Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-01 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Or LI n A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on May 1, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, John Forney, and Lorel Hoffman STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, Chuck Rutherford, Beth Sandeen, and Heather Woodruff. LS97-11.00: Lot Split (Gene Arnold, Jr., pp 491) was submitted by Russell West, West & Associates, on behalf of Gene Arnold for property located north of Wyman Road, east of Starr Drive (Lot 4, Block 2, Canvas Mountain Subdivision). The property contains 8.95 acres and is located in the City of Fayetteville Planning Area. Findings: County approval has been grated All requested revisions from the Technical Plat Review meeting have been submitted. Staff has no outstanding issues with this Reconunendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives) Subdivision Committee Action: Ms. Little explained there had been a previous lot split within the last year in the same subdivision. She also noted the tract to be split off did have access via Wyman Road and the remainder of the lot had access through an access easement from the north. In response to a question from Ms. Hoffman, Ms. Little advised there were plans to vacate the 50 -foot utility easement at a later date. She also noted there would be adequate room on the lot to construct a home with the 25 -foot utility easement remaining in place. Ms. Hoffman asked about the ingress and egress off of Wyman Road since it appeared access would be in the middle of a curve. • It was noted there was a total of 120 feet accessing onto Wyman. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the lot split subject to staff. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 3 LS97-12.00: Lot Split (Monte & Faye Alter, pp 259) request for a third split was submitted by the applicant for property located east of Gulley Road, south of Sagely Drive and north of Highway 45 (3030 Gulley Road). The request is to split a 4.43 acre tract into two lots. The property is located in the City of Fayetteville Planning Area. Findings: County approval has been grated. No revisions were requested by staff or utility representatives at the Technical Plat Review. Staff has no outstanding issues with this project. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives) Subdivision Committee Action: Ms. Hoffman asked if the proposed lots would be of a similar size to those lots in The Meadows Subdivision. Ms. Little advised the proposed lots would be slightly over 2 acres each and it appeared the lots in The Meadows ranged in size from 2 acres to 3.03 acres PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the request for a lot split subject to staff comments. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 4 LS97-13.00: Lot Split (Zachry, pp 524) submitted by the applicant for property located west of Willow and north of Sixth Street. The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and contains approximately 1.136 acres. Findings: All requested revisions form the Technical Plat Review meeting have been submitted. Staff has no outstanding issues with this project. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives) 2. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $300.00 for the newly created residential lot. (Received 4/28/97). 3. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards. Subdivision Committee Action: In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Zachry advised the sidewalk was already in existence but would need to be improved after construction. Ms. Warrick advised there was an existing house on 0.279 acres of the tract The remainder of the tract was empty. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. MOTION Ms. Hoffman moved to approve the lot split subject to staff comments. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 5 LS 97-9.00: Lot Split (Smith, pp 329) was submitted by Kirk Elsass of Lindsey & Associates on behalf of Greg Smith for property located at 2355 Green Acres, north of East Colt Square Drive and south and west of Green Acres Road. The property is zoned C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial) and contains approximately 0.66 acres. The request is to split this lot into two tracts. Findings: All requested revisions from the Technical Plat Review meeting have been submitted. Staff has no outstanding issues with this project. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. 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, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) Subdivision Committee Action: Ms. Little pointed out there was an existing building and parking lot with frontage on Green Acres Road. She explained the original buildings were developed using two lots; the lot split reconfigured the lots, putting one building on one lot and two buildings on the other lot. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little noted there were no side setbacks since the property was zoned C-2.. Mr. Forney asked if the new lot would be in conformance with all city standards. Ms. Little stated both lots would be in conformance. She noted she had asked for a joint access agreement and shared parking. Mr. Elsass advised there was adequate parking for each building without having shared parking.. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. if? • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 6 MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve LS97-9.00 subject to staff comments. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 7U • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 7 LSD 97-7.00: Large Scale Development (Keystone Crossing, pp 289) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Keating Enterprises for property located north of Sunbridge Drive and west of Keystone Crossing. The property is zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and contains approximately 1.04 acres. Findings: This project is located on a lot which was previously split from the Petromark (White Oak Station) property at the corner of Sunbridge Dr. and Gregg St. The project is subject to Commercial Design Standards. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval - Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) 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 Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 5' sidewalk with a minimum 6' greenspace along Keystone Crossing and Sunbridge Drive. Five feet of greenspace is required between the sidewalk or right of way and the parking lot (setback reduction allowed due to vegetative screening provided). Only 4' is shown - may reduce stall length in this location to 18' in order to achieve greenspace. 6. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 7. A separate easement plat for this project is required prior to the issuance of any building permit. 21 • • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 8 Subdivision Committee Action: Ms. Warrick advised there had been discussion at the Technical Plat Review meeting regarding a drainage pipe located in the city right-of-way but it now appeared in was within an easement. Ms. Little also reminded the applicant they would need to contact the State Highway Department regarding discharging drainage to Gregg Avenue. In response to a question from Mr. Forney regarding the curb cut at the northeast corner of the tract, Mr. Jorgensen explained it was to allow service trucks, UPS, etc. to have access to the parking area without getting onto Keystone Crossing. He explained they were trying to keep mud and debris from being carried out to the streets during construction. Ms. Hoffman asked if there would be a problem with the joint access since the White Oak Station was a busy location. Ms. Little assured her staff had visited the site and felt it would work. Mr. Jorgensen explained they were trying to minimize any more curb cuts. He pointed out the curb cut would be expanded. Ms. Little advised Mr. Jorgensen the structure would be subject to the commercial design standards. In response to questions, Mr. Keating advised the structure would appear to be an extension of Whistle Stop by using the same type materials. Mr. Forney expressed concern about the number of curb cuts. Mr. Keating explained there were numerous utility issues which related to the curb cuts. Ms. Johnson noted it appeared one could drive from Keystone to Appleby Road. Ms. Little explained that once had been correct but, due to cut through traffic in the Lindsey Apartments, gates had been installed at the exit on Drake. Mr. Keating expressed hope Sunbridge would go through to College Avenue. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 9 MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve LSD97-289 subject to staff comments. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. '23 • • • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 10 LSD 97-8.00: Large Scale Development (Salvation Army, pp 601) was submitted by Rick Rogers of CEI Engineering and Associates on behalf of the Salvation Army for property located south of 15th Street and east of Hwy 71B South. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and I-1, Heavy Commercial -Light Industrial, and contains 4.81 acres. Findings: This project is subject to Commercial Design Standards. A new public street is being created; this project will be responsible for the dedication of right of way and the improvement of one half of the new street. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. 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, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) 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 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk with 6' greenspace along Salvation. Sidewalks need to be labeled on this plat and added to the legend. 5. 911 coordinator suggests the designation "Lane" for the new street - Salvation, be changed to either "Street" or "Place". Provide a copy of the recorded instrument which provides access to the land -locked parcel to the west. 7. Dedication of right of way as shown on plat and improvement of one half of Salvation to current City standards. 1 7( Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 11 8. On "Utility Plan" an easement is shown on the west side of the building - this easement is not shown or noted on the site plan. 9. Submittal of a separate easement plat for this project is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. 10. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. Subdivision Committee Action: Ms. Little advised there had been discussion at the Technical Plat Review meeting regarding location of the structures within the flood plain. Mr. Rogers advised they had asked the surveyor to re -survey the site regarding location of the flood plain. He noted the plans before the Subdivision Committee had not been corrected. He provided them with a different site plan. He further advised CEI had used the newest FEMA material to base the flood elevation but, by contours, the detailed flood study showed the flood plain to be at elevation 1213. He continued that, based on graphics of the new FEMA detail map, it appeared the entire building could be in the flood plain area. In response to a question from Ms. Little regarding the parking lot, Mr. Rogers stated the grade would be as existing. Ms. Little asked when Mr. Rogers thought he would have the revised survey Mr. Rogers stated he believed he would have it prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Little directed the Subcommittee's attention to Item #6 and explained that, without some type of recorded instrument, the adjoining property would be land locked. She also pointed out the area which appeared to be a road from the site east to College was not dedicated right-of- way. She explained Item #7 required the dedication of that right-of-way and improvement to that street (to be named Salvation). In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little explained the Street Superintendent, Randy Allen, had advised he was not interested in taking over the maintenance on Salvation Street to the west of the area known as "West Street". Mr. Forney asked if they would have another opportunity to get the right-of-way to the west. Ms. Little stated they would have to look for future development to the west. She also noted there was quite a bit of flood plain to the west. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 12 Ms. Johnson asked if there were any options for not closing access to the west. Ms. Little stated they could ask for dedication of right-of-way from the Salvation Army to the west property line of their tract Ms. Hoffman asked for an area map prior to the large scale going forward to the Planning Commission. Ms Johnson advised she would strongly favor requiring dedication of right-of-way. Mr. Forney and Ms. Hoffman agreed. Ms. Little stated Requirement No. 6 would be changed to include additional dedication of right- of-way west of West Street to the west property line (a total of 305 feet). In response to a question regarding the loading dock area, Mr. Rogers stated he believed it would be just for loading and unloading. Ms. Little stated she had spoken with Mr. Owen who had talked to her about storage of a vehicle used by the Salvation Army. She informed the Subdivision Committee that, as long as the vehicle was movable and it was screened from the public, it would not be a problem. She asked Mr. Rogers to find out if there would be any other outside storage; if so, what would be stored; and, if any of the storage was of vehicles, if that area was to be paved. Ms. Johnson suggested adding a condition relating to outside storage. In response to questions regarding the two zoning districts on one tract of land, Ms. Little explained the use was allowed in both C-2 and I-1 districts. She advised the City did not normally initiate zoning changes and she saw no advantage to changing the zoning. Mr. Rogers reviewed the building materials with the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Forney noted that, since the property was not on College, and it was the Salvation Army, he did not think the metal siding should be a problem. Mr. Rutherford, Sidewalks and Trails Coordinator, advised the sidewalks and approaches needed to be Portland Cement concrete. Mr. Forney also commented regarding the turning radius. He requested the information at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the radius. 2(1 • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 13 PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. The Subdivision Committee members discussed whether to forward the plat to the Planning Commission or to review it again once they received the flood plain information. It was determined they wanted to review the plans again after seeing the accurate flood plain information. Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 14 PP 97-3.00: Preliminary Plat (Sunrise Mountain Center, pp 717) submitted by Glenn Carter, Carter Engineering, on behalf of L.I.S., Inc., for property located west of Hwy 71 and south of Sunrise Mountain Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and A-1, Agricultural, and contains 15 77 acres with 5 proposed lots. Findings: There is a question as to the correct survey location of Sunrise Mountain Road in relation to this project This is important to the developer in that the location of the right of way will determine the required dedication of right of way and the extent of improvements for this subdivision. Discussion at the Technical Plat Review meeting also focussed on providing sewer. An extensive off-site sewer project will be necessary. Drainage along Sunrise Mountain Road - there are low points in this vicinity will require remedial measures. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. Preliminary Plats require action by the full Planning Commission Staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. 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, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) 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 4. Provide for shared access between lots 1 & 2. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk with a 10' greenspace along Hwy 71S and a 6' sidewalk with a 6' greenspace along sunrise Mountain Road. Sidewalks shall be continuous through the driveways. These dimensions need to be revised on the plat for this project. Note on this plat maximum height of development allowed by FAA regulations due to proximity to airport. Max. height of lighting should also be noted. 9? • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 15 7. Show building setbacks on plat for all lots. 8. Sewer shall extend from south boundary to the north boundary of this project. 9. Preliminary Plat approval to be valid for one calendar year Subdivision Committee Action: Ms. Little advised the Subcommittee Mr. Carter would need to discuss Sunrise Mountain Road, the location of the current right-of-way, and the location of the street in relation to the location of the right-of-way. Mr. Glenn Carter advised he had revisited with the surveyor and had completed more field work and found there was no change from the original legal description. He advised the boundary line of the subject property was also the south right-of-way line. He explained the question was what improvements would be required by his client to Sunrise Mountain Road in view of the fact that the road went completely out of the right-of-way. He asked if they would be required to build from the center of the road to the southern edge or be required to correct the error of the location of the roadway. Ms. Little explained the normal requirement was to construct one-half of a city street but, in this case, one-half of the city street might not even touch the existing roadway. Ms. Johnson pointed out that, if the entire street was off the applicant's property, and there was some disagreement as to whether the street was located within the dedicated area, questions arose that sometimes only judges could resolve. Ms. Little advised the street could be improved