Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-17 - Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on October 17, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Forney and Bob Reynolds STAFF PRESENT: Dawn Warrick, Rich Lane, Heather Woodruff, Jim Beavers and Chuck Rutherford. LS96-43.00 LOT SPLIT FOR KARYN BROPHY 1700 E. HUNTSVILLE. ROAD The first item on the agenda was submitted by Karyn Brophy for property located at 1700 E Huntsville Road The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office, and contains approximately 0.98 acres. The staff conditions of Approval. 1. Preparation of warranty deed for dedication of right-of-way. 2. Copy of original warranty deed showing current owners acquisition of subject property. 3. Improvements as shown on plat including the following: a. Installation of 5' sidewalk at 1700 Huntsville Road and 5' sidewalk on the newly created lot at the time of development. b. Addition of plat page 565 to title block. c. Dedication of a total of 45' from centerline for right-of-way on Huntsville Road. d. Show zoning of adjacent property on plat e. Addition of vicinity map to plat 4. Utility easements as requested at Technical Plat Review as shown on plat including the following: a. 15' utility easement centered on the newly created property line (7.5' on each side) Mr. Forney moved to forward the item, with staff comments, to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Z4 • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 2 LS96-41.00: LOT SPLIT FOR US POST OFFICE STEVE WARD-HWY 156 AND E. OF CITY LAKE RD. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Steve Ward for property located north of Hwy 156 and east of City Lake Road. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial, and I-2, General Industrial, and contains approximately 10.7 acres. No representative was present; the item was moved to the end of the agenda. l2v • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 3 • LS96-44.00: LOT SPLIT PHIL EZELL PHIL EZELL-S. OF WEDINGTON DR. & W. OF BETTY JO DR. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Phil Ezell for property located south of Wedington Drive and west of Betty Jo Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 2.34 acres. The staff conditions of approval: 1. Preparation of warranty deeds for dedication of rights-of-way (2) a. 25' public access required on the west property line of the original lot and the proposed lot b. A total of 55' of right-of-way is required from the centerline of Hwy. 16 W 2. Installation of a 5' sidewalk along Wedington Drive to connect to the existing sidewalk on the east side of the property 3. Developer will be responsible for extension of all necessary water and sewer lines to serve the new lot- these facilities are not available on site at this time. 4. Addition of plat page 440 to title block 5. Drainage issues concerning the new lot will be addressed as a part of the large scale development process Mr. Farrell stated he agreed with the conditions. Mr. Forney question if the dedication to the west was going to be a public road. Ms. Warrick stated the City was requesting public right-of-way on the west side for future connect to Jewell Street. Mr. Beavers stated the proposed warranty deed granted the City the right to build a street, the deed also allowed the owners to build a driveway on it, until the City needed the land. Mr. Farrell questioned if the letter from the Land Acquisition was a binding document and would it be enough to satisfy requirements. Mr. Beavers stated that it would be. Mr. Forney questioned if the 25' public access would be half the right-of-way required for the road. Mr. Lane replied the City would take the additional 25' from the adjacent property when it • developed. • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 4 Mr. Forney moved to forward the item with staff comments to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. • �Z$ • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 5 • • LS96-45.00 LOT SPLIT MELANIE STAFFORD MELANIE STAFFORD- N OF HWY 16 W AND W OF 59TH STREET The next item on the agenda was submitted by Melanie Stafford for property located north of Hwy 16 W and west of 59th Street. The property is zoned RA, Residential Acre, and contains approximately 3 64 acres. Staff comments: 1. Installation of 4' sidewalk along Wedington Drive for Tract 2 of the split, installation of 4' sidewalk for Tract 1 at the time of development of that lot. 2. $300 parks fee payment for the newly created residential lot. 3. Revised plat to show the following: a. Plat page 397 b. Sidewalks in the legend and on the plat along Wedington Drive as required 4. Dedication of 30' right-of-way as shown on 59th street 5. Dedication of a total of 55' of right-of-way from the centerline of Wedington Drive. 