Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-03 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on July 3, 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: Robert Reynolds, Gary Tucker and Lee Ward Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Chuck Rutherford, Beth Sandeen, and Sharon Langley AD97-6.00: Administrative Hearing Regarding Conditional Use for Detached Second Dwelling Unit (CU 96-12 Francis Holcomb, pp 446) was submitted by Francis Holcomb for property located at 531 N. Washington. Ms. Holcomb is being represented by her son, Don Ginger. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and the conditional use was granted to allow construction of a second dwelling unit. Ms. Little reviewed the history of the item with the Subdivision Committee, noting that, at the June 9, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant was directed to set up a meeting with the adjoining property owners and then bring the revisions to the Subdivision Committee. She advised Mr. Ginger had submitted new drawings. Mr. Ginger stated he had talked to both Ms. Hixson and Ms. Thomas, had shown them the new drawings; Ms. Thomas had made some other suggestions which he had agreed to. Mr. Tucker advised they would need to know the type and sizes of the trees. Mr. Ginger was directed to have that information by the Planning Commission meeting. In response to a comment from Mr. Tucker, Mr. Ginger reviewed the location of the rock planter and advised the trim, windows, vents, etc. would match the existing house. Ms. Anne Thomas, the adjoining property owner to the south, presented photographs of both the subject house and other houses in the area. She reviewed Mr. Ginger's plans and made suggestions for change. MOTION Mr. Reynolds stated it had been his understanding that all of the details were to have been worked out prior to the Subdivision Committee meeting. He moved to table the item until the next Subdivision Committee meeting. He requested the applicant and the adjoining property owners meet with city staff to work out the problems. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. 143 Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 3, 1997 Page 2 FP97-1.00: Final Plat (Salem Village, pp 284) was submitted by William B. Rudasill, Jr., of WBR Engineering Associates on behalf of Traditional Investments, Ltd. for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road and west of Salem Road. The property is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential) and contains approximately 39.2 acres with 111 proposed lots. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings and recommended conditions of approval Findings: This is a final plat for Salem Village, a planned unit development. The preliminary plat was approved by Planning Commission March 27, 1995. Conditions of Approval 1. Copy of the signed street Tight agreement must be provided to the Traffic Superintendent. 2. A copy of the file marked deed and any deed restrictions for park land dedication must be provided to the Director of Parks & Rec. Division. • 3. All final inspection punch list items must be complete. Those items which may guaranteed according to § 159.34 "Guarantees in lieu of installed improvements" can be covered by an acceptable assurance as provided in said ordinance. Ms. Little advised staff was awaiting final inspection results. Mr. Rudasill advised the water and sewer had been finaled; the inspection on the streets was scheduled the week of July 7. MOTION Mr. Reynolds stated the final inspection was required prior to Subdivision Committee and the applicant still did not have a complete final. He expressed his belief the plat was not ready for review. He moved to table the item until the following Subdivision Committee meeting. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 3, 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. 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 • July 3, 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. Ms. Little reminded the Committee the item had been tabled in order to allow Mr. Carter to get contours and sight distances at the intersection of Highway 71 and Sunrise Mountain Road. Mr. Carter advised he had completed further calculations and found the sight distance at the intersection was satisfactory. He then reviewed a profile of the existing Sunrise Mountain Road, explaining it currently did not meet city standards due to the slope. He stated the city ordinance required the first 100 feet from an intersection to be at a maximum of 4% grade. He stated the profile was a design to build up Sunrise Mountain Road to meet city standards; however, because of the height of fill, the roadway would be 10-12 feet higher than the existing roadway. He explained he did not believe that was the intent of the ordinance so he had designed a profile making the intersection safe and came very near of meeting the ordinance. In response to a question from Mr. Tucker, Mr. Carter stated they were within 9/10's of a foot at 100 feet. He also pointed out the maximum grade in city standards (after the 100 feet) was 15%; the projected roadway would be at 12%. Ms. Little pointed out there would be stacking area for 2-3 cars at the intersection (at city standard) and room for another 2-3 cars one foot below city standards. Mr. Beavers advised the staff would request the Planning Commission require the applicant to construct a 3 -lane section approximately 150 feet deep. He pointed out the applicant would need to require additional right-of-way since he was building up the road (he noted there would be between 92 and 100 feet of right-of-way required). Mr. Reynolds noted that, once the new Highway 71 was open, it would relieve the traffic problems at the subject intersection. Mr. Tucker asked if lot 2 would have direct access to Highway 71. Mr. Carter stated there were tentative plans for lots 1 and 2 to have a continuous parking lot with access at the south end on Highway 71. Ms Little explained one of the staff requests had been cross access between lots 1 and 2 but, • during the course of the all of the studies and looking at the site, they determined the access from • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 3, 1997 Page 5 • • the intersection would be much safer. She advised staff was satisfied with the access through the parking lot and the addition of an access for lot 2. MOTION Mr. Tucker moved to forward the large scale to the Planning Commission with all staff comments. