Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-13 - Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on February 13, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, Bob Reynolds, John Forney, and Lorel Hoffman. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Rich Lane, Jim Beavers, Dawn Warrick, Chuck Rutherford, Beth Sandeen, and Heather Woodruff. Mr. Allred announced item #4, the preliminary plat for Charleston Place had been removed from the agenda. LS97 1.00: LOT SPLIT FOR PETROMARK JIM GABEL- N. OF REAP DRIVE AND WEST OF LEWIS AVE, The first item on the agenda was submitted by Jim Gabel on behalf of Petromark for property located at the northeast corner of Sunbridge Drive and Gregg Street. The property is zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and contains approximately 2.24 acres. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings and suggested conditions of approval It is not recommended that this lot split be approved at the Subdivision Committee level due to outstanding issues as detailed in the findings below. Findings: Tract A has been developed as a White Oak Station, convenience store and gas station. The Large Scale Development for that project was approved 6/12/95. In reference to the previous development, there is a portion of sidewalk which was never completed and the parking lot has not yet been striped. Sewer is not available to the newly created lot and will have to be extended. Conditions of Approval A written statement which assures the City that sidewalk for Tract A will be completed as soon as weather permits and no later than the installation of sidewalks at the adjacent project - The Whistle Stop Plaza, which is just north of this site. 2. Tract A will require a 6' sidewalk north of the Gregg Street entrance to the north property line for this lot split Sidewalks will be required on Sunbridge Drive and on Keystone Crossing at the time of development of Tract B. • Subdivision Meeting February 13, 1997 Page 2 • • 3. The parking lot for the White Oak Station shall be striped no later than the date that this lot split is considered by the Planning Commission (scheduled for 2/24/97). 4. Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments 5. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements 6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water and sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval 7. Tract B will be required to go through the Large Scale Development process Mr. Beaver stated the sewer problems would have to be worked out. Mr. Rutherford stated he needed a letter assuring the City that the sidewalks would be constructed. Mr Gabel stated the owner had reassured him a sidewalk would be constructed on the north side of his lot along Greg Street. Ms. Little stated the sidewalk would have to be completed before the item continued in the process. Mr. Allred asked Mr. Gabel if he was aware of the conditions of approval. In response to a queston from Mr. Allred, Mr. Gable stated he would agree to the conditions of approval MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the lot split subject to the conditions of approval. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Allred stated the lot split would be approved as soon as all the conditions were completed. i3 • Subdivision Meeting February 13, 1997 Page 3 • PP97 1 00: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR KIRKWOOD ADDITION CUSTOM BUILDING PRODUCTS -N. OF REAP DRIVE AND W. OF LEWIS The next item on the agenda was submitted by Kurt Jones of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Custom Building Products for property located north of Reap Drive (private) and west of Lewis Ave. The property is zoned R-3 (High -Density Residential) and contains approximately 3.94 acres with 16 lots (36 units) proposed for a single-family townhouse development. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings and recommended conditions of approval. Since this is a preliminary plat, it must continue to the full Planning Commission. Findings: This is a proposed townhouse development for single family occupancy. The lots are designated as either two or three unit clusters. Conditions of Approval Revision of plat to reflect the following Plat Review comments: a. Dimension all off-site easements b. Label and dimension detention pond c. Revise setback from Lewis Ave. on lots lA & 16B (this dimension should be 25') 2. Consideration of waiver of cul de sac length by Planning Commission 3. Dedicate adequate right of way to reflect 25' from centerline on Lewis Ave. 4. Payment of parks fees of $300.00 per unit, totaling $10,200.00 5. Improvement of Lewis Ave. adjacent to this development including curb & gutter, drainage, and sidewalks Sidewalks installed as follows: a. A minimum 4' sidewalk with a minimum 5' greenspace on one side of Kirkwood wrapping the cul de sac b. A minimum 4' sidewalk with a 6' greenspace between curb and sidewalk on Lewis Ave. 7. Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments • 8. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements l�/ • Subdivision Meeting February 13, 1997 Page 4 9. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water and sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval 10. Pedestrian access (15' wide access easement) on west property line, south to Reap Drive Ms. Little asked if the applicant had received the staff comments (summary of the comments submitted by various divisions of the City). She explained that, provided the conditions of approval were met, the Planning Department had no further comment. Mr. Beavers stated the Engineering Department had concerns about drainage and added Northwest Engineers needed to confirm the existence and location of the natural depression on the existing lot. He advised the pond size was subject to further review. Mr. Rutherford commented Kirkwood would need to have a 5' sidewalk with a 6' greenspace. • Mr. Beavers presented a map illustrating the drainage. Mr. Weber, manager of neighboring complex, expressed concerns about foot traffic through the development, the drainage and the boundaries between the properties. He asked if they could address visual concerns. Ms. Little stated the City could not require any screening, but the developer might be willing to cooperate. Mr. Allred stated since both properties were zoned the same the City could not require screening. He suggested talking with the developers. Mr. Beavers commented the proposed detention pond was almost to the curb of Reap Street. Mr. Weber expressed concerns about the drainage. Mr. Allred reassured Mr. Weber that the developer could not increase the runoff from the development. Mr. Weber stated his development was in the 100 -year flood plain. If he was to dig down, they would dig a wet trench. Ms Little asked Mr. Weber to clarify his concerns about foot traffic; she was not sure if he was te • Subdivision Meeting February 13, 1997 Page 5 in favor of a pedestrian access being provided or opposed to it. Mr. Weber replied if a path was not purposely created the kids would create a path though the development to the school. He wanted to create a designated path. Ms. Little agreed the pedestrian access had to be created and needed to be a 15' wide designated access easement. She though it would be a good ideal to surface the path. Mr. Beavers asked if the development would be a PUD or HOA. Mr. Neel, Custom Building Products, stated they had not decided yet. Ms. Little stated the City would have to have the answer before he filed the final plat and the covenants. Mr. Reynolds suggested creating another entry rather than granting a waiver for the long cul-de- sac. Ms. Little responded they could not loop to Reap because it was a private street and both sides of the property had already been developed. Mr. Allred commented this was an infill project and there was not as many choices. Mr. Reynolds thought it would take a large detention pond to contain all the runoff from the long street. Mr. Forney asked if there was a potential access from Deane Street to the north. Ms. Little stated lot 8A would be the only place, but there was one existing building in between this development and Deane Street. Mr. Reynolds did not like the 800' cul-de-sac; he suggested a stub out at 8A to Deane Street. Mr. Allred did not believe the stub out was cost effective or possible. Mr. Forney asked how many units were planned and how many were allowed in the R-3 zoning. Ms. Little stated they were planning 36 units on four acres. They were asking for one quarter of the density they were allowed. Mr. Forney asked if a higher density could be proposed for the property. 7 • Subdivision Meeting February 13, 1997 Page 6 Ms. Little stated the density could not become higher without a replat. If the development was not started within a year, it could be replated, but they would be starting completely over. Mr. Forney suggested creating 36 tighter lots with a larger green space at the end of the cul-de- sac. Mr. Reynolds asked if there was anything at the end of lot 8A. Ms. Little stated there was one structure between lot 8A and Dean Street. Ms. Hoffman expressed a concern about the cul-de-sac being so close to the property line. She suggested a hammerhead turn around which would create a large area for water detention and green space. Mr. Beavers did not believe that much area was needed for drainage. Mr. Allred cautioned if they did not approve this development, someone else would develop a full scale apartment complex with only one entry and exit. He asked if they preferred 36 units or 100+ units. Mr. Forney expressed concerns about headlights shinning into the adjacent building's windows. He suggested pulling the cul-de-sac back and surrounding it with lots. Mr. Beavers stated that making the pond larger was beyond the requirement and the City