Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-03 - Minutes31 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on April 3, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Conrad Odom, Bob Reynolds, John Forney, and Lorel Hoffman. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Dawn Warrick, Chuck Rutherford, Beth Sandeen, and Heather Woodruff. LSD 97-2 00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR SUPERIOR CAR WASH DON GINGER- N. OF JOYCE BLVD. & W. OF CROSSOVER RD pp 177 The large scale development was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Engineering for Don Ginger for property located north of Joyce Blvd. And west of Crossover Road. The property is zoned C-1 ( Neighborhood Commercial) and contains approximately 0.86 acres. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings and recommended conditions of approval There are no waivers requested by the applicant for this large scale development. Findings: This project is located on a lot which was previously split from the existing Petromark (White Oak Station) site at Joyce and Crossover. Joint access, right of way dedication and a contribution to the Joyce Street improvement project were requirements of the lot split. Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) 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 • 4. Substantial compliance with materials (building and sign elevations) submitted to comply with commercial design standards ordinance. Subdivision Meeting April 3, 1997 Page 2 5. Payment of the $10,000 required contribution for Joyce St. improvements prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. Separate easement plat for this project prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. Additional conditions: Ms. Little stated 83.8% of the lot was paved; the City allowed 85% of the lot to be paved under the Commercial Design Standards. She presented drawings of the building and the signage. She added the developer had been very cooperative during the review process. They had moved from two entrances to one center entry. They had also added a cross access. Mr. Beavers reminded Mr. Ginger had to pay $10,900 toward the Joyce Street widening prior to issuance of building permit. Ms. Little added the Joyce Street contribution had been a condition of the lot split. The proposed fuel island had been removed. She suggested large street numbers on the building. Mr. Forney questioned if the 12' one-way drive would be adequate. He asked if they had considered a joint entry. Ms. Little stated they had considered a joint entry, but because of the location of the car wash and the exiting of the adjoining property. It would be easier and safer to have one curbcut on the front. Mr. Fomey stated he was concerned about the addition of the curbcuts to the west. Ms. Little stated this was the second time they had tried to do a shared access at service stations, both times it had not worked out. There had been serious conflict points. There was no public comment. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve the item subject to the staff comments. Mr. Forney seconded the motion The motion carried by a vote of 3-0-0. �3 • Subdivision Meeting April 3, 1997 Page 3 FP 97-1.00: FINAL PLAT FOR SALEM VILLAGE, P U.D pp284 TRADITIONAL INVESTMENTS. LTD- N. OF MT. COMFORT RD & W OF SALEM The Final Plat was submitted by Bill Rudasill of WBR Engineering Associates on behalf of Traditional investments, Ltd. for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road and west of Salem Road. The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and contains approximately 39.2 acres with 111 lots proposed. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings and recommended conditions of approval Findings: This is a final plat for Salem Village, a planned unit development. The preliminary plat was approved by Planning Commission March 27, 1995. Conditions of Approval 1. Copy of the signed street light agreement must be provided to the Traffic Superintendent. • 2. A copy of the file marked deed and any deed restnctions for park land dedication must be provided to the Director of Parks & Rec. Division All final inspection punch list items must be complete. Those items which may guaranteed according to § 159.34 "Guarantees in lieu of installed improvements" can be covered by an acceptable assurance as provided in said ordinance. 4. Additional conditions: Ms. Little stated the City would need the final inspection before the plat could receive approval from the Planning Commission. She added if everything had been complete it could have been approved at the Subdivision level, however it had not been completed. The item would have to be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Most of the items were substantiality complete. In response to a question from Mr. Beavers, Mr. Rudasill stated they were tring to schedule the final inspection for next week. Mr. Beavers stated the inspection would have to be prior to Thursday for the item to proceed to the Planning Commission. He explained, Thursday was the agenda session for the Commission. The inspection would have to be complete no later than Wednesday. • Mr. Forney asked how the final plat differed from the preliminary plat. • Subdivision Meeting April 3, 1997 Page 4 • • Mr. Rudasill stated there had been change, which had been coordinated through Planning. Westminster had been constructed as a 22' street instead of 24' in accordance with the P.U.D. regulations. Mr. Reynolds asked why they had not completed the final inspection before bringing it to the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Rudasill replied the inspectors had not been able to drive around the site because of the rain. Mr Beavers commented the developer had asked to bond out the alleys which was fine, however, the City had to be able to access the water and sewer in the alleys. Mr. Rudasill