6. Dedication of utility easements as requested at Technical Plat Review and shown on the plat including the following: a. 15' easement on property line between tracts 1 and 2, 7.5' on each side of the line b. 30' easement to cover a 2" high pressure gas line along the north side of Wedington Drive. This line must be located and the easement centered over it (15' on each side) which may extend the amount of the total right-of-way dedicated in that location. Ms. Stafford agreed to the conditions of approval Mr. Forney moved to forward the item with staff comments to the Planning Commission. • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 6 LS96-40: LOT SPLIT FOR CANTERBURY PLACE CUSTOM BUILDING PRODUCTS- N OF JOYCE BLVD & W OF HWY 265 The next item on the agenda was submitted by Custom Building Products for property located north of Joyce Blvd. and west of Hwy 265. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and R-1, Low -Density Residential, and contains approximately 20.19 acres. Staff Conditions of Approval: 1. One street light required if none is located within 300' of the property 2. Revised plat to show the following: a. Addition of plat page 176 to title block b. Dimension of Joyce Street from centerline c. Zoning of adjacent property d. Corrected legal description 3. All public improvements, streets, water, sewer, drainage will be subject to additional review. 4. Additional requirements and utility easements will be discussed at the time of preliminary plat submittal for this project (currently being processed for 11/25/96 P.C.). • Mr. Harry Grey stated the lot split was in conjunction with a subdivision development they were going to develop. • Mr. Lane commented they had rezoned the property a couple of months earlier. Mr. Beavers stated the water and sewer would be worked out during the development. Mr. Forney questioned if the resulting lot was in two different zoning districts. Ms. Warrick replied they would have to see if City Council had approved the rezoning. Mr. Forney moved to forward to Planning Commission. Mr. Reynold seconded the motion. i3a • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 7 LS96-46.00: LOT SPLIT PRESTON FERGUSON- N. OF HUNTSVILLE RD AND E. OF STONE BRIDGE RD. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Preston Ferguson for property located north of Huntsville Road and east of Stone Bridge Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.45 acres. Staff comments: 1. Installation of 5' sidewalk for Tract 1 for the split, installation of 5' sidewalk for Tracts 2 and 3 at the time of development. 2. Street lights required every 300' along Huntsville Road if none are in place, a street light required at the NW comer of Tract 3 if none are located within 300' of that location. 3. Revision of plat to include the following: a. Addition of plat page 528 to title block b. Addition of sidewalk to the legend c. Label the required setbacks for Tract 3 4. Dedication of a total of 55' from centerline for right-of-way on Huntsville Road (Hwy 16E) • 5. This lot split is subject to each lot coming back through the large scale development process. 6. All public improvements, street, water, sewer, drainage will be subject to additional review. 7 Additional requirements and utility easements will be discussed at the time of large scale development application. • Ms. Warrick stated this property had been through a lot split before, now they were splitting again. Mr. Al Harris agreed with all the staff requirements. Mr. Reynolds questioned if there was a creek running through the property. Mr. Beavers stated there was but they would review the drainage when they brought it through the large scale process. Mr. Forney questioned the service lines. Mr. Beavers stated the City was complying with the State Health Department request which required service lines were not allowed to cross property or lot lines and as a result, there was two things that they could do with this project. They could extend the sewer line and put in a lift station to serve all three lots or they could have their own private sewer service line in it. The State Health Department would not allow any other option. Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 8 Mr. Forney moved to forward the item to Planning Commission with staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. X32 • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 9 • • LS96-47.00: LOT SPLIT WRMC DIALYSIS CENTER NORTHWEST ENGINEERS -S. OF MONTE PAINTER & E. OF NORTH HILLS BLVD The next item on the agenda was submitted by Northwest Engineers for property located south of Monte Painter Drive and east of North Hills Blvd. The property is zoned R -O, Residential - Office, and contains approximately 15.53 acres. Staff recommendations: 1. Installation of 5' sidewalk with 4' green space along Monte Painter Drive 2. At least one van accessible parking space required 3. Revision of plat to show the following: a. Addition of plat page 251 to title block b. Show property zoning 4. Additional requirements and utility easements will be discussed in conjunction with the large scale development which will be on the upcoming P C agenda (10/28/96) Mr. Grey agreed to the conditions listed. Mr. Forney moved to forward the item with staff comments to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynold seconded motion. i 33 0115 • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 10 LSD96-33.