Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-13 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on June 13, 1996 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBER PRESENT: Jerry Allred, Bob Reynolds, and Gary Head STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Dawn Thomas, Janet Johns, and Jim Beavers LS96-17 ROBERT DAUGHERTY 1507 TRUCKERS DRIVE The first item on the agenda was the lot split submitted by Thompson Consulting Engineers on behalf of Robert Daugherty for property located at 1507 Trucker's Drive, west of Garland Avenue and south of Trucker's Drive. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately 10.23 acres. The request is for a total of two lots. Staff recommended the Subdivision Committee approve the lot split subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction of a 5' sidewalk along Highway 112. 2. File marked copy of a deed restriction for the remaining tract (8.067 acres),the improvements to Truckers Drive including drainage, sidewalk, and extension of the 8" water main to the end of Truckers Drive with fire hydrants subject to further development or split of property. • 3. Dedication of an additional 5' of right of way for a total of 30' south of Trucker's Drive. A file marked copy of the right of way deed must be forwarded to the Planning office. Discussion ensued regarding the location of the sidewalk and Mr. Thompson expressed concern regarding turning radius and the location of the proposed sidewalk. Mr. Beavers inquired as to whether the developer would required to make improvements to Truckers Drive at this time and Ms. Little stated a deed restriction was requested to ensure improvements at a later time. Mr. Allred stated the conditions of approval needed to be signed by the petitioner and returned to the Planning office by Tuesday, June 18 at 5:00 p.m. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve the lot split subject to the conditions of approval which need to be signed and returned to the Planning office by Tuesday, June 18, 1996. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 13, 1996 Page 2 LS96-18 TIMOTHY !CLINGER 302 WEST MOUNTAIN ST The next item on the agenda was the lot split for Timothy Klinger for property located at 301 West Mountain Street, north of Rock Street, west of Locust Street and south of Mountain Street. The property is zoned R -O and contains approximately 0.60 acres. The request is for a total of two lots. Staff recommended that the Subdivision Committee approve the lot split subject to the following conditions of approval: File marked copy of a deed dedicating sufficient right of way on Rock Street, Locust Street, and Mountain Street to meet one half of the Master Street Plan requirement. 2. Deed restriction to be filed at the county stating that the sidewalk will be required to be constructed on Rock Street at the time Tract "B" is developed. 3. Addition of plat page #523 to survey Regarding the right of way conditions, Ms. Little noted that a total right of way of 35' from the centerline had dedicated and the MSP only required 30' from the centerline. She stated staff could work that out subsequent to this meeting. Ms. Little stated that if the tract is developed residentially a $300 park fee would be required. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve the lot split subject to conditions of approval. Mr: Allred seconded the motion. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 13, 1996 Page 3 LSD96-23 FAYETTEVILLE SENIOR CENTER AREA AGENCY ON AGING - 901 S COLLEGE The next item on the agenda was the large scale development submitted by Engineering Design Associates, P.A. on behalf of the Area Agency on Aging for property located at 901 S. College, south of 7th Street and west of College Avenue. The property is zoned R-2 and contains approximately 6.855 acres. Staff recommended that the Subdivision Committee forward the large scale development request to the Planning Commission subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Subject to the Planning Commission's approval of a conditional use request. 2. The plat should reflect the dimension of S. College from the centerline. 3. Submission of an elevation drawing of the entry structure. 4. Retaining wall setback 18" from the main entry. Ms. Little stated this project was being developed on the tract of land next to Walker Park which the City acquired. She stated the site was heavily wooded and there was an existing structure on the premise which would be retained and used as office space. She stated a conditional use was required since the current zoned was R-2. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to forward the large scale development request to the Planning Commission subject to the conditions of approval. Mr Allred seconded the motion. • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 13, 1996 Page 4 LSD96-25 GLENNWOOD SHOPPING CENTER DON COZART/KEITH CEARLEY - SE CRN HWY 45 & 265 The next item on the agenda was the large scale development for Glennwood Shopping Center submitted by CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Don Cozart and Keith Cearley for property located at the SE corner of Highway 45 and Highway 265. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately 14.74 acres. Staff recommended that the large scale development be forward to the Planning Commission subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Subject to agreement for joint access. 2. Subject to joint utility agreement. 3. Subject to approval of the lot splits in conjunction with the large scale development. 4. All conditions of approval associated with the 1994 large scale development request. 5. Significant changes to the plat will be subject to further large scale development submission. 6. Subject to screening of all roof mounted equipment. • 7. Subject to all plat review comments. LS96-19, LS96-20, LS96-21, LS96-22, LS96-23, LS96-24 GLENNWOOD SHOPPING CENTER - DON COZART/KEITH CEARLEY - SE CRN HWY 45 & 265 These items were included for consideration and discussion with the large scale development for Glennwood Shopping Center. The lot split requests were submitted by CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Don Cozart and Keith Cearley for property located at the southeast corner of Highways 45 and 265. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately 14.74 acres. The request is for six splits which will create a total of eight lots. This project was approved as a concurrent plat in order to divide the property into two tracts. Ms. Little stated the subject tract had been through large scale development review in 1994 and that all drainage issues, building locations, and all improvements as conditions of approval. The stated there was a total of 8 lots being created. She stated the conditions of approval in 1994 as well as the new conditions of approval would be applicable and subsequent to approval of the 1996 large scale development request, if any significant changes occur from this plat, those would be brought back as separate large scale development. She noted there were significant drainage issues making it necessary to deal with that as one large scale development request. Discussion ensued regarding the lot split tracts being less than one acre and Mr. Allred stated that the record should reflect that the developer was in agreement to bring any significant changes back to the Planning Commission in separate large scale development requests. Mr. Allred noted that the conditions of approval associated with the 1994 approval included the following: 1. Construction of a sound dampening wall. • 2. No lighting spill into the adjoining residential zone. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 13, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Cozart assured the committee that no lighting spill would be allowed Mr. Reynold inquired as to whether or not the HVAC would be located on the roof and Mr. Cozart stated that would be a decision by the architect and Ms. Little stated it would be required to be screened. MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the lot splits subject to conditions of approval, staff comments, and provided that if significant changes occur the created tracts would be subject to large scale development approval. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to forward the large scale development to the Planning Commission subject to the conditions of approval and staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 13, 1996 Page 6 LSD96-24 FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1 - 1001 STONE The next item on the agenda was the large scale development for the Fayetteville Public School Administration Building submitted by Hailey / Amirmoez & Associates on behalf of Fayetteville Public School District No. 1 for property located at 1001 Stone Street, north of Stone Street, west of Buchanan Street. The property is zoned P-1 and contains approximately 3.71 acres. Ms. Little stated the School District was proposing an addition to the existing structure. She stated there were a couple of issues which needed to be resolved Staff recommended that the large scale development be forwarded to the Planning Commission subject to the following conditions: L Construction of Parking in accordance with the parking lot ordinance. 2. Installation of the fire hydrant as shown at intersection of the eastern drive and Stone Street. 3. Additional coordination with Perry Franklin to resolve sight distance problems at the entry prior to issuance of any building permits. Discussion ensued regarding the required number of parking spaces. Ms. Little stated the parking was estimated a 1 space per 500' square feet of classroom spaces. She stated the office space should be calculated at 1 space per 300' square feet. She stated 40 spaces were currently being proposed including the three handicapped spaces and the 15 gravel spaces. She stated there were 36 employees and only 40 space provided. She stated staff was requesting information regarding square footage in order to better determine if the parking requirements were being met. Ms. Little requested a letter delineating the square footage amounts of classroom space and office space. Further, she stated interior and exterior landscaping of the parking lot would be required. Discussion ensued regarding the existing gravel parking lot. Ms. Little encouraged that the lot be paved but that the ordinance provides that the lot be in compliance that portion of the parking