Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-29 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, May 29, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 03-39.00: Lot Split (John David Lindsey, pp205) Approved Page 2 LSD 03-16.00: Large Scale Development (Noble Oaks III, pp405) Page 4 Forwarded to Planning Commission FPL03-03.00: Final Plat (Fairfield, pp359) Approved Page 8 ADM03-13.00: Administrative Item (Golden Corral, pp96) Approved Page 12 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Alice Church Alan Ostner Don Bunch STAFF PRESENT Kim Hesse Dawn Warrick Craig Camagey Matt Casey Renee Thomas STAFF ABSENT Fire Department Solid Waste Subdivision Committee May 29, 2003 Page 2 LSP 03-39.00: Lot Split (John David Lindsey, pp205) was submitted by Brian Scott, RPLS of Geomatic Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Woodworks Plus, Inc. for John David Lindsey for property located at 3880 W. Weir Road WC 94. The property is located in the Planning Area and contains approximately 18.5 acres. The request is to divide the property into 2 tracts of 16.64 and 1.90 acres each. Bunch: Good morning, welcome to the Thursday, May 29th meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Today we have four items on the agenda. Unless there are any announcements from staff we will jump right in on the first item. It is LSP 03-39.00 submitted by Brian Scott of Geometric Consultants Inc., on behalf of Woodworks Plus for John David Lindsey for property located at 3880 W. Weir Road, Washington County Road 94. Is the applicant present? Would you come forward please and have a seat? Jeremy, can you give us the staff report please? Pate: Bunch: Scott: Bunch: Sure this property is located in the planning area and contains approximately 18.5 acres. The request is to split the parcel into two parcels, 16.65 acres and the other of 1.90 acres. The proposed 16.64 acre parcel currently has a house, barn, and pond on it. The other parcel of 1.90 acres proposed has an existing single-family house and apartment. Surrounding zoning, this is in the county and surrounding land use is single-family residential and agricultural land. Water exists to the south along Weir Road, which is County Road 94, and to the east along County Road 894, which is Salem Road. Sewer is not available in this area. The right of way being dedicated along the county road 94 is pursuant to Washington County standards which requires a 30' right of way from center line and County Road 894, which is Salem Road, is classified as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan and requires a 90' right of way. Staff is recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level subject to two conditions. 1) County approval is required prior to finding. 2) Plat Review and Subdivision comments will be applicable. Thank you. Applicant, can you introduce yourself and give us the benefit of any presentation you might have? I am Amy Scott and I am here for Geomatic Consultants. That is pretty much it. Do you have any questions for me? We'll wait until after the public comment section for any questions. At this time is there anyone in the audience that would like to make public comment on this item please come forward to the podium and give us the benefit of your comments. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments, motions. Amy, I have a couple of questions. The house that is on the County Road 894, is that a non-existent house? Is that an old house place with a barn? Unless I found the wrong place yesterday they didn't appear to be there and these appear to be new structures with the foundation over here. Subdivision Committee May 29, 2003 Page 3 Scott: I think these are existing, I'm not sure. I'm sure they were existing when we did the survey. Bunch: There were two structures here that appeared to be under construction, new structures and then a new foundation here and many of these things looked to be like pits for fill material. I just want to make sure we were looking at the right place. Scott: I could have the surveyor meet you and take you there. I am not sure that I could get you there myself. Bunch: I don't know if this has any bearing since it is more or less a simple lot split. Warrick: There is really no improvement requirement and if there are existing structures the city does not have land use regulations out in the county or lot width minimums. The county would be interested in I'm sure on any new development was going in there but it would depend on the type of development as to what kind of regulations they would have to apply. Bunch: Our regulations wouldn't apply to any of the density or any of that sort of thing? Warrick: That is correct. The lot configuration and Master Street Plan and access are the things that we would address. Scott: They have already discussed it all with Washington County. Bunch: I guess the only staff comments we would have would be from Engineering because Parks and Landscaping do not apply to this. Commissioners, are there any other questions, comments or motions? MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 03-39.00 with the two conditions that are listed. Ostner: I will second it. Bunch: Ok, I guess county approval takes in septic tanks and that sort of thing. I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee May 29, 2003 Page 4 LSD 03-16.00: Large Scale Development (Noble Oaks III, pp405) was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser Properties for property located on the east side of Oakland Avenue, north of Lawson Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.24 acres with 28 dwelling units proposed. (28 bedrooms). Proposed total parking spaces provided are 28. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is LSD 03-16.00 for Noble Oaks submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser Properties for property located on the east side of Oakland Avenue north of Lawson Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains approximately 1.24 acres. Jeremy, is this yours? Pate: Yes. This property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential with 1.24 acres. The applicant proposes to construct one building containing 28 units consisting of one bedroom apartments for a total of 28 bedrooms. The proposed density for this proposal is 22.58 units per acre, which is allowable in the R-2 zoning district. Total parking spaces proposed are 28, 26 standard, 2 ADA spaces, and one bike rack is included. Existing development, currently there are three single-family homes located on this site and it is indicated that these will be removed. The single-family homes, multi -family homes, and duplex homes surround this property in question. Water and sewer is available along Oakland Avenue to the west. The Fire Marshall does have a few comments. They require any building proposing more than 16 units in an R-2 zoning district to be sprinkled. These occupancies must have a fire hydrant within 100' of the Fire Department connection. Right of way being dedicated, Oakland Avenue requires a 50' right of way, 25' from centerline pursuant to the city's Master Street Plan. Included in the development are street improvements by the developer to Oakland Avenue 14' from centerline along the entire frontage of the property to include pavement, curb and gutter, and underground storm drains. Oakland Avenue also requires a 6' sidewalk and a minimum of 6' of greenspace adjacent to the street. Access is proposed by means of Oakland Avenue in two locations. Tree preservation, there is existing 50.4% canopy, preserved is 23.28% and that does meet the requirements so not mitigation is required. Staff's recommendation at this time is to forward to the full Planning Commission subject to eight conditions. 1) Any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back from any side boundary line an additional distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet. The proposed building is 22'9", requiring approximately 3 feet of additional setback. 2) Tree Preservation requirements must be met to the satisfaction of the Landscape Administrator prior to Large Scale Development approval. