Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-16 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on October 16, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED: 1. LS 97-32.00: Wayne Keller 2. LS97-19.00: Dollar General 3. LSD 97-14.00: Dollar General 4. LSD 97-15.00: North Park Place 5. LSD 97-20.00: Summit Development 6. RFP 97-12.10: Wedington Place 7. LSD 97-19.00: Lots 4R & 7 Spring Park 8. AD 97-12.00: Parking as Cross Street Services 9. AD 97-13.00: Blockbuster Video ACTION TAKEN Removed from agenda Approved Fwd to Planning Commission Tabled Return to In -House Plat Rvw Fwd to Planning Commission Tabled Approved Fwd to Planning Commission MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Bob Reynolds, and John Forney. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Beth Sandeen, Chuck Rutherford, Dawn Warrick and Heather Woodruff. Mr. Reynolds stated the first item on the agenda, LS 97-32.00: Wayne Keller, had been removed. LS 97-19.00: LOT SPLIT (DOLLAR GENERAL STORE, PP 601) RICK SRYGLEY & RWT. INC- W OF SCHOOL & S OF 15TH The lot split was submitted by Northwest Engineers for property located west of S. School and south of 15th St. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and the parent tract contains approx. 1.15 acres. The requested split will create one tract of 0.58 acres and one tract of 0.93 acres. Staff report provided by Dawn Warrick: Findings: As shown on the lot split plat, the requested split will create one lot shown as tract C and a second lot which is a combination of tracts A & B as shown. All tracts are currently vacant. Tract C shall be required to go through the large scale development approval process and shall be subject to Commercial Design Standards. a5' • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 2 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. Dedication of right of way in accordance with MSP as shown on plat. • 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards. Sidewalk will be required for Tract C at the time of development. 6. Tract C will be required to go through the large scale development process. End of report. Ms Little stated fifty-five (55) feet of right-of-way from the centerline would be required along 15th Street and twenty-five (25) feet from centerline along West Street. Sidewalk construction for Tract C could be waived until the time of development. She noted Tract C will contain .58 acres. She requested an additional condition of approval for Tract C requiring it to be subject to Large Scale Development process at the time of development. Mr. Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, noted there would only be four (4) feet of green space been the existing curb and the sidewalk. He added it was an existing condition. In response to questions from Mr. Reynolds, Ms Little stated sidewalks would be required at the time of development for Tract C. Dollar General would construct sidewalks along West Street and 15th Street in accordance with the City's current standard. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little stated Salvation Blvd. was a public street. • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 3 She noted the Salvation Army would not be able to construct their project anytime in the near future. She felt there would be an opportunity to obtain additional right-of-way. The was no public comment. Ms. Little asked for "proposed" to be removed from the plat on the right-of-way dedication. She asked the commissioners if they would like to restrict the signage on the site. She noted Tract C did not have good visibility. Mr. Reynolds questioned if this lot would be more visible if the corner lot were to redevelop. In response to questions from Mr. Jones regarding the right-of-way for Salvation Boulevard, Ms. Little stated the right-of-way would be dedicated when the easement plat was submitted at the issuance of a building permit. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little explained as a commercial tract a separate sign would be allowed for each lot. She suggested restricting the signage to one shared sign. • Mr. Forney was not concerned with the signage. He noted all the surrounding properties were commercial. • In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Jones explained the property had been sold without a lot split. They were now trying to clean up an illegal lot split. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the lot split with the additional condition that Tract C be required to go through the large scale development process. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0-0. aCq • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 4 • • LSD 97-14.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (DOLLAR GENERAL STORE) RICK SRYGLEY- W. OF SCHOOL & S. OF 15TH The large scale development was submitted by Northwest Engineers for property located west of S. School and south of 15th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.58 acres. Staff report provided by Dawn Warrick: Findings: Discussion at the Technical Plat Review meeting included drainage issues, specifically run off onto adjacent property to the southeast. sidewalk placement along West Ave. and Commercial Design Standards Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - 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. Dedication of right of way in accordance with the MSP as shown on plat. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards. 6. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 7. 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 • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 5 • (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. 