Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-29 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on May 29, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Old Business: Phyllis Johnson and Robert Reynolds Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, Chuck Rutherford and Sharon Langley LSD97-8.00: Large Scale Development (Salvation Army, pp 601) 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 Highway 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. At the Subdivision Committee meeting of May 1, 1997, additional information concerning flood plain on this site was requested. This plat has been revised to show an amended flood plain location and the building has been shifted so that it is no longer located within the flood plain. 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 - Arkansas Western Gas, Southwestern Bell Telephone, Ozarks Electric, SWEPCO, and 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 Subdivision Committee Meeting • May 29, 1997 Page 2 • 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6 -foot sidewalk with 6 -foot greenspace along Salvation. Sidewalks need to be labeled on this plat and added to the legend. Dedication of right-of-way as shown on plat and improvement of one-half of Salvation to current City standards. 6. Any outside storage areas must be screened from the public view. If vehicles of any type are stored, they must be moveable and stored on a paved surface which is screened. 7. Substantial compliance with materials (building elevations) submitted to comply with commercial design standards ordinance. 8. Submittal of a separate easement plat for this project is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. 9. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. Subdivision Committee Action: Ms. Little explained this item was back before the Subdivision Committee because, at the last meeting, there had been discussion regarding the proper location of the flood plain. She advised the current plat showed the exact location of the flood plain and showed the building completely outside the flood plain. She also pointed out the applicant would be constructing one-half of Salvation Street to city street standards. She noted that portion of the tract going to the south toward the tract with mini -storage units would be dedicated as right-of-way. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated the drive was within the 100 -year flood plain, but not the parking lot. She also called the Subdivision Committee's attention to Item #6 regarding stored vehicles being moveable and be screened. She explained that condition was for two reasons: (1) to meet the screening section of the ordinance and (2) in case of a flood situation, the vehicles would need to be moved. Public Comment: There were no public comments. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to recommend approval of the large scale and forward it to the Planning Commission. • Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Subdivision Committee Meeting • May 29, 1997 Page 3 • • PP97-3.00: Preliminary Plat (Sunrise Mountain Center, pp 717) submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Engineering, on behalf of L.I.S., Inc., for property located west of Highway 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 focused on providing sewer. An extensive off-site sewer project will be necessary. Due to the low points along Sunrise Mountain Road, drainage will require remedial measures. Discussion at the May 1, 1997 Subdivision Committee meeting focused on the issues of safety and sight distance at the intersection of Sunrise Mountain Road and Highway 71. 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 - Arkansas Western Gas, Southwestern Bell Telephone, Ozarks Electric, SWEPCO, and TCA Cable). 2. All improvements shall comply with the 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 and 2. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6 -foot sidewalk with a 10 -foot greenspace along Highway 71 South and a 6 -foot sidewalk with a 5 -foot greenspace along Sunrise Mountain Road. Sidewalks shall be continuous through the driveways. These dimensions need to be revised on the plat for this project. • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 29, 1997 Page 4 6. Show building setbacks on plat for all lots (A-1 lots should reflect 35 feet setbacks from the front property line). 7. Sewer shall extend from south boundary to the north boundary of this project. 8. Preliminary plat approval to be valid for one calendar year. Subdivision Committee Action: Ms. Little pointed out an 81/2 x 11 sheet in the Commissioners' agenda packets which showed possible north -south connections and a possible western connection. She reminded the Committee there had been questions as to whether it was possible to go further to the west. She explained staff had wondered whether, since there was a railroad crossing, if a north -south access needed to be provided. She advised it appeared a better location of the north -south road would be to the west of the railroad tracks. She pointed out there could be a connection to Butterfield Trail. She reminded the Committee the other item they had discussed at length was the dangerous intersection at Sunrise Mountain Road and Highway 71. She stated the staff had requested an access between lots 1 and 2 and had discussed the possibility of turning the access back to the north so someone using Sunrise Mountain Road could cross the west side of lot 1 and turn east so the access to Highway 71 would be at a better location. She further stated staff had also requested additional information regarding sight distances. Mr