Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-12 - Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on February 12, 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. LSD98-2.00: HMT of Fayetteville 2. AD98-4.00: Fayetteville Senior Citizens' Apts. 3. LS98-4.00: Steve & Elaine Cattaneo 4. LS98-5.00 & 6.00: Larry Robbins MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: OLD BUSINESS• ACTION TAKEN Forwarded to Planning Commission Forwarded to Planning Commission Approved Tabled Bob Reynolds, Phyllis Johnson, and John Forney. Alett Little, Chuck Rutherford, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, Nancy Dugwyler and Sharon Langley LSD98-2.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT- HMT OF FAYETTEVILLE HMT OF FAYETTEVILLE (pp 484) - N OF DICKSON __&E OF ROLLSTON The first item on the agenda was a large scale development presented by Glenn Carter of Carter Engineering on behalf of HMT of Fayetteville, L.L.C. for property located on the north side of 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 in regard to this project. Ms. Little reminded the Committee they had reviewed the large scale previously but had tabled it for further information. She stated the three issues were (I) the right-of-way on Thompson Street, (2) the right-of-way on Rollston Street, and (3) parking and loading. She pointed out the packet of information from the applicant which included letters of support from the Dickson Street Improvement District, the Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project and Art Hobson. She reminded the Committee they had requested comments from the Dickson Street Improvement District and the Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project. She advised both groups were in favor of the large scale, citing the following reasons: the mixed use met their goals to infill gaps between buildings and increase the customer base for other downtown businesses; the developer would not jeopardize the financial soundness of the project by failing to provide ample parking. Subdivision Committee February 12, 1998 Page 2 Ms. Little informed the Committee the applicant had calculated the required parking for ROTC and The Grill at 19.6 spaces (1/200); however, staff had counted 55 actual parking spaces being used, which left 35 spaces as the difference between the two determinations of the requirement. She advised the next issue was in regard to right-of-way. She stated the applicant had expressed his belief that the Dickson Street right-of-way, although described as a collector street on the Master Street Plan, should remain as it was since existing buildings up and down the street precluded any realistic possibility of widening the street. She went on to say the applicant did propose widening of Thompson right-of-way from 7.5 feet from the centerline to 12.7 feet from the centerline, which would square up the right-of-way with the rest of the block. The applicant also proposed to provide 21 feet of pavement as per the fire chief's request and a 6 -foot sidewalk which would bring the street up to the width and paving characteristics of Rollston Avenue. Ms. Little continued with the applicant's request for a waiver of the Dickson, Thompson and Rollston rights-of-way. The applicant advised Section 159.32(D)(2) allowed a waiver based on the following grounds: The development "has primary access to improved streets and the portion of the development which fronts on the substandard street is so remote from future anticipated traffic patterns as to cause an unfair burden on the subdivider " The applicant advised Rollston Avenue was only two blocks long and did not seem to be a good candidate for widening or extending. He further contended the requirement of widening Rollston Avenue and Thompson Alley did not bear a proportionate rational nexus to the project. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. House stated Thompson was the only access to the parking deck. Ms. Little recommended to the Committee that, if they decided to approve the large scale, a condition of approval be that the loading be limited to Rollston. Mr. House agreed to the condition and advised he would provide a pull -over on Rollston. Mr. Reynolds advised he would like the pull -over area to be marked "deliveries only". Mr. House agreed. Chuck Rutherford, Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator, pointed out the sidewalks stopped at the end of the loading ramp on Thompson. Mr. House advised the property stopped at the end of the loading ramp. He stated they could place the sidewalk through the loading ramp. Mr. Rutherford agreed, stating the sidewalks needed to go to the end of the property. Subdivision Committee February 12, 1998 Page 3 Beth Sandeen, Landscape Administrator, expressed her belief the applicant had done a good job in working with the landscaping. She did note that, if the trees on Dickson Street did not live, they would need to be replaced with a tree of similar size. Public Comment: Mr. Micheal Thurmond, a property owner on Thompson Street, expressed concern regarding the traffic on Thompson since that was the ingress and egress to the parking garage. Mr. House explained the first story deck traffic would exit via Locust Street. Mr. Thurmond again expressed concern, noting Thompson Street was only 13 feet wide and there was no room north of the creek to widen the street. Ms. Little pointed out no improvements were proposed north of the creek. Mr. Thurmond stated the street would either have to be made a one-way street or widened. He also pointed out the traffic would have to pass through residential neighborhoods. • In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little stated the fire chief had considered making Thompson one-way but