Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-16 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, September 16, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSD99-20: Connolly, pp 522 Forward to SC-w/cond. PP99-8: AR Research & Technology Park, pp245 Removed PP99-9: Crystal Springs, Ph II, pp245 Forward to SC-w/cond. war. fly OlSCUSSIOt) MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Bob Estes Conrad Odom Lee Ward Lorel Hoffman STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT • Tim Conklin Kim Hesse Janet Johns Ron Petrie Chuck Rutherford • Dawn Warrick • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 2 LSD99-20: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT CONNOLLY, PP522 This item was submitted by Tim Sorey of Sand Creek Engtneenng on behalf of Connolly Inc. for property located on Highway 62 South east of Hill and west of Government. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy CommerciaULight Industrial and contains approximately 1.079 acres. Tim Sorey was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended to forward the project to the full Commission with the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards requirements. Metal side and rear walls are proposed. 2. The proposed sign does not comply with the City's sign ordinance. In order for this sign to be located where indicated on the plan at 15 feet from the front property line, the height of the sign may not exceed 17.5 feet. A 20 foot sign is proposed. The sign area, however, may be 10 square feet. The proposal is for 2.5 square feet. Dedication of right of way by warranty deed to comply with the Master Street Plan requirement of 55 feet from the centerline for this principal arterial. 4. Installation of one 250 watt high pressure sodium street light if there is not one within 300 feet of this location. 5. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots 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. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a 10 foot green space along Hwy 62. The existing sidewalk is in poor condition and needs to be replaced. A permit from AHTD will be required for any work being conducted within the highway right of way. 8. Large scale development approval is valid for one calendar year. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following is required: • • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 3 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. Committee Discussion Conklin: This is a large scale development for a 12,226 square foot retail center. At least 2 tenants are proposed at this location. At Technical Plat Review, the major discussion centered around Commercial Design Standards, drainage, and access. Staff does recommend forwarding this to the full Planning Commission. The proposed sign does not meet the sign ordinance In order for the sign to be located where it's shown on the site plan, the height could only be 17.5 feet. They are proposing a sign area of 2.5 square feet. Rutherford: Dawn Warrick called my attention to the sidewalk and I appreciate her doing that. The sidewalk needs to be shown with a 10 foot green space and dimensioned at 6 feet. It must be continuous through the driveway. Odom. Can we get that written up in the report so they don't have to remember that? Conklin: We'll put that into the report. Are they requesting a waiver on the sign? Sorey: Actually, I did not even have the plan from the architect at the time I resubmitted and he submitted separately. I'm really leaving that up to the owners and the architect to work out what they want their sign to be. I will basically pump this back into their court and ask them to see if they can't comply. Odom. Okay. Conklin: They are showing their sign 12 feet from the ground. Odom: Is there a reason for that? Is this on a sloping lot? Sorey: The lot does slope there along Hwy. 62. The grade along the front drops several feet. • Odom: That's probably the reason for that. • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 4 Conklin: I'm not sure why they are proposing this sign. Sorey: waiver? If they want to go ahead with something like this, will they need to request a Conklin: A freestanding sign this close to the right of way, would need to be granted by the Board of Sign Appeals. Sorey: Okay. With regard to the metal side and rear walls, the architect has wrapped brick around the corner. There are some structures along the front that makes visibility down the side screened a bit. I don't think you'll see much from the street. You will see the brick work until you get into the site itself. Discussion ensued regarding the column structures shown on the site elevations. Sorey: The site elevation needs to be corrected. Estes: The commercial design standards, of course, will be considered by the full • Commission. I'm not real excited about metal side and rear walls. Odom: I don't know that we can do much about rear walls If you can see it from the public right of way, you will have to do something. We'll have to go out there for a site visit and see what we can see from the public road and if you can see the sides