Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-27 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting ofthe Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, September 27, 2001 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN ADM 01-42.40(Covington Park Phase III, pp 295) Approved Page 2 LSD 01-21.00: Large Scale Development (On Deck, pp138) Approved Page 5 LSD 01-32.00: Large Scale Development (Lewis Street Townhomes Phase II, pp 403) Tabled Page 12 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Don Bunch Nancy Allen Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Keith Shreve Kim Hesse Eric Schuldt Renee Thomas Tim Conklin Hugh Earnest • • • Subdivision Committee September 27, 2001 Page 2 ADM 01-42.00 (Covington Park Phase III, pp 295) The request is for a reconsideration of conditions of approval for FP 00-5.00 Covington Park Phase III. Bunch: Good morning and welcome to the September 27 meeting ofthe Subdivision Committee meeting ofthe Fayetteville Planning Commission. We have three items on the agenda this morning and the first item is Administrative item 01-42.00 and is a request for reconsideration of conditions of approval for Final Plat 00-5.00, Covington Park Phase Il. Sara, could you tell us about this? Edwards: Back on May 5, 1998 the City Council approved for park fees land and cash contribution. The cash portion of $26,250 based on a total of 169 lots and that was prior to Planning Commission approval approving the final plat. There were four phases approved in the final plat process. At the time that the final plat was approved for phases II and IV, the parks fees had increased from $375 to $470 and so up to this date we have the final plat for phases I, II and IV and have not had the final plats filed for Phase III, although it has been approved. Therefore, the parks fees have not been paid on that final Phase III but with a combination of other phases they have paid $23,500. What we are recommending is to amend the original condition which is number 4 in the original report of parks fees in the amount of $13,630 and we are recommending now $2,750 and that will bring the total to $26,250 and I will let Kit go over the reasoning behind this. Williams: Good moming. This is a rather complicated problem. I think in the past that it has been normal that the parks fees are assessed and paid at the time of final plat approval and are paid generally at the rate that is applicable at that time even if there was a different rate when they first came through the preliminary plat. Frankly, the ordinance is a little bit unclear. It says about what exactly what rate should be used. In this case however, since this was a large scale development it went before the City Council in order to have some land taken and some money in lieu of land taken it was required to go before the City Council. When it did go before the City Council the actual amount of $26,250 was told to the City Council as saying this is the amount of money as opposed to all of the land that would have been required for the park. The City Council then unanimously approved that. Because ofthat I think that basically there was some reliance probably on the part of the developer that this was the amount of money that was going to be charged in lieu of some of the land that he normally would have to dedicate. Because ofthat my recommendation is exactly what Sara just said that we should hold by this $26,250 in this particular case. I also want to tell you that we're looking at trying to revise the ordinance a little bit to make it crystal clear exactly what the rate will be. This problem might not reappear in the future either because there are now time limits on preliminary plats of one year If in fact there is going to be an extension beyond one year which is allowed, it certainly can be done with • • • Subdivision Committee September 27, 2001 Page 3 waivers and acknowledgments that the parks fee has gone up or will go up. This is a different case. This is one where it went to the City Council, City Council approved the $26,250 and so I think that the developer in this case relied upon what the City Council approved. I think we as a city, even though it could be argued the other way, I think we as a city should honor what the City Council did in that particular case and go ahead and charge that amount. Bunch: Parks, do you have any comments? Schuldt: He summed it up pretty well. 1 really don't have any comments. I agree with the fact that there is some research that needs to go in to make sure that there is no doubt. Bunch: Does anyone in the public have a comment? Cozad: I am the developer. I wanted to give the City 4.42 acres, or whatever was the required amount of land, and they were overstocked with land. We actually gave the City, just for the record and just so you know I'm not up here trying to get something for nothing, we actually gave the City the prime part of our subdivision. That land is probably worth $350,000 on the market that we gave to the City for a park. The $26,000, we didn't even want to do the $26,000, the point that I'm making is that we didn't really try to screw the City with some scrub land or creek land or whatever on some of the other subdivisions that have done that. I think the park out there, once the Parks Department takes it over and maintains it then I think it is a pretty nice park area I think it looks good. We really gave them a pretty good piece of land. Schuldt: I will second that, it is a great piece of land right in the middle of the subdivision. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bunch: Ok, is there any public comment? Hearing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee for comment, discussion, motions. Hoover: I hate to say it, I'm just confused. I'm not catching on too quick this morning Can you just start again briefly Sara? Edwards: Originally when this request came before us before they can get preliminary plat approval they have to go to the Parks Board and City Council. At that time the City Council approved two plus acres and $26,250. Typically, we won't collect the fees until the final plat is due and this happened in several phases and we've already collected the fees for • Subdivision Committee September 27, 2001 Page 4 all but this final phase. The developer has requested not to pay the increased parks fees because he had reason to think that his development costs were set at time of preliminary plat. Basically what he is asking is not to pay the increased parks fees. What this request is for, we're amending the condition that the subdivision ongmally approved at the time of the final plat in its last phase, to reduce those parks fees back down to make the total the $26,250. Hoover: So we are reducing the parks fees back down to what it was when the preliminary plat came through? Edwards: Yes. Hoover: Ok, thank you. Allen: I think since the language is ambiguous it seems the fair thing to do. It does certainly seem like something we need to firm up in the future so that we don't let anything like this slip. William: We want to make sure it will be uniform so that there's one rule that will work for • everybody. • Bunch: How much has been paid to date? Edwards: $23,500. Bunch: So the remainder that is owed is $2,750? Edwards. Yes. Bunch: That is if we approve the $26,250. MOTION: Hoover: I will make a motion to approve ADM 01-42. Allen: I second. Bunch: I concur. • Subdivision Committee September 27, 2001 Page 5 LSD 01-21.00 Large Scale Development (On Deck, pp 138) Review commercial design standards submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates on behalf of Charles and Pamela Calloway for property located west of Kee Comer Plaza on Zion Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 1 4 acres. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSD 01-21.00 Large Scale Development (On Deck, pp 138) Review commercial design standards submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates on behalf of Charles and Pamela Calloway. Sara, what can you tell us about this? Edwards: If you remember at the September 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting we approved a large scale for On Deck subject to the building coming back to the Subdivision Committee to approve the commercial design standards. You should have elevations and basically what they are asking is to approve this building as shown on these elevations. Bunch: Staff comments? Landscaping? Parrish: My name is Jack Parrish, I'm with the general contractor that is working with Mr. . Calloway in developing this project. • Bunch: Do you have any presentation? Parrish: We've gone through several different options here trying to come up with something that produces a good overall appearance. One ofthe things that we are trying to do with what we presented is to provide a screen on the east side ofthe building that will provide some green cover rather than looking down the back side of Kee Comer Shopping Center. As you are probably aware, Kee Corner was built prior to the current commercial design standards and the back of the building has exposed air conditioning units, it is just a raw metal building without any architectural appearance at all. What we are showing there is a screen on the east side is intended to be a combination of shrubs and trees. Trees that would acquire a substantial height and a full bodied tree that would screen not only the back portion of our building but the west side of Kee Corner Shopping Center as well. Bunch: Does this screen down the length of the building or is it just up by the front part? Parrish: We can go back down the building if we need to. The intention was to start at that portion of the building and extend toward the highway. Kee Corner is built closer to the highway, closer to Zion Road than we are It actually is some 30 feet closer to Zion Road than we are. • • • Subdivision Committee September 27, 2001 Page 6 Bunch: I believe at the Planning Commission meeting one of the areas ofconcem was actually the west side of this building. Have there been any changes on the articulation of the west side? Parrish: Yes there have. We changed the type of texture on it as is called out there. It was basically just a basic flat finish. The upper portion, the finish on that is changed to what is called a cortsput finish which is more textured and also as Commissioner Hoffman suggested, we've added a substantial amount of greenery, some shrubs as well as additional trees along tat west side Bunch: Ok, are there any staff comments? Parrish: If anybody has any questions there are some charts there. Allen: As I recall from looking at this at our Planning Commission meeting, it just doesn't seem particularly different to me than before. I wonder if we could have maybe a few more trees or you could explain the difference in the facade to me. Parrish: We didn't do a whole lot more because as I at least understood, we were close to going far enough previously. This is the texture on this upper portion now. Allen: What was it before? Parrish: It was just the basic finish which is just this down next to the bottom there. Now what we're using is this which looks more like a substantial, heavier stone finish with this as a lighter appearance. Allen: It is kind of a stucco look? Parrish: I hadn't thought of it in that fashion, but in someways it is. It is just more textured so that it gives it a different appearance. Allen: I think that would improve it some, but it still looks to me like we need to break it up a little bit more with