Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-02-25 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, February 25, 1993 at 10:30 a.m., in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES Jerry Allred, Robert Reynolds and Ken Pummill Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Tim Sorey, Harry Gray, Steve Clark, Mel Milholland, Sharon Langley, and others Upon motion of Mr. Pummill, seconded by Mr. Reynolds, the minutes of the February 11, 1993 Subdivision Committee meeting were approved. PRELIMINARY PLAT - HORSESHOE ADDITION C & B LAND & CATTLE CO. - SW CORNER OF SYCAMORE & PORTER The first item was a preliminary plat for Horseshoe Addition, presented by Harry Gray on behalf of the C & B Land and Cattle Company for property located at the southwest corner of Sycamore and Porter Road. The property consists of 17.36 acres with 59 proposed lots. The property is zoned R-1 and R-1.5 (rezoning request R93-9). Mr. Conklin stated staff would like the applicant to revise the plat. He reminded the Committee that, when Quail Ridge Subdivision had been approved, the Planning Commission had required a 50 -foot right-of-way easement for access to property to the north. He further pointed out the cul-de-sac in the subject subdivision exceeded maximum length as set out by code. He stated staff wanted to require the developer provide access to Megan Drive using the 50 -foot right-of-way easement. Mr. Gray advised that both the developer and the residents of Megan Drive wanted to discuss this matter with the entire Planning Commission. Mr. Allred stated the Planning Commission had required the right-of-way due to the length of the cul-de-sac in Quail Ridge. He advised that, had the developer not provided that right-of-way, the subdivision probably would not have been approved. Mr. Conklin also advised the Tim Davis Townhomes (located to the north of the subject site) had signed a Bill of Assurance to assist in the improvement of Sycamore Street. He stated there was also a possibility Lifestyles had also agreed to assist in the improvement of Sycamore Street. He explained the applicant was willing to participate in some off-site improvements to extend Sycamore Street. Mr. Conklin also recommended the Planning Commission only approve the subdivision if the access to Megan Drive was included. He also noted the City would participate in cost sharing on completing the existing right-of-way. -73 Subdivision Committee February 25, 1993 Page 2 Mr. Bunn advised there was a 6 -inch line put in for the fire hydrant on Sycamore Street but the plat showed 4 -inch. He noted a portion of the lots were in the 100 - Year Flood Plain. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - RETAIL DEVELOPMENT CEI ENGINEERING - S SIDE OF W 6TH, W OF FARMER'S DR. The next item was a large scale development for a retail establishment presented by CEI Engineering on property located on the south side of West Sixth Street, west of Farmer's Drive. The property contains 26.46 acres and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Conklin stated the parking shown met the requirements for the size of the building but, if they expanded the building, they would have to have additional parking. • Mr. Sorey stated they would take that into consideration if they decided to expand the building at some time in the future. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to forward the Large Scale Development to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion PRELIMINARY PLAT - GEORGIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION TOM BAILEY - NW CORNER OF MELMAR & LEVERETT The next item was a preliminary plat for Georgian Place Subdivision submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of Tom Bailey for property located at the northwest corner of Melmar and Leverett. The site contains 5 acres with 12 proposed lots and is zoned R-3, High Density Residential. Mr. Conklin explained this was a townhouse unit with 48 units being proposed. He stated discussion at plat review included curb cuts along Melmar Drive. He pointed out there were a number of individuals parking along Melmar Drive since the Melmar Apartments did not have on-site parking. He presented a detailed drawing showing the proposed curb cuts on Melmar. He explained staff preferred they restrict the number of curb cuts. He pointed out there had been a large scale development presented on the same site previously showing no curb cuts on Melmar. Mr. Clark stated he had not addressed the curb cuts personally, that an architect was doing that. 71 • • Subdivision Committee February 25, 1993 Page 3 Mr. Conklin pointed out parking was already a problem since there was not adequate parking space on Melmar. He noted the problem would be compounded if they removed some of the parking due to the curb cuts. Mr. Clark stated their argument was it was his client's property which fronted on Melmar and that it should not be his problem that the adjoining property had not provided adequate parking. He further stated the previous large scale development had been an apartment design, not a townhouse design. Mr. Conklin suggested redesigning the units to face inward with parking between the units. Mr. Allred pointed out the residents of Melmar Apartments would then be using the parking area designated for the townhouses. He further stated he did not believe it was fair to require the subject developer to provide parking for another development. Mr. Clark agreed to look at a redesign of the units to eliminate some of the curb cuts. The Committee offered various suggestions for re -design, including allowing tandem lots and/or variances of setbacks. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the plat with staff recommendations. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. Ms. Thomas, 920 W. Elm, expressed concern regarding drainage. She noted an adjoining apartment complex on the other side of their property was causing water to flow into her yard. Mr. Allred informed Ms. Thomas the drainage plan had not yet been presented but, when it was, she could have a copy. He explained the drainage plan was generally not submitted until the Planning Commission had approved the preliminary plat. Mr. Bunn advised someone from staff would look at their problem. PRELIMINARY PLAT - BRECKENRIDGE ESTATES HELEN KIRBY - S OF STARR RD., W OF HUNTINGTON RD The last item was a preliminary plat for Breckenridge Estates presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of Helen Kirby for property located on the south side of Starr Road, west of Huntington Road. The property consists of 20 acres with 52 proposed lots. There has been a request to annex the property into the City Limits of Fayetteville and rezone the property to R-1, Low Density Residential. • Mr. Conklin advised the subdivision did meet, and often exceeded, all of the lot area requirements. He pointed out the lots adjoining Starr Drive were larger lots to act 1S Subdivision Committee February 25, 1993 Page 4 as a buffer to the properties to the north of the site. He also noted the lots along the west side of the subdivision were much deeper than required in order to act as a buffer to the property to the west. Mr. Milholland stated the houses located on the western lots would be 2,400 under roof and the others would be 2,200 under roof. He advised the plan was presented with the presumption they would have gravity flow sewer. He stated the front lots would have to be on septic tanks. He further stated there was some question as to whether they would be able to obtain an easement from the property owners to the - west and, if they were unable to get such an easement, they would put in a lift station at the northwest corner of lot 1. He explained that, if they put in the lift station, they would request smaller lots in the front, enabling more lots to help pay for the station. Mr. Milholland also pointed out their density was much less than allowed by R-1 zoning. He advised the Committee he had discussed the water with the City Engineer and found there was a line running across the south end of the property going to Canterbury. He pointed out the flow of the drainage, part of which would empty into a large pond. He explained they might have to do some off-site improvements but would do so in order to direct the drainage. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Milholland stated there would be a drainage easement completely around the pond. He further advised the liability for the pond and easement would be transferred to the owners of lots 27 and 28. He also explained the access to the property would be a divided entrance from Starr Drive. He further explained they would improve the south half of Starr Drive to city standards. Mr. Milholland explained Starr Drive went on to the south to Wyman Road which went north and tied into Highway 45. He stated Starr Drive also went to the west into another subdivision, Sequoyah Woods. Mr. Bunn stated he had received some calls from citizens concerned with the sewer interceptor. He explained that in the late 70's and early 80's there had been problems with the 24 -inch line but, as a part of the new treatment plant, the capacity of the line had been doubled with a parallel line. He stated the sewer should not be a problem. He stated there had also been some questions regarding the pressure of the water system. He advised that, in the last 12 months, the city had reconstructed 2 lift stations on the high pressure system specifically to increase the performance in the Highland Park area. He stated he believed the water pressure would be sufficient. Mr. Bunn also explained the developer would have to provide a detailed drainage plan. He advised there was at least one spring on the subject property. He noted the drainage would be a critical item. He also stated that, if the lift station was put in, there would be no need for the septic tanks on the larger lots to the front. He reminded the Committee that, if there were septic tanks, the City relied upon the county for the permitting of same. He further advised that, as far as the improvement of Starr Drive was concerned, the City would take a Bill of Assurance Subdivision Committee February 25, 1993 Page 5 for the improvement upon call of the city. He explained half of the road would still be in the county and the work would have to be coordinated with the county. He stated the covenants did not need to be submitted at the preliminary plat stage but would have to be filed with the final plat. He explained the other issue raised had been parks in the neighborhood. He stated the Parks Board would make the determination of whether they wanted land for a park or money in lieu of the land. After discussion, Mr. Milholland noted there would be notation on the final plat that sidewalks were the responsibility of the individual lot owner and would be set back from the curb. Mr. Pummill stated there was a problem of aesthetics with individual property owners putting in their own sidewalks -- different finishes, different age of concrete, etc. Mr. Bunn advised they would, some time in the future, be making a presentation to the City Council to change it so that developers would be putting in the sidewalks. Mr. Conklin stated the developer would need to request a waiver for the length of the cul-de-sac since there was only one ingress/egress. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Conklin explained the developer had provided access to future development to the east. He further explained that Perry Franklin, Traffic Division, had mentioned there was only one access but, after Mr. Milholland pointed out the access for future development, Mr. Franklin had no further comments. He stated he believed Mr. Franklin had no great concerns regarding only one access. Mr. Larry Long, a resident of North Starr Drive, presented a petition opposing the subdivision. He listed the following concerns: inconsistency with existing homes in the neighborhood and the placement of an unacceptable burden on access routes and utilities. He stated the petition had been signed by 95$ of the neighbors affected by the development. Mr. Long stated the neighborhood was not against growth or a development in the neighborhood but they wanted it done within the context of the neighborhood and within the constraints of the infrastructure that would service it. He pointed out the city surrounded the property on three sides and six out of seven of the surrounding city homes were on 5.5 acre lots versus .33 