Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-01-15 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on January 15, 1998, 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 98-2.00: HMT OF FAYETTEVILLE ACTION TAKEN TABLED MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Reynolds, Phyllis Johnson, and John Forney. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Chuck Rutherford, Beth Sandeen, Tim Conklin, Mickey Jackson, Perry Franklin, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. LSD 98-2.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (HMT OF FAYETTEVILLE) HMT OF FAYETTEVILLE-N. OF DICKSON. E. OF ROLLSTON & W. OF THOMPSON The large scale development was submitted by Glen Carter of Carter Engineering on behalf of Fayetteville, L.L.C. for property located on the north side of West Dickson Street, east of Rollston and west of Thompson. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial, and contains approximately 1 13 acres. A parking waiver has been requested for project. Right-of-way issues: Ms. Little stated the site had frontage on Ro. llston, Thompson, and Dickson Street. Dickson Street was denoted as a collector street on the Master Street Plan, which required a 70' right-of- way. The current right-of-way was 55'. However, the staff did not believe additional right-of- way would be required, because the current plan was to narrow Dickson Street to allow room for landscaping and additional parking. She added City Council would have to approve the lesser right-of-way dedication because Dickson Street was on the Master Street Plan. Rollston Avenue was currently 28' wide. A standard local street required 50' of right-of-way. A dedication of 11' was required to bring the street up to standard. Thompson Street was currently 15' wide; a dedication of 20' was required to bring the street up to standard. Ms. Little stated the right-of-way issues were important because there was the possibility of increasing on -street parking. However, if the rights-of-way were expanded it would affect the configuration of the buildings. Realistically, the only places rights-of-way could be expanded were along Thompson Street and a portion of Rollston Street. She noted Restaurant On The • Subdivision Meeting January 15, 1998 Page 2 • Corner (ROTC) was located on the property line along Rollston Street. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little explained the ROTC building was located on the property line, which allowed no room for additional right-of-way, however the street could be widen further to the north, which would allow for some on -street parking. Mr. House stated all the plats he had seen indicated that Thompson was an alley and not a street. Ms. Little agreed Thompson Street did look like an alley, however, if the developer was planning to use it for access it needed to be improved to meet current street standards. Mr. House stated he was proposing to widen the right-of-way on Thompson by 5' for a total pavement width of 18' (which was only 2' less than the street width of Rollston ) He presented a model illustrating the proposed configuration of the buildings and parking decks. Mr. Reynold asked if the existing buildings would be demolished. Mr. House reassured two of the existing buildings would remain. The Restaurant on the Corner and the Bar and Gill would not be torn down. However, the smaller storage building would be removed. He explained the new buildings would have a pier and beam construction which would straddle the existing buildings. Parking: Ms. Little stated the developer was proposing 102 parking spaces for 53,000 square feet. She noted some of the parking spaces could be shared because of the mix use of the buildings. Currently, the existing two buildings (4,800 square feet) had 55 parking spaces. The staff felt 182 parking spaces were needed to service this development. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Mr. House stated they were proposing to dedicated 5' of additional right-of-way along Thompson. Ms. Little replied 55' of right-of-way was normally required for a standard street. She noted the additional right-of-way was needed for sidewalks. In response to comments from Mr. Rutherford, Mr. House stated he had planned for the sidewalk to go next to the building. They were requesting a variance to allow them to set the building on the property line. • Ms. Little asked Mr. House of he was willing to dedicate 26' of right-of-way. Subdivision Meeting January 15, 1998 Page 3 Mr. House replied he was willing to provide 18' of pavement from curb to curb plus 6' of sidewalk on the west side of Thompson. In response to comments from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little stated Thompson did appear to be an alley. However, since the developer was planning to access the development off Thompson it needed to upgraded to a city street. Mr. Forney questioned the need to upgrade Thompson to a city street, since it was basically a dead end street. Ms. Johnson felt Thompson needed to become a city street because St. Charles was a one-way street and it would provide better circulation. Mr. Beavers stated the Fire Chief, Mr. Jackson, had requested that Thompson be widen to provide better access for fire trucks and sanitation trucks. He suggest the right-of-way be increased to 20'-25' from centerline. He added most of the engineering comments would depend on the resolution of the rights-of-way issues. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Mr. Beavers replied Rollston could not be widened because the existing building was not being removed. Ms. Little added Rollston could be widen behind the building. She noted if Rollston was widen it would affect the proposed building configuration. Mr. House replied if they were to loose land to public right-of-way, then the development would be economically unfeasible. Mr. Rutherford stated his comments were tied to the right-of-way issue. A 6' sidewalk with 6' greenspace was required along local streets However, there was not enough room for the standard. Ms. Little noted there was an existing rock wall along Rollston. She asked if a 6' sidewalk could fit against the rock wall Mr. Carter replied the rock wall would be removed during construction. Mr. Rob Sharp stated the rock wall would be replaced, to retain the character of the area. Mr. House added they were planning to add plants and green areas for aesthetic appeal. Mr. Forney asked if the new building would met setbacks. • Subdivision Meeting , January 15, 1998 Page 4 • Mr. House replied the new building would met the setback with the exception of a few balconies. Ms. Little stated the proposed building was setback 5', which was in conformance with the current right-of-way. Mr. Reynold asked Mr. Jackson about fire service to area. Mr. Jackson stated the current streets were to narrow to service the proposed building. Fire trucks would not be able to drive a fire truck down the street. The current situation was undesirable with all the new construction. Mr. Reynold asked if a fire truck could turn from Rollston onto Watson. Ms. Sandeen stated it would not be easy to install the trees as proposed and still allow for pedestrian traffic. She added landscaping for parking decks were not covered in the code. She felt there were three options: to require the developer to install the street trees now, 1 tree per 30 linear fee (she noted the requirement would not be possible in all places). The second option would be to install the proposed plan for Dickson Street designed by the CDC. The third option was an assurance from the developer to install the required trees based on what was developed by the CDC. She added the majority of her comments would depend on the resolution of the rights- of-way. In response to questions from Ms. Little, Mr. House replied the CDC's plan was to narrow the street and to plant the trees in the right-of-way. Ms. Johnson asked if the trees would be small. Ms. Sandeen replied the tree size would be determined by the existing utility. Mr. Forney did not believe the CDC plan was far enough along to give adequate guidance. Ms. Sandeen felt the proposed CDC plan was good and was the proper way to allow for street trees to be planned along Dickson Street. Mr. Forney did not believe they could address the CDC plan because the plan was too preliminary. Ms. Sandeen stated the proposed CDC plan was the most appropriate way to allow trees to be installed along Dickson. Ms. Johnson asked if the trees required for this development could be planted according the CDC plan. Subdivision Meeting January 15, 1998 Page 5 Ms. Sandeen relied they could not be planted according to CDC plan now without narrowing Dickson Street. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Sandeen stated 5' would be enough room for some landscaping. She noted the Bakery Building's landscaping was very nice even thought it did not meet the standard to letter. She felt the best way to handle the problem would be to make a decision on the right-of-way before developing the landscape plan. She added the landscape plan could be developed at the building permit stage. Mr. Franklin stated ADA required each parking deck to have one van accessible parking space (8' stall with 8' island). Ms. Little stated the existing access behind ROTC was not located on this developer's property. A legal agreement, assuring access, would be required for the project. The development needed to have two ingress/egresses. In response to questions from Ms. Little, Mr. House stated he would be placing the overhead electric lines underground. Ms. Little stated the staff had received structural information explaining the new construction's building loads would be directed through a beam and girder system to a series of point loads. Soil bores would be conducted where new walls were proposed. Beams would be cantilevered out to pick up the wall loads. The staff was not certain what was located under the existing building. She felt the soil boring test would be very important. She noted there was underground drainage system in the area. She stated the city needed to be sure the parking deck could be constructed. Two things needed to be confirmed: the site could be engineered and built to support the parking deck; the second was that the cost were calculated correctly, to make sure the deck would not be too expensive to construct. She noted there was a loading dock behind the grill. She asked where the loading facilities would be located. Mr. Reynold stated the existing restaurants currently used a warehouse system for unloading supplies. He questioned how the retail shops and restaurants would receive their merchandise. Mr. House replied the retail shops would receive deliveries from the parking lot. In response to questions from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. House stated there would be no restaurants on the second floor. The deliveries for the restaurants would be made from the street level. Ms. Little did not believe delivery trucks could access the parking lots because of architectural constraints. She asked Mr. House for additional information regarding the Commercial Design Standards. She noted the site was close to 95% covered (the standard allowed 85% of the site to • Subdivision Meeting January 15, 1998 Page 6 be covered). She added when the Planning Commission approved the Commercial Design Standards the developer was agreeing to construct the buildings in the manner presented. She added signage location and size needed to be determined. Mr. Forney suggested designating areas on elevations for signage. Mr. House stated additional space would be added for signage. Ms. Little stated a materials list or sample board would be needed. Mr. House thought a sample board was too premature and too detailed for this stage. He felt the right-of-way decisions needed to be made first. Mr. Beavers stated the staff had recommended the developer take the right-of-way issues forward separately during the plat review meeting, but Mr. House had not agreed to. He felt the right-of- way issue should go forward, when the right-of-way was determined, then the project should start over with Plat Review. • Ms. Johnson agreed with Mr. Beavers. Mr. Forney thought the right-of-way and parking needed to be resolved before the development could continue. He noted the materials could be amended after the project was approved. Mr. Richard Shoemaker liked the project. Mr. Mike Cooper questioned the height of the buildings. Mr. Cyrus Young stated the development was too intense and out of character for Dickson Street. He asked for a List of all the variances requested by the developer. Mr. Mickey Jackson stated Rollston Street was currently 21' wide, which was wide enough to for a fire truck. He suggested making the street one-way with no parking. He suggested Thompson Street be widened to the same width as Rollston and also made a one-way street (the opposite direction) with no parking. Ms. Johnson felt