Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-03-12 - MinutesMINUTES OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on March 12, at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED: ACTION TAKEN LS98-9.00: Lot Split (Sam Rogers) Forward to Planning Commission LS 98-10.00 & LS 98-11.00: Lot Splits (Wanda Sims) Approved/No further action LSD 98-6.00: Large Scale Development (Richard Mayes Auto) Approved/No further action AD 98-6.00: Parking Waiver (Joe Fennel) Forwarded to Planning Commission MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Reynolds, Phyllis Johnson, and John Forney. STAFF PRESENT: Chuck Rutherford, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, Jim Beavers, Beth Sandeen, and Debra Humphrey PROJECT: LS 98-9.00: LOT SPLIT (SAM ROGERS) Submitted by Kurt Jones of Northwest Engineers on behalf of the applicant for property located at the northwest corner of Wedington Drive and Salem Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium -Density Residential and R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 9.97 acres. The request is to create two lots (8.36 acres, 1.61 acres) This is the first lot split request. Staff Report presented by Ms. Warrick: Findings: This tract was recently rezoned from A-1 to R -O and R-2. A large scale development is proposed for the corner tract and has been submitted for review. 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) Minutes of Subdivision Committee March 12, 1998 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 to include 6' sidewalks with a min. 10' green space along both Salem and Wedington at the time of development. 5. Any overhead utilities shall be placed underground (west property line) as a condition of this lot split. 6. Detention for this entire parent tract must be provided in one basin An appropriate location shall be designated on this lot split plat. 7. Additional conditions: a. Discussion: Crr ening is required between residential and rnmmerrial uses - the first to develop is required to meet this requirement Cnmmerrial design standards rnmplianre is required fnr all rnmmerrial structures. this includes signage as well as design theme issues (all R -O development). Mr. Beavers noted some concern regarding the sewer which he would address later in the meeting. Kurt Jones representing the applicant, came before the Committee regarding the request for the utilities to be put underground on the west side of the property. He stated the owner had no present plans for the remaining acreage and felt the request is excessive due to the expense involved which is estimated around $20,000 to $30,000. Concerns addressed by the committee were: The owner had no present plan for the property and no proposal of how the property will be developed in the future; requiring the utilities to be put underground now or at a later date; who will bear the expense of putting utilities underground; and also concerns for the adjacent property owners to the west and to the north • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee March 12, 1998 Page 3 Access to the lot would need to be determined whether or not it would be conducted as one phase or three phases. Mr. Jones stated that there would be a bore across the road if they came from the side of the property. He also stated he had talked to Ozark Electric and was told it could be converted to three phases and be served from the north. Ms. Warrick suggested a waiver of the utility requirement could be made before the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Conklin stated that the Planning Commission may grant a waiver on a permanent or temporary basis to allow the construction of other facilities. Mr. Forney stated he would not object to a temporary waiver being granted, but the Committee would require the utilities be put underground at some time in the future. Ms. Warrick responded to a question concerning a time limit in which the property had to be built. She and stated escrow funds would go into an account which would draw interest. After five years it could then be reviewed, and the developer would be responsible to request that the Planning Commission relook the issue. The next issue of concern addressed by Mr. Forney was the right-of-way dedication north of the proposed lot. Ms Warrick responded by stating when it was approved at re -zoning there was a limitation on the number of curb cuts allowed at that time. Mr Beavers noted the right-of-way is not on any one person's property and someone would have to bear the cost of building the road. Another item of concern was the detention pond addressed by Mr. Beavers, who stated staff is requesting only one be allowed. The lot split would need to reflect this, and the person that develops this lot would need to allow planning for the detention pond to be large enough for the entire tract and not conflict with the right-of-way. Ms. Warrick reminded everyone this is the only time that this lot will be addressed as a whole. Mr. Forney and Ms Johnson were in agreement concerning bringing the lot split before the committee until there was a more definite understanding of the lot as a whole and what the plans of the owner would be for the future development of this lot and its design. 