Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-12 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVSION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on January 12, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 06-1888: Lot Split (DEAL, 490) pp. 3 LSD 06-1851: Large Scale Development (WRMC 5TH FLOOR, 251) pp. 4 LSD 06-1882: Large Scale Development (PLAINVIEW AVE. PROF. BLDG., 213) pp. 7 LSD 06-1885: Large Scale Development (BELLAFONT PHASE I, 175) pp. 11 Tabled Forwarded Approved Approved Subdivision Committee January 12, 2006 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Christine Myres Sean Trumbo Candy Clark STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Brent O'Neal, Engineering Sarah Patterson/Urban Forester Subdivision Committee January 12, 2006 Page 3 LSP 06-1888: Lot Split (DEAL, 490): Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSO- CIATES for property located at 360 N. VAUGHN ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 6.21 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 5.75 and 0.46 acres. Clark: Welcome to the January 12, 2006 meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville. Our third commissioner has just walked in the door. The first item on our agenda is LSP 06-1888: Lot Split (DEAL, 490). That item has been tabled. Is there anyone who came to talk about the Deal Lot Split? Okay, we can hear public comment if you would like to, but it is going to come back to us. And it will come back to a different Subdivision Committee, so I would encourage you to hang onto your comments until it is heard officially. Trumbo: I make a motion that we table item LSP 06-1888: Lot Split (DEAL, 490). Myres: Second. Clark: I will concur. I am sorry you showed up this morning for no reason, but you will be notified when it is coming back or you can talk to Staff this morning and they can tell you what to expect. LSP 06-1888 is Tabled by a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee January 12, 2006 Page 4 LSD 06-1851: Large Scale Development (WRMC 5TH FLOOR, 251): Submitted by USI -ARKANSAS, INC. for property located at 3215 N. NORTHHILLS BOULEVARD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 52.03 acres. The request is to add a 5th floor to the existing hospital building. Clark: Morgan: Our real first agenda item is LSD 06-1851: Large Scale Development (WRMC 5TH FLOOR, 251). The property contains approximately 52 acres; it is currently where the Hospital is on Futrall. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, hospital use, a conditional use in this zoning district; therefore this will be forwarded to the full Planning Commission and applicant submitted a conditional use permit for this addition as well as future expansion for additional buildings on this property. At this time the applicant requests approval to place a fifth floor on the existing hospital and will consist of 60 bedrooms and 23,200 square feet of medical office space. The overall height of the structure will be 109', which is compliant. Staff has looked at this addition in light of street improvements and we find at this time that street improvements are not necessary due to the expansion of the fifth floor. However, we are aware that the applicant is intending on bringing future proposals forward in the near future for additional buildings and parking lot spaces, etc. At that time we will be recommending a full traffic study. I believe the applicant has already initiated that work at this time. With that evaluation of future development they will be including the impact of this fifth floor. Although we aren't recommending offsite improvements now, this will be considered in the future. The applicant has provided parking lot information and the existing parking is adequate for the existing development as well as this proposed fifth floor addition. Staff is recommending forwarding this large scale development with a total of seventeen conditions of approval with standard conditions of approval. The first two require Planning Commission determination: the first is Commercial Design Standards - Staff finds that the addition of the fifth floor to be compliant with commercial standards and will match the existing building; second, Planning Commission determination of street improvements. O'Neal: My comments are included in number #8 — make sure the applicant is aware of that. Patterson: For this project, the Tree Preservation number should stay the same. There will be an area where a crane will have to be located to construct the fifth floor, but the trees that are found in that area have been planted within the last few years and they are going to be transplanted and relocated to somewhere else on the site. Subdivision Committee January 12, 2006 Page 5 Holloway: Clark: Holloway: Clark: Holloway: Clark: Holloway: Clark: Trumbo: Pate: Trumbo: Myres: Clark: Holloway: My name is Jerry Holloway, and I am an engineer with USI-Arkansas,Inc. Our office is located in Springdale, AR and we are currently working with the hospital, WRMC, on their campus there. This is a project in which HKS Architects is doing the fifth floor. We will submit a Large Scale 2 and Large Scale 3 in the near future. We have several things we have been working on in relation to this: traffic study, floodway analysis, tree preservation, easement, abandonment, CUP, one or two other things. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on the fifth floor? I didn't think so. I will bring it back to the Committee. So the fifth floor will follow the same standard as the other floors? Yes. You really can't tell by this. No, you can't tell by that. But they are going to place the crane right there. And you will relocate the trees? Right. And there are 2-3" trees in there. From what I understand, the only reason this has to go forward to Full Planning is because it is a conditional use in an R -O zoned area or else I would be ready to give approval at this level. What is the building height level allowed in R -O? There is a 20' height limit and then you start setting back on the rights of way, of 300 plus feet away from the closest driveway. So they are fine. Then I am going to make a motion to forward to the Planning Commission LSD 06-1851: Large Scale Development (WRMC 5TH FLOOR, 251) with the recommendation in agreement with Staff's findings in number one and number two. Second. Before I let you go, is the traffic study going to be on Millsap and Appleby? What we have been asked to do in Technical Plat is to do a traffic study on Futrall and North Hills, the intersection there; traffic study on North Hills Subdivision Committee January 12, 2006 Page 6 and Appleby; and the bridge over Appleby and then the intersection going into the subdivision there. Clark: That is a wild and wooley little stretch of property there these days? Holloway: Right, it is. Trumbo: The Bob Younkin extension road that has opened up will help. Holloway: We have actually contacted Ernie Peters, traffic engineers from Little Rock, and they are supposed to have started yesterday on the traffic study. Clark: Sounds like you are going to do a lot of growing. I will concur. Thank you, Mr. Holloway. We will see you at Planning Commission. LSD 06-1851 is forwarded by a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee January 12, 2006 Page 7 LSD 06-1882: Large Scale Development (PLAINVIEW PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 213) Submitted by MCCLELLAND ENGINEERING for property located at SE OF MILLSAP AND PLAINVIEW. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGH- FARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.96 acres. The request of to approve an 8,500 square foot professional building. Clark: Fulcher: O'Neal: Morgan: O'Neal: The next item on our agenda is LSD 06-1882: Large Scale Development (PLAINVIEW PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 213). The subject property is Lot 17 of CMN Business Park, located south of Millsap Road and contains approximately two acres. The property will be developed in two phases and surrounding land use is C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial. The applicant has proposed an 8,500 square foot office building with 31 parking spaces in Phase 1. Phase 2 will remain undeveloped at this time and will be accessed through this Phase that we are reviewing right now. Six foot sidewalks will be required at the right- of-way line on Plainview Avenue; all other improvements have been made to Plainview. A tree preservation waiver form has been submitted and approved by the Urban Forester. There was only a minor amount of shrubs, small species within the existing utility easement. Two bicycle racks will be provided for multi -modal access within 50' of a public entry. With that, Staff is recommending approval of this large scale development at this level with fifteen conditions of approval. Item one, Subdivision Committee determination of Commercial Design Standards . Staff does find that the proposed elevations are well articulated and compatible with surrounding developments and therefore do meet the requirements of Commercial Design Standards; Condition two — there is a proposed monument sign that does meet the required setback off the right-of-way, but it does look like it is a little close to the side property line. It does require a 25' setback. Other than that, Item five is a few minor corrections that we asked the applicant to make on the site plan. But those are just a few minor notes to be added. Those are the main comments I have. My comments are included on page five — confirm that the easement for the abandoned 16" waterline has been abandoned as well. Also, are you dedicating the utilities along the frontage to 20 feet? Right now we are dedicating the 20' as requested by the utilities; they