from the public road, something is going to have to be done. Sorey: One thing I could do on a schematic of some sort, is show a line of visibility from the right of way based on those other structures and see where that line would come. Would that help? Odom. I think a site visit is going to be necessary. As far as complying, the front part of it is articulated and looks fine to me. I don't know what it looks like in connection with other buildings in the area Ward: This is a whole lot better than what's existing out there now. If you make them put the Taj Mahal down there, they're not going to build it. Odom: I don't know what all is out there. Ward: There are a bunch of old metal buildings. • Odom: I don't see a problem with the facade. Subdivision Committee Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 5 Estes: I wasn't questioning the facade. I was questioning the metal side and rear walls and whether they were exposed to public view. I agree with your comment regarding the facade. I would be concerned about metal side and rear walls if they are visible. Odom: You may want to be prepared to consider taking the brick on the side wall back further. We'll have to go out there and look at it. Conklin: Staff was concerned about the metal side walls. Another issue to address is the curb cuts. We met with Tim Sorey, the engineer, and we discussed the issue of the 2 curb cuts on Highway 62. They looked at trying to provide a shared curb cut, but the adjoining property owners were unwilling to allow them to have some type of shared curb cut at this location. They are requesting 2 curb cuts and it's an issue every time we have development. Odom: What's the staff recommendation? Does it look okay? Conklin: I can't force the adjoining property owner to do a shared curb cut. This Committee needs to know that there are two 24 foot curb cuts proposed. I think that is the best they can do. They have truck traffic. Castle Rental Center is going to be in here. They will need to get trucks in to load and unload. Odom: Where are they going to do that? In the parking lot? Sorey: They'll have to nose into the drive and back in for delivery. Odom. They have the ability to do that on the property? Sorey: Yes, for the size of trucks they will have. Odom. Is the dumpster properly screened? Sorey: Yes, and the 55 foot right of way has been taken care of. Conklin: They are showing the 55 foot right of way. Sorey: Also, there is an existing power pole with the street light on it. That shows up on the grading and utility plan. I think those issues have been addressed. I have a question about the comment regarding the sidewalk and 10 foot green space. We have an existing sidewalk out here now that is in poor condition and we were proposing to replace it. My only concern was putting the 10 foot buffer in between the sidewalk and the road. It's not going to line up with anything else. It will have some real strange dogs when you get to the end of the property. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 6 Rutherford: We have that on College Avenue and Hwy 16, as well. We'll work with you. Estes: Will the sidewalk just serpentine back to connect with the existing sidewalk? Rutherford: Yes. Odom: I suspect we'll do the tour primarily just to look at the site. I highly recommend that you get someone to go with us so you will be prepared for the comments at the meeting. Sorey: And that meeting is? Conklin: Thursday, September 23 at 3:30 p.m. We'll meet in room 111 first. Odom: That's not required but it would probably be in your best interest. MOTION Odom: I make a motion that we forward this to the full Planning Commission with staff comments. Estes: Second. Subdivision Committee Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 7 PP99-9: PRELIMINARY PLAT CRYSTAL SPRINGS, PH II, PP245 This item was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineers on behalf of Howard Davis, JED Development, Inc. for property located south of Crystal Drive and west of Holcomb Elementary School. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4.67 acres with 15 lots proposed. Mel Milholland was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of approval for the original preliminary plat apply. 2. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 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. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 4 foot sidewalk with a 5 foot green space along one side of the extension of Pyrite Drive. 