Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-02 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on April 2, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED: 1. PP98-1.00: Preliminary Plat (Wedington Place, Phase I1) 2. LSD 98-4.00: Large Scale Development (Cedar Lake Apartments a.k.a. Fay. Senior Apts.) 3. LSD 98-7.00: Large Scale Development (Burt Hanna) 4. LSD 98-8.00: Large Scale Development (Arkansas National Bank) 5. AD 98-10.00: Administrative Item (Bank of Fayetteville) ACTION TAKEN Approved/to Planning Commission Approved/to Planning Commission Approved - No Further Action Tabled/Next Subdivision Meeting Approved - No Further Action MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Bob Reynolds, and John Forney STAFF PRESENT: Dawn Warrick, Tim Reynolds, Jim Beavers, Chuck Rutherford, Beth Sandeen, Jim Johnson, and Debra Humphrey PP 98-1.00: PRELIMINARY PLAT (WEDINGTON PLACE. PHASE H PP 401) NORTH OF WEDINGTON DRIVE AND WEST OF SHILOH DRIVE Submitted by Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Clary Development for property located north of Wedington Drive and west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium -Density Residential and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 32.36 acres. Findings: This is a revision of a previously approved subdivision. Additional lots are being created and streets on the east and west are proposed. 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 process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 4. Payment of parks fees per LSD approval for Summit Development project on lot prior to the issuance of a building permit for that project. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include 6' sidewalks with min. 6' greenspace on both Timberline and Steamboat. Sidewalks shall be continuous through driveways. 6. Preliminary Plat approval to be valid for one calendar year. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 2, 1998 Page -2- 7. Provisions concerning Commercial Design Standards shall be made part of the covenants for this subdivision which will be filed when the final plat for Wedington Place (revised) is filed. 8. Assessment for Wedington widening project of $66,556.39 due at time of final plat approval. 9. Sanitary sewer fee - for improvements to the Hamstring basin shall be collected for each lot at the time of development - lots 1 & 2 have already been assessed this fee ($2,560.00 was collected for these lots). 10. Assessment for Salem Road and Shiloh Drive improvements of $45,060.00 (this reflects the amount owed for 30.04 acres - lots 1 & 2 have already been assessed for these improvements). 11. Assessment for Wedington widening project of $66,550.27 (1067 feet of frontage x 14 feet in width x $4.455/sf). Street Name: Mr. Beavers needed clarification on the sanitary/sewer surcharge, assessment of road -widening, and overhead electric. ❑ Developer stated at technical plat SWEPCO required the lines be buried which the developer agreed to do. In addition, SWEPCO required per Public Service Requirement, the developer pay for the residual life on the overhead lines which developer will discuss further with SWEPCO. ❑ A waiver could be requested for a pole to be used. ❑ Jim Johnson - 911 Coordinator, stated the north/south streets "T" into the street there would be a 90 degree angle to the right, and therefore, should be named Colorado Drive. He further stated Perry Franklin, Mickey Jackson, Jeff Maxwell, Charles Venable and Jim Levers were in agreement this drive should be a different name. Recommendation: Subdivision Committee stated due to the fact there would be a stop light at Timberline a recommendation for the proposed new street the street be renamed to Colorado Drive. ❑ Ms. Warrick noted Lot 3 had become Lots #3R, 8, 6, and 7 where it used to include everything with the exception of Lot 1 and 2. ❑ Applicant stated the two ponds replace the two ponds shown on the previous plat. Applicant further stated developer would like to reserve the flexibility to develop a pond on Lot 4 in case anything changed in the future. ❑ Mr. Beavers stated he had not received a copy of the letter where this request was made and could not make a determination at this time. It was noted that Lot 2 is not part of the LSD and not part of this developer's property due to it having been sold. ❑ Mr. Reynolds noted the plat reflected sidewalks for Lot 2 would be constructed at the time of the development and whether this was an agreement with staff. Improvements along Wedington: ❑ Ms. Warrick stated staff was requesting an assessment for Wedington widening project. An ordinance passed two years ago allowing assessment for highway improvements. Staff was asking for a standard one-half of the standard city street improvement. ❑ Developer agreed with this requirement, but stated the calculation for the assessment included the entire length from corner to corner of the property. Due to the fact they do not own Lot 2, they felt developer should not be assessed for Lot 2, which is approximately 250' frontage. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April2, 1998 Page -3- Ms. Warrick stated when Lot 2 came forward as a LSD then an assessment would be required at that point in time. ❑ Mr. Forney stated his concerns involved burying of the utility lines and whether curb cut into Lot 3R is a public easement or a private street. ❑ Applicant stated it was a common access easement for Lots 1 and 2 and what was originally Lot 3 on the final plat due they were not allowed any Wedington accesses. Therefore, this was basically a private entry drive into Lot 3 which would accommodate the easement access for Lots 6 and Lot 3. Tahoe Drive: There was some discussion concerning whether Tahoe Drive should be a public or a private drive. ❑ Mr. Forney stated if Tahoe was to connect from a public street to a public street, then it should be a public street. ❑ Ms. Johnson informed the applicant that the issue of public vs. private for Tahoe Drive would need to be addressed at this time. ❑ Mr. Beavers