Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-01 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, July 1, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 1 1 1 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Items Considered Action Taken PP99-5.1: Stonewood Subdivision, pp99/60 To PC -needs revisions LSD99-18: Bronson, pp175 To PC -needs revisions LSD99-19: Fairview Memorial Mausoleum, pp370 Approved MEMBERS PRESENT Lorel Hoffman Phyllis Johnson Conrad Odom STAFF PRESENT Jim Beavers Tim Conklin • Kim Hesse Janet Johns Paul Libertini Ron Petrie Chuck Rutherford Dawn Warrick • MEMBERS ABSENT Lee Ward STAFF ABSENT None • • Subdivision Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 2 PP99-5.1: PRELIMINARY PLAT STONEWOOD SUBDIVISION, PP99/60 This item was submitted by Glenn Carter on behalf of Mark Foster for property located at 4786 North Crossover Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 57.23 acres with 119 lots proposed. Glenn Carter and Keith Hodges were present on behalf of the project. Staff recommended forwarding the plat to the full Planning Commission with conditions of approval as follows. Conditions of Approval 1. Waiver request from section 3-2 of the Minimum Street Standards to allow a street centerline radius of less than 150 feet at six (6) different locations. Also, a waiver request to allow a street tangent length between reverse curve of less than 100 feet at seven (7) locations. Staff does not support these waiver requests. 2. POA or similar entity shall be responsible for maintenance within all designated green space areas. 3. Sight distance calculations must be approved by City Engineering and Traffic division (these have been submitted and will be reviewed prior to the June 28, 1999, Planning Commission meeting.) 4. The off-site utility easement for the proposed water line and sewer line (20 feet wide) must be obtained from adjacent property owners prior to the approval of construction plans for the development. The sewer line easement must be located along the Hwy 265 right of way to allow for future widening. 5. Truck access shall be provided to all manholes. All overland swales must have concrete trickle channels and must be maintained by the POA or similar entity. Installation of water service crossings to provide for future irrigation demands including 2 inch main with gate valve and box per David Jurgens, Water & Sewer Maintenance Superintendent. • 8. Plat review and subdivision comments. • • • Subdivision Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 3 9. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lot 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. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 10. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $44,625 for 119 lots at $375 per lot. 11. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space along Hwy 265; for local street (50 feet right of way) a minimum 4 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot green space on both sides of the streets; and, for residential streets (40 feet right of way) a minimum 4 foot sidewalk with a minimum 5 foot green space on one side of the street. 12. Preliminary plat approval shall be valid for 1 calendar year. 13. Must meet floodplain requirements. The applicant proposes to fill above the base flood elevation. Committee Discussion Conklin: This is a preliminary plat. The property was rezoned to R -O and R-1 about 2 months ago. This is a proposal for 119 lots. 14 lots will platted in the R -O portion of the property. 105 residential lots will be platted in the R-1 property. The issues that need to be discussed today and decisions made are for a waiver request from the minimum street standard. I'll let Ron go over what those waivers are and on which streets. We're looking for a sight distance calculations and I believe we have that here at the city and we need to review that and make a report to you at Planning Commission with regard to access on Highway 265. They are providing access to the east at 3 locations. This currently adjoins the current city limits. We have had discussions with the property owner to the east about annexation. The standard city street is 28 feet in width. We have allowed the streets that are not going to connect to future streets to be the local street of 24 feet in width. Those are primarily the cul de sacs and the loop street. Petrie: First, they have planned streets that don't meet our minimum standards. We cannot support a waiver on that. There is a reason for standards. They plan to make several of the curves sharper that what is allowed. We have a minimum turn line radius of 150 feet and for "S" curves a turn line radius of 50 feet. That is sharper than what our minimum standards require. Also, there is a requirement that you have 100 feet between reverse curves. That is a curve that goes one way and then turns back to the other. We require a minimum 100 feet of distance between the curves. In several places they are below that standard. What they are • • • Subdivision Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 4 asking for on the centerline radius is less than 100 feet at 6 different locations. The standard distance between the reverse curb at 7 different locations. Those are primarily on Shadowood Avenue to the