Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-16 - MinutesMEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Thursday, March 16, 2006, 9:00 a.m. A meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, March 16, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSD 06-1941 (North St Church of Christ, 362) Tabled Page 3 LSP 06-1945 (Pesnell, 396) Tabled Page 13 FPL 06-1932 (Cross Keys II, 478) Approved Page 17 LSP 06-1972 (C -QUAD, 642) Approved Page 19 LSD 06-1971 (C -QUAD, 642) Forward Page 21 LSD 06-1963 (CITY LAKE OFFICE PARK, 681) Approved Page 26 LSD 06-1978 (MILLSAP PLAZA OFFICE BUILDING, 212/213) Approved Page 29 LSD 06-1962 (FIRE STATION #5, 255) Forward Page 32 LSD 06-1960 (WRMC SENIOR CENTER, 211/212) Forward Page 40 LSD 06-1961 (WRMC ADMIN SVCS BLDG., EMERGENCY SVCS, PARKING GARAGE, 211/212) Forward Page 51 LSD 06-1979 (THE SHOPPES @ STONEBRIDGE, 528) Tabled Page 57 LSD 06-1939 (BELLAFONT II, 175) Forward Page 64 Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 2 ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD 06-1974 (THE ARBORS AT SPRINGWOODS, 286) Page 79 PPL 06-1964 (EMBRY ACRES (CRAIG HARPER), 61) Page 89 R-PZD 06-1884 (WESTSIDE VILLAGE CONDOS, 439) Page 95 MEMBERS PRESENT James Graves Alan Ostner Audy Lack STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Matt Casey Sarah Patterson ACTION TAKEN Forward Forward Forward MEMBERS ABSENT Candy Clark Christine Myers Sean Trumbo Nancy Allen Jill Anthes Christian Vaught STAFF ABSENT Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 3 LSD 06-1941: Large Scale Development (NORTH STREET CHURCH OF CHRIST, 362): Submitted by FREELAND KAUFFMAN & FREDEEN, INC. for property located at 3281 MT. COMFORT ROAD. The property is zoned P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contains approximately 16.11 acres. The request is for a 39,206 s.f. church building. Ostner: Welcome to the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. We have a large docket today so we're going to try to get through it just as quickly as we can. I believe the first Item on the Agenda is LSD 06-1941: Large Scale Development for NORTH STREET CHURCH OF CHRIST. If we could have the Staff Report. Garner: Sure. This project was Tabled at the previous Subdivision Committee Meeting. It is mainly to deal with issues like excess parking, grading on adjacent property, and location of fire hydrants. And the Revised Plans that are submitted before you address these issues. The property totals approximately 16 acres, is located on the south side of Mt. Comfort Rd., east of the future extension of Salem Rd. The site is zoned P-1, Institutional. It's occupied by farmland. It's surrounded by single-family homes on Mt. Comfort Rd. The Applicant Proposes to construct approximately 39,000 s.f. church building with a 650 -seat auditorium and 211 parking spaces as part of this first phase of the church development. As this property is zoned P-1, Institutional, a church is use allowed by right and is not required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit that we seek for churches in all other zoning districts. Right-of-way dedication requires 45 feet from centerline along Mt. Comfort Rd. For street improvements staff recommends that assessment be paid to the City prior to issuance of a Building Permit to improve Mt. Comfort Rd. to Master Street Plan standards from the centerline along the project frontage. Staff is recommending Approval of this Large Scale Development with Conditions. Condition Number 1 is the determination of street improvements. Staff has not received a cost estimate from the Applicant for the assessment street improvements but Engineering Staff has done a cost assessment and that's the dollar amount that we have from our Engineering Staff. Condition Number 2 is that Applicant shall guarantee in an amount to be determined by City Engineering Staff based on the square footage of the building prior to Building Permit for contributions to interim solution waste water capacity concerns. This is in the **** Creek, **** Creek basin, so that is what Condition 2 is related to. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 4 Other than that, there are relatively standard Conditions of Approval and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Ostner: Okay. Would you introduce yourself? Thibodaux: I'm Dirk Thibodaux with Freeland, Kauffman & Fredeen. Mahaffey: Mark Mahaffey. I'm with the North Street Church of Christ. Ostner: Do you have a presentation you'd like to give us? Thibodaux: Well, not really. We went over it at a different committee. It's pretty straightforward, obviously. North Street Church of Christ is relocating. What you see on the Plan or the expansion that is going to happen in the first phase, then you can also see the additional future expansion, which shows the future parking associated with it. We're only looking at Phase 1 right now. Ostner: So, this parking is not ... Thibodaux: That is future. Mahaffey: This area is Phase 1 but it's also future parking right in there. We're showing the large green islands, when they go on to Phase 2, they could remove the curb and gutter, build the island back in to be consistent and then the center section will be asphalt and striped to increase the parking, as well. Ostner: I'll call for any Public Comment If anyone would like to speak to this issue, Large Scale Development 06-1941 for North Street Church of Christ, please step forward. Seeing none, Pll close the Public Comment section and bring it back to the Subdivision Committee for discussion. Ostner: I have a question for Engineering. I guess I could ask for reports, also but on Condition Number 1, the 18 foot from centerline, does that wind up being a three -lane section on Mt. Comfort? Casey: The three -lane section is a 36 **** section, so this would be the other half of that. Ostner: Okay. Mahaffey: I do have a question on that same comment Last time it was 14 foot from centerline and now we're showing 18 foot. So, that's a little bit different. I could be wrong, my understanding is 14 foot? Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 5 Casey: Okay, it's 14. Mahaffey: Okay. And, we also submitted a cost estimate. We submitted it to Jan and we also submitted it directly to Engineering. So, we emailed it. It was a PDF of the cost estimates sent to Engineering and to Jan. Casey: Okay. Well, then we can take a look at that. We just didn't get it in here in time. Thibodaux: Is that street improvement numbered, that price, is that negotiable? Graves: The cost estimate, do you remember the dollar amount? Mahaffey: Yours is substantially higher than what we had submitted but yours may be based on 18 where ours was based on 14, although even those it's larger, I don't know that the number would increase this much. Basically, what we were looking at was around 500 or so feet of curb and gutter. And then to get the width of the road to 14 foot from centerline, it basically put, I think, a 2 1/2 foot gutter pan, instead of having a sliver of asphalt to widen the road. So, mostly it was a curb and gutter with a large concrete gutter pan, the associated 5 foot sidewalk, and grading and the storm drainage associated with that ... Graves: Okay, about ... Mahaffey: ... the storm drainage. And, the number that we had reflects that. Graves: How much was that, do you recall? A dollar amount? Mahaffey: It was around $30,000. So, you can see, it's substantially different that what we're looking at here. Graves: Well, we were looking at, roughly 660 feet of improvements, which would be the width of your property. Mahaffey: Okay, yours is a little bit different there, as well. What we were looking at were this section of street between our two drive entrances, which is what I thought was the area affected, was how we did it. Pate: Our recommendation from Technical Plat Review has been the entire width of the property. If you simply drew a straight line ... Mahaffey: Okay. Well, that would be a difference there. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 6 Pate: And, this estimate, just looking at the cost estimates based on 14 feet from centerline, so I don't think that's the difference. The only typo is in the actual Condition. It says 18 feet, but the estimate that's Senior Staff forwarded is 14 foot from centerline. Thibodaux: Pate: Ostner: Casey: Ostner: Patterson: Thibodaux: Patterson: Mahaffey: Patterson: Mahaffey: Patterson: Mahaffey: Patterson: Mahaffey: Patterson: Ostner: Well, you have come up with a larger linear foot than we did. Okay. Before we go any further, I want to go ahead and formally call for any Staff Reports from Engineering. I don't have anything else to add. Okay. Anything from Tree and Landscape? Yes. I just have one comment. Most of mine were addressed with these Revisions. But, I still need you to identify off-site areas for delivery, storage, cement truck washout, things like that. It might have been on there, but I missed over it. We did put it on. I ... to tell you which page it's on, I ... I thought it was either on Grading or Landscape, I'm not sure. Okay ... And, where it shows up is in the Future Parking Lot area. Okay. There's a hatched or a dotted line, which shows those areas on one of the sheets. There it is. I can see it on the Erosion, Grading Plan. Okay. They're shown in the hatched area and labeled. Okay. But, it's in our future parking area. Okay. All right. So, I guess the Commission has some discussions to make? Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 7 Ostner: So, this assessment on Condition Number 1, I'm still not quite clear on how we're ... what's our vision or our goal. It would seem to me an 18 foot from centerline makes more sense if we're trying to achieve a three - lane section of Mt. Comfort, more logical than a 14 foot. Pate: It's actually going to vary even from a three -lane section. There are going to be portions, from what I understand, preliminary evaluations there may be four and five lane sections in certain areas. However, we do not typically require developers to pay for those expansions unless their development is shown to impact and create need for that additional lane. So, what we have done is, because this project has no frontage, essentially it's only the driveway, it will obviously have an impact. We also included traffic generation numbers, which is there in your Staff Report. And they're very comparable to this development being built at RSF-4, our current zoning density. It's a very comparable traffic generation number. With that, that was our recommendation, was to do a full street improvement, which was likely what we would require for a single-family development. As far as the numbers go, unfortunately we were unable to review those cost estimates because now it's hard to respond, obviously, to what the appropriate cost is. We'd be happy to look at that. But, if that's the case, if the Applicant, obviously, doesn't agree with the number Staff has provided, we would just recommend forwarding this on to the Full Planning Commission to allow all of us time to get together and review its numbers and see what the discrepancy are. Ostner: Other than this issue, is this Item not able to be Approved at this point? Pate: It can be. Our Staff Report actually recommends Approval at this level with that number. And, obviously if the Applicant doesn't agree with that number, then we would need to forward it on. Thibodaux: Well, can we discuss that number? I mean, we've got a number there but we don't have any way of knowing how it was arrived at? Pate: There is a cost estimate. Mahaffey: That was my wonder ... my question. Could we agree to the Approval with the widening, rather than Approving on the dollar amount that we would Approve to widen the street to the 14 foot, the entire length of the subject property, without agreeing to the listed dollar amount? Still given the same Approval, the same agreement, just not necessarily saying, this is the final dollar amount? Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 8 Pate: Ultimately, the Planning Commission has to make that call. Staff can't say, it's going to be $80,000 or $50,000. We submit a cost estimate, you guys submit a cost estimate and the Planning Commission ultimately determines what that is, whether it's above or below that number. Graves: Do we see a cost estimate on all these, though? It seems like in the past, we've Approved them just saying, you've got to make these improvements and listing off what improvements they had to make. I don't know that I've always seen what it costs to make those improvements. Pate: If they're actually doing the improvements, that's correct. But, this would not be actually constructing improvements. It would be ... Graves: We always do the dollar amount whenever they're not doing the improvements. Pate: Right. Mchaffey: So, is that also the possibility then, rather than paying the dollar amount for the improvements, that we would agree to the improvements? Lack: We probably would not recommend that. We currently have slated that road for design this year, so we wouldn't want you to go in there and construct it and then risk us then having to tear it out. Mchaffey Okay. Pate: That's consistent with all of the projects we've seen on Mt. Comfort Rd. in the recent past, an assessment to yours as opposed to construction. Ostner: Are there any other ... Thibodaux: **** whether you want to agree to the dollar amount or whether you want to negotiate it. Ostner: Well, I don't ... I'm not certain this is the proper forum for those discussions. I think if Staff had received your estimate and the discussions had gone on, I think this would be ready for us to fully look at. Our decision is basically to forward it to the Full Planning Commission and let Staff work it out with the Applicant or Table it and let the same workings go on and come back here in two weeks and have the ability to Approve it at that point. Graves: Unless they're in agreement with this dollar amount, as we sit here today. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 9 Ostner: Correct. That is an option. Thibodaux: We should ask them to Table. We can work the dollar amount out. It's just ... we can't do it right now. I think there's a large enough dollar amount there, it's going to be worth our while to wait two weeks. Ostner: I would lean toward Tabling. I just think this is more of a Committee issue than a Full Planning Commission issue. Graves: Under the current way we're doing things right now, they're going to end up with a third subdivision meeting in the next two weeks. Ostner: It won't be us. We're on a constantly rotating schedule now. Mchaffey: How many Subdivision Committees are there? Ostner: There are only three. Mchaffey: Well good, then. We get them all. Everybody gets to review the project. It's Win/Win. Ostner: And, no one will see it twice. Are there any other issues we should discuss? It sounds like we might Table this. Lack: I was concerned with, and just for a matter of education, and I know it came up when we rezoned the property, the drive entrance, and the survey does not show that as a piece of property owned by the church. Mchaffey It is an access easement for this second entrance. The narrow entrance is an access easement that is already dedicated through there that we're utilizing. Now, the church does own another piece of property that if the driveway access is not viable, we could go a different route. Do you see the piece of property there ... Lack: This piece of property? This is access ... Mchaffey: That is the current property. That is where the main entrance is. And, there's an access easement that we were utilizing down there. But, the church does own property to the west that the second drive entrance could be put in. It's just, it puts the two entrances close together. And, for Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 10 Lack: circulation and for all other reasons, the access easement is to everybody's advantage. And, I think it definitely is to your advantage and certainly the person that owns this property, it would be to their advantage not to have a drive to both sides of the residence or whatever. Mchaffey: The Fire Department likes it, as well for the easy circulation. Lack: I would hope, though, and it kind of helps I guess that we're going to get an opportunity to see it again. I'd like to see something formal saying that you have the right to put that there. That can be, of course, recorded on this Plat, or on the new Plat that you put in. Mchaffey: And, I don't remember did I include the Survey -proper? Is it like the second sheet? And, if it's not, that could be inserted in and if it does, on the Survey itself. Lack: It's possible that I missed that on the sheet, but I ****. Mchaffey: That information can be added to it. And, I think it probably is on the Survey. Ostner: And you all have the permission to work on that property? I understand it's an easement, but improving is something different from accessing it. And maybe that's a question for Staff. I mean they're building off-site. And, I know they have a right to use that property. Graves: Also, an Order to Improve the access easement, you're going to have to have the equipment sitting outside the easement to make those improvements. Ostner: So, is there some document or something ... Pate: We ... typically prior to construction, if there is any grading or construction off-site, you're required as part of the Construction Plan, you process a letter if it's on someone else's property indicating Approval to that. Ostner: Okay. Okay. So, that will be worked out. Lack: Like I said, I think that is the best option. Just a matter of **** as I review it, tells me that you have the right to do it. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 11 Ostner: If you will list that on the documents, that will be at the next Subdivision Committee Meeting and they will be clearly listed. And, I just wanted to thank you guys for aligning your drive aisles where people can walk along the aisle to get **** instead of the other way. Mchaffey: The access easement, just for a point of reference, actually lines up with the adjoining street across. There's a neighborhood across the street and it's in alignment with it. This is a little off. I'm not sure why it's off here. MOTION: Graves: I'll move to Table Large Scale Development 06-1941 to the next Subdivision Committee Meeting. Lack: I'll Second. Ostner: I'll concur. Mchaffey: Now, I guess I'll contact the Planning office about the estimates we sent in? Pate: Engineering, yeah. Mchaffey Or, do I need to go straight to Engineering? Casey: Do you know who that was submitted to? Mchaffey: Uh, huh. It was sent to Jan and it was sent to ... I don't remember who exactly it was sent to in Engineering, but it was definitely sent to Jan, as well. It was forwarded to the Engineering Department and to Planning Department the day that the submittal was made. Casey: I can follow up on that. Mchaffey Is there somebody directly I should email it to, rather than ... I don't know exactly who we sent it to but if there's someone you know you want me to send it directly to ... Pate: Matt Casey is ... Mchaffey Okay. Matt, I don't think it was sent to you, specifically. Who was up here last week? I'm sorry, two weeks ago? Lack: That was Brent O'Neal, but he's ... Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 12 Mchaffey: I think that's who it was sent to. Lack: He's taken another position and ... Mchaffey: Okay. Lack: ... leaving the City, so ... Mchaffey: I know it was definitely Engineering. But Matt, I'll send it to you directly. Thibodaux: Thank you. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 13 LSP 06-1945: Lot Split (PESNELL, 396): Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at 6440-6446 JEAN FAYE LANE. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 1.30 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 0.65 acres each. Ostner: Thank you. Our next Item is LSP 06-1945: Lot Split for PESNELL. If the Applicant could come forward and if we could have the Staff Report, please. Fulcher: This property is located north of the Fayetteville city limits, within the Planning Area on Jeanfay Lane. It contains approximately 1.3 acres and contains two duplexes. The request to subdivide the tract into two tracts of 0.65 acres each, resulting in a duplex on either lot. Water is available to the Proposed tracts. However, at this time we have not received the septic system permits for the Proposed tracts. I don't know if the Applicant has brought those today. Thomas: Yes. I have a letter that states that they were inspected and both were sufficient. Fulcher: We were recommending Tabling, subject to receiving those septic permits. If those are in order, then we will be willing to recommend Approval. Ostner: Engineering? Casey: This letter is not from the Health Department. Typically, that's provided ... I mean ... Health Department Approval is provided. This is just from the independent evaluation. Pate: We would need something from the Health Department. Casey: So, other than that, Engineering doesn't have any problem with this. Ostner: We would recommend Tabling this until we get those permits from the Health Department. Thomas: Okay. Ostner: And, I assume there's no Tree and Landscape? Okay. I'm going to call on Public Comment. Does anyone want to speak to this issue, Lot Split 06-1945 for Pesnell? Please come to the podium and give us your name and share your comments. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 14 Florer: Neal Florer, 1393 Jeanfay. We live in the community or in the subdivision that this is in. And, all the neighbors oppose any Lot Split, due to the congestion of the traffic there and everything ... or future traffic and lessen the value of our property on down the street. The issue of is there future plans for additional duplexes on that lot? If so, then the sewer system is probably not adequate enough to for that or the septic -tank system. Ostner: We can try to answer some of these in a minute. We're going to try to avoid backlog. Do you live directly adjacent? Florer: No, I don't live directly adjacent. I live on around the corner on Lots 8 and 9. Ostner: Okay. Well, we'll try to answer some of your concerns in a minute. Florer: Okay. But, as far as the lot size and everything, we feel like it's just not big enough for ... should be split or anything. We think it should be left as is. Ostner: Florer: Ostner: Florer: Well, I can tell you that this is not in Fayetteville city limits. Right. So, Fayetteville City Ordinances do not apply. We have a few rules that govern this type of property and I believe a Lot Split is allowed by right, if I'm not mistaken. Well, one of my other concerns also is, on the northern end of the subdivision, there are some other lots that's supposedly going to be split or something. But, we're concerned that the people who are doing that are wanting to do a red dirt farm on the property just adjacent ... on the west side of this subdivision and they can access through that north end. So, we're just concerned that if you split this lot, that will give him the right to split his lots. Ostner: Well, I can ask Staff some of those specific details. Is that all your comments? I'm going to call for any other Public Comment if you're done. Florer: Ostner: Yeah. Okay. If anyone else would like to speak to this issue, please step forward. Seeing none, I'll close the Public Comment section and bring it Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 15 back to the Committee. Does the Applicant want to say something before we proceed? Thomas: I would just say that there will be no future duplex's built on this property that I'm aware of. I think the only purpose of splitting those is so he can sell them to two separate people, as opposed to one buyer. Ostner: Okay. Graves: Can we have Staff just briefly explain what our controls are on the properties and Planning Area, as opposed to in the city limits when they're seeking a lot split? Pate: Sure. With a lot split, either in the City or in the County or City Planning Area, there are only a few requirements that have to be met in order for a lot split to be Approved. There are zoning requirements in the City. They are simply size, bulk and area requirements. In the County, if it has 75 feet of frontage and 10,000 square feet of land area, that meets the minimum requirements for the Planning Area. And, this has 100 feet of frontage for each lot and approximately 0.65 acres for each lot. The other requirement to meet Master Street Plan Dedication Requirements, which is being accomplished with this lot split, as well as within the Planning Area, you have to prove that you have adequate water and septic system. And, that septic system issue is what we're waiting on. They've not proven to us that they have Approval to split a lot and have adequate septic systems for each one of those lots independently. And, that's what we're waiting for. Graves: But just to answer the question that was asked. They get approval from the Health Department of their septic system. I mean, they're allowed to go in there with a septic system. Pate: That's correct. Sewer cannot be extended outside the City without Special City Council consideration. Ostner: And the concern of a red dirt pit? Pate: That's something that would go through the Washington County Planning Board and I believe it requires a Large Scale Development through their process. But, it does not come through the City. Only Subdivision and Property does. Ostner: So, if you have any other questions, please call Staff. They can help you. Commissioners? Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 16 Graves: I'll move to Table Lot Split 06-1945 for the reasons stated by Staff and that is that we are still waiting on the septic system approval. Lack: I'll Second. Ostner: I'll concur. Thomas: Thank you. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 17 FPL 06-1932: Final Plat (CROSS KEYS II, 478): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at SE OF PERSIMMON AND BROYLES, W OF THE FUTURE RUPPLE RD EXTENSION. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL -SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS/ACRE and R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 34.80 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of a residential subdivision with 17 single family dwellings. Ostner: Our next Item is a Final Plat request, FPL 06-1932: Final Plat for CROSS KEYS II. If the Applicants could come forward. If we could have the Staff Report, please. Morgan: Yes. The Applicant requests Approval of Final Plat for Cross Keys Phase II, located south of Persimmon Street. The request is for a 17 single- family lot subdivision. It's zoned both RSF-4 and R -A. The R -A zoning is located where the detention ponds are. These lots are fairly large lots that will allow homes to face Persimmon Street. One of the lots is actually zoned to be a combination of 4 previous lots in order for the existing single-family home to retain an **** structure on that property. We may see in the future a Lot Split for this large 8 acre tract to specify this further. The Applicant will be dedicating right-of-way for this Plat, however it was a requirement of the Preliminary Plat, that right-of-way along Broyles Rd., the entire 150 acre tract of which a portion of this Plat was subdivided from be dedicated by separate document prior to recordation of this tract so we will be able to **** warranty deed to dedicate right-of-way all along Broyles Rd. There will be money in lieu for dedication of Park Land for 16 new single-family homes. As for sidewalk construction, I believe sidewalk is constructed along a portion of this, Persimmon Street. However, we will need to have the sidewalk along the currently developed lot, constructed prior to recordation and the other sidewalk can either be constructed or guaranteed. We are recommending Approval of this Final Plat with 16 Conditions of Approval. Ostner: Thank you. Engineering? Casey: They appear to have all the notes on the Plat, the improvements are complete, final inspection has been done, so I have no other comments. Ostner: Great. Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. There was a removal of a utility easement along the back property line of these lots in which there also been an increased amount of canopy preserved than what was originally Approved. The new canopy calculations are noted on the Tree Preservation Report. On-site mitigation Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 18 will take place in the amount of five 2 -inch caliper trees. These trees shall be planted and a three-year maintenance bond, Letter of Credit, or check in the amount of $1,250 shall be deposited with the City before signature of Final Plat. Please depict on the Final Plat the location of these five trees for recordation. A note also must be added stated that the on-site mitigation option was utilized. Please include the number of mitigation trees and that they will be large species. That's all. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. At this point I'm going to call for Public Comment If anyone would like to speak to this Final Plat, please step forward. Seeing none, Pll close the Public Comment section and ask for any presentation from the Applicant. Jorgensen: Good deal. My name is Dave Jorgensen and I'm here to help answer questions on this. Let's see if I can break through the process. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Jorgensen. Commissioners? MOTION: Lack: I thought this looked really straightforward. I will move to Approve Final Plat 06-1932, with the stated Conditions of Approval. Graves: And, with the additional comments made by Tree and Landscape. I'll Second that. Ostner: I will concur. Jorgensen: Good deal. Thanks a lot. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 19 LSP 06-1972: Lot Split (C -QUAD, 642): Submitted by MANDY BUNCH for property located at CITY LAKE ROAD. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and I-2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 6.56 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 5.61 and 0.95 acres. Ostner: Thank you. Our next Item is LSP 06-1972: Lot Split for C -QUAD. If the Applicant would step forward. May we have the Staff Report, please? Garner: This property is located on City Lake Road, State Highway 156 and is identified as Lot 11 in the Fayetteville Industrial Park. Property is Split - zoned into I-1 and I-2. The owner Proposes that the 6.56 acre lot be split into two lots, one with 5.61 acres and one of approximately 0.95 acres. This site is surrounded on three sides by Industrial zoning and is either undeveloped or developing. Industrial properties, single-family residential property is located on the other side of City Lake Road to the west of this property. The driveway being dedicated would be 35 feet from centerline along City Lake Road by Warranty Deed. Staff would like to note that previous Planning Commissions have required Large Scale Development Approval for lots that were created just under one acre, however this lot that is being created is also included in the following Item on our Agenda for Large Scale Development. So, we're not recommending that as a Condition of Approval, that this lot go through Large Scale Development. We have a couple of Standard Conditions of Approval here and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Ostner: Thank you. Engineering? Casey: The only comment is that the sewer is not available to the newly created lot up front and they're planning on extending that with the development. We're going to see if it's the next Item. But, that sewer will need to be in place prior to ****. Ostner: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: No comment. Ostner: Okay. At this point I'm going to call for any Public Comment if anyone would like to speak to this Lot Split 06-1972 for C -Quad, please step forward. Seeing none, I'll close the Public Comment section and ask for any presentation by the Applicant. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 20 Bunch: I'm Mandy Bunch. I'm here representing C -Quad Development and I think this is fairly straightforward request with most of the questions attached to the next Item, so if you have any questions, let us know. Ostner: Okay. Do you want to introduce yourselves? Clark: I'm Brad Clark. Cardwell: I'm Claudette Cardwell. Ostner: Okay. Commissioners? MOTION: Graves: I move for Approval of Lot Split 06-1972, with the stated Conditions of Approval. Lack: I'll Second. Ostner: And, I'll concur. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 21 LSD 06-1971: Large Scale Development (C -QUAD, 642): Submitted by MANDY BUNCH for property located at CITY LAKE RD, SOUTH OF PUMPSTATION. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and I-2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 6.56 acres. The request is for 5 warehouse buildings and one office building with a total of 41,736 square feet of warehouse space and 8,284 square feet of office space. Ostner: Our next Item is the tandem Item, LSD 06-1971: Large Scale Development for C -QUAD. If we could have the Staff Report, please? Garner: This property is located on the same lot we just discussed. The Applicant Proposes to develop 5 warehouse buildings and 2 office buildings. One of the office buildings would be attached onto the warehouse buildings and another one of the office buildings would be a stand-alone building on the approximately 0.95 acre lot. How the breakdown square footage is is shown on Table 2 there on Page 2 of your Report. It will be approximately 10,000 square feet of office space and approximately 42,000 square feet of warehouse space Proposed and a total of 58 parking spaces over the whole property. Tree Preservation, there is approximately 4.7 percent canopy and would require 4 2 -inch caliper trees for mitigation. Staff recommends forwarding this to the Full Planning Commission to address the issue related to Commercial Design Standards. Condition Number 1, the issue of the elevations, the building was designed and we talked to Brett and Randy yesterday about it, with metal siding to blend in with industrial park and Staff finds it is compatible and provides a good transition for that area. However, it is a metal building ... metal siding that's not allowed by Commercial Design Standards. So, it would require Planning Commission to Approve that, to actually Waive the Commercial Design Standards to allow for a metal siding building. Another Condition I wanted to call your attention to is the street improvements. Staff recommends that a six-foot sidewalk be constructed along the project frontage, the City right -of way line. Other than that, the Conditions are standard. Ostner: Thank you. Engineering? Casey: For this project, detention will be required. It's not shown. If you could just show us the location for your detention with the next submittal, I would appreciate it. That's all. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 22 Ostner: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. Mitigation will be required on this site to replace 1,759 square feet of canopy. This is equal to 4 2 -inch caliper large species trees that will be planted back onto the site. Before final Certificate of Occupancy, these 4 trees must be planted and a Letter of Credit, bond or check shall be deposited with the City of Fayetteville for $1,000. This amount is held for three years and released after the year the Forester inspects the trees and finds them 90% healthy or better. Ostner: Okay, thank you. At this point I will call for any Public Comment for Large Scale Development 06-1971. Seeing none, I will close the Public Comment section and bring it back to the Applicant to make your presentation. Bunch: Basically, the square footage that was presented ... one of the buildings is for C & C Services and for parking requirement reasons, we've split that out into uses. So, it's not strictly a warehouse space in that front building but everything that Andrew says is true. I understood from Matt, with our submittal, that we wanted to go ahead and do detention on the site. We originally Proposed not to because of the proximity to the floodway but he's recommended it so we've got room for it, so we're going to accommodate that requirement. Brett Park is actually ... this is his office building and he's here to address architectural issues. And, Claudette is actually the owner here. I just wanted to put this in your head, if it might be possible, if everyone here on the Committee is agreeable with the elevations as presented, and Staff has stated that they do appear suitable in their minds, to provide a transition space that we consider placing this on the Consent Agenda at the Planning Commission, if that's possible. Ostner: I believe it's possible to Approve today. Pate: Actually, with the Waiver, because it is a Waiver, Commercial Design Standards specifically state metal siding shall not dominate the main facade. Otherwise we would have recommended Approval at this level. But, because of that, we do have to forward it to the Full Planning Commission. But, we are ... I think we would be amenable to place it on Consent, also. I don't think there are any other outstanding issues. Ostner: The Consent Agenda issue would happen at the Agenda setting session. Any presentation by the architect? Park: I think the intent of the design was to have as minimal an impact from City Lake Road as possible. That's why the roof slopes toward the west. Also, the finished floor elevation of the building is significantly lower than Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 23 City Lake Road, so a lot of the intent with the image of the building was just subtlety, trying to keep it as discreet as possible. Also, a note about the metal siding is that it's not just a typical barn siding. We're going to use MBCI. It's called High Profile. Not that it's high profile to be exciting, because it stands out from the building some. So, it's not just a cheap metal siding that's used as a cost-saving measure. It's our choice of material. Generally the image of the building is sort of intended to ... it's certainly a commercial building but it's intended to draw some imagery from the primary building -type that's in the industrial park, which happens to be mostly metal -sided buildings. So, I felt like it was an appropriate contextual response and also an attempt to sort of elevate the vocabulary of a metal building to a little bit higher level. That's how I feel about things. Ostner: Okay. Commissioners? Lack: I would tend to concur with that and I think that it ... I would hope that, with our Ordinances that we allow things to be contextual and to be appropriate to the area's they're in. And, the area that this is in is the industrial park and the zoning is appropriate to that. And, I would concur that it's appropriate there. I hope that we would all see that the Waiver will be appropriate. Ostner: I have a question for Staff. This split zone between Industrial 1 and Industrial 2, what are the main differences in those two zones? Pate: Ostner: Pate: Ostner: Primarily uses. The I-1 is a heavy commercial/light industrial. The I-2 is just in general industrial. That's the difference between the type of industrial uses you can have in each one of those. We have actually I-1 along 6th Street. McDonald's and Taco Bell is located within an I-1 Zoning District. I-2, though, is ... I think primarily most zoning in the industrial park. But, there are some I -1's components as well. So, it's really a matter of uses and how nauseous or impactful those type uses can be. I'm sure you're not referring to the Applicant being nauseous. That's correct. Just uses, okay. All right. I would tend to agree that the metal is a good fit here. And, I understand that the Planning Commission will have discussion about this. My only thought is, not that we set a precedent, but as in general fairness. Sample boards would help when we come back around to it, if you would have some. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 24 Park: How do you define coming back around to it? Ostner: Well, we can't Approve this today. So, when we come back around at the Full Planning Commission, if you wanted to bring a piece of that ... Park: Okay. Bunch: Which Agenda session? Ostner: On Thursday. Pate: The 23`d Ostner: It's a week from today, I believe. Bunch: The 23`d? Graves: If you brought the sample boards ... I mean, yeah, you're allowed to come to Agenda. If you brought the sample boards there, it might make people feel comfortable putting this on the Consent. Park: Okay. Ostner: Because part of my concern is, we've seen a lot of metal that ... at this point, we can't tell the difference. If we actually saw it, we might be able to discern, yeah, that's not barn metal, what everybody wants to put up. This is different. Park: This material is an order -only item. I can't go and just get it off the shelf somewhere. Would it suffice to bring manufacturer's cut -sheets and photographic images of similar projects to demonstrate that? Ostner: That would help. That would help. Park: Okay. Ostner: Other than the Design Standards, I don't have a lot of ... Lack: I wonder where the trash service is for the 2,000 square foot office ... or how the ... I didn't see it. Bunch: You know, I think we might need to talk to Solid Waste about that. But, I know that they can get away with a pushcart. But, I don't know what kind of service they have on the lot. So, if we need a Dumpster there, we can add it. But, I don't think that as far as the use and level and volume of Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 25 waste, I don't think it's going to necessitate a Dumpster. I think it could be pushcart. Ostner: They never throw anything away. Bunch: Architects only recycle material. Park: We're a paperless office. Ostner: Right. And, why aren't we seeing other elevations? Bunch: They're not required. Ostner: Okay. Bunch: Not giant buildings, just a tiny building. Ostner: Okay. That's kind of what I wondered. Bunch: Uh, huh. That's the way the Standard is written. We were a little confused on that. That's why the elevations are coming a little bit behind when we normally would have submitted. There's a little confusion there with the actual warehouse building or an office contiguous or as an ancillary use to the warehouse. It's not required to bring elevations but the small stand-alone office is required to. Ostner: Okay. Park: I don't take it personal. Ostner: I don't have any other issues unless the other Commissioners do. MOTION: Lack: I'll move that we Forward LSD 06-1971 to the Full Planning Commission, and state an affirmative for Commercial Design Standards from the Subdivision Committee and, as I see that the 6 foot sidewalk, that is the second determination in Number 2 is on the Plans, I will concur with that as well, and with the added note of detention requirement on site. Ostner: I'll Second. Graves: And, I'll concur. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 26 LSD 06-1963: Large Scale Development (CITY LAKE OFFICE PARK, 681): Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at CITY LAKE RD., 1/4 MI S OF PUMP STATION RD. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and contains approximately 3.25 acres. The request is for 9,600 s.f. office and warehouse space with 18 parking spaces. Ostner: Our next Item is LSD 06-1963: Large Scale Development for CITY LAKE OFFICE PARK. Would the Applicant come forward? If we could have the Staff Report, please. Fulcher: This subject property is also located on City Lake Road. It's actually two lots to the south of the previous project. It is adjacent to the Fayetteville Industrial Park. It's not actually a part of the industrial park. Again, this property is split **** and is currently undeveloped. The Applicant is Proposing a 9,600 square foot warehouse with associated office space with 18 parking spaces (side 1 ended — flip side started here — sound quality bad — volume very low) ... and by Warranty Deed. That may already be existing 40 feet from centerline on the highway there. Mitigation is not required for this project. They will be retaining a little over 21% of the existing canopy. Water and sewer are available to the site, **** to the Proposed facilities. With that, Staff is recommending Approval of this Large Scale Development, with 16 Conditions of Approval. Condition Number 1, as a previous Item — determination of street improvements. Staff is recommending a 6 -foot sidewalk be constructed along the properties of City Lake Road frontage. If you have any further questions, let us know. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Engineering? Casey: No comments. Ostner: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. My main concern is there is a canopy on-site that is not shown to be fenced off. If you are hoping to preserve that canopy, I need to see a fencing detail around it. Applicant: Okay. Patterson: That can be done on the Construction Plan. There was some area there to the east along the property line and I just had concerns about that. As Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 27 Jesse mentioned, no mitigation will be required unless you drop below the required procedures set. That's all I have. Ostner: Okay, thank you. At this point I will call for any Public Comment on this Large Scale Development 06-1963 for City Lake Office Park. Seeing none, I will close the Public Comment section and ask the Applicant to speak. Ball: My name is Chris Ball with Blew, Bates & Associates. I'm here to answer any question. We will meet all the Conditions of Approval. All of those are acceptable and if you have any questions, I can answer them. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners? Ostner: So, these buildings don't require elevations? Pate: Because they're primarily industrial in use and those Industrial Uses do not require elevations. Ostner: I see. And, on the Application before ... Pate: One building was entirely office. Ostner: t understand. It's not the size. Ball: The shaded area is the part that would be paved. The parking that's not shaded, that's future parking. That's just kind of a general layout in case ... he wants to build the office/warehouse currently and leave room open for future development and the use would be similar. Lack: Would there be a requirement for curb and gutter at the back of that first phase? I see the curb and gutter is shown around the rest of the parking lot. The phase line there doesn't show a curb and gutter. Ball: Excuse me. I'm sorry, what was the question again? Lack: In the phased parking ... Ball: Uh, huh. Lack: ... the parking is shown to be all curbed and guttered. And, I don't know that they function as drainage or if they ****. Would there be any requirements for that first phase of the shaded area to be curbed and guttered in the back? Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 28 Ball: Ostner: Curb and gutter is not a requirement. It's usually just used to channel the water. They can slope the pavement to drain towards the curb and gutter on the north side that they are Proposing. So, the curb and gutter on the unfinished portions is not required for phase purposes at this time. They can accomplish their drainage patterns without it, is what I'm trying to say. All the drainage is going to this northeast corner so all the curbed areas would be on the down side there. And the Drainage Report happens after this Approval. Ball: They've already submitted it. The Preliminary Report shows the flows in the area and also ****. Ostner: Okay. We need all of the cell phones turned to silent, please. MOTION: Lack: Graves: Ostner: Ball: I would like to move to Approve LSD 06-1963, with the stated Conditions of Approval and the addition of showing the fencing on the additional trees. I'll Second that. And, I'll concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 29 LSD 06-1978: Large Scale Development (MILLSAP PLAZA OFFICE BUILDING, 212/213): Submitted by JERRY KELSO CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 688 E MILLSAP ROAD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.56 acres. The request is for a 25,609 SF building expansion. Ostner: The next Item LSD 06-1978: Large Scale Development for MILLSAP PLAZA OFFICE BUILDING. If the Applicant would come forward. If we could start with the Staff Report. Fulcher: The subject property contains 2.5 acres and is located at 688 East Millsap Road just between Plainview Avenue and North College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and currently contains an existing office building of approximately 2,000 square feet. The Proposal is to make an addition to this office building on the north side, facing **** Expressway, approximately an addition of 25,000 square feet with additional parking. Mitigation right-of-way is required for Millsap Road, 35 feet from centerline to meet the Master Street Plan requirements. Pedestrian access from the street to the entrance, by way of a designated walk shall be provided making a walk from the sidewalk along Millsap to the interior sidewalk of the building. And, bicycle racks are to be provided for multi -mobile access. Mitigation on this project is required in the amount of 6 trees. Some of the trees that are being removed are existing landscape trees will be removed for additional parking. We are looking at the elevations there and we've got some full-size elevation boards, also that will reviewed. This is a pretty straightforward addition. We've recommended Approval of the Large Scale with 15 Conditions of Approval. Condition Number 1 — Subdivision Committee Determination of Commercial Design Standards. Staff has found in favor of these Proposed designs for this new building addition. The rest of the Conditions of Approval are pretty straightforward. Any additional questions please ask. Ostner: Okay, thank you. Engineering? Casey: Everything appears to be in order. Ostner: Thank you. Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. As was stated, mitigation trees are required. And, I apologize, this comment I made earlier was to plant the trees along the north property Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 30 line, which is in the existing utility easement. Mitigation trees cannot be planted with utility easements. So, now I'm wondering if we can plant the 6 trees along the west property line between you and your adjacent property owner. There's a lot of green space there. I think we can accommodate those 6 trees. The trees should be planted and bonded in the amount of $1,500 before the final Certificate of Occupancy. A three-year maintenance and monitoring bond will be submitted as a Letter of Credit, bond or check to the City for a three-year period. Ostner: Okay, thank you. I'm going to call for any Public Comment for this Large Scale Development 06-1978 for Millsap Plaza Office Building. Seeing none, I will close the Public Comment section and ask for any presentation. Mark: I'm Mark **** with Crafton & Tull. This is Tom ****, the Architect. Ostner: Okay. Mark: Hopefully the Plans speak for themselves. We're here if you have any questions. Ostner: Okay, thank you. Commissioners? Lack: On this west elevation, this is the existing building? Mark: That's correct. Lack: Okay. Mark: Yeah, it's a one-story existing building. The existing building is a brick exterior and so we're going to match the brick on the new building and try to basically have a first floor be surrounded brick and then like materials as we go up towards the roof. So, the first floor windows will be center - set. The upper floor windows will actually **** to the outside to give it a little cleaner appearance. The main part of the building is going to have pre -finished metal soffits and fascias in the upper level. And, the roof is going to be a standing metal roof. And, we're going to replace the shingles on the existing building to tie the two together. Graves: I had the same question. This is the existing building? This building probably wouldn't meet Commercial Design Standards now, and so that's the same thing I wanted to confirm on the east and west elevations, that that's what's already there. And, what you're putting in is much more graphic part that's on these drawings. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 31 Mark: Thank you. Tom: MOTION: From the original submittal, we've made a couple of minor changes. One, we decided to, on the front entry columns, to carry the brick up to elevation of 19 foot 4 inches and be capped with pre -cast concrete cap. And then we'll have a painted steel casing column above that. Same way on the side elevations with the exterior stair ****. We've brought that brick up high. It's a maintenance issue and we thought also for appearance -wise. The other thing that was changed was the downspouts. We pulled **** the building. Graves: I moved for Approval of Large Scale Development 06-1978, with the stated Conditions of Approval, finding in favor on Number 1 and as amended by the comments on the Tree and Landscape. Lack: I'll Second. Ostner: And, I'll concur. Mark: Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 32 LSD 06-1962: Large Scale Development (FIRE STATION #5, 255): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at SW CORNER CROSSOVER AND OLD WIRE RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.46 acres. The request is for a 5,500 s.f. fire station. Ostner: Our next Item is LSD 06-1962: Large Scale Development for FIRE STATION #5. Will the Applicant come forward? May we have the Staff Report, please? Fulcher: The subject property contains 1.46 acres, located at the southwest corner of Crossover Road and Old Wire Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, and is currently an undeveloped city park. The City of Fayetteville is Proposing to construct a new fire station on the southwest corner. The station is Proposed to contain approximately 5,500 square feet of total area. Access will be from Old Wire into Crossover Road. Right-of-way dedication is required on Old Wire Road 45 feet from centerline and Crossover Road 55 feet from centerline. As you can see from the Staff Report and also on the Site -Plans, there is adequate right-of-way that has been dedicated on Old Wire Road. However, on Crossover Road, the Arkansas Highway Transportation Department has expansion plans Proposed for 265, which will take place as Proposed now on the east side of the road, not on the side of the road where the fire station is Proposed. The fire station has been designed to be built closer than the building setbacks with a 55 -foot right-of-way dedication would allow. However, that was based on also the design of the Arkansas Highway Transportation Department to construct the improvements of 265 on the east side of the road and on the west side of the road. Mostly that's due to some existing **** restraints for them that there's an existing sewer main on property on the west side of the road, a high-pressure gas main, that serves Washington County is on the west side of the road, and an existing sewer lift station just on the north side of Old Wire Road, again on the west side of the road. So, it's fairly prohibitive for them to design the road with very much construction on the west side. And, that's why they're showing most of the improvements on the west side of the road and why the fire station is shown pretty close to the 55 -foot requirement, with not much of a setback from that point. Mitigation on this site will be required in the amount of 10 trees. With that, there will be a Conditional Use. It will be heard at the Full Planning Commission. We are recommending that this Item be forwarded since this is a unit that's not permitted by right now in a RSF-4 Zoning District. It will require Condition Use, which is associated with this Large Scale Development request. So, with that, Staff is recommending forwarding this Item to the Full Planning Commission. There are a couple of Conditions of Approval I would like to touch on. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 33 Condition Number 1 — Determination of Commercial Design Standards. I believe on the current material board you're looking at, the east side, which will face Crossover Road is fairly unarticulated. We've requested some further articulation to that. I believe they've looked at doing some gables for another type of roofline to provide better articulation on that side. We'd like to see those new elevations at the Planning Commission. Condition Number 2 — is relating to **** dedication of right-of- way. This Item will go to the Street Committee this evening for their review and then on to the City Council on April 4th for their review. And, as you can see, Condition Number 2, that Item is not Approved by the City Council for the **** dedication of right-of- way. The Applicant will need to go to the Board of Adjustment and either request a Variance or maybe redesign or relocate the structure, which may require coming back through this Subdivision of Planning Commission for review. Condition Number 3 — is Approval of Conditional Use to allow for a fire department. In this location they are RSF-4 Zoning District. All of the other Conditions are fairly straightforward. If you have any questions, please ask. Ostner: Thank you. Engineering? Casey: I apologize. I missed the first part of this discussion so if this has already been mentioned, forgive me. As mentioned in the previous meetings, the deck here on the west side is protruding into our utility easement there above our sewer line. We requested that that be removed. If it's not Proposed to be removed, you would need specific Approval from our Water and Sewer Director. That's all I have. Ostner: Okay. Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. I have several Conditions of Approval. I need you to identify on-site areas for storage, delivery, stockpile, **** washout. Also, please revise the Tree Preservation Plan to have all canopy calculations, including the site square foot, square foot of canopy, square foot of reserve canopy. The mitigation required is actually 11 trees, rather than 10, if you would provide that, as well. Mitigation will be required in the amount of 11 2 - inch caliper large species trees. The project is Proposing on-site mitigation in coordination with the construction of a trail **** and a parking lot on the south end of the property. A three-year maintenance and monitoring bond will be required in the amount of $2,750. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 34 Ostner: At this point I will call for any Public Comment on this Large Scale Development. Please introduce yourself and share your comments. Public: I own the property adjacent to the new fire station. My name is E.S. **** and I just have two questions. Number 1, will there be any encroachment on my property? For example, any tree damage or anything like that. My property starts at the tree line and there is no fence that marks it, so there should be no problem determining where the property is. The second question besides whether there will be any encroachment is when the fire station is built, will there be a buffer, a sound barrier between the fire station and my property? A fence, wall, bushes or anything of that sort to alleviate the noise. We've got a nice, peaceful piece of property there now and we'd like to keep it that way. Ostner: We will try to answer your questions. Public: Okay, thank you very much. Ostner: Any other Public Comments I'll close the Public Comment section and bring it back to the Applicant. Morgan: Good morning. I'm Mike Morgan with McClelland Consulting Engineers. Beside me is Rich Alderman from W D & D Architecture. Rich can speak directly to the permanence or impermanence of the deck structure over the existing sanitary sewer easement. We'll certainly take care of landscaping comments and show the stockpile and everything. Also, the mitigation trees, we'll place them outside of the Proposed trail at **** even though we'll be taking that off by Revised Plan and make sure the trees are located outside of that Proposed building area. Alderman: To speak specifically regarding the neighborhood comments, currently we are not going to encroach ... sir, are you on the western side of this property? Public: On the western side, yes. Alderman: On the Plans here, we have a ... Public: May I step up? Ostner: Sure. Alderman: ... there's an easement through here. We're restrained to limit our construction to within ... I believe we're over 20 feet, 20.9 feet from the Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 35 property line. And so, our construction will end at that point. Currently, the plans are to leave most of the vegetation in place because we won't be doing any construction over here. So, vegetation will remain that will act as a screener, a buffer. But, currently we do not have any additional fence row or hedge row planned on the western side of this development. Public: And where is Mudd Creek? Alderman: The center of it is here. Public: Okay. All right. So, you're going to be about 20 feet, then from my property? Alderman: From the existing fence line there, yes, sir. Public: That solves the first problem. The second problem is the noise, but I don't think it will be that bad. Fire engines go fast anyway. We'll worry about that when the time comes. Ostner: Thank you. Commissioners? Alderman: I'd be glad to speak about the articulation and the deck. Let's talk about the deck first of all. Ostner: Sure. Alderman: It's just a wood deck. This is the same design as two other fire stations that the City already has, Fire Station 4 and Fire Station 6. So, we started off with the design already ... that's the design that they wanted to do. So, we're looking at a building that's been built twice, already. It's exactly the same building. They have a patio because that's the living -side of the building on the other one. So, we can probably provide a wood deck that can louver out over that easement if we can get the Approvals. If we don't get the Approvals, we won't build it. So, it's just totally out there. It would be removable and encased, since it would just be a wood deck. So, if, for some reason there would need to be some maintenance or something done there, we would understand. I think we'll just go through the process if that's all right with you about trying to get the Approval. If we can't get it, we won't build it. If we can, we will. Articulation -wise, we do have a series of inset windows, all the way along that ****. You remember this is an apparatus bay so it is a fairly straightforward wall along there. We have, on all the other buildings, tried to articulate that side by adding those windows that do set back from the facade four or five Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 36 inches to try to keep that ... they have a nice pre -cast window across the top, where you can have a break-up of the elevation directly where we have a masonry material down below and we have nice masonry material up above and we have Cornice lighting. So, we tried to meet all the requirements. I did go back between this drawing that you have, which was the original submittal and what's on the board over there. And, I added some Pilasters. Again, you've got to remember we were having a setback issue, so I can't go in and out really big. I added Pilasters in these locations here to try to mimic a little bit of kind of the front of the building. I added Pilasters here. And, they would stand out a foot, eight inches to try to help get some movement in the facade, other than the fact that these windows are fairly recessed back here. Past that, we can discuss where we think we are. It is fairly straightforward and similar to the other facilities that the City has. Ostner: Okay. My question on this deck, let's see, it's not really shown. Alderman. It's on the other side. It's over here. Ostner: Okay. It's not really shown there, either. It's a ... is it a second -story deck? Alderman: Ostner: Alderman: Ostner: Alderman: Ostner: Alderman: Ostner: We are going to have to raise the site on that side, probably something in the range of 8 or 9 feet. So, that deck would be up significantly off of the ground. The bottom of it would probably be ... we're saying about seven feet ... Okay. ... to the bottom of it from the existing ground. And, obviously we can't change anything in the easement. So, that will be existing grade and then we'll have a little bit of a retaining wall and then the building will start. Right. It seems to me that ... if I'm reading the drawing right, that really it's just this part that's inside the easement. The easement starts right here at the face of this and goes all the way along ... Okay. ... to this side and then it turns and comes up this way. So, this building setback is not really ... Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 37 Alderman: It's not a building easement. It's not a building setback issue. It's an encroachment on the easement issue. Ostner: Yeah, I understand that part. Okay. So, I was looking over here. I thought it was a partial easement. Well, I would hope that the Water and Sewer Department would be minimal. I understand when they've got an emergency and they've got to get in, they can't tear off a deck. But ... Alderman: And, we would be glad to abide by whatever they think. It's an amenity feature for the fireman. Obviously, that's a wonderful peace -green over there. We would like to have their living quarters face out to that to take advantage of the beauty of looking into that. But, that would be on the site where they can take advantage of being outside without having to be on the street -side. This is a living space for those guys. And, they need some inside/outside-type space. So, that's the thought behind the deck. If we can't get it worked out, we'll find some other place to do that on our site. Ostner: What I was hoping for, if it's elevated enough, if it could be cantilevered to be out of the way of equipment. I would hope there will be an easy solution. Alderman: That's exactly what we're going to Propose to them, that it will be high enough up that they can do maintenance, and do most of the things that they want to do, with at least a tall backhoe. I think that 90% of what needs to be done there should be able to be done underneath that piece. Lack: I'm comfortable with allowing the submitting the Applicant through that process. They would just have to know that if they had an emergency there, they could tear it off with a backhoe. I think with the Commercial Design Standards, you're certainly capable and what you started to sketch here leans toward something I think we could Approve. I would not feel comfortable with the original elevation, within the guidelines. But, I do think that where you're headed is good. I think it's almost unfortunate that the site constraints require you to **** the building the way that you do because the other elevations are obviously the traditional fire station elevations. You could almost use the fire truck as part of the elevation. But, that being the case, that's where we're at with this specific site. So, I guess with Staff's recommendation, we should forward it to the Full Planning Commission. **** be able to have a Revised Elevation at that time. Graves: I would agree. I think that it should be **** the building's turned, especially out on a heavily traveled road that's going to be the side of the building that most people see. And, if there's a way to sort of break up the color on that side, that helps. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 38 Lack: I think the color is good. Graves: Good color. Lack: Uh, huh. Graves: But, you don't have a lot of depth to work with. Alderman: And, there are significant ... they're a little dark right here. There's a lot of pre -cast. We've got pre -cast lintels over all the windows. That helps with that articulation quite a bit. So, I'd like to present it to the Full Commission. We think it would work out and it would be great. Lack: Before we get to making a Motion, just a comment, a recommendation. If you would, get with our Trails Coordinator, because it looks like that deck is encroaching into the shown trail along there, as well. Alderman: That sort of connects with my question. Is this not on the Table anymore? Because you mentioned ... Graves: It's on the Table. I saw a recommendation in the Staff Report that that be removed from the Large Scale Plans. Fulcher: I think the only reason for that on here is that obviously that's ... it is not intended to be built right now. It is a Phase. We showed it on there for the Parks Department, so that they might not have to come back through this again when they got ready to do it. But, I think that Staff may have a reason that they felt like that wasn't appropriate. Pate: We are looking at other potential alternative locations for the trailhead. And again, this would not ... as previously mentioned, this would not be constructed with the fire station at all. It's also a means to locate mitigation trees so that if it does happen, we'd know what mitigation trees are going and not have to remove those again. Ostner: Is this going to be an access? Alderman: Yes. Ostner: Okay. Why isn't it fully delineated like that curb -cut? Alderman: This curb -cut is not on a State Highway. This is a State Highway, standard curb -cut. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 39 Ostner: Oh, that is the curb -cut? Alderman: Yes. Ostner: The squared -off ... Alderman: The squared -off concrete. Ostner: All right. Those were my questions. MOTION: Graves: I move that we forward Large Scale Development 06-1978 to the Full Planning Commission with a finding on Number 1 in accordance with Staffs comments that we **** and incorporate the comments that were made here today. And, on Number 2 a recommendation in favor of Staff s comments there and all other Conditions as stated or amended by ****. Lack: Just a point of clarification, the Item Number on the Title page is 06-1962 and under the Recommendations, it's 06-1978. Graves: It should be 1962. I'll amend my Motion, too, to reflect the appropriate number. Lack: I'll Second. Ostner: And, I will concur. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 40 LSD 06-1960: Large Scale Development (WRMC SENIOR CENTER, 211/212): Submitted by USI -ARKANSAS, INC. for property located at 3215 NORTH HILLS BLVD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 52.03 acres. The request is to construct a Senior Center, in two phases, on the subject property. Ostner: Our next Item is LSD 06-1962: Large Scale Development for WRMC SENIOR CENTER. If the Applicant would come forward. If we could have the Staff Report. Morgan: This project is Proposed to be located on the existing Washington Regional Medical Center, approximately 52 acres. This Applicant was recently granted Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion to the structures on this property. This Large Scale Development encompasses the Senior Center of approximately 40,000 square feet. It consists of 3 buildings located in the southeast corner, a clinic, a fitness center and an education center. The education center being Phase II of the Proposed project to be constructed after the clinic and fitness center, as well as having improvements internal to the site. With regards to street improvements, the Applicant has submitted a traffic study, which has been evaluated by Staff. Specific improvements are needed at the intersection of Appleby and Gregg Avenue. However, the City is currently in the process of widening Gregg Avenue, including the turn lane on Appleby. Additionally, the Traffic Report states that a signal may be warranted at **** Drive and North Hills Blvd. That's where Staff is recommending that the Applicant submit a full cost estimate of the traffic signal for this intersection. Street improvements for the total approximately 133,000 square foot improvement in addition to prior development. The parking calculations have been Proposed and existing will meet the requirements for this development. With regard to Tree Preservation, I believe that this portion of the project developed is going to be located on some creek easements. The Applicant is working with the Urban Forester to process any Amendments or a Vacation, I believe, to include ****. Staff is recommending forwarding this Large Scale Development with a total of 26 Conditions: The first being that this City Council Approval for modification of the Site Plan will need to be resolved and processed prior to this being considered by the Planning Commission. We don't want you to have to Approve something that won't be able to ****. With regard to Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards, Staff finds that the building materials for the Senior Center are compatible with the **** Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 41 development. However, Staff recommends further articulation on most elevations and **** Elevation Board ****. Planning Commission determination of Street Improvements is required **** setbacks. There are some modifications in Condition Number 17 that have been requested. Several of those modifications will affect the parking layout. The driveway widths are less than our standard 24 feet and with 15 foot of green space, **** of the right-of-way is not accounted for. So, there may be some reduction in the parking, but it should not decrease the parking so much that it would not allow this Proposal ****. I'll go ahead and put up those elevation boards for you and if you have any questions, just ask. Ostner: Engineering? Casey: I'm just going to say that the Applicant has worked very hard with the Engineering Staff regarding the floodplain floodway issues and I just wanted to thank you for that. And he's provided information that we need to feel comfortable with proceeding on with this. Other than that, I have no other comments. Ostner: Thank you. Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. Jerry, I ask that you revise the Tree Preservation Plan to show the area in question and not the entire campus, just kind of zoom in on that spot. Although I noticed added about fencing, I'd like to see how that fencing is going to be placed and work around some of those streets. It is the understanding that some will have to be removed. There is a standard City of Fayetteville Standard Notes for Tree and Natural Protection that includes 15 Notes and a diagram on how the fencing should look and it's requirements. That needs to be added to your Tree Preservation Plan. Approval for this Large Scale Development is contingent on City Council Approval to modify the location of the Tree Preservation area located on Lot 1. With the Approval, City Council for the modification of the Tree Preservation, mitigation will be taken care of. That's all I have. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will call for any Public Comment on this Large Scale Development request 06-1960 for Washington Regional Medical Senior Center. Seeing none, I'll close the Public Comment section and ask for any presentation you have. Holloway: Hello. My name is Jerry Holloway and I'm with USI Arkansas. I appreciate the time that you've given us here to give our presentation. This is the Senior Center for Washington Regional Medical Center, Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 42 approximately 40,000 square feet. We agree with all the comments basically, except one that I would like to address. The first one, of course, is that the City Council is going to look at the vacation of this Tree Preservation easement on March 21s` and the Planning Commission is going to meet the 27th, so hopefully we will have that Tree Preservation issue solved by the 21s` and it's on Consent, actually, it's a Consent Item so it should ****. The architects have been aware and are working on this vertical articulation for not only this project, but the next one, also. Hopefully we'll have some more boards for them to look at for Planning Commission. The third Item, though, the owner and the client wonders if on the Traffic Study ... the Traffic Study that we submitted with Ernie Peters and Associates out of Little Rock, the owner paid $7,500 for that study and actually the study showed that the intersection of Futtrell Hall and North Hills already warrants a traffic light. That is, of course, the off - ramp of 540 there. As far as this particular Large Scale Development, we do not feel like the hospital is impacting that particular intersection. At this time, it's already a warranted light. So, we are wondering why the client, Washington Regional, should be required to place that light there, as a result of the Large Scale Development, since it is already a warranted light there. So, we'd like to ask you to take that into consideration. Also, on Number 7, I thought that we had all the violations of the property already resolved but maybe we don't. I think that H2 had already gotten a grading permit. Is that right or not? Patterson: A grading permit, I believe, was issued. The parking lot permit has not been. Holloway: Okay. Patterson: So hopefully ... Holloway: So, it should be in the works. Patterson: That's contingent on the City Council Approval, as well because we are modifying a section of that. Holloway: That's right. Patterson: So, I have been in contact with H2 and that's what we're waiting on there. Holloway: Good. So, we're working on that. So, just wanted to make sure that we're on the same track. And, of course, we are working on the amendment of the easements. Some of you may know how hard it is to get all of the utilities and everybody to sign off on all the easements but we are trying to do that. I think we have one more before we can say that we'll abandon Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 43 those easements. But, we are getting those. Other than, I'll answer any questions. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Holloway. Commissioner s? Graves: Well, I would agree on the need for a traffic signal. That intersection gets backed up all the way back out onto the highway. While I'm not certain that this particular project, the Senior Center, specifically or the next one, **** that situation and taking what you're saying as Gospel, that there's a need for a traffic signal out there already, I would say that certainly this Applicant **** out there on that campus has certainly contributed mightily to the need for that traffic signal. So, I'm not sure when the balance gets tipped and which smaller project on that campus might cause the traffic signal to actually get constructed. But certainly if the hospital weren't out there and all the services related to the hospital weren't out there, a lot of the traffic that's out there wouldn't be there. That's just, in my mind, a fact. So, I would be supportive of Staff's recommendations on Condition 3 for that reason. It's not necessarily that I disagree with you that it may not be this particular Senior Center or gym that's causing the situation. But, certainly the situation is there and the hospital, as a whole is a major factor. Holloway: No doubt about that. And, all the offices are across the street and whatever. Graves: Certainly. Holloway: Yeah. Ostner: Yes, I was going to ask you, I don't fully understand, it just sound to me that Staff is just asking for a cost estimate, right? Holloway: Right. Ostner: That doesn't seem like a big deal at all. Pate: We're actually asking ... we're going to look for a cost estimate for what it would take to construct a signal at that intersection. But, we're also requesting, as part of this Large Scale Development, one of the Conditions would be a full assessment for that signal. So, the Applicant would pay the City ... Ostner: Okay. Pate: ... prior to building permit, the cost of that signal. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 44 Ostner: Is that on down the line? I'm not ... Graves: It's not stated very well. But Number 3 ... Pate: Okay, full cost estimate and assessment, essentially. Ostner: Okay. Holloway: I think that was implied in the Tech Plat Review that it was going to be ... I guess you might say that it would be a requirement ... possibly a requirement. I guess that's the reason I'm defending it. Pate: If I might add to that too, the Traffic Study does show the traffic signal is warranted here. The Applicant always has the option to wait until the traffic signal has already been installed for this project. I don't know if there are any funds available for installing that traffic signal at this time. But, as part of any Large Scale Development, if the Planning Commission finds that a project would compound a dangerous traffic situation, that's a reason for denial of the project altogether. The Applicant could wait until a traffic signal is installed and then likely it wouldn't compound that dangerous traffic situation. So, they could wait until the City or State finds funds for that improvement or, as we're requesting, you could pay for that improvement so the project could go forward as scheduled and that improvement could be installed, likely with the installation of this restructure. Graves: And, that's the essence of my comment is that it's there and it's there in large degree to what's already happened out there and the other projects brought forth by this Applicant. And, this is certainly going to enhance that issue. It's certainly not going to make it better. It's going to make it more. So, I would be supportive of Condition Number 3, Staff's recommendation on that. Ostner: So would I. Lack: And, I would, as well. I think that it's not the straw that breaks the camel's back that requires the light, but the straw that added into the requirement that this Applicant contributes to this. So, as far as the Commercial Design Standards, I would go with Staff. I think that materials are largely in keeping with the rest of the park and that the articulation will have to be looked at to ****. Tape ends here. New tape starts. Sound quality bad not able to hear last of Lack's comment Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 45 Ostner: Before we phase into the Commercial Design Standards discussion, I would just like to say I am also in favor of Condition Number 3. As a general note, I'm not sure signalizing that intersection is the solution. I think it's a step. Turn lanes are crucial. People going forward will wait on left -turn people an inordinate amount of times. That intersection is failing in lots of directions and when it's accessed onto a ... I'm not sure of the speed limit there, at least 55, it becomes very dangerous. So, I would hope that the Highway Department ... I believe it's all highway right-of- way, as I understand it, would look very seriously at that. I would like for this money to be well spent to signalize an intersection that has a chance, rather than disassemble all the money you have spent ... and have to respend it. Holloway: I agree and I think that that's what the client is saying. One of the things that has been mentioned here is the fact that it's really not ... the hospital is there, but there are many other businesses around that area, and that it is a State Highway. And, I guess we were wondering if we ... I say we ... if the hospital, the client, would be responsible for renovating the entire intersection. Why should the hospital be responsible for that, I guess? Some of the other businesses and the State and whatever ... I don't know what's going to happen there ... I don't know at 5 o'clock or 3:30, they're already backing up clear out on 540. I don't know what's going to happen there. Ostner: I would have to somewhat disagree. I think this is a significant development. I think when your parking garage, which is our next Item, I believe, I think traffic is going to significantly pick up. I'm not blaming that intersection on you guys. I'm simply saying that I want your part of the solution to be money well spent. Holloway: Yeah. Well, I think you're right. I think ... I mean I don't think that they mind spending some money. It's just a matter of whether it's $100,000, $500,000. You know that's the thing. Ostner: I think the signalization is a fair ... Lack: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Yes? Lack: Just for informational purposes, the City of Fayetteville has received a $9,000,000 grant from the Federal Government to study this economic corridor, which includes Fulbright Expressway, I-540 and College. The goal of that was to improve access to the Northwest Arkansas Mall, CMN Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 46 Business Park and the hospital. So, this may be one of the areas that's addressed with that study. Ostner: It would be nice. Lack: It will begin later this year. Ostner: Wow. The study will begin? Lack: Yes. Holloway: Well, how will we address that through the Planning Commission and through this Number 3? Would we still ... Lack: We're still recommending the assessment for the light, though. Holloway: I guess what I'm asking is what is my responsibility before Planning? To get this cost estimate for a light? Is that right? Lack: Correct. Holloway: Okay. Pate: Not all of the other things that would be required. Because there will be other improvements here, as well. So, this will not pay for the full improvement of the intersection as the Chairman also mentioned, not the turn lanes that would be required. We're just recommending the cost of the light. The cost of other improvements at that intersection may come from other developments as we see them. Holloway: Just the cost of the light as the lanes are now, presently? Would that be right? Pate: Yes. Holloway: Okay, we can do that. Just wondered what we're responsible for. Ostner: I understand. What about the Commercial Design Standards? Holloway: Okay, you mean are you asking me? Ostner: Well, sort of asking the Commissioners. Graves: Well, Commissioner Lack has already stated ****. I agree with it. Sounds like you have been working on **** rendering **** elevations. I Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 47 would be comfortable forwarding it to the Full Planning Commission. It will go there anyway. **** and expect **** elevations at that point in time. Ostner: I would agree, specifically hint some of the things I see are lacking are the north and south elevations. The building's on an angle but these are the long sides showing towards North Hills. It's just a little bit lacking in articulation. The west elevation also, for me, is just one Commissioner speaking. You're going to have eight more to deal with. And, the north elevation of the gymnasium. As Mr. Lack mentioned, this is difficult because you've got almost all fronts ****. Holloway: That's right. Ostner: So, I look forward to different elevations at the Planning Commission. The last thing that I'm interested in is the parking and I'd like to hear from the Applicant and from Staff. The drive aisles are perpendicular to pedestrian traffic. We saw Malco the other night and we just saw a large church. I'm concerned ... when I use this parking lot and go into the new facility, I watch people walk between cars. That's not an ideal situation. People don't feel safe. Someone might open their door. They don't feel right. And, it's a lot better to turn it the way Wal-Mart does. You walk down the aisle. Have you considered that? Holloway: You're talking about over there? Ostner: Large parking lot in front of ... Holloway: Well, I guess we haven't considered that because we thought that the existing parking was going to remain the way it was. There ... Suzanne did mention this right here ... this area right here, the fact that we apparently did not have the 24 foot aisle there or we didn't have the 15 foot there so that we could put trees in there. Ostner: Is this already built. Holloway: Yes, it's already built. Ostner: I could not tell at this microscopic scale. That is what I was looking at. I apologize. Morgan: If you look on Sheet C.3, you can see that they've attached the new part ... that might be better. Ostner: That is a little better. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 48 Holloway: That's currently there. Ostner: Well, with a single load or two single loads, I can almost see running it like the ... I would prefer it to be turned the other way. Holloway: Turned this way? Ostner: So people wouldn't have to walk between all the cars. Holloway: We can look at it for you. Ostner: It would be safer. Lack: In that proportion, I think ****. Ostner: You might. Lack: I think that we are probably see a completely different parking plan because **** green space and ****. Holloway: She was saying that right here, that we would **** right here. Morgan: It will be on the east side. It looks like you have 15 feet from the right-of- way south but not along North Hills Boulevard. Lack: But, you will be adding 4 more feet to the parking lot site? Morgan: Yes, and the Applicant can potentially create some compact parking spaces. I don't know how many compact spaces there are on the site. Holloway: Actually none. Morgan: Okay. Ostner: I would tend to disagree that narrow driving aisles have their advantages. They make people more careful and they don't allow to zoom and relax, sort of the way we talk about narrowing streets. But, if their backing and maneuvering standards ... that's how we're going about this? Morgan: Just like with Malco, the Waiver to increase from 24 ... to have a lesser drive aisle than 24 ****. Ostner: Well, that was a little bit different. I thought we were talking about the driving lanes that no one backed out on. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 49 Morgan: Oh. Ostner: The sort of mini -streets, as I recall. Morgan: That's true but for any drive aisle. Ostner: Well, never mind that. Well, I would be interested in a different configuration. Is this is probably the most efficient because of the scale? Holloway: I'm sure it is. Ostner: If you all would take a look at it. I'm not going to vote against it. If it were this big, I would vote against it. I'm telling you. Graves: I have a question on Condition 1. This is based on the Applicant's comments. If the vacation does get Approved at the next City Council meeting, will it be on the next Planning Commission Agenda? Or, will it get to the one after that? ?: It will come before the next one. Graves: Okay. So, he won't be held up by the Committee. Holloway: Okay. Casey: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Yes. Casey: If I may, I'd like to add a Condition of Approval and Jerry's already aware of this. But, we'd like to have it as a Condition of Approval that the development process, that a Letter of Map Revision for the floodplain and floodway through the extent of the property. This was something that was processed when it was started a few years ago and never completed. It was asked for at that time and we would like to make it an official Condition. Holloway: Matt, are you saying that the Letter of Map Revision has to be completed prior to grading permit? Casey: No, just prior to C of O. Holloway: C of 0? Okay. Thank you. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 50 Casey: Holloway: Ostner: Holloway: Casey: Holloway: Casey: Holloway: Casey: MOTION: Lack: Ostner: Lack: Graves: Or at least in FEMA's hands. I understand they can take a few months to deal with. That's the problem right there. So, Mr. Casey has requested Condition Number 27, Letter of Map Revision for this property should be submitted to FEMA before the Certificate of Occupancy. By way of your information, it has already been submitted or is being submitted by Crafton and Tull. They did the first. So, it's a matter, really of waiting at this point in time. Has it been submitted including the new data with this Senior Center? I think so. Okay, that was the intent. I believe it has. At least they said they were getting ready to submit it. I can find out. Okay. Mr. Chair, I would like to move that we forward LSD 06-1960 with the stated Conditions of Approval and finding affirmative on Number 3 and negative on Number 2 and with the addition of a requirement for a Letter of Map Revision completed prior to the Certificate of Occupancy of this project. Does the Motioner agree with the change in Condition Number 3 to clearly state, "along with the assessment for this amount"? Yes, to revise that to state, "submit a full cost estimate and assessment for a traffic signal at this intersection". I'll Second. Ostner: Okay. And, I'll concur. Thank you. You might as well stay seated. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 51 LSD 06-1961: Large Scale Development (WRMC ADMIN SVCS BLDG., EMERGENCY SVCS, PARKING GARAGE, 211/212): Submitted by USI - ARKANSAS, INC. for property located at 3215 NORTH HILLS BLVD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 52.03 acres. The request is for a 64,068 s.f. Administrative Services Building, a 23,397 s.f. expansion to emergency services with reconfigured parking and parking garage. Ostner: The next Item is another Large Scale Development request, LSD 06-1961: Large Scale Development for WASHINGTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ADM SERVS BLDG, EMERGENCY SERVS, PARKING GARAGE. If we could have the Staff Report, please? Morgan: Yes. This requested Large Scale Development includes the expansion of **** as well as a central plan expansion. I believe that's where the mechanical equipment and such are located. There is also an addition of parking requested. Most of the Conditions of Approval and issues are similar to those which were discussed in the previous Large Scale Development and modifications can be made to Condition Number 3, to reflect a modification that was requested in the previous Large Scale Development. As for modifications to this, Staff is requesting that the parking Proposed, that there be some street connections or excuse me, some drive aisle connections **** parking area and I can certainly draw that out for you and the Applicant to see exactly what we're talking about. Some of the elevation boards are here and there's another one that I'll need to put up. We pretty much have similar comments with regard to elevation. The ASB building and the emergency building expansion will be very visible from the adjacent rights-of-way. The new parking garage will be somewhat screened by the existing vegetation that's out there. And, there's also a row of large species trees Proposed by the Applicant in order to screen the western side of that garage. We have a Condition of Approval stating that the Applicant shall screen and/or articulate any portion of the new parking structure that will be visible from the right-of- way. The ASB building is located up toward the right on the building setback **** several Senior Center structures. The Applicant has received a Variance from the Board of Adjustment to allow the structure of this height along the right-of-way that the variance was 27 feet, 7 inches from this portion of the ASB building **** height requirements. I'll go ahead and pass this over. Talking about the connections to the dropout. Ostner: Thank you. Engineering? Casey: I have no comments. Ostner: Okay. Tree and Landscape? Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 52 Patterson: Yes. My comments are similar to the last Large Scale that we saw. We need you to revise the Tree Preservation Plan to show just this section. Also, please add the fencing details so we can see where and if any of those trees, particularly the ones around the old pump site. You need to include the standard 15 notes with the diagram. And, Approval for this Large Scale Development is contingent on City Council Approval, which will be heard Tuesday, March 2151. Mitigation will be taken care of with this. There are some small trees that exist on the existing parking lot and within the expansion of the emergency room, those trees are currently being relocated to the other areas of the site. That's all. Ostner: Thank you. I will call for any Public Comment on this Large Scale Development. If anyone would like to speak to this, please step forward. Seeing none, I'll close the Public Comment section and bring it back to the Applicant. Holloway: Again, my name is Jerry Holloway and we're representing the client for ASB building parking garage. In addition to the Emergency Services area, generally I have the same comments that I had on the Senior Center and I welcome any comments you have. Ostner: Thank you, sir. Commissioners? Ostner: So, our elevations, are alt three of these boards? Morgan: The top elevation is the Administrative Building. The bottom is the parking deck. And then this is the addition to the Emergency Services area. And then, of course we have the expansion of the ... Holloway: It's the utilities mechanical area. Morgan: It shouldn't be very visible. Holloway: Actually, it's just this area right here. Graves: Do those elevations ... I mean when I'm looking at your comment on the Commercial Design Standards, you're recommending more articulation on almost all elevations. I want to make sure we target the right ones. And, if those are **** there, I don't necessarily ... Morgan: I would say that the emergency expansion and the extension to the existing hospital fairly meet or match what is there. Finding that this is pretty well articulated and this fence won't be very visible. I guess our main concerns are just the ASB Building and **** parking structure. It shouldn't be Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 53 incredibly visible. We don't believe, because of the existing vegetation situated on the property but we'll certainly be happy to entertain any comments you have on that. Graves: So, Commercial Design Standards will mostly **** on the parking deck? Morgan: Yes, that's right. Graves: So, as far as ... I mean we're already hashed out what Condition Number 1 and what the effect of that is. And, I still think the same thing of Condition Number 3. So, we're mostly looking at Number 2 and ... Holloway: On Number 2, the architect has already been aware of it again and they're working on that. Graves: Okay. Holloway: The articulation of the ASB Building and the parking deck. Morgan: If I may, I would like to also mention that as one of the comments in Tech Plat, you can see on the ASB Building, they have a mechanical screen on the top of the building. We recommended that to be somehow incorporated in the material with compatible structure. Lack: **** Morgan: I know it mentioned it in Tech Plat. Holloway: You do mention it here. I read it. Lack: Is part of the Administrative Services Building ... I think that **** is actually fairly close **** large office building that's consistent with the whole encompassed functions of the hospital. In my mind, you could possibly look at **** the hospital does. The differentiation in color that ... I think that it's actually fairly close. The garage ... I'm looking ... is that actually close to garage and will be consistent with the materials of the hospital? Holloway: I believe that's right. I'll have to ask the architect. Ostner: If he could come next time, it would be very helpful. Lack: I think that ... the trees ... while it does create a mitigating condition, I don't know that they factor into Commercial Design Standards. Are these Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 54 trees part of a contracted bunch of trees? Are these trees that are restricted from ****? Holloway: The trees in the west are in a Tree Preservation area and cannot be touched at all. Except for one ... there's ... the City Council is going to look at the 50 foot easement that's zoned actually to the north of where this parking garage and everything is. So, as far as on the west side, there are going to be trees that are not supposed to be cut or anything. And then, on the south side, we're going to plant trees there. They're not really shown there, but there will be some trees there. Lack: I think that that being a Tree Protection easement, there should be a little area to feel okay with it in that it's a screen that I can at least say that it does meet **** Commercial Design Standards. Ostner: I would really like to agree, but I can't. These trees are a step towards permanence. They can be negotiated. It's difficult but it does happen. I have to look at this building for me that it will outlast or could outlast that tree barrier. It's difficult to make a parking deck that passes our Commercial Design Standards. We went through this three nights ago. The brick helps. I think more needs to be done to this structure. The other buildings are close to passable to me. Mr. Lack mentioned some good additions that could help with those elevations. For me, the parking structure needs more significant improvements. So, I would like to see something pretty significantly different, if possible. Holloway: Let me ask you a question. On these elevations, do they need to be in by Monday? Pate: Typically, yes. For us to review revisions, they need to come in by Monday for us to get them to the Planning Commission. Holloway: Okay, we'll see if we can get them in. I don't know. Pate: I just want to add, too, and this is not for or against, our recommendation's been published already, but just want to add a component that if the parking deck is not constructed, then we're going to **** some more surface parking on this spot. So, I think it's a benefit to utilize structured parking. We have a deck here because there is so much parking need. I would rather not see more of the overall site covered by surface parking than already has been, obviously, but something that we encourage the use of that, especially with uses that require so much parking. And, I would hate to see every parking structure have to become ... have **** minor building prints that we discussed. So, I just want to kind of throw that out there for your consideration, as well. It's certainly difficult. I think it's Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 55 doable to have parking structures that meet Commercial Design Standards. But, it is a little bit ****. Ostner: Yeah, I would hope that my comments would not be construed as I don't want this building. I absolutely agree. Surface parking is a big problem in all cities. This is a good thing, build to the structure. Other things that have been drawn for us before are metal screens that don't look like the 70's. The brick is a good help. I do think that the big blocks ... that's really all I can see at this scale ... the shadow lines that are in **** on the drawing, are a help. But, they are often, when built, they just don't show. So, if this drawing were at a better scale for us to really look at it better, I might be able to see more of it. Those are just my comments. I don't want them to not build. I don't have any other issues unless you guys do. Graves: Could you guys try to bring material for us, too? That always helps, because I know that the hospital is not sort of this gold-ish color. Holloway: This is the Senior Center board. Graves: Right, and I'm saying something similar for like the parking deck. Holloway: Oh, okay. What they have is actually said that they wanted the same material as the hospital. That's the reason we did not do it. Graves: No, that's fine. I'm not chastising you for not having it today. It helps at the Full Planning Commission. Holloway: You want ... Graves: If you have a board when you get to Full Planning, that helps. Because sometimes these drawings come out looking a little different color than the building. Holloway: Okay. MOTION: Lack: Mr. Chair, I would like to move that we forward LSD 06-1961 to the Full Planning Commission, finding in the negative on Number 2, in the affirmative on Number 3, and with a note on Number 2 that our specific concerns are with the ASB and the parking garage and all other stated and amended Conditions of Approval. Ostner: Would the Motioner be willing to change Condition Number 3 again and to include the assessment as ... Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 56 Lack: Absolutely. Holloway: Yes. Lack: Number 3 should also include the assessment. Graves: I'll Second. Ostner: And, I'll concur. We're going to take a quick break before we proceed. We'll reconvene at 11:15. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 57 LSD 06-1979: Large Scale Development (THE SHOPPES @ STONEBRIDGE, 528): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL & ASSOC. for property located at NE CORNER OF HWY 16E AND STONEBRIDGE RD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 3.28 acres. The request is for 14,609 s.f. retail space. Ostner: Our next Item on our Agenda is LSD 06-1979: Large Scale Development for THE SHOPPES AT STONEBRIDGE. If the Applicant would come forward. We'll start with the Staff Report. Morgan: This property is located at the corner of Stonebridge Road and Huntsville. The property is currently developed, partially developed, rather where the Proposed building is located. There are two structures on the site right now with two curb cuts onto Huntsville Road. The Applicant Proposes a retail building of 14,609 square feet with two drive-throughs, with reconfiguring the current access point onto Huntsville with one access to Stonebridge. Should this potentially develop in the future, we would be looking at cross -access, establishing easements at that time. So, we don't have any additional curb cuts on these two streets. There are significant improvements planned at the intersection of Stonebridge and Huntsville in the near future. There is a traffic light assessment. This street established south of Huntsville. Staff recommends that this development be required to establish 18 feet from centerline of pavement, with curb, gutter and storm drains from the intersection through the curb cut onto Stonebridge Road, as well as other street improvements. This may require additional dedication of right-of-way on Stonebridge Road to have this turn lane at that location. With regard to buffering and screening, the Applicant is showing 12 -foot landscape buffer Proposed to be planted with some evergreens as vegetation along the north. This property is adjacent to Residential Single -Family to the north. At this time Staff is recommending Tabling of this Large Scale Development. A revised Site Plan was submitted and all materials were submitted as requested at Technical Plat Review. With regard to Commercial Design Standards, we have not had a material sample forwarded to review, however **** the Applicant has brought that. It is up here for your review. With regard to the elevations, Staff finds that the elevations of the south, east and west do meet Commercial Design Standards. The northern elevation is Proposed to be screened with vegetation only at this time. Staff recommends either further articulation of this elevation and/or installation of an 8 -foot wood board fence in combination with vegetation to screen the property adjacent Single -Family homeowner. With regard to Planning Commission determination of appropriate screening, Staff again is recommending additional screening to the north. We do have a Condition with regard to street improvements that: Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 58 A — The Applicant construct a 6 -foot sidewalk at the right-of-way for Stonebridge Road. B - That an assessment be paid for 8 -feet of new street, along with other improvements, as well as sidewalk along Huntsville Road. An assessment was requested to be submitted by the Applicant at Technical Plat Review and I have not seen that. I will be needing that in order to have a specific dollar amount. C — Establishing 18 -feet from centerline with improvements on Stonebridge. All other Conditions are fairly standard and there are several modifications requested. We are recommending Tabling and welcome any comments. Ostner: Thank you. Engineering? Casey: The only comment I have is ... and I apologize if it was a duplicate, 6 -foot sidewalk along State Highway. At the Plat Review, we ask that you show that and we're going to recommend that that actually be constructed. However, that recommendation is changing. The recommendation is going to be money in lieu instead. Bean: Okay, I noticed one of the comments was taken off. Casey: And, I apologize for that. It has been changed since our last meeting. Ostner: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. For Tree Preservation, I need you to revise the missing detail along the north property line. Right now it's currently shown along the line of the trees, but this is a Proposed utility easement, so that's impractical. If you could put the fencing along the property line to show that nothing happens across your property line. Mitigation trees cannot be located within utility easements or counted as landscape requirements. So, the trees that you're showing along the north property line as buffer cannot count as your mitigation. So, please just take a look at that, revise the Plan. If those trees can't be located on site, we're going to need to do a contribution to the Tree Escrow Account. Mitigation is required in the form of 24 2 -inch caliper large species trees, $6,000 deposited as money in lieu or a combination of the two. Please revise the Tree Preservation Plan to include a mitigation chart that specifies how many trees you're going to be able to put on site and the remainder that will be contributed into the Tree Escrow Account. That's all. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 59 Ostner: Thank you. Before we have the presentation, I will call for any Public Comment on this Large Scale Development request 06-1979, The Shoppes at Stonebridge. Seeing none, I'll close the Public Comment section and ask for the presentation now. Bean: Casey: Bean: My name is Steven Bean with Crafton, Tull and Associates, representing the owners along with Paul Hill the architect. Sarah, I apologize, there is some confusion on the Landscape Plan. I think I counted up. There are some mitigation trees there that we can take advantage on site for that buffer area but it's not very well established on that Plan, so I'll get that cleaned up. The sidewalk, the sidewalks that are out there, will it be okay if we remove those? Yes, I would recommend that. This is one the roadways that we've identified with our Proposed Transportation Bond Program. So, hopefully with that passing later on this year, we'll be seeing this under design and under construction. Thank you. This project is pretty straightforward. It's a 14,600 square feet strip -mall. Like Sarah mentioned, there are two existing warehouses on the property. This development will serve well the residents that are already there. We do want to take care of that buffering along the north side. If you look at the Landscape Plan, we're actually looking at a 6 -foot high fence. As far as some of the other comments from the Tech Review, I think some of those intended to be addressed. I think they may be just on a ****. So, I'm fine with Tabling if I could meet with Sarah on Monday or Tuesday. Morgan: Suzanne. Bean: I'm sorry, Suzanne. If I could meet with you early next week to go over some of the things that need to be specifically addressed and what needs to be on the Plan. But, I would entertain assistance from you all **** Commercial Design Standards. The main thing we're trying to do is to keep it **** scale. It is a linear site so ****. Part of the back building ... obviously we'd like to keep it as simple as we can being it is the back of the building. We'll try to screen the property to the north as best we can with the fence. There are drive-through **** into the building. The exact placement depth -wise of the drive-through to the sides of the building and on the final design **** where they can float all along the end of the building. It will also help break up the end of the building and not just be the flat -sided building. There are a rock colonnade along the front with a glazing wall behind that. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 60 Ostner: Thank you. I'll bring it back to the Commissioners for discussion. Ostner: My first question, since we're talking about this fence on the north side, is that a two-sided good neighbor fence or would you all be willing to build that? Bean: Yeah. Ostner: It would look as good from both sides, instead of one side being finished and one side being rough. Bean: Yes, yeah, definitely. Ostner: Okay. Bean: We would also be flexible on wherever you all would like the vegetation. Whatever your recommendation is. Ostner: From a screening standpoint and from good neighbor, it makes sense ... Bean: It would be close to the drive but that doesn't pose an issue. The trees are actually visible from the neighborhood side. It's nice to plant trees and only us ****. Ostner: I think there's merit to that. You don't want all your landscaping outside your privacy fence. But, I think I agree that it's a good thing to do. Any other comments or discussion? Lack: Bean: The only concern that I would have with that is maintenance of that area. That does then ... it puts out of sight of the owner of the shopping center and difficult to maintain with respect to the owner. So, as nice as I think it would be, because you're basically ... in moving that fence ... you're moving the effective yards of the people on the affected property adjacency. But maintenance could be an issue. That's true. That is a possibility but the buffer we're dealing with is 15 feet, I believe. 12 feet, so there's plenty of room to get a buffer in there. It is contingent on the owner maintaining but the front is the same situation and **** get to see it every day. I'll bet the neighbors would let us know. Lack: I hope so. They may even maintain it for you. Bean: With the Commercial Design Standards, my understanding is that this is not in an overlay district, this will be purely Commercial Design Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 61 Standards, which my understanding of that Ordinance ... that regulation is that it's **** up to the primary street facade. Morgan: That's correct. We feel like the east, west and south elevations are fairly visible, however the north is pretty ... we don't find that it is incredibly visible from the right-of-way. Lack: And, that's where I'm ... while the back is pretty dull metal, it's not something that I feel comfortable with the regulated Commercial Design Standards Ordinance. The other elevations, I think I could assess that they meet the intent of the Ordinance. I did have a question. With the drive- through that is shown, we're looking at a full canopy, which I would expect to see articulated on the end elevations ... Bean: It's not real clear, but it is depicted on there. Lack: So, there would be ... Pate: What ... Bean: I'm sorry, this is the canopy here. Lack: So, we would have a shadow line? Bean: Yeah. Lack: To this side and this side. Bean: Yeah. Which does help to further articulate that end bay. Lack: That would occur? Bean: Yes. This would be this bay. Morgan: If the Applicant could show that, maybe on the Site Plan, as well. Bean: All right. Show the columns and the ... Morgan: Yes. Lack: With that, I can feel comfortable with ****. Graves: I feel comfortable with them, as well for the same reasons. And, uncomfortable trying to regulate the back of the building with effect to putting a lot of requirements on there about articulation and would feel Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 62 more comfortable leaning on the requirement of screening and buffering between the Commercial Use and the Single -Family neighborhood. Ostner: Yeah, I would completely agree. I think it's a nice structure for a linear retail development. (TAPE ENDED — SIDE B STARTS HERE) Pate: ... primarily for ... if you flip over to Page 4, there are about 17 Items there that haven't been addressed, as well as on the Landscape Revisions from Technical Plat Review, there are about 11 issues. I believe that's what we were referring to earlier, that we need to sit down and make these revisions subsequent to Plat and everything in place. Ostner: I was understanding that materials were the only holdup, so ... Pate: The other concern is where driveways are located across Huntsville and while we don't want to create conflicts, at this point, we can't see where those are. We requested those be placed on the Plat. We haven't been able to see where those are yet. So, that might shift a little bit. We just want to make sure that it's a safe situation. Ostner: Okay. Bean: So, this Number 14, these listed Items are the only ones that are lacked on Tech Review? Because I was under the impression entire Condition of Approval. Pate: All of the Conditions ... some of them ... Bean: Some of them have been addressed but ... Pate: Correct. Some of them have been addressed. Condition Number 15 also references the Landscape Report and that's also in this. There are about Items there that also need to be addressed. Bean: I had some questions about some of this. Just so I understand, you had suggested forwarding onto Planning Commission, will this not be Approved at Subdivision level? Ostner: Well, I was actually wanting to Approve it today. Bean: Okay. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 63 Ostner: So, what I would be more in favor of is Tabling, coming back here, and then Approving. Bean: Absolutely. Ostner: And not having to go on Monday night. MOTION: Graves: I move to Table Large Scale Development 06-1979. Lack: I Second. Ostner: And, I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 64 LSD 06-1939: Large Scale Development (BELLAFONT II, 175): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located N. OF JOYCE BLVD., S OF BELLAFONT GARDENS. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 25.30 acres. The request is for a mixed use development with 99 residential units containing 160 bedrooms and 325,168 s.f. of retail, restaurants, and offices. Ostner: Our next Item is LSD 06-1939: Large Scale Development for BELLAFONT II. If the Applicant could come forward and if we could start with the Staff Report, please. Garner: This property is located on the north side of Joyce Boulevard and west of Vantage Drive. It's zoned C-3, Central Commercial. It was rezoned from R -O, C-2 to C-3 in January of 2006. The property contains approximately 25 acres and is surrounded by Commercial and Residential Office. The zoning immediately to the west is Lindsey Tower Office Building and to the east is the United States Post Office. The Applicant Proposes a Mixed -Use development with restaurant space, retail space, office space and condominium towers, with a maximum of 99 residential units. The Proposed building breakdown is shown on Page 2 on your Report and the square footages and the number of stories of the buildings are depicted there. This development would provide direct vehicular access to Vantage Drive and Stearns Streets, which are accessed to Joyce Boulevard through Phase I of Bellafont, which has already been Approved. Right-of-way dedication would require 35 -feet from centerline along Vantage Drive, collector and a minimum of 50 -feet right-of-way for Steams Street west of Vantage Drive and a minimum of 25 feet from centerline along the future of Stearns Street right-of-way east of Vantage Drive, along the northern border of the property. Stearns Street's future extension is shown there. The Applicant has submitted a Plat showing Proposed street improvements. They are based on a Traffic Study, which was prepared for this project. I won't get into the traffic improvements, other than as far as what Staff is recommending. In regard to Tree Preservation, the site has approximately 56% tree canopy and would preserve 14.3% and would therefore require 121 2 -inch caliper trees for mitigation. Staff is recommending forwarding this to the Full Planning Commission. There are no Waivers requested. Technically, it would be Approved by the Subdivision Committee, but due to the large size ... I believe the largest Large Scale Development the City of Fayetteville has seen, we did feel like it warranted Full Planning Commission review. In regard to Conditions of Approval, Condition Number 1 is determination of Commercial Design Standards and compatibility with surrounding development. The Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 65 elevation board is there depicts a concept of what they are looking at and they also have a packet there. We are finding in favor of Commercial Design Standards. Condition Number 2 is Determination of Street Improvements. This is a rather lengthy list. I'll kind of hit some of the highlights of these: In Joyce Boulevard and Vantage Drive, we're recommending that this Applicant pay the remainder of the costs of a traffic signal at that intersection and widen Joyce to 12 feet on the north side, adding eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes. Also, to widen Vantage Drive 6 -foot on the west side, adding southbound through left -turn lane. The project's entrance onto Joyce Boulevard, we're recommending pay 50% of the cost for a traffic signal at that intersection and adding 12 feet on the north side of Joyce Boulevard for an eastbound left -turn lane. Joyce Boulevard, east of the Lindsay Office Tower, in between the site and Lindsay, we're recommending widen 12 -feet on the north side with a center turn -lane. At Steams Street and Joyce Boulevard intersection, we're recommending widening Stearns Street 12 -feet on the north side and 1 westbound right -turn lane. At Vantage Drive, along the frontages, widen 6 -feet on each side, adding bike lanes and a stripe for a center turn - lane. We are recommending connecting Stearns Street as it's the right-of-way along the northeastern property line. There's a 25 -foot right-of-way half on this property and half on the property to the north. We are recommending construction that street section, using existing fees and funds to have them pay for that and doing the remainder. This is also in the Mudd Creek bridge assessment area and we're recommending payment fees for that. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 66 Ostner: Casey: Condition Number 3 is referencing the Stearns Street connection. We did some research and looked at Meeting Minutes and the Final Plat for Zion Valley and it was planned and financed and dedicated right-of-way for that street connection. We do find that it is appropriate to make that connection with this development. Those are the main Conditions I wanted to bring your attention to. Additionally, this is adjacent to residential zoning to the north, so a buffer strip would be required along the northern property line. That can consist of existing vegetation in addition to being supplemented by additional landscaping. I'd be happy to answer questions you might have. Okay. Thank you. Engineering? I apologize. We don't have the assessment numbers at this meeting but we will have them for you by the time of Full Planning Commission. That will include the remaining amount of the assessment for the traffic signal, as well as the bridge assessment. We've got traffic counts, with the Traffic Study that they have provided. However, they don't allow for the street to extend on to the south across that bridge. So, we'll have to take some numbers and evaluation what we think might potentially go route that's connected. That's the cause for the delay. That's all that I have at this time. Pate: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Yes. Pate: I'd just like to add real quickly to the discussion about the Stearns Street ... I believe all the other improvements ... the majority of the other improvements are shown on 3, 4 of this packet are the ones that are outlined there ... in Condition Number 2, with the exception of G, which is the construction of Stearns Street. In 1996, Staff made a recommendation to the Planning Commission that Zion Valley Estates, which is directly to the north, dedicate right-of-way on basically half of their property and put up a bond or Letter of Credit for construction of that connecting street. It was a collector street at that time on the Master Street Plan. The official requirement was a 31 -foot street. That was our street section at that time. The Planning Commission decided not to go with that recommendation and instead required the developer to actually construct that full street. In 1997 the Applicants came back to the Planning Commission and asked for a reconsideration of that because it would be hard to construct half of the street at that time. That would probably be dangerous to construct half of a street for that neighborhood to utilize. The Planning Commission reconsidered that and went along with Staff's original recommendation to Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 67 submit a Letter of Credit. It was approximately $74,000 at that time for half a street and to dedicate half that right-of-way. At the time of Final Plat for Zion Valley Estates to the north, that right-of-way was dedicated and Staff collected a Letter of Credit. So, since 1999, we've actually been updating that, based on the Construction Cost Index. We did it again this year to have that Letter of Credit. It was very clear at that point in time but that the street would be connected when adjacent development occurred, that that street would connect to the west to allow for connectivity between Old Missouri Road and Vantage. So, that's the reason for our recommendation. The collector street status in 2001, I believe, was removed from that street. So, it's not going to be a 3 -lane street through that neighborhood. It would simply provide a cross -access essentially, as opposed to driving approximately 1 1/2 to 2 miles from the end of Stearns Street now to get out to Old Missouri and go through the Joyce intersection at Zion Road and come back to this location. It will allow for much less strain movements, much less impact on the existing infrastructure to create this western connection. So, that's the basis for our recommendation. Ostner: Thank you. Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. I have several Conditions of Approval. We need you to relocate the construction materials storage and concrete truck washouts that's currently Proposed for the area where the pool and parking is going to be. There are areas of Preservation right where that is specified. Please revise the Tree Preservation Plan and Landscape Plan to reflect the changes in detention. That canopy calculation should match those in my report, which are the ones that we've agreed upon. Any tree that's marked for preservation needs to have something around the drip line, specifically trees T-7, T-2 and T-3. They're shown. I think you are planning to preserve them but there's no fencing. There's a small area of fencing that's currently Proposed on the west side of Vantage. I would not support this area for preservation, if it is one that you are trying to protect. There is a sidewalk and an 8 -inch waterline going through it. Several large, significant trees are found on the west property line. I might also add that this is the property that you joined with the Lindsay Development. That is a Tree Preservation area. You are showing Tree Protection fencing along the property line but I'd also like a note to be added that root pruning and trimming shall take place before any construction in the area. I believe the mitigation number that Andrew originally read was incorrect. Mitigation is required to replace 6,601 square feet of canopy. This is equivalent to 31 2 -inch caliper trees, rather than 101. Staff recommends these trees be planted on site and the street tree plants go on the rights-of-way. A 3 -year Maintenance and Monitoring Bond, Letter of Credit or Check in the Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 68 Ostner: Washburn: Ostner: Thompson: Hennelly: Maddox: Thompson: amount of $7,750 shall be deposited with the City before issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. Okay, thank you. At this point I will call for any Public Comment. Please introduce yourself and share your comments with us. I am Chris Washburn. My mother owns the house at the end of Stearns Street, 1715 East Stearns. We're concerned about the continuation of Stearns Street going through. I've talked to Jeremy earlier this week. I understand the benefits of connecting Stearns to Vantage. From a homeowner's standpoint, I think there's going to be a considerable amount of traffic, more so than there is exiting Steams onto Old Missouri at the present time. I think we're going to drain that whole subdivision up to Zion Road, Old Missouri, down off that one exit off of Stearns Street onto Vantage. Basically, we're going from probably the house with the least traffic going in front of it out to possible most traffic. So, at this point ... I know I've asked a couple of people with the Planning Department to possibly locate a petition that had been circulated back when the Bellefont Gardens was Zion Valley Estates. I believe there had been a petition circulated at that point amongst the homeowners presently in that area. And they were also, at that time, against continuation of Stearns Street. Thank you. Any more Public Comment. I'll close the Public Comment section and bring it back to the Applicant to make his presentation. Would you introduce yourself and give us your presentation? I'm Jeremy Thompson with H2 Engineering. Tom Hennelly with H2 Engineering. I'm Bob Maddox with PSA Dewberry Architects. We're in agreement with the majority of the comments that have been reviewed so far. We would just like to draw your attention to a couple of items that we wanted to discuss. Most of them are on street improvements and extension of streets. Item 2 on the Comments that it covers the street improvements on Joyce and Vantage and the extension of Steams. Item Number C on there mentions the widening of Joyce and we would like to discuss cost sharing with the City for that. We have been in discussion with Staff, as well as some members of the **** on that Item so we would like for that to be amended. Also, Matt already mentioned the bridge assessment area that we would be able to nail down what those fees might be. That was one area of concern but it looks like he's going to take care of that. The other Item is the extension of Stearns. It's already been mentioned that we are opposed to that. We did receive this morning some Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 69 letters from the Bellafont Gardens President of the POA, addressing the extension. I've got a copy of that for each of you to review. They are also opposed to that extension. The only other Item we had, Condition Number 9 mentioned the dedication of 25 feet of right-of-way along the northeastern property line, also the extension of Steams and we'd also like to ... get all this taken care of with Stearns at one time and not do that, as well if the extension is not required. Also, Sarah mentioned when she was discussing the landscaping and trees, changes in the canopy numbers based on detention. Right now we're showing two detention ponds, one on the east side and one on the northwest corner, as well as underground detention. A few days ago we received word that detention will not be necessary on the site. We'll be submitting a report either Tuesday or Wednesday of next week for Staff to review at that time. Hopefully the next Plan will show you we're not **** detention. That's where the adjustments to the tree canopy numbers come into play. That's really all the comments we have right now. We would request Approval of the subdivision. Ostner: Thank you. Commissioners? Lack: I think that Stearns Street ... I had noticed on the location map that there is a street that kind of dives into the site. Is that Stearns street ... Pate: Yes. Lack: Okay, because I didn't see that on the Plat and I had wondered why that street had not been connected as it was dead -ended into the site. It seems logical to me to want to use that street connection to be able to go through that area and increase the variety of ways to get people in and out of sites. We have a lot of people on this site. I think we can probably **** throw that out. I think that ... I'm interested in the requirement for no detention, where that comes from. Hennelly: The location of this site and it's proximity to the **** of the drainage way that runs through the site or on the southern portion of it, and the confluence of it and Mudd Creek, that is similar to other projects we've had where while the runoff from this site would certainly increase due to development, along the Mudd Creek tributary we would actually be increasing by detaining that water, holding it back, we would be increasing the peak flow at Mudd Creek, whereas if we were allowed to release the water, get it downstream, before the larger watershed of Mudd Creek hits that confluence, then we can actually reduce the peak flow as opposed to increasing it. We did an analysis of the entire watershed. We're writing up the final parts of that Drainage Report right now. We did submit this with detention to show that sure enough, it was possible to Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 70 do that. I understand this is a little unusual in that we're being credit for canopy in an area we're shown has detention on it. But, in fact, we'll have that Drainage Report to you probably Monday or Tuesday, I think. Lack: Have you discussed that with Ron Petrie? Hennelly: Haven't discussed it with Ron. Talked to Brent about it and Ron may have been informed casually just in a conversation but no formal discussions with him. Lack: Okay, well that Approval will need to come through him. Hennelly: Okay. I guess we won't be ... certainly be within the Ordinance, won't be increasing the levels of frequency of inundation downstream properties. And so, there shouldn't be any problem with that. Lack: And, I think I keyed into that in your presentation. When I look at the site and specifically the site to the southwest, and see the vast amount of ****, that those areas kind of surprised me with the appearance of the wash area that the renderings and everything present. Those areas seemed somewhat cold and a lot of hard surface, which I was concerned was contributing to a greater amount of drainage in this area. I don't know if you can tell me if there's other materials blend in there or if we are looking at a expensive plaza. Hennelly: It's quite an elaborate plaza. It's got a European flair. It's got trees and planting beds and fountains and a number of things in there. We don't have that Landscape Plan with us but we do have Hal Van Kuring as our landscape architect. They have an office here in town. And it's a quite extensively developed landscaping on the entire shopping village and also in front of the office buildings. Thompson: We can certainly have that Plan to you with the revision submittal. There are some Plat changes. I didn't know they were part of the Conditions. We can resubmit that Landscape Plan, as well and try to give you a better idea of what's being planned. Maddox: Tom, I think one other thing you might want to show where the actual termination of the west end of Stearns Street is in the neighborhood. I think the vicinity map shows it in error there where it shows it turning on down to ****. Hennelly: Right, it actually terminates here. A couple of things we'd like to add to the discussion, when that Master Street Plan was developed, the zoning, you guys remember we recently had this rezoned to C-3, which allowed Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 71 for higher buildings than what was allowed in the C-2. Subsequently, the density and traffic generation, that type of thing, have gone up with this property, which I don't think was foreseen when the discussions of Zion Valley were going through about extending Stearns through there. I'm not sure anybody anticipated this amount of traffic. The far eastern edge of Stearns looks like a runway. It's flat, it's straight and I believe it was built with the old 31 foot -wide standard. So, it kind of lends itself to high speeds. That whole neighborhood area, while there are homeowners there, there are quite a few renters there. Those are primarily younger families. They have kids. We don't feel it's appropriate to connect something of this magnitude to a residential street like that. Normally, we are certainly proponents of connectivity and have been on nearly every other project we've brought through. This just doesn't seem like a good idea to us. And, we are going to extensive efforts on other parts of the project to increase and improve traffic flow through there with the widening of **** Street, Vantage Street, turn lanes at Stearns, that type of thing. Ostner: I understand but the situation with Steams seems awkward. I would still think that a connection would be good for all. Some measures on that 31 - foot section might need to be taken. Traffic will pick up but I would hope that more of those occupants, whether they are owners or renters, could use this facility along that road. They could walk to this restaurant, hopefully walk to one of these offices. So, there are a lot of other opportunities to be gained. Hennelly: Right, and we did initially ... I can't remember if it was the initial submittal or early discussions with Staff, Propose a connection, a more discreet connection to this project off of one of the drives that comes around the back side of the condominium complex, up and onto Stearns, without making a direct full street width connection through here, which would allow the residents here to easily access this and would inhibit or discourage any through traffic. We felt like that was an appropriate measure. It did allow for the people that lived there to get to it, it was discreet, not everybody would know about it, and would be almost inconvenient to use for anybody other than the people that lived on that street. But, that never went anywhere. Ostner: Well, I understand. This offset that Stearns is doing here ... Hennelly: Uh, huh. Ostner: ... it would seem to me since that's off the table ... Hennelly: Right. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 72 Ostner: ... it's not required. Hennelly: Right. Ostner: Okay. If Stearns didn't offset down, and sort of stayed where it was, and made a gentle sort of feather into this, that this could almost be another of your really nice corridors. If you've got a nice corridor here ... I know this street's already planned and it's ready for heavy traffic, you've really faced all your streets nicely. I just wish that that could turn into more of a proud opportunity than having to connect with it discretely. That is a good idea for a certain ... in my opinion ... a certain aspect would be accomplished. Not everybody would know about it. But, in my opinion, people need to know about it. Traffic out there is really, really tough. And, these lights are basically organizing the chaos. And, I think that can really help relieve ... give people options. And, Old Missouri is signalized at Joyce and the intersection at the north end of Old Missouri with Zion has been improved. So, those are streets that could really alleviate both of these, which you guys are having to work on, well, so far. Graves: 1 was going to suggest that you offset it **** Stearns. Ostner: Well, this ... Thompson: Stearns is already ... this is ... Ostner: Oh, excuse me. I did not know that. I though you all were Proposing that. Hennelly: Yeah, that was connected ... I believe Lindsay did that when they did their apartment complex, they connected that portion of Stearns. Ostner: Okay. Well, the essence of the comment remains that I think it does to be visible more. Graves: Is Staff wanting it to be a straight connection or part? In other words, an offset, where you would have to stop at Stearns, go up, **** and turn back onto Stearns? Ostner: Correct. Pate: In our discussions with trying to link it directly in the commercial component, I believe those are the two 16 -story towers there, we would not want to encourage those drivers necessarily ... because they are single- family neighborhood, which is why we recommended to just continue on with the existing right-of-way that's in place and not necessarily connect into the commercial component but would allow for connectivity between Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 73 the two ... like you mentioned, if someone worked there or wanted to go to that restaurant as opposed to doing the traverse all the way around Joyce, Zion and Vantage. Graves: And I would be supportive of that, as well. When I was picturing this as some sort of straight connection through that neighborhood, that had concerns for me too and ... but if it's offset like that, I think the connection is needed. I think the City kind of committed to make that connection and committed the developers, who started the process, to make it and that when this particular piece of property developed, that it would go on through. The offset causes me ... it helps my mind with some of the concerns about the neighborhood, the residential areas that it would connect to. Because you have to take some time and trouble to make some turns and everything and cut through and in the end you're going to end up on Zion Road. Ostner: Old Missouri. Graves: I'm sorry, Old Missouri. And, I'm not sure that anybody that's coming from the other way ... I mean some will use it that way but you still end up at the same place at the end. You end up on Joyce. Ostner: It's basically being able to avoid that intersection or that one. Graves: Right. It helps to do this without everybody coming from ... Ostner: Right. Graves: But, I don't know that it necessarily is advantageous to somebody who's trying to use it as a cut -through from the east side of town because they still end up on Joyce any way they go. Lack: Well, I think the offset is important and does help to **** middle ground. It does helps protect the neighbors in the area but still provides the access. Hennelly: Okay. We would like for you guys to ... I don't know if this is unusual or not ... for you guys to maybe make some sort of recommendation on the possibility of City cost-sharing on the improvements. We've got that currently shown from the Post Office all the way to Arvest Bank, 12 -feet widening. It's not just paving and widening. It's also extending the box culverts that go under Joyce, as well as under Vantage, including modifications to the intersection of Stearns and Joyce for left and right- hand turn -lanes. The amount of frontage that this property has on Joyce Street ... and we fully understand the impact that this development has on traffic that certainly improvements are warranted ... but we are a bearing Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 74 Maddox: Hennelly: the cost, basically of two traffic signals, half of one if Proctor and Gamble comes in across the street like they plan on. We have coordinated with them to match up the entrance to this to the entrance on their property. The City has been taking money ... aware the signal advantage has escalated, the first one to be installed in 2006, but if I remember right, $25,000 has been assessed so far. I'm not sure of the amount. I think it's about $25,000 of $110,000 Signalization Project. So they're being required to pay basically 3/4 of that, in addition to the full construction. I just think that with the frontage that we have along Joyce Street, the other outstanding property that's out there that's to be developed, Liberty Bank and Proctor and Gamble, and the property west of Chambers, that while there may not be a mechanism in place to assess those projects after the improvements are done, it is important to do those improvements at one time just to keep from chaos from happening on that street. It's already in bad enough shape. Improvements are needed now. But the ... being able to get in there and do it all at one time and manage that traffic and get construction finished and get out of there, we think is important. Ostner: I'm not sure we really have a lot to say about that. Hennelly: Right. Ostner: That would be the City's checkbook and we don't ... we really can't speak to much of that. Hennelly: Okay. Ostner: We need to really stick to the brick and mortar of what's required and you'll have to take your issue up with them. Hennelly: I'm assuming that if this is Approved, with the improvements to Joyce Street that we submitted to you guys, Andrew, that those will be required. How they're paid for will still be a matter of debate. Is that right? Pate: Typically, what the Planning Commission Approves is what the developer is required to build at their costs. We've discussed this matter with the City Engineer and we're not interested in supporting a cost -share at this point. You can always take that up. It would probably need to be done, though, before the Planning Commission decided on these improvements. If the Planning Commission wanted to recommend to the City Council consider a cost -share, I think that's something that they could do. But, as Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 75 far as the amount, that's something that Chairman or Commissioners, you're exactly right. They don't need to be involved with that portion. We are recommending based on the Traffic Study, based on the 600,000/700,000 square feet of office/restaurant/retail/residential uses here, it's going to have a significant impact to intersections even beyond this property that we haven't discussed. And, these are the recommendations that we're making at this time. Hennelly: And, I would not expect you all to commit to a cost or anything but merely make a recommendation that, yes, this will be considered. What I don't want to have happen is what's happened to a project where you've got a developer coming back saying hey, I thought you were going to help us pay for this. We understand that those improvements need to be made but we don't want anybody thinking that hey, if the Council decides not to assist in cost -share then so be it. The developer can either continue with the development and pay for it or not. But, I would like it known that we would like some sort of consideration to take that to Council to help offset those costs. Ostner: I think if you really want to know for sure, we can't put the cart before the horse and you need to hold off on this Final Approval until you've gone down that road and gotten your answer. I mean once this Approval is granted, as Mr. Pate mentions, it's binding. And, changing that requires backing up. So, it's really up to you. We can keep going. You might want to submit to Council, as this process goes along and not let this get Approved until you've got your answer. But, that's really the best we can offer. Graves: All we can do is put the Conditions in place and Approve them and there's implied in that, responsibility. Ostner: That's true. Graves: I think that in the past, we've said on the record before that we're forwarding this and recommending that City Council consider a cost - share. But, ultimately, even in those cases, it's been the developer's responsibility on those Conditions to pay for them. Hennelly: That's really all we're looking for is that there be a consideration suggested, understanding that if Council says no, the cost is borne by the developer. Ostner: I don't recall something of that situation. I remember there being a vacation be granted. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 76 Graves: No, we've actually said on the record before where we've said we hope the City will consider a cost -share on this. Usually it's been with Staff's support, though. I don't know that we've ever done it where Staff has already told us specifically that they're not interested in supporting that. So, I'm not sure how that idea will go over at the Full Planning Commission. Hennelly: But, we'll have a much better idea of how that's going to be pursued when this goes to the Planning Commission. Ostner: Commercial Design Standards, if there are no other comments. We don't want to beleaguer the subject. And, it's these short ones, too, that we're looking at. Pate: When we've done such a large project reviewing all four sides of every one of these buildings would be ... well, we'll be here very much longer than the afternoon ... what we've done is included a Condition of Approval. I think that by these elevations, we understand the concept, materials and actually in a lot more detail than we did when the zoning came through. I believe that was the image that was shown at the zoning and now we actually have elevations shown and some materials called out. We did include a Condition of Approval ... which number is that ... 5 and 7, basically each side of each building shall be reviewed at time of building permit to insure compliance with the Commercial Design Standards and that would include compatibility between all the different buildings, utilizing similar materials and elements. And, the same thing with basically the overall Site Plan ... again it's such a large project that at the time of Building Permit, we will have to do a detailed evaluation to insure everything is just meeting Code Requirements. Those are both sort of trying to address the large nature of this project. Ostner: Have a review of all Site and Landscape Plans. Pate: Correct. Ostner: And, you're inferring in there that the Commercial Design Standards will be further scrutinized? Pate: Number 7 refers more to Commercial Design Standards. Ostner: Oh, excuse me. Okay. Pate: We reviewed basically the Preliminary Plans that you have in front of you, which is typical and tried to make all the comments that we see. But, obviously, besides of Engineering, there's Construction Plan Review and Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 77 sometimes things have to be shifted a little bit. We'll expect that on this Plan, as well. But, beyond that we are supportive of the Commercial Design Standards. Ostner: When you made your presentation, you mentioned Stearns to the northeast, you were requesting a cost -share and there was a third item. Hennelly: I mentioned Item Number 9. Part of that talks about 25 -feet of centerline along the northeastern quadrant ... Ostner: Okay. Hennelly: ... along here. But, I guess whether or not Steams gets extended or not, that's no longer needed. Thompson: I believe they're talking about the right-of-way dedication here if the extension is required, then obviously that right-of-way dedication ****. Ostner: So, that's part of the other issue. Pate: They can tie those a little better together so that if one is found not ****. Ostner: Well, Staff has recommended ... I believe that we can go ahead and forward this. Do you all think this is ready for the Planning Commission? Pate: I'll just request those further revisions, at least an exhibit so that everyone can kind of see if Stearns Street did come through, how it affects this development and what connection would make between Old Missouri and Vantage. I think that would just be helpful for them to at least make a determination of ... right now we have sort of pieces of a couple of different developments. Ostner: If you could also grab these two intersections that are coming off the Plan as a big drawing. Hennelly: We did submit just Joyce Street improvements that do show those. Pate: Page 3 and 5. Ostner: There they are. Hennelly: And, it does show all the way up to Stearns. Ostner: Yeah, if something even larger were to grab Old Missouri and show some sort of crude sketch connection, it would be helpful. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 78 Patterson: Chairman? Ostner: Yes. Patterson: I just would like to state that the Tree Preservation values, the mitigation values, numbers are contingent on the City Approving the removal of the detention ponds. Hennelly: We'll have that report for you, I think, Tuesday at the latest. Graves: Which Condition is that? Pate: Really, it's the amount of mitigation in Condition 20. It states 31 and obviously if detention is required and the City Engineer does not allow for that to go away, then the canopy numbers would go back down. Ostner: So, the way it's stated here is contingent on the ... Patterson: Cities Approval. Ostner: ... Cities Approval of the removal of the detention. MOTION: Graves: For the reasons stated by Staff, I'm going to move that it go to the Full Planning Commission because of the size. I know you asked in your presentation for us to Approve it here and technically we could but I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it. And so, I will move to forward LSD 06-1939 to the Full Planning Commission with the stated Conditions of Approval and a finding on Number 1 in favor of Commercial Design Standards. On Number 2 in favor of Staff's recommendations, as well as on Number 3. And, amending Number 20 as suggested. Lack: Ostner: I Second that. And, I'll concur. Thank you. We'll see you later. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 79 LSD 06-1974: Large Scale Development (THE ARBORS AT SPRINGWOODS, 286): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING,INC. for property located at LOT 2 OF SPRINGWOODS PZD. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 25.24 acres. The request is for 122 multi- family dwelling units. Ostner: The next Item is LSD 06-1974: Large Scale Development for THE ARBORS AT SPRINGWOODS. Would the Applicants come forward? We can start with the Staff Report. Garner: Sure. This property is located in west Fayetteville. It's north of Moore Lane and east of Deane Solomon Road. It's identified as Lot 2 of Springwoods PZD. The property is currently undeveloped. There are a few scattered trees along the property line. To the east is undeveloped Springwoods Subdivision. To the south is large lot residential. Regarding the Parkland Dedication Requirements, the Park Recreation Advisory Board is recommending a full lane dedication to satisfy Parkland Dedication Ordinance. The dedicated lane will be located at the Well Springs PZD and will be used to establish trail corridors, connecting the Parkland at Well Springs to the future **** Creek Trail. Staff does recommend Approval of this Large Scale Development, 06-1974, with Conditions of Approval. Condition Number 1 is Subdivision Committee determination of street improvements. Staff recommends the following improvements: Condition Number 1-A is widening Deane Solomon Road to Master Street Plan standards for a collector street along the project frontage and to tie into the existing improved street section to the north. Continue the street improvements on the east side of Deane Solomon south to the intersection of Moore Lane and Deane Solomon. Condition Number 1-B is to improve Moore Lane to Master Street Plan standards along the project frontage along the northern side of the road and complete a minimum 20 -foot pavement -only street section from the southwest corner of the property to Deane Solomon Road, including westbound left -turn lane at the intersection of Deane Solomon and Moore. Condition Number 1-C is to construct Moore Lane to a full 50 -foot right-of-way Master Street Plan street section, a 28 -foot street east to Shiloh on both sides of the street with full street Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 80 improvements. Shiloh is currently improved on the north side of the street and this improvement would be for the south side for the majority of the length. An other Condition to note is Condition Number 3, that a Conditional Use Permit would be required prior to issuance of a building permit for the neighborhood swimming pool and clubhouse. Also, this development is subject to all applicable covenants at the Springwoods Subdivision, which is Condition Number 4. There are a couple of minor Plat Revisions to be addressed. Those are all the issues I wanted to cover. Ostner: Engineering? Casey: Engineering Staff will be recommending the cost -share on this one. It will be for waterline extension along the frontage of Deane Solomon Road. We will continue the 12 -inch grid we're trying to create in the area. One comment, Tom, the detention pond on the northwest side is ... it's hard to tell from this Plan, but it may be encroaching in that easement, still. We just need to make sure at the time of the construction drawing, that no part of that pond is within those easements. Hennelly: Right, I think the ... are you talking about the existing sewer line easement? Casey: Yes. Hennelly: Yeah. That is going to be realigned. That sewer is going to have to be abandoned and relayed. We couldn't quite make it work. A new easement will be dedicated and it will be outside that easement. Casey: Are you talking about that gravity main or the force main? Hennelly: The gravity main. Casey: Okay, I was looking at the force main at the northwest side, as well. Hennelly: Okay, well we'll make sure that all that all grading is outside that. Casey: Thank you. That's all. Ostner: Tree and Landscape? Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 81 Patterson: Yes. I'd ask that you revise the fencing detail along the east property line so that it follows the utility easement. The interior tree that you have marked for preservation, if you would have the fencing follow the limits of disturbance, rather than the drip line of the trees. There is currently 1.81% canopy on this site. All is marked for preservation, so no mitigation is required. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I'm going to call for any Public Comment. If anyone wants to speak to this Large Scale Development request, please step forward. Seeing none, I'll close the Public Comment section and bring it back to the Applicant. Please introduce yourselves. Hennelly: Tom Hennelly with 112 Engineering. Von Gremp: Jim Von Gremp ****. Hennelly: Really again, the only discussion we have as far as the Conditions of Approval are concerned are related to street improvements. This morning was really the first I've seen of any discussion of any improvements. I'm a little bit surprised at the extents of them. Basically, they're requesting that we complete the construction curb, gutter, storm drainage with the rest of Deane Solomon all the way south of Moore Lane, an additional 300 -feet from what we had Proposed so as not to create an incomplete section of unimproved street, which there has been there for quite some time. We do anticipate at some point in time that corner, particularly with all the developing going on around it, will become developed, more than likely in the not too distant future. As part of the Conditions of Approval for Springwoods Final Plat, I believe, we were required to realign Moore Lane to something more manageable and driveable and we have shown, basically, full construction of Moore Lane, both sides of the street to meet the geometric constraints that the City has in place. Improving Moore Lane on the south side curb and gutter, storm drainage and everything all the way to Shiloh. I believe the Traffic Study that we had for this project indicated ... really the only improvements that needed to be made were a left-hand turn -lane at Moore Lane. I did speak with the engineer that did that Traffic Study with Carter and Burgess and was made aware of the number of traffic counts he used, I believe 10 vehicle trips per day per house. This development's really unusual. We have not seen one like this in Fayetteville. This is truly an empty -nester community. Mr. Von Gremp and his partner, Britt Stiger have built one of these up in Rogers. They are designed for elderly people, not assisted -living but empty nesters. The traffic patterns of those people are significantly different than a standard residential development. I believe on an average on the research and data that they have, 5 vehicle trips per day, on off-peak hours Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 82 is what is the norm for a development of this type, which is basically twice what was used in the study. Von Gremp: Half. Hennelly: Yeah, I'm sorry, half of what was used in the study. I really feel like the improvements that are being asked for are extensive. With the consideration of the impact that this is going to have, I would anticipate anybody that's going to use Moore Lane would be heading east out of this development. Anybody who's going to the Moore Lane, Deane Solomon intersection would more than likely go through the development, with the exception of maybe the southernmost units. It just seems like basically having to construct nearly all of Moore Lane, 20 -feet wide west of the property and then almost new construction the entire length of the property and east to Shiloh. So, if those requirements are upheld, obviously we would want to discuss some sort of cost-sharing like we are on the upgrade from an 8 -inch to a 12 -inch waterline. Ostner: Thank you. I will bring it back to the Committee of 2 to discuss. We have a schedule conflict, so we lost our third. On that note, I'm not certain 2 of us can Approve at this level. So sorry, we're going to have to take it to the Planning Commission Meeting. Lack: We could possibly take it to the next Subdivision Committee. Ostner: I think that's further. I think that's a longer wait than the Planning Commission. Lack: It seems like the Applicant's greatest concern is street construction. I will address a question of Staff for **** address on that. Pate: We looked at 122 units in this area where there are significantly sub- standard streets. We discussed ... with the Springwoods development, there would have to be significant improvements, obviously, with that Final Plat. There were not Plan Uses. There were lanes established but no development, really. With the Proposals that we've seen on 3 of the other lots, there have been street improvements, the construction and improvement of the north side of Deane Solomon, basically to this property. Actually, it was completed this week, I believe. They paved this week on the north side of, I'm sorry, Moore Lane all the way out to Shiloh. Our request is that ... our recommendation to the Planning Commission is that this development be required to complete that requirement on the south side, not the sidewalks but just the street section. I believe most of the street section will be there. It will be primarily just curb and gutter on the south side, though I can't confirm what the street Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 83 width is right now with what Springwoods Lot 1 has installed, I'm not sure what this street section is there. We felt that the majority of the traffic traveling north or south would be heading east out of this property to go up and down Shiloh, as opposed to the very bad intersection of Deane Solomon and Mount Comfort. It's not the traffic that we want to encourage in that direction and we're actually looking along Mount Comfort improvement. That's one of our primary areas of improvement, as well, is how to improve that intersection. **** non -peak hours there because of it's visibility, it's difficult. The other recommendations, the Deane Solomon recommendation, if you look at your Plat, potentially south of the boundary and north of this intersection, our recommendation was, instead of tapering that back in, with that portion of improvement ... you can see on the west side, Lindsey, with the apartment complex there, the west side of Deane Solomon, they improved that intersection. So, it leaves a small gap there with traffic basically coming back in toward each other in a very small area. Mr. Hennelly is right, when that property develops there on what is currently the Equestrian Center, that improvement could be made at that time, as well. So, that is one option. Again, these are just recommendations to the Planning Commission. The other one, Moore Lane, 20 -feet of pavement, I'm not sure how wide that is. I believe it's pretty close to that, so that's not really a full reconstruction of Moore Lane west of their property boundary. We're simply insuring that that street is 20 -feet wide. Ostner: Did that answer your question? Hennelly: I guess I don't necessarily have a good grasp on the portionality and assessment of the portionality. It does seem like a lot of street construction. Did you say that there had been improvements to the north side of Moore Lane? Pate: Yes, to the east of this property, there have been. Lack: Right along ... from here out to Shiloh. And it is ... I guess could be reasonable to assume the construction on the south side here that they are bearing the burden of realigning this entire section, north and south. They are improving a significant portion along their frontage so that there would be more than 20 -feet of width. That would be 14 -feet from centerline plus what's south. Our real contention is for any improvements west of this property or south of the property line, down to the intersection. There are ... was it 122 units ... 180 residents, more than likely in here, is what they're ... Von Gremp: Realistically, with the people that live here, there will be about 180 to 183 people living in here, traveling maybe twice a day. These people intend to Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 84 go to the store and make all their runs between 9 and 11. They may go out to eat but they just aren't traffic -users. The cost of this, plus this widening here, is fairly extensive for our budget. I guess if you would put 450 apartments in there, you might need some of that. Traffic for that is probably going to be 10 times as much. We just aren't creating like that. That's one of the good things about these developments. They don't access City services much. They're good for the community but they're limited. The budget's pretty tight. This is a pretty extensive thing that I don't really ... I guess in our case, we have a hard time understanding how this is really required for our residents. When we start doing all the other work and adding the cost on top of that ... Hennelly: It was set up ... I believe this was a Condition of Approval when the Final Plat for Springwoods came through. The one thing that does concern me on widening the south side of Moore Lane east of the project is that new construction is complete. I'm sure they've paved for that crown section. If we have to complete the same type curb and gutter to their crown section, we're going to be creating an area of water. It's going to be trapped. It's going to force us into a situation to put in storm drain, as well and collect that water. At worst, just insuring that adequate pavement width was there ... it may be adequate ... but I think curb and gutter and storm drainage would be excessive east of this property. Von Gremp: We would love to acquire this piece of property but cannot, but if we're ever able to, we'll be glad to make whatever improvements that go along the edges with this. Hennelly: What is the nature of the Proposed development to the east of this property along Moore Lane? Pate: It's a commercial subdivision. That's the Springwoods Lot 1, in the commercial subdivision. Directly adjacent to the north, directly east, I believe, is part of the Audubon lot, so that will not be developed. Ostner: I understand this is targeted for empty nesters. That's demographic. But, that's not to say that just because you're retired, and you're not working every day, you're not going to make more trips than your demographic calls for. You're not going to have family over. Notwithstanding, young adults with no kids buy these things. They don't fit the demographic 100%. But they do and they work. And, they work hard. And, they have more people over, in general. I think that the traffic has to be treated as if ... as a maximum, instead of as a ... what we think it might be. Coupled with the substandard roads, I'm inclined to agree with Staff, that the recommendations are fair. This strip right here, which this is really you're biggest bone of contention. It's the nature of this out -lot that concerns me. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 85 Hennelly: Von Gremp: Ostner: Von Gremp: Ostner: Hennelly: Ostner: If we simply don't improve those street sections, I'm afraid that could be there a long time. They could have sold many times and they haven't. They just might stay. For an improved street to just stop, and to not be improved, generally is fair. But, with this intersection and the way this horseshoes around that intersection, I would be inclined to think that those half improvements on your side would be called for. Well, that being the case, and I disagree with the extents of them, I would think that adequate driving width is the main concern. The collection and the management of storm water should not be a part of this discussion. Curb and gutter ... a long curb and gutter, storm drain and sidewalk along the property were to connect in the distance to one that's been recently constructed, it's certainly reasonable. Having to put curb and gutter, storm drainage all along the south side here, at their expense, curb and gutter and storm drainage all along the east side of Deane Solomon, I think is excessive. Adequate driving width for safety reasons is somewhat understandable. But, even at that, I think that the level of improvements that are being recommended are excessive. And, certainly they're not ... there is nothing to prohibit someone other than an empty nester to buy one of these units, for they are for sale. They're not for rent. And the marketing that goes on ... this Epcon Communities in northwest Arkansas that Jim owns, is a franchise, there is extensive marketing material and these things are geared towards a certain demographic. Again, that's not to say someone else won't buy it. But, I do know that, personally I wouldn't move into a retirement community if I knew that's what the predominant resident was. For nothing else, for fear of disturbing people. And so I do think there has to be some consideration given to that. That's what this is marketed towards. And, that's what they've been ... I guess ... I could ... ****. I hope you see what I'm trying to see from this side. If I could interrupt just for a second. Yeah. Just keep in mind that we can't give any Approvals. Everything you say, you'll have to say again to the people who will be able to Approve it. But, you can amend these recommendations that will go before Full Planning Commission? We have that ability. I wouldn't be ... with only two of us ... Matt's already left. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 86 Lack: I wouldn't feel like I have enough information to amend. I have some concerns and I am open to listen but to say that I would ask the Commission to amend them, I can't. Ostner: Von Gremp: Ostner: Von Gremp: Ostner: Von Gremp: Hennelly: I just don't want to waste your time. It's all right. We've been here since 9, so ... Okay. Let me just address one thing. That's all right because you'll be here down the road. And, that's simply that we've sold 32 of these units in Rogers in 1994 and the youngest person we have that has bought so far ... and we would sell to a young couple if they chose to live here, but out of 32 so far, is 57. So, I mean I'm just telling you what it is. Number 2, we would anticipate of these 122 units, that probably 20 of them would be sold to people that don't even live in Fayetteville that would use them as a place in Fayetteville to have whenever they come to enjoy the benefits of Fayetteville. So, as far as what we know from traffic that Epcon has taught us, plus ... I hope you'll give that some consideration. This 5 trips a day, honestly to me is excessive for what our units will use, especially here. But, if you use 5 trips a day and take out 20 of the 122 buildings, you start to see there's just not the traffic to warrant this kind of cost, which is prohibitive to almost us even trying to figure out how to do it, with building that much additional street that ... But, you have to understand that real estate sold on the market, we as a City or a Commission or a Planning office, we can't give a lot of weight to that. Every development could tell us his demographic is going to be different, his is going to be different. But, the fact of the matter remains is that this is to be sold on the market. When they buy it, they can act as they please. Now, I understand. It is targeted. And, I can tell by the layout, it is a good design. I'm pleased. I think it could be a big success. But, when it comes to traffic and the way this is a good neighbor to the City and to everyone else who uses the street, for me I can't give a lot of weight to the type of person that you all are ... Can you give any weight to the expense we're already agreeing to pay on streets, which is in excess? And, I can understand, it's not your concern what he paid for the property or the economics of making this development happen. I can understand that. But, let's look at the density of this project. At 4.83 units per acre, I believe this is zoned for 24 units per acre, I can't imagine what the required improvements would have been had we put 24 units per acre on Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 87 there. Could they have possibly been any more extensive than what's being required here? Ostner: Possibly. Hennelly: I can't imagine. Other than being solvent all the way down to Mount Comfort and the improvements at the intersection of Mount Comfort, when you look at the density that they're bringing in here versus what could be here and the improvements that are being suggested, in my eyes it doesn't even come close to washing. I can understand being concerned and making sure that the roads that are in place are adequate from a traffic safety standpoint, at best. Outside of that, it really does seem excessive. Ostner: Well, City Standards are also in the mix that go along with safety. Hennelly: Right. Ostner: Just because it's a 20 or 22 -foot piece of asphalt with ditches, it can be safe. However, when development happens, we need to look at improvements. And, when we allow developments and we waive the improvements, and we just look at the street, we're left with substandard. So, we have other things we have to look at. Pate: Mr. Chair? Ostner: Yes. Pate: What we can do before Planning Commission Meeting evaluate more lane, just roughly to see ****. It may already be 20 -feet wide. There may not be an improvement west of this property. I don't know if a full evaluation has even been done. Hennelly: They've got 17 or 18. Pate: That's the initial recommendation at this time because we're not sure. We don't have that information. Additionally, we can speak with our City Engineer and get Tom's firm to look and see if storm drain is even required on the south side. Again, that's additional cost that we're just not aware that that would be something that would be required. And, we can look at what has been constructed and what it would take to do these improvements. I think that would at least help to have a more informed discussion about what the costs to these improvements could be. Hennelly: Great. That would certainly be reasonable. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 88 Pate: Okay. Ostner: Well, any other issues that we need to forward this on? If you're comfortable with forwarding it? Lack: MOTION: Ostner: Lack: Hennelly: I'm comfortable with forwarding it. Okay, I'll make a Motion to forward Large Scale Development 06-1974 to the Planning Commission. I'll Second and Concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 89 PPL 06-1964: Preliminary Plat (EMBRY ACRES (CRAIG HARPER), 61): Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at SW CORNER ALBRIGHT AND GEORGE ANDERSON RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 20 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 56 single family lots. Ostner: Our next Item is PPL 06-1964: Preliminary Plat for EMBRY ACRES. I know there's a discussion for a break for lunch. Waller: We'll make it quick. Morgan: The property consists of approximately 20 acres located in the southwest corner of George Anderson and Albright. The Proposal is a 56 Single - Family lot subdivision at this location. There was a formerly Approved Preliminary Plat on this property, Craig Harper Subdivision. Modifications here are an increase lot yield of 9 lots, as well as alternative street connections. With regard to street connections, we do have a Condition of Approval requesting Planning Commission Determination of Appropriate Street Connectivity. Staff finds that the Proposed street connections are not adequate. We recommend an additional connection onto George Anderson approximately at the location of Lot 15. If you look at your packet, after the Parks Comment and Parks Map, the Applicant has provided a letter and exhibits showing that there would be, from the corner of Albright and George Anderson, there are approximately a little over 1,300 feet at the intersection onto George Anderson from the subdivision being constructed south. That is the only street connection from Albright to Zion onto George Anderson. Staff finds that it is more desirable to have additional street connection onto George Anderson to reduce the amount of cut -through traffic going through these subdivisions and funneling through that one stub -out street connection. With regard to street improvements, they are all similar to what was originally Approved by the Planning Commission for the former Craig Harper Subdivision. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Ostner: Okay. Thank you. Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. I have some revisions to the mitigation chart if you would just review. I think the square footages were just a little bit off and also the priorities. I really just categorized them into high and low. I think the mitigation number stays the same, though. Mitigation will be required in the amount of 20 2 -inch caliper large species trees. These will be required to replace the 5,804 square feet of canopy that's going to be removed. Staff recommends planting these on site. A three-year maintenance and monitoring bond, letter of credit or check shall be deposited in the amount Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 90 of $5,000 to the City of Fayetteville before signature of Final Plat. After the 3 -year period, the Urban Forester will inspect the trees, finding 90% healthy, the bond will be returned. At the time of Final Plat of the On Site Mitigation Plan this Plan will be required. This Plan shall show where those 20 trees will be placed on the site and how they will be tracked. That needs to be submitted with the first submittals for your Final Plat for Approval. Ostner: Thank you. I'll call for any Public Comment for this Preliminary Plat. Please introduce yourself. Will we hear any Engineering comments? Yes. Oh, excuse me. Please, Engineering. Lancaster: Pate: Ostner: Pate: Ostner: Lancaster: Ostner: Thomas: I have a note from ... Matt Casey had to leave ... he'd like to strike Condition Number 3 and insert the following, which we will do for Planning Commission. "The lift station and force main located in the Stonewoods Subdivision shall be upgraded to accommodate the existing flows, as well as the additional flows from this development." That is an issue that Staff has been working with on development. There are some existing force mains and lift stations that are at capacity and will have to be upgraded to accommodate those existing there and future growth. Is that the extent of your comment, sir? My name is John Lancaster and I'm an adjacent property owner. I would like to agree with Staff's comments about access. In this area, there is Copper Creek to the south, which is developing approximately 60 acres, with about 130 lots on that development. It currently only has one access to the west, one to the south design and one to George Anderson. So, this subdivision will also be providing access to the north for that subdivision so you have to consider the amount of traffic that's going to come from the Copper Creek Subdivision that's under construction currently. So, you need to include that into your discussions. Then I have the question about the sewer, which Mr. Pate answered. And, out of curiosity, if the owner/developer has any comment on covenants and the size of houses. Thank you, Mr. Lancaster. We will bring it to the Applicant for any presentation. Please introduce yourselves. My name is Derek Thomas with Blew, Bates and Associates. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 91 Waller: I'm Chris Waller with Blew, Bates and Associates. Blew: And, Buckley Blew with Blew, Bates and Associates. Thomas: The first issue we'd like to address ... Jeremy kind of covered it a little bit ... but we would like to see a copy of the specifications and maybe a scope of work to what's going to be involved with the upgrade of the 265 Lift Station. The comment was we have to upgrade it to not only present development but future development. I believe that a Preliminary Plat has been submitted for the property to the west. So, would that include ... Pate: The Conditions for this early stage is to accommodate the existing flows, as well as additional flows from this development. Thomas: From this development only? Pate: Yes. Thomas: Okay. The other issue was the access to George Anderson. The reason we went with this route was, George Anderson is a collector 70 -foot right- of-way. I think the intent would be to try to limit access directly onto a major road, considering that the neighbors to the east are already directly accessing George Anderson. That could increase some safety risks and issues for that. With this connection we would have 'A mile stretch here of residential street. It's pretty flat so I think the high speeds coming along this road would be increased, if there's not some sort of buffer down here towards the end and also safety concerns for all these residents. As well as the aesthetics of the straight, cookie -cutter street, with lots on both sides, I think we're trying to get away from that a little bit. I know that overall layout is like that but that also reduces the long street with houses on both sides. I believe that's all that I have. Ostner: I'll bring the issue to the Committee for discussion. Ostner: I'm seeing Staff's logic here. I really that can actually support ... collector's aren't arterial's. In fact, we're hoping to eliminate that word completely from our Master Street Plan. It's misleading. I think these houses should face George Anderson, frankly. If you move this over, had your houses facing that street, have these facing George Anderson, that could almost start to create a community, instead of the concrete canyon with fences on the back walls on the back property line. Blew: I think one of the comments is you can't access onto George Anderson from this property. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 92 Ostner: Is that part of our rule? Morgan: I believe that it's not a steadfast rule, no, but if you're going to have opportunity to access a more internal street, as it is set up here, we would request that the access be on the local street. Ostner: Waller: Pate: Waller: I understand that. Also, I think George Anderson is a 70 -foot right-of-way in which I think in the future, according to the Master Street Plan, is going to be a 4 -lane or 5 -lane road, with a 70 -foot right-of-way. It's a 3 -lane. It's a 3 -lane road? Okay. I was going to say, if it was a 4 -lane, then we really wouldn't want to put ... Ostner: Many streets through subdivisions are technically collector's. Blew: Well, the other reason we're ****. Ostner: At some point, though, you have to quit ... have to stop doing what you're doing and ... Waller: Well, that's a good point but it would be ridiculous to match it '/2 mile to 3/4 and then the 660 feet to flip-flop. So, this neighbor's facing this way and that neighbor's facing that way. There's going to be a house right here existing that faces that way. Ostner: Well, I'm not going to vote against ... I'm not going to vote against it and say that you need to turn them. But, these could face Albright easily if the shifting of the lot sizes were accomplished. We've seen this before, as I recall with a different developer, different ... and it's almost identical to the way I recall it. Blew: We did look at that option as changing these to alleys and putting double lots but the layout just won't work. Waller: It wasn't wide enough. Blew: We don't have enough space between here and here to do that but that was one of our options to change it. Ostner: But, you have to reconfigure your lot depth. A lot of the wide houses that you put on nowadays don't need as deep a house. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 93 Blew: That was an option that we did look at, but we couldn't make it work. Ostner: Really, none of that's relevant as the connection. I think that Staff has a great Report here. Lack: I would concur with the need for the connection. I don't know what the ... what is the minimum lot depth? Morgan: That's really .... Ostner: Well, you can have lots wider than minimum, which a lot of the home plans could dwell on if they have the same square footage of the lot. People have stretched them wider and made them shallower and the houses fit. That's just an option. Lack: But, I would concur that the connection to George Anderson is needed. Is there anything else ... Ostner: So, you all would like to see more specs on Condition Number 3 and what's required? Thomas: Yeah. Ostner: Okay. Thomas: I know that Copper Creek has put up $38,000 towards this project but I don't know what's left. Ostner: Okay. I think you all need to get with Engineering. We can't Approve this here today anyway because there are only two of us. Pate: Preliminary Plat's are required to go to Planning Commission, regardless. MOTION: Lack: I will Move that we forward Preliminary Plat 06-1964 to the Full Planning Commission with the stated Conditions of Approval, finding that the stub - out to George Anderson is a desirable Condition. And, the modification of Condition 3 to, as stated in the **** Report. Pate: Would the Commission like to see that stub -out on the Plats for the next revision? Ostner: The ... on Number 1? Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 94 Pate: Correct. Lack: Yes. Ostner: Absolutely. Pate: Okay. Lack: And, the determination of street improvements, Number 2. Ostner: Before I vote positively, I want to ask about covenants. Do you have them in place or ... Thomas: We're still working on the covenants. We're going to use Copper Creek and their guideline for us to build with. The minimum square footage of the houses we're looking at are between 2,000 and 2,200 square feet. The lots are a little bit narrower than Copper Creek and we're given the opportunity to have a little bit more affordable houses to be built in that area of town. So, that's what we're working on right now. Ostner: I'll concur with the Motion. We'll see you all at the Planning Commission. Thomas: Thank you. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 95 R-PZD 06-1884: Planned Zoning District (WESTSIDE VILLAGE CONDOS, 439): Submitted by TODD JACOBS CRITICAL PATH DESIGN for property located at S OF WEDINGTON, E OF RUPPLE RD. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 21.91 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 420 attached dwelling units. Ostner: Our last Item is R-PZD 06-1884: Planned Zoning District for WESTSIDE VILLAGE CONDOS. If the Applicants could step forward and if we could start with the Staff Report. Garner: This property contains approximately 22 acres and is located on the east side of Rupple Road, south of Wedington Drive. The Applicant requests rezoning a Large Scale Development Approval for Mixed -Use Development within an R-PZD Zoning District. The Proposed use for this site is for 420 Multi -Family units that consists of 292 Plat units, 14 buildings, 89 town homes and 39 town homes with rear garage units. They Propose to phase the development in a total of 6 phases over 10 years. To give you a point of reference, this is located adjacent to the existing Boys and Girls Club and is across the street from Rupple Road PZD. So, it would be accessed directly off of Rupple Road along the western property line with 3 new 50 -foot right-of-way streets being constructed and it will feature parallel parking on both sides of the street, as shown on your Site Plan. A private one-way parking garage would encompass the whole development. Street improvements would be required, based on contractual agreement and that's attached to your Staff Report. Staff is recommending Tabling this at this time, mainly to address utility easement concerns that were brought up in the Technical Plat review meetings and discussing it with the Applicant, as well. There is right at 55 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Rupple Road. The utility easements are also requesting an easement from the edge of that, approximately 25 feet. The Applicant is having trouble fitting their building and that easement in there. So, if it's a big enough issue where the **** footprints may need to be shifted and that **** be changed so at this point we're recommending it be Tabled until we can have that worked out a little bit better. Those are the issues I wanted to bring up at this time. Ostner: Okay. I guess there's no Engineering Report? Pate: No further comments. Some of the other comments within the Staff Report, though do indicate 5 revisions that need to be completed, identification of more complete Phasing Plan. This is not a Conceptual PZD, so we need to understand when Building Permits are required to be issued. Essentially, the biggest issue, I believe, is with dedication of the Master Street Plan right-of-way, 55 -feet from centerline. **** shift all the Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 96 buildings or change the zoning of the property. And so, those just need to be nailed down before we proceed because this is not a Conceptual Plan and we are doing it for Development Approval. The next step is a Building Permit. So, we need to understand that things will not change from Planning Commission Approval. Ostner: Tree and Landscape? Patterson: Yes. I have a revision that needs to be made. On our **** Plans and on our Construction Plan, I'd just like it clearly stated that some type of protective **** will be set up between you and the trees that are along the road. Mitigation will be required on the site in the amount of 18 2 -inch caliper trees. These are presently planted on site. A three-year maintenance bond will be required in association with those 18 trees in the amount of $4,500 and that should be deposited with the City before Final Certificate of Occupancy. Ostner: Thank you. I'll call for any Public Comment If anyone would like to speak to this issue, please step forward. Seeing none, Ell close the Public Comment section and bring it to the Applicants. TAPE ENDED HERE — NEW SIDE STARTED HERE — APPLICANTS ALREADY IN PRESENTATION Jacobs: This is a new urban style development. It's similar to what we have done across the street. In that regard, we, on purpose, want to push the buildings closer to the street fronts, similar to what they're recommending, for instance, in the Dover Cole Master Plan. That's what we've done across the street. The 18 -foot easement is basically a variance of 2 -feet over our present discussions with the utility company. But, the utilities ... some of the utilities are already existing in and along Rupple Road there. So, I think the only utility that needs to be located in this easement is the Alexander: I believe electric will have to be run to this property. I'm not sure if gas is existing. Jacobs: I think gas is already in there but some of the utilities, in any event, not all of the utilities will be located in this easement. Some of the utilities are already running down there because of course you've got development of the Boys and Girls Club. So, part of our request ... I mean, frankly I'd like to see it at 15 -feet, so that we can kind of mirror what we're already doing on the other side of the road in pulling those buildings a little bit closer to the street front. I guess we were looking for a little bit of direction from that, maybe get an understanding of whether that was something that was Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 97 pleasing to the Commission or how you feel about that. I mean, it's more of a concept that we're trying to carry out in terms of the overall development and the design of the overall development. I think that we may even be successful with the utility. We haven't finished those negotiations. They haven't flat said no. We're only asking for 2 -feet less than 20 to run the electric. So, anyway, that's kind of where we are. Ostner: Okay. **** Lack: I would think ... and you have the 15 -feet to the west side? Jacobs: Yes. Lack: What is your street facade? Jacobs: Our street facade will ... it will be more of a town home but it will ... we're doing it new urban. Maybe we should ... do we have the ones we're doing on Rupple Road? Alexander: This will be our street facade on these units. And, then across the street we've done something very similar, although with some slight separation between the buildings, more of a Savannah -style. Those are single-family units and these are attached multi -family. But, we were trying to keep in the terms of the same architecture and the same look, so that you had a more neighborhood feel on both sides of the street. We didn't want to have one setback, obviously further than the other one, so that they kind of matched and that they looked at each other and the styles were ... we want to make the styles very similar. Although, these will be more of a town home attached and those are Savannah's is what I call them, the Savannah -type home where you have a yard. There's a small yard. It's a zero lot -line but it's a small yard and there's a blank wall on one house and windows on the other look out onto the yard. And, there's a blank wall and windows look out the other. So, we're trying to do a whole concept between the two. Lack: I think that I can definitely support that endeavor. I don't know that it really kills the project or would even be all that noticeable if you're 2 feet different or even 5 feet different on one side or the other. But, I would definitely support that ideology to keep them the same and to have the common phases to the streets in the neighborhood. And, I've liked the idea of embracing the street along Rupple. It's a high -traffic road and we've talked a lot about addressing the streets, even though they might have a little more traffic. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 98 Jacobs: Well, and we're in discussion with the City currently. The boulevard doesn't go all the way down to where ... we want to encourage that boulevard to go all the way down and give that unified look so that both sides of the street ... I think it comes down to the Boys and Girls Club ... and we figure it will be a more attractive look if they bring that boulevard all the way down and you know I think they had some issue with the right- of-way but they've got the right-of-way now. We certainly didn't object to giving it to them. Lack: Now, you mentioned a 2 -feet variance from 20 -feet easement, but Staff, I think, said that the requested easement was 25? Alexander: I don't remember exactly what it was. Merrysh: We've had numerous meetings with the utility companies. Now, a dense project like this, them being comfortable with it and how do you work the street trees in a smaller setback -type of density. On Rupple Road, I believe we're only talking 2 -feet so we can get a 55 -foot new right-of-way into the City. And then, we'll either **** 2 feet with the utility company or we'll adjust it onto our Site Plan. We'll pull stuff back so we can match it. 20 -foot is what they're asking for so we're trying to negotiate 18. That way we have room to slide our building back and we will not be overhanging the utility easement. TAPE BLANK FOR FEW MINUTES— PICKED UP HERE Pate: This is directly adjacent to the Boys and Girls Club. Ostner: Well, this is a great opportunity for some Mixed Uses. Alexander: Excuse me, we've got some future plans for this adjacent property. Ostner: That would be commercial. Alexander: That would all be commercial. But, we've got to wait a little while. Ostner: I understand. I'm impressed that you're here at all. Alexander: But, we've got ... one of our partners, Dale Cottle, has Airways Freight, we've talked about doing a commercial. Jacobs: I don't know that we'd object to something commercial. I mean, we were trying not to ... it's zoned RMF -24. We were trying to fit in the box you know. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 99 Alexander: I don't know that we wanted to test it that much. Jacobs: Yeah. Pate: I'd also mention, there is undeveloped commercial within easily walking distance. There's also been a 485,000 square feet of commercial uses Approved just north of this. Obviously that was Conceptual but I think as far as Mixed Use community, this is fast becoming. Ostner: But, the nature of Boys and Girls Club and Rupple Road directly to the west is pretty special. I mean it's something. I mean you all are just the next door neighbor but the City of Fayetteville is proud of the Boys and Girls Club. Alexander: Oh, we are. That's what we strive in our whole concept. We built this around that. Ostner: And, I mean the new school is just a stones throw. I understand commercial is totally available here and you all are planning on ... Alexander: Now, we don't control this. Ostner: Right, but we **** hoping to work out. Alexander: Yeah, but this we are in discussion. This is ... Jacobs: That's Hayden McAlroy. Alexander: And, I think he plans on developing that himself. Ostner: Sure. Jacobs: And, we also have some C. Alexander: Yeah, we own a little piece of C. We own 2 acres of C-1, where the fire station is. Jacobs: We sold this property to the City for the fire station. Right next door to that, we have some more commercial. Ostner: Well, I still ... and I'm going to vote yes today. In my mind this isn't a place for a zoning discussion. Because there are 7 other Commissioners that I'm not hearing their comment. So ... Alexander: Well, we certainly wouldn't mind considering ... Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 100 Ostner: ... a precursor, I don't think it would be stretching it. I think it would be hedging your bets, personally. I think it's coming toward getting Approval. This is a custom zone you know. The R only means 51% of residential. So, you can zone it almost anything. I would like to see something on that corner or that corner. There are all those kids and I'd hate for them to have to walk all the way to the light just to go to the Mini - Mart, that will hopefully ... well, there is one across the street, which I hope they don't have to cross that thing. And, all of Rupple Road, that's all homogenous, too. That's not your problem at all. I'm just saying zoning considers what's around it. And, that's what I'm looking at. So ... Alexander: I don't object to it. I mean I haven't discussed it with our other guys. Again, we were trying to ... it's zoned RMF -24, so we were trying to fit in the box and design something that ... Ostner: Exactly which areas are you phasing? Alexander: Six phases. We're going to put all the infrastructure in at the same time. Jacobs: Yeah, that's phase 1, 2, ... Ostner: Okay, 3, 4, 5, 6. Work eastward. Jacobs: Yeah, eastward. Alexander: We hope this to be ... again ... what we're trying for here is a little more affordable project. We're looking for something well under the $200,000 mark in terms of affordability. Frankly, we'd like to be about $125,000/$150,000. So, nicer, smaller units, something that the people could take advantage of the Boys and Girls Club, with the K through 7. There are parks in the area. So, that's kind of our concept. Easy access to the university. That's the kind of people we see living there. Lack: It would sure be great to go downstairs and get a cup of coffee. Alexander: Be good to go downstairs and get a cup of coffee? I mean, I'm all for it. I mean you know, again ... Jacobs: It isn't something that we thought of doing, so ... Merrysh: We switched to something and we had some Mixed Use to it. We would be basically adding it to our booklet and our zoning allows for that, we could change, showing blocks of what ... that this is going to be Mixed Use. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 101 Pate: I think that would be okay in a Conceptual way but again, you guys are looking for Large Scale Development Approval. Ostner: Well, but they're also requesting a zoning change. Pate: Right, but it's also tied to the development of this project, so it would ... Ostner: If their boxes stayed similar, and the zoning was changed, ... I'm just not seeing how that couldn't happen between now ... Pate: I think it could happen. I don't think it could happen between now and Monday. Merrysh: Well, I'm going to Florida tomorrow so it's not going to happen by Monday. Pate: Because you've got to look at different standards, the booklet would need to be changed, Commercial Design Standards would need to be addressed because obviously it's not going to all look like those row of houses if it becomes commercial. Because again, you're Approving the development for them to get a Building Permit. And, it's not quite ****. Ostner: Okay. Well, I'm saying that ... I'm just one. I'm not sure how the others ... I would guess 2 or 3 others from their comments, are thinking the same thing, but I don't know. Such large things and I know you're only doing Phase I, but if there's going to be any non-residential, this is where it needs to be. They can't make any money back here. So, I ... Alexander: Well, again, I'll go back and discuss with them. It's not something we can consider because we were trying to stay in the RMF -24 format. Jacobs: We had already thought to the future, you know doing this whole thing and then coming down this way like a 7, but I never even thought about putting it on ... and I saw it all right here where these two come in and then come out this way. But, that's in the future, so ... Ostner: Right. Jacobs: If I could see something like our **** thing where you've got a shop down below or some sort housing up above it. Ostner: When I saw that, I was hoping that's what it was. And then I had to keep reading and ... Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 102 Alexander: Well, I think that's why we wanted to come and kind of sense of how you all would, Number 1, view the setback issue in terms of our look and what we're trying to accomplish there. I'd be glad to take this back and talk to the guys about it. We're not in that big of a hurry. Ostner: Do ya'll have any more questions? Lack: I have one question for Staff. I just want to clarify, it's Item Number 5, where it talks about stub -outs in the northeast corner, which I felt uncomfortable getting at this time. I was a little concerned about how much traffic would be cutting through the private parking lot. I think I would just like to get a little feeling of what ... Alexander: Our connectivity is through our main Meadowlands Drive there. And, we were reluctant to do another one because it's in the parking area. Lack: I think somewhere in this corner ... that's a stub -out ... Pate: Our recommendation was to provide another cross access point, not necessarily a street, but a cross access point to allow for pedestrians and day flow traffic not have to get on the main street just to come into this property. That would allow, much like we see on other projects, just another means of access to the east. That is a large property consideration for Planned Zoning District in the near future, as well, with a mixture of commercial, retail and residential uses. Ostner: Is that the electric company? Pate: Uh... Alexander: Do you mean this one? Pate: To the east. Lack: Driving range. Pate: So, that's something that we would look for. I think Todd has a point in if you provided along the drive out to the north, it would be kind of like a street. So, I think it might need to be offset from that. So, it's simply providing an indirect access point. We would recommend at least another cross access to the east. Ostner: Oh, to the east? Pate: Yes. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 103 Ostner: Pate: Alexander: Pate: Lack: Pate: Ostner: Jacobs: Ostner: Alexander: Ostner: Jacobs: Ostner: MOTION: Ostner: Oh, excuse me. I was looking to the north. To the north it has two street connections, so there are a couple of different opportunities to ... And, I think our preference is to not do that. I understand what Jeremy is saying. We certainly wouldn't mind connectivity in terms of pedestrian and that kind of access. But, we just didn't want it to be a speedway through that corner. You know, when we're providing a main street in this distance and we have 2 stub -outs here to the north. So, that's our thoughts on it. I don't know ... we would rather not do that. That's our recommendation. Both pedestrian and vehicle? That's for the Planning Commission to decide what is appropriate. Well, I would see benefits. If this wasn't so intense, and dense ... what's the density ... 19.42. I really do ... I like the density and I like the layout. I don't know if it's something that we just need to do but again I think our preference would be not to do it, but it's not something we're not going to die if we have to do it. If it were offset, I think it would help a lot. If we did it, I think we would have to offset it somewhere in here so it's just not a straight shot through the parking lot. It gives us a little concern for safety. If we have on -street parking it kind of will slow the traffic, but still. If we're allowed to do it somewhere in the center block, like Richard said, I don't think it would kill us. Okay. Any other comments? Well, I'll make a Motion that we forward RPZD 06-1884 to the Planning Commission with the Conditions as stated. Subdivision Committee March 16, 2006 Page 104 Lack: I'll concur. Ostner: Thank you. Are there any other announcements or issues? The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m.