HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-05-11 - Minutes•
•
MINUTES OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning
Commission was held on Friday, May 11, 1984 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 111
of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Barbara Crook, Sue Madison, Stan Green
Melanie Stockdell
Dewitt Smith, Delvin Nation, Gary Harrell, Tanner
Riley, Jim Treffinger, Bobbie Jones and Paula
Brandeis -
The meeting was called to order by Barbara Crook.
MINUTES
The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the
meeting of April 20, 1984. They were approved as distributed.
WINDSOR TOWNEHOMES
The next item on the agenda was approval of the revised plat of Windsor
Townehomes located both sides of Cambridge Road south of Highway 45.
Ms. Crook commented that a note from the Parks Department states that
a cash grant is requested (in lieu of land) for green space because
this development lies within the district serviced by Root School.
Next Crook stated that there were notes from the Plat Review meeting
requesting easements continuous around the entire development.
Smith replied that this was
on the south side the 25
and 15 feet on the adjacent
Smith said he understood
as to the possibility of a
a park in a future phase
requirement.
true on the west and east side and that
foot easement lies 10 feet on this property
single family property.
the Green Space Ordinance but he inquired
refund of part of the cash if he developed
of the subdivision to satisfy part of the
Crook stated that this would not be automatic and would have to be
approved by the Board of Directors Bobbie Jones added that the Planning
Commission could make a recommendation of such action to the Board
and there may be a process for obtaining a refund.
32
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee
May 11, 1984
Page 2
Smith stated his plans included a swimming pool and tennis courts
that would involve more land area than that required by the Green
Space Ordinance.
Crook stated that, in order to satisfy the City Engineer's request,
the concrete swale in the N.E. corner would have to empty into the
existing drainage facility on Highway 45.
In answer to Crook's question on land filling, Smith stated that he
intended to do so in the low areas.
Smith stated that the swale on the West side was to be concrete and
Crook had been examining an old plat which did not show this plan.
Next, Crook addressed Smith's request for a waiver of the 40 foot
maximum driveway width on the access roads.
Smith stated that this access road would be serving 36 families on
one side of the development and 12 on the other and that what he is
requesting is to use street specifications on the radius and opening.
He explained that he is asking to upgrade beyond private drive speci-
fications.
Sue Madison requested to know the paved width of the street which
Smith stated would be 25 feet. Madison replied that the requirement
for a public street is 30 feet and that she wished to know the reasoning
of requesting the private drives rather than public streets.
Smith replied that he will submit his plans to a Condominium Homeowners
Regime and that the maintenance of the drives will fall upon the Regime.
He said that this was desirable so that the owners of the properties
will be able to maintain a high quality of their drives.
Jones added that the owners could not back vehicles into a public
street but that they could if they were private drives and also, that
the right-of-way would be 50 feet if public and no building could
be constructed within 25 feet of a public street right-of-way.
Madison stated that she was opposed to the private drives because
if there were a financial disaster occurring to the present owners
then there would be no one responsible for maintaining these drives.
Stan Green stated that he thought it was an advantage to the City
to not have to maintain these streets (drives) and Madison replied
that it was an advantage to the City but it would also be a disadvantage
to the people who will live in this development. Madison continued
that she was also opposed to the street design of this development.
She stated that a single inlet-outlet for 36 families did not seem
like a good design and she said that Perry Franklin, Traffic Department,
had agreed with her regarding this problem. Madison continued by
31
Subdivision Committee
May 11, 1984
Page 3
giving an example of how difficult this problem might be if an evacuation
needed to take place.
In reply to Crook's question, Smith said that this development was
at one-half the allowable density. R-2 would allow over 100 units
within this amount of acreage and Smith stated that he is building
only 48 units.
Madison stated that, with the street being as narrow as planned she
did not feel that there was sufficient ingress and egress and that
she would like to see it changed. She said that she would be more
comfortable if the east side of the development looked more like the
west side in street design.
Smith said that there would
but there would be sidewalks
He said that there will be
45. To this, Madison replied
of private drives, sidewalks
not be sidewalks around the private drives
leading from the units to the driveways.
sidewalks along Cambridge Road and Highway
that if these were public streets, instead
would be a requirement.
Green commented that he didn't see any advantage of developing these
as public streets because the only people who will use the streets
here would be the residents and their visitors.
Madison replied that the advantage would be to the people who will
live in this development because there would be a guarantee and perpetuity
that their streets will be maintained at least to City standards.
Green said that buyers have a choice as to whether or not this type
of situation was agreeable to them before they purchase and that he
did not find this situation objectionable.
Crook stated that she didn't feel there was too much of a problem
as far as a disaster situation because the units were close to the
road and it does not involve a great many people.
Smith stated that he was willing to widen the private drive if necessary
and that he would probably widen the primary entry as well, so that
the streets would match.
