Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-15 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on August 15, 1996 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Reynolds and John Forney STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Rich Lane, Dawn Thomas, Jim Beavers, and Heather Woodruff LS96-38.00: WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR HABITAT FOR HUMANITY DESSIE AND VERNA SHAKELFORD-1542 E. 5TH STREET The first item submitted was a lot split submitted by Habitat for Humanity for property owned by Dessie and Verna Shakelford submitted for property located at 1542 E. 5th Street, (north of 5th Street and west of Happy Hollow Rd). The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is for one split creating a total of two lots. This application is in conjunction with applications for conditional use for a tandem lot and a variance from the required lot width. Ms. Little introduced Patsy Brewer, Habitat for Humanity, and stated they currently owned lot 2 and were in the process of buying the tracts behind lots 2 and 3. She added they had to provide access and water service to both of the lots. Ms Little stated they would be applying for tandem lot approval. Mr. Beavers stated the easements had been worked out, but added that Habitat was trying to get grants before installing water and sewer lines. Ms. Little stated water and fire protection was a requirement that would have to be worked out before they began building on the lot. She added Mr. Rutherford had been out to the site and he had reported that there were sidewalks in place on the south side of 5th street -and a sidewalk would not be required on the north side of the street because of the steep grade and the low density of people in the area. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Beavers responded it would cost $35,000 to provide fire protection. He added Habitat would apply for a grant, and if they did not receive the grant , Community Development would apply for a grant. Mr Beavers recommended the City participate, in some degree, in getting fire protection for the neighborhood. Ms. Brewer stated there was some HUD money being funneled through Habitat International and they were going to apply for the grant. 4< • • • Subdivision Minutes August 15, 1996 Page 2 MOTION Mr. Forney moved they forward the project to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Ft. Subdivision Minutes August 15, 1996 Page 3 PP95-23.30: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MARVIN GARDENS, PHASE I ROBERT WESTPHAL-SOUTH MEANDERING WAY AND WEST OF CROSSOVER The next item on the agenda was a by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Robert Westphal of a preliminary plat for Marvin Gardens, Phase I. The property is located south of Meandering Way and west of Crossover. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 18.9 acres. . Ms. Little stated the committee had seen this project before, but it had been redesigned since the last Planning Commission hearing. She noted there was a concept plat and a plat for Phase I. She added she would like the phases to be more clearly identified. Mr. Carter stated there were three phases: the central phase being Phase I He added the other phases would be separate owners and he did not know which phase would be next. Ms. Little stated the requirements for approval had not been met, because the adjoining property owners had not been notified correctly. She advised the plat would have to come back to the next meeting on August 29. Mr. Beavers stated that detailed drainage plans would be required.. Ms. Marian Basset, an area resident, stated the proposed project had a long history and had previously been known as Foster Brophy. She said she had lived in the area for years and there was a history of drainage problems. She added the residents had problems with sewer, run off and soil erosion. She stated they had complained to the city, adjoining owners, and the developer, but had no results. She added the neighbors had banded together and worked on the drainage problems at their own expense. She stated the neighborhood could not handle any more runoff. Mr. Beavers stated detailed drainage plans would be required. Trish Marshall, an area resident, expressed her concerns about her children around retention ponds. Mr. Beavers stated the City required the project engineer to develop a security system because of the high liability. He added retentions ponds were not to hold water the year round, but their function was to slow down the rate of run off and release the water later. Mr. Beavers commented that all existing drainage problems would be taken into consideration and be noted. Mr. Carter stated the design for a retention pond required that it be shallow and surrounded by chain link or iron fence. F1 0(1 Subdivision Minutes August 15, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Beavers suggested looking at the retentions pond at Wal -mart on Hwy 62. He added that Fayetteville did not have any retention ponds in residential area, although they were required in all new subdivisions. Mr. Forney asked when they could request a formal drainage study. Ms. Mitchell, an area resident, stated her concerns were also regarding drainage. She commented her neighborhood had a retention pond, that had turned into a lake. She said the addition of Marvin Gardens would increase the overflow on the pond. She added their pond was not enclosed with a fence and there was a safety concern. Mr. Carter stated the retention pond would not allow any more runoff to occur than existing. He added the pond would work as a shock absorber and would absorb the increase in peak flow. He explained the same volume of water would be released, just over a longer period of time, so the flow would not be increased. Ms. Mitchell questioned if the pond would be emptied or if it would retain water year round