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR WRMC DIALYSIS CENTER NORTHWEST ENGINEERS -N OF MONTE PAINTER AND E. OF NORTH HILLS BLVD. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Northwest Engineers for property located south of Monte Painter Drive and east of North Hills Blvd. The property is zoned R -O, Residential - Office, and contains approximately 2 19 acres. Mr. Grey stated they were asking for a waiver of the parking requirements adding that they needed more parking than what the City allowed. They were needing 16 spaces on the east side of the property to be used by the Rehab Hospital. Ms. McNeill stated the center would require more parking because of shift rotation and the patients. She added she had submitted a letter explaining their needs. Mr. Beavers stated that during Plat Review they had mentioned adding detention to the site and asked to had the preliminary design before the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Warrick stated that Mr. Franklin did not find the van accessible parking space on the plat. Mr. Grey stated he had spoken with Mr. Franklin and they had worked the problems out. Mr. Rutherford suggested they add access ramps to the existing sidewalks. Ms. McNeill stated it was not part of their project, but it belonged to the Rehab Hospital. Mr. Rutherford added sidewalks should be continuous from one side to the other. Mr. Forney reminded them they were asking for a waiver to provide additional parking for the Rehab Hospital, so they were engaging the other project for parking reasons. Mr. Grey stated they were proposing to share drives with the Rehab Hospital, so in return for the drive they agreed to help them with the parking problems. Mr. Reynolds stated he agreed with Mr. Rutherford that if they were willing to help them with the parking, they had also needed to help with the disability ramps. Ms. McNeill stated she would ask them about it. • Mr. Forney moved to forward the item to Planning Commission. 134 • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 11 • • Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. 13. cf) • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 12 • LSD96-34.00: LARGE SCALE FOR UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST FELLOWSHIP ENGINEERING DESIGN ASSOC.-S. OF CLEVELAND & W. OF STORER ST. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Engineering Design Associates for property located south of Cleveland Street and west of Storer Street. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential, and contains approximately 1.11 acres. Ms. Warrick stated the applicant was requesting a parking waiver and a variance from the setback. They were requesting the variance because of the increased right-of-way that the City was requesting. She added some of the design decisions were contingent upon a meeting of the Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee (10/25/96). Ms. Hessie stated they were requesting a waiver for eight parking spaces. Mr. Beavers commented that the width of Storer should be 14' instead of 13'. He stated it was a Public Works recommendation that no improvement be made to Cleveland Street, because it was in the CIP to be widened in 1998. The City did not know the width to which they would widen it. He suggested the Church make a token donation to the widening of the street. Mr. Forney questioned if they would be able to share any parking with surrounding properties and asked if they really needed the parking lot. Mr. Lane stated the church would be allowed to share parking within 600'. Mr. Fomey commented they were short five spaces on the plan. Ms. Hessie replied they would also like to eliminate the three parallel parking spaces to give more turn around room. Mr. Forney questioned the existing parking. Mr. Teal stated it was often difficult to park in the area, with the narrow streets. Mr. Forney questioned if they had explored the option of shared parking. Mr. Teal stated they had not explored that option lately, but they needed the additional parking around the fellowship hall. Mr. Forney commented he would like to see alternatives explored because he hated to see large • parking lots that only used for four hours a week. \�V • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 13 • • Mr. Forney moved to forward the item to the Planning Commission with the recommendation to approve the parking wavier. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motions. 13� • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 14 LSD96-36.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR ARBY'S FLINTCO. INC: W. OF 6 Til ST. & E. OF RAZORBACK RD. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Flintco, Inc. For property located south of W. 6th Street and east of Razorback Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.09 acres. Staff recommendations: 1. Dedication of a total of 55' from centerline of Hwy. 62 for right-of-way 2. Trees proposed along Hwy 62 to be relocated approximately 20' north of their current location due to sewer line and water line. Any trees to be planted along Hwy. 62 must be small to medium growing species. 3. Perimeter landscaping requirement of 15' which may be reduced to 5' with screening provided. Interior landscaping in parking lot. 4. Asphalt sidewalk to be replaced with 5' concrete sidewalk and access ramps as shown on plat 5. Additional hydrant required at the south side of 6th Street at the east entrance to the property • 6. Revision of plat to show the following: a. Addition of Plat page 521 to title block b. Addition of street lights, fire hydrants, sidewalks, etc. to legend c. Show location of sign d. Show property owner to the north e. Dimension all easements 7. Supplement grading and drainage plan with erosion control details and resubmit with permit application prior to any construction 8. All public improvements (water, sewer, grading, drainage, etc.) must meet City requirements and are subject to additional review. 9. Submittal of easement plats prior to building permit being issued, any necessary revision of easement plat to be completed prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy • Mr. Erickson stated he agreed with the staff recommendations, but he was unable to address the sign location. The owner had a separate contractor work on the sign. Ms. Warrick questioned if they had reduced any of the paved area. Mr. Erickson stated they had not because the owner declined to change the paving. Mr. Lane added the City also suggested located the building closer to the street with more parking in the rear. Ms. Warrick stated they had declined that suggestion as well. 1�4 • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 15 • Mr. Beavers stated they would have to get with their engineer because the existing 3" line could not support a fire hydrant. Ms. Warrick stated the staff had suggested Arbys connect to the Indian Trail. Mr. Erickson stated the owners had not wanted to do this because of a bad experience with this kind of design. Mr. Reynolds added it would be the only cut along Indian Trails and he could see the potential for problems with traffic cutting through their property. Mr. Lane commented all the easements and right-of-way needed to be dimensions, adding the two drawing did not match and a scaling error needed to be corrected. Mr. Beavers questioned the railroad right-of-way. Mr. Erickson stated they had confirmed that the right-of-way was as shown, 20'. Mr. Lane added the property to south was zoned R-3 which required screening by a 6' privacy fence. Mr. Forney moved to forward the item to the Planning Commission with the staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. \�R Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 16 PP96-6.20: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHARLESTON PLACE, A PUD GREG HOUSE- N. OF MISSION AND E. OF AMBER The next item on the agenda was submitted by Greg House for property located north of Mission and east of Amber The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 12.84 acres with 69 lots proposed. Ms. Warrick stated they did not have enough green space calculated. She explained in order to have a Planned Unit Development they would have to have a minimum of 30% green space, 35% to get a density increase and 40% to have the 69 lots proposing. The staff had calculated the green space and had come up with 3.6 acres 28% green space. Mr. House questioned if they were allowed to include the drainage areas as green space. Ms. Warrick stated they were allowed to use them in the calculations, because in this instance they were privately owned. Mr. House stated they had recalculated, and came up with 32%. Mr. Carter stated they had incorrectly labeled an area as a utility easement with this revision, he had 33.82% green space. Mr. Beavers stated the Public Works staff had discussed the drainage and it was their position that the three detention ponds would be privately owned and maintained. The City would not accept the maintenance of the ponds. Ms. Warrick stated they would have to add the maintenance of the pond to the covenant. Mr. Beavers added the maintenance of the private streets, private drainage, and private ponds would have to name the City as a third party. Mr. House questioned if they would privately maintain the storm drainage system. Mr. Beavers stated they would be responsible for maintaining everything that was private. The only thing that they would publicly maintain would be what was in the public right-of-way on Amber. He noted that, although the streets, drainage, etc would be private, they would have to meet all the City's requirements. Mr. Reynolds questioned if they had met all the fire chief requirements for moving the fire • hydrants. 1�� • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 17 Mr. Carter stated they had and had added another fire hydrant, closer to the intersection. Mr. Beavers had asked Mr. Carter to bring a preliminary drainage study. Mr. Carter stated he had the preliminary drainage report for this project. They had designed the system to handle up to a hundred -year plan. Mr. Beavers added they had added a third detention pond. He expressed concern about how pond 2 would empty into the swale and how they were going to save the trees on top of the existing bank. He suggested they make the pond more natural shaped to adjust for the trees. Mr. Carter stated they would adjust the ponds shape when they got to that point and would make sure that they did not take out any unnecessary trees. The discharge pipe could go anywhere between the trees. It did not have to be limited to where they placed it on paper. Mr. House questioned since this pond was a catch basin, would it hurt if the trees in the middle could stay. • Mr. Carter stated he did not think it would hurt them. Mr. Beavers advised they needed to decide if Pond 1 were going to be a live pond with water in it all the time or a dry pond and then recalculate for the volume of water in the pond. • Mr. Carter stated there would be a permanent pond below the discharge pipe. Mr. House stated he had some questions about having to maintain a storm drainage system. Mr. Beavers stated it was a private street with no easements and the City would have no right to be in the area to maintain the system. He added it was a trade off, if Mr. House wanted a private street the City was not going to maintain it, the other option was not to have private streets. Mr. House asked if they could discuss it in private and, if they could not come to an agreement, he would pull the project. Mr. Beavers stated he was not going to change his opinion and, if he were not going to maintain the drainage, they should know that now. Mr. House replied he had not had time to determine how much it was going to cost. He did not want to a commit himself on tape, if it was not going to be feasible. Mr. Beavers stated they could discuss it, but they could not have private streets and then expect ILA • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 18 • • the City to maintain the drainage system. Mr. Forney commented a PUD did not typically require private streets this was a choice the developer was making. He could not make the streets private. Mr. House stated he could make the street public, but he would have to build them wider to City Standards. Mr. Forney expressed his understanding that in a PUD they could waive certain ordinance regulations to allow for development so potentially they could negotiate the width. He questioned if they could negotiate the width of the streets. Mr. Lane stated they could have a residential street, but it would probably have to be redesigned. Mr. Forney questioned if Amber was the only public street. He questioned Mr. Beavers if he were tying the maintenance of the drainage system to the fact that the streets were private and if they did not have the private streets then they could deed the drainage over to the City. Mr Beavers stated the drainage would be in a dedicated City right-of-way if the street were public. The same would go for the ponds. If the ponds were public, the streets would have to be public. They could not have public drainage flowing into private drainage flowing back into public facilities. Also, if the ponds were public, they could not count them as green space. Mr. Reed Greenwood, an area resident, expressed concern about the drainage. He questioned why the third pond had not been presented to the neighbors. He asked to see the map. Mr. Reynolds suggested posting the plat and taking a break to give Mr. House a chance to explain the new addition to the neighbors. Mr. Greenwood stated more residents would have attended had they known about the additional detention pond. He questioned how they proposed to located the pond where there were existing utilities. Mr. Carter replied they had showed the utilities to be in a 25' easement south of their property. He added that during construction if they found utilities placed outside the easement onto their property where there was no easement then they would have to deal with that situation. Mr. House explained the detention pond was not a year round pond. It was a catch basin, which would control runoff. Mr. Reynolds explained the intention of a detention pond was to slow the runoff. I Lit • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 19 Mr Carter explained the runoff would be directed to the west into an existing drainage inlet Old Wire Rd. and the pond would only slow the water to equal the existing runoff. Mr. Reynolds questioned the size of the discharge of pipe of the pond. Mr. Carter thought it was 12" and would usually empty with 24 to 72 hours. Mr. Reynolds commented that he had been watching the detention pond by South Mont Apartments, it was usually dry within four hours from the time