have asked for 25'. Yes, you need to increase to 25', that would be fine. With that waterline being abandoned, there was a plan for enlargement of the waterline to go down Plainview. That would adequately provide easement for everyone along that corridor. The rest of the comments are fairly standard. Subdivision Committee January 12, 2006 Page 8 Patterson: Clark: Morgan: Myres: Morgan: Clark: Morgan: Clark: Pate: Myres: Clark: Trumbo: Clark: As Jesse mentioned, the Tree Preservation waiver has been signed. Anyone else? Please introduce yourself and tell us about your project. I am Mike Morgan from McClelland Consulting Engineers. This project seems to be a very nice 21/4 -3 story building located on Plainview Avenue. The site is currently undeveloped. There is not a lot of vegetation other than turf grass at this time. We are working with the City's Water Department to indeed determine that the 16" water line has been abandoned. Currently we have a phase line for the property. We do anticipate going through an official lot split. At that time we would dedicate an access easement through Phase 1, so Lot 2 would have access in the future. We would be interested in working with Staff to determine the best location of this monument sign. I did not realize that it was going to be a large diameter waterline coming on the east side of Plainview Avenue, so we would like to have a monument sign. So we would like to work with Mr. O'Neal to come up with the best location for a monument sign. Do you have it located on the plan at all? It is located here. It is not called out on the landscape plan. We will keep it with the Committee today. When you do the lot split, then Plainview will be the entrance and exit for the new building? That is correct. It will be like a commercial tandem lot? C-2 doesn't require any frontage. It just requires access to the lot, so that would provide adequate access. It is too far back from Millsap to have any access; there are buildings in front of it. It is back but it still will be visible. Where is it exactly? Here's Millsap, here's College, that's the little street that wraps around behind Lewis Ford, and there is a Fire Station over here across from Chili's. Subdivision Committee January 12, 2006 Page 9 Clark: I didn't realize there was that much space there. We are asked to find fact on Commercial Design Standards. Myres: I heartily endorse Staff findings. Clark: The east elevation looks dull by comparison and it is very well articulated. It looks like a boat to me for some reason, but it is a very pretty building. It will be a great addition to Millsap. Are there any other findings or facts we need to determine? You are asking us to approve this at our level? Morgan: Yes. Clark: It is pretty standard; there is no tree canopy to deal with. We have cross access guaranteed with an easement later, a landscape plan. Trumbo: It seems pretty clean and simple to me. I will make a motion that we approve LSD 06-1882 with all conditions of approval and agreement with Staff, but we are going to change #5 to increase the utility easement from 20' to 25' per engineering request. O'Neal: I need to clarify that. There is potential for a problem with water main capacity there, and I feel that a 5' increase in the easement would be adequate. Trumbo: Will that work with your plans? Morgan: That will work, if we could work with this monument sign. We are 20' away from this property line and we are approximately 20' away from this property line. If we are required to move the sign 25' from this property line, it could not be located in this island, so that would put it here. If we have another 5' feet here, it would be essentially right on the curb line, which is not the best place for it. Trumbo: Jeremy, can we put a monument sign in an easement? Pate: It can, we have to locate it though and make sure it won't impede any of the utilities' access. Trumbo: And that can be done at your level? Pate: Yes. Clark: Do we need to change any of the verbiage of the Commission? Myres: I will second. Subdivision Committee January 12, 2006 Page 10 LSD 06-1882 is approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee January 12, 2006 Page 11 LSD 06-1885: Large Scale Development (BELLAFONT PHASE I, 175): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at NORTH OF JOYCE BLVD, WEST OF VANTAGE DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.63 acres. The request is for a 9,104 square foot retail building with 30 parking spaces. Clark: The final item on the agenda is LSD 06-1885: Large Scale Development (BELLAFONT PHASE I,175) Garner: This property contains approximately 1.6 acres located on the north side of Joyce Blvd, and west of Vantage Drive and is zoned C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial. The site is currently undeveloped pasture, has some Bradford Pear trees along the frontage. The site is surrounded by developed and