Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-09-21 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Friday, September 21, 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, Sue Madison and Stanley Green MEMBERS ABSENT: None The meeting was called to order by Chair, Barbara Crook and, as two members of the Committee were expected to arrive late, the approval of the minutes of the September 7th meeting was postponed until all members were present. L. A. BRUSH APRON FAY. INDUSTRIAL PARK DEVELOPER - LICHLYTER The first plat for consideration today was that of L. A. Brush Apron in Fayetteville Industrial Park, represented by Mr Lichlyter of Lichlyter Construction. Crook asked for a report from the Planning Office and Jones, Planning Administrator, explained that she had advised this developer that there were three exemptions to meet in order for them to avoid a Large Scale Development: 1. if the proposed addition does not exceed 10,000 sq. ft.; 2. if there were no need for additional parking spaces and 3. if there is no need for an additional driveway. She said that, because an additional driveway was planned, the plat review was necessary and, because of a previous agreement, construction has already begun on this project. Crook expressed her concern that there was no way of telling how close the next driveway is and Jones said it is a dead-end street on which a plat was begun but not finaled and a street constructed. Crook said that there was no problem with having the proper number of parking places or distances from other driveways. Jones reported that they have signed a Bill of Assurance for their portion of sidewalk along Highway 16 but she said there is some discrepancy between the Master Sidewalk Plan and the Master Street Plan along Armstrong Road. Crook suggested that, because sidewalk for this area is not shown on the Master Sidewalk Plan on Armstrong, but only implied, it could not be required by this Committee. She also said that, because it appears that sidewalk is required further south on Armstrong, it seems reasonable to keep some consistency by requiring sidewalk at this location as well. '79 • • Subdivision Committee September 21, 1984 Page 2 Because of the discrepancy which may have resulted because of an error executed by a University Student in charge of preparing the Master Sidewalk Plan, Stockdell suggested that if sidewalk is currently required along Armstrong Ave. (as determined by the Board of Directors), that the owner of this development will be willing to accept the expense of his portion of said sidewalk. In answer to Crook's question, Lichlyter replied that he had no problem with any of the Plat Review comments. Green said he felt that this developer is making an effort to comply with all City regulations and that he didn't feel comfortable making a requirement at this point that the developer knew nothing about when he began making his plans. He inquired why the sidewalk question did not arise when this building was first constructed and Jones replied that the Master Sidewalk Plan only came into effect in 1981 and this building was constructed before that time. MOTION Stockdell moved approval of this plat subject to 1. the owner being willing to meet the current sidewalk requirements as determined by the City Board of Directors. Madison seconded, followed by discussion. Green inquired what the ramification of errors in the Master Sidewalk Plan might be in regard to the requirements being made of this developer. He said he felt the potential exists that the sidewalk was simply omitted when the bend in Armstrong Road was created. Jones demonstrated to Green on the zoning map that there was no sidewalk shown on Armstrong Ave. (which was built before the Master Sidewalk Plan existed) on the Master Street Plan. WITHDRAWL OF MOTION After clarification that sidewalk is not required on Armstrong Rd. at this location, Stockdell withdrew her motion followed by discussion. Jones read Sec.18 (31) from the Fayetteville Code book which suggested that, Armstrong Rd., as a local street, requires sidewalk on one side of the street or the other. She said one ordinance refers to the Master Sidewalk Plan and other ordinances refer vaguely to bringing the street up to current City standards which includes installing sidewalks. MOTION • Green moved approval of this Large Scale Development as presented; seconded by Stockdell, the motion to approve passed 4-0-0. So • • • Subdivision Committee September 21, 1984 Page 3 RESOLUTION Stockdell made a motion that the Subdivision Committee pass a resolution to ask the City Board of Directors to bring the Ordinances dealing with sidewalks, the Master Sidewalk Plan and all plats currently on file, brought into consistency; that these requirements be reconciled and clarified. Madison seconded and the motion to pass this resolution passed 4-0-0. RESOLUTION Green made a motion that the Subdivision Committee pass a resolution to ask the City Board of Directors to carefully examine the Industrial Park area to determine exactly where, if anywhere, sidewalks are needed, as this Committee feels that there appears to be the potential for little or use of certain sidewalks as presently required by the sidewalk ordinance. Crook seconded but requested that the resolution be modified to clarify that this committee's recommendation contemplates that sidewalks would be continued to be required in those areas of Industrial Park where they are needed and would be used. Green accepted this amendment and upon a vote, the motion to pass this resolution passed 3-1, Madison voting "nay" OAKSHIRE APARTMENTS KANTZ PLACE DEVELOPER - LINDSEY CONSTRUCTION The second plat for consideration a was replat of Lots 13, 14 and 15 of Block 2 Kantz Place being developed by Lindsey Construction and represented today by Fred Sherman. Crook inquired if proof of notification has been received from adjoining property owners Jones replied that they had. Crook asked Sherman if he understood the Parks and Recreation requirement for $4,760 cash donation and Sherman replied affirmatively and added that he had no problem with the Plat Review comments as requested by the utility companies. Crook stated that she was concerned that the problem of internal drainage for this property has not been addressed in this revised plat, advising that allowing internal drainage to flow onto neighboring property was not an acceptable solution for a large scale development. Crook indicated that this drainage needs to be taken to a City storm drain or a natural drainage ditch. She said she thought that Gary Carnahan had been involved in the development immediately north of this property and had carried the drainage across Kantz Place to a manhole at the (lowest) northeast corner of this location. Crook said some sort of inlet was necessary to get the drainage to the east between this 81 • Subdivision Committee September 21, 1984 Page 4 development and Highway 265. She indicated that there is an existing paved drainage ditch along the south side of this property with two storm inlets on the southwest corner that could probably be utilized by this builder. Crook said that the sidewalks and the setbacks appeared to be in order and she advised that the requested Conditional Use will need to go before the Planning Commission as a separate issue. Crook and Madison voiced their mutual concern that there is only one point of ingress/egress for this project of 56 units. Crook explained that there is currently an amendment to the ordinance being considered (partly as a safety feature) which will require builders of large scale developments to provide either numbers of exits proportionate to the proposed number of units or the construction of streets (rather than parking lots) within the development. She said she would not be able to vote favorably for this development without an additional exit. She pointed out that this issue has been satisfactorily addressed in each of the surrounding projects adjoining this development. Crook said she saw the possibility of major changes in this design but also suggested that an exit could be provided at the southwest corner which could serve a possible future development in that area as well. Madison said she would like to see some connection between the external and the internal sidewalks on the west side of this development to facilitate pedestrian traffic. MOTION Stockdell moved to recommend approval of this plat subject to 1. Plat Review comments; 2. the internal drainage from this property being carried to a City storm drainage facility; 3. an additional exit being provided at or near the southeast corner of the property and; 4. a connecting sidewalk being provided between the internal and external sidewalks on the west side of the property. Madison seconded and the motion to recommend approval passed 3-1-0, Green voting "nay" because the motion required of the developer, rather than recommended the connection between the external and internal sidewalks which he did not feel was necessary. MOTION Stockdell moved recommendation of the driveway width maximum being waived for both the existing driveway and any other that may be added. Green seconded and the motion to recommend a waiver of driveway width maximum passed 4-0-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 A.M. sa