Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-12 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, April 12, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LS 01-14.00: Lot Split (Perry, pp 143) Approved Page 3 FP 01-3.00: Final Plat (Silverthorne Subdivision, pp 474) Approved Page 6 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Sara Edwards Tim Conklin Ron Petrie Keith Shreve Kim Rogers Jim Beavers Perry Franklin Kim Hesse • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting April 12, 2001 Page 2 Edwards. I think we should move it to the back and give Dave a chance to get here. Subdivision Committee Meeting April 12, 2001 Page 3 Ward: Good morning. Welcome to the April 12, 2001 meeting of the Subdivision Committee. We have two items on the agenda. The first will be a lot split for Bob Perry and second, a final plat on Silverthorne Subdivision. If you are here for CMN, I guess we are not discussing that this morning, it's been pulled. LS 01-14.00: Lot Split (Perry, pp 143) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bob Perry for property located on Guy Terry Road. The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 46.34 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 40 acres and 6.34 acres. Ward: The final item on the agenda is a lot split 01-14.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bob Perry for property located on Guy Terry Road. The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 46.34 acres The request is to split into two tracts of 40 acres and 6.34 acres. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: This property is only partly in our growth area. Our growth area runs up to the section line and then it begins in Goshen growth area. The Hudak property, which we recently split, is located just east of this. This lot split does meet our subdivision regulations regarding minimum size and frontage. We do have two conditions that need to be addressed. The survey must reference two state -plane coordinates. It does reference one but we need another. I checked with Clyde and he said there is one about 60 feet off here. Guy Terry Road is a collector street on the Master Street Plan, which requires 35 feet from centerline to be dedicated. He is showing that dedication 35 feet from centerline, however, I don't think it's very clear. I want you to go through and make a dark line showing the 35 feet dimensioned like we do on everything else. We are only getting this request up to our planning area boundary because we can't acquire dedication beyond that. That's only the easternmost 331 feet. As long as that's clear on what we are dedicating, is what I'm looking for on that. Ward: Since this is in the county I guess Ron and Keith have nothing? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: We have a private service line that will exist across tract 1 and tract 2, we need some type of verbage or note on the plat to give the right for that to happen. The public utility easement would not do that, that would be a private line. Subdivision Committee Meeting • April 12, 2001 Page 4 • • Jorgensen: It's in a public easement. Petrie: I think just wording would take care of it. Ward: Does it show on the plat? Petrie: I think so. On the recorded plat we'll need that. Jorgensen: I can do that. I'll get back with you and let you know the wording to make sure it's okay with you. Is that all right? Petrie: Yes. Ward: Ron, anything else besides the private waterline going across the public easement? Petrie: That's all. Ward: Why can't that waterline be a public waterline? Petrie: The main reason is there is a water meter in between a public line and his line. They would have to move the water meter and then the existing line wouldn't meet our standards. Ward: The waterline is already there feeding that house on tract 2? Petrie: Right. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: There is no parks fees on this and no landscaping requirements. I'll open the floor to public comment. Conklin: We do have the County Planner, Celia Scott-Silkwood. Scott-Silkwood: I would Just request that you put Fayetteville Planning Area on the one side, instead of County and put Goshen Planning Area. I think that will just make it easier for everybody. That's the only comment I have. Where it says "Growth Area" put "Fayetteville Planning Area" and instead of "County", put "Goshen Planning Area" Subdivision Committee Meeting • April 12, 2001 Page 5 • • Ward: Does this have to go through the you Celia, for final approval also? Scott-Silkwood: After you give final approval it will to us, it's already been to Goshen. Jorgensen: We took it to Goshen the night before last. It's no problem. It's just one of those things that in this situation we deal with the City of Fayetteville, Goshen and the County. Scott-Silkwood: After it's already been approved by Goshen and Fayetteville, the County is going to go "Okay". This is an exemption from our development regulations because of the size of the property, so I can just do it in the office. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Anyone else for public comment? I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Bunch: Jorgensen: Bunch: Jorgensen: Bunch: Jorgensen: Bunch: Conklin: Bunch: Ward: MOTION: Bunch: I move we approve LS 01-14.00 subject to comments. When did that house burn? I don't know. I just want to make sure I'm on the same lot. The pond is over here? Yes. That is the burned house right there. I'm not sure when it burned. That's a beautiful tract of land. Yes it is. That has no bearing on the gas line, water line. Any wetlands out there Don? There is a creek along the east side and a big pond over here. Any other comments? Subdivision Committee Meeting April 12, 2001 Page 6 Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I'Il concur. Thank you Dave. Subdivision Committee Meeting • April 12, 2001 Page 7 • • FP 01-3.00: Final Plat (Silverthorne Subdivision, pp 474) was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services on behalf of John Deweese and Mike Schmidt for property located west of Double Springs Road & Dot Tipton Road The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 48 acres with 59 lots proposed. Ward: We'll go to item number two, the final item, which is a final plat for Silverthorne Subdivision submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services on behalf of John Deweese and Mike Schmidt for property located west of Double Springs Road & Dot Tipton Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 48 acres with 59 lots proposed. Sara? Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: This property was annexed back in September of 1999 and we approved a preliminary on November 8, 1999. The applicant has added restrictions indicating that no curb cuts be allowed Double Springs and that all drainage outside of right-of-way will be privately owned and maintained. That's on the second page of this plat. They did do improvements to Double Springs 14 feet from centerline. I do have some comments with regard to conditions. Right now you have the subdivision boundary running down the centerline of Double Springs, I need that revised and located down to the actual lot line and the legal to be reflected to show that as well. Moore: I'm going to have to do a dedication of that other, do you want that on the plat also? Edwards: Yes. Moore: The dedication of the right-of-way from the new boundary line that you are asking for. It's going to shift that 45 feet so should I have two legals, one as the actual legal description and one as the right-of-way dedication. Conklin: You need to show what right-of-way you are showing on your streets inside your subdivision. It's the same thing, your lot line, right-of-way line is going to be right there and then the rest will be called out as right-of-way. Edwards: The next issue is that the sidewalks pursuant to the Master Street Plan are required to be at the right-of-way boundary. You are showing them up closer to Double Springs and they need to be at the back of that 45 foot dedication. Plat shall be revised to indicate the actual constructed width of Double Springs Road Note shall be revised to state actual constructed width. That is the note that says 20 foot wide to be widened. Subdivision Committee Meeting April 12, 2001 Page 8 My understanding is the improvements are complete so "to be" is not appropriate. We are assessing payment in the amount of $4,300 for a SCADA system for the sewer left station. That was done at the time of preliminary plat. Another assessment of $11,800 is due for a sanitary sewer assessment for the future force main from lift station #7, as imposed at time of preliminary plat and that's 59 lots at $200 each. Payment of $6,566 is due for offsite improvements to Owl Creek Bridge. Ward: Is that all the conditions? Conklin: One other condition that we talked about at preliminary plat was to make sure that all access to the lots were from the interior streets, not from Double Springs Road. Do you have a note on the plat? Moore: Right here. Conklin: Thanks Ward: Ron? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: We will need a warranty deed for this lift station before we sign off. The lot 19 swale, I don't believe it's shown as it was constructed. We will need a 20 foot easement on that. the whole subdivision I would like to see an easement. Moore: Which lot is that? Petrie: Lot 19 further to the north. Moore: If the drainage is private do you still need an easement? Petrie: I think so because it's really draining this whole subdivision. The other thing is a question more than a discussion, on these residential streets. We have 40 feet of right- of-way, the sidewalk will extend into these lots about 2 feet. I don't know if that's a problem or if it can be changed for additional right-of-way or what. Moore: We don't have a problem with it if it's two feet in, it's dust if you're sidewalk... Ward: I don't know, we'll check on the regulations on it. Subdivision Committee Meeting • April 12,2001 Page 9 • Ward: Do you need a two foot easement or something for the sidewalk? Petrie: A utility easement wanting the rights for the sidewalk to use it for the property. Ward: Keith, what do you know about the sidewalk situation? Keith Shreve - Sidewalks and Trails Shreve: The sidewalks have not been constructed yet. The grading for the sidewalks is basically complete. There is a couple of minor areas that need a little more attention. An item of concern on a couple of these radiuses there are some water valves that are in the location where the sidewalk will be so they may have to move the sidewalk out of the right-of-way to get around the valve. Just a comment, maybe on future developments you need to pay a little more attention to that. Hopefully we won't have that problem in the future. Ward: You think this was caused by Shreve: It's a possibility. Also, make a note for the future, we need two access ramps at each corner, in each direction rather than one. Bunch: In reference to sidewalks, on the note "the sidewalks shall be placed by individual lot owners required by City ordinance". Shreve: The way I understand it, we will allow them to wait until the lots are built to actually construct the sidewalk but if within a certain period of time the lot hasn't been sold we can come back to the developers and ask for them to construct the sidewalk. Bunch: How does that work with the guarantee on sidewalks since that note is on the drawing? Edwards. The developers is still required to guarantee the sidewalks and will be responsible until every sidewalk is in. Bunch: Does there need to be an amendment to the note to reflect that because this looks like the responsibility for sidewalks lies with the individual owners. Moore: Whoever builds on the lot will build the sidewalk. • Petrie: If you look at the certificate of approval of sidewalks, where the Sidewalk and Trails Subdivision Committee Meeting • April 12, 2001 Page 10 Coordinator actually signs, that's a more accurate wording. Conklin: The developer is responsible for the sidewalks. If he can have some agreement when he sells the Tots for the lot owners to build sidewalks, that's up to him but if the lot owner's fail to do that, the developer is still responsible. We'll change the language to show what it says on the signature block. Edwards: I did have a comment with regards to the sidewalks. I would like to see Double Springs Road added to the sidewalk table with a 10 foot greenspace and a 6 foot sidewalk. Ward: Kim? Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: We have fees due in the amount of $27,730. • Conklin: Brian, the floodplain is a zone A in this areal Moore: Yes. Conklin: I just wanted to make sure the detailed study didn't extend into that part. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ward: Is there any public comment on this particular final plat? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: Ward: Seeing none, I'll close it to public and bring it back to the Commission. • Bunch: Since this is the drawing that will get filed, do we need to have proposed on all these items in the legend? Petrie: Yes. Ward: Tim, what do we do on where we don't allow them to build the sidewalk in the future these lots are being built on, how do you guarantee four years from now? Subdivision Committee Meeting • April 12, 2001 Page 11 Conklin: They don't have four years, they have a certain amount of item. Ward: Let's say they still have ten lots left out there in various places, they've got to go in and finish up the sidewalk because the lots haven't sold. Conklin: We get them guaranteed 150%. Shreve: There is a time limit but I'm not sure what it is. Ward: One reason we allow that is because the sidewalks would get damaged during construction. Conklin: You can approve it at this level. I don't have any comments from Kim. Ward: Conklin: • Edwards - Moore: Conklin: Moore: Conklin: If there is a problem I will not sign off on the final plat. I will get with Kim. I will talk to her supervisor and see if we can get her to these meetings. • I assume she has looked at this. She has received it. Do you know if you did a waiver, were there not any trees to be preserved? We didn't do a waiver, I know that. Did you save the trees you were supposed to? Yes we did. Hoover: Will the sidewalk stop here? Edwards: According to our Master Street Plan, on a residential street we only require 40 feet of right-of-way and we only have to have a sidewalk on one side of the street. They exercise that option both down here on Durango and on Pagosa. Hoover. Why does it go this far and stop? Edwards: This part of Durango is a dead end. They are not going to be getting traffic from the other streets. • Subdivision Committee Meeting April 12, 2001 Page 12 Conklin: That's why we're allowing them to use that reduced street width, 24 foot street and sidewalk on one side. Hoover: That's residential? Conklin: Less than 300 trips per day being generated. Hoover: How many houses? Conklin: 30 houses, 10 trips per house. Hoover: The cul-de-sac can be no longer than? Conklin: 500 feet. Hoover: That's measured from where? Conklin: I usually go from the center out, this is 800, we must have granted a waiver at some point. If we didn't, we should have because it was developed. At this point it's a final plat, there is not much we can do. Hoover: You are measuring from the center? Conklin: Yes. Bunch: Originally, wasn't there a natural drain that came across somewhere around lot 24, 25 and 26? Moore: Yes. Bunch: 1 believe on the preliminary plat we called out for reshaping that? Petrie: It was completely filled in across those lots. Bunch: If this condition did not exist then there would have been a question on that concerning some trees in that same vicinity on whether the fill or the cut would affect the trees. I noticed that it's been filled in and the trees are completely gone. Petrie. All 1 can say is, before we approve any grading plans, Kim has to sign off on it before Subdivision Committee Meeting • April 12, 2001 Page 13 • • we can actually approve it. Bunch: What they've done is okay? You are comfortable with what has been done on the revised grading? Petrie: Yes. Conklin: We did talk about the variance of the street back in 1999 and talked about it's 800 feet long, matched with 500 feet and you need to make a written request to the Planning Commission for the variance for that street if you intend to maintain that as a cul-de- sac. We did talk about it but I'm not sure if we had gotten to a final report. Ward: The whole idea was to limit the number of entrances on Double Springs? Conklin: Yes. Hoover: I haven't looked at the street that carefully. You can have a wider street with it narrower at any point along the way? Petrie: We require at preliminary plat that one section be at local street standard when it new, at transition we have guidelines transition....wide enough lane. Hoover: So that meets the guidelines? Petrie: Yes. Conklin: They can't just decide anywhere to reduce the street down. They have to meet our Master Street Plan standards based on traffic. This stub out was required to be extended to that width because it will have more traffic in the future. Ward: Any other comments? Edwards: I can read off the comments for you. MOTION: Bunch: I move that we accept final plat FP 01-3.00 subject to the conditions as described in the packet and additional conditions as listed by Sara Edwards. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting April 12, 2001 Page 14 Edward: Warranty deed required for the lift station, swale on lot 19 shown as constructed with 20 foot easement, either a 2 foot sidewalk easement or additional right-of-way dedicated on Pagosa and Durango, add Double Springs Road to the sidewalk chart, sidewalk note revised to reflect wording in the signature block, remove word "proposed" from the legend, check with the Landscape Administrator to see if she's in agreement. Hoover: I'll second. Ward: I concur. Thank you.