developing commercial property: Lindsey Tower Office Building is located immediately to the west; the U.S. Postal Office is to the east, on the south side of Joyce is Regions Bank. The applicant is currently processing a property line adjustment through the City of Fayetteville Planning Division to create the subject 1.63 -acre tract. The applicant proposes Phase I of the Bellafont master plan, which consists of a 9,104 square foot retail building with 29 parking spaces. This development would provide vehicular access directly onto Joyce Blvd. with a divided entrance. Phase II of Bellafont consists of a 26 -acre multi- use development adjacent to the northern border of the subject property. The concept plan there is for the whole Master Plan. Therefore, the entrance for this development is larger than we would typically see for a building this size, but it going to serve the whole Master Plan. The street improvements recommended by Staff include an assessment for a center turn lane along the project's Joyce Blvd. frontage, and an assessment for contribution to a planned traffic signal at Vantage and Joyce. A ten -foot pedestrian trail shall be constructed along the project's Joyce Blvd. frontage. At this section of Joyce there are trails instead of sidewalks that will ultimately connect to Mud Creek Trail system to the south. We are recommending approving this Large Scale Development at this level with several conditions. Condition #1 is determination of Commercial Design Standards. Staff does find that this building meets Commercial Design Standards and we have material board as well. Condition #2: Subdivision Committee determination of street improvements — 2 a (i) applicant should be assessed for one half of a turn lane along the project's Joyce Blvd. frontage. The cost estimate for this improvement to be approved by the City Engineering Division and provided prior to building permit, and (ii) an assessment for contribution to the planned traffic signal in the amount of $2,177.18 to be provided prior to building permit. 2 b — the site plan needs to be revised to depict the ultimate Joyce Blvd. street improvements and ultimately Joyce Blvd. will be a full boulevard section with additional lanes in that area. We want to make sure that we see that and make sure Subdivision Committee January 12, 2006 Page 12 O'Neal: the transition into this development is appropriate; condition 3 is referencing a 10' pedestrian trail along Joyce Blvd.; condition 4 is that the driveway should be revised to extend the median island approximately 10' south, across the right-of-way line and through the pedestrian path in order to provide a refuge to pedestrians when they walk across the divided entrance. We talked with engineering and that is what their recommendation is; and condition 5, is referencing the width of the lanes into this driveway. With a divided entrance, there is a minimum of 12' wide lane and maximum of 15' wide. A 15' wide median is required by code. Applicant proposes two 11' entrance lanes and the 10' wide median. Staff is okay with that, but if that is what they are proposing, it has to go before the whole Planning Commission.; condition 6, is referencing cross access to the adjacent parcel to the east. It is currently under the ownership of Liberty Bank. Cross access shall be provided by either providing a paved stub -out from the proposed parking lot to the eastern property line, or by providing an access easement along the northern property line of this parcel to allow connectivity from this parcel to Joyce Blvd. without going to Vantage. You can see on your drawing, the concept; also included in your Staff report, I drew out these parcels for this Liberty Bank parcel and this one. It does look like the applicant is proposing a cross access along this northern property line. Other conditions include: 7, access easement shall be filed to provide access to the tract. You can see on site plan, access to the tract is actually provided through the lot to the north. That would be taken care of with an access easement of the easement plat; condition 8, the property line adjustment to legally create the tract shall be recorded prior to issuance of the building permit; conditions 11-12 are referencing landscaping comments: 11, we need to see the types of trees and shrubs that are proposed subject to approval by the Urban Forester, as well as on-site trees; 12, Staff recommends landscape plantings (trees) in the median along the divided driveway; condition 14 — comments by the Engineering Division that need to be addressed. Those are the only conditions I wanted to cover. All my comments are included in the Staff report; however, on page 6 we have a memo about the traffic signal assessment. At the bottom, it is not clear if this development would be within the assessment area for a future bridge to cross Mud Creek on Vantage, south of the site. Doing quick