Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-28 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on August 28, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED: ACTION TAKEN 1. LS 97-24.00: Bruce & Mary Hauser Approved 2. LSD 97-18.00: Circuit City Forwarded to Planning Commission 3. PP 97-7.00: Serenity Place Tabled MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Reynolds, Phyllis Johnson, and John Forney. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Dawn Warrick, Jim Beavers, and Heather Woodruff. LS 97-24.00: LOT SPLIT (BRUCE & MARY HAUSER) BRUCE HAUSER-309 NORTH VAUGHN ROAD The lot split was submitted by the applicant for property located at 309 North Vaughn Road. The property is within the City Planning Area and contains approximately 9.15 acres. The request is to create two tracts; 7.49 acres and 1.69 acres. Findings: Discussion of this item at the Technical Plat Review meeting focused on the amount of property providing frontage on Vaughn Road for the newly created tract (the 7.47 acre lot). Originally there was a lesser amount of frontage in this area, however the applicant has increased that amount at the request of staff due to the topography on the property's north boundary. Easements were requested and have been shown accordingly. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) Mr. Bruce Hauser was present. • Subdivision Meeting August 28, 1997 Page 2 Ms. Little stated the staff had requested more frontage along the county road for the new lot. Mr. Hauser had revised his plat to reflect the request. The revision was to illustrate the 15' utility easement across the front of the lot. The applicant had been advised of the error and the surveyor would make the correction. She added the lot split could be approved at the Subdivision level subject to the 15' utility easement continuing across the front. She noted there was an existing shop that had been constructed on the pad of the old house. Mr. Hauser intended to construct his home behind the pond. Ms. Warrick stated the county had approved the lot split. Mr. Forney noted there were no Master Street Plan issues. He had no objections to the lot split. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the lot split with the condition that the utility easement be added across the front of both properties. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. Ms. Little informed Mr. Hauser the staff would need three revised plats showing the easement and he would need to sign the conditions of approval. U.? • Subdivision Meeting August 28, 1997 Page 3 • • LSD 97-18.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (CIRCUIT CITY) CIRCUIT CITY- 730 EAST JOYCE STREET The large scale development was submitted by June Witty of Wilbur Smith Associates on behalf of Circuit City Stores for property located at 730 East Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.45 acres. Findings: This project is located directly west of Nelson's Funeral Home on the north side of Joyce Blvd. There is a metal building on site currently which is to be removed. It was noted at the Technical Plat Review meeting that a substantial amount of additional information was necessary for Engineering to complete a review of the preliminary submittal. A drainage and additional calculations were requested. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6' sidewalk with a minimum 10' greenspace along Joyce Blvd. 5. Dedication of right of way to total 55' from centerline along Joyce Blvd. is required - this street is classified as a principle arterial on the Master Street Plan. This is not currently shown on the plat for this large scale development and will affect building setbacks as well as required greenspace along the front property line. 6. Planning Commission approval of materials submitted for compliance with Commercial \c Subdivision Meeting August 28, 1997 Page 4 Design Standards. 7. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by § 159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. June Witty, Joseph Meisinger (Circuit City), and Jim Gallagher (Casco) represented the item. Ms. Little stated the road to the north was private. She had contacted Ralph Company to inquire about their access policy for George Town. Access had not been worked out at this point, however the applicant had stubbed out to the west to provide point access in the future. The staff was satisfied with the joint access. The first entry (closest to Joyce Street) needed to be moved to the next corridor for safety. She noted the city had taken an additional right-of-way which had impacted the site, they had accommodated the right-of-way by reducing the throat length of the driveways. The parking spaces were exactly the number required by ordinance with the 20% overage. She requested two parking spaces on the east side, next to the throat of the drive, to be removed, so cars would not be backing out into incoming traffic. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little stated the parking spaces were the standard 9' size. She noted there was a 15' entry drive to the east. Ms. Witty explained the 15' entry would be the main truck entry for the site. She had widen the lane to compensate for the small radius She added if the radii had been 50' she could have used the standard 12' width. Ms. Little responded the driveway width would require a variance. She stated the city's requirement was for 12'. However, she did not see the need to restrict this entry to 12'. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little stated the staff and the applicant had discussed moving the drive to the property line on the west side to accommodate joint access, however, the applicant had chosen to provide a stub out to the property line. Mr. Forney asked if the staff had considered making a connection to the north to the private road. Subdivision Meeting August 28, 1997 Page 5 Ms. Little replied there was a 9' grade change on the western side of the property. She had written the owner of the private street, asking what their policy was for access. The owner, Bob Byrne, was going to send her a copy of their access requirements. He had also talked with her about the possibility of making George Town Square Road a public street. He was wanting the Commercial Design Standards to apply to the buildings viewed from George Town Square Road Mr. Beavers stated the slopes could not be steeper than 3:1 in the back. He added the drainage on Joyce was not adequate. Although, it was not this developer fault, he was going to recommend to the Planning Commission that Circuit City contribute to the drainage improvement along Joyce street. Mr. Beavers estimated the drainage improvement contribution would be approximately $5,000. He explained to Ms. Witty the contribution would be for future improvements to Joyce Street. Ms. Little asked Mr. Meisinger to explain how Circuit City had change their building to accommodate Fayetteville's Commercial Design Standards. Mr. Meisinger presented rendered elevations of the building. He explained Circuit City's typical building had tag signs on the band along the front of the building. Because the store had visibility to the north, they had made the tower four sided, normally their towers only had one side. The tower was made of a product called alucobond, a burgundy aluminum skinned panel. The tower would have a sign on all four sides. Because of the surrounding buildings, the building would be colored in earth tones, rather than grey. A white band had been added around the back of he building to balance the front elevation. He added the back of the building could not be clearly viewed because of the grade change and the existing trees. Ms. Little confirmed there was 9' grade change at the north end of the site and the existing trees. Mr. Meisinger added the existing trees would screen all of the building with the exception of the tower. Ms. Little stated the staff had not received an elevation of the signage. She added the Planning Commission would need the information. Mr. Meisinger explained the pylon sign would be a burgundy rectangle with two columns, approximately 25'-30' tall. He noted the top of the tower was 35' and the walls of the building were 25' tall. He explained the front entry was recessed 6' with glass doors. There were no side entrances. Mr. Reynolds questioned why the west elevation was different from the north elevation. 2q,0 • Subdivision Meeting August 28, 1997 Page 6 • Mr. Meisinger explained the north side for the installation of stereos in cars (the burgundy door was for customers) and the west side was strictly for shipping and receiving. Ms. Little commented the screening needed to be shown for the trash compactor. She cautioned all utilities, including roof mounted utilities must be completely screened from the public view. She questioned if the building was compiling with Commercial Design Standard. She noted the square box -like structure and large blank unarticulated wall surfaces and the large out of scale signs. Mr. Meisinger noted Service Merchandise was lighter in color than the Wal-Mart. They had tried to find a color that would work with the entire complex. Ms. Little presented Mr. Meisinger with a sample board illustrating the base color of most of the buildings in the complex. Mr. Reynolds asked if there was a material sample board for Circuit City. Mr. Meisinger stated they would be using stucco. Mr. Reynolds stated a sample board would be required. He wanted to insure what the finished product would look like. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Meisinger stated the burgundy was the alucobond panel. It was a high gloss aluminum. The same material would be used around the banding. The garage door and doors would be painted. Ms. Johnson asked if the front facade with the column was in the same plane as the rest of the facade. Mr. Meisinger stated the entry would be recessed. He noted the signage was smaller than their typical signage. Circuit City's typical store did not have a finished tower. Ms. Little noted the completion of the tower was an expensive item because of the alucobond. Ms. Johnson questioned if the white band was in the same plain as the rest of the wall. Mr. Meisinger stated they were in the same plain, but there would be a shadow line approximately an inch and a half. He noted the signage had been reduced to 36". • In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms Witty explained some of the landscaping had been removed because of the transformer. 