maybe another tree or two. What do you all think? Hoover: I think reading back through Planning Commission and the other Commissioner's concerns, I remember Commissioner Ward was particularly mentioning articulation on that side of the building. I don't know that the trees, and the added trees are where? • • • Subdivision Committee September 27, 2001 Page 7 Bunch: This is the drawing from previous drawings, I was just trying to see if there was anything added on the west side, it doesn't appear to be. Parrish: Now this has not been modified. The trees are planted along here and if we need to plant more trees that is fine. Hoover: Where are they planted along there, are you taking out a parking space? Bunch: I'm not seeing it in the most recent elevation that we've been given. Allen Those trees weren't there before nor were those shrubs. Parrish: Those are in an island in the parking lot and these are actually up next to the building. Hoover: How can they be up next to the building? Are you taking out a parking space to put them in? Parrish: That is a possibility. We've also, several things have gone on here. We've had some real problems with the subsurface. One of the things that we've discussed is actually raising the elevation of the entire building and this is something that we've talked with Ron about and he certainly did not have any problems with on an engineering point. That will allow us to reduce the setback on the east side of the building which is now more than that required. Also, the sidewalk is wider than what is required so we could take a little bit of sidewalk out and create a space big enough for that hedge. Allen. What is the length of the side of the building? Parrish: It is approximately 140 feet. Hoover: Kim, could you look at this and tell us how much space would you need for a tree to grow up next to the building? 1 just want to understand how all this is going to fit in. Bunch: This is the most recent elevation that has been given us since the last Planning Commission meeting and this is kind of the history of it. At the time that it was sent to this Committee from Planning Commission, this I think was the latest drawing that we had seen. Parrish: This is the first. This is the latest. • • • Subdivision Committee September 27, 2001 Page 8 Bunch: Ok, this was the one that we had in the Planning Commission that had it sent to this meeting wanting more articulation and some landscaping or something on the west side and this is what we have been given. Hesse: Are you really wanting to use landscaping as part of articulation? I wouldn't suggest that. Hoover: I think that is the big question in itself. Hesse: I wouldn't suggest that because you know there is always that chance that the plants won't survive. Allen: Yeah. Hesse: The plants we were talking about were really to kind of screen this building. That they are showing and they have room in that area. I would be reluctant to do that here unless you are wanting to reduce your building and I don't think they are. If we try to fit them in there, it is going to push everything this way and this has a nice, natural vegetative cover. From here you are not going to see this side of the building beyond here because this is solid trees between the Lindsey apartment complex and there. If you go this far down the road, this vegetation will block that building, it is not until you get here that you are going to see. Bunch: With this row of trees here, really, the only place that you are going to have a good line of site is when you get right up by the driveway. If trees were added up in this vicinity then that would actually shield this area more. There is that 24 foot driveway but with a row of trees all the way there and then some down in here and with a vegetation existing here. Hesse: I would think if anything we might, depending on how these trees make it during this grading, these weren't required to be preserved, just these back here were. If we lose these, we might add a few trees here which would help that. Up against the building in the heat and the pavement, I wouldn't want to guarantee that those plants would give you the effects you want on the building. Parrish: One other thing that has come up and this was not turned in with the packet, we didn't know about it at the time. As a matter of fact, we didn't know about it until yesterday. We are going to have to add, can I present this elevation, I know this is kind of late. We are going to have to add a stairway on that west side of the building. Allen: That helps. • • • Subdivision Committee September 27, 2001 Page 9 Hoover: That makes a big improvement. Parrish: That is an area where we won't have baseballs so we can actually put a window on that west side Bunch: I think your tree lines and everything will actually dilute much of that. Hoover: That will come out of the existing or will this wall come in? Parrish: Yes, it will come out approximately four feet and there is a possibility we would lose two parking spaces there, which we already have more than the required quantity of spaces as well as the fact that we have got a shared parking agreement with Kee Corner. I like it too. Hoover: Are you going to continue this band too with it? Parrish: Yes, we can do that. That was an existing elevation, that was one of the first ones that I had and I just scribbled on that this morning. Allen: I think that it would be a huge improvement. It really breaks up that long expanse. Bunch: Yeah, because of the angles here, that is going to help shield quite a bit of this down here. Hoover: Yeah, I'm not concerned about that. Bunch: One question, your drawing shows a bike rack right in here. Dust wonder if that would be a better place to continue some of the screening and possibly relocate the bike