Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-09-07 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission vas held on Friday, September 7, 1984 at 9:00 A.M. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building , 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Crook, Melanie Stockdell, Stan Green and Sue Madison MEMBERS ABSENT: None The meeting was called to order by Chair, Barbara Crook at 9:10. MINUTES The approval of the minutes of the August 24 meeting were postponed. Note was made that there will no longer be an agenda for this meeting but items for consideration will be mentioned in the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting. APPROVAL OF AMENDED PRELIMINARY PLAT PARK PLACE - PHASES THREE AND FOUR J.B. HAYS - HWY. 245 AND HWY. 45 The first item for consideration was approval of an amended preliminary plat for Park Place Phases III and IV located south of Highway 45 and west of Highway 265, developed by J. B. Hays and represented today by Ervan Wimberley and Al Harris of Northwest Engineers. Crook asked if there were any problems with the requests made by the utility companies at the Plat Review meeting of Thursday, Aug. 30 and Wimberley replied that there were not. Crook asked if the 25 ft. setback/utility easement along Cambridge was acceptable and Wimberley indicated that is was necessary for service to the streetlights. Jones said utility companies have recently been requesting larger easements at the beginning of a project to eliminate relocation problems that sometimes become necessary after the development is underway. Crook asked Wimberley to eliminate the words "drainage easement" on the plat where he has agreed to place a utility easement instead. She expressed her concern that any drainage facilities constructed under this phase be of a size sufficient to handle the runoff all the way to the top of the hill. Wimberley said all of these issues have been addressed. He explained "French drains" and said that the runoff from these would be taken to the first inlet on the uphill side of the cul-de-sacs. '73 • • Subdivision Committee September 7, 1984 Page 2 Crook addressed the problem of of having only one point of ingress/egress until a road is constructed to connect with Highway 265. She said she felt there was a need for more than one access to this development. After some discussion, Wimberley stated that the road to Hwy. 265 would be constructed simultaneously with the development of Phase IV, after Phase III is completed. Madison said she thought the proposed road to Hwy. 265 should be more in alignment with Lover's Lane (opposite) and Wimberley replied that because of a site problem at this location, a slight off -set was probably a better solution. Crook discussed the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's comment that this development is in the Root District and Wimberley said the developer will probably request a partial waiver of the parks fee because of proposed improvements. Wimberley said he had received proof of notification signatures of adjoining property owners by enclosing a self-addressed stamped envelope with his requests and added that he would like to request a waiver for driveway safety zone on all cul-de-sac lots at this time. He said that he will adjust the streetlight placement to meet the 300 ft. spacing requirement instead of requesting a waiver for a previously off -set light. In answer to Crook's inquiry, Wimberley said that he has sidewalks planned along both sides of Cambridge, as previously agreed upon, but none on the cul-de-sacs. Crook asked about Jones comment regarding a sewer easement (Plat Review Aug. 30) and Wimberley said he planned to contact the City Engineer, Don Bunn, to work out a location for this easement that will serve the future need of the City (or a Sewer Improvement District) installing sewer to the areas presently without sewer. Jones suggested that more than one easement may be needed. MOTION Stockdell moved recommendation for approval of this plat subject to 1. Plat Review comments; 2. The drainage on the uphill side of the cul-de-sacs being controlled by French drains; 3. Phase IV being developed simultaneously to the improvement of a road connecting with Highway 265; 4. Approval of waivers of the driveway safety zone for all cul-de-sac lots; 5. An easement being provided for the City to serve lots presently without them in the area to the west of this development; 6. Sidewalks being shown on the extension of Revere Place East. • Madison seconded and the motion to recommend approval passed 4-0-0. 1741 • • • Subdivision Committee September 7, 1984 Page 3 DISCUSSION OF STREET REGULATIONS WITHIN A LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT Crook said that, since the discussion at the last Subdivision Committee meeting, she has condensed some of the major comments and has added them to the proposal drafted by City Attorney, Jim McCord. Crook said her first concern was to allow some cut-off point in terms of the number of units. She suggested adding the following: "...vehicular travel within a residential LSD having more than (some specified number of units) per access to public streets shall be on public or private streets..." Crook said she thought that if more units than the specifica- tion calls for are to be served, then the number of access points would increase. She said, perhaps, if a developer wished to provide fewer access points, then they should provide streets for vehicular travel instead. Crook advised that the two points of City concern are that of maintenance and safety, which includes access by emergency vehicles. She said if a large non-residential development was presented for consideration, the Planning Commission could require more points of access or to ask that streets be provided within the development. Crook suggested substituting the words "developer or owner" for the word "developer" in paragraph 415(b) item 6 so as to allow for the possibility of a single owner in terms of providing some means of maintenance. Stockdell said she thought that that may present a problem as the developer may assume the owner is to bear the expense and the owner may assume the developer is responsible. Jones read the Planned Unit Development regulations on Page 878.1. Madison expressed her concern that developers may be able to use parking lot standards and avoid constructing streets by building one unit fewer than that number allowed and Crook replied that some dividing point is necessary. Jones commented that, in the PUD Ordinance, the issue was public streets verses private streets, not private streets verses parking lots which means that a development would either build a public street meeting all City standards and setbacks, or a private street with lesser standards. Crook said she thought that sometimes new proposals need to be tried to see how effective they will be with the possibility of amending them when they do not work. She said she thought consistency needed to be addressed and Stockdell added that she thought these regulations were proposed to help aleviate some existing problems. Crook advised that amendments were always possible to zoning ordinances. Subdivision Committee September 7, 1984 Page 4 Jones advised that, in the PUD regulations, something less than public streets are allowed with the responsibility of maintenence going to the POA. She said if there are more than 40 units, streets need to meet City standards. Jones said she thought the purpose of further definitions (for LSDs)at this point was to strengthen