and added they had a infestation of snakes in existing ponds. Mr. Carter commented the retention pond would be dry in a matter of hours. Ms. Karen Spencer, an area resident, questioned the construction of the retention pond. Mr Carter explained the pond had a drainage pipe at the bottom at the lowest elevation that would not allow the pond to permanently detain water. He added it would drain out only at the rate the water was allowed to runoff before development. Ms. Spencer questioned the material used to line the pond. Mr. Carter responded they usually used a fairly flat bottom surface, such as grass or rock. Mr. Beavers added the bottoms were required to be sodded but, if it was a large pond they would allow the developers to use fabric and grass seed. He stated he had misspoke earlier, and read that either the staff or the planning commission could request, a more detailed drainage study, prior to plat approval Ms. Basset commented the retention ponds were at the low part of property and questioned what would happen to the water before it got to the retention ponds. Mr. Carter stated he planned to design a drainage system that would pick the water up on the street and move it into the proper pipe that would carry it to the pond. "I� • • • Subdivision Minutes August 15, 1996 Page 5 Ms. Basset argued they had previously been told the same thing and stated it had not worked. Mr. Reynolds question if there was a law on the size of a retention pond. Ms. Little stated the ponds had to be designed for each specific area. Mr. Beavers added there was no size restrictions. He commented that Tulsa was a good example of the use of retention ponds. Mr. Reynolds questioned what would happen if a 3"-4" storm came and filled up the pond. Mr. Beavers stated the designs would be for 100 year floods. Ms. Little added that in regard to Tulsa they had drainage problems because they had not controlled their drainage in the past. She noted they had to design much larger ponds because they were collecting from much larger areas. She doubted Fayetteville would get to that point because of the new drainage ordinance, adding the City would have a number of smaller detention ponds which should control the problems. Ms. Basset commented that Tulsa did not have the same terrain as Fayetteville, which added. another element to the problem. She added the area also had a lot of underground springs. Ms Little advised she would put the engineer on notice that additional drainage studies would be required. The studies would have to be adequate enough to ensure the areas drainage problems could be controlled. She added the drainage studies were to include the Ridgely Drive, Manor Drive, and Boardwalk areas. She stated all existing drainage conditions would be taken into account. Susie Stanton, an area resident, questioned how the traffic flow would be handled. She stated the existing traffic was a problem, at times backing up for five to ten minutes. Mr. Fomey stated he would like to see how storm water would be handled through pipes and the depth of the retention ponds. He added the street names needed to be clarified. Mr. Mike Schmit, an area resident, questioned the meaning of compatibility Ms. Little explained, once property was zoned, the property owner had the right to develop to the density allowed by that zoning. Ms. Basset commented the lots were smaller than the lots on Ridgely. ofi • • • Subdivision Minutes August 15, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Schmit stated that Ridgely had three and four acre lots and he did not think that was compatible with the proposed subdivision. Ms. Bassett stated she did not expect the lots to be three and four acre, but thought the lots could be large enough to look more compatible. Ms. Joanna Cook, an area resident, asked the average size of the planned lots. Mr. Carter stated the average size of the lots would be .2 and .3 acres, average frontage would be 80' to 90' and the average square footage would be about 8,700 square foot. He added all the lots were different sizes, but that was an average. Ms. Little stated with a minimum of 70' width and of 120' lot depth was provided there would be 8400 square feet. She added there were some lots much deeper than that, but the estimate was using the smaller lots. Mr. Forney commented that the size was roughly equivalent to the Boardwalk lots to the north. Ms. Little stated she doubted that all the drainage work would be done in two week, but the neighbors would get a letter when the next subdivision committee would meet on this item. l6V �0� • • • Subdivision Minutes August 15, 1996 Page 7 LSD96-29.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR ARKANSAS BOOK SERVICE STERLING ANDERS- W. of SHILOH Dr, S OF MT. COMFORT RD. The next item on the agenda was a large scale development for Arkansas Book Service expansion, submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Sterling Anders for property located west of Shiloh Dr. and south of Mt Comfort Rd. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial -Light Industrial, and contains approximately 6.14 acres. Ms. Little stated the addition was a large scale development and she added that the addition was across the street, on the west side of Shiloh Drive, from the existing Arkansas Book Services. She said a large scale development had been approved several years before addition. She stated the total of all building would be greater than that approved under the original large scale She commented as a side issue, that under the proposed UDO, the City would propose that for any approved large scale over one year old, a new large scale would be required; adding that it caused problems when the plans have been approved for several years and not built She stated Arkansas Book Service intended to extend concrete paving, but not all the way to the rear of the building. She added the business was strictly a