west, Stonebriar Drive on the north, and Stoneview. Hoffman: Did they make the revisions from plat review? Petrie: I did request additional information and they have provided it. Beavers: I brought Paul Libertini with me. We're here today to discuss our minimum street standards. I've very opposed to what he's doing. Why are going to have standards if we're going to arbitrarily waive them. I can't think of any reason to waive to them. Paul can speak from his experience as to what they have tried in various areas like this. People tend to cut the corner and drive over the centerline and it's not safer. I think you can find literature from some groups on what they call "traffic calming" and we can submit engineering studies that show it's not safer. Libertini: The only thing I can add is Millbrook in Florida has a residential traffic control program that has been in existence for about 7 or 8 years and we've literally looked at hundreds of locations in existing subdivisions and done speed studies and we found the speeds to anywhere from 7 mph to over 25 mph in the same type of subdivision. We looked at a bunch of different ways to slow down traffic like tight curves and speed humps. We found that the tight radius didn't work. We had lots of people cutting corners, missing turns and using people's driveways, running up the sidewalk, tearing up lawns and then the county had to go back out there and fix that. The ITE, Institute of Traffic Engineering, did an assessment and sent literature about putting in streets with lots of curves in it to try and slow down traffic but those measures did not work. Hoffman: Could you address that in regard to garbage trucks? Libertini: If there is not parking in the street, they would probably be adequate. They can just drive down the middle of the street. Hoffman: Parking is not prohibited in these streets, is it? Petrie: 24 feet is adequate for parking in the street. Libertini: Potentially, you could have blockage there if you have too many cars on both sides of the street. Hoffman: Are the cul de sacs the standard city radius? Subdivision Minutes • July 1, 1999 Page 5 Conklin: They are 40 feet paved surface radius with 50 feet right of way. Hoffman: Obviously, this is going to be a major discussion in this particular subdivision. I would like to go ahead and take the other comments and then come back to the street design. Rutherford: Regarding sidewalks, everything is taken care of and they have met the requirement. Conklin: With regard to the flood plain, I think your flood plain line shown -- we talked at plat review about what our requirements are and that is a I acre minimum lot size for a lot that has 6,000 square feet outside the flood plain that's buildable. Just for the record, once again, are we proposed to fill these lots up above the 100 year flood elevation? Carter: Yes, that is reflected on our grading plan. Conklin: Please get with me and let's talk about what FEMA requires with regard to compaction on those areas of the subdivision. I do believe there is a compaction test that has to be performed on fill for the multiple lots and you need to make sure that once it's filled that • FEMA will accept them. Hoffman: Does that include the street that's in the flood plain to be filled in, too? Hodges: There will be some fill in there as well. Public Comment None Further Discussion • Carter: We have had discussion with your staff about this minimum curve thing and the distances and radius. In that vein, we have gone back and we've tried to make this work and we find that although we desire this, we can make these narrow streets work without any problem and we will do that. We will withdraw the variance for that and submit that as a revision as it goes forward. The cul de sac to the north can be fixed, too. That's not a problem. Between these 2 streets, we have some issues to talk about here. There is an existing house here and I guess this all starts with setting the entrance location. You can look at these contours and tell we picked the center of the highest point to give us our sight distance. That gets the sight distance but then we have to come back a sufficient distance from that intersection before we have another intersection. We're about 190 feet there. • Subdivision Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 6 Hoffman: 1 have a basic question. Why do we have a street adjacent to Highway 265? Is this a street? Am I reading this correctly? Carter: For access to the R-0 lots? Conklin: They wanted their street to be in front. The street provides access to the lots off of 265 without direct access to the highway. Hoffman: Will this not look like too much of acres and acres of paving and make 265 look a mile wide? Conklin: I'm not sure how much of that right of way will not be paved between 265 and the future when it's widened but there will be green area in between the 2 roads. It's not going to be asphalt against asphalt. Hoffman: I see a little strip. Conklin: What you're looking at is -- • Carter: There will be 70 feet from pavement to pavement. Hoffman: This to this is 70 feet? Carter: That is from the right of way. I measured from edge of pavement to edge of pavement. Hoffman: That's going to right of way. Carter: We just want to reserve this as a green space. If you've seen the site, you've seen all these