not at this time. Mr. House advised he would object to a one-way street since the traffic would definitely have to loop through the residential neighborhood if the street was only one-way. Mr. Thurmond suggested making the section between the proposed building and the creek 2 -way and then blocking the rest of the street to prevent traffic from going through the neighborhood. Mr. Reynolds advised they would have to discuss that with the fire chief. Ms. Diana Thompson asked how many spaces the parking had been increased. Mr. House stated he believed the total number was 7. Ms. Thompson asked the staff when they had counted the parking spaces at ROTC and The Grill. Ms Little explained the count had been taken from aerial photographs which had been made in February, 1994. Ms. Thompson asked if the count had included the area in the grass. • • Subdivision Committee February 12, 1998 Page 4 Mr. Charlie Allison expressed concern that trucks would have to go through residential areas to make deliveries. Mr. Reynolds pointed out the trucks already went through the same area. Mr. Thurmond suggested making the trucks turn their engines off when loading and unloading. Mr. House advised the main loading area would be off Rollston, immediately adjacent to the two-story parking garage. Mr. Cyrus Young asked if a list of all the waivers requested on the subject project had been completed. Mr. House responded all waivers had been submitted by letter. Ms Little advised the letter was a comprehensive package which covered the right-of-way and parking. • Mr. Young stated he wanted the balconies included in the waiver requests. He also asked, if the parking requirements were waived, when the money would be paid to the city. • Ms Little stated it would have to be paid prior the issuance of the building permit; the applicant could not put up a bond for the parking spaces. She also asked Mr. House about the balconies. Mr. House stated the balconies on the east side of the building were in the setbacks. Mr. Little stated the balconies appeared to be in the right-of-way. Mr. Rob Sharp, architect on the project, stated he had squared the balconies off with the right-of- way. Mr. Little stated that, if the balconies were in the setback area, they would require a variance from the Board of Adjustment; but, if they were in the right-of-way, the applicant would have to go to the City Council. Mr. House advised some of the balconies on Dickson Street were in the right-of-way and he had planned on taking the request to the City Council. Ms. Little noted those balconies were the ones added to existing buildings. • • • Subdivision Committee February 12, 1998 Page 5 Mr. House then reiterated his position regarding the parking. He stated his feeling was that, when Section 160.117 of the Code was revised, it was with the intent to permit re -development of the downtown area. He expressed his belief he had been liberal toward the interpretation by offering to count the existing spaces and, to ask them to replace parking on other land, did not agree with the ordinance. He contended that, if the Committee interpreted the ordinance as staff had, they would be penalizing him for keeping the existing buildings. He expressed his belief the intent of the ordinance was to promote the keeping of exiting buildings. Mr. Reynolds advised he did like the proposed project but did not like building from property line to property line. Mr. House stated that, since the property was downtown, they had to building from property line to property line in order to make the project economically viable. Mr. Little advised that on October 30, 1995 the Planning Commission had proposed a change to the parking ordinance on restaurants to one parking space per every four seats plus one per employee per shift. She noted the City Council had not voted on the change. She further stated the ordinance applied only to existing buildings, whether or not the number of parking spaces was incorrect was not an issue. She advised that, if the building was added to, the parking ratio changed. Ms Little stated it appeared 109 spaces were required but staff was willing to waive 73 spaces; the applicant was contending only 38 spaces would have to be waived. In responses to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little explained there was a $1,200 fee for each parking space waived. Mr. House contended they had shared parking since 50% of the project was residential with a mixed use (the residential property would not require parking during the day when the businesses were open). He also pointed out there was public parking in the area. He further reminded the Committee that, prior to his group obtaining the Bakery Building, another applicant had received approval for use of public parking in the area. Mr. Reynolds advised that was a different situation since the public parking was adjacent to the Bakery Building. Ms. Little also pointed out the previous applicant had not planned on adding any square footage. In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Mr. House advised that the 38 spaces would be shared parking and they were not planning on paying a fee. • • • Subdivision Committee February 12, 1998 Page 6 Mr. Sharp pointed out there were 131 public spaces within a 600 -foot radius of the project, part of which were in the public lot behind Jose's. Ms. Little noted one-half of the lot behind Jose's belonged to Jose's. Mr. House again stated he believed that counting the 19.6 required spaces was a concession and that 55 spaces currently existed had no merit. Mrs. Johnson asked if he was assuming the restaurants did not need 55 spaces. Mr. House stated he was; pointing out if the two buildings were demolished, 55 spaces would not be required. Ms. Warrick stated