Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-16 - MinutesSUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, May 16, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED PPL 02-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Ash Acres P.U.D., pp 367) Page 2 LSP 02-23.00: Lot Split (Lot 1, CMN Business Park II, Phase I, pp 134) Page 6 ADM 02-14.00: Administrative Item (Auto Master, pp 601) Page 8 MEMBERS PRESENT Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch ACTION TAKEN Forwarded to Planning Commission Approved Approved MEMBERSABSENT STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kim Hesse Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Matt Casey Keith Shreve Kim Rogers Subdivision Committee May 16, 2002 Page 2 PPL 02-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Ash Acres P.U.D. , pp 367) was submitted by W.B. Rudasill of WBR Engineering on behalf of Rob Stanley for property located south of Ash Street between Gregg Avenue & Woolsey Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.28 acres with 6 lots proposed. Ward: Welcome to the meeting of the Subdivision Committee, this is Thursday, May 16, 2002. We have three items on the agenda this morning. The first one will be a Preliminary Plat for Ash Acres, P.U.D., submitted by Bill Rudasill of WBR Engineering on behalf of Rob Stanley for property located south of Ash Street between Gregg Avenue & Woolsey Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 1.28 acres with six lots proposed. Who is going to take this one? Edwards: This is a Planned Unit Development with six lots proposed. It was tabled at the last meeting. They have done some work on this. Again, to remind you, there is a private street ending in a cul-de-sac that will be used for emergency and sanitation vehicle access. The property is surrounded by R-1. There is currently 40% of the site in existing tree canopy and they are proposing to preserve 25%. The requirement in a R-1 zone is 25%. Conditions to address and discuss are 1) The tree preservation area shall be clearly shown on the plat. We do that for future reference so if anyone wants to do anything in these areas, we do know where the tree preservation areas are. 2) Planning Commission shall specifically grant a density bonus pursuant to • 166.06. This property is 1.26 acres and is zoned R-1. Therefore, there are five units allowed by right. The applicant is requesting a total of six units or a density bonus of one unit. 3) Approval shall be subject to Planning Commission approval of a conditional use allowing for a tandem lot. Property owned by Joseph Kilgore to the south is being granted an access easement to access his property. Until recently, he owned property all the way to Ash, but sold it to the developer of this subdivision which created the need for tandem lot approval. 4) The private drive shall be constructed to public street standards. The other conditions are standard and we are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission Ward: Ok, thanks Sara. Ron do you have any comments about engineering? Petrie: No comments. Ward: Keith with the Sidewalk Department? Shreve: No comments. Ward: Kim? Hesse: I was wondering Bill, if you could show me between the two plans, was Subdivision Committee May 16, 2002 Page 3 there just a different calculation in the trees? Rudasill: Yes, we were adjusting this line just a little bit. There wasn't that much difference between them. There were a couple of trees up in here that we had not included. These two were in easements. That could have been counted before but since we moved the detention back here we didn't get those back in so that is where that came from. We will delineate it on a plan for you. What my question is with those tree preservation areas, will they need to be in easement documents similar to ones we've done in the past? Hesse: Yes, they will. They will just need it shaded a little bit differently. I was just looking at where you show your fencing and everything outside of that, that is what you counted right? Rudasill: Yes. Hesse: Well, if that is the case then I'm fine to go with it. Conklin: The trees in the detention pond are not being counted? Hesse: Right. You can barely see. Conklin: Ok, thank you Kim. Ward: Bill, it looks like also we have payment of parks fees in the amount of $2,820. Rudasill: Yes, they will pay that. Ward: I don't see our Parks and Recreation person here but I want to make sure you understand that. I guess at this time I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone that would like to make public comment on this Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Commission. Bunch: One little housekeeping note, is it 1.26 or 1.28, that may not seem like much but when we are right on the edge of tree preservation calculations it could make a difference. I see on the drawing once you take your easements out it is 1.17 acres. Edwards: I think we take the canopy calculations from the property before easements, is that right Kim? Hesse: Yes. Bunch: Here it says 1.28 and down here it says 1.26, when we are working with a Subdivision Committee May 16, 2002 Page 4 small area like this and they are looking for a bonus density, I guess every little bit makes a significant difference. Edwards: Right, and the reason we used the 1.26 to start with is because those easements wouldn't be required if it weren't for development. Hoover: I see the sidewalk and the sidewalk stops where