Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-12-02 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, �g ._.hinvembe&-2, 1993 a.m., in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West icic3 Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. • • MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, Kenneth Pummill, Bob Reynolds Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, John Redfern, David Jorgenson, Kurt Jones, Bill Rudasill, David Cox, Dallas and Dee Wright, Leonard Messina LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - CROSSOVER STORAGE VILLINES & WILKINS - W. SIDE OF CROSSOVER, S. OF MISSION The first item on the agenda was a large scale development for Crossover Storage presented by David Jorgenson, Jorgenson & Associates, on behalf of Danny Villines and Gordon Wilkins for property located on the west side of Crossover, south of Mission Boulevard. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 2.66 acres. Mr. Conklin confirmed there would not be an office or apartment on site and pointed out to Mr. Jorgenson a 15 utility easement along the north and south boundary of the property had been requested at Plat Review was not noted on the plat. Mr. Jorgenson responded Mr. Villines had met with Andy Calloway, Southwestern Bell, and upon discussion Mr. Calloway had agreed that the 10 foot utility easement on the south side of the development and the 20 foot access and utility easement would be adequate to serve the site - adding Mr. Calloway was not requesting any additional easements In answer to a question from Mr. Allred pertaining to future development at the front of the property, Mr. Jorgenson remarked the property was not m excess of 1 acre and therefore would not meet the criteria for large scale development. Mr. Jorgenson stated the ingress/egress to the south would serve future buildings at the front of the site. In answer to a question from Mr. Conklm pertaining to subdivision of the front lots, Mr. Jorgenson responded previous plans to subdivide had been dropped in favor of a large scale development plan - adding the owners had three approved legal lot splits out front which would only require a lotline adjustment, not subdivision Mr. Jorgenson remarked planning staff review for development of the three front lots would occur when the owner submitted an application for a building permit. Mr. Conklin stated his concern was the owners' proposal to place a building across the drainage ditch along the western boundary line which would require the removal of existing trees - adding the developer was required to provide screening along the western boundary line. He stated the staff's suggestion had been to eliminate or relocate the building to save the existing trees. l4' Mr. Jorgenson remarked he had estimated the amount of trees which would have to be removed - adding buildings 7 and 8 would have a driving lane to the west, necessitating the removal of a number of trees. He pointed out trees would be replanted in the northwest corner of the property. Mr. Jorgenson stated he had, in consideration of the staff's concerns about the adequacy of the drainage easement, submitted drainage calculations to Mr. Bunn - 5, 10, and 100 year storm calculations - and computed the amount of flow from the south and the east drainage paths. He explained that, if the drainage path were improved, the site could accommodate the water flow - adding he was still working with Mr. Bunn to resolve the issue. Ms. Little stated she had been concerned about a discrepancy between two floodplain elevations on the site. Mr. Jorgenson stated he was working with Mr. Bunn and explained there was not a 100 year floodplain elevation established in Zone A. He remarked he was using the flood insurance rate map - adding according to that map development was not encroaching on the 100 year flood plain. He explained the elevations on the plat would lead one to believe the site was in the flood plain. He restated according to the map the development was not in the 100 year floodplain - adding it would be necessary to certify that. Mr. Allred stated forwarding of the plat to the Planning Commission would be subject to the satisfactory resolution of the floodplain issue. Mr. Conklin requested Mr. Jorgenson needed to relocated the access easement twelve and one half feet from the property line to correspond with the relocated drive. Mr. Jorgenson remarked he did not know what type of development would occur on the front three lots but he anticipated paving a parking lot to the south boundary line. Mr. Conklin stated that was satisfactory. Mr. Allred asked Mr. Jorgenson if the developers to the south of the property be able to access the proposed drive thereby eliminating another curb cut. Mr. Jorgenson remarked he and Mr. Villines had discussed the possibility of shanng the drive with the adjacent property owners to the south. Mr. Vtlimes stated the survey stakes indicated that, physically, the two property owners shared the dnve. He remarked his original intent was to line the access up with the south property line and extend it to Hwy 265. Ms. Little stated driveways had to be 25 feet apart and the shared drive was feasible as long as it was the south property owners only dnve - adding a Bill of Assurance to that effect would be necessary. She suggested the drive be readjusted showing 15 feet of access on either side of the shared property line - remarking approval of the plat could be subject to that condition. • • • Subdivision Committee December 2, 1993 Page 3 In answer to a question from Mr. Conklin, Mr. Jorgenson stated building height would be eight foot six. Mr. Bunn explained that, according to Mr. Jorgenson's calculations, the channel through the property would carry a 100 year flood - adding he was unsure of that relationship to what is shown on the FEMA maps. Mr. Bunn stated certification would be the responsibility of the owner and engineer. Ms. Little requested Mr. Jorgenson submit to Kevin Santos his calculations to be sent to FEMA for a map amendment. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission subject submission of the drainage plan and staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. • • Subdivision Committee December 2, 1993 Page 4 PRELIMINARY PLAT - SUNBRIDGE CENTER MAE NETTLESHIP - E. SIDE OF GREGG AVE., N. OF TOWNSHIP The next item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for Sunbridge Center presented by David Jorgenson, Jorgenson & Associates, on behalf of Mae Nettleship for property located on the east side of Gregg Avenue, north of Township. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and R -O, Residential -Office, and contains 40.89 acres with 20 lots. Mr. Conklin asked Mr. Jorgenson if the New School occupied the entire parcel of land and if it had access to Villa Blvd - requiring adequate frontage on the cul-de-sac. Mr. Jorgenson replied the New School occupied a separate lot, approximately 2 acres in size. Mr. Conklin stated the New School did not have sufficient frontage. Mr. Jorgenson responded he would adjust the plat to provide the New School with seventy feet of frontage. Ms. Little remarked there was not a frontage requirement in an R -O zone. In response to a comment from Ms. Little, Mr. Jorgenson stated the owners were not going to develop the whole subdivision at once. He remarked the staff required building sethacks comply with the use unit developed on the lot - adding he had provided a 25 foot building setback and utility easement which complied with code only if residential units were developed. Mr. Conklin corrected Mr. Jorgenson - pointing out the building setback in R -O was 30, not 25 feet. He stated Mr. Jorgenson needed to correct General Note # 2 on the plat to read: "If entirely residential development - sidewalks on one side" rather than "Any residential development - sidewalks on one side". Mr. Conklin requested streets names and pointed out the Planning Director's request that the main street be named Sunbndge, subject to review by Jim Johnson. Mr. Allred confirmed the development would connect Villa Blvd and Gregg St. Mr. Jorgenson stated if the development were done in phases, he would investigate the possibility of the route to the south proposed by Ms. Little. Mr. Conklin stated dimensions for lots 1, 20, 2, and 3 were missing. • Mr. Jorgenson stated he had platted a drainage easement on the north side of the property and IN1 • Subdivision Committee December 2, 1993 Page 5 a separate 15 foot utility easement in addition to alleviate the drainage problem - pnmanly drainage on the southwest corner of Villa Mobile Home Park which then turns in a north direction - adding he would accommodate the drainage with the development of Phase II of Lakeside Village Apartments. Mr. Bunn remarked there was no distinct drainage path off of Villa Blvd north of Braum's - adding it might not be possible to effect the drainage until it drained off the ANL property adjacent to the southwest corner of Sunbndge Center. Ms. Little stated she anticipated some cooperation between the two property owners. She explained Andy Calloway had, at Plat Review, raised a question about an easement at the rear of the mobile home park - adding the offsite easement needed to be noted on the plat. Mr. Bunn stated he had discussed with Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent, problems which would arise from bringing the proposed road in at a right angle where Villa Blvd connects with Hwy 71. He remarked a tie-in between Villa and Sunbridge closer to College Av e. may create traffic problems since there might not be sufficient room for cars turning left off of Villa on to Sunbridge. • Mr. Allred remarked drivers were using Braum's parking lot as a thoroughfare. Ms. Little stated if the plat were forwarded as a preliminary plat without phasing, the staff and Planning Commission would waive the right to effect the route of the street. In answer to a question from Mr. Bunn, Mr. Jorgenson stated development would occur first on the west half of the property - suggesting the plat, in its entirely, would not be brought through without a recommendation from the staff as to the route of the proposed tie-in to Villa Blvd. Mr. Allred suggested phasing the development at the engineer's discretion - adding the Committee would forward phase I and table phase II until the tie-in issue was resolved to the satisfaction of City staff. There was a discussion of how to effectively phase the development. There was discussion about drawing a line between lots 15, 16, and 6 and lots 7, 13 , and 14 and the New School. Mr. Allred confirmed the existing drive, providing the New School with access, would not be removed unless a cul-de-sac were provided for ingress/egress. • • • Subdivision Committee December 2, 1993 Page 6 MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to forward the plat the Planning Commission subject to the identification of Phase I and Phase II and staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. • • • Subdivision Committee December 2, 1993 Page 7 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES INT. - 1901 BORICK DRIVE The next item on the agenda was a large scale development for Superior Industries presented by Leonard Messina, the Warrior Group Ltd., on behalf of Superior Industries International for property located at 1901 Borick Drive. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial, and contains 35.99 acres. Mr. Conklin had no comments. Mr. Bunn had no comments. Ms. Little confirmed a Tree Preservation Plan had been submitted. Mr. Pummill confirmed the item would appear on the consent agenda. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. )N8 r • Subdivision Committee December 2, 1993 Page 8 PRELIMINARY PLAT - WOODSIDE ADDITION HAROLD JOHNSON - W. SIDE OF SHILOH DR., S. OF 15TH ST. The next item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for Woodside Addition presented by Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, on behalf of Harold Johnson for property located on the west side of Shiloh Drive, south of 15th Street The property is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural, and is being petitioned to be rezoned R-1 (proposed R93-54), Low Density Residential. This plat contains 11.67 acres with 44 lots. Ms. Little explained to the Committee the developer had restricted access for lots 1, 36, 22, and 23 to interior streets; however, lots 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 21 would access, as currently platted, onto Shiloh Drive - adding the only other alternative was to provide additional cul-de-sacs or U -streets. In answer to a question from Mr. Conklin pertaining to the notation of a water line on the plat, Mr. Bunn remarked once a utility easement for the water line was acquired it would need to be shown on the final plat. • Ms. Little requested the engineer note on the preliminary plat the location of the proposed easement. Mr. Jones pointed out the sewer line was not currently indicated on the plat but would be noted. Mr. Conklin asked if adjoining property owners Dale and Leveta Hulet and Keith H. Taylor had access to Shiloh Dnve or a local street. Mr. Jones replied he was not sure. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred pertaining to the need for an ingress/egress to the west, Mr. Conk1m stated he was in the process of determining if one would be required to serve adjacent property owners - adding he was concerned about Stanley P. Johnson as well. Mr. Conklin stated Mr. Jones needed to note on the plat the existing 3 Phase overhead service as requested at Plat Review by Floyd Cantrell, Ozarks Electric. He added Mr. Jones needed to note the water line as being a 12 inch, not a 15 inch, line. Ms. Little confirmed the property was 11. 67 acres - pointing out the development contained the maximum number of lots allowed in an R-1 zone. Mr. Allred suggested the possibility that lots accessing onto Shiloh Drive share a curb • cut/driveway. • • • Subdivision Committee December 2, 1993 Page 9 Ms. Little remarked the small lot size was conducive to a shared drive - adding it was not a requirement but would need to be noted on the plat in order for permits to be issued specifying a shared drive. She requested Mr. Conklin confirmed the shared drives would not require a waiver, and informed the engineer curb cuts onto Shiloh Drive would have to be approved by the State Highway Department. Mr. Bunn remarked due to the topography of the site the streets might be subject to restrictions - a maximum street slope in addition to a distance requirement for streets m excess of a 15% slope. Mr. Bunn stated 15% was the maximum allowable slope and a 300 foot distance limit - adding the north street appeared fine but the south street, Highpoint Drive, might require deeper cuts. Mr. Bunn suggested Mr. Jones coordinate his development with the development to the west. Mr. Jones remarked it might be necessary to follow the contours more closely. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. • • Subdivision Committee December 2, 1993 Page 10 PRELIMINARY PLAT - THE MASTERS WRIGHT-PENSE, INC. - S. OF COUNTRY CLUB DR., E. OF S. COLLEGE The next item was a preliminary plat for The Masters presented by Bill Rudasill, WBR Engmeenng Associates, on behalf of Wright-Pense Inc., for property located south of Country Club Dnve, east of South College. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 20.5 acres with 15 lots. Ms Little explained a settlement offered had been presented to the City Council two days earlier in which the residents of Country Club Hill proposed to agree not to oppose the development of the Masters if, as a condition of additional development, the City would commit, not guarantee, that no additional development be approved without improvements to the water supply system and 24th street - specifically a widening to a width of 30 feet to Fairway Lane, if no other access is provided. If the City were to commit, she explained the staff recommendation was that the City not commit to widening to Fairway Lane - remarking the rationale for not widening 24th to Fairway Lane was that the Planning Commission concern was to provide a means for emergency velucles to access the homes, which would be accomplished without widening 24th the total distance to Fairway Lane. Mr. Pummill commented the Masters play should be reviewed according to its merit, not future development. Mr. Bunn remarked the settlement didn't relate to Planning Commission approval or disapproval, rather the possibility of opposition. Mr. Allred