Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-02 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Friday, July 2, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. CCP 04-1117: (ALLEN SUBDIVISION) Page 2 LSP 04-1113: (ALI MOUBAREK) Page 6 LSD 04-1118: (WAL-MART #144 STOCKROOM) Page 12 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Loren Shackelford Sean Trumbo STAFF PRESENT Craig Camagey Dawn Warrick Jeremy Pate Rebecca Ohman Matt Casey Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Christian Vaught STAFF ABSENT Subdivision Committee July 2, 2004 Page 2 CCP 04-1117: Concurrent Plat (ALLEN SUBDIVISION): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at 4111 OLD WIRE ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 9.50 acres. The request is to approve a concurrent plat for a subdivision containing 3 single-family lots of 5.86, 2.47 and 1.17 acres respectively. Anthes: Welcome to the July 2, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. We have three items on the agenda today. We have two Commissioners here so we are going to start with item number two, the Concurrent Plat for Allen subdivision. Would the applicant come forward please? Morgan: The applicant requests approval of a Concurrent Plat for a three lot residential subdivision named Allen subdivision. This property is located in the Planning Area on Old Wire Road north of Joyce Road and consists of approximately 10 acres. In 1987 Fayetteville took the former property owners to court to contend the matter of sale of land on this property without proper subdivision within the city regulations. The court issued a consent decree stating that the defendants may convey four 10 acre tracts from their property without compliance to Preliminary and Final Plat processes but further division of the said 10 acre tracts were permanently adjoined unless the requirements of the Fayetteville subdivision regulations were met. For this reason, the owner of this 10 acre property has submitted the Concurrent Plat in order to comply with this decree to have it subdivided. The Concurrent Plat process may be utilized if no public improvements or rights of way dedications are required with the requested subdivision of land. I have included the Concurrent Plat definition in this report. Surrounding zoning, this is in the county and there is no surrounding zoning applicable. Surrounding land uses include vacant, single family residential, large tracts and agricultural land. A 2" water line does exist along Old Wire Road. The City Ordinance requires the installation of a system of water mains so that each lot within a subdivision shall be provided a connection to public water supply. The configuration of the lots in the most recent revision will not allow connection to lot 1. Either the plat will need to be revised so that water is provided to lot one or the main extended. Individual septic systems are proposed. There is an existing septic on lot 3 where there is an existing home and residence. Washington County Health Department approval for a septic system on a tract of land less than 1.5 acres is required prior to approval of the Concurrent Plat. Old Wire Road does require 35' of right of way from the centerline as it is a collector street at this location. The applicant's representative has submitted a Warranty Deed for additional right of way along Old Wire Road for review prior to recordation. Staff recommends that this Concurrent Plat, CCP 04-1117 be forwarded to the full Planning Commission subject to the following 10 conditions. Planning Commission approval of dedication of utility easements for a Concurrent Plat as were requested at the Technical Plat meeting. Water Subdivision Committee July 2, 2004 Page 3 shall be provided to each lot as required by the city. The Washington County Health Department shall approve the existing septic system on the proposed lot 1. Warranty Deed for additional right of way on Old Wire Road shall be filed prior to approval of the Concurrent Plat. Revision to the 20' utility easements between lots 1 and 2 to reflect the requested easements at the Technical Plat meeting. Modifications to the plat prior to approval. I have included a memo stating some plat comments. Also, Washington County approval shall be obtained prior to signatures being applied to the plat. The last three conditions are standard conditions of approval. Anthes: Thank you Suzanne. Matt, do you have anything? Casey: As Suzanne stated, the plat as shown has water access to lots 2 and 3 but not to lot 1. We will either need to adjust those lot lines to provide that access or make water main extension to provide service to lot 1. That's all I have. Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and I'm presenting this Concurrent Plat on behalf of the Allens. We agree with all of the conditions that Suzanne just mentioned and I will be glad to answer questions. Anthes: I will open this to comments from the public. Would anyone like to comment on this Concurrent Plat? Seeing none, I will bring it back to discussion. Warrick: I might add just with regard to the configuration of lots and one of the lots not currently being shown to have access to water. If a water main extension is necessary, if that is the choice as opposed to adjusting lot lines, this will need to go through the Preliminary Plat/Final Plat process so that that infrastructure can be installed and go through a process to confirm that it has been installed and accepted by the city. You have kind of got a choice of this reverting to a Preliminary Plat or adjusting the lot lines if that is what the applicant so chooses. Jorgensen: It may turn out that that water line is far enough north to service lot one. We need to go out there and make sure about that. If it is not then we can possibly adjust the lot line so that it would have service to it. It would be a slight revision. Warrick: It would basically revert back to a sort of previous configuration because it was just a modification to the north line of lot 3. Jorgensen: Right. We originally had this submitted such that lot one was serviced by that water line. In other words, this line right here was down about in this area right here so that that water line could service lot one as we have the Subdivision Committee July 2, 2004 Page 4 water line drawn. For various reasons, this line got adjusted to the north and I just need to make sure if they want to stay with this layout then we will have to do what Dawn is talking about. This will turn into a Preliminary Plat and we will have to do a water line extension. If, indeed, that water line does end at that particular point. I need to check that to make sure. Anthes: Do we need to table this pending this information? Warrick: Part of it would depend on how soon we would know whether this was going to be a Concurrent Plat or a Preliminary Plat. Either one does have to go forward to the full Planning Commission. The issues are really the same. A Concurrent Plat would just be a plat that is documenting the new lot configuration without the installation of public improvements. The Preliminary Plat would be the same situation with public improvements necessary. This water line extension appears to be the only public improvement that would be needed if the existing configuration is what is desired to be filed and if it is shown that that line does end where it is indicated on this plat. Staff would be comfortable if we had the information by the time that revisions are necessary if we knew at that point in time then we could modify this. The notification that has gone out is pertinent to any subdivision of land so I think that there is not a problem with regard to any of the notification or other processing that has been done if we do need to change the type of action that is being taken on this from Concurrent to Preliminary Plat. Shackelford: So we could recommend that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission meeting and sometime between now and then decide whether it comes before the full Commission as a Concurrent Plat or a Preliminary Plat? Warrick: Yes. Staff would be able to do that for you. Anthes: Are you ok with that schedule? Jorgensen: Yes. Anthes: Ok, I'm a little confused about the septic system. Suzanne, you said that they shall approve the existing septic system on lot 1 but I show it on lot 3 of the drawing. Morgan: I apologize, that should be lot 3. Anthes: Ok, then is it impossible for sewer to be extended to lot 1 and 2? Casey: Sewer is not available outside the city limits. Subdivision Committee July 2, 2004 Page S Jorgensen: We will be getting approved septic systems for lot I and 2. Warrick: The reason that we are asking for an approval on 3 is because the land area that was originally established or available for the development on lot 3 is now being reduced and generally the Health Department does need to ensure that there is available land for additional lateral fields if the existing system were to fail on the property where the structure is located. Anthes: Are there any other comments or questions? Shackelford: You said you guys were in agreement with all of the conditions? Jorgensen: Yes. MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we recommend CCP 04-1117 to be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Anthes: I will concur with that based on the fact that this may change. Warrick: It may change but it would require that we see it again as a Final Plat should public infrastructure have to be installed. There would be a process involved with that and construction drawings and approvals and the actual implementation of that extension. Commissioner Trumbo arrived at the completion of this item. Subdivision Committee July 2, 2004 Page 6 LSP 04-1113: Lot Split (ALI MOUBAREK): Submitted by ALI MOUBARAK for property located at 2300 SALEM ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 2.40 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 1.163 and 1.234 acres. Anthes: We will go back to LSP 04-1113 for Ali Mourabek. Would the applicant come forward please? Morgan: The applicant requests approval of the Lot Split for the 2.4 acre tract. The applicant intends to split the tract into two tracts of 1.146 and 1.217 acres respectively. The site currently contains a single family home with customary accessory structures. A public water line exists on Salem Road and currently the existing home is served by an individual septic system. A public water line does not exist to serve the proposed