Carter stated he had checked the stopping sight distance on Highway 71 according to ASTO standards and found the distance was 186 feet. He advised there was 237 feet available. Mr. Beavers explained that was not the only calculation that needed to be checked when checking intersections. He stated he had thought Mr. Carter was going to contact him and they would have worked out the problems prior to Subdivision Committee meeting, rather than taking time at the meeting. Ms. Johnson stated she believed the subject intersection was a difficult one with heavy traffic projected. She advised she did not believe the Subdivision Committee could make a decision without having all the information as requested by the Engineering Department. She stated she believed the item should be tabled until Mr. Beavers had all the information he requested and staff could work with the applicant. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to table the item. 97 Subdivision Committee Meeting • May 29, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion agreeing the Subdivision Conunittee did not have enough information. PUBLIC COMMENT The following people were present to make comments: George Knight, Bob Blackstone, John Walker and Lloyd Calhoun. They expressed concerns regarding the intersection of Sunrise Mountain Road and Highway 71. They also noted vegetation at the northwest corner of that intersection was, at times, a problem. • • c, 3 • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 29, 1997 Page 6 • • New Business: PP 97-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Bois d'Arc, Phase II, pp 442) submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering on behalf of Julian and Jane Archer for property located east of Sang Avenue and south of Cleveland Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 24.7 acres. Findings: Phase I of this subdivision has changed substantially since it's approval, specifically in regard to lot dimensions and street configuration. Waivers for street construction are requested as follows: 1) that Osage Bend be allowed to be classified as a "residential" street with a width of 26 feet, 5 feet of greenspace and one 4 -foot sidewalk; 2) that the one-way portions of Osage Bend adjacent to lots 5, 19, 11 and 12 be allowed to be 16 feet wide; and 3) to allow tangent length less than 100 feet for reverse curves as shown on the plat. 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 - Arkansas Western Gas, Southwestern Bell Telephone, Ozarks Electric, SWEPCO, and TCA Cable). 2. All improvements shall comply with the 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. Resolution of all waiver requests as detailed in the "Findings" above. 5. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $5,700.00 for 19 single family lots at $300.00 each. • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 29, 1997 Page 7 6. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 4 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 -foot greenspace on both sides of Osage Bend, a 4 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 -foot greenspace along Sang Avenue and a 6 -foot sidewalk with a minimum l0 -foot greenspace along Cleveland Street. 7. Signed agreement concerning the installation and maintenance of street lights must be submitted to Traffic Superintendent prior to filing final plat. Subdivision Committee Action: Ms. Little explained the Subdivision Committee had seen the subdivision twice before - first as a complete development and then just Phase I. She reminded the Committee the Planning Commission had allowed a 26 -foot wide street. She explained at the time the decision was made about the street, the City street standards did not allow for a narrow street but now the standards allowed a 24 -foot width street and a 28 -foot width street. She pointed out that on a 24 -foot street sidewalks were required only on one side but on a 28 -foot street sidewalks were required on both sides. She stated the proposal by the developer for the 26 -foot street was sidewalks only on one side. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little advised they had reviewed Phase I over a year ago and the developer had not started working on Phase I. She pointed out the discussion at the plat review meeting had centered on whether they were looking at only Phase I or both phases. She contended they were looking at both phases since the approval of Phase I was over a year old and the fact that the configuration of Phase I had been changed since the time of approval She explained the developer did have some concerns with the City looking at Phase I again; however, she did not know what those concerns were. She advised the only concern they had expressed was that it would delay approval from the Health Department. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ron Petrie, Milholland Engineering, explained they had several meetings with the City staff and it had been his understanding he could submit the water and sewer plans for Phase I to the Engineering Department. He stated the water and sewer plans were in the Engineering Department awaiting their approval and then those plans would be submitted to the Health Department. He further explained that, if they had to wait for approval of Phase I again, the Engineering Department would not review the water and sewer plans until after the approval of Phase I, delaying the submittal to the Health Department. Mr. Beavers stated he had agreed to look at the water and sewer plans. He further stated it was his understanding the Planning Commission would be looking at both phases of the subdivision. Ms. Johnson asked what the Planning