Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-01 - Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, April I, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LS99-5: Smith, pp595 LS99-6: Burton, pp254 FP99-2: Altus Addition, pp258 FP99-1: Wedington Place, pp401 LS99-3.1: Calhoon pp475 MEMBERS PRESENT Phyllis Johnson Lorel Hoffman John Forney Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Alett Little Chuck Rutherford Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Forwarded to PC Approved MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF ABSENT None • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 2 LS99-5: LOT SPLIT SMITH, pp595 This item was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Greta Smith for property located at 1755 South Hoot Owl Lane. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 5.3 acres. The request is to split the property into tracts containing approximately 0.80 acres and 4.05 acres. Alan Reid was present on behalf of the applicant. Conditions of Approval 1. Lot split notice and warranty deed shall not be filed until this property has been successfully rezoned by means of City Council action. 2. Change building setbacks on plat to reflect A-1 zoning district requirements. 3. Dedication of 25 feet of right of way along the eastern property line as shown on the plat • in order to provide frontage to these lots and a possible future connection. 4. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. • 5. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, 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. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 6. Amend the plat to show a 15 foot utility easement along Hoot Owl Lane. Committee Discussion Little: This is an established house on a large piece of property. For tract one, if it were split in this configuration of .80 acres it is currently zoned A-1. We are asking in condition number one that the lot split notice and the warranty deeds not be filed until we have successfully rezoned this property because it is not meeting our minimums. We see no problem with it being zoned R-1 so that it would meet the minimums but we do want to call that to your attention. Then that would mean that the rest of the building setbacks on tract 2 would be changed to reflect A-1 zoning requirements and tract 1 is going to reflect R-1 setback requirements. We are asking for the dedication of 25 feet of right of way along the eastern property line. This is shown on the plat. We wanted to call it to your attention. Subdivision Minutes • April 1, 1999 Page 3 Rutherford: There is no sidewalk required for this. Public Comment None. Committee Discussion Forney: The acreages don't total up. Reid: I know it was .45 in the street dedication that we took off of the legal description of tract 2. Little: That makes the difference. Johnson: Is there any place in the legal description or on the plat that we need to change? Reid: No. We're getting close to the parent tract legal because the it was also a • quitclaim deed for .15 acres. 5.45 was the total Little: That was in dispute. Reid: It was an overlap with her neighbor. Forney: How is the 25 feet of street right of way dimension established? Is that a standard street right of way? Do we want more than that? Little: We would probably want more than that. What we did was match the right of way that is immediately to the north which is 25 feet. The adjoining tract is one parcel and it is undeveloped so at such time that tract develops, they would give us the other part of the right of way that we would need and probably improve the street to get their lots off of it. Ward: Do we have to worry about whether these houses are on septic tank? Reid: They have city sewer. Hoffman: The building on Lot 2 appears to be in an easement. Has that been discussed? Little: That's really how it is on the ground. • Reid: If we give a street right of way and then give a 25 foot setback -- the house was • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 4 already there. Little: It's nonconforming. Hoffman: Do we have to give a variance for that? Little: You can't. Her house will be nonconforming and she would have to seek a variance from the Board of Adjustments if it becomes a title issue for her. It's already there and this action is what has made it nonconforming. She has a remedy. Hoffman: I would like the record to note that this house is going to be in existing nonconforming status. Little: Alan, did you create that utility easement? Reid: The 25 feet? Little: Yes. • Reid: Yes. Little: We don't want to make that utility easement. Reid: We could back it up and make it 15 feet utility easement and a 25 feet setback. Johnson: There is a small encroachment but in the setback only. Little: Right. Reid: Does she come through you to rezone and does she rezone both pieces? Little: No. She only has to rezone one. She can rezone both. Reid: Can she do 2 at the same time? • Little: Sure. She can do the parent tract. The only one that is required is tract 1 because it is less than 2 acres. MOTION Mr. Forney made a motion to approve the LS99-5 at the Subdivision level subject to all • • • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 5 conditions and staff comments. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson concurred. • • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 6 LS99-6: LOT SPLIT BURTON, pp254 This item was submitted by Mike Burton for property located at 2831 Strawberry Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.64 acres. The request is to divide the property into two tracts containing approximately 0.29 acres and 0.35 acres. Mike Burton was present on behalf of the application. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. All Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments. 2. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted was for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 3. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $375 for the newly created residential lot. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a sidewalk through the new driveway at the time of development. 5. Sanitary sewer must be provided to tract B. 6. This lot split creates an existing nonconforming shed. Committee Discussion Johnson: Instead of identifying ourselves before we speak, at the beginning of the meeting, I will introduce those of us who are present on the Subdivision Committee. Little: You have a report and the applicant has the report. This is on Strawberry Drive. At plat review, we did not have any issues. • Petrie: We have a provision that sanitary sewer be provided to tract B. At this time, they are working on an extension in that area. They plan to run sewer there now. Just in case it is not • • • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 7 done, it will be a condition of this approval Rutherford: There will not be any sidewalk required. Brackett: When they build the driveway, they will install the sidewalk. We have that worked out. Rutherford: The reason this decision was reached is this is the final lot in that area. There is no sidewalk on that whole side of the street. If we ask the person to build a sidewalk there, it will be the only one in existence on that side. At this time, the City has no plans to build sidewalks on that side of the street. Hoffman: Tim, with the shed encroaching into the 10 foot utility easement, does this have to go to Council? Conklin: When you sell your property and your house is encroaching within a utility easement, the title companies don't like that. With regard to the shed -- Little: What kind of shed is it? Is it moveable? Burton: There is a concrete pad under it. We're talking about something that has been there for 15 years. Little: What the point here is that at such time that you try to get title insurance on this, they probably will not insure that. Brackett: He said he will probably move it. Forney: What is the applicant's response to sanitary sewer installation as a part of this lot split. Brackett: We have worked with Dave Jurgens on that and we continue to work with him. We don't have any problem in providing sanitary sewer to this lot. Johnson: One of the conditions is the sewer be provided to tract B as a condition of this lot split and secondly, that no sidewalk is required for the record, however, note condition number 4, that when the driveway is built, there will be a sidewalk built through the new driveway. Public Comment None. • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 8 • • MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve the lot split with notation that the shed is encroaching in the 10 foot utility easement and subject to all staff comments. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson concurred. • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 9 FP99-2: FINAL PLAT ALTUS ADDITION, pp258 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Robert Schmitt of RNS Enterprises for property located north of Highway 45 and east of Altus Road. The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 7.01 acres with 4 lots proposed. Chris Bracket was present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to all Plat Review and Subdivision meeting comments. Committee Discussion Little: We do have a report on this. This is in the county but it is not too far outside of our city limits. One of the things that we want to start thinking about is possibly some • annexation along Highway 45 which is city initiated. This is the only area that we do not have a strip along the highway. This was brought to my attention most recently when we had the cell tower out there and we had no control over it. Altus Drive comes north off of Highway 45. This is a fairly large tract being divided into 4 lots. They are giving right of way through the middle of the project so that could be developed at a future time to provide access. There are no staff issues associated with this. • Johnson: Looking at the plat, I see between lot 1 and 2, a potential street named Rustic Lane. Is that an existing street? Little: No. Johnson: Why does it appear to end at the east edge of lot 1? Little: They are going to be using it just for access purposes at this time. We did receive the right of way as a condition of this plat but the street will not be developed at this time. This was not requested by the county. It was requested by the City. Johnson: We have the right of way all the way to the east edge of the property. It is contemplated the street will only be built in the shaded area to be named Rustic Lane. Little: That is the drive. There will not be actual street construction. • • • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 10 Brackett: That will be a private drive. It's shaded in like that because it will be in the