8. Compliance with Commercial Design Standards. End of report. Ms. Little read the conditions of approval She requested cross access between this property and the property to the south (between tracts B and C). Ms. Beth Sandeen stated all the landscaping shown on the rendering must be reflexed in plans submitted for the building permit. She added the developer would be required to post a guarantee for the landscaping before the issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan was approveable, however, there were some discrepancies between the rendering and the plan. She noted there was only one tree drawn on the plan but, there were four trees illustrated on the rendering. Mr. Jones stated the developer would be willing to add additional trees. Ms Sandeen stated the plan met the city's standards, however, she felt the rendering would mislead the commissioners into believing there would more trees installed than what was shown on the plan. Mr. Jones stated more trees would be added. Mr. Beavers stated Mickey Jackson, Fire Chief, had requested a fire hydrant. It was not shown on the plans. Mr. Jones admitted the error. He stated a hydrant would be placed near the front of the lot. Its exact location would depend on the construction of the water line along West Street and Salvation Blvd. There was no public comment. Mr. Forney questioned the service access for the building. He expressed concern about the parking lot circulation and if the one-way pattern would work when servicing the store. • Mr. Jeff Palmer stated the store would be serviced from the back of the building. He was flexible on the location of the loading door as long as it was located toward the back of the building. Pst • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 6. Mr. Forney noted the entry drive would be blocked if the building was serviced from the east side. He questioned if the parking would be compromised during the unloading of the trucks. Ms. Little stated there was a place for the bob -trucks to pull over and unload on the east side of the building. In response to concerns voiced by Mr. Forney about the drive being block, Ms. Little stated a noted needed to be added to plat stating, "East drive shall not be blocked." Mr. Reynolds expressed concern about the location of the dumpster. Mr. Jones stated he would straighten the dumpster for better access. Ms. Little stated the staff recommended cross access, however, it was not a requirement for the cross access to be in line with the eastern drive. She added it could be located anywhere along the property line, but not in the drainage path. Mr. Reynolds suggested moving the dumpster pad to accommodate the joint access. Mr. Jones suggested waiting to install the cross access until the other site developed. He felt the installation of the cross access now would limit the development of the adjacent lot. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated the cross access could be easily tracked if there were not a lot of staff changes or a lot time between the two developments. Ms. Johnson felt postponing the installation of the cross access could cause a lot of problems. She suggested locating the cross access now. She suggested placing the cross access immediately adjacent to the access point. She noted it was on the edge and in the corner. It was also the shortest distance. She did not believe it would limit the development of the site. Ms. Little noted the site had good access to West Street. Although, Salvation was not completed it was expected to develop. Mr. Forney noted typically C-2, commercial properties were usually located on high traffic streets, however, this was a low traffic area. He stated he was not convinced cross access was necessary. Ms. Johnson asked the possibilities of West Street becoming a heavily traveled street. Ms Little replied it was unlikely West Street would be extended south because of the creek. She agreed it was not a high traffic area. • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 7 In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little replied there was not a setback requirement in C-2 zoning. Mr. Forney asked if the pole sign met the sign ordinance. Ms. Little stated the sign did not met the sign ordinance. The maximum allowed was seventy- five (75) square feet, located forty (40) feet back from the right-of-way. The proposed location was approximately fifteen (15) feet from the right-of-way. She noted the maximum allowed at that location would be ten (10) square feet. Mr. Jones stated the sign would be moved back approximately forty (40) feet. Ms. Little clarified the developer's signage request would be a seventy-five (75) square foot sign, set forty (40) feet from the nght-of-way on the east side. In response to questions from Mr. Fomey, Mr. Palmer stated the sign on the building was forty (40)feet long and six (6)feet high. He added the store would be similar to the one in Farmington. • Mr. Palmer noted the elevation labeled "east elevation" was actually the west elevation. He noted both elevations would be the same with the exception of the loading door on the east side. Ms Little noted the proposed sign for the front of the building would exceed the square footage allowed under the sign ordinance. Mr. Forney suggested the signage be reduced from 240 square feet to 204 square feet. Ms. Johnson asked which direction the pole sign would be facing. Mr. Jones stated the sign would be perpendicular to 15th street and would be visible from 15th street. Mr. Forney suggested forwarding the item to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds asked if the east elevation had windows. Mr. Palmer stated sides of the building would have false shutters and no windows. Mr. Fomey asked if the Commercial Design Standards required all of the elevations to be shown or only the elevations facing public thoroughfares. Ms. Little replied the main facade or anything visible from a public street needed to be shown. D5% • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 8 She asked Mr. Palmer if he knew the interior layout of the store. Mr. Palmer stated the storage would be located in the back of the building, any door used for loading would need to be located in the rear of the building. Ms. Johnson stated she wanted to see the north, south, and west elevations. Ms. Little stated the loading door needed to be located before the elevations were drawn. MOTION Mr. Forney moved that cross access would not be required. Three elevations of the building would be required (south, north, and west), and revised elevations of both of the signs showing their location and size. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion adding the vicinity map needed to be oriented in the same direction as the plan. • The item was forwarded the Planning Commission. • • • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 9 LSD 97-15.