Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-26 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on February 26, 1998, at 8:35 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED: ACTION TAKEN 1. LS98-5.00: Lot Split - Larry Robbins Forwarded to Planning Commission 2. LS98-6.00: Lot Split - Larry Robbins MEMBERS PRESENT• Bob Reynolds, Phyllis Johnson, and John Forney. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Chuck Rutherford, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, Jim Beavers and Apryl Okoroafor. LS 98-5.00 & LS 98-6.00: LOT SPLIT #1 AND #2 LARRY ROBBINS (pp 367) - 70 EAST POPLAR STREET The only items on the agenda were lot splits submitted by the applicant for property located at 70 East Poplar Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low -Density Residential and contains approx. one acre. The request is to create three lots (0.43ac, 0.26ac, 0.30ac). This constitutes the first and second lot split requests. STAFF REPORT: Staff Findings: This property is located across the street from Woodland Jr. High School. A pedestrian access easement is being required in order to provide access from the school to the adjoining residential neighborhood. Staff 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) Subdivision Meeting February 26,1998 Page 2 • 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 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 4. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $750.00 for two additional residential lots ($375.00 per lot). 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include the repair of the existing driveway approach on lot 1. Construction of sidewalks for lots 2 and 3 will be required at the time of development. 6. Construction of a 10' asphalt walkway (trail) within the access easement as shown on lot 3 at the time of development of that lot. The walkway/trail must have at both entrance and exit point bars to prevent motorized traffic. 7. Sewers will have to be extended to serve the newly created lots - this requirement will have to be met prior to the issuance of building permits on lots 2 and 3. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. Rutherford noted that the condition of the existing sidewalk was in less than desirable condition. He stated that Mr. Robbins had already agreed to have the existing sidewalk repaired. Mr. Rutherford also stated that Mr. Robbins had agreed to build the 10' trail as discussed with Ms. Little previously. Ms. Johnson requested that trail be defined. Mr. Rutherford expanded on this for Mr. Robbins; 10' hard surface trail in either asphalt or Portland cement concrete. Ms. Johnson asked why it was called a trail and not a sidewalk. Mr. Rutherford stated that it's with and expected use by bicyclist. Ms. Johnson asked what will keep the automobile traffic off the trail. Mr. Rutherford explained that all trails that are multi use trails or hard surfaces have bars at the entrances/exits to prevent motorized traffic. Subdivision Meeting February 26,1998 Page 3 Mr. Robbins expressed that the pine trees at the end of the trail that would meet with the cul- de - sac would prevent motorized traffic. Ms. Johnson asked if they had to be removed. Ms. Little stated that they could be left to help prevent the flow of motorized traffic on the trail. Mr. Parker residing at 20 East Poplar (the neighbor to the west of Mr. Robbins property), stated that a couple of hundred people a day use the trail in question. He saw no point in the removal of the pine trees at the end of the trail. Mr. Rutherford stated that if the pine trees are left alone and the trail is put in around them, approval would not have to be sought from Beth Sandeen. Expressing concern for the expected Life of the trees after the trail has been laid. Mr. Robbins said that right now there is a gate that stops traffic. Mr. Parker asked who owned the gate. Mr. Robbins stated that the gate was part of his property. He would have to change it in order to put the trail in. Mr. Parker expressed concern for the unsightly power lines at the back of the property, around 20' in height, that turn south heading toward Woodland Jr.High then across the front of the property in question. Mr. Robbins has not addressed the placement of the power lines that run in front of the lot in question. Mr. Parker stated that the power lines were very ugly. Ms. Little asked which direction Mr. Parker was from the property. Mr. Reynolds apologized for assuming that Mr. Parker and Mr. Robbins were together and thanked Mr. Parker for coming to the meeting. Mr. Parker expressed that his two concerns were the power lines that ran around the property and the sidewalks. Mr. Reynolds requested more explanation as to "ugly power lines." Mr. Parker stated that the power lines are about 20' tall and the trees are butchered. Subdivision Meeting February 26,1998 Page 4 • Ms. Johnson stated that trees around power lines will always be trimmed to protect the power • lines. Mr. Parker stated that one of the things that he had been wanting to do was to bury the power lines. He questioned that possibility. Mr. Renolds said that he did not think on this project that it would be possible. Ms. Little stated that the Planning Commission would have to make the decision on whether or not to bury the power lines. Burying of the power lines was not anticipated. For all new residential development power lines are supposed to be placed underground. If the power lines are not buried, the Planning Commission has to give a waiver for that. Ms. Little said that this needs to go on to Planning Commission in order to decide whether or not to bury to power lines. Mr. Reynolds asked Mr. Robbins if the project would still be feasible if the power lines need to be buried. Mr. Robbins said probably not, he could sell the property either way. Mr. Robbins said he was just trying to help the city by building the trail If it is decided that the power lines would need to be buried Mr. Robbins would not go any further with it. He stated that he would either rent or sell the property as is. Mr. Parker again stated his concern for the unattractive power lines. Ms. Little stated that it is a minimum of 250 dollars a foot up to something like 20 thousand dollars a foot. The way the power companies are reacting to the request to put power lines underground is that they are charging the developers. In the beginning we understood that the rate structure for the power companies was for them to recover all of their cost through rates But that is not how the power companies are treating the under grounding of power lines. We would certainly prefer, if that is the request, to put the power lines under ground. We would rather do all the power lines as one piece as opposed to having some sections underground and some sections above ground. This will be SWEPCO's territory. Mr. Robbins would need to call SWEPCO for an estimate on the cost at which time Larry would provide the City Planning Commission with a copy of that information. Mr. Reynolds asked if there were any other power lines below ground in this area. Mr. Parker stated that all the power lines on Poplar ran along the back of the lots then the turn to the front of the lot at 20 East Poplar. All the power lines are above ground. Mr. Parker asked if the possible solution would be to move the power lines to the back of the lots. • Ms. Little said that it would be a great compromise. Subdivision Meeting February 26,1998 Page 5 Mr. Robbins asked if SWEPCO would move the power lines to the back of the lots. Ms. Little said that sometimes SWEPCO would move the power lines at no charge. Mr. Robbins asked if it made since to have a small section underground when everything else in the area was above ground. Ms. Little said that the Planning Commission would need to look at the size of the power lines in question. If the power lines are a single phase or a three phase, it would probably not be a great obstacle. Mr. Robbins asked if SWEPCO met with the Plat Review at their first meeting. Ms. Little said yes. Mr. Robbins asked what were SWEPCO's comment then. Ms. Little said that SWEPCO did not mention the size of the power lines. Mr. Robbins inquired as to why it was a problem know, stating that he thought that was the reason we had the first meeting to clear these things up. Ms. Little stated that SWEPCO is not always aware of where their facilities are. She indicated that is why we invite the public to these meetings because know one of us knows every issue about every project. We try to invite those that are close buy who would know as well. Mr. Robbins stated his displeasure with the situation. Ms. Little stated that she was very sensitive to power lines and she did not see the power lines on the street. Even though she travels it every day. Ms. Johnson stated that it is just in new subdivisions that all the power lines in residential are under ground. Ms. Johnson said that anything that has been existing in the city for very long, I think, has been above ground if it is residential. Subdivision Meeting February 26,1998 Page 6 • Ms. Little said remember Mr. Holcomb, He said the first underground subdivision was Highland Park, over off of highway 265. That was about 1959-60. Ms. Johnson asked if there have been any more subdivisions built with underground power lines since Highland Park. Ms. Little said that could not say for sure. That Highland Park did not do underground power lines due to city regulations but for esthetic reasons. Mr. Forney addressed Mr. Robbins saying that he appreciated Mr. Robbins frustration and I suspect that if it comes before the commission I will vote to wave the requirement for the power lines to go underground. But in fact I don't think that your (Mr. Robbins) are going through any more hoops then you would have to go through any way. You (Mr. Robbins) would have to come to those commissions and it would have to go to the Planning Commission. I understand your frustration that you will have to deal with us again. The process will not be slowed down in any way. This is not something that we can waive at this level This is just the procedure. Ms. Johnson expanded that this is a relatively new ordinance. We've only begun to see this in the last few meetings. Mr. Robbins said, I understand, I'm not trying to be hard headed at all, I'm a reasonable man. • But first time I was here and met with SWEPCO this should have been brought up, it should have been addressed then. Ms. Little. I agree. Mr. Reynolds suggested that Mr. Robbins call SWEPCO, and ask about the cost of placing the lines underground or at the back of the lot. Ms. Johnson: I do have one other question about the trail A 10' wide trail really seems like an awful lot of pavement to me. If it's for school childreen coming and going twice a day would it ever be apart of the bigger trail system? Mr. Rutherford: I used AASHTO standards for building the trail. The smallest trail they'll recognize is 8'. We asked for a 6' trail at Arrow Street and were turned down by the highway department because AASHTO would not approve a 6' trail Ms. Johnson: What is your distinction between trail and sidewalk? Ms. Little: To me the distinction is a sidewalk is adjacent to a street in public right -a -way. A trail is its own public right away and is not connected to a street. • Ms. Johnson expressed concern over the width of the trial and who would provide the maintenance required for it. Subdivision Meeting February 26,1998 Page 7 Ms. Little stated it is a public easement and the City maintains it. Mr. Rutherford discussed an existing City facility which runs behind Root school. A 10' easement with approximately 6' wide paved area which serves as a trial. Ms. Johnson asked if the City maintained that trail. Mr. Rutherford stated that currently the City did not maintain the trail but there were plans for the City to maintain these trails in the future. In response to a question Ms. Little stated that the surface of the trail could be either concrete or asphalt. Ms. Johnson questioned the type of equipment that would be used to maintain the trail Mr. Rutherford stated that it would be desirable to have at least a Ranger size pick up. Mr. Rutherford: It's more complicated than just running a lawnmower down through it. Jim Beavers: You also probably need to get backhoes in there and all kinds of equipment. Bob Renolds: Plant trees and tractors to do the mowing. Ms. Little: I hesitate to put anything in other than the 10' wide trail. The trail committee spent a long time trying to figure out what was the optimum size trial. They really would like to have 12 feet. The reason they would like to have 12' for the trail system in the city, maybe not particularly this one, is that when two people pass each other, the arm span on people that are roller bladeing would be at least 6'. But they backed down. They did not adopt 12 they adopted 10. I don't know that they adopted a standard width on either side. I haven't heard that they have. Mr. Rutherford: AASHTO said that any trail cannot be smaller, for them to approve it, than 8' with 2' shoulder on each side. Ten feet is better and the ideal is twelve. Ms. Johnson: What is AASHTO? Mr. Rutherford: Association of American Highways Transportation Officials, there is an S in there. Phillis Johnson: What happens if they don't approve this one lot long trail? Subdivision Meeting February 26,1998 Page 8 • Ms. Little: Nothing happens. The right away for Emstan Street is 50'. So if we had felt like the street needed to be extended this lot share of that street extension would have been 25 feet. With a 25' right of way off of this lot, three lots would not have been possible, because 17' is an easement and it would still gives us 79 feet of frontage. If we had taken 25 feet off of this lot, there would not have been enough room to have left this house in a legal configuration with regard to its side setback. In other words we could have gotten two lots out of this instead of three. So, that went into all of this. We felt like 17 is better than 25 and 17 as an easement as apposed to 25 for a road way allows three lots as apposed to two. • • Mr. Reynolds: And the owners agreed to that. Mr. Robbins: I've agreed to all of this. I've worked with Mrs. Little to get this done. Ms. Little: We've been working on this about a year and a half. Mr. Robbins: Yes, I've been working on this a long time. MOTION Mr. Johnson recommends to the commission that this be an 8' wide trail with two feet of easement on either side. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 a.m.