Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-30 - Minutes1 • MINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, September 30, 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, John Redfern, Bill Rudasill, Gerald Boyd, Dave Jorgenson, Mel Milholland, Harry Gray, Marion Willams, Mr. & Mrs. Jack Volk, Nola Van Scyoc, Timothy Clark, David Cox PRELIMINARY PLAT - STERLING ESTATES STERLING INVESTMENTS LTD - W. OF HILLSIDE, S. OF ZION RD The first item was a preliminary plat for Sterling Estates represented by David Cox, Engmeering Services, Inc., on behalf of Sterling Investments, Ltd. for property located on the west side of Hillside, south of Zion Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains 6.81 acres with 15 proposed lots Mr. Conldm stated the reason the plat returned to Committee was because at the first hearing adjacent property owners had not been notified - in addition, when the property was rezoned to R-2, a bill of assurance had been executed limiting the number of lots accessing onto Hillside Terrace to 3 lots, now noted on the plat. Mr. Cox explained the access to the R-2 subdivision had been changed from Hillside Terrace to Highway 265. He added the 3 lots zoned R-1, directly adjacent to Hillside Terrace, were designated by a bill of assurance as a buffer zone containing a maximum of three lots. He stated the size of the greenspace in the center of the subdivision had been increased slightly, and a couple of lots had been added to the plat. Mr. Allred asked if the Parks Department had reported on the plat. Ms. Little replied the plat had not been to the Parks Board because staff had discovered the mistake regarding notification and the Bill of Assurance. Mr. Allred stated the Committee would need to forward the plat to the Planning Commission subject to the decision of the Parks Board. Ms. Little confirmed the property to the south was zoned commercial and stated the developer would not, by the revised alignment, be providing an access to the property to the south, requiring a separate curb cut at the time of the development of that property. 12-7 I • • • Subdivision Committee September 30 ,1993 Page 2 Mr. Allred confirmed the development of the park would be the responsibility of the Property Owner's Association and asked the zoning on the outlot. Mr. Conklin replied the outlot was zoned R -O, and remarked the Property Owner's Association would be responsible for maintenance, though the property would remain public and could not be designated as a private park. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with staff comments, subject to the decision of the Parks Board. Mr. Bunn suggested the plat return to Plat Review for the utility companies to assess the revisions. Mr. Pummill amended his motion to include returning the plat to Plat Review Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. 1 • Subdivision Committee September 30 ,1993 Page 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT - JUSTIN ADDITION CHARLES DUNAWAY - E. SIDE OF CHERRY ST., N. OF HUNTSVILLE RD The next item was a preliminary plat for Justin Addition presented by David Jorgensen, Jorgensen & Associates, on behalf of Charles Dunaway for property located on the east side of Cherry Street, north of Huntsville Road The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, and contains .97 acres with 5 lots. Mr. Conklin pointed out to the Commission the property had been rezoned R-1.5 - a minimum lot width of 60 feet had been waived to 59.19 feet by the Board of Adjustment. He added the developer needed to note the plat was a prehminary one, rather than a final plat. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little stated a sidewalk would be placed on the west side of Cherry Street - not the east side. Mr. Volk asked why the sidewalk would be placed on the west side of Cherry Street. • Ms. Little explained current policy required sidewalks on one side of the street - having required the placement of portions of a sidewalk on the west side of Cherry Street prior to the development of this subdivision, the lots developed on the west side would be required to put in sidewalks. • In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Dunaway remarked the sidewalk on the west side extended the length of three lots - approximately 210 feet. Mr. Allred clarified for the Committee sidewalks would not be required in front of the 5 Lots on the east side of Cherry Street. Ms. Little pointed out two existing homes did not have sidewalks because the road had not been chip and seal at the time of construction. She added the City was requiring additional right-of-way and improvements to one half of the road, including curb and guttering as well as submission of a grading plan. Mr. Volk stated the copy of the plat he received was different from the copy under review. Ms. Little explained the revisions were the requests of the utility companies at Plat Review. She further explamed the City would be receiving additional right-of-way from the developer. Mr. Allred stated the developer's side of the street would have curb and guttering and the east side of the street would remain substandard until such time as it is developed. in / • • • Subdivision Committee September 30 ,1993 Page 4 MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. 