Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-22 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held September 22, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Conrad Odom, Phyllis Johnson, Lee Ward, John Watkins, Gary Tucker, Lorel Hoffman, Bob Reynolds, John Forney, and Mark Sugg. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. ITEMS REVIEWED: 1. VA 97-5.00: The Ozark Building 2. VA 97-6.00: Ray Adams Trust 3. PP 97-7.00: Serenity Place PUD 4. AD 97-11.00:Commercial Design Standards APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. VA 97-5.00: VACATION (THE OZARK BUILDING) OZARK BUILDING. L.L.C.- 2 NORTH COLLEGE ACTION TAKEN Approved/fwd City Council Approved/fwd City Council Approved/fwd Tech plat rvw No action taken The Street right-of-way vacation request for the Ozark Building was presented by Richard Alexander on behalf of the Ozark Building L.L.C. The staff report from Mr. Beavers is as follows: The request is to vacate and close to the public that portion of street right-of-way for Center Street south of North College. The requested vacation is for a 17 ft. by 95 ft. section then expanding to a 22 ft. by 100 ft. section of Center Street on the north side of the street and adjacent to the Ozark Building (approximately 3815 square feet). Please refer to the attached survey and legal description. If approved, the vacation will narrow the existing 49.42 ft street right-of-way to 32.42 and 27.42 adjacent to the old Washington County Courthouse. • Based upon a site plan prepared by the architectural firm of Foster-Wistell Evans and Rasco, the proposed space would be used to create a patio and steps south of the Ozark Building and aqb • • Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1997 Page 2 additional parking east of the Ozark Building. The proposal would result in the loss of approximately 12 or 13 public parking spaces. The proposed right-of-way vacation will also affect an existing sanitary sewer line (refer to survey). Staff requests that the vacated right-of-way be preserved as utility easement to allow maintenance of this line. Further, the proposed steps, landing, walk and tree plantings will not be allowed in the utility easement. The applicant has submitted the required notification forms to the utility companies and the City. The results are as follows: SWEPCO - no objections. Arkansas Western Gas - no objections. SW Bell - no objections. TCA Cable - no objections. City Water/Sewer - Sanitary sewer line exists in the proposed vacation. Water exists on the south side of Center Street. The water/sewer superintendent requests that any vacated right-of- way be replaced with a utility easement, a minimum of 10 feet each side of the line and that no vertical construction of any kind, nor any trees of any kind be allowed in this easement. Street Department - did not agree. Noted concerns for the transformation of public parking to private parking and the need for additional right-of-way at County Avenue/Center and College/Center. Solid Waste - no objections. Recommendation: Due to the existing sanitary sewer line and conflicts with the proposed plan, staff requests that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the right- of-way vacation not be allowed. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of the application, staff requests the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: 1. That any vacated right-of-way be replaced with a utility easement, a minimum of 10 feet each side of the sanitary sewer line and that no vertical construction of any kind (stairs, landings, fill, walls ....) nor any tress be allowed within this easement. Resolution of the loss of public parking. • 3. That the applicant agree to construct any parking, street and drainage improvements necessary to bring street and drainage in, and adjacent to, the requested vacation to City • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1997 Page 3 standards. 4. Retain sufficient right-of-way for improved intersections at College/Center and County Avenue/Center. End of staff report. Mr. Richard Alexander and Mr. Jim Foster represented the item. Mr. Alexander stated when he purchased the building from the city he had agreed to restore it. However, when the property was purchased a survey was not provided. After a survey had been conducted it was discovered part of the building was located in the setback and part of a street cut across the corner of the property. The street vacation would allow the parking area to be renovated for a safer, more attractive corner with better circulation for both pedestrians and vehicles. The perspective tenant was concerned about parking. Mr. Alexander noted two public parking areas close by that were not fully utilize. The County, adjacent neighbor, had no objections to the vacation. He added the sewer line would be located in the parking area with low growing shrubs. He stated no vertical structures would be built in the easement area. He would also dedicate a 20' easement for the sewer. Mr Beavers stated it was possible to relocate the sewer line, if Mr. Alexander wanted to build in the area and pay for the relocation. There was no public comment. Mr. Watkins questioned the loss of public parking, referring to condition #2. Mr. Alexander stated there were approximately 10 public parking spaces there now, which would be replaced with 10 private parking spaces. He added the prospective tenant needed parking to make the building feasible for Ozark Building, L L C to lease. He noted the nearby public parking was under utilize. Mr. Tucker questioned the width of the street after the vacation. Mr. Foster replied the street would be 32' wide at the western portion of Center street and 24' at the eastern section of the street. In response to questions from Mr. Reynolds, Ms Little replied that under the parking standards adopted recently to be supportive of downtown redevelopment, no additional parking would be