in proportion to the percentage being improved. Ms. Amirmoez stated if the gravel lot was required to be paved as a part of this large scale development, she would petition for a variance. Further, she stated the gravel lot would be improved as a part of a future large scale development on Harmon Field. She expressed concern regarding the cost factors associated with improving the gravel lot. She contended that they were making improvements to the parking lot by providing curb and guttering and since they were not intending to make improvements to the section of the tract at this time and the lot would only be used by employees, they would request that it be improved at a subsequent time. Ms. Little requested that for the waiver request, a letter delineating the cost factors associated with improvement to the lot in order for the Planning Commission to consider that information. Ms. Little requested the fire hydrant as shown on Stone Street. She requested additional coordination with Mr. Franklin regarding his concerns with the entry way and site distance. Mr. Beavers stated they would recommend that the intersection be improved to provide adequate site distance in connection with this large scale. He stated the grade might require a retaining wall. Discussion ensued and Mr. Beavers stated it would be required as a part of this large scale. Ms. Amirmoez stated she had spoken with Mr. Franklin had they had agreed that the traffic would no longer loop • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 13, 1996 Page 7 around the building which would serve to reduce the traffic and would only be used for the fifteen employees using the parking lot. She stated public access would be limited by a control gate. She stated that if that was not agreeable she would request a variance on that as well. She stated the maintenance building would be removed and additional parking would be provided. Mr. Allred stated the standard was to allow only dust free parking lots. Regarding the entrance, Ms. Little commented that no building permit would not be issued until condition number three was resolved. She stated that if the plan included a gate for the lot, it should be installed 25' back from the approach so that the maintenance trucks did not stick out into the street. She further stated that the current number of parking spaces in the area be left so that the revenues generated for the various school groups using those spaces for game day parking would not be cut back. Mr. Allred requested that the parking issues be resolved by Tuesday, June 18. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to forward the large scale development to the Planning Commission provided the parking issue is resolved and subject to the conditions of approval. Mr. Allred seconded the motion and noted that waivers were being requested and additional information had been requested. Ms. Amirmoez stated that due to financial constrains they would not be able to provide the curb and gutter on the connecting drive as shown on the plat. Ms. Little stated that anything shown on the plat would be required as part of the approval of same. Ms. Amirmoez stated they would need a waiver regarding that issue as well and Mr. Beavers stated that should be at the determination of Mr. Milholland and included and resolved as a part of the final drainage and grading plan. Mr. Beavers noted that the section of Township to Vandergriff was in serious condition and since it is a private drive and was engineered by Mr. Milholland, he requested that they contact the necessary people to repair it. 6,9 • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 13, 1996 Page 8 CP96-3 OVERCREST COURT PUD A/K/A AMBERCREST COURT PUD MTM OF EL DORADO LLC - E OF OLD WIRE, W OF OVERCREST The next item on the agenda was the concept plat for Overcrest Court, A Planned Unit Development aka Ambercrest Court submitted by Houses, Inc on behalf of MTM of El Dorado, LLC for property located east of Old Wire Road and west of Overcrest Street. The property is zoned R-1 and contains approximately 12.87 acres. The request is for a planned unit development with a total of 61 Lots. Mr. House presented a model of the proposed development. Ms. Little requested that plat page 370 be added to the plat title block. Further, she noted that there would not be a determination made on the proposal at this stage and this was presented for information and feedback/comments only. Mr. Beavers noted that no drainage report is required in connection with a concept plat but he commented that based on the past few detention ponds designed by Mr. Carter, the proposed pond is inadequate and a large area for detention should be designated. Mr. Allred requested that the model be taken out of the room and that Mr. House discuss this proposal with the many concerned neighbors present at the meeting. Ms. Zotti expressed concern regarding the proposed diamond shaped (+) turnaround would not be adequate for their waste pickup trucks. She further stated that a 40' radius (80' diameter) was the minimum. Ms. Little noted that the developer was proposing alternatives to curb side waste pickup. She stated they were exploring options of providing dumpsters in centralized locations and that while she did not