Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-06-17 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, June 17, 1993 at 10:30 a m , in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Kenneth Pummill and Bob Reynolds Jerry Allred Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Albert Skiles, Curtis Presley, Tom Hopper, Bill Underwood, Sharon Langley, and others LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - ALL RENTS ROB WOOD - 2789 McCONNELL RD. The first item was a request for approval of a large scale development for All Rents presented by Albert Skiles on behalf of Rob Wood for property located at 2789 McConnell Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 3.41 acres. Mr. Conklin explained the site was for the relocation of an equipment rental company, All Rents. He advised the right-of-way shown was 25 feet but needed to be 30 feet on the north side of Drake Street. Mr. Skiles explained they had clarified the actual location of Drake Street. In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Skiles stated the entryway was now to the south of Drake Street rather than the north. Mr. Bunn stated that would be better than the entryway being to the north of Drake. Mr. Conklin also advised the applicant he would need to talk to the City Landscape Specialist regarding screening of the property. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the large scale development to the Planning Commission with staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. 90 Subdivision Committee June 17, 1993 Page 2 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - McBRIDE DISTRIBUTING BOB McBRIDE - W SIDE OF SCHOOL, N OF HWY 71 BYPASS The next item was a largescale development for McBride Distributing Co., Inc., presented by Curtis Presley, Architectural Resources, on behalf of Bob McBride for property located on the west side of South School, north of Highway 71 Bypass. The property contains 11.61 acres and is zoned I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant wanted to establish a new warehouse at the subject site. He noted there had been some discussion regarding the striping of parking spaces. He pointed out the applicant was showing 57 striped spaces out of the 70 required spaces. He advised that, to the north side of the site, there were 13 unstriped spaces. He stated the applicant was requesting a waiver for those 13 spaces. He explained staff had requested a comparison of the parking at the existing facility opposed to the proposed facility. Mr. Presley presented the comparison. Ms. Little explained staff believed that whatever parking the current building had was adequate for service at the new facility. Mr. Pummill stated he had no problems with granting the waiver and believed the regulations on warehouse parking were incorrect. Mr. Reynolds agreed the current parking was adequate. He asked what type of screening was required. Mr. Conklin stated R-1 zoning was across the street from the property which caused a screening requirement across the front. Ms. Little explained there were two reasons to require screening: (1) the applicant asking for a reduction in setbacks (not in this case) and (2) adjoining residential zoning. Mr. Pummill asked who owned the existing asphalt drive. Mr. Presley explained the property actually belonged to Tyson's with an access easement to the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Conklin explained that, when Shakespeare expanded on the site, they had requested the Chamber of Commerce construct a road from 71B to the Bypass and gave an easement to the Chamber. Mr. Pummill asked if there was a problem with McBride using the roadway. Mr. Presley explained the City had requested a letter of agreement between Tyson and McBride. He advised they were working on the letter. 11 • • • Subdivision Committee June 17, 1993 Page 3 Mr. Bunn pointed out the City did not maintain the road. He noted that, if at some future date the City wanted to build a street through the property, the City would have the right-of-way to do it. Ms. Little advised approval of the large scale would be conditioned upon the letter of agreement. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the large scale to the Planning Commission together with staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. • • • Subdivision Committee June 17, 1993 Page 4 CONCEPT PLAT - THE CLIFFS (A P.U.D.) UNDERWOOD/LINDSEY - W OF CROSSOVER, N OF HUNTSVILLE The last item was a concept plat for The Cliffs (a P.U.D.) presented by Tom Hopper on behalf of' Bill Underwood and Jim Lindsey for property located west of Crossover Road, north of Huntsville. The property is zoned R-1, contains 128 acres with 884 proposed units. Mr. Hopper explained initially the only data they had available had been the City's topographic map which they used to come up with concepts. He advised they had also worked with City staff. He showed the group the first concept and then the current rendition of the plat. He explained Mr. Underwood and Mr. Lindsey did not want the barracks approach to the apartments/townhouses but wanted it to be more aesthetically pleasing together with saving as many trees as possible. He stated the rendition they were looking at was the eighth concept. He further stated the current plat was according to the latest code requirements: 250 -foot setback from adjoining