Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-02 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on July 2, 1998, 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 1. LSD 98-21: Large Scale Development (Liquor to Go) 2. LS 98-22.00, 23.00 & 24.00 Lot Splits (Hinkle&Fitzgerald) 3. LS 98-25.00: Lot Split (Robert McAnarney) Approved to PC Approved/No further action Approved to PC MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Reynolds, Phyllis Johnson and Lorel Hoffman STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Dawn Warrick, Jim Beavers, Chuck Rutherford, Beth Sandeen, Mickey Jackson, and Debra Humphrey LSD 98-21.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (LIOUOR TO GO) 2831 N. HWY 112 This item was submitted by Carter Engineering on behalf of Donna Masterson for property located at 2831 N. Hwy 112. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately .98 acres. This project is located within the Design Overlay District. FINDINGS: This project proposes demolishing the existing liquor store and erecting a new structure. The site has an odd shape and has access to both Hwy 112 and Drake Street Design Overlay District regulations and Commercial Design Standards apply to this development. The applicant has requested a waiver of the Overhead Utility Ordinance - therefore, this project will need to be heard by the full Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION Consideration of this project based on staff findings. Staff recommends the following conditions of approval 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Design Overlay District ordinance. *The applicant requests a waiver of D.O.D. regulations concerning the placement of wall signage. A wall sign is proposed on the west side of the building facing Hwy 71 Bypass instead of on the south side of the building which is considered a front and faces Drake Street. *The applicant proposes the use of metal wall panels for the top portion of the walls of the structure. This material is required by D.O.D. regulations to have the appearance of a "natural" material (masonry, brick, wood). 2. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards ordinance. *Drake Street is a frontage for this project. The side of the building facing this street shall have the appearance of a "front" in order to comply with Commercial Design Standards. 3. Planning Commission decision concerning applicant's request to waive the requirement to place all existing and proposed utility lines underground. 4. Planning Commission determination of the appropriate width of the entrance off of Hwy 112. Staff Subdivision Committee Meeting July 2, 1998 Page 2— recommends that this project comply with the current City standard of 24'. The applicant requests a 30' wide entrance. 5. 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). 6. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 7. Staff approval of fmal detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 8. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk with a 10' greenspace along Drake Street and the repair of broken sections of existing sidewalk along Hwy 112. 9. The developer shall be responsible for extending the sewer line in order to meet current requirements. The existing service line cannot be used for the new development. 10. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 11. 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 Section 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: Little: She stated the major issue for the overlay district was the overhead electric. There are metal side walls on the north, south and west. There is a sign on the west elevation which is not a frontage. Under the overlay district regulations, the applicant is only allowed signs on building elevations with a frontage. Carter: He noted the applicant is requesting installation of a sign on Drake Street because a convenience store blocks the view on the other side. Johnson: She inquired if the front of the building was on the east side. Carter: He responded the front of the building was on the east side. Little: She stated since the applicant was requesting waivers of the overhead electric, this application would have to be heard by the full planning commission. She noted there is currently an existing building on this site. This building sits in the general location of the proposed parking for the new store. The new building would sit further west than the current building. The applicant is requesting waivers of the overlay district requirements for placement of all underground utilities. Applicant is also requesting a waiver of the width of the aisle leading into the parking lot. Applicant is also requesting the following waivers: 1. Drake Street widening assessment; and, 2) to place a wall sign on the west elevation. • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 2, 1998 Page 3— • • She noted that the building is proposed to have metal wall panels on three sides. Under the overlay district ordinance, these types of materials, if they are used, are to have a natural appearance such as masonry, brick or wood. Applicant has presented information regarding the underground electric. There is an existing sidewalk in front of the building on Hwy 112 which is in need of repair. If the large scale approval is approved, it would be for a period of one year. Rutherford: He noted Mr. Carter needs to show the sidewalk on Drake Street as continuous from property line to property line. Little: She noted the reason Mr. Carter did not change this is because the applicant is requesting a waiver of this requirement. Beavers: He noted the estimated cost of widening the street would not include sidewalk building and repair. Reynolds: He directed the applicant show the sidewalk requirement on the plats before going to Planning Commission. Beavers: He stated applicant would need to extend sanitary sewer to the site and this has been added to the drawing. Planning Commission will make the determination whether the money goes into escrow for the widening of Drake Street Reynolds: He noted this would be for a limited period of time. If the street was not widened, the applicant could request the funds be returned. Sandeen: She inquired what the Planning Commission's long-range attitude would be with