Commission had previously approved. leo Subdivision Committee Meeting May 29, 1997 Page 8 Ms. Little explained that on May 8, 1995 the Planning Commission approved a subdivision which looked very similar to the one they were now reviewing; on January 8, 1996 the Planning Commission approved a Phase I of the subdivision but that Phase I did not match the Phase I on the current plat. She explained the approval was over one year old and normally preliminary plats were considered void after one year if work had not been started. She advised there was a contention work had been started because the water and sewer plan were prepared; unfortunately, the water and sewer plans had been prepared off the previous plan. She noted the Commission had never approved Phase II. She reminded the Committee the Planning Commission had, at earlier meetings on the previous Phase I plat, approved the 26 -foot wide street and the non -extension of Maple Street. She advised the Committee they would need to consider if those two items were still approved. Ms. Johnson asked if the current plat was closer to the first submittal. Ms. Little agreed it was and advised the current plat was a better subdivision. Ms Johnson expressed her belief the last submittal was a new subdivision. She stated that, if they tried to piecemeal the previous plats, they would all be confused. Ms. Little stated the engineer for the development had changed and the present engineer was working off of the current plat. She asked if the 26 -foot street was still approved and whether they still wished Maple Street not be extended. Ms. Johnson stated she believed it would be of benefit to be aware of what had taken place one and one-half years earlier but not to be bound by it. Ms. Little advised staff was not uncomfortable with the 26 -foot street since it was greater than the residential street standards. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little advised the eastern property line of the subdivision was approximately 250 feet west of Gray Street. Mr. Petrie stated the eastern property line bordered upon the waterline easement. Mr. Beavers stated there were some drainage questions which he could not answer at the present time. He noted he was not comfortable with the process but was comfortable with the subdivision. He explained that, by reviewing Phase I again, he had received conflicting directions. 101 • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 29, 1997 Page 9 Ms. Johnson pointed out that, when a project had not been undertaken for a year and 5 months after approval, it was predictable that it would be considered as a new project. Ms. Little stated that, at the Plat Review meeting, they had received comments from both Solid Waste and the Fire Department regarding the width of the street around the island. She stated that, since that meeting, Mr. Milholland had met with the Solid Waste Division and the Fire Department and all entities had agreed the street on each side of the island would be 16 feet. Mr. Rutherford asked if the street would go under the new standards and be graded from right-of- way to right-of-way. Mr. Beavers stated that needed to be discussed. He explained the City had made a commitment to work with the Archers to some extent to save the trees. He stated he had written Mr. Petrie and agreed to save as many trees as possible but not to the detriment of the street. Ms. Johnson asked if the street had been located in such a way as to minimize the problem. Mr. Petrie stated they had gone to a great deal of trouble to save the trees; that was why the street • meandered through the subdivision. Ms. Beavers noted that was the reason for the street width waiver. Mr. Rutherford advised he would work with the developer on the placement of the sidewalk; that it could go around trees rather than be laid in a straight line. Ms. Little noted the cobblestone decorative surface would not be maintained by the city. Mr. Petrie agreed and stated the islands, entryways and streetlights would be maintained by the Property Owners' Association. He further stated the City would maintain the remainder of the street, storm drainage pipe and detention pond. Mr. Beavers stated he was not sure whether the city would maintain the detention pond; he would to look into it further. Mr. Petrie explained the ordinance stated the City would maintain detention ponds and that was why he had mentioned it. Mr. Beavers explained the City would maintain a detention pond unless there was a Property Owners' Association. He further stated he was fairly confident the City would maintain it but there were a number of drainage issues, including the detention pond, which he believed they needed to discuss. o3. • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 29, 1997 Page 10 Mr. Petrie stated they had submitted preliminary drainage calculations and the water and sewer plans. He advised they had been ready to turn the plans in prior to learning the entire subdivision would be reviewed. Mr. Reynolds stated he believed the Engineering Department needed further information from the applicant. He suggested tabling the application until the applicant and the Engineering staff could discuss a number of issues. Ms. Johnson agreed. She pointed out the drainage plan, which they had just received, did pinpoint the problem areas. Mr. Reynolds advised that, if Phase I had not been changed after the Planning Commission had approved it, the Planning Commission would probably have not looked any further at it; but, Phase I had been changed and they needed to review it again. Mr. Petrie advised he had filed the preliminary grading and erosion plan. He further noted the preliminary drainage plan did discuss Phase I but had not included the detention calculations. Ms Johnson stated she was concerned about the drainage because the same person had owned the property now known as Waterman Woods She pointed out there were existing drainage problems in that subdivision She noted this property was up hill from Waterman Woods which could cause even further drainage problems. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to table the item until city staff had all the drainage information needed. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Beavers stated he had all the information except the detention calculations. He advised the Committee Mr. Petrie had discovered the developer of Waterman Woods had not put in what should have been required. He asked if they were going to penalize the present developer because a previous developer did not do what he should have. Mr. Reynolds stated there was no intention of penalizing the current developer; they just wanted to be sure he did what he was supposed to do. Mr. Petrie explained the current development would fix all of the problems in Waterman Woods. He expressed his belief the only way Waterman Woods could be fixed was to approve the current development since they planned on running parallel drainage around Waterman Woods. He added he believed they would ask the City to participate once the cost was known. lo3 Subdivision Committee Meeting • May 29, 1997 Page 11 Ms. Johnson stated she had no interest in making a developer take care of someone else's problem but they knew drainage would be a major issue. She explained she would be cautious due to the previous problem. She advised she was very interested in knowing what Mr. Petrie planned to do with the drainage and also, what he would be asking of the City. Mr. Petrie stated the work would get done, whether by the developer or the City. He explained that, at the present time, they did not know the cost. Ms Johnson stated they could not assume the existing drainage problems off-site would be solved by the present project. She explained they would need to know exactly what Mr. Petrie was talking about and the cost. She asked him for the information to back up what he was saying. Mr. Petrie asked if they wanted drainage plans for the entire subdivision. Ms. Johnson stated that was what they wanted to see. She asked how they could have a rational drainage plan for Phase I when Phase II was upstream from Phase I. • Mr. Beavers explained the new requirements and additional information regarding drainage would be required prior to resubmittal to the Subdivision Committee. Public Comment: Ms. Nancy McCartney, an adjoining resident, asked if, since they were reconsidering the entire subdivision, they would also reconsider the extension of Maple Street. Ms. Little stated Maple Street had been considered previously and it had been agreed that it would not be extended; however, since they were reconsidering the subdivision, the issue might come up again. Ms. McCartney stated she had not received a map showing Phase 11. Ms. Little stated the developer was not required to send adjoining property owners a map. She explained that, once the adjoining property owners received notification, it was incumbent upon them to look at the Planning Office files. Ms. McCartney then asked what they planned for the easement on the eastem property line of the proposed subdivision. Mr. Petrie explained there would be a 25 -foot utility easement on site, adjacent to the existing . easement so any new lines would be in the new easement. • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 29, 1997 Page 12 • Ms. Jackie New, representing the Waterman Woods property owners, expressed concern regarding the drainage. She presented pictures of standing water and told of mud slides within the subdivision. She requested a copy of the drainage plan so they could have their own engineer look at it. She also requested a copy of the city drainage ordinance. She also noted work had started on the subdivision without an approved drainage plan. Mr. Beavers stated they had done some work on site which they probably should not have done and it was technically a violation of the ordinance. He advised he was not aware of any work presently going on. He informed the Committee the developer had received a stop work order as soon as the City had been made aware of the work. Mr. Petrie stated he had informed the Archers of the stop work order and further Milholland had stopped all work on-site. In response to a question from Ms. Rhoda Woods, Ms. Little explained the subdivision could come back before the Committee on June 12 or July 3. She advised she believed, due to the work required, it probably would not come back before the Subdivision Committee until the July 3 meeting. Mr. Gordon McNeil, 629 Gray Avenue, expressed his belief Maple Street should be extended. He asked who would make that decision. Ms. Little advised the decision was made by the Planning Commission and was reviewed on a property by property basis. /of • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 29, 1997 Page 13 • LSD97-10.00: Large Scale Development (McDonald's, pp 372) submitted by Rick Rogers of CEI Engineering on behalf of McDonald's for property located south of Highway 45 and east of Highway 265 (Glennwood Shopping Center). The property is zoned C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial) and contains approximately 0.72 acres. Findings: This project is located on the first out lot of the Large Scale Development for Glennwood Shopping Center. Shared parking and access agreements have been discussed in regard to the area related to this development which is not within the lot lines. Commercial Design Standards are in effect for this project as are the design guidelines for Glennwood Shopping Center. At the time that this project was heard at the Technical Plat Review level, the Engineering Division was requesting additional information concerning the proposed retaining walls on this site 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. 