20 • Subdivision Meeting August 28, 1997 Page 7 • Ms. Johnson noted the tree line screening the back of the building was owned by the private street. Ms. Witty added the steep slope was covered with heavy brush and a wire fence. She commented the funeral home had requested screening on the east side of the property. Circuit City was going to place an 8' wooden fence along the east property line. They had planned to landscape between the fence and the parking lot. Ms. Little suggested using wells of the trees. Mr. Forney noted the parking lot standards encouraged shade trees and screening to cool the large areas of asphalt He noted landscaping would help the looks of the box -like structure. He asked if Circuit City had been required to screen the funeral home. Mr. Gallagher replied it had been an agreement between the two businesses. Ms. Johnson suggested using a chainlink fence with vegetation. Ms. Witty replied the funeral home had requested a wooden fence for screening. Mr. Reynolds suggested using maple trees rather than the Bradford Pear trees. He noted the city had lost a large number of Bradford Pear trees this past year. He did not believe they were as hardy as the maples. Mr. Forney expressed concern about making sure the back of the building was screened from the road on Circuit City's property incase the tree line was ever removed. Ms. Johnson agreed with Mr. Forney that the rear screening for the rear of the building needed to be on the Circuit City property. Ms. Witty asked if the commissioners would like an evergreen screen. Ms. Johnson replied she was partial to evergreens. Mr. Forney suggested she work with the staff. Ms. Witty asked if they need to change out the Bradford Pears. Mr. Reynolds replied it had been a suggestion, because Bradford Pears did not live long in this • area. He suggested planting Sugar Maples. 222 • Subdivision Meeting August 28, 1997 Page 8 Mr. Meisinger stated they wanted to plant landscaping that would live. Mr. Forney suggested using landscaping to soften the walls of the building and to help reduce heat from the parking lot. He suggested raising the parapet to screen the satellite dish and other fixtures. Ms. Little asked the difference on the height between the proposed tower and the proto type tower. Mr. Meisinger stated the height of the tower was the same. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Meisinger explained the roof sloped from front to back on the building. The gutters had down spouts that tied into the underground storm drainage. Ms. Johnson commented she was not persuaded the sidewalls were articulated enough. She expressed some concerns about the building being box -like. She liked Mr. Forney's idea of using vegetation close to the building to break up the blank walls. Mr. Forney noted the developer was tight for space and noted the suggestion might not work. He agreed with Ms. Johnson that the two items that would probably be discussed were the box -like structure and large unarticulated wall surfaces. Mr. Gallagher replied the rendering was stark, but added there would be rows of landscaping between the road and the building. Ms. Johnson suggested moving landscaping on the west and north elevations. She suggested consulting with the landscape administrator. Mr. Forney noted the view from Joyce to the Wal -mart store had been blocked by a berm. He suggested adding landscaping near the entry and around the building. Mr. Meisinger stated they did not mind adding the trees, however he wanted to make sure they would survive in that location. Ms. Witty replied it would be difficult to landscape the entry because of the handicap ramps. Mr. Forney moved to forward the project to the commission with the understanding that she would have to address the concerns expressed by the subcommittee. Ms. Johnson asked if Circuit City would be interested in planting vines to grow up the wall. Subdivision Meeting August 28, 1997 Page 9 Mr. Forney added Circuit City needed to show a good faith effort to improve Fayetteville's public spaces. He encourage them to be creative. He thought the vine idea was a good one, however, he did not think the stucco wall would react well with things going on it. Mr. Meisinger stated he understood the committee's concerns and Circuit City would try and address them. In response to questions from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little replied Circuit City was requesting a pole sign near the road. Ms Johnson did not think a pole sign would make people happy. She added the commission would look at the project as a whole. She felt Circuit City was on the edge with the square box- like structure and the Targe unarticulated wall surfaces. She added a pole sign would make it harder for the Planning Commission to over look other problems. Mr. Meisinger commented Circuit City's sign was very simple with a burgundy background and white letters. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to forward the project to the Planning Commission without a recommendation. Ms Johnson seconded the motion. Ms. Little stated the plans would need to be revised to show the two parking spaces removed and the revised landscaping. 37 copies, Tuesday 10:00. Subdivision Meeting August 28, 1997 Page 10 PP 97-7.00 PRELIMINARY PLAT (SERENITY PLACE P.U.D ) TIM REYNOLDS- W. OF SALEM RD. & N. OF MT. COMFORT RD. The preliminary plat was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. for property located west of Salem Road and north of Mt. Comfort Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 30.04 acres Findings: This subdivision is proposed as a planned unit development. Improvements to Salem Road and an assessment for contribution to the MSP minor arterial on the western edge of the project will be required of this developer. A MSP collector street runs east / west through this development - Serenity Way. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 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. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $29,700.00 (99 lots @ $300.00) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6' sidewalk with a minimum 10' greenspace along Salem and Serenity and a minimum 4' sidewalk with a minimum 6' greenspace along all residential streets (Reflective, Secluded, Tranquil and Mystical). 6. Planning Commission resolution of a request for a waiver of cul-de-sac length for Secluded Lane. .05 • Subdivision Meeting August 28, 1997 Page 11 • • 7. A connection fee of $6,014.00 ($200 per acre) will be required in accordance with the Salem Road water line extension Ordinance #3938 dated 11/7/95. 8. A fee of $200.00 per lot is required to go towards improvements in the Hamstring basin. This is consistent with charges to other subdivisions in this basin - for this 99 lot subdivision $19,800.00 will be required. Mr. Tim Reynolds and Brian Moore represented the item. She noted there was a Master Street Plan street running from east to west and a Master Street Plan street running along the west side of the property from north to south. In reference to Rupple Road, she explained the developer of Salem Village had worked out an agreement with the landowner to the west, Mr. White, who had agreed to dedicate 50' of right-of-way to the west of the section line. She added this applicant was being asked to dedicate 20' on the east side. She noted the line showing the 20' dedication for this property had not continued through the wet land area. She added the line would need to be extended to the north property line. On the south side the collector street, Serenity Way, would accommodate the east/west Master Street Plan street. She noted the original location for the Master Street Plan street was more to the north than where it was located on this project. She had discussed with the Kimbrough's, the property owners to the east, about this street intersecting with their property. They were willing to reserve land by means of a deed restriction for a collector that would join with Reflective Way, the northern most street in the Serenity subdivision. The council had agreed to take a deed restriction for the Tuck lot split that stated no structure or improvements would be located in the path of the planned Master Street Plan street, which would mean the city would acquire the property at a later date and pay for the property. The developer had redrawn his plans to accommodate the Master Street Plan. The Master Street Plan street could not be extended from Reflective Way, because of the wetlands to the west. By having access for the Master Street Plan street to the north of Serenity Way connectivity could be provided for. In response to Ms. Johnson question, Ms. Little stated the Master Street Plan street, Serenity Way, was 36' wide. She added the normal street width that a developer would be required to construct was 28'. The staff had recommended the city bear the cost of the additional 8'. She added the city would assign a cost for the contribution to the construction of Rupple Road. She explained the contribution would be based on the number of lots Salem Village had been required to contribute $137,000.00. She noted this project was a Planned Unit Development. The developer was just meeting the required 30% of green space. The developer had an agreement, with Parks Board, that all designated greenspace would be available to the public with the exception of the property owners private park area Mr. Tim Reynolds noted his greenspace would link with Mr. Whitfield's greenspace to provide a 22» • Subdivision Meeting August 28, 1997 Page 12 continuous green area Ms. Little added the developer would also pay $29,700.00 in parks fees. She noted the sidewalks would be constructed in accordance with the current standards A 6' sidewalk with 10' greenspace would be required along Salem and Serenity. A 4' sidewalk with 6' greenspace along all residential streets. She added Secluded Lane would require a waiver from cul-de-sac length (The street was 50' over the required 500'.) She added the staff would support the waiver. She noted there was going to be a connection fee for the water line extension. It would be $200 per acres for a total of $6,014.00. There was also a $200 per lot fee for improvements in the Hamstring Basin for a total of $19,800. Mr. Beavers stated in October 1995 the council had approved an agreement