Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-04-14 - MinutesMINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, April 14, 19941 at 10:30 a.m., in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kenneth Pummill and Tom Suchecki OTHERS PRESENT: Don Bunn, Mandy Bunch, Tim Conklin, Glenn Sower, G. A. Sexton, and Sharon Langley LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - MOLLY COURT TOWNHOMES GLENN SOWDER - S OF NORTH STREET, W OF GREGG The first item was a large scale development for Molly Court Townhomes submitted by Glenn Sowder for property located south of North Street, west of Gregg Avenue. The property contains 2.89 acres and is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Conklin explained the Master Street Plan showed Gregg Avenue as a minor arterial which required more right-of-way than the City presently had. He stated staff had requested additional right-of-way. He pointed out Mr. Sowder had prepared two plats, one granting the right-of-way and the other not showing the additional right-of-way. Mr. Sowder stated he needed parking for the development, pointing out he had included quite a bit of green space which he did not want to convert to parking areas. He advised he wanted to use the area in contention for parking until Gregg Street was widened down to Prospect. He stated at that time the City could take the right-of-way with eminent domain. He further stated that, if he was not allowed to use the right-of-way for parking, he would have 16 units with only 18 parking spaces adjacent to the units. He noted 8 of those spaces would be handicap spaces. In response to a question from Mr. Pummill, Mr. Conklin advised it was his understanding that, if the City acquired the property by eminent domain, they would have to purchase the property. Mr. Sowder stated had only received North Street. He advised he did not could be using it he did not believe it would be very much money. He stated he $13,000 for additional right-of-way along the entire block of questioned whether Gregg Street would ever be widened. He believe the property should be taken off the tax roll when he for parking. Mr. Pummill asked if they could allow the parking but, at such time that Gregg was widened, the right-of-way would revert to the City. Mr. Conklin stated he would have to talk to the City Attorney. Mr. Sowder stated he had also been told he would have to pay to bring Gregg Street up to city standards, including the widening and installing new curb. He stated he wanted to use the land as it presently existed. He stated he would cost $10,000 to $20,000 to widen the street and install curbs. He further advised he believed widening the street at that point would create a safety hazard since the street would be widened for only one block, creating a 7 foot jog in the street. Mr. Conklin advised the City was allowed, by subdivision regulations, to require additional right-of-way to be dedicated and improvements to a street when adjoined by the development. Mr. Sowder stated he had talked to the City Attorney who agreed with Mr. Conklin but contended they had to see if it was fair and practicable. • • • Subdivision Committee April 14, 1994 Page 2 Mr. Suchecki agreed with Mr. Sowder that he needed the parking spaces. Mr. Conklin agreed parking was required; he recommended parking could be put adjacent to lot 83. Mr. Sowder stated he planned on making that area a mini -park with picnic tables. he further noted he was concerned that, if he removed his parking spaces and widened the street, they would end up having parking on Gregg Avenue. Mr. Conklin stated staff did want to see more parking. He advised 16 units would require 32 parking spaces. Mr. Sowder pointed out he to remove the spaces along buildings where they were In response to a comment interior sidewalks to the had an excess number of parking spaces but, if he had Gregg, the other spaces would not be convenient to the needed. from Mr. Conklin, Mr. Sowder advised there would be parking areas, green areas, etc. Mr. Sowder reiterated his requests: improvements to Gregg Street be postponed until the entire street was improved; that he be allowed to use the requested right-of-way as parking until such time as Gregg Street was widened. Mr. Suchecki asked if a Bill of Assurance would be required. Mr. Bunn advised a contract taking a lien on the property, a Bill of Assurance, or money in escrow. Mr. Sowder advised he would prefer a Bill of Assurance. Mr. Conklin pointed out Bills of Assurance were much more difficult to enforce. Mr. Sowder advised he was spending approximately two million dollars on the development and did not have an extra $10,000 or $20,000 to put in an escrow account. Mr. Pummill agreed it would be dangerous to widen only one block of Gregg Avenue. Mr. Bunn also agreed. He stated he did not believe they would require improvements to be made at this time but, he would recommend some type of assurance that the developer would be responsible for making such improvements at a later date. Mr. Suchecki suggested making a lien