Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-02 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on December 2, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED PP99-14: Woodlands, pp168 PP99-8: AR Research & Tech Park, pp247 LS99-25: AR Research & Tech Park, pp247 LS99-19: Davis, ppl80 FP99-7: Zion Valley, pp135 LSD99-25: 3R & 8 Wedington Place, pp401 MEMBERS PRESENT Lorel Hoffman Conrad Odom Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Jim Beavers Tim Conklin Kim Hesse Janet Johns Wayne Ledbetter Ron Petrie Kim Rogers Chuck Rutherford Charles Venable Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Forward to PC Forward to PC Approved Approved Approved Forward MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF ABSENT • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 2 PP99-8: PRELIMINARY PLAT ARKANSAS RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY PARK, PHASE I, PP247 This item was submitted by Charles Venable on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located west of Highway 112 and 1-540 interchange and east of Deane Soloman Road. The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 289.28 acres with 15 lots proposed. Wayne Ledbetter and Charles Venable were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation 1. The Planning Commission must make a determination of the request for a waiver of the sidewalk requirement along Shiloh Drive. 2. Curb cuts shall be limited to interior streets and shall conform to the Design Overlay District requirements with regard to spacing. • 3. A unified design theme needs to be set for this subdivision prior to the first large scale development and no later than when the final plat is processed for phase I. 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 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. 6. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space on both sides of all streets except Moore Lane which shall have a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot green space on both sides. 7. Preliminary plat approval is valid for one calendar year. Committee Discussion Conklin: The City of Fayetteville is developing this subdivision and targeting high • technology companies. Today, we are dealing with phase I only. Future phases will processed as the park builds out. The plat does address the general layout for future phases. The next item 4 • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 3 is a lot split for lot 1. These are being processed concurrently in order for Interface Computers to acquire the property and begin the large scale development process. Since the present access to this lot would still be under construction, temporary access would be from Shiloh Drive. This would meet Design Overlay requirements once Technology Boulevard is constructed. The Interface Computer lot does have frontage along Shiloh. The lot split process does allow for the lot to be sold prior to the final plat being filed. If this was included as part of the subdivision, they would have to wait until the final plat was filed in order to transfer title. That is the reason the lot split is necessary at this time. Hoffman: What about the sidewalk waiver on Shiloh? Rutherford: The terrain at this location is difficult and we believe that the Highway Department may widen this in the future. Hoffman: Are the drainage plans in process? Will we have more information on that? Petrie: The Engineering Division is designing this subdivision and we will meet the requirements of the code. Beavers: We have plans for you to review if you would like to come to Engineering. Hesse: We will look at landscape issues with large scale plans. Warrick. No park fees are required. This is not residential. Hoffman: Has the wetlands issue been resolved? Venable: Wayne is the contact person for us. Wayne has scheduled a meeting with the Corps of Engineers and the environmental groups. They are concerned about the Arkansas Darter which is present and we think we have taken care of all this. Hopefully, they will allow us to get going. We are not able to do any work on the streets until we get this resolved. We think by March we will have the contract and will get the work going out there. Phase I is 10 lots and a loop street named Technology Blvd. Ward: Are there wetland areas involved in Phase I? Venable: Part of it, according to the Corps, is wetlands. Public Comment None • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 4 MOTION Ward: 1 move that we forward this preliminary plat to the full Planning Commission. Odom. Second. Hoffman: I concur. 416 • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 5 LS99-25: LOT SPLIT ARKANSAS RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK, PP247 This item was submitted by Charles Venable on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located west of Highway 112 and 1-540 interchange and east of Deane Soloman Road. The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 289.28 acres. The request is to split the property into 2 tracts containing 2.5 acres and 286.78 acres. Wayne Ledbetter and Charles Venable were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation 1. The Planning Commission must make a determination of a request for a waiver of the sidewalk requirement along Shiloh Drive. 2. This lot shall be considered a part of the subdivision for the Research and Technology Park and shall be subject to all covenants and other restrictions applied to the entire development. 