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. 14e) • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 3, 1997 Page 6 New Business: LS97-18.00 Lot Split (Tom January, pp 290) was submitted by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Tom January for property located north of Township and west of North College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 3.07 acres The proposed split will create two lot splits of 1.48 acres and 1.59 acres each. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission approves this project, staff requests that the approval be conditioned upon the following: Conditions of Approval: 1. Resolution of the issue of cross access between Tracts "A" and "B". 2. Resolution of the issue of joint access to both tracts from Township Street. 3. Indication on the site plan of a 20 -foot utility easement adjacent to the north and east • property line on Tract "B". 4. Indication on the site plan of the off-site gas easement along the north property line. 5. 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). 6. Sidewalks: a. Construction of sidewalks at the time of development for Tracts "A" and B '. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan with a sidewalk shown on Tract "B". b. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 - foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 -foot green space along Highway 180 (Township Street). The sidewalk shall be continuous through the driveways. The owner must provide to the City an agreement or acknowledgement that the City's rights to utilize the water, sewer, drainage and utility easements are such that, if the City must repair or maintain any public water, sewer or drainage, then the City is obligated only to replace or repair asphalt, concrete or grass and that all replacement of retaining walls, rails, landscaping or other speciality items will be at the owner's expense. • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 3, 1997 Page 7 Ms Little pointed out the property was zoned commercially and advised that each individual lot was allowed only one independent sign. She explained that creating an additional lot created an additional opportunity for a sign. She also reminded the Subdivision Committee they had previously reviewed lot splits with cross access. She explained the issue needed to be resolved at the lot split level because, if they allowed one tract to develop and then waited for the other tract, it seemed the cross access never occurred. Mr. Gray pointed out there was in excess of 500 feet of frontage and he did not believe individual free-standing signs would be a problem. He noted a monument sign was planned for the January property. He further stated that, if the grade and compatibility of businesses worked out, the applicant would be happy to provide cross access. He advised he believed the grading could be a problem, noting the January tract was lower than the other. He explained the applicant was agreeable to trying to work the matter out when the other tract was developed. Mr. Tucker asked about the Joint access to serve both lots. Mr. Gray stated that, once again, Joint access would depend upon the grade of the lots. He pointed out one lot was approximately 2 - 3 feet higher than the other . He further noted the driveway had to be lower than the property (per the Highway Department) for drainage considerations. He also contended that, on heavily traveled streets, two accesses were better than one. Ms. Little advised traffic studies showed that, if they limited the point of conflict, they created a safer driving situation. Mr. Tucker agreed, stating he had always heard reducing curb cuts was a way of increasing safety. Mr. Rutherford noted the plat did not show the sidewalk going to the west property line. Mr. Gray stated the sidewalk ended at the point shown on the plat because, beyond that point, they could not maintain the 8% grade. Mr. Rutherford explained the sidewalk had to go to the property line. Mr. Gray advised the last 15 feet of the property went down to the creek. He explained that usually, when the bridge was constructed, the sidewalk was constructed at the same time. '•G Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 3, 1997 Page 8 • • After discussion, it was decided the sidewalk would curve out to the street on the west side of the driveway. Mr. Tucker asked if staff had given any consideration to access on the west. Ms. Little advised they had discussed it but there was a major drainage area immediately to the west. Mr. Tucker expressed concern there would be two curb cuts on each tract Mr. Gray explained that approximately 2 times a week there would be semi -trucks delivering carpet and, to maneuver through the parking lot, they planned the gravel connection. In response to a comment from Mr. Tucker, Mr. Gray stated the would anticipate at least 3 driveways which he did not think was unreasonable for 500 feet of frontage. He further stated he would prefer the driveways be 40 feet in width as allowed by the State but did understand that was against