Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-16 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on April 16, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED: LSD 98-9.00 Large Scale Development Lots 14 and 15 Sunbridge LS 98-12.00: Lot Split (City of Fayetteville) LSD 98-10.00: Large Scale Development (Bill Lazenby) LSD 98-8.00: Large Scale Development (Arkansas National Bank) PP 97-5.10: Revised Preliminary Plat (Serenity Place PUD) ACTION TAKEN To Planning Commission Approved Lot Split Approved/No further action To Planning Commission Tabled/Next Subdivision Mtg MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Reynolds, Phyllis Johnson, and Lorel Hoffman STAFF PRESENT: Beth Sandeen, Chuck Rutherford, Jim Beavers, Dawn Warrick, Alett Little LSD 98-9.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (LOTS 14 & 15 SUNBRIDGE) EAST OF NEW SCHOOI. DRTVE AND WEST OF HIRAM DAVIS PLACE Submitted by Jorgenson & Assoc. on behalf of' Keating Enterprises for property located east of New School Drive and west of Hiram Davis Place. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 2.10 acres. Findings: A three building development in the Sunbridge Center subdivision. This development will total 18,950 sq. ft. of office area. Commercial design standards apply to 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 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 5' sidewalk with a 4' greenspace along all three street frontages. 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 of compliance with Commercial Design Standards ordinance. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 16, 1998 Page -2- Staff Comments: ❑ Ms. Little stated the applicant was requesting a no -waiver LSD which could be approved at this meeting. She stated showed the Commercial Design Standard Board for the project. The buildings in this area are almost the same. She further stated regarding ingress and egress there are provided for shared access to the south for New School, but did not provide for Hiram Davis due to one lot between this lot and Marvin Gardens which was already developed, and did not feel too burdensome to go into a cul-de-sac. ❑ There were no problems with driveway on Sunbridge and Ms. Little stated it would not affect the standards due to the fact they were far enough apart and not near intersections and do not come out where the others were. Subdivision Committee Findings: Concern about the rear of buildings and concern due to whether it would meet the Commercial Design Standards due to the material the building would be on outside of the building, and therefore, felt this project be forwarded to Planning Commission should approve this project ❑ Mr. Keating stated masonite siding was not used on this project and started with cement board siding and made out of concrete. It mimics wood and because building is spec, and this would allow modification to the building to put window or doors in the future. Randall Webb has both lots and has option to purchase the other lot. He further stated some of those lots would be in the flood plain. 2. Request for screening on the back side of the property. 3. Trees could not be installed on the back side due to the south side contained water swale and sewer. 4. There were no windows on the south side due to a secluded area would allow for break-ins and safety issues were a concern. ❑ Mickey Jackson inquired if there were any plans for sprinklers. He noted they were not required by code but insuring the building might make it advantageous. ❑ Mr. Keating stated the City does not make it advantageous to install sprinklers. He stated one project they installed sprinklers and were currently paying $220 per month forever and it was not metered He wanted to know who should this be addressed to. ❑ Ms. Little stated Kevin Crosson or Ben Mayes may be the contact people he would need to address this issue with. Recommendations: O Ms. Little noted the ordinance dealt only with frontage from public streets, and if the Planning Commission would address the other sides, then the ordinance would need to be changed if dealing with other sides. Ms. Hoffman moved to forward to Planning Commission with recommendation for screening on the back and review the commercial design standards. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee Minutes April 16, 1998 Page -3- • LS 98-12.00: LOT SPLIT (CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE) SOUTH OF MILLSAP ROAD AND WEST OF PLAINVIEW AVENUE Submitted by the City of Fayetteville on behalf of Lewis Brothers Leasing Company for property located at South of Millsap Road and West of Plainview Avenue Extension. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 1.00 acre. This is the first Lot Split. Findings: This request is proposed in order to provide an extension of Plainview Ave. and a lot for a new fire station off of Millsap Road. 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. 6' greenspace along both sides of Plainview Ave. • 5. 