access easement but we're not sure how far it will go or what the configuration will be. It will be a private drive for these back 2 lots. Johnson: So lot 3 will have access and that is being shown for information. Will the fact that this is being designated as a private drive and only built as shown, will that limit us in the future if we require a street to built the entire strip. Little: No. The fact that we have the right of way gives us the right to do that. Johnson: Is there any way that people who buy this are misled to think that this would never be a public street or if it was, that it would dead end. Little: I don't know who might mislead who in the future but it is clear to me on the plat. Brackett: I know the developer and I don't believe he would mislead anybody in that fact. I believe the fact that it is designated right of way would -- Public Comment None. Further Committee Discussion Johnson: I know that in the city where we have streets that dead end but we anticipate might continue in the future when the adjacent property is developed that we have some signage that we are putting at the end of those streets. Could we put one of those signs at this location? Little: I think not. Brackett: The only problem I would foresee with that -- in this case, you're thinking of it as a public street ending and a sign stating this may extend -- there is no public street to put that on. At the end of the street, no one will see it. Little: It won't even be cleared. This is in the county and the city doesn't have any jurisdiction. I don't think we can do much more. Brackett: I could put a note on the plat. Little: Include for "Future Street Extension." • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 11 Hoffman: If they're going to buy a lot they will get a copy of the plat. That will clarify the plat. When is annexation being contemplated. Little: It is not. Hoffman: Who would bring that forward? Little: Generally, property owners are adjacent and want to be annexed. Occasionally, there are city initiated annexations. The annexation along Wedington Drive was a city annexation. The annexation along 16E was a city initiated annexation. My point in saying that is we need to starting thinking about that. We are having a lot of growth to the east for a number of reasons. We have filled up our subdivisions within the city for the most part and the second and most important reason is we acquired the White River Rural Water Association's assets and we have improved those. We have run an 8 or 12 inch water line along Highway 45. Forney: How far does that go? Little: To Goshen. • Johnson: We've run a water line to Goshen? • Little: Yes, ma'am. We had growth control in that there was not adequate water there. We no longer have the growth control. We're going to be seeing quite a bit of growth in that area and we have very little control over it especially with regard to streets. Johnson: How far way from the city are we annexed? Little: It's further to the west. Hoffman: I do see this as a rural development due to the size of the lots but if we are going to annex in the near future, we're going to be interested in fire hydrants and sanitary sewer. Brackett: It's not shown on this. It is quite a bit outside the city limits. Little: How far? Conklin: One mile. Hoffman: Is there any sewer provision? Petrie. There is an existing 2 inch line. Subdivision Minutes April I, 1999 Page 12 Forney. The 40 foot right of way for the private lane, if this was in the city, what would be the right of way we would be looking for a standard street? Warrick: 45. Forney: I don't think we can change anything here. Little: Given our standard rules, I am quite pleased that we were able to negotiate the dedication of a right of way through the middle. I am mindful of the need for fire protection and I assume that will come in due time. We don't have the control that we need on Highway 45 given what we've done with the water line. Hoffman: Does this easement just stop at the side of lot 3? Brackett: I think it is covered in the right of way. It would be just the corner. I'll check on that and if that is the case, we will correct that. Little: I am not positive but I am under the impression that is an existing line. Brackett: I know that is an existing easement. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to approve FP99-2 at the Subdivision Committee level subject to a note being added to the plat regarding the street right of way noting that it is intended for future street improvements to the east and secondly that the plat be corrected if in fact it is in error to show the utility easement running along the northeast boundary of lot 3 be corrected to show it's southeastern most end. Mr. Forney seconded that motion. Ms. Hoffman concurred. • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 13 FP99-1: FINAL PLAT WEDINGTON PLACE, pp401 This item was submitted by Robert Brown of Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Clary Development Corporation for property located in Wedington Place Addition, Phase II. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 29.998 acres with 8 lots proposed. Jeff Maxwell and Roger Trotter were present on behalf of the project. Staff Requirements 1. Guarantee is to be placed for sewer extension to lot 5 in the amount of $3,740. 2. The city will accept the final plat prior to installation of street lights with proof from electric company that payment has been received. 