once the streets were upgraded then the traffic would increase. Mr. Forney asked the advantage of having the streets one-way. • Mr. Beavers explained the affective turning radius would become larger because there would not be a car taking half of the intersection. Subdivision Meeting January 15, 1998 Page 7 Mr. Forney felt the parked cars were more of an issue than the one-way traffic. Mr. Jackson thought two-way traffic was possibility, if parking were prohibited and enforced. Mr. Forney did not like the idea of making the streets one-way, but the thought the parking issue was important for the access of fire trucks. Ms. Little stated the staff had requested comments from the Dickson Street Improvement District and Downtown Dickson enhancement Project regarding the parking, however, she had not received a written response from either of the organizations. Ms. Diana Thompson, an area resident, stated she lived directly behind the proposed development. She did not believe the developer was providing enough parking. She added there was plenty of parking during the winter, however, during the summer people often double parked. She reiterated the developer needed to increase the parking. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Thompson stated parking during the evening was more of a problem then during the day, but Friday and Saturday nights were the worst. Mr. Charlie Allison, property owner at the corner of Thompson and Watson, stated Thompson had always been an alley. He noted there was some traffic on Thompson, but it was traversed slowly because of its narrow width. Mr. Cooper, the owner of Passages and USA Pizza, stated he had removed a building to increase his parking area. He added there was not enough parking along Dickson. He noted there was a problem with people parking in his spaces to going to clubs. In response to questions from Ms. Little, Mr. Cooper stated Passages had approximately 2,800 square feet. He added people often parked in his private parking to his home. Mr. Reynold agreed there was a problem with parking on Dickson Street. Mr. Shoemaker stated the relaxing of the parking requirements along Dickson Street had made the redevelopment of the area possible. In response to questions from Ms. Little, Mr. House explained it was his interpretation of the C-3 zoning ordinance that parking did not have to be provided for the existing buildings, only the enlarged portions of the building. Ms. Little reminded when Mr. Arsaga had come before the Planning Commission with an addition which removed four existing parking spaces, he was required to replace them. • Subdivision Meeting January 15, 1998 Page 8 Ms. Johnson noted the foot print of the existing buildings was doubling. Mr. House added the existing 55 parking spaces were not standard parking spaces. Ms. Little agreed there were a couple of spaces that were not standard, however, they were being used because they were needed. She agreed with Mr. House's calculations for parking for the new area, but he had not replaced the 55 parking spaces removed for the addition. Mr. House replied the ordinance required 1 parking space per 200 square feet for which would only be 24 parking spaces for the two restaurants. Mr. Forney questioned if the parking requirement would be calculated by the existing parking on the site or the code. Ms. Little stated the code required 1 parking space per 200 square feet for a restaurant. However, the staff had not used that formula for calculating restaurants for two years, because restaurant always required more parking. The staff had been using 1 space per 4 patrons and 1 for each employee to calculate parking. The current requirement would be 48.79 spaces, however, the existing 55 parking spaces did not satisfy the parking demand. Mr. Forney noted that method of calculation was not in the ordinance. Ms. Little stated the staff and commission had use the 1:4 patrons method of calculating for Rio Bravo and Chili's. She noted restaurants required more parking than retail. 