property when in an R-1 area. He pointed out the setbacks, showing 250 feet along the northern and western border, 250 - 300 feet from the south property line. He advised the City had indicated to him they would require additional right- of-way adjacent to Crossover Road to widen the roadway. He pointed out they had setback 25 feet plus the width of the additional right-of-way. He explained the applicants desired to save the cliffs and as many trees as possible. He stated he believed they had made further improvements since the submittal of the plat and pointed out that, along the property line shared with Mr. Seddon, the setback was only 150 feet. He explained Mr. Seddon had agreed to 150 feet as long as the street was not straight through the trees. He advised the applicant had honored that request by curving the street. Mr. Pummill asked if that would not require a variance. Ms. Little stated it would. Mr. Hopper pointed out they had added a lake to try to enhance the entrance and make it more aesthetically pleasing. He explained that, along parts of the north property line, the terrain would allow a setback of 350 - 400 feet. He proposed that another portion of the setback line be reduced to 100 feet in order to allow the construction of the northernmost tennis court. In response to a question from Mr. Pummill, Dr. DePalma, the adjacent property owner to the north, stated he had not had time to review the plans. He stated that, at the present time, he had no objections but did want to study the plans further. Mr. Underwood explained the 250 foot setback all around the property would force them to abandon the cliffs, the prettiest part of the property. He advised the setback would force them to construct single family homes rather than a P.U.D. which he did not believe the neighbors wanted. He explained they were trying to make the project the best they could for the terrain of the land. He stated he was very sensitive to doing what he could to protect the land. He pointed out there were deer on the property and he believed the area with 350 to 400 feet setbacks would n. • • • Subdivision Committee June 17, 1993 Page 6 property owners . He further stated they were planning on the variance being heard at the next Planning Commission Meeting together with the presentation of the concept plat. Ms. Little advised staff had received a letter from a Mr. Manley and she had forwarded copies to the Planning Commissioners. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the plat to the full Planning Commission subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. Mr. Hopper advised that, in order to answer the charges by area residents regarding this development overcrowing the neighborhood school, a similar project in Rogers had 54 school age children in 711 units. He stated if there were questions regarding the number of children that would be added to a particular school, their experience in the past showed it not to be a problem. • • Subdivision Committee June 17, 1993 Page 5 give coverage to the deer. He further advised he wanted to keep all of the trees they possibly could keep. Mr. Pummill asked what rent brackets they wanted to target. He stated it was obvious they were not targeting barracks type apartments. Mr. Underwood explained the demand was not for barracks type apartments. He further stated there would be lakes, pools, tennis courts, hiking trails, etc. He stated they were trying to reach the people coming into the area on a temporary basis for Tyson, Walmart, and J. B. Hunt. He further stated these units would be. larger (approximately 1,000 square feet or larger), with more amenities and would rent for more than the normal unit. In response to a question from Mr. Bunn, Mr. Underwood stated all of the units would be rentals. He pointed out there were no rentals on the market similar to their project. Mr. Bunn asked when they planned to have the entire development completed. Mr. Hopper stated they were projecting five years. Mr. Pummill asked the schedule for the widening of Highway 265. Mr. Bunn explained they were preparing a letter regarding city acquisition of right- of-way. He advised that, once the State Highway Department received the letter, the plans and specifications would be completed. He advised it would probably be 2 to 4 years before they had the highway completed. Mr. Pummill asked the timeframe of widening Happy Hollow. Ms. Little advised that had not been put into the C.I.P. as yet. Mr. Bunn asked if the utility companies planned on working within the areas. Mr. Hopper stated the utility company representatives had stated they would work with the developer in trying to save as many trees as possible. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Bunn explained the developer would have to submit a preliminary plat similar to the concept plan. He noted the preliminary plat would then go through plat review, subdivision, etc. for review again. Ms. Little advised the tennis courts and pool could be in the setback area. Mr. Bunn asked if there were any seepage problems. Mr. Hopper stated he had not looked into it. He did note there appeared to be some seepage at the bottom of the ravines. He further noted that the variance process. under the P.U.D. ordinance required 7 days notice. He stated they would be placing notice in the newspaper together with another mailing to the adjacent