acre lots in the proposed subdivision. He also noted the average size of the surrounding city houses was 4,600 square feet versus 2,400 square feet proposed by the applicant. He explained the homes in the county were on Lots from .5 to 5.0 acres and the average size of home was larger than the planned 2,400 square feet. He also pointed out the nearby development of Gaddy Acres contained much larger homes and larger tracts than the proposed subdivision. Mr. Long stated Starr Drive was a substandard road, not wide enough for two vehicles. He further stated any extra traffic on the road would have a very serious effect. He stated there were at least a dozen accidents in front of his house each year. He asked if the developer had offered to widen and pave Starr Drive to accommodate the increased traffic. He also noted the roadway had a great deal of • • • Subdivision Committee February 25, 1993 Page 6 pedestrian traffic during the spring, summer and fall months. He explained they would have very serious pedestrian problems if the planned school was constructed on Highway 45. He asked if the developer had offered to install sidewalks along Starr Drive. He also stated the developer had listed numerous access points to the proposed subdivision. He explained no one ever used those access routes -- that no one went through Sequoyah Woods. He stated 100 children would be forced to walk along a substandard road with no shoulders, surrounded by deep drainage ditches. Mr. Long expressed his belief the subdivision had a number of major oversights as far as utilities. He stated a number of engineers living in the neighborhood, including himself, would look into these utility problems to make sure all of the technical details had been ironed out. He explained the gravity flow sewerage service was an unlikely assumption because none of the property owners to the west, himself included, would give an easement to provide the line. He further noted gravity flow to the north and east would be economically unfeasible so a lift station would have to be put in. He also noted they would have to go along the easement in front of his property, ruining 9 or 10 mature oaks. Mr. Long also noted that serious drainage problems had not been addressed in the plan. He stated lots 1, 2 and 3 were in a flood plain, with a raging river going across the subject property during a rain. He stated he wanted the drainage plan to address what would happen to the water draining off toward the pond. He pointed out that, at this time, there was already water at the door steps of the property owners to the north when it rained. He explained development of the property would make that even worse. He stated the water pressure, at best, would be minimal due to the contour of the property. He asked if there was an existing easement allowing access to the high pressure line. Mr. Milholland advised there was a four -inch line going across the south side of the property, going over to Canterbury. An adjoining resident stated she was not aware of such an easement and she would not agree to them crossing her property. Mr. Long stated he was not aware of such an easement. He stated all of the property owners along the west side of the development were uniformly opposed to granting any easements for this project. He contended that, if there was no availability to a high pressure line, the people at the top of the subdivision would not have any water. Mr. Long stated the Parks Board had been unaware of this proposed subdivision. He stated at least one member of the Board had agreed this was an area where they desperately needed greenspace allocated. He noted this was a relatively high density subdivision with limited access to public parks (approximately 2 miles to the nearest public park) . He asked where all of the children in the subdivision would play. He stated there would be a tremendous liability on the adjoining property • Subdivision Committee February 25, 1993 Page 7 • owners because the children would play on their property. He pointed out there were numerous ponds in the area. He stated there were hundreds of things that could happen to children on these properties and they were all bad. He stated they needed to dedicate not 1.3 acres but at least five acres for parks Mr. Allred pointed out the Parks Board could only require an amount set by ordinance. He noted this was a moot point for the Subdivision Committee, that the Parks Board would address that at their meeting on March 1. Mr. Long stated there was a matter of public responsibility and this was the Subdivision Planning Committee. He stated they had to know where all of the children would play. He advised most new subdivisions had a commons area and he was surprised this subdivision did not have one. He stated this was a classic example of where greenspace should be allocated in lieu of money. Mr. Long stated Breckenridge was totally out of context with the existing developed neighborhoods; the access routes had to be substantially upgraded prior to development; gravity flow was not an option for sewage and possibility water service might not be an option. He further stated the plan did not have the much needed greenspace. He expressed his belief the developers were asking them to treat this property as an island with no impact on the surrounding area. He stated they had just been asked to resurface one-half of a road in front of the development but paid no attention to the total access route. He advised that, should the subdivision be presented to the entire Planning Commission, they were prepared to address a host of non-technical issues that had not been appropriate for presentation to the Subdivision Committee at this time. Mr. Allred explained an R-1 development required a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and the Planning Commission had no jurisdiction to require larger lot sizes. He also advised that, if they could not work out a compromise, the developer could put in 8,000 square feet lots in the subdivision. Mr. Conklin pointed out this subdivision was a part of an annexation and rezoning. Mr. Long stated it was not so much the development or even the lot size. He advised they had to consider the number of people. He stated the access was not adequate for