Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-10-19 - Minutes• • • MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission met on Friday, October 19, 1984 at 9:00 A.M. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Stan Green, Sue Madison and Joe Tarvin MEMBERS ABSENT: Melanie Stockdell Upon an note from Newton Hailey Jr., Chairman of the Planning Commission, Stan Green replaces Barbara Crook on this committee and will act as chairperson beginning today's meeting. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Green at 9:20 and the minutes of the last two meeting were considered. MOTION There no additions or corrections to the minutes of the meetings of September 21 and October 5, 1984 and they stood approved as mailed. POINT WEST SUBDIVISION N. SHILOH DRIVE - M.A.P. GROUP The first item of consideration today was the final plat of Point West Subdivision located on N. Shiloh Drive between Porter Road and Sycamore, represented by Sterling Anders and Mel Milholland. Green inquired about the sidewalk between Lots 3 and 11 and Milholland replied that, originally, sidewalk had been planned to encompass the radius of Point West Street and that Clayton Powell, Street Superin- tendent, has requested the sidewalk be extended across Shiloh Drive at the expense of the developers of subject lots. Milholland added that, when Point West Street is improved, the developers of Lot 11 Block A and Lots 4 & 5 Block A (future Phase II) will construct a sidewalk (including the radii) to intersect with the sidewalk on Shiloh. Green next addressed the combination drainage/utility easement. Milholland said the utility companies have no objections; he added that he has parelleled the channel to lower the flood plain. After some discussion concerning right-of-way from the end of Lot 1 (future Phase II) to Porter Rd. it was determined that the street 9� • • • Subdivision Committee October 19, 1984 Page 2 was adjusted off -center so that the back of curb is in alignment with the right-of-way and a seven foot sidewalk easement was obtained (outside the right-of-way). Milholland stated that Powell has approved. Green asked about the status of the temporary culs-de-sac and Milholland explained that the developer has one year, from the time of approval of final plat, to extend Shiloh and West Point or permanent hard surfaced culs-de-sac will be constructed. Milholland said he will be signing a Bill of Assurance for said construction work. Green asked if Milholland intended to request a waiver of the 60 ft. re- quirement on Shiloh Drive (as a collector street) and Administrator Jones responded that a letter has already been submitted requesting this for the entire subdivision. Jones added that City Attorney, McCord, has advised her that all that is required on the final plat is a 50 ft. right-of-way as stipulated at the time of this development's preliminary plat, but that each lot will be effected by the ordinance that was passed Oct. 4, 1983 requiring a total of 60 ft. right-of-way (or an additional 5 ft. from each side of Shiloh). Jones explained the history of the ordinance effecting the rights-of-way in this devel- opment for Tarvin (a new member of this committee) and others. Tarvin asked if this subdivision's streets are being developed as collector streets and Milholland replied that the street improvements are already in place. Tarvin said he thought the City Board needs to look at this issue and its effect on the service roads it encompasses. Jones advised that this final plat must go to the Planning Commission because a waiver has been requested. She also cited the motion and it's stipulations made at the preliminary plat level (Sept. 12, 1983) including a restriction noted on the plat which states that Use Units 18, 22 and 27 are excluded from this subdivision because of a Bill of Assurance recorded in Book 1050, Pgs. 450-452, subject to the Planning Commission and the owners agreeing on construction standards for N. Shiloh Drive (2.4 structural requirement). MOTION Madison made a motion to recommend acceptance of this final plat subject to 1. Plat review comments; 2. the presence of a Bill of Assurance to construct culs-de-sac within one year of the completion of construction of Shiloh Drive and Point West being noted and accepted. Tarvin seconded, followed by discussion. After discussion regarding party responsible for constructing sidewalk from Lot 1 to Porter Rd., it was determined that the area in question contains approximately one half acre and Madison wished to make it clear that she would like assurance that the sidewalk is to be constructed at this location within 5 years. 