1. Plat /Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representatives, and all comments from utility representatives - Arkansas Western Gas, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Ozark Electric, 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 Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 -foot greenspace along Highway 265. The sidewalk shall be continuous through the driveways. 5. A separate easement plat for this project must be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits. • 6. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year Subdivision Committee Meeting • May 29, 1997 Page 14 Ms. Little pointed out a rendition of the proposed building. She reminded the Committee this was a building within a shopping center. She advised the parking to the east and south was not on McDonald's property. She stated she did not believe that was a huge issue until they got to the lot coverage which showed 81.6% of the site was built or paved. She noted the ordinance stated they could not go over 85%. She stated that left 18.4% as greenspace. Mr. Rogers stated the area noted as future playland was presently impervious but was not a part of the 18.4% greenspace calculation. In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Rogers stated the greenspace shown outside the McDonald's lot had not been included in the 18.4% calculation. Ms. Little reminded the Committee the shopping center did have a design theme to which each business was to conform. She showed the committee the design theme for the center, as approved by the Planning Commission, and the rendition of the proposed McDonald's building. She asked what elements were in common. Mr. Roland Yates, regional construction manager for McDonald's, stated it was their intent to match the shopping center's design elements as much as possible. He stated the brick element, the standing seam metal roof, the stucco all matched the design elements. He pointed out the glass proposed for the playland was a solar tinted glass. Ms. Johnson asked if it was identical to the glass shown in the remainder of the shopping center. Mr. Yates stated he did not have that specification. He explained the specifications set out by the shopping center did not include the glass. He advised he did not believe the shopping center would put solar tinted glass under the overhang. Ms. Johnson stated she would be interested in seeing what the glass for McDonald's looked like and what the glass for the remainder of the shopping center would look like since the glass would face the main entrance. Mr. Yates asked whether it would be satisfactory if both the shopping center and McDonald's used a clear glass or a glass with the same tint. Ms. Johnson stated she wanted to be sure the appearance of the glass wall for McDonald's was at least compatible with the appearance of the glass within the reminder of the shopping center. Mr. Yates advised that, for the purpose of the meeting, McDonald's agreed to make it similar in appearance and would match specifications when they obtained them. lo? Subdivision Committee Meeting May 29, 1997 Page 15 Mr. Reynolds asked if the McDonald's roof would match with the remainder of the shopping center. Mr. Yates stated the color and product would be the same. He pointed out the McDonald's roof was a trademark shape - a double mansard. Ms. Little stated the difference would be the lights and peak of the roof. Mr. Yates stated the roof on the McDonald's on Sixth Street was very similar to what was proposed. Ms. Johnson stated it would be nice if the roof lines were the same. Mr. Yates stated he understood her point; that, if it would help the development, McDonald's would not have a problem with that. He stated they could have a single mansard rather than a double mansard. He explained one of the problems was that people recognized their roof as a McDonald's. Ms. Johnson requested the rendition be redrawn by the Planning Commission meeting showing the single mansard roof. In response to a question from Mr. Beavers, Mr. Rogers advised the retaining wall belonged to Glennwood, not McDonalds. Mr. Beavers stated there were still some technical items, which would not affect approval of the project, that needed to be worked out -- the rail, the guard rail design, etc. He advised those items would need to be worked out prior to the issuance of a building permit. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Rogers advised the highest point of the retaining wall would be 14 feet (behind the liquor store at the northwest corner of the shopping center). Ms. Little stated that, at the Technical Plat meeting, they had discussed the improvements required to Highway 265. She stated it was the staff's understanding that the improvements remained in Glennwood. Mr. Beavers advised that, prior to McDonald's receiving a building permit, the City had to receive assurance (in the form of a bond, letter of credit, etc.) for the retaining wall. In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Rogers stated the original shopping center landscape design addressed the issue of trees every 30 feet. He advised it was more than Id? • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 29, 1997 Page 16 abundant for the overall shopping center. He explained landscaping