calculations and using bridges that were built in the CMN Business Park, they averaged about a million dollars a piece. Collector traffic for Vantage is about 6000 vehicles a day and assume about 16% of traffic would be going south across that bridge. The assessment would be about $16,500. However, we do need to confirm that this is within that assessment. Subdivision Committee January 12, 2006 Page 13 Patterson: As Andrew mentioned this area has several Pear trees, about nine, in front of this project. They are located within the existing right-of-way and easement. They will be removing seven of those and will be replanting nice Oak species back along the edge outside of the right-of-way. Pate: The reason we are asking for an assessment on Joyce Blvd. frontage is because of a larger project. We want to have all these improvements occur at the same time. Essentially if that larger project does occur, within the next year and it can work out as far as timing goes, the assessment would simply be returned to the applicant and they would utilize this money to do the full improvements to Joyce as required. The traffic study should help us to understand exactly how much traffic is generated by the overall development so that is something that we are looking forward to with the future phases of Bellafont. Also with regard to the condition #4 and #5, whether it should go to Planning Commission or not, with the current plan it would have to, because of the waiver of the parking lot (Chapter 172) requirement for driveway entrances and exits. If the applicant agrees to those conditions, there can be approval here. Staff doesn't really foresee a problem with what they have proposed so it could go forward to the Planning Commission as well. And likely if all the other conditions and items are met, we could put this item on consent. That can be discussed here. I don't see a problem with the lane widths they proposed — it is just what the code requires when you have the divided median. The other condition #4 to extend that median island would also reduce the need for a waiver request from the maximum 39' wide curb cut because it would be measured at the right-of-way line so you would have a 22 and 24 instead a full 39, so that would help out that situation as well. Clark: Introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Henley: Tom Henley with H2 Engineering. Kip Hem with H2 Engineering. We don't have a problem with any of the conditions of approval. Just a comment on the #4, extend that median, that is no problem at all. We intentionally tried to keep that in the right-of-way for what was required, but we'd be happy to extend it further. Is there not a provision for a two- way in and out on .... Pate: There isn't a provision, but there is a standard. You have to have a minimum of 12' lanes so it is 24 between 4 on both sides and then you have to have 15' wide landscape islands. Henley: Is there any way we could agree to that and amend that condition #5 so that we are required to redesign that entrance to meet that requirement to get approval here? Subdivision Committee January 12, 2006 Page 14 Pate: Henley: Pate: Henley: Certainly. We would certainly be in agreement and do that and we could go ahead and start our construction plans. If you met the ordinance requirements then no waiver would be necessary. You would revise the site plans accordingly. Two 12' lanes and a 15' median? Okay. And we have e-mailed this site plan to Doug Lynch, the President of Liberty Bank, and they are excited about having cross access, so that certainly will be provided. We will be submitting Phase II. This is actually going to be divided into three phases; the one you have now is Phase I, everything else on the west side of Vantage will be Phase II which we are intending on submitting on the 19th, and Phase III will be everything on the east side of Vantage. Other than that, we don't have any problems with the conditions. Clark: Does that clear up #6, Jeremy? Pate: I believe so. Yes. Clark: Anything else? Henley: No. Clark: In all this is a huge development; we are just looking at this little building right here. Henley: It is just a function of commitment made to the tenant. Clark: But it certainly explains where these stub -outs shown on the plat are going to go and what they are going to grow up to be. Henley: One other item that is different between the concept plan and our plat: we have a meeting set up with Mr. Lindsey to extend the western stub -out here through to his property so he can eliminate the entrance curb cut onto Joyce Blvd. to allow him secondary entrance through this main one and that is reflected on the concept plan. Clark: It seems like H2 Engineering is involved in every project in town that is going to get a traffic light. Jeremy, when is the traffic light going to be put in, do you know? Because we have been assessing people left and right. Pate: I am