3. The city will accept the final plat prior to the relocation of the existing OHE lines • underground with proof from the electric company that payment has been received. 4. Dedication of additional right of way for Hwy 16 (Wedington Drive) by warranty deed. The description has been provided by the applicant and the City Land Agents are composing the dedication document. • 5. Ownership and status of land at the northwest corner of the property where a proposed sidewalk is not located within a right of way to be dedicated by this plat. 6. Notations have been made on the plat to reflect the following conditions: * There shall be no additional access points along Wedington Drive. * All utilities shall be located underground (waiver was previously granted to leave one power pole existing at the southeast corner of the property.) * All lots shall be subject to large scale development approval. * Lots 1R, 2, 3R, 5 & 6 are subject to Design Overlay District regulations. * Signage for all lots shall conform to Design Overlay District regulations. * Sanitary sewer assessments will be required for all lots at the time of development except for those which have already been received. 7. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 8. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 14 • • drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, 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. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include existing sidewalks along Wedington Drive and 6 foot sidewalks with a minimum 6 foot green space along both Steamboat and Colorado Drives. Sidewalks shall be continuous through the driveways. 10. Escrow deposit in the amount of $50,956.29 for Wedington Drive improvements. 11. Escrow deposit in the amount of $45,060 for Salem and Shiloh Drive improvements. 12. Remove the shaded "existing" plat notations. 13. Amend drafting error in regard to the right of way width and green space dimensions. 14. Letter for waiver request on the OHE Committee Discussion Johnson: How many times has this gone through our process. Warrick: This is the sixth time you have seen this in some configuration Johnson: How many different times have they been through this process. Little: This the second final plat and they've had three preliminary plats. Johnson: As I took a look at the information we had from Technical Plat Review, it looked to me as if there were a lot of questions that were still unresolved on this. Is this really ready to come to Subdivision at this stage? Little: What we indicated to the applicant at that point was we had recently approved a large scale on lot 4A and 4B and what we were looking at Plat Review wasn't in concert with what we had approved fairly recently on the large scale and we wanted that straightened out. I has been revised to reflect that. It would not have been ready if those changes had not been made. I believe it is ready now. I do note that there are several of the items that we had asked for at plat review that had not been changed. • • • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 15 Warrick. Tahoe Place has been corrected. Little: We had decided that it would be public. Trotter: It is public now. It is a shaded note that says it's existing. When this plat is filed, it will be dedicated by this plat. Little: You could put existing vacant land and put the lots on there, too. What we need to have filed is what it is. I don't think that we need to be confused by what it might have been in the past. This needs to say Tahoe Place and we don't need any notes about existing private drive and those type things. It is a right of way to be dedicated with this plat. That was one of those things that we have talked about over and over. Warrick: It is confusing the way that this is shown because you have the shaded information from previous plats and that is not accurate anymore because of this plat and that needs to be removed. Trotter: Let me ask them to take off existing -- Little: 1 think so. Maybe that is important to you for historical purposes but it is confusing to us because that is no longer the case. By filing this you are making it no longer the case. We have several items we need to discuss. Petrie: The lot line to lot 1R and lot 5 has moved since the preliminary plat came through. Because of that, the sanitary sewer line cannot be extended to lot 5. They are requesting to bond that portion that wasn't constructed. I assume that they will construct it. Trotter: We've been instructed to. Yes. Petrie: They have provided the cost in the amount of $3,740 to be bonded or guaranteed. Little: The reason that this is an item for you to discuss is that is outside of our normal procedure. We allow bonding of final plats on the final layer of pavement, the sidewalks and the landscaping. Our ordinance doesn't say that anything else can be bonded. We are bring it to you to see whether you might be of the mind to approve that. Similarly, they will acquire a contract with the electric company and pay them to put in the street lights. The electric company is not ready to put in the street lights. We have done that in the past. We have always accepted from the electric company that they have received the money and they will get to it as soon as possible as proof. The developer has done everything that they need to do and it is up to the electric