Drake Street. Warrick: She responded Drake Street was a major plan street. Little: She noted Drake Street may have the potential to be an important street depending on the development. Johnson: She noted Drake and McConnell Street connect in a 90 degree turn. Little: She stated Drake and McConnell Streets were a planned connection. Johnson: She inquired if there would be any possibility Drake street would ever go west beyond McConnell. Little: She responded no Drake Street would not go beyond McConnell. Warrick: She stated Drake was a minor arterial to the east of Hwy 112 and a collector street to the west. Johnson: She noted Drake Street presently goes nowhere. Warrick: She confirmed this was correct. Subdivision Committee Meeting July 2, 1998 Page 4— Johnson: She stated Drake Street runs into the fair grounds and would not serve anyone else due to the fact it runs to the University Farm. Johnson: Little: She felt the state or the county may currently own Drake Street and nothing may ever be done with this street She noted the Planning Commission would need to look at this street, since it was not open to the public. Therefore, she does not feel there was any need to do anything with Drake west of Hwy 112. She noted University Farm may stay in this area for a long time, but there may come a time that due to congestion the university farm may decide to move. Therefore, the City planning had made accommodation for any future changes in this location. Johnson: She asked staff to verify ownership of the subject land prior to the Planning Commission meeting. She inquired what signage was applicant requesting. Little: On the black and white elevations, she indicated where the applicant was requesting a sign. She further noted the sign met the design of the overlay district requirements. Johnson: She inquired if the applicant was entitled to a wall sign. Little: She responded - according to the ordinance - the applicant would be entitled to a wall sign on every side there was street frontage. Johnson: She inquired if the applicant was removing the sign from the front of the building off of Drake Street to the west side of the building. Carter: He noted due to the layout of the building, the convenience store blocks the view of their building and sign. Applicant felt the sign would have better visibility on Drake Street. Johnson: She noted if applicant requests two sides of frontage, applicant may be required to change the elevation on the building on both sides. Little: She stated because the design overlay district regulations allowed it was appropriate to have a sign on the bypass. She stated that the overlay district ordinance allowed more signage to be placed on the building than allowed under the normal ordinance. The overlay district encouraged placement of the signs on the building to gain more visibility from the bypass. Johnson: She inquired if this sign complied with the overlay district signage. Little: She responded as far as the size of the sign it did comply. As far as frontage - this was questionable. She noted if the building was square with Drake Street it would comply with the frontage. • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 2, 1998 Page 5— • • Reynolds: He stated the applicant was willing to work with the City and he felt the commission should work with the applicant regarding this project. Johnson: then she would not have any problem with the applicant's waiver request. She noted if the sign complied with the design overlay district requirements in terms of signage Little: Reynolds: Carter: Reynolds: Carter: Johnson: She noted the applicant has two frontages and thereby would be entitled to two wall signs. He inquired how high the monument sign was. He responded it would be 6 foot high with a 4 foot base. He inquired where it would be placed in regards to the building. He responded it would be sitting on the landscaped area in front of the building. She inquired about the curb cut waiver which was located on Hwy 112. Warrick: She stated applicant was proposing to make use of the existing curb cut which is approximately 30 feet in width. The standard width for curb cuts was 24 feet. Johnson: Little: She inquired how important did staff felt this curb cut would create a problem in this location. She stated she did not feel this would be very important. If there were several businesses along this area it would be a safety issue. However, since there were less traffic in this area she did not feel safety would be an issue. She responded this lot is a fairly narrow lot. The applicant is utilizing the curb cut that is currently existing. She stated when a person came in to the drive a person would have to curve to the northwest in order to get around the building. Therefore, part of the function of the width of the curb cut is to facilitate getting around the building. Johnson: She stated this curb cut may be safer to leave it at 30 feet vs. 24 feet. Reynolds: He commented about the overhead utility lines and underground utility lines. He noted they had changed hands twice. He stated the convenience store would not be changing out anytime soon and the gas company currently sits on the back side of the subject property. Warrick: She noted the applicant's problem with overhead electric is due to the service lines which run across their site to two other businesses. Reynolds: He noted in order for the applicant to be able to install underground it would be better to have the other two businesses to participate in the costs involved. Otherwise, he felt the commission should leave it alone. Little: She inquired where the applicant was planning to serve electric to the building at this time. Carter: He responded there was an underground pole on this property. There was an overhead electric line at this site and applicant would probably serve it along the same lines, except they would run the lines to the back of the building underground. • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 2, 1998 Page 6— Little: She noted the utilities were overhead to the back of the property right now. Applicant's proposal was to serve the utilities underground from the same pole. Therefore, this line would be removed. Carter: He responded the line going to the existing building would be removed Johnson: She understood the utility