of fill up. Mr. Greenwood expressed concerns over the existing drainage problems and the underground springs. He also expressed concerns of the lots being so small. Since other neighborhoods had larger lots and their homes were larger than the proposed lot size. He added the size a PUD would allow appalled him, adding some lots were 35' wide. He did not think there was any intent on the part of Planning Commission or City Council to allow this type of development. The existing PUDS in Fayetteville were like Sherwood Lane, large lots and very attractive, etc.. Mr. Hyman, an area resident, asked if Mr. House had thought about what would happen if the • interest rates were to go up. Mr. House responded he would still feel comfortable with 9.5 to 10% interest rate. He added no developer could predict the future, but he believed in the growth of the area and the market was steadier than most markets. He commented the owners did not have any debt on the property and it was being self financed. They could stop if there was a lull in the market and wait for it to change. Mr. Hyman stated they had bought their property believing that it was a mature neighborhood and there would not be any more development. He added he had a lot 100 X110' which would sell for $90,000. He questioned why would someone buy a home half the size and one third of the lot for the same price. He then questioned if he could build four of these houses on his lot. He had the same street and the same size lot. Ted Johnston, an area resident, stated he had calculated the size of the Tots as 2600 to 2800 square foot, commenting that was the size of some of the homes in that area, adding he could fit 3 to 4 of the proposed lots on his lot. He expressed concern that it did not fit the neighborhood. Mr. Reynold stated the primary concem of the neighbors was not drainage, but the character of the neighborhood. • Mr. Ted Johnson, an area resident questioned the legality of the covenants. 1�3 x'13 Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 20 Ms. Warrick stated covenants were legal documents filed with the county clerk but the City did not enforce them. The property owner's association enforced them. The City required the covenants so they would know what type of develop was going on and what type of standards they were setting. Mr. Reynolds questioned what would happen if they changed the covenants after the City had approved it. Would the City receive any notification? Mr. Tom Peaveyhouse, an area resident, expressed concern regarding people parking in the streets. Mr. Mike Lyeman, also expressed concern of people parking along narrow streets. How would the sanitation trucks, fire truck, and emergency truck get through the development. If they did require off street parking, how were they going to place it on lots that were 35' wide. Adding his driveway was 32' wide. A 10' drive on a 35' lot that would only leave 15' for the house, which was less than the width of the room. Dr. Bailey, an area resident, he stated the way the project was designed he would have six two- story houses overlooking his house. He believed it was costing him thousands of dollars in equity in his home. It did not fit the consistency of this neighborhood. He did not believe PUD rules and regulations were designed to destroy the character of neighborhoods He expressed concerns of the increase of traffic and questioned if traffic patterns were under consideration. He questioned where the residents were going to park. Mr. House replied they were going to have a variety of parking, some would have garages on the ground floor in the front, some would be in the rear. It would depend on the lot. Dr. Bailey commented trailer parks had more room. Mr. Greenwood stated there were four purposes that they must achieve to approve a PUD. One of those was more efficient use of the land. More efficient use of public facilities. He questioned how this was achieved. Mr. House respondedthere was a school of thought that infill development taxed the city less. The more urban development they had been sprawling outward, the more major road ways and sewer and water lines they would have to develop. Mr. Forney stated the Planning Commission had to take into account the potential growth of the area, of almost 100% by the year 2020. The population would be between 80,000 and 100,000 people. The general plan attempted to help understand where they were going to place these people and there was within this plan some discussion of infill as being one way to help. • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 21 Mr. Greenwood stated what they had basically done was place an apartment complex, without calling it an apartment. He questioned how the open space would be usable, adding it was filled with underground springs. Mr. House stated the idea was to have a green space buffer because of the density in order to help reduce the impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Chuck Charleston, an area resident, questioned why