3. Screening, signage, tree preservation requirements, and Design Overlay District requirements will be addressed at the time of large scale development. 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 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. 6. Sidewalk construction is a requirement of the developer and will be tied to the approval of the preliminary and final plats for phase I of the Research & Technology Park. Commission Discussion Hoffman: I believe that staff comments on this item were include in our discussion of the preliminary plat. Public Comment None • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 6 Hoffman: With the preliminary plat, I think we will need to discuss waiving the sidewalk. We typically do not waive the sidewalk requirements and I want to make sure that we cover our bases on this one. Venable: We plan on widening Shiloh to 4 lanes and at that time, the sidewalks would be added in. It may be 10 years before that develops. The difference in the terrains is substantial. It is just currently an open shoulder road. Hoffman: We need to do a site visit on this at agenda session and look at it. MOTION Ward: I move approval of lot split 99-25. Odom. Second. Hoffman: I concur. tea • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 • Page 7 PP99-14: PRELIMINARY PLAT WOODLANDS, PP168 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Tom Terminella for property owned by Henry Shreve located at the northwest corner of Howard Nickell Road and Hwy 112. The property is within the Fayetteville planning area and contains approximately 72.09 acres with 10 lots proposed. Dave Jorgensen and Tom Terminella were present on behalf of the request Staff Recommendation 1. All conditions of Washington County Planning Board approval shall also be conditions of approval at the City level. 2. Both Howard Nickell Road and Hwy 112 in this location are classified as principal arterial streets on the Master Street Plan. Dedication of right of way to meet the MSP requirement of 55 feet from centerline is a condition of this plat. The dedication along Hwy 112 must be by warranty deed as this is a state highway. 3. The possible need for additional street connections will be reviewed upon further division of any of these lots. 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 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. 6. Preliminary plat approval is valid for one calendar year Committee Discussion Conklin: This project was approved by the Washington County Planning Board on November 4, 1999. The property is located in the county and therefore sidewalks, parks fees, and tree preservation are not required. Street lights and fire hydrants are recommended but not required. The City Council approved a resolution in November to remove the minor arterial street from the Master Street Plan which was proposed to be located in the center of this development. Normally, a minor arterial is 2 to 3 miles long and takes you from one part of the • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 8 city to another. We have a principal arterial, Hwy. 112, located less than 1/4 mile away. Staff has looked at the size of the property and the number of lots proposed. They are proposed to be developed as single family homes. Staff does not feel there is a need to look for local street connections because they only propose 10 lots. Every lot has street frontage. If lot 3 or 4 comes in, we will probably look at street connections at that time. Petrie: We need to be on the record that there will not be fire protection for these homes. Public Comment None MOTION Odom: I move that we forward pp99-14 to the full Planning Commission. Hoffman: It could be possible to develop more than 10 houses on this. • Conklin: This is in the county and they do not have zoning. If someone wanted to develop more than one house and own all the houses they develop then they could build more than one. Mr. Terminella stated at a previous meeting that there would be Restrictive Covenants. • Terminella: Our intent is to develop 10 estate sites with a restriction preventing lot splits for a period of 15 years. Hoffman: We would like to have that as a part of the plat. Ward: Where was the abandoned street going to run? Warrick: Near the border of lot 4 and 5 pretty close to the gully. Conklin: There was concern about the terrain, also. The grade in some areas is over 20%. We usually do not require a local street for just one house. Hoffman. At the time the Covenants expire and if someone came in to request a lot split, it would be reviewed again. Ward: I'll second the motion. Hoffman: I'll concur. Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 9 LS99-19: LOT SPLIT DAVIS, PP180 This item was submitted by Leigh and Candra Davis for property located south of Howard Porter Road and southwest of Gulley Road. The property is located in the planning growth area and contains approximately 5 acres. The request is to split the property into 2 tracts containing 4 acres and 1 acre. Leigh Davis was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation 1. Verify that the septic system for the existing house does not cross the proposed property lines. 2. Prior to filing documents with the Circuit Clerk, the City Planning Division must stamp any deeds or plats that will make the transaction official. 3. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 4. 