Crook stated that the Planning Commission has been asked to give greater
attention to drainage and that the natural drainage appeared to be
to the east and down the hill in this development. She asked if there
would be access for drainage coming from the property to the south
and added that code requires drainage to be sized to take care of
all drainage on site. She stated that, as development takes place
here, storm drainage will have to be taken to the City connection
(or natural drainage must occur). Smith stated that Northwest Engineers
are handling the drainage problems on a consistent basis and that
he and they would address this concern.
Ito
NIA
•
Subdivision Committee
May 11, 1984
Page 4
Jones said that on the east section where the water line comes around
the road on the north side of the drive that the easement should continue
on to the right-of-way on Cambridge.
Smith stated that his intent was to dedicate the entire 40 feet on
both sides of the Cambridge as an easement.
Crook stated that the request for a waiver of driveway maximum width
will go to the Planning Commission as well as the request for Lot
2 to be further divided into two lots. She added that the sign ordinance
will go to the inspector of that department. A discussion and explanation
of driveway safety zones followed.
Melanie Stockdell arrived at this point.
Crook asked Smith if he had any questions regarding any of the utility
requirements to which Smith replied that he did not.
Madison wished to know whether or not the problem concerning the name
of the subdivision and the main street within same had been worked
out. Smith stated that, formally, it had not, but that he had recommended
to Dr. Hays that the name of Cambridge Rd. remain the same and that
it might be possible to name the subdivision Park Place as Hays wished.
Smith stated that high street lights will not be used within the Large
Scale Development, but four foot yard lights will be utilized instead.
Madison asked if Smith had checked with the school to find out where
the bus might pick up children. Smith replied that he had not and
Madison said that this was part of her concern of the street being
so narrow. She explained that an early morning might see people trying
to leave for work, the school bus picking up children and perhaps
garbage trucks making their rounds all at the same time which would
very much congest the area.
MOTION
Stan Green made a motion to approve this large scale development subject
to increasing the wideth of the private drives to 30 feet and including
a favorable recommendation of the waiver for a 40 foot driveway maximum
width, as well as a waiver of the safety zone at the south end of
the property at Cambridge Road.
Barbara Crook seconded the motion; motion passed 3-1-0, Madison voting
"nay".
Subdivision Committee
May 11, 1984
Page 5
UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH
The next item on the agenda was the approval of the revised plat for
a large scale development of University Baptist Church located on
Vandeventer between Maple and Lafayette. Presently zoned R-3 with
a conditional use.
Crook said that the concerns that remain pertained to off-site improve-
ments. She asked church representative Gary Harrell if there were
any objections to the Plat Review comments from the utility companies.
Harrell replied that they could conform to all requirements requested.
Crook proceeded to clarify street rights-of-way. Harrell stated that
he believes the 60 foot dedication on Maple is within the property
line as shown. Crook stated that a 50 ft. right-of-way would be standard
on Vandeventer. The 5 foot dedication on Lafayette is also within
the property. For the north 60 feet on the east side of Vandeventer
a dedication of an additional 10 feet has been granted by the church
She added that the City waived additional right-of-way requirement
on Vandeventer and that it is not clear whether it is on both sides
of Vandeventer or only on one side, and will need clarification in
the future. Crook said that if Vandeventer were improved, the requirement
would be 31 feet back to back of curbs.
A discussion ensued between Harrell, Crook and Stockdell about the
merits of Vandeventer being closed as a public street. Jones read
from minutes of the Board (from 1977) in regards to previous waivers
of rights-of-way regarding this area. Crook said that she thought
the minutes implied that the five additional feet required on each
side of Vandeventer had been waived. Jones stated that she had another
street and utility easement dated in 1980 that included bearings and
distances indicating a somewhat triangular shape. Crook added that
if Vandeventer were improved, a sidewalk would also be required on
one side. She also said that there is currently sidewalk on the west
side that is in need of repair. She reminded Harrell that the City
inspector is, at this time, notifying property owners of violations.
Crook suggested that, if UBC improved Vandeventer to City standards,
they may want to ask the City to amend the sidewalk plan and allow
UBC to continue the sidewalk that is already constructed on the east
side. Jones stated that as part of the agreement with UBC, the City
has built a sidewalk on Maple from Vandeventer to West Street and
another one from the Family Life Center to the intersection of Maple
and Vandeventer.
The next item Crook considered was the parking requirements. She
stated that it appeared that more parking was required than what was
available on this site.
112
Subdivision Committee
May 11, 1984
Page 6
Harrell responded by showing members of the committee an updated
plan indicating the capacity of each parking lot. He stated that
on-site parking places would bring the total spaces to 127 and he
added that -he wasn't sure if he could count off-street parking' in
his total. He also said that UBC has several deductive alternates
which would allow for additional parking spaces.