Mr. House had not considered a development with 25 homes on them to complement the neighborhoods. Mr. House responded the market for larger homes in the area was saturated. He added he was not the owner, it was not his property and his client felt it was a good idea for this property. They did have the option of developing approximately 40 homes on the land if they went back the normal R-1 standards He thought what they were proposing was reasonable, and would recreate an pleasing, comfortable neighborhood. He compared it with the Hillcrest neighborhood in Little Rock, which they were trying to emulate. Mr. Lyeman stated that he had lived in the Hillcrest neighborhood before and they could buy • houses for $60,000. Ms. Carol Jones, an area resident, stated the streets could not handle traffic. Mr. House stated his understanding was that it was not his obligation to fix the existing drainage problems, it was his obligation to not make them worst. That was the idea behind the detention pond, which they designed ahead of time to make sure they were able to control the water, so the water that left the site was the same as it was pre -construction. Mr. Reynolds commented they had the same type of meeting with the people from Marvin Gardens, the people that already hadexisting problems. He stated it was a City problem and all Mr. House could do was to not cause any additional problems. Mr. Frank Piers, an area resident, stated most of the residents on Amber Drive purchased their homes because it was on a cul-de-sac. He expressed concerns that there were many small children that played in the street. Mr. Beavers explained the reason the cul-de-sac had a perment curb and gutter and sidewalk was because they had not allow temporary cul-de-sac for more than two years. He added a cul-de-sac did not mean that they did not plan to be extended some day. • Mr. Lane stated they were trying to work with the real estate people, because people are often mislead to believe that a cul-de-sacs were dead end streets. He added if there was undeveloped • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 22 • land and an adjacent cul-de-sac the property had the right to connect and develop there property. If the City never connected any streets they could not serve 911 calls. Mr. Piers commented he thought they had planned to develop the land as a cemetery. Mr. Ralph Trig, an area resident, expressed concerns about the increase of traffic trying to get onto Old Wire Road and the additional runoff onto his property. Mr. Bill Fink, an area resident, stated his objection to the project was that it would ruin the conformity of the entire area in which they were living. He pointed out the proposal had small houses on small lots and in his opinion it would reduce the value of homes in the surrounding area. He did not believe they had designed a PUD for this purpose. Mr. Kim Scott, an area resident, commented the area was zoned R-1, Low Density, he did not think that they could come up with anything else that would be more out of place. Mr. Forney reviewed some questioned raised by the public. The drainage issue was important and the City now had a new drainage ordinance which mandated that developments could not add additional flow off the site and that was the reason for the detention ponds. The planning and density issues could be looked at in a variety of ways. By right in R-1 low density, the developer could build 51 lots on the site. They were talking about an additional 18 units in theory with a PUD and the City would be getting open space as an amenity. He questioned Mr. House that the open space was landlocked. Mr. House replied their main consideration was that the existing pond, spring area and largest tree area not be disturbed. They did not want to develop in the existing wooded area but wanted to create a buffer between the project and the existing neighborhood because they realized it was a departure from the type of neighborhood that surrounded it. Mr. Reynolds suggested the residents look at some of Mr. House's previous work off of Spring Street. Mr. Lyeman questioned if the Planning Commission could govern the look of the buildings and if Mr. House had the option to change the building design later if material became too expensive. Mr. Forney replied his understanding was that the PUD approval process was one where they could negotiate. The covenants would be the place where it could be placed in legal language. Mr. Lyeman stated this was a proposal and there was no guarantee that this is what they would • build. • • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 23 Mr. Forney questioned if in the PUD ordinance, there was a requirement for a minimum of 10' between structures, so they would have a 5' setback as a minimum or in a 35' wide lot they would have a maximum build out width of 25'. He questioned if Mr. House would show the buildable area on the lots and the front and rear setbacks. Mr. House stated his understanding was that the rear setback had to be 20' from the back of the property line and not the existing lot line, because of the buffering. Mr. Forney asked to have the front and back setbacks of the lots clarified before the Planning Commission meeting. He wanted to make sure the lots were buildable, so there would not be requests for variances. He questioned if there would on street parking allowed. Mr. House stated each lot would have to provide off street parking, but they did not want to restrict parking on the streets because people would have guests and it would also help slow traffic. Mr. Beavers stated that if they were to go with public streets, there would public right-of-way and utility easement required which would reduce the buildable area on the lots. Mr. Forney moved to forward the item to the Planning Commission without recommendation. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. \a1 Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 24 LS96-41.00: LOT SPLIT FOR US POST OFFICE STEVE WARD -SOUTH OF HWY 16E & EAST OF CITY LAKE RD. The last item on the agenda was submitted by Steve Ward for property located south of Hwy 16E and east of City Lake Road. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial, and I-2, General Industrial, and contains approximately 10.7 acres. Mr. Beavers questioned why at Plat Review they had a Mill Holland survey at Sudivison they had a McCelland survey. He questioned which one would be the correct one. Mr. Ward stated the McClelland survey was correct. Mr. Beavers stated the survey did not have a stamp and he would need to get one. He also reminded him that sewer service would not be available to lot 7B; if they developed it, they would have to extend the sewer. Mr. Ward stated they had requested an easement for the extent of the sewer. • Mr Beavers stated the contractor needed to contact the City before he began work on the sewer line. Mr. Reynolds questioned if they had issued a grading permit. Mr. Beavers stated they did not require it because it was federal land. Ms. Warrick stated their northern setback for Track 7B was listed as 25', however in industrial zones either I-1 or I-2 the side setback that is adjacent to agricultural has to be a setback of 50'. She added at plat review they had required sidewalks and she did not see them on the plat. Mr. Ward stated she could not require the federal government to place sidewalks Mr. Beavers added they could not require them to do anything. Mr. Forney questioned why the City was even reviewing it. Ms. Warrick replied they had to have the lot split legally recorded. Mr. Beaver commented they were going to require the other lot to build sidewalk. • Mr. Reynold replied that if he were going to work on approving the lot split, he was going to approve it under the condition that the Unites States Government build a sidewalk. Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 25 Mr. Ward responded it would not hurt the federal government, but it would hurt the small business that was looking to buy the lot. He had been told by the post office architect that the sidewalk was not an issue. Mr. Reynolds commented that if the small business was going to build a sidewalk it would make sence that they continue the sidewalk on south. Ms. Warrick questioned the railroad right of way. She stated, if they had vacated the right-of-way it would have reverted 50' to the property of Tract 7A. Mr. Ward stated they had specifically left that property out.. Ms. Warrick questioned they would have a strip of land left. Mr. Beavers stated that the City of Fayetteville taxpayers were paying to have the sewer line extended for this project and the federal government said it could not afford to build a sidewalk. He added the City was spending $50,000 for the sewer extent. Mr. Reynold moved that if the City was going to pay for the sewer line to go to this property, then the city would like to have a sidewalk in return. Mr. Ward did not want to get into a position to deny the lot split and not allow the small business use of the property. Mr. Reynolds replied the neighboring people and business have had to build sidewalks. They were trying to make the City more accessible. Mr. Forney stated he favored getting the sidewalk, but was not sure of how to go about it. He thought that federally owned land would have to follow ADA requirements. The American Disability Act would probably required that they place a sidewalk Mr. Beavers questioned if someone would be a the Planning Commission meeting that had the authority to approve the sidewalk. Mr. Ward replied he would try to have someone there. Ms. Warrick stated they would need the plans to be revised with the surveyors seal, vicinity map and the setback changed. Mr. Reynolds requested they also recommendation that the US Postal Service follow the American Disability Act and install sidewalks along City Lake Road. \aZ • Subdivision Meeting October 17, 1996 Page: 26 • • Mr. Forney moved to forward the item to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds seconded motion.