required because the applicant was not adding additional square footage to the building. If the square footage were to increase, then parking would be required. The need for the parking was • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1997 Page 4 driven by the applicant's client; without the client the applicant feels it is not feasible to renovate the building. Mr. Reynolds felt the renovation would benefit the downtown area. Mr. Sugg questioned how the building would be used and who would be using the parking lot. Mr. Alexander replied the building would be used as office space. He did not believe the use would generate a lot of traffic. Mr. Sugg expressed concern about losing public parking. Mr. Alexander stated his client could locate in another area outside of town, if he could not provide the needed parking. He noted the city would be losing part of a street, but the city would be gaining another business downtown which would generate more tax revenue. In response to questions from Ms. Little, Mr. Alexander stated there was a signed contract pending on the parking issues. Ms. Johnson expressed concern about the limited number of streets going east. She felt Center Street could be a significant street in the future. She expressed concern about the loss of public parking and the width of the vacated street. Mr. Watkins stated he was not concerned about the loss of public parking, because there were other public parking lots in the area The applicant would be providing private off-street parking. He did not believe the street narrowing would be a concern because the renovation would increase safety by removing the existing unsafe parking along the street. Ms. Hoffman, in reference to another project, asked if there should be any compensation for the loss of public parking spaces. Mr. Odom replied the other project was different because they were vacating parking spaces. This applicant would be adding private parking. Ms Little added the other project was also adding square footage to an existing building. This project would not be adding additional square footage. Parking was not a city requirement in this zoning district if square feet are not added. Mr. Forney commented this project would reduce the radius of the curve to the southwest of the project which would make it easier to cross Center street on foot. He asked the width of Center Street west of College. • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1997 Page 5 Ms. Little replied the width of Center Street was 55' west of College and the current right-of-way east of College was also 55'. Mr. Alexander stated currently, there was no need for public parking because the Courthouse building was empty. He noted the area was depressed but, with the redevelopment, the area would become viable again. Without efforts to attract new businesses the area would stay abandoned. There would be abundant public parking but, without businesses there would be no need for the parking. He felt the city would be pleased with the renovation and the activity and life the renovation would bring to the area. Mr. Odom stated he was usually opposed to losing public parking, however, this area was depressed and could be revived by giving some enticements to renovate. He was in favor of allowing the public parking to become private. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the vacation with a 10' easement on each side of the sewer line or relocation of the sewer line. He moved to waive the public parking and that sufficient right-of-way (approved by staff) be retained for improvements to intersections at College/Center and County Avenue/Center. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-2-0. Johnson and Forney voting nay 300 • Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1997 Page 6 VA 97-6.00: VACATION (RAY ADAMS TRUST) RAY ADAMS TRUST- E OF SCHOOL ST. & S. OF 6TH ST. Staff report by Jim Beavers was presented: The street and alley vacation request for the Ray Adams Trust was presented by Jerry Allred. The requested vacation is for the portion of Eight Street located between School Avenue and Locust Avenue and the alley bounded on the north by Eight Street and on the south by Ninth Street (Block 7 of the Ferguson Addition, pp 562). The platted Eighth street has not been developed into a City street and the alley is not used for traffic. There are concerns with the existing drainage in the right-of-way of Eight Street. Additionally there are two sanitary sewer lines in the Eighth Street right-of-way (see copy attached). The applicant has submitted the required notification forms to the utility companies and the City. The results are as follows: • SWEPCO - no objections. Arkansas Western Gas - not clear (form signed but not completed). SW Bell - no objections. TCA Cable - no objections. City Water/Sewer - has not yet responded. There are two sanitary sewer lines in the existing right-of-way. Therefore if the ROW is vacated then a utility easement the full width of the existing right-of-way must be granted for the two existing sanitary sewer lines. Street Department - Agreed that the right-of-way could be vacated if an acceptable plan is presented to accommodate the drainage currently on the Eighth Street right-of-way. Solid Waste - no objections. Recommendation: Consideration of the application based upon staff findings. If the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of the application, staff requests the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant must furnish a precise legal description. This will be required prior to an agenda request to the City Council. 