there were 70 seats at the Grill and 120 seats at R.O.T.C. which would require 49 spaces plus employees. Mr. House contended staff could not apply a guideline that was not a part of the ordinance. Ms. Johnson stated parking had been difficult in the entire area. She stated that, while they wanted to encourage re -development, it would not change existing traveling habits. She expressed concern with lack of parking spaces and cited problems at the Square as the result of perceived lack of parking, pointing out only 3 retail stores remained on the Square. She went on to say Mr. House would not be the only retail endeavor on Dickson Street, there would be other retailers affected by what the Committee did. She advised she believed the project looked good and she like the parking garage but believed the Commission had a duty to other retailers in the area. Mr. Reynolds stated they also needed to look after the residential neighborhoods since, if there was not enough parking on Dickson, people would start parking in the residential area. Ms. Thompson asked if Mr. House would limit the number of hours the businesses could stay open. Mr. House stated he would not. Mr. Thompson asked if he would be assigning parking. Mr. House stated part of the parking would be assigned. Ms. Thompson contended that, if the parking was assigned, it could not be shared. Subdivision Committee February 12, 1998 Page 7 Mr. House stated they would be asking that employees of the businesses park off-site. Mr. Forney advised that, if the ordinance said one space for every 200 square feet, it did not matter what other figures staff used; they had to use the ratio in the ordinance. He suggested taking the existing square footage and requiring the applicant not go below the number of required parking spaces. Ms. Little explained staff had discussed doing that. She pointed out the proposed building would contain 58,000 square feet and contain two restaurants. She contended it was not sensible to think that two restaurants, which now required 55 parking spaces, would not continue to require that number of spaces. She also pointed out the applicant was proposing less than double the number of parking spaces but was increasing the square footage of the building 10 times. Mr. Forney stated they were being asked to look at three issues which the Committee could not approve; the project would have to go forward to the Planning Commission. He advised he was more concerned about the loading area than parking; that he believed there was merit in the "zero" parking. He contended that was the price you paid for living downtown and that noise and parking were trade-offs for living downtown. He further stated he believed they were exacting a great deal from new development when the developer was providing a 2 -level parking area. Ms. Little stated they had come to an agreement on the right-of-way but the parking was an outstanding issue and agreed it should move forward to the Planning Commission. She noted staff had no comments regarding the Commercial Design Standards other than the scale of the project and compatibility with adjoining buildings. Ms. Johnson agreed the Committee could not accomplish much more. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to accept the resolution of the loading and right-of-way issues and a waiver of 38 parking spaces and that the discussion at the Planning Commission level be on whether they charge $1,200 per parking space waived. He continued to say he believed the applicant would do himself a service by having actual shared parking. He also noted none of the merchants in the area had come forward to complain about the proposed parking. Ms. Johnson reminded Mr. Forney there had been concerns expressed by merchants at the previous meeting. Mr Reynolds advised he was a business owner on Dickson Street but had not been contacted for his opinion. He contended the City needed a new parking study on Dickson Street, made during the day. • • • Subdivision Committee February 12, 1998 Page 8 Mr. Forney pointed out the Planning Commission wanted the downtown area to develop in a good fashion. Ms. Johnson asked if Thompson Street would be 2 -way street with the same amount of right-of- way as existed to the north of the creek. Ms. Little advised the applicant was willing to give 5 feet of right-of-way which would square up the right-of-way to the north; that Thompson would be 21 -foot street with a 6 -foot sidewalk. Ms. Little advised the City had calculated that each parking space in the area cost approximately $2,500. She stated she found it difficult to understand why the applicant would not embrace the fee of $1,200 per space. Mr. House stated they had relied on the ordinance and had not believed they had to worry about the parking on the existing buildings. He contended the highest demand for parking was Friday and Saturday nights when most retail shops were not open. Ms. Little stated she believed shared parking, when used with another lot, was good but did not believe what Mr. House was proposing was shared parking. Mr. House stated they were seeing people walking to businesses on Dickson Street rather than driving. Ms. Johnson stated the City had previously focused on Dickson Street because, at the time, the perception was it would die without the help. She advised she did not think that was the perception anymore. She expressed her belief the City focus now would be back on the Square; that Dickson Street no longer needed the City being charitable. Mr. Forney contended the applicant was making a good faith effort by constructing a parking garage. Ms. Johnson pointed out they would have 1 parking space for each new 1,000 square feet; they were providing 54 new spaces with 53,000 new square feet. Mr. Forney stated they would have two actual parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet. Mr. House pointed out part of that new space was apartments which were large. Mr. Thurmond contended parking was, at times, already critical in the area. Ms. Johnson asked Ms. Little if staff was comfortable waiving 73 spaces. Subdivision Committee February 12, 1998 Page 9 Ms. Little replied staff was recommending the waiver of 73 spaces and, while she was not comfortable with the amount of parking on the site, the ordinance allowed it. She advised the waiver was solely within the Commission's discretion. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to forward the project to the Planning Commission with the recommendation to accept staffs recommendation on the Thompson Street issues, the Rollston and Dickson Street right-of-way waivers. She advised she had not been persuaded that waiving the 73 parking spaces did not have impact on other businesses and therefore, had no recommendation regarding the parking which could be determined by the Commission. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. • • Subdivision Committee February 12, 1998 Page 10 NEW BUSINESS: AD98-4.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (STREETS & SETBACK REQUIREMENTS) FAYETTEVILLE SENIOR CITIZENS APTS. - N OF 15TH, W OF MORNINGSIDE The next item was an administrative item requesting Planning Commission determination of street requirements and setback requirements from the water feature submitted by Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, on behalf of Thomas J. Embach for property located north of East 15th Street and west of Morningside Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 12 acres. Ms. Little stated the project had gone through Technical Plat Review but could not go forward until two issues were resolved. She stated the issues were whether the streets had to be public and the setbacks from the water features. She explained there was a large scale development but the two issues needed to be resolved before the applicant could make changes to the plans. She stated there were two ways to access Morningside Drive from the subject tract She pointed out on the vicinity map the street named "Wood Street" and further to the west, the Fayetteville Senior Citizen Center. She advised staff believed there needed to be a connection going from Morningside Drive possibility over to Wood Street so the senior citizens could walk or drive to the Center without getting on 15th Street. Ms. Little stated staff had requested the westernmost street of the project stub out to the west for future connection in order to provide access to the Senior Citizens Center. Mr. Jones stated the applicant's argument was this was a private street and there would be nothing between the street and west property line to obstruct a connection. He stated the whole issue was whether the street was a public or private street. Ms. Johnson stated the other issue was whether or not there would be a connection in both directions (north and west). Mr. Jones explained this would be a large apartment complex and asked how small of blocks the city wanted. He advised 15th Street was 400 feet to the south and McClinton Street was one lot to the north. He asked if there was a need for another street to the west. He asked how many blocks the city needed in the area. He advised he did see the need for providing access for the subject development to the west and they were doing that. He pointed out they did not have any property to make a connection to Wood Street. Ms. Little stated the original comment to the developer was that residential developments • required 2 points of access so the developer purchased additional property to provide a second • • • Subdivision Committee February 12, 1998 Page 11 access to Morningside. She stated the developer was told he might have to purchase property and build part of a street to the west. She stated that, while this was a private development, staff needed to look out for public streets and public connectivity. Mr. Jones pointed out McClinton street was already in existence. He contended extending a road through the project would not gain anything. Mr. Forney advised the gain would be that any senior citizens living in the complex would not have to go out on major street to access the Center. Mr. Jones stated they would love to have the connection but they did not own the property. He pointed out they were providing for future connection along the westernmost street. Mr. Reynolds contended that, if there was no access to the west, they definitely needed access to the north. Ms. Little pointed out the only east -west street in the area which connected to other major streets was 15th Street. She noted the north -south streets with connections were Morningside, Washington and College. She pointed out a connection to 12th Street would provide the easiest access to the Senior Center. Mr. Jones stated it did not matter whether the street within the proposed project was public or private. Ms. Little stated there had been problems in the past in connecting to private streets. Mr. Tom Embach, property owner, stated they were creating an environment for seniors with a clubhouse in the center and a lake and many amenities. He advised they did not want a lot of traffic separating the residents from those amenities. He explained they did not want the residents crossing a busy street. Ms. Little stated she did not believe it would be a busy street. Mr. Jones again asked what would be gained by making the street public. Mr. Reynolds stated the City would gain access that could not be blocked. Mr. Jones stated they could offer a Bill of Assurance or put in the covenants that access could be made to the street. He explained