company to get the lights in. • • • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 16 Hoffman: Will that be tied to the approved large scale? Will it be under construction before the large scale. Whenever there is occupancy down there, they will need some street lights. Little: It's really tied to the fact that SWEPCO has had a lot of internal changes with their new company and they are just having scheduling problems. The staff does support the request. The electric company is willing to relocate the overhead electric lines. Johnson: Remind us of which lines are to be relocated. Little: Southeast. Maxwell: The line runs all the way down the east property line. We would like to discuss that. Trotter: Coming from Wedington to the end of Steamboat. Little: It is on their property because we have had discussions. Over on the west side, there is one that is off their site but it is very close to their site so we had a lot of discussions about whether that was required as a condition of this plat or not. We decided that since it was off their property that it was not. Johnson: Is the existing overhead utility in the 20 foot existing utility easement on the south boundary? Trotter: Yes, ma'am Hoffman: You need to note the location -- Johnson. Let's hold off on discussion. Little: As long as we have proof the payment has been made to relocate that line, staff is in support of that as well. For dedicating of right of way associated with Highway 16, we will need a warranty deed. I believe that we have received that already and our land agents are working on that. There aren't any issues associated with that. We were simply noting that it needs to be done and the process is not quite complete. Regarding the ownership and status of the land at the northwest corner of the property where the proposed sidewalk is is not located in a right of way. We have asked questions about this -- Trotter: We have resolution of that. Bill Lazenby will dedicate that and it should be completed in the next day or so. He has to get it released. • • • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 17 Little: Lazenby will dedicate right of way to the City? Trotter: Yes. We have a dedication deed prepared and he is willing to sign it. The only hang up is he had to get a release from his lien holder on that property. Little: Thank you very much. Conklin: Please have our Land Agents look at that first. Trotter: Who would that be? Little: Ed Connell or Jill Goddard. We need the following notations on the plat -- Warrick: They have those all noted. Little: There are also signage provisions. Signage for all lots shall conform to Highway 71 Design Overlay District standards for monument signage. Are we at this point saying there will be 4 monument signs? Warrick: That was the preliminary plat requirement. Little: There are a few lots that do not have separate signage so they will have to be represented on these so a provision will have to be made for that. Maxwell: What about lot 5? I'm not clear on that. Little: Generally, when we decide the final plat we set signage conditions. We allow signage in one area and everyone is to be represented on big developments such as Spring Park. There is one big sign where everyone is represented. It is a little complicated here in that you have overlay district standards on two. You are agreeing to monument signs on all of them. Maxwell: Yes. My only question is, for instance, if it becomes a small office building with 2 dentists and 2 doctors, they will want a monument sign in front of the building. Little: I doubt there will be a problem with that. It's all in the overlay district at that point so they have frontage and they could have a monument sign there. Johnson: I understand what lot 1R is. I don't understand what the space is north of it. It says lot 2 but it is in lighter print. What is it that exists? Trotter: Lot 2 has been sold to the Bank of Fayetteville. • • • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 18 Little: Johnson: Little: Off the former, final plat -- We do not have that. What we have before us are lots 1R, 5 -- Everything except 2. Petrie: There were assessments made by the Planning Commission in the amount of $50,956.29 for Wedington Road widening and also $45,060 for improvements to Salem Road and Shiloh Drive. These will be due before Engineering will sign off on the final plat. Maxwell: Warrick: Little: Are those in the form of checks or letters of credit? Those are escrow deposits so you will need checks. It's 100% not 150%. Rutherford: I'm a little confused about the two letters that were addressed to Dawn Warrick. One was dated the 23st of March and the other was dated the 24th of March. They are saying 2 different things and I'm curious as to which one is correct. The plan reflects the March 23rd letter. Trotter: Warrick: Johnson: Warrick: The March 24th letter is the correct letter? That is concerning green space width and sidewalks. Are we to completely disregard the March 23rd letter? Just item 1. Maxwell: Items 2, 3, and 4 did not change But we have learned this morning that item 2 does need to change. Trotter: We had a 3 foot offset in the road which gives him the full 6 foot green space on each side with the exception of where the road gets wider for three lanes at each end and the sidewalk encroaches a little closer to the curb. Rutherford: I talked to John Wiles. Trotter: Rutherford: I talked to