1:200 was not a reasonable ratio. In response to questions from Ms. Little, Mr. House stated there might be an additional 2,000 square feet of restaurant. Ms Johnson did not believe the city needed to add to the parking problem on Dickson Street, by allowing a project to develop without adequate parking. Mr. Sharp stated there were 131 public parking spaces within a 600' radius. Some of the parking burden from this project would go onto the public parking lots. Mr. Reynold replied the closes place to park would be two blocks away. Mr. House felt people were willing to walk. • Mr. Reynold stated there needed to be enough parking for all the residence. He did not want the residences taking up the businesses parking spaces. • Subdivision Meeting January 15, 1998 Page 9 Mr. Fomey stated he like the fact there were two uses on the same property. He believed it would decrease the traffic problems. Mr. Reynold expressed concern about the high rate of turnover in business on Dickson because of the lack of parking. Ms. Sandeen stated C-3 zoning districts were exempt from the landscaping along the street frontage. She added the public parking lots were always full. She suggested adding additional parking spaces rather than street trees. Mr. House thought there might be an opportunity for additional parking on the second deck by removing some of the residential units on the second level. However, he was concerned about the economics. Mr. Young stated if the 55 parking spaces were removed, then the shared parking along Dickson street would decrease. Ms. Johnson stated the major issues were width of right-of-way, parking, loading, structural capabilities, and the access agreement. She asked Mr. House to provide photos of the adjoining properties. Mr. Forney suggested Mr. House see if any of the property owners along Thompson would want to have the alley vacated, so the street could be a private drive onto private parking. He suggested declaring Thompson an alley. In response to questions from Ms. Little, Mr. Beavers stated alleys did not have right-of-way standards. Mr. Forney suggested the staff and the developer work together and develop a proposal with for Thompson Street. He felt there were three possible alternatives: Thompson would become a private city street (with a row of way to accommodate the fire Marshall). Thompson would become an alley with a right-of-way. The third option was for the developer to work with adjoining property owners to vacate the alley and install a private drive. In response to questions from Mr. House, Ms. Little stated the additional right-of-way on Rollston would allow for 4-5 additional parking spaces. Mr. House noted a loading area would also have to be added. He suggested using the additional right-of-way for a loading area. Ms. Little noted a bus stop was also needed. • Subdivision Meeting January 15, 1998 Page 10 • • Mr. House stated if the building was pushed further back then parking spaces would be lost on the parking deck. He added to gain 4 additional parking spaces along Rollston, 20 parking spaces would be lost on the parking deck. Ms. Johnson felt the right-of-way and parking needed to addressed before being forwarded to the Planning Commission. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson., Mr. House stated he would prefer to approach the Thompson Street issues as either an alley or a private drive (vacation). Mr. Beavers stated whether Thompson was a driveway, alley or street, it would have to be wide enough for the fire trucks. Mr. Forney replied an alley would not be the primary access for fire service, and it would not have to be the width of a street. Ms. Little felt Mr. Jackson had addressed the fire service by having access to both sides. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to table the project until the staff and the developer could reach an agreement on Thompson, Rollston, and Dickson. The parking issues needed to be addressed as well as the loading. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The item was tabled. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m. SUBDIVISION MEETINGS 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1421 E 15th Street (LSD98-7) 04/02/98 807-809 Curtis (LS98-30) 10/01/98 5675 & 5677 Dot Tipton Road (LS98-26) 07/30/98 5605 Dot Tipton Road (LS98-35) 10/15/98 310 W. Dickson Street (AD98-6) 03/12/98 1389 Farmer's Avenue (LS98-28) 09/03/98 Lot 16 Fayetteville Industrial Park (LSD98-26) 09/17/98 4368 E Gulley Rd (LS98-4) 02/12/98 4045 Hillside Terrace (LS98-25) 07/02/98 4015 E Huntsville Rd (LS98-10 & 11) 02/12/98 407 E. LaFayette (LS98-3) 01/29/98 1641 N. Leverett (LSD98-6) 03/12/98 688 McClinton St. (LS98-14) 04/30/98 1149 Mission Boulevard (LS98-37) 10/29/98 1015 Morningside Dr. (LS98-14) 04/30/98 70 E. Poplar Street (LS98-5 & 6) 02/12/98 70 E. Poplar Street (LS98-5 & 6) 02/26/98 1918 Wedington Drive (LS98-29) 09/03/98 Allen, Jeff (LS98-38, 39, 40) 10/29/98 Airport Rescue Facility (LSD98-18) 05/28/98 Arkansas National Bank (LSD98-8) 04/02/98 Arkansas National Bank (LSD98-8) 04/16/98 Assisted Care Units (LSD98-13) 04/30/98 Baker, Wilma (LS98-28) 09/03/98 Bank of Fayetteville (AD98-10) 04/02/98 Barrington Parke Ph II (PP98-6) 08/13/98 Batson, Lena Sue (LS98-37) 10/29/98 Bois D'Arc Subdivision (FP98-6) 11/12/98 Bois D'Arc Subdivision (FP98-6) 11/12/98 Bond, Paul & Geraldine (LS98-31, 32, 33) 10/01/98 Bond, Paul & Geraldine (LS98-31, 32, 33) 10/15/98 Cattaneo, Steve & Elaine (LS98-4) 02/12/98 Cedar Lake Apt. (LSD98-4) 04/02/98 City of Fayetteville (LS98-12) 04/16/98 City of Fayetteville (LS98-18) 05/28/98 City of Fayetteville (LSD98-23) 07/16/98 City of Fayetteville (LSD98-23) 07/19/98 City of Fayetteville (LSD98-28.1) 11/12/98 City of Fayetteville (LSD98-33) 12/03/98 CMN Business Park II, Ph I (PP98-4) 08/13/98 CMN Business Park II, Ph I (PP98-4) 09/03/98 CMN Business Park II, Ph I (PP98-4) 12/31/98 41, Cracker Barrel (LSD98-14) 05/28/98 Deerfield Place (FP98.1) 06/11/98 Duggan, Terrance (LS98-43, 44, 45) 12/31/98 East Side Middle School (LSD98-11) 04/30/98 Easton Park Subdivision (PP98-2) 04/30/98 Emerald Subdivision, Ph II (FP98-4) 09/17/98 Emerald Subdivision, Ph II (FP98-4) 10/15/98 Faubus, Roy & Beulah (LS98-29) 09/03/98 Fayetteville Municipal Airport (LSD98-18) 05/28/98 Fayetteville Municipal Airport (LSD98-33) 12/03/98 Fayetteville School District (LSD98-24) 07/16/98 Fayetteville School District (LSD98-24) 07/16/98 Fayetteville Senior Citizens Apt. (AD98-4) 02/12/98 Fayetteville Senior Citizens Apt. (LSD98-4) 04/02/98 Fennel, Joe (AD98-6) 03/12/98 First Security Bank (LS98-18) 05/28/98 First Security Bank (LSD98-16) 05/28/98 First Security Bank (LSD98-16) 06/11/98 Fitzgerald, Helene (LS98-22, 23, 24) 07/02/98 Gates, Ken (LS98-30) 10/01/98 Guinn, C L (PP98-9) 09/27/98 Guinn, C L (FP98-5) 10/29/98 Hanna, Burt (LSD98-7) 04/02/98 Hanna, Burt (LSD98-26) 09/17/98 Harvey, Gary (LSD98-30) 10/15/98 Higgins, Jim & Laura (LS98-35) 10/15/98 Hinkle, James (LS98-22, 23, 24) 07/02/98 Hinkle, Wayne (LS98-22, 23, 24) 07/02/98 HMT of Fayetteville (LSD98-2) 01/15/98 HMT of Fayetteville (LSD98-2) 02/12/98 Hollywood Avenue Fire Station (LSD98-23) 07/16/98 Hollywood Avenue Fire Station (LSD98-23) 07/16/98 Hopkins Retail Center (LSD98-29) 10/01/98 Hopkins Retail Center (LSD98-29) 10/29/98 January, Bobbie Jean (LS98-3) 01/29/98 Johnson, Billie Joe (LS98-37) 10/29/98 Kantz Place (LSD98-15.2) 08/13/98 Kantz Place (LSD98-15.2) 10/01/98 Kantz Place (LSD98-15.2) 10/15/98 Keating Enterprises (LSD98-9) 04/16/98 Keystone Center (LSD98-32) 12/03/98 Lazenby, Bill (LSD98-10) 04/16/98 Lindsey -Green Development (LSD98-31) 11/12/98 Lindsey -Green Development (LSD98-31) 12/03/98 Liquor To Go (LSD98-21) 07/02/98 McAnarney, Robert (LS98-25) 07/02/98 Medical Plaza (LSD98-12) 04/30/98 Medical Plaza aka Trichell (LSD98-12) 05/28/98 Miller, John & Mary (LS98-26) 07/30/98 Osborn, Carl M. (LS98-14) 04/30/98 Osborn, Earl & Virginia (LS98-19) 06/11/98 Papa, Carl (LS98-34) 10/01/98 Pine Valley (PP98-8) 09/17/98 Plainview Avenue Fire Station (LSD98-28.1) 11/12/98 Richard Mayes Auto (LSD98-6) 03/12/98 Robbins, Larry (LS98-5 & 6) 02/12/98 Robbins, Larry (LS98-5 & 6) 02/26/98 Rogers, Sam (LS98-9) 03/12/98 Schmeiding Enterprises, Inc. (LSD98-25) 09/03/98 Sequoyah Preserve, PUD (FP98-3) 07/30/98 Serenity Place PUD (PP97-5.1) 04/16/98 Serenity Place PUD (PP97-5.1) 04/30/98 Simmons First Bank (LSD98-20) 06/11/98 Sims, Wanda (LS98-10 & 11) 03/12/98 Stonebridge Meadows, Ph I (FP98-2) 07/30/98 Stonebridge Meadows, Ph I (FP98-2) 08/13/98 Streets and Setback Requirements (AD98-4) 02/12/98 • Sumrall, Mike (LS98-20) 06/11/98 Sunbridge Lots 14 & 15 (LSD98-9) 04/16/98 The Cliffs, Ph II (PP98-11) 12/03/98 Trichell (LSD98-12) 05/28/98 Tune Plaza (LSD98-34) 12/03/98 Vantage Square Post Office (LS98-36) 10/01/98 Walker, Pearl (LS98-27) 10/29/98 Washington Regional Medical Center (LSD98-36) 12/31/98 Wedington Place, Ph. II (PP98-1) 04/02/98 West Side Middle School (LSD98-24) 07/16/98 West Side Middle School (LSD98-24) 07/16/98