Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-12 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, November 12, 1998 at 8:30 a.m. in room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED FP98-6: Final Plat (Bois D'Arc, pp 442) LSD98-31: Large Scale (Lindsey -Green Dev, pp 212) LSD98-28.1: Large Scale (Plainview Fire Sta., pp 213) MEMBERS PRESENT Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Robert Reynolds STAFF PRESENT Jim Beavers Kim Hesse Janet Johns Alett Little Kim Rogers Chuck Rutherford Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Tabled Approved MEMBERS ABSENT,. None STAFF ABSENT None • Subdivision Committee Minutes November 12, 1998 Page 2 FP98-6 FINAL PLAT BOIS D'ARC SUBDIVISION, pp 442 This final plat was submitted by Julian and Jane Archer for property located east of Sang Avenue and south of Cleveland Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 19.60 acres with 19 lots proposed. Mr. Petrie was present to address the Committee regarding this project. Discussion Warrick: It is my understanding that Engineering is working on a punch list for their final inspection which must be taken care of before their final sign off. Parks fees will be required at the time of final plat sign off and that total is $5700. The covenants are subject to further staff review. Those will need to be filed with the final plat at the time of sign off • • • Little: The City is named as a third party and we do not want to be named as a third party. I'll give you a marked up copy. Warrick: They had added the addressing. Rutherford: The sidewalks are installed. Johnson: Are these normal size and in compliance with our normal regulations for subdivision? Rutherford: They are 4 feet wide sidewalks and the green space was required to be a minimum of 5 feet. They have provided an 8 feet green space that meanders around the trees. Johnson: Those sidewalks look narrow. Rutherford: The sidewalk on Cleveland is 6 feet wide and when you get inside the project they are 4 feet wide. On Sang they are 4 feet. Reynolds: What is the normal sidewalk size? Warrick: It runs with street designation. • Rutherford: Collector and above are 6 feet. Collectors and below are 4 feet unless it's a local street with business property in it then it's 6 feet. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes November 12, 1998 Page 3 Hoffman: The.green space along the street, will that be taken care of the property owners association. Petrie: Yes. Hoffman: Are those documents on file with the City? Petrie: Yes. Johnson: We had a hard rain this week. Do we know whether there was any run off problem or erosion problem on this site? Petrie: I haven't been out there. Johnson: This is one where I think the drainage was of concern to the folks down hill. I think you did extra things to help the situation. Petrie: That's true. They have had inspectors out there. Warrick: The City did participate in the drainage project adjacent to this subdivision. Petrie: Right. The City did add some storm pipes. Warrick: That was a condition of preliminary plat approval on this. Johnson: My point is that you learn about the effectiveness of drainage projects after you've had a really hard downpour. If the residents downhill had any problems, now is the time for us to find it. Petrie: About three weeks ago, we had a 3 inch rain and we had the final inspection after that rain occurred. At that time we were able to look at any kind of erosion problems and they were minor. Warrick: Engineering has not received any complaints from adjoining property owners and the project is complete at this time. Reynolds: Mr. Beavers, do you thing they have the problem solved getting the runoff out of there. Beavers: I think so. I've not been to the site. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes November 12, 1998 Page 4 MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to approve the final plat conditioned on staff reviewing Bois d'Arc after the downpour to be sure that there is not any erosion problems. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Mr. Reynolds concurred. Subdivision Committee Minutes November 12, 1998 Page 5 LSD98-31: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT LINDSEY-GREEN DEVELOPMENT pp 212 This large scale development was submitted by Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Lindsey -Green Properties for property located in Lots 5 and 6 of CMN Business Park. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 3.77 acres. Chris Partain was present to address the Committee on behalf of this project. Discussion Warrick: This project has changed configuration slightly since it came to us at plat review. One of the items that was changed was the number of curb cuts. It has been reduced to two total curb cuts since this is a two lot development. Staff agrees with two curb cuts. Please note that one of the curb cuts that is proposed is a divided cuts with a one way in and a two way out with a landscaped median. I want to make the comment that those need to be dimensioned. The entrance can be 15 feet. The landscaped island needs to be the length of at least 1Q feet,and it also needs to be lengthened. It's shown currently at about 10 or 15 feet long and that's not even the length of a parking stall. It needs to be lengthened so that it actually delineates the entry and exit areas. The exit is a combined 24 feet two way out. I had a question concerning the right of way dedication. You're showing in one area 10 feet right of way dedication and there is also a notation that it is 34.5 feet as far as the dedicated area and that's further to the right hand side of your drawing. The requirement on a collector is 35 feet from centerline. We will need that updated to reflect