stated if the Committee required Tahoe Drive to be a public street, then there would be a requirement that it meet the public street standards. ❑ Ms. Warrick stated if Tahoe was public, if there were more than two lots, then a cul-de-sac may be required ❑ Mr. Beavers commented the cul-de-sac could possibly be graveled. Overhead Utility Lines: ❑ Applicant stated developer did not feel they should be assessed the cost of burying the lines running from their property to the hotel which was not part of their property. ❑ Ms. Warrick noted a waiver could be requested to install one pole in order to provide utility. Recommendation: Ms. Johnson recommended a waiver for a pole to be placed, and the developer not have to pay for the underground utility to the hotel. Motion: Mr. Forney moved this project be forwarded to Planning Commission with the following conditions: Timberline be renamed Colorado Drive, assessment for road -widening along Wedington on Lot 2 be waived, waiver be granted for a utility pole be installed at the southeast corner of the property, and Tahoe Drive would be maintained as a public right-of-way. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0-0. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April2, 1998 Page -4- LSD 98-4.00 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (CEDAR LAKE APARTMENTS aka FAYETTEVILLE SENIOR APT - NORTH OF EAST 1STH STREET AND WEST OF MORNINGSIDE DRIVE Submitted by Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Clary Development for property located north of Wedington Drive and west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium -Density Residential and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 32.36 acres. Findings: This project was originally submitted as "Fayetteville Senior Citizens Apts." An administrative request was heard by the Planning Commission concerning street designation and connectivity and setbacks from the proposed water feature. The project was then resubmitted as "Cedar Lake Apts." This project is proposed to be a PUD. A reduced setback from city streets is being sought. 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 process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 4. Payment of parks fees prior to the issuance of a building permit in the amount of $23,040.00 (96 units @ $240.00 each). 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk with a 10 greenspace along Morningside Drive. Streets within the development (residential) shall have a 4' sidewalk with a minimum 5' greenspace along one side of each street 6. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required. a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 8. PC decision on request for variance from City Street Standards - Street standards call for a min. tangent length of 100 ft. and the applicant is requesting a min. tangent length of 50 ft. 9. PC decision on variance request for setback reduction - Applicant needs to explain request more clearly than what is stated in letter or in PR minutes. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 2, 1998 Page -5- 10. Plat needs to be revised to eliminate parking which backs into the public right of way on the northwest corner of the project. 11. Greenspace calculations are needed in order to determine compliance with PUD requirement of 30% open space. This is necessary if this project is to be processed as a PUD. Discussion: Drainage for adjoining property. ❑ Mr. Reynolds noted his concern for the adjoining neighbors and the drainage problems they were currently having. ❑ Mr. Embach stated he had been visiting with Ms. Arlene Stewart about the possibility of purchasing her property, and as of right now, she was not able to make a decision but would continue to talk with her. ❑ Mr. Jones stated they would be willing to negotiate with Ms. Stewart in order to help alleviate the flooding of the adjacent property. East/West Access Road: There was some discussion concerning accessing Wood street and connect to 12t Street in order to facilitate faster access for police, fire trucks and/or ambulance to this project due to the majority of the people living there would be elderly. ❑ Ms. Warrick responded she would try contacting the Federal Housing Authority to see if 12th street would be accessible. ❑ Mr. Reynolds stated currently on Momingside Drive there will be a post office parking lot coming, water/sewer will be installed south, and a new church on the corner has expanded. Therefore, he would suggest an east/west access road due to traffic problems which may arise in the future. ❑ Mr. Embach stated on April 16th they would be meeting with the property owners to discuss the potential of purchasing property. / ❑ Ms. Johnson requested additional information be provided for the street going through the development such as cost, accessibility, etc. ❑ Ms. Johnson inquired about the two items per Technical Plat Review No. 2 and 7. ❑ Ms. Warrick stated today she received information applicant provided regarding the contacts, and parking will still need some review. Parking Issues: ❑ Ms. Warrick stated parking would serve 1 person per apartment. The facility would consist of 118 bedrooms or 86 units, and stated not everyone living there would be driving. ❑ Mr. Forney noted some of the parking spaces were potentially dangerous and request some may need to be removed. He further inquire about a guideline back to the first parking. ❑ Mr. Beavers sated there was a parking lot ordinance No. 162.117 "these standards state the parking lot for new redevelopment and expanded development, it does not specifically state shopping centers." Provide safe ingress and egress into and out of parking lots into and out of parking lots and private streets. ❑ Mr. Conklin stated normally they require 15-25 feet from the right-of-way. He read Table 2 No. 5 144Q which stated there was a 40-60 feet requirement. ❑ Mr. Jones agreed he could remove some of the parking spaces to allow for the requirement to accommodate the throat length of 15 to 25 feet. Recommendation: The Subdivision Committee recommended a requirement be made for parking space to allow a minimum of 25 feet, and also require an exit to the west before this property be inhabitated. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 2, 1998 Page -6- ❑ Mr. Beavers inquired about Cheryl Zotti's requirement concerning the solid waste and the need for additional tum -around space for the sanitation trucks. ❑ Mr. Jones stated the architect had talked to Ms. Zotti and the plans were per her specifications. ❑ Mr. Reynolds stated the developer would need to ensure access to Wood Avenue. ❑ Ms. Warrick stated if the developer had any trouble purchasing any property to obtain access to Wood, the developer could ask City request this access through eminent domain. If the City does not approve this request, then the developer could bring this project back for further review. ❑ Ms. Warrick recommended the developer document all correspondence to the neighbors to provide to the City if they pursue the eminent domain issue. Variance Request: The request is to grant a variance from 100 feet to 50 feet from the front of the building to the street right-of-way, which is a 10 foot variance. ❑ Mr. Jones stated Lot C60 was a drafting error and would be removed from the plat. ❑ Ms. Warrick responded there were no safety issues if this variance were granted. ❑ Mr. Beavers inquired about SW Bell and SWEPCO had stated they would put their utilities in the 10 foot easement. ❑ Mr. Jones stated the agreement was to provide a 15 foot easement for the utilities. He further stated if they were planning to run their lines closer than 15 feet to the right-of-way, then the developer would move the building back. So far they have not received their plans in this regard, which would be 5 feet more. ❑ Mr. Jones stated he could provide the necessary revisions to include the parking lot and moving the building by Monday, April 6, 1998 to Planning. ❑ Mr. Embach emphasized one of the Mayor's request was to have a project like this to meet the needs of the senior citizens. ❑ Mr. Embach stated funding for this project is 20% from the Arkansas Development Fund and 80% from investments and bank loans. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to forward the project to the Planning Commission with the following conditions: That all the parking lots have a minimum of 25 feet; require a connection to the west and determine if the developer pays the full cost or if there will be any City contribution; recommend a waiver for the distance between the property line and the setback of the lake which is 100 feet; recommend a waiver on the tangent for the difference between the curb and the street as shown on the plat; recommend the approval of the variance for the building setback to a minimum of 10 feet. Mr. Forney seconded motion as stated. The motion carried with a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee Minutes April 2, 1998 Page -7- • LSD 98-7.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (BURT HANNA) 1421 EAST 15Th STREET Submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Northwest Engineers on behalf of the applicant for property located at 1421 East 15° Street. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and contains approximately 5.06 acres. The request is for a 14,800 sq. foot addition to an existing warehouse facility. Findings: This addition is to a project which was approved as a large scale development 8/22/94. 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 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 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 along 15th Street. This was a requirement of the original large scale development which has not been constructed. • 5. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Discussion: ❑ Ms. Warrick stated that this building had originally been approved August of 1994. ❑ Ms. Warrick informed the developer the sidewalks would have to be constructed which was previously requested and approved in 1994. ❑ CEI Engineering Associates, on behalf of the applicant stated, they were in agreement with the conditions of approval and had no objections. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve this project at this level subject to the terms of conditions as listed. Mr. Forney seconded motion as stated. The motion carried with a vote 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee Minutes April2, 1998 Page -8- • LSD 98-8.00 ARKANSAS NATIONAL BANK NORTHWEST CORNER OF SALEM DRIVE AND WEDAVGTON DRIVE Submitted by CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of the applicant for property located at the northwest corner of Salem Drive and Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 1.61 acres. Findings: This project is located on a lot which was created by a lot split which was approved by the Planning Commission on March 23, 1998. 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 process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. • 4. The following contributions are required of Tract B as a part of this LSD per the PC approval of the lot split creating Tract B (3/23/98): a. Assessment of 1/4 of the cost of placing utilities underground to be deposited into escrow (estimate must be provided by utility company). b. Sanitary sewer assessment of $1,200.00 contribution for the Hamstring lift station. c. Salem Road bridge impact fee assessment of $2,415.00. d. Wedington Road off-site assessment of $11,850.00 (street and sidewalk). 5. Construction of sidewalks in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk with a 10' greenspace along Salem Road (to connect with existing). Sidewalks shall be continuous through driveways. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. PC determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards: - Color rendered elevations not available for review prior to this report - No elevations provided to describe proposed free standing signage 8. PC decision regarding request for parking in excess of that allowable by the parking lot ordinance. A • letter was received 4/1/98 concerning this request. Staff has not been able to evaluate this request or look at any comparable sites as of yet and cannot make a recommendation on this request at this time. Subdivision Committee Minutes April 2, 1998 Page -9- Ms. Warrick stated she had just received information on the parking requirements prior to the meeting and the developer did not have the colored elevations at the present time but could provide this afternoon. Recommendation: Ms. Johnson stated since the information needed for the committee to review and make the necessary recommendations, this project be tabled until the next Subdivision Meeting. ❑ CEI Engineering inquired about the island that would be adjacent to the property which is access to the property and would be an island. He inquired who would be responsible to maintain landscaping. ❑ Ms. Sandeen stated landscaping of the proposed island would be the bank's responsibility. ❑ The applicant stated if the access to the bank was moved at a later time by Sam Rogers, he would provide another access to the bank. ❑ Mr. Conklin responded the City's requirements would outweigh the highway departments standards. ❑ Mr. Conklin further stated Kurt Jones and Sam Rogers would be reviewing the assessment of the cost of road -widening and will make their recommendations to staff by their deadline by Monday, April 6, 1998. ❑ Mr. Conklin stated the developer was made aware this was the first commercial building in this location and according to Commercial Design Standards, requirements would have to be met. ❑ Mr. Forney asked if and when the road -widening of Wedington came through, if the developer would need to anticipate the setbacks to allow for the road -widening. ❑ Mr. Reynolds noted a stipulation would be made if the curb cut was removed the other curb cut would come out. MOTION TABLED TO NEXT SUBDIVISION MEETING • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 2, 1998 Page -10- • AD 98-10.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (BANK OF FAYETTEVILLE) NORTH OF 1IUNTSVD.LE ROAD AND EAST OF MASHBURN ROAD • • Submitted by Joe Ruddell on behalf of the applicant for property located north of Huntsville Road and east of Mashburn Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.64 acres (4-50'x140' lots). The request is to allow single family structures on non -conforming lots of record. Findings: The lots in question are considered non -conforming since they do not have adequate lot frontages based upon current zoning code requirements. The section of the zoning code which addresses this issue is included below: § 160.136 Nonconforming lots of record. (A) In any district in which single-family dwellings are permitted, a single-family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this chapter, notwithstanding limitations imposed by other provisions of this chapter. Such lot must be in separate ownership and not of continuous frontage with other lots in the same ownership. This provision shall apply even though such lot fails to meet the requirements for area or width, or both, that are generally applicable in the district, provided that yard dimensions and requirements other than these applying to area or width, or both, of the lot shall conform to the regulations for the district in which such lot is located. In a previously developed subdivision, platted prior to June 29, 1970, and with the approval of the subdivision committee, a new single-family dwelling or an addition or repair to an existing single-family dwelling may be constructed in all residential zones in keeping with the existing standard in the neighborhood so long as the interior side setback is not less than five feet. Variance of yard requirements shall be obtained only through action of the board of adjustment. (B) If two or more lots or combinations of lots and portion of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership are of record at the time of passage or amendment of this chapter, and if all parts of the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot width and area, the lands involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this chapter, and no portion of said parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot width and area requirements established by this chapter, nor shall any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with width or area below the requirements stated in this chapter. The prohibition prescribed hereby shall not apply to a nonconforming lot on which a principal structure existed on the effective date of adoption of this chapter and which adjoins a nonconforming lot on which a principal structure existed on the effective date of the adoption of this chapter. (Code 1965, App. A, Art. 4(2); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70; Ord. No. 2505, 2-20-79; Ord. No. 3114, 9-3-85; Ord. No. 3124, 9-17-85) Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff fmdings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 2. Payment of parks fees at the time of building permit ($300.00 per lot). 3. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards at the time of building permit. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 2, 1998 Page -11- Discussion: 0 Ms. Warrick informed the committee the bank would like to build single family dwellings in this area due to the fact the lots are 50 feet by 140 feet and would need to meet the standard setbacks which would be 25 feet in front and 60 feet to the back. The committee reviewed the plat and information provided. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve this project at this level. Mr. Forney seconded the motion as stated. The motion carried with a vote 3-0-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m. • SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE April 2, 1998 at 8:30 a.m. PP -98-1.00 LSD 98-4.00 LSD 98-7.00 LSD 98-8.00 AD 98-10 MOTION lefil?01"/ I kir" SECOND ( �^' V 1(1 11 Phyllis Johnson John Forney Bob Reynolds / / 1/ Dawn Warrick / %;p { 1 kb 44 /dam aetd te. ,) le- i, Pt- i, /4 -Pe s/P 3-0 3,0 3-0 3--0