rack? Parrish: To relocate the bike rack, either here in front of the screening, yeah, I agree with that. Actually, this might be a better spot right here. Bunch: Then we start getting to the distance from the doors on the bike rack. Parrish: How close is it supposed to be? Edwards: Fifty feet. Bunch: Is this going to be a entrance? • • • Subdivision Committee September 27, Page 10 Edwards: Parrish: Bunch: Parrish: Allen: Hoover: Edwards: Bunch: Allen: Parrish: MOTION: Hoover: Allen: Bunch: Parrish: 2001 We may could incorporate it along the front side, don't you think? I think so. This is just an emergency exit. If the bike rack is removed from this location and more screening is put in there and with this and maintaining the band, I think that puts us good. Ok, this was intended to be added to this view. 1 just didn't have one of these pictures to draw on. I feel pretty good about it now. I think to make this work, do we need to date this drawing to include it? Yes, and I will make sure that he provides me with that on the new one. Ok, whoever crafts the motion needs to include the banding and comments about the bike rack and trees, relocating the bike rack and trees. I think those are things that can be done with minimal expense and have a tremendous effect. I am really pleased to see that. It might be, if I can suggest, simply state to mention the side exit cover to the submitted elevations. I'll make a motion to approve LSD 01-21.00 subject to the new elevation dated September 27th including banding on the west wall and also with the addition of this exit additional element on the west elevation. Number two, that the bike racks are moved within fifty feet from the door, relocate the bike racks out of the landscaped area Second. Do we need to say anything about, is there going to be any additional landscaping in the northwest corner of the lot? Were you going to put anything else in there? We can certainly do that. Subdivision Committee Meeting September 27, 2001 Page 11 Bunch: Also, what about the screening over here on the east side? Hoover: I thought the screening on the east side was ok. Allen: I think just that one area Hoover: You like that one area up here, are we saying an additional number of trees? Allen: Do we need to specify? Hoover: It would probably make things perfectly clear. Hesse: Right now there are trees there, my point was that if they don't survive grading. Allen: You think it is adequate as is if the trees live? Hesse: Yes. Bunch: What we were looking at, since this is like a soldier course here, having some setback here to help include the view down through here in this vicinity here and with relocating the bike rack to make sure there is room for stuff there. Hesse: Yeah, back behind that shrub line. As soon as you don't get too far out here to block the views. Hoover: Should we add to the motion some additional screening on the northwest corner of the property next to the detention pond, subject to Kim's approval if that is ok. Allen: Bunch: I second. I concur. I think that helps us a lot without getting into a great additional expense. Subdivision Committee Meeting • September 27, 2001 Page 12 LSD 01-32.00: Large Scale Development (Lewis Street Townhomes Phase II, pp 403) was submitted by Dale Schultz for property located west of Lewis Street and south of Deane Street. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains approximately 3.92 acres with 32 units proposed. • • Bunch: The next item on our agenda is LSD 01-32.00: Large Scale Development for Lewis Street Townhomes Phase II. Sara, what do we do here? Edwards: We could go ahead and hear the item but I kind of think that Ron has some specific questions that may depend on if we want to approve it. Is that right? Petrie. No, I will have my taken care of anyway. Hoover: Can we hear something without the applicant? Bunch: Either that or one thing that we could do rather than delay it to the next meeting of the subdivision committee would be to forward it to the full Planning Commission and then have them make a presentation at that time. That would save a week and a half. Edwards: 1 hate to say it is our responsibility to save them time when they didn't show up to this meeting. Hoover: That might be a penalty to the developer because this could be approved at this level. Bunch: Right. Edwards: I'm sort of inclined, I think we could approve it. I really don't think that they would have any issues with any of it and if they do have issues we could let them go on to Planning Commission or bring it back to the Subdivision Committee or whatever. Schuldt: I did have a clarification. Hoover: I guess we could always table it. Bunch: We could proceed and then we could do whatever motion we feel necessary. We can still take comment and get items on the record. Allen: Eric can make his statement. Subdivision Committee Meeting • September 27, 2001 Page 13 • • Bunch: Sara, what do you have to tell us about this? Edwards: Back in January we approved Phase I of this project called Lewis Street Townhomes. Dale Schultz is working on it. It is zoned R-3. They have already built I believe 24 units, this is just an expansion to 32 additional units. See Phase I on the drawing. They are asking for 32 units, 65 parking spaces. Back at Phase I we did have a tree easement at the back of that property. At that time it was 20% of the entire site preserved. The only comments that we have is that when we were out there looking at it there was no curb installed around the landscape islands in Phase I so we want to make sure that it does get installed because that is a requirement, curb around a landscaped island. Number 2 is three bicycle parking racks required and shall be installed prior to the certificate of occupancy. They agreed to that at plat review. He says