had originally been designed for the McDonald's use areas. He noted all of the trees were outside the McDonald's property bounds because there was construction going along the front. He pointed out there was a 24 -inch waterline, a sidewalk, and a riprap drainage ditch. He noted there were shrubs. Ms. Little asked about trees at the south entry into McDonald's. Mr. Rogers pointed out trees but advised they could not place large trees because it would interfere with the guardrail. He further stated he was not comfortable with putting large trees in the area because the tree roots could do damage to the curb and gutter. In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Rogers stated the guard rail was necessary because of the slope and the closeness of the parking lot to the main entry into the subdivision. He advised it was a safety issue. He stated it was approximately 5 feet from the back of the curb to the guardrail and approximately 3 feet to the drive. Ms. Little advised they would need a waiver from the requirement of trees planted 1 every 30 feet. Mr. Rogers stated they did meet that requirement in the use area but not on the side due to the retaining wall, utilities, etc. Ms. Little stated there was a 30 -foot access easement going east and then north behind the liquor store. She advised it was a shared access easement. She pointed out the access easement would still function as a way to get around but would not function as a way to get into the shopping center from Highway 45. She noted there were two other ways to get into the shopping center from Highway 45. Mr. Rogers pointed out it could not function as an entry due to the grade difference. Ms. Little stated staff was not opposed to the access easement being blocked due to its close vicinity to the intersection, but did want to call it to the Conunittee's attention She further noted the liquor store owner was in favor of closing the easement because he was concerned about cut- thru traffic. Ms. Johnson agreed it would be safer for the easement to be closed. Mr. Reynolds asked where they would be placing shrubs over a waterline and why. lot • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 29, 1997 Page 17 Mr. Rogers stated there would be shrubs along Highway 265 over the 24 -inch waterline. He explained that, in order to meet landscaping requirements, it was the only area available to put in vegetation. He stated the shrubs would get fairly large but would be easy to replant if necessary. In response to a question from Ms Johnson, Ms. Little advised McDonald's would have to replace the shrubs, if necessary. Ms. Johnson expressed concern regarding the wall. She stated the Planning Commission had worked with the developer for quite some time on design standards and now, the first thing the public would see was a 14 -foot high wall. She suggested the largest vegetation staff could tolerate in front of the retaining wall for aesthetic purposes. Mr. Beavers stated Dave Jurgens would accept trees under 20 feet in height. Mr. Rogers stated the planned shrubbery would cover the wall within a couple of years. Mr. Reynolds asked why there needed to be a sidewalk between the retaining wall and the liquor store parking lot. He pointed out they needed trees to hide the wall rather than a sidewalk. Ms. Little pointed out that, if the sidewalk was not placed as shown, it would have to run to the intersection which was off of the developer's property. Ms. Johnson asked if the sidewalk could get a pedestrian into the shopping center. Ms. Little stated it could get a pedestrian into the shopping center once the northernmost lots of the shopping center were developed. Ms. Little also noted there was not a sidewalk on the entrance drive. She pointed out the street going into the shopping center was a private street. Mr. Rogers agreed there was not a sidewalk on the private street (the northernmost entry from Highway 265). Ms. Johnson stated it made sense to allow pedestrian access into the shopping center from Highway 265, especially since there was a subdivision to the south. Mr. Rogers stated he believed the best place for a sidewalk would be the southernmost entry from Highway 265 into the shopping center, pointing out that would be closer for the residents of the subdivision. He also pointed out there was a great deal of storm drainage adjacent to the McDonald's site. 110 II Subdivision Committee Meeting May 29, 1997 Page 18 • • Ms. Little stated staff would look at the best location. Ms. Johnson advised she definitely wanted a sidewalk somewhere off of Highway 265 into the shopping center. Public Comment: There was no public comment MOTION Ms. Johnson stated that, except for the last issue of the sidewalk, trees and a new rendition, she saw no reason not to forward the Large Scale on to the Planning Conunission. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. III Subdivision Committee Meeting • May 29, 1997 Page 19 • • LSD97-11.00: Large Scale Development (May Construction, pp 213) submitted by Brian Ray of Development Consultants on behalf of May Construction for property located at the southwest corner of Millsap and Plainview (Lot 15, CMN Business Park). The property is zoned C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial) and contains approximately 1.37 acres. Findings: This project is subject to Commercial Design Standards. It is located in an area which is currently developing - Proctor & Gamble LSD to the east, Raben Medical Building to the northwest and Rio Bravo Cantina to the northeast are all under construction. A setback reduction has been requested for both the north and east property lines. 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 - Arkansas Western Gas, Southwestern Bell Telephone, Ozark Electric, 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 minimum 6 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 -foot greenspace along Millsap and a minimum 6 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 -foot greenspace along Plainview. Coordination with Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator and Landscape Administrator may be necessary for the sidewalk along Millsap in regard to the large tree in that vicinity. 5. Buildings must all be sprinklered or the center structures shall be divided by a four hour fire wall per Fire Chief. 6. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. tL 1111 Subdivision Committee Meeting May 29, 1997 Page 20 • • 7. A separate easement plat for this project must be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits. Ms. Little advised the proposed building had been pulled forward with the parking at the back. She pointed out the entryways were back from the intersection. She noted staff had requested cross -access however it was not shown on the plat. Mr. Ray advised the owner, John W. Cole, was in agreement with connecting to the other lots but did have some concerns. He pointed out the obvious location for the cross -accesses was at the southwest corner of the lot, continuing both driveways thru to the other lots. He explained Mr. Cole was concerned that the adjoining use might not be compatible. He agreed that, through the large scale development process, Mr. Cole would know the layout and use of the adjoining lots. He stated Mr. Cole's other concern related to knowing where the best location of the cross -access would be without knowing the layout of the adjoining lot. He stated Mr. Cole would be happy to put up a bond for the cost of construction of the accesses as long as the use and connection would be compatible with his business. Ms. Little advised staff's experience had been that, if the cross -access wasn't granted in the beginning, it was very difficult to get it later. Ms. Johnson stated her tendency was to say it was needed when the building was constructed. Mr. Reynolds agreed. Ms. Little stated the only item departing from the Commercial Design Standards in conjunction with the area was the architectural shingles. Mr. Ray stated the shingles would not be metal but would be architectural shingles. Public Comment: There was no public comment. Ms. Johnson explained that, in order to obtain cross -access, the first developer needed to provide it. She stated that, if the second project was totally incompatible making it totally illogical to have the cross -access, the Planning Commission could not require the cross -access from the subsequent developers and Mr. Cole could ask to convert the access into parking. Mr. Ray stated they would lose 4 parking spaces plus the dumpster. He noted the dumpster could be relocated to the other corner. Mr. Rutherford requested access ramps at the corner of the intersection for the sidewalks. 113 • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 29, 1997 Page 21 • • Ms. Little stated they had received a comment sheet from Ms. Sandeen. She noted that, under the Commercial Design Standards, there was to be one tree for every 30 feet in the landscaped area She pointed out that, to move the building up to 25 feet instead of the normal 50 -foot setback, there was a requirement for 10% of the greenspace to be landscaped. She then read Ms. Sandeen's comments: "Due to efforts for tree preservation and existing sewer line along perimeter of project, I do not feel that screening for setback reduction should be required for this project. Intersection visibility at Millsap and Plainview is also a constraint. the addition of a berm, wall, or vegetation combination would be detrimental to the existing tree the project intends to preserve." Ms. Little stated she did not believe there was flexibility -- they applicant either set the building back 50 feet or 25 feet with landscaping. Mr. Ray stated he intended to comply with the landscaping of 10% of the greenspace. He noted they were also talking about a restaurant in the corner of the building and had looked at outdoor patio seating with shrubs or a small wall. He advised he believed they had met the intent of the ordinance. Ms. Little requested a rendition of the proposed landscaping. Mr. Ray also noted all of the signage would be on the building so all of the trees would need to be clustered due to visibility of the signage. Mr. Beavers advised he would oppose any trees over the sewer line. Mr. Ray pointed out that tied his hands; that Mr. Beavers comment was a conflict with the Commercial Design Standards. He asked for direction as to what the City wanted. He pointed out the sewer line went down the middle of the greenspace. Ms. Little suggested putting the trees in the right-of-way. Mr. Beavers stated there was storm drainage in the right-of-way and they could not have trees in the storm drainage. Mr. Ray stated it was possible to move the internal sidewalk out and put some small trees next to the building. After discussion, it was determined the internal sidewalk could be moved over and have only one sidewalk, leaving room for trees. • Subdivision Committee Meeting May 29, 1997 Page 22 • • Ms. Warrick noted the fire chief required the buildings to be sprinklered or the center structures be divided by a 4 -hour fire wall. She asked which the developer planned to do. Mr. Ray advised he believed they would install the fire wall. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to forward the large scale development to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.