trees out here. We'd like to keep that appearance with the street behind here so we wouldn't have curb cuts on 265 and all kinds of traffic problems with this hill -- sight distance. Again, a guy trying to get out of a lot right here and there's a car coming up over the hill, you don't have sight distance. We just felt it would be a much safer design to have a street access to all these lots and have 2 entrances onto 265. Conklin: If you assume that the paved width of a 4 lane street is 52 feet wide. I get about 50 feet of separation between the 2 streets if the highway is 4 lane. If it's 5 lane, we will have less. • Carter: In trying to redesign this, I guess what we did as a kind of backup, we tried to find another way that would work. We can put this street in and meet those standards. That creates 3 • Subdivision Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 7 other problems. One is the existing house. It causes the setbacks to go into the house, so we would need a waiver for a setback there which may not be a big issue. It's probably less objectionable than street standards. The other involves street standards. We would like to come in the streets at a 90 degree angle. The ordinance allows 75. When you turn back 75, you still cut into this house, so we have to turn back to 63 to make it work. If we met all the curve standards, we would still have 2 violations of the ordinance for entrance angles to the streets. We don't know which is more objectionable to you but if that is less objectionable, then we would withdraw the variance request and resubmit revisions with the variance request for the street intersection angles. We could fix all these curves. Hoffman: The only waivers you then would be requesting on street standards would be the angles that these streets meet. Carter: I'm not sure if we need to request a waiver on the setback of the existing house. Warrick: That is a Board of Adjustment item. Conklin: If you plat the street and the setback is no longer meeting our zoning ordinance, • you can go to the Board of Adjustment and ask for a variance. If you do not do that and the house is ever destroyed more than 50% then it can't be rebuilt in that location. • Carter: to do that. That sounds like a minor item compared to the other issues. We would be willing Beavers: On these revised intersections, we would like to see the drawing before we comment on it. Carter: I did do some sketches if you would like to see that now. Beavers: No, between now and Planning Commission. Odom: The landscape administrator said that the way that the streets are now, they meet the landscaping standard. I think she would need to see a revised drawing to make sure the revised street would meet the ordinance. I'm wondering if we do this the way that we're doing it if we're going to be doing subdivision work at the Planning Commission meeting. Hoffman: I agree. We have a lot to do about the streets. I think both the street and lot configuration changes will make it necessary for staff to take a look at it again. My sense is we are going to move to go through another round of this before it goes to the full Planning Commission. • • • Subdivision Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 8 Hodges: The actual location of the street really doesn't change the lot layout. Glenn brought these sketches so we can look at it. We're not impacting any more additional trees in here. The actual locations of the road is almost exactly the same. By making these revisions, we're really not affecting anymore trees. We're actually make these lots bigger in the front. Conklin: My understanding is you're going to be taking out the curves. Carter: We'll just smooth out the curves. Conklin: I'm comfortable if engineering has adequate time to review it prior to Planning Commission. Hoffman: What's the deadline? Conklin: Tuesday, July 6 at 10 a.m. Hoffman: Is it possible not to make that a dedicated city street and make it a narrower private access easement for all these lots? Conklin: Any time you have a drive that connects 2 public streets -- we had this issue with Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market -- it has to be public. That is city policy with regard to connecting public streets MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to forward PP99-5.1 to the full Planning Commission subject to revised drawings being reviewed by staff and also subject to all staff comments and conditions of approval. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. Ms. Hoffman concurred. Subdivision Minutes • July 1, 1999 Page 9 LSD99-18: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT BRONSON, PP175 This item was submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Phil Bronson of Yogi & Booboo Properties LLC for property located in Lot 3 of Vantage Square, north of Joyce Street and west of Park View Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 2 acres. Kurt Jones was present on behalf of the project. Staff recommended approval subject to certain conditions. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including cross access to the east. 2. A signed agreement with the United States Postal Service to allow this development to • discharge storm water onto their property as proposed. • 3. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 10 foot concrete trail along Joyce Blvd. per the City Trail Master Plan. 3. (Amended) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 10 foot concrete or asphalt trail along Joyce Blvd per the City Trail Master Plan. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 5. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lot 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. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 6. Large scale development approval is valid for 1 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 as required by §158.01. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site Subdivision Minutes • July 1, 1999 Page 10 • • and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Committee Discussion Warrick: This is a large scale development request. There are 4 proposed buildings on this site and just for reference, this is immediately west of the proposed and currently under construction Post Office location. We did a lot split to create this piece of property and divide it out from the Post Office site about a year ago. On the east side of it is Butterfield Trail Plaza with Collier's Drug Store. This is subject to commercial design standards based on the elevations. Each of the buildings will be identical. We do need a signed agreement with the Post Office to allow this development to discharge storm water on their property as proposed. Jones: On the sidewalk, Chuck, didn't you say that could be asphalt. Warrick: We will amend the condition. Rutherford: It can be either/or. Odom: The developers want asphalt, don't they? Rutherford: It will be both if they do asphalt because they will have to provide concrete approaches. Conklin: At the last Planning Commission, we had a similar request with the landscaping and not extending out into the parking. It's my opinion that the Planning Commission will need to act on this also as a waiver of the internal landscaping requirements. I'll let Kim Hesse address that issue. Hesse: We would only be gaining 2 additional trees on this. That would be alright but they could increase the number of trees. Typically, we would have 4 trees in 4 islands. Hoffman: I'm not real comfortable removing the island landscaping for this. Hesse: We're not gaining a lot of trees on this particular design. They have 6 trees in the parking lot by ordinance. Jones: Does this not meet the ordinance -- the diamonds? Hesse: it 4 feet in. It has to be 4 feet into the parking lot to be considered interior. That doesn't take • • • Subdivision Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 11 Conklin: The intent of the ordinance was to have internal landscaping -- internal to the parking lot. The ordinance talks about landscaping that extends at least 4 feet into the parking lot. We do have standards for the island size that you have to plant the tree. Normally, it is about the size of a standard parking space. Jones: I misunderstood the ordinance, then. I thought the diamonds were -- Hesse: They work if they're inside 2 adjacent rows of parking. Otherwise, they are considered perimeter landscaping. We're looking at revising that. That option, as I work on that, is going to take some time to figure out how it would work better. I would have more trees per parking spaces than what is provided now. Conklin: The ordinance when it was drafted tried to address the issue, "when does perimeter landscaping become interior landscaping." The standard was that it had to extend at least 4 feet into the parking lot. Hesse: You still get the canopy cover having them along the perimeter. The other project we just approved had a lot more foliage out there. Jones: I've talked to the owner regarding this issue and I note that they will not be opposed to -- right now we're showing 19 foot long spaces -- they would not be opposed to shorten all those to 17 feet allowing a 2 foot overhang. That's increasing the green space surrounding the perimeter and also planting more trees than what's required by ordinance. Parking is a problem right now. That would reduce the paving area and increase the number of trees and still maintain the existing number of parking spaces. Hoffman: We'll come back to you in minute. I want to keep this meeting going on forward and could you summarize your position on the landscaping for us? Are you not comfortable with this? Hesse: They way it's shown, I wouldn't necessarily support that. Hoffman: Okay. Hesse: I would need additional. Hoffman: More comments from engineering on drainage? Petrie: I have several comments in regard to the landscaping, the water line needs to be 10 feet away from where ever those trees end up. The way it's shown now won't work. Subdivision Minutes • July 1, 1999 Page 12 • Hoffman: So that water line location is subject to change based on the landscape plan? Petrie: Yes. Hoffman: Where is that on the plan? Petrie: It's along the east side Hoffman: So the 8 inch water line is along -- Warrick: It runs up the east property line. Hoffman: So those trees need to move? Petrie: Have you had any conversations with the Post Office on this? Jones: The owners had contact with him regarding getting some kind of a signed agreement on that. Petrie: You need to review their design, layout, and drainage for the federal facility. Do you know what they've got in there? Jones: They