would have to participate in the purchase of the property. Mr. Forney recommended the project be redesigned. Mr. Reynolds thought the problems needed to be worked out at Subdivision level before they forwarded the plat to the Planning Commission. Mr. Forney stated he would like to see the cul-de-sac shortened; it would disturb the neighbors at the end of the street less and there would be more options for handling the drainage problems. Ms. Little added if there were changes, the developer needed to know about them now. Mr. Allred stated he did not want to see the developer abandon the project. The possibility of the land being developed as a full apartment complex overrode his concerns about the lengthy cul- de-sac. The associated cost of the land fully developed far exceeded the concession of the lengthy cul-de-sac. What they could get as a result of not being cooperative could be worse than what was presented. II/ Subdivision Meeting February 13, 1997 Page 7 Mr. Fomey suggested making the cul-de-sac shorter and placing the detention pond in the corner. Mr. Beavers asked if they could grade the land to make the cul-de-sac work. Mr. Coan, Northwest Engineers, stated they could. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the project to the Planning Commission. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • el • Subdivision Meeting February 13, 1997 Page 8 PP96-8.10: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CANTERBURY PLACE CUSTOM BUILDING PRODUCTS -N. OF JOYCE ST. & W. OF CROSSOVER RD PP 96-8.10: Preliminary Plat (Canterbury Place) was submitted by Kurt Jones of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Custom Building Products for property located north of Joyce Street and west of Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and contains approximately 20.19 acres with Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings and recommended conditions of approval. Since this is a preliminary plat and a waiver is requested, it must continue to the full Planning Commission. Findings: This is a resubmittal of a preliminary plat. The street configuration has been changed as well as the overall site dimensions. Lot #4 is proposed as a park land dedication. Conditions of Approval • 1. Revision of plat to reflect the following Plat Review comments: a. Zoning Classification is R-1 only b. Beckett Court should be a 28' wide street c. Remove "existing" from the references to the asphalt trail along Joyce Blvd. d. Lots should be relabeled so that Phase I and Phase II are separate but consecutive 2. Dedication of 25' of right of way along the entire north property line including the "Out Lot" 3. Dedication of right of way on Joyce Street to total 55' from centerline 4. Dedication of an access easement to Lot #4 5. Setback from north property line for Tots 6 & 7 is 25', not 20' as shown 6. Consideration of waiver of cul de sac length by Planning Commission 7. Dedication of park land by warranty deed 8. Installation of 4' sidewalks on Beckett Court and Taliesin Lane with 6' greenspace 9. Contribution to the trail along the north side of Joyce Blvd. 10. Contribution of $29,991.28 for improvements to Joyce Blvd. Z? • Subdivision Meeting February 13, 1997 Page 9 11. Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments 12. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements 13. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water and sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 14. Additional conditions: a. Stub out Beckett Court to west property line b. All easments must be filed with Phase I c. Staff recommends that no additional curb cuts be allowed onto Joyce Street • Ms. Little stated they had orginally planned a 25' right-of-way across the entire length of the property on the north. The staff felt the dedication of the right-of-way was still very important. She asked the developer to show the right of way on the plat. The staff was concerned about the access to the west and were recommending Beckett Court be extended west. Lot 4 had been designated as park land and it needed to be marked on the plat as a park and not as a lot. Dr. Hudson had agreed to give access to the city park land from the west. She added they needed to clarify phases. Phase I needed to start with lot 1 and be consecutively numbered through lot 11 (it would including a lot number for the city park land) and Phase II needed to be number 12- 18. Beckett Street needed to be dimensioned 28'. "Existing asphalt trail" needed to delete the word "existing". Joyce Blvd. Needed to be dimensioned 55' from the centerline. On the north property line at lots 6 and 7, need to note the 25' right-of-way dedication would also be a 25' setback. Mr. Allred cautioned people often bought lots believing they were on a cul-de-sac and later the street was extended. Ms. Little stated they had required a sign to be placed at the end of the cul-de-sac stating it was a street