Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-15 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, February 15, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LS 01-5.00A & 5.00B: Lot Split (Hudak, pp 143) Page 2 LS 01-4.00: Lot Split (Reed Trust, pp 640) Page 13 LS 01-6.00: Page 26 LS 01-7.00: Page 28 LS 01-8.00: Page 31 LSD 01-1.00: Page 33 Lot Split (Cahoon, pp 254, 293) Lot Split (Eckels, pp 207) Lot Split (McDonald's Corporation, pp 135, 174) Large Scale Development (Gregg Street Storage, pp 328) MEMBERS PRESENT Lee Ward Bob Estes Laurel Hoffman STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Ron Petrie Sara Edwards Chuck Rutherford Keith Shreve Kim Rogers Kim Hesse Perry Franklin ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Approved Approved Approved Forwarded MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin • • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 2 LS 01-5.00A & 5.00B: Lot Split (Hudak, pp 143) was submitted by Jacki & David Hudak for property located at 4250 Sassafras Hill Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 11.67 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 1.26 acres, 4.31 acres and 5.37 acres. Hoffman: Greetings to the February 15, 2001, meeting of the Subdivision Committee. We had 10 items on our agenda. I'm going to go through those items that have been pulled first just in case anybody's here on them. Lot Split 01-3.00 for Harold Bemis, Final Plat for Bridgeport Subdivision, Final Plat for Covington Park, and Administrative Item for Charleston Crossing, has been pulled. With that being said we'll go ahead and get started with LS 01-5.00A and 5.00B which is a Lot Split for Hudak submitted by Jacki & David Hudak for property located at 4250 Sassafras Hill Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 11.67 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 1.26 acres, 4.31 acres and 5 37 acres. If the applicants are here, you can come up here, we'll hear from staff first, take public comment and then you can present your case. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: This is two lot splits as you said. The first, the lot to the east, they are requesting to split that in order to sell it, as I understand. Then there is a lot to the west, the 1.26 acres which has technically already been split by the road going through. So, this is just a formality on that part. That is a lot under 1.5 acres and under our code they do have to have a permit from the Arkansas Department of Health. They have had a perc test done however, they have been told in order to design their septic system, they do have to cut down a number of trees. So, for that reason, they are asking for a waiver of the Arkansas Department of Health permit requirement. Hoffman: Okay. Has that been applied for? Edwards: Yes. Hoffman: Anything else? Edwards: That's it. Hoffman: Ron, do you have anything? • Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer • • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 3 Petrie: No comment. Hoffman: Other staff comments regarding this? PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman. At this time I'll take public comment. Is anybody here to address us on this item? Please state your name. Jones: I'm Susan Jones and I'm objecting to the division of the 1.26 acres which is my driveway. That 1.2 is also divided with a driveway. Hoffman: It's a gravel drive shown on the south end'of this? Jones: Yes. Hoffman: I'm confused. Do we not have an easement for you through this lot? Jones: I don't know. I've had the driveway there for 20 years. I assume. I was under the impression it was going to be shut off. Hoffman: Do you have other access to your property other than that? Jones: Not at all. Edwards: They can probably address this, do you plan on not allowing her to access her property? Hudak, J.: Hudak, D.: No. We didn't say that. The gravel driveway was listed on the survey. So, we just wanted the split so if we did sell that, I don't think it would even sell, anyway we would just let the people if they did buy that property address that at that time. We didn't think it was that big a deal. We haven't addressed that. We have been approached by the residents across the street and we stated that we weren't willing to simply give an easement at this time because we've been told by other family members that they have access through the back of the property as well as access 50 yards down the road on their own property. • Hoffman: It's my understanding that we have a state law that requires us to provide access to a Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 4 • • public way. Jones: I was also wondering about adverse possession because it's been there for 50 years. Hoffman: Do you want to talk about that? What I would like to see is a plat because we only see these three tracts and I can't tell how your property adjoins or how it adjoins. Jones: We have pictures of that walkway. I'm not sure how good this is. This is our driveway, the property is there and there is the 1.26 acres, the driveway it's about 65 feet something like that. Hoffman: The Hudak's say you have access at another location. Jones: We don't. It's through the woods. We can drive a four -wheeler maybe. It's full of water and woods and everything else. We really don't have access any place without probably $50,000 worth of work. Edwards: Without building a driveway. You do have access if you were to build a driveway. Jones: No. Hudak J: Your daughter in law, I think her name is Helen, she tells me that she goes the back way because I never see her coming down that way and I would always ask her. Jones: From their house which is on the back of the property you have to turn down Porter Road, when they come in through that way. You actually can't get to our house through that way. They have a total separate community back there. She does go the back way. Her property is our property but there is woods between us and them. You can go out that way, we can't, they can. Hudak, D.: The driveway is 50 yards north of the access road right now. Estes: This is Sassafras Hill Road which connects with Guy Terry Road, now where is this driveway and where is your property? The photographs are here at Sassafras? Jones: Yes. Estes: Why did you show us this picture, where is your driveway? Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 5 • Jones: This is our driveway. Estes: You marked this Sassafras Road. Jones: Sassafras and Guy Terry Road come up to, if you are coming down Guy Terry Road you are coming this way. We are right on the corner of Guy Terry Road and Sassafras Hill is where our driveway is. Estes: There is a drawing here that says "gravel drive", is that your driveway? Jones: Yes. Estes: It goes off to the west? Jones: Yes. Estes: You show us pictures here of Sassafras Road Tell me why you are showing us these pictures? Jones: Estes: Jones: This is my driveway. Sassafras and Guy Terry Road You can say this is your driveway, these are pictures of Sassafras Road. Sassafras Hill goes up the hill and meets 45. Our driveway, if you come out to our driveway and turn to the right, we are going up Sassafras Hill, if we turn to the left we are going on Guy Terry Road. Hoffman: Which is your property? Here's your driveway, if you turn left here's Sassafras Hill, here's Guy Terry. Jones: This is our driveway? Hoffman: Yes. Jones: Our property is a half mile, our driveway is a half mile long. Our property is back to the west. Hoffman: So, Sassafras Hill Road at two junctures intersects your property, the easement line • intersects your property of the road? This is the road right-of-way. Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 6 Jones: Our address is Sassafras. Hoffman: So, being over here you have access points, as you all were talking about, to the road even though you may not have built those? Jones: No. Hoffman: I'm not talking about constructing driveways, I'm saying frontage. Jones: We don't have any access to our property, it's on the back side of the property. That's not our property, the driveway is ours. Eddy: I own 150 acres and these are the children. I've been there 50 years on March 1st. Hoffman: Your property is over here. Here is the description of the road, does your property come up at any point on either side of this tract to this road? • Eddy: Sassafras? Hoffman: Yes. Eddy: Yes, all except 100 feet goes all the way up the hill a half mile. • Hoffman: I was going to try to explain about how the lot splits work and what we are charged with doing, dealing with this tract of land. We are also charged with not cutting you off from road frontage. It appears to me that you have road frontage even though you haven't constructed a driveway. Jones: No we don't. Hoffman: You are on the opposite side of the road from this tract You are total opposite side. Jones: Yes. Hoffman: We are really not dealing with your property then. For that reason, we are going to go ahead and discuss this lot split. Jones: We are dealing with my access and I don't want to lose it. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 7 Hoffman: Eddy: Hoffman: MOTION: Ward: Edwards. Ward: Hoffman: Estes: This body is not one that can rule legally on whether or not this gravel road which is shown on their plat has a legal right to be there. You are going to have to do that through an attorney. What we are going to do is talk about whether or not they meet the development standards and go forward with the understanding that any action that we take on this side is not going to adversely affect your road frontage. We don't take away frontage from you. If you have frontage abutting a road then your question about the driveway that goes through tract 1 is not for us to decide That's my opinion. I would Tike to hear from the other two Committee members. Would it not be frontage to the chicken house? I'm sorry, I don't know where the chicken house is. Let me go ahead and take your take on the situation. This is strictly a lot split situation and on this particular tract 1.26 acres, has nothing to do with whether there is an easement across it or not. It's actually a tract by itself as our findings have been so shown. It's already been split by Sassafras Hill Road. They probably have some kind of argument in court that their road is there and it's been there for a long time, it might be adverse possession but that has nothing to do with this lot split. This is not the commission it goes in front of. We are strictly to decide whether the lot splits we are going to do are legal as far as if they have road frontage etcetera, etcetera. 