this tandem lot is and then it starts up again. Edwards: There is a piece of property here that is not part of this development that is owned by someone else. Hoover: But this is a tandem lot. Edwards: This is the tandem lot down there. Rudasill: I can clarify that maybe. There used to be a 15' piece attached to that that was a driveway back to that property. Mr. Stanley came in and in order to clean that item up and address it with this development since it was running right to the middle of our property, the Planning Department recommended that he go ahead and purchase that from Mr. Kilgore. In purchasing it, it eliminated his direct access to the street so we have to provide a tandem lot easement and get that approved. That is why we are doing that. Ward: Bill, will these homes all be rented? Is that what the purpose of this is? Rudasill: He is subdividing it because he wants to sell in the long run but he is going to rent them up front. A little more on a note there, he has actually found a nice footprint that will fit in these footprints that will actually be two car garage, two story houses. They will be % brick. Ward: And there is a total of six units right? Rudasill: Yes. Ward: This has changed two or three times. There used to be another studio apartment at one time. Rudasill: Due to the detention area situation we bad to eliminate that. Ward: Ok, are there any other comments? Conklin: Just for the record, it is zoned R-1. You can only have up to three unrelated people within the structure. Any violations will be sent notice and sent to the prosecutor. Subdivision Committee May 16, 2002 Page 5 Ward: Ok, thanks Tim. This will be forwarded to the full Planning Commission, do I have any motions? Motion: Bunch: I move that we forward PPL 02-4.00 to the full Planning Commission. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur, thanks Bill. Rudasill: Thank you. Subdivision Committee May 16, 2002 Page 6 LSP 02-23.00: Lot Split (Lot 1, CMN Business Park II, Phase I, pp 134) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering on behalf of Bristol Development Group, LLC for property owned by Nanchar, Inc. and Marjorie Brooks and located on Lot 1, CMN Business Park II, Phase I. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 35.8 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 32.6 acres and 3.2 acres. Ward: The second item on the agenda is LSP 02-23.00 for CMN Business Park II, Phase I submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering on behalf of Bristol Development Group, LLC for property owned by Nanchar, Inc. and Marjorie Brooks and located on Lot 1, CMN Business Park II, Phase I. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 35.8 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 32.6 acres and 3.2 acres. Is the applicant here? Jefcoat: Yes, Tom Jefcoat. Ward: Thanks Tom. Sara? Edwards: This property is located immediately west of the mall and north of Steele Boulevard. It is immediately adjacent to the Party City site, which we recently approved a large scale on. The Planning Commission did recommend a rezoning at our last Planning Commission meeting to RMF - 12, which is being forwarded to the City Council for the 32.6 acre piece. The 3.2 acre parcel will remain C-2. We are recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level subject to the first condition, which is a minimum 10' easement shall be provided on either side of the existing waterline and all of the other comments are standard. Ward: Thanks Sara. Ron with Engineering? Petrie: No comments. Ward: Ok, Keith? Shreve: No comments. Ward: Kim? Hesse: No comments. Ward: There are no park fees on this one. I will bring it to the applicant, do you by chance have any kind of presentation that you would like to make? Jefcoat: No, not at this time. This is strictly a lot split now that we've gone through presentations with the rezoning and with the Parks Department. Subdivision Committee May 16, 2002 Page 7 Ward: Ok, at this time I will open it up to the public. Is there any public comment on this lot split? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. This is the property that is going to be used for the apartments that we approved or rezoned? Jefcoat: Yes. Conklin: It is going to Council. Ward: Are there any questions? Motion: Bunch: For the record, lot 1A is the one that had the recommendation to RMF -12 and 1B remains C-2. That being said, I will move that we approve at this level LSP 02-13.00. Ward: Do I have a second? Hoover: I will second. Ward: I'll concur. Thanks Tom. Jefcoat: Thank you. Subdivision Committee May 16, 2002 Page 8 ADM 02-14.00: Administrative Item (Auto Master, pp 601) was submitted by Daryl Hickman for property located at the southwest corner of 15`h and south school The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.94 acres. The request is for an additional sign. Ward: Our next item on the agenda is an Administrative Item submitted by Daryl Hickman for Auto Master for property located at the southwest corner of 15th Street and south School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.94 acres. The request is for an additional sign. I'll let you start off with that. Edwards: If you remember, this was a large scale on the corner of 15th and School for a car dealership. We approved it with elevations submitted, which I do have and I will show you. The applicant is proposing two additional signs that were not shown on the elevations submitted at