wholesale warehouse operation and they were requesting six less parking spaces than required. She added there was a lot of concrete paving for truck docks and she felt that the parking they were requesting would be adequate. Mr. Moore, Engineering Services, stated they would place a hydrant on the southeast corner near the front. Mr. Forney questioned the screening. Ms. Little stated there would be screening at the back of the existing building and that screening was required on the northwest part and west part of the building. Mr. Mendoza, an area resident, stated his real estate agent had told him the property was in the flood plain and there would be no development. He was concerned about this affecting his property. He stated that, during the previous construction of the Book Service, there had been problems with trespassing and debris in his yard. Ms. Little questioned if the trespassing and the debris had been from the construction workers. Mr. Mendoza stated most of the debris and trespassing had been from workers. He added there were problems with the noise created by the fans and the outside lights around the warehouse. There were also problems with the lack of lawn maintenance. He expressed concern over being disturbed by the heavy construction, adding that, during the previous construction, they had been disturb with early morning hours during week days and week ends. He requested the owners to build a privacy fence. He did not believe a 4' chain link fence would help with the problems of /of 10\ • • Subdivision Minutes August 15, 1996 Page 8 noise, lighting, or visibility. He added that Mr. Anders had tried to fix the lighting, but his solution was not adequate. Ms. Little asked if they had checked the flood plain. Mr. Carter stated it was in zone A; that base floor elevations would be determined and that the building would be elevated. Ms. Little requested that he work with Tim Conklin in the Planning Office, stating that he would want a flood plain determination, to make sure the finished floor elevation is two foot above the flood plain. Mr. Beavers stated the drainage ordinance would require the water surface elevation calculations. He added the preliminarily drainage plan was fine, but more would have to be submitted before his grading permit was issued. Ms. Little stated the City could not do anything for the trespassing problem, but they would caution the developers about the debris. She stated they could do something about the noise and the outside lights. She added there was nothing they could do about the grass or the vegetation, but she thought when the building was constructed it would cause the area to be better maintained. She stated there was a buffer strip requirement and she would recommend a 6' chain link fence with vegetation. She added that, since there had been a problem with maintenance, the chain link was easier to maintain and had a longer life. She questioned the location and the number of fans presently being used and how many would be added. Mr. Moore stated there were fans along the north wall approximately every 30', adding they were for ventilation. There were no fans on the south side, because the prevailing winds were from south to north. Ms. Little questioned if the strength of the winds were strong enough to help the flow. She thought it would be better to locate the fans on the south side of the building away from the residential area. Mr. Carter stated the truck bays were on that side and the fans were needed on the other side to help the ventilation. Mr. Moore stated Mr. Anders had talked with Mr. Mendoza about this and Mr. Anders had agreed to shut off the fans by the homes. It was also his understanding they had talked about the fence and a 4' chain link fence. • Mr. Mendoza stated they had spoken about a fence, but the lighting and the noise had not been \Ov • Subdivision Minutes August 15, 1996 Page 9 discussed. Ms. Little stated the situation was different now, because the building was directly behind a residential area and there were specific requirements for buffering and screening. The Planning Commission would be making the decision on what kind of fence and how much buffering or screening would be required. It was not up to the owners what would be installed. Mr. Forney read " a solid fence or masonry wall not less than 6' in height along the inner boundary of the buffer strip for the full length of the boundary". He stated that regulations required a solid fence not a chain link. Ms Little responded the screening requirements could be met by using a fence, vegetation and a fence, or vegetation. She would recommend the fence and the vegetation Mr. Mendoza questioned how long would it take for the vegetation to grow. Ms. Sandeen stated she did not think the junipers would be adequate. She recommended that they beef up the screen. She added the Canarti Junipers as specified, which also currently exist on the site, grow to approximately 15 feet. She stated this species was hard to find and did not think they could find enough to complete the project. She suggested looking at other materials, such as silver maples, commenting they were faster growers and were less expensive. She added that the silver maples would have to be replanted or enhanced very ten or fifteen years. Mr. Forney stated he wanted to make sure the area was well screened. Mr. Reynolds also expressed concern that the residential area be taken care of. Mr. Beavers questioned if the fans violated the noise ordinance. Ms. Little suggested that Mr. Mendoza call the police next time when there was a problem with noise. Mr. Kevin Hickey, an area resident, stated he lived behind the proposed new development. He also stated he had been given false information about the development of the property from his realtor. He requested thick screening. He questioned the use of silver maples, stating that they only provided screening