6. Large Scale Development approval is required for the newly created one acre lot. All utilities shall be located underground. • Staff Comments: Mr. Ed Connell and Mickey Jackson appeared before the committee on behalf of the City of Fayetteville. They were currently seeking a waiver regarding placement of overhead utility lines. Mr. Connell stated the north line is on the property but the rest was not. ❑ Ms. Little stated she had received a memorandum from Mr. Connell regarding placement of underground utility lines which stated the north line would need to be installed underline and request a waiver. ❑ Mr Beavers stated at plat review there was another development stubbing needed to be some discussed which would be extending street from hospital's addition to this Plainview station. Tom Lewis stated he had talked informally and stated it runs west directly into Longview and Plainview stubs into Longview and runs approximately from the south end of their property. Mr. Lazenby owns the property south of that it would not interfere with this layout. The plans were reviewed with the Subdivision Committee, and it was noted this property was outside of the overlay district. Ms. Johnson moved to approve lot split at this level. Ms. Hoffman seconded said motion. The motion carried with a vote 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee Minutes April 16, 1998 Page -4- • LSD 98-10.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT BILL LAZENBY). SOUTH BEECHWOOD AVE. Submitted by Glenn Carter on behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located at south Beechwood Avenue. The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains 8.98 acres. Findings: This project is an addition to a previously approved and constructed large scale development for a warehouse complex. Three new buildings are proposed (a total of 20,500 square feet) which will house only warehouse facilities. 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 minimum 6' sidewalk with a minimum 6' greenspace along Beechwood Ave. The sidewalk shall be continuous through driveways. • 5. 6. Street lights shall be installed along Beechwood Ave. every 300' if not already in place. 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. Staff Comments: Ms. Little noted that there were still some items under consideration as follows: 1. Beechwood request to match the previous improvements for sidewalks. 2. Location of fire hydrant and would need to be added to plat. 3. Restrictive agreement no hazardous materials would be stored there. It was noted the applicant stated the restriction would be included on the lease. ❑ Mr Beavers noted grading and drainage previously performed. ❑ Mr. Rutherford noted the driveway approach where curb to where it starts and stops and sidewalk should be continuous through. Subdivision Committee Findings: • 1. It was noted the vicinity map was illegible and location of streets and railroads were hard to locate. 2. Fire hydrant be placed on plat and sidewalk meet staff requirements. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 16, 1998 Page -5- Recommendation: It was noted if project was approved it would be subject to fire hydrant and sidewalk staff requirements. 0 Ms. Little stated this applicant had built 12 warehouses previously in this area Mr. Reynolds moved to approve this project at this level subject to fire hydrant and sidewalk staff requirements. Ms. Johnson seconded said motion. The motion carried with a vote 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee Minutes April 16, 1998 Page -6- • LSD 98-8.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (ARKANSAS NATIONAL BANK) NW CORNER OF SALEM DRIVE AND WEDINGTON DRIVF • • Submitted by CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of the applicant for property located at the northwest corner of Salem Drive and Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 1.61 acres. Findings: This project is located on a lot which was created by a lot split which was approved by the Planning Commission on March 23, 1998. This item was tabled at the April 2, 1998 Subdivision Committee meeting. Please refer to minutes from both of those meetings for additional background information. 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. The following contributions are required of Tract B as a part of this LSD per the PC approval of the lot split creating Tract B (3/23/98)• a. Assessment of 1/4 of the cost of placing utilities underground to be deposited into escrow (estimate must be provided by utility company). b. Sanitary sewer assessment of $1,200.00 contribution for the Hamstring lift station. c. Salem Road bridge impact fee assessment of $2,415.00. d. Wedington Road off-site assessment of $11,850.00 (street and sidewalk). 5. Construction of sidewalks in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk with a 10' greenspace along Wedington Drive (to connect with existing sidewalk along Salem Road). Sidewalks shall be continuous through driveways. 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. PC determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 8. PC decision regarding request for parking in excess of that allowable by the parking lot ordinance. Staff Comments: ❑ Ms. Little stated the only request the applicant would be requesting was a waiver for twice as much parking as what our ordinance permits. She stated the allowance would be 18 spaces and 20% over would be 22 spaces maximum and their requesting 36 spaces. The developer states the bank would have as many as 15 employees at anytime, and during peak time could have as many as 20 customers Subdivision Committee Minutes April 16, 1998 Page -7- • John Honeywell, CEI, Engineering appeared before the Committee, and stated site coverage is well below the coverage • • Staff Comments: None Public Comments: None Subdivision Committee Findings: 1. The developer would not install a monument sign, but if signs were installed they would be on bank building and would use 2x2 signs. 2. Driveways are limited to one curb cut on Wedington and one curb cut on Salem. The curb cut would be north of subject property. The one on Wedington is located on adjacent property. 3. Parking issue addressed 15 employees in a 60x60 building including 20 customers and felt parking request is excessive. It was noted the current building would be 3600 square feet, containing 7 offices and 3 tellers according to the plan with 2 drive-thrus. 0 Harrison French, architect on the project, stated the building would consist of the following: 4 offices and a president's office; 2 customer desks, 3 tellers, and potential for 2-3 at drive-thru, along with loan officers. He further stated they would probably want to keep options open for conference rooms due to growth. 4. Landscaping that shown on elevation drawings is what will be actually on property. 5. The theme shown on the colored elevations would be the theme for the remainder of particular tract. 6. Division of responsibility have been worked out regarding cost of underground electricity installation. Ms. Johnson moved to forward to Planning Commission with the recommendation for parking waiver not be granted in the number of spaces requested. Ms. Hoffman seconded said motion. The motion carried with a vote 3-0-0. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 16, 1998 Page -8- PP 97-5.10: REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT (SERENITY PLACE P U.D WEST OF SALEM AND NORTH OF MOUNT COMFORT Submitted by Jorgenson & Associates on behalf of Easton Development for property located north of Hwy 45 and east of Blue Mesa Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low -Density Residential and contains approximately 76.62 acres; 169 lots are proposed. Staff comments: This came before Technical Plat review April 15th, and have just received the revised plats. ❑ Ms. Little stated this project previously came through mid -summer and there were a number of issues addressed at that time. It was zoned R-1 and initial request was R1.5 and staff approved R -S zoning. Ms. Little distributed the minutes concerning when this project previously came through. Mickey Harrington and Tim Reynolds appeared before the committee. After they had acquired the property containing 3.2 acres, and then they purchased an additional 200 acres and then acquired 5.8 acres. Because of these acquisitions they have incurred more cost. They have donated 40 acres of the 200 acre parcel. They have now turned some property into additional lots, and what was originally greenspace, then a park would be added. ❑ Ms. Little stated this project was still a PUD and decision would have to be made if it was developable as a PUD. If this subdivision was not having private greenspace as originally proposed Developer has been granted approval for his parkland to count as his greenspace area. The PUD ordinance states the greenspace must be within the PUD. Therefore, there would have to be a lot line adjustment to append the parcel of property which had not been in previous preliminary. She also stated the dimensions in order to make PUD and whether suitable 116 lots does not meet requirements. ❑ Mr. Beavers noted this project had just been reviewed yesterday and subdivision today just received plat a few minutes ago, and had not had an opportunity to see if requested changes had been made. ❑ Mr. Rutherford stated at technical plat they were told to have corrections but this morning. He noted if you look at north end of 47 and 48 future sidewalk, "future" was still on the plat. Subdivision Committee Findings: 1. This project had just been to Technical Review just the day before and staff had not had the opportunity to review adequately. 2. This project would need to be tabled due to revisions at Technical Review had not been made according to staff requirements. 3. Residential small lots are 7,000 sf with 60 ft of frontage. 4. It would be helpful for Planning Commission to see the agreement where Mr. Whitfield has given the access to the parks in conjunction with the review of the plat. 5. This project is the first time to count their required PUD greenspace 30% as park land. 6. Lots are 48 foot and 30% private greenspace in subdivision and payment of parks fees when previously submitted. 7. Lots 49 through 100 are under 60 foot RS requirement due to PUD. 8. There is a grade difference on this property and would not be able to go straight to Rupple Street. 9. The applicant was wanting to state the engineering work they had done which was $30-40,000 worth met the requirement for substantial progress. ❑ Ms. Harrington stated City Council wants people to develop PUDs instead of subdivisions for the greenspace and a little bit of variety. The council members do not want people penalized when they present a PUD or people would not do PUDs. ❑ Council members in favor of that were Kit Williams and supposedly Heather Daniel. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 16, 1998 Page -9- Requirements: 1. A lot line adjustment would be required. 2. Revisions at Technical Review be made on plat according to staff requirements. 3. Would like to see what was approved previously when this was brought back. 4. Need something to show all the greenspace and overall site plan for their review. Our perspective look into allow park area and not meeting our PUD ordinance. On the vicinity map does it show all the streets of subdivision adjacent which were approved. 5. Check when the year runs and applicant requested engineering work of $30,000 met the requirement for substantial progress. 6. The previous 20 conditions of approval would still apply, as this project would still be a new submittal. 7. Request a plat showing streets that have been approved (whether or not built) be presented at next meeting. 8. Mr. Keen's property is for sale which is adjacent to subject property. Ms. Johnson moved to table project and bring back to next Subdivision Committee. Ms. Hoffman seconded said motion. The motion carried with a vote of 3-0-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 a.m.