him, too. Is he aware of these changes? • • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 19 Trotter: Our construction plans are correct and he has those. Johnson: What we need to do is have the plat corrected at Lot 4 and the right of way dimension needs to be corrected to show 55 feet. Trotter: The reason it was offset is because there was existing utilities that we couldn't go over. Hoffman: Is staff okay with the way they have the old plat and then the new plat juxtaposed? Warrick: We have asked them to remove the shaded area Beavers: Have they been made aware of the situation at Cliff's and the right of way situation? Depending on how that turns out, it may affect this plat. Little: That is important to them because this plat could be approved today. Beavers: Mr. Underwood is appealing two of the Planning Commission decisions. One was assessment for improvement to Highway 265 and donation of right of way and this one was assessed for improvements to Highway 16. Little: We have made statements to the Council but, we are not certain how well they heard. Staff had recommended those assessments and that was what was passed by the Planning Commission but if the Council chooses to do something different for Mr. Underwood then we as staff will treat the rest of the developers in a like way. We would not make assessments in this case if the Council overturns our previous decision. For this developer it is a matter of $50,000. Beavers: It may be too late for this developer. Little: They may choose to wait. I'm sure Mr. Maxwell will tell us to wait. Maxwell: We're talking about right of way on state highways? Warrick: Specifically, your improvements to Wedington Drive. Beavers: It may be a technicality but it was assessed with the preliminary plat conditions and not a final plat condition. I just want everybody to be treated the same. Little: Exactly. We want to know what the Council wants us to be doing. • Johnson: There has to be a way to that administratively. If you choose not to have us vote • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 20 on this this morning, we could undo what was done at the preliminary plat stage. Little: They could appeal. Beavers: I'm not saying that I agree with it. Forney. I think that any developer could appeal any condition. They have the right to do that. What is unusual is if the appeal is accepted that would mean that we need to change our general strategy for how we do this. Little: If the Council doesn't feel like that is an appropriate assessment -- if there is similar traffic generation and similar needs and if we are not going to observe the needs for that particular development then it doesn't profit us to recommend those assessment to you. You make those assessment and they would continue to appeal. Hoffman: The Council should just delete that section from the ordinance if that is what they want. • Little: If that is what they want to do. Beavers. It's just along State Highways where we have the problem. The residential stuff - Maxwell: Is he appealing something you have already ruled on? Johnson: He was approved with assessments for state highway improvements on the final plat. He disagreed with a couple of things which we required. He has taken those issue to the Council. Beavers: If we had not required you to dedicate the right of way, the Highway Department would have purchased the right of way. We required the Cliff's to donate right of way knowing that at any day, the Highway Department was going to pay him for it. Little: Same thing with Kantz Place. Beavers: Most major highways where there are active projects, they will buy the right of way. Hoffman: Did they appeal that on Kantz Place for 45 and 265? • Little: No. So you have 2 on the same highway being treated differently. • • • Subdivision Minutes April I, 1999 Page 21 Beavers. Mr. Cozart called me yesterday and complained that he had to do it. Hoffman: I think our job is go ahead and continue to require right of way and act consistently and if the Council wishes to change it -- I understand the reasons they might relook at state highways although I would encourage them to go ahead and keep treating people the same way particularly since we have had very large developments go through with right of way donations. I'm not inclined to worry about it. Trotter: Is he contesting the feet for the road improvement? Beavers: Yes. Yours is a little different in that the City is paying for the construction of 16 West. There it is a Highway Department job. Trotter: There is quite a bit of difference in just dedicating the right of way and dedicating money to build the road. Public Comments None. Further Committee Discussion Hoffman: Overall, I am satisfied they have done what they agreed to do all along. I remember the conditions of the previous plats and all the other lot configurations were different. I don't have a major problem with any of it. I need to understand more about item number 1 and the sewer bond. Is everybody in agreement that it is okay to bond this sewer extension to the end of lot 1R? Petrie: I don't have a problem with it. Johnson: Whenever 1R or 5 develop, will it go ahead and be installed at that time? Maxwell: We intend to go ahead and get it working within the next couple of weeks. Hoffman: I don't have any problem with that. Johnson: Are there any private drives on this final plat at all? All references to private drives need to be