lots. By ordinance, as subdivider of land within the city limits is required to connect to each lot with a public sewer where a public sanitary sewer is reasonably accessible. A public sewer main is required to be extended to serve each of the proposed lots prior to the filing of the Lot Split. Dedication of additional right of way is required along Salem Road at this time. Salem Road is a collector street on the Master Street Plan requiring 35' of right of way from the centerline. Surrounding land uses consist of single family homes as well as fields to the east. Zoning is R -A to the north and west, RSF-4 to the south and east. Staff recommends approval of LSP 04-1113 at the Subdivision Committee level with five conditions of approval. First, the front 25' building setback and 20' building setback in the rear shall also be a utility easement per utility representative requests. The plat shall be revised to reflect this condition. The plat shall be revised to show the location of the existing water lines and water meter along Salem Road. The plat shall be revised to show the location of the sewer main along Mt. Comfort Road. A public sewer main shall be extended to each of the proposed lots prior to filing of the Lot Split. Additionally, parks fees shall be paid in the amount of $555 for one additional single family lot. Anthes: Matt, do you have anything? Casey: I just want to add that the applicant and I have had many conversations regarding the sewer extension. I just wanted to give you some additional information about the reason why that is required. I am going to read to you out of the Arkansas State Board of Health rules and regulations regarding sewer. It says "All premises shall be connected to a sanitary sewer when within 300' and available to said premises so a connection can be made without crossing another person's property." Also, out of our subdivision regulations regarding sanitary sewer systems where a public sanitary sewer system is reasonably accessible the subdivider shall connect with such sewer and each lot within the subdivision shall be Subdivision Committee July 2, 2004 Page 7 provided with a connection. I do want to clarify that the first item that I read said without crossing somebody else's property. There is right of way and possibly easements that are usable in this case and that makes the sewer main along Mt. Comfort Road accessible without crossing property lines. That is the reason for our recommendation that sewer be extended to each of these lots. We have seen some in recent months where there were lot splits within the city limits and there is sewer nearby but it is separated by other properties with no right of way or no easements to make it possible for that extension to be made. I see no reason why this sewer cannot be extended to these properties at this time. That is the reason for our recommendation. Warrick: I believe that this property is immediately adjacent to Crofton Manor subdivision. Casey: There is a property in between. Anthes: Do we also know the distance for that connection from this property? Casey: To the one at Crofton Manor? Mt. Comfort is the closer one and it is showing that the property is 180' to Mt. Comfort Road and the sewer is just along the south side of the pavement in that area. Anthes: We will open this to the applicant. Would you like to make your presentation? Please introduce yourself. Mourabek: My name is Ali Mourabek and the reason I'm here with this property is because I was pushed from another property that I bought to build a house on. As a result of the mistake in zoning on Hendrix Street I am here. I bought an old house and wanted to build a house for myself. Before I started the process somebody bought the house next door to me and bulldozed it and put a six unit apartment on Hendrix Street. That project was abolished and then we moved to this project. I bought this 2.5 acres to live on. I need some space but my wife decided she doesn't want to live in that house so we are going to build another house next door. My son is going to live in that house. This subdivision is not for any purpose to sale or do anything, it is just so we can get two separate loans at a fixed rate so when I get old I don't have to be surprised about a big interest rate. The issue comes in here. The distance from the sewer, which exists on this south of Mt. Comfort. To cross the street is about 60' or 70'. There is a house here that we would have to go through, that is 180' to bring it to my property about 250'. My property line extends about 450'. 