don't have anything back south of this site. It's a narrow strip between this site and the creek. Petrie: You don't have a problem with that condition? Jones: No. It's just a matter of getting through the red tape. We'll get some kind of approval from them. Hoffman: You're not concerned about -- since we don't know about the post office drainage design -- if we allow them to go onto the post office and that's substandard, will that make a problem for the creek? Petrie: If we have a signed agreement to meet that condition of approval, then I feel comfortable with that. That's why the engineers have to sign off on their design. I feel comfortable if I have that. Hoffman: Okay. • Jones: This doesn't drain to the post office. It goes to a different -- there's a channel that • • Subdivision Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 13 runs -- it's a natural, existing channel, that runs just off the northwest corner of this site. The post office development is back from here. They aren't doing anything here. It won't be going through their drainage system. Hoffman: It's combining -- Petrie: It crosses their property. Jones: It crosses their property. Warrick: This property kind of circles. It's an "L" shape that the post office owns on the north and west sides of this property. The actual development will be on the west but they still have additional property up to the north. Rutherford: On the driveway, it needs to be clear -- you're showing this line right here -- and I'm seeing the separation for concrete and asphalt. That's fine. But curb and gutter will stop and start on each side of the trail. Jones: I understand. Public Comment None Further Discussion Conklin: I do have a couple of comments. They are showing cross access to the east over toward Collier's. That is something that we looked at after plat review and they have agreed to show that on their plans. Currently, there is a dumpster located in this parking lot area I'm hoping everything will get worked out so that the doctor's office patrons could get over to Collier's Drug without getting back onto Joyce Blvd. The other comment I have from dealing with curb cut questions on a weekly basis, people were complaining about trying to get in and out of developments -- your radius -- you may want to consider increasing that to 20 or 25 feet on Joyce Blvd. and allow cars to get in and out without having to slow down as much. Right now, you're showing a 15 foot radius That is just a suggestion and something to look at. Hoffman: You want to look at doing a 25 foot radius? Conklin: Or 20. • Jones: Do you want that big of an opening on Joyce? If you go with a 25 foot radius, Subdivision Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 14 that would be 25 plus 24 plus 25. You're talking about -- Conklin: I'm Just responding to issues that I have been receiving phone calls on. If you have any type of truck traffic that is trying to enter into this parking lot -- I will leave it to your decision. If you think a 15 foot radius will work and allow the type of vehicles expected to enter this facility to enter and exit safely, that is fine. I know with trucks, the highway department is looking at -- I discussed it with them at state highway and it's a 20 feet minimum radius. I know this is not a state highway but Joyce Blvd. is classified as a minor arterial street and your traffic speed is 35 to 45 in that area. Jones: We wouldn't be anticipating any large trucks through this site except the garbage/trash truck. Hoffman: No deliveries? Jones: There may be small delivery trucks like UPS. Conklin: I just wanted to bring that out. Thanks. Jones: I want to talk about the landscaping. I talked to the owner about this and it's -- if we could request a waiver to reduce the parking stall width to 17 feet. That would gain 2 feet on either side. Then we would go in and plant additional trees. You're going to get the same type of interior screen between this development and the development to the east simply because you have parking on both sides and you're going to have the trees breaking that area up. We don't want a lot of wide parking areas anyway. We're talking about 1 row of parking. There will be landscaping around the building with trees planted in that area also. So, I think you would get the same affect and possibly even better -- less pavement -- you will have less pavement overall if we reduce that down. Hoffman: How many more trees are you proposing? Jones: What is the requirement? Is it 1 per 10? Hesse: It would be 1 per 12. I would suggest 1 per 8. Jones: We'll do 1 per 8. Hoffman: Is the 17 foot length of the parking space sufficient for anything but compact cars? Conklin: We allow the 17 foot stall. We allow the cars to hang over 2 feet. It does work. Sometimes, you have a person that may not want to drive over the curb and pull their vehicles in. • • • Subdivision Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 15 Vehicles are getting longer but it does seem to be working in Fayetteville. Odom: That is similar to the variance we allowed before. I think I would be in support of it because it's a single row and they are adding additional trees. Hoffman: Are we only talking about the east side? Jones: I'm proposing both sides. Hoffman: You would go with that, too? Odom: You said something