stricken. Maxwell: The only comment I would have about Tahoe is that during preliminary plat, I think the discussion was that you would like to have it noted on this plat as a right of way in the • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 22 event it does need to be extended. At such time that lot 8 and 3R become a common unified development and the street does not need to go through it could be returned to a private drive. If it becomes a main entry into a shopping center -- I think the comment was that it would be easier to get it now and give it back. Little: I don't recall that discussion. I recall a discussion that we have always said that it needed to be public and you were wanting them to be private What would be the purpose of returning frontage. Maxwell: The only thing is that we are contemplating that it be an entrance to the shopping center that spans from Colorado to Steamboat. Little: That might be what you are contemplating but until we see it, we don't know if that would happen. What is the detriment to you to have this city maintained? Maxwell: It's not. Johnson: That is the sense of the Commission. I thought that we required the plat to reflect • a street easement through the center of these, did we not? Little: Johnson: Little: in the middle. Hoffman: Little: Maxwell: No. Just the two that are shown right now. Tahoe dead ends. Tahoe may change. We have to see what develops. There is 12 or 13 acres there My feeling is we're likely to see this again in some other configuration. That is quite possible. I don't think you'll see any further division of the lots. Warrick: There is a requirement for each of these lots to go through large scale development. So you will see each lot as they develop in the future. Johnson: the north. We have nothing on the north boundary of 8 or 3R that would allow access out to • Little: There is a drive platted here for this development. That is a private drive. We required them to put stub outs in two locations. That has been provided. Colorado Drive ties to • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 23 • • Timberland Drive. Steamboat Drive doesn't tie to the drive right now. Forney: You have access east and west across the large scale development which we saw a couple of months ago which is a private drive. That is also a parking lot and I don't know that we are going to want to encourage people to be traveling from Colorado to Steamboat on that but now we have created the situation that you are here on lot 8 and potentially you want to get to lot 5, we will make you go out where all the traffic is and congest that further to make that tum. That is why it might have been a very good idea to say we've got to have an east/west connection in some fashion. By maintaining a private way approach, we create a situation to the detriment of public access and safety In retrospect, I find myself' wishing that we had a street access between 4A and 4B and 8 and 3R. Little: A lot of what you say I really take to heart. I remember our earlier discussions. They had no desire to connect to Timberline and certainly no desire to build a street that went all the way to the north property line which would provide for future access. We felt like that was very important and especially important for those residents who lived in those areas who might need to get into this. We've been talking about a grocery store on the big parcel. As much as you don't like to think that you are influenced by the lot lines which are drawn on here, you really are. The first time we saw this, it was all one lot. The second time we saw it, it was a shorter lot. The third time was a different configuration. It is moving. Sometimes the best way to do it is when you have that development in front of you but you do have some public ways that can be connected to. What we have we got through hard fought battles but we still feel like we did the right thing. We have also probably done enough until we see what happens here. Forney: I agree. Potentially we will have a congestion problem here. I'm looking for a mechanism which might help us avoid that. Little: Understand that if we had required it, we couldn't approve this final plat until it was built. He's telling us today that he doesn't know what is going to be developed here. If we had a street through the middle of it, then that certainly limits those options. Maxwell: We have a contract on lot 8. What we anticipate doing is attaching to it on lot 3R and what you'll see probably fairly soon is a large scale development application for both lots which will include connections. Little: You might tell those developers that one of those might be a public way between these 2 streets. Hoffman: What in my mind is going to be larger issue when you talk about grocery stores and the traffic that they generate is going back to the signal requirements for the state highway. If that is what you are contemplating, I would start looking at some trip per day numbers. Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 24 Maxwell: Another thing to keep in mind is that these 4 lots here don't have access to Highway 16 so there is very likely going to be an access easement behind them. Little: Bank of Fayetteville is not planning that. They don't want to even use the access that has been provided. Forney: The only other issue we need to address is the overhead electric. Little: Is there anything else to talk about on items 1 or 2 before we go on to number 3? Maxwell: We have learned that ever since approval of the preliminary plat, we have been waiting on an estimate from SWEPCO to see what the cost would be on this and last week we received that. We learned that there have been some discussions at Planning Commission and City Council about existing 12kv and above lines not being required to be lowered. The verbal cost estimate was $2 dollars per foot. The written estimate was for $107,000 plus another $17,000 to take down the existing line. Certainly that is a lot more than we had ever anticipated. In light of the fact that the Commission and the Council have had some discussion about not making this requirement on future developments, we would like to request that we not be required to do that. Little: All waivers of final plat requirements have to go on to the full Planning Commission. Hoffman: We have asked several times about the status of that ordinance. I think it is dead in the water at the moment. It is a waiver request. Maxwell: I was prepared to tell you why it costs so much but I don't know if I need to do that. Johnson: This will have to go on to the full Commission for the overhead electric and the waiver on the right of way contribution. As Mr. Beavers pointed out, you might want to wait and see what happens on the Underwood appeal on Cliffs. Forney: I guess the other issue that was raised is the street lights and proof that they have established service. Warrick: We have asked SWEPCO to give us a copy of their paid receipt. Forney: So that is a condition of final plat. Warrick: That is correct. Subdivision Minutes • April 1, 1999 Page 25 Maxwell: We've gotten an estimate from SWEPCO. I'm sure it covers everything that is required. Johnson: What we've really asked for is proof of payment. Maxwell: We are prepared to do that. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to forward FP99-1 to the full Commission with the following items as conditions of approval: 1. The guarantee for the sewer be bonded for the extension of the sewer to lot 5. 2. Proof of payment to SWEPCO. 3. It is understood that the applicant is requesting a waiver for overhead electric lines. • 4. That the dedication of right of way be provided by warranty deed by the applicant and that the city land agent will have reviewed that prior to Planning Commission hearing. • 5. That the applicant will revise the right of way on the final plat to indicate 55 feet from the point of lot 8 towards Wedington and 52 feet north of lot 8 to Timberline. 6. That all notations be included on the plat as shown. 7. Establishment and clarification of the ownership of the corner of lot 8 be provided as dedicated right of way for sidewalk. 8. Escrow deposits must be received by Engineering for improvements to Wedington Drive, Shiloh Drive, and Salem before they sign off on the final plat. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson concurred. • Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 26 LS99-3.1: LOT SPLIT CALHOON, pp475 This item was submitted by Nancy Calhoon for property located at 5817 Tipton Road. The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 19.35 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of approximately 1.5 acres and 17.85 acres. Nancy Calhoon and Alan Reid were present on behalf of the project. Staff Requirements None. Committee Discussion Little: This was discussed yesterday at our plat review meeting. Due to some surveying problems, Ms. Calhoon was unable to get this before us She is due to close on the property she was planning to buy or be gifted from her father which is tract A containing 1.5 acres today. I told her that if she could get the revisions that we needed from yesterday that we would hear it at this meeting. They have provided the revisions and that is the point that is before you. This is also in the county and the remaining tract is 17.85 acres. We did tell her yesterday that this lot that is being created is not meeting the city standard for an agricultural lot which is what it would be zoned if it were annexed into the city. At such time that this may be annexed into the city it would probably have to be zoned R-1 and a trailer would not be allowed and it would make you nonconforming at that time. But, it is fine if it remains in the county. The two changes that we asked for yesterday was that 5 feet of additional right of way be dedicated along Dot Tipton Road because that is a collector street. They have revised the plat and given us 35 feet from the centerline. We also asked for the area between tract A and the remainder to be dedicated as a 10 foot building setback and a utility easement and they have made that notation as requested. Hoffman: So, if and when this is annexed, they would immediately be nonconforming as A- 1. Little: Right. If it were rezoned to R-1 it would also be nonconforming because she plans to put a mobile home there. Hoffman: How far from the city limits? Warrick: South of Wedington. Little: I want to give them a vote of confidence and thanks to Alan Reid because he got it Subdivision Minutes April 1, 1999 Page 27 done in between our meeting yesterday and our 8:30 meeting this morning. Public Comment None. MOTION Mr. Forney made a motion to approve LS99-3.I . Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson concurred. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 a.m.