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (NORTH PARK PLACE II) SMITH -BROOKS- 3380 N. WIMBERLY S OF FUTRALL DR. AND E. OF WIMBERLY The large scale development was submitted by Milholland Engineering on behalf of Smith - Brooks Investments for property located south of Futrall Drive and east of Wimberly Drive, at 3380 N. Wimberly Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approx. 1.91 acres. Staff report provided by Dawn Warrick: Findings: This project was tabled at the 7/17/97 SC due to the need for additional information from the applicant and some revisions to the plat. Sidewalks which had been requested to be waived have been added to the plat per City requirements. A letter from the North Hills Arch. Review Committee has been received. Cross access to the east has been provided. 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. Dedication of right of way per the MSP as shown on plat. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards. • 6. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. ago Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 10 7. 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. 8. Compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 9. Resolution of issue of overhead utilities. 10. Applicant is requesting a setback reduction along both frontages (reducing setback for parking lot to 5'). End of report. Ms. Little stated this item had been presented at the July 17, 1997 Subdivision meeting . The item had been tabled because of the requested variances from required setbacks. The staff had received a letter from the North Hills Medical Park addressed to Danny Smith dated September 9, 1997, which gave approval from the North Hills Architectural Review Committee, which had met on the August 25, 1997. She noted the reduction of the parking lot setbacks had also been approved. Ms. Little read the conditions of approval Ms. Warrick noted the fifteen (15) foot parking spaces did not have enough room for a two (2) foot overhang to create the required seventeen (17) foot stall. She noted the lot had no interior landscaping (one tree per ten (10) parking spaces). Mr. Petrie stated he had recieved the drawing at the last minute and had been unaware of the door located on the back wall. He reassured the staff that additional space would be added to accommodate the back door. He noted there would not be a gable as shown in the rendering. He explained the roof would be continuous across the back. Mr. Forney questioned why this project was not subject to the Overlay District. Ms. Little explained this site was part of the original Medical Park and adjoined the CMN Business Park. The applicant had requested her to exempt this project from the Overlay District requirement because it was subject to the Commercial Design Standards as well as the covenants ab1 • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 11 • • of North Park Medical Center, which was more stringent than the City's requirements, however the Medical Park Architectural Review committee had granted a waiver from parking lot setbacks. Mr. Petrie explained the Medical Park's review committee had reasoned the shape of the lot would limit the size of the building. Ms. Little stated the project was meeting only the required parking. She noted charts illustrating the greenspace and the parking requirement needed to be added to the plat. Mr. Reynolds asked if all of the parking spaces had been designed for compact cars. Ms. Little replied parking lot ordinance was not being meet. She added only 30-33% of the parking spaces could be compact She added all the greenspaces needed to be colored green to present to the Planning Commission. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Mr. Petrie explained there was an existing overhead power line on their site. SWEPCO had estimated the relocation of the line to be approximately $300,000. Ms. Little thought the line went underground to service North Hills Medical Park. She questioned why the same line could not go underground for this site. She explained a waiver would be required if the line did not go underground. She asked Mr. Petrie submit a copy of the letter from SWEPCO stating the expense and the difficulty in relocating the line underground. She suggested to Mr. Petrie he have a representative from SWEPCO to be present at the Planning Commission meeting to explain why the line could not be placed underground and to see if it was the same line going underground to the Medical Park. In response to questions from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little stated the Planning Commission had the ability to grant a waiver for the underground utilities due to certain hardships such as financial or geological. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little replied the Commercial Design Standards would apply. She added the applicant had provided cross access to the current building along Millsap Road, however, no cross access had been provided to the adjacent vacant lot. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little explained the Commission was being asked to reduce the required fifteen (15) feet setback for parking to five (5) feet. There was an option in the ordinance that allowed the setback to be reduced to five (5) feet with additional landscaping. • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 12 Mr. Petrie noted they would be unable to provide the required number of parking spaces without the setback waiver. In response to questions from Mr. Forney regarding the density of the building, the applicant responded without the square footage the development would be killed. The cost of the land was so expensive that without the square footage in the building the project would not cash flow. Mr. Chuck Rutherford stated the applicant had done everything he had been required to do. He noted they had jogged the sidewalk to preserve several trees. There was no public comment. Ms Johnson asked the commissioners if they were comfortable forwarding the item to Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds stated the number of compact parking spaces needed to be noted on the plat. Ms. Johnson requested an elevation illustrating the south side of the building. Ms Little noted the parking lot ordinance required exterior landscaping, which had been provided. There was also a requirement for internal landscaping, one tree per ten spaces. She noted there were long expanses of parking that had not been broken up with internal landscaping. Ms. Sandeen commented she had not made an issue out of the interior parking because the exterior landscaping had provided the maximum allowed. She noted the developer would need every space possible to meet the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Forney stated he did not approve of the parking lot and the overall density. He felt the developer was pushing the limit -giving that several other requirements had been waived. Ms. Sandeen noted the berm landscape detail for the parking lot. She felt it was a good design solution for areas that did not have a lot of space. She felt the berm and the proposed exterior landscaping would be adequate. She added she would not recommend placing trees next to the building. Ms. Johnson felt there were too many items left to address to make the item easily heard at Planning Commission level. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to send the item back to Subdivision to address the specific sizes of parking Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 13 spaces, cross accesses with the adjacent, accurate drawings of the proposed building, the detailed information on the utilities, the greenspace, and reorient of the vicinity map. Mr. Forney asked if there needed to be additional internal trees. Ms. Johnson replied the applicant did not have to add additional trees for the next Subdivision meeting. They could require additional trees at the next meeting if they were necessary. Mr. Reynolds asked the staff to place this applicant first on the agenda. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The item was tabled. Revisions were due 10:00, Monday, October 27. • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 14 • LSD 97-2.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT) CLARY DEVELOPMENT- N. OF WEDINGTON DR. & W. OF SHILOH DR. The large scale development was submitted by Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Clary Development for property located north of Wedington Drive and west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approx. 6.29 acres. Staff report provided by Dawn Warrick: Findings: This project was tabled at the 9/11/97 SC meeting due to outstanding issues including access to the east and sight distance at Timberline Drive. The project has been changed quite a lot since the last meeting. These changes include: The number of units in the development was reduced to 132 Steamboat Drive has been extended to the north property line of the subdivision running along the eastern border of this site The size of the large building has been reduced - it is now a 2 story structure The configuration of building as well as the location of drainage features has changed The site now has more greenspace - especially along the north property line adjacent to a residential subdivision As before, the applicant is requesting a parking waiver which would reduce the number of parking spaces. 162 spaces are required, the applicant proposed to install 125 spaces, leaving sufficient room for the addition of spaces in the future if the use were ever to change. 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) 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 a6Z • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 15 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 $31680.00 (132 units @ $240.00) 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards. 6. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 7. 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. • 8. The construction of Timberline through this subdivision (from the existing Timberline south to Wedtngton Drive) shall be complete prior to the issuance of a C of 0 for any structure within this development. 9. Add fire hydrant in front of building on east parking lot in same landscaping island as proposed hydrant shown in west parking lot. This apartment building should be sprinkled and will be required to be sprinkled unless all features of standard building code section 901 are complied with. If the building height exceeds 50 feet, sprinklers are required regardless. 8" water main needs to be fed from two sources. End of report. Ms. Warrick explained several changes that were not noted on the plat: the three story apartment building had been reduced to two stories. The proposed 150 unites had been reduced to 100 unites (70 units -one bedroom, 30 unites- two bedrooms). The developer was requesting a parking waiver for 125 spaces (0.77 spaces per bedroom) 162 spaces were required (1 per bedroom). Mr. Beavers stated this layout was significantly different than what had been presented at Plat Review. He felt this project needed to go back through the process again. • Ms. Little added Mr. Jackson, fire chief, had provided a comment sheeting stating the fire hydrant spacing, location, and water looping needed improvement. He requested an additional a�� • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 16 • hydrant in front of building in east parking lot landscape island the same as proposed hydrant shown in west parking lot. The apartment building would be required to be sprinkled unless all features of standard code section 901 were complied with. If the building height exceeded fifty (50) feet, sprinklers would be required regardless. Eight inch water main needed to be fed from two sources. Mr. Beavers stated the original layout showed a large detention pond, the drainage report stated the detention pond serviced all of the development and not just this development. This revised layout had a pond which was routed through another pond which was piped to the culvert. He had not received a revised drainage report for this design. Mr. Reynolds asked if this plat had gone through Plat Review process. Mr. Beavers stated it had not gone through plat review. Ms. Little stated the plat had been revised to provide a connection to Steamboat Drive, but in doing so the number of units and the amount of land had changed. She added she was of the opinion that anything substantially revised at Subdivision Committee needed to start over again in the process. She asked that any thing tumed down from Subdivision start over again the process. Ms. Johnson explained the function of the Subdivision Committee was to work in dept so that when the item went before