Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-02-11 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, February 11, 1993 at 10:30 a.m., in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, Robert Reynolds and Ken Pummill Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Gary Jackson, Bill Kaiser, Harry Gray, Dave Jorgensen, Sharon Langley, and others Mr. Allred announced that both University Baptist Church and First Baptist Church had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee at an earlier meeting but it had been determined proper notification had not been made. He stated the Committee would hear comments regarding University Baptist Church. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH - 315 W. MAPLE The large scale development for University Baptist Church is being presented by Mark Haguewood on behalf of the church. The property is located at 315 W. Maple and is zoned R-3, High Density Residential. Mr. Allred reviewed the minutes of the previous Subdivision Committee meeting, as follows: Vandevender would be relocated approximately 80 feet to the west; the current Vandevender was currently 27 feet wide but the relocated Vandevender would be improved to 31 feet with a 50 -foot right-of-way; utility service would not be a problem; and sidewalks would be set back approximately 2 feet from the curb for that portion of Vandevender which adjoins the church's property. He noted the motion was to forward the large scale development to the Planning Commission for approval subject to the committee comments. He advised any comments would be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Ms. Charlene Lloyd, 492 West Street, asked if the church was required to set 30 feet away from her property. She explained that, at the present time, should she. construct a structure on her property, she only had to set back 10 or 15 feet but once the street was put in, she would have to set back 30 feet. She asked why the church did not have to set the street 30 feet from her property. Staff explained the setbacks, noting the front setback was 25 feet, the back setback was 20 feet and the sides were 8 feet. Ms. Lloyd stated the relocation of the street would make her property worth less and also make it harder to rent. She also noted her property set up approximately 15 feet. She asked if the church would have to grade the property and put in a driveway. Mr. Bunn stated the church would not touch her property nor would there be any access to her property from Vandevender. cy • • Subdivision Committee February 11, 1993 Page 2 Ms. Lloyd stated she would like a driveway from Vandevender. She also pointed out one of the residents backed onto the street and, with the relocation of Vandevender, he would back into Vandevender. She stated she understood there was supposed to be 300 feet between streets but pointed out there would only be approximately 144 feet between Vandevender and West. Mr. Bunn stated the church would be requesting a waiver for that requirement. Ms. Lloyd stated she would rather they closed Vandevender off. Mr. Reynolds advised Ms. Lloyd that, if she would talk to the church's engineer, the church would probably slope off her property and install the driveway. Mr. Allred explained they needed to look out for the community as a whole. He explained the bulk of the neighborhood did not want Vandevender closed. He advised that the church and the neighborhood had compromised and shifted the street. He stated it would have been easier to close Vandevender but the neighborhood had been opposed to that. In response to a question from Ms. Lloyd, Mr. Allred advised the church would have to meet the same setback codes as she did Ms. Lloyd stated she did not think they were set back far enough from the street. Mr. Conklin advised he had verified the church was set back far enough. Ms. Carolyn Kent stated she had some questions which she had presented to Kevin Crosson, Director of Public Works. She expressed concern regarding the traffic flow problem with the relocation of Vandevender. She explained there was a jog between Wilson Avenue and West Avenue at Maple which already created a traffic problem. She stated there would be approximately 190 to 200 feet between Vandevender and West, which was less than the required 300 feet. In response to a question from Ms. Kent, Mr. Allred explained the church had requested a waiver for the distance between the streets but it had not yet been granted. Ms. Kent requested that the entire project not be approved at one time in order to allow the City Engineer time to review the intersection. She advised they would be creating a bottleneck. She stated she wanted to hear from the City that the relocation of the street would not be causing a traffic problem. She also asked when the new street would be available. She expressed concern the old Vandevender would be closed before opening the new street, causing more traffic problems. Mr. Allred stated he believed it was assumed the new street would be opened before closing the old street. • Ms. Kent stated she wanted to see it in writing. She further stated it was her understanding that the church had agreed to pave only 27 feet of the new street. Subdivision Committee February 11, 1993 Page 3 Mr. Allred stated that was incorrect. Ms. Kent stated Alett Little, Planning Director, had told her the church would only pave 27 feet and the city would have provide the money for the other four feet. Mr. Jackson stated the church would pay the entire portion of the paving. Ms. Kent stated Ms. Little had told her it would be a cost-sharing item but, at the present time, the city did not have the money. Mr. Allred pointed out that, since the church had agreed to pay for paving the entire width of the street, it was a moot point. Ms. Kent asked how long it would take to do a study on the traffic flow. Mr. Bunn advised Ms. Kent had asked Mr. Crosson specifically about the traffic flow and whether there should be some one-way streets designated. He stated Mr. Crosson had agreed to look at that proposal but had not done so yet. Ms Kent explained she had suggested the one-way streets as an outside possibility that it might help the traffic flow. Mr. Bunn noted the other question was what impact moving the street 90 feet would have on the traffic. Ms. Kent