11110 The other item addressed was the curb cut on Wedington. • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee March 12, 1998 Page 4 Mr. Jones stated one curb cut for the entire tract was granted for the entire tract when it was rezoned and this could be put in the bank's property, if the developer chooses to do so, which would mean that there would not be a curb cut anywhere else. Mr. Forney inquired as to the recommendation of the right-of-way and whether it should be extended all the way to the west side of the property. There was discussion if the right-of-way was designated to extend to the west end of the property and the lot is later developed, the right- of-way may have to be changed. Ms. Warrick responded if this happened, then it would require replatting, and also mentioned that if the right-of-way did continue all the way to the west side, we would be dealing with three lot splits as opposed to two. Ms. Johnson moved that the lot split go before the Planning Commission without any recommendation from the Subdivision Committee regarding the three items to include the utility lines be put underground now, that the right-of-way be extended to the west side, and the detention pond be developed to take care of both lots. Discussion continued regarding the right-of-way and Mr. Fomey indicated if the lot was developed as a subdivision, then we may not want to require the right-of-way to continue to the west side. Mr. Forney moved for the right-of-way to continue from east to west, have this property put in escrow a percentage of the cost for installation of the underground utilities, encourage the possibility of a temporary detention pond be enlarged or made to be the single detention pond for this basin on this property. Ms. Johnson also stated the proportionate share of this lot should be about 25% since it does include the highway frontage. Mr. Jones questioned the percentage and whether it should be addressed at this time or when it comes through as a large scale development. Ms. Warrick responded it would be better to make the recommendation now than at a later date. Phyllis Johnson moved this project be forwarded to the Planning Commission, as a whole, and that the concerns addressed at this meeting be addressed before the Commission . John Forney seconded the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 3-0. Minutes of Subdivision Conunittee March 12, 1998 Page 5 PROJECT: LS 98-10.00 & LS 98-11.00: LOT SPLITS (WANDA SIMS) Submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Engineering on behalf of the applicant for property located just south of 4015 East Huntsville Road The property is zoned R-1, Low -Density Residential and contains approximately 2.0 acres. The request is to create three lots (0 66 acres, 0.70 acres and 0.73 acres) This constitutes the second and third lot split requests. Staff Report presented by Ms. Warrick. Findings: This property was recently rezoned. In 1996 the front parcel was split from the parent tract and later a property line adjustment was approved to further define the front lot (4015 East Huntsville) which has been sold to a new property owner. 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. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $1,125.00 for three new residential lots ($375.00 each). 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include 4' sidewalk with 6' greenspace along River Meadows Drive This should be completed at the time that the street construction occurs. Sewer must be extended to the north property line of lot 1 and across the road as shown on plat. • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee March 12, 1998 Page 6 Discussion: Glenn Carter came before the Committee and stated Ms Sims would pay for the installation of the sewer. Concerning the water line in connection with the subdivision, Mr. Carter stated they would tap and place the water services before the road was built, and indicated on the map where the water services would be. Mr. Reynolds recommended that Ms. Sims also pay for the portion going to the installed service, and Mr. Carter agreed. Ms. Warrick stated that a recommendation would be made requiring the utilities to be put underground and noted a notation on the plat to that effect. Mr. Carter stated he had been working with Ozark Electric in this regard. There was some discussion concerning where Ozark Electric was requiring an easement for the lines. Mr. Carter had requested the lines run in front, and Ozark Electric requested them in back of the property line. There were some concerns regarding provision of utilities to the adjacent property owners. They reviewed the plat and discussed where in fact the utility easement would best be placed, and the plat reflected an existing utility line present on the front of the property line. There were no further comments from staff. Mr. Forney addressed the requirement concerning a fire hydrant. Mr. Carter responded he had checked into this and had contacted Mickey Jackson's office and left a message. The requirement was to have one at least every 400 feet and there was a fire hydrant presently 228 feet from the line to the fire hydrant. Mr. Reynolds recommended that Mr. Carter contact Mr. Jackson so there was some confirmation in our files that they were in compliance with the fire safety codes. Mr. Reynolds also inquired as to the requirement regarding the trees, retaining wall, and sidewalks. Mr. Beavers responded and stated a plan had been approved regarding a retaining wall and this would be seen in about two weeks as an administrative item requesting a sign for Stonebridge Meadows and had been approved. • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee March 12, 1998 Page 7 John Forney moved that this lot split be approved at this level subject to the plat review comments, resolution of the location of underground electric, and confirmation of adequate fire protection, Said motion was seconded by Phyllis Johnson. The motion carried with a vote 3-0. • Minutes of Subdivision Committee March 12, 1998 Page 8 PROJECT: LSD 98-6.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (RICHARD MAYES AUTO1 Submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of the applicant for property located at 1641 North Leverett. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0 68 acres. Staff report presented by Ms. Warrick. Findings: Due to improvements planned for the intersection of Leverett and Sycamore and the widening of Sycamore Street, the existing auto repair shop must be moved. The applicant proposes to build this new facility and then to raze the current structure. No waivers are being requested for this project. 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. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Note to the applicant: Compliance with this requirement includes screening of all utility equipment regardless of its location. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk with a 10' greenspace along Leverett 6. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. • Minutes of Subdivision Committee March 12, 1998 Page 9 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. All on-site drainage shall be privately maintained. Note that the utility lines along Sycamore are the responsibility of the City and shall be considered in conjunction with the street widening project which is to occur. The overhead electric lines along Leverett are 69kv lines and are therefore exempted from the ordinance which would require them to be buried. 10. Additional conditions: • Discussion Mr. Rutherford reviewed the plat and noted the sidewalk should be cement concrete and not asphalt. Ms. Sandeen noted the location of adding an additional tree. Mr. Brackett responded they could add a tree at that location. Ms. Sandeen further noted based on the Ordinance Review Committee meeting held by City Council, there would soon be a requirement of no more than a 10 space span without breaking it up with an island. There was some discussion regarding the sign and Richard Mayes Auto assured the Committee the sign would meet the ordinance requirements specified. Ms. Sandeen noted the trees seen on the drawing were not actually on the property. Ms. Johnson stated for future reference when the landscape design was brought before the Committee, it should reflect what the property itself will look like and anything else would be misleading both to the Committee and to the public. • Mr. Forney addressed the requirement for screening which was actually a hedge row which was not shown on the drawing and this should be shown. • Minutes of Subdivision Committee March 12, 1998 Page 10 Mr. Reynolds noted the possibility of approving this project at this level due to a time constraint. Ms. Warrick responded if this project were approved at this level, the Planning Commission would need to verify compliance with the commercial standards, and would request the applicant provide us with a revised elevation for our file for future reference. In response to Mr. Mayes question regarding the sidewalk on Leverett Street, Mr. Rutherford stated the sidewalk there will be removed and a new one will be put in at the developer's expense. Mr. Mayes noted one of the lots does not have the right-of-way on Leverett Street side on the corner. Mr. Rutherford responded and stated the City would be responsible for putting the sidewalk in on the extra right-of-way. Mr. Brackett stated the utilities would be interior and not exterior, and the dumpster presently there would be removed. He had talked to Soddie and she had requested a location be provided to her for future reference. • Ms. Warrick noted the sign location would need to meet the sign ordinance. There were no public comments. Mr. Forney addressed the concern in reference to the sidewalks and whether there should have been a ramp location required. Mr. Rutherford stated it would be at the corner and this would be taken care of when the City does the street widening. Mr. Reynolds inquired about a sidewalk on the Sycamore side when the project was over and it was noted there would be one. Mr. Forney addressed another concern in reference to signage and requested a monument sign be installed instead of a pole sign. Mayes Auto was in agreement to putting up a monument sign. Ms. Sandeen responded to the concerns about screening and stated she would need to visit with the applicant and/or representative prior to the Planning Commission, but at this time she was comfortable with what the developer had offered as a buffer being adequate. When the contractor came in for a building permit and a landscape contractor came in, at that time she would work with them. • Minutes of Subdivision Committee March 12, 1998 Page 11 Ms. Warrick noted that a certificate of occupancy would not be issued unless the building matches what was actually on the drawing. Mr. Forney addressed the ordinance that this property avoids unpainted concrete walls, metal sidings, the wall sources are articulated and while it is a square plan the roof does break up the volume some, and therefore, felt this project does meet the requests. Under Section D (Issues of Compatibility) - Development should provide compatibility and transition in adjoining developments and due to it being zoned C-2 with mostly residential property around it. Mr. Forney emphasized it was important the screening be adequate. There was some discussion concerning the west side of the property and screening. Ms. Johnson indicated that it would be good to have a cane break there due to the residential property. Ms. Sandeen requested Mr. Brackett extend the protection fence and that the equipment • be kept out of that area and Mr. Brackett was in agreement with this • Mr. Forney moved this project be approved at this level with the following stipulations: adequate screening be provided, articulate those walls that are primarily viewed from the public rights-of-way, avoid large unbroken metal siding did meet our commercial design standards, monument sign stipulation, and the maintenance of the tin break. Ms. Johnson reiterated the monument sign and added the cane break and seconded the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 3-0. • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee March 12, 1998 Page 12 PROJECT: AD 98-6.00: PARKING WAIVER (JOE FENNELI Submitted by Roger Boskus of Heigel-Miller Architects on behalf of the applicant for property located at 310 West Dickson Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 0.17 acres. The request is for a waiver of the required number of parking spaces. The applicant proposes some shared parking. Staff Report presented Ms. Warrick: Findings: This project is proposed for the current Thrift Store site on West Dickson Street. Due to the scale of the project, no large scale development is required, however, the Planning Commission will need to make a decision concerning the provision of on-site parking spaces. 