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. Committee Discussion Conklin: The request is to split this property into 2 lots containing 4 acres and 1 acre. This is located outside the city limits and sidewalks, park fees, and tree preservation requirements are not applicable. Staff recommends approval. We need to verify that the septic system for the existing house does not cross the proposed property line. Prior to documents being filed with the county clerk, the Planning Division must stamp any deeds or plats that make the transaction official. Public Comment None Further Committee Discussion • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 10 Davis: Where would we get verification on the septic system for the existing home? Conklin: What we require is for the plat to include the septic system and the lateral field. Hoffman: Are you in agreement with the other conditions9 Davis: Sure. MOTION Ward: I will move that we approved LS99-19. Odom: Second. Hoffman: I'll concur. Thank you very much. • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 11 FP99-7: FINAL PLAT ZION VALLEY, PP136 This item was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lenk Development for property located south of Zion Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 27.72 acres with 100 condominium units proposed. Al Harris and Karl Thiel were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation 1. A guarantee for required tree replacement amounting to a canopy coverage of 98,500 square feet shall be submitted prior to staff approval of the final plat documents. 2. Installation of additional fire hydrants per the Fire Chief's request. 3. Covenants and the master deed shall be filed at the time that the final plat is recorded with the Circuit Clerk. 4. Structures within this development shall meet required setbacks from public streets which is 25 feet and shall be spaced a minimum of 10 feet apart. 5. Prior to the issuance of more than 8 building permits for any residential PUD, all approved non-residential facilities shall be constructed. In the event the developer proposed to develop the PUD in phases, and the non-residential facilities are not proposed in the initial phase, the developer shall enter into a contract with the city to guarantee completion of the non-residential facilities. [UDO§166.06 (C)(21)] 6. All Plat Review and Subdivision meeting comments. 7. 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. 8. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $5,040 which is the difference between what was previously paid and the total owed was received November 30, 1999. This requirement has been satisfied • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 12 9. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards has been completed, however, there is some broken sidewalk at the northeast comer of Zion Valley Drive which must be repaired. Committee Discussion Conklin: The preliminary plat for this development was approved on June 10, 1996. At that time, discussion focused on the Master Street Plan connections within the project and the density limitation of 104 units was promised in the Bill of Assurance which was offered at the time of the rezoning of this property. Staff does recommend approval subject to conditions. Condition 5 is a requirement for all PUD's. Hoffman: Does that include the clubhouse? Conklin: That means the pool, clubhouses, streets, and all infrastructure. It would be the recreational facilities that they have to guarantee. With regard to the 10 foot spacing between the structures, staff has concerns. That needs to be corrected prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Hoffman. That's not 10 feet between each unit. It's 10 feet between each building. Conklin: Yes. Rutherford: They made all the corrections I asked for on the plat. However, I have not been able to determine if the cracked sidewalk has been corrected. Warrick: I included that as condition 9. Hoffman: Are you aware of that condition? Harris: Yes. Thiel: I was hoping to take care of that when we started our concrete crews on the job. Petrie: Currently, they are having some problems with one of the public streets. It's a design problem instead of a maintenance situation. This approval should be contingent upon that being resolved. They have some structural problems. Beavers. We haven't gone out there yet. Their engineer may be better able to explain it. Hoffman: We need to have all that cleared up before it gets to the Planning Commission. • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 13 Hesse: Regarding the credit or bond on the landscaping, in lieu of that we will allow them to get their construction under way but not issue certificates of occupancy until we have the money or the landscaping. Thiel: As far as the sidewalk is concerned, 1 am aware of the problem up there. It is cracked all the way through. It doesn't appear to be a concern for the public. 