the full Planning Commission a large amount of time would not be spent on the item. She did not believe the staff was in the position to advise the committee. She suggested the item be sent back to Plat Review. Mr. Forney felt the applicant would profit from the committee's comments. He asked if Steamboat was an existing private road connected to Wedington Drive. Ms. Little replied Steamboat was public street where it connected to Wedington; Tahoe was a private street. She noted there was a 50-60 foot wide easement to the west which could join to Dorothy Jean Street. Mr. Forney stated this layout was a big improvement over the previous layout. Ms. Sandeen noted there were two zoning C-2 and R-2. She noted there was a utility easement boarding the property line between the two zoning. She questioned who would be responsible to provide screening between the two properties. • Ms. Little replied in the past screening had been provided by the first property to develop. Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 17 Ms Sandeen responded screening would be required between the two zonings. She asked the developer to show the landscaping on the plan. Ms. Little stated part of the property had been rezoned. Mr. Brown stated the applicant had requested the rezoning to be postponed. Ms. Little replied no one had contacted the staff or attended the meetings. The rezoning had been tabled for three or four meetings, but no one had attended the meetings or communicated with the city. Ms. Sandeen continued the screening would have to place outside of the easement. Mr. Rutherford added the width of greenspace was not reflect on the plat between the sidewalk and the curb. It should be six feet. He noted the sidewalk needed to be shown continuous through the driveway In response to questions from Mr. Brown, Ms. Little stated the right-of-way was fifty-two (52)feet. The setback for the sidewalk was 6'. Mr. Beavers added 15' utility easements would not be accepted. They needed to be a minimum of 20-25'. Mr. Fomey questioned if the location of the utility easement would change due to the rezoning. Ms. Warrick noted the next item on the agenda was a replat of this subdivision. The placement of the utility easement could be discussed then. Mr. Forney noted the previous plan had only one public way on the west side of the property. There had been no Steamboat Drive connection. He asked if the end of Steamboat would be handled as a cul-de-sac or a stub out. He felt the location of the street connection was very good He was only questioning how the street would end. Mr. Beavers felt the question should be addressed at plat review. Ms. Johnson asked if there was a potential for the street to go north. Ms. Little felt there was a greater potential for the street to go to the northeast. Mr. Adams asked for input regarding the parking issue. He noted one of the commissioners had suggested reducing some of the parking if it had been found unnecessary for this specific • • • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 18 problem. He was suggesting replacing some of the required parking with landscaping. If additional parking was necessary then apart of the greenspace could be converted into parking. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little replied one parking space was normally required for each bedroom. The applicant was now proposing a total of 132 units. Based on the number of bedrooms the city would normally require 162 parking spaces. The applicant was proposing 125 parking spaces, which would equal .77 spaces per bedroom, less than one parking spaces per unit. She noted the development was for the elderly. Mr. Adams stated typically a seniors project would not need a lot of parking. Mr. Forney liked the suggestion to reduce the number of parking spaces. Mr. Beavers suggested the item be sent back to In-house to give him a chance to review the project. Mr. Adams stated if the project was delayed to much longer he would miss the finance cycle and the project would be delayed until the spring of next year. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to send the item back to In-house. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The item was sent back to In -House. Mr. Forney noted the item could be approved at Subdivision. Ms. Warrick noted the parking waiver request would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. In response to a request from Mr. Adams, Ms. Little stated the parking waiver could be forwarded the next Planning Commission meeting on October 27. gGq • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 19 RFP 96-12.10: REPLAT OF FINAL PLAT FOR6VEDINGTON PLACE SUBDIVISION) CLARY DEVELOPMENT -N. OF WEDINGTON DR & W. OF SHILOH DR. The replat was submitted by Development Consultants, Inc. for property located north of Wedington Drive and west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approx. 32.36 acres. This replat will create lots 1R and 4. Staff report provided by Dawn Warrick: Findings: This project was tabled at the 9/11/97 SC meeting since it must reflect many of the changes requested for the Summit Development LSD which is proposed for lot 4 of this subdivision. 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. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include... Dedication of right of way as shown on plat. Timing of proposed street construction needs to be discussed. Ms. Little stated the city would be asking for the construction of the Steamboat Drive when the final plat was approved. Ms. Warrick stated Timberline would have to be completed prior to a certificate of occupancy alb • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 20 • • being issued for the large scale development. Ms. Little stated in order for the plat to be finialed Steamboat Drive would need to be constructed or a letter of credit or cash for 150% of the cost of construction would need to be given to the city. Mr. Beavers stated the sewer lines were located too deep for twenty (20) foot easements. They were not acceptable as submitted. Mr. Clary replied he would be willing to widen the easements. Mr. Beavers stated a 1:1 trench with room to work was required. Ms Little cautioned the easement along Lot 5 looked like a lot. She noted if someone wanted to build across the easement it would need to be vacated. She noted Lot 5 