Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-27 - Minutes• • • SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 27, 1996 The Fayetteville Planning Commission Subcommittee met on Wednesday, November 27, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, Robert Reynolds and John Forney STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Dawn Warrick, Beth Sandeen, Chuck Rutherford and Sharon Langley LS96.50: WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS PETROMARK - NORTHWEST CORNER OF CROSSOVER AND JOYCE The first item was a request for a lot split (waiver of subdivision regulations) submitted by Jim Gabel on behalf of Petromark for property located at the northwest corner of Crossover Road and Joyce Street. The property is zoned C -I, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains approximately 2 acres. Ms. Little advised staff had furnished the applicant the conditions of approval which had been signed by the applicant. She added staff recommended approval of the lot split but requested Tract 2 be required to go through the large scale development process (Tract 2 contains .92 acres). She stated the conditions of approval included: a contribution to improvement of Joyce Street; an 8 -foot trail on the north side of Joyce Street; dedication of right-of- way to total 55 feet from the centerline of Joyce Street; an easement plat being filed prior to the issuance of a building permit; joint access between the current structure and the proposed structure; extension of water and sewer (to be worked out at a later date with Engineering); applicant to contact Arkansas Western Gas. She advised many of these items could be worked out during the large scale development process. Ms. Little noted a discrepancy between the original Petromark large scale plat and the current plat; the current plat showed the 20 -foot utility easement had been split with 10 feet being on each side of the property line. She pointed out there had been a proposed future property line shown on the large scale, then 10 feet of space and then a 20 -foot general utility easement centered on the 8 -foot sewer line. She advised the City wanted to maintain the 20 -foot easement centered on the sewer line. Mr. Beavers asked if the line was existing or proposed, noting the line was not in the engineering records. He also stated he had faxed a copy of the proposed cost share on Joyce Street in the amount of $10,900 which represented one-half of a 28 -foot street. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the lot split subject to staff's comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 3-0-0. ) 511 Subdivision Committee Meeting November 27, 1996 Page 2 LSD96-38: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - HANNA'S WAREHOUSING BERT HANNA - N OF 15TH ST., W OF MORNINGSIDE DRIVE The next item was a large scale development submitted by Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, on behalf of Hanna's Warehousing for property located on the north side of 15th Street, west of Morningside Drive. The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial - Light Industrial, and contains approximately 3.03 acres. Ms. Little reminded the Subcommittee they had rezone the subject tract approximately one year earlier for John Dramus. She advised Mr. Dramus had apparently sold the property after it was rezoned and the applicant planned to construct warehouses. She asked the Subcommittee if commercial design standards would apply to the subject project. She explained industrial properties were exempt; but, each warehouse would contain office space (a commercial use). She stated staff had met with the applicant and had suggested "going half and half' on the standards-- the drawings would not be required but the landscaping would be required. She advised she believed the entire Planning Commission would need to discuss the matter and make a decision. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Jones advised each warehouse would have a support office. Mr. Reynolds pointed out the subject property adjoined residential property to the rear and a church on each side. He advised he believed the landscaping portion of the design standards needed to be met due to the location of the warehouses. Ms. Little noted the buildings would be metal. Mr. Jones agreed and stated he was unclear on some of the design standards. He explained the applicant was proposing to provide the front landscaping requirements with screening at the rear and sides of the property. He stated the normal landscaping requirements were not very much since the property across the street was zoned agricultural but they were proposing to provide landscaping to meet the commercial design standards in the front. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little stated Mr. Dramus had requested the I-1 zoning in order to have a warehouse for their business with the front of the building being brick. She noted she was sure the Commission had considered that when rezoning the property, but they had not received a guarantee. Mr. Forney stated the General Plan showed some mixed use areas north of 15th Street but no industrial uses. Ms. Little stated she did not believe they had rezoned contrary to the General Plan. Mr. Reynolds stated they had been told by Mr. Dramus that the property would be used as a sales room for the floor company together with a warehouse for storage. Ms. Little pointed out that, when the City Council had been discussing the design standard ordinance, the metal buildings on Highway 265 had repeatedly been mentioned. She stated this would be the same situation with metal buildings on a major street. She pointed out the applicant had offered the landscaping. She explained she believed their only other option was to ask for drawings of the proposed buildings or to prohibit office space in the buildings. Mr. Allred stated anytime there was 1500 square feet of office space there had to be a support office and restrooms. He suggested the Commission could come up with a percentage or a square footage figure that could not be exceeded for use as offices. Mr. Jones advised the proposed total square footage of the buildings would be 37,500 square feet with approximately 5,000 square feet to be offices. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 27, 1996 Page 3 In response to a question from Mr. Allred Mr Jones assured the Subcommittee there would not be any retail operation out of the buildings or offices. Mr. Forney asked if, at some time in the future, the buildings could be converted to commercial use. Ms. Little explained the title for I-1 was Heavy Commercial - Light Industrial and, therefore, commercial uses would be allowed. She expressed regret that the commercial design ordinance was not clear. She requested that each Planning Commissioner become familiar with the ordinance so a consistent policy could be established. Mr. Jones pointed out there was nothing in the ordinance that said they could not construct metal buildings. Mr. Forney agreed and added he was not as concerned with the appearance of the buildings as he was that they had the very best screening. Mr. Jones advised the applicant was willing to provide the 15 -foot landscaped area and plant the trees required by the commercial design ordinance. Ms. Little pointed out the screening required on the north, west and east was not related to the commercial design ordinance but the older ordinances relating to industrial uses adjacent to residential property. Pastor Curtis, minister at an adjacent church, expressed concern that the buildings could be sold at some future date and any type of business could be installed. He advised he was not concerned with the proposed warehouses or the buildings, just possible future use. Mr. Allred advised the use of the building would be covered by the zoning ordinances, not the large scale development process. Pastor Curtis expressed concern that the property was zoned I-1, advising he had thought it was zoned R-2 Ms. Little explained the procedure used to rezone properties within the City of Fayetteville. She asked Mr. Jones to meet with Pastor Curtis prior to the Planning Commission meeting.\ Ms. Little then reviewed other requirements for the large scale: a 6 -foot concrete sidewalk be shown continuous through the drive; a streetlight within 300 feet. Mr. Jones advised there was a streetlight within 300 feet located at the corner of Morningside and 15th Street. He further noted there would be some lighting within the project. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Jones advised he believed the property would be leased but he was not sure. He stated he believed this project would be similar to the other Hanna Warehouses located in the industrial park. Ms. Little noted staff had asked that any curb cuts be shown on the plat. Mr. Jones advised there were none. Beth Sandeen pointed out the plat did not reflect the landscaping. She also requested that the screening along the back and sides be specified as to types of plants, the spacing of the plants, etc. • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 27, 1996 Page 4 Ms. Little reminded Mr. Jones they had discussed the width of the entrance drive and whether there would be truck traffic. She explained that, if there would be truck traffic, the drive needed to be 30 feet wide but, if there would be no truck traffic, the drive would need to be only 24 feet in width. Mr. Jones stated there would be occasional truck traffic but none of them would be backing onto Highway 16 since there would be plenty of turnaround room. After discussion, it was agreed the driveway width would be 27 feet. In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Mr. Jones stated they were meeting the parking lot requirements. He explained the calculations were based on 5,000 square feet of office space and 32,500 square feet of warehousing. He stated there were 33 spaces required and they were providing 40 spaces (25% over the number required). Ms. Little stated they had also discussed the location of the transformer. She asked if the location had been approved by the applicant. Mr. Jones advised the location had been approved. He added they would be coordinating the voltage with SWEPCO. Mr. Reynolds asked if the buildings would have wall fans or roof mounted, explaining wall fans caused a lot more noise than the roof mounted fans. Mr. Jones advised the construction would be similar to the other warehouses owned by Mr. Hanna. He noted none • of those buildings had wall fans. • Mr. Forney expressed concern regarding the truck traffic, noting that, if the use of the buildings changed in the future, the Planning Commission would have no recourse. He pointed out there did not appear to be any loading zones to any of the warehouses. Mr. Jones stated there would be no heavy trucks but there would be roll -up doors in the front of the warehouses. Mr. Forney suggested limiting the parking and truck unloading to the court between the buildings which would provide screening and a sound barrier or they could require the roll -up doors be placed only on the internal portion of each building. Mr. Reynolds advised he did not want to move the buildings any closer to the church. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Jones stated the FEMA flood maps showed the tract to be Zone X - 500 Year Flood Zone. Mr. Reynolds stated the tract had flooded a number of years ago but the elevation had been raised by approximately 8 feet. Mr. Jones offered to provide more detailed information to the Planning Commission as to the location of the doors and how the warehouses would be loaded and unloaded. Mr. Beavers asked if the Subdivision Committee was requiring an elevation drawing. Mr. Allred asked if the ordinance allowed the Committee to ask for an elevation drawing. Ms. Little advised the ordinance was not clear. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 27, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Forney pointed out the ordinance said "commercial structures" and the zoning ordinance did allow commercial uses in 1-1 zoning; therefore, he believed they could require an elevation drawing. After further discussion, Mr. Jones agreed to bring a front elevation for the south side to the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Little reminded Mr. Jones there would be revisions to the plat which would be due at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to forward the plat to the full Planning Commission together with staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 3-0-0. ��2 • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 27, 1996 Page 6 LSD96-36 10 - LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - CHAMBERLAND SQUARE APTS. JOHN E. CHAMBERS - W OF SHILOH DR., S OF WEDINGTON DR. The next item was a large scale development for Chamberland Square Apartments submitted by Danny Johnson of Tim Risley and Associates on behalf of John E. Chambers for property located west of Shiloh Drive and south of Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains approximately 8.02 acres. Ms. Little pointed out the right-of-way for Jewell Street was being reduced to 40 feet and the standard for a 40 -foot street was sidewalks on only one side. She advised Chuck Rutherford, Sidewalks & Trails Administrator, believed it would be better to have sidewalks on both sides of the street; but, in order to fit it into the 40 -foot right-of-way, the greenspace had been reduced from 5 feet to 4 feet. She explained there would be 40 feet of right-of-way, four feet of greenspace and 4 foot of sidewalk. She asked Mr. Johnson to label the width of the streets; 35 feet from the centerline of Shiloh. Mr. Johnson advised they were 31 feet 10 inches from the centerline of Shiloh. Ms. Little explained they would need to dedicate additional right-of-way to total 35 feet from the centerline of Shiloh to the property line. Mr. Beavers stated Engineering had reviewed the plat for concept only and none of the actual details of water, sewer, streets, or drainage were approved at this time. He advised the plans would require further review and a pre - construction conference with the applicant's engineer. Mr. Rutherford noted sidewalk ramps would be required at Jewell. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little stated there were 6 -foot wide sidewalks on Shiloh. She further noted that, since the development was residential, the overlay district did not apply. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the large scale to the Planning Commission with all staff comments. Mi. Forney seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson stated he had been hoping for final approval at the subject meeting. Ms. Little advised there was not a waiver requested even though they were deviating from the standards on the sidewalk. She noted the staff and developer were in total agreement however the sign off sheet had not been prepared. Mr. Forney advised he still was concerned about drainage and a curb cut on a curve. Ms. Warrick advised she had discussed the curb cut with the applicant and, while she had some concerns, there did not appear to be a better location for the curb cut. She added the sight distance was fairly good since the terrain was flat. Mr. Johnson noted the two westernmost curb cuts had been revised since that discussion. • In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little explained screening was not required since the adjacent properties were also zoned residential. 143 • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 27, 1996 Page 7 MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the large scale development subject to all plat review and staff comments. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 3-0-0. Staff agreed to prepare a sign off sheet for the applicant's signature. �u� 1„S • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 27, 1996 Page 8 LSD96-39: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - NEW SCHOOL ADDITION NEW SCHOOL - S OF SUNBRIDGE DR., E OF NEW SCHOOL PLACE The next item was a large scale development submitted by Dave Jorgensen, Jorgensen & Associates, on behalf of the New School located south of Sunbridge Drive and on the east side of New School Place. The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office and contains approximately 3.98 acres. Ms. Little stated the existing street light was no longer an issue since there was one located at the end of New School. She advised there had also been questions regarding the status of the ADA spaces and she still did not see them on the plat. Mr. Jorgensen pointed out the parking spaces and advised the location of the parking had been determined due to the grade of the site. Ms. Little noted a parking waiver would be required since the applicant was requesting 33 spaces instead of 25. She advised staff would support the waiver since, in most school situations, there was always a need for overflow parking. She stated there had also been a question regarding the circular drive which served the property. Mr. Jorgensen stated they had decided to request a property line adjustment and would receive an additional 15 feet from Mae Nettleship, the adjoining property owner. He further stated there was a 25 -foot utility easement adjacent to the 15 feet and adjacent to the utility easement was a I5 -foot drainage easement. Ms. Little asked the status of the existing building which was shown on the plat as a temporary building. Paul Wilhelm, architect for the project, advised