extension. Mr. Forney did not believe the sign would last. • Ms. Little suggested engraving the notice in the sidewalk, since the sidewalk would be removed when the street was extended. Subdivision Meeting February 13, 1997 Page 10 Mr. Neel stated they would place a sign at the end of the street and engraved it in the sidewalk. Mr. Allred suggested placing the notice in the covenants. Mr. Beavers stated the only engineering issue was the curves near lots 12 and 11. The two curves would require a waiver from the Minimum Street Standards. The standard did not allow two horizontal curves to be located close together. The street standards were part of the subdivision regulations, which means they could ask for a waiver. He advised he, Mr. Bunn, and Mr. Venable, and himself would support their request if it would save some trees. Ms. Hoffman asked how much traffic there would be on the street. Mr. Allred responded the land was undeveloped. Mr. Beavers added there was an existing subdivision on Zion that it would eventually tie to. Mr. Forney asked why they would need to approve a cul-de-sac waiver if this was not a permanent cul-de-sac. Ms. Little stated it functioned as a cul-de-sac and there was no guarantee it would ever be extended. They were not assured the adjacent land would ever develop. Mr. Brewer, neighbor, stated he had a problem with the exit directly across the road. The head lights came directly into his windows. He asked if some kind of barrier could be erected or if the exit could be moved. Ms. Little stated most developers were willing to work with adjacent property owners. He needed to get with the developer. Mr. Reynolds stated the developer needed to work with the homeowners association. Mr. Rutherford commented the green space between the sidewalk and the curb was Mr. Allred stated staff was recommending Beckett Court be extended to the west. Mr. Forney suggested moving Beckett Court to the phase line, so the City would not have two parallel streets. Ms. Warrick replied if the street was extended, based on the topography it would only go west for a block, then it turn north. zZ • Subdivision Meeting February 13, 1997 Page 11 Mr. Allred did not believe the City wanted a street paralleling Joyce Street. Mr. Forney commented if they were to move the street up to the phase line, then lots 14, 15 and 1 would have their accesses off Joyce Street. Mr. Neel stated if they were to move Beckett Court up to the phase line then Mr. Smith would have to deal with all the head lights. Ms. Little thought it would be best to leave the street where they had designed it and let the street extend to the west along the contours where it would eventually access Old Missouri and Joyce Road. Mr. Reynolds asked why they could not move the street to the north and terminate the cul-de-sac at the park. Ms. Little did not believe it would be safe to have a street intersection at the curves. Mr. Beavers stated it would create a dangerous intersection and Engineering would not recommend that Beckett intersect on the curve. Mr. Allred asked if they wanted the back of homes facing Joyce street. Mr. Neel stated the ideal situation for them would be to rezone to R -O, which was what the 2020 plan recommended. He defended the homes would be nice homes, 3000 + square foot. He added he was on the architectural review committee and they did have some screening provisions. Ms. Little suggested the covenants should require the mechanical equipment and storage be located on the side. Mr. Allred supported the staff recommendation that no additional curb cuts be allowed on Joyce. Mr. Neel stated there would be some screening along Joyce street. Dr. Hudson stated the drainage to the wet land had been purchased and access to the city park would be provided off his driveway. Ms. Little stated they had agreed his driveway would come in on the bottom line of lot 4 and would provide access to the city park. Ms. Smith commented, if the road was to swerve a little more, it would save lot of pine trees and Z3 Subdivision Meeting February 13, 1997 Page 12 a large oak tree. Mr. Beavers stated Engineering would agree to the waiver if some trees could be saved. He stated the engineer would need to request a waiver from the Minimum Street Standards. Mr. Forney asked if the staff had considered access to the east, especially Crossover and Old Wire. He thought they needed to consider an east connection before the item went to the Planning Commission. He questioned the access to the park land through a private drive. Ms. Little stated there was 25' of right-of-way at the north property line that would provide public access. Mr. Allred suggested the easement be increased to 50' for the future development of a street. Mr. Hudson stated he was willing to do that. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to forward the item as presented with staff comments to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion.