Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-17 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on July 17, 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, Lorel Hoffman, Gary Tucker, and Conrad Odom. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Jim Beavers, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. OLD BUSINESS: AD97-6.00: ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE FRANCIS HOLCOMB- 531 N. WASHINGTON The conditional use was submitted by Francis Holcomb for property located at 531 N. Washington. 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 stated a meeting was held July 9, 1997 with Mr. Ginger, Mr. Becker, Ms. Hickson, and Ms. Thomas. She submitted a memo containing the contents of the meeting. She explained the agreements made for the north elevation. The bottom of the porch had been squared up and brackets added to give the structure a more Victoria look. The walkway connection had been removed. Brackets had been added to match the existing house on the screen porch Railroad ties would no longer be used along the access to the west along Ms. Hickson property. She presented a drawing illustrating how the maple tree would be treated in front of the garage. She noted the shutter would remain on the windows. There would be no change on the panel above the garage door. On the east elevation, Washington Street, a window would be added to the top floor. A stone planter, matching the existing stone, would be added. There was an existing evergreen which would be maintained. There would be no other changes to this elevation. Ms. Johnson stated all changes needed to be added to the drawings. She noted the tree to east had been removed along with the planter boxes under the windows that were still shown on the drawings. Ms. Little stated matching trim board would be added to all elevations. 411 On the south elevation, the side adjoining Ann Thomas, they had agreed a trellis would be • • Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page2 installed in the middle of the elevation to cover pipes. There had been discussion on where it would be placed. She stated the trellis would be centered along the wall. The trellis would be white with a dormer type roof over it with an arch over it. Ms. Hoffman asked if the trellis was consistent with the house. Ms. Little stated there were no arches on the current house. A window would be added to the west side of the elevation to match and balance the window on the east end of the elevation. The frosted window would be removed and siding installed in the area. Two pin oak trees would be added. No windows would be added to the bottom. Shutters would be added to the upper windows. One large tree would be added to the west elevation. They had discussed using a Willow Oak, but had not recommended it because of their spread. Ms. Johnson asked to have Ms. Sandeen's opinion before the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Tucker asked them to specify the DBH of the tree rather than the container size. Mr. Ginger offered to plant trees which were in five gallon containers. Mr. Odom asked if the porch would be removed. Ms. Little stated the porch was not on the original elevation. The neighbors had concerns about the porch and wanted it altered. They wanted brackets underneath and on the screen and the bottom squared up. Ms. Johnson asked if all the neighbors had agreed on this. Ms. Little added matching trim board would be added to the structure. Ms. Johnson changed the wording on the trellis to read, the trellis was to be nearly centered. PUBLIC COMMENT Ms Carolyn Hickson, an area resident, stated some one needed to make a clearer ruling on what would constitute residence. Ms. Little stated there was a deed restriction of the property that required one of the units to be • owner occupied. Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page3 Ms. Johnson thought the city would be able to define "residency" in its own ordinance. She asked if the ordinance required one of the units to be owner occupied. Ms. Little stated that conditional uses were included in the zoning ordinance with the requirement that the property had to be owner occupied. Ms. Johnson stated she would tend toward the IRS definition of six months a year. Ms. Little read the deed restriction. "the use of the detached second unit as an independent dwelling may continue only as long as one unit on the property is owner occupied." Mr. Tucker asked if the other six month the both units could be occupied by renters. Ms. Johnson stated there needed to be a working definition for owner occupied. She requested the City Attorney define "residency" for them before the Planning Commission meeting. Ms Carolyn Hickson asked if there would be any other restrictions placed on the property for when the owner was not present. In response to Ms. Little reading the deed restriction, Mr. Odom stated "owner occupied" had a different meaning than "residency". Ms. Little stated they were willing to extend uses allowed in R-1 and include the granny units which increased density and also allow more rental units in what was traditionally single family neighborhood because they had the protection that the owner would be present. Ms. Hoffman asked the time limit of the conditional use. Ms. Little replied the conditional use would run with the property. Ms. Johnson asked Ms. Little to ask the City Attorney two questions: define "owner occupied" in the City ordinance. Secondly, could both units ever be occupied by renters at the same time. Ms. Bonnie Davis, an area resident, stated the conditional use was granted on the condition that the property would be owner occupied. She would have a problem the city not enforcing the ordinance. Ms. Johnson stated the Planning Commission had to follow the City ordinances and owner occupied was part of this ordinance. She had asked the staff to obtain a definition of that from the City Attorney. They would receive the definition of "owner occupied" and they would try and operate under that definition. If the neighbors were concerned about the definition, then they • • • Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page4 should go before the City Council and ask that the ordinance be amended if they did not believe the ordinance was adequate. Ms. Hicks stated if they could be specific about the size of trees, they could be specific about the definition of owner occupied. Ms. Johnson stated the terms in City Ordinances were defined by the City Attorney. They were going to get the definition by the next Planning Commission meeting. She asked the staff for Ms. Sandeen opinion on the tree selection, size, and type. She was concerned about creating nuisance. She asked Mr. Ginger to update his drawings to show the changes. Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page5 LS97-2100: LOT SPLIT FOR BLOCKBUSTER SUPERIOR PROPERTIES -N OF HWY 62. W OF SANG. & S OF OLD FARMINGTON The lot split was submitted by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Superior Properties Plus for property located North of Hwy 62, west of Sang, south of Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is to split 1.15 acres from a larger tract. Ms. Little stated the property was located between the Hardees and the old Wal -mart building All of the property was under one ownership. The existing lot had frontage on both Hwy 62 and Old Farmington Road. The proposed lot would not extend to Old Farmington Rd. There would be a depth of 138 feet between the rear of this lot and the Old Farmington Rd. The current proposal was for joint access from Hardees, so there would not be another curb cut along Hwy 62. The second entry onto the site would be the east entrance of the old Wal -mart parking lot. She added the approval of the lot split would allow them to have an additional sign. This property was not located in the Overlay District. Mr. Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, explained the property had been broken up by separate lease agreements. They were proposing a combined lot split and large scale development. Ms. Hoffman asked if the City had any interest in bring the existing lot up to conformance such as sidewalk issues or right-of-ways. Ms. Little replied the existing lot was not in compliance with the Master Street Plan. They were requiring additional 15' of right-of-way on this parcel. They could require that the entire right- of-way along existing lot be dedicated. Mr. Jones stated the existing parking lot would be in the right-of-way. Ms. Hoffman asked if the parking would have to move or could it remain until the right-of-way was needed. Ms. Little replied the Commission had every right to require the entire tract to come into conformance with the Master Street Plan, because of the lot split. The lot would be nonconforming, but when the city needed to use the right-of-way, they would have it. No changes would need to be made now. The dedication of the 15' of right-of-way and the installation of a sidewalk would bring the entire tract up to conformance. Mr. Jones stated they could not install a sidewalk without tearing up the existing parking lot. He questioned if the dedication of the right-of-way was fair to require it of the entire tract. He thought the appropriate time would be when the rest of the site redeveloped. • • • Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page6 Ms. Little stated they had already made an exception to the overlay district when Tractor Supply leased the building and had said that when the remainder of the building was leased, that the entire site would have to be brought into conformance. Mr Odom stated he did not have a problem not installing the sidewalk now, as long as they would guarantee it to be constructed when the right-of-way was taken. Ms. Little did not believe the Sidewalk and Trails coordinator would be in agreement to not require the sidewalk based on file comments. Ms. Johnson asked if they could segregate the sidewalk from the parking lot with concrete curbs. She was concerned about having a safe passage for pedestrians. Mr. Jones stated the area was all paved and there was an existing sidewalk along the highway. Mr. Beavers stated the sidewalk was up to the highway departments standards. Ms. Hoffman stated she was interested in the dedication of the right-of-way. Ms. Johnson asked if there was any reason why they should not require right-of-way dedication now. She stated she would recommend to the Commission that they require the 15' right-of-way for the entire parent tract. They would not require any changes at the present time, only when the City needed the right-of-way. Ms. Hoffman moved to approve the lot split with sidewalk joining the existing sidewalk and the 15' right-of-way along the entire original tract be dedicated to the City. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0-0. auk Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page7 ° LSD97-LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR BLOCKBUSTER SUPERIOR PROPERTIES PLUS- N. OF HWY 62, W. OF SANG. & S. OF OLD FARMINGTON The large scale development was submitted by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Superior Properties Plus for property located north of Hwy 62, west of Sang, and south of Old Farmington Road between the old Wal -mart and Hardees. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The property contains 1.15 acres. Ms. Little stated they were requesting a waiver on the required number of parking spaces. The maximum number of parking spaces was 32, they were proposing 50 spaces. Ms Hoffman asked if they had planned a drop off. Mr. Jim Barnes stated they had not planned a drop off. Ms. Little stated on the existing curbcuts, the west side was wider than what normally allowed As a condition of large scale development, the Planning Commission could require that the curb cut be narrowed to City current standards. Because of the angle of the curbcut and the highway the staff was not recommending the change, but the Planning Commission had to make a resolution of the issue, because it was non -conforming. Ms. Hoffman asked how many entrances were in the old Wal -mart parking lot. Mr. Jones stated there were two entry drive. In response to a question from Mr. Conklin, Mr. Barnes stated they would remove some of the asphalt and install landscaping in front of the store. Ms Little stated there was the standard requirement for a sidewalk. The applicant needed a separate easement plat to comply with the utility requirements, before a building permit would be issued. If the building was not constructed within one year, it would have to return to the large scale process. She added a fire hydrant was required, at the developers expense. She added there could be a separate sign. Ms. Johnson questioned if there would be any limitations placed on the sign. Ms Little stated the sign would be limited to 30' above the road in height, 40' back from the road, and 75' square foot. Mr. Tucker questioned if the design met Fayetteville's standard. • • Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page8 Ms. Little noted the building was a square box like structure, but that it didn't have metal siding. She noted the unarticulated sidewall, unless they were to consider the awning. She noted the large flashy signs. She questioned how compatibility with the adjoining buildings was established. Ms. Johnson asked to see pictures of the adjoining properties. She suggested taking photographs in every direction from his site. Ms. Little noted the applicant was meeting the landscaping requirements. They were also meeting the site development standards. The design standards were in question. She discussed the canopy and whether it sufficed for articulation on the side of the building Ms. Johnson stated it was her opinion that the canopies did not articulate the building. She thought the main canopy might be considered, but the side canopies were just a place to place more signage. Ms. Little asked the applicant to place a large street address on the building. She asked what • material was on the back of the building. • Mr. Jones stated the back of the building was stucco, saying that the building was the prototype of a Blockbuster Store. Ms. Little requested help from engineers in that the Planning Commission needed to see the specific building that was designed to meet the design standards. Mr. Barnes stated this was going to be an identical building to the pictures. Ms Little replied Fayetteville had specific design standards. The developer needed to look at Fayetteville's design standard and apply them to their building. Mr. Jones stated they had looked at the ordinances. He was not clear on some of the issues. He asked for the Planning Commission's guidance in interpreting the ordinance. Ms. Johnson stated they would look at each requirement to see if the project met the standards. The first criteria was to avoid unpainted concrete block walls. She commented the building had a concrete building look. She added the building had a square box like structure. The building did not have metal siding. The building had large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces. She noted five large, out of scale, flashy signs. It was her view the design did not meet the criteria. Mr. Tucker stated the building was clearly boxlike. There were unarticulated walls • Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page9 Mr. Jones believed the canopies did articulate the walls. Ms. Johnson stated their starting point should have been the Design Standards, not a rubber stamp of another building. Mr. Jones stated the standards stated those should be avoided, not must be avoided. Ms. Little quoted, "buildings shall be designed with these elements in mind". Mr. Barnes stated this was the prototype used all over the country. He asked if they were expected to redraw their whole concept for the city of Fayetteville. Mr. Tucker stated in order to do business in Fayetteville, new businesses needed to meet certain standards in quality. It may require them to revisit their typical building. He was not sure that the canopies did not articulate the side walls, but they muddied the issue by placing large out of scale signs on them. Mr. Jones questioned if they were meeting the requirements on the signs, how could it be • considered large and out of scale. • Ms. Johnson explained the Fayetteville, sign ordinance did not prohibit large and out of scale signs, but the Design Standards did prohibit them. Mr. Jones questioned at what point did it become out of scale. Ms. Johnson stated she could not answer the questions, but stated they needed to try and abide by the standards. Ms. Hoffman stated she had definite idea on Design Standards and believed there were ways to economically comply with them. She added Design Standards were all over the country. She was sure they had done minor changes in other cities. She did not believe they had tried to comply with the design standards. She expressed concern about the back wall and the blank sides. Mr. Jones stated they needed to know what was considered large out of scale signs. Mr. Barnes Stated the signs were part of their image. Mr. Odom stated when they had created the design standard, they did not want to tell them what to build. They wanted to leave the creativity up to the developer. The standards were created to give broad guidelines. • Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page 10 Ms. Johnson stated she did not believe they had tried to comply with the design standards at all. She cautioned about trying to place building from another city in Fayetteville. She added if most of the criteria were met, the Planning Commission would not be so concerned about one element not meeting the standards. She noted the Subdivision Committee represented a third of the Planning Commission. Mr. Jones believed the sides were articulated with the canopies and the signs were not out of scale. He stated they needed more specific guidelines. Mr. Barnes stated the blue and gold signs on barrel canopies was the image of Block Busters across the country. Mr. Odom stated the Planning Commission did not want them to change their identity. They had worked with McDonald's and Taco Bell, who had made some change and still kept the corporate identity. Mr. Conklin asked if there was an architect involved. • Mr. Barnes stated this was a prototype building which had been used for about eight years The corporation had changed from red brick to stucco. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Ms. Kathy January, stated one thing that would help in the understanding of the ordinance was the requirement for the rendering of the front side. She did not believe the ordinance required renderings of the sides. She believed it would have helped if the ordinance stated that renderings of the sides were also required. Mr. Odom replied the reason they did not require the sides was for architectural cost. They wanted the standards to apply to the whole building. They did not require all sides to be shown for the cost factor. Ms. Ho Ilan asked if the landscaping requirements were not with the additional parking spaces. Ms. Little stated Ms. Sandeen had signed off on it. Ms. Johnson stated it was consensus that design standards were not met. She questioned the request for additional parking. • Mr. Jones presented calculations and data from existing stores. He explained they were from Fayetteville and Springdale stores. The stated average of 42 spaces was needed based on sales. • • Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Pagell Extra parking was needed for window shoppers and employees. Ms. Little asked how this store would compare with the other store on College Ave. Mr. Barnes stated this store would be 200 square feet smaller. Mr. Odom stated he walked to the existing store several times a week. He verified the need for more parking. Mr. Barnes stated the existing store probably had a hundred parking spaces. It had shared parking in the shopping center. Mr. Tucker asked if there was an opportunity of shared parking with the Wal -mart parking lot. Mr. Barnes stated there was approximately 75 feet between them. Mr. Jones stated they did not know what was going to happen to the adjacent property. He thought it might develop differently in the future. Ms. Little stated the City had designed the parking standards to make sure that an required parking was needed. She added she liked the way the parking was presented on the side Because the additional parking was located on the side she was more in favor of granting the waiver. She felt the applicant had given good data on what was needed. Ms. Johnson asked if there would always be a large empty parking lot. Ms. Little thought it would be a large parking lot, unless it was redeveloped. Mr. Tucker was not persuaded the additional parking spaces were necessary. He thought the additional parking could be accommodated with shared parking. Mr. Barnes stated there was no access to the adjacent parking, it was unpaved area. Ms. Hoffman thought if they were to require shared parking it would require people to walk too far. Ms Johnson stated the number of spaces being requested was a concern to her. She asked them to look and see if they could use some of the parking at Wal-Mart. • Mr. Jones stated they were meeting the site design standards. They had considerable greenspace. They were leaving additional green space, even with the additional parking spaces. The adjacent • • • Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Pagel2 parking was too far to expect people to walk. Ms. Johnson stated they had the unanimous opinion of the Subdivision Committee that the building did not meet the design standards. She asked the applicant if he would like to forward to the Planning Commission or to come back to Subdivision. Mr. Jones asked if they could make some revisions prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Johnson stated the point of Subdivision was to do the time consuming work. If there were going to be any significant changes the development needed to come back to Subdivision. Mr. Odom added typically when a plan was changed between Subdivision and the Planning Commission it was sent back to the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Jones requested that the design be moved to the Planning Commission. 00 • • Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Pagel3 LS 97-20.00: LOT SPLIT FOR CARLON BASSETT BASSETT- 614 N CARLON ORTH COLLEGE The lot split was submitted by Alan Reid of Alan Reid and Associates of behalf of Carlon Bassett for property located east of College Avenue and north of Davidson Street, at 614 North College Avenue. The property is zoned C -2/R -O, Thoroughfare Commercial and Residential Office, and contains approximately .85 acres. Ms. Little stated the request was to create two lots. It was currently one lot with two structures, Doc Murdock's and the building previously used for CEMS. The entrance off College needs to have the concrete apron repaired and the sidewalk improved. The flood plain and flood way were noted on the plan. A portion of the Doc Murdock's building was in the flood way. They would not allow that now. The current plan was leave the entrance, because it served as parking for Doc Murdocks. The main entrance for this property would be moved to the side. There would be an access easement for the rear lot. Ms. Little stated the sidewalk was broken and would need to be replaced and meet ADA guidelines. All the vegetation growing the in the sidewalk area need to be removed. Screening would be required been the commercial use and the R -O property to the east. They had asked for square footage, so they could calculate parking. She asked if there was a provision for shared parking. Mr. Reid stated Doc Murdocks was still wanting to use the parking spaces that they were currently using now. Ms Little stated they needed a legal document. Mr. Reid stated he had prepared a legal description for the document. Mr. Beavers stated Reid had added the existing sanitary sewer under the building to the plat. Ms. Little asked if it was typical to have sewer in the flood way. Mr. Beavers stated it was not typical to have the sewer in the flood way or under buildings. Mr. Reid