within the right-of-way. She explained this would require the applicant to construct more street than usual. She went on to say that, since the intersection with Sunrise Mountain Road and Highway 71 was horrific, it would probably be a benefit to have a wider access. She also pointed out staff had requested a dedicated street to come off of Highway 71 241 feet down between the created lots 1 and 2 in order to provide access to those two lots. She also suggested an access easement from Sunrise Mountain Road over to the other intersection to provide for better safety. Mr. Beavers advised they typically required additional right-of-way but Southwestern Bell had an easement in that area. He went on to say that, if the City paved over the easement and Southwestern Bell had to move their cables, the City would have to pay for the relocation. He • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 16 explained the Committee needed to take that into consideration prior to requiring the additional right-of-way. Ms. Little explained Southwestern Bell had recently relocated the lines underground in order to create a clear zone for the airport. She also noted the height of all buildings, light poles, etc. needed to be shown on the plat so nothing would interfere with the airport's "clear zone". Mr. Forney expressed his belief that, if the City believed they might need the right-of-way, they should take it but be cautioned that, if they used it, there would be an additional cost for utility relocation. Chuck Rutherford, Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator, requested the greenspace width and sidewalk width be shown on the plat. Mr. Carter pointed out there was only 11 feet between the roadway and the property line. Mr. Rutherford stated they would work out whether to make a 5 -foot greenspace or a 5 -foot sidewalk. • Ms. Little also noted the project was called an office -warehouse but warehouses were not • allowed in C-2 except as a conditional use and was not permitted at all in the A-1 area. Mr. Carter stated they did not intent to have warehouses but storage. Mr. Beavers noted any sewer improvements would be at the developer's expense. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Lloyd Calhoun, 3301 Coach Road, reiterated the intersection at Highway 71 and Sunrise Mountain Road was quite hazardous and stated the intersection did not need any additional traffic. He objected to the subdivision. He further advised the only runway at Drake Field for landings and takeoffs was directed through the middle of the proposed subdivision. He reminded the Subdivision the F.A.A. had gone to a great deal of expense a few years earlier to remove all height obstacles for the airport. He also suggested the runway could be extended in the near future which could affect the proposed project. In response to a question from Mr. Calhoun, Ms. Little explained each lot within the proposed subdivision was over an acre in size and would have to go through the large scale development process prior to further development. She assured him there would be a more detailed presentation as to what would be on each lot. $° • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 17 Mr. Carl Ledbetter, the applicant, advised they planned a retail strip center along the front of the property with fast foods, a branch bank, retail shops, etc. He added that, in the future, they planned to ask for rezoning for the A-1 property which could be offices or a duplex development. Mr. Calhoun stated he and his neighbors were highly sensitive to appearance of the area. John Walker, 1657 Sunrise Mountain Road, expressed concern regarding the intersection of Highway 71 and Sunrise Mountain Road. He stated he would oppose anything which brought additional traffic to that intersection. He advised he did not believe an additional access between lots 1 and 2 would alleviate the traffic problem. In response to a question from Ms. Hoffman, Mr. Beavers advised he did not know if anyone had checked about the installation of a stop light at that location. He stated Perry Franklin was the head of the traffic department and he would be the person to talk to. He added there were numerous warrants which had to be met prior to the installation of such a stoplight. Ms. Johnson asked if there was anything the Planning Commission could do to alleviate the dangerous intersection. • Mr. Beavers advised he did not know; they could, perhaps, ask the developer to reconstruct the intersection. Ms. Little advised they would need some sight distance information for the intersection. Mr. Carter stated he believed that, if the right-of-way were cleared of brush, it would help the situation. Mr. Forney asked if the additional access between lots 1 and 2 would help matters or make them worse. Ms. Little stated they would not know until they received sight distance information. Mr. Forney asked if there was any point along the frontage of the subject property which would be safer than the current intersection and, if so, could they re-route Sunrise Mountain Road to the south. Ms. Johnson stated the City would then have to participate in the cost. She asked the staff to discuss Mr. Forney's suggestion with the Traffic Department and Street Department and report back to the Committee. She also requested a vicinity map which showed the Commission what was west of Sunrise Mountain. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 18 Ms. Little advised staff needed contours and sight distances to show the best place for access and then decisions could be made as to whether to relocate the street. Mr. Forney asked if they wanted a north -south road between Highway 71 and the train track. Ms. Johnson stated she believed that was a good point. She asked for a vicinity map of the streets to the north of Sunrise Mountain Road. After discussion, it was decided the project was not ready to be forwarded to the Planning Commission meeting but would need to be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee again. • • F2 Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 19 LSD 97-6.00: Large Scale Development (Meadow Brooks Apartments, pp 520) was submitted by Tom Hopper of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located north of Old Farmington Road and west of Razorback Road. The property is zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential) and contains approximately 13.27 acres. Findings: The proposal is a 120 -unit apartment complex. The City Council has approved the acceptance of money in lieu of land. Questions concerning the grading of the site have been raised by Alderman Len Schaper at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval 1. The Planning Commission must accept the verification of the required public notification. • 2. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives) • 3. 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, parking lot(s) 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. For example, the 8 -inch water line as shown may need to be extended approximately 120 feet to Stone Street and reinforce the existing 2 -inch line. Fire protection shall meet the Fire Chief's requirements. 4. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $28,800.00 (120 units @ $240.00) in lieu of park land dedication per City Council decision 4/15/97. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 4' sidewalk with a minimum 6' greenspace along both Sang and Stone Streets. The sidewalk will be on both sides of Sang for the length to be improved (north through the development entrance) and on the development side the remaining length of the development property to the north The sidewalk along Stone will be on the segments contiguous to the development. 0 • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 20 6. Street improvements to include the total width of Sang Street up to and including the entrance to the project in lieu of construction of one half of a street the entire length of the property. The improvements will be to reconstruct to a standard 28 -foot street including storm drainage and sidewalks on each side Dedication of right of way along the entire south property line (Stone Street) to equal 25' from centerline. Off-site sewer improvements are required. Approximately 881 feet of existing 6 -inch sewer line is proposed to be replaced with 8 -inch sewer line by the developer. All off-site sewer replacements or improvements will be the developer's responsibility and expense. 9. The preliminary drainage report was good but is subject to additional review prior to final approval. All drainage interior to the project, and all drainage outside of the street right- of-way will be privately maintained. A formal agreement in the format required by the Stormwater Management ordinance is required. 10. The intersection of the drive at Sang must be designed to have as small a slope as possible. 11. Submittal of an easement plat for this project prior to the issuance of any building permits. 12. The Large Scale Development approval will be valid for one year. Dawn Warrick advised the applicant had not made proper notification and therefore, the item would be heard again by the Subdivision Committee. Subdivision Committee Action: Ms. Little reminded the Committee that, at their last meeting, they had discussed orienting the drive so it came down to a flat before it intersected with Sang Street but it did not appear there had been any changes to the plat. Tom Hopper showed the Committee and staff the contours and noted it would be flat for approximately 25 feet prior to the intersection with Sang. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Beavers advised he had not asked for dedication of right-of-way north of Maine Street since, if the street were to go in a straight line, it would go through existing platted lots. He added the street would also be very steep north of Maine. • • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 21 Ms. Warrick advised she had received proof of notification for all property owners. A woman in the audience advised Pat McGetrick had not received notification and his property was adjoining. Mr. Hopper advised he had notified everyone on the list provided by the abstractor. Staff was directed to determine why notification had not been made to Mr. McGetrick. Ms Johnson requested a vicinity map of the area In response to a question from Ms Johnson, Mr. Hopper stated it was his understanding, that when National Home Center was approved, it was approved without a time for construction. He further advised he had talked with Dwayne Newman, National Home Centers, and he was still planning to construct the facility. Ms. Johnson advised they would also need to see the location of the proposed project in conjunction with area streets and the current project. Mr. Hopper stated there had been lengthy discussions at that time regarding Stone Street and the school had not wanted the street extended. He advised National Home Center was approved in 1994. Mr. Conklin concurred with Mr. Hopper's information. PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Johnson requested the public comment not reiterate the previous public comment. Alderman Len Schaper stated the grading plan showed the huge extent of grading and the 3:1 slope which would be created. He advised the intent of the grading ordinance was to control excessive grading, clearing, filling or cutting. He went on to say the general requirement of the grading ordinance said that development would conform to the natural contours of the land, natural drainage ways and existing site conditions. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Schaper advised the information was from Section 161.02(b) and 161.02(e). He continued reading the ordinance: "...which in combination cause landslides, flooding, excessive runoff, degradation of water quality, erosion, sedimentation..." g Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 22 Mr. Schaper advised there were ways to develop the subject property but not with buildings designed for flat lands. He noted buildings and parking lots could be stepped which would reduce the amount of grading. He contended the grading ordinance was very clear in its intent. Ms. Benedict stated ??? Mr. William Combs asked if there was to be a sidewalk north of Maine. Ms. Warrick advised there was a sidewalk on the eastern property line of the project. Ms. Johnson asked the point of a sidewalk when there was no street. Mr. Beavers stated that was Mr. Bob Reynolds' requirement. Mr. Kelso, Crafton, Tull & Associates, advised from the street centerline over to the property line was a 30 -foot right-of-way; however, north of Maine Street there was no right-of-way. Mr. Forney suggested requesting a dedication of right-of-way along the east side of the subject tract Mr. Schaper requested the Committee review the grade in that area, noting he believed it was approximately 22% which was well beyond what the city standard's allowed. Mr. Beavers stated the city standards allowed up to 15%. Ms. Johnson pointed out there were streets in excess of 15%. Mr. Forney stated his belief that it was always a good idea to get right-of-way. Mr. Combs advised that, in the winter when the roads were slick, he could not use Sang to get to his house. He also asked if the placement of the sidewalk along the eastern property line of the subject tract would affect placement of any future street. Ms. Johnson stated the Planning Commission would look into his concerns. Mr. Combs asked if the developer was planning on removing the existing trees along the eastern property line and replace them with pines. Mr. Hopper pointed out the area which would be disturbed. Ms. Hoffman asked how deep the cut would be for the buildings. • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 23 Mr. Hopper advised there would be a 3:1 cut. Ms. Hoffman advised she needed to study the plat further. Mr. Forney advised he believed a side section showing the existing grade, cut and fill would be a tremendous help to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hopper advised they had not developed any cross-sections but they could do so. Mr. Forney stated he was trying to figure out how to move the large scale forward. He advised he believed the issues of drainage would be discussed further. He stated he would like to propose the dedication of right-of-way along the east property line, north of Maine. He stated he did not know whether it would be better to resolve the issues at the Subdivision meeting or before the full Planning Commission. Ms. Johnson stated she thought it would be helpful if the Subdivision Committee had a sense of whether there should be right-of-way dedication north of Maine and whether there should be a sidewalk north of Maine. • Mr. Forney stated he would argue for the right-of-way but not the sidewalk. Ms. Hoffman pointed out dedication of right-of-way did not cost the developer and believed they should have the right-of-way. She added she did not care about the sidewalk. Mr. Hopper stated they did not have a problem with dedicating the right-of-way. Ms. Johnson requested the dedication of the right-of-way of half a city street north of Maine Street be added to the conditions of approval and the sidewalk along the eastern property edge turn west into the property rather than continue north of Maine Street. There was then discussion on the amount of right-of-way to be dedicated. Mr. Forney advised he would be comfortable with half the city standard street. Ms. Johnson stated she had never seen the city condemn any lots for a street. Ms. Hoffman stated she believed the entire right-of-way should come from the subject tract. It was determined the Planning Commission could decide the amount of right-of-way required • • • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 24 Mr. Hopper stated the drainage had been designed to meet city ordinances; the water would be picked up coming off of slopes, piped to ponds, then piped from the ponds and released to a natural drainage channel. Mr. Forney advised the only drainage issue he could see would be for the southeast property owner. Mr. Beavers stated the developer had agreed to provide a swale for that property owner. It was agreed to forward the Targe scale development to the Planning Commission. 11? • • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 25 LSD97-5 00• Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Warehouse, pp 599) was submitted by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Fayetteville Warehouse Co., LLC, for property located north of Cato Springs Road and west of Garland Avenue. The property is zoned I-1 (Heavy Commercial - Light Industrial) and contains approximately 8.10 acres. Findings: The entrance to this site is by way of a private drive - an access agreement has been secured. The applicant has requested a reduction of the front setback (50 feet reduced to 25 feet) by means of the screening option (Section 160.117(G)(2)(d). A description of the proposed screening is on the attached form. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission approves this project, staff recommends the approval to be conditioned upon the following: Conditions of Approval: 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives) 2. 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, parking lot(s) 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 requirements, including hydrants and supporting water mains, shall meet the Fire Chief's requirements. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6' sidewalk with a minimum 10' greenspace along Garland Ave. Access to the bridge along with pedestrian safety rails will be required. 4. Submittal of required documentation concerning rare tree removal and replacement canopy as requested by Landscape Administrator. 5. Relocation of dumpster pad sites which are within the flood plain. 