5. Preliminary plat approval is valid for one calendar year. Committee Discussion Conklin: This originally came through with 104 lots and was approved by the Planning Commission in 1995. They have now brought back a partial area of phase II which contains 15 lots. The configuration has not changed, however, because this was not a phase development, staff asked that they bring this back to the Planning Commission. We have included the minutes of the 1995 approval At that time, there was quite a bit of discussion regarding access and the number of lots out in Crystal Springs and when additional access would be made to Deane Solomon Road south of Mt Comfort. As this time, staff is recommending that this be forwarded to the Planning Commission for approval for the 15 lots. Petrie: Mel, if you would add the state plane coordinates to 2 points on the boundaries for Clyde Randall. He requested those. Let's make sure we're all clear on what has been discussed on the construction plans. You need to detail the box culvert on Crystal Drive and show the • • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 8 concrete channel. The trickle channel to the detention pond and the outlet structure need to be detailed. Move the fire hydrant at lots 117 and 118 over two lots between 115 and 116. On lots 121, 122, and 113, show the flood plain. The options on that are, it has to have a minimum of 6,000 square feet out of the flood plain or be a 1 acres lot or be exempt from FEMA with the proper letter of map revision. Conklin: You can construct your subdivision. Once you complete a flood plain development permit, you may place the fill. There are standards for compaction that you have to meet and I can provide that information to you or you can get it off the Internet at FEMA gov and raise the elevations of the lots out of the 100 year flood plain. Milholland: I have that on here. Petrie: We need to have that paper work filed. You have to meet the requirements of the Flood Plain Ordinance. Conklin: Are you showing the finished floor elevations? Milholland: Yes. Conklin: The ordinance requires that the lot either be 1 acre if they are in the 100 year flood plain or they have 6,000 square feet outside the 100 year flood plain and if you want to plat lots this size, in this configuration, you'll have to fill them. You have to bring those lots outside the 100 year flood plain above the base flood elevation. Milholland: Do you have the authority to issue a permit for that? Conklin: I have the authority to issue the permit to allow you to fill those lots. Once they are filled, you have to apply to FEMA to get those lots removed from the flood plain. If you're going to do portions of the lot to bring them above the 100 year flood plain, they are going to need individual legal descriptions. If you're going to fill these lots and bring them above the 100 year flood plain, you have to show the area to be removed. Is your road going to be elevated at that point? Milholland: Not likely. Conklin: I can get with you and work that out with FEMA Milholland: You're requiring revisions? • Conklin: I have an ordinance that requires that in order to minimize the number of lots that • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 9 are being built in a flood plain area that they either be 1 acre or you have a lot that contains 6,000 square feet of buildable area above the base flood elevation. It has to be buildable area and not easements or setback. You can combine these lots together to make a 1 acre lot and not do anything or you can fill them to meet the ordinance. Milholland: That's not a problem but that's a lot of land for a house. Conklin: The ordinance doesn't provide any incentive to build houses in the 100 year flood plain. Odom: Is that a FEMA requirement? Conklin: I'm trying to keep in compliance with our ordinance and our ordinance states that your lots either have to have 6,000 square feet out of the 100 year flood plain or 1 acre In order to officially do that on a FEMA map, you have to apply to them and show that the ground elevation is above the 100 year flood elevation. I have in the past stated that if they do this, then they are in compliance with the City of Fayetteville's ordinance. • Milholland: Here's the old flood plain line and the new one in 1997. I'll work it out with Tim. Odom: Okay. Conklin: Serenity Place is doing the same thing with their lots. They have lots less than an acre and they are filling them and removing them from the 100 year flood plain to be in compliance with the City of Fayetteville. Milholland: Do you think it's possible to keep the lots like we've shown them here? Conklin: As long as you fill them. Rutherford: The sidewalks need to be a minimum 4 foot wide with a minimum 5 foot green space. You're doing a 40 foot right of way street, is that correct? Milholland: Yes, a small street by the new ordinance. Hesse: The only comment I have is they had a very large tree on this which has been removed. So when you go through the later phases, I'll be asking for a greater percentage of tree preservation. • Milholland: They bought the golf course deal and made provisions for the long term. • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 10 Hesse: I'd rather deal with the existing trees. Milholland: After this, we'll come back with a phased development. Estes: I was out of the loop when this first came through. I've only been here for about a year or so. That is the predicate for some of my questions. When these playing fields were built, weren't they filled and raised? Milholland: Not to my knowledge. Estes: Where is the previous 100 year flood plain line? Milholland: It goes up and back down. Estes: And how was that altered to the existing '97 flood plain line? Why was that changed? Conklin: In 1993, the City of Fayetteville requested that FEMA