oppose dumpsters, it was her experience that down the road, the residents would prefer to have curb side waste pickup and recycling. Mr. House presented his proposal and stated the concept was to provide quality smaller homes with small yards Mr. Allred stated instead of the diamond shaped (4) a standard 40' culdesac should be included. Discussion ensued regarding allowing dumpsters. Mr. Head suggested that since this proposal was a PUD, the city was not responsible for garbage pickup and that perhaps they could contract with an outside source for garbage pickup. Mr. Allred stated the diamonds could be enlarged to accommodate the City's sanitation trucks. Mr. House stated they preferred the diamond shape because he was marketing the area as courts. Ray Greenwood, a resident on Elmwood, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed concern regarding the proximity of the proposed pavilion to his property and the affect the noise and nuisance would have on his property. He expressed concern regarding the drainage and noted that there were underground springs in the area which might compound drainage problems. He objected to the proposed density and the private street entering the property from Old Wire. Ms. Greenwood expressed concern regarding security and law enforcement and who would be responsible for law enforcement within the PUD. Discussion ensued regarding the density and what would be allowed under the ordinance. Ms. Little stated that the planned unit developments encouraged clustering and provided for density bonuses based on greenspace preservation. Discussion ensued and Mr. Allred stated the project is allowed under the PUD ordinance. • Mr. House compared this proposal to the Harbor Meadow subdivision in Springdale. Ms. Little requested density and amenity information regarding that subdivision. Discussion ensued. • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 13, 1996 Page 9 Mr. House addressed the pavilion location issue and offered to move it away from the Greenwood's property and perhaps reduce the size. Regarding drainage, Mr. House stated he would defer comment until the engineer was present. Mr. Beaver's stated the drainage ordinance required that the post development flow may not exceed the predevelopment flow. He noted that the developer could not be required to improve any of the existing drainage. He stated detention ponds would be required. Discussion ensued regarding the effect a detention pond would have on the downward pressure of water to the hard pan and the effect it would have on increasing the underground water flow of the underground springs and Mr. Beavers stated that information would need to be obtained from a geologist but it was his opinion that it would not have a great effect. Intense discussion ensued. Mr. House stated he would provide strict protective covenants which would provide a legal fund for the property owners association to provide for the enforcement of those covenants. He stated the covenants would address allowed uses of the pavilion and noise level associated with those uses. Further, he stated he would consider allowing the immediate properties with out a fee to be included in the property owners association providing them with a vote. Further discussion ensued regarding the density. Mr. Chuck Chaffin, a resident on Overcrest, expressed concern regarding the lot size. Mr. Greenwood expressed further concern regarding the elevation of the property compared to his property and the • privacy which he would lose. • Dr. William Bailey stated his property would back up to five houses and he expressed concern regarding the loss of privacy and solar access. Mr. Allred stated the minimum lot size in any zone was 8,000 square feet. Ms. Little noted that if the subject tract developed at the R-1 density there would not be any greenspace buffering. She explained the PUD ordinance greenspace requirements and the density bonus. Mr. Head inquired as to the marketing plan and price range and Mr. House presented a prospectus and stated that the price range was in the $90,000 to $140,000. Mr. House stated the units would all be owner occupied. He stated his company would develop the property and a design standard would be incorporated in the protective covenants. Discussion ensued regarding construction materials and Mr. House stated they would have traditional materials. Ms. Little stated the survey was incorrect and the entrance from Hackberry is a separate lot and in order for that access the lot must be purchased. Discussion ensued regarding the access to Amber Drive. Mr. Ken Scott, a resident on Amber, was present earlier but had to leave. Mr. Allred noted that Amber was not a permanent culdesac. Ms. Little inquired if the residents along Amber had been notified and Mr. House stated he notified residents 100' along Amber. Mr. Allred inquired if they proposed a gated community and Mr. House stated it would not be gated. Ms. Little noted the developer had used techniques to slow and calm traffic including curveliner street design with a roundabout (or square) in the middle. She stated this was important in providing a connection from Mission 0I • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 13, 1996 Page 10 Boulevard to Old Wire without it