stated he felt the Country Club Hill residents were asking the Planning Commission to regulate development according to their own terms rather than City ordinance. He suggested the Committee review the plat on its own merit - adding any settlement offer was between all parties involved and the City's legal staff. Mr. Conklin stated the developer would need to obtain a waiver for the length of the cul-de- sac, Fairway Lane. He added the developer had requested to be able to place sidewalks 1 foot, rather than 4, from the curb due to terrain considerations; however, sidewalks would be provided on both sides to the street - which was not required. Mr. Reynolds confirmed a Tree Preservation Plan had been submitted. Mr. Allred confirmed future access would be provided at the end of the cul-de-sac - adding that anticipating future development was the best way to provide adequate ingress/egress • Mr. Rudasill explained both available routes for the extension of Fairway Lane were too cost - I 10 • • • Subdivision Committee December 2, 1993 Page 11 prohibitive to be feasible - adding as currently platted, access alleviated the need for a private easement while providing a landscape buffer. Mr. Allred asked if the subdivision covenants would prohibit lotsphts - remarking that would be a concern of surrounding neighbors. Mr. Wright replied lot splits had been prohibited in the previous covenants Mr. Conklin requested Mr. Rudasill make the intersection of Double Eagle Place and Fairway Lane a 90 degree angle and requested access to lots 1 and 15 be restricted to mtenor streets. Mr. Rudasill commented he had not noted on the plat the additional 5 feet of right-of-way requested at Plat Review. Mr. Bunn stated drainage from lot to lot was critical - creating the potential for problems between lot owners. Mr. Rudasill remarked he would provide a collection system - a ditch or pipes - along the east side of the development - adding he had also provided drainage easements between potentially effected lots to collect water flow from a ditch along the south line of the property. Mr. Bunn commented once lawns were put in, the run-off factor for each lot would decrease - adding this was probably more true with 15 lots than the original 50. Mr. Bunn explained that, with regard to water service, the original recommendation had restncted development beyond 18 lots, and the current staff recommendation was to restrict development to 15 lots; however, building permits would not be prohibited for outlots. Mr. Reynolds stated he was satisfied with the concept. Mr. Pummill remarked the engineer's previous studies on drainage and traffic should be included in the revised Masters file. Ms. Little requested the engineer provide common property corners to better facilitate the siting of homes on the lots. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. • • • Subdivision Committee December 2, 1993 Page 12 FINAL PLAT - STERLING ESTATES STERLING INVESTMENTS, LTD. - W. SIDE OF CROSSOVER, S. OF ZION The final item on the agenda was a final plat for Sterling Estates presented by David Cox, Engineering Services, Inc., on behalf of Sterling Investments, Ltd., for property located on the west side of Crossover, south of Zion Road. The property is R-1, Low Density Residential, and R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 6.85 acres with 15 lots. Mr. Cox explained he and Mr. Bunn had discussed the extension of the water line to service a hydrant and stated he was having difficulty justifying to the developers the relocation of the hydrant. Mr. Bunn explained there was an existing hydrant at the corner of Hillside Terrace and Valerie Drive which did not meet the distance requirements - each lot within 400 feet of the hydrant - for lot 13 - adding the interior lots were serviced by a hydrant at the entrance of the subdivision. He stated the owners had proposed to extend a six inch water line to serve the relocated hydrant to the property line between lots 14 and 15 - remarking this was the maximum distance the developer was required to extend the water line. Mr. Bunn added property owners to the east and south were concerned about fire protection and pointed out to them the relocated hydrant would be closer to them - remarking the City couldn't require the developer to extend the water line to serve adjacent property owners. He explained he would research the possibility of extending the water line to the south side of lot 13 and place a hydrant. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred pertaining to cost-sharing the extension of the line, Mr. Bunn remarked he would look into sharing to cost with adjacent property owners - adding he did not know if the City had the money to do so. Mr. Cox stated two home adjacent to the property desired fire protection. Mr. Allred stated he felt homeowners should participate financially in the improvement of their fire protection, stating the Planning Commission could recommend the City and the homeowners share the cost equally of the water line and hydrant if the homeowners so desired. Mr. Pummill commented the improved fire protection of adjacent property owners was not a conditional of approval for Sterling Estates. Mr. Cox stated Mickey Jackson had indicated he could run hoses from the location of the existing hydrant to the two property owners. • • • Subdivision Committee December 2, 1993 Page 13 MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission subject to staff comments. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.