1 need to build a house on the other side of the property. According to the rules I have to bring the sewer to this line in the property, which is less than 350'. Then, when I split that then I have to bring it again to this lot, which is another 220'. That would make a total of about 500'. I have extended a Subdivision Committee July 2, 2004 Page 8 sewer line for the city for another house that I owned 100' and it cost me $12,000. I checked on this. Just crossing Mt. Comfort is going to cost more than $12,000. To get the line all the way down here I'm looking at somewhere between $35,000 and $50,000. That might be exaggerated but we are in that ballpark. My budget to build that house, I've already bought the piece of land. The budget that is left to build that house is $150,000. We got approval for the septic tank. All of the houses on Salem Road that are existing are on septic tank. There is no need for any house, all of them are on septic tanks. We submitted the application to Little Rock and got approval for the septic tank. I'm not sure if they looked at that or not but we have approval for a septic tank to put here. All of the houses have septic tanks. Considering the cost to bring that sewer line it will abolish my second attempt to have a home. There is no way that I can pay that expense to bring that sewer line. That's where I am. I'm willing to put a septic tank if it is approved. The other option to go with, and I'm not sure if I will be at this same meeting again, is not to split this, but to go to the bank and get a commercial loan which probably in five years I will be paying 12% interest and then I have to sale it because I can't afford to pay that. Keep the property one and build a house and keep the septic tank and I don't know if I can get a permit to build a house with a septic tank. That's where I am here, I don't dispute the regulation. As I heard in that last meeting there was the word hardship I did not understand it because the man who bought a six unit apartment property in there is going to lose money. The value of the property next door to it already went down. Everybody else, the vote came through to consider the hardship for that man. This is very much a hardship for me. There is no way I can get that. Everything else I agree with. The septic tank is my only option. Extending the sewer line I would love to do it but it is just impossible. If I can't build a house with a septic tank I can't do it. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Mourabek. I will open this to public comment. Is there any member of the public who would like to address this issue? I see none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners for discussion. I have a question. That is of staff and Matt. What discretion, we as the Planning Commission, need to uphold ordinances. Do we have an ability to address hardship in this case? Casey: I believe you have the ability to waive this condition of approval on this subdivision. Warrick: I need to ask Engineering if this is considered part of the design standards for infrastructure. I don't know that it is really part of the design standards. Casey: No, it is more the subdivision regulations. Subdivision Committee July 2, 2004 Page 9 Warrick: The Planning Commission does control subdivision regulations and variances to that. This is not one that we typically see very much. The Planning Commission can certainly, when we are talking about certain variances of development regulations may be applied for as follows: It does state if the provisions of development in Chapter 166 are shown by the developer to cause undue hardship as they apply to the proposed development including, but not limited to, financial, environmental or regulatory and that the situation is unique to the subject property. The city Planning Commission may grant a variance on a temporary or permanent basis to the development so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured provided that the variation will not have the affect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the development regulations. No variance shall be granted for any property which does not have access to an improved street. I don't think that that's the case with this particular item. It would have to be considered by the full Planning Commission. Anthes: If we decide as a Subdivision Committee that the sewer is pertinent and needs to be installed for this property we can approve this Lot Split here with that condition of approval or if we feel like there is some hardship that can be discussed we can forward it to the full Planning Commission and that could be heard. Warrick: Sure. The one thing I don't know, the first set of regulations that Matt read were state. We can't trump state regulations. We don't have that ability. There needs to be a determination of what is being considered as a variance to the city's development regulations as stated in Chapter 166 of our code. Casey: The more I read this state requirement it sounds like it is saying within 300' that if it has frontage on that so that would not be the case for this property. Anthes: We would consider tract A and tract A does not have frontage within 300', is that correct? Warrick: Neither does tract B because there is no frontage on Mt. Comfort. Trumbo: It does seem like a great deal of distance. Casey: I think that this could be applied only as service lines. I apologize for that but the more I read this it sounds like it is for service lines not crossing property lines and if they have it available within 300'. We still have our subdivision regulations that say that sewer should be extended. Those are the issues that Dawn pointed out could be weighed by the full Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee July 2, 2004 Page 10 Trumbo: I understand your problem. We are always faced, in my experience so far, with a great deal of costs to projects. I don't know about this but I would certainly look at a variance at the full Planning meeting. Mourabek: If we really look at this situation and look at the street and see what it looks like before and what it is going to look like after. You are going to have a row of houses on that street that are all on septic tank. This is one single little square. It is open with the grass growing and everybody complained about mowing that grass. We are going to put another house right there. We are going to put a septic tank in that is going to make the whole street uniform. There are no changes, no disturbances, no nothing. From upstairs you are going to see that little empty spot that used to have grass all the time having a nice little house with some landscaping. Really nothing is changing to that street. There is no feeling of a subdivision. I don't see the change that is going to happen. It is just going to make the whole thing more complete than it is just open now. I respect the rules and regulations and we all need to follow that. What is going to happen if we build a house in there it is really going to make the whole thing as one unit and if the time comes and there is sewer extended down there we will connect. This is how I see it. Maybe I'm just too easy. This is how I see it. There is not really a major change. I can understand a subdivision taking one acre and putting four houses in it or something like that. This is just fitting with the flow. Anthes: I can appreciate your comments. We are charged as a body with upholding the ordinances and the regulations and so we have to look at what those are and where we have flexibility within those. According to our standards a subdivision is defined as when you divide a piece of property into two or more parcels. By our ordinances you actually are making a subdivision that has subdivision regulations attached to it. What we are trying to figure out is what our regulations say about the installation of sewer and if we have any discretion as a Commission to even consider hardship or a cost in that. We want to give you every benefit of that but that is what we have to decide as a board. Shackelford: Staff, this is RSF-4 and we are talking about 2.5 acres. If he was not asking for a property split would we permit this thing with a septic tank? Warrick: Under zoning requirements he could build a second home and I believe that the answer is yes, we would be able to permit a separate single family home on the tract without sewer extension. Shackelford: I think that there is sufficient cause for at least consideration by the full Planning Commission for a waiver. Subdivision Committee July 2, 2004 Page I1 Warrick: It looks like he is eligible to make the request just based on the conversation that we have had. The code §156.03 under Variances. My interpretation of that is that you are eligible to make the request for a variance. It does have to go to the Commission. If you would like to pursue that then we will send this forward to the full Commission at the Subdivision Committee's discretion. Shackelford: And that item will be heard at the next Planning Commission meeting, is that correct? Warrick: That is correct, July 12. Shackelford: I'm inclined to do that Sir, to give you an opportunity. Sort of your day in court if you will to where you have an opportunity to ask for that variance to the full Planning Commission. It will delay you a couple of weeks before this comes to the full Planning Commission and it will require an affirmative vote at Planning Commission but at least you can speak your peace and call for a vote and see if that can possibly be approved. Mourabek: I'm willing to do that. This is my dream home. I would appreciate you doing that if that's what it takes. MOTION: Shackelford: With that being said, I am going to recommend that we forward LSP 04- 1113 to the full Planning Commission. Trumbo: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. We'll see you on July 12`h. Subdivision Committee July 2, 2004 Page 12 LSD 04-1118: Large Scale Development (WAL-MART #144 STOCKROOM): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at HWY 62, W OF I-540. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 28.70 acres. The request is to approve the construction of a 12,523 s.f. stockroom expansion at the SW corner of the building and modification to the Tire and Lube area. Anthes: Our third and final item of business today is LSD 04-1118 for Wal-Mart #144 stock room. Will the applicant come forward? Morgan: The subject property is located south of 6`h Street, east of Finger Road. It is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. On January 26, 2004 the applicant requested that the Planning Commission grant a Conditional Use permit to allow for warehousing use within a commercial zone for the use of outdoor storage trailers which had been stored on site through the holiday season of 2003 and 2004. The request was tabled at this meeting and the trailers have since been removed. In order to provide additional storage for this retail store and comply with the zoning requirements of the C-2 zone the applicant is proposing a 12,523 sq.ft. expansion of the southwest corner of the existing structure. In conjunction with this request is a 1,650 sq.ft. expansion of the tire and lube express located