Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-30 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on October 30, 1997, at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED: 1. LSD 97-19.00: Lots 4R & 7 Spring Park Subdivision 2. LSD 97-15.00: North Park Place, Phase II 3. AD 97-13.00: Blockbuster right-of-way dedication 4. AD 97-16.00: Crystal Springs Master Street Plan 5. LS 97-32.00: Wayne Keller 6. LSD 97-21.00: Zio's Restaurant 7. PLA 97-20.00: Zio's Restaurant ACTION TAKEN Tabled Fwd to Planning Commission Fwd to Planning Commission Fwd to Planning Commission Fwd to Planning Commission Fwd to Planning Commission Administratively Approved MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Reynolds, Phyllis Johnson, and John Forney. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Chuck Rutherford, Dawn Warrick , and Heather Woodruff. LSD 97-19.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (LOTS 4R & 7, SPRING PARK) CLARY DEVELOPMENT- S. OF JOYCE BLVD & S. END OF MALL AVENUE The large scale development was submitted by Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Clary Development Co. for property located south of Joyce Blvd. and at the south end of Mall Ave. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 9.51 acres. Staff report by Dawn Warrick: Findings: This large scale development has been tabled at two previous subdivision committee meetings (9/11/97 & 10/16/97). Major issues surrounding the project include the Master Street Plan and access to the south. This development would add an additional 83,485 square feet of commercial (primarily retail) space to the Spring Park 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) • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 2 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 along Mall Ave. 5. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 6. 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. 7. Planning Commission determination that this project complies with the Commercial Design Standards ordinance requirements. 8. All drives shall be revised to be a max. of 24' in width. 9. One tree is needed to break up the span of 20 parking spaces located in the southwest corner of the site. 10. Easements noted "To be abandoned" must remain in place until lines are relocated and then must be processed as a vacation request to be considered by Planning Commission and City Council End of staff report. Ms. Little stated there were no issues concerning the Commercial Design Standards. She noted there were only a few minor items with the large scale development: the drives needed to be revised to a maximum of twenty-four (24) feet in width. A tree needed to be added in the rear behind the bank. The major issues with this development were Master Street Plan issues. This was the last lot to be developed in the Spring Creek Shopping Center. The subcommittee needed 2R Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 3 to discuss possible street connections to the south. Mr. Brown did not understand the needed for the reduction in driveway width. Ms. Little explained the more pavement there was the more runoff there would be. The city tried to limit the amount of runoff. She noted the city had a standard for 24' wide streets. She added if 24' was adequate for a street standard It should be adequate for a parking lot. In response to questions from Mr. Brown, Ms. Little stated Fayetteville's standards were maximums. The city had scaled down their requirements for paving because they were beginning to get to much. Anything other than the standard would require a waiver. Mr. Brown replied he would reduce the width and add additional landscaping. Ms. Little commented the parking lot ordinance required long expanses of paving to be broken up with one tree per 10 stalls. Mr. Brown stated the plat had been revised to reflect the requested changes. Fayetteville's Master Street Plan had been incorporated into the vicinity map. He noted the east west drive had been reduced to 24' the turn lane had been removed. Mr. Rutherford commented the sidewalks needed to be shown continuous through the two driveways on the east side of Mall Avenue. Mr. Beavers presented a topo map of the area. Ms. Little stated the Master Street Plan issues needed to be discussed. She gave the Planning Commissioners a copy of the first preliminary plat for this project from 1992. She noted the City did not adopted a Master Street Plan until 1995. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little replied Mall Avenue had been vacated as a part of the first Spring Creek plat in 1993. Mr. Brown explained the original layout for the area had been a lot and block design with one to two acre tracts for individual developments rather than one large development. He noted the design had not been seen or approved by the City. Ms. Little explained the Master Street Plan connection had been missed because of timing. The Master Street Plan was not approved until 1995. She explained the Commission was bound by the approved (1992) subdivision plat. a%< Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Clary stated access had been requested to the south when the Wal -mart development had come through. He had been working with Brandon and Wal -mart to grant an easement on both sides to the Nanchar Property. Ms. Johnson noted the proposed 80' easement was a private drive. Mr. Clary stated the easement was for the benefit of the lot owners to ensure access to their properties. Mr. Forney clarified it would not be a public easement, it was a part of the subdivision's development pattern. Ms. Little clarified the road servicing Nanchar and National was private. Mr. McCord explained the road was a cross access easement. It was available to the general public, but maintained by the property owner. Mr. Ernie Peters presented a map illustrating the surrounding area and the city's Master Street Plan. He presented data from a 24 hour traffic count conducted for the Joyce Boulevard and Mall Avenue area. The traffic count was conducted on a Tuesday. There had been 11,138 cars entering the site. A total of 22,000 trips. Mr. Beavers asked why the study had been done on a Tuesday and what were Mr. Peter's projections for a Friday, Saturday, and Sunday traffic count. Mr. Peters stated Traffic Engineers typically looked at average weekday values. Normally traffic counts were conducted Tuesday thru Thursday. Saturday would have less of an on -street volume than an average weekday because there was not as many work trips in the traffic stream during that time period. However, the traffic entering the center would be higher on weekends. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Peters felt the traffic could increase 50% during the weekend near Christmas. Mr. Beavers responded Mr. Peter's estimate did not correspond with the complaints the city had been receiving. Mr. Peters stated this shopping center had not experienced a Christmas season. Ms. Little asked the traffic count of the development before the Wal -mart store opened. Mr. Peters stated 7,280 vehicles trips had been associated with Wal -mart store. a�° • • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 5 Ms. Johnson asked how the traffic count applied the Master Street Plan issues. Mr. Peters replied estimated traffic count into the shopping center had been used as to values to design the lane configurations of Hwy 71 and Joyce Boulevard. They had been designed to operate at a C level service. Mr. Reynolds commented the plan had been working fine, until the Wal -mart store opened. Ms. Johnson asked how this related to the Master Street Plan issues. Mr. Peters replied he was getting to Master Street Plan issues. He was providing back ground information. Mr. McCord stated this project was in total conformance with the Master Street Plan and in total conformance with all of the requirements for Large Scale Development ordinance. Mr. Reynolds questioned how the applicant planned to move traffic to the south to help the traffic move more efficiently. He expressed concern that the traffic would double around the Christmas season. He requested the applicant to present only information pertaining to the Master Street Plan discussion. In regards to questions from Mr. Reynolds regarding how the north south traffic could be handled, Mr. McCord stated the issue had been addressed by the Planning Commission and City Council when the Nanchar rezoning came through in 1995. At that time the Nanchar property owners had submitted a written offer to construct the north south street shown on the Master Street Plan to the west. At the rezoning, the City Attorney had advised the City Council that the property owners' written offer was a legally enforceable document. He stated the Nanchar development would be required to construct the north south street to relieve the traffic problems. Ms. Little replied during the coarse of those conversations she related that the promise to build a street was nothing more than what would be required as a condition of subdivision. The city would not allow the sell of any lot on the Nanchar property until the improvements had been constructed. Mr. Peters presented a chart illustrating the traffic traveling east and west. The current development in the Spring Creek Center generated 22,000 (actual) vehicular trips per day. The project future build out of the development, with current traffic projections, the roads would still maintain a level C service. • Mr. Forney questioned why the projected traffic increase for the build out of the remaining subdivision was only adding 1,300 additional trips to the current projected 34,000 (traffic study) • • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 6 trips. Mr. Peters explained the original traffic study had estimated on the high side for Wal -mart. Since the original work, Wal -mart had reduce their traffic generation rate. They were now more in line with the traffic patterns currently observed. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Mr. Peters explained the type of space that would occupy the remaining lot was typical of the existing development with TJ Max and Service Merchandise. He had taken the actual traffic count from that center and used it to calculate the projected traffic generation for the proposed development. In response to comments from Mr. Peters, Mr. Beavers asked Mr. Rickett if he was going to have all the information to the Highway Department for the letting of the bridge on Gregg Street. Mr. Rickett replied he would be able to get information submitted on time. Mr. Reynolds stated the bridge on Gregg Street was a major concern. He was not in favor of any additional development in the Spring Creek area until the bridge was completed. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little replied Clary Development was contributing 28% to the construction of the Gregg Street bridge. The city had agreed to use Clary's engineer, DCI, to design the project. Mr. Rickett stated the current deadline for the January 7 letting was November 14. Their bridge plans were complete. Their roadway plans were essentially done. They needed to plot and reviewed the plans one more time. He had two weeks to have all the items complete. The work would be done on time. He could not control the Highway Department. As far has knew the letting date would not be changed. The highway department's estimators would assign a construction schedule to the bridge. Mr Beavers noted Greg Street would be closed next year for the construction of the bridge. The detour would be Van Asche to Ball Street and over a low water bridge. Mr. Clary asked the estimated construction time for the bridge. Mr. Tackett stated the bridge could be built in 6 month, however, the construction time would depend on the contractor and other factors. Ms. Johnson asked the commissioners if they were willing to allow Joyce Street to dead end at this development. • Mr. McCord replied the Master Street Plan did not affect this project. The proposed Master Street plan street would have gone through the Wal-Mart property. The Planning Commission 7� • • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 7 had approved the Wal-Mart development without requiring Wal-Mart to construct the street shown on the Master Street Plan. The actual location of the street, as depicted on the Master Street Plan, would be located west of the Walmart project. Mr. Peters presented a aerial photo illustrating the Master Street Plan, the existing streets, and the proposed Nanchar connections. Mr. Reynolds did not believe the flyover to College would be constructed in his lifetime. Ms. Little stated when the Nanchar property developed the space for the flyover would be preserved. Mr. McCord pointed out the proposed Master Street Plan was located west of their property. Mr. Peters noted there was a minor departure from the plan in several locations. It was his opinion that the combination of the existing improvements on Joyce and with the planned improvements to Gregg Street and the proposed streets for the Nanchar development would service the area adequately. Ms. Little did not believe the Nanchar development should be discussed. She added the property might never develop. Mr. McCord stated the large scale development before the committee complied with the Master Street Plan. It also complied with all the requirements for Large scale development. He requested the Committee to approve the large scale development or to forwarded the plan to the Planning Commission with the recommendation for approval. Ms. Little stated the staff recommended that the committee forward the item to the Planning Commission. Mr. Forney asked if the Commission allowed this development to proceed as planned, would the commission need to notify the city council that they were taking action to abandon part of the Master Street Plan. Ms. Little replied if Clary was not going to make the connection then the item would have to go before City Council. She added a Master Street Plan street could be moved without city council approval, but could not be abandoned. Ms. Johnson noted the applicant was taking the position that the Master Street Plan was not on • their property. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 8 Mr. McCord felt the Master Street Plan issues had been addressed in 1993 when the Planning Commission voted unanimously to vacate the right-of-way from Mall Avenue south from Joyce Street. The city council had adopted the ordinance vacating the right-of-way. Ms. Johnson explained if the Planning Commission and the City Council had known they were vacating a Master Street Planned street. Mr. Forney noted the Master Street Plan had not been adopted at that time. He noted the city had now determined there was a need for a connection in area. Ms. Johnson summarized the applicants position as wanting to vacate a portion of the Master Street Plan because the traffic study numbers did not support the need for the street. She felt thousands of people of people would be dumped into one area creating a difficult traffic grid lock that could never be solved. She expressed concern about the subdivision only having one access. She felt the numbers being presented by the applicant needed to be reviewed by the city's staff. She was uncomfortable in making a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Mr. McCord stated it was Mr. Peters professional opinion that the proposed north south Master Street Plan street was not needed. He added the street did not impact or was a controlling factor of the approval of the large scale development for this project. He defended the Master Street Planned street was west of this project. Ms. Johnson explained the Master Street Plan purpose was to define the approximate location of future street connections. Mr. McCord noted the Planning Commission had previously approved Large scale developments for this site without requiring a north south extension through the site. He asked why the street had not been required during the previous submittal. Mr. Forney stated it was the Planning Commission obligation to the City to notify and maintain the Master Street Plan. He added the Planning Commission could not abandon part of the Master Street Plan. He felt the presentation presented centered on trip generation created by this development. He stated the committee was trying to anticipate how the whole network functioned. He was not concerned about the number of trips their development generated. Mr. Peters responded the original traffic study conducted in 1994 had projected the intersection of Mall Avenue and Joyce and the Mall area to operate at a C level of service. Ms. Little asked if the traffic study had included the Gregg Street bridge. Mr. Peters stated the study had assumed there was the Joyce Street connection to Gregg Street. Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 9 He believed the traffic impact of the bridge improvements would be immaterial, because the percentage of traffic they had projected to come from the west could be accommodate with the existing facilities. Mr. Reynolds noted the bridge was one lane. Mr. Peters stated the intersection of Joyce Street and Mall Avenue operated at a C level. He presented a chart illustrating the average waiting time at the light. Mr. Beavers stated the information being presented did not correspond with the complaints the Traffic Department had been receiving; it did not reflect his daily experience of going through the light. Mr. Forney noted the actual trips generated per day were less than the original projected amounts, however, the delays were greater than the projected amount of time. Mr. Reynolds felt the information needed to be submitted to the city's engineer. Mr. McCord stated this was the second time the item had been referred back to the Subdivision level. He requested the item be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Mr. Beavers stated his schedule did not allow him to review the traffic information before the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Forney commented he was unprepared to abandon the Master Street Plan. If he were to make a motion, he would move to forward the item to the Planning Commission with the recommendation that a connection to the south be made. In response to comments from Mr. Forney and Ms. Little, Mr. Clary stated Spring Creek was currently and projected, with full build out, to operate at a level C. He noted the existing and projected left turn movements were operating at a level B. Ms. Johnson stated it was the applicant's job to provide alternatives to the Master Street Plan connection. Mr. Forney felt an obligation to honor the Master Street Plan. He suggested forwarding the item to Planning Commission recommending a southern connection. Ms. Johnson asked where the connection would be made. She felt the subdivision committee needed to be able to recommend a location for the street. Mr. Forney felt there were several choices. They could require a southern connection at the end • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 10 of Mall Lane to the property line with a right-of-way line equal to the collector street. The second option was a southern connection at the private easement. The third option was to not require the connection. He noted there were no public ways from Joyce street to the south property line of this development. He asked if the City had the ability to require the creation of a public way as part of the Master Street Plan. Ms. Little stated the decision had never been made to abandon the Master Street Plan. The Planning Commission had the ability to required a connection. Mr. Peters suggested the connection be made west of this property. Mr. Forney did not believe a connection should be made there because it would be too close to another street. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little explained Nanchar would have to comply with the Master Street Planjust like other developers. • In response to comments from Mr. Peters, Mr. Forney stated if the street were to move to the west two streets would be crowed together. Mr. McCord stated the Planning Commission had approved a large scale development plan for this site before without requiring a southern extension of Mall Avenue. He asked why they were now requiring the connection. Mr. Peters noted the approved large scale development had preceded the Master Street Plan. It had been approved several years prior to the adoption of the Master Street Plan. He questioned how a street had been dropped into an approved, adopted, preliminary plat and large scale development. Mr. Forney stated the developer had an opportunity to participate in the Master Street Plan process. Ms. Little stated the city was interested in circulation as a whole. One subdivision, one street or anything did not drive the placement of a Master Street Planned street. Mr. Clary stated he would allow an access. He questioned how access to the south would be of benefit without the flyover. Traffic could not get back to College. He did not believe a connection on their property would solve any of the city's traffic problems. • Ms. Johnson replied the Planning Commission's decision would affect the city for 75 to 100 years. She felt this would be a major retail center in the future. It would be important to have an aq� • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 11 access to the west. She noted the terrain in the area also affected the road planning. She noted the bluffs to the north. She felt the city would find the construction of a bridge across the creek feasible in the distant future. Mr. Maxfield asked if mall Lane was extended through, what form would street take. Mr. Forney stated the commission was looking beyond the trip generation from this site. He was looking for a connection to follow the Master Street Plan. Ms. Little noted if the Committee was looking for a connection anything less than a collector street width (70') and public was not Master Street Plan connection. Mr. Forney argued he would not consider a plat on this lot without a 70' right-of-way dedicated to a Master Street Plan collector. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to deny the large scale development because it did not accommodate the Master Street Plan street. He recommended a 70' right-of-way be added to the plat for a collector to the south. He noted this was the last opportunity in this subdivision to obtain a connection to the south. In response to comments from Mr. Clary, Ms. Johnson replied this was the first time the committee had an opportunity to see how the Master Street Plan came in conjunction with their project. She felt the applicant needed to find ways to accommodate the Master Street Plan street. Mr. Clary asked the procedure to move forward. He felt they had the factual data to support their argument. He wanted the opportunity to present their data. Ms. Little replied the subcommittee felt a connection was still needed after seeing the data. Without a proposed connection from the applicant the staff would make a recommendation on where the connection should be placed. She felt the data had been considered and the decision had been there needed to be a Master Street Plan connection. In response to comments from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated the staff had requested a connection when the Wal -mart development came through the process. The staff had also requested a connection when this project first come in. The statement that this project was in full compliance with the Master Street Plan was not true. The aerial photo had a Master Street Plan going through this lot and Wal -mart's building. She felt this was the appropriate time to discuss the issue. Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 12 In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Ms. little stated if the applicant wanted to abandon the Master Street Plan street, then the issue should be brought through Planning Commission and forward to City Council before any more work was done on the large scale. Mr. Forney stated he would argue to the commission not to abandoned of the Master Street Plan street was not right. He stated the applicant's argument of traffic generation in their subdivision would not influence his decision. He noted the issue was not about local traffic generation; It was about the whole traffic pattern of the area. In response to questions from Mr. Maxfield regarding the Master Street Plan issue and amending it, Ms. Little replied it would be a series of public hearings, Planning Commission and City Council. The Council would hear the item at three sessions. In response to questions from Mr. Peters regarding altering the Master Street Plan street, Ms. Little stated the applicant could alter the street as long as it was on their property. It would only have to go before the Planning Commission. Mr. McCord stated the Planning Director had interpreted the Master Street Plan as applying to this development. He suggested appealing the Planning Director's interpretation to the Planning Commission. Ms. Johnson stated if the commission believed the Master Street Plan applied, then the commission would require him to build the street. She asked if the commission did not agree would the issue would go to the city council, because it had the effect of vacating the Master Street Plan street. Ms. Little did not believe the subdivision committee could deny the large scale development because the applicant was seeking a waiver. Mr. Beavers stated the traffic data could not be considered in this cycle. Mr. McCord stated the developer wished to table the item to give the developer an opportunity to confer with staff about what might be acceptable and to give the developer time to consider dedicating right-of-way and constructing public street through the project or to consider the appeal of the Planning Director. In response to concems voice by the commissioners, Ms. Little stated the large scale development and the issue of the Master Street Plan should be considered separated issues at this time. Mr. Forney stated he would withdraw his motion to allow the applicant to table the item. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 13 Mr. McCord asked for the item to be postponed. Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 14 LSD 97-15.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (NORTH PARK PLACE II) SMITH -BROOKS INVESTMENTS - 3380 N. 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. 1.82 acres. Staff report 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. This project was tabled at the 10/16/97 SC. Additional information was requested concerning parking space sizes, cross accesses with adjacent properties, accurate elevation drawings, detailed information on overhead utilities on site, greenspace calculations and reorientation of the vicinity map on the project plat. 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 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 fmal 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 Master Street Plan as shown on plat. • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 15 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk with 6' landscaping along Wimberly Drive (area where sidewalk is adjacent to curb has been approved by Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator and Landscape Administrator), and a 6' sidewalk with 10' landscaping along Futrall Drive. 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. 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'). 11. Resolution of parking calculations in regard to proposed use(s) of the structure. End of staff report. Mr. Ron Petrie, Northwest Engineers, and Danny Smith represented the item. Ms. Little explained the item had been tabled for three issues: green space calculation, over head utilities, and rear elevation. She noted the applicant was barely meeting the greenspace requirement. She noted the only greenspace provided was what was required to meet the parking lot ordinance. The Planning Commission would have to determine if a waiver could be granted for the overhead electric line. She noted the applicant had not changed the rear elevation. In response to questions from Ms. Little, Mr. Danny Smith replied the rear of the building would be constructed as shown on the elevation. In response to questions from Mr. Forney regarding compact parking spaces at the rear of the • site, Ms. Little stated the applicant was showing the building to be 28,000 square feet. 18,000 square feet had been designated as professional office space. The remaining 10,000 square feet gun • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 16 had been designated as sales space. She noted the parking requirements were determined by the use (1 space per 300 square feet for professional office and 1 per 200 square feet for sales). She had asked the applicant for a floor plan of the building to calculate the required parking. Mr. Smith had stated he did not have the information, it did not exist. She questioned how it was possible to locate windows and doors for elevations without knowing the floor plan. She noted if all the 28,000 square feet were used as sales space, then 140 parking spaces would be required. The applicant was proposing 110 spaces. Ms. Little expressed concern about the project because it was covering most of the site and was barely meeting the landscaping requirements. She reminded the commissioners this project had been exempted from the Overlay District based on compliance with the North Hills Medical Park covenants. However, North Hills Medical Park review committee had waived their covenants for this project. Mr. Smith explained the parking lot setbacks had been reduced from 15' to 5'. North Hills Medical Park committee had approved the waiver because they had exempted Colliers and Boatman's Bank. The committee also liked the proposed structure; it was compatible with the existing buildings. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Smith replied he had the appropnate number of parking spaces for the uses he had planned for the building. Mr. Forney noted the site had been exempted from the Overlay District requirement in expectation of the private covenants being more stringent. He expressed concern about the project believing there was more square footage than the site could handle. He felt the developer was pushing the limits given his site had been exempted from the Overlay District requirements. Mr. Smith commented in earlier discussions regarding the developments of CMN and the Overlay District it had been determined that this lot could be exempted from the Overlay requirements, if the owner requested the exemption. Ms. Little noted one of the reasons why this lot could be exempted the Overlay District was because of the private covenants of CMN and North Medical Park. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Ms Little explained the utility lines were located overhead until it reached the Medical Park then they went underground. She felt the developer should place the line underground from where it entered his site to the south property line. She thought there would be an opportunity for the cost of the relocation to be shared with the proposed development to the north Mr. Smith explained SWEPCO had requested the line not be placed underground because of the aR� • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 17 possibility of Washington Regional Medical Center locating in the area SWEPCO would be able to service WRMC easier and for less than if the lines were placed underground. Mr. Forney replied if the hospital was located in the area, the Commission would request them to place their line underground also. Ms. Little stated the staff and commission could only deal with each individual property as it developed. Ms. Johnson asked if there was a connection from this property to the property to the east. Ms. Little replied there was not a Master Street Planned connection on this site. She added the applicant had provided two stubouts to the adjacent properties. In response to questions regarding the internal landscaping, Ms Little explained Ms. Sandeen, Landscape Administrator, was waiving the requirement for internal landscaping for part of the parking because the applicant was so tight for space. Ms. Sandeen did not feel there was enough room for trees to grow in the parking lot. Mr. Reynolds commented the site was built to the maximum. Ms. Johnson felt the number of parking spaces was arbitrary. She believed the utility line should be placed underground Mr. Petrie noted the cost of the placing the line underground from the main transmission line to the south would be $21,000. The overall cost of the entire relocation would be $74,000 from the north right-of-way to the south property line. Ms. Little suggested splitting part of the cost with the proposed development to the north. Mr. Forney asked what was unique about this property that would make the cost of placing the line underground a hardship. Ms. Little replied the staff was unaware of any underlining rock strata or flood plain issues that would cause it to be more expensive to install underground utilities than any other development. Mr. Petrie noted this was a major transmission line. Ms. Little asked the voltage on the line. Mr. Petrie stated the major transmission line was a 900 amp, three-phase. The other line was aqq • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 18 400 amp. Ms. Little stated the ordinance specifically listed the cutoff as being anything over 34 KB She added neither of lines were over 34 KB It had been her understanding that the applicant did not object to installing the line underground from where the line entered the property to the south property line. Mr. Smith replied he was willing to do that. In response to Mr. Fomey's question regarding the city's policy on crossing public right-of-way with underground utilities, Ms. Little replied developers often cut through the street. She noted if there needed to be a contribution from the city, the item would have to go city council. Mr. Beavers added the city did not have a policy. The Engineering Department typically tried to discourage cutting across newer streets. It was usually handled by a case by case basis. Mr. Reynolds asked if all of the surrounding properties had placed their utility lines underground. Ms. Little replied all of the surrounding properties had placed their lines underground. She noted if Washington Regional was to develop in the area, their utilities would also be placed underground. Ms. Johnson felt the line needed to go underground the entire length of the lot. She suggested the applicant work with the developer to the north in installing the line underground. Mr. Forney noted the subcommittee could not approve the large scale development with the waiver request. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to forward the item to the Planning Commission with the requirement that the overhead line be buried the full length of the property line along with the waiver for the green space. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. 300 • • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 19 AD 97-13.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO RIGHT-OF-WAY REDUCTION JIM BARNS- N. OF HWY 62. W. OF SANG. AND S. OF OLD FARMINGTON RD. The administrative item was submitted by Jim Barnes on behalf of Blockbuster Video for property located north of Hwy 62, west of Sang and south of Old Farmington Road The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is to reduce the right-of-way from 55' to 45' on the north side of Hwy 62. Mr. Jim Barnes, Blockbuster Video, represented the item. Ms. Little explained the Blockbuster had been before the Planning Commission with a lot split and large scale development. As a condition of the lot split, 15' of right-of-way dedication had been required. The property owner, Mr. Van Stavern, had originally agreed to the dedication. He now objected to the 15' right-of-way dedication. 1 -Te was willing to dedicate 5' of right-of- way along the entire parent tract. She noted the procedure for dedicating less than the required right-of-way was to come before the Planning commission and the City Council. she added Blockbuster was willing to construct their large scale development as approved by the Planning Commission, including the 10' greenspace and the 6' sidewalk Ms. Johnson asked if the land owner was willing to dedicate 15' of right-of-way long the Blockbuster lot. Mr. Barnes replied the owner was willing to dedicate 5 feet along the entire tract. He reassured the commissioners that Blockbuster's large scale would not change. The sidewalk and greenspace would stay the same. Ms. Johnson asked if the Commission could require a 15' dedicated along the Blockbuster lot. Ms. Little replied the Commission could recommend it to the City Council. Mr. Barnes stated the owner was willing to dedicate 5 feet along the entire tract of land. Ms. Little explained this property was not incompliance with the Master Street Plan. To bring the tract into compliance 15' of right-of-way dedication was required. Mr. Barnes stated the land owner felt it was impractical him dedicate such a large amount of land for such a small development. • Ms. Little noted the land owner had dedicated land in the past for the extension of Sang Avenue as well as a 60' easement for a storm sewer system along Hardees. 