the City ordinances. Mr. Conklin noted the off-site gas easement was not shown on the plat. Mr. Gray stated he had requested information from the Gas Company as to the exact location of the easement but they had not given it to him. He added he had shown the gas line on the plat. Mr. Conklin also noted SWEPCO had requested a 20 -foot perimeter easement. Mr. Gray advised he had talked to Dennis Burrack, SWEPCO, and pointed out Tract B would have to come back for large scale development and Mr. Burrack had agreed to a 20 -foot easement on the west and a 20 -foot easement on the north. Mr. Conklin reminded Mr. Gray SWEPCO had discussed a 20 -foot easement, centered down the middle of the line between Tracts A and B. Mr. Gray stated he would work it out with the utility companies. He pointed out there was a zero side setback. Ms. Little advised she believed it was very important to get the northern easement extended across Tract B. Mr. Gray agreed to the extension. Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 3, 1997 Page 9 MOTION Mr. Tucker moved to forward the lot split to the Planning Commission. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Mr. Rutherford requested the note regarding sidewalks on the plat be changed so that the sidewalk on Tract A would be constructed when the site on Tract A was developed and the sidewalk on Tract B would be constructed when the site on Tract B was developed. • • 1o\ Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 3, 1997 Page 10 • • LSD97-13 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - TOM JANUARY TOM JANUARY - N OF TOWNSHIP, W OF NORTH COLLEGE The next item was a large scale development request submitted by Harry Gray, Northwest Engineers, on behalf of Tom January for property located north of Township and west of North College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.48 acres. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission approves this project, staff requests that the approval be conditioned upon the following: Conditions of Approval: 1. Granting of a conditional use to allow warehouse activity in a C-2 district. 2. Planning Commission determination of compliance with the City's Commercial Design Standards and underground utilities ordinance. 3. Resolution of the issue of crushed stone for the drive around the back of the building. 4. 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). 5. Sidewalks: a. Construction of sidewalks at the time of development for Tracts "A" and "B". The applicant shall submit a revised site plan with a sidewalk shown on Tract "B". b. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 - foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 -foot green space along Highway 180 (Township Street). The sidewalk shall be continuous through the driveways. 6. Requirement improvements must be completed prior to issuance of a building permit for this site or a Letter of Credit or other surety as required by Section 159.33 to guarantee all incomplete improvements must be submitted and remain in effect until the improvements are completed. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be complete, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. \S Subdivision Committee Meeting July 3, 1997 Page 11 7. A separate easement plat for this project must be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits. 8. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 9. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 10. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks and tree preservation The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 11. The owner must provide to the City an agreement or acknowledgement that the City's rights to utilize the water, sewer, drainage and utility easements are such that, if the City must repair or maintain any public water, sewer or drainage, then the City is obligated only to replace or repair asphalt, concrete or grass and that all replacement of retaining walls, rails, landscaping or other speciality items will be at the owner's expense. Ms. Little advised that, when this item went before the Planning Commission, there would also be a request for a conditional use allowing warehousing in a C-2 zone. She explained the building would be 10,000 square feet in size with 6,000 square feet being a warehouse for the carpet and the remaining 4,000 square feet being retail. She reviewed the colored renderings of the proposed building and advised staff believed it could meet commercial design standards. She also pointed out pictures of other buildings along Township. She noted the building was very similar to the existing January building. She stated the bottom half of the building was brick with dryvit design detail on the front and the sides of the building would be metal She also showed the Subdivision Committee a rendering of the proposed monument sign for the site. Mr. Reynolds advised he liked the appearance of the building and believed it would be an asset to the neighborhood. hi relation to the crushed stone drive, Ms. Little advised the site had been re -designed in order to allow the delivery trucks to circle the building, rather than back into the dock. Mr. Reynolds asked if the gravel area was only for the delivery trucks. Ms. January advised it was. Mr. Conklin asked how many trucks per day would be using the drive. 