their concern about a public street was setback requirements. He advised they could not meet the setbacks under the current layout if the street were public. Subdivision Committee February 12, 1998 Page 12 Ms. Little explained that, if the project was brought through as a P.U.D., then the Planning Commission could waive the setbacks. Mr. Jones stated that, if they were allowed to keep the layout as it was with the setbacks as shown, they would not have a problem making the street public. The Committee all agreed they were opposed to a private street. Mr. Reynolds again stated he believed there needed to be another access to the west. Ms. Little advised the applicant might have to purchase property to the west for a connection. Ms. Johnson asked about a connection to the north. Ms. Little noted there was one vacant lot area to the north. Mr. Jones stated it was a drainage area. Ms. Emma Curry advised that was her property. She explained there was a big drainage ditch going through the property. She stated their property currently flooded whenever it rained and she expressed concern that, with the addition of this project, flooding would be worse. Mr. Glenn Curry stated the City needed to get the flooding fixed. He contended there once had been a roadway going behind his house. Ms. Little stated it must have been a private road since it did not show on the plat. Mr. Jones pointed out the subject property was downstream from the Curry's and advised it would not affect the drainage on the Curry property. Mr. Jones asked if the Committee felt the reduced setbacks could be approved. Ms. Little stated the only way the Commission could approve reduced setbacks was to make the project a P.U.D. She noted the property was zoned R-2, there were no 2 -story units planned and very low density was planned. In response to a question from Mr. Jones, Ms. Little advised the rule was once a street connected two public streets, it also must be public. Jim Beavers, Engineering Department, advised he had given a written copy of his comments to the applicant. He explained the proposed lake did not comply with the criteria of Section 543 of Subdivision Committee February 12, 1998 Page 13 the Drainage Manual. He stated the Drainage Ordinance adopted the Drainage Manual and gave staff the authority to change it from time to time. He went on to say the Drainage Manual stated that, if a project had dry ponds (ponds that filled up with water when it rained, but then dried out), there had to be 20 feet of horizontal separate between the pond and the nearest structure; for a permanent pond or lake, there needed to be 100 feet of horizontal separation. He explained Section 163.114 stated the City of Fayetteville could grant a written variance from any requirement of the ordinance. He advised no one had ever requested a variance but he would support a variance to allow 20 to 30 feet separation. He suggested the Planning Commission could allow such a variance. Mr. Jones advised they wanted to provide enough space for an emergency vehicle to go between the lake and a structure and were providing 25 feet. Ms. Little stated it appeared Mr. Beavers was supporting a variance of 25 feet which the applicant agreed to so the Committee just needed to make a decision regrading whether the street connecting to the west should be public or private. MOTION • Ms. Johnson moved to recommend to the Planning Commission that a setback waiver from the • lake be approved and that the street be public. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Subdivision Committee February 12, 1998 Page 14 LS98-4.00: WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (LOT SPLIT #2) STEVE & ELAINE CATTANEO - 4368 E. GULLEY RD. The next item was a request for a second lot split submitted by Steve and Elaine Cattaneo for property located at 4368 E Gulley Road. The property is in the County but within the City Planning Area. The request is to split 3.03 acres into one tract containing 1 0 acre and one tract containing 2.03 acres. Ms. Little advised staff recommended approval of the lot split subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments. Mrs. Ruby Terry, an adjoining property owner to the west, asked if the access road would have to come from her property. Mr. Cattaneo explained an easement for access would be granted from the east side of the property. Ms. Terry asked if the house could be constructed on the property line. • Ms. Little advised that, since the property was in the county, city setbacks did not apply. She stated the county did have 10 -foot setbacks. Ms. Terry asked if there would be a septic tank. Mr. Cattaneo advised he had received perc test approval from the County Health Department for a septic system. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the lot split with a 10 -foot setback. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. • • • Subdivision Committee February 12, 1998 Page 15 LS98-5 & 6 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (LOT SPLIT 1 & 2) LARRY ROBBINS - 70 EAST POPLAR STREET The last item was a request for two lot splits submitted by Larry Robbins for property located at 70 East Poplar Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately one acre. The request is to create three lots containing 0.43 acre, 0.26 acre and 0.30 acre. Ms. Little explained the request would create two additional lots and there was an existing house on one of the lots. She advised staff had requested revisions to the plat in the legal description and setbacks. She noted those revisions had not been made and recommended tabling the items. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to table the items until the next subdivision meeting. Mr. Fomey seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.