noted they were asking for screening along the zoning change which was in the middle of the parking lot and through the building. Ms. Little stated it was a requirement they needed to address. She noted they would need to rezone the remainder of the building in order to use it. They were not asking for that. They knew they were planning on using the building for auto repair, which was not allowed in R -O. 12\ • • • Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page14 They would need to do something to resolve that. Ms. Hoffman asked if there was a sidewalk along Rebecca. Ms. Little stated it was mainly islands, it was mostly curbcuts. She noted they did not have any comments from the Sidewalks and Trails Coordinator. Mr. Reid stated they were not really changing the use. He thought there would be less traffic now than with the EMS. Ms. Little stated they needed the legal agreement that allowed for shared parking, without it there would not be adequate parking for Doc Murdocks. She noted if they were intending a commercial use of the building that it would require rezoning, because the entire building was not zoned commercial. PUBLIC Ms. Bonnie Davis, an adjacent property owner, requested screening. She noted there was a noise problem. The problem was not from the building, but from the customers and the cars in the parking lot. Ms. Little thought it was a reasonable request to require the screening that would normally be required between C-2 and R -O to be shifted to the east property line. It would provide a screen between the residential use and the commercial use. Ms. Johnson stated they would need an agreement on the screening before the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Little stated she needed the signed parking agreement and the agreement about screening. They would also need to agree to repair the apron and sidewalks. Ms. Hoffman moved to approve the lot split subject to the requirements to provide screening between this property and the property to the east and the shared parking agreement. k21 Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Pagel5 LS 97-16.00 LOT SPLIT FOR ERIC AND TAMMIE HARPER ERIC HARPER -2090 NORTH SUNSHINE The lot split was submitted by the Harper's for property located south of Mt. Comfort Road and west of county Road 877, at 2090 North Sunshine. The property is in the County and contains approximately 0.78 acres. Ms. Little stated this was in the county. The city's main concern was that the lot be of sufficient size that it could be served by septic system. She noted it was an unusual legal description Ms. Harper stated the lot was located near Bridgeport subdivision. Ms. Warrick stated there was an access easement. The county frontage requirement had been waived. They had a copy of the county approval. Ms Harper stated the rest of the property was owned by her husband's grandparents. Mr. Tucker moved to approve the lot split. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. The motion camed by a vote of 3-0-0. k13 Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Pagel6 LSD 97-15.00: LSD FOR NORTH PARK PLACE PHASE II SMITH -BROOKS INVESTMENTS- 3380 WIMBERLY DRIVE The large scale development for North Park Place was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering Company for Smith -Brooks Investments on property located south of Futrall Drive and east of Wimberly Drive, at 3380 Wimberly Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.91 acres. The project was represented by Ron Petrie at the meeting. Ms. Little stated the applicant had requested the site be exempt from the Overlay District requirements, because CMN Business park had been exempted and Northhills Medical Park had very restrictive covenants. She asked the applicant if he had been able to obtain a copy of their covenant. She noted Commercial Design Standards were in place. She added a setback reduction had been requested for both street frontages. The applicant had also requested a waiver of sidewalks. Mr. Ron Petrie stated they were open to discussion on the waiver of sidewalks. In response to a question from Mr. Tucker, Ms. Little stated they had asked and received a variance or waiver from Overlay District because CMN Business Park had been exempted and this site was a part of Northhill Medical Park which had very stringent covenants (the exemption was granted May 27, 1997). The staff requested cross access to the building to the east. Ms Johnson questioned the specifics of what the administrative waiver would relieve the applicant of. Ms Little responded the 25' setback of green space on all public street frontage, the 75% lot coverage, the 25% open space requirement with 80% of the 25% to be landscaped. Overlay district did not allow pole signs, however, she did not believe pole signs were allowed under the covenants. There was a requirement under the Overlay for all the parking areas adjacent to public frontages to be screened by a 4' high fence, berm or vegetative screen . There was a requirement under the Commercial Design Standard that if the 15' required setback is reduced to 5' then the fence, berm or vegetative screen be 3' in height. Mr. Tucker asked if Northhill had any screening requirements. Mr. Petrie stated they had screening all around the site. They had 5' wide berms, 1' high with l'/2' vegetation. Ms Warrick stated they were requesting setback reduction from the standard setback requirement for parking lot (15' landscaped area along frontage). It could be 5' provided they • • • Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page 17 bermed or provided some type of screening. In response to a question from Mr. Tucker, Ms. Warrick stated the applicant was requesting sidewalks be waived. Mr. Petrie advised there were no sidewalks in the vicinity. He stated the North Hills Medical Park had a bill of assurance for sidewalks and the applicant was requesting the same consideration. Ms. Little explained the Sidewalks and Trails Coordinator was in the process of calling the Bill of Assurance for North Hills Medical Park. She stated it