Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-14 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on May 14, 2004 at 8:45 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. LSP 04-1053: (MEADOWLANDS DRIVE) Page 2 LSP 04-1055: (NOTTENKAMPER/PBS/AMBER JANE) Page 4 LSD 04-1052: (KERSHNER BUSINESS CENTRE) Page 6 MEMBERS PRESENT Loren Shackelford (Arrived 8:45) Jill Anthes Christian Vaught STAFF PRESENT Craig Camagey Jeremy Pate Matt Casey Renee Thomas ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Forwarded MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Rebecca Ohman Suzanne Morgan Subdivision Committee May 14, 2004 Page 2 LSP 04-1053: Lot Split (MEADOWLANDS DRIVE): Submitted by BUCKLEY BLEW on behalf of s KHAJEHNAJAFI for property located at THE E & W SIDE OF MEADOWLANDS DR, N OF WEDINGTON. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 5.13 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 2.54 and 2.59 acres with 1.22 acres dedicated R.O.W. Anthes: Welcome to the May 14`h meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. We have three items on the agenda today. The first one is LSP 04-1053 for Meadowlands Drive. Would the applicant come forward? Jeremy, do you have the staff report? Pate: Yes Ma'am. The applicant is requesting approval of a Lot Split. The property is located on the east and west side of Meadowlands Drive north of Wedington Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 5.13 acres. The applicant is requesting to split the lot into two tracts of 2.54 and 2.59 acres. This is already a split lot by way of the right of way. To actually record this at the county as two separate distinct parcels and two separate distinct parcel numbers a Lot Split does need to be approved. A water main exists on the north side of the property, as well as to the southwest. Sewer is not currently available to these lots and will need to extended to serve each lot at the time of development. Right of way is being dedicated along Meadowlands Drive and Hwy. 16. Staff is recommending approval of this Lot Split at the Subdivision Committee level with three conditions. Right of way along Wedington Drive shall be dedicated by Warranty Deed. State Highway right of way is not allowed to be dedicated by plat, it must be by separate document. Second, a public sewer main shall be extended by the developer to serve each tract at the time of development. Anthes: Would you introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Blew: Hi, I'm Buckley Blew with Blew Land Surveying here representing the owner of the property. The primary reason that he went through the Lot Split was he was being assessed taxes for all the land and Meadowlands Drive is splitting the property now and his intention is to sale this amount of space. We agree with all of the conditions stated by the Planning Department. If you guys have any questions I'll be here to answer them for you. Anthes: Did we have any other staff reports? Shackelford: I have one question of staff regarding the extension of the sewer main by the developer at the time of development, so nothing has to be done at this point, is that correct? Subdivision Committee May 14, 2004 Page 3 Casey: Correct. Normally on a residential lot split we will require that the mains be extended at the time of split that way we can ensure that if someone buys the lot to build a home on that they have access to water and sewer. On a commercial piece of property that is going to be a potential for a Large Scale Development that developer normally goes into the development knowing that they need to extend water or sewer. It is not quite the impact it would have on a single family home. We usually just make that a condition that it is extended at the time of the Large Scale Development. Anthes: This item can be approved at the Subdivision level. Do we have anymore discussion or motions? MOTION: Vaught: I will make a motion to approve LSP 04-1053. Shackelford: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee May 14, 2004 Page 4 LSP 04-1055: Lot Split (NOTTENKAMPER/PBS/AMBER JANE): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN on behalf of BILL NOTTENKAMPER for property located at SW CORNER OF JESS ANDERSON RD. AND SUNSHINE ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 35.62 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 27.78 and 7.85 acres respectively. Anthes: The second item of business is LSP 04-1055 for Nottenkamper, Amber Jane. Would the applicant come forward? Pate: You have seen this property recently with a Preliminary Plat. The property is in the Planning Area at the southwest corner of Jess Anderson Road and Sunshine Road and contains approximately 35.62 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 27.78 and 7.85 acres. The Amber Jane Estates subdivision is being developed as an approved Preliminary Plat was given on the 27 acre site. Washington County records indicate that the property has been given two distinct parcel numbers. However, they never came through the city process with that split. That is what they are doing now as a condition of approval for that Preliminary Plat. Construction plans are not to be released until the approval and recording of this Lot Split plat. Right of way is being dedicated along Jess Anderson Road and along Sunshine Road. Sunshine Road is a principal arterial. Jess Anderson is a collector. Staff is recommending approval of the Lot Split at this level with five conditions. Those are self explanatory. Anthes: Ok. Are there any other staff reports? Please introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Jorgensen, J.: Good morning, my name is Justin Jorgensen and I'm here with Jorgensen & Associates and I think like Jeremy has said, everyone has seen this before. Somehow it just kind of slipped through the cracks with the Lot Split so that is where we are now. If you have any questions I will answer them for you. Anthes: We have no public here today, for the record that's why we are not opening it up. I will bring it back to the Committee. Are there any comments or questions? Vaught: I have one question for staff. On condition number two was that not a condition at the Large Scale? Pate: It was as far as dedication of right of way. However, this will precede that Preliminary Plat so that will be dedicated with this plat. Subdivision Committee May 14, 2004 Page 5 MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 04-1055. Vaught: Second. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee May 14, 2004 Page 6 LSD 04-1052: Large Scale Development (KERSHNER BUSINESS CENTRE): Submitted by JAMES KOCH on behalf of TRAVIS KERSHNER for property located at SE CORNER OF STEELE BLVD & VAN ASCHE DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.49 acres. The request is to approve the development of a 17,747 s.f. office building with 59 parking spaces proposed. Anthes: The third item of business is LSD 04-1052 for Kershner Business Center. Jeremy, can you tell us what we need to do since the applicant is not present? Pate: I believe we have a couple of options. We can actually discuss it without the applicant present if you would like to do so and then forward it onto the full Planning Commission if there are questions that are unanswered. Staff is recommending approval of this particular project at this level. However, the applicant I believe is on his way. He is not here as of right now. The other option is to table and to come back, which would actually delay them further than if you forwarded it onto the full Planning Commission. Anthes: What does everybody think? Vaught: I say let's start talking about it and they might show up while we are discussing it. If they don't show up we are going to forward it. I don't want to table it and have it come back here. Pate: The minutes will be recorded and can be given to the applicant if there are any questions to address. Shackelford: I'm not one to cast stones about being late today so I say let's go ahead and talk about it. Pate: This is a Large Scale Development in the Steele Crossing subdivision just directly north of the Target lot. It is Lot 7C in the CMN Business Park. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.49 acres. The applicant is proposing to construct a two story office building, as you can see in the submitted elevations, at the comer of Van Asche Drive and Steele Blvd. The development is 17,747 sq.ft. of professional office space with 42 parking spaces proposed. That is the least amount of parking spaces that this development based on this professional office use can have without a Conditional Use, which is definitely a departure from what we typically see in this area. Surrounding zoning is all C-2 or C-1 commercial zoning. To the north is vacant. Again, to the south is Target and the other surrounding properties are vacant. Sufficient right of way exists along Van Asche Drive and Steel Blvd. All of the street improvements were done with the actual Subdivision Committee May 14, 2004 Page 7 subdivision. Water and sewer lines exist to serve the proposed development. There is a rather large portion of this site that is within the deed restricted tree preservation area that was approved with this subdivision. The existing tree preservation on the site is 27%, preserved is 23% and the required amount for C-2 zoning is 15%. Therefore, no mitigation is required. There have been no specific concerns with the development. Staff is recommending approval at this level. The only two items that we discussed at Technical Plat Review with the applicant was development within the deed restricted area. The initial development actually had a parking area within the deed restricted area. That has since been removed. Also, the location of the dumpster is quite visible along Steele Blvd. and Van Asche Drive. Our ordinances dictate that access from a dumpster is not allowed to be seen from a right of way. Staff is recommending that the trash enclosure be screened on at least three sides with materials that are complimentary to and compatible with the proposed building. We are also recommending that the enclosure be gated at it's entry with a wrought iron type gate or something similar to that to ameliorate the impact of rights of way. Again, staff is recommending approval of the Large Scale at this level with 10 conditions of approval. Item number one, Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards. Staff does find that this proposed building meets all Commercial Design Standards in our ordinances. Item number two, a letter of authorization allowing the applicants to develop the subject property. That is a housekeeping item that we haven't yet received. Item number three speaks to the trash enclosures that we spoke about. The rest are standard conditions. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. There is no public here and there is no applicant here so we are just going to discuss the item. Shackelford: I would like to start with item number three. I agree with the three sides for the trash enclosures. Staff is recommending that the enclosure be gated at it's entry. What would that do as far as sanitation? How would you get in to empty that? Is that something that they want to do or approve of doing? Pate: I contacted Solid Waste prior to drafting the staff report. Typically what they need to see is at least a 12' minimum wide entry which has been shown here. Additionally, they typically like to see gate stops which are in the concrete basically. They also have to open a full width but they do gated enclosures quite a bit. Shackelford: This wouldn't be mechanical, this would be actually something they get out and open. Ok, what about the applicant, has he or she expressed any opinion one way or the other regarding that addition? Subdivision Committee May 14, 2004 Page 8 Pate: At Technical Plat Review it was actually kind of facing onto Van Asche at the diagonal. They have adjusted it so it is not as visible. The applicant is now present so he can speak to that. Camagey: One comment I will make about that is at Technical Plat we did discuss relocating that dumpster altogether back along this alley behind Target. The applicant said that the would look into that option and I'm curious to know what the results of that are. Koch: Good morning. My name is James Koch with CEI representing the Kershener office building development behind Target on Lot 7C of Steele Crossing. The development is about a 17,000 sq.ft. office building and it does not encroach into the tree preservation easement area. You can see the areas outlined right here. We have worked with staff to modify our plan sometime back and as Craig has stated, we had looked into possibly relocating the trash enclosure to this area over here. Shackelford: That is what we were discussing at this point whether that was an option or what your clients thought were regarding the gated. Staff is currently recommending a minimum of three sides be screened on that area. They are also recommending that it be gated with some sort of wrought iron gate. Koch: Yes, provided because of that being off the property here off that lot we would have to talk with the owner of that tract and find out if that would be an agreeable idea of doing that. It would certainly be more convenient I think for the guys picking up the waste and to our client it would be closer to his office. If they will allow it then that is what we would like to do. If they won't then we don't have a problem doing the enclosure around the dumpster with a gate. Shackelford: Staff, do we want to leave that as it is worded now and hope that that can be addressed between now and the time that it will go before the full Planning Commission? Anthes: We have the ability to approve Large Scales at this level and we can choose to or not if we think that there are outstanding concerns we can choose to forward it. I personally am not in favor of this enclosure being this close to the street whether or not it has a gate on it. I would like to see that moved. Unless we can come up with something here today I would rather move forward. Vaught: I want to understand the tree preservation easement a little better and how there are future plans to possibly do something in there and how does that correspond with the Large Scale. Is that something that would have to come back to us? Subdivision Committee May 14, 2004 Page 9 Camagey: Absolutely. It would actually have to go to the City Council. Any modification or any development or tree removal needs to be made as a request to the Landscape Administrator's office and then forwarded to the City Council for their review and approval. That is in the conditions noted. I know that the applicant has expressed the desire to possibly do some low impact landscape trails or maybe a bench in that area. Again, as a condition, anything of that nature would need to go to the City Council. Vaught: Anything but basic maintenance. Koch: What you are saying is that any walking path from the building over through this area, anything would require a landscape plan to be submitted and that is going to need to be approved by the City Council. That is a condition that is noted. Anthes: Let's look at Commercial Design Standards. Do we have any comments aboutthose? Vaught: I personally have no problems from Commercial Design Standards. I know that sometimes it is hard to tell from a flat piece of paper if that becomes a footprint. Shackelford: I would concur. I think it changes elevation, there are a lot of different rooflines, a lot of different materials and I think they break it up pretty well. I would agree that it is in compliance with our Commercial Design Standards. Anthes: Ok, let's get back to the trash enclosure. James, can you more clearly show us what you are saying is an alternate for your trash? Koch: Sure. There are some utilities and different items in this area right here that we would need to make sure we didn't encroach upon. I believe that we could affectively put a dumpster location in here by taking this and either situating something in this area like that for ease of access or possibly even in this configuration right here. Because this isn't on this tract of land we are going to have to show any of this to these landowners and get their blessing on doing that. In some configuration this fashion right here would probably be the most ideal. That way the truck could come in, swing through, pick it up and exit back on this service drive over here and possibly pick up some other receptacles that may be located along the rear of these stores. That, I feel like, is probably the best approach to solving this situation right here. Of course, if need be we could possibly even move it closer to the structure right here, depending on what type of allowances that this land owner will give us to do that. Certainly this tract owner has provided for two curb cuts into this lot. One Subdivision Committee May 14, 2004 Page 10 here and one at some other location and perhaps by not doing the other curb cut we could make some sort of concession to relocate the dumpster or waste receptacle in this area right here. Anthes: This angle is a little troublesome because of the view from Steele Blvd. If this could be serviced directly off of this service alley road that seems like it would make a lot of sense. Vaught: Could the trucks come and turn in and pick it up? Koch: Yes, there is plenty of room in the service drive to be able to do it. The way that they would have to access it now is actually come in on this drive, come all the way around and pick it up and then leave the site. These guys really don't want that traffic having to go around the building like this so I really feel that that is probably the only other option that we can come up with. Jill, as you pointed out the sensible way would be this way right here. Shackelford: Back to my original comments though, I don't think that we can make that a condition of this approval since that is off the property. You are going to have to talk to another property owner to make that happen. That goes back to what I was saying, I don't think we have a lot of option other than to try to come to some reconciliation as presented and forward it to the full Planning Commission and hope that that can be addressed between now and the time of the meeting. Pate: Staff is, again, recommending approval at this level. If this is something that cannot be determined, like Mr. Shackelford mentioned, if a condition was placed upon