these regulations. Green requested to know what the problems have been leading to this discussion and Crook replied that there have been access problems to large apartment complexes here in Fayetteville and she added that what she is proposing will, hopefully, provide developers with an incentive and options. She explained that, if this proposal is accepted, a developer with more than 40 units may provide either public or private streets, or they may provide an additional exit; if the developer builds more than 80 units with two proposed access points, they will have the option of providing public or private streets or providing a third access point. Green said he thought this discussion emerged from a lack of construction standards for private streets and Crook said she thought it began when a Large Scale Development was presented with a safety problem because of limited access. Green commented that there a quite a number of places in Fayetteville with only 'one point of access and Crook and Stockdell agreed that this was a condition they would like to try to eliminate. In answer to Green's inquiry, Crook explained that the Fayetteville building code stipulates that every person have at least two ways to exit a room or a building; likewise the Planning Commission has been consistent in requiring two points of exit for developments Green said he felt sensitive to discrepancies in street construction but not to points of access because he felt the Planning Commission already had authority to require two exits from LSDs under the existing ordinance. He said he thought this amendment might lead to some areas not lending themselves to development at all. Crook said she felt the question to address was, not the materials of the street construction but the maintenance and the safety aspect of said streets in the future. Jones said she thought Powell's main concern was that people will buy a home under the Horizontal Property Regime, which does not divide the real property, and when potholes develop will call the City Street Department and request repairs (on a paved area that is not a "street"). Crook said she thought there was a limit to where private enterprise can infringe upon public safety and that developers need to be given options within some limitations. r16 • • • Subdivision Committee September 7, 1984 Page 5 Green said he thought the question here was one of relative risk and that the extra expenditure of funds may be out of line with the benefits to be acheived. Wimberley agreed with Crook in that, as far as good building practice, a subdivision should at some point be provided with a second point of access, but he added that by putting a regulation on this issue, the developer has been relieved of a judgement decision. In answer to Green's question, Jones explained that a second point of access could have been required by the Planning Commission in the Windsor Townehomes development (part of Park Place Subdivision) if the Commissioners deemed the traffic situation to be hazardous. Crook said that one of the issues being addressed was that of construction standards and the point at which they will be applied by the Planning Commission. She reiterated that she is proposing parking lot standards with one access for fewer than 40 units. Crook reported that in an earlier talk with Wimberley, he had suggested that all surfaces within a LSD intended for vehicular travel shall be constructed to City construc- tion standards, which she felt would be more difficult than her proposal. Jones advised that the concern for construction standards has been intensified by the fact that there are many condominiums being presented which does not need to be brought through the City for approval. She said the main problem is that these homes are owned individually but the land may be owned by another party. Crook said that the PUD Ordinance addresses both safety and construction standards for residential areas by limiting the number of units on loops and cul-de-sac. Green said he felt there were two different problems; apartments, which theoretically should not have construction standard problem, and condominiums which could present a problem because of separate ownership. He said again that he felt the Commission had the power to regulate the safety concern without unduly handcuffing developers. Crook responded that Ernie Jacks has pointed out that history has shown that situations change, and what started out as a private -street - to -be -maintained -by -the -owners, sometimes becomes a street that will be maintained only if the City steps in (for a variety of reasons). And so, she said, the City in recognizing that this may happen, has amended the PUD Ordinance to take care of this situation. Crook added that she thought that safety was addressed by both construction standards and access points. She said conditions have changed and Fayetteville is beginning to see larger complexes than ever before and even though the majority of the existing apartment developments are small, recent ones have been proposed with upwards of 100 units, creating problems that Fayetteville has not seen before. 77 • • • Subdivision Committee September 7, 1984 Page 6 Madison said that streetlights were not required in some developments because their paved areas were technically driveways and not streets; they also did not have to meet safety considerations of streets such as sidewalks or backing into a public street. She said the size of a development effect the numbers of people to deal with in regards to safety. Crook said that when the City Attorney's proposed amendment was first presented to the Planning Commission, questions were raised as to whether it was worded exactly with what members wished it to say. She reminded this Committee that the amendment was given to them to examine and to retrieve input from developers before the Planning Commission voted on it. Crook suggested summarizing all the points made at this meeting to present to the Planning Commission along with a recommendation. Green said he had two more points to add, one of which was that he would be more willing to support a recommendation requiring developers to build streets to City standards if the City would then maintain them although he doubted that the City would be wise to spend money like this. Another option would be for the Planning Commission to have the power to request POAs in LSDs (for maintenance purposes) as part of the requirement for approval. He added that the City may be used as an inspection agent to be sure the streets are up to the standards needed for travel by emergency vehicles. MOTION Crook made a motion allowing the Subdivision Committee to present today's thoughts to the City Attorney for his wording and when it is returned in amendment form, to show it to developers and engineers for their input for a period of ten days at which time it will be presented to the Planning Commission, accompanied by all comments received from every interested party. The additions Crook wished to make to the original amendment are: 1. ...insert "vehicular traffic in a Large Scale Development where there are more than 40 units shall be on a public or private street and not a driveway"; 2. insert the word "residential" in the second paragraph; 3. the words "developer or owner" shall be substituted for "developer" in paragraph 6. Madison seconded and the motion passed 2-1-0, Green voting "nay". (Stockdell had left the meeting at 10:15 before this motion was made). There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 A.M. q8