stated it had been his understanding the alleys had to be stabilized. Mr. Beavers asked if the stabilization would be complete by Wednesday. Mr. Rudasill replied the stabilization would not be complete by Wednesday. The alleys would be stabilized after the gas company had installed their lines. Mr. Beavers questioned why there would not be a driveable surface to the sewer lines. Mr. Rudasill stated there would be driveable surfaces when it was dry. The alleys had been cut and they did drain. Mr. Beavers questioned what would happen if they needed to get into the lines when it was raining. Ms. Little stated part of the agreement for allowing the developer to bond out of the alley was that they provide a driveable surface. Mr. Rudasill thought if they could access the site at the time of inspection then they could approve it. Mr. Reynolds felt the item needed to be tabled until the issues could be settled and the developers had completed their final inspection. He did not believe they were ready to proceed. Mr. Odom agreed. Mr. Reynolds stated the item would be tabled until they had completed the final inspection and there was a driveable surface. 3� 3S Subdivision Meeting April 3, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Whitfield stated that tabling the item would take some pressure off, since they were forecasting rain. Mr. Rudasill stated they would like to file the deed for the park land and the final plat at the same time. Ms. Little stated Parks would not sign off on the plat until they had the park land deed. They need to have time to check the legal description. The land agents would also have to sign off on it. Mr. Reynolds stated everything needed to be complete and the driveable surface work out, before the final plat came before the Subdivision Committee again. 311 • Subdivision Meeting April 3, 1997 Page 6 LSD 97-4.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR PROCTOR AND GAMBLE S. OF MILLSAP AND E. OF PLAINVIEW DR pp 213 The large scale development was submitted by Bob Kelly of Cromwell Architects / Engineers on behalf of Flake, Tabor, Kelly Partnership for property located south of Millsap and east of Plainview Drive. The property is zoned C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial) and contains approximately 3.55 acres. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings and recommended conditions of approval Findings: A large scale development plan was approved for this location in September 23, 1996. The plan changed substantially and was therefore brought back through the development process as a new submittal. Conditions of Approval • 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) 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 Substantial compliance with materials (building elevations) submitted to comply with commercial design standards ordinance. 5. Separate easement plat for this project prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. Additional landscaping required within the parking lot and proposed parking lot areas Spans of 17', 18', 20' spaces without trees do not meet the intent of the parking lot ordinance §160.117. 7. Stub out to south property line for future cross access must be 24' wide and must extend to the property line. • 8. Construction of sidewalks in accordance with current City standards to include a 6' sidewalk with 10' greenspace along Millsap and a 6' sidewalk with 6' greenspace along • Subdivision Meeting April 3, 1997 Page 7 Plainview. Sidewalks shall be continuous through driveways. Ms. Little stated there had been several changes since they had looked at the site. The project was larger and the driveway had moved. The staff had asked for the building to be pulled closer to the front with more parking to the side and rear, however, that request had not been worked out. She added the access dnve to the south needed to be extended to the property line. Mr. Beavers stated they had already approved the grading plan from the previous design. They were currently working on site now. Ms. Sandeen believed the landscaping was fine. She stated there was no difference from a tree being planted outside the parking lot as apposed to one being planted inside the parking lot. She preferred he add trees where they would have more room to grow. Ms. Little stated there was a future expansion and future parking noted that would not be constructed now, however, the applicant was asking for that approval now. • Mr. Odom believed the 15,000 square feet of expansion and additional parking should be dealt with in the future and not now. Mr. Forney asked if there would be screening required for loading docks. Mr. Kelly stated most of the people using the dock would be white collar people, in suits coming out to load up small amounts of product. It would not be used extensively. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the item without the expansion, with all staff comments and a dumpster located in the rear with screening on three sides. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously by a vote of 3-0-0. • 31 3g Subdivision Meeting April 3, 1997 Page 8 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHARLESTON PLACE P.U.D. GREG HOUSE- N. OF MISSION BLVD & E. OF OLD WIRE RD, pp 177 The preliminary plat was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of MTM of El Dorado, L.L.C., for property located north of Mission Blvd. and east of Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and contains approximately 12.84 acres with 51 lots proposed. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings and recommended conditions of approval This item is a preliminary plat and therefore must continue in the development process to be heard by the full Planning Commission. Findings: This is the fourth submittal of this subdivision. Revisions include a new street layout - the previous layout had sight distance problems. A one-way loop street on the south side to the project is proposed in this newest submittal. Density remains at 51 lots. All streets and drainage areas (including detention ponds) are proposed by the applicant as public facilities. There was much discussion at the Plat Review level concerning access to manholes serving the lots on the north side of the main street. Maintenance of the drainage system / detention ponds was also a concern. Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) 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. 4. Payment of parks fees of $15,300.00 (51 lots @ $300.00 each), payable within 30 days of Final Plat approval. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 4' sidewalk with 6' greenspace on both sides of Amber Dr., and a 4' sidewalk with 4' greenspace on one side of Cypress Lane. 6. Correct street names according to Plat Review comments. iC1 • Subdivision Meeting Apnl 3, 1997 Page 9 • 7. A letter from the developer requesting that the Planning Commission allow the proposed 12.5' front building setbacks. 8. Additional conditions: Ms. Little stated the staff had received a plat and a chart illustrating the green space. The developer had provided 4.14 acres if they included the greenspace near the entry. If they did not include the area the green space would be 3.47 acres. Mr. Jorgensen, project engineer, stated Jim Johnson had called him and the name of the street through the subdivision was changed back to Amber. He was not sure Mr Franklin was aware of the change. Ms. Little replied they would have to have the name issue resolved before he submitted his revisions. She stated the normal front setback in an R-1, subdivision was 25'. Mr. House was requesting a waiver from the front setback to 12.5 feet. The Planning Commission had the authority to do that under the PUD ordinance to grant the request. Mr. House had submitted house plans for lots 44,45, 25, 24, 23, 22, and 1, in response to concerns about the lots being buildable. Mr. Beavers stated the Public Works Department would review maintenance of streets and drainage on a case by case basis. They would not accept Cypress as a public street. It would have to be a private street. The property owners association would have to maintain it. The City would not accept the maintenance of the three detention ponds. A property owners association would have to be setup to maintain those. The City would not maintain any open channels or swales that went into the ponds. Mr. House asked Mr. Beavers to repeat his reasoning for not maintaining the streets and ponds. Mr. Beavers stated they were going to look at subdivisions on a case by case basis. They did not have a firm written policy for when they would accept something for maintenance and when they would not. Mr. Forney thought they should offer a suggestion on how the developer could change his design so the City would be willing to accept the streets. Mr. Odom questioned if the City was going to require a detention pond for floodways, why was • the City not willing to maintain them. Subdivision Meeting April 3, 1997 Page 10 Mr. House stated it was discrimination when they could choose one development over another and not have a firm policy for all developers. Mr. Beavers replied the City was not set up to maintain the ponds. They did not have many detention ponds yet. The decision was going to have to be made by administration, if they were going to set up a storm water utility or expand the street department in order to maintain the ponds. Mr. Forney asked if there were any ponds the city had agreed to maintain. Mr. Beavers stated there were a few ponds they had agreed to maintain. Most of the ponds were on commercial developments. There were very few ponds in the residential areas. None of them were maintained by the City. He added he would be happy to meet with Mr. House and the public works directors. Mr. House asked why the one-way street would not be maintained by the City. He added this was the first time the issue had been mentioned. Mr. Beavers did not believe he could give Mr. House an adequate answer. He thought it went back to the item being a PUD. The opinion was if they were going to have a private unit development, then everything in it should be private that could be. Mr. Odom stated his understanding of the Planned Unit Developments were private streets as long as they did not hook up with another street. Ms. Little stated they could be private if the did not met the City's standard. If they met the City's standard then they could be public streets. Mr. Forney stated they had have problems with PUD ordinances and definitions. He thought PUD's were a good thing, because they potentially gave them higher densities, which gave them less infrastructure to maintain per more residents. Mr. Odom thought the City would want to maintain the street because it gave them less of a street to maintain then a standard subdivision. Mr. Forney believed this developer would be doing something that would be making the City's burden less. Ms. Little noted the street width on the one-way would be less than on a two way. She asked what they needed to do, because these issues could not be solved today. 