about the back. Hesse: They don't have parking in the back. I don't know if we're going to get a whole lot of additional trees. Hoffman: Do you have any plans for trees along the back? Jones: What if we add 2 trees in the back? Hoffman: The other one -- didn't they have medium size hardwood? Hesse: That was a requirement. Odom: We'll take your 2 trees and add a bush. Jones: Let me talk to the owners. They do have some shrubs planned back there. I'll tell them what you want. Hoffman: I'm a little concerned about our parking lot ordinance. It's been successful and Just tossing it out for something I haven't seen the final results of -- do we have any parking lot that we can go and look at? Hesse: I'm sure I can find some and photograph them. Hoffman: Would you do that for next agenda session? Hesse: I'm working on revisions to the ordinance. I know I could find some. Hoffman: That would be real helpful. • Subdivision Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 16 Hesse: There is an existing gas line on the east side, I think. That could be a problem. Odom. Kurt talked about moving his water line in the parking lot. Jones: That's proposed. There are some existing utilities that have to be dealt with. The gas and the underground TV are over on the other property. There is a fiber optic line that's going to be running under the parking lot so you shouldn't get into it with the trees. Hoffman: We don't need to consider cross access to the north? We're not going to get into that here so we can ever do anything to the north? Wan -ick. To the north would be kind of difficult because that's the post office property. Conklin: They are concemed about security to the back of the federal facility. Warrick: There is a lot of flood plain. Jones: It's a narrow strip that doesn't look like, based on their survey and the width of • that strip, that it's really buildable because of the sewer easement that runs through there. Warrick: The far west side of the post office lot -- we have achieved some vacations of right of way for Vantage to continue to the north. There is a master street plan street one lot over to the west on the other side of the post office and it eventually connects to the Zion Valley development where they've built part of Vantage. There is access to the north in that regard. I think it would be hard to get sewer to this particular lot. Odom: owner? The cross access here, what type of agreement has been made with this other land Jones: There is none at this point. I wanted to talk a little bit about that. The planning staff requested that we show that on the plan after visiting the site. I went out and looked at it. What's out there right now -- it would be possible to get access. I don't know if the existing owner would agree to it. They have their dumpster in that location right now. I didn't see anywhere else up front. They have another dumpster in the rear. I didn't really see where they could relocate that dumpster. Conklin: I can't speak for Collier Drug If these were doctor's offices, it would be nice to be able to go through this parking lot and get to the drug store. • Odom: That would be good planning. I just wonder how much authority we have over a landowner doing it. • • • Subdivision Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 17 Conklin: What we have done in the past and it's city policy to require that the stub out be built and then the property owners need to decide whether or not it's going to be beneficial to each other to open it up. That is what we have required and hopefully -- Hoffman: You require a stub out for this development? Conklin: I went out there and looked at it. You have 2 rows of double wide parking and the aisle going directly into the stub out. It's designed perfectly to keep on going. Jones: It looks like a turn out. Whenever you have a double row of parking for those last spaces, you need something for them to back out into. It looks like that's it's main function. It does have curb on the back and it doesn't extend to the property line. It wasn't constructed as a cross connection but they've put the dumpster in there now. We will build the stub out certainly and contact the owners and see what we could work out with them. Hoffman: If we could have something by agenda session. Jones: We'll contact them prior to agenda session. Johnson: Regardless of their attitude, presently I still think the stub out ought to be built. Jones: Okay. Hoffman: So, we'll have a revised landscape plan. Are there any utility questions we need to address? Conklin: They're actually relocating the existing overhead power pole further off the street onto that site. Is that correct? Jones: Ozarks Electric is planning to do that. I don't remember what that discussion was plat review. They wanted to move it. The guy wires aren't going to be in our way. They won't be a problem for us. I think they are going to be a problem for the sidewalk. They were going to move the power pole that's in the front of the site. Warrick: It's beside the 8 inch water line. Jones: They're going to move that over to the corner and get that out from in front of the site. Conklin: I think it's going to make it look better. • • • Subdivision Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 18 Odom: Is there an overhead line there? I thought that was