1 • • Subdivision Committee September 30, 1993 Page 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT - OWL CREEK MIKE PENNINGTON - E. SIDE OF DOUBLE SPRINGS, S. OF WEDINGTON The next item was a preliminary plat for Owl Creek Subdivision presented by Mel Milholland, Milholland Engineering, on behalf of Mike Pennington for property located on the east side of Double Springs, south of Wedmgton. The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office, and R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 14.80 acres with 50 lots. Mr. Milholland explained Mr. Bunn required sewer lines but not taps in the flood plain area, therefore it would be necessary to redesign a corner of the subdivision He further explained it was not possible to service a house m the floodplain built downstream from the last development existing when the law went into effect - resulting in the loss of 3 lots from the subdivision. Ms. Little recommended returning the plat to Plat Review - remarking the inability to service several lots by sewer represented a serious problem. She pointed out the property had been rezoned R -O, and R-1 within the last nine months and the developer now proposed to rezone the property R-2. Ms. Little stated duplexes could be accomodated under the existing R -O zoning. Mr. Conklin confirmed the developer would meet the lot size requirements because R-3 standards were used to determine R -O lot size. Under R-1 with conditional use, he explained, the minimum lot size was 12,000 square feet for each lot - which the developer would not meet. In response to a question from Mr. Milholland, Mr. Conklin replied the minimum lot size under R-1 was 8,000 square feet, and 6,500 square feet lot area under R -O. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Milholland stated the subdivision would be entirely duplexes. Ms. Little remarked the Planning Commission expressed a desire to see most of the area south of Highway 16 to remain single family subdivisions. She pomted out to Mr. Milholland he needed to note 55th Street as 54th Street on the plat. Mr. Allred suggested blending duplexes and single family homes rather than developing subdivisions with duplexes exclusively - noting a blended development scheme tended to have less of a negative impact on neighbonng areas. Mr. Milholland stated there were different qualities of subdivisions - some which didn't lend themselves to duplex development. Mr. Allred remarked regardless of lot size or cost of housmg, comparable subdivisions existed. • Ms. Little reminded the Committee the property had recently been rezoned according to a 129 I • • Subdivision Committee September 30, 1993 Page 6 development scheme mcludmg C-1, R-1, and R -O zones and that this was not the development scheme brought before the Committee now. Mr. Conklin suggested aligning lot lines with zoning lines between R -O and R-1. Mr. Milholland replied the lot lines were drawn anticipating a rezoning of the property to R-2. He asked the purpose of the rezoning to C-1, R -O, and R-1. Ms. Little responded no development plan had been presented at the time - noting that a development plan was not required - and the Planning Commission had given the subdividers less C-1 zoning then they had requested and had required a buffer R -O zone. Mr. Allred cited Springdale's development as having successfully blended single family homes and duplexes. Mr. Pummill stated the workability of the village concept didn't seem to be market-driven. Mr. Milholland remarked that the zoning ordinance catered to single theme development - adding he understood R-2 as always designated for duplexes. In response to a request for staff recommendations from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little stated the plat was to be returned to Plat Review and the Planning Commission was advised to deny the rezoning - addmg R -O would accomodate duplexes without additional action, and R-1 would require larger lot sizes, which the staff recommended the Planning Commission require. Mr. Milholland responded the purpose of the rezoning to R-2 was to accommodate the proposed lot sizes. Ms. Little stated she was against a reversal of the Planning Commission's earlier rezoning actions. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to forward the Planning Commission with staff comments contingent upon a return to Plat Review. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. 