was staffs understanding that the Medical Park was built out and they wanted to dissolve the corporate relationship and be relieved of all outstanding obligations. Ms. Johnson asked which streets would be affected by calling the Bill of Assurance. Ms Warrick stated it would not affect the subject lot. She pointed out the streets on the plat which would be affected. She stated the subject lot was not a lot within the plat of North Hills Medical Park, but an outlot. She assured the Subdivision Committee the covenants did, however, apply to the subject lot. Ms. Johnson asked if there was any reason for the Subdivision Committee to waive or delay the installation of sidewalks. Ms. Little stated she knew of no reason to waive or delay the sidewalks. She pointed out CMN Business Park (immediately to the east) had installed sidewalks and there was, in fact, a sidewalk coming to the property. Mr. Smith stated he had not been aware of the Bill of Assurance and had not wanted to put in sidewalks if no one else had them. Ms Johnson stated the sidewalks would be installed per city standards. She requested the sidewalks be shown on the plat. Ms. Little explained that, as far as the setbacks, the city's requirements were less than those required under the North Hills covenants. She noted she had advised the applicant the covenants did apply to the subject property at the plat review meeting on July 8 and had also based the exemption from the Overlay District requirement on the fact that the property was bound by the covenants. She further explained she had told the applicant there was a conflict with the proposed plat and `14 • • Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page 18 the covenants; she had asked their engineer to review the covenants; she had asked for the name of the contact person for the North Hills Architectural Review Committee and had asked for a copy of the Committee's approval of the plans. Ms. Little stated she still believed it was important to get a copy of the approval from North Hills. She explained she was not sure North Hills would agree with the proposed plan, there were conflicts between the plan and North Hills covenants. She further stated that, if North Hills would agree to the plan, she would enforce the city's ordinances. She reviewed areas of the covenants which were not being met by the proposed plan. The applicant advised he had talked with David Rew who was on the review board and Mr. Rew had been in full support of the plan. He further stated either Mr. Rew or Dr. Romine would be the person Ms. Little would need to talk to. Ms. Little stated she had asked for the name of the contact person of the architectural review board and a letter giving the committee's approval of the plan. Ms. Johnson advised the name of the person would need to be given to Ms. Little as soon as possible and the letter of approval from the architectural committee would need to be delivered to Ms. Little in advance of the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Petrie pointed out that, before the architectural review committee would approve the building, they would want to know the exact use of the building. Ms. Little stated the approval could be subject to the use of the building. She explained the staff was interested in the physical site design characteristics in the covenants. Ms. Johnson asked about the 5 -foot setback. Ms. Little explained that was a city standard and, if North Hills Architectural Review Board approved the setback, so would staff. Ms. Johnson asked if there were any other setbacks that narrow along Millsap/Futrall. Ms. Little stated she was not sure. She pointed out that, due to the shape of the lot, the applicant had done extensive design work to fit the building onto the lot. Ms. Johnson expressed concern regarding the 5 -foot setback on Futrall, noting it was not in conformity with the buildings in North Hills. She asked the narrowest setback for the buildings . in the Medical Park. Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Pagel9 Ms. Little stated it appeared the narrowest setback in the Medical Park was at least 25 feet. Ms. Johnson asked if the setback was a concern to staff. Ms. Little stated it was and explained they did not want to approve anything which put a neighborhood group or any other group in a position which violated covenants. Ms. Johnson advised she wanted the North Hills Architectural Review Committee to specifically address the 5 -foot setback in their letter of approval Ms. Little stated there was one other issue with the proposed plan -- cross access. She advised cross access had been discussed at the plat review meeting stnce there was already an existing building immediately adjacent to the site. She explained cross access was a part of the Commercial Design Standards and the proposed plans were subject to those standards. She further explained that having cross access was important for all service vehicles and, to a minor degree, for other people that might need to go from one building to the next building. The applicant stated the trash dumpster for the existing building was in the way of any cross access and he did not know any other location for the dumpster. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little advised that approximately 110 feet of the subject tract was in common with Lot 10 of CMN Business Park which the applicant also owned. Ms Hoffman pointed out there were a number of options where the cross access could be placed; the Subdivision Committee didn't care where it was located as long as there was cross access. She did want to see it on the plans by the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Little further advised they had received a rendering of the building which seemed to meet the Design Standards criteria. Ms Johnson stated they did not have a rendering of the east side of the building. Mr. Smith stated there would be a straight wall with brick half way up and stucco on the balance. Ms Hoffman requested a rendering of the east wall also. Ms. Little stated there was one other issue -- the City had an ordinance regarding underground utilities. She pointed out that, on the rear lot line, there was an overhead line. She stated she believed that to both the west and east of the tract, the line went underground. Mr. Petrie explained it was the electric company's main transmission line and it would be `11 • • • Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page20 extremely costly to bury the line. Ms Little read the minutes from the plat review meeting. She stated she was unclear because all lines along Millsap were underground and she also believed the services at North Hills were also underground. She then read from the ordinance regarding underground lines "In case of hardships, (including but not limited to financial, geological, environmental, or regulatory) unique to the subject property, the Planning Commission may grant a waiver, on a permanent or temporary basis, to allow the erection, construction, installation, maintenance, use or operation of poles and overhead wires and associated overhead structures." She stated she would like a letter from SWEPCO stating where the service was going to and where it was coming from and the cost to place the line underground. Mr. Beavers requested the trees planted near the manholes be moved slightly away from the manholes. Ms. Johnson reviewed the items which were in question: installation of sidewalks, the 5 -foot setback, a letter of approval from the North Hills Architectural Committee, cross -access shown on the plat, and the possibility of requesting a waiver regarding the existing electrical service remaining above ground. Mr. Smith pointed out the cross access would destroy some of the green space on the existing building. He noted they were required to have 15% green space and the cross access could destroy a portion of that percentage. Ms Johnson directed the applicant to work with the staff. • Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page2l LSD97-16 10: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - MEADOW BROOKS JIM LINDSEY - N OF STONE, E OF SANG The next item was a large scale development for Meadow Brooks Apartments submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Jim Lindsey. The property is located north of Stone Street and east of Sang and is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 13.27 acres. The applicant was represented at the meeting by Tom Hopper and Roy Stanley. Ms. Little explained this was a revised submittal and the number of units had been reduced from 120 units to 112. She also pointed out a new 16-plex at the southeast corner of Sang and Stone. She advised there were some additional requirements due to the addition of the 16-plex. She reminded the Committee the Planning Commission had decided that, in lieu of requiring right-of-way and street improvements to the north property line of the tract, Sang Street would be a complete street from its intersection with Stone to Maine (including widening it to a 28 -foot street with curb and gutter and sidewalks on both sides). Ms. Little stated they had also agreed to 20 feet of right-of-way from the entry of the complex up • to the north property line. She stated it had been agreed Stone Street would not need to be extended to the west property line but there would need to be dedication of 25 feet of right-of- way to the west. She also noted there was construction of sidewalk to the west property line along Stone Street with the exception of the property located at the northwest comer of the intersection of Sang and Stone since that property was owned by someone else. • She reminded the Committee the applicant had appeared before the Parks Board and the City Council who agreed to a waiver of dedication of park land but had agreed parks fees would be paid at $240 per unit, a total of $22,880. Ms. Little continued with the conditions of approval: large scale development good for one year only; an easement plat to be filed prior to the issuance of a building permit; addition of a fire hydrant to serve the 16-plex at the southeast corner of the intersection. She also advised there needed to be a sidewalk along the northern boundary of the 16-plex. Ms. Johnson asked the nature of Stone Street immediately north of the 16-plex. Ms. Little advised it was probably not a standard street. She also noted the grading plan had been revised extensively. Mr. Beavers stated it was a very good drainage plan and grading plan. He advised the layout had been revised so there were no cuts nor fills greater than 15 feet. He noted the layout had been revised to work with the contours of the land. He stated the plan still had two detention ponds on • Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page22 site. Mr. Tom Hopper, Crafton & Tull, explained there was a retaining wall at the back of Building 3 and behind the new 16-plex. He pointed out they had deleted two of the upper units and changed the alignment of the street to match the contours. He also pointed out there were more undisturbed areas to the north and the sides of the property. He advised they had tried to change the project to comply with the grading ordinance and comments made by the Planning Commissioners and City Council members. Roy Stanley, Lindsey Management Company, advised they had met with Alderman Schaper and he had agreed they had met the letter of the ordinance. He also pointed out they had reduced the density of the large tract by 25%. He added that, by obtaining the tract at the southeast corner, they were able to provide less disturbance in the site but still had the number of units necessary to make the project economically viable to have an on-site manager. Ms. Little advised that, at plat review, the staff had requested a turn -around area at the end of the drive and the plan now showed the turn around. • In response to a question from Ms. Hoffman, Ms Little advised the National Home Center large scale development was still active because, when it was approved, it was not limited to one year. Ms. Johnson asked about the street to the east of the National Home Center site. Mr. Hopper stated it was a public street to the entrance of National Home Center where it becomes private to the north. Subject project does not affect that street. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Hopper explained Stone was constructed part of the way along the southern boundary of the tract and right-of-way would be given from where it was constructed to the end of the subject tract. Ms. Little explained the street ended to the west of the Ward and Ritch lots. Mr. Tucker asked if Stone was paved to the east of the site. Ms. Little advised Stone Street went to the east well beyond the site. Mr. Tucker reminded the Committee that, when the project had been reviewed previously, there had been some traffic issues. He asked staff if those issues had been addressed. • Ms. Little stated they had not discussed traffic. She further stated there had been some concems on the part of the school as well as some area residents about the addition of the number of units • • Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page23 onto the street system. She advised staffs' response had been the improvement of Sang Street to Stone Street. Public Comment: Ms. Lona Benedict contended there were still traffic problems due to the narrowness of the streets to the east. She further contended there were also problems with the drainage due the steepness of the slope. Mr. Hopper stated there would be no water going onto the Ramey Jr. High property. Ms. Benedict pointed out the ponds could overflow. Mr. Hopper explained the ponds were designed to overflow into a storm sewer which came down the north side of Stone Street. Ms Benedict expressed concern the water would then go onto the school property. Mr. Hopper explained the water would be intercepted on the north side of Stone and directed to the west. Ms. Benedict asked where the children who would be living in the apartments play. Mr. Hopper pointed out the undeveloped property. Ms Benedict contended that was all steep property. Mr. Combs, an area resident, requested a copy of the plans. In response to a question from Mr. Tucker, Mr. Hopper explained they did plan, if possible, to construct a sidewalk across the front of the Ritch property on the city right-of-way. Mr. Tucker asked about the Jackson property. Ms. Warrick explained there was no right-of-way in front of the Jackson property. In response to a question from Mr. Hopper, the Committee advised they believed there had been a considerable improvement on the design of the project. Mr. Beaver advised he had been too busy to meet with other staff regarding he improvement of Stone and Sang in front of the 16-plex. He advised he believed the city would request improvement of one-half of both streets up to city standards together with a sidewalk. \I\ Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page24 The Subdivision Committee agreed to forward the plat to the Planning Commission. • Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page25 LSD97-13: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - TOM JANUARY TOM & CATHY JANUARY - N OF TOWNSHIP, W OF N. COLLEGE The last item was a large scale development for Tom January submitted by Harry Grey, Northwest Engineers, on behalf of Tom and Cathy January for property located on the north side of Township, west of North College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.48 acres. Mr. Kurt Jones of Northwest Engineers represented this project at the meeting. Mr. Jones presented a revised plan, based on comments from the Planning Commission. In response to a question from Ms Johnson, Ms. Little advised the issues were joint and cross access. She stated that, after discussion, the drive had been relocated at the property line which was reflected on the plat. She reminded the Committee there had also been an issue regarding pavement versus gravel at the rear of the building and compliance with the Commercial Design Standards. Mr. Jones reminded the Committee one of the conditions for the lot split was that there only be three access points for the two lots. He explained Lot B, when developed, would have another access point. Ms. January then presented renderings. She advised they had met with the staff and the renderings was the result of that meeting. She pointed out the canopy which extended six feet was supported by 12 x 12 inch brick columns, for articulation on the front of the building. She pointed out that less than 50% of the front of the building was metal. She discussed the sides of the building saying that 12X12 brick columns would be added at five locations. Ms. January also explained the landscaping along the side and the use of pampas grass to soften the appearance of the building. Ms. Ho an asked if there were overhead doors on both sides. Ms. January stated the sides were identical except for the air conditioning unit on the west side which would be hidden by pampas grass. She further advised there was the option of painting the bottom of the building for articulation purposes. She also noted that the Commission had discussed adding windows to the sides but explained that would be difficult because the displays used in the store were 8 feet in height. She said the bottom of the window would need to be at least 8 feet from the floor but 4 feet down from the • dropped ceiling She contended the windows would not add anything to the building. 113 • Ms. Hoffman advised she liked the proposed front of the building. Subdivision Meeting July 17, 1997 Page26 Ms. Johnson noted the brick work of the portico did not provide enough articulation for her to be comfortable. Ms Little pointed out the portico came out 6 feet from the building and was 18 feet wide Ms. Hoffman suggested further plantings on the front, stating she believed plants could add articulation. Mr. Tucker stated he was comfortable with the proposed building. Ms. Johnson noted that, while she was uncomfortable with the proposed changes, the large scale would be forwarded to the Planning Commission. The meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m. • •