companies to say at the meeting the other day, it would be inappropriate in the long-term to require overhead to be placed underground if it was a new line from a substation. Therefore, she would vote in favor of waiving the placement of underground utility lines. Reynolds: He stated he would also agree to waive the requirement for placement of underground utility lines. Little: She addressed the remaining issue which was the appearance of the building. She reviewed the elevations with the committee. Staff felt two of the elevations may not meet the commercial design standards. This issue could either be addressed at this meeting or forwarded to the Planning Commission. Johnson: She noted if the applicant was going to put a sign on one of the sides, this should be considered as a front. • The Subdivision Committee reviewed the samples provided by the applicant. • Carter: The applicant noted the building was intended to be a metal structure with interior finishes; the exterior would be constructed out of masonry; and it would all be intended to be pre -finished metal siding. Reynolds: He noted the split -face block was pretty unique if it was all on the west side, but felt the applicant may need to have a burglar-proof building. He recommended the applicant articulate the west side facing the bypass. Johnson: She agreed with Commissioner Reynold's recommendation. She felt by looking at the elevation, it required improvement. Little: She reiterated metal side walls are prohibited under the commercial design standards unless they have the appearance of wood, brick, or natural materials. Hoffman: She inquired if the applicant could provide a sample board of the material to the full Planning Commission. Applicant: He stated they could provide this material. Johnson: She inquired if there was a building anywhere in Fayetteville that contained a sample of the split face masonry in conjunction with the metal siding. Little: She responded staff would look to see if there were any samples of this type of material. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 2, 1998 Page 7— Hoffman: She stated this building was better than any liquor store she has seen. Johnson: She stated the west elevation may be more important to the City than the other elevations. She noted their concern would be for the overall City's view. Reynolds: He recommended the applicant change the west elevation before it goes to the full Planning Commission. Warrick: She noted revisions would be due by Monday, July 6th with 12 copies of elevations and plats. Commissioner Johnson moved to forward this item to Planning Commission without specific recommendations. Commissioner Hoffman seconded said motion. The motion was approved on a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee Meeting July 2, 1998 Page 8— LS 8- 1.05.SiMaanaaiaSnLaSiattaidniaZGERALDI SOUTH OF WYMAN ROAD AND WEST OF VAUGHN ROAD This item was submitted by Terri Lynne McNaughton of McNaughton Realtors, Inc. on behalf of Wayne Hinkle, James Hinkle and Helene Fitzgerald for property located south of Wyman Road (WC #48) and west of Vaughn Road (WC 388). The property is in the City Planning Area and contains approximately 19.35 acres. The proposed lot splits will create four tracts containing 4.50 acres, 4.25 acres, 4.17 acres and 6.41 acres. FINDINGS: This project is located in the county. Previously the north side of Wyman Road in this location was subdivided - John Lil Subdivision, Phase 1. The same applicants are now splitting the southern property as a second phase to the subdivision. Sine this tract had never been split, lot splits were available instead of having to file a preliminary plat and final plat for these four lots. This project has been reviewed by the County Planning Board for preliminary approval and will be further reviewed for final approval this evening. 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: 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 County'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. STAFF COMMENTS: Little: She noted this property was in the County. The applicant has received County approval for the lot splits. There is adequate right of way on Wyman Road and staff has no comments in this regard. There is a subdivision on the north side of the road by the same owners. Staff has the standard comments and requirements regarding the detailed plans to include all the comments made at Plat Review. Rutherford: He stated the subject property was outside the city limits, and therefore, sidewalks are not required. Little: She noted this item could be approved at this level. Hoffman: She inquired if the commission had anything to say about the number of driveways if there were three additional entrances to the road. Little: She responded these would be residential lots and staff does not expect the driveways to be a problem. The subject lots would consist of approximately 250 feet of frontage. Reynolds: He inquired if this property had already been developed. • Subdivision Committee Meeting July Z 1998 Page 9— McNaughton: Little: Johnson: Little: Hoffman: McNaughton: Johnson: Warrick: • McNaughton: Hoffman: McNaughton: She stated Dean Webber had developed Lot 3 which had previously been approved. She noted on Tract B there was an existing house which would remain. She inquired what considerations should be reviewed for a lot split. She responded the considerations would be the lot layout and circulation. On the east side there was a street to the north. Most of this street would lie on the adjoining property line. She noted if the City tried to take right of way at this development it would create a jog in the road. She inquired what road was to the south of the subject property. She responded it was Hwy 16. She stated this lot split could create urban sprawl. She stated this tract of land could not be split any further without going through the preliminary and final plat. Staff had required applicant to make this note on the plat and this had been noted on the plat. She stated the owner's intention was to have one house per lot because part of the owners live in the neighborhood and they do not want to have a lot of houses in this area. She inquired if these lots would be on septic system. She responded, yes. It was noted there were no comments from the Fire Chief. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve LS 22.00, 23.00 and 24.00 at this level. Commissioner Hoffman seconded said motion. The motion was approved on a vote of' 3-0-0. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting July Z 1998 Page 10— LS 98-25.00: LOT SPLIT (ROBERT MCANARNEY) 4045 NORTH HILLSIDE TERRACE This item was submitted by Jorgensen & Assoc. on behalf of the applicant for property located at 4045 North Hillside Terrace. The property is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 3.5 acres. The proposed lot split will create a tandem lot containing approximately 2.64 acres and the remaining tract will contain approximately 0.82 acres. A conditional use request for a tandem lot has been submitted for the new lot. FINDINGS: This proposed split will create a 2.64 acre tandem lot with a 0.82 acre remainder lot adjoining Hillside Terrace. 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: 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 fmal detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree • preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval 4. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $375.00 for one new single family residential lot. 5. Plat shall be revised to reflect existing City right of way along the east side of this property and the appropriate setback (25') from that right of way for the tandem lot. 6. Plat shall be revised to reflect all requested easements per Technical Plat Review comments. 7. Access shall be provided to all manholes for maintenance and washout purposes. 8. All utilities shall be located underground. 9. Additional locations: A. Show location of sewer line. B. Guarantee for water/sewer extension. • STAFF COMMENTS: Little: She stated the conditional use of this property would be reviewed at Planning Commission. She stated the subject area was the old location of Hwy 265 and when the new Hwy 265 was built it went around this subject property. Mr. McAnamey's house already exists on the entire tract and he is wanting to create one new tract just to the north which would be tract 1 Tract 1 does have frontage. By removing a tract it would make the current house location a tandem lot. Johnson: She inquired if this drive came off Hillside Terrace Little: She noted there were still some revisions which were requested which had not been met yet. Hoffman: She inquired about the cul-de-sac. Little: She responded the cul-de-sac was like a bubble cul-de-sac. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting July Z 1998 Page 11— McAnarney: He noted one of the requirements was to show the location of the sewer line, and the architect reflected the existing septic system. Little: She stated this revision would need to be met prior to Planning Commission. It was noted the conditional use would be contingent upon the lot split. Rutherford: He stated there would be no sidewalk required at this location. This was in a residential area where the street was built out and there would not be any place to install the sidewalks. Beavers- He inquired if the applicant would be required to install the water/sewer extensions or would the applicant provide a guarantee bond. McAnarney: He stated he knew about the requirement for water and the sewer extension. Little: She stated in order for the applicant to have the lot developed and a sold, the applicant would have to extend the water/sewer or provide a guarantee. McAnamey: He noted if he put his house on the market, the person purchasing the property may want to use the front tract as screening. Hoffman: She inquired if there would be a need for an easement for the water/sewer. Beavers: He stated what was provided was adequate. Little: She noted to the applicant that he make sure he wants the lot split vs. selling it as one piece. Warrick: She noted the lot would not be created without a guarantee being provided for the water/sewer. Little: She stated the applicant's engineer would make the estimate for the water/sewer extension. This would have to be approved by our engineer. Whatever the cost came to be would be multiplied by 150% and would be placed in escrow at the City or a letter of credit would be allowed. McAnamey: He stated he would have to make the decision whether he would prefer to have the lot split. Little: She noted if the lot split was approved and the applicant does not want the lot split, then it would not be filed. Commissioner Johnson moved to forward this item to Planning Commission. Commissioner Hoffman seconded said motion. The motion was carried on a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee Meeting July 2, 1998 Page 12— OTHER BUSINESS: Little: She noted to the commission that Easton Park Subdivision would be coming before the Planning Commission and would not require a decision from the committee. Beavers: He noted Easton Park place was in the actual design stage and was in need of an intersection of 5% instead of 4%. The street standard maximum is 4%. The street standards do not allow staff to grant variances. Little: She stated Easton Park was out by Hwy 45 which would extend Township to make it a subdivision. Beavers: He stated this street would only be 380 feet long. Little: She noted since there was a variance requested, the Planning Commission would have to grant this variance. Johnson: She inquired about the difference of a 4% vs. a 5% intersection. Beavers: He stated he would provide some documentation for this item. This would identify the grade. • Little: She inquired what the grade was by Sang Street (Lindsey Apartments). Beavers: He responded he thought it was around 18-20%. UTILITIES ORDINANCE: Hoffman: She noted after the meeting with the utility companies she felt like the ordinance needed to be changed to reflect the lowering of the voltage requirements. Little: She stated if the Planning Commission wanted to work on this item they could do so and form a subcommittee. She stated she was planning to invite a gentleman from Texas to meet with the Planning Commissioners to gather information regarding their underground system. Johnson: She responded she felt the commission would be willing to hear from this gentleman and get some feedback as to what was allowable vs. what was not allowable. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m. •