during the spring and summer. He suggested using a mixture of both deciduous and evergreen trees. He questioned the height of the building and outdoor lighting. Mr. Moore explained the building would be about 26' tall. He stated the lighting had not been worked out, but thought there would be four on the first addition, one by each of the fire exits. • He stated the lights were 175 watts vapor lights, wall pocket lights with metal shields so the light lo3 \d' Subdivision Minutes August 15, 1996 Page 10 washed the wall. Mr. Hickey questioned if the lights could be redesigned or relocated. Ms. Little suggested doing ground lighting. Mr. Hickey asked if the fans could be turned off at night. Mr. Mendoza stated the fans were very noisy. Mr. Reynolds commented they needed to go out to the site to look at the lighting and the noise situation. Mr. Forney questioned if there had been a setback change. Ms. Little answered there had been a change because it was against a residential district. Mr. Forney asked if the location of the buffer screen was mandated by the regulations. He expressed concern over the maintenance of the strip. Mr. Hickey stated he would like the buffer as close to the property line as possible, adding it would be closer to the homes and shorter trees could provide adequate coverage. Mr. Mendoza again recommended a privacy fence. Ms Little stated the decision on the type of screening would be left up to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds asked if the City could require a Bill of Assurance for the maintenance for the back of the building and the buffer screen. Ms. Little responded that as a conditional large scale development they could require the Bill of Assurance. Mr. Hickey asked what types of materials would be used for the plantings. Ms. Little stated the developers did not know, but they would have the answers before they got to Planning Commission. ion t0k Subdivision Minutes August 15, 1996 Page 11 PP96-7.00: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DEERFIELD PLACE JORGENSEN & ASSOC. HUNTSVILLE RD AND WEST OF MALLY WAGNON RD. The last item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for Deerfield Place submitted by Jorgensen & Assoc. for property located north of Huntsville Rd. and west of Mally Wagnon Rd.. The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office, and R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 11.72 acres. There was a conditional use request for specific lots to be allowed as duplex lots within the subdivision. Ms. Little asked why the street names were still the same as the last meeting. Mr. Carter explained they had talked with Jim Johnson, and he approved them as they were. Ms. Little stated that when streets are in an L-shaped pattern like this they try to use one name, but since it had been approved, they needed to look at adjacent property especially with two street names. She felt that Country Ridge should be stubbed out to the west for access to the large undeveloped land next to it. Mr. Beavers commented that Mickey Jackson and Perry Franklin were very strong in their recommendations that the street have duly one name. Ms. Little commented that a stub out to the west would be better than a stub out to the north, because of it would be a short distance to connect with another street. She expressed concern that a stub out to the north would go into a draw. She stated that lots 2,8,17, and 29 are duplex lots and would need conditional use approval. She commented the lots looked well placed against the R -O on the front. Mr. Beavers stated water and sewer extension lines would be required, and subject to the final design, he did not think the additional pond would be required. Mr. Forney questioned the size of the duplex lots. Ms. Little explained the minimum lot size for duplex lots in R-1 was 90 foot frontage and 12,000 square feet. She added that, on a corner lot both frontages counted for the total. She noted the required frontages were measured at the setback line. She advised a decision needed to be made as to whether or not the developer would be required to improve Mally Wagnon Road to the city limit line on the north. She noted the developer would be required to improve one-half of Mally Wagnon where it abutted the subject property. She stated a detailed study had not been made, but it would be in the City's best interest to require it, otherwise there would be one little strip that would be in county maintenance. IQ( tc< Subdivision Minutes August 15, 1996 Page 12 Mr. Reynolds added a sidewalk should be included. Mr. Forney questioned if they had ever required a developer to do improvements across frontage that was not theirs. Mr. Lane the owner of the property immediately adjacent to the west, stated his property was used as a farm and they had no plans for development. He expressed his concern that the survey was incorrect. He explained that according to the Arkansas old fence law, "Old fence lines are no longer the line, but the actual lines are those designated by section, quarter section coordinates". He added the old fence was sitting 5 1/4 feet off and 6 5/8 feet off the property line. All the survey markers were marked in the old fence line. His understanding was there was a small strip of property that extended from his line to Molly Wagnon. Ms. Little stated to Mr. Carter they would have to get the survey corrected. She added there would be another meeting in two weeks. Mr. Lane corrected they did not own property on Mally Wagnon Rd. Mr. Carter assured Mr. Lane, they would look at the survey again. Mr. Lane stated they had the property surveyed twice and the difference between the two had not been more than two feet. Mr. Lane stated they had no plans for subdivision, but he would like to leave the option open to develop his property. The meeting adjourned at 11:45. 104 • • Subdivision Minutes August 15, 1996 Page 13 ri \O1