1 would go ahead, at this point, recommend we approve LS 01-5.00A and 5.00B for a lot split. I would like to ask that this goes to the full Planning Commission because of this waiver on the Department of Health permit. Okay. I'll make that my motion. Did you want to second or talk about it? We have been presented a petition which I would like to make a part of the record this morning. It reads "We the undersigned are in agreement with Mrs. Eugene Eddy, Susan & Bill Jones, Diane & David Morse and are in support of their needing access to their property. The 1.26 acres that David and Jackie Hudak are wishing to sell is not usable for a dwelling. It has main gas line, power lines and a creek too close. The private driveway in question has been in use for over 22 years with NO Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 8 Jones: Estes: COMPLAINTS. The Morses' have lived in their location for 33 years raising cattle and chickens for Tyson Co." The issue that is before us this morning is the request for Mr. and Mrs. Hudak for a lot split. They are the fee simple owners of the property that has been nominated as tracts 1, 2 and 3. Road easements, prescriptive easements, easements by right or easements by adverse possession are not before us Those are all issues that can be determined in a chancery court proceeding or be permitted by a simple writing of an easement. That has nothing to do with what is before us this moming. What is before us this morning is we are asked to consider Mr. and Mrs. Hudak's request to split their property into three separate parts. That doesn't have anything at all to do with your access to your property. If other neighbors object and we don't want a subdivision out there where do you do that? If someone objects that we don't want that many houses there who do we talk to there? This is the Subdivision Committee of your Fayetteville Planning Commission and we are the appropriate body to hear that sort of public comment. We must work within the ordinances and our determination is does this requested lot split comply and comport with our Fayetteville City Ordinances and if it does then we must grant the request and send it on to the full Commission. The reason it has to go to the full Commission is because Mr. and Mrs. Hudak have asked for a waiver from the requirement that there be an Arkansas Department of Health permit. So, anything that we do today is advisory only to the full Planning Commission and yes, at that time public comment will be taken regarding your objections to what you have referred to as a subdivision. Whether they can sell this property or not or what they can sell it for or if anyone will buy this tract 1... Jones: I understand, you don't know where to put the objection. If you approve it, are we lost? Hoffman: I want to further explain what a lot split is. Let's forget about tract 1 for a second. 1 want you, if you would Sara, to explain to everybody what they are doing. They are amounting to creating a subdivision of two Tots. No, how many houses can go on this and what are the general rules, so they will understand? Edwards: When we do a lot split on a piece of property that exists in the County, we check that it's got the required 75 feet of frontage is what we look for. One person, like this tract 3 for example, the 5 acre tract, one person has got to own that. Only one person can own that. They cannot split this further without coming back before us. Most of the • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 9 time, they are going to build their one house. However, there is occasion, that we've seen before, where several houses can be built because the County does not issue building permits. That's another issue that we can't influence. The purpose of this is for them to sell that 5.39 acres to another owner. What a lot split is a waiver of our subdivision regulations. We have found that it meets all of our regulations, therefore, we do not require this to go through a preliminary and final plat process. So, what we are doing is granting a waiver of our subdivision regulations allowing them to have two additional lots from the County standpoint. Hoffman: So, what this means is that, I take it you all live on tract 2? Hudak: Yes. Hoffman: Then you are splitting off the pond. Have you been in contact with the neighbors? Do they know what your plans are or do you want to tell them what they are? It's not imperative but do they know that you are planning on selling it to one person or are you planning on trying to further subdivide somewhere down the road? • Hudak, J.: We are not selling. Hoffman: I don't think they are looking at a tract home situation with this proceeding. • Estes: There is a plat note that I take it to mean what it says that "No future tract splits will be allowed on the three tracts showing here on." That's the end of the story. If I vote for this I take that to mean exactly what it says. Hoffman: Thank you for pointing that out. That is a note that I guess normally we would not require that to be put on the plat but since it's on there, it will legally bind them, this will be filed at the courthouse and anybody that goes to buy that property will pull this plat and the title company will see it and if somebody in the future comes in and says "I would like to have four lots out of these five acres." they won't be able to do it. Edwards: Without a preliminary plat. Hoffman: Without going through Subdivision. They would be back here and they would be back in front of the Planning Commission. Jones: So, this will go on to the Planning Commission? Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 10 • • Hoffman: This does have to go to the Planning Commission. When there is a waiver involved, this instance tract 1 is too small to not have a septic approval from the state and they want to waive that requirement because they are not planning on building on it or something. Apparently, this tract was already split off by the creating or location of Sassafras Hill Road and it was never formalized with the City or County, it's Just kind of out there. The separate piece of property was made at that time. Now, my suggestion to you is, if you have been using this as your primary drive that you investigate all your alternatives to be able to have that retained. Again, since you don't own that property and there is no easement shown, that's a course of action that is between you and the property owner, not between us. With that being said, do we have any further discussion at all? Estes: I will second Commissioner Ward's motion. In doing so, let me say this, this is a request for a lot split and that tracts 1 and 2 have already been split, they have been split by Sassafras Road. Physically they've been split, they just never have been recorded of record on a plat. Really what we are doing doesn't have anything to do pragmatically with tracts one and two, Sassafras Road has already split that property. You've got what's been denominated as tract 1 and tract 2. This prescriptive easement or easement by right or road easement, ingress and egress easement or whatever you've got out there, that is something that would be determined by a Chancery Court of competent jurisdiction and to not be determined by your Fayetteville Planning Commission. We didn't even used to see this kind of stuff six months ago. Jones: It really wouldn't do us any good to even go to the Planning Commission? Estes: If you have public comment to make, I encourage you to appear before the Planning Commission but the Planning Commission has absolutely no authority to enter any order granting that easement. Jones: I understand that. What does the Planning Commission do though? Estes: The Planning Commission will consider the applicants request for a lot split and for the waiver that is necessitated because in order to obtain a permit the Health Department requires a septic system to be designed and to design the septic system trees must be cleared from the property. The applicant tells us they do not plan to sell this lot at this time so the don't want to be out there wacking down tress. They are going to ask us, I presume, for a waiver that they do not have to go to the Health Department and get a septic permit. Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 11 • Hoffman: With regard to the questions about the number of houses that would be built, they are welcome to come and address the Planning Commission on that. I wonder if we can get a copy of this plat to the concerned neighbors? With that note in there, I would say that the Planning Commission would not view this as a large urban encroachment or something like that. If it were, then we would be doing an whole different process by going through a full subdivision. Jones: This is actually the first time I had to do this so I don't understand all the process. Hoffman: It can be confusing so we are trying to explain and make sure you all understand. Jones: I appreciate that. Estes: Let me again tell you, simply stated, how I view this. Tracts 1 and 2 have already been split by Sassafras Hill, pragmatically that's been done. You go out there and put your foot on tract one and goes across the road and put your other foot on tract 2, that's been done. You have some sort of prescriptive easement, easement by right, I don't know what you have but you showed me some pictures and explained to me that you have some kind of gravel driveway out there. This Fayetteville Planning Commission has no authority to enter any orders, make any determination or reach any decision regarding your right to use that driveway, that's a Chancery Court matter. So, what we are looking at is this applicants request to split this property into three tracts. 1 and 2 have already been split by the road. They want us to draw this imaginary line and create this tract 3 that's got 5 acres on it. They want us to give them a waiver from a requirement that they come in here and paper this table with a permit from the Arkansas Department of Health saying they can have a septic tank. The reason that they want to do that is because to design that septic system, they tell us, would require them to cut down some trees. They don't plan to do anything with the property now so they don't want to arbitrarily go in there fell some trees and put them on the ground just to get a piece of paper to put on this table and they are going to ask us for a waiver. That waiver request will come before the full Commission. If you have anything that you would like to say to the full Commission or anything additional you would like to say now, public comment is certainly welcome, it's solicited and it's asked for. What's before us today is this request to do this lot split and your gravel driveway, I don't see, we Just don't have any authority to deal with your gravel driveway. Jones: • Siebert. I understand that. If the waiver goes through, I don't that you don't okay it but the Planning Commission Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 12 • • Estes: does, if the waiver goes through and then down the road they change their mind and do decide to put a house there will it have to come back before the Committee or because we waived it once will we Just automatically have to say "Oh well we messed up."