Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-22 Minutesi • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 22, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of March 8, 1999 Minutes AD99-2: Walgreens, pp 220 Nomination for Chair, Vice Chair, Sec. AD99-1: Town Creek Builders, pp 523 VA99-3: Town Creek Builders, pp 523 MEMBERS PRESENT Bob Estes John Forney Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Loren Shackelford Gary Tucker Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT: Janet Johns Alett Little Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Approved with conditions Approved with conditions. MEMBERS ABSENT Conrad Odom STAFF ABSENT • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA Approval of the minutes from the March 8, 1999 meeting. AD99-2: Administrative Item Walgreens, pp 290 This item was submitted by Matt Crafton of Crafton, Tull, and Associates on behalf of Walgreens for property located at the northwest corner of College Avenue and Township Street. The request is to discuss contributions for improvements to Township Street. Staff recommended approval subject to the cost estimates in the letter from Robert Crafton dated March 11, 1999 in the amount of $24,975. Commission Discussion Forney: Does any member of the Commission wish to remove anything from the Consent Agenda? If not, will you call the role? Roll Call Upon roll call the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 6-1-1. Mr. Estes voted against the motion and Mr. Ward abstained. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 3 Nominating Committee Report Forney: The Nominating Committee held our meeting after the Subdivision Committee Meeting and we submit the following candidates: Phyllis Johnson - Chair Bob Estes - Vice Chair Lee Ward - Secretary Does any one wish to add to the nominations? Seeing none, we will accept the ballot. We are not voting on this ballot tonight. We will vote on this at the first meeting in April. • Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 4 AD99-1: Administrative Item Town Creek Builders, PP 523 This item was submitted by Laura Kelly on behalf of the applicants for property located at 404 West Sixth Street, at the northwest corner of S. School Ave. and West Sixth Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2 3 acres. The request is to relocate a proposed Master Street Plan collector street from the center of the subject property to the western edge of the property within an abandoned railroad right of way. Staff recommended approval and felt that the solution suggested by the applicant was a reasonable way to accommodate the intent of the Master Street Plan while maintaining adequate space within the subject property for development. Laura Kelly and Robert Sharp were present on behalf of the project. Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant shall obtain (if necessary) and dedicate sufficient right of way along the • western boundary of the subject property for the Master Street Plan proposed collector street. Commission Discussion Forney: Is the applicant clear on the conditions and do you accept the condition? Kelly: I am not clear on that condition. I asked the engineer about that today and I was told that there would be more conditions on approval. Forney: Perhaps the staff could clarify that for everyone involved. Little: All we're saying is that we do recommend the amendment of the Master Street Plan to move it over into the railroad right of way and in doing that, we wanted to make sure that the applicant knew that when the other project came through, that there could be assessments for the improvement of that street. We don't know yet. We have not done that review. Forney: For tonight, we're only moving the Master Street Plan designation, we're not actually planning that street or its width, etc. Little: That's correct. • Forney: Would you like to make additional presentation with your overhead? • Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 5 Kelly: I can, if there is need for it. Public Discussion None. Further Commission Discussion Hoffman: Was staff not concerned with the offset to the existing street to north? Little: We are. It is best to look at that on page 4.7 of your agenda which does show the proposed collector street. The street to the north is West Street and the former location of the Master Street Plan street was further to the east so this is less of a jog than it would have been if we leave it in its current alignment. We feel like it is better and there is a building in between. If there is to be a smooth transition, it would require that a building be removed although that is just a rather small jog, we could possibly develop it in that same way. This is less of agog than our old plan. • Kelly: I tried to illustrate that here. The purple is the rights of way for the proposed street. The green is the easement and that is where the street was going to run originally. You can barely see where West Street comes in at the top. • Hoffman: If it is such a slight offset, why couldn't we just go ahead and line it straight up? Little: Parts of the existing building are located there. It is something that could be considered and might best be considered at large scale. The reason that we do want to bring this item forward now is we didn't feel like that we could recommend a vacation which is the next item on the agenda without at least an exchange. This is a clean exchange because it is the railroad right of way. Tucker: Do we presently have just a right of way or do we have something on the ground so to speak? Little: There is an alley located in that area and it is currently paved. It is not paved in the manner that streets would paved. It's paved in the manner that a street would be paved. It's paved in the manner that a parking lot would be paved. Although it is surfaced, it is not suitable for street use. Tucker: Little: It's a private alley? It's not private because it was built in the public right of way. It has been used in • Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 6 a private manner simply because the present owner and the future owner would own the property on both sides of it. Given that, the person that owns the properties on both sides generally uses alleys in whatever way it best fits their purpose and in this instance, they were able to pave over it and they used it for some truck traffic. They have used it for parking. Tucker: Are we giving up anything by just going for a right of way in the new proposal as opposed to what we have now? Little: No. I think we're gaining quite a bit by the proposal. The main thing that we're gaining is we're gaining enough to actually make a street on and what we have now is not really wide enough to make a street. We would have to acquire additional property. For that reason, I think this is a good exchange. Forney: The platted alley will remain. Because we're moving the Master Street Plan designation does not remove that public alley. Little: It doesn't but the next item on the agenda is the request for the vacation of that. • Ward: and Sixth. • We need to do everything we can to facilitate the redevelopment of South College MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to approve AD99-1 subject to the condition of approval and comments. Mr. Shackelford seconded the motion. Further Discussion Johnson: Who owns what we are calling the railroad right of way? Kelly: Stan Foster. We do not own it. A private land owner -- the railroad has sold the right of way to Sharp. The railroad right of way is currently owned by a man named Stan Foster in Paragould, Arkansas. He is working with us. His primary business is salvaging feed mills and we are working with him to salvage the feed mill and buy the property from him. We have discussed the street business and in part of our dealing with him that it is contingent upon him selling us that land. We feel that if the project goes forward, we will be able to get that land to dedicate the right of way necessary. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 7 Little: Our condition of approval is that it is switched to that right of way provided the applicant obtain and dedicate sufficient right of way along the western boundary of the project per the Master Street Plan proposed collector street. In other words, if they are not able to obtain that property, then this Master Street Plan does not change. Johnson: I take it all of this means then that this is not in fact railroad right of way. I take it that is just something for convenience to tell us that a railroad used to be there. The railroad must no longer have any interest in this property. Is that correct? Kelly: That's true It has recently changed hands. Forney: So that land is now owned not by the railroad. They do not have a right of way. It owned by another property owner. Johnson: It's a little confusing to me to call it a railroad right of way. Forney. I would agreed. Thank you for the clarification. Are there other questions or comments? Hoffman: I agree that we need to facilitate this redevelopment. I am concerned about traffic problems and creating them with slight offsets. So when this comes through for large scale development, I would strongly discourage driveways accessing Prairie Street from this development. Kelly: We don't own the land along Prairie Street. That is not part of this development. Hoffman: Are those small lots? Kelly: Those two top lots are owned by the Rosewits and Presleys. Hoffman: And there are existing buildings on them? Kelly: Yes. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 8 VA99-3: Vacation Town Creek Builders, pp 523 This item was submitted by Laura Kelly on behalf of Town Creek Builders for property located at 404 West Sixth Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is to vacate an alley within Block 14 of Ferguson's Addition. The alley varies in width and runs from Prairie Street on the north to West Sixth Street on the south as shown on the attached drawings. Laura Kelly and Robert Sharp were present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval of the vacation subject to the conditions as contained in the February 26, 1999 Tetter from David Jurgens as follows: 1. An easement must be maintained which allows for both existing and future required water and sewer lines. There is a very good change that the existing water line will need to be replaced within the next 20 years. This replacement will require a new line to be installed several feet east of the existing water line in order to maintain separation between the water and sewer lines. Thus, the west boundary of the easement must be no less than 8 feet west of the centerline of the existing (north -south) 18 inch sewer line. The east boundary of the easement must be no less than 17 feet east of the centerline of the existing (north -south) 18 inch sewer line. This easement will meet all current and future water and sewer requirements. 2. The existing 12 inch line which is currently located under the southwest comer of the large structure must be made legal and accessible for maintenance. This can be done one of two ways. First, the line can be relocated around the building. Second, the extreme southern portion of the structure can be removed. It appears that this portion of the building was added to the original structure. The final configuration must be that the sewer line has a cleared 20 foot wide easement centered upon the sewer line. One caveat is that the corner of the original structure (not the add-on which was built over the sewer line) may be allowed to penetrate no more than 2 feet into the easement. If this 12 inch line is relocated, the new line must have flow capacity equal to the existing line. Structures built in lots 1-9 shall be allowed to tap onto the 18 inch sewer line of these lots as long as they meet one of the two provisions listed below. These provisions are required in order to protect the prospective structures and tenants from the possibility of the sewage from backing up out of the 18 inch sewer main. We generally do not allow connections on these large mains due to the significant flow volume. • Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 9 a. The floor of the buildings must be at least 12 inches higher than the manhole upstream from this building's tap onto the sewer main. The sewer clean out must be a pop-up style clean out located such that traffic cannot run over the clean out cap. Additionally, a sewer check valve must be installed in the service line. The clean out and check valve shall be the owner's responsibility to maintain. Or, b. The building shall have a sewer pump system. 3. All existing water and sewer services must be properly abandoned and new connections made and used for any and all structures constructed or receiving significant renovation. This is to meet the requirement that any new structures shall have services which meet current codes, and to protect the prospective structures and tenants. Committee Discussion Kelly: The City of Fayetteville Water and Sewer Maintenance Superintendent, David • Jurgens, worked with me to find a satisfactory easement condition in exchange for the alley vacation and he was very relieved at addressing this issue because there are some problems on the site. He has laid down some strict conditions that we will be required to follow because they are attached to our alley vacation. This will allow him legal access to some major sewer lines that he currently does not have safe access to. • Petrie: I request that the letter mentioned in the condition be made a part of the record and the condition of approval. Forney: That letter is on page 5.3 in the packet. Petrie: Page 5.3 through 5.5. Public Discussion None. MOTION Ms Johnson made a motion to approve VA99-3 subject to the requirements set forth in the two letters appearing on page 5.3 and the other on pages 5.4 and 5.5 and subject to City Council approval. • • • Planning Conunission Minutes March 22, 1999 Page 10 Ms Hoffman seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion was approved with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Meeting adjourned at 5:50.