93 • • • Subdivision Committee October 19, 1984 Page 3 At Tarvin's request, Madison amended her motion to read "...sidewalk between Porter Rd. and Lot 1 of this phase will be constructed by the developer no later than 5 years from the acceptance of this final plat." Tarvin accepted this amendment and the motion to recommend approval passed 3-0-0. Madison and Tarvin expressed their mutual concern regarding placing sidewalks immediately adjacent to curbs (as shown in this plat) because they felt this configuration is unsafe to pedestrians and also requires breaking of said sidewalks to install driveways. MOTION Madison made a motion to recommend that the City Street Committee conduct a study of the entire access road situation to determine if collector street status is still in order and to determine whether the 60 ft. right-of-way should be changed to 50 ft. for streets in previously platted subdivisions. Tarvin seconded and the motion to recommend a study by the Street Department passed 3-0-0. CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER MILSAP EAST OF HWY. 71 The second item of consideration today was the preliminary plat for Christian Life Center located on Milsap Road east of Highway 71 and represented by Red Dixon and engineer Charles Presley. Madison asked Dixon if he understood that the Conditional Use granted by the Planning Commission applied to the church alone and not to any educational facility he might wish to establish. Dixon replied that he did. Dixon reported that he has made plans for site drainage to be carried in 18" diameter pipe under the old roadbed north to a natural drainage ditch. Engineer, Charles Presley, added that it eventually ends up in Mud Creek. He said the only drainage this developer needs to contend with is that accumulated on the lot. Jones said this was acceptable as long as the flow was not redirected to anyone elses property or dumped into the roadbed. Dixon explained the church's plans for future development including sewer, drainage and road improvements. Presley said he is currently working on the perc test for a septic system and reported that he is getting 30-35 minutes per inch. He said there is room for 200 people in the proposed sanctuary and the Health Department requires 5 gallons per person per day which requires 900 ft. of leach line (based on a projected use of 1000 gallons per Ry • • • Subdivision Committee October 19, 1984 Page 4 day). Presley said he does not believe that there will be this much use and he has requested the County Sanitarian to reduce the length of the leach field. He said another alternative for the church is to use a septic tank in conjunction with a lift station to bring liquid waste up over the hill and then into Fayetteville public sewer (at Summerhill Addition). Presley stated he is working with Don Bunn regarding this plan and Bunn feels that a solution will be reached. Tarvin suggested using only a lift station and Presley explained that the required grinder type -lift would be too costly. He added that the County Sanitarian is waiting for a response to the sewer connection possibility. Jones advised that, although sewer cannot be required if it is necessary to cross another's property, a Large Scale Development can be refused if it does not have water and sewer available to it and the developer does not make provision for it. She read two regulations from the City code book regarding the handling of sewage. Dixon said it would not be to his advantage to go the expense of a sewer connection for the single building being proposed at this time and Green said he would be willing to approve this plat (if all else is in order) contingent to working out an agreement with the Health Department to handle sewage. Madison asked if the City ever bears any portion of extending sewer to previously unserved areas and Jones replied that it sometimes does. Presley said his preference is to construct a leach field of a length shorter than the presently required 900 ft., but if 900 ft. is required, he said the lift station for water only would be more economically feasible. Tarvin said he didn't care which solution was utilized as long as the County Sanitarian and Bunn were satisfied. Madison asked what the peak number of people is expected to be on Sunday and Dixon replied about 200. Green advised that the Health Department enforces their regulations and he cited an example that recently took place in Little Rock. Madison stated that when this development begins to increase, which may include an educational center as well as a retirement complex, she would like to be certain that this plan is brought forth again to be examined for the possibility of sewer connection. Dixon read from a deed dated 1918 comprising all of the land in question and deeded from Jose Cardwell to the Methodist Church in 1841. "...this deed conveys all of said land with the following exception; the graveyard 95 • • • Subdivision Committee October 19, 1984 Page 5 as it now exists, with its addition containing one acre more or less, and also, this exception: there is also reserved a strip, 30 ft. wide on the north side of said graveyard, the timber on which is to go to Charles A. Stern...". Madison said she thought it is the 30 ft. wide strip that has been reserved, not the timber and Dixon said he has no problem with that and he added that his current deed reserves the 30 ft. for the cemetery. Jones indicated that this issue could be addressed at the time the road is extended across the property. Green