that. Partain: I believe this centerline is centered in the right of way. I believe it's about a half foot off if I'm correct. We will make that half foot adjustment. I believe there is a 35.5 right of way on the south side of the street. Warrick: Is this an area where is five lanes? Where does Millsap widen? Partain: This is three. Warrick: We'll work with what you've got. Johnson: You're at the end of the Staff Mark property so that the new building is going in now on Staff Mark and then there is quite a bit of open land that they own and you're immediately west of that? Warrick: This is between the Eye Center which is on the east and the Brookside Medical Building which is on the west. • Subdivision Committee Minutes November 12, 1998 Page 6 Johnson: Even though Brewer owns adjacent property -- the Eye Center is to the east and what is to the west? Warrick: There is a large drainage ditch and then there is a lot and there is a building on it that is gray with a blue roof. It's called Brookside Medical Building. Rayben was the doctor who processed the large scale and when we saw it it was Rayben Medical Building. Johnson: It is built? Warrick. Yes. Also in regard to the location of the new right of way line, your setback line for the 50 feet building setback was taken off the original so that needs to be shifted to the north to reflect that you are not encroaching and needs to be shown. The cross access that we've requested to the east, that needs to be built to your property line and it's shown just a little bit short of that. It needs to be 24 feet wide access to the eastern property line. Hoffman: Does that line up with their parking lot? Warrick: It lines up with an entry drive. It won't go into the parking stalls. They have an access drive to the north and this should line up to intersect with that. Their entrance drive is not on their property line. There will still be green space. Hoffman: This and the 24 feet drive have not changed? Warrick: That 24 feet drive that they are proposing it fine and it has not changed from their original proposal. Hoffman: Okay. Reynolds: This is set up for connectivity? Partain: Yes, sir. Warrick: It's an entry/exit to their larger building. There are two building on this site. One is larger than the other and it's also an area that can provide cross access to the east. In regard to the site, when we worked on our city plat pages, it appears as though the flood plain is further into the lot than what's shown in this area This information that we have is based on the 1991 flood data and that's what is being called out, so we'd like that to be checked again. We've also got 1997 data and our best guess is that it is going to push it further into the lots. We have referenced that. Beavers: At plat review, I told you that there were two other drainage reports available and • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes November 12, 1998 Page 7 the calculated 100 year water surface elevations is about 1215 or 1215.5 so that does come further up into your lot. You're going to have to raise these floor elevations. If you accept McClelland's report for lot 7 your going to have to use 1215.55. I'll be happy to look at it. This site will require a lot of fill. Partain: Okay. Warrick: I do have a comment conceming the trees that are located on the eastern property line. Kim, have you had a chance to look at those. You had a comment at the plat review level that those trees couldn't be saved with the drainage they were proposing. I don't think those have been changed. Have you had a chance to look at it? Hesse: They just put a note on here saying that they will coordinate with City. Little: She said that those trees couldn't be saved without a retaining wall and a retaining wall would block cross access. Hesse: We'll coordinate and get those replaced. Hoffman: They need to be the same size. I would not want them to put in smaller trees. Reynolds: Could you make them up a plan before this reaches the Planning Commission? Are they going to take some trees out? Will you get with this gentlemen and make up a plan for that property to replant them? Hesse: Along with that we need a decide on the plantings in the interior parking. Little: They need to do the plan. Hoffman: In the interest of being consistent, we have allowed one curb cut per lot and if there are two lots that if fine with. But, these are offset. Has that been looked at for safety for people entering and exiting across the street and how that's all going to line up? Warrick: There is much better visibility when they are offset. Little: You have three lanes and they are right across from each other and they are both trying to cross and get in the same place but if you have the three lanes and they are offset a little bit then they can see the other car Because all they're looking for is oncoming traffic. Johnson: Do you think that's enough? When I come out of Shanghai it sure feels like attempted suicide. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes November 12, 1998 Page 8 Little: That's what it's called. You don't want it right across from each other. Hoffman: I had forgotten but that certainly makes a great deal of sense. Little: We have another issue about the size of the buildings. You have stated that one of the buildings is two story. Partain: The large building would be a two story and a smaller one would be one story but it now appears that they are both two story buildings. Warrick: The base land that you're showing is approximately 28.8 for this and 16.8. You're showing two story buildings. That would be double the square footage. That means your parking is half as much as what you need on parking. If these are going to be two story buildings, then they don't match your square footage calculations. Partain: They must be one story buildings, then. Because they told us all along that the total square footage on the elevations is what was used to calculate the parking. Warrick: Your elevations show two story buildings. Reynolds: It has two windows upstairs. Hoffman: Even if you have a loft, that is usable square footage. If it's a commercial mezzanine or a loft or something like that, that will still count toward the parking ratios. Warrick: That is our concern. We talked at plat review and the square footage and the interpretation of the elevations don't match and at this point, I am interpreting two two-story buildings in this location and if the base floor on each of these matches your square footage, then your square footage are half off. You take the 184 by 76 you get approximately 68 and if you do it twice then you double that. We have to get this worked out. If these are two story buildings and the square footage is what we expect them to be, then the parking doesn't work. Little: If these are two story buildings, they will not fit on this lot. Reynolds: If it's not a two story you sure are wasting a lot of space. From this side elevation, both sides are going to be alike and both ends are going to be alike, front and rear. This has the windows over here and those riders come all the way out like it's going to be a room up there. I'd say it's two story. Partain: I will find that out. Subdivision Committee Minutes November 12, 1998 Page 9 Warrick: You are not calling out any free standing signs. Partain: We had them on the site originally. We are going to use signage on the building instead. Warrick: So they are going to stick with the signage as shown. Hoffman: Was the proposed use on this was profession office? Partain: Yes, at this time. Warrick: They called it out as office and commercial. The ratio of parking that they provided was one per 275 square feet which is a mix between the office and retail requirements. So, it's kind of a hybrid from the ratio that they have used. Hoffman: It's more than just office. There is retail. I don't have a problem with that kind of calculation because if it's a doctor's office you have a higher level of traffic. Reynolds: So what we have here with this parking is that it needs to be increased. Warrick: It won't fit. Reynolds: It just seems to me like we ought to table this until our next meeting. Johnson: On Commercial Design Standards on the signage, this is all the signage that you are talking about on this elevation? Partain: Each side, obviously. Johnson: What you've shown is what we're going to get. Partain: It's my understanding this going to be divided into six units. One for each entrance. Johnson: When it gets to Commission, you know that what we see on the signage is what we get and this look great. On the west there is to be no cross access? Warrick: There is a 40 feet drainage ditch there. It's not feasible to do a cross access. We did look at that. Hoffman: This is going to be highly visible from the Bypass, yet I do not see nearly the • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes November 12, 1998 Page 10 amount of landscaping adjacent to the Bypass as I do to Millsap. I would like to see more bushes. This may be over and above the ordinance. You have some trees scattered out there. There are five bushes adjacent to the Bypass Johnson: Those trees are existing? Partain: It looks like there are three existing trees out there and we're going to plant five additional trees to fill in that gap there. Johnson: Are they shown on here? Hoffman: They are called out as proposed trees, 32 mixture pin oak and maple. Warrick: Since that does adjoin the Highway 71 right of way, that is considered a front and needs to be treated like the front on Millsap with the 15 feet of uniform landscaping or green with one tree per 40 feet. That will probably affect your dumpster locations. There is whole aisle of wasted concrete out here as a turn around for the trucks. I was wondering if it might be possible to put your trash receptacles at either end of this parking area. Partain: I don't have a problem with it but I know they don't like backing down an aisle. Warrick: Would you ask them to come up with maybe another option on working those dumpster spots in. We have also been approached by the utility companies and they've requested that they not be in utility easements. Partain: I talked to Rick Evans yesterday, and he said he would work on that. Little: If solid waste requires that extra heavy duty concrete in front of them so that when the trucks lift the heavy load it doesn't tear up the parking lot. And the utility companies, in order to move that concrete, they are having to bore under it. They just said no more dumpsters in utility easements. Partain: Rick had voiced that concern to me and we talked about this yesterday and he said -- that's fine. Warrick: We would like for you to look at a reconfiguration on those dumpster spots. Hoffman: I agree. I would like to see that whole driveway deleted and redone because that is going to look like a service drive from the Bypass instead of a nice landscaped parking area. Overhead electric is named on the plan. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes November 12, 1998 Page 11 Partain: I believe everything is underground. Reynolds. We need for you to call that on the plat. Beavers: Whether you table it or send it upstairs, the drainage needs further analysis. There are reports you can rely on or you can do your own. Reynolds: When is the next meeting of the Subdivision Committee: Warrick: December 3rd. Johnson: Landscaping doesn't reflect what's on the elevation. Partain: We have not shown the shrubs along the front there because we felt you wouldn't be able to see the building for all the shrubs. If we need to add those to the elevations, we will be happy to do that. Warrick: You're showing foundation planting and the elevations are not on the plan. Partain: We will add that. Rutherford: I don't see the 10 feet green space labeled between the curb and the sidewalk. Partain: We will label that. Little: right of way. Not only labeled but calculated because that a function of our comment on the MOTION Ms Johnson made a motion to table the project. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Mr. Reynolds concurred. Subdivision Committee Minutes November 12, 1998 Page 12 LSD98-28 1 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAINVIEW AVE. FIRE STATION, pp 213 This large scale development was submitted by Wes Burgess of Wittenburg, Delony & Davidson on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located south of Millsap Rd. and west of Plainview Ave. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1 acres. Mr. Wes Burgess and Chief Mickey Jackson were present before the committee. Discussion Warrick: The layout is similar to the Hollywood Fire Station which is by McDonald's on 6th Street and this is a mirror image of that development which also processed through large scale. The elevations are in your packet and this is subject to Commercial Design Standards. I believe all the issues have been worked out. There will be a sidewalk installed along with the development of Plainview Ave. which is under construction as a city street prQlect„Streetlights are being installed. We do have two curb cuts. They are necessary for the flow of traffic for the fire truck because they'll come in on the southernmost curb cut and enter the garages so that they can exit in a forward motion via the northernmost curb cut. There is an area called out for a future apparatus bay for an additional garage area and that's at the northernmost portion of the site. Hoffman: So clarify the parking for me. Warrick: The parking is in the rear and the southernmost curb cut will serve for the parking so that the vehicles don't have to go through the garages. Hoffman: That's better than having the trucks maneuver out into the street. Burgess: .This is a prototype fire station. This is exactly the same plan as on Hollywood and that has been a desire to get rid of any backing in of fire trucks whatsoever so we've gone to a through situation on all the fire stations from here on out. Reynolds: What color is the roof? Burgess: It's metal. We intend for it to be beige. Reynolds: Are you making plans for the future? We don't know how long EMS is going to last and the Fire Department will probably eventually take over the ambulance service. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes November 12, 1998 Page 13 Jackson: There is no immediate plans for that. The reason we included it here is because this fire station is not an additional fire station, it is a relocation and we're having to relocate because we didn't have room to build an additional bay where it is now. We may never need it but we should have an area available in case we do. Burgess: That was part of the planning process for these sub stations. They all can go to three bays. We felt like the living areas were pretty well sized but instead of building another station with two bays it might be easier just to add the third bay to the existing sub station. Hoffman: We only have one elevation. Can you explain to me what the other sides of the building are going to look like? Burgess: The other side is a mirror image. Brick all the way around. Hoffman: The living area has windows? Burgess: Yes. Johnson: And what will the ends look like? Burgess: I have that with me. (Discussion ensued regarding the south side.) The north side will be the apparatus bay which will have windows across it to give a more residential look. It will be a concrete block CMU type unit and then brick above that and we have some small details like arched brick over here with some precast lintels over the windows and then there is a metal roof over the entire living area. Johnson: How visible will this facade be from people traveling on Plainview. Burgess: There is good amount of visibility but John Cole Building screens this from the main highway. Johnson: So it will be seen from Millsap. Burgess: Yes. But, those are pretty high roofs. Hoffman: Is that the side with the patio and the screen wall? Burgess: The screen wall curves and screens the mechanical equipment and provides a patio area which on the living side. Rutherford: Sidewalks are fine. Subdivision Committee Minutes November 12, 1998 Page 14 Hesse: Are -the trees along the roadway, will they define the visibility? Burgess: There is still a good area of visibility to see the trucks pulling out. Warrick: This building will be served with underground electric. There is an existing overhead line on the north side of the site and we will be trenching and taking it underground. Johnson: So all of this will be served underground. Warrick: There is an overhead line to the west that is not on their property. It's on hospital property to the west of this lot. Hoffman: I suggest that you work the roof color out with staff and provide an acceptable sample before you finalize your plan. Warrick: For context purposes, the John Cole Building and the Eye Center which is across Millsap both have composite roofs that are similar in color to this. And the Proctor and Gamble building, while it has a flat roof has detailing that is similar in color to this. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to approve the large scale at this level. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Mr. Reynolds concurred. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 a.m.