1 was hoping to repair that sidewalk at the time I had concrete crews on the job rather than bring someone in specifically for this section of sidewalk. We will give you a guarantee or whatever you need to satisfy that requirement. Rutherford: I think that would be fine. At the time the buildings are constructed and if the sidewalk is still cracked, the certificate of occupancy will not signed off on by myself. Thiel: Vantage Drive on the south end has cracked asphalt and we have a meeting with the contractor and engineers on site to look at it and determine what caused the crack and how to fix it. It is a warranty issue with the contractor. Do you want this corrected as a condition of approval for this final plat? It's under a warranty bond. It will be taken care of. Petrie: I don't really think it matters as a condition of approval. We will not sign off on building permits. I just want to make sure it is addressed. Thiel: Yes, it has been. Sid Norbash has met with us and we have another meeting with him next week to discuss the issue. It's a problem of determining exactly the cause of the problem and what the best solution is. It may take a little time. I didn't want that to hold us up on getting our permits to get started. The street in question is the city street that runs along the west side of the developed, Vantage Drive. Harris: There are no buildings off that street. Beavers: This is the second time it's failed. We've had them rebuild it once. Thiel: Which brings into question being sure that we address what is causing the problem and correct it at this time. Petrie: I don't think this will hold you up on building permits at this time. At some point it may, but not right now. Hoffman: Can we amend item 9 to include that sidewalk and street construction will be to standard or certificates of occupancy will not be issued? • Conklin: We're okay with issuing building permits as we try and figure out what's • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 14 happening. Petrie: with that. As long as I feel that they are going to make the effort, I don't have a problem Beavers: I want to get this in the record. The water surface elevation shown and calculated by Crafton, Tull & Associates was not verified by the City. The way the detention pond is designed, it actually flows out the top of the pond, across the street, and between the buildings. Petrie: This is private and privately maintained. The City has no liability for the way this was designed and the effectiveness of the design. Hoffman: Are you comfortable with the sheet drainage toward the building? Harris: We have addressed the issue and done some finished floor elevations for our buildings so we are not affected by the 100 year flood. Public Comment Chris Washburn on behalf of Jack and Marion Washbum, residing at 1715 E Stearns, was present. Washbum: I'm speaking on behalf of my parents who live in the last house on Stearns Street. My question is what is to become of the end of Steams Street? Is it going to connect to the subdivision or is that a dead end? Conklin: Stearns has right of way shown and it was agreed to in 1996 that Stearns Street would eventually connect. They are showing 50 feet of right of way. Final plat approval makes certain all the improvements get constructed. Warrick. They were required to dedicate the right of way but not construct the street. It will be constructed sometime in the future when adjacent development occurs. Conklin: The right of way will remain undeveloped at this time. Washburn: There is a dirt road which I assume you are calling the right of way. It's a line of trees. There is a dirt road which is used by city employees. Beavers: We have sewer through there. Washburn: Will they leave that unfinished? • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 15 Conklin: The plan at this time is not to finish that street. The City did not require improvements to Stearns Street as a part of this development. Hoffman: When future development comes through, you will need to be involved in those discussions to determine exactly what will be built. MOTION Ward: I move that we approve final plat 99-7 for Zion Valley subject to all conditions and comments including the sidewalk and street repair/replacement to be complete before any certificates of occupancy are issued. We will do the landscaping the same way. Odom. Second. Hoffman: 1 concur. • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 16 LSD99-25: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT 3R & 8 WEDINGTON PLACE, 401 This item was submitted by Roger Trotter of Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Clary Development Corp. for property located at lots 3R and 8 in Wedington Place. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 11.79 acres. Roger Trotter and Jeff Maxwell were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval subject to the following: 1. The Planning Commission must make a determination of compliance with the Commercial Design Standards ordinance. Elevations have been provided. However, signage needs to be addressed. 2. Planning Commission determination of 2 requested variances per the letter on file in the • Planning Division. a. Variance form §162.2(D)(6) of the Design Overlay District requirement of 200 feet minimum between curb cuts. Staff supports this variance request. Only a portion of this development lies within the Overlay District (along Steamboat Drive.) Previous Planning Commission actions on the project for The Bank of Fayetteville (lot 2) and the location of a service drive to access the rear of this project have impacted the spacing of curb cuts for this project. b. Variance from §172.01 Parking Lot Design Standards requirement for drive aisles of 24 feet maximum. The applicant is requesting 30 foot wide drive aisles in several locations. Staff does not support this request. The adopted standard for a residential street in the City of Fayetteville is 24 feet wide. This width is adequate for an interior drive aisle within a shopping center where traffic is expected to move much slower than it would on a standard city street. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 4. 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. Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 17 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk and a minimum 6 foot green space along Colorado Drive and Steamboat Drive. These sidewalks have been guaranteed as a condition of the final plat for this subdivision. An inspection is required prior to the concrete pour. 6. Large Scale Development approval is valid for one calendar year. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by §158.01 "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. c. A final landscape plan. Specifically provide notes and details for appropriate planting bed preparation and plant installation 8. Easements must be 10 foot from the footing of the retaining wall. 9. Relocate the sign at the west side of lot 8. 10. Fire hydrant locations must be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief. 11. The detention pond must be sodded and have a concrete trickle channel. Add the note that all drainage outside the right of way is privately owned and maintained. 12. The private drainage easement on lot 8 needs to be adjusted. 13. Easements need to be vacated. 14. Assessment of $5,325 for improvements to sanitary sewer system in the Hamestring Basin. Committee Discussion Conklin: The applicant is proposing a grocery store with 42,100 square feet. There is attached retail space of 36,250 and a stand alone retail building with 10,400 square feet. Commercial Design Standards including cross access have been addressed. A portion of the project is in the Design Overlay District. The parking shown is within the allowable range which is 1 space per 250 square feet plus a 20% overage which totals 426 spaces. The southernmost • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 18 access drive off of Steamboat Drive was approved with The Bank of Fayetteville. Staff feels that we should support the standard of 24 feet for the driveways. Hoffman: Could you point out where the 30 foot aisles are? Warrick: The central, entrance aisle between the 2 landscaped areas. The drive aisle called Tahoe Drive in front of the buildings in the vicinity of the grocery store and the access aisle north of The Bank of Fayetteville lot. Conklin: We feel this would encourage faster traffic movement. Warrick: The access aisle in the rear of the building, also. Hoffman: Don't we have parking lot standards to cover this? Conklin: Yes. 24 foot aisle width. That is why they are requesting the variance. Warrick: Also, north of the retail building is another 30 foot drive. Also, the stand alone building north of The Bank of Fayetteville has an area they want to widen out. That's approximately 5 locations. Rutherford: They have everything on the plat correctly. The sidewalks in this development have been done in sections. Some are there and others are not. I want to be clear that sidewalks are required and you need to call my office prior to the concrete pour. Warrick: We have a guarantee in hand for sidewalks in the Wedington Place Subdivision. We want to be sure that there is an inspection before the concrete pour. This preliminary plat came through in 1996 and was finaled in 1998/99. Petrie: There is a sanitary sewer assessment of $5,325 for improvements to the Hamestring Basin. The fire hydrant locations have changed. I need you to get confirmation from Mickey Jackson that they are adequate. Hoffman: We will need that approval prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Petrie. Are there fire protection lines to the structures? Trotter: Yes. That has not been designed or engineered yet. We plan to come off the main line on the east side or the west side. Petrie: You can't serve the whole facility with one line. Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 19 Maxwell: The grocery building will be served off the west line and the rest of it will be served off the east. Petrie: Engineering will have to review the fire protection. The detention pond is required to be sodded with a concrete channel at the bottom of it. Add a note stating that all drainage outside the public street right of way will be privately owned and maintained. That's the same comment from plat review. You have a 20 foot drainage easement on each side. Your layout doesn't match the pipe you have proposed. Take a look at that and get that corrected. We have a couple of easements that have to be vacated and that should be a condition of this approval. Conklin: I want that done as soon as possible before building permits. Warrick: This applicant has submitted the easement vacation request and it is in process. It will track with this to Planning Commission. Petrie: There is a proposed sign on the west side that is in the water line easement and will have to be moved. You show a sewer line on the north side of the building. That must be • 10 feet from the footing of the retaining wall We'll have to review all of this again with the construction plans. You'll have to keep a minimum coverage over the water and sewer lines. • Trotter: I would like our letter for the 30 foot drives included with the record. "On behalf of Clary Development Corporation, we are seeking 2 variances for the above