needed to be changed to lot 3 to be consistent with previous plats. Mr. Beavers added the sewer line would have to be reconstructed if the easement was ever vacated. Ms. Little requested resolution of the construction of the street. Mr. Clary stated he would construct Steamboat along with Timberline. Mr. Brown asked if the construction of sidewalks could be deferred until Lots 3 and 5 developed. Mr. Clary stated he would be constructing the sidewalks along the Summit Development. Mr. Forney asked if a connection to Woodbury Apartments was possible. Ms. Little replied the applicant had done everything possible to make the connection. The City would have to contact Woodbury about the connection. In response to questions from Mr. Forney concerning the rezoning, Ms. Little stated part of lot 3 had been rezoned R-2. Ms. Warrick asked for the easement shown on the south side of the large scale development to be shown on the final plat. Mr. Brown replied the easement might be shifted to lot 5. a� i • • • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 21 Mr. Clary noted the buffer strip might also be moved to avoid planting on top on the easement. Mr. Forney moved to forward the item to the Planning Commission. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. Ms. Little noted the item could not be considered a replat because a new lot had been created. Mr. Clary noted the only lot being replated was Lot 1, which would decrease the dept of the lot. Mr. Beavers added to construct the street the future layout of the property would need to be determined in order to place the inlets. Mr. Clary stated the primary drainage would be located. Mr. Beavers cautioned the location of the inlet would depend on what was draining into the street. In response to questions from Mr. Brown, Ms Little replied the title block would need to be changed to "Concurrent Plat", Lot 3 would need to be changed to lot 5, and lot 5 changed to lot 3 The zoning labels would also need to be changed. ala • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 22 LSD 97-19.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (LOTS 4R &7, SPRING PARK II) CLARY DEVELOPMENT -S. OF JOYCE BLVD & S. &E OF MALL AVE. The large scale development was submitted by Development Consultants on behalf of Clary Development for property located south of Joyce Blvd. and south and east of Mall Ave. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approx. 9.51 acres. Staff report provided by Dawn Warrick: Findings: This project was tabled at the 9/11/97 SC meeting due to issues of MSP and access including the extension of Mall Ave to the south. 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. 6. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards along Mall Ave. 6. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 7. 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 • 2:13 • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 23 • • guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 8. Compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 9. Northern most access to parking on east side of Mall Ave. may only be 24' wide. 10. Mall Ave. needs to be labeled on plat. End of report. Ms. Little read the conditions of approval. She stated this item had been tabled at the September 11, 1997 Subdivision Committee meeting. She noted the elevation had been revised to match the plan (several trees had been removed). In response to questions from Mr. Brown , Ms. Little stated the Mall Avenue had been named for 911 purposes, even though it was a private street. She noted Mall Avenue was not private north of Joyce Street. Mr. Brown stated the street had been treated as a private drive. Ms. Johnson asked why the street had been vacated. Ms. Little replied the developer had requested the street vacation. Mr. Clary stated the street had been vacated to serve as the entry drive into the shopping center. This allowed them to have parking off the drive. He noted when this center had developed there had not been a need for a through street. Ms Johnson noted the vicinity map was inaccurate. She asked for it to be corrected to show existing streets and connections. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated there were no approved developments to the south of this project, however, there were development schemes. Mr. Reynolds felt the committee needed to see a map illustrating all the approved developments in the area and the Master Street Plan. Mr. Clary presented a map illustrating the entire shopping center. He noted Shiloh currently dead ended at the creek near Ryans Mr. Forney noted the current Master Street Plan showed Shiloh connecting across the creek. Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 24 Mr. Beavers referring to his notes, stated this item had been tabled for two issues: connections to the south and request to see additional streets and plans to the south. In response to these concerns, Mr. Brown stated an access easement had been provided between the building to the property line which would allow the property to the south access. Mr. Clary added they had also granted and filed of record an easement which had been granted by the Brandon and Walmart lots. Mr. Brown noted there were two points along the southern boundary had been provided for cross access. Mr. Reynolds asked when the bridge to the south on Gregg Street would be installed. Mr. Rickett replied the current date for the project was January, however, construction would not start until next spring. It would take nine months to a year to complete the project. Mr. Reynolds noted the traffic had increased 10,000 cars a day with the opening of Wal -mart. He stressed the importance of moving traffic in and out of the area. He asked if there were any plans to connect with Vanash. Mr. Clary noted he had contributed 28% of the cost of the bridge on Gregg Street. Mr. Reynolds requested a completion date on the bridge before more development was opened up in this area. Mr. Clary stated he did not expect the center to open until August or September of next year. He thought the bridge would also be completed in August or September. Mr. Forney asked if there would be a north -south connection to the mall across the Nanchar property. Mr. Clary presented a concept plat of Nanchar development which only showed one connection across the