? That's my remarks that I was starting to make Just a moment ago and said "I don't want to go there." The reason I don't want to go there is because when this does go to the Planning Commission we are going to have to consider this waiver request. I can tell you what my thinking on that is right now, my thinking is if we grant the waiver that when they sell the lot I want to see the Arkansas Department of Health certificate. I think we can do that. Petrie: They will have to. Hoffman: We are not waiving the requirement for the certificate. Petrie: I feel a little better about this because we do have City water here which means in order for them to obtain a meter, they would have to provide approval from the Health Department before the City would give them a meter. Hoffman: I'm going to go ahead and concur with the motion and second to forward this to the full Planning Commission. That date is February 26, 2001, 5:30 p.m. Yes, everybody is welcome to come. Jones: We are going to meet you again? Hoffman: You'll see us again. Now, if the Planning Commission approves this, it's pretty much going to be what we talked about and I think you would be probably well advised to go ahead and try to find out some more about your situation before coming so you can be more informed. Jones: I understand my driveway position. If somebody opposes, is it going to do anybody any good to come before the Planning Commission and say "We don't want this 4 and 5 acres sold."? Hoffman: We like to think that we are 9 independently thinking people that listen to all sides of every action that we take. Thanks everybody and we'll see you all back on the 26`h. You can write letters in lieu of appearing and forward them to the Planning Division. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 13 LS 01-4.00: Lot Split (Reed Trust, pp 640) was submitted by David E Lashley on behalf of Mary Pauline Reed Trust for property located at 2283 S. School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3 01 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.49 acres and 0 51 acres. Hoffman: Our second item on the agenda is LS 01-4.00 submitted by David E. Lashley on behalf of Mary Pauline Reed Trust for property located at 2283 S. School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.01 acres The request is to split into two tracts of 2.49 acres and 0 51 acres. Due to the current C-2 zoning there are no minimum frontage requirements. Currently three structures exist on the property. One on the northern proposed lot and two on the southern proposed lot. Staff, if you could give us a run down? Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: We do have a sidewalk requirement, 6 foot sidewalk with a 10 foot greenspace and that goes along with our Master Street Plan which requires 55 feet from centerline be dedicated. They cannot meet this 55 foot dedication because of this structure on the north encroaching upon that so they are going to request a lesser dedication which makes this have to go to the Planning Commission and to the City Council for their approval. When they do dedicate this right-of-way, it does need to be by warranty deed. Back to the sidewalk issue, we are requiring the entire sidewalk to be built the entire length of this property. I believe that they are going to object to that. The final this is an engineering comment, if the structures on this property are not connected to sanitary sewer then they are required to connect prior to final approval. Hoffman: This existing structure? Edwards: Yes. We did ask them that question and never found out the answer for sure if they are connected or not. Hoffman: Can you point out to me on the vicinity map where we are located? Edwards: We are south of Cato Springs Road about 500 feet on the west side of School Avenue. Hoffman: What businesses are there? Edwards: I'm not sure. • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 14 Lashley: Do you know where Campbell Electric and Hunnicutt's, it's just north of there. Hoffman: Okay. With regard to the right-of-way, do we ever assign right-of-way through an existing building in case the building is later torn down? Edwards. No. We always go around it. Hoffman: We did that on the Mill? Edwards. We started out on the Mill project doing that but then they ended up removing the building anyway. That's it. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Just a sewer issue that we really don't have a good idea how all these houses are connected, can you enlighten us? • Lashley: I'm David Lashley. I'm an old friend of the Reed family and have the honor of being the trustee of the trust to see to the disposal of the property. I don't have any awareness or knowledge of that. • Ward: These could be on septic still, couldn't they? Lashley: I would doubt it but I don't know. I would have to confirm that. I didn't know the particulars until I arrived here this morning. Petrie: Since Plat Review they have added a service line shown coming from the existing manhole. This appears like it's not. Of course, the problem Engineering would have is, this existing building on the north end, if it comes off the sewer line and comes through this other tract then you are having three houses coming onto a private sewer line and it's just an illegal hookup. I'm just trying to avoid that. Hoffman: Is there a main along School? Petrie: On the opposite side of the street so it's possible it's fed from that way. Hoffman: What's that? Water? There is a W circled. Petrie: Yes. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 15 Hoffman: Let's go ahead and take the rest of staff comments then we'll come back and talk about the sewer and right-of-way. Chuck will you fill us to on the sidewalks? Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: Sidewalks are required on both of these lots because both of them are developed. Other than that I don't have anything else. Hoffman: Do we have existing driveways here that we need to worry with? We've got one real close to the property line and then we've got a real wide one over by the building. Rutherford: I think the owner is here and he can address that. I think he had some plans to redo some asphalt or parking area. Dramis: I'm John Dramis and I currently rent the building to the north. My only question about the sidewalk is, the building is basically right on the road. Where I park is in from of the building. Right now the "sidewalk" runs right across the road and I have two entrances into the front of my building. The recommendation was to build a sidewalk basically right attached. You come right from the building out 6 feet which would attach right in front of the only door that goes to my building and that's where I park my vehicle. So, I would basically be parking on the sidewalk. In my mind, I don't see how you would basically be shifting the sidewalk down to the front of my building. Hoffman: Is the purpose of this lot split to create this parcel and this parcel for separate sale to settle the estate? Lashley: Yes. That was the purpose because I didn't have a buyer for the whole property. If this lot split doesn't work then I go back to square one and try to sell the whole property. Hoffman: I have a suggestion. I think that we could put a sewer easement, if there is a sewer back here, up the side of the property line and that would take care of that problem. Because you've got the manhole back here and a sewer that serves this, why don't we just create an easement along the side here so he doesn't have to cut through the whole street. Petrie: You wouldn't need one across this northern lot, you would just need a short one connecting the manhole to this. But, if this thing is fed currently through this line here, then they need to run a new line to make this legal. • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 16 Ward: There needs to be two lines. It might be just one line. Hoffman: Even if this is in some easement which it looks like it is? Dramis: If it's on the sewer or not? How would we know? Hoffman: I assume we have sewer maps, we'll have to look them up. Petrie: Not service lines. We keep no record of service lines. Lashley: Water Department doesn't know? Petrie: You could contact the business office and they may be billing you and you may he on. septic. I don't know the situation. PUBLIC COMMENT: • Hoffman: Have we heard all the staff comments? Is there any public comment regarding this piece? • Reynolds: My name is Ray Reynolds, I'm an attorney here in Fayetteville and I represent John and Cindy Meares who own the land on the north side along 71. I think their property is probably described on there as the nearest property. There have evidently been two surveys done of this land in recent times. That one I think was done by Mr. Reid and I have one here done by Blew and Associates and along that northern line, just for reference I'll just show you this one here, along this which is the northern line of that tract and the southern line of their tract, the dark line is theoretically the legal line of the Meares property. This dashed line is theoretically the north end of that survey right there. You can see that there is a discrepancy. This may not be the proper place to address this and my guess is that it probably is not but my client's want to be here today by way of making public comment to put that into the mix so you would be aware of it. So, if you are calling for easements or anything to be laid out here on the north line that you know there is a potential 10 to 15 foot dispute. It may not even be that much but it's right there where it is. I understand this is not the proper forum but just to have this information before you when you are talking about this. I felt that we would be remiss if we didn't at least come in and tell you that there is. Later on, depending on what they do, it may require a lot line adjustment or they be able to work this out amongst themselves. I just wanted you to be aware that there is that there, so whatever you are dealing with there that you aware that there is some kind of overlap. Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 17 • • Hoffman: Does this line, in your opinion, encroach not into the building but close to it? Reynolds: It's pretty close. I'm not a surveyor so my opinion as a lawyer is probably not worth a bean on that. I would be glad to tell you, right now the way it looks, it doesn't touch any of these buildings. It's pretty close but it doesn't touch. There is a possibility of some dispute just because of the overlap of the surveys there. As far as the lot split in principal goes, the Meares do not oppose the lot split itself. They are not here to try and stop the lot split but they want to alert everybody of the fact that there may be something coming along these lines. There also be a fence line that used to run along here and that fence line has been here many, many years and it may be that they want to say that their land extends over to where the fence line is. We've already heard talk about adverse possession this morning, we are not going to talk about that now but I just alert you that you know that's there. Estes: Ray, when the Reed Trust sells, presuming we approve the lot split, that tract, I guess you could solve that with a lot line adjustment if you can agree? Reynolds: I would think so. Estes: If you cannot agree, I guess you could solve it with adverse possession? Reynolds. One of those options would be open to us at that time because I'm sure whoever, when they get their insurance that they'll need for title insurance and that stuff, they don't insure boundaries but nonetheless if they are aware of something like that. It's just something of course, whoever sells it as you well know would want to clear it up, it's got to be cleared one way or the other at a certain time and now is probably the time to do it. Estes: With the way title insurance is done these days, don't bet on it. Reynolds: I know they are not going to do it. Still, my sole and only purpose is to allow them to come to this meeting and make a public comment on it just so we didn't miss something that went by and then we feed it into the mix later on and everybody says "It would have been darn nice if you would have come to the meeting that day. It sure would have helped us out." Hoffman: Allen, you are here, do you mind talking to us about this? Is there not a way that we might not be able to read into the minutes that this doesn't get filed until the property line discrepancy is resolved? • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 18 Reid: Estes: Hoffman: Reynolds: Estes: Reynolds: Hoffman: Estes: That's a little restrictive. That's really an issue between the fee simple owners and I don't know if that's any of our business. It's like the driveway, it's not our business is it? That's why when I stepped up I prefaced my remarks to that. I am well aware of that and I appreciate your concern but this is probably not the appropriate forum to do that and I recognize that. Just like I said and I'll repeat myself one more time and then I'II quit. They just wanted to have a presence today so if it was something that they skipped they wouldn't have to go back and say "Well, we should have been there." That's my sole and only purpose to speak on their behalf just to let you know that there is a potential of something. My guess is they will probably settle out but I do not know at this time. I'm Just saying, for your information, basically. You are here today to alert us that there is a potential, if not existing, boundary line dispute on the north boundary of this lot split 01-4.00? Yes sir. We are not opposed in principals of the lot split. Okay. Now I think I do understand. Let's get back to the sidewalk issue. When we do lot splits, in my mind they really are, in essence, a subdivision because you are asking to divide property by whatever means inside the City limits. Subdivisions always get sidewalks particularly on well traveled and already developed urban streets. In my tenure on the Planning Commission there has been a real emphasis on providing the sidewalks, even though this is not certainly an ideal situation, we have to look beyond the immediate condition of the property. Assume that sometime maybe the building will be torn down and something else will be put in place. Crazier things have happened. It's my opinion that we ought to go ahead and follow our subdivision regulations and not be granting waivers for sidewalks. We had a case just last week where we had a drainage ditch issue but we still had him put the sidewalk in. I would be interested in just seeing that go on and being installed as a result of your request to split this lot. I think that the sewer issue could be worked out. You do need to connect to City utilities and we are trying to get as many ways as possible to not have to go across a five lane road. It's really all I've got on this. As to the sewer issue, we need to determine whether or not these structures are • connected to City sanitary sewer because if they are not, then they are going to need to Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 19 • • be connected. Petrie: That's correct, by ordinance. Estes: That's a determining issue, is it not? I can't vote on this without that information. Edwards: If they could find out by Planning Commission because we do have the Master Street Plan issue with regard to dedication. If it's something they could find out pretty quickly then I think we can still proceed if he wants to with the sidewalk. Estes: How does David go about researching that? How does he find that out? •Dramis: Basically what's probably going to happen, from my•ta king to David, the trust basically has no money to invest in the property, it wouldn't be enough to build sidewalks and do all that. I was willing on my part, even though I don't necessarily agree with where the sidewalk is, but I'm willing to pay for that and do that. As far as what I think may happen is if Dave is forced to spend other money which he doesn't have, he'll just have to sell it as one piece. That would be basically his only alternative. I can't afford that. It's been there for a long time. That was Mrs. Reed's wish that I rented for so long she wanted to see me have it. I think what is going to happen, if I understand David right is that, if he's forced to spend a lot of money building sidewalks and sewers, he doesn't have it, he can't build it so he will be forced to sell in one piece. Estes: David is more experienced in these matters than I am. This is not an uncommon situation. Often times, trusts are land rich and cash poor and I guess there are three banks up here on the square that would love to do business and others elsewhere. That's how that's solved. You go get a loan and pledge the real estate as collateral, you do whatever improvements are necessary. Often times a trust that is land rich and cash poor, to maximize the value of a trust asset, you borrow money and develop the property and sell it. Most of the subdivisions that were built here in the 70's were trust properties that were improved and developed and money was borrowed, improvements made and debt was incurred. That's life. Dramis: If I can Just ask one other question if I may? Is there any possibility on the sidewalk issue of having it, if the building was ever changed then an appropriate sidewalk would have to be put in. I understand having a sidewalk, I really do but it's just going to be basically running right in front of my garage door. If somebody walked on it and I'm backing out of the shop, I can't even see them. The way it is, it won't really be used. People still walk along front of the building. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 20 Dramis, Mrs. Towards the road. Dramis: I'm all for the sidewalk idea but it I don't see the practicality of it in front of the building itself. Dramis, Mrs.: I would hope that we would think also of the way we are trying to make south Fayetteville look a little nicer. John has been in business for 27 years and he's willing, against my opinion, I've got a business degree and I'm saying "That's not a good place for us to put our money.", but he wants to stay on the south side of Fayetteville. I hope we don't make it so hard on the business that we have to leave there. Right now, it's just getting bars and wrestling and it's a filthy mess down there. He is looking toward the future and hoping that in 20 years it will feed Fayetteville again. Hoffman: I certainly agree with that. I think the Planning Commission has been very encouraging of development. We've granted right-of-way waivers on the south side but the infrastructure is very important to the City. I've got to count the sidewalk in with that because when you look at it from a planning prospective we are not just looking at where he is, as I said we are looking on down the road however many years. Yes, I agree with you but I have to consider the big picture. Dramis, Mrs.: The use of the building for us is that we have to bring in trucks and utility trailers and pull these into our shop especially in the winter time and the front is where we do that. Dramis: We have a vehicle or trailer parked in front on the sidewalk because there just isn't enough room. People will be forced to walk on the old sidewalk because they are not going to come down 10 feet then zig zag between a truck and the building because there is just not much room. Hoffman: That brings up a question that I had. We are creating a non -conforming situation by permitting the subdivision anyway. What does our ordinance say regarding that, by creating the subdivision with the building in the setback and then the right-of-way or supposed right-of-way with the driveway in it's configuration? Does our Subdivision ordinance say that he would have to relocate the driveway and make it to the side of the building? Edwards: This building is non -conforming anyway. It's got a 50 foot setback and if you look at where the existing right-of-way, that's not 50 feet. We are taking 15 feet extra or whatever. We are not further making this non -conforming. We are getting a right-of- way in hopes of future expansion and getting a sidewalk but we are really not changing Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 21 that. Lashley: Did it conform when it was built? Edwards- I don't know that. Ward: It was two lanes back then. Lashley: The rules of the game have changed. I don't know, I have a problem with the fact that it appears from my casual review of the particulars here that we would have to give up 10 feet, 6 feet and another 10 feet so we are giving up 26 feet. I think there is 175 frontage and that's about 4,550 square feet, if my calculations are right on a half acre lot. Edwards- We are doing 15.05 feet from where the existing right-of-way is. Although the road isn't built to that point probably, 15.05 feet is exactly what we are taking in additional. • Lashley: So, this 10 foot greenspace and the 6 foot sidewalk and the other 10 foot on the right- of-way, that's what it looked like? Hoffman: You have the right-of-way and the sidewalk. Edwards: Right. We are getting the whole 15 feet of where this building is so we are not going to have our entire 10 feet of greenspace when the road is built to it's full width. We are looking at a waiver of that so we won't have to take away from your building. Lashley: I'm not sure this is doable. Hoffman: We have a couple of choices, you have to go to Planning Commission since there is a waiver involved and I would be in support of the waiver of the right-of-way dedication. You have the choice in my mind of going forward and seeking approval and having that in place but that doesn't tie you, until file this, to a lot split. Ward: You don't have to do anything until you file. Lashley: I won't file it until I have a sale. Ward: Until you have both sales in hand and you've got half of it done, maybe the other half • can be done. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 22 Lashley: Hoffman: I understand the dilemma that you all are in but the sidewalk doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense right in front of the building, I understand that and I agree but I don't know Eventually as all this stuff gets developed, if we don't do it now, then it won't be done. It seems awfully punitive to people but if we don't have sidewalks... Dramis• I fully concur with having a sidewalk, setback and space between the road, I think that's the way to do it but if you look at that whole area going down there, in my mind, they are all parking lots. The Chilly Billy's was just redone and the the sidewalk stays up where it is. If the sidewalk was ever setback they would all be running through there. There is no way to put a sidewalk down below. I can't tell 100 years from now but basically you'll have a sidewalk just sitting going through a front yard. People walk and they are not going to come down. Next to them is Hunnicutt and he has a parking lot also so it would be running through the middle of his parking lot. Hoffman: It sounds to me like what you all ought to consider doing is taking this forward to the Planning Commission, requesting a waiver on the sidewalk because you've got 9 people as opposed to 3. I can't speak for any of them to say whether you will get it or not but I will say this, that any land sold for Commercial zoning will have to put one in when they build a building. Just because you've got so many existing structures there, I don't want to seem punitive believe me. Lashley: Estes: Hoffman: Does the Planning Commission deal with condemnations? No. The other thing is, the Planning Commission decision can be appealed to City Council on a lot split? Edwards: Right but this is going to go there anyway with the lesser dedication. I would like to say if you would ever plan on expanding or getting a permit of any type, we are going to have to get the sidewalk then. Hoffman: One thing we haven't brought up is taking money in lieu of a sidewalk which I don't know if anybody would be interested in doing that. Did we re -write our ordinance on that Chuck? Rutherford: We currently have an ordinance that's in the works to take money in lieu of building • sidewalks on lot splits and places like we are talking about. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 23 Hoffman. Is that going to be done by the time they get through jumping through the hoops? Rutherford: It very well could be. Dramis: Is that money set aside for future use? Ward: Yes. Edwards: Let me ask you this, would you support using that ordinance in this situation? Rutherford: Yes I would. Edwards. So, we could possibly delay this, if that's okay with you, waiting for that ordinance to come through and at that time this wouldn't be an issue. Hoffman: Or grant the lot split with the understanding that once the thing is done then you could put that up instead of building a sidewalk. Dramis: Do you have an idea of what that would cost? Edwards. We've got a per square footage figure. Rutherford: It's $3.00 per square foot and also we have to cross that creek and that would have to be figured into that. Dramis: That seems reasonable to me. Lashley: Do you have a total cost estimate? Rutherford: I don't have a total cost estimate. I can give you an approximate if you have the square footage and multiply that times $3.00. Lashley: The culvert or bridge is an issue. That's up to us, I understand. Dramis: Could you give us a general idea of what it might cost to build across the culvert? Rutherford: Yes, I can provide that information. We have a lot of things going on here and I would like to discuss looking at it in the future. One thing that was talked about, we visited the property and looked at it and one of the alternatives was to build a sidewalk adjacent Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 24 • • Hoffman: Rutherford: Hoffman: Rutherford: Hoffman: Rutherford: Hoffman: Lashley: Hoffman: Dramis: Hoffman: Petrie: Lashley: to the curb but there is that asphalt there already. It's already walking surface. Exactly. To me that doesn't solve the problem for the future. If this stays exactly like it is, as far as buildings and everything, I think the sidewalk makes sense because then as other things come in they can connect to it. To build a sidewalk now and conform to the location of the building are and those kinds of things, 5 or 10 years down the road we don't know what the future has to offer. This ordinance is going through the Ordinance Review Committee now? It's been through the Ordinance Review Committee. Last night it was handed down to the Sidewalk and Trails Commission. So it has to go through them? One of our Alderman is presenting it to the City Attorney to review. We are going to bring it in front of the Planning Commission and then it will have to go to City Council. Okay. If you are willing to hang loose with that and we'll put notes on the plats or something. You are going to redefine what is in here? Yes. We need to find out about the sewer, that's the main thing. Yes. You all need to do some digging. I would recommend contacting Paul Mitchell with Water and Sewer, phone number is 575-8386, to see if he has any record or if he can help in any way. If he can't then it may be the case of having to get one of these private companies that typically go out and clean out the system. There is an ordinance that if you have a sewer line to your property, you have to be connected to it. Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 25 Petrie: Right. That's why I'm trying to make sure that's happening here. Ward: You probably are but we don't know The main thing that we are worried about is that you've got your sewer line from this building, John's building that he is going to buy, his sewer line may be way over here on this other property, on this 2.4 acres. It's not going to be attached to the manhole it might be down here just hooked into the sewer line out here on the middle of this other property. Lashley: I'm not as worried as the other issues. MOTION: Estes: I would move that we forward to the full Planning Commission LS 01-4.00, the lot split request by the Reed Trust subject to the four staff conditions for the full Planning Commission to consider the lesser dedication of right-of-way on the Master Street Plan and to also consider making a plat notation that should the money in lieu of sidewalk ordinance be passed by the City Council and become an ordinance that be an option available to this applicant. Ward: I'll second that. Hoffman: I'll concur. Thank you. I'm glad we were able to talk through it and I appreciate everybody's input on it. • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 26 LS 01-6.00: Lot Split (Cahoon, pp 254, 293) was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Tom Cahoon for property located at 2822 Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.95 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.55 acres and 0.34 acres Hoffman. Our next item is LS 01-6.00 which is a lot split submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Tom Cahoon for property located at 2822 Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.95 acres The request is to split into two tracts of 0.55 acres and 0.34 acres. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: This property is located southeast of the Boxwood Addition. This lot split is meeting all of our zoning and subdivision requirements with regards to frontage and lot size. They are not meeting the side setback but this is not increasing that non -conformity so we really don't have any issues with that. We are requiring a sidewalk to be built prior to the lot split being stamped and filed, it needs to be constructed and approved. We are requiring the sidewalk on the remainder tract with the existing house to be built at this time and then at the time of development, the split off piece will be required to be built. So when they come in for a permit, they are going to have to build the sidewalk as well. We do have parks fees due in the amount of $470. Other than that, everything is being done. Hoffman: This is a pretty straight forward lot split? Anything else? Edwards: That's it. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: No comments. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: On this one the sidewalk does make sense to build because on the improved lot and on the unimproved lot when they build sidewalks will be required and it will connect to the sidewalk on this. Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator • Rogers: I need the owner's zip code and phone number. Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 27 • Hoffman: Is that not on the plat? Rogers: No. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: I'll take public comment. Is there anybody here to speak on this lot split? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Hoffman: Seeing none, I'll turn it over to the applicant. Reid: I'm just speaking for myself because I don't even know Mr: Cahoon. I've never met the man. I think we've just try to meet all the requirements that the City had laid out. We went through Technical Plat Review and made the changed, came back with revisions and I think everybody is pretty well happy with it now. Hoffman: I just have one question. There is a big old easement through here, it's not going to affect the build -ability of the lot? Reid: He'll still have plenty of room to build the lot. The only thing that was changed from the original plat that we submitted was that we did provide a meets and bounds description of where we will need that sewer line to be. There is an existing sewer line which runs from that existing one story frame house to a sewer main located at the Boxwood Addition. The City Engineering had no problem with it other than they needed a meets and bounds description. He's got room to the south of there to build a house. MOTION: Ward: I'll go ahead and move for approval LS 01-6.00 for a lot split for Tom Cahoon. Estes: I second. Hoffman: I concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 28 • • LS 01-7.00: Lot Split (Eckels, pp 207) was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Dan & Nancy Eckels for property located at 2837 Howard Nickell Road. The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 6.58 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 4.58 acres and 2 acres. Hoffman: The next item on the agenda is a lot split LS 01-7.00 submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Dan & Nancy Eckels for property located at 2837 Howard Nickell Road. The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 6.58 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 4 58 acres and 2 acres. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: This property is on the south side of Howard Nickel and almost border on Salem Road to the very south of the property. However, there is about a 15 foot strip that I believe has been adversely possessed which does not give them access to Salem. So, although that is on our Master Street Plan, I can't require that dedication. They've met our dedication on Howard Nickel. They are providing a private access easement where their driveway is crossing this lot. Everything is fine. I did get a copy of the perc test however, I did not get a copy of the actual Arkansas Department of Health permit. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: No comment. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: No comment. Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: No comment. Hoffman: What about this White Oak Road? Edwards: That's existing right-of-way coming off Howard Nickel and that's just existing right-of- way right there. We are not requiring to be constructed. Ward: What did you say again about this Salem Road deal? • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 29 Edwards: There is about a 15 foot strip down here that apparently the property owner's prior to the Eckels' owned and it was adverse possessed. There is a court decree on it. I'm not sure all the details but they don't own that anymore so they cannot access Salem. Ward: Who owns it? Eckels: The property owner that owns Helen's Candy across the street, I don't know the details of how and when that came to be but I do know that she currently owns south of West Salem Road and then the small 10 or 15 or however long it is, it's narrower at the west end and then wider at the east end. She owns that part. Reid: They claim that's an old fence line and took it to court. Nevertheless it was taken off of this deed by court decree. Ward: Will you all be using the same driveway or are you going to put your driveway over on the actual lot? Eckels: Likely when our buyers build their house we've agreed with them to move it over to their need. It will be further over on our property. As it is existing now, we'll use that. It's gravel. This is how we intend to access our property until which time we have access off of Salem. We are perfectly happy to access off of Howard Nickel as are our buyer's. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: There is no public to comment. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Hoffman: I'll bring it back to the Subdivision Committee for any more questions and motions. MOTION: Estes: I would move that we approve Lot Split 01-7.00 subject to the standard conditions of approval Ward: I'll second. • Hoffman: I concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 30 • • Edwards: I need the Arkansas Department of Health permit, have you applied for that? Eckels: I don't know. Edwards: Why don't you just give me a call? Eckels: Okay. Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 31 • • LS 01-8.00: Lot Split (McDonald's Corporation, pp 135, 174) was submitted by Kris Fullerton on behalf of McDonald's Corporation for property located at the Northeast corner of Joyce Blvd. and Mall. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2 acres The request is to split into two tracts of 0.35 acres and 1.65 acres. Hoffman: Our next item is a lot split for McDonald's LS 01-8.00 submitted by Kris Fullerton on behalf of McDonald's Corporation for property located at the Northeast corner of Joyce Blvd. and Mall. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2 acres The request is to split into two tracts of 0.35 acres and 1.65 acres. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: We all remember this at Joyce and Mall. They have shown the right-of-way and the sidewalk as we requested. They are splitting off the northern 66 feet. Right now, we don't know if they have the intention of selling it or not. The only issue is an Engineering issue which that back lot does not have sewer but I'll let Ron go over that. Hoffman: Let me interrupt one second. I have to abstain from any discussion on the item. You want to chair it? Estes: Sure. Ron, what are Engineering's comments? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Estes: Ward: Petrie: Typically for lot splits such as this, we would require for sewer to be put in now but because of the size of this lot and the discussion with McDonald's, we really don't know what's going back there. It may be an ATM. I would hate to make that a condition of approval at this time. What I would recommend is that just it's clearly stated on the lot split that would be the responsibility of the developer of that lot if it's needed. Any other staff comments? Does this need to be shown on the plat too? Yes. PUBLIC COMMENT: Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 32 • • Estes: No one is present so I presume there is no public comment. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: I will bring it back to the applicant, is there anything you would like to talk to us about? Hennelly: Tom Hennelly with Jorgensen and Associates. We've got the easement over there to put the sewer line in and there is no problems with any type of conditions put on there. 1 have no problem with any of those other conditions either. MOTION: Ward: I will go ahead and make a motion to approve LS 01-8.00 for a lot split for McDonald's and there again, the conditions will be added to the plat. Estes: I11 concur and the condition is that a note be added to the plat to indicate that if sewer is needed for the northern lot, it's the responsibility of the developer of the lot to extend sewer service at their own expense. Hennelly: That was for approval right? Estes: Yes. Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 33 • • LSD 01-1.00: Large Scale Development (Gregg Street Storage, pp 328) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser LTD Partnership for property located between Elm & Township and West of Gregg Street. The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 9 49 acres. The request is to build 17 Mini Storage Units with living quarters above one unit (Use unit 21) in 1-1 district. Hoffman: The next item is a Large Scale Development 01-1.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser LTD Partnership for property located between Elm & Township and West of Gregg Street. The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 9.49 acres. The request is to build 17 Mini Storage Units with living quarters above one unit (Use unit 21) in 1-1 district. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards. This is an I-1 District, it's an industrial use. They do not need have to meet the Commercial Design Standards with regard to the design of their building however, they need to meet the site development standards. They have met those as far as Commercial Design Standards go. They are constructing 650 to 800 storage units. From what Tom tells me, it Just depends on the size. This is Just north of Ridout Lumber. I do have a few Planning comments. You've got a dumpster pad shown back here in the floodway, I Just can't permit that, it's a FEMA regulation. You are going to have to move it out of the floodway. If you want it in the floodplain, I Just don't think you can do it because it has to be anchored. We are just going to have to get it out of there. Perry did request the 250 high pressure sodium cut off street light fixture and utility pole at the north side of the driveway and I don't see that shown on there if it is, I have missed it. You do need to show that. Hennelly: Edwards: It's an existing pole on the south side of the driveway. I see it. We do have a 24 foot standard driveway entrance that they are not meeting, they're one foot over at 25 so they are requesting a variance or waiver to allow for the additional foot. Staff doesn't have a problem with that. We are looking at revising our curb cut ordinance right now to allow for a standard 27 foot driveway. They will meet it when that does pass. The final issue is, they did include a letter in your packet requesting a waiver of screening requirements for mini storage. I did include that code section in my report. Basically, what it says is, "At the expense of the owner of the property all storage units and storage yards for mini storage created under use unit 21 shall be required to be screened by view obscuring vegetation when the storage yards Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 34 or the storage units have common property lines with any residential use or zone and when they have frontage on any public street." That's what I'm enforcing and that's what they are requesting a waiver on. Staff is recommending that they screen both along Gregg Avenue and along the south line of