restudy the City of • Fayetteville. The flood insurance rate map shows the risk of flooding based on the development at the time of the map. Our maps were dated September 18, 1991. With all the growth that we've had, we assumed the water had increased. FEMA, along with the Corps of Engineers received funding and it was entirely funded by the Corp of Engineers and FEMA at approximately $535,000. Using the City's geographic information system, we generated 2 foot contour data and gave that to the Corps who was contracted by FEMA and they restudied the City. The original flood plain maps were based off of USGS 7.5 minute quad sheets with 10 to 20 foot contours and they were not very accurate After they restudied, the flood plain maps follow contours and they are all tied together in the same coordinate systems so when you have an elevation of 1274, that contour line matches the flood plain map. They are much more detailed. • Milholland: In the field, when we shot the elevation it wasn't as close but they give us points to go by so when we get out in the field, we locate these contours. Conklin: It matches closer. The previous study was done at HEC2 for hydraulic modeling. The new software was HECRA2. Petrie: The old one was a FORTRAN program and the new is a WINDOWS base. It's much more accurate. Estes: So the change in the 100 year flood plain didn't have anything to with the grading or filling on the playing fields. The water flows -- • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 11 Milholland: There's a channel and a box culvert that we built in phase I. Estes: Is there a concrete swale or something that carries the water. Milholland: We have that designed and it carries it to the wing walls where it spits out. We have to finish that. Estes: When you get into the remaining phases of the development, is Crystal Drive going to go to the golf course? Milholland: There aren't any changes from what we submitted before. Estes: What's going to happen to the box culvert and the concrete swale when you bring Crystal Drive through to the north? Milholland: It will be the same. Estes: Does Crystal Drive go over the culvert and concrete swale? Milholland: Oh, yes. Estes: It will bridge over it? Milholland. Yes. We've already designed that. Conklin: There was previous discussion about extending Crystal Drive and it actually ended up with the developer trading land with Razorback Golf Course and they acquired additional land to connect with some City land for future connection to Deane Solomon Road. In the future we would expect a connection to Deane Solomon. Milholland: They actually gave the golf course several acres and it cost them $70,000 in exchange for the 330 feet by 300 feet piece. It cost about $35,000 to move the green tee. They got $105,000 from us for a lopsided trade. This was all in flood plain at that time. Conklin: We went back later and there was a master street plan amendment to make this street connection. Estes: Thank you. MOTION • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 12 Odom: I move that we forward this on to Planning Commission subject to all comments. Ward: I'll second. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes September 16, 1999 Page 13 DISCUSSION OF WASHINGTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER AMENDMENTS Conklin: I was approached by Washington Regional Medical Center and they asked that I share this with you. You have seen this project before, however, they have made some changes. My opinion is that they need to go back to the Planning Commission. I don't think they need to go through the entire process, however, they are adding 14,000 square feet of additional area and they are relocating their drive. Discussion of the new elevations ensued. Conklin: You'll be seeing this again. It sounds like this is something the Planning Commission would like to take a look at. Odom. It's conceptually the same, isn't it? Conklin: Yes. The discussion comes up periodically on what changes to large scale developments need to be brought back to the Commission. I can't say how much change is okay. Odom: thing. 14,000 square feet wouldn't slide. Some other development would want the same Conklin: Also, there is a change in access, a change to the building footprint and the additional square footage. I think this needs to come back to you. With regard to utilities and the parking lot layout, it's primarily the same with no change to the utility easements We'll just bring this back to Planning Commission. It's a better design overall and I think it works better. Staff does support this and I don't have a problem recommending approval. I want to make sure that what the Planning Commission approves is what gets built. Odom. Can it be approved on the Consent Agenda? Conklin: Sure. Odom: If we can get enough people at the agenda session to look at it, we could just do it by consent. Estes: Wouldn't we be amending a large scale development? Conklin: It would have the same conditions and everything. Yes, you would amend it to allow them to increase the building size and to change the access location. I'll just put in on the Planning Commission agenda.