being a cut through street. Mr. Cunningham, a concerned resident, inquired regarding the notification requirements and Ms. Little explained same. He expressed concern regarding drainage, shared garages, and density. Dr. Bailey noted there were 61 lots and 90 proposed buildings and Mr. House responded to the shared garage concern by stating that no homes would be connected and if the shared garage presented problems they would consider removing same. Discussion ensued. Discussion ensued regarding traffic and connectivity issues. Ms. Little noted that two entrances would be provided from the project. Ms. Little stated the planned unit developments were a good concept because the provided greenspace buffering and are somewhat more dense providing strong neighborhood interaction. She encouraged the neighbors to embrace new ideas such as this proposal. Discussion ensued regarding a bridge spanning the ditch and the standards applicable to same. Mr. Beavers stated it would be designed to the ASHTO standards. In response to a statement made by Mr. Allred, Ms Little stated the greenspace requirement on any PUD was 30%. She read the ordinance as follows: • "The dwelling unit density shall be density allowed in the zoning district in which the PUD is being planned...open space provision...if he gives 35% of the open space area, the permitted units per acre if 7.5." • She clarified that the proposal was much Tess density than would be allowed under the PUD ordinance. Mr. House noted that the current density of the proposal project was 4.7 units per acre which was not much more than the R-1 density (4 units per acre ) Ms. Little requested the total greenspace acreage be calculated and formatted into a chart. Mr. House estimated the greenspace to be 4.9 acres. Discussion ensued regarding the pavilion and what it might be used for. Mr. House agreed to move the greenspace away from the property line. Discussion ensued regarding tree preservation and erecting fences to screening the existing neighborhood from the proposed development. Ms. Little stated 25% of the trees must be preserved under the ordinance. Further discussion ensued regarding tree replacement. Glen Sowder, a local developer, spoke in support of the proposed project. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the jogging path would be paved and lighted. Mr. House stated it would be owned in common and therefore would be greenspace and no lights had been proposed. Ms. Little discouraged lighting of the jogging path. Mr. Cunningham inquired who the developer was Mr. House stated his company, Houses, Inc was in partnership with John Meyer, from Louisiana, who owns the property. Ms. Carol Jones, a concerned resident, inquired regarding how she could obtain more information on planned unit development and Ms. Little invited her to come to the Planning office and staff would be glad to assist her. Ms. Jones inquired as to how the neighbors could protect themselves against promises from the developer not being fulfilled. Ms. Little explained uses by right for the developer to develop the property. She explained the concept of • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 13, 1996 Page 11 PUD which is integrated with zoning and is a flexible planning tool allowing the required minimums to be condensed them as long as greenspace is given as a whole. She stated the R-1 zone allowed four units per acre with 30% greenspace. She stated if the developer was willing to give the 35% greenspace as a whole, he could increase the density to 7.5 units per acre. Ms. Jones further expressed concern regarding traffic and the fact that the location of her home to the elementary school skewed the traffic pattern. She stated that in the summer, the traffic decreased but in the winter it increased significantly. Mr. Chaffin echoed Ms. Jones' concerns. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed entries. Ms. Little noted that discussion consensus was to keep both Amber and Hackberry open as well as the private lane. Ms. Little noted the public access to this property is from Amber. She stated the access to Hackberry would require the purchase of a lot. She stated staff recommended the access to the proposed development from both Amber and Hackberry. Regarding the private drive, Ms. Little stated she would discuss that with the developer. She inquired if Mr. House had included the adjoining property owners along the private lane and Mr. House responded that he had notified them. Mr. Reynolds stated he was familiar with Mr. House's work and he expressed confidence in the quality of same. Ms. Jones, residing at 1943 Amber, expressed concern regarding drainage and the 100 year flood plain. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little stated the flood in 1982 (1984?) was an unusual event. Mr. Fred Alderidge, residing on Overcrest, expressed concern regarding the traffic and the fact that the street was not a residential street anymore. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to forward the concept plat to the Planning Commission for discussion only. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 13, 1996 Page 12 PP96-5 HERITAGE VILLAGE, PH II C&B LAND & CATTLE CO - N OF HWY 16, E OF 59TH The next item on the agenda was the preliminary plat for Heritage Village, Phase 11 submitted by Development Consultants, LLC on behalf of C&B Land and Cattle for property located north of Highway 16 and east of 59th Avenue. The property is zoned R-1.5 and contains approximately 17.36 acres; 24 single family lots and 23 duplex lots are proposed. Staff recommended that the preliminary plat be forwarded to the Planning Commission subject to the following conditions of approval: I. Resolution of the density issue which was stated that the property would be developed as single family during the rezoning approval process. 2. Resolution of the drainage easement location between lots 145 and 146 and a note should be included on the plat that lot 105 would not be developed. 3. Include a clearer hydrant icon between lots 115 and 116. 4. Resolution of all street width issues. 5. Documentation of effect of increased runoff to Barr, Zodrow, and Frederick. • 6. Notation on the plat of any lots requiring individual grading permits due to slop. 7. Construction of permanent culdesac on park property. 8. Lot line delineation between lot 132 and 134. 9. Developer is requested to make a statement regarding protective covenants. Ms. Little noted that during phase one, the developer had stated his intentions to be construction of single family homes. Regarding the density, Ms. Little read the minutes of the December 12, 1994, Planning Commission meeting as follows: • "Mr. Bundrick explained that he had requested R-1.5 but would be constructing affordable, single family homes on this tract." Ms. Little noted that the preliminary plat was within the limit which was guaranteed by the Bill of Assurance which was 170 lots. She noted that one-third of the units were planned as duplexes as denoted by a double underscore. She stated the preliminary plat did meet the R-1.5 density did not meet the requirement of the rezoning limiting the development to single family homes. She further noted that a Bill of Assurance on the single family home construction was not received by the planning office. Mr. Allred stated he was in favor of integration of duplex units with single family developments. Mr. Ray responded that there was not a specific intent to segregate the duplex but rather due to topography and slope a duplex design was more appropriate. Discussion ensued. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 13, 1996 Page 13 Ms. Little stated that initial approval under the village concept allowed 24' street widths with alley associated within the project. She noted that subsequent to that approval, a new standard had been adopted to allow a narrower street width of 27'. She stated this plat continued with the 24' street width on Reliant which has an alley. Regarding Plantation Street (shown at 24'), Ms. Little stated this would require a waiver to resolve whether or not the street would be 27' in compliance with the residential standard or whether it would be 24' street width. Ms. Little stated that duplex lots created more parking along the street. Mr. Ray stated the street would not be thoroughfare but he said 27' streets might be okay. Ms. Little noted Plantation Street was the access to the park. Mr. Allred stated the no parking zones along the street were hard to enforce. He recommended that the street width be increased to 27' and that each duplex units have a two car parking pad for each unit. Ms. Little stated staff would support integration of duplex and single family homes with 27' streets and double parking pads for all duplex units. Mr. Ray stated it was the developer's intent that he would build all the duplex units and would retain the ownership as well. Ms. Little inquired if the same protective covenants would apply to this portion and Mr. Ray stated he would check on it and provide the Planning office with a copy of the protective covenants. Mr. Beavers stated that a new conditions would be required. He stated changes would be required to the drainage easement such as 20' easement width and he requested the information which Mr. Ray had promised regarding affect of the runoff downstream. Further, he noted that the a swail had been proposed at lot 145 which would be subject to final design. Discussion ensued regarding the drainage report and whether or not lot 145 would be unbuildable. Mr. Beavers noted that if the drainage report revealed that culverts would be required to channel water downstream, the developer would be responsible to provide those. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to forward the preliminary plat to the Planning Commission subject to the conditions of approval and all staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 13, 1996 Page 14 LSD96-17 MOLLY COURT II GLENN SOWDER - S OF NORTH AND W OF GREGG. The next item on the agenda was the large scale development for Molly Court 1I submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Glenn Sowder for property located south of North Street and west of North Gregg Avenue. The property is zoned R-2 and contains approximately 1.66 acres with 37 proposed units. Ms. Little inquired if public notification had been given and Mr. Sowder stated that it had been. Ms. Little stated this project had been to plat review on April 23, 1996 and was held back for a drainage report. Mr. Beavers stated he was in receipt of the drainage report and would discuss it in his report. Ms. Little noted the number of units had decreased from 43 units to 37 units. She stated the new parks fee amount would be $6,660. Ms. Little requested that plat page 444 be included in the title block. She requested dedication of 40' of right of way from the centerline of both Gregg and North Street. She requested the flood plain panel numbers and the dumpster locations. She noted these requirements were requested at the plat review meeting of April 23, 1996. She stated staff would recommend the large scale development be forwarded to the Planning Commission subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Payment of tree preservation fee in the amount of $120. 