their property because there is a Master Street Plan street running just south of their boundary line. SWEPCO is planning on building a substation down here and they are going to dedicate that right-of- way at that time. Hoffman: This is Max Parker's property that has been sold to SWEPCO? Edwards: Yes. There is a distinct possibility of that being built although we don't have it on our Capital Improvement Plan, we will have the right-of-way and so we are asking for screening along that side as well. Ward: Why wouldn't we require SWEPCO to do that if that ever comes back? Edwards: They will dedicate the right-of-way but they are not responsible for the screening of this mini -storage. Ward: If they don't do anything then they don't need the screening. Edwards: Right. They are only doing it because the City is requesting that they dedicate for our Master Street Plan. This is the City requirement, not the developers. They are actually not going to build the street because they are not going to, as far as we can tell so far, attract enough traffic to warrant that. We may change our decision on that. Planning Commission determination of the required street improvements to Old Gregg Avenue. Engineering is recommending that they widen it 14 feet from centerline with curb and gutter and they are not disputing that from my understanding. Kim can talk about this as well but the developer violated the tree preservation and protection ordinance by removing trees prior to large scale development and she is going to assess them a fine per rare tree removed. Hoffman: That's in our current ordinance, is that correct? Edwards: Yes. The rest are pretty standard. Sidewalks with 10 foot greenspace. They do have living quarters provided as part of this development which Kim is requiring that $470 parks fees as well for that. We are recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission because of the screening waiver and driveway variance. Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 35 Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: My only comment at this time is I don't have a grading permit, signed by the owner, that I requested at Plat Review. Hennelly: Can he come by and sign it? No problem. I'll take care of that this morning. Hoffman: We don't need detention backing up to this creek? Petrie. They have provided the calculations that show that it will not increase the peak flows in this creek. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: On this project, when it came through the plat review process, Tom called me and we talked about if they could build a sidewalk at a different location than along the property. We looked at that and thought that the better place for them to build the sidewalk was on the east side of Gregg Avenue. There is a SWEPCO fence there. This part of Old Gregg Avenue does not have any other sidewalk on it, it dust dead ends there at Ridout and goes down to Meeks Lumber. I don't think that the sidewalk would really be used that much on Gregg Avenue. I think it would serve the citizens of Fayetteville much more if we built them directly out, a lot of citizen input requesting sidewalks along Gregg Avenue and at this location there is not any sidewalk there. Hoffman. They put trees up and down here, are they where the sidewalk needs to be? They planted a bunch of trees. Rutherford: No. What we were suggesting the trees won't be a problem. We looked at the site and it can work. Basically the cost is the same, same amount of footage, same amount of length. Hennelly: Do you want me to address that now? Hoffman: Yes. Hennelly: I had approached Chuck about that and Mr. Sweetser is in full concurrence with that. The issue comes up to right-of-way dedication and the City staff is recommending that we dedicate an additional ten feet of right-of-way along Old Gregg Street. It's my understanding that the purpose of that right-of-way dedication is to be able to built a • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 36 city street of 14 feet, have greenspace and have a sidewalk in there. Mr. Sweetser was of the mind that if he was going to have to dedicate the additional 10 feet, the only purpose of which is to put a sidewalk in, then a sidewalk would be built across the street where he would have no benefit of it, that didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to him. So, after discussing with him, he said and I understand that, Sara and I talked about yesterday, that city ordinances are not for bargaining purposes but that if he's going to be required to dedicate the property for a sidewalk, he wants to benefit from the sidewalk. It seems reasonable to me and that's the reason we put the sidewalk in where it is. Hoffman: How would the decreased ten feet impact the construction of this road at all or would the radius still be what it is? Hennelly: We would be able to construct the street improvements that we've already agreed to 14 feet from centerline to the back of the curb and have one foot in back of the curb to the existing right-of-way line. There is sufficient right-of-way now to do the improvements that we are agreeing to. What it really comes down to is, if they don't have to dedicate the 10 feet of right-of-way, they would be happy to build a sidewalk on the other side of the street, where everybody agrees would be more of a benefit to the public. Rutherford: I think the right-of-way issue is out of my court. Edwards: Like I told him, lesser dedication does have to go to City Council for approval. I don't see why we can't support it. I think we can do that with the condition that the sidewalk go. Hoffman: 1 just want to make sure that there is enough greenspace between the curb and property line to plant the trees. Hennelly: There is a 15 foot greenspace that we are required to do anyway. Hoffman: I think we can support that too. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: Do you have a copy of my comments from Plat Review? At Plat Review I mentioned the fact that I spoke with Mr. Sweetser. What had happened is they went in and cleared the site, removed the buildings and with it two large walnut trees which I wasn't Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 37 • aware was happening until I got some citizen calls. I was aware at that time, spoke with the owner and he admitted to removing the trees and he knew at that time that he was going to bring this development forth. That is a violation of our ordinance. That, as far as I'm concerned, has been taken care of. We will be assessing that fine. Simply addressing the screening and just as support information for making that decision, our ordinances do state for screening if you use vegetation it has to screen a two year period. That is probably a larger expense than a wooden fence would be because of the fact that you have to start with pretty large plant material to really get a screen in two years. That's all I'm saying. If you are going to be looking at monetary costs or looking at the feasibility of using plant material, this is what it would take to do that. Hoffman: Clear this up for me, does the screening ordinance require that the entire property be screened or lust the property visible from the street? Edwards: Hoffman: Edwards. Hesse: Edwards: Right. Is there any need to worry about any screening from this side up to the building? Possibly. We might want to look at that. Without reading that ordinance again, does it say viewed from the right-of-way? It says "screened from." Hesse: We had this situation recently but it was different in that it was a conditional use on 6th Street. They tried to use plants and they did not screen. They have the same arguments that this developer had, that they are hiding the business. Part of fencing around these storage units is for security and by screening it you are losing your security, l think it's just a difficult call on your part unfortunately. Hoffman: It's a little different than an auto towing yard but it's not that much different because it's a storage yard. Hennelly: Mr. Sweetser had an illustration done, elevations of what this would look like and it's a pretty good depiction. He tried to get the colors but it was done on a rush basis. The purpose of this is what he's proposing from a layout standpoint other than the sidewalk which is in the wrong place. He's proposing to face all the buildings that face the street in brick or fabricated stone. I understand that the trees when they are planted will not be this big, if you notice the fence, he's intending on putting a brick or rock column • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 38 fence with wrought iron in between. He wants this thing to be a nice looking project. He's not trying to develop something like what instigated the ordinance over at Crossover with the blue storage buildings that are kind of unsightly. He's willing to agree to anything that you all may require as far as what the buildings are to look like in an attempt to keep from having to screen this. This is going to cost him roughly two million dollars to develop and he is trying to market a product. Obviously, he thinks that it's unfair to have to hide this from the people he's trying to market it to. Ward: Is he going to have signs on this two story building? Hennelly: There will be a sign on the side of this building but I don't know. I'm not sure if he's had that designed yet. Hoffman: I have a comment about living quarters. I think that a use other than industrial is to meet Commercial Design Standards. I appreciate he has taken that into account. It looks like... Hennelly: These are caretakers. Hoffman: Yes. This is a two story storage building here and it looks like you've got dry-vit or something like that. I don't know if that's what was intended to portray on that second floor? Hennelly: I can only assume dry -vit. The intention of this drawing is only to try and convey the idea that he is wanting to make this a nice development. He is willing to put something other than the metal facing on here, brick or stone and I'm sure that could be continued all the way up. Hoffman: I'm just thinking of the unarticulated wall surface on the second floor. Edwards: Is that whole second floor a living area? Hennelly: No. Just this area is an apartment up here. This is climate controlled storage up here. Ward: I'm sure they are going to have signs along that front, up on top. Estes: Their request is a waiver from the screening requirements but there will still be some adequate landscaping. Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 39 • • Hennelly: This picture does not depict the 15 foot wide landscape strip that's required. There will be shrubs between the trees which will provide additional screening. One thing we haven't addressed is the screening along the south boundary. It is not right-of-way. Estes: I would also like to address the screening the northeast corner because that's going to be visible from Gregg Street traveling south. Hennelly: Correct. Then that brings up another issue that we have with the ordinance itself in that when we read this, it appears to me from the wording that the intent of this is to protect adjacent residential property from a development like this. There is no adjacent residential property to this development. We really disagree with the requirement at all to have to put the screening in because of that. We don't believe we meet the requirement of the ordinance. Estes: Do we have a copy of the ordinance available? Edwards: Yes. It's in my report. Hoffman: I'm going to read it in for the record. "At the expense of the owner of the property, all storage units and storage yards for mini storage created under use unit 21 shall be required to be screened by view obscuring vegetation when the storage yards or storage units have common property lines with any residential use or zone and when they have frontage on any public street. Vegetation used for screening purposes should be planted at a density sufficient to become view obscuring within two years from the date of planting and it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to maintain the screening throughout the life of the use of the property as mini storage." My take on that is that you have a residential issue and a public street issue. Could you repeat what you said about SWEPCO and the construction of the street? Edwards: Yes. We've been talking with SWEPCO and they do plan on doing some development, a substation, I'm not real familiar with all the electricity terms and they do need to do a lot split from Ridout Lumber because right now this is in one complete property. At the time of the lot split we are going to require the right-of-way dedication for this Master Street Plan street, there is an aerial here, it goes right through here which obviously this does not depict the width of what we are going to require It's going to run right there. Estes: The sewer connects with Gregg Avenue and where does it connect over to the west? • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 40 Edwards: We've got it running on past the creek. It connects to Garland. Hoffman: We made them keep that Garland connection. Was that the one with the farm at the end of Garland that they wanted to deduct from it and use it? Petrie: There is an existing right-of-way on the other side of the creek, is that correct, behind all the chestnut and all that? Edwards: Yes. We do anticipate at some point because it is on our Master Street Plan, a street being built there. We are requesting that this be screened from that future street. Estes: The way I read the ordinance is that before screening is required there has to be a common property line with a residential use or zone and frontage on the public street. The ordinance uses the word "and", it does not use the disjunctive "or". I don't think that screening is required. Hennelly: That was our take on that was that it did not say residential zoning and frontage on a public street right-of-way. It did seem to require both conditions to be meet before screening was required. Estes: Hennelly: Hesse: With that said, I would like to defer to our Landscape Administrator to see what she says about what kind of landscaping scheme we've got on the frontage on the public street, Old Gregg Avenue. What I've heard and these drawings that were offered, for whatever purpose I understand were not to be made part of the record but yet if they are not to persuade us I don't know why they've been offered this morning. They are for that purpose exactly. At this point they are specifying pin oaks at 30 foot intervals across the front. As far as the parking lot requirements, they'll have to have shrubs along here. I'm not aware that shrubs would carry all along unless they propose to do that on their own. Hennelly: Run that by me again. Edwards: I think it says along front property lines, I believe. Hesse: Right now, what's out there is very little vegetation along the street. Any vegetation would be an improvement. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 41 Edwards: "A 15 foot wide landscaped area shall be provided along the front property line exclusive of right-of-way entrance drive, exit drive, sidewalks are allowed to cross the 15 foot landscaped area." It's front property line, not necessarily parking lot. Hesse: Are the specifications for trees every 30 feet? Edwards: Yes. Hesse: We could ask that in addition they have shrubs along there but if you are getting away from screening and they still have shrubs along there, it will improve the look of it but it wouldn't necessarily give the height. Hoffman: I think that's okay to wrap around the one little side that's visible. Hennelly: You mean trees and shrubs? Hoffman: Not of the screen type but the other type because they are bricking the fronts of the building and all that stuff and that's a mitigating factor to me. Estes: It will wrap around the northeast corner? Hoffman: Yes. My question comes to this, the Parker's are friends of mine and I know about the stuff going on, presently it's residential and then it's going to become a public street. If you read the application of the ordinance the way you are reading it, we wouldn't have to screen in front of the property because we don't abut a residential zone on the other side of the street. Edwards: There is some residential. Hoffman: Suppose it wasn't. If you read the ordinance the way you guys are talking about with the "and" as opposed to the separating "or" then, you wouldn't have to screen even the front of it. The words "public street" might as well not even be in there. Estes: That is the way I'm reading it and it reads "..have common property lines with any residential use or zone and when they have frontage on any public street." Hoffman: I thought you said that the screening wasn't required. • Edwards. How we've interpreted "and" meaning, in both of these situations. Either adjacent to Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 42 • residential and either when they have frontage on any public street. It's semantics. Estes: There is a word in our language that's a disjunctive called "or" and if that's what the City Council intended, that's what they should have done. It does use the word "and". Hennelly: Just so I'm clear is the space that's required, about 6 feet between the property line and the back of the curb at this northeast corner, are we talking about putting shrubbery along there. Estes: Hoffman: Hennelly: Ward: Hoffman: Whatever our Landscape Administrator wants. That's going to be chain link from the front corner back? It will be. That could possibly be wrapped around. It would be nice if you could wrap it around and come down the front. That really would. Hennelly: Just to the building, clip the corner there and bring that back and plant the tree and the shrubs right behind the fence. Hesse: Just as a suggestion, you might drive by. 1 don't know what it looks like when you are on Gregg. When you look over there, it seems this is a little bit higher elevation, is that correct? Hennelly: Not from Gregg. I believe they are pretty close to the same elevation. Gregg Street might be a little bit higher. Hesse: You are going to go up and over the railroad tracks, you might just see what you can see because you can assume that the canopy will be 15 foot above the ground and 15 foot above you will have screening. I don't know what visually you will see. Hennelly: One other issue, Upchurch Electric is in the process of adding onto their building. Hoffman: For the front? Hennelly: Correct. If it's alright for us to find out how far that comes out and then adjust ours to match that, is that acceptable? • • Subdivision Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 Page 43 Hoffman: Yes. We are all nodding, for the tape recorder. Yes, I think that would be fine. If you could have that together before coming to Planning Commission. I have a suggestion for people to just consider on the SWEPCO side and the Master Street. I don't see that within two years it's going to become a through street but I do see that it could be over time. I think that if you planted some kind of small vine that didn't have to meet that maturity level within two years, it would be more cost efficient for you and eventually as that road becomes traveled we would have the vegetative screening required. Hennelly: That goes back to the dispute of whether or not it's required. It's really not a cost issue for the Sweetser's other than the money that they perceive they will lost in being able to market this and having to have it screened from the people that would notice it was there and want to come by and rent a space out of it rather than having to go look for it. It's really not an issue of the cost of putting in the screening, he doesn't believe... Hoffman: They are not going to be driving down that road to look for it, they are going to be on Gregg. We've already waived that. If this is not required, I have a job for our new City Attorney, can we ask him to give us a reading on this wording because if it's not that, I'll not pursue that. Maybe if we could get an opinion about the intent of that ordinance and if it is intended to screen it from a public road, talk about some kind of a compromise. Hennelly: On the south boundary. Hoffman: Yes. Edwards: I can pull the minutes of when that was passed and maybe it will shed some light on it. Hoffman: Those are really the only comments that I have and I guess if you could show the sign on that elevation. I'm asking for that because I think the Commercial Design Standards apply to that one building because of the living unit. Edwards: It is a sales office also. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman: Anybody else? There is no public to comment. • COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Subdivision Committee Meeting • February 15, 2001 Page 44 • • Hoffman: Any motions, anymore discussion? Estes: I would move that we forward to full Planning Commission LSD 01-1.00 subject to all conditions and staff comments. Ward: I'll second that making sure that the grading permits be signed Hoffman: Thank you.