not sure. Subdivision Committee January 12, 2006 Page 15 Henley: According to Ron Petrie that traffic light will be the first traffic light installed in 2006. Clark: We have been assessing people and the PZD behind Chambers Bank. I don't know if Region's Bank was assessed, but it is desperately needed. Henley: We will also be proposing signalization at the entrance there as well when the future phases come through. We are coordinating with Proctor and Gamble who owns the property on the south side of Joyce Blvd. to align their entrance with this one. Those are actually further apart than the signals at the shopping center that has Toys R Us in it and the one at Joyce and College. This drawing doesn't depict it well because it is so skewed. That is a longer distance than that. Clark: Does this divided median cause any problems for emergency vehicles? Pate: As long as it is wide enough. That is something that is reflected on the plans. Clark: I know that this isn't to scale, but I'm thinking when this whole thing comes through, are you going to have enough stacking distance if somebody is coming this way to get out? Henley: Yes, when you divide the number of vehicles coming out of here based on the projected traffic patterns for the ones that will be going north through Vantage, you also have ones coming out that stack at this light. Clark: This might be a well thought out place for traffic lights in a development that thinks about that. Trumbo: I'm confused on the bridge. Is it a pedestrian bridge or a vehicle bridge? O'Neal: It is a vehicle bridge. If you continue south there on Vantage, there is a plan to cross Mud Creek to go up to Millsap. Trumbo: Let me ask another question of Staff and this is way out there. I can't stand the detention ponds... I know we need them, but they are just big holes in the ground throughout the City. Are we ever going to explore the possibility of sharing detention ponds between developments? These things are huge. Is there talk of sharing detention? O'Neal: Yes there is. With a development of this size, there is a potential of using a community detention. Subdivision Committee January 12, 2006 Page 16 Henley: We indicate that detention pond there, but it will never be built; we had to show it on there for a requirement for submittal. The detention is in fact going to be incorporated with Lindsey as well; we have detention on the north end of the site that will be collecting what is coming off of the apartment complex reducing their existing flow, so that we don't have to detain as much further down and we have this detention over here as well on page three. So there will be some sharing of that. Clark: Lindsey's will probably be a full, functional fountain and all that stuff. Is that going to be wet or dry? But it will be disguised with River Birches and a walking trail around it, I think. Pate: Getting back to the bridge discussion, we probably need to add a condition and unfortunately we don't have the numbers in front of us. $16,500 is a pretty big number right now, so I want to make sure we get that right. I jotted down some language. "The applicant shall coordinate with the City Engineer to determine the appropriate share of contribution based on a ---- -- calculation for this development for a bridge over Mud Creek on Vantage Drive." This would be a condition of approval, approved by the City Engineer for that specific amount. It sounds like we typically will have to get these numbers by Planning Commission, but if this one is going to be approved at this time, we need a little more time to get those numbers together and to the applicant. Clark: And to determine if they are even subject to it, right? Pate: Correct. I anticipate that fully - Arvest Bank at Sterns and Joyce was assessed for that bridge, so I'm pretty sure that this is well within that. Henley: That is no problem. I just want to make sure that the intent is not to include them if they are not already included by that motion. Trumbo: That is number 23, then? Clark: Yes. Garner: I have a question for the applicant on the cross access proposed with Liberty Bank. It shows access directly to Vantage Drive. Are they anticipating on going north as well? Henley: We didn't want to eat up any more of our parking places by providing access through here; we will just allow them access to the north onto the one that goes onto Vantage. Clark: Is that okay with Staff? Subdivision Committee January 12, 2006 Page 17 Pate: Yes. Clark: This is going to be a nice, little development. Pate: I don't think little is in that description. Myres: I will move to approve at this level LSD 06-1885 with the attendant conditions of approval and the understanding that the applicant agrees with the changes that were requested to prevent the need for a waiver. Trumbo: Second. LSD05-1885 is approved by a vote of 3-0-0. MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 9:39 A.M.