40 • Subdivision Meeting April 3, 1997 Page 11 • • Mr. Beavers stated he had expressed the Public Works position. Mr. Reynolds asked if Mr. House would still build the subdivision if the city did not assume maintance. Mr. House stated part of their original agreement was to lessen the number of lots from their original request to meet the City's standards so the City would maintain the streets. This was a small development to have an entire maintenance program. Part of the reason for going through the all the layouts was to accommodate the layout from the City's stand point. Mr. Reynolds asked Mr. Beavers if his answer came from the third floor. Mr. Beavers replied yes. Ms. Hoffman asked how wide the streets were. Mr. House replied the pavement was 18 feet, the right-of-way was 35 feet. Ms. Ho an asked if it met the City's standard for a one-way street. Mr. Beavers stated there was not a one-way street defined in the ordinance. Ms. Hoffman asked if the original plat submitted had private streets. Mr. House stated in the beginning they had proposed private streets, however they could justify taking care of them because they had more lots to pay for them. Ms. Little stated the standard for a private street in a PUD was 14' for 1-20 dwelling units. For 21+ dwelling units it was 14' for one-way. For on -street parking 6' must be added to each side where parking is intended. She added they were asking for a 20' one-way. The minimum for two-way was 24' and parking was allowed. The residential street standard was 24' from back of curb- parking was allowed. She suggested making the streets 24' wide with a 40' right-of-way to meet City standards. Mr. Beavers stated Mr. House's engineers had done everything they could have to accommodate what the City had asked for, however, the access to the sewer manholes/ gravel trail would have to be paved and then maintained. Ms. Hoffman asked why the sewer access was not in the front. Mr. Beavers stated they would prefer the sewers to be in the front, but if the developer wanted to • Subdivision Meeting April 3, 1997 Page 12 • • have the sewer in the rear then he would have to provide truck access to every manhole. Mr. Jorgensen stated the property went down hill. If the sewer line was placed out front then the houses could not be serviced. A pump would have to placed in the basement of the house. He added the health department would not approve individual pump units. Mr. Beavers agreed the City and the Health department were crosswise on their policies. Mr. Jorgensen stated they had placed the sewers in the rear to provide service. They had tried to provide adequate access to the manholes. The EPA had mandated that the sewer lines be cleaned out ever year or two , so they had provided the 10' access. Mr. Forney asked if this was the first subdivision in which the lots were lower then the streets. Mr. Reynolds believed there were things going on that they were not used to seeing. He asked where the decisions were coming from that was changing things, that it was not in staff comments. He thought they needed to postpone the item until Mr. House could get together with whoever it was. And get these things worked out. Mr. House commented the process was not working well. He should be able to sit down and decide wether or not it worked and not decide the day of the meeting that they would not take the street or there had to be additional paving. Mr. Reynolds stated he had no way of answering his questions. Ms. Little stated there were problems that needed to be worked out. There was a week and a half before the Planning Commission meeting. She was not sure the planning commission had anything to do with the maintenance. The city staff needed to get back together. Mr. House suggested continuing through the meeting to see if there are any additional issues, he needed to be aware of, then make a decision on whether or not to proceed. He asked to hear all the other comments. Mr. Beavers stated Mr. Jurgens had to service the sewer lines with trucks. He would have to be able to pull from one manhole to the next. PUBLIC Mr. Reed Greenwood, 1601 Elmwood, commented the layout looked better than the other plans that had been presented. He stated one of the requirements for a PUD was that it had to save the City money. He assumed that was why they would have private streets and property owners • Subdivision Meeting April 3, 1997 Page 13 associations to pick up the maintenance. He did not believe this would project would save the City money. It seemed to him the Commission was more concerned with the green space and the density. There were other places more appropriate places for dense development, such as areas zoned for apartments. Mr. Chuck Charlton, 1961 Overcrest Street, asked what the sign would look like and if the trees would be preserved. Mr. House stated the sign had not been designed, but it would be the name of the subdivision. Mr. Forney asked a sign and island would be allowable on a public street. Ms. Little replied the island would not be public, it would be privately owned. The land area between the curbs would also be owned and maintained by Home Owners Associations. Mr. Charlton stated he did not like the sign being located there because it would be in his sight. • Ms. Little stated it was on Mr. House's property and he was allowed the same property rights as everyone else. Mr. Charlton also expressed concern about the trees along the creek and in the detention pond area. Mr. Jorgensen stated they were going to try and retain the trees as best they could, but in some situations they would not be able too. They would preserve the trees along the creek. Mr. House stated they would preserve all the trees they could. He asked if the developer or the Property Owners Association maintained the ponds would there be any City objection to leaving the trees in the pond area. In response to concerns voiced by Mr. Beavers and Ms. Hoffman, Mr. House stated they could build to the west on lot 17 of the easement line. Lot 49 could be built on north of the easement line. Another option might be to move the sewer line. Mr. Beavers stated it was not possible to move the sewer line. The line could not handle the increased friction. Ms Little asked them to submit drawings illustrating how they planned to fit a house on lots 17 and 49. If they could not fit a house on the lot, they would note on the plat that they were • unbuildable lots. tI5 • Subdivision Meeting April 3, 1997 Page 14 • • Ms. Jane Gailbreath suggested working on the PUD ordinance. Mr. Forney believed the PUD was an opportunity to negotiate a