2. If the right-of-way is vacated then a utility easement the full width of the existing Eight • Street right-of-way must be granted for the two existing sanitary sewer lines. s0\ • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1997 Page 7 3. The applicant must provide an plan acceptable to the Street and Engineering Divisions to accommodate the drainage currently on the Eighth Street right-of-way. End of Staff report. Ms. Little stated that a letter had been received from Carolyn Jones expressing concern about drainage problems and that each commissioner had a copy of the letter. Mr. Jerry Allred represented the item. Mr. Allred stated the applicant was requesting the vacation to help clean up the area for redevelopment. He noted the property would have to go through the large scale development process, when it developed. He did not believe a drainage study would be accurate until a building was located on the site. There was no public comment. Mr. Odom asked if a drainage plan was normally required for a vacation. Mr. Beavers replied it was not typical to require a drainage plan for a vacation. The street superintendent had requested a plan to help the existing drainage problems. In response to questions from Mr. Tucker, Mr. Allred stated his client did not have the funds to conduct a drainage study. He argued the drainage would change when the land was developed. He added the owner was willing to participate in a cost share program, but was not willing to do all the improvements himself. Mr. Watkins saw no reason to give up a street right-of-way. He felt this request was premature. Mr. Odom asked if the city planned to construct Eighth Street. Mr. Beavers stated currently, there were no plans to construct the street. Mr. Allred stated the owner wanted to clean up the area to attract more businesses to the south part of town. He could see no disadvantage to the city. He added there was not a public need for the street. Mr. Odom stated if the city allowed the vacation, the area would become more attractive for development which would help the area improve the drainage problems. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Mr. Allred stated the both sides were owned by the • Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1997 Page 8 same person. The alley to the north had been vacated by different property owners. He thought other portions of the street had been vacated. Mr. Forney asked if the alley to the north of Eight Street and the alley to the south of Ninth Street had been vacated. Mr. Allred stated the northern portion of Eighth Street, the first two Tots, had been vacated. Ms. Johnson asked if any portion of Eighth Street had been constructed. Ms. Little did not believe any portion of Eighth Street had been constructed. She noted this was the first time a developer had been interested in the property. Ms. Johnson noted Ninth Street had been constructed in several locations. Ms. Little noted the right-of-way for Ninth street was wider than Eighth Street and parts of Ninth Street had been constructed. • Mr. Tucker stated he had no problem with vacation of right-of-way, but he was concerned about the drainage. He asked what the staff was expecting to see for a drainage study. • Mr. Beavers felt the study would probably consist of a plan to clean the area up. A complaint letter had referred to the lack of maintenance causing the drainage problem. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the vacation with all staff comments. In reference to condition #3, the applicant must provide a plan acceptable the city staff to accommodate the drainage problem on the eighth street right-of-way. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 8-1-0. Watkins voting nay • • Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1997 Page 9 PP 97-7.00: PRELIMINARY PLAT (SERENITY PLACE P.U.D.) PRESTIGE PROPERTIES- W. OF SALEM & N. OF MT. COMFORT Staff report by Jim Beavers was presented: The preliminary plat was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Prestige Properties Inc., for property located west of Salem Road and north of Mount Comfort Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 30.04 acres with 99 proposed single family lots. Findings: This subdivision is proposed as a planned unit development. Improvements to Salem Road to bring it into compliance with City standards (including a 6 ft. sidewalk) and an assessment of $124,000.00 for contribution to the Master Street Plan minor arterial (Rupple Road) on the western edge of this project will be required of this developer. A Master Street Plan collector runs east / west through this development (Serenity Way). The project was tabled at the August 28, 1997 Subdivision Committee Meeting due to Master Street Plan issues. The plan as presented for the Planning Commission Meeting was reviewed at the September 11, 1997 Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised plan, if approved by the Planning Commission must go back to Technical Plat review in order for the utility companies to request easements and crossings. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of the requirement for a second access to Salem Road. The extension of Reflective drive to Salem Road is recommended by Staff. 2. Planning Commission determination of the request for a wavier in cul-de-sac length for Peaceful Lane (permanent cul-de-sac) and for Serenity Way (cul-de-sac until future arterial is built). 3. Determination of the developer's share for the construction of the Master Street Plan • minor arterial on the west (Rupple Road) in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations (section 159.33). Staff estimates the developer's contribution to be $124,000.00. ea • Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1997 Page 10 4. Compliance with all requirements of the City's regulations for Planned Unit Developments. The layout as shown is subject to a Letter of Map Amendment from the developer's engineer to FEMA. If the LOMA is not accepted, then all of the lots within the floodplain must be a minimum of one acre. The preliminary plat must document this requirement. 