the time of large scale. These signs are to be placed on the side of the building facing 15`h. The first sign will be an 8' wide 4' tall reader board with removable lettering and the second sign will match the approved sign on the east, or the front side of the building. What we are looking for is Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards with regard to these signs. You should be able to see, this is what they are proposing, this is the size of their reader board, this is what they have provided as an elevation of the signage. I do have the elevations that were submitted at the time of large scale. Hoover: Edwards: Hoover: McKimmey: Hoover: McKimmey: Ward: McKimmey: Ward: They are doing that sign but they want two more signs? They are doing this sign that was shown but they want a sign just like this on that bottom north elevation and then a reader board as well. I am not familiar with that sign ordinance, what does it say? I received the application. They are requesting an additional Auto Master sign and a reader board. All the requests will easily meet the sign ordinance. One is a channel neon, a plastic face like the one represented, and the other is a 4'x 8' reader board which would go below. What is our sign ordinance? Is it a square footage or maximum? It gives 150 sq.ft. or 20% of the wall area, whichever is greater in that zone per wall. There is a maximum of four signs on the building. If I remember right, on the north elevation we allowed a sign. Is that what was represented on the drawing? 1 don't think it was represented but we were talking about a long, Subdivision Committee May 16, 2002 Page 9 Edwards: Bunch: Conklin: Bunch: McKimmey: Hoover: McKimmey: Hickman: McKimmey: Hickman: McKimmey: Conklin: Hickman: Conklin: Ward: Hickman: Ward: unarticulated wall and we said that would be a great place to put a sign. We allowed one, that was in the minutes of the Subdivision Committee meeting back several months ago. So we are really just looking at the reader board. That was also in lieu of any pole signs or monument signs wasn't it? They've got a monument sign out there. That was talked about and approved I believe. They were talking about relocating that due to the heavy traffic load at that intersection. What has been applied for is a monument sign that is 8'x3', two wall signs, 157"x 24" for 26.2 sq.ft, those are the two neons east and north. Then a reader below the north neon sign, which would be a fluorescent box that you can hang letters on directly below. How many square feet is the reader board? The reader board would be 32 sq.ft., 4x8. Mike, let me correct you there. It is 24 sq.ft, it is a 3x8. That is different than what was represented, we can modify that. What happened is we were going to remove the signage on the building that we are vacating, when they called me they said they would have to rebuild that sign. When they told me that, I told them to cut it down to a 3'x8'. The one we have now is a 4'x8'. 1 see. Then it would be a 3'x8', 24 sq.ft. sign that they are requesting. That will allow for three lines of text basically? Yes. Ok. Daryl, do you have any other comments to make? Not at this point. Ok. I will give my take on it. I think anything we can do to bring business to the south part of town and bring in new developments and so on, it needs all the help it can get down there. This is looking like it is Subdivision Committee May 16, 2002 Page 10 Conklin: Hoover: Bunch: McKimmey: Hoover: Ward: McKimmey: Ward: Bunch: Ward: Hoover: Ward: Hickman: going to be a very nice facility. I can understand why a car dealership definitely needs signage so I am definitely in favor of it but I will get the other people's ideas. Are we just going to do it here at this level? Yes, if you are comfortable enough to do that. I have one comment. Perhaps because I am not that familiar with the sign ordinance. In the future, would you mind writing up a report like the Planning Department does stating what the sign ordinance is, how many square feet this is on each side. We have to do findings of fact and I think shouldn't this be documented the same way for the sign ordinance? I am just getting confused. I think this is probably all no problem but because of my confusion, I have been so used to relying on this kind of documentation. And in the future if somebody says "Well, you looked into it but you're not going to let us" then we have the documentation to back it up. I will submit that to my boss. That would be helpful. As far as our sign ordinance is concerned, this all should fall within its standards? This very easily complies with the ordinance. I have no trouble writing a permit for this at all. Ok. Are there any other comments? Basically in this particular area his competition doesn't have near the investment that he has here. A little bit of signage to help delineate could help overcome the differences with having to put in landscaping. He is competing with people that have nowhere near the expenditure. I know lately Fayetteville has been accused of being anti -business. It seems that this would be a good opportunity to encourage business as well as encourage better development and more aesthetic development. With that being said, I will move that we approve ADM 02-14.00. Do I have a second? I will second. I will concur. Thanks Mr. Hickman. Thanks. Subdivision Committee May 16, 2002 Page 11 Ward: At this point, I guess this concludes our meeting. Thank you all for coming.