inquired about the type of road surface on Milsap leading into this property. Dixon stated that, presently, the curb and gutter stops at Hemlock but the hard surface road (chip/seal) extends up to the west property line. He added that he will pave the road up through his proposed driveway. Tarvin asked if Milsap was platted to this property and Jones replied that it is not. Tarvin asked if Dixon has permission to use the street in front of the Milsap property and Jones said that the legal descriptions are all written to the center of the right-of-way but do not say how much right-of-way. She added that a right-of-way dedication is needed from this developer, as Judge Lineberger has ruled that in the absence of a defined right-of-way dedication, all the City may pave is the roadbed. Dixon said he has shown a 50 ft. right-of-way on this plat, but Jones said that it must be dedicated. In answer to Green's question, Jones replied that Milsap is on the Master Street Plan as a minor street. She said there have been two instances where a right-of-way has been released in favor of one more applicable. Dixon said he was agreeable to dedicating 50 ft. of right- of-way to his eastern property line if he had the option of slightly altering this location in the future if need be. Green made note this was acceptable. Madison said she would like to have some type of assurance that dedication of the roadway to the eastern property line will take place by this developer even if the location was not certain. Dixon said he has indicated in his letters to the Planning Office that he will cooperate in whatever manner is necessary to get this development under way. He said he was aware of the required improvements that will become necessary when the other phases of this development are undertaken. Jones read from Fayetteville Code, Art.8, Sec.6, regarding lots having frontage on public streets; the minimum lot width in this zone is 70 ft. Green interpreted this to mean that anyone else who might purchase and build on the eastern lots of this proposed development in the future would have to obtain access to improved public street. Jones said she will need to have the right-of-way dedicated.up through the driveway. • • Subdivision Committee October 19, 1984 Page 6 Discussion ensued as to the proposed surface of the road. Green said it was his understanding that the City would not maintain chip/seal roadbed and Jones said that this remark was made by Al Rukgaber sitting in for Clayton Powell. The width of Milsap was discussed and Madison said she had problems getting through with her compact vehicle. Dixon said he and his son had recently assisted a driver turn a trailer rig around in front of the Milsap property and thought there was plenty of room (10-12 ft.). Jones indicated that it would be the Planning Commission's decision on the width to be paved. It was determined that the road, in some places cannot be widened and will only allow two cars to pass at slow speeds. Madison expressed her concern regarding this condition. Green suggested that this developer extend the road with similar surface as that adjoining it and take the responsibility of maintaining it. Tarvin and Green agreed that the church would only be harming themselves by not having a wider road or one that is well maintained. Madison said she felt strongly that more direction from this committee was needed to insure a road upon which two vehicles could pass safely and easily. She noted that the City did not have to guarantee this developer the right to build on this property if it did not meet safety standards. Green said he thought this was, as Rukgaber had said, a private drive leading only to this property, and if further development took place to the east of this, right-of-way could be required at the time of such development. He said he thought that if the road were paved up to this property with adequate site distance, it was acceptable because vehicles would need to slow down as they approached the driveway zone anyway. He repeated that he felt a fair compromise would be to allow them to extend the existing road surface into this property with the developer maintaining al of the asphalt up to the property. He suggested that they clarify this situation with a representative of the Fire Department as access by fire equipment was a necessity. Tarvin asked Dixon if water runoff might be detrimental to the road, increasing the cost of maintaining it, and Dixon said he didn't think so and he added that he would like to use Green's suggestion. Green commented that he didn't think the Milsap street question had been fully resolved and might further reflection on this development. Green asked if Dixon had any problem with utility company requests made at the Plat Review meeting and Dixon replied that he did not. Green next inquired if the building setback and the screening requirement had been addressed. Presley replied that a waiver of the 50 ft. building setback (if fully air conditioned) has been requested because he has planned the building at 25 ft. from the east property