with Salem Village that the developer would extend the waterline down Salem Road and the City would reimburse them the cost. The estimate given to the City Council had been $35,000, however, the bid was $140,000. He was going to recommend to the City Council that they void the agreement and allow this developer to extend water across his property like any other developer would, rather than pay the $6,000. • Ms. Little asked for clarification, if the agreement was voided would this developer be required to pay $6,000. • Mr. Beaver replied if the agreement was void this developer would not have to pay the $6,000, but he would have to reconfigure his water line layout. Mr. Reynolds commented he had given an easement to Mr. Whitfield for the installation of the water line. Mr. Beaver questioned where the installation of the water line had stopped. Mr. Tim Reynolds stated the line had been installed to the south property line. In response to the new information, Mr. Beavers stated the developer would be required to pay the $6,000. Mr. Beavers questioned whether Mr. Daughtery, the previous owner of the property, had retained the triangular piece to prevent the city from constructing a street. Ms. Little added if Mr. Daughtery had sold the piece to Mr. Reynolds, then the lots could have been larger. Mr. Beavers added public access had been promised to the wetlands. ifivel Subdivision Meeting August 28, 1997 Page 13 Ms. Johnson asked if parking had been required for the park. Ms. Warrick replied this was not dedicated park space. It was an area within the subdivision open to the public. Ms. Little replied development, including parking lots, was not allowed in wetland areas Mr. Beavers stated there needed to be another tie in the water line along Reflective way to the 8" water line. The tie between lots 5 and 6 could be removed. The master water study recommended a 12" line on Serenity Way. He noted if the line was 12" the city would pay all cost above 8" cost. (He noted the staff could not obligate city funds.) He added before the construction plans were approved the applicant needed to submit and estimate to the City Council. He noted the applicant's engineer would have to evaluate the existing lift station. He questioned the drainage. He noted the ordinance did not allow development to direct drainage into a wetlands without water quality control measures. He noted according to the plan this development's drainage was going into Salem Village wetlands. He stated if it was determined this was part of the wetlands an not part of Whitfield's future development, a drainage pond would have to empty into a sediment pond. PUBLIC Mr. Jim Kimbrough, 2420 N. Salem, questioned if the wall would run the entire length of the subdivision. He asked if there would be any screening between the Salem Road the rear of the lots. Mr. Tim Reynolds stated he had intended to place a privacy fence along Salem Road. Mr. Brad White, 412 Mt. Comfort Road, stated he owned the property to the west of Salem Village and was Interested in the development in the area. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated none of the property was in the floodway. She noted seven Tots were in the floodplain. Ms. Johnson questioned if the ponds would remain. Mr. Tim Reynolds stated the ponds would remain, however they were planning to reconfigure them to look better. Ms. Johnson noted the small lot size. Ms. Warrick replied the development was a P.U.D which allowed smaller lots, with the same R-1 voi Subdivision Meeting August 28, 1997 Page 14 density. Ms. Little noted the "P.U.D." needed to be added to the legend. Mr. Forney asked for further explanation of the master street plan issues. Ms. Little explained the east/west street would be called Serenity Way. Rupple Road was to be on the west property line. She explained the purpose of a collector was to bring traffic to a minor or principle arterial. The street on this developer's property was relocated because of the wet lands. The Kimbroughs were willing to reserve land further to the north and east. She was trying to link collectors to minor arterials. The road would not be straight, but the connection had been preserved for the street in the future. She added the Kimbroughs were opposed to having the road join with Serenity Way. She stated the Kimbroughs were offering to provide for the preservation of a street which could connect to Reflective Way. Mr. Forney thought Reflective Way was a better place for the collector street. Moving south tightened the intervals between Master Street Planned streets. Ms. Little agreed that on a map it looked that why, however there were the wetlands. The road could not be constructed through the wetlands. She added designing roads and bridges through wetlands was very expensive and time consuming. Ms. Johnson expressed concern about the collector street. She suggested the staff look for other alternatives to the location of the collector. Mr. Forney asked the staff to give the committee a list of priorities. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to table the item. She noted their primary concerns were the master street planned streets. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned 12:05.