creek. Ms. Johnson questioned the source of the concept plat. Ms. Little explained the concept plat had been presented during the rezoning of the property. She noted the streets had not been designed or approved by the city. She noted the proposed streets did not agree with the city's Master Street Plan. a1 • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 25 • In response to concerns voiced by Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated the main issue on the Nanchar property had been the proposed street running north -south, which was a Master Street Plan issue. She noted there was a street leading north to the mall. Ms. Johnson requested a map illustrating the current projects and streets in relation to the Master Street Plan. Mr. Forney noted the Master Street Plan had three connections across the creek. He noted the Nanchar drawing only showed one connection across the creek. Mr. Clary did not believe the Master Street Plan connection was located on his property. Ms. Little felt the opportunity for a major connection had been lost with the Joyce Street extension (the western most extension across Joyce Street.) She explained the connection to Van Asche had been lost because the engineers responsible for the project had stated the floodway crossing, about 291 feet, would be cost prohibitive to cross the creek. As a result the road the city built had been reoriented and routed into Johnson. She noted Nanchar had committed to build a major north south intersecting road as a condition of their rezoning which would connect with Van Asche. The road would have to be constructed before any property could be sold. Mr. Fomey noted a flyover onto the Nanchar property which would lead north had been proposed. He thought this street should lead to the front door of Wal -mart and to the back door of the mall. Ms. Johnson asked if this property would have a direct impact on the Master Street Plan streets. Ms Little did not believe this property was included in area shown on the Master Street Plan for a connection, other than the Joyce Street connection, which had been made. Mr. Forney disagreed. He felt the proposed Master Street Plan street was on the west property line of the Spring Creek Center, near the back of Wal -mart. Ms. Little agreed and noted this development had been started before the Master Street plan had been developed. Mr. Maxfield asked if the zoning for Nanchar would determine the placement of streets. Ms. Little responded the city had not approved any streets for the Nanchar development. • MOTION alp • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 26 Ms. Johnson moved to table the item until all the developments were shown in conjunction with the Master Street Plan streets in the region. Mr. Reynolds requested a aerial photo of the area. Mr. Clary presented a photo of the area. Mr. Maxfield suggested enlarging the photo and drawing in the Master Street Plan. Mr. Forney did not believe the frontage road connection would work well. Ms. Little replied the road would give frontage on which to build. She added Shiloh had been cut off and dead ended at the mall. It did not have direct access to Joyce Street. She stressed there had not been any decisions made on the southward extension of Shiloh. Mr. Forney asked if there was a possibility of getting a connection from Mall Avenue to the south. • Mr. Clary stated he was willing to allow two access from the south into his center. He thought there was a possibility of receiving another connection from Wal -mart. Mr. Beavers did not believe the (24') access to the south, between two buildings, was very safe. He expressed concern about children coming out of the store and walking in front of a car. He requested a standard 40-50' right-of-way stnp, without handicap parking in front of it. Mr. Clary explained the parking would be removed when there was a road connection. Mr. Maxfield stated the easement would be fenced to provide a patio until there was a development to the south and a need for the connection. Ms. Johnson felt the connection would be dangerous. Mr. Forney stated the easement was only worth doing if it were going to provide an exit for some of the traffic. Mr. Clary stated Nation Home Center's loading dock was located in the area. He agreed the access between the buildings was not safe. He felt the other access was better. Mr. Brown noted there had been previous large scale developments approved for this site which did not have cross accesses. • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 27 • • Mr. Clary expressed concern about a car going between the two buildings and having an accident with a truck trying to dock. Mr. Forney did not believe the access between the building would help the situation. He asked if their was a way to maintain a right-of-way access equal to Mall Lane through to the south for a future connection. He felt there was a possible connection on the west property line. In response to questions from the commissioners, Mr. Clary stated a traffic study had been conducted to help provide adequate service to the area. He noted Clary Development had contributed to the Joyce Street improvements and the building of Gregg Street. He did not believe it was appropriate for them to contribute more. In response to questions from Mr. Brown, Ms. Little stated the Master Street Plan needed to be superimposed on the vicinity map. Mr. Brown stated he would create the vicinity map from the Master Street Plan map. Ms. Little suggested using an aerial photo to show possible street connections. In response to concerns from Mr. Forney and Mr. Beavers, Mr. Clary stated a twenty-five (25) foot opening was needed between the buildings for a storm drain and sanitary sewer. He added he would do his best to provide the staff with the needed information. Mr. Reynolds requested this item to be placed seconded on the next Subdivision Committee meeting. He suggested calling a special meeting to discuss the master street plan issues. Ms Johnson suggested inviting them to the next Subdivision meeting. The item was tabled. �1% • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 28 AD 97-12.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (DEVELOPMENT OF PARKING AS CROSS STREET SERVICES) LARRY SANGER- S. OF PUMP STATION RD AND W. OF MORNINGSIDE DR. The administrative item was submitted by Steve Barker on behalf of Larry Sanger for property located south of Pump Station road and west of Momingside Drive. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial. The request is for a waiver of entrance drive width from 24' to 35'. Ms. Little explained the applicant was requesting a wider entry than allowed by ordinance for the parking lot. She noted there would be no structures located on this site. Mr. Sanger explained his trucks were 48' trailers, six a night. If the width of the drive was not increased then his drivers would have to swerve over into the other lane. In response to questions from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Sanger stated the trucks would leave approximately 2:30 in the morning and return about 7:00 in the evening. • Mr. Reynolds asked if the applicant knew there were existing homes across the street. He asked if the parking spaces would be located toward the rear of the lot. Mr. Sanger replied the parking spaces would be located near the front of the lot. He did not believe the trucks would bother people any more than the Post Office did. Mr. Reynolds replied he was one of the neighbors. His home was located between this lot and the Post Office. He noted the Post Office was very noisy at night. Ms Johnson asked if there were ways to buffer the noise. Ms. Little replied she had originally suggested a concrete block wall around the site, like the side of a building. She felt the commissioners could require additional buffering at the front of the lot, such as landscaping or a wall. She noted there would be a large opening through which a lot of noise would pass through. She noted the site was zoned Industrial, by definition it allowed louder type uses than Commercial. Mr. Forney suggested substantial landscaping around the site. Ms. Sandeen stated the applicant was showing a substantial amount of landscaping around the lot. She felt the neighbors should be notified. She expressed concern about the maintenance of the landscaping. She suggested the installation of an irrigation system. She cautioned the landscaping would have to be maintained or it would have to be reinstalled. She suggested a1q • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 29 hiring a local company to maintain the landscaping. In response to comments from Mr. Sanger, Ms. Sandeen stated the landscaping would be a great expense. She cautioned if they were going to install landscaping it would have to maintained. She suggested mixing shrub species. Mr. Reynolds requested using taller trees than the proposed hollies. Ms Sandeen suggested using more trees rather than so many shrubs. She stressed the importance of maintaining the landscaping. In response to concern about notifying neighbors, Mr. Beavers stated the Grading Ordinance required the adjoining property owners to be notified. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Mr. Sanger stated SB2 would be used over the rest of the site to eliminate the need for mowing In the future if the parking area was expanded the base would already be there. • Ms. Little stated no truck movement allowed in the graveled area. Mr. Beavers stated a parking lot permit would be required. Ms. Little stated the issue that had brought the item before the Committee was the request for a wider entry. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little replied she did not believe the trucks could make the turn without the wider entry. She noted the trucks were not standard 18 wheelers; they were pup trailers. Mr. Sanger explained the trucks were usually two 28' trailers. The total truck length was approximately eighty (80) feet. Mr. Reynolds felt the entry needed to be wider for safety. Mr. Beavers asked how the city would receive a guarantee on the landscaping. Ms. Sandeen stated she would be willing to take a letter of credit, a bond, or cash. Ms. Little asked the applicant when he had planned to install the landscaping. Mr. Sanger replied he had planned to install the landscaping after the parking lot had been completed. • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 30 • • Ms. Little asked Mr. Sanger if he would be willing to install landscaping before starting business. She added the city needed a guarantee that the landscaping would be installed, such as money or letter of credit (150% of the value of the landscaping) before he could start business without the landscaping. Mr. Sanger stated he would be willing to give the city money or a letter of credit. He added he would need to see how much money the landscaping was going to cost him. Ms. Sandeen suggested getting letter from the adjacent industrial lots stating he did not need to provide screening. Landscaping would be required along the front. She expressed concern about the expense of the landscaping and its maintenance. She estimated the cost to be $20,000 plus $10,000 for irrigation. Ms. Johnson felt the drive needed to be wide enough that the trucks would not have to go into the other lane to tum into the parking lot. Mr. Forney felt the front landscaping needed to be doubled. Mr. Reynolds stated the drive needed to be wider The landscaping needed to extend approximately 100 feet back down the side of the property. He did not believe it was necessary to landscape around the lot. Mr. Forney suggested landscaping 150 feet from the front. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to extend the landscaping to 150 feet in dept with a 45 foot wide drive. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Mr. Rutherford added there would be a requirement for sidewalk inspection. • • Subdivision Meeting October 16,1997 Page 31 AD 97 -BLOCKBUSTER Ms. Little stated the administrative item would have to go before the full Planning Commission and the City Council. She explained the City Council would have to approve a dedication less than the required right-of-way under the master street plan. Mr. Reynolds asked how this would affect the sidewalks. Ms. Little stated Mr. Barnes, Blockbuster owner, stated he would build his plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds asked the affects of giving up the right-of-way along the entire tract. Ms. Little explained there was a new standard for principle arterial for a 110 feet of right-of-way. Item would be presented at the October 27 Planning Commission meeting. Meeting adjourned at 2:00 pm. 29