the existing building was only in place until the new building was completed. Mr. Jorgensen stated he had submitted a letter to staff regarding the existing building. It was determined the letter would be included with the Planning Commission agenda. Mr. Beavers stated he had received the additional drainage information he requested at the plat review meeting and would be going over it with Mr. Jorgensen. Ms. Little advised the requested 5 -foot sidewalk with the 6 -foot greenspace along New School Place was not shown on the plat as continuous. Mr. Forney suggested the sidewalk extend to the school building. Mr. Wilhelm noted they would lose a number of trees if they extended the sidewalk. He discussed a number of alternative routes for the sidewalk in order to save the trees. Ms. Little requested the plat be revised to show the exact location of the sidewalk. Mr. Beavers requested the drainage easement be widened from 15 feet to 20 feet. Ms. Little stated an easement plat would have to be filed prior to the issuance of a building permit. MOTION • Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the large scale development to the Planning Commission together with all plat review and staff comments. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 27, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Wilhelm advised the area marked future cafeteria and classroom would be included in the current phase (approximately 3,000 square feet) which allowed 10 parking spaces. Mr. Forney expressed concern regarding the width of the entry drive. Mr. Wilhelm advised the drive was existing. Ms. Little stated they could install an island. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 3-0-0. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 27, 1996 Page 10 PP96-8 PRELIMINARY PLAT - CANTERBURY PLACE CUSTOM BUILDING PRODUCTS - N OF JOYCE, W OF CROSSOVER The next item was a preliminary plat for Canterbury Place submitted by Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers on behalf of Custom Building Products for property located north of Joyce Boulevard and west of Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and A -I, Agriculture, and contains approximately 20.19 acres with 23 proposed lots. Ms. Little advised staff had received a comment late the previous afternoon from the 9-1-1 Coordinator pertaining to street naming. She gave the comments to Mr. Jones. She explained to the Subdivision Committee the project had been before them earlier as a rezoning (with the applicant requesting the front portion be zoned R -O and the rear portion being zoned R -I). She noted the applicant had changed his request and had requested the front portion be rezoned to R-1. She advised the Council had approved R-1 zoning for the entire tract. She further advised the Parks Board had reviewed the project and proposed to take Lot 6 as park lands dedication. She added there was a requirement for contribution for construction of Joyce Street and for drainage, sidewalks and trails. Mr. Beavers advised his estimate for total contributions would be $29,991.28. Ms. Little requested the Subdivision Committee look at Lot 19 which included the driveway currently going to the house. She stated the developer had pointed out there was already an existing curb cut but staff had questioned whether the lot should access directly onto Joyce Street and, if so, if there should be a provision for a separate access. She also advised Mr. Jones had requested that Kent, Chaucer and Tabard Streets be allowed to have 40 -foot right-of- way but was showing 50 feet of right-of-way. Mr. Jones stated he had not known the right-of-way could be 40 feet. He explained he was interested in having 40 - foot right-of-way. Ms. Little stated a street containing 40 feet of right-of-way would be a 24 -foot wide street with sidewalk on one side. In response to a question from Mr. Beavers, Mr. Jones stated he believed Abbey Road should retain 50 feet of right- of-way since it access the proposed park lands. He advised the Parks Board was in negotiation to purchase two adjoining lots to Lot 6. Ms. Little noted Abbey Road should be using the name Taliesin since it would, in the future, connect to Taliesin. After discussion, Mr. Jones stated he was willing to leave all of the right-of-way 50 feet but pave only 24 feet to Kent, Chaucer and Tabard. In response to access to Lot 19, Mr. Forney and Mr. Allred both noted they were not opposed to the access as shown. Mr. Forney asked why Abbey Lane had ajog. Mr. Jones advised there was a pond to the north. Mr. Allred pointed out the jog would slow traffic down. Ms. Little stated they could leave the street as it was, straighten it (through Lot 9) or put a curve the street more. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 27, 1996 Page 11 Mr. Forney advised his concern was placement of the stop sign. He encouraged Mr. Jones to curve the street more. Mr. Jones agreed. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with plat review and staff comments. Mr. Jones stated a 24 -foot street required sidewalks on only one side; they had planned to put the sidewalks on the outside since he did not believe there was a need for sidewalks on the inside. Ms. Little stated she did not object to that as long as Taliesin had sidewalks on both sides. In response to a comment from Mr. Beavers, she advised she did have concerns regarding the street not being continuous in front of the park lands and recommended that right-of-way be dedicated (between lots 4 and 8). She further advised that, if the street were not built between lots 4 and 8, the plat would need to be reviewed again by the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Reynolds stated he wanted to be sure everyone understood his motion approved the subject plat only and, if there were any changes to the plat, it would need to