1 • Subdivision Committee September 30, 1993 Page 7 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - HANNA WAREHOUSE BERT HANNA - S.E. CORNER OF 15TH & FRED HANNA DRIVE The next item was a Large Scale Development for a warehouse presented by Harry Gray, Northwest Engineering Consultants, on behalf of Bert Hanna for property located on the southeast comer of 15th and Fred Hanna Drive. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. Mr. Gray confirmed for Mr. Conklin that the adjacent property owners had been notified. He explained the property owner, Bert Hanna, proposed developing a warehouse operation to house 5 existing buildings - adding Mr. Hanna had additional rental property to the west. Ms Little, m response to a question from Mr. Pummill, explained that she determined which of two I-1 parking requirements to apply - 1 space/1000 square feet, or 1 space/1500 square feet - by establishing the proposed number of employees in addition to trucking area. Mr Pummill stated, in his experience, the regulations were backwards - requiring more parking spaces for a warehouse than a manufacturing plant. Ms. Little agreed. • Ms. Little pointed out the driveway had been relocated on the plat. • Mr Gray explained the owner desired to move the proposed office site - for which a drive would be created off the north east comer of the property. Mr. Conklin confirmed the revised driveway was in compliance with city ordinance. Ms. Little stated in lieu of a 50 foot building setback the developer was asking for a 25 foot setback with 25 feet of landscaping. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. VI 0 • • Subdivision Committee September 30, 1993 Page 8 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - KWIK KAR LUBE & TUNE KWIK INDUSTRIES, INC. - 2897 N. COLLEGE AVE The next item was a large scale development for Kwik Kar Lube & Tune presented by Marion Williams on behalf of Kwik Industries, Inc., for property located at 2897 N. College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Conklin, m response to a question from Mr. Allred, stated the zoning of the property was C-2 - explaining the developer could build up to a property line adjoining a C-2 zone. Mr. Conldin responded the plat had been revised. Ms. Little informed Mr. Williams that two seperate lot dimensions on the plat needed to be noted as one. Mr. Conklin pointed out the approach, noted as 20 feet on the plat, was in fact 34 feet and therefore drawn incorrectly on the plat. Ms. Little pointed out the building drawing and elevation drawing did not correspond and needed to be altered. • In response to a remark from Mr. Bunn, Mr. Williams pointed out a fire hydrant bad been added at the request of Mickey Jackson at Plat Review. Mr. Bunn stated the size of the water hne, three and one quarter, needed to be changed. Mr. Conklin stated the developer needed to designate curb and bumpers in the paved areas. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. • 131 Subdivision Committee September 30, 1993 Page 9 FINAL PLAT - BROPHY ADDITION RALPH BROPHY - W. SIDE OF BROPHY CR, N. OF TOWNSHIP The next item was a final plat for Brophy Addition presented by Bill Rudasill on behalf of Ralph Brophy for property located on the west side of Brophy Circle, north of Township. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential, and contains 1.57 acres with 5 lots. Mr. Rudasill stated the five lots shown on the plat represented phase one of the Brophy Addition. Mr. Allred pointed out a lot of grade existed on the property. Ms. Little responded lots 1-4 were originally platted to access to the west, but a replatting had occurred to compensate for the grade. She confirmed lots 1-4 would be accessed from Brophy Circle. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. 1 • • Subdivision Committee September 30, 1993 Page 10 PRELIMINARY PLAT - BOXWOOD ADDITION ATLAS CONSTRUCTION - S. SIDE OF OLD WIRE RD., E. OF AZALEA TERRACE The next item was a preliminary plat for Boxwood Addition represented by Harry Gray, Northwest Engineers, on behalf of Atlas Construction for property located on the south side of Old Wire Road, east of Azalea Terrace. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 19.38 acres with 55 lots. Mr. Gray explained the south 11 acres had been rezoned by the Planning Commission from A-1 to R-1, contingent on the approval of the City Council. He stated the subdivider proposed a single family development - the north portion of which had previously been brought before the Planning Commission and turned down due to access problems - which would tie Magnolia Drive, approximately 900 feet in length, in with Old Wire Road. Ms. Little stated access problems would be resolved by the extension of Quince Lane. She pointed out a question had arisen at Plat Review about the existing home - whether it was to remain - and the necessity of either realigning the street to avoid creating a nonconforming structure or a variance would have to be granted if the house were to remain. Mr. Gray stated the developer would provide two street accesses to Old Wire Road and would pave the street to the Van Scyoc property. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Gray responded the development would include all of the Montez property, which had been excluded before on the other plats. Mrs. Van Scyoc stated she and her husband were concerned about both lot size and drainage. She asked if the development would contain greenspace. Mr. Gray responded there were no plans for a common greenspace. Ms. Little explained to several audience members the procedure for determining whether the City accepted donated land or a greenspace fee in lieu of money. She also explained the decision of the Parks Board was not determined prior to Subdivision Committee. Mr. Reynolds pointed out the Van Scyoc's were interested in changing the name of a street. Mr. Allred confirmed for Mrs. Van Scyoc the sidewalks would be set back four feet from the curb. Mr. Reynolds asked if sewer water spewed into the creek after rainstorms. • Mr. Bunn replied the sewer did overflow during rainstorms. He explained the City had a 11, 3 1 • • • Subdivision Committee September 30, 1993 Page 11 plan to address overflows, but did not currently have a project addressing this particular overflow problem, and the City would spend approximately 8 million dollars in the next 4-5 years to address overflows. Mr. Bunn stated overflows would continue to occur with rainstorms, and the development would not be the cause of the overflows nor would there be a significant difference m the amount of overflow occurring. He remarked the sewer would not be overloaded from a domestic standpomt by the addition of 55 lots - adding development of the subdivision would not cause the sewer to overflow when it was not overflowing now. He concluded the City was addressing overflow problems all over town - focusing at present where the worst overflows occurred - in the most cost effective way possible. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr Bunn restated some incremental effect would result from development but it would not be the cause of overflows. Mr. Clark read the following: "I have documentary evidence showing severe streambank erosion that has occurred on the southern side of the river. Flow of water from streets, driveways and houses will be towards the south, probably with sufficient velocity to further undermine the southern streambank. This severely affects the stability of property on that side and if allowed to continue, will eventually detrimentally impact on the property values of the adjacent lots situated on Ferguson Avenue and Wakefield Place, and probably require expensive treatment at City expense following, and I can promise this, litigation. Additionally, it has been estimated by Alett Little that 75% of this property hes within the floodplain, and Harry Gray has already acknowledged on the record at the Planning meeting that this development will affect the flow pattern of the creek." Ms. Little corrected Mr. Clark's statement regarding her estimate. She stated 75% of the 11 acres, not the entire tract, was in the floodplain. Mr. Clark continued: "Do you have any estimates concerning how much water this development will obstruct, or how high the floodplain will be following construction? Will it flood houses upstream, who built their houses believing that the City would ensure through planning that the elevation of their houses were above the floodplain? Occupants of houses along Ferguson Avenue have complained to the City engineers on numerous occasions concerning drainage problems arising from improper drainage through the Ferguson property on the south side of the creekbed, without receiving remedy. During periods of moderate rainfall, the water backs up in the existing drains, eventually flowing over the top and through their yards, washing away landscaping, plantlife, adding to the streambank erosion and potentially eroding the berm below their homes. Now you want to give ownership and control of this likely devastating dilemma to someone on the north side of the creek? Since nothing has been done before, what guarantees can you give us as taxpayers that corrective measures will be initiated following this development, which shows no drainage on the southern portion of this creek, when ownership of the property m question would then reside m no fewer than 5 hands, with diametrically opposed agendas, to wit: they would like to see the streamcourse move to the south?" • • Subdivision Committee September 30, 1993 Page 12 In response to a comment from Mr. Clark that the plat contained one too many lots, Ms. Little stated the development was zoned R-1, requiring a density of 4 units per acre - calculated using entire acreage - and the loss of lot 38 might be advisable in the event that the southern portion was not developed. She added the lot might be lost bringing the street into alignment anyway. Mr. Gray stated he anticipated losing