6. Dedication of right-of-way along Garland Ave. to equal 35 feet from centerline and to • also include area east of centerline at the northeast corner of the site as shown on the plat. 1 • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 26 7. The developer must improve the segment of Garland Avenue contiguous to the development property to one-half of City Standards for a standard city street. The improvements will require street widening, curb and gutter, sidewalks (see No 3 above), drainage and vehicular guard rails at the bridge approaches (west side). The improvements will not include the widening of the bridge. The City may or may not elect to participate in the widening of Garland to "collector street" standards. The City may elect to improve the existing street section between this development and Garland Square Apartments under construction to the south. 8. Revision of existing easements to meet current city standards of a minimum 20 -foot easement. 9. Submittal of an easement plat for this project prior to the issuance of any building permits. 10. The developer shall provide covenants in the lease agreements that the storage of hazardous materials shall not be allowed. • 11. Area lights shall be shielded and directed inward. 12. The Large Scale Development approval shall be valid for one year. Subdivision Committee Action: • Ms. Warrick reminded the Committee this item had been referred back to the Subdivision Committee from the Planning Commission meeting. She noted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting were not prepared. Mr. Gray presented a new layout which took the entrance off of Garland and changing the building at the entrance to 3,000 square feet instead of 9,000 square feet. He added the plat was still based on Pettigrew remaining a private street. In response to a question from Ms. Hoffman, Mr. Gray stated there were four property owners that had access and rights to the private drive. Ms. Johnson noted there were three active rails adjacent to the property. Mr. Gray pointed out a creek which which he contended eliminated a connection to 15th Street and the railroad blocked access to Vail S� • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 27 Mr. Forney stated their decision was whether they wanted to obtain right-of-way and, if so, where they would obtain right-of-way. Mr. Green, the applicant, advised the project would not be accessing Pettigrew. Ms. Hoffman asked if they were asking that right-of-way be dedicated or were they also considering the construction of a street. Ms. Warrick noted additional right-of-way would affect the setback and could change the entire configuration of the project. Mr. Forney advised he was in favor of taking right-of-way along the south property line; he had not decided whether he wanted right-of-way along the west property line. He further stated he preferred the entry off of the private drive. Mr. Green stated it would be much better for the development to bring the main entry off of Garland in order to have more control over the entryway and provide greater security to their tenants. He also pointed out that, by making the first building smaller, they would have a great deal more of greenspace, making the entryway attractive. Mr. Hunnicutt stated they had believed Pettigrew was a city street until this development had occurred. He advised he believed the railroad tracks would remain and they needed to take that into consideration. He expressed his belief it came down to the cost for an extension between Garland and Razorback and who would be benefited. He stated he believed his property would be better off to leave the street as a private drive. He further stated Mr. Gately agreed. Mr. Lewis stated that, if the city had any desire to construct a street, this was the time to do it. He further advised he was functioning fine with the private drive. Ms. Johnson advised there was an 80 acre tract to the north which appeared to be developable and could need access in the future. Ms. Little advised staff had not had sufficient time to review the new proposal. Mr. Forney stated he believed they should request dedication of the right-of-way along the south side of the property but not the west side. Ms. Johnson advised she believed they should cover both options. Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 28 Mr. Green stated dedicating the right-of-way would not kill their project but developing the right- of-way would kill the project. He also pointed out all of the utility easements crossing the property and stated the proposed warehouses was the only use for the property. Ms. Johnson asked if there was any possibility the width of any of the easements could be vacated. It was agreed they could not be vacated. Mr. Hunnicutt pointed out there was another street running south to Cato Springs Road. Ms. Hoffman reiterated she believed the right-of-way along the south side was a good idea but did not believe they needed right-of-way on the west side. Ms. Little stated that, if they required dedication of 20 feet of right-of-way, there would be a minimum setback of 25 feet plus the additional 20 feet of right-of-way. Mr. Gray advised that would cause them to lose a building. Mr. Green advised the loss of a building would kill the project. After discussion, it appeared the project could be redesigned without the loss of any buildings. Mr. Lewis offered 25 feet from his tract when it developed further so only 15 feet would need to be taken from the subject project. Mr. Green stated he would be agreeable to dedicating 15 feet along the southern property line and whatever the city wanted along the western property line for right-of-way. Ms. Little pointed out they were creating a situation that, when the property to the south developed, the developer would have to pay for the improvement of 25 feet of the street while this property owner would only have to pay for the improvement of 15 feet. Mr. Hunnicutt stated he believed it would be best to keep Pettigrew as a private drive since it would probably end up as a cul-de-sac at the railroad track. MOTION Ms. Hoffman moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with a 15 -foot and and 20 - foot right-of-way with the recommendation that a setback variance be granted. 41 .. Subdivision Committee Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 29 Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m. • • q3