solution to address the property owners best intention and the City's needs. The PUD was intended to be more flexible. Mr. Ralph Truman, an area resident, did not believe this was a good area for a PUD. He did not believe there was a large enough demand for housing. He expressed sympathy for Mr. House for the number of times he had to come back for revisions. He expressed his frustration with the current ordinances. Mr. House stated they wanted to create a more traditional feeling neighborhood by placing the buildings closer to the street. They had provided a wide right-of-way between the curb and property line. Rather than having a home sitting 35-40 feet back from the curb, they wanted the builders to come out closer to the street with porches and sidewalks. The PUD ordinance did not address leaving out utility easements as part of the green space requirements. In order to accommodate the staff recommendations and request. They had not calculated any of the utility easements in the green space and still had enough green space to meet the PUD requirement. They were using an odd piece of the property for the green space. Ms. Little replied the ordinance did not tell them they could not count easements, but tt had normally been one of the staff requirements. When the utility were put in and the utilities were put in; people did not consider it green space. They had made that a standing rule. In response to a comment from Mr. Greenwood, Mr. House stated there was less street footage per lot. The city would have more tax payers to pay for less street. He asked to think about the maintenance and talk to the people on the third floor. He asked for the Subdivision Committees recommendation to carry on, subject to them working out the problems before the Planning Commission. Mr. Odom asked how Mr. House would design garages into his concept. Mr. House replied the garages would be in the back of the house, as it had been presented in all their other submittals. The basic tenor style had remained the same throughout the process. He could not comment to having covered parking for all the homes. Some of the homes might not have garages to make them more affordable. They wanted to keep the traditional feel. The parking would be in the rear. There would be some shared driveways. In response to a question from Mr. Odom, Mr. House stated he would have restrictive covenants, which would be the same as those submitted in the past. In response to a question from Mr. Fomey, Mr. House stated they had always planned to 4t4 Subdivision Meeting April 3, 1997 Page 15 maintain the green space. Mr. Forney stated he would support the 12.5 feet setback request. He also support the strip of land going out toward Old Wire as green space. He felt it would benefit the neighbors to the north and south of it. Mr. Reynolds commented he liked this plat better than any of the previous submittal. MOTION Mr. Fern moved to forward the item to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds second the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 3-0-0. • Subdivision Meeting April 3, 1997 Page 16 LSD 97-3.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR SUNBRIDGE CENTER (pp290) N. OF SUNBRIDGE DR. AND E. OF KEYSTONE CROSSING The large scale development was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Keating Enterprises for property located north of Sunbridge drive and east of Keystone Crossing. The property is zoned R -O (Residential -Office) and contains approximately 5.12 acres. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings and recommended conditions of approval. There are no waivers requested by the applicant for this large scale development. Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. • 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) 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 • 4. Substantial compliance with materials (building elevations) submitted to comply with commercial design standards ordinance. 5. Separate easement plat for this project prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. Existing easements to be vacated must go through the formal easement vacation process. 7. Construction of sidewalks in accordance with current City standards to include a minimum 5' sidewalk with 4' green space along Sunbridge Drive. The sidewalk shall be continuous through driveways. Ms. Little stated the Commercial Design Standards were in effect. This was the first project they had problems getting the drawings from them. They had received a street elevation, however, it did not illustrate in detail the color or materials to be used. They knew there would be metal roofing and siding. She thought they needed to ask for more definitive color scheme. They had solved this problem at Glennwood by submitting a material board. She noted they had done a lot on cross access. On the west side the cross access could go to either lot. On the east side it Subdivision Meeting April 3, 1997 Page 17 would serve only one lot. Mr. Beavers stated Mr. Jorgensen had answered all his questions. Mr. Fern commented it was unfortunate because there were not any entrances along the back of the building. There was a sidewalk that did no connect into the development at any point. Ms. Little added they had assured her that there would be two fronts. Mr. Fern noted there were not doors shown on the elevation or sidewalks to the building. Mr. Jorgensen stated he could add the doors and the sidewalk to the building. Ms. Little asked, at the very lest, that there be an open way through to other parts of the building. Mr. Fern stated he appreciated the connection to the east and to the west. MOTION Mr. Fern moved to approve the item subject to all staff comments and a revised elevation indicating materials, and pedestrian access to the south edge of the property be detailed. Mr. Odor seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0-0.