Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-31 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, October 31, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD 02-20.00: Large Scale Development (Bristol Park, pp 134) Page 2 CCP 02-2.00 (1005): Concurrent Plat (Sparks, pp 572) Page 7 FPL 02-7.00 (1029): Final Plat (Brookstone Subdivision, pp 212) Page 12 ACTION TAKEN Approved Forwarded to Planning Commission Approved MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Sharon Hoover Lee Ward Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kim Hesse Keith Shreve Sara Edwards Matt Casey Renee Thomas Fire Department Perry Franklin Solid Waste Kim Rogers Subdivision Committee October 31, 2002 Page 2 LSD 02-20.00: Large Scale Development (Bristol Park, pp 134) was submitted by James Koch on CEI Engineering on behalf of Bristol Park for property located west of Steele Blvd. and north of Joyce Blvd. The request is for approval of a major modification to the grading plan for this LSD. Ward: Welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting. Today is October 31, 2002. It is Halloween of course. It looks like we have three items on the agenda this morning so let's get this on down the road. The first item of new business is LSD 02-20.00, which is a Large Scale Development for Bristol Park. Sara, what can you tell us about this particular item? Edwards: If you will remember, we approved this apartment development of 272 units up off of Steele Blvd. just west of the mall. They need to make a change to their large scale with regard to the grade. Section 169.9 of the U.D.O. states that a major modification to the grade of the development has to be brought before the Subdivision Committee for their approval. Their finished grades vary more than '/2 of a foot so that is what they are looking for approval for. We are recommending approval of that. Ward: Casey: Ward: Koch: Ward: Koch: Ok. I guess we need to start with Matt on Engineering. What is the situation on this? Have you looked at this? All that has changed is the elevation of the entire site. James, correct me if I'm wrong, but the previous design called for a lot of fill and you had to drive up into the development. They called for an excessive amount of fill, which is costly. This new design has got the same lay out but it is lower and it is more balanced. If anything it is a benefit because it will reduce the amount of height of the retaining walls. If you remember, we had to grant a variance on the height of the retaining walls. Ok, so that is the whole issue on it. Will the applicant come to the front here and introduce yourself? I am James Koch with CEI Engineering representing Bristol Development on Bristol Park at Steele Crossing. I guess a good question is why was this originally done the other way if this is going to be a better way and cheaper way? According to our client, their desires were not pursued by the previous engineer so they fired them and hired us. We got a letter of indemnification insuring that the previous engineer's services were going to be paid for and how we were going to perform for them so all of those issues have been taken care of'. We went in to the site and pursued a balanced cut and fill type situation and probably saved them close to one million dollars in construction costs for site work alone. Subdivision Committee October 31, 2002 Page 3 Ward: Ok. Thank you James. There is nothing else changed as far as landscaping? Koch: No Sir. There were very minor changes. One change that I can show you I guess from the previous plan, we have moved this garage from this general area right here where the current location of the dumpster or trash compactor is going to be and that just lined up all of these garages together and that was probably the biggest change we had. That was discussed and showed to Tim Conklin about a month ago. He is aware of it and said that that was a minor change and allowed us to proceed with the previous approvals. Ward: I guess, before we get final approval on this, we need to make sure of that everybody in all the different parts of Planning, Landscaping are satisfied. Hesse: I do have something. I just got a chance to look at this this morning. My concern is this retaining wall, one of the reasons why we gave a variance was to save this tree. I would still recommend making this one tall retaining wall. What will happen when you put in the footing for this retaining wall we are going to be over excavating almost to the trunk, very close to the trunk of that tree. That is a 36" post oak. It is in excellent condition. This is another 36" post oak in excellent condition and what by putting the three garages together, they are encroaching more into this tree than we were. Again, if you over excavate then we are getting into the drip line of this tree than we were. I am a little concerned about that. Certainly I am not in favor of this retaining wall being broken into two steps. I am still going to have concern over this but I haven't gone out and looked at the situation over here. Koch: Hesse: Koch: Hesse: Koch: Hesse: Ok. I guess if we do that. All we will need to do, until I look at it in detail, is if we can still have the variance for the increased height of retaining wall then that may allow us some flexibility with increasing these heights here in order