster. You know they'd see a fence, as opposed to a Dumpster. Anthes: Everybody knows what's behind those fences. O'Neal: They're also recommending a second Dumpster be placed on site, so we've got to find another place for a Dumpster, it looks like. Solid Waste was. It's Condition Number 6. Jorgensen: (Tape turned over) One was for another development so I wasn't sure which one was for ours. And so, I thought the recommendation was to move it out of the setback and then ... so I wasn't exactly clear on the comment I received. Fulcher: It was a comment from Solid Waster, a recommendation, I guess, based on the number of units, they felt it would appropriate to have a second Dumpster pad. You know probably based on the amount of trash that would be created from the number of units. Anthes: Are they looking for those pads to be co -located or do they want them in different locations? Fulcher: They didn't specify whether they needed to be co -located. It may be easier for them to have them co -located, but I think we've got some restrictions. As you can see, there is an existing tree just to the west of this Proposed Dumpster location. And, as you move around the site, between the building and some existing canopy, and then being able to actually get the truck backed in to the Dumpster or adjacent to the Dumpster location. I mean, it's something we can look at. If we can find Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 23 a better place, working with Solid Waste, and the Applicant, we may be able to come up with a better location that's not quite as visible from the right-of-way. Jorgensen: I'll talk with the developer and see some alternative locations that we could put it. We have opened up a couple of areas where we might be able to put it. So, as we approach this further along, I can verify if that's something we can do. I believe there is another location we can put if. Lack I can see from an economic standpoint where it would be attractive where it is because of the heavy paving that would be required to get to it in another location. What is Solid Waste policy on gates? Are they okay with the idea of having to get out of the truck and open gates to ... O'Neal: I think they'll open them but they won't close them, I believe is what their policy is. Lack So, basically with that orientation, we should anticipate that we'll see the Dumpsters. Anthes: Uh, huh. Jorgensen: I can maybe Propose a Dumpster be located here. We had parking Proposed but it seemed to get into the canopy of the tree that would possibly prevent the tree from growing ... or dying, worst case scenario. So, if there is potential, we could put a Dumpster there without affecting the tree too much. Then we might be able to explore that option. Anthes: Staff, are you comfortable with the direction from us, if we pass this today, that you review alternative locations for those Dumpsters? It looks like, not only this one, but a second one that Solid Waste is asking for. With the comment that we would prefer not to have this easily visible from Old Missouri Road. Vaught: Make it as is there anywhere to place one or two Dumpsters, other than this close or this visible from Old Missouri and push it further back onto the site, if Solid Waste can access it. Jorgensen: Question ... not to interrupt but is it ... would this seem more appropriate to you as opposed to ... in mean in terms of visibility from Old Missouri? Anthes: Well, it's not great. It's better than ... Jorgensen: I mean ... but it's better ... Subdivision Committee December 29, Page 24 Anthes: Jorgensen: Anthes: Vaught: Jorgensen: Vaught: Jorgensen: Vaught: Anthes: Jorgensen: Vaught: Jorgensen: Vaught: Jorgensen: Vaught: Jorgensen: Vaught: 2005 ... than what you're showing. Okay. But obviously we need to be concerned about the mitigation at the street. Could it be ... this is a two-way street to the site, correct? Correct. Could you turn the Dumpster so it faces the downhill? Yeah, we can ... we can do ... The Solid Waste can pull in either direction so maybe if you just angle it the other direction you won't have the problem with the gates being left open and the Dumpster visible with the streets. And, with the proper landscaping to screen that fencing, that could help, too. Yeah. The reason we had to oriented that way was so it wouldn't get to the setback. But, if we moved it further to the west, we could reorient it and that would hopefully ... because I worry about, if you put it on this further west site, if it faces the same direction, they're going to be lifting it into the trees. Sure. So, switch ... Change to the other direction and I think you'll be good. Yeah. This was a Proposed tree, so ... This one is? Correct. Yeah, but if it still faces this way, though, then it might **** the tree so, if you just flip it the other direction they should be able to get there. Lack And, the deeper that we bring that into the site, the more the noise is going to affect the residents. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 25 Anthes: Are there any other comments? Jorgensen: With that then being a possibility, leave them as existing, but turning the whole thing to the west ... Vaught: Well, there's the issue with the building setback, I think It was shifting it down west ... Jorgensen: Uh, huh. Vaught: ... and swiveling it the other direction, down to this area here. Jorgensen: Okay. Vaught: Making it face ... Jorgensen: Face out. Vaught: ... with the corner somehow, maybe. Jorgensen: We'll work with Solid Waste and see what our options are, absolutely. Vaught: Okay. Anthes: Are you clear with Mr. O'Neal's comments about the conduits? Jorgensen: Correct. Yes, I was. Anthes: Okay. Jorgensen: In fact, we're working on that right now. Vaught: Is that an easement you guys have? Jorgensen: We **** drainage **** through there. And, we're exploring different avenues to direct our offset. We just have to get that finished up. We have obtained easements through there, though. Lack I think the concerns that I had in reviewing this earlier were the drainage and looking at the storage area. The drainage, the issue that I was concerned about was where the water from the roofs was going and how that's collected and directed, if that's a part of the drainage study, which I've not seen. And, I'd just like to ask for your input on that and from Mr. O'Neal. Because, if we're collecting and directing water from downspouts, in the direction downhill, then that could be some issue. We Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 26 are collecting water for a long distance around the site. We're grading a swale through the parking for a long way, directing a lot of water to a single inlet, which likely will backup. But, that water will eventually get to the detention pond. Jorgensen: Correct. Lack And, I'm comfortable with that. The water from the roofs was the only real concern that I had on that. Jorgensen: The majority of the downspouts will direct water into our Proposed drainage system. I guess it's somewhat deceptive but it is not that large of a drainage area, as Frazier and Old Missouri do convey most of the water currently through swales, etc. And so, we're looking at hundred -year storm vent of something like eight or nine cfs. And so, it's not a particularly high amount of water. And, we're direction the majority of that water into our drainage. And, I understand that you're saying, how are we going to be certain that it's all going to get into there? And, if it does, is it going to clog up in certain areas? But, in this particular situation we have plenty of fall to the site to where the grading is not going to be such a minimal soak that it would have a potential to clog up. So, we do feel that with the topography and the grading plan we have presented, it should get into our drainage system and adequately serve to remove water without ponding. Lack And, for the onsite storage area, the staging area, I noticed that that is under a building pad? Jorgensen: Correct. Lack Just curious, where do you store while you're building that? Jorgensen: As the build throughout the ... that will be the last area they build up. We'll be able to service the rest of the property while they have that. If there's other offsite areas, they have land located really in a close vicinity that if they have to store a large ... you know ... there are other trucks and stuff that have ... right here, all this parcel of land. But, they shouldn't have to go that and they should be able to build out to that point without having to move the majority of their equipment off site. Lack I think the main concern would be with ... concrete trucks are not going to go that far to washout, so we're going to have ... Jorgensen: Well, the washout pad should ... Subdivision Committee December 29, Page 27 Lack Jorgensen: Lack Jorgensen: Lack Jorgensen: Anthes: O'Neal: Vaught: O'Neal: Vaught: Anthes: Jorgensen: Anthes: Vaught: Anthes: 2005 I understand you maintain that? Yes, sir. The washout pad is located on the ... it's hard to see but it's on the northernmost entrance to the property. Just directly south of that, where the main entrance is, there's also a **** washout right there. Okay. And, that will be there throughout the construction. So, that will serve for the concrete washout. Okay. I'm sorry, it's so vague that it's hard to tell. This is the designated area right here, as well. Staff, what are ... are there any comments you'd make if materials end up being stored offsite of the project area? Do you look to those areas to be designated? It shouldn't have to get to that point. No. I mean, it's not Proposed but if it was catching there, I believe we'd have to go to that point. But, we shouldn't have to. I've talked to the developer. I think it would be considered a part of the project that we should look at if it is ... if it's a designated storage area for construction. So, we could say ... we could add a Condition that says, "if offsite storage is to be used, that it is to be designated and reviewed by Staff'. Certainly. Any other comments or questions? On the internal parking lot street of the central building, it looked like the southwest corner of the building is very close to that curb line. Because that's all internal, does that ... is that not something that we need to review? As far as the setback? Uh, huh. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 28 Vaught: It's a private drive. Essentially, there's not a setback off of that required. Anthes: Lack Anthes: MOTION: Any other comments or questions? Motions? I would make a Motion but I'm not sure of the additional Conditions. There were ... we need to incorporate the comments made by Engineering, that ... and we also need to add Conditions about the alternative locations for the Dumpster pads and the designated area for offsite storage of construction materials would need to be reviewed by Staff. Vaught: I make a Motion to Approve LSD 06-1872, subject to the nineteen Conditions of Approval. In addition to those, we would like to add three Conditions. Number 1 referencing Engineering comments Number 2 referencing the Dumpster location and finding alternative locations that will work Number 3 referencing, if offsite storage of construction materials is to be used, that Staff review ... that the Applicant submit Staff's information for review of that site. Anthes: And, are you finding in favor of ... Vaught: In favor of street improvements, yes. Lack I concur. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 29 Anthes: Thank you. The Next Item is CCP 05-1807: Concurrent Plat for HAYS/DOT TIPTON. May we have the Staff Report, please? Fulcher: This subject property contains 11.85 acres and is located at Pebble Springs Road and West 54th Avenue. The property is in the Planning area. Research into the property has revealed that the number of Lot Splits has been granted and thus a Preliminary Final Plat must be Approved for further subdivision of the property. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting a Concurrent Plat to provide the property in tracts. The Concurrent Plat process may be utilized if no right-of-way dedication or public improvements are required with the requested subdivision of land. With the formerly Approved Lot Splits dedication right-of-way dedication was made. So, that is there. The Applicant has submitted a Waiver Request for the extension of the waterline and I will get to that in just a moment. Basically, what we're looking at with the waterline, I believe Brent may touch on this some more, is if this is Approved, it will be an 8.32 acre tract and a 3.53 acre tract. Development is to occur on the larger tract, which would be to the east here. At the time of that, water service would be brought to the 3.53 acre tract. I believe the Waiver is being supported by Staff. If we required water extension service right now, we would bring a two-inch waterline to the property, only to have it ripped out with the development to the adjacent property and have another waterline brought back in a second time. With that, because this is a Concurrent Plat, Staff is recommending forwarding this to the Planning Commission with four Conditions of Approval. Upon development of the adjacent 8.32 acre tract, Staff is recommending that those street improvements ... currently this is just a gravel road ... those street improvements made will be continued to the 3.53 acre tract. So, there will be continuous improvement throughout the property and it won't just stop there. Also, Planning Commission and Subdivision Committee determination of the Waiver Request for the extension of public water service. And, with that, we are just recommending forwarding this to the Planning Commission. Anthes: Thank you, Jesse. Do we have other Staff comments? O'Neal: I believe with the comments that Jesse made. We can, I believe Approve this or forward it for Approval. When this property is developed, there will most likely be stub -outs for both water and sewer and streets to adjacent parcels. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. O'Neal. Would you introduce yourself and your project? Crystal: My name is Crystal **** and I represent Hays Family Development. Basically, all we're doing right now is, the piece of property was just Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 30 purchased as a whole, with a Warranty Deed given back for the 3.53 acres. We're just trying to tidy up paperwork and make it all legal. Anthes: Would any member of the Public like to address Concurrent Plat 05-1807, Hays/Dot Tipton? There is no Public Comment Commissioner's? Vaught: I've got one question. On the remainder 3.53 acres, there's a wood one- story house that sits inside the roadway and the building setback. I don't know if there needs to be anything addressed with that. I know it's in the Planning Area, but I didn't see anything mentioning that particular house. O'Neal: In the County it would be looked at differently. If it were in the City, we would look at it as an existing non -conforming structure that existed probably prior to the right-of-way or the building codes. It's probably been there for fifty-five years or so. Vaught: I guess my question is, when we come through a development, if we require improvements, Dot Tipton is gravel, so I imagine we'll require some sort of paving to one of the ends. That looked like the closer end. I don't know. The other one might be closer ... some kind of improvement to Dot Tipton. I didn't know if that would become an issue at that time. Lack May become an issue ... Brent may have a comment ... but it may become an issue with obviously staying at the edge of the right-of-way. If it's located within the right-of-way I don't believe that we would request or require the structure to be removed. We would just have to work those improvements around any existing structure. Anthes: Would you go ahead and state your name for the record? Calhoun: Nancy Calhoun. I'm representing my dad and Dot Tipton. Anthes: Any other comments or questions? So, Jesse, we would expect to see Large Scale on this? Fulcher: From what I've been told, when we first met a few months back to discuss the process to bring this through, I was informed that this is part of the Proposed development on the east side and it may include more than just the 8.32 acres. I don't know if we need to make a Condition that if development does not occur, should water service be extended? That may be something we should look at. Anthes: And, what would be your recommendation? Fulcher: What's that? Subdivision Committee December 29, Page 31 Anthes: Fulcher: Morgan: Fulcher: Morgan: Calhoun: O'Neal: Anthes: O'Neal: Anthes: O'Neal: Vaught: O'Neal: Anthes: Lack MOTION: 2005 How would that Condition read? I don't know what kind of timeframe we should put on this. I would ask for at least for one year, Jesse. Okay. Due to the fact that it takes so long to get any kind of development pushed through ... you know by the time you conceive it in your head, put it on paper, and move to do anything. When I came in to get the ... I brought everything in and talked to the gentleman that's downstairs and in charge of Engineering. And, at that point in time he said the two-inch waterline's already got too much on it, anyway. So, whenever they do develop that, they're going to just banish the two-inch waterline. So, whatever they have to do to this, they're going to have to come in with a six-inch line. Chair? Yes, Mr. O'Neal? I suggest that we use a two-year timeframe, given the fact of getting through the development process and then before constructions start up. The minimum size is eight -inch with the development. I would say after two years, that an adequate -size waterline be extended to the property in question. And, you would just add that to Condition 2? I believe we could just add that. Would that be beginning of construction within two years and Approved Preliminary Plat within two years or submittal of a Preliminary Plat within two years? I would say Approved Preliminary Plat. That makes sense to me. Yes. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 32 Anthes: With that, I'll Move that we forward Concurrent Plat 05-1807 to the Planning Commission. Vaught: I'll Second. Anthes: Commissioner Lack? Lack: I'll concur. Calhoun: Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 33 Anthes: The next Item is an Administrative Item, ADM 06-1898: Administrative Item for SEQUOYAH COMMONS. May we have the Staff Report, please? Garner: Yes, Ma'am. This property is located between Olive Avenue and Fletcher Avenue and south of Spring Street. The site is Zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 units per acre. As background, Large Scale Development on this site was Approved in 2003 for development of thirty- nine Multi -Family units and fifty-six parking spaces. Since that time, the developer has purchased approximately 1.7 acres to the south of this site. As a result of that purchase, the **** Drainage Plans have been able to be modified. And the Applicant requests modification for a new Drainage Plan for this Approved Large Scale Development to include the 1.69 acre site to the south and putting a new detention pond on that portion of the property. The Proposed modifications have been determined to be a major modification, which required the Subdivision Committee Approval or Denial. Staff recommends in favor of this modification, in agreement with Applicant's arguments that the current Drainage Plan is superior to the current Drainage Plan that allows the new drainage to go to a defined channel and allows additional drainage for future development to be captured on this site. Also, it is advantageous to the City because increase runoff from the recently approved street will also be able to be detained on this detention pond. We are recommending Approval with some standard Conditions noted in the Report. Anthes: Thank you. Do we have other Staff comments? O'Neal: Mandy, did you submit Revised Drainage Report for this? Bunch: t did provide a Preliminary one but we will have a final one, Brent. O'Neal: Okay. Bunch: I'm anticipating a full review of the Revised Plan. Anthes: Sarah? Patterson: Yes. Additional canopy will be removed by adding this detention area. Around seven thousand square feet or so will be removed. But, the Applicant is planning on planting fifteen additional trees around the area to kind of block the view. The one revision I had for you, Mandy is, if you would put some tree protection fencing around the detention area. I had difficulty reading the Plat but I'm assuming it's pretty thickly wooded in the area that you're planning on putting the detention and I'd like to keep disturbance and removal to a minimum. So, maybe just keep it ****. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 34 Bunch: Okay, yes. Actually, the scale in the Plan we were trying to put together was kind **** but we were intending ... Patterson: Okay, great. Thank you. Anthes: Ms. Bunch, will you introduce yourself and give us your comments? Bunch: Yes. My name is Mandy Bunch. I'm with EB Landworks. I'm here today representing Breck House with Houses, Inc. I believe that Andrew has pretty succinctly covered our Plan but basically, we're all intimately familiar with this project, I believe, as we've gone through. I think Andrew and Jesse are new to it. But, we've gone through several iterations trying to come up with the best solution. After the project was Approved, Mr. House did purchase the additional land to the south. It's my opinion at this point that this is the absolute best solution. The right- of-way was completely covered before. We have had to construct a twenty-eight foot wide street to comply with the Conditions of Approval. So, that has had a pretty big change to the drainage in the area. So, we believe that actually being able to combine all this development, including this street right-of-way runoff into one storm water management area is definitely preferable to how we would have to approach it otherwise. So, I'm here for any questions. Greg's here for any questions if you have any. We actually have ... that one spot has been used for years. People offloading some brush and things. So, we actually do have an almost cleared area that's fairly flat upon that hill. So, it's a pretty good spot for what we need to do. Anthes: Thank you. Would any member of the Public like to address Administrative Item 06-1898? Please come forward and state your name and give us your comments. Chadick: Yes, my name is Susan Chadick and I'm the property owner to the west and across the street from this Sequoyah Commons development. When I received Notice of this Administrative Item being placed on the Agenda, just the words major modification alarmed me. And so, I simply asked that as you discuss this project, that you be convinced and that this is an improvement and that it will be a benefit, not only to the Houses' project but that it will be benefit to me, an individual property owner. Too, just sort of a red flag about what this means for future development in that area and the one access road, which is Olive to more development coming in at this point. So, I have concerns about that. Don't know what this particular project might have implication for. Thanks. Subdivision Committee December 29, Page 35 Childress: Anthes: Childress: Anthes: Childress: Anthes: Childress: Anthes: Bunch: Anthes: Childress: Anthes: Bunch: Anthes: 2005 My name is Henry Childress and I'm here to represent owners of property, I think also to the south. I just got a call this morning to come up and they just wanted it to be on the record that they were against Approval. Reasons, they will be here at a later date to ... I think the meeting on the 9th, I believe is when this is ... Actually, this has the potential to be Approved at this level, without going forward to Full Planning Commission. So, if there are comments, we need to hear them now. So, I think they are the owner's of that area, Lot 16 and just wanted to say that they were told that they needed to have someone here to go on record that they were against Approval. And, is there a particular reason why? I don't have any of that information. I'm sorry. Okay. All right. Thank you. Is there any other Public Comment? While we're on the Public, if I may, Ms. Bryant gave me this. She came by this morning when the meeting started and gave it to me and she told me she was tired of hearing from me. For the record, I'd like to state that we have comments that have been entered by Jessie Bryant, who lives, I believe downhill to the south of this property? It's uphill. Oh, it's uphill? Yeah, she owns property to the north. Actually, it's both ... but she is removed by two lots to the south. And Mandy, did she say what her comment was? Bunch: No, other than she was tired of hearing from me. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 36 Anthes: And, it says that she does object to the project but there's no description. I'm wondering if she's opposed to the project in general or to the detention pond. Bunch: She has in the past been opposed to the project in general. Anthes: Right. Right. House: I just have one comment if I can. Anthes: Sure. House: I'm Greg House, the Applicant. I haven't had a chance to visit with the gentleman who just spoke ... Anthes: Mr. Childress? House: What's his name, Childress? Anthes: Henry Childress. House: ... about his and maybe his family or neighbors concerns. I just want to make it clear to Mr. Childress that we ... part of the benefit creating this retention pond to the south and west of the end of Olive is that it will control the water that is going to flow toward yours and your neighbor's property in a much better fashion than what was originally designed. Because, once we constructed that street, there was no provision in place for the water that was running off of that street that flows to the south and west. Really, we think this will be of benefit to you and your neighbors, rather than a detriment because it will have control of that water in the same fashion we're controlling that water from above, from ****. That's all I wanted to say. Anthes: Thank you, Greg. Commissioner's, do you have comments? Vaught: Where is the original drainage pond on the site? I'm trying to remember. Bunch: This is the Approved Plan. We have kind of a couple of options in play right now. It was originally Approved by you to have a walled detention area in this location. Walls would go up to about eleven feet, facing the street, then taper back into the hill. And then there's also an option of having underground retention here, as well. One of the biggest issues, and which I think is one of the biggest benefits of this Proposal that's in front of you today, is that instead of having that water just go down that right- of-way, uncontrolled, because that's the only outlet available ... it's Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 37 actually taking all of this water, including the street and the runoff from the site will be directed to this existing ditch. This drainage channel actually starts up at the bend of Fletcher. And, it is the defined drainage way for the area. Lack: So, reducing tree canopy removal or grading that's required on the original site or ... Vaught: Well, this area obviously is protected now. Bunch: Yes, we're protected. Vaught: But this area ... this looks like it has underground here with an outlet, is that right? Bunch: Right. Vaught: From this drawing? Bunch: Yeah. None of the tree preservation has been improved or taken away because we have, I think, an extreme amount of utilities and they're working in the area. So, nothing has changed on the existing site. Anthes: I have a question about the appearance of the streetscape on this extension. What will residents be expected to see along that street and do you anticipate further improvements or any additional construction on the rest of this property. House: Well, I can answer some of that. If we put this U-shaped wall in here in the southwest corner of the property as the current Plan shows, that will be what I would consider a very ugly, unsightly ... I thought it was going to be taller, but apparently it's around eleven feet tall. So, it'd be this solid cement wall about as tall as that piece of molding there that you could see from Olive. I didn't realize but I guess we're going to do some planting on the north side of the detention area. Bunch: Yeah. House: Some trees? Bunch: Yeah. Yeah. House: From an aesthetic standpoint, it shouldn't be nearly as objectionable. My point is just look at this big cistern from the street. As far as future development, eventually we will come to the City with a Plan because we Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 38 have a two -acre parcel right at the end of what is now going to be the Approved portion of Olive. So, eventually we're going to come to the City probably with a Plan for development of that lot. We don't know what it will be yet. But, I know that Mandy, in these calculations, figured a big enough pond or detention area to accommodate both parcels, assuming that the undeveloped parcel is the same density as what we're already doing. Most likely you'd have a **** after the Hillside Ordinance is passed and so forth. Vaught: Was Center Street vacated by the City Council to the west of this? O'Neal: I know there was a vacation as part of this project. I can ... Vaught: I remember there was a debate about it and you guys went to City Council and I never remembered ... We were requiring the construction of ... that was what was nixed, right? Anthes: It wasn't adequate. House: And there is a debate on how much right-of-way there is. Vaught: Yeah. I remember there's several things. The Center Street streetscape is something we don't know if we'll ever have, at least to the west of this site. House: According to most of the abstractors we've talked with and we've talked with three, there's only fifteen feet of right-of-way, if that much that belongs to the City of Center Street. There's even houses built ... Vaught: Uh, huh. I remember that, further down to the west, downhill. Anthes: Commissioner Lack, I know this pre -dated your tenure. Do you have any particular questions? Lack: I don't and as you say, it did. I did hear about the project. Anthes: Yeah. Lack: But, as long as Engineering is okay with the Approval and the improvements to drainage, I think that that is something they're uniquely qualified to speak to. I think that the appearance issues could be enhanced by this with the vegetation area to the south as opposed to the walls to the north. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 39 Anthes: I just want it verified with Staff that this is able to be Approved at this level, right? O'Neal: That's correct. MOTION: Vaught: Chair, I Move for Approval of Administrative Item 06-1898, with the stated Conditions. Lack: Anthes: I will Second. And, I concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 40 Anthes: Our next Item of business is PPL 06-1870: Preliminary Plat for THE HAMPTONS (Revised). Will the Applicant come forward? Garner: As background, in August of this year, Preliminary Plat was ... Anthes: Can you hold on just a second, Andrew? Please come to the microphone. ?: The people I'm representing are in Atlanta, so is there going to be a meeting on this? Or can I tell them that it's already been Approved, or what? Anthes: This has been Approved at this level. If they would like to come and meet with Staff and talk about what the implications are, Staff would be happy to do that. You can contact Jesse or Andrew here and they'll go over it with you. It was the feeling of this Board that this actually is an improvement, aesthetically and functionally to the project and we hope that they'll actually be more pleased with it in this configuration than they would have been. ?: Okay. Anthes: Okay? ?: Thanks. Anthes: Thanks. Sony to interrupt you. Garner: In August of this year, the Applicant received Preliminary Plat Approval for one hundred and thirty-one lots for the Hampton's Preliminary Plat. Subsequent to that, the Applicant proceeded to secure construction Approval for this development and issues involving drainage on the property. Since that time, the Applicant has re -engineered the site and now requests a Revised Preliminary Plat, modifications to the originally Approved Plat and addition of lots **** Planning Commission's review and Approval. To refresh your memories, this site contains approximately 47 acres of agricultural property. It's south of Huntsville Road, south and east of Roberts Road, Goff Farm Road. There is a floodplain and a floodway from the west fork of the White River Tributary. It's located on the easternmost portion of the site. Applicant Proposed construction of a subdivision with one hundred and forty-two lots with this Revised Plat, one hundred and thirty-eight of those being single-family lots. Lot 141 would be for future installation of a pool, which would require a Conditional Use Permit Approval. Street improvements that we're recommending with this Revised Plat are the same as those recommended with Preliminary Plat and I won't read those in detail to you. Parkland Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 41 Dedication will require additional fees for the additional single-family lots that would be allowed. We are recommending forwarding this to the Full Planning Commission and the Conditions of Approval are essentially the same as those with the Hampton's Preliminary Plat that was before the Planning Commission in August. Condition Number 1 is regarding street improvements. Condition Number 2 is regarding right-of-way dedication. Condition Number 5 is Lot 141 is identified for future installation of a pool to serve the subdivision and that would require Conditional Use Approval. I'd be happy to discuss or address any of the other Conditions you might have questions on. Anthes: Thank you. Do we have other Staff comments and in that, Brent, could you go over those offsite improvements, Condition 1? Patterson: On the Tree Preservation I just have two comments. Mitigation will be required on this site to bring the percentage back to 7.7 existing. That's equivalent to one hundred and eighty-six two-inch caliper trees. $46,500 money in lieu of or a combination of the two. And, that will be determined and decided at the time of signature of Final Plat. It is recommended by Staff that the developer use the Residential Onsite Mitigation option, described in Chapter 167, where those one hundred and eighty-six trees will be planted on site at the time of Final Plat or following that. That's it. Anthes: I didn't see the dollar amount on this Report. Patterson: It's in my ... I have an additional Report. It's on the last page of my Report. It's $46,500. Anthes: Thank you. Mr. O'Neal? O'Neal: What was your question? Anthes: I just wondered if you would review those with us and tell us how these differ from the originally Proposed ... if they do ... offsite improvements. O'Neal: It actually does not differ from those original Conditions, I believe. Goff Farm Road is going to be improved on their side of the street, fourteen feet from centerline, with a sidewalk. They are also required to just add widths Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 42 of paving on the north side. The intersection of Roberts Road and Goff Farm Road, they are actually T-ing that intersection. Right now it is a very nasty blind comer. So, that will be improved. Roberts Road north will be just improved to twenty -foot **** paving. Anthes: Thank you. Would you introduce yourself and give us your comments? Ingles: My name is Jason Ingles with Northstar Engineering. Another engineer designed the project and our client purchased the property from the other development team. We reconfigured some of the lots within the boundary and that's why we're coming back before the Commission to get Approval on that. I'll answer any question you may have. Anthes: Were there any density changes? Ingles: I believe we increased the number of lots. I think we originally had one hundred and twenty-eight. We have one hundred and thirty-eight now. But I think that's still within the limits of the Zone. Anthes: Thank you. Would any member of the Public like to address Preliminary Plat 06-1870, The Hampton's? Hogland: My name is Charles C. Hogland. I'm here representing myself and my father, C.C. Hogland and my mother, Hogland. We jointly own the five acres north of the Hampton's project on the corner. I submitted an Opposition this morning earlier. I don't know if one of you guys have it in front of you. But, there's been a question from the start on that property line that runs on the north side ... my south side, their north side. I have a thirty-foot easement through there that it seems like on a daily basis I get my driveway painted, stakes driven in my driveway. And, that fence line that is there has been there for fifty -some -odd years, according to Mr. Roberts, the previous owner of that property. I maintain that property. My house is built on it. My driveway is in it. So, not to stop any progress, we're excited about the project. We're excited about the new improvements on the street, on the curve, the dangerous curve. We're excited about all of that except I have to disagree with some of these property lines on that north side. That fence, as I understand, will be the new boundary and that's going to affect several lots in that area. I just wanted to bring that to your attention and make the statement that I have spoken to Mr. Gray, Rick Gray, I guess the owner of the subdivision on a couple of occasions. We've talked about making some changes but I have not been contacted on that, so at this point, I just want to make it a matter of record that we've got a problem with some lines there. Again, I'll say they're coming up within four or five feet of my driveway and painting my yard and driving stakes. So, I just wanted to make sure that we Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 43 understand that that's not going to be the corner, as I understand that they may think it is. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Hogland. Would any other member of the Public like to address this Item? Seeing none, I'll close the Public Comment section and I have a question for Staff. I remember when this (tape ended — new tape started here) Have you heard any additional information about the property line? Vaught: This is the first I've heard. I mean, I remember the same comments from the previous Approval when he came and spoke. The only response that I can have is this is the legal lot of record and the survey was provided when this property was Approved. It sounds like maybe a disagreement between what he feels is the legal lot of record and what their professional surveyor feel. Our GIS section has Approved their legal description, as it's shown. I'm not sure what's actually being staked on their property. It sounds like with fence lines that the legal descriptions of the lots are correct, but rather, who's been maintaining which portions of the properties. It's just going to pretty much boil down to property ownership, legal matters between those two property owners. Obviously, if something changed with the survey, through some matters outside of the City processes, it would affect this Preliminary Plat. It very well may have to come back before a board to be reheard again with a different layout. But, I don't think it's anything that the City Staff can do anything about, necessarily. Anthes: Jason, have you been aware of this problem? Jason: No, this is the first I've heard of it. Now, somebody else may have heard of it. We can definitely research this. I would like to add, if it is this portion right here, these lots are sufficient. They still meet Ordinance, even if we had to adjust the boundary line. So, at time of Final Plat, the boundary could be adjusted if that were the case. So, I will take the gentleman's name and number down and definitely get my surveyor in contact with him. Vaught: I believe the first time this came up, and unfortunately it's an issue that's a private matter, and needs to resolve or get taken to court. We can't say who's right or wrong. I don't think there will be major modification, though that we'd have to seek. And, if it's a slight adjustment of this line and even if a lot was lost. So, it's not something I'm too worried about. I would think a major modification would be more significant. I feel it is an issue that should be handled at Final Plat. Subdivision Committee December 29, Page 44 Lack: Jason: Lack: Vaught: Jason: Vaught: Jason: Vaught: Jason: Vaught: Garner: O'Neal: Anthes: 2005 Do you have a pretty good feeling for where that fence is? I'm not seeing it on our drawings here right now. So, I would have to research it. I'm just as blank as what you are on this. I think it was on the Plat we saw the first time. At the previous meeting we did see a fence line on the Plat. And, you guys have purchased the property from the former owner's correct? Right. And, nothing came up in your Title Search or anything like that, did it? The Title Search was probably done by the owner whenever it was purchased. I have not been privy to that information. Since title work had already been done before ... Okay. Well, it's a private matter. There's not much we can do about it except I'm glad you came again to address it. It think it's an important issue you guys can resolve. Definitely we need it resolved before Final Plat. I had a question on Condition Number 7 and just making sure the Applicant is aware of that and his opinion. It's asking their phase lines be redrawn so we don't have a long stub -out, which we do have currently on this street, Street A. We don't want a stub -out greater than one hundred and fifty feet to be cleared or you might have to so you might have to build it with a temporary cul de sac. So, either turnaround needs to be included or the phase line needs to be drawn. I would say that, with their financials that they put together, they'll want to do that. We'll just have to construct a temporary turnaround. Okay. Then, I guess, do we need to Change Condition 7 to say, "redraw phase lines or construct a temporary turnaround"? The last part of it reads, "adequate turnaround for emergency vehicles". Yeah, that's right. We could add that. Yeah, if phase lines aren't redrawn, then temporary cul de sac or adequate turnaround should be provided. Madam Chair, I also have a couple of comments on the Plat. Sure. Go ahead. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 45 O'Neal: I didn't receive in my packet for some reason. You need to show the water meters and the sewer tap locations. Also, I'm not sure what street it is, but the north/south street that has a short cul de sac, I believe it's Street D, it's just covered up on our Plans, here, if you could flip the water and the sewer, that will get that waterline T out of that gas easement and the sewer can run on the west side and the water can run on the east side of that street. Vaught: I see Staff recommends forwarding, instead of Approving at this level, I guess to address why? Garner: It's because they end up getting additional lots with this. It would add almost ten lots. Vaught: Yeah. Okay. MOTION: Lack: I would make a Motion that we forward Preliminary Plat 06-1870, The Hamptons to the Full Planning Commission with the 21 Conditions of Approval, modifying Condition Number 7 to add "or provide a temporary cul de sac for means of adequate turnaround", and the addition of the $46,500 mitigation fee as reported in the Tree Preservation findings, and Engineering's comments to show water meter and sewer locations. And, to flip the water and sewer locations at Street D. Vaught: I'll Second. Anthes: I'll concur. I would just add that you and your owner meet with your adjoining property owner to the north and try to come to some plan of action about verifying that property line. Thank you. Jason: Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 46 Anthes: Our twelfth Item today is PPL 05-1749: Preliminary Plat for ST. JAMES PARK S/D. If the Applicant would come forward and have a seat. And, we'll have the Staff Report, please. Garner: Sure. This property is located north and east of Mount Comfort Road. It was recently annexed into the City and Zoned RSF-4. It is approximately 24.35 acres. The Applicant requests Preliminary Plat Approval for seventy-three single-family lots. As more background into the site, the property to the north is within the Planning Area and it is currently being subdivided into lots at urban densities. The Cherry Hill Subdivision and Laverly Lane Subdivisions are located to the north. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets include Mount Comfort Road, which is a minor arterial and collector, Hughmount Road, which is a collector, and Morning Mist Hyde Park, which is a collector. As part of this Preliminary Plat, Staff is recommending Master Street Plan Amendment to redirect Morning Mist Drive to the south. This recommendation is based on the fact that due to the repairing area and a bridge and when you're looking at the way this subdivision lays out, we just feel like it was more appropriate to have this road go to the south. The street improvements that Staff is recommending, we recommend that the Applicant coordinate with the ... Anthes: Would you back up and just clarify that last statement for us? Garner: Sure. The Master Street Plan shows Morning Mist Drive ... you can maybe flip back to these maps at the back of the Report ... the second map, Morning Mist Drive, it's not really showing up on there but the Master Street Plan shows it extending east to west, straight across this site and connecting with Mount Comfort Road. That would create an awkward intersection right at a bridge, basically. We didn't find that that would be appropriate. So, the modification that we're recommending is that Morning Mist Drive, instead of extending all the way east to west to this property, turn to the south and connect down, and, eventually would connect down to Mount Comfort Road to the south. And, it would also align with Stonebridge. Anthes: And so, that is an alignment, right? ? Uh, huh. Anthes: Okay. Vaught: Where is this Stonebridge? Garner: This. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 47 Vaught: Okay. So, this is where Morning Mist will curve south? Garner: Correct. Vaught: And, connect through here. Anthes: Do we need to process a Master Street Plan Amendment with this? Garner: That is correct. It would require a City Council Approval. That really is one of the biggest issues from our mind, is street improvements and Master Street Plan Amendment the density that's Proposed is allowed. We have worked with the developer on that configuration of the internal streets and we feel like we have an appropriate alignment, however we are open to more discussion the Planning Commission feels is necessary. Going back to the street improvements, we're recommending the Applicant coordinate with the developer of Cherry Hill Subdivision to improve the intersection of Wheeler Road and Hughmount Road. The developer of St. James Park is to be responsible for improvements on the east side of the realigned street. The Applicant should show these on the Plat submitted for the Planning Commission consideration so that we can see what that would look like. We are also recommending to improve Mount Comfort Road and Hughmount Road adjacent to the property to include fourteen feet from centerline, curb, gutter, storm drains and six- foot sidewalk. Prior to signatures of Final Plat, Staff would be required to inspect the site to insure that all of the improvements were installed. Street connectivity is provided to the east and south and due to the issues we discussed, we don't recommend additional connections to the north or to the west. We are recommending going ahead and forwarding this to the Full Planning Commission at this time. Condition Number 1 is discussing the Master Street Plan, Amendment to realign Morning Mist Drive. Condition Number 2 is Planning Commission determination of the street improvements. Condition Number 3 is Planning Commission determination of connectivity. Condition Number 5, the property is located in the Clabber Creek Bridge assessment area and the developer shall be proportionately assessed for the future construction of a bridge on Dead Horse Mountain Road, based on the projected impact. This amount shall Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 48 be determined by the City Engineering Division. We should have that number prior to Planning Commission. Condition Number 9, I wanted to bring to your attention, there are some temporary cul de sacs Proposed and this refers to cost estimate to eventually extend the street through those. Condition Number 10 is referring to a temporary access easement for the temporary cul de sacs. The other Conditions are pretty straightforward. I think I've highlighted the major ones. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Gardner. Do we have additional Staff comments? Patterson: Yes. For a Tree Mitigation, mitigation will be required on this site. One tree that exists on this site will be removed, so they will need to mitigate back to the 1.81 percent existing canopy. The developer requested and has been Approved on-site mitigation and this is equivalent to two two-inch caliper trees, with a corresponding $500 three-year maintenance bond. Both the trees will need to be planted and the bond deposited before signature of Final Plat. Anthes: Thank you. Mr. O'Neal? O'Neal: Steve, on that alignment on Mount Comfort and Hughmount, it is going to become a T intersection, so I don't know how the ownership of this triangular piece is going to fall. But, if you could just kind of show that before the Commissioners just so they know what that alignment's going to approximately look like. Clark: Who's the engineer on that? O'Neal: McClelland Engineering. On the stub -outs for Earls Court and Windsor Court, if you can connect those waterlines to create a loop. That way, the Board won't have a problem with looping that water. It would be along lots 58 and 57. The other thing is, the sewer line is shown crossing under your discharge point. If you could encase that ... Clark: Okay. O'Neal: ... so that we can easily maintain that. Also, if you could, pull the detention pond back at least ten feet off of the centerline for the sewer. That way we would have a clear easement there. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 49 Clark: We'll look at those and discuss it with you if it creates any conflicts. Because I think, for the most part, we can probably meet that. O'Neal: Okay. Clark: There may be some very minor encroachments in there. Of course, also, I'd like to talk to you not now, but later about whether or not to actually run the sewer underneath the detention pond and possibly looking at encasing it. That's something that we'll work out with you. Anthes: Steve, will you introduce yourself and give us your comments? Clark: I am Steve Clark. I have Clark Consulting, representing the owners of this project. We've gone through several iterations on this project trying to come up with the best for everybody. The Master Street Plan Amendment is something that we discussed with Staff because we could not find any way to transition from where the collector street enters our project on the east and trying to make it tie in with Mount Comfort Road along the West, without just absolutely killing the project from a density standpoint. So, as a compromise, we ended up going ahead and looking at this as an alternative, which I think truly works better. By extending that collector street south and having it aligned with the bridge more. If there are any questions you might have, I'll try to answer. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any member of the Public like to address this Preliminary Plat 05-1749 for St. James Park Subdivision? Seeing none, Pll close the Public Comment section. I have a question about that alignment. It looks to me like the shaded area ... this is not a future phase of your project ... Clark: No. Anthes: So, this would be a future development. Whereas, an east/west connection could be made and completed with this development. So, I see that we have a Master Street Plan change that may or may not happen, whereas if we required it with this subdivision, we'd have our connection now. Can Staff address why you think that turning south is a good idea? Garner: I think one of the main reasons is, we were looking at this site and the way the Master Street Plan was originally Proposed, when you're looking at the actual development of it, it just seemed that this would still provide adequate connection to the south. When you're looking at the Master Street Plan here, you're still providing adequate connection. It just didn't seem to be a safe idea to provide a connection all the way across, Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 50 providing another bridging of Clabber Creek. It just seemed the most feasible alternative. Vaught: Is there no other option to connect to the west? This would be a nice ... and I know you've got those two hard curves, but if you could connect James Way to Hughmount somehow. There's no east/west connections in this part of town except Mount Comfort Road and I fear without that, we're just pushing everything back to Mount Comfort Road. Anthes: Clark: Uh, huh. One of the issues first off is that the Master Street Plan actually shows this collector alignment to be about a thousand feet north. As development has occurred to our east, it has subsequently been shifted south. And, what's basically happened is, is that the collector street enters our property right here. We had originally Proposed to try to stub it out right here so that some connection could be made eventually to the west. That created several issues, one of which was this current **** that has this property and it will never be extended until this guy sold out or the City bought him out. Vaught: Well, we're in the same situation over here. Clark: Similar situation. The difference is, is that if we try to take this thing through and connect to Mount ... or at this location, then you've got two significant ninety -degree turns that try to come back, you've added more traffic right here to this intersection, which is already an issue. By taking it and turning it south, we're able to align it with Bridgeport, which in a future effort should probably be a signalized intersection. And, you're allowing all of this traffic that would be further east of us to come through here, down this collector and make a connection at something that would have a potential for being a signalized intersection. The issue with this three -acre piece is, is that if we do not take this connection through it now, it basically becomes landlocked and no longer functions. The owner's have tried to purchase that land multiple times and offered multiple times what it's worth in order to try to make a connection. None of that was successful. If we try to meet the City's Ordinance and the Standards for a collector street we can't make these hard turns. And yes, we're doing it here at a one-time intersection. But to try to get from here to here, along a collector street, forces you to have long radiuses, which creates a lot of complications. Vaught: But if we don't ... I wouldn't mind seeing a stub -out in here. I know I want to keep it away from where the creek crosses because you don't want to hit at a bridge. I just didn't know if there was another opportunity Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 51 because right now we've chopped off ... there's no east/west route over hear except Mount Comfort Road. I would love to see something so at least we have the option. Because we have no options. Anthes: I guess Commissioner Vaught to follow up on that. I'm interested to see the engineering on this intersection at Wheeler and Mount Comfort put on this Plan because it may very well be ... Vaught: It takes it and T's it straight -on, from what I remember. Anthes: Yeah, I can't quite remember. Vaught: It kind of like Sunshine T's into the middle of the radius of the curve, I believe ... Clark: I haven't seen it. Vaught: Isn't that correct? It kind of makes a T into the middle of the curve. Lack: From that point it just comes straight into ... Anthes: I don't know. I do **** to Mount Comfort. Vaught: Right. Yeah, this radius here. So, taking this over isn't a great option. The other options would be to ... well, you don't want to do that ... would be to somehow stub -out somewhere in here. So, at least, you could take a road to Hughmount in the future. Clark: But, you have a creek. See, this is the floodplain. Vaught: Uh, huh. Clark: The creek sits right here. The bank falls off down through here. Vaught: So, that's creek right here? Clark: That ... well, that's not actually creek. The creek actually comes through... Vaught: Here? Clark: But, you can where the bank ... you can see how we've got a very steep bank. That follows around. So, that was what we originally Proposed was to stub it out right here. Staff objected to it and said, no, we don't want to do that. We tried to look at coming down and tying in here at this intersection. That doesn't work either. The only solution that we could Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 52 come up with that worked, that met the criteria that we needed, was to take it down here. Now, keep in mind, you're saying, we'll we're not connecting to this road. The difference in the length of Mount Comfort Road, the connection from here to here is very nominal. And, the big advantage is, is that you now have the potential for a signalized intersection. Vaught: And, the subdivision across Hughmount, I forgot the name of ... Clark: Cherry Hill. Vaught: Cherry Hill? Does it come all the way down to Mount ... Clark: No. Vaught: It does not? Clark: No, it's back up here. Vaught: See, and this is why I say that, right now if we have some way to connect Hughmount even, in the future, as this develops, then they'll be able to use this road instead of ... it's ... we see it with the Wedington area. We see it in different areas of town where we haven't had significant east/west connections and it's hard because there's not very good paths, anywhere. Where you get in these creeks and you have to build trenches, it's expensive. Clark: And, we're avoiding all of that. Vaught: I know. Clark: Because there's no way to make this connection in here. Again, that was my original Proposed, in which we stubbed the street out right here. And, Staff objected to it pretty strongly. We had a connection here. We had another connection out at this point. Vaught: Where's the bridge here? Clark: It doesn't show up. It's beyond the limits of my survey. Vaught: Okay, it's over here? Clark: No, the bridge is not that far over. Vaught: Okay. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 53 Clark: The bridge is somewhere in this area. Lack: You see where that waterline crosses Hughmount? It's just a little more. Basically where you show Hughmount at the end, I think that's about where the bridge begins. Vaught: Right up here? Clark: It's right after that corner. As soon as you break that corner is when you hit that bridge. Right at the corner. Right in there is where you hit that bridge. Vaught: Okay. Lack: I think looking at this is telling in that you would be hitting at a diagonal across the creek at that location, as well. Vaught: Uh, huh. Lack: I'm not sure that I'm convinced though that coming into Hughmount Road off of this corner, further up as far as possible from this corner, or even stubbing out here to Hughmount ... Vaught: Uh, huh. Lack: ... but you could even hit Hughmount here and potentially have enough distance onto to Hughmount before it intersects ... is that ... can we speak to that and talk about the feasibility of that? Clark: Again, what we're trying to do is we're trying to put a double S-curve in to match from here to here. And, when you try to do that and you put your tangent lengths in between your curves, and ... Anthes: Right, I think we ... Clark: ... you reduce the radius ... Anthes: Let me just step in here. I think we understand that. Clark: Yeah. Anthes: What I think we're discussing is that we may accept the Master Street Plan alignment ... Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 54 Clark: Uh, huh. Anthes: ... going north/south. But, in addition, we would be looking for a stub -out Vaught: Some way to connect. Anthes: ... that would not be a collector street, necessarily but another connection, a physical connection with the street stub -out. Clark: Again, we looked at that and the issue becomes, how do you transition and how do you ... I mean, what you're trying to do is you're ending up with more traffic conflicts at this intersection. Anthes: Yes or no? Until we can see that ... until you have seen how that's re- engineered, we don't know that that's actually true. Also, that's not constructed yet. So, with your development and this development working together, there may be a way to clean up that intersection that it does work. And, I would like to see that explored. Vaught: This is recommended for forwarding. So, it's something we can look at as a whole Commission, as well. I think that's important. I feel comfortable, even with this not resolved, forwarding it because I would like the whole Commission, especially on this. And, it will give you guys time to get that engineering put in. So, it was recommended to be forwarded anyway. So, on that there's something we're looking at and after you look at the engineering, and more from Staff to explore other options that possibly make some kind of a connection east/west. Clark: What you guys are recommending is essentially what our original Proposal was. Staff didn't like it, sent us back to the drawing board, we've gone through another iteration and revisions to plans to come up with this solution. Anthes: But, maybe they didn't like it because of the creek and maybe they didn't like it as the collector. Clark: Well, there were several issues but ... Garner: If I could speak to that a little bit. From what I was told for the connects of Morning Mist, I think the creek topography was part of the problem. But, if you've driven this street, it's a curve on a hill, over a bridge. It creates a very ... we were concerned with the type of intersection that would be created with that connection there, that it would not be safe, especially with the amount of traffic that would be utilizing it. I can't Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 55 speak to James Way being connected. I'm not as familiar with that. I don't know if there are the same types of concerns with Staff on that. I can just speak to this connection. There was a lot of concern. Anthes: And, that's why we're just asking that you look at James Way and get a recommendation to us. Vaught: Came out more toward the corner of the property. Then further north ... yeah, even if it came out that way somehow. Just to look at it. I don't ... hopefully you wouldn't lose a lot or maybe could reconfigure them since you're taking out that curve. Clark: Yeah. Vaught: But, somehow if it's possible, it would be something that we would like to see, just because there's not a whole lot of east/west mobility and I think that anyone in any of these subdivisions want to get to Mount Comfort Road to head west, up to **** or somehow, they have to go down to Mount Comfort Road down here and head out. And, they're fighting with everyone going. It's just ... there's no other outlet for this stuff east/west. So, it would be nice to have an east/west outlet. But, we understand the concerns. And, I don't know if **** west is a good option, either. It doesn't look like it, especially the way this all is, the bridges, the floodplain. We're saying we understand the collector street. That's understandable. Is there some way to provide some kind of access. So, we're just looking at is. We'd like to see what the options are, especially with the changes to Hughmount Road put in there. I think that might give us a better picture. Because you know you can't put it too close to that intersection, either. Clark: And, then the topography, trying to get from the creek back up to that ... there's some visibility and safety issues. Anthes: Looks to me like we've pretty much discussed Condition of Approval Number 1 and it seems like we're in general agreement with **** of the Master Street Plan. Clark: Yes. Anthes: We need to talk about street improvements, Condition Number 2 and make a recommendation there. Obviously we have been talking about Condition Number 3. We're asking Staff to examine a Condition to a connection to the west somewhere that would connect to James Way in the vicinity of lots 10 through 13, however it would work with the realignment of the intersection of Cross and Mount Comfort Road, which Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 56 we cannot see at this time. So, do we have any Commissioner comments on the street improvements as recommended? Lack: They seem to be standard requirements of upgrades. Clark: That's correct and I think we even show that. We show widening all the way along there. So, there will be some things that will have to be changed as a result of this realignment that's being done. As soon as we can get those issues resolved, then we'll resolve that one also. Anthes: Okay. And Staff, we will have a number from Engineering on Item 5, the Assessment prior to Planning Commission? Garner: Yes, Ma'am. Anthes: And then, do we need to add in the mitigation trees and the $500 bond? Is that stated? Garner: It is included, referring to Condition Number 7, that Conditions of Approval and Tree Preservation Report. Anthes: Okay. Garner: So, we can actually paste those into the Report for Planning Commission. Anthes: All right. Vaught: I just have a question on street names just because I'm not an expert on this. It would seem Morning Mist would continue all the way to Mount Comfort. How can we ... this one road changes names three times. That's a little confusing to me. I would ... I don't know ... I would think that that would carry through as Morning Mist or the turn for the collector would be called Morning Mist. But, that's a street name issue so I don't know. Clark: So, this is an additional tie-in, so it really needs to be Bridgeport. Vaught: Oh, it does need to be Bridgeport? Yeah. Clark: And, I've had some conversations with Jim Johnson about street names Vaught: Okay. Clark: ... and he said no to about most of them. I think there were one or two that were acceptable. And, we'll resolve the street names. Now the issue of Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 57 Morning Mist turning and going south, that's a policy issue within the City and I don't know what your law is. Vaught: Well, it's three different names. Right now it's Surrey, Edinborough, and Morning Mist. Clark: Yes. Do you change directions and maintain the same street names? Everyone at once — no determination of what said Clark: I would be delighted to change it to Morning Mist and run it all the way through if that meets Staff ... City Policy on street names. Vaught: It's just, I work on North Futrall Drive but you don't turn on North Futrall, you turn on Millsap. I just ... Clark: Don't like streets changing names Vaught: Yeah. Clark: And, I agree, this one should have had one name carried all the way through, at least the north/south section. And, if Staff allows us to carry Morning Mist, we'll carry it through. Anthes: Is there further discussion or Motions? Garner: Madam Chair? Anthes: Yes. Clark: Just to clarify, I want to make sure I understand what you would like to see for Planning Commission regarding the street improvements. Would you like to actually see an alternative engineer showing this, showing both alternatives or ... Vaught: Anthes: We'd like to see the changes to the intersection. And, if there's a feasible option, we would like to see it, don't you think? It seems to me that it's the recommendation of Subdivision Committee that we provide connectivity to the west. And, what we're asking you to do is find a way to make that happen. And, if you can't, then make a good case for why. Subdivision Committee December 29, Page 58 Clark: Vaught: MOTION: Lack: Vaught: Garner: Clark: Vaught: Clark: Anthes: Clark: Anthes: Vaught: Anthes: Clark: 2005 Grades and sight distances and safety issues are the primary issues for trying to make that close connection right there at Hughmount and Mount Comfort Road. And, that was what they objected to my original design of. We understand. It just feels important. And just, this part of town just has nothing like it. And, hopefully north of the creek will be better, they can carry some through. Because I know that's developing out, too. I'd like to Move that we forward Preliminary Plat 05-1749, St. James Park, with the twenty-one Conditions of Approval, adding to that to carry Morning Mist as a street name through to the south or a consistent street name. I don't know if that's a Condition we need to make or can we make that? Ask maybe street names to be Approved by the City 911 Coordinator. If you'll let us change names, then we'll do it. You can add that as a recommendation if you want to. Okay. That street names be Approved? The recommendation is that they review the street names and the fact that the one street changes names three times, and perhaps have them look at it. Okay, so exactly that wording. I accept that wording as the addition, as well as Engineering's comments having to do with connection of the waterlines, **** and the location of the detention ponds adjacent to the sewer and the encasement of the sewer. Do I hear a Second? I'll Second. And, I'll concur. We'll see you at Planning Commission. Thank you. Subdivision Committee December 29, Page 59 Anthes: Fulcher: Clark: Fulcher: Anthes: Vaught: Anthes: Clark: Anthes: Clark: Fulcher: Vaught: Fulcher: Anthes: Clark: 2005 Thank you. The next Item of business is LSD 05-1806: Large Scale Development for APPLEBY LANDING LOTS 2&3. May we have the Staff report, please? I'm getting to that Report. We are waiting for the Final Plat for Appleby Landing to be signed and filed. It's at your office to be signed. It's with Engineering, I believe, right now. Because this hasn't been tiled, we won't be able to Approve it at this level. It will have to be forwarded on to the Planning Commission, with hopes that it will be signed and filed by that point. So, let me give you a quick rundown of the project ... Well, wait. There's an option, actually. It can be Tabled at this level and brought back to this level or forwarded to Planning Commission. Let me recommend that the difference in time, I believe would actually be three days longer to Table it. It would go to the January 12th Subdivision Committee if we Tabled it where it could be Approved or we could forward it to Planning Commission on January 9` where it could be Approved. Does the Applicant have a preference? Let's go to the 9'h. Let's get it done because I don't want my client to be chewing on me for any other delays more than what we have already had. I'm just trying to be a little protective of Planning Commission Agenda's. I understand. I would hope that we could discuss any major issues you see here, Commercial Design Standards and have a good chance of this being a shorter discussion at that Planning Commission Meeting. Do we have elevations, by the way? Yes, we do. Okay, sorry to interrupt you. Not a problem. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 60 Fulcher: This is a 2.19 acre tract, located just south of the intersection of Appleby Road and Bob Younkin Drive. It's Zoned R.O. Residential Office. It's the first two developed lots in the Appleby Landing Subdivision. The Proposal is to construct two 10,900 square foot medical office buildings with eighty-eight parking spaces Proposed. The street has already been constructed, right-of-way dedicated. That's going to connect to Bishop Drive, Drake and to Appleby. There was no mitigation required. There was permanent twenty -foot Tree Preservation easement along the west side of the property that is shown on the Final Plat. Also, it's shown on this Large Scale Development on the west side there. Protective fencing will be installed to further inhibit disturbance in these areas if this project is Approved. Staffing is recommending forwarding this to Planning Commission to the January 9th meeting. The fifteen Conditions of Approval: Item Number 1 is Subdivision Committee determination of Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds that this is a well articulated building that does meet Commercial Design Standards. As far as compatibility, it's the first two buildings in the subdivision, so it may be something we look at further down the line with other developments. Item Number 3 — we need a cut -sheet for the outdoor lighting prior to Building Permits Review with Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. We have discussed, there is ... the type of species shown along the street, most of them are large species, although in four locations, Red Bud Species is shown. This may be appropriate with sight visibility pulling out of these intersections, although if it is not, we request that these be large tree species out of the Landscape Manual Approved by the Urban Forester. Item Number 8 — no construction should occur on the adjacent lots. As you can see on the Site Plan, these parking lots will be continuous with future developments. Half of the parking lot will be constructed with the next development. The eastern and western half of the parking lot will be constructed to provide parking for those buildings. So, without a Conditional Use Approval for offsite parking, all the parking needs to occur onsite for these two developments. Clark: I mean it simplifies the issue ... I'm sorry, go ahead and finish your report. We'll discuss ... Fulcher: I'm done. Go ahead. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 61 Clark: I'm sorry. Anthes: Let's get the rest of the Staff Report and ... Clark: I apologize. Fulcher: So, with those, Staff is recommending forwarding this to the Planning Commission with the fifteen Conditions of Approval. Patterson: I believe Jesse covered with the Large Scale Development of Appleby Landing, a twenty -foot Tree Preservation easement was set up on the far west and the far east property boundaries. These two developments will stay out of that area. They're going to fence it off. So, besides that area, there are no trees currently existing. Anthes: And, do you have any comments about Condition 6 or is that covered? That's the street trees. Patterson: The street trees. It's like Jesse, it is a recommendation for typically medium to large species trees anywhere we can get them in. If it is under a power line, sight visibility problem or other issues like that, we will consider a smaller species. But, I'm not sure in that area if it would favor to have a smaller or not. So, we could discuss that later. Anthes: Thank you. Mr. O'Neal? O'Neal: I just have a general question. Are these buildings going to be sprinkled? Clark: I don't think they're required to be sprinkled. I think we've stayed under the minimum square footage and appropriate construction. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Now would you introduce yourself and talk about your project? Clark: I'm Steve Clark, Clark Consulting. This is the first development that's going in on Appleby Landing. We will be constructing basically ... the buildings throughout the development will be built in the similar style to the two. We're going to have the basic footprint looks the same throughout. We're very limited in our space in the allowable development. We came up with this scheme, I guess, as one of the original layouts where we would share parking lots across lot lines and then put a building that's accessed from both sides. That's why we're trying to go ahead and would like to construct the entire parking lots at this time, even though they do cross the lot line, simply because the flow Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 62 in the traffic will be much better if we can go ahead and build the entire parking lot. It also saves the contractor and owner a little bit of money instead of having to try to go back and fill in a few places with some parking spaces. We're not counting this towards these. We meet our parking requirement without it but just for circulation issues, it would be preferable to go ahead and build the entire parking lot or at least the majority of the parking lot at this time. Anthes: We'll talk about the feasibility of that in a minute. Clark: One other issue that I noticed that was a standard comment that I would like to get struck from these is the easement plat. You know, we've just filed a Final Plat. There should be no need for an easement plat. We've dedicated the Tree Preservation Easements at this time and if we don't strike it now, then I've got to do one and it just doesn't make sense in this case, since it's a Final Plat presuming Staff concurs with that. Anthes: That's Condition of Approval Number 4? Is that correct? Clark: No. Anthes: Oh, I'm sorry. Clark: No, that's Standard Condition 15-B. Anthes: 15-B? Fulcher: I think that's just one of our Standard Conditions of Approval. Clark: It's actually that B. Anthes: Oh, BB. Fulcher: It's not necessarily warranted. We won't require it. It's just one of our Standard Conditions. It's kind of just a cover -all for all projects. Anthes: The first B stays, the second B goes? Is that what you're saying? Fulcher: Yeah. The second Easement Plat for this project. Anthes: Okay, great. Clark: They serve as a special Condition for us. Subdivision Committee December 29, Page 63 Anthes: Anthes: Fulcher: Clark: Anthes: Clark: Anthes: Clark: Lack: 2005 Would any member of the Public like to address Large Scale Development 05-1806 for Appleby Landing Lots 2 & 3? Please note that there is no Public Comment. Commissioners do you have questions? I think the first thing I'd like to do is talk about those parking lots. Obviously, it makes sense from a construction standpoint to build those now but I understand that those are on adjoining properties that would have development plans associated with them. What process could the developer take to provide those lots now, or is there a way to do that? It would be a Conditional Use for offsite parking. They would have to go to Planning Commission and get their Approval, in which case, it was Approved, provide for those parking lots offsite with Conditions ... I'm sure that we could find some to put ... you know with that for future development if they are associated with that. It would meet our minimum requirements. It's not like we actually need those parking spaces to meet the standards. It's just a construction -related issue that would make it a preferred way of building it now ... I understand that, which is why I'm asking. But, the problem is is that we are looking at this boundary right now as a Development Plan. Those are offsite. So, if you are going to construct those, we need a way to Approve them. Sure. And, apparently Conditional Use if the means that we would use. Is that something that you would be pursuing? I would anticipate we would do one of two things with your concurrence. We will stop it at our property line or we will get a Conditional Use. I wonder two things about that, as well. If we don't allow any construction onto those adjacent properties, then the ingress/egress that is provided at that location will be hindered or pretty much not existent. So, we would have one access point into these buildings at their joined property line. And the other, I know that you meet the minimum requirements but we also a maximum requirement that we would have to be careful (side of tape ended — new side starts here) thirty percent variance is all that we can ... Anthes: But, we can grant Conditional Use for additional parking, which is what they're saying. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 64 Lack: Right. Yes, so that would take two separate Conditions of Conditional Use. Clark: Vaught: Clark: Anthes: Clark: Vaught: I don't think that would exceed the thirty percent increase. We'd verify that, though, before. If it didn't go above the thirty percent, would it be an additional Conditional Use? Is that what you're saying? Right. And, I see the ... it's very logical to go ahead and build those. It's a matter of finding a mechanism to do that. And, I think that we can probably make that the contingency for Approval. Uh, huh. And, I would agree with you. The fact that we would only have one lane in and out of those parking lots, without constructing the full lot, is a problem. You end up with a dead-end when you get around to the far side of it that would create some hardship. I do appreciate how the buildings and apartments are laid out. I like how the buildings address the street better, how they don't have parking lots in front of them, they're set off the street. I do appreciate that and like the way this is laid out. So, definitely want to work with you to try to find a way for whatever to happen. Even if we can't get the parking done, even allowing you to construct the whole drive -aisle, needed for ingress and egress on those, but I would think that we could do if we could do the parking. We'd just have to make it that construction is dependent on Conditional Use Approval. Clark: And I think that that's no problem. Vaught: Okay. Clark: We want to keep everybody out of trouble. Anthes: Do we have any comments on Commercial Design Standards? Lack: They appear to meet the Standards set forth by Ordinance in my opinion. I would concur with Staff's recommendation. Vaught: I would concur with that, as well. Subdivision Committee December 29, Page 65 Anthes: Clark: Anthes: Clark: Anthes: Vaught: Anthes: Clark: Vaught: Clark: Anthes: Clark: Vaught: Clark: Anthes: 2005 I'll say that I appreciate Condition of Approval Number 6 and that we'd be looking at street trees that do create a true canopy, rather than something like Red Buds along the frontage there. We have a person that likes Red Bud's. They tend to try to stick them in the parking lot along the front. And I like them, too. I think they're attractive trees. Oh, nice under **** trees. But, yes. We will find something. And, keep in mind, we have ... there are a lot of Maple Trees on the other side of the street. We kept all those and designed around all those through the subdivision ... the infra- structure process. I think we've discussed most things. We have a recommendation by Staff to forward. Do I have a Motion or any other comments? Madam Chair? Just one more comment. With the Appleby Landing Final Plat, there was a pedestrian trail shown along the western ... behind these buildings, along the western portion in the Tree Preservation Easement. That just needs to be maybe added to the Condition of Approval that the pedestrian trail should be shown on the Plat and built as part of this development. That's not a problem. It's been on various ... Yeah. ... additions of it and apparently it's been turned off. So, within this tree easement, along ... Would you draw in on so we could see it? Do you want me to draw it on here right now, or do you want me to ... Just show us ... All right. Basically what it's going to be is ... it's going to be ... and this is not an alignment, but there will be some kind of a meandering trail. And, I say trail, it's a path. It's going to be ... Okay. Subdivision Committee December 29, Page 66 Clark: Anthes: MOTION: Vaught: Clark: Vaught: Fulcher: Vaught: Fulcher: Vaught: Lack: Anthes: Clark: Fulcher: Clark: 2005 ... it's going to be a three-foot wide gravel path that will be used as a footpath, as opposed to a trail. Trails have a different denotation in Fayetteville. And so, it will meander through there. We'll get out there with Sarah. We'll make sure that we avoid the trees and stay away from the trees the best that we can. We have an additional five-foot setback that we can also use within that area to try to stay out from the trees. And, it will be something that will be done as gently as possible. Thank you for adding that. Comments? Motions? I make a Motion that we forward Large Scale Development 05-1806 to the Full Planning Commission, finding in favor of Commercial Design Standards, striking Condition Number 15, the second B, adding a Condition for the pedestrian trail, **** construction or pedestrian path, I'm sorry, right? That's correct. And also, do we need to do anything with the Conditional Use for the offsite parking? You know, offsite parking is subject to ... Conditional Use Approval? Yeah. Recommending Approval of offsite parking, subject to Conditional Use Approval by the Planning Commission. I'll Second that. And, I'll concur. Thank you very much. Very briefly, is there a deadline for getting the request for Conditional Use? Is there an advertising requirement or notification requirement or any of those kinds of issues associated with that? It will be, yeah, notification, public **** sign ... So, that will be something that will be ... we'll probably get Approval subject to the Conditional Use ... Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 67 Fulcher: Uh, huh. Clark: ... and we'll probably have to come back after the fact to a later Planning Commission. Fulcher: Yeah, we'll see how that works the Agenda of the Planning Commission for the Large Scale before Planning Commission review of the Conditional Use. So, there may be something ... a third step, or it may be Clark: I think it's too late for us to go through that process at this point, to get aboard that January 9`h Planning Commission for Conditional Use. Fulcher: I'll have to look. Clark: Check, but I suspect we're past that deadline. Anthes: All right. Thank you. Clark: Thank you. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 68 Anthes: Earlier this morning we Tabled Item Number 14, so we'll move on to Item 15, LSD 06-1799: Large Scale Development for VILLAGE APARTMENTS. Will the Applicant come forward and may we have the Staff Report, please? Fulcher: The subject property contains 6.43 acres, located west of Gray Avenue, North of Sunbridge Drive and is Zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi- family. The site is currently undeveloped, with the exception of a recently constructed single-family home for Quality Life. The Proposal is to construct an eight -building multi -family development consisting of nine one -bedroom units, and forty-five two-bedroom units with a clubhouse. There will be seventy-six parking spaces provided of which six will be handicapped accessible. Right-of-way dedication will occur for the extension of Jocelyn Lane from the railroad right-of-way and Gregg Avenue into the property and also a new street quality lane, a fifty -foot right-of-way will be constructed to the north property line for a future stub -out. Again, access will be from Gregg Avenue. Bicycle racks will be provided for multi-**** access, and also a thirty-foot permanent trail easement will be running through the property from north to south along the creek. Park and Recreation Advisory Board recommended accepting money in lieu with this proximity to Gordon on the Park and the thirty- foot wide trail easement was agreed to be donated along the temporary sewer construction easement. Fees will be due in the amount of $21,222 before building permits can be issued. I'm going to go ahead and let Sarah go into the Tree Preservation numbers. I think some of those numbers have changed a little bit with not counting a lot of railroad right- of-way. Different easements out there have changed those numbers. So, I'll let her go into that. If all of that can come to an agreement, Staff would recommend Approval of this Large Scale Development, with eighteen Conditions of Approval, that landscaping be added along Quality Lane, street trees be added there along that right-of-way as required by Ordinance, a three-year maintenance bond submitted for the nineteen two- inch caliper trees, in the amount of $4,750. As I mentioned, Parks Fees paid in the amount of $21,222 and lastly, if you look at the construction of Jocelyn Lane as it crosses the railroad right-of-way, part of that is to be constructed either offsite or on recently purchased property. If we could just have either proof of ownership or written Approval from that property owner for that offsite construction of Jocelyn Lane. That is all the comments I have. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Anthes: Thank you, Jesse. Sarah, would you address? Patterson: Yes. For the Tree Preservation, as Jesse mentioned, there was some fluctuation in the numbers from Technical Plat Review but it seems to be Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 69 everything's kind of aligning now. This lot's full of easements that are existing, the trail corridor, which is existing. So, any canopy found in those easements is not counted as existing. And so, now that we've got our numbers, I'm much happier, I guess I should say. But, some of the Conditions I have, there's a note on the site that states that offsite areas are to be dedicated as Tree Preservation. And, I questioned this at the first Technical Plat and I questioned it again. If there's no logical answer, if you would just remove it because I'm not really sure what that means. Also, as he mentioned, mitigation is going to be required to bring them up to the required twenty percent. They're going from forty-six down to eighteen percent tree canopy. This is equivalent to nineteen two-inch caliper tree species. I would just ask that you would include this value on the Tree Preservation Plan, some sort of mitigation box or something that states that that's what you'll be doing. I recommend on-site mitigation. I think you're already showing several trees to be planted anyway, which we can use those as your mitigation trees. Following the mitigation trees, the three-year maintenance bond will need to be submitted in the amount of $4,750 before Final Certificate of Occupancy. Another revision, I need you to identify on-site areas for the delivery of storage, parking and washout, probably in the cleared area is the best. And lastly, tree number 215, I have some questions about. It's offsite. It's on the south property line. Any tree that's found on adjacent property is always a high priority for preservation. I would just ask that you maybe add some sort of tree protection fencing detail. I know you're going to be very close to the property line on that side. But, any amount of protection you can give it, the better, as they develop that road right-of-way area. And, that's it. Anthes: Thank you very much. Mr. O'Neal? O'Neal: Yes. Since these are going to be public streets, extending into the property, we need to have a street table for the Master Street Plan. On the sewer along the south side of the property it crosses underneath the Dumpster. If you could just add a steel encasement underneath the Dumpster pad. I believe in Technical Plat I asked for an additional valve to be placed on the waterline just north of the fire hydrant located at the southwest corner of the property. I believe there was some discussion about if this street was going to be extended, should the waterline be stubbed out to the west? It's really up to you. If you'd like to extend it to the west, I believe that portion of the street is right now private so if you do stub it out, then stub it out with a T and plug. There will be valves added already, so either option. Kelso: Of course, it's University property but it probably wouldn't hurt just in case. That way they wouldn't have to come back and cut the drive out. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 70 O'Neal: Other than that, I don't have any other comments. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would you like to introduce yourself and give us your comments? Kelso: Sure. Jerry Kelso. I'm with Crafton Tull and Associates, representing the owner. As you can see, this is a Proposed apartment project. It's geared towards folks that are in Rehab or have physical disabilities. The ownership will be a quality of life. So, other than that, I'll try to entertain any questions you might have. Anthes: Thank you. Would any member of the Public like to address Large Scale Development 05-1799 for Village Apartments? Good morning. Please come forward to the podium, state your name, and give us your comments. Knot: Yes. My name is Kenneth Knot. I'm the property owner to the north of this project. I'm not against this project; I think it's will really enhance the value of our property. At first I was concerned about that. But, one of my issues is ... is there a Variance ... or how does that work for fencing? Is that a requirement by the City to fence between a private dwelling and a project like this? Anthes: If you would just give us your list of questions, we'll ... Knot: That's one ... that's one issue and also one of my main concerns is runoff. Probably a third of this property is ... that's going to be developed is a hundred -year floodplain. So, they're either going to build it up and water's going to come onto my property and also to the creek. My property does cross the creek and it makes about a forty-five degree bend. And so, that much volume and water coming in to the south point of the property into that creek will probably erode that corner as time goes on unless it's stabilized in some way. It was good to hear about the trail because Steve has left the City. I hate to see that because he was an asset. But I coordinated with him and agreed to let him have my property as an easement, as well. My main concern basically is fencing between the two properties and watershed and I'd hate for that ... all that water to come over onto my place. That's it. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any other member of the Public like to address this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I'll close the Public Comment section. Commissioner s ... well, actually let's just go to Staff first and would you describe fencing and screening of multi -family and single-family properties? Subdivision Committee December 29, Page 71 Fulcher: Anthes: Kelso: Anthes: Knot: Anthes: Knot: Anthes: Knot: Anthes: Kelso: Patterson: Kelso: Patterson: 2005 There is not a requirement for screening between multi -family and single- family. It's a requirement between non-residential and residential, which would require a fence and a twelve -foot landscape buffer between residential and non-residential. However, these are both residential uses and zonings so a formal landscape screening and buffer is not required. So, Mr. Knot, it's not required by our Code to have any screening between these properties. I will ask the Applicant if they plan to provide any. May I make just one comment? Sure. That particular property has always been like an oasis back there that people didn't really know about. The Farmer's Daughter's Restaurant was built there. Or, the residence was turned into a restaurant years ago. And personally I feel that that's why that property was Zoned that way because of the restaurant. It all became ... but there's always been private residence back there. Right ... And ... ... but our City Ordinances say that between residential and residential uses, there are no requirements ... No requirements? Okay. Thank you. But, I'm going to ask the Applicant what they plan. Right now we haven't planned anything there. There will be a retaining wall at the west end of it of course and that tapers down to nothing about mid -way through the property. So, we have not planned to put a privacy fence there, although I guess it could be foreseen that we could put a six- foot wood fence there if that would make everybody happy. This might also be a feasible area for your mitigation trees if you could plant ... That may ... ... some evergreen species ... Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 72 Kelso: ... make more sense if we just plant our mitigation trees along there. Why don't we just do that? Patterson: It might help both out. It's at least something. Anthes: What we're talking about is, the Applicant is required to plant some trees in place of some that are being removed. And, we're going to look at placing those along the property line between your two properties so that those trees would become the buffer. Knot: That would be excellent. I've been working on them for years. Anthes: Mr. O'Neal or the Applicant or ****, can you talk about how you're handing water on this site? Kelso: In this particular case, we are actually ... every drop of water that lands on this site, is being piped directly into the creek. So, there won't be any kind of flows directed to them from the parking lots. It will be directed into the creek and we're submitting a flood study to FEMA with the bridge and everything, showing no rise in elevation of the one hundred -year floodplain, the things that we're doing. We're also required by Ordinance to ... you can see where the floodway is and **** will take place to the west of the floodway. So, the floodway will **** will be at the bridge. Of course, the bridge is wide enough and big enough to where we have a no -rise situation. And, that flood study has been submitted. Anthes: And Brent, are you going to review that study? O'Neal: Yes, Ma'am. Anthes: And basically, I believe the question from Mr. Nnot was whether there would be any washing out of the current creek -bed because of additional flow or velocity. Is that something you would be reviewing? O'Neal: When you review this, you have to take into account the entire watershed which extends quite a considerable distance to the west on the university property. I forget the exact size of the entire drainage area but if I remember correctly, it's above thirty acres. So, this portion of the runoff will actually enter the creek and be on down the creek past Mr. Knot's property prior to the entire watershed area entering the creek. Therefore, in theory, the peak of the runoff does not coincide so therefore does not increase the amount of runoff at that time. Anthes: Commissioners, other comments or discussion? Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 73 Vaught: The road that's got the dash -line around it, that's all private drive, is that correct? Kelso: Uh, huh. Vaught: So, everything to the west of the phase of the intersection with Quality Lane is private? Kelso: Yes. Vaught: Are those going to be built with sidewalks to City Standards or they going tobe... Kelso: Be curb and gutter. Vaught: Be curb and gutter, no sidewalk? Kelso: That's right. Vaught: There's an adjoining property owner that accesses an office. How is that being provided for? Kelso: There's a twenty-four foot driveway that's Proposed. It's kind of hard to see but you can see right where ... here's the gravel ... Vaught: Okay. Kelso: ... here it is right. Here's the gravel. So, it will be a very much improved access. And then the twenty-four foot wide drive to access directly onto ... Vaught: Okay. You guys will provide some kind of ... Kelso: Here it is right here, yeah. Vaught: ... some kind of structure, basically, inlet or curb -cut? Kelso: Yeah. Vaught: I just didn't see it on the Plans. Kelso: Yeah. Anthes: And these adjoining owners have been notified prior to this meeting? I'm surprised we're not seeing them here at this meeting. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 74 Kelso: I am too. Lack: Is there an access easement for them, as this is from the ... they have to cross this private drive ... Kelso: Yes. Lack: ... for that distance. Kelso: This will all be a total ingress/egress drainage easement. We've got it spelled out. And then, of course, up to Quality Life it's a public right-of- way. So, ingress/egress will be allowed through this all the way to the west property line. Anthes: I have a question about the amount of parking that's being provided. I understand that it meets our Ordinances but I'm also understanding that this particular development is for ... it's expressly stated for people with physical disabilities and limitations. And so, I wondered about the ratio of parking spaces plus the ratio of handicapped accessible parking spaces. I wondered if you could tell us a little bit about it. Kelso: I'll try. We did discuss that early on and the ownership with the type of facilities that they usually operate actually needs a lot less parking. The Ordinance calls for one per bedroom. And they typically see parking requirements much less than that. We still wanted to make sure we met the City criteria, but at the same time, with the facilities that they've run in the past, and their experience, most people are dropped off, and you've got visitors every now and then. So, people just don't park and stay there. Anthes: So, I guess I have a question about that, then. Is there any way that we can require less hard surface in this area, which obviously has some environmental sensitivity to it because of the specific nature of the project? Or do we have to allow for, if this project changes, use? O'Neal: Within the Parking Lot Ordinance, and their requirements for a parking lot, it provides five or more spaces to be paved and all the other improvements, landscaping ... Anthes: Well, I can appreciate that. But, there is also common sense aspect that we ... why would we put a big, huge swath or asphalt in an area that's unnecessary? Vaught: If the parking ratio that was used ... I mean ... we could try to look and see if there was a more appropriate parking ratio that, you know this isn't your typical multi -family apartment development, which that's how it fell under Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 75 O'Neal: under the Code. We could look at that and see if there's some type of ... I might actually be processed as a Conditional Use. Or, maybe we could just waive and just determine that the parking ratio would be something different. My concern with that is someone else could buy this in two years and it could become multi -family, without that emphasis. So, I think we need to provide for any possible future use ... Anthes: But, I think that the Site Plan obviously shows that it will accommodate the parking that's required. O'Neal: Right ... Anthes: My question is whether we require them to actually build it all now if it retains this use? O'Neal: The problem is, this is the only time to require it built. In two years if they sell this to somebody else who's going to operate it as multi -family, there's nothing we can do to make them come in and build that out. I mean, this is multi -family use. Vaught: Well, if we did Approve it for a use that wasn't multi -family at this point, and then it did come in and change uses for multi -family when they got their Certificate of Zoning Compliance, we would have to check parking and then we could require them to meet parking ratios at that time. O'Neal: But, this is multi -family. Vaught: That's correct. O'Neal:: It's not changing uses. Vaught: Right, and the Zoning ... Anthes: But, he's talking about if they process to Conditional ... it would obviously be up to the owner. But, I can see that you could save some money, plus we could save some ... O'Neal: The Conditional Use would be on parking requirements, though. And that would run the property. There's not a Conditional Use on the use of the property, which is what you would have to have violated to trigger the coming back. Subdivision Committee December 29, Page 76 Kelso: ?: Anthes: O'Neal: Anthes: Vaught: Kelso: Vaught: Kelso: Vaught: 7 Vaught: Vaught: 2005 Is the ratio used on the Plan and I'm sorry, I haven't studied to see, is that ratio the one for bedroom? It's one per bedroom and then we're allowed to go thirty percent below that and we chose to go with thirty percent below that, so we're right at the bare minimum I think one of the things that I wish we could do different but we can't, we need to meet Fire Code, is we've got this drive that goes all the way around this. And, that's probably where most of the pavement is but we've got to meet Fire Code. The only parking spaces we may get rid of would be these, but we're at the minimum. I don't know that we need to go much lower than that, so I feel comfortable with where we're at with it. Okay. I just don't know what we could do to make it so we could ever change it. Yeah. Oh, I understand what you're saying. I just hate to build a bunch of asphalt, particularly where we're adjacent to a creek, when we could have some absorptive surface there. The Proposed intersection with Gregg, and I guess, is that designed for the improvements currently being done on Gregg? I know they're undergoing substantial change there. Is the whole road being elevated there and all? I know parts of it are being elevated. When we submit our final Design Plans for this, we'll take into account that, when we go before Engineering. Okay. And, my other question was, when we Approved ... I believe it was Conditional Use for this house on the front of the property, there is some kind of wording in it related to the sewer service as they've got a septic tank for now until sewer service is more readily available. Uh, huh. Does this trigger that installation of sewer service to that house or ... Not at this time. Okay. If you notice, there is a lift station right there in the middle ... Correct. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 77 ... that's a temporary lift station that will be pumping out to Gregg. When the main trunk line comes through, it will just basically follow the creek at that time. I think the house ... Vaught: Is that here? Kelso: That's it right there. Vaught: So, this is ... when this is developed is when this is required to tie on? Yes. Kelso: And, you can see, we've aligned everything up to that future manhole so that was this could be disconnected, that hooked into there and then that. Anthes: Any additional comments? Motions? MOTION: Lack: I will make a Motion that we Approve LSD 05-1799, Village Apartments with the eighteen Conditions of Approval, adding to that, "Remove the site note regarding offsite mitigation", showing the staging area on the Plans, adding tree protection fencing to protect the offsite trees, and meeting the street ****, steel encasement for the sewer underneath the Dumpster and the additional valve at the north end of Quality ... Anthes: That's the waterline valve, right? Lack: Yeah. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 78 Anthes: All right. We're going to reconvene the meeting. We have two More Items. We'll hear Item 16, which is R-PZD 05-1619: Planned Zoning District for WESTBROOK VILLAGE. If you would have a seat. And, we will have the Staff Report. Fulcher: I'm going to make this as clear as possible. This is I think it looks familiar with the sale of Village PUD which was done back in the nineties. There are two existing large open lots at the entrance on Clabber Creek and Salem Road. Those were originally left as Lots 1 and 2 for future development. I think the possibility of Office or Commercial Use on those. Since that time, the PUD process is no longer on the books. We moved on to the PZD process. The current owners of these two lots ultimately just want to divide the lots up and create similar to what's existing out there, the smaller lots, same type of building designs, just to build out these two lots, although Preliminary Plat 111, due to lot sizes, lot splits, so they've submitted a PZD Proposal and that's what we're reviewing today. It is in the old PZD format, not in the new Master Development Plan PZD format. It was submitted at the beginning of this year. It's kind of been back and forth, trying to get the information correct between the Applicants and Staff. So, that's what we're reviewing today. They have included Proposed Uses. I believe I left off the Conditional Uses. They are stated on the Plat. Permitted Uses and Conditional Uses are typical ones when we look at single-family PZD. Citywide Use is to my right, which is Permitted Use in all Zoning Districts. Single-family Dwellings is the other Permitted Use. Conditional Uses are also the typical Conditional Uses allowed. Unit Two, City Uses like Conditional Use Permit, Public Protection in the utility facilities, Cultural and Recreational Facilities, Home Occupations, and Wireless Communication Facilities, which is a Conditional Use in all Zoning Districts. They supplied us with a Density. I do have a Condition with **** clarification on the acreage for this Density. It's calculated here at 6.14 units per acre, which I believe is nearly exact to how it was developed out. Again, the numbers I came up with, I came up with a different acreage. I'm sure the Applicant could help me with that, of 5.03 dwelling units per acre, so 5 or 6 units per acre is what we're looking at here. Total number of dwelling units of 7. The minimum lot width is 40 feet, which is consistent with the other lots surrounding this, 4,500 square foot minimum lot area and maximum building height of 35 feet. Water and sewer are obviously available to these lots within the existing subdivision. All the public rights -of -ways have already been constructed and accessed. They will be similar to the other lots. Both have a rear access alley for each of the lots. Street improvements, sidewalks, everything is existing. There is no existing tree canopy on the lot. A Tree Preservation Plan Waiver Form was submitted and Approved by the Urban Forester. The only thing that is different is that the original Park Fees considered this as two lots, since Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 79 this is this will become seven lots, Park Fees will be due for $3,885 before signing the Final Plat. With that, Staff recommends that this Planned Zoning District be forwarded to the Full Planning Commission, with the eight Conditions of Approval, the Park Fees to be paid. Item Number 4, when this was originally developed and right-of-way was dedicated, **** was a sixty -foot right-of-way. Since then, Master Street Plan has designated this as a collector, therefore five more feet of right-of-way will be dedicated with this Plat. And, as shown on the Plat, a twenty -foot sewer easement has been added for future extension of sewer lines next to an existing easement on Lot 1 and Lot 2. That's all the comments I have. Anthes: Thank you, Jesse. Do we have other Staff comments? Patterson: For Tree Preservation, just to clarify, a Waiver was signed and Approved. There are approximately about fifty-five trees located on the site. They were found within rights-of-way and utility easements. They were planted when the project developed out. So, that's the reason for the Waiver. The trees will not be disturbed or damaged during this. Anthes: Thank you, Sarah. Brent, do you have anything? O'Neal: Yes, just two notes that need to be added to the Plat. There is a short main extension and a short sewer -main extension required to serve the lots. If you could, George, on the General Utility Notes, underneath Water, add a Note Number stating that, "water taps for Lots 5-A, 6-A and 7-A shall be at the developer's expense". And, likewise on the sewer, if you could add Note Number 11 that, "sewer -taps for Lots 1-A, 2-A, 3-A, and 4-A shall be at the developer's expense". This is due to the fact that those locations of the taps are on existing water and sewer mains. Anthes: Thank you. Would you like to introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Cheznic: Sure. My name is George Cheznic. I work for Project Design Consultants. I am representing Mr. Hank Broyles who is the developer on this project. Basically, what we are doing is, we are changing RO Zoning to just basic Residential Zoning and develop it to match the rest of the subdivision, as Jesse said. In respect to your comment on the acreage, what we did was, we took, the acreage and we just got rid of the right-of- way acreage, which, of course, reduced the over-all acreage and therefore, reduced that number. O'Neal: I noticed that you did remove the right-of-way. I believe this was Proposed as a 1.42 acres less .03 acres of right-of-way, which would leave us with 1.39 acres. This states that there's 1.17 acres. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 80 Cheznic: What we did is, we measured out the lots, all the lot areas, and when I added them all up, that's the number I came up with. O'Neal: Okay. Cheznic: I'm not sure where the 1.42 comes from but we can verify that. O'Neal: Definitely. Anthes: Do you have other comments? O'Neal: No. That's it. Anthes: Okay. Would any member of the Public like to address this Residential PZD 05-1619 for Westbrook Village? Seeing none, I'll close the Public Comment section. Commissioners? Vaught: Which way are the houses going to face, the ones out back that are on Salem Road and West ****? Cheznic: Okay, I believe these are going to face in this direction. The front is going to be over here and I believe the back of them is going to be over towards this area. And, then these will all face that way. Vaught: This lot, front and ... there's two fronts on it. Anthes: These houses are different. Those are those side -loaded porch houses. Cheznic: Yeah. The garage is going to be in the back but the actual entrance to the house will be on the side. Vaught: Okay, so where is the garage going to be? Cheznic: The garage is going to be towards the alley -side. Vaught: To the Salem Road side? Anthes: Uh, huh. Cheznic: Yes. Anthes: That's consistent with these down here. Cheznic: And, there's this big fence over here, as well. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 81 Vaught: Okay. Anthes: I like that these, at least, will get some frontage. Cheznic: Yeah, get the side view. Anthes: But, I believe that they all do that along this whole road. Audy, do you have anything? Lack: MOTION: Anthes: No, it seems consistent with the rest of the development. I'm going to go ahead and Move that we forward this Item to the Planning Commission, subject to the thirteen Conditions as stated and adding the General Utility Notes from Engineering. Vaught: I'll Second. Lack: I'll concur. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. We'll see you in a couple of weeks. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 82 Anthes: The last Item we'll hear this morning is R-PZD 05-1735: Planned Zoning District for PADDOCK ROAD S/D. And this one is Suzanne's. Will, you give us the Staff Report Garner: I'm giving it. Anthes: Okay. Garner: This site is located on the southeast edge of Mount Sequoyah. It's along the West side of Happy Hollow Road and south of Shaddock Lane. It's heavily wooded and steep -sloped. To the north is the Mount Sequoyah Preserve. To the south and to the west is scattered single-family dwellings and undeveloped, wooded hillside. The east is the Timber Trails RPZD. It is also in the immediate vicinity of Happy Hollow Elementary School. The Applicant Proposes Rezoning to RPZD for Master Development Plan and Large Scale Development Approval for this residential project. They are Proposing a total of 59 dwelling units to include 34 single-family detached units and 25 town homes. The overall density on the just under 10 acre site is about 6 units per acre. In general, they are trying to create transition between single-family and multi -family, generally having the more dense development closer to the major streets and having those areas with less tree canopy having a more dense development. The Zoning criteria has a total of 9 Planning Areas and there is various Zoning criteria and setbacks for each of those Planning Areas. It's in the booklet that's in your packet. I won't go over all that in detail right now. Other major issues, Happy Hollow is to the east, which is a collector street and to the south, the closest street is Huntsville Road, the principle arterial. And in the design of this project, the developer has attempted to keep these streets more narrow than is allowed by our current Street Standards to try to avoid grading and impact to the hillside and trees. There are several Waivers for Street Design Standards that would be a part of this project. The access that is Proposed into the site in general is from Crossover Road, Happy Hollow Road to the east and Huntsville Road to the south, the direct access being Happy Hollow Road and Paddock Lane. There are no roads at this time constructed that would give access to the property to the west over Mount Sequoyah. The intersection of Happy Hollow and Huntsville Road is planned to be realigned and signalized by the City in the near future. Interior to the project, there are public and private streets and alleys. As mentioned, they are requesting Waivers for narrow streets and steep grades. The street improvements that Staff is recommending with this development include improving Happy Hollow Road to regular Master Street Plan Standards along the project frontage, dedication of right-of-way of Happy Hollow Road and additionally construction of 15 parking spaces and a landscape island north of Paddock Road that would serve as parking for the Mount Sequoyah Park. Regarding Tree Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 83 Preservation, as mentioned this site is primarily wooded. Of note, there are several existing easements on the property, including the 100 -foot electric easement that extends from Crossover all the way up Mount Sequoyah. The Applicant has attempted to work around the trees and the topography and these easements. In general, a clustering development to the north and east on this site and four large areas have been designated as Tree Preservation/Common Area to be owned and maintained by the Property Owner's Association. The Park and Recreation Board recommended money in lieu of Parkland Dedication and as mentioned, the Applicant has agreed to provide parking for Park Land north of the subject property. Staff has received several inquiries from adjacent property owners with questions about the project. We don't have any written comments yet to include in the packet but if we have those we will include those in the Planning Commission Packet. Just as more background, this was originally submitted to the Planning Division mid-September and has been Tabled and through several meetings with Planning Staff to get where we are today. We are recommending forwarding this to the Full Planning Commission, with several Items to address: Conditions 1 and 2 and 3 are discussing street grade requirements and Street Waivers. I can give you the detail on those if you need me to. Condition 4 is also related to Street Radius Waiver. Condition 5 is Planning Commission Determination of Waiver of Parking Regulations for the parking that would be along Paddock Road that would right -access to Sequoyah Commons. The Waiver is required because the parking spaces would back out directly onto a road, which is not allowed by Ordinance. Condition 6 is Planning Commission Determination of Street Improvements. I wanted to call your attention also to Condition Number 10 that states future development shall comply with at least the minimum design standards for our UDC with the exceptions listed in this PZD and in the Conditions of Approval here. They also wanted to note, just for the Applicant to note, Condition 8 is just for the Booklet and the Site Plans to be modified prior to Planning Commission. There were several revisions. Still, I know we've been working a lot on this but still some more to be completed. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 84 I think that's all the comments I have right now. Anthes: Thank you, Andrew. Do we have additional Staff comments? Sarah? Patterson: As Andrew mentioned, this is a pretty wooded hill site, 74%, approximately, covered with canopy. An Arborist Report was given along with this project. Unfortunately, most of the species found on the site were fair to poor and only six trees found on the site are significant, according to our Tree Preservation Ordinance and Landscape Manual. With that being said, they are going to preserve 34.42%, approximately. As I understand in speaking with the Applicant, a Covenant is also going to be set up further for the homeowners to keep a certain percentage or to preserve and protect additional trees on each lot as they are purchased. One of the comments or one of the Conditions that Suzanne included, on the Tree Preservation Plan, there are three areas pointed out to be permanent Tree Preservation easements and signed over as easements. On the colored page, there are some additional common space area shown there in the middle, the larger sections and also some kind of smaller sections lining the property. My question is, on the ... I don't know if it's a misuse of wording ... you refer to them as Tree Preservation easements, but by Ordinance, when we set those up as permanent easements, they can't be owned by an individual owner. They have to be owned by the POA. So, those lots, in particular, look like the back portion of several of those buildable lots. So, that's something we can look at. If that was just a preservation area you're hoping that the homeowner will maintain or if it's one you want to set up as a permanent easement, like the other three that you pointed out? Scott: It is, yeah. Patterson: It is? So, what will need to be done is, that square in the middle will have to be made a separate lot, with it's own legal description and also say that it's owned and maintained by the POA. But, then you find a square of land in the middle with houses all around it. So, I don't know ... that might take a meeting, how we want to approach that. Anthes: Wouldn't that also be a problem along the southern property line? Patterson: Yes, there's three or four different sections where that is the case. And, if they're just ... now, if they want to set it up somehow in the Covenant that that was some sort of Tree Preservation area that had to be ... they could probably do that. But, when we sign it over as an easement, and I sign off on it, it can't be ... you see where the legal issues come in, when the homeowner buys that lot. They can't have access to that. The easement is very specific on what can be done to the property once that is set up as an Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 85 easement. So, we can look at that. I don't know if you want to add additional trails to that middle square so that the subdivision could ... everyone could enjoy it. I don't know. So, that might take an additional meeting. But, that is mentioned in Suzanne's comments as something we'll need to look at and revise. Scott: Okay. I'm Art Scott with Project Design Consultants. Anthes: Let me get the rest of the Staff comments first and then we'll do that. Scott: I'm sorry. Anthes: I assume Brent has something? O'Neal: Yes, the only thing I have is to show the water meter locations and the sewer taps. Anthes: Thank you. Okay, now would you give us your name and comments? Scott: Yes. Art Scott with Project Design Consultants. Directly in regards to the Tree Preservation easements, our intention was to leave areas like that, where there are permanent trees, in the lots. And, I know when we do Building Permits, those areas will have to be fenced off and maintained. We wanted to keep a break of trees through that hillside so you don't just see all houses in there. Patterson: Right. Scott: That was our main intention on that. Patterson: Well, the only issue I have, and currently, until the Hillside Ordinance is passed, I have no jurisdiction once the lot is sold. So, that's where it would have to be set up by the Covenant. Now, once ... Scott: I think it would be easy to do it that way. Patterson: Yeah. I think you probably could set it up. If those specific lots, when they're sold, the homeowner knows that that portion ... we can speak with Jeremy more ... if there has been an example of that being done in the past. I know Falling Waters has used a Covenant to preserve a certain amount of percentage of trees on each lot. I would encourage you guys to look at doing something like that similar. Anthes: So, Sarah, what you're saying is that this would no longer be an easement. It would be a protected area ... Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 86 Patterson: It would be a Tree Preservation area, yeah. Using that word easement has changed the wording a little. Garner: Falling Waters are protected covenants you can only remove trees inside the building window. Anthes: It's like 40% coverage, too. Garner: I just remember it's the building window only. Scott: That's our intention here, so we'll clean that language up. Lack: Are these trees required to meet the requirements? Patterson: No, the requirement of a PZD is our most restrictive requirement, which currently is 25% preservation and they're staying around 34, with the additions of the streets. So, unless they drop below that, there will be no mitigation. Is that your question? Lack: Uh, huh. Scott: It is ... Anthes: Let me go ahead and get Art to finish and then we'll have Public Comment where we can ask questions. Scott: Our intention here is to have a mixed use of housing in this area. If you'll look, where we call PA -7, for instance, along Happy Hollow, that is multi- family, that is the townhouse look, with the red brick shown there on the ... And, then the single-family narrow lots are more of this style house in here, the narrow house deep. All these will face Happy Hollow and access from the rear. We do have, in the middle portion and the south portion, conventional single -family -style lots. And, that's the three types of homes we are planning here. We were intending to help try to buffer, too, is another reason why we wanted to leave the tree areas there along the edges. And, this area, PA -8, along Happy Hollow, that area right here, that one is very wooded and we're going to leave that there, also to break up along the street, as well as the look from a distance from maybe Crossover Road or something. Anthes: So, this is Happy Hollow down here? Scott: Yes. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 87 Anthes: All right. I'm going to open the floor to Public Comment. Does any member of the Public want to address RPZD 05-1735? Please come forward and state your name and your comments. Covey: I'm Richard Covey and my wife and I own 5 acres to the west of the property. I object to the density. I think it's too dense. The bright spot in this development, the Plans that I saw earlier, show that we would get access to a public street. Now, it's been changed and the access to a public street has been moved over to Dan Coody's property and I find this a little suspicious. And, I thought that part of the Planning process was to provide access to pieces of land and not have everything landlocked. I was hoping that we would get access to a public street. Anthes: Can you identify where your land is again for us please? I'm sorry. Covey: The west side. Anthes: The entire west property line here? Covey: Except for a little tiny piece over there that's Dan Coody's. Anthes: Okay. Do you have any other comments? Covey: No. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Covey. Would any other member of the Public like to address this Item? Seeing none, p11 close the Public Comment section. Anthes: So, I guess density? Should we have a discussion about the density? Vaught: Well, I was going to ask them if they could quickly address the concerns about the street connection and why you guys chose the location you did. Scott: You all are probably aware there's a 100 -foot power -line easement that runs through here. Originally, just for the sake of efficiency, we had the street completely inside that easement because we couldn't use it for anything else. Comments through the process from Staff were that this starts to look like a road up over Mount Sequoyah. So, we didn't want to go through that again, so we moved it down to the south to ... we've got three lots here and we placed it here because that is just where it landed to get those three lots the way we wanted them. And then ... Vaught: This is a heavily treed area, I assume? Scott: Yes. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 88 Vaught: That's what this darker color is? Scott: Yes. Covey: Could I say something about the easement? Anthes: Sure, come on up. Vaught: I was going to say and I understand Staff's concerns about that battle, but I would rather see the road running through the easement, which looks to be readily clear of trees, rather than shifting it down. Covey: You already can drive up and down that easement. ATV's do it all the time and SWEPCO's pick-up trucks drive up and down there. Vaught: As long as stuff develops on out, we don't make a connection. We just have it dead-end or cul de sac or private -access drive or whatever. I don't think we'd reach over the top of Mount Sequoyah. But, I understand this Apps concerns that are very valid. Because that will open whole other can but I'd rather see it in the cleared area, honestly than shift it down here and have to disturb more canopy. But, that's my opinion. Scott: I think that there was also the opinion of the view from this direction of it being paved all the way up and over the hill. That was the main focus of it. I think this will leave a green area. And, we tried to break it up in here with some ... this is small, ornamental trees. They have not been completely approved by SWEPCO. If they don't approve it, we're going to have shrubs in there. But, we're going to have a green island that will kind of break up that whole look there, so it doesn't look like a paved swath over the hill. Anthes: So, we have closed Public Comment. Do you have something you would like to add? Covey: We are landlocked. Our access is up the power -line at this point, up the power -line and through Dan Coody's development, which is a private street. So, there's going to be a drive on there anyway. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Anthes: Well, to me, it's something that I feel like we need to see on tour before Planning Commission. Vaught: Is there an access easement across here of any sort for them? Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 89 Scott: No. Vaught: There is not? Okay. Lack: What about that alley in the north corner? Scott: I think our concern there would be, it's just an alley for six single-family homes and if you extend it to 5 acres, you could have, conceivably 20 at an RSF-4 or maybe even more if it was sold and developed. Vaught: That is a private alleyway? Scott: Yeah, it ... these single-family homes face south and the ones up here face north. So, it accesses the rear. Vaught: So, there's no ... no street frontage. The alleyway's in the back and their front door will be here? Scott: Yes. Vaught: And so ... Scott: That area in front of there is the open green space ... Vaught: Okay, so there will be a way for people to access their homes, visitors ... Scott: Yes. Sidewalks and ... Vaught: ... it won't be clogging the alleyway. Okay. Anthes: I have a question of Staff. It appears that where this street has landed, is still ... is a question and there was no magic in sort of where it ended up. It appears to me that if we centered that west connection, the centerline of that street on the property line, between the Coody parcels and Mr. Covey's parcel, that both of those pieces of land would then have access. That would be between Lots 19 and 20 but actually just shifting the centerline of the road up to meet the property line. So, those parcels would be accessible. Vaught: The problem is ... well, what happens if one of these wants to develop first and they only have half of the access? The parcel to the south has frontage on another road, if I'm correct. Is that correct? Scott: I believe it's on top of the hill. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 90 Vaught: It's a private drive on top. Okay. This other piece is landlocked. I'm trying to picture, if they don't have another ... how they access. They said they access at the utility easement. So, there's no ... but how is that a lot if there's no other access? Scott: There's a ten -foot ... I researched it up there. There's a ten -foot easement off of Kestrel ... Vaught: Okay. Scott: ... for sewer access. Then, there's a lift -station up there and there's a ten - foot access to the Covey's property, if I remember correctly. There's a little driveway that goes back there. Vaught: Because once this is built, you will no longer be able to access up this utility easement. That's why I'm wondering. Because this will be curb and gutter cause there's a street here and green space, so they won't be able to access it that way. So, I'm trying to figure out, how do they access it after this is in? If this is how they're doing it, and there's no easement there, I guess they're not supposed to be. But, a ten -foot access off ... Scott: It's an existing non -conforming line. It doesn't have any frontage. The access point up there is onto a private drive into that private development. Anthes: We have to hear this at Planning Commission and it has to go to City Council. So, there's really no reason to come to a solution right now, but I would like to understand better the recommendation for this road and how it's placed and whether or not it needs to shift in order to further goals that are outside of this project. Vaught: I think Staff doesn't ... centering it on those two lots, I don't think Staff would have a preference either way. I mean, I agree, it might provide additional potential access for both of those lots. We did have a concern as Mr. Scott mentioned, about just extending this just a continuous straight line of pavement straight up the hillside. So, that's why we recommended it to be shifted at some point. And, I don't think we have a problem with it moving a little here and there in that area. Anthes: If you wouldn't mind meeting with the adjoining property owners ... Scott: Sure. Anthes: ... and try to work out what would work for everybody. Subdivision Committee December 29, Page 91 Vaught: Anthes: Scott: Garner: Scott: Vaught: Scott: Vaught: Garner: Vaught: Scott: Vaught: Garner: Vaught: 2005 It's an opportunity to get rid of that island. It's still going to be non- conforming but it's ... we can improve the situation over there. Okay, what about density? That was another issue that was brought up. Looks to me like we've got areas of high density next to Happy Hollow and I appreciate that you are facing those properties onto the street and contributing to the street. With more of a single-family density back here, is this equivalent to an RSF-4 density in those corners? I think it's pretty close. It's just a little ... there's sixty-six foot wide minimum, I believe, instead of seventy? But, they are conventional -size. Larger than RSF-8 but smaller than RSF-4. Just a thousand square feet or so less than RSF-4. I guess I'm fine with density. Once again, we're close to a school. Similar to ... I forgot what it is across the street ... what's it called? Timber Trails. This can access the school. This street does line up with the one of Timber Trails. I'm sorry, this one. And you can see, we've got some line work here from that subdivision. So, that goes right around to the school. So, to me it's an area for ... it's an infill development for sure and I appreciate how they tried to lay it out and tried to preserve as much of the green space as they can. I did have a question on the developer providing parking for the Parks area. Does that reduce their Park's Fee or is that in addition to their Park's Fee? They have agreed to do that on top of their Park's Fees. Okay. We were aware that there was an issue finding parking to access that ... I think that's great. I think it's an asset to this neighborhood and everyone. My other question was, so **** PZD process these lots without front street frontage, there's no Waiver and everything's taken care of in the PZD process, correct? That's correct. Okay, good. Subdivision Committee December 29, Page 92 Lack: Vaught: Anthes: Scott: Vaught: Scott: Anthes: Vaught: Garner: Lack: Vaught: Scott: Vaught: Anthes: Vaught: 2005 I know that we've mentioned that we've had that Condition in the past. We've advocated that Condition in the past. I think at that time we required some parking, some off-street parking for those units. Those units. That's what I was ... I was curious about visitor parking. But, I guess if on -street parking is allowed, on whatever this street is ... Well, these streets are coming through with a Waiver Request for narrowing the streets. So, were you planning to allow the on -street parking? We have garages for the residents and there will be basically one -car depth off of the alley, in front of that garage. So, that was our ... Well, on these that backs up to the alley and have no street frontage, they'll have sidewalks, I imagine, connecting to the street. I imagine visitors will probably access the front of the home instead of the garage. So, that's the thing we're talking about. And, if you allow on -street parking, then they have places to park. And, a lot of people don't allow that nowadays. In their Covenants, which we don't always agree with, it can be a useful tool. These streets are how wide? Twenty-three feet? Twenty-three. Well, there's ... Staff is recommending a minimum of twenty-four. And, that would allow ... and we allow on -street parking on a twenty-four foot street in the City, don't we? Isn't that in the Street Section? I believe so. On one side. On one side, so we could allow it. And, sign it, No Parking on this other side. Correct. There would be one-sided on -street parking. And, it would also help control traffic, too. Let's look at the Waiver Request from the grade requirements, width and the radii, that's Conditions 1 through 4. I was going to ask Engineering, is this comparable to other Waivers we see? Falling Water, we've had some. And, it's not out of line with that? Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 93 Garner: No. No, it's not. Vaught: Okay. Garner: We've worked with him on that street grades and these are under ... I believe you remember in that packet, falling water is that we provided the information on existing streets. Vaught: Yeah. So, it's in line with kind of what we did there? Garner: Yes. Anthes: What about the street width to twenty-four feet versus the twenty-three shown? That's Item 3. Vaught: Are you asking the Applicant or Staff? Anthes: You? Vaught: If I'm okay with it? Anthes: Yes. We have findings here, so ... Vaught: I'm okay with it. I think that lines up with the typical street section that we have, if I'm correct. Is that correct? Gamer: Uh, huh. Vaught: And so, I'm fine with that and it's an extra foot. I didn't think you guys would Oppose that. Lack: What about the Hillside Ordinance which is not in affect yet but it is something that we're seeing as a good guideline? What are the minimum streets with that regard? Scott: This was from that, actually. Vaught: The twenty-three foot was, or? I think at this point, since it's not allowed per our Ordinance, we would just recommend eliminating the Waiver for that, as well, since it's one foot. Scott: Yeah, I think twenty-four, if we're going to have the on -street parking, twenty-four is probably more appropriate. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 94 Vaught: And, the second part of that is dealing with this entrance. And I assume it's either ... instead of having this northern boundary curb, just make that a flat boundary? Is that correct? Or remove the islands? Garner: Which Condition? Vaught: Well, it's 3, the second half, "additionally Staff recommends the realignment of Acacia, to either remove the landscape islands or uniform right-of-way or modify the northern curb, such that it is parallel with the southern curb". Is that what you guys are saying? Either have that straight, don't have that curved in and out, just have it ... Garner: Right. We just feel like it might be dangerous, having cars turn in ... Vaught: In and out and in and out? Garner: Yeah. Vaught: Would you straighten off that middle section of it? Or would you... Scott: I think our issue was, there's a telephone ... or a power -line pole right here, and where we're going around that. We can change that alignment. Vaught: Okay. Scott: We can work that out. Vaught: Okay. That was just a concern of safety, driving in and out around those islands. Anthes: Obviously, to have some sort of ... to have landscaping there is good, whether that needs to be as a median or whether good street trees on either side of the street section would accomplish the same goals is the question. Lack: 1 guess if they're trying to eliminate the view of the strip of pavement ... Anthes: Well, if there's utility lines there and it's in the easement, and they can't plant street trees, then we have to accommodate it some other way. Lack: I know but ... yeah ... it's something we need to look at at tour to see because I guess the concern was looking over the hill, seeing it going up and down, a long strip of pavement. That does help break it up. Anthes: Do we have a specific recommendation that we can make at this point, on that island? Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 95 Lack: Scott: Lack: Scott: Anthes: I like the medians. I like having the green space in the middle because I do believe that the street trees ... SWEPCO's going to be very cautious about what they allow in that easement. Uh, huh. That's a hundred -foot easement. That's a pretty good power line. But, I would say, it does look like it would be somewhat dangerous with the curves to one side the way it is. So, centering the realigning so that the median would be centered would be preferable. We can work through that. Would you work with Staff on that between now and Planning Commission? Okay. The raises look good to me. Are they okay with everybody else? Vaught: Uh, huh. Lack: Yes. Anthes: The Parking Regulations for backing out onto the road? Lack: They're fine. Anthes: And, on Condition 10, Mr. Scott, can you tell us where you are making exceptions for Minimum Design Standards in the EBC, other than the streets? Is that what you're referring to in that? Okay, that's just covered in the other Condition? Garner: Yeah, and also just referring to the lot widths as Proposed don't meet our Zoning criteria. It's just basically just saying that what is Proposed here ... these are only Waivers from anything that may not be mentioned here specifically, or showing it, and called out, wouldn't be allowed to waive be waived from the Design Standards. Anthes: Obviously, we haven't had the chance to read this whole booklet and we may have additional comments when it gets to the Planning Commission level. Scott: Certainly. Anthes: But, I think we've covered what we could cover today here. Subdivision Committee December 29, 2005 Page 96 Scott: I do want to add one thing, discussions with Staff. They felt like Lot 20 was not a very buildable lot, mostly because of grade. So, we're going to stipulate in what you send forward to the Planning Commission that that will be a non -buildable lot. Anthes: So, that will be Tree Preservation, as well? Scott: Uh, huh. Vaught: Now, if we shift that road around and you could increase the size of that lot, possibly, at that time we could always look at it again. Anthes: Are there any other comments? Motions? MOTION: Vaught: I make a Motion we forward RPZD 05-1735 to the Planning Commission, With the Conditions of Approval as stated, finding in favor of the Variances for grades, changing the road to 24. I guess, would that remove Condition Number 3, if we change this street to 24? Well, we'll leave in ... striking the first part of Condition 3, leaving in realigning Acacia Drive and finding in favor for the Variance for the radius's and the parking. I think I got it all. Lack: I'll Second. Anthes: And, I'll concur but I again ask you to meet with Staff about the configuration of that center road. And, also about the stub -out to the west and meet with the adjacent property owners and try to come to a resolution before the meeting. Scott: We'll do that. Anthes: Okay. Are there any announcements? Then, we're adjourned. Thank you.