2. Approval of staff supported building setback variance along North Street . 3. Minimum 8' setback along the south property line. 4. Approval of a staff supported parking waiver providing 51 spaces instead of the required 45. 5. Sidewalks located at the outer edge of the right of way. 6. Dedication of 40' right of way from the centerline of Gregg. 7. Plat should reflect those areas designated as gymnasium and garage space. 8. Show adjoining zones. Regarding the building setback along North Street, Ms. Little noted that additional right of way would be required and the buildings would need to be moved 25' from the additional right of way or a variance would need to be obtained from the Board of Adjustments which staff would recommend in favor of. Mr. Beavers stated he disagreed with the conclusion that detention would not be required and he stated that Mr. Carter would investigate the affect downstream. Further he stated Mr. Carter had agreed to investigate using the parking lot as detention. Discussion ensued regarding the parking lot being used as detention. Mr. Beavers stated the matter could be resolved prior to any grading work. Mr. Sowder noted that he was in negotiation with the City to stop the run off from North Street across his property which should in turn reduce the runoff and make a detention area unnecessary. Mr. Sowder stated that since the two overlays on North Street, the curb no longer is able to channel the water. Discussion ensued. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 13, 1996 Page 15 MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to forward the Targe scale development to the Planning Commission subject to conditions of approval and staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 13, 1996 Page 16 LS96-25 HOWELL TRUMBO S OF 6TH ST E OF RAZORBACK The next item on the agenda was the lot split submitted by Howell Trumbo for property located south of 6th Street and east of Razorback Road. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately 6.49 acres. The request is to split off one tract which contains 1.089 acres. Staff recommended that the committee approval the lot split subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction of 6' concrete sidewalk along south of West 6th Street within the right of way. 2. Copy of a file marked deed dedicating 50' of right of way from the centerline of West 6th Street. 3. Copy of a file marked deed dedicating 25' of right of way from the centerline of Rochier Street. Ms. Little noted this project was received late and due to the administrative meeting in July, it had been forwarded for consideration. She noted that engineering had not had a chance to review the project. Discussion ensued regarding the location of the non functioning hydrant and Mr. Harris noted it near the old Ayer's Furniture Company. Mr. Allred inquired if the proposed tracts (after the split) would be subject to large scale development. Mr. Beavers noted that the water line was on the other side of Highway 62 and the sewer line was on the other side of the railroad tract. He noted it was available but it would also be expensive. Discussion ensued regarding current service. Mr. Beavers stated they did not have any as builts. Ms. Little noted that there was never a lot split or large scale development approval and she requested an as built plat. She noted the Subway building did come through large scale development. Mr. Allred stated the drainage and grading would be delayed until large scale development. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the lot split subject to conditions of approval and staff comments. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. PRELIMINARY PLAT - COYOTE TRAIL A/K/A DEANE SOLOMON PLACE SONNEMAN/ACEE - S OF LORI E OF DEANE SOLOMAN The next item on the agenda was the preliminary plat for Coyote Trail aka Deane Solomon Place submitted by WBR Engineering on behalf of E.H. Sonneman and Sara Agee for property located west of Deane Solomon, north of Mt. Comfort. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains 16 lots within 5.65 acres. Mr. Beavers stated he need resolution and approval of the right of way on the 36' street width. He noted that the assistant public works director felt the street was too wide. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve a 31' wide street. ci • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes June 13, 1996 Page 17 Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m. C>