Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-02 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, September 2, 1993 at 10:30 a.m , in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, Kenneth Pummill, and Bob Reynolds Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, John Redfern, Mandy Bunch, Bill Oestreich, Mel Milholland, Al Harris, James Ferguson, Scotty Fisk, and others FINAL PLAT - HORSESHOE ADDITION C & B LAND AND CATTLE CO., INC. - SW CORNER OF PORTER AND SYCAMORE The first item was a final plat for Horseshoe Addition, presented by Al Harris on behalf of C & B Land and Cattle Company, Inc. for property located on the southwest corner of Porter and Sycamore. The property is zoned R - 1 and R - 1.5, Low Density Residential and Moderate Density Residential respectively, and contains 17.48 acres and 58 lots. • Mr. Conklin stated lots 42 - 48 of Horseshoe Addition were to be duplexes and lots 1 - 41 were to be single family residences. He pointed out that the developer had provided lot numbers as advised in Plat Review. Mr. Conklin asked Ms. Little to explain the status of the oullot. Ms. Little stated the sale of the outlot to Lifestyles had not yet been completed and had no access. Mr. Allred agreed the lot would be landlocked if Lifestyles did not buy it. Mr. Harris stated he was not sure when finalization of the sale to Lifestyles would occur. Mr. Conklin suggested that a solution which would leave the lot as originally shown on the plat would be a lotline adjustment and incorporate the property m the future. Mr. Allred suggested if a lotline adjustment were chosen access would have to be provided. Mr. Conklin agreed. Mr. Allred advised against creating a tandem lot. Ms. Little stated the solution hinged on the sale. She pointed out that, if the outlot was not sold, a lotline adjustment would create a problem. Mr. Harris confirmed he did not know the status of the lot. Ms. Little stated if a resolution had not been reached by the Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, September 13, 1993, it would be necessary to incorporate the outlot into lots 32 & 33. Mr. Hams agreed. • Mr. Conklin asked if the off-site improvements for Megan Drive and the extension of I Iw Subdivision Committee September 2, 1993 Page 2 Sycamore to the east, as discussed in preliminary approval, needed to be shown on the plat. Ms. Little agreed they did need to be shown. Mr. Conklin advised that a notation be placed on the plat that the sidewalk be set back four feet from the curb. Ms. Little requested the status of the proposed lot 51 & 52 split. Mr. Harris stated that the proposed lotsplit had been dropped. Mr. Conklin stated the lot was short 500 feet for a lotsplit. Ms. Little suggested a lotline adjustment was an acceptable solution. She also stated the floodplain had to be noted on the plat and one third of the subdivision was in the flood plain. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the plat, subject to staff comments, and forward the plat to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. • • • Subdivision Committee • September 2, 1993 Page 3 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - CITY SHOP CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE - SW CORNER OF HAPPY HOLLOW & I5TH STREET The next item was a large scale development for a City Shop, presented by Bill Oestreich for the City of Fayetteville for property located on the southwest corner of Happy Hollow Road and 15th Street. The property is zoned I - 2, General Industrial. Mr. Conklin stated the vicinity map was missing from the plat as well as adjacent property owners. Mr. Oestreich stated he had furnished a copy of all the adjacent property owners except one, and explained he had provided Traci Paul, Planning Division, with the north property owner's name and address. He further stated a question remained on the revised final plat as to which of two adjacent property owners to the north was the applicable one and a conversation with Bert Rakes, inspection Division, was pending. He stated the question was the result of property further out in the Industrial Park originally platted in 1973. Ms. Little asked if any off-site eastments existed. • Mr. Oestreich answered a thirty foot easement had been added on the east side at the request of SWEPCO. He further stated legal descriptions had been added to the map. • Mr. Conklin asked if there were any trees on the site that were going to be removed Mr. Oestreich stated no trees were going to be removed. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the plat, subject to staff comments, and forward the plat to the Planning Commission Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. 12I • • Subdivision Committee September 2, 1993 Page 4 FINAL PLAT - MISSION HILLS MILHOLLAND CO. - E. SIDE OF MISSION, WEST OF KINGS, N. OF LAKESIDE The next item was a final plat for Mission Hills, presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of the Milholland Co. for property located along the east side of Mission Boulevard, west of Kings, north of Lakeside. The property is zoned R - 1, Low Density Residential, and contains 9.7 acres with 23 proposed lots. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant had provided all the information requested on the plat. He further stated the western exit off of Mission Boulevard was to be a restricted left turn lane as required at preliminary plat approval and was noted on the plat. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the plat, subject to staff comments, and forward the plat to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. ■ lz2 111 • Subdivision Committee September 2, 1993 Page 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT - RETAIL STORE CEI ENGINEERING - S. SIDE OF JOYCE BLVD, W. OF SHILOH DRIVE The next item was a preliminary plat for a Retail Store, presented by Mandy Bunch on behalf of CEI Engineering for property located on the south side of Joyce Boulevard, west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 24.94 acres. Ms. Little stated an agreement was being prepared by a law firm regarding the extension of Joyce Boulevard. Ms. Little further stated she had received a letter from the legal representative of the property owners to the west reqesting the item not be placed on the Planning Commission agenda. She suggested the committee consider the item and determine upon conclusion of the legal agreement whether to foward or table the item. Ms. Little addressed, for the benefit of the Subdivision Committee, several items discussed at plat review. She stated the grade of the road, and the placement and paving of access roads around the property had not been resolved. Ms. Little explained the easements had been worked out She stated the city did abandon that portion of Mall Lane which ran south of the public road. She explained the developers of the entire subdivision had agreed to extend the road southward. Ms. Little further explained it was the responsibility of the Retail Store developers to extend the road to the west and south around the creek. Ms. Little stated the placement of a particular easement was still undetermined, contigent upon whether dual access would be provided to future developers by placing the easement outside the property line. Ms. Little also stated one service road needed to be extended further to the west. Mr. Bunn explained the extension of a continuous service road to the west would be a convenience for adjacent developers. Mr. Reynolds asked where National Lumber was going to be developed. Mr. Bunn answered it would go in to the west and north of the Retail Store. Mr. Allred asked if a significant grade difference would exist between adjacent developments. Mr. Bunn stated a pretty good grade difference did exist. He further explained the difference was determined by the amount of fill needed in the lower sections of the development. He stated other developers in the subdivision were in the same situation. Mr. Bunn explained the solution was that adjacent developers would also grade out the west property as the Retail Store developers had done. He stated the topograph was such that it was necessary to take material from somewhere to fill up the flood plain area. He stated it was logical to construct roads to supply fill material. Mr. Allred asked if the Subdivision Committee could approve the plat and forward it subject • to the agreement being finalized prior to full Planning Commission hearing 12,3 • Subdivision Committee September 2, 1993 Page 6 Mr. Bunn stated it was his understanding that the agreement was being sent over for signatures. Mr. Allred suggested a recommendation he made that the agreement be totally finalized prior to the Planning Commission Meeting. He stated if the agreement were not finalized it would have to be tabled until negotiations were worked out. Ms. Little expressed her concern that the developers plans for signage be finalized and be worked out with the Planning Office prior to completion of the project. Ms. Little explained signage was not contingent on Planning Commission approval but, typically, signage issues remained unresolved in the final phases of the building permit process. Mr. Pummill expressed confusion over the placement of the curbed road. Ms. Little explained its configuration was such because its intended use was as a service, not an access, road. Mr. Reynolds asked if the placement of the road would open up Gregg Street. • Ms. Little explained Gregg Street would be opened, but only after further development in the subdivision. • Mr. Allred asked when Shiloh Drive would connect to any development in the subdivision. Mr. Bunn explained it would not tie directly into the subdivision. Mr. Allred asked if development of the subdivision would all have to funnel through Joyce Street. Ms. Little explained developers of the commercial subdivision contributed $25,000.00 to expand Joyce. Mr. Bunn explained he anticipated a construction project to improve the Joyce -College intersection to begin in 1995. He expressed the need for an intersection improvement project to coincide with development of the subdivision. Mr. Reynolds asked if the Steel property was in the City's radius for improvement of the intersection. Ms. Little explained a small portion of the Steel property was involved. Mr. Conklin stated a small portion of the impact fee was based on the subdivision, not the large scale development. t R Subdivision Committee September 2, 1993 Page 7 Mr. Bunn stated the Steel property's involovement depended on the time of construction of the intersection. He explained the City Attorney had not yet agreed that the City of Fayetteville could backcharge developers. He stated that if the Steel property were to develop after the improvement were put in, the City would not charge an impact fee. Lamar Pettus stated the developers had reached an agreement he felt would be satisfactory. Mr. Allred explained to Mr. Pettus the decision the Subdivision Committee had reached regarding the finalization of the agreement. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to foward the plat to the Planning Commission with staff comments and contigent upon the aforementioned agreement being reached. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. • • Subdivision Committee September 2, 1993 Page 8 SIDEWALK WAIVER - S93-4 HAROLD AND SHIRLEY FISK - 5435 E. HUNTSVILLE ROAD The next item was a sidewalk waiver presented by Harold and Shirley Fisk for property located at 5435 E. Huntville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Fisk stated he was in the process of obtaining a building permit to remodel his home when the sidewalk requirement was brought to his attention. He explained the city limits were almost adjacent to his property and there were no sidewalks or driveways in the area. Mr. Fisk further stated he had obtained an estimate for the cost of the cement at around $2,700.00. Mr. Allred asked the length and width of Mr. Fisk's property. Mrs. Fisk replied he had 149 feet of frontage. Mr. Reynolds asked if sidewalks existed on either side of the Fisk's property. Mr. Fisk answered in the negative. Mr. Allred confirmed that no sidewalks existed within a half mile. Mr. Pummill stated he was in total agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Fisk. Mr. Allred stated he wondered if the City had any future plans to do any additional sidewalk work. Ms. Little stated the City would have to be responsible for this particular piece of sidewalk if a sidewalk was constructed in the future unless a Bill of Assurance was granted to the Fisks. Mr. Allred asked what the probability was that the City would have the excess funds to develop a sidewalk. Mr. Bunn stated funds did exist. Ms. Little confirmed that putting in a sidewalk in this area would be low on the prionty list for the City of Fayetteville. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved for a variance. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. It9 • s Subdivision Committee September 2, 1993 Page 9 SIDEWALK WAIVER - S93-5 GERALD BOYD - 235 S. EASTERN AVENUE The next item was a sidewalk waiver presented by Gerald Boyd for property located at 235 S. Eastern Avenue. The property is zoned R - 2, Medium Density Residential. It was determined that no one was present to represent Mr. Boyd. Mr. Allred stated he couldn't see where there was a hardship. Mr. Pummill pointed out the grade in addition to the existence of a retaining wall. Mr. Allred asked why a sidewalk couldn't be placed on the retaining wall. Mr. Pummill stated it would not be suitable for the handicapped. Ms. Little stated grade was the reason most waivers were granted. Mr. Pummill stated he felt that a sidewalk on the retaining wall would not be in compliance • with the tree ordinance. Mr. Bunn stated the ordmace protected trees in the right of way. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to table the item. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. • or 1ZS Subdivision Committee September 2, 1993 Page 9 PRELIMINARY PLAT - WHITE OAKS MANOR RICK TORNATORE - E. SIDE OF HARVEY OWL, S. OF WYMAN RD The final item was a preliminary plat for White Oaks Manor, for property located on the east side of Harvey Owl and south of Wyman Road. The property is outside the city, and contains 43.9 acres and 27 lots. It was explained this plat had been tabled from the previous Subdivision Committee meeting due to improper notification of adjoining property owners. Ms. Little advised the original question regarding the cemetery had been if it would be owned by the homeowners. She pointed out it was now shown as an outlot. Mr. Bunn stated that had been staff's suggestion. Mr. Ferguson, an adjoining property owner, stated that made two lots undersized. He contended neither lot was 1.5 acre. There was discussion regarding doing property line adjustments in order to meet the minimum requirements. In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Harris stated the plat had been approved by the county. Mr. Ferguson stated the notice he had received from the County stated they would deal strictly with the road. Mr. Harris agreed and advised the City and County worked together on the plat. Mr. Ferguson pointed out the road would be corning out of the lot size also. Ms. Little explained that, in the County, the property line went to the center of the road. Mr. Ferguson stated his main concern was the soil, advising it was impossible to get a perc test. Mr. Allred explained that, if the builder was unable to get a perc test, they would be unable to construct a home. He advised that, if a tract did not perc, the state would not issue a permit to install a septic system. Mr. Harris explained they conducted a perc test for each lot prior to filing the final plat. In response to a question from Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Bunn explained the subdivision process, noting perc tests were mandatory prior to final approval. Mr. Ferguson again expressed concern regarding the size of the lots as well as the drainage for the area. He asked if the developers intended to improve the l2, Subdivision Committee September 2, 1993 Page 10 drainage, noting the drainage was different than shown on the south side of the plat and showing them the drainage pattern. In response to a question, Mr. Harris stated the property had not been surveyed yet. Mr. Ferguson asked if the road would have drainage to the east. Mr. Harris explained they would have to submit a grading and drainage plan to the city. Mr. Ferguson stated he was in favor of the development but pointed on the road was constructed to minimum specs since the property owners had paid for it. He stated the additional traffic would ruin the road. He also pointed out lots where there would not be room for a house due to the 100 year floodplain. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn explained the City could not require a grading plan but they could require a drainage plan be filed. Mr. Allred noted the streets would be to county standards which caused him concern. He pointed out that, at some date in the future, the property could be annexed to the city and the city would then get substandard streets. He advised he would like anything in the growth area developed to city standards. Mr. Pummill agreed. Ms. Little pointed out there were numerous streets, including state highways, within the city limits that did not have curb and gutter. She stated curb and gutter was helpful to drainage but an open ditch would conduct drainage just as well. Mr. Reynolds also expressed concern that the streets would be to county standards rather than city standards. Ms. Little pointed out the City was planning on adopting the county street construction standards. Mr. Allred pointed out development costs in the county were not as great but the retail value of the lots were greater, leaving the city on the short end. Mr. Pummill asked Mr. Ferguson if other residents in the area were opposed to the subdivision. Mr. Ferguson replied minimal opposition existed, pointing out most people could not come to the Subdivision Committee meeting. He expressed his belief there was antipathy because the residents had paid for the road and now the developer had to provide only the lowest level of roadway. He advised he did not believe the developer was addressing various problems in the area. Mr. Pummill explained some of those problems could be taken care of by development. He commended Mr. Ferguson for raising questions pertinent to • • • 0 • • Subdivision Committee September 2, 1993 Page 11 development. Mr. Ferguson also noted he had thought the minimum lot size was 2 acres rather than 1.5. Ms. Little explained that, if the property had been located within the city limits and zoned A-1 (Agriculture), the minimum lot size was 2 acres but, since the property was in the county, the minimum lot size was 1.5 acres. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with staff comments and comments given by Mr. Ferguson. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. Mr. Allred asked if it would be possible to require the developer to perform the perc test prior to approval of the preliminary plat. Mr. Harris responded that the difficulty was in coordination with the State Health Department. Mr. Allred explained requiring the perc test prior to approval of the preliminary plat might alleviate some of the concerns of adjacent property owners and, if there was a problem, the developer could redesign the subdivision. He suggested the committee could approve the plat subject to the perc tests. Mr. Reynolds asked if the committee would receive a plat indicating those lots that had passed the perc test. Mr. Allred advised staff could be responsible for reviewing the plat. Mr. Ferguson asked when the developer would be required to file a drainage plan. Mr. Bunn explained that, once the preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission, the developer drew up plans for street construction, drainage, water, etc. Mr. Harris explained they were asking the developer to spend approximately $2,000 to conduct the perc tests prior to approval of the preliminary plat. He advised it would be a waste of money if the preliminary plat were not approved. Mr. Allred explained that, if they did not require the perc test prior to approval of the plat and 3 or 4 of the lots did not perc, the developer would incur more engineering costs. He suggested requiring the perc test first could save everyone a lot of money. He also pointed out the developer would have to do a perc test anyway. Subdivision Committee September 2, 1993 Page 12 Mr. Pummill stated he saw no problem with the Planning Commission approving the subdivision as long as it met state peculation requirements. AMENDED MOTION Mr. Reynolds amended his motion to include their recommendation the Planning Commission not review the subdivision until completion of the perc tests. Mr. Pummill seconded the amendment. The meeting adjourned at 11:31 a.m. • •