be reviewed again by the Subdivision Committee. Dr. Hudson, the adjoining property owner to the west, stated the property to the west of the proposed subdivision had been declared wetlands. Ms. Little advised she did have some concerns regarding the affect any houses constructed on lots 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 would have on the wetlands. Dr. Hudson stated that was the purpose of having park lands on those lots. Mr. Jones noted the plan was to grade toward the storm sewer as much as possible so runoff would not go to the wetlands. Dr. Hudson expressed concern regarding houses adjacent to the wetlands, noting it was an animal feeding ground. Mr. Jones stated the wetlands would be shown on the plat so anyone purchasing a lot on the west side of the subdivision would be aware of the wetlands. Mr. Forney asked if the city's drainage ordinance simply required that off-site drainage not be increased by new development and did not mention water quality. Mr. Beavers stated there was a section on protecting wetlands in the ordinance. Mr. Jones proposed that, if the parks department was taking lot 6, it would be an ideal location for an additional water quality control basin. He advised he would discuss the matter with Parks. Ms. Little reviewed the changes to the plat: renaming the street; placing a larger curve at the north of Abbey Lane; dedication of Lot 6; and agreement on the amount of funds for improvements to Joyce Street. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 3-0-0. )v� • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 27, 1996 Page 12 LSD94-40: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - FAST TRAX #9 NORTHWEST OIL CO. - NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHILOH AND WEDINGTON The last item was a Targe scale development for Fast Trax #9 submitted by Mel Milholland, Milholland Engineering, on behalf of Northwest Oil Company, for property located at the northwest corner of Shiloh Drive and Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.42 acres. Ms. Little pointed out the tract was within the overlay district and would need to comply with those regulations. She reminded the Subdivision Committee the tract was a lot in Wedington Place Subdivision which they had recently approved. She stated there were a number of variances requested but staff supported only one of the variance requests - the entrance to the site from Steamboat Drive (a waiver of the overlay district requirement no entrances within of 250 feet to an intersection). She asked the number of employees that would be associated with the restaurant in order to compute the number of parking spaces needed. She noted elevation drawings had been received from the applicant. Mr. George Williams, President of Northwest Oil, advised there would be three employees per shift. Mr. Milholland contended the traffic counts at a similar business located at Highways 265 and 45 and a similar business located at Highway 62 and the Bypass were higher than those at the subject tract. He further contended the distance from the curb cuts to the intersection at both of those locations were also less than required for the subject tract simply because the subject tract was in the overlay district. He advised the applicant was requesting 200 feet from the curb cuts to Shiloh Drive, 151.64 feet from the curb cuts to Steamboat Drive, 169.19 feet off Steamboat Drive from Wedington Drive, and 214.81 feet off Shiloh Drive from Wedington Drive. He pointed out the Highway Department had approved the location of the proposed curb cuts. Further variances requested included Sign "A" conforming to the City ordinance and Sign "B" (non -conforming) to be a tall pole mounted sign for 71 Bypass visibility; construction of one entrance off Wedington Drive; construction of a standard internally lit sign; and a pole mounted sign 30 feet in height. Mr. Allred stated the Subdivision Committee did not normally discuss the variances requested since they would have to be requested at the Planning Commission meeting. He pointed out the Subdivision Committee could not make any determinations on the variances. Mr. Reynolds asked how they could put 40 seats into a 940 square foot building. Mr. Williams stated the restaurant would primarily be a drive-through restaurant so he doubted there would be 40 seats. Mr. Reynolds advised the number of seats would affect the number of parking spaces required. Mr. Williams explained the actual restaurant size would not be determined until they knew what company would be using the facility. Mr. Allred requested Mr. Milholland look at the restaurant area again for determination of number of parking spaces. Ms. Little advised there had been much discussion on the subject tract when the final plat had been approved and they had specifically said there would be no further curb cuts but that everything would access off Steamboat Drive. Mr. Milholland also noted he had attempted to obtain an access easement across the Holiday Inn Express property over to Shiloh but had been unsuccessful. I Vet • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 27, 1996 Page 13 MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the large scale without recommendation. Mr. Forney expressed concern regarding the width of the curb cuts. Mr. Williams explained there would be large trucks making deliveries. Ms. Little reminded the Subdivision Committee they also needed to apply the commercial design standards ordinance to the subject project. Mr. Beavers asked if Steamboat had been dedicated as a public right-of-way. Mr. Milholland stated he had not talked to Mr. Clary but presumed he would take care of dedicating the right-of- way. Mr. Williams advised he would take care of it. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 3-0-0. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.