63 Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 3, 1997 Page 12 Mr. Gray stated there would be 2 - 3 trucks per week plus the sanitation truck. Ms. Little asked if the applicant would be opposed to the sanitation truck approaching from the east, explaining the dumpster could then be screened from the street and still be front load. Mr. Beavers asked if the throat area (into the parking lot) was based on existing or future conditions. Ms. Little stated it was based on future conditions. Mr Beavers asked if Township were widened, would the access and parking still meet city requirements. Mr. Gray advised he believed they would, based on the letter he received from the State Highway Department. Mr. Beavers stated his other questions dealt with the grading permit. He requested the report on the soil types. • Ms. January provided Mr. Beavers with a copy. Mr. Reynolds asked if the proposed sign met the sign ordinance. Ms. Little explained the proposed sign did meet the allowable signage on a commercial lot and was less than most people installed. She advised staff did think the sign was a good alternative to what could be located on the site. Ms. Sandeen advised only small trees were allowed in the utility easement and the plat was showing pin oaks. Mr. Gray advised he would plant redbuds and dogwoods in the area instead of the pin oaks. Ms. Sandeen recommended a medium size tree, such as a red maple, within the parking lot area. She noted there was existing screening on the property. She requested direction from the Subdivision Committee as to whether they wanted to require specific screening or if they wanted Ms. Sandeen to work out the screening with the applicant. She also asked if, in the future, they wanted to see specific screening . Mr. Reynolds stated he believed that Ms. Sandeen was the official from the City and the Committee needed to go along with her recommendations. Public Comment: There was no public comment. Subdivision Committee Meeting July 3, 1997 Page 13 MOTION Mr. Ward moved to forward the Targe scale to the Planning Commission with all staff comments. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. \SC Subdivision Committee Meeting July 3, 1997 Page 14 LSD97-12.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO SUPERIOR PROPERTIES PLUS - N OF HWY 62. W OF SANG The last item was a large scale development for Blockbuster Video submitted by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Superior Properties Plus for property located north of Highway 62, west of Sang, south of Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. This property is a leases interest in 1.15 acres of a larger total tract. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission approves this project, staff requests that the approval be conditioned upon the following: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with the City's Commercial Design Standards and underground utilities ordinance. Additional information on the materials that will be used on the exterior of the building is needed as part of the Commercial Design Standards requirements. 2. Resolution of the issue of the number of parking spaces provided by the applicant. 3. Resolution of the issue of the existing curb cut width on Sixth Street. 4. 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, and TCA Cable). 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 -foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 -foot green space along Sixth Street. The sidewalk shall be continuous through the driveways. 6. Required improvements must be completed prior to issuance of a building permit for this site or a Letter of Credit or other surety as required by Section 159.33 to guarantee all incomplete improvements must be submitted and remain in effect until the improvements are completed. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be complete, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. A separate easement plat for this project must be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits. 8. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. \54 Subdivision Committee Meeting July 3, 1997 Page 15 9. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 10. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 11. The owner must provide to the City an agreement or acknowledgment that the City's rights to utilize the water, sewer, drainage and utility easements are such that, if the City must repair or maintain any public water, sewer or drainage, then the City is obligated only to replace or repair asphalt, concrete or grass and that all replacement of retaining walls, rails, landscaping or other specialty items will be at the owner's expense. 12. Installation of a fire hydrant in a location that is acceptable to the fire chief. 13. Signage shall be limited to wall signs on the building. Ms. Little stated the main issue on the large scale was that it was a lease holding. She also noted the applicant had done very well in using an existing curb cut. She asked the applicant if the Tractor Supply Store and the Hardee's were all owned by the same owner. Mr. Gray advised they were. Ms. Little noted it was all one large tract and there were three existing signs on the property. She advised that would cause a problem. She pointed out there was nothing to keep the property owner from creating individual lots and lease the individual lots. Mr. Gray advised the Sprint Tax building and sign would be removed. She reminded the Subdivision Committee the regulations called for one sign per lot and there were already three signs on the lot (with one to be removed). She stated staff had not realized all of the businesses were on the same tract Mr. Gray advised they would be applying for a lot split on this portion of the tract. Ms. Little stated that would make it a different situation. It was determined the lot split had not yet been applied for and the large scale would need to be tabled until the Subdivision Committee could review the lot split at the same time as they reviewed the large scale. Ili Subdivision Committee Meeting July 3, 1997 Page 16 MOTION Mr. Tucker moved to table the large scale development. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m. • • 1