on the property as a part of the Bill of Assurance. Mr. Bunn explained a lien was a part of the Bill of Assurance. Mr. Suchecki advised he would be in favor of allowing Mr. Sowder to use the right-of-way as long as he offered a Bill of Assurance that, upon call of the City, he would dedicate the right-of-way to the city. Mr. Conklin asked if the Bill of Assurance would include improvements to Gregg Street. Mr. Pummill agreed Mr. Sowder should be allowed to use the right-of-way for parking until it was needed by the City. He advised he would not like to remove the green space in order to put in parking. • Subdivision Committee April 14, 1994 Page 3 Mr. Bunn advised he believed the right-of-way should be dedicated now rather than waiting until the City decided to widen Gregg. Mr. Sowder advised the utility companies did not want the street widened due to the location of existing lines. Mr. Bunn stated he believed Mr. Sowder needed to do further work on the location of the utility lines, explaining he was concerned with the way the lines ran between the buildings. Mr. Sowder advised he would work with the Engineering Department on the location of the lines. • • Mr. Bunn further advised the city did require a separate easement plat to be filed with the County after the large scale development was approved by the Planning Commission. In response to a question from Mr. Conklin, Mr. Sowder advised he would move the dumpsters to the interior of the site. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to forward the large scale to the full Planning Commission. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. • Subdivision Committee April 14, 1994 Page 4 • • SIDEWALK WAIVER G. A. SEXTON - 912 HALL STREET Mr. Conklin advised the next item was a request for a sidewalk waiver submitted by G. A. Sexton for property located at 912 Hall Street. Mr. Sexton advised there were no other sidewalks or curb and gutter on the east side of Hall Street. He stated he would be willing to sign a Bill of Assurance to install a sidewalk whenever other properties along Hall Street installed sidewalks or whenever the city put in curb and gutter. Mr. Conklin advised the staff was not opposed to the waiver. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to grant a sidewalk waiver for 912 Hall Street. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. • • • Subdivision Committee April 14, 1994 Page 5 WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT 41 CARL LEDBETTER, WEST OF HILLSIDE, SOUTH OF ZION Mr. Bunn advised this matter had been approved at the last Planning Commission meeting as an item on the consent agenda. He stated he had intended to remove it from the consent agenda but had failed to do so. He explained he had recommended the lot split for approval subject to a final determination at the time of Large Scale Development for off-site improvements to Hillside Terrace. He further explained that, when the subject property had been rezoned, there was a requirement that no access would be allowed to Hillside Terrace by those property owners. He further noted it was staff's opinion that, if the property owners were barred by a Bill of Assurance from accessing Hillside Terrace, it would be difficult to require off-site improvements to the roadway. He advised he would be presenting this matter to the entire Planning Commission at their next meeting for a determination regarding the off-site improvements. • • • Subdivision Committee April 14, 1994 Page 6 PRELIMINARY PLAT - JACKSON PLACE Emmimirim Mr. Milholland advised the City Council had returned the plat to the Planning Commission with instructions to review three items: storm drainage, sanitary sewer and park fees. Mr. Bunn stated there had been several issues, most of which would have been answered in the course of review of plans. He advised some of the issues related to the location of sewers, possible channel improvements, possible relocation of the channel, etc. He further stated the other issue dealt with infiltration of the inflow. He explained the City would make improvements eliminating inflow which would offset the added domestic flow generated by the subdivision. Mr. Milholland stated he had talked with the City Attorney, Jerry Rose who had advised it was his opinion that the developer had the option as to provide land or money in lieu of land for greenspace fees. Mr. Conklin advised that, due to the way the ordinance was currently written, Mr. Milholland was correct. He added the ordinance was being re -written so it would not be the developer's option. Mr. Milholland informed the Committee the subdivision did meet city code and they were not asking for any waivers. He further advised they were paying money in lieu of land and also offered a trail. In response to a question from Mr. Pummill, Mr. Conklin explained that, while the Parks Board wanted money and the developer wanted to pay money, the City Council had wanted land. Mr. Milholland reiterated the subdivision was meeting city code. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.