referenced project. First, we are requesting a variance from Design Overlay District section 162.2(D)(6). This section states, one curb cut shall be allowed per 200 feet of frontage. Second, we are requesting a variance from section 172.01 (C)(5)(b)(1)(b) stating, each lane shall be 12 feet wide. Concerning our client's request for the distance between curbs to be less than 200 feet, the proposed curb cuts that do not have 200 feet of separation are between the front and the back of the retail space on Colorado Drive. The separation is approximately 150 feet. This development is unique because about 25% of the total acreage is in the D.O.D. The drive we are requesting a variance for falls within the D.O.D. This request would grant no special privilege for our client. The variance request for 30 feet wide primary access and service drives is not unique Clary development has used 30 feet at other locations in Fayetteville (TJ Max). They have experience with different drive widths in the same configuration, and found 30 feet to be the optimum size for safety, ingress and egress to interior parking lots. There appears to be an oversight or omission in the Off -Street Parking Lot Design • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 20 Requirements. We interpret the requirement for 12 feet lanes to be the aisle width interior to parking lots where vehicles are turning into a parking spot. The lanes we are requesting are proposed to be 15 feet, thus a 30 foot wide drive, perform as circulation driveway to enter the actual parking lots The service drive behind the center is not for parking and should not require a variance for the proposed 30 foot width. This drive is for truck traffic, loading and unloading. Section 171.13(B)(6) under Streets and Sidewalk (Chapter 8 in the U.D.O.) states the width of commercial driveway approaches shall not exceed 40 feet. We are under this maximum at all proposed approaches. I have measured lane width and curb cuts in other recent developments in the city. The new Neighborhood Wal-Mart, corner of Crossover and Hwy. 45, has a very similar situation. Their drive in front of the store is 28 feet and their rear drive is 36 feet. The primary access drive to this center is 28 feet. The Harps IGA, opposite Wal-Mart, has a 36 foot drive in front of their store and a 30 foot primary entrance drive. To sum up these two request. First, the 200 feet separation between curb cuts is only required by the Design Overlay District and only a small portion of the development lies within the DOD. Second, the 30 foot wide primary, service and access drives will function well for this development. It would be less costly to construct 24 foot wide drives, but they will not serve the purpose. Clary Development is asking for no special privilege for these drive widths..." Maxwell: We have experience with other shopping centers where they used a 24 foot drive in front of the store. It doesn't work. People stop to let people out of the car and people are trying to make turning movements in and around drive aisles to get to parking spaces and then everything comes to a stop. It's not a good situation. It's not safe. Hoffman: Why don't grocery stores put in drop off lanes? Trotter: We could paint them on if we get the variance. Conklin: The Planning Commission did approve the wider drives for the Wal-Mart Neighborhood Center in order for truck traffic to get back into that facility. Hoffman: I don't have any problems with a 30 foot width for the rear drive. Conklin: I find it interesting that the residential street standard is 24 feet and a local street is 28 feet and we keep getting requests for waivers of aisle width. I have a problem trying to justify allowing someone to have an aisle larger than a street. • Hoffman: I understand that. I feel they have point with the maneuvering that goes on in • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 21 front of the store. Trotter: Not every vehicle is a compact vehicle. There are RV's, truck and trailer situations, car and boat situations, and 24 feet doesn't work well for that. Odom: The RV's use the 24 foot street to get to your store. Maxwell: There is a lot more concentrated traffic in the parking lot than there is on the street. Everybody is going the same direction. Here you have people turning all different ways to get into a parking stall. I should have brought some photos of a parking lot with the 24 foot aisles and it's a parking lot that you just don't want to go to. We would consider 28 feet if that would make you more comfortable. We would like to have 30 feet. Conklin: We have an adopted standard. Maxwell: We could make 28 feet work better than 24 feet. 30 feet based on our past experience and other retail centers is really needed here to smooth traffic flow and for safety reasons. Hoffman: In terms of precedent, I know that we must have given approval for the wider aisle widths. I don't remember us discussing it. Warrick: It was a requested waiver by Wal-Mart. They had a specific route their trucks had to get in. Conklin: The radius was the issue in order to get trucks in. Hoffman: The front is still 24 foot? Conklin: I would have to look at the plans and go out there any measure. Hoffman: I want us to be consistent so developers know what we expect when they come in. Conklin: Since this is something that you have expertise in designing shopping centers and if you feel this needs to be looked at, as staff, we