stated that was her main concern. Mr. Allred expressed his belief that it would not have that much of an impact because they would still have the same amount of traffic. Ms. Kent agreed the traffic count would be the same but pointed out the traffic time would be different. Mr. Allred stated there were ways to address that, should it become a problem. Ms. Kent stated she wanted to address it ahead of time instead of after the fact. Mr. Bunn advised he would be happy to look at the intersection with the traffic superintendent and make an evaluation. He stated he would check with Mr. Crosson. Mr. Reynolds requested they have the evaluation by the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Lyle Thompson asked if it was a foregone conclusion that the street would be closed. Mr. Allred explained the proposal was to not close the street but to relocate it. • Subdivision Committee February 11, 1993 Page 4 Mr. Thompson stated he did not believe it was in the best interest of the neighborhood to close the street. He further noted the relocation of the street would be of lesser value than the current situation. He pointed out that, as traffic increased in the city, a lot of the traffic came down Wilson Street and turned onto Louise Street or onto Ila over to Vandevender. He advised they had put out a petition from the neighborhood (collecting approximately 180 names) opposing the closing of Vandevender. He pointed out the new street would not get as much use as the existing street because it would be so close to West Street. He stated it would not be an improvement to the traffic flow. Mr. Bill Kaiser, University Baptist Church, explained the petition had been opposing the closing of the street. He advised they were also a part of the neighborhood. He pointed out the relocation of Vandevender would help the sight lines because there was, at the present time, a dangerous intersection at Vandevender and Maple and at Vandevender and Lafayette. He further pointed out the street would be wider and have sidewalks. Mr. Reynolds pointed out the city had growing pains. He stated UBC was at the point they either needed to grow or move. He further stated they were planning on constructing a nice street; that the engineers were willing to work with the neighbors. • Ms. Kent noted that if the street were moved, it would only be one block long. • Mr. Allred pointed out the street was currently off -set. Mr. Jackson advised the distance between Vandevender and West was not 300 feet at the present time. He stated there were a number of streets within the city that were not 300 feet apart. Ms. Lloyd stated Vandevender could be extended all of the way to Watson. She advised they would be willing to give up some property for a street if it would go to Watson. Mr Thompson agreed with Mr. Kaiser that the intersections were not good ones and the proposed intersection would be better. He stated the proposed street would be used less than the current one. Mr. Allred agreed and stated that might force the traffic to stay on the major arteries which would help the neighborhood situation. Ms . Bobette Risk expressed her belief that putting two streets closer together would make traffic worse. Mr. Thompson stated the church should never had been put in the center of the neighborhood in the first place. He further stated the church just kept growing. Mr. Allred stated there had been a church in Springdale that had the same problem so they moved. He further stated there was a negative impact on the city from the empty church property. He explained that was a worse scenario for the • • • Subdivision Committee February 11, 1993 Page 5 neighborhood than the church being there. He asked what would happen to the neighborhood if all of the church buildings were abandoned. Ms. Kent stated she was not opposed to relocating the street as long as it did not cause more problems. She requested they make some sort of statement from the pulpit regarding parking in the neighborhood. She advised the members of the church parked any direction they wanted. She pointed out that, when all of the vehicles were parked around the neighborhood, the sight lines were dangerous. Mr. Jackson advised they were going to be using the Walton Arts Center parking lots and have shuttle buses. Mr. Pummill stated the problems on the streets were compounding themselves as the area grew. He advised the streets in the older areas had not been built to handle the modern automobile. He stated the City would have to deal with those problems but right now the City had to deal with the expansion of UBC on an equitable basis. Ms. Risk stated she saw traffic problems not only in her neighborhood but all over town. Mr. Kaiser explained they allowed the students to use the church parking and he was sure that contributed to the traffic problem. Ms. Kent stated she wanted to be sure they were aware the problem would not go away. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH - 20 E. DICKSON A large scale development for First Baptist Church presented by Mark Haguewood on behalf of the church for property located at 20 E. Dickson Street. The building is located in C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and the parking for the building is located in both C-2 and R -O, Residential -Office, zoning. There were no comments from the public regarding this large scale development. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - COLLEGE STREET STORAGE KEATING ENTERPRISES - W SIDE OF COLLEGE, S OF DRAKE The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of a large scale development for College Street Storage, submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Keating 70 • • Subdivision Committee February 11, 1993 Page 6 Enterprises for property located on the west side of College, south of Drake. The property contains 1.9 acres and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. In response to a question from Mr. Pummill, Mr. Jorgensen advised this property had come before the Planning Commission approximately a month earlier as a rezoning request. He stated they had complied with the comments from the Plat Review meeting. He noted there would not be a dumpster since there would be no trash. He pointed out the area for the apartment for the manager of the development. Mr. Jorgensen further advised the entire perimeter would be fenced. He stated Ms. Little had requested a view obscuring fence due to the residential zoning for the mobile home park. He pointed out the notation on the plat that the fence that would be view obscuring. Mr. Allred pointed out a view obscuring fence in a mini -storage made the complex more susceptible to break ins and vandalism. Mr. Bunn stated they had that problem at another mini -storage within the City and the owners had requested a variance from the regulation. Mr. Jorgensen pointed out the view obscuring fence would only be at the northwest corner and the rest would be chain link fence. He stated the grass area noted on the plat would be grass, trees, etc. that would be view obscuring. He also noted that should help out the drainage situation. He advised that the drainage situation was one of their biggest problems. He stated he had met with city representatives and reviewed the property. He explained there would be some cost sharing between the developer and the city to improve the drainage. Mr. Bunn pointed out the problem was not necessarily with the subject site, that the subject site was small, but they would be adding to an existing problem. He stated there was a lot of drainage from College Avenue causing a flooding problem for the adjoining trailer park. He stated it was their intent to widen the drainage ditch from the subject property to the pond. Mr. Jorgensen stated it was very possible that the Keatings would be paying to accommodate the extra run-off and flow. He advised they were working on the problem. He further stated the property to the south would be more storage. Mr. Bunn stated they were looking at the drainage and it was their intent to work on the problem. Mr. Jorgensen noted part of the drainage problem would solve itself when the Nettleship property was developed. Mr. Bunn advised they would try to have a more definitive plan put together by the Planning Commission meeting. • Mr. Reynolds advised they would need a dumpster because every time someone vacated a storage unit, they left their trash. • • Subdivision Committee February 11, 1993 Page 7 Mr. Jorgensen stated they would look into having a dumpster, possibly at the end of the project at the emergency access. Mr. Reynolds also stated they wanted to be sure the lighting was directed inward. Mr. Jorgensen stated they did have a notation on the plat regarding the lighting. Mr. Conklin pointed out the vicinity map was incorrect. He also noted the developer would have to ask for a waiver if they did not intent to have view obscuring fence. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to forward the large scale development to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. PRELIMINARY PLAT - TIMBERSIDE SUBDIVISION KEN STAHMAN - E OF CROSSOVER, N OF WYMAN The next item was a preliminary plat for Timberside Subdivision presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Ken Stahman for property located on the east side of Crossover Road, north of Wyman Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 15.60 acres with 21 proposed lots. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Jorgensen stated they agreed with everything staff recommended. He advised they were still in the process of establishing the property boundary, mainly the 40 -foot easement leading into lot 15. He stated the legal description showed that easement but the legal description of the property immediately south indicated there was not an easement. He further stated it was not intended to be an access to the subdivision. Mr. Bunn pointed out the owner of lot 15 could use it as access unless the covenants prohibited it. Mr. Jorgensen pointed out there were 3 or 4 high pressure gas lines running. through the property and they were in the process of determining the exact locations of the lines. He advised the Gas Company was in agreement with the concept of crossing it as shown. In response to a question from Mr. Conklin, Mr. Jorgensen stated there had been no determination regarding the pond. Mr. Bunn explained they could choose to leave the pond if they so desired. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to forward the preliminary plat to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Subdivision Committee February 11, 1993 Page 8 PRELIMINARY PLAT - PINEVALLEY SUBDIVISION JAMES POTTS - OFF POINT WEST, N OF SYCAMORE The last item was a preliminary plat for Pinevalley Subdivision presented by Harry Gray on behalf of the owner, James Potts, and developer, BMP Development, for property located off Point West Street, north of Sycamore. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 26.5 acres with 66 proposed lots. Mr. Conklin advised Ms. Little had met with Mark Marquess, BMP Development, and they agreed BMP would be donating park land for both Pinevalley and Pinecrest Subdivisions on both sides of Hamestring Creek, in excess of the normal land dedication. He noted they also had agreed Sycamore Street would not have to be further improved. He stated they had agreed BMP would pay approximately $49,500 in fees to be used to construct a bridge over Hamestring Creek on Salem Road, based on a fee per unit. He further advised the Parks Board would be having a special meeting prior to the Planning Commission meeting on this matter. Mr. Gray stated there needed to be provision for an access into the subdivision on the east side. He noted that, at some point, Shiloh Drive would have to extend through. He advised that Ms. Little had determined the bridge at Salem was the most critical. He further stated there should be a provision for right-of-way at the southeast corner of the property ("A" Street) through lot 11. He pointed that the developer, due to the flood plain, would probably never put the access through but, at some point, it would need to go through but the city would probably have to participate in the cost. Mr. Conklin advised the fire chief had been concerned because there was only one access. Mr. Pummill stated he believed the subdivision would be an improvement to the area. Mr. Conklin stated part of the negotiation was that, if the lots were not developed by the time the funds were needed, a lump sum fee would be paid by the developer. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m. 7Z