line. • Dixon stated that there are many trees on the east, west and south property lines that he intends to leave in place and would like to 97 • • • Subdivision Committee October 19, 1984 Page 7 consider them as screening. Jones said that the screening must be view obscuring within two years and she advised that some of the existing trees may be disturbed when the utility companies serve this project. She added that the Planning Commission may grant a waiver of this requirement, with the substitute of 10% planting between the property line and the building. Tarvin said he was in favor of granting a waiver for the screening. Jones explained that the screening is a requirement because the church is not a single—family residence but has been allowed a Conditional Use in a residential zone. Madison said she would be in favor of this waiver if there is some assurance that the trees will be replaced if they should die in the development process (such as paving the parking lot or utility placement). Jones clarified the septic tank issue: She said that there is an old deed showing this tract as being 1.33 acres and a separate property. She said that although this development may not meet the 1.5 acre requirement, it may also not be necessary because the deed was dated in 1952 and the minimum 1.5 acres requirement only applies to new lots created after July 1976. Jones said the Planning Commission does have the authority to deny this LSD because of the fact that it does not have septic tank and she explained the two different reasons. Green asked what this developer will need to do next to obtain a building permit and Jones explained that she will require something from them insuring that they can get a septic tank permit or they will be required to submit assurance that the church will be connected to public sewer. She said she would also request that whatever road has been required, to be completed by the time the building is ready for occupancy; the parking must be completed and striped and; an "as—built" site plan must be submitted. She said she will also need a document that dedicates the rights—of-way for streets and the utility easements on separate forms. Jones explained that the plumbing plans need to be approved by the State Board of Health in Little Rock after being stamped by the Inspection Office here at City Hall. In answer to Green's question, Jones said if any changes are made in this plan, she will need to see them and she added that the 50 ft. right—of-way dedication needs to be shown on this plat as well as on the "as—built". MOTION Madison moved that this committee recommend approval of this plat subject to 1. Plat Review comments; 2. installation of 18" diameter drainage culverts as shown; 3. the sewage being taken care of in one of two ways being either a. a leach field as approved by the County Sanitarian or b. an alternative proposal to pump liquid waste to the qP • • • Subdivision Committee October 19, 1984 Page 8 City sewer as approved by Don Bunn; 4. a 50 ft. right-of-way being dedicated for Milsap Road with the eastern -most portion's exact location subject to future change; 5. Milsap from Hemlock to the western property line being maintained by this developer until further development takes place and to be improved to a durable, dustless surface sufficient to accommodate two car widths; 6. Milsap, from the western property edge, up through the driveway to this development (approximately 145 ft.) will be brought to the same standards as the section of Milsap lying adjacent on the west side of this property and; 7. recommendation to the Planning Commission that the requirements for building setback and screening be waived on the eastern boundary and the allowance of permanent 10% landscaping on the south and west side in place of screening. Tarvin and Green agreed that #5 of this motion was subject to interpre- tation and suggested other wording which was then considered. Tarvin asked to amend Madison's motion so that #5 reads "The Milsap Road (the existing roadbed) from Hemlock to this development's west property line be maintained by the developer and that the new portion of the road to be installed will be of the same surface material as that adjacent on the west" and; he clarified that #7 of the motion should read that the building setback requirement only be waived on the east side and 10% planting allowed as substitute for screening on all three sides that are subject to the screening requirement. Madison said she was in favor of this amendment as long as note was made that two cars must be able to pass in a reasonable manner on Milsap Road. Tarvin seconded and the motion to recommend approval passed 3-0-0. STARR-GMAC MOTION Madison moved to table item three, STARR-GMAC Building located on Zion and Frontage Roads. Green suggested contacting Gary Carnahan, the representative of this development and notifying him that the Commission will be willing to hear this plat plan if he will attend the meeting on Monday October 22 at 5:00 P.M. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 A.M. q9