will look at it and work with the developers. If we need 30 feet, then we can amend our ordinance. Odom: Our parking lot ordinance doesn't specifically address interior streets? Conklin: It talks about aisle widths and those are 24 feet. • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 22 Hoffman: Do you foresee there being speed bumps? Maxwell: We don't like to do them. If we don't and we see there is a problem we will look at that. We added them at Spring Creek. Conklin: What is the width of the drive in front of Service Merchandise? Maxwell: 30. Hoffman: Those speed bumps are the long, flat ones. Speed bumps can be a 2 edged sword. Maxwell: There is a happy medium. Hoffman: Let's go on and talk about Commercial Design Standards. Maxwell: There is a key plan on the bottom, left corner of each page. Hoffman: Let's start with the grocery store. • Warrick: Those are elevations A, B, C. Maxwell: A is the rear elevation. B is the west elevation towards Colorado. C is the front. • Hoffman: My personal opinion here is this is a long, unarticulated wall on 2 sides that is going to be facing public streets and the development to the rear of you. Is there screening proposed behind the entire center. Warrick: There is residential to the north and there is a screening requirement. Maxwell: We worked with the developer of the apartment project back there and he is going to do the screening fence. Warrick: The landscape plan for this development does have a number of pine trees along the property line which would provide a buffer. Conklin: Normally, it is the requirement of the commercial development to provide that. Maxwell: We're working closely with the other developer and I will be happy to go on the record as saying that whoever goes first will provide the buffer Warrick: There was a requirement on the development in that location. I can't tell whether • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 23 or not it was a complete screen but I think that the 2 combined can achieve that. Hoffman: I guess to some extent the grocery store is going to be screened by its retaining wall. Is that right or not? Conklin: I don't think so. The retaining wall is dust in that location. Maxwell: The retaining wall is lower. Odom: If the screening is going to take care of that, I'm not sure it's that much of an issue. If the screen is not going to take care of it, I think you're going to have to do something else along the backside of the walls. Hoffman: The screening won't take care of it on the side. Conklin: I know other Planning Commissioners have requested that if landscaping is used that it be shown on the elevation so you know what you're looking at. Some have stated that they don't feel like landscaping should be used to meet Commercial Design Standards. Maxwell: We've shown landscaping on there before but have been asked to take it off. Conklin: If this committee thinks that landscaping can help meet the requirements of that ordinance, then it might not be a bad idea to do another elevation showing landscaping on it. Odom: I think she's right about the side elevations. Hoffman: Landscaping alone won't do it. Odom: You're going to need to do something else there. Hoffman: Can you put in windows? Maxwell: It's not my grocery store. Odom: I think if you put in some columns or pillars like those on the front. Anything to break it up. Hoffman: , Contrasting strips. Maxwell: There will also be signage there, I'm sure. • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 24 Hoffman: That needs to be shown. Odom: That's not going to help you. It's not architectural. Warrick: Commercial Design Standards requires signage be shown on the elevations. That is one of the comments that I had about determining Commercial Design Standards. You originally had some signage on the front of your grocery store. Maxwell: That was a made up name. I don't think they've ever shown anything on the side. Conklin: On a much smaller scale, when staff approved Taco Bell at Glenwood Shopping Center, we did ask them to take their tower type structure around the side. That is an option. Hoffman: A scaled down version of the features along the front might work. Warrick: He did that with the stand alone retail building's side elevation. Odom: See how the pillars come around the side of it? Warrick: Something like that would help the elevation. Hoffman: It would be excellent to get that before agenda session and before it comes up at Planning Commission. Warrick: Revisions from today's meeting are due Monday, December 6 by 10 a.m. Odom. I think that if you pay good attention to the side, you're not going to have near the argument from the Commission as a whole on the back. You need screening back there. Hoffman: Now that we have some buildings in place under Commercial Design Standards, I think we're beginning to realize that we have required less that what we should have. This is a subjective issue. Maxwell: The grocer is a stand alone deal and he's not here to speak for himself. We will make some changes and probably add some landscaping and additional trees. Hoffman: Add the signs on the elevations at the proposed locations if nothing else. Odom: With regard to the plan, I'd like to go on record that I think that it meets the standard. Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 25 Warrick: With regard to the front and the elevations presented, this is the unified design theme that was presented as a barometer for The Bank of Fayetteville and Sonic buildings, both of which have been approved by the Planning Commission as large scales. The elevation of the grocery store is basically what the developer provided us with the materials to use as the common design theme for Wedington Place. So, what they are providing and what they are showing is what we have been basing all of these previous decisions on with regard to design elements and materials. It carries through. Also, when you are making revisions to your plat, it would probably be beneficial to show the landscaping for the development to the north along the south property line with regard to screening so that we can see what the 2 developments combined are going to be providing. Hoffman: I want to suggest that as you are driving down Steamboat, you need to screen the rear of the building from the apartment development and the street as well. You want to avoid the public viewing the loading areas. If it's possible to use fencing there, you could look at that, too. I like the front. We need to look at the retail building. Warrick: That's shown as "G". Hoffman: Is this, in combination with landscaping, something we will recommend for the grocery store? Ward: Sure. Odom: Yes. Maxwell: I'm sure we'll get some articulation along the sides. Hoffman: We didn't talk about the sign. There are 2 signs. Is that going to be all? How tall are they and where is the elevation? Warrick: We don't have an elevation. It is required. When the preliminary and final plats for Wedington Place were approved, the requirement was that all of the signage meet Overlay District regulations. Hoffman: We need to have sign elevations before agenda session, too. Now, we need to talk about dnves. Ward: It doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I also hear what staff says. There is a difference between commercial and residential street sizes. There are a lot of people with RV's towing a car or boat, and also cars with horse trailers. It's a pain. I don't see any problem for big trucks on the back side of the building. Whether there needs to be 30 foot between Tahoe Place, • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 26 I'm not sure. Odom: I wouldn't go along with 30 foot along Poplar Drive. That may encourage them to speed up. Trotter: We need the turning radius. Odom: Can't you keep the turning radius? Maxwell: I wouldn't argue the point on the middle drive. My main concern is the one in front of the store and the other end of the parking lot. Warrick: I have a comment with regard to the drive between The Bank of Fayetteville lot and the retail stand alone building. If the Planning Commission is considering that as a wider drive, I would recommend eliminating the parking spaces that back directly into it. That was part of the rationale for them making the wider drives that parking wouldn't back in and out of it. They are within the range of parking and they could loose those spaces and still be in the range. Odom: I think that is a good comment, but, I hate to give up parking spaces. I've tried to park at Barnes and Noble and I can't park anywhere. Maxwell: We primarily planned those as employee parking because they are away from the front doors of the stores. When we have tenants in a retail development, we encourage and insist that they park anywhere but at the front door. That is where your customers want to be. The employees are there before the customers and they don't leave until after the customers are gone and the store is closed. There are not people going back and forth from those spaces. Warrick: The possible drive through lane was added after plat review. Does that mean they're planning a restaurant? Maxwell: No. Absolutely not. Warrick: Sometimes dry cleaners and other things have a drive through. Maxwell: That's exactly what we're thinking. A restaurant would kill the parking out here. Hoffman: This is going to be a major cut through. I'm not in favor of backing out regardless of the width of it. What about parallel parking? I think the 30 foot is fine in front. I'd like to avoid the no man's land feeling in front of the grocery store. You have the big, wide, asphalt gulf and it's not real attractive I see you have trees spaced along the front of the building and that's going to help. • • • Minutes of Subdivision Committee December 2, 1999 Page 27 Maxwell: Those trees are shown to be in grates but I'm hoping to get down to actual, detailed design and do landscape beds and not just a tree in a grate. Odom: We need to resolve the aisle widths. Hoffman: I think it's a safety Issue. Odom: People aren't going to be going too fast because they are going to be turning in so they won't have time to pick up too much speed. Maxwell: That's common sense. I think that's true. Odom: I don't think you'll get the consensus of the full Planning Commission on that. You're better off eliminating them. MOTION Odom: I move that we send this forward subject to staff comments. You can bring the waiver request if you want to. I think the Planning Commission would like to see the 24 foot aisles. Hoffman: What about angled parking that could only back out into the lane? Conklin: We only do angled stalls if it's one way. This is 2 way. Maxwell: We have 4.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet which is the maximum In our experience, this is less than we would like. Ward: Second. Hoffman: I'll concur. Meeting adjoumed at 9:55 a.m.