to help save that. That is going to be, just looking from bottom wall, which is 1,236, top of wall is 1,253. It was 15' or less is what I remember. I can look at possibly even rearranging how this wall is constructed but the intent here is just to save that tree, is that correct? Is there any way that we could have an exchange of monies in case we can't do that? No. Not by my recommendation but it is their decision. No, I mean you know the history of this project and we lost a lot of canopy when this was filled in. I think that the site has about 35% canopy right now is that correct? It probably does with what goes down into this hillside. Subdivision Committee October 31, 2002 Page 4 Koch: I can certainly explore any type of design changes with the retaining wall and see what we can come up with in order to do that. What about a well around the tree? Hesse: Any well, you are still going to hurt it. Koch: Like a well that is going to go around the drip line of the tree like this. Hesse: You will still end up with a 14' wall there. Koch: It will be a tall wall but at least we can preserve the area under the tree. We certainly could come out like this under the drip line. Hesse: If you can somehow construct it so that, and keep in mind, that retaining wall doesn't stop right there. The construction of that retaining wall goes back as far as it is high. Of course, it is going to be going back in this way. It really depends on how much room they need to build that wall from the down side. I guess your stabilizers are all going to be in this way but still they are going to construct it from the base up. Koch: Hesse: Ward: Absolutely. Another engineer will be designing the wall. There will be a structural engineer designing the wall and I know from Engineering's comments they are going to ask for a P.E. to stamp the design before we get a full grading permit on this one. We have got some things that we can explore to help save that tree. I guess my request is that the Planning Commission approves this maintaining the waiver for the taller wall because they may have to do that to save this tree or maybe look at something a little bit different around this tree, as long as that approval can still last if they go over the 10' just in these two areas, that is where we got the waiver the last time. Ok, is there any other comment? I will go ahead, is there any public comment on this particular issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Committee. I feel like we can go ahead and approve it at this level at this time with all those comments. It sounds like if you can't save the tree you are not going to put the garage there. Koch: Sure. Ward: That's basically it, right? Hesse: Well it is your decision, that is just my recommendation. Ward: Well, as you probably know, this has been a pretty big issue for a long time so we will probably stay with what our Landscape Administrator and say this is a very, very valuable tree. Subdivision Committee October 31, 2002 Page 5 Koch: Sure. Ward: If you all can work around it fine, if you can't , you might not be able to construct that particular garage at that location. Are there any other comments? Bunch: Just for the record James, when you have lowered the elevation of the entire project greater than 1/4' in general, what is the magnitude of that reduction? Koch: The volume? Bunch: The elevation as well as volume. Koch: Well, overall there were various changes in the vertical adjustments there throughout the site, some were quite extensive. I would say that some of our most drastic adjustments took place at the main house for this development, which was maybe 7' vertically from what I remember. However, the volume before was 44,000 cubic yards of fill material for the site and we have adjusted the grades to allow for about 2000 yards plus or minus haul off material. We had adjusted it to a point where there were 33,000 yards of haul off material. Our client didn't want to have to mess with removing all of that material from the site. We were trying to work an exchange for top soil to be brought in for landscaping. As it stands right now, they are going to go with the grading that we have and that will allow them to bring in their top soil, about 20,000 yards of top soil required for landscaping that won't interfere with the construction process. Bunch: Casey: What effect does this have on the drainage plan and has it been revised? Matt, have you received new calculations? Yes, I have received grading plans and it is currently being reviewed. The drainage has changed quite a bit. There are considerably less amounts of inlets but overall, the drainage appears to meet our requirements. I haven't completed my full review of it yet but the layout and the general design appear to be fine. Bunch: Thank you. Ward: Are there any other comments or motions? Bunch: Do we need to approve this at this level or should it go the full Planning Commission since it is an adjustment of a decision of the full Planning Commission? Edwards: From the U.D.O. it states specifically that it can be brought before the Subdivision Committee so I think that we are fine to approve it here. MOTION: Subdivision Committee October 31, 2002 Page 6 Bunch: In that case, I will move that we approve LSD 02-20.00, Large Scale Development grading revisions and revisions of the dumpster and garage locations including comments from the Landscape Administrator on trying to save the trees in the vicinity of the garage, it is imperative that we save the trees in the vicinity of the garage. Hoover: Are you including keeping the waiver for the retaining wall? Bunch: Yes, including keeping the waiver for the taller retaining walls. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thanks James. Koch: Thank you. Subdivision Committee October 31, 2002 Page 7 CCP 02-2.00 (1005): Concurrent Plat (Sparks, pp 572) was submitted by Daniel Sparks for property located at 6290 Danita Street. The property is zoned R-1, and contains approximately 0.94 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.47 acres and 0.47 acres. Ward: Our second item on the agenda this morning is CCP 02-2.00. It was submitted by Daniel Sparks for property located at 1690 Danita Street. The property is zoned R-1 and contains approximately .94 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of .47 acres and .47 acres. Sara? Edwards: Previously you approved a lot split which created lot one and lots two and three as a single lot. As a condition of that lot split the sewer was to be extended and the existing sewer service line was to be relocated. Somehow, the property got sold without that being completed so what we are recommending right now is that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission upon installation of the sewer lines. Basically, the first condition is Planning Commission determination of an offsite assessment for a new fire hydrant. Back with the original lot split we recommended and approved an assessment in the amount of $257.14 and that was based on the addition of one single-family home. That is to put a fire hydrant in that neighborhood where no fire hydrant exists. With regard to the sewer lines, right now as you can see at the south side of lot 3 is where the sewer has been extended. That is where it exists and the sewer service line runs across lot three and two. Lot one, in order to build on lots three and two, that line needs to be abandoned and a sewer line needs to be constructed along the fronts of lots two and three all the way to lot one. We are again, recommending that this be forwarded to the Planning Commission and only placed upon an agenda at such time that those sewer lines are constructed. Ward: Carter: Ok, thank you. Since you are the applicant on this particular one introduce yourself and give us your take on it. I am Glenn Carter with Carter Consulting. We have been retained to bring this back through. We originally brought it through some time ago creating the two lots and now we have made that adjustment back to three lots and the sewer line extension has been, the design has been done, and it is in the review process between the city and the Health Department. We don't have Health Department approval yet. We do expect that, we don't really see any problem with it. Matt, have you completed your review on that? Casey: I have, it is contingent upon the Health Department approval. Carter: It is between here and the Health Department. I guess they are three to five weeks with their approval. My understanding is it needs to be constructed before we get approval of the lots. Edwards: Yes. Subdivision Committee October 31, 2002 Page 8 Carter: I can answer any questions you have. Ward: What kind of cost is it to move that sewer line, put it through there, do you have any idea? Carter: It is about $7,500. Ward: Is there any problem with the $257 assessment for the fire hydrant? Carter: No. Edwards: I would like to make a point that I forgot to make. We do have a letter objecting to this lot split and I did include it in your packet. It is from an adjoining property owner. Ward: Ok. Let me ask Matt is there anything else we need to talk about as far as the City Engineering Department? Casey: No. I agree with what Sara said if we can postpone it until the improvements have been made I would recommend approval. I didn't see any problems with the sewer design, it is relatively simple and straight forward. Ward: Ok. This property is in the city? Keith, is there any sidewalk concerns here? Shreve: We are not requiring any at this level. When they come in for the building permit to build on these lots there will be a sidewalk requirement at that time. Bunch: The lot with the existing house on it, that wouldn't be covered on new construction then would it? Shreve: No Sir. They recently changed the ordinance that we are not requiring sidewalks for lot splits so my interpretation is that I can't require a sidewalk for lot one at this point in time. Ward: Ok. Since this is single-family I guess there are no landscaping requirements of any kind. Is there a parks fee on these? Edwards: Yes, there is $470 for one additional unit. Ward: Ok. Is that on there? Edwards: Yes, it is condition number six. Ward: Ok, at this time I will open it up to the public. Is there any public comment on this particular lot split? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Subdivision Committee October 31, 2002 Page 9 Bunch: I have got a question. The numbers aren't adding up on the size of the lot. Are we talking about the same lot? Our packet shows .94 acres with two tracts of .47 and .47 and the drawing shows three lots of .36, .36, and .56, which add up to 1.28 so are we even talking about the same piece of land here? Carter: Ok, I see the problem, apparently we didn't add up acreage. Edwards: You are seeking approval for the .47 and .47, is that correct? Bunch: We have no .47s on the drawing. Ward: I don't see any of those on there. Carter: That makes sense. Ward: How much frontage do the lots have on the street, are they 70'? Edwards: Two and three are 89.9. Ward: Ok, so they meet all of our requirements as far as acreage and square footage? Edwards: Right. Carter: Tract 1 is correctly shown at .56, it is not shown in the legal description. Tracts two and three are in fact, .47 acres. We didn't get our drafting all finished on that, my apologies. Edwards: Ok, Glenn, we will just need that corrected before it gets to full Planning Commission. Ward: Glenn, how long do you foresee it taking to get to full Planning Commission, a month by the time you get the Health Department approval? Carter: At least. Bunch: So we are talking about an acre and a half for all three lots combined? Carter: Yes, 1.5 acres, .56 for lot one and that leaves .94 divided by two that gives you .47. Ward: Ok, are there any other comments? I guess we will be seeing this again at the full Planning Commission here in about a month or two. Carter: As soon as that is complete I will correct this and resubmit it. Subdivision Committee October 31, 2002 Page 10 MOTION: Hoover: Ward: Bunch: Edwards: Bunch: Edwards: Bunch: Edwards: Bunch: Ward: Casey: Ward: Casey: Carter: I will make a motion to forward CCP 02-2.00 to the full Planning Commission. Ok, do I have a second? I am contemplating. Do we need, since there is a considerable amount that is not settled, do we need to bring it back here first before it goes to the full Planning Commission since we are looking at installation of a sewer line and revising drawings and that sort of thing or do we think that there is enough that can be completed? Tim has met with the applicant and had reached an agreement. In order to get them through as quickly as possible to go ahead and let them come to the Subdivision Committee to expedite the process. They are building a house on lot three and they are trying to get it done as soon as possible. In order to help accommodate that we agreed to let it go the Subdivision Committee and then Planning Commission upon installation. Really, the only issues we are looking at is the installation of the sewer lines and then changing the drawing, which it looks like he just basically has some typos on there. I think as soon as you can get the drawing in with the correct acreage and the sewer will be installed, it will be just the fees. So there is no certificate of occupancy for the house that is under construction. We have permitted only a footing and foundation. It will get no further permits until the sewer lines are in place. Ok, so it is just the footing is all that has been permitted. Right. In view of that, then I will second. I will concur. Who does the final inspection on sewer lines, what department? Our inspector. Are you a part of the inspection team? It would be our assigned engineering inspector, I'm not sure who it would be. I have a question. Prior to this we had a two lot lot split, isn't that approved? Subdivision Committee October 31, 2002 Page 11 Edwards: It was approved contingent upon the extension of that sewer line so the property was not to be sold or filed until that sewer line was constructed and it happened anyway. Carter: Edwards: Ward: Carter: So there is not any way that he could get a permit just for one house since he has got sewer available to that house? No. The reason being is because that lot technically does not even exist yet because it is not final until that sewer line is installed. That was one of the conditions of final approval. I see. I just wanted to be sure I understood so I could explain why we can't go further with the building permits. Subdivision Committee October 31, 2002 Page 12 FPL 02-7.00 (1029): Final Plat (Brookstone Subdivision, pp 212) was submitted by Peter Nierengarten of USlnfrastructure, Inc. on behalf of Jack Morris of Washington Regional Medical Services for property located east of Wimberly and north & south of Longview. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 38.62 acres with 8 lots proposed. Ward: Good morning. Our final item on the agenda this morning is a Final Plat for Brookstone Subdivision submitted by Peter Nierengarten of US Infrastructure on behalf of Jack Morris and Washington Regional Medical Service for property located east of Wimberly and north and south of Long View. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 38.62 acres with eight lots proposed. Sara? Edwards: This subdivision includes the Brookstone Assisted Care Facility and the Washington County Health Department, they are on tracts 6 and 8. We have already approved a large scale development for Northwest Arkansas Pathology on tract two. They have applied for a building permit and that is in the process. If you remember, recently this property was rezoned to R -O to allow for medical offices. All of the improvements for the buildings and plats have been installed. I believe they did water and sewer lines. Street lights are not in yet but they have paid SWEPCO and they will be getting those in soon. We are recommending approval at this level subject to a couple of conditions. 