all underground. Jones: It's Just a cross that -- it goes across the street and then it goes down. Hoffman: Do you want to touch on commercial design standards? Warrick: Their proposal is for brick structures, composition single roof, with some drivet accents and you should have that in your packet. If you don't, I can pass this around for you. Each of the 4 buildings is suppose to look the same. Kurt, we talked very briefly about signage before, did you find out their plan? Jones: There is no plan for a sign. Warrick: The R -O district has very limited signage allowances. If they do have signage, we would recommend that it just be in that alcove above the doorways. Jones: I think that is the plan. Each individual lessee would have some sign on the building. A small sign. Hoffman: Looking at the end elevations, is this what it's going to look like in the front? Jones: Yes, that is correct. Hoffman: I notice we have windows. Odom. It looks good. It's the standard. Warrick: We felt that with the variation in materials and the banding they were proposing that it did appear to be articulated. There is landscaping in front of the it by the street. Conklin: It's not a flat, parapet wall going straight up. Jones: We didn't do the architecture. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to send it on. Johnson: I feel that we're okay because the plat is going to be reworked in a major way but we're not worried about this going on to Planning Commission with the new parking length. Staff can process all that. • • • Subdivision Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 19 Conklin: We can handle that. That's not going to be a problem. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. • Subdivision Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 20 LSD99-19: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FAIRVIEW MEMORIAL MAUSOLEUM, PP 370 This item was presented by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of David Reynolds of SCI Management Corporation for property located at 1728 Mission Boulevard. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 22.95 acres. Andy Davis was present on behalf of the project. Staff recommended approval subject to certain conditions. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 2. Dedication of right of way along Mission Blvd by warranty deed to meet the requirement of the Master Street Plan of 55 feet from centerline as shown on the project plat. • 3. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include the repair of a 30 foot section of the existing sidewalk along Mission Blvd. which is currently in an unsafe condition. • 4. All plat review and subdivision comments. 5. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lot 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. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 6. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for 1 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 as required by §158.01 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. • Subdivision Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 21 • • Committee Discussion Warrick: This large scale proposal is at the Fairview Memorial Cemetery on Mission Boulevard. The entire property contains about 23 acres. They are requesting an addition of a mausoleum which is approximately 2,587 square feet and it would be located fairly close to Mission Blvd. north of the administrative type building that is within the development. Conklin: You know where the pond is? The pond is directly north of this proposed structure. This will be on the east end of the cemetery, directly south of the pond. Warrick: The only issues that we had were dedication of right of way per the Master Street Plan which they are showing at 55 feet from centerline because Mission is a principal arterial Sidewalk construction -- they have a 30 foot section of existing sidewalk that we've requested that they repair. It is currently in an unsafe condition. And, Commercial Design Standards -- this could be approved at this level. Conklin: Staff has no problem with the elevation. Public Comment None Further Discussion Johnson: This kind of blocks the view of the pond which is kind of nice and unique for the cemetery. Warrick: It's a relatively small building. Conklin: The height is 18 feet. Odom: It slopes down. Davis: This street is higher. Conklin: They are meeting our setbacks. They are showing the setback from the future right of way on the Master Street Plan. Odom: Davis: Is this for people who have been cremated? It's dust crypts. The walls are the same on the inside and outside. It's dust • • Subdivision Minutes July 1, 1999 Page 22 drawers. Hoffman: Which side faces Mission? Warrick: The first elevation is what you'll see from the road. Hoffman: Is there any architecture other than the house on the site? I don't remember much except for the pond. Conklin: There are other mausoleums on the cemetery grounds. There is one directly over west from the pond. Odom: It's not a box like structure. It doesn't have an interior part, does it? Davis: No. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve LSD99-19 subject to conditions of approval. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. Ms. Hoffman concurred. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.