this to move the dumpster that could not happen it would have to come back to the Planning Commission as a condition of approval change. It is important that that burden is not placed upon the applicant that he could not, or would have to come back to this level at least to change that condition of approval. It could be forwarded from this level to the full Planning Commission and would have to be worked out between now and then. Anthes: The most expedient way is for us to forward it, to make this recommendation and have the applicant work with the adjacent property owner in the meantime. We have parking lot lighting. Pate: There is a note that states that on their plat so I believe they are in agreement with that. Anthes: Are there any other items? Subdivision Committee May 14, 2004 Page I1 Vaught: My question would be so you guys feel like we should forward it to the full Planning Commission, not try to restructure that item? Shackelford: My take on it is, and I don't want to slow things down, but if I'm hearing the applicant right they would be agreeable to the other situation if they could work it out with the existing landowner. I think it is going to be a lot better system. They won't have the internal traffic with the waste trucks. I think it is a better look for the city. I think it is worth trying to pursue and if we could put that time frame on it to go ahead and give it a positive recommendation as it is but let's all work to see if we can't make it a little better between now and that time. That would be my take. Anthes: I would also be willing to discuss the possibility of if they can work it out we can place it on consent at agenda session. Pate: They will need to get those revisions into me by the deadline. Koch: The recommendation is to approve it with this condition but honoring the effort to try to get this relocated. If they are not willing to put our enclosure over here then we will build this per staff's comments right? Anthes: Actually, no. What will happen is we will go to the full Planning Commission and it will be heard there. Koch: If not that then we go to Planning Commission? Vaught: It will go to the Planning Commission no matter what. Koch: How much time do I have to get the adjacent landowners to do that? Pate: By the revision date. Anthes: Or you can hold it off the next agenda until you get that answer. Shackelford: We could table it here and it could come back to Subdivision and if you have that done we could approve it at this level. Koch: What type of verification from the adjacent landowner would you want? We would have to revise the plans and show you what was intended. It would be similar to having some kind of easement or agreement to occur offsite. What if they ask us to use their facilities? They have waste receptacles behind their building. Anthes: That's a lot of its, I don't know if we can answer all of those. Subdivision Committee May 14, 2004 Page 12 Koch: I'm just trying to identify all of the scenarios that the adjacent landowner may pose to us whenever we suggest that we do this. Another issue that I can see being a potential problem there are the utilities that are constructed along that service drive. This is an electric transformer pad and there are other utilities in this area as well. I don't know if any of the utility guys will disagree with that location or not. Anthes: Well, you know we have an alley that is a service corridor. To me if we can load as many of the service activities along that corridor as possible then we are gaining something positive for the City of Fayetteville. That would be my first recommendation. However, if that is not going to be able to be worked out after your efforts I would appreciate you looking at another location that meets the general requirements of what we ask for for trash enclosures and that is that they not be against major roads. Yes, even if the screen is around it you wouldn't see the enclosure itself but it is pretty obvious. I don't know if you have been in any neighborhoods where people build these boxes around things in the street and it is not quite as appealing as something that is tucked around or hidden by the building or something like that. I would appreciate it if you can look at an alternate location in either case whether or not you are able to work something out with the adjacent landowner. Koch: We will work on it. Anthes: We have several courses of action, we can either go ahead and forward this and give you that week. We can table it here and you can come back to us in two weeks for approval at this level. Of course if we can't come to a consensus it could always then go ahead to the Planning Commission and be another week that way. What is most amenable to you? Koch: I would like to explore other options and getting approved by the Planning Commission. However, if I'm unable to do that however is quickest. Shackelford: This board has the authority to approve it. If you couldn't get that done it could be redrawn on your property in a situation that was acceptable we could approve it at this point and not have to go to the Planning Commission. I don't want to speak for the group but I think that's the only issue that we really have any contention with is that condition number three. That is not a huge hurdle to clear in this area. It is possible that we could clear it at this level. Pate: As a matter of timing, May 24`h is the full Planning Commission meeting. The next Subdivision Committee meeting is June 4`h Shackelford: We can either recommend that we move it to the full Planning Commission to give you from now until May 24`h to come up with Subdivision Committee May 14, 2004 Page 13 something that will be different than what we are looking at now or we can table it at this meeting and you would pick up an additional 10 days and come back here June 4`n Koch: Please forward it to the full Commission. Shackelford: Ok, I will make that a motion that we forward to the full Planning Commission for consideration, LSD 04-1052 subject to all staff conditions as stated and the discussion for the dumpster location. Vaught: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Meeting adjourned