3o' • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 20 Ms. Johnson requested an assurance for future right-of-way dedication. Ms. Little stated she would be willing to accept a document stating that upon the expiration of the leases the 15' right-of-way would be dedicated. Mr. Barnes added the 5' dedication would be valued over $50,000. Mr. Forney asked why the city was requesting the additional right-of-way. Ms. Little replied the 55' of right-of-way from the centerline was for the creation of boulevards. However, in this case 15' of right-of-way was exactly what was needed for 10' of greenspace and 6' sidewalk. Mr. Barnes was willing to place the sidewalk on his personal property in order to proceed with his large scale development. Mr. Forney felt the Planning Commission would be making a mistake if they did not required the dedication of the 15' of right-of-way. MOTION • Mr. Fomey moved to forward the item to the Planning Commission. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. In response to questions from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Barnes explained he would be leasing the land like everyone else. Mr. Reynold suggested to Mr. Barnes to ask the landowner to sign a document promising to dedicate the 15' of right-of-way when the other properties developed. Mr. Rutherford added the fifteen feet of right-of-way was needed for the sidewalk to be in the right-of-way and not a liability for the landowner. • 3 • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 21 AD 97-16.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (CRYSTAL SPRINGS PHASE II, MASTER STREET PLAN RECONSIDERATION) JED DEVELOPMENT- E OF SALEM RD. & N. OF MT. COMFORT RD. The administrative item was submitted by Michele Harrington on behalf of JED Development, Inc for property located east of Salem Road and north of Mt. Comfort Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 35.32 acres. The request if for consideration of Preliminary Plat revision to accommodate the adopted Master Street Plan. This subdivision was approved on January 23, 1995, prior to the adoption of the Master Street Plan. Ms. Little explained Mr. Howard Davis, developer of Phase II, had revised his Preliminary Plat to show the addition of the Master Street Plan street. The developer was dedicating an additional 9' of right-of-way (70' total) to provide for a connection to Reagan. Mr. Davis explained one of the residential streets had been moved and made into a through street to accommodate the Master Street Plan. Ms. Little explained the developer had revised an approved subdivision plat to comply with the Master Street Plan. Mr. Forney asked if they could get a connection to Pyrite, because it was within the city limits and would connect to Gypsum Drive. Ms. Little noted there was a house between the two roads. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to forward the item to the Planning Commission. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. 361 • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 22 LS 97-32.00: LOT SPLIT (WAYNE KELLER) WAYNE KELLER- 3 NORTH DUNCAN AVENUE The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.28 acres. The request is to create two tracts 0.097 acres and 0.180 acres. This is the first lot split request for this property. Staff report by Dawn Warrick: Findings: This item was heard at the 10/7/97 Technical Plat Review meeting. The main points of discussion centered around the requirement for right of way dedication per the Master Street Plan. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of this request due to the non -conformities which would be created if approved. Conditions of Approval 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 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 Master Street Plan to include a total of 35' from centerline along Center Street (both proposed lots will be affected). This requirement will necessitate variance requests and will mean that portions of both structures are encroaching the right of way for this street. End of staff report. Ms. Little noted there was not a sidewalk on the north side of Center Street. Normally a sidewalk would be requested for a lot split. However, there was a sidewalk on the south side of Center Street. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 23 Mr. Keller stated there was a sidewalk on his property along Center Street. Ms. Little stated the Board of Adjustments had approved variances for the smaller lot and the 60' of frontage. Mr. Conklin added 60' of frontage met the requirement for the one unit apartment. Ms. Little asked the number of existing parking spaces. Mr. Kelly noted there were eleven parking spaces for the one unit apartment. Ms. Little asked why there were so many parking spaces. Mr. Alexander stated the Board of Adjustments had requested the property line to include some of the parking for the second parcel. Ms. Little noted Center Street was a collector street, an additional 15' of right-of-way would be required, which would move the setback line through the middle of the property. She did not understand the need for the lot split or the need for it to create so many anomalies. The staff recommendation was for denial. Mr. Alexander stated the property line could be drawn with a dog leg to make the lot 6,000 square feet, but at the staffs request he had gone to the Board of Adjustments for a variance from minimum lot square footage. The Board of Adjustments had approved a smaller lot. It was his opinion the size of the lot should not be considered an anomalies because of the Board of Adjustment approval. The owner did not object to giving the right-of-way, however the city would then own half of the house. If the city wanted to widen the road they could take part of the applicants home with no compensation. He added the purpose of the lot split was to be able to sell or mortgage the property independently. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Alexander stated the house was very old, but the apartment building was only four or five years old. Mr. Forney question how the lot could be developed. Mr. Alexander replied units could not be expanded. He noted the lot was located in an area with all multi -family housing. This parcel had less density than any of the surrounding properties. Mr. Conklin added the Board of Adjustments had limited the number of units to one, because of the lots size. 30C Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 24 Ms. Little added not having the right-of-way was a problem. Her recommendation was for this item to be forwarded to the Planning Commission, and for the commissioners to visit the site. Ms. Warrick noted if the right-of-way was dedicated then the square footage approved by the Board of Adjustments would change. Mr. Forney noted the City would not have many opportunities to acquire right-of-way along Center Street. Mr. Alexander replied if the city was going to widen the street, then right-of-way would have to be purchased because none of the existing homes complied with the standard. The property owner had no problem giving utility easements around the property. The only issue was if the owner had to give right-of-way. Mr. Beavers reiterated the private sewer line had to be located in a private sewer easement. It could not be located in the newly created public easement. Mr. Alexander replied the line was in place. They had only agreed to dedicate the utility easement. Mr. Beavers reiterated the line would have to be in a private easement. The private service line could not be located in a public easement. The line would have to be moved out of the public easement into a private easement. Ms. Little explained there had to be a 10' private easement and a 10' public easement. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to forward the item to the Planning Commission. Ms Johnson seconded the motion. sip • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 25 LSD 97-21.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (ZIO'S ITALIAN KITCHEN) MAZZIO'S- N. OF MILLSAP ROAD AND W. OF PLAINVIEW The large scale development was submitted by Christopher Collins of Wolfgang Doerschlag Architects & Engineers on behalf of Ma77io's Corp. for property located north of Millsap Road and west of Plainview Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 2 14 acres. Staff report by Dawn Warrick: Findings: This project was heard at the Technical Plat Review meeting of October 21, 1997. The proposed development is an Italian restaurant located on the north side of Millsap Road and just west of the existing Eye Center building. Discussion at the previous meeting included additional parking lot landscaping, right of way dedication and the applicant's request for parking spaces in excess of those allowed by ordinance. 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 min. 6' sidewalk with a min. 10' green space adjacent to Millsap Road. This requirement is not shown correctly on the plans submitted after Technical Plat Review and will need to be revised prior to Planning Commission. 6. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 30'1 • • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 26 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. Planning Commission decision regarding the applicant's request for excess parking. 10. Cross access to the east (stub out to property line). Note: This will eliminate 5 parking spaces. 11. Aisles within the parking lot need to be reduced to 24'. Standard parking stall dimensions are 9' x 19'. End of staff report. The item was represented by Ted Webb and Rex Hall. Ms Little stated the applicant was seeking a parking waiver for additional parking. The applicant had presented information supporting their request. She asked the square footage of the store in Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Mr. Hall stated the square footage of the store in Oklahoma City store matched the square footage of the proposed store (8,000 square feet). The Tulsa store was smaller, 6,000 square feet. Ms. Little stated the applicant had no problems meeting the green space requirement. She noted there needed to be a stub out on the east property line to the Eye Center. She noted the property was exempt from the Overlay District because it was in the CMN Business Park. The stub out to the east could cost the development five parking spaces. Ms. Warrick asked the applicant to narrow their isle widths to twenty four feet She noted the city's standard for a parking space was 19 feet in length. The setback for parking was only five feet. She felt they had room to add additional parking. • Ms. Little noted there needed to be a 15 foot landscaped area between their site and public frontages. They had done a great job landscaping along the Millsap frontage. The side along the 3O% • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 27 bypass needed to be improved. One tree and one shrub per 30 feet. Mr. Beavers requested the trees to be kept off of the sewer lines. Mr. Rutherford noted the applicant had the green space and the sidewalk switched. There needed to be 10 feet of green space between the curb and sidewalk. Mr. Hall noted their sidewalk would not line up with the existing sidewalks. Ms. Little explained the city had new sidewalk standards. Mr. Rutherford suggested the applicant look at the new Rio Bravo sidewalk. Ms. Warrick suggested the applicant dedicate additional right-of-way to insure their sidewalk was in the public right-of-way. She noted the additional dedication would move their setback line back, however, it would not change their layout. Mr. Reynolds stated the plat needed to state the parking spaces would be 9'x19' for the regular • parking spaces. Mr. Webb asked if they could keep the additional length on the parking stalls. Ms. Little replied they could, however, they might needed to reduce the length to accommodate additional parking. Mr. Hall explained the owner of Ma77io's preferred large parking spaces to prevent accidents. Their standard parking stall was 10'x20' with 30' isle. They were trying to make their store user friendly. Ms. Little explained the applicant had revised their elevation to show more detail by adding a sign, some architectural detail, a false door, and windows. Mr. Reynold question the location of the mechanical facilities. Mr. Webb explained they were located behind walls. Mr. Forney did not see any problems with the Commercial Design Standards. Ms. Little noted there were plants shown on the elevation that were not shown on the plan. • She noted the sign had been moved from Millsap to the bypass. She added the applicant would not be allowed to erect a 200 square foot sign. They were not located along a controlled access 30°1 • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting October 30, 1997 Page 28 highway. They would be allowed a 75 square foot sign. She assumed the applicant would reduce the size of the proposed sign. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to forward the item to the Planning Commission. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. 31 0