the number of people that would be using it; that any development over and above what already existed would be inappropriate. Thomas Hughes expressed his belief the development would detract from adjoining property owner's investment in their property. Mrs. Nadine Chenault, an adjoining property owner, asked when the covenants would be available. Mr. Milholland stated they would be submitted prior to the filing of the final plat. • Ms. Chenault stated she was particularly interested in the pond. She explained she had a pond which received water from the one on lots 27 and 28. She stated she Subdivision Committee February 25, 1993 Page 8 wanted the drainage plan addressed in writing, especially how it affected her property. Mr. Milholland explained there was a natural drainage to the pond. He further explained they would not be changing the direction of the flow, nor the amount of flow but it would make the water run faster. Ms. Chenault stated she had noticed a drop in pressure on their water line recently. She advised the City had approached them approximately 4 years ago for an easement in order to supply better water pressure to the Sequoyah Woods Subdivision but the line had never been installed. Mr. Milholland explained the City maps showed a 4 -inch line from Canterbury to along the southern edge of the subject property. He further explained they would be enlarging that line. Mr. Bunn stated he was not sure what might have caused the recent drop in pressure. He explained they had recently redone some lift stations in order to increase pressure in the Hyland Park and Canterbury areas. He stated he was not aware there had been a decrease in pressure. He noted it could have something to do with her line, which had been in quite some time. He explained that, if the subject development went in, they might be able to abandon part of her line and re- tie it into the line the subdivision would put in. Ms. Chenault asked if there would be fire hydrants. Mr. Milholland assured her there would be fire protection per city code. Mr. Marvin Harland, a resident of Gaddy Acres, expressed concern regarding additional traffic, an area for the children to play, and water pressure. He stated he believed the subdivision would add too much additional traffic onto Starr Drive. He also pointed out Gaddy Acres had numerous areas which would attract children and he was concerned regarding the liability of having a child hurt on his property. He noted he did have a water pressure problem. He stated they already had a water pressure problem and did not want additional users adding to the problem. Mr. Allred recommended the residents attend the parks meeting scheduled for March 1. He advised the Subdivision Committee did not have the authority to make recommendations to the Park Board. Mr. Bunn explained there was low pressure in the area but it was not due to not having a large enough line. He further explained that, in this case, lack of pressure was caused by the elevation being too high. Mr. Reynolds noted he kept hearing the same three problems: ingress/egress, greenspace, and water pressure. Dr. Jim Turpin expressed concern regarding the drainage. He stated the water came directly toward his property. Subdivision Committee February 25, 1993 Page 9 Mr. Milholland explained the proposed drainage plan. He advised he would be filing a drainage plan with the City Engineer. He also noted they would have no additional flow on their property. One of the residents pointed out the entrance/exit to the subdivision lined up with a driveway across the street which would make the run-off go directly into their garage. Mr. Allred recommended these concerns be addressed prior to the meeting. Ms. Carolyn Schmitt pointed out the land was clay and water was not absorbed. She further stated that Mr. Milholland had told them the houses would be 2,400 square feet under roof. She explained that meant the house would actually be 2,000 square. feet. She also requested there be a section in the covenants that the fencing on the lots on the west be uniform and that storage buildings not be allowed. Mr. Dick Rogers stated he had agreed to address the question of a barrier on the western border of the property with the developer. He expressed his belief this was a good development, that the square footage was considerably larger than 95% of the developments in Fayetteville. He pointed out Timbercrest was 58 lots on 27 acres with 1,800 square foot minimum home size. He also pointed out that, to the east, was a mobile home. Ms. Chenault explained the mobile home was on her property and was not meant to be a permanent structure; that it was there for her father. She further pointed out she owned 8 1/2 acres. Mr. Long asked under what circumstances waivers were permitted for only one ingress/egress. Mr. Allred explained they would refer the matter to the City Engineer. He pointed out Mr. Perry Franklin of the Traffic Department had not expressed concern. regarding only one ingress/egress. In response to questions from members of the audience, Mr. Reynolds explained the Subdivision Committee received the minutes of the Plat Review meeting with comments from all of the utility company representatives and city staff. Mr. Long asked if they would put a comment in the minutes that the adjoining residents felt the proposed subdivision was incompatible with the surrounding properties. Mr. Milholland explained they would be putting everything in to City standards. He pointed out at the present time there were no improvement to the streets, no curb and gutter, no storm drainage, no sanitary sewer. He noted that even Gaddy Acres had not done the improvements this developer was willing to do. Mr. Reynolds explained the Subdivision Committee's job was to see that the subdivision met city requirements and then forward it on to the full Planning Commission. • • • Subdivision Committee February 25, 1993 Page 10 Mr. Rogers advised he had another group that was interested in developing the subject property but they wanted to develop it at the density of 3.3 lots per acre. Mr. Pummill noted that, whether it was the subject developer or the next one, no one was going to develop the property with 5 acre lots. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.