Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-07-15 - Minutes (2)• • • MINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, July 15, 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: Jerry Allred and Bob Reynolds Kenneth Pummill Alett Little, Sid Norbash, Tim Conklin, Steve Cummings, Dave Jorgensen, Ron Petrie, Bill Rudasill, Dee Wright, and others LARGE SCALE DEVELOMENT - STEVE CUMMINGS HOUSING TRACT STEVE CUMMINGS - W OF CROSSOVER, N OF HUNTSVILLE RD. The first item was a request for approval of a large scale development for a tract of eight houses presented by Steve Cummings for property located on the west side of Crossover Road, north of Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 25 acres. Ms Little explained this was a development of 25 acres but the houses were located on approximately 2.25 acres within the 25 acres. She also noted there was approximatley 298 feet of frontage on Highway 265. She advised one of the outstanding issues on this development included additional right-of-way on Highway 265 to bring it up to a standard 100 foot of right-of-way. She stated there was currently only 40 feet of right-of-way. She explained that, as with any development that occurred along a major thoroughfare which was being considered for widening, the city was requiring dedication by Mr. Cummings of half of that right-of-way (30 feet) . She stated there was a memo to the Legal Department requesting an opinion on this matter because Mr. Cummings did not want to give the city right-of-way. She stated the other issue was the use of a private drive to access the subject properties. She explained this project was being submitted as a large scale development rather than a subdivision because Mr. Cummings did not intend to subdivide the lots. She stated the lot dimensions were shown only to insure each home met the city setback requirements. She advised staff believed the drive should be a public drive since, at some future time, the structures could be sold individually . Ms. Little stated the Engineering Department had requested a larger sewer line than was shown and that Mr. Cummings hire a professional engineer in order to show the utility easements on his plat and to properly prepare for the connections. She advised Mr. Cummings had not expressed a desire to use an engineer. She explained she had commented at the plat review meeting that she did not believe the large scale development plan was in shape to be presented to the Planning Commission. She pointed out the Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission did have the right to refuse a Large Scale Development if the development plan was not submitted in accordance with ordinance. She advised Mr. Cummings felt he had met the requirements since he had gone through the ordinance and provided the information. 91 • • • Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 2 Mr. Cummings advised he had not had an opportunity to read the request for a legal opinion. He explained he and Ms. Little had agreed to seek a legal opinion from the city attorney regarding the giving of right-of-way along Highway 265. He stated he did not wish to give an additional 20 or 30 feet of right-of-way to the City of Fayetteville. He stated all of the large developers were giving right-of-way but were then asking for 10,000 variances. He advised he was not asking for anything but was saying that the Arkansas State Statute strongly demanded that, when the. road was increased in size, the Arkansas State Highway Department would negotiate with him and he would sell them the land. He stated that was America -- you sold your land to the government; that an individual did not have to give his land to the city. Mr. Allred pointed out the city required every other developer to meet city code and requirements. He asked why they should not require that of Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings stated he was particularly different. He advised he was not a high roller developer. He stated he was very simple in what he wanted to do and just do what the law required. He stated he did not want to be treated like a "Lindsey" because he was just building small houses which would not be sold but would rent for $200 or $300 a month to people who could not afford to buy a house in the American system as it existed. Mr. Reynolds explained Fayetteville had changed, times had changed, and laws had changed. He advised they had to go by Fayetteville's laws, not Cummings' law. He stated they had to go by the rules and regulations of the City of Fayetteville and Mr. Cummings would have to follow those rules. Mr. Cummings stated it was a question of legal law and when they got an opinion from the city attorney then he would either accept it or file litigation. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to table this item until all legal questions had been addressed. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT - REMINGTON PLACE MIKE PARKER - N OF STEARNS, E OF FRONTAGE RD The next item was a preliminary plat for Remington Place presented by Al Harris, Northwest Engineers, on behalf of Mike Parker for property located north of Stearns, east of Frontage Road. The property contains 8.84 acres with 14 proposed lots and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ms. Langley advised this plat had not gone through the Plat Review process but the engineer had individually contacted each plat review representative. Mr. Conklin advised sidewalks did need to be shown along Stearns and the proposed street. He noted the sidewalks needed to be five feet wide set back from the curb by four feet. He also stated they needed to provide a street name for the proposed street. He requested the easement be vacated. He advised they had submitted a. tree preservation plan which met city requirements. Ms Little also noted the city would require a contribution from this development toward the improvement of the intersection of Joyce and Highway 71B. She explained engineering was almost complete on the intersection. She advised their proportionate share would have to be calculated. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little explained the developer would be responsible for the extension of Stearns to the entrance of the subject property. She stated the developer was responsible for the entire width of Stearns to the west side of Lot 14 and one-half of the street to the eastern boundary of their property. She advised the city was willing to take an escrow or contract for that portion from the west side of lot 14. Mr. Parker stated it was his understanding that Mcllroy Bank would be paying for one-half of the extension along the front of their property. Ms. Little advised the City had not made that requirement and, that unless Mr. Parker had that in writing, it was unenforceable from the city's standpoint. Mr. Norbash asked if the City Engineer had agreed to the vacation of the water easement. Mr. Parker stated he had. Ms. Little advised the vacation would need to go before the City Council. In response to a question from Mr. Parker, Ms. Little advised the sidewalks would have to go in as part of the development, not as each lot was being developed. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to pass the plat on to the Planning Commission with staff comments which included vacating of the easement, the sidewalk, extension of the street, and a letter of agreement from Mcllroy Bank. 98 • • • Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 4 Mr. Allred seconded the motion. In response to a question from Mr. Parker, Ms. Little explained that the Northwest Arkansas Mall and the Clary Development Corporation were participating in the improvement of the Joyce/Highway 71B intersection improvement. She advised they. had approached existing businesses along Frontage Street but city regulations did not allow the city to force contribution from existing businesses. She noted the City would be paying for one-fourth of the cost. Mr. Parker asked for an estimated amount of his share. Ms. Little stated she would estimate between $5,000 and $15,000. Mr. Norbash also requested a grading and drainage plan be submitted. Ms Little stated the subject area was a rapidly developing area with significant traffic problems. She reviewed the improvements planned for the intersection. • Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 5 • • LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - WILD HAWG GRILL GREG HEGER - W OF RAZORBACK, S OF HWY 62 The next item was a large scale development for the Wild Hawg Grill presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Greg Heger for property located on the west side of Razorback, south of Highway 62. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial and Heavy Commercial, and contains 3.19 acres. Ms. Little advised the developer would have to file a tree preservation plan. Mr. Conklin requested the 10 -foot right-of-way dedication be shown on the plat. He also noted the sidewalk needed to be five foot wide, set back four feet. In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Jorgensen stated the utilities would be underground. Ms. Little asked if they had solved the problem of the easement to the south of the subject tract. Mr. Jorgensen advised they were working on it; that they were trying to do a property line adjustment so the center of the easement would be the south property line. He noted the lot was currently overgrown and would have to be cleaned before. they could determine what trees were on the property. In response to a question from Mr. Norbash, Ms. Little explained Razorback would be a state highway due to a trade of maintenance of the current Highway 180. She stated the city was to obtain the right-of-way and pay 20% of the improvements. Mr. Norbash asked if the developer had to get the state's permission for curb cuts. Ms. Little advised the roadway was in design. She recommended he notify the state but did not believe it was necessary to get their permission at this time. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the large scale development to the full Planning Commission subject to staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. 97 • Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 6 FINAL PLAT - QUAIL CREEK ESTATES, PHASE II MILLER FAMILY TRUST - S OF APPLEBY, E OF GREGG The next item was a final plat for Quail Creek Estates, Phase II, presented by Ron Petrie, Milholland Engineering, on behalf of the Miller Family Trust for property located south of Appleby, east of Gregg. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, and contains 18.01 acres with 43 proposed lots. Mr. Conklin stated a sidewalk needed to be shown on one side of Ripple Creek. Ms. Little stated there was a requirement for some off-site easements. She advised those would need to be dedicated by separate instrument. She also advised the developer would have to enter into a contract for the completion of the unfinished improvements. Mr. Norbash advised the developer needed to verify that none of the property was in the flood plain. Mr. Allred pointed out there would need to be a waiver on the length of the cul-de- sac. Ms. Little advised the City was now requiring a stub -out so a future property owner • would know the street would, at some time in the future, be a through street. • MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the plat to the full Planning Commission with staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. /Oo • • Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 7 PRELIMINARY PLAT - THE MASTERS WRIGHT -PENCE, INC. - S OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, E OF S. COLLEGE The next item was a preliminary plat for The Masters, presented by Bill Rudasill on behalf of Wright -Pence, Inc. for property located south of Country Club Drive and east of South College. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 20 acres with 53 proposed lots. Mr. Allred explained the Subdivision Committee reviewed the technical aspects of the development. He advised they could not approve or disapprove the project but just forwarded their recommendation to the full Planning Commission. Mr. Conklin explained the development would require a waiver for the length of a cul-de-sac. He advised a tree preservation plan was required. He asked if access on lot 2 would be restricted from the west. Ms. Wright advised it would be restricted; there would be no access from Country Club . Mr. Rudasill advised that lot 1, Phase I would be the only lot with access to Country Club Drive. Mr. Jim McCord, representing the Fayetteville Country Club, explained that Country Club Drive was a private drive. Mr. Rudasill stated they were in the process of working out an agreement. Ms. Little stated there had been several conversations since the Plat Review meeting as to the need for that area to be dedicated public access in order for the drive to be considered for access to the subdivision. She explained that was a condition of approval of the subdivision. Mr. McCord explained the developer would have to obtain an easement from the Country Club which would have to be approved by the Board of Directors. Ms. Little stated it appeared the access easement was partially on the subject property and partially on the country club property. Mr. Rudasill stated that was correct. Mr. Conklin stated the developer was planning to put sidewalks on both sides of the streets but was requesting they be set back only one foot rather than four feet due to the grade. Ms. Little advised Planning Staff did look favorably upon granting the waiver. She also pointed out there were still some lots without dimensions shown on the plat. • Mr. Norbash stated they needed a complete drainage and grading plan for the project. /o1 • • • Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 8 Mr. Rudasill explained that, due to the slopes on the hill, the development would not. greatly increase the run-off . He stated water was leaving that ground rapidly at the present time. He stated they would be discharging into the gullies. Mr. Reynolds stated there was a drainage problem at the present time. Ms. Little advised the city also required an individual grading permit on any lot with a grade over 20% before issuing a building permit. Mr. Conklin advised the development calculated at 2.6 lots per acre so it was well within the density allowed. Ms. Jeanette Summers expressed concern regarding access to the property. She stated there was only one access and they already had a traffic problem. She also noted there was no emergency access except the one access used by all of the residents. Mr. Allred stated there was a provision for future expansion which would give additional access. Ms. Summers stated there was already a crime problem and more accesses would make the residents more vulnerable to crime. She also advised she was concerned regarding the lot size. She stated most of the existing lots were 1 acre or larger. She asked that the lots in the new development be one acre or larger. Mr. Allred stated the city could not require the developer to have larger lots if the lots met the city regulations. Another resident pointed out there would be at least 100 cars a day going into the development. In response to a question from an audience member, Mr. Allred explained there were plans for expansion of the roadways. Mr. Rudasill stated there would be a stub out at the end of Country Club Drive which could be extended at some time in the future. Ms Summers asked what they would do with the addition traffic until Country Club Drive was extended. Mr. Bill Lash asked about the water supply. Mr. Allred explained there would be a complete study made. Mr. Norbash stated the engineering department was very concerned and would look into water pressure, etc. In response to a question from the audience, Ms. Little explained it was the responsibility of the developer to provide all required services for his development. Subdivision Committee • July 15, 1993 Page 9 • Mr. Reynolds asked if they were going to have covenants. Ms. Wright stated they would have covenants. Ms. Leanne Richards advised there was already a problem with water pressure. She explained that if the developer only was concerned with the subject development, it would affect their water pressure. She also noted the access was very narrow and not well maintained. Ms. Little stated her comment was well taken and recommended Ms. Richards contact the Public Works Department. She told her of a street committee meeting on July 22 at 7:00 p.m. in room 326. She stated four of the council members were serving on a special committee to hear about which streets required additional improvements and to prioritize those streets as a portion of the C.I.P. Mr. McCord stated that, on the issue of lot size, the Planning Commission had previously denied a subdivision based on lot size and there was also case law allowing disapproval of a subdivision based on lot size. Mr. Allred stated there were other factors involved in the disapproval of the subdivision referred to by Mr. McCord. Other members of the audience told of water pressure problems. Mr. Norbash stated they were in the process of reviewing the water pressure in the area. Ms. Little advised there were also two storage tanks on Kessler Mountain. She pointed out the 36 -inch water line was also in process. Mr. Norbash stated that did not necessarily mean it would help this area. He stated the Engineering Department would look at the entire system, as far as the usage, the projection for the future and see what impact the subject subdivision would have on the system. He further stated they would also determine if it needed to be improved at the pump station (larger pumps, larger lines, etc.) . He stated that, if the system needed to be upgraded, the cost would be pro rated for the developer. Mr. Allred asked for an update at the Planning Commission meeting. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Wright advised this subdivision would have similar covenants to her other developments. She stated the houses would be 2,000 square feet minimum with no overnight parking, no chain link fencing, etc. Mr. Rudasill stated the actual platted lots existing in the area at the present time were 1/2 acre or less. He further stated several of the property owners had • • • Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 10 purchased one or more lots. He pointed out the lots in the proposed subdivision ranged from 1/2 an acre to just below 1/3 of an acre. Mr. Allred asked how much land remained on the hillside for future development. Ms. Little stated there was still land to the north and east of the subject property. MOTION Mr. Reynolds stated he had a problem with the development but he moved to forward the plat to the full Planning Commission with staff comments and further review, including the drainage plan being submitted, the water pressure test, and access to the property. There was further discussion regarding access to the property. Mr. Allred stated that dedicated right-of-way to the property would be a condition of approval of the subdivision. He explained that, if an agreement could not be reached with the Country Club, the developer would have to find some other. ingress/egress. One member of the audience asked if the Planning Commission was expected to approve or disapprove the plat before the problem of access was resolved. Mr. Reynolds explained they were recommending that issue be resolved before it went to the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Allred stated the subdivision could be considered without the issue being resolved but he did not know if they would act on it. Ms. Little explained the requirement for approval of a subdivision was a dedicated right-of-way and it could not be approved until there was such right-of-way. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. • • Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 11 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - NORTH HILLS CENTER PARTNERS AND ASSOCIATES - N OF FUTRALL, E OF NORTH HILLS BLVD. The next item was a large scale development for North Hills Center presented by Al Harris, Northwest Engineers, on behalf of Partners and Associates for property located north of Futrall, east of North Hills Boulevard. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 5.0 acres. Mr. Conklin requested the vicinity map show more detail. Mr. Allred asked if this development would have the same architectural integrity as North Hills. Mr. Harris stated that was his impression. Ms. Little stated the original North Hills covenants covered this tract. Mr. Conklin requested the legal description be placed on the plat together with the names of the adjacent property owners. He advised there would be a five foot right- of-way dedication which needed to be recorded by separate instrument. He also noted the sidewalk would need to be five feet wide, set back four feet from Futrall. He also noted there had been a discussion regarding parking lot setbacks but the developer had redesigned the parking lot to meet those requirements. He further stated the developer would need to submit a tree preservation plan. Mr. Allred asked why the development was exceeding the required parking. He stated he would rather have landscaping than parking. Mr. Conklin stated Tom Campbell had believed they would need more parking than that required by the city. Mr. Harris stated there was a possibility of dividing the tract into four separate retail establishments. Ms. Little advised that, if the property were divided into four separate lots, they would have to go through the subdivision process. She also suggested the furthermost eastern parking lot could be deferred to future development should it become necessary. She stated the plat was still showing 2 signs. She explained that, if there were separate lots, they could have a sign for each lot but, if it was all one lot, they were allowed only one free standing sign. MOTION • Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the large scale to the Planning Commission subject to staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. • Mr. Norbash stated they would need to provide grading and drainage plans. rot • • • Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 12 SIDEWALK WAIVER NORTHWEST NURSING CENTER - W OF APPLEBY, N OF BISHOP The last item was a request from Northwest Nursing Center for a sidewalk waiver for property located on the west side of Appleby, north of Bishop, presented by Jesse White, Administrator. Mr. White explained there had been a communication problem. He advised the minutes of the plat review meeting had never been seen by the architect. He also noted a portion of the lot had a very steep slope and would wash out. He presented a different design for the sidewalk, cutting across the lot. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved that the revised sidewalk be adopted. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m. 103