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. Planning Commission determination of the provision of adequate parking, or the granting of a waiver for said parking. Concerning the proposed shared parking: A map is needed (from UBC) which details which spaces in the UBC lot are to be designated as shared spaces for this particular development - this is necessary in order to ensure that shared spaces are only shared by one additional use as per the parking lot ordinance. A shared parking agreement (in writing) is required for the parking directly north of this lot. While the parking may by "owned" by this applicant, the land is leased from Mr. Rob Lewis. This could change the nature of this area in the future, therefore an agreement which is jointly offered by Mr. Lewis and Mr. Fennel is needed. Concerning the parking requirement: § 160.117(D)(1)(a) In C-3 and C-4 zoning districts, parking requirements are waived for any existing structure with a change of use. New construction, razed buildings or enlarged buildings shall conform to the parking requirements of the city. • Based upon the above excerpt, this project is required to provide parking per the parking lot ordinance. The applicant proposes to raze the existing building to develop the site. • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee March 12, 1998 Page 13 With 34 spaces required, 12 for residential units and 22 for retail/restaurant space calculated at 1/200 sq. ft., the applicant proposes to meet this requirement by sharing 25 spaces with the UBC - see letter in applicant's materials, by sharing spaces with the applicant's current parking lot to the north, and by developing 7 parallel spaces along Campbell Street (4 on-site and 3 off-site) Staff agrees that if approved as shared parking, the 25 spaces from the UBC will count towards the applicant's requirement. We also feel that it is fair to count the 7 parallel spaces on Campbell. The applicant states that 12 additional spaces are gained by restriping the lot to the north - due to the need to create access drives to the new parking as well as to the service area, staff feels that approx. 6 spaces have been lost to circulation and therefore only 6 of the 12 spaces should be considered as gained spaces. Even with this discrepancy, staff believes that the applicant can meet the parking requirement in the following manner: 25 spaces (shared with UBC) 7 spaces (parallel on Campbell) 6 spaces (shared with lot to the north) 38 spaces provided (34 are required) * It should be noted that only 4 of the provided spaces are being developed on-site. The remainder are on adjoining property, right of way or UBC property. 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. The existing alley at the rear of this lot must be vacated. A vacation application must be filed with the Planning Division and proceed to the Planning Commission as well as the City Council. 5. Sidewalk construction: Planning staff recommends that the sidewalk along Dickson Street remain and that it be repaired if necessary in front of this site; and that the sidewalk along Campbell Street be waived due to the applicant's proposal to create a walkway through this site leading from Dickson Street to the parking beyond. A public access easement shall be provided for this walkway in order for the sidewalk along Campbell not to be required. • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee March 12, 1998 Page 14 6. Staff determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards at the time that a building permit is requested. 7. Dedication of right of way along Campbell Street to equal 14' from centerline (2.5' additional). This dedication will provide for a future 28' right-of-way which will match both Rollston and Thompson Streets. 8. A variance is required for proposed balcony along Dickson Street (which will be constructed to the property line and will not meet the required 5' setback). This will be considered by the Board of Adjustments at their 3/16/98 meeting. Discussion: Mr. Forney inquired as to the approval of parking waiver and if it should be considered at the Planning Commission. Ms. Warrick agreed and noted this was only an introduction to the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Rutherford noted he had not had the opportunity to view this site and could not make any recommendation at this time until he had viewed the site. Mr. Rutherford does note one requirement may include ramp removal, as well as, an access ramp requirement. Mr. Fenney noted there was no access to Dickson Street at the present time except for the sidewalk they had built in front of Jose's which was the only sidewalk connecting the parking lot, therefore, they would propose to allow this access. In response to whether this would be a large scale development, Ms. Warrick mentioned that this would be the only time the Committee would see this project. Due to the size of the project it would be considered a building permit project. At time of the building permit, staff would consider commercial design standards. Also, this project will come before the Board of Adjustments with regard to the balcony off the second level due to their proposal of going all the way to the property line, which would not meet the 5 -foot setback requirement. In response to Mr. Forney's question, Ms. Warrick stated that she would gather additional information about the procedure concerning approval of the right-of-way request and access easement, and would have that information prior to the Agenda Session for review. Discussion continued between the Subdivision Committee, the applicant and the architect concerning this proposal. Suggestions were discussed concerning the parking lot situation, sidewalks, and traffic in that particular area and their concerns. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:08 a.m.