1) At the time of future development each tract will be required to meet the 20% tree preservation requirement and they have placed a note on the plat to that effect. 2) At the time of future development storm water detention will be required for each tract and they have got a note on the plat for that as well. 3) No access will be allowed from Kenray Street for either development or construction traffic. The other conditions are standard. Ward: Ok, thanks Sara. I will go ahead and go with our Engineer first. Are there any concerns with engineering that you see on this particular Final Plat? Casey: No Sir. The streets and storm drainage were installed with the previous Large Scale and in order to make this subdivision all they had to do was install the water and sewer to each lot and that has been done and a final inspection has been made. I believe we are only waiting on one test. Nierengarten: Yes, we are waiting until about the second week in November when the sewer lines have been in for a full 30 days then you can perform a manageable test on it. Casey: The final inspection has been made by our division. Ward: Ok, thanks Matt. Keith, are there any concerns about sidewalks? Shreve: Sidewalks were constructed when the street was built so they are in place. Subdivision Committee October 31, 2002 Page 13 Ward: Hesse: Ward: Nierengarten: Ward: Nierengarten: Hesse: Nierengarten: Ward: Nierengarten: Ward: Nierengarten: Ok, Kim on Landscaping as far as meeting the 20% on each tract, didn't they put a bunch into a tree preservation area or something on this? No. With the new ordinance they bad options of either preserving everything ahead of time or basically doing their construction and mitigating for that construction and then each individual lot has to meet the ordinance. This construction was actually already done before the ordinance was amended so basically they are going with that second option of requiring each lot to do their own preservation and that is why the note is on there. They meet it through that criteria in the ordinance. In doing so, when they reconfigured these lots they made it so that this lot and I think this lot includes the tree preservation required. Is there any of these lots that are going to be really tough to do this 20% that you have looked at? They are all pretty heavily wooded right now. A lot of the terrain is rather difficult. I can't see anybody wanting to develop an entire tract just because of the terrain. These lots up here are real deep so we would envision the back half of these lots being utilized for tree preservation and on the south side there is a creek that runs through the property and we would envision anything to the south of that creek, the hill comes up rather steep there, anything in that area would probably be saved. A lot of foliage will have to be saved anyway. Kim may or may not agree with my analysis of this site, but there is not a lot of really high quality trees out there. I think this was probably cleared 50 or 60 years ago and has grown back. There is a lot of under brush and kind of scraggly trees that have lots of vines in them. There is a major problem with the vines, it has really downgraded the whole canopy. But there is canopy. Ok, so we are looking at this subdivision with eight lots but three lots have already been either developed or have approval, is that right? Right. So there are five left to do something with. Right. That is one of the reasons the lots are kind of configured a little bit strangely. Brookstone was there, the Washington County Health Unit was there, and then tract two the owner wanted it to look like that to accommodate another large scale development. Subdivision Committee October 31, 2002 Page 14 Ward: Ok, is there any public comment? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to our Committee. Are there any other comments or motions? Bunch: A question about the future right of way extension, what is the current status of that? Nierengarten: I have not heard anything since there was a City Council decision not to require the extension at this time. Casey: I'm not sure what the status of that is, there is an ongoing debate about it. I don't know if anybody has reached a decision on that. Edwards: Yes, it you will remember we were assessing this subdivision for that and the City Council ruled against that so that has been removed from both this and the Large Scale so it will be the city's responsibility to acquire the right of way and to build the street if our Street Committee chooses to recommend that to the City Council. Right now we just don't know. Ward: How long of a street would that be Sara? Nierengarten: It is about 500'. Casey: We recently got the right of way with the approval of the Lewis Brothers Automotive for that section of the street. Nierengarten: So does the future need to be removed from the future right of way acquisition? Casey: That portion has not been retained yet. Nierengarten: Ok, so you are talking about the existing Long View. Ok. Ward: Are there any other comments or questions? Bunch: I don't have any. Ward: Ok, are there any motions? MOTION: Bunch: I move that we approve FPL 02-7.00 at this level. Hoover: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thanks Peter. With that we are adjourned. Subdivision Committee October 31, 2002 Page 15