Jones stated that new parking may be no closer than 15 feet from the
street right-of-way with 20% landscaping between street and parking
or 25 feet back with 10% landscaping. She explained that landscaping
must be 18 inches high but not higher than 30 inches.
Crook asked Jones whether screening. was required along the north property
line where a sidewalk will be constructed. Jones replied that this
might refer to an action previously taken by the Board of Adjustment
and she would need to check on this. It was reported that a neighbor
of UBC had called with a concern about whether or not the screening
would remain on the property's east side. Harrell replied that he
had spoken with the neighbor and reassured her that the screening
would remain and that the area in question would not be a playground
as was feared.
Crook stated that only the City Board may waive the sidewalk requirement.
Stockdell requested to know if the Subdivision Committee could ok
a Bill of Assurance for sidewalks and Crook replied that the Committee
could recommend this to the Board and only they can approve it. Crook
stated she felt that where there is such a long exposure to a parking
lot, as there is on Maple, a sidewalk -is a -safety -provision. Jones
clarified that sidewalks are required on both sides of Maple Street
as well as on Lafayette. Jones continued by saying that in 1973,
the Board of Adjustment granted a variance to waive the 25 foot setback
for the parking lot on Maple (labled parking lot #5 on UBC plan),
to waive the screening requirement along Maple, and to waive the screening
along the east line of 'lot #5 temporarily until parking lot #4 was
developed or for a maximum of 3 years. The outcome of this is that
screening is required at this time unless additional waivers are secured.
Jones stated that, at the time of .the above mentioned waiver, the
parking setback was 25 feet with screening on all sides. Since that
time, the code has been changed to require a 25 foot setback from
street right-of-way with 10% landscaping in place of screening. (Or
a 15 ft. parking setback with 20% landscaping.)
The term "deductive alternates" was explained by Mr. Harrell.
Jones went on to report of additional action by the Board of Adjustment
concerning parking lot #5 in November of 1976. The action was a waiver
of the requirement for screening along Maple Street and along the
east side of the parking lot and this waiver is still in effect.
43
Subdivision Committee
May 11, 1984
Page 7
Madison asked whether parking lots were required to be paved and Jones
answered that they were.
Crook stated that 109 parking spaces were required by the Sanctuary
by itself with some additional required by the pre-school as well
as some off-site parking. She referred to a letter in the file from
UBC to the effect that their intent was to secure additional parking
by paving the "second mile parking lot". Crook wished to know when
the paving will take place. Harrell responded by saying that UBC
has already taken action by setting aside funds for a drainage easement
and that the work will proceed as quickly as right-of-way can be secured
for this project. Crook stated that the City would like some commitment
that was not contingent upon gaining right-of-way from the University.
Stockdell stated that she thought the Committee should have written
assurance regarding the paving of the "second mile parking lot".
Mr. Riley advised that McClinton Anchor was committed to beginning
this job as soon as the plan can be developed.
Crook said that it was up to UBC to offer some type of time frame
in which the paving would take place.
Madison wished to know the consequences of a breach of contract stating
that paving would be done at a particular time. Jones replied that
it would, at that point, be put in the hands of the prosecutor.
Harrell explained that the reason paving of the lot in question has
taken so long is that the church had thought at one time that the
lot might be the site of a building. He said that at this time, the
church does have a master plan and that the parking lot is to remain
a parking lot and will be paved as part of that plan.
Crook asked Jones if she felt that there were enough parking spaces
as far as code was concerned and Jones replied that there was, among
all of their parking lots.
The next item of consideration was that of off-site improvements in
regards to the possible widening of Vandeventer to City standards.
Crook stated that it was up to UBC as to whether they wanted sidewalks
on the east side 'of Vandeventer. Stockdell wished to know if the
Committee would recommend a Bill of Assurance for sidewalks on Maple
and Lafayette. Jones reminded the Committee that, if there is an
existing sidewalk that is in poor condition, it will need to be repaired.
Jones added her requirement that the screening on the east side property
line remain in place.
Green asked for and received clarification on which side of Vandeventer
sidewalk is required according to the Master Sidewalk Plan.
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee
May 11, 1984
Page 8
Crook explained that, at such time as UBC was requested to widen Vande-
venter, that that would be the time to consider the sidewalk issue.
Jones read from the Code of Ordinances Book; "...required off-site
improvements are to be determined by the Planning Commission...and
the portion of the cost of that to be borne by the developer...based
upon rational nexus which should bear some relationship to the need
created by the developer..."
Crook stated that she thought there would be increased traffic because
of the new drive being created by UBC.
