Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-14 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on August 14, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED: 1. LS97-23.00: Lot split (Jim Watson) 2. FP 97-3.00: Final plat (Fieldstone Phase IV) 3. FP 97-1.00: Final plat (Salem Village) ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved/ bond request forwarded to City Council MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Reynolds, Lee Ward, John Forney, and John Watkins. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Dawn Warrick, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, Chuck Rutherford, and Heather Woodruff. LS 97-23.00 LOT SPLIT (JIM WATSON) JIM WATSON- 2523 E. HUNTSVILLE ROAD The lot split was submitted by the applicant for property located at 2523 East Huntsville Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 8.81 acres. The request is to split off 1.24 acres from the parent tract. Findings: This request is for a split at the Watson's Grocery property on East Hunstville Road. Technical Plat Review discussion focussed on requested and existing easements as shown on the revised plat. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 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 2� • Subdivision Meeting August 14,1997 Page 2 • • process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk with a minimum 10' greenspace along Huntsville. Sidewalk construction shall be required at the time of development. 5. Shared access is required for the new tract - no new curb cuts onto Huntsville will be permitted. 6. The newly created tract will be required to go through the Large Scale Development process and shall also be subject to Commercial Design Standards. Ms. Little stated all issues had been resolved. Shared access had been granted and was shown on the plat. The 25' utility easement had been granted. She added the site was over one acre and would be subject to the large scale development process and the Commercial Design Standards. Mr. Rutherford stated the sidewalk could be install at the time of development. PUBLIC There was no public comment. Mr. Conklin stated he had the FEMA forms in his office if the applicant wanted to apply for a letter of map revision based on fill, if not the developer would need to elevate his buildings two feet above the base flood elevation. MOTION Mr. Ward moved to approve the lot split with all staff comments and conditions of approval. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4-0-0. 1,04 Subdivision Meeting August 14,1997 Page 3 FP 97-3.00 FINAL PLAT (FIELDSTONE PHASE IV) CASTLE DEVELOPMENT -N. OF WEDINGTON DR & W OF CARLSBAD TRACE The final plat was submitted by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Castle Development for property located north of Wedington Drive and west of Carlsbad Trace. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 24.04 acres with 75 lots proposed. Findings: The preliminary plat for all five phases of Fieldstone Subdivision was approved by Planning Commission 1/10/94. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. All outstanding requirements from previous phases of Fieldstone Subdivision. 4. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $22,500.00 (75 single family lots @ $300.00). 5. Sidewalk construction to include 4' sidewalks with 4' greenspace on one side of the streets as approved at preliminary plat stage; also to include the construction of the sidewalk along Wedington Drive adjacent to Fieldstone Subdivision. 6. The final plat cannot and will not be signed by City staff until all outstanding issues and all punch list items are resolved and all as-builts, construction costs and maintenance bonds are furnished. 7. Note: A guarantee may be placed for sidewalks, landscaping and final pavement at the time of final plat approval as detailed in §159.34 Guarantees in Lieu of Offsite Improvements. Mr. Harry Gray, NW Engineers, stated the developer had a few minor items that needed to be Subdivision Meeting August 14,1997 Page 4 corrected before they could receive final approval, such as changing the address on lots 144 and 145. He added they would not have to bond any of the improvements. Ms. Warrick stated Mr. Gray needed to check the address for lot 187. She thought it was out of sequence. Ms. Little stated there were a few outstanding items from the previous phases of Fieldstone Subdivision. She added the staff would not sign off on the final plat until the items were completed. She reminded Mr. Gray the parks fees were $22,500. She added the staff was looking for the construction of the sidewalk along Wedington Drive. Mr. Bunn stated there were some outstanding items, however, he did not think the final plat approval should be held up. He added the staff would not sign the final plat until all the items were complete. Mr. Gray commented there was a requirement for planting trees or bonding $1500. Ms. Warrick stated the tree planting could be guaranteed if they were not installed by final plat approval. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the item with all staff conditions of approval. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4-0-0. 2�' • Subdivision Meeting August 14,1997 Page 5 • • FP 97-1.00: FINAL PLAT (SALEM VILLAGE, PUD) TRADITIONAL INVESTMENTS- N OF MT. COMFORT RD & W. OF SALEM RD. 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 residential lots and three larger tracts. Findings: The preliminary plat for this Planned Unit Development was approved by the Planning Commission March 27, 1995. The annexation and rezoning was approved by the City Council on March 7, 1995. The final plat was presented to the Subdivision Committee the first time 4/3/97 and was tabled because the final inspection had not been completed. At the 7/3/97 Subdivision Committee meeting, this item was again tabled since the final inspection for streets had been scheduled however not completed. The final inspection was held July 18, 1997 and the proposed Final Plat was discussed at the July 31, 1997 Subdivision Committee meeting. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve this final plat, then staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission resolution of the requirements for the contribution for the proposed future minor arterial on the west side of Salem Village. The developer's engineer has estimated the developer's share to be $92,800.00. Jim McCord, Attorney, has written a letter to the City (March 11, 1997) stating that a performance bond will be presented for the contribution in the amount of 150% of the developer's engineer's estimate of $92,800.00, with the five year time period beginning on the date of the preliminary plat approval of Salem Village (March 27, 1995). Staff agrees with the engineer's estimate for the street, but the estimate for the bridge (or box culvert) appears low. Staff does not know if the five year period can start on the date of preliminary plat approval or if a performance bond can be accepted in lieu of cash. Refer to I59.33.B "Delayed Improvements" of the Subdivision regulations. This section • Subdivision Meeting August 14,1997 Page 6 • states that "... the subdivider shall pay to the city an amount determined by the planning commission in accordance with the standards prescribed in subsection (A) above to be the developer's proportionate share of the cost of said off-site improvements as of the date of the final plat approval; provided, the subdivider may, with the approval of the city council, guarantee payment of said amount so determined ... " (emphasis added for this report) Please refer to the entire section of 159.33, Required off-site improvements. 2. Determination of compliance with the greenspace requirements. The preliminary plat approval refers to the public usage of 13 acres of greenspace. The proposed final plat has 3.59 acres as Parks Dedication and 10 23 acres of greenspace. 3. The covenants need further review and revision prior to the City Planner and City Engineer signing the final plat. Specific issues include the maintenance responsibilities for the private street, alleys and drainage systems. The covenants as presented state that the developer will maintain the public sanitary sewer - this is not accepted. The covenants must also provide that the total greenspace is open to the public ( this was a preliminary plat requirement). 4. A Bill of Assurance, as required by the preliminary plat approval, is required for the widening of the public streets from 24 feet to 31 feet within 180 days after the developer has been notified by the City to widen the street. Clearly show the street dimensions, as constructed, on the final plat. Clearly show the future street widening of the public portion of Thames Drive (is currently 24 feet) and the public portion of Westminster Drive (is currently 24 feet). 5. A Bill of Assurance, in addition to being included in the covenants, is required to provide that all of the greenspace is open for the public to use. 6. Indicate on the Final Plat the public access to the "Park" and to the greenspace. 7. A Bill of Assurance, in addition to being included in the covenants, is required to provide that the two trees per lot minimum are provided (refer to the rezoning and preliminary plat approvals) 8. Payment of $200.00 per lot ($22,000.00) for sanitary sewer charges prior to the City • Engineer's signing the final plat This is a preliminary plat requirement and consistent with development in the Hamestring Creek basin. 2nd Subdivision Meeting August 14,1997 Page 7 9. A copy of the file marked deed and any deed restrictions for park land dedication must be provided to the Director of Parks and Recreation Division. 10. Planning Commission resolution of the requirements for sidewalk construction on Thames Drive (a portion is private and a portion is public). The final plat shows sidewalk on the north side only. Sidewalks on both sides of "every" street was promised by Mr. Whitfield at the rezoning approval by the City Council March 7, 1995). 11. A Bill of Assurance, in addition to being included in the covenants, is required to provide that the development will be constructed in full blocks such that the alleys will be completed in a timely and uniform fashion. The final paving of the alleys may be bonded or guaranteed by the requirements of § 159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements". 12. All final inspection punch list items must be complete. Those items which may be guaranteed according to §159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" may be covered by an acceptable assurance as provided in said ordinance. 13. Clearly indicate on the final mylar which drainage is privately maintained and which drainage is publicly maintained. 14. Add a note to the final plat that "Tract One" and "Tract Two" shown as"Residential/Office/Retail"shall require both rezoning (or conditional use) and separate Large Scale Development approval if any use other than such use permitted by the current R-1 zoning is proposed. 15. A Bill of Assurance, in addition to being included in the covenants, is required to provide that "Tract Three" will not be used for purpose other than that shown on the Final Plat and that "Tract Three" will require separate Large Scale Development approval if developed. 16. The floodplain must be added to the final plat and the base flood elevation and minimum floor elevations clearly shown for all lots in floodplain. All lots in the flood plain shall require separate grading plans and floodplain permits per existing ordinances. 17. Copy of the signed street light agreement must be provided to the Traffic Superintendent. 18. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) • Subdivision Meeting August 14,1997 Page 8 • Ms. Little presented the developer's estimate for the required improvements, she also presented a revised estimate, which had been approved by the City and sent to the developer. She explained the method used to calculated the contribution. The new estimate was $77,447.00 for a cash contribution and $116,171.00 for a bond. She added the developer wished to submit a bond. She explained the Planning Commission could not approve a bond. The bond would be approved by the City Council. However, the Planning Commission did approve the amount of the contribution. Mr. Rudasill stated the owner was willing to accept the estimate and to pursue the approval of the bond. Mr. Forney questioned the difference between the city's estimate and the applicants engineer's. estimate. Ms. Little stated the City's requirement for a street in that location was for a minor arterial (52' wide street). The city's previous method for estimating the developer's contribution was one- half of a standard city street. In this case there was a bridge. Using the standard method for calculating the developers share of improvements, would have exceeded $175,00 which was more than the developers fair share. To calculate the developer's fair share the staff had taken the cost of the 51' wide street for the length of the subdivision, and portion of the traffic generated by the development (9%). The developer's fair share for street and bridge would be $77, 447.00. In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Ms. Little stated they had only assigned a cost for the portion of the street adjacent to the subdivision. Mr. Forney noted the staff normally asked for the cost of half of a standard city street. Ms. Little noted the method used for this development was a traffic proportion share. Mr. Forney asked if the staff would be expected to use the traffic proportion method for other projects. Ms. Little replied the city would have to use the same method to calculate contributions for the properties to the south and to the north to be consistent. Mr. Forney commented the city would have to contribute more toward the street construction using this method. • Ms. Little replied the Planning Commission had the right to assign a proportionate share to the developer. 210 • Subdivision Meeting August 14,1997 Page 9 • • Mr. Mc Cord commented the method the staff was using did comply with the requirements in the ordinance. The ordinance required the off-site improvements to bear rational nexus to the needs created by the development in question. Mr. Forney stated the city would have to contribute more money toward the construction of subdivisions using this method. Mr. McCord noted there was more land in the area that would be developing. Those developers would have to contribute to the construction of the street using the same rational nexus standard. Mr. Forney noted the developer was only being charged for the length of street adjacent to this development. Mr. Rudasill stated the construction of a bridge was not normally figured into the estimate. He noted the bridge would be benefiting the entire area and not just this subdivision. He noted there were contributions being taken for a bridge on the other end of Salem. Mr. Forney suggested the city charge the developer for half of the cost of a standard city street and a proportionate share of the bridge. He felt that would be more consistent with what they had required in the past. Mr. Watkins stated the 9% of the road adjacent to the subdivision was a low number. He thought it should be 9% of the entire road. Ms. Little stated one-half of a standard street and the proportionate share of the bridge would be $139,300.00. Mr. Forney questioned if the estimate was for a four lane bridge. In response to questions from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Bunn stated ultimately a four lane bridge would be required. Ms. Little stated the City Council had been concerned about the timing and the construction of Rupple Road when they were considering the annexation to two parcels of land adjacent to this property. The city council was expecting the road to be built soon. She thought they would want to construct a 4 lane bridge, even if the road was two lane. Mr. McCord asked if the developer would be required to contribute to one-half of a two lane bridge or four lane bridge. Mr. Watkins thought the Planing Commission should require contributions for a four lane bridge • Subdivision Meeting August 14,1997 Page 10 • on the bases of the projected traffic on the road. Mr. Reynolds asked if the proposed subdivisions to the north and the south of this property would be contributing to the construction of the bridge. Ms. Little stated their contribution would be based on the number of lots. She thought the subdivision would have approximately 100 lots. Mr. Reynolds asked if Crystal Springs had to contribute to the new road. Ms. Little stated the Salem Road crossing was south of Crystal Spring. There had not been any contributions for that bridge. She added the city had not improved the bridge, it was still two lane and backed water up. Mr. Forney asked if the subdivision to the south would be charged for bridge improvements. Ms. Little stated they would. Their contribution would be very close to this subdivisions contribution, because they were close to the same size. Mr. McCord clarified the cost to the developer would be based on the cost of one-half of a 31' standard city street and 9% of the estimated cost of the bridge. Ms. Little stated if the estimate was bonded, it would be the actual cost of the improvement. She added any thing given over the cost of the improvement would be returned to the developer. She stated estimate for the developers contribution was $139,300.00. In response to comments made by Mr. Watkins and Mr. Forney, Mr. Bunn stated the developer's contribution should be based on a four lane bridge. He explained the purpose of a minor arterial was to carry traffic from one part of the town to another part of town. He added the developers share of the minor arterial would be less, proportionally, than the cost of a local street. Mr. Rudasill commented Rupple Road would be a direct access to the mall. Mr. Forney asked what the charge to the developer would have been if Rupple Road had been a typical local street with a bridge. Mr. Rudasill referred to Bridgeport, where the developer had been required to construct the bridge at his own cost. • Ms. Little stated the developer had been required to construct the bridge because the bridge only served Bridgeport. • Subdivision Meeting August 14,1997 Page 11 Mr. Forney asked if there were any precedents for contribution to bridges. Ms. Little stated the city did not have any good precedents for bridges. Typically a developer was charged the cost of one-half of the street adjacent to the subdivision. She noted Pine Valley and Pine Creek had not been required to contribute to the Hamestring Creek bridge, but they were charged a $240.00 per lot fee for the construction of a bridge on Salem Road. They had collection approximately $50,000 for the construction of a bridge on Salem Road She added the city needed to develop a good method for determining the developers cost to bridges improvements. Mr. McCord agreed with the idea that the developer should be charged for the impact the subdivision would have on the infrastructure. Ms. Little asked if the commissioner wanted to charge the developer for his proportionate share of the entire road, rather than the portion adjacent to his property, and his proportion of the four lane bridge. She noted the cost of one-half of 31' street and 9% of the bridge was the same as the cost for 9% of the entire road and bridge. • Mr. Watkins questioned if the Planing Commission required contribution from the developer for a four lane bridge and a two lane bridge was constructed, would the developer receive a refund. Ms. Little replied the developer would receive a refund. She added the estimate was for $139,000 (if the developer gave them cash). If the developer gave the city a bond the amount would be for 150% of the $139,000. She added city council would have to approve a bond. In reference to condition #2, Ms. Little stated the development was required to have 10.23 acres. Mr. Rudasill stated there was over 13 acres of greenspace, including the park. Ms. Little stated the staff had received the revised covenants. She stated the staff would not sign the final plat until the covenants were correct. She added the staff had also received the bill of assurance. She had faxed the correct wording to the applicant. She stated if the wording matched then they would accept it. She added there was one exception, # 11, the wording had been changed, "alleys will be stabilized and paved with a permanent chip and seal surface prior to final plat sign off." In reference to #10, resolution of sidewalk waiver, Ms. Little stated Mr. Whitfield had planned a trail along the creek that Planning had not been aware of. • Mr. Rudasill stated the Army Corps of Engineers had designated the area as a wetland. The developer was proposing a nature trail along the creek with three entrys. The main entry would 0 • Subdivision Meeting August 14,1997 Page 13 • have continuity. Creeks were the best places for bike trails and children. Mr. Rutherford added a natural trail would limit the types of uses. Ms. Little clarified a sidewalk would not be required She asked if the commissioners were wanting the trail to be paved, if it was allowed by the Corps. Mr. Watkins stated the trail needed to be designated as a trail, elevated, and marked. He preferred paving, if it was allowed under the Corp of Engineers regulations He added if it was not paved he wanted to see it designated and marked as a trail. Mr. Rudasill stated the trail would be designated because they were only allowed to mow the trail. Ms Little stated the wording in condition #10 would be, "Trail may be substituted. Trail must be designated and marked." Mr. Forney commented the city needed a standard for the trails. Ms. Little replied the city did have a standard for trails. What the city had not done was adapt the standard to a wetland area The city had a floodplain and floodway standard. She added wetland areas were totally out of the city's control. She added wetlands were different. They were governed by the Army Corp of Engineers who administered §44 of the Clean Water Act. The city had full control over administration of the FEMA requirements. They had no control over wet lands. Mr. Forney commented the city should not be accepting trails in wetlands because the city could not control them. Mr. McCord stated they were not asking the city to accept the trail because it was going to be maintained by the POA. Ms. Little stated the wording of condition #10 would be changed to read, "Trail may be substituted. Trail must be designated, marked, paved to city standard (if allowed by Army Corp of Engineers). Mr. Reynolds stated Mr. Rutherford should work with the Corp in determining the surface of the trail • Mr. McCord stated this was a private trail within a subdivision that had wetlands. He requested the commissioners not require a paved surface because this wetland was not part of a continuous ZA • Subdivision Meeting August 14,1997 Page 14 trail system. It was a wetland area with in a subdivision which would be privately maintained. Ile added the subdivision had a continuous sidewalk system on both sides of the streets. Mr. Watkins suggested stating in the condition, " the trail would be surfaced in accordance with the Army Corp of Engineers regulations." In response to concerns from Mr. Forney, Ms Little stated the staff had not been involved in the development of the trail. They did not know anything about the trail until the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Little stated the wording in condition #10 would be, "Trail may be substituted in lieu of a sidewalk on the south side of Thames. Trail must be designated, marked, and surfaced in accordance with the Corp of Engineers regulation. Mr. Forney moved to approve the final plat with all staff comments. Mr. Ward second the motion. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m. 2��