two lots bringing the street into alignment. Mr. Clark remarked the creek had moved five feet to the south on its own after the last storm He explained the property owners' problem was the possibility of an individual purchasing lot 18 and not providing for sufficient drainage into the creek - resulting in the loss of property on the south side of the creek. He added he was not entirely agamst development. Mr. Bunn asked Mr. Gray if the developer had any plans of placing houses on the lots south of the creek. Mr. Gray responded the lot owner would have to put in a culvert to provide adequate access. He stated the developer was working with property owners to the south of the creek on the possibility of purchasing the lot. He added it was better - in order to prevent flooding - to clear out the majority of trees. Mr. Clark stated several property owners had eliminated underbrush to provide flow. Ms. Little pointed out the City was requiring a drainage easement in the flood way and did ask for an access easement on the south side of the floodway - which was not shown on the plat. She stated it may be necessary to negotiate with the Parks Board. Mr. Clark reminded the Committee that Mr. Jerry Sweetser had offered in the past to donate to the City property on the north side of the creek - adding he was personally in favor of having the land under City ownership. Mr. Bunn pointed out it was possible to prohibit building activity through subdivision convenants. Mr. Allred remarked City ordinance required 8000 square foot minimum lot size - adding the value of the home is not determined by the lot size but the quality of the completed home. In response to a comment from Mrs. Van Scyoc, Mr. Allred stated an individual could build in the flood plain, but not in the flood way. Mr. Clark stated he wanted to see an effort to alleviate the drainage problem. • Subdivision Committee September 30, 1993 Page 13 Mr. Allred remarked that most of the time, development cured drainage problems. Mr. Gray stated the developer couldn't do anything in the flood way. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Gray stated the City required construction occur two feet above the 100 year flood plain - adding it was possible to raise, by filling, the flood plain up 1 foot. Mr. Clark stated he calculated the house on lot 18 would have to come up 8 feet to comply with the ordinance. Mr. Allred commented a drainage plan and grading plan would have to be presented prior to Planning Commission approval of the subdivision. Ms. Little stated there was an access easement for a bikeway connecting Routh Park to Gully Park not shown on the plat, in addition to drainage easement and floodway - also not shown. She confirmed the bikeway would be on the south side of the creek and the City would be responsible for maintenance. • MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. • 1 Subdivision Committee September 30, 1993 Page 14 SIDEWALK WAIVER - S93-5 GERALD BOYD = 235 S. EASTERN AVENUE The final item was a sidewalk waiver for Gerald Boyd for property located at 235 S. Eastern Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Boyd stated his situation was a hardship. He explained that at the front of the property a 150 foot long, 5 foot high, retaining wall prevented him from installmg a sidewalk - in addition a telephone pole was currently being replaced on the property In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Boyd stated the nearest sidewalk was located to the south of his property, on the other side of Eastern Street. He further explained the property was an oversized rent lot, and a second rent house was being constructed on the back half of the lot. Mr. Boyd stated if he were required to put a sidewalk in front of the rental property on the back half of the lot, it would extend for 75 feet from nowhere to nowhere, ending 5 feet above the ground. He stated if he were required to put a sidewalk in front of both houses he would have to remove three 18 inch trees. In response to a question from Mr. Pummill, Mr. Boyd pointed out it would be difficult to acess the sidewalk due to a culvert on either side of the driveway. In response to a request for the staff recommendation from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little suggested Mr. Boyd place half of the estimated cost of installation of the sidewalk in an Escrow account. Mr. Pummill remarked the account would be a dead one. Mr. Allred asked if any other development would occur m the area. He stated a bill of assurance for retroactive installation of a sidewalk corresponding to future development would be appropriate. Ms. Little stated she preferred an Escrow account contract in lieu of installation. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to grant the waiver contingent upon negotiations to the satisfaction of the property owner and the Planning staff. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. 134