Jones continued reading a portion of the code that states "...in deter-
mining that portion of the cost of off-site improvement which the
subdivider shall be required to bear the Planning Commission shall
consider the acreage within this proposed development of the percentage
of all the acreage which when fully developed benefits from the off-site
improvements. Provided the Planning Commission may use a different
method of measurement if it determines the use of the acreage standards
will not result in a rational nexus". Jones added that, if this were
an apartment site, widening of the street would definitely be required.
She explained that on anything other than a single-family dwelling,
if a street were in good condition, a Bill of Assurance may be acceptable
with the condition that if, in the future, the street were to be widened
to meet the 31 foot requirement, that that property owner would pay
their part of the cost of the widening. She also clarified the conditions
under which it would up to the Planning Commission to make a recommendation
and those conditions that would leave the decisions up to Administration.
NOTION
Stockdell made a motion to approve the UBC Large Scale Development
subject to all Plat Review comments and a Bill of Assurance that at
such time as development takes place on the west side of Vandeventer
that all off-site improvements will be made including the widening
of Vandeventer to 31 feet per City Code. Secondly, if any "deductive
alternates" are made that the parking requirements be checked with
the Planning Office.
The motion was seconded by Sue Madison, followed by discussion.
Green asked Stockdell to clarify her motion. She said that what she
meant was that, in lieu of UBC being required to meet City Code immediately
that the Commission would accept a Bill of Assurance stating that
once UBC develops the other side of Vandeventer enough to impact it
a greater level than it is presently, that they would then make the
off-site improvements.
Green stated that he thought that not all development would substantially
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee
May 11, 1984
Page 9
impact Vandeventer. He said that he did not think Stockdell's motion
reflected this possibility.
Green said that he agreed with Stockdell's intention but that her
motion ties hands in that "...at such time as the property develops..."
is vague. He reminded the Committee that if UBC develops more than
an acre, they would have to appear before the Subdivision Committee
again. He added that if a development of more than one acre adversely
impacts Vandeventer and the need exists for the street to be widened,
the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to ask for adherence
to the code at that time. He went on to explain that the only exposure
would be if development takes place in parcels of less than one acre.
Jones responded that there was a section of code covering this issue
that says "...when commercial, industrial or multi -family development
takes place along any street which is not constructed according to
existing City standards, the developer shall (1) dedicate the right-of-way
to meet Master Street Plans (2) install street paving, curbs, gutters
and sidewalks necessary to bring the street into conformity."
Jones suggested that another possibility would be that UBC could decide
that they do not want to develop the west side of Vandeventer. Because
of this possibility, Jones thought that, perhaps the motion should
state that at such time development takes place on the west side of
Vandeventer, (not necessarily by this developer) that this developer
would bear the cost of widening Vandeventer on the east side.
Madison said she thought that recognition needed to be given to the
fact that this development is already having an effect on Vandeventer
and that in the future, if more development takes place, it could
be a crisis point.
Green reiterated his thought that the possibility existed that "devel-
opment" on the west side could be of such a nature as to not further
impact Vandeventer any more than it presently is. He said that if
the motion is vague enough, it could require UBC to widen Vandeventer
at the time of such development whether or not it had any impact on
Vandeventer.
Jones advised the Committee that the church was operating under a
Conditional Use and that when any more development was considered,
it would have to come before the Planning Commission again.
Stockdell stated that she felt that it was the job of the Planning
Commission to do the best job they could based on the information
available at the present time.
Jones explained to Crook that Bills of Assurance were left open-ended
at the call of the City. Crook asked what means were available to
void a Bill of Assurance to which Jones replied that it would take
46
Subdivision Committee
May 11, 1984
Page 10
a release by the Board of Directors. Jones said that she would talk
to City Attorney, Jim McCord to further clarify this point.
At the request of the clerk, Stockdell repeated her motion. She stated
that she moved approval of the Large Scale Development of UBC subject
to all Plat Review comments with the consideration that if any deductive
alternates are used that the parking requirements be checked with
the Planning Administrator and that a Bill of Assurances be drawn
up stating that at such time as development by this owner takes place
on the west side of Vandeventer that all off-site improvements will
be made to bring Vandeventer up to City standards.
Green asked if a parking lot would qualify as "development" to which
Jones replied it would.
Gary Harrell said that he understood that if UBC developed the west
side of Vandeventer that he would have the opportunity to come before
the Planning Commission again.
Crook stated that the Committee would recommend to the Board of Directors
that a Bill of Assurance be accepted. She added that UBC would have
to go before the Board to request that the Bill of Assurance be voided.
Green asked if the motion could reflect the possibility that if Vandeventer
were not further impacted by more development that the requirement
for widening of Vandeventer be waived.
Madison and Stockdell expressed that they each thought that Vandeventer
was already very impacted and they were being tolerant by allowing
a Bill of Assurance in this case.
Harrell said that he was satisfied with the motion as stated.
Sue Madison seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:50
P.M.
y7 A