he wants to put them underneath the stairs at the apartments and so we couldn't show them on this plan. We're going to work that out with him, they may not be able to be shown on the plans but they will be installed and then number 3 is Planning Commission determination of the required offsite improvements to Lewis Avenue. As part of Phase I curbs and gutters were required along Lewis. Based on the rational nexus calculations, the requirement was for the street to be widened to 14 feet from the centerline with open ditches allowed and they requested to allow open ditches as opposed to storm pipe. Now based on the additional units, they can meet the rational nexus for us to require the storm pipe and they have agreed to go ahead and install that at this time so that is our recommendation to have the storm pipe installed. All the other are standard and I think Eric might have a correction on the park fees. Schuldt: I just would like added parks fees are $12,000 but that formula is looked at and evaluated every two years. Therefore, the actual parks fees will be determined on the day of final planning commission approval unless it is approved at your level. So that could change. Williams: That could increase and we also might be having a new ordinance at the time. My suggestion to the Planning Commission and the City Council the way the new ordinance might read might be that the parks fees are going to be the amount due at whatever time they are paid, giving the developer an option to pay between the preliminary plat approval or final plat approval, but if they wait for final plat approval then they pay at whatever the rate is then. This would encourage developers to go forward and get them paid ahead of time. If they don't do that, don't take advantage of the fact that they can pay them earlier, then they have made their choice on what the actual amount is going to be. That is going to be my suggestion. Of course, I'm open for any comments that any of you all may have but I've been thinking about this a little bit to try to make it sure both to the city and to the developers and to encourage them to go forward and pay now and not wait for a couple of years and then pay at the old rate. Subdivision Committee Meeting • September 27, 2001 Page 14 • • Allen: I think that is a good suggestion. Shreve: They've agreed to build a six foot sidewalk but we're waiting until they install storm drains and we won't have to sit them on top of the pipes, but they are going to build a six foot sidewalk. Petrie. At this point, the only thing I really would want to make sure it is clear that the storm pipe that they show should be extended up to the north property line. Where it ends now, it ends right there at the sidewalk bin, that's a little bit ofa safety hazard, Dust want to make sure that is clear that they need to extend that on up. Bunch: The details we have on the drawing here where it shows a swale north of the driveway entrance and a pipe south of the driveway entrance. Petrie: This goes beyond and is all the way extended. Bunch: That would solve the problem with what to do on the driveway right? Petrie. That is the only thing I have. Bunch: Since we don't have an applicant represented we can't ask for their comments, I would ask for public comment but I don't see any members of the public here so I'll bring it back to the Committee for comments, discussion. Hoover: I wonder if we should table it and move it to the next Subdivision Committee. I don't see how we can do it without the applicant here. Bunch: Either that or give them the option of doing it before the full Planning Commission which would save them a certain amount of time. Allen: Bunch: Why aren't they here, do we have any idea? Did they call in? One of the questions I have and we need to possibly check with the Solid Waste Division, is one dumpster going to be sufficient for 56 two bedroom units? It is shown very conveniently located right between Phase I and Phase II, also, it doesn't show screening and it doesn't show a reinforced pad, it doesn't show which direction it will load from. Depending on which direction they access it, the parking spots are included and it doesn't look like there is enough room to turn a truck around in here and you're going to have an awful lot of irate people down here if it happens to be go to work time or go to Subdivision Committee Meeting • September 27, 2001 Page 15 • • school time. It doesn't look like that good ofa location. One question I have on the bike racks is it three total? They're only showing three with Phase I and Phase II combined, or is there three for Phase II? Edwards: Three is for Phase II, Phase I is already constructed and we don't have a clause to go back. He said he probably will just go ahead and provide it for everything. MOTION: Allen: I think it is better to table it. I move that we table it. Bunch: We can also forward these comments to them so that they can address them. Hoover: I'II second that motion. Bunch: Should we go ahead and see if we have any more questions so we can forward them to the applicant and they can be addressing those between now and the time that hopefully, they show backup? Any kind of connectivity issues? That area has quite a few apartment complexes in it. Edwards. They are all existing apartments. Their tree preservation area and detention area is at the rear so they can't connect to that. Bunch: Hearing no other comments, I will concur. Unless we have announcements, we are adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 9:20 a.m. • • Qt. -y.3,0(0 COvi Pkase, n3..Fo n) � LSD31-a1 oo ((9vt_DZcK)(vttcsc) 1)26°15 LSD of-32.cx Sure? f $ 5 MOTION Not,tei 1-b) ter Neil - -MILL- SECOND Auto .1U,(, Serur 0 D. Bunch Yes NICU ((e N. Allen S. Hoover ACTION rayed VOTE 3 - 0 _ 0