6. The City of Fayetteville expects to receive new information from the Corps of Engineers in October or November concerning revised floodplain elevations. It is anticipated that the new elevations will result in more lots being placed in the floodplain. The developer is hereby notified that the final plat must reflect the latest information available to the City. 7. The payment of Parks fees at the time of final plat in the amount of $29,700.00 (99 lots at $300.00 per lot). 8. The payment of $6,014.00 as a water line connection fee ($200 per acre) as required by • the Salem Road water line extension Ordinance (no. 3938) dated 11/7/95. • 9. Payment of $19,800.00 at the time of final plat for the improvements to the Hamestring Basin sanitary sewer system ($200 per lot). This fee is consistent with development in the Hamestring Creek basin. 10. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozark, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 11. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. Fire protection to meet the Fire Chiefs requirements. 12. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 ft. sidewalk with a minimum 10 ft. greenspace along the west side of Salem Road and both sides of Serenity Way. Sidewalk construction to include a minimum 4 ft. sidewalk with a minimum 6 ft. greenspace along both sides of all other streets within the development. The sidewalks shall be continuous through driveways. • Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1997 Page 11 13. Right-of-way dedication per the Master Street Plan. 14. Widen Salem Road to match the existing widening immediately north (Salem Village PUD). 15. The construction of Serenity Way as a collector per the Master Street Plan requires (by precedent or tradition) that the City participate in the additional costs between a 28 ft. residential street and a 36 ft. collector street. Neither the Planning Commission or staff can obligate City funds. Therefore the construction of Serenity Way as a collector is subject to the City Council approving a cost share agreement with Prestige Properties Development Inc. If such agreement were to fail, then the developer must construct Serenity Way as a 28 ft. residential street. Therefore, the cost -share agreement must be presented to the City Council prior to approval of the construction plans for the development. The developer's engineer shall be responsible to furnish a complete and accurate cost estimate to the City for use in preparing a Council agenda request. • 16. Gravel shall not be allowed for any parking in public right-of-way. The proposed parking along Serenity shall be paved to the same standards as the street construction. The proposed island in Serenity Way is subject to additional review and consideration. • 17. Clearly define and pave all access points to the public and private parks and greenspace. 18. The covenants must be reviewed and approved by the City Planning, Engineering and Legal Divisions/Departments. The covenants must provide for the maintenance of the private areas, private drainage and all other "PUD" requirements. Further the covenants must provide that fences will not be constructed along Serenity Way for the portion adjacent to private park. 19. The City will maintain all streets and drainage within the street right-of-way only. All other drainage shall be private and privately maintained by a POA or other such entity. 20. The preliminary plat will go back through the technical plat review process to allow the utility companies to request easements and crossings. • 21. Public access to the greenspace area not designated as private to be provided. End of staff report. Ms. Mickey Harrington represented the item. Mr. Tim Reynolds and Brian Moore were also • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1997 Page 12 present. Mr Beavers asked for clarification on condition #18, restricting the use of fences. Ms. Little recalled the subdivision discussion had involved the public's view into the private park. It had been her understanding that there were not to be fences along Serenity Way, which would block the view into the park. Mr. Forney added the private park was not to be fenced along the frontage adjacent to Serenity Way. The Subdivision Committee had only been concerned with the private park being fenced. Ms. Little stated condition #18 would read, "Fences would not be constructed along Serenity Way for that portion adjacent to the private park." She added the Parks Board had requested that all the greenspace, with the exception of the private park, be open to the public. Ms. Harrington, attorney, stated two plats were being presented. One plat had been designed with an extra tum lane at the main entrance of Salem Road. The second plat was basically the same design, but with two streets connecting to Salem Road. She noted the Subdivision Committee preferred the plat with two ingress/egress onto Salem Road. The developer preferred the design with one entrance onto Salem. She explained the developer had incorporated a Master Street Planned collector street through the subdivision. In an effort to increase safety, none of the lots were facing the collector street. She explained the subdivision had originally been designed with only two entrances, one on Salem and the second on the future Rupple Road extension. However, the Subdivision Committee had recommended an additional entry onto Salem Road to prevent the subdivision from only having one entry until the Rupple Road extension could be complete. She felt the northern entry onto Salem would become more widely used than the collector street because of the school which would reduce the safety of the subdivision. She added the two entries on Salem would only be 200' apart. She felt one entry with a turn lane would be more beneficial than the addition of a second entry. She felt Rupple Road would be constructed soon after the subdivision was built out. PUBLIC Mr. Jim Kimbrough, 2420 N. Salem Road, expressed concern about the subdivision only having one entry. Ms. Johnson asked the time frame for the construction of Rupple Road. Ms. Little stated the staff had requested the Rupple Road extension be placed on the staff requested items for 1998. However, there would be many items on the listed that would not receive funding. Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1997 Page 13 Ms. Johnson expressed concern that this subdivision would have only one entrance for to long. Mr. Watkins noted the difficulty in getting from one point to another in Fayetteville. He felt the second access point would be advantageous to the people on Reflective Way. He added subdivisions needed multiple accesses. Ms. Johnson asked the length of the cul-de-sacs on Secluded Lane and Peaceful Lane. Ms. Little replied until there was another access point, the length of the cul-de-sac would be the total length of the street from Salem Road, Serenity and Peaceful. Mr. Beavers added the cul-de-sac length would be over 500'. Ms. Harrington questioned the type of access required for condition #21. Mr. Tim Reynolds stated the type of access to the green space had never been discussed. Mr. Beavers stated the access point needed to be paved to avoid future problems. He added the • people buying the homes needed to know it was a public access. Ms. Johnson questioned the apron parking on the sides of the collector street near the private park area Ms. Harrington replied the parking would be for the neighborhood residents. Mr. Brian Moore noted the developer was paying the full amount in parks fees in addition to allowing public access to the green space. Mr. Bob Reynolds expressed concern about children crossing the collector to get from one park to the next. Ms. Harrington responded a green median had been added to the collector to help address the problem of crossing the street. She noted each park was approximately the size of a football field. She did not believe there would be a lot of crossing between the two. She noted each side would have different activities. Mr. Bob Reynolds suggested a tunnel or overhead crossing. Ms. Harrington replied the tunnel would be too expensive. She suggested making the median • wider and to angle the collector street to slow traffic down. • Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1997 Page 14 Ms. Johnson expressed concern about slowing traffic down on a major collector. Mr. Beavers stated tum lanes were required on all collector streets by definition, without regard to the number of entrances to the subdivision. Mr. Forney questioned if the second entry off Salem could be closed after the Rupple Road was constructed. Ms. Little replied she was not aware of another subdivision where an access had been closed. She added Crystal Springs and Salem Village were required to have four accesses. This subdivision was only being asked to provide three accesses. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated the design speed for a collector street was 35 to 40 miles per hour. Mr. Watkins liked the idea of the median to slow traffic to increase the safety through the park area • In response to questions from Mr. Sugg regarding the wide corners, Ms Harrington stated the comers would allow more room for the emergency vehicles to maneuver. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the plat with the second access onto Salem Road and the request for the waivers from cul-de-sac length to be granted for Peaceful Lane and Serenity Way. The developer's contribution to Rupple Road would be $124,000.00. He noted the amendment to condition 18, "fences will not be constructed along Serenity Way for that portion adjacent to the private park. He added condition #21- Public access to greenspace area not designated as private will be provided. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Ms. Hoffman asked if the motion included the widening of the median between the two parks. Mr. Forney replied his motion did not include the widening of the median. It accepted the 10' median as it was shown on the plat. Mr. Odom asked the staff to address the width of the median at the Technical plat review. • Ms. Hoffman did not believe she could support the motion without the median being widen to increase the safety between the two parks. • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1997 Page 15 Mr. Forney stated he did not object to the median being widened, but he could not support it because he did not know which would be the safest design. In response to comments from Ms. Harrington, Ms. Hoffman reiterated that the developer needed to work with the staff on the median. The motion carried by a vote of 8-1-0. Mr. Sugg voting nay. • • Planning Commission Meeting September 22, 1997 Page 16 AD 97-11.00 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (DISCUSSION OF COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS1 Mr. Odom stated the discussion would involve the word articulation in the context of the Commercial Design Standards. Ms. Johnson stated she like the definition of articulation the staff had provided. Mr. Watkins stated he also liked the definitions and illustrations the staff had provided. He felt the Planning Commission needed to adopt the definition and illustrations either informally or by regulation. Mr. Odom commented the original ordinances for the Commercial Design Standard ordinance contained illustrations. However, the City Council had deleted those illustrations. Mr. Watkins felt if the Council did not accept the drawings, then the Planning Commission could adopt definition and illustrations to help in the application of the regulation. The Commission could give meaning to the term unarticulated and the articulated. He recommended the definition and illustrations be adopted by the Planning Commission as one of their regulations or by the staff, which would not require council approval. Ms. Hoffman suggested adding handouts with the applications explaining the terms with illustration. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. �1