just north of this proposed stockroom expansion. Total expansion proposed equals approximately 6.34% of the existing structure. With the expansion proposed removal of 27 parking spaces, three of which are ADA and associated landscape islands is required to accommodate the alterations. Approximately 10' of additional right of way for a total of 55' from the centerline of Hwy. 62 is required by warranty deed. All Hwy. 16 references should be restated Hwy. 62. There is an existing asphalt path along Hwy. 62. Staff recommends installation of a 6' sidewalk to be located at the master street plan right of way and through existing drives along 6th Street. Utilities are currently provided to this site. Staff recommends approval of LSD 04-1118 at the Subdivision Committee level with the following nine conditions. The conditions of approval will be applied at the time of building permit for the stockroom expansion. This will allow for the TLE expansion to be issued a building permit without the required improvements conditioned at this time with the staff report. The applicant shall dedicate right of way along Hwy. 62 by warranty deed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall install a 6' sidewalk at the Master Street Plan right of way along Hwy. 62 and through any existing drives. ADA parking shall be required as stated in the ordinance. Three spaces are intended to be removed with this project and we need to ensure that compliance is met with the number of ADA spaces available on site. Condition five, any proposed signage shall be approved through appropriate sign permits if proposed. The additional four conditions of approval are standard conditions of approval. Subdivision Committee July 2, 2004 Page 13 Anthes: Thank you Suzanne. Would the applicant introduce yourself and give us your presentation? Jacobs: I'm Todd Jacobs with CEI Engineering representing Wal-Mart. Wilgus: I'm Dave Wilgus with Harrison, French Architecture. Jacobs: What we are bringing before you are two stockroom expansions. These expansions will help the trailer storage issue we had back in the fall and winter. With these expansions the trailers should no longer be showing up on the site at all. Due to the store's large amount of sales the main larger stockroom, which is a little over 12,000 sq.ft. will mainly be used for layaway. It will hold general merchandise but it is mainly for layaway. The smaller TLE is just for extra tire storage space. Both stockrooms will be expanded out into existing parking area or impervious area already. We agree with the five conditions along with the three standard ones. Anthes: I don't see any members of the public so we will bring it to the Commission for discussion. Shackelford: On condition three on the sidewalk, can you guesstimate the linear feet of sidewalk that we are requiring you to install? Warrick: I don't see a dimension on there and the drawing is not to scale. Jacobs: It is about 600'. Warrick: It is a very large site with a very large building. It is going to be a huge improvement along that frontage. I would like to explain a little bit on condition number one that the reason we have separated the two stockroom additions is that the Tire and Lube Express could come through our building permit process any day without having to go through a Large Scale review because of the size of the addition. It is something that they really had intended on starting earlier. We saw those permits coming and we knew that this Large Scale was coming in and we decided that it would be more appropriate to see those things together just to get an understanding of the whole development proposal. We wanted to ensure that they could go forward with the building permit on the Tire & Lube extension without being held up on compliance with warranty deeds for the Master Street Plan or other easements and different things that will be necessary for this Large Scale but are really more appropriately applied to the larger stock room expansion. Anthes: Thank you. I'm looking through the conditions of approval which seem pretty straight forward. Are any signs proposed as a part of this? Subdivision Committee July 2, 2004 Page 14 Jacobs: There is no new signage. Anthes: Commercial design standards, do we need to evaluate those for this project? Warrick: Commercial design standards really kick in when we are looking at an expansion of 25% of an existing structure or more. It is not that so we didn't feel that it was appropriate to do a full scale Commercial Design Standards review. We have worked with the applicant. We have expressed our concerns and they have shown us drawings that reflect that these additions will basically be extensions of the existing materials of the structure. Anthes: It looks like everything is going to just match, right? Trumbo: It sounds like a win/win for us. Warrick: This will solve a problem that we have been trying to work on for a while. Shackelford: Not only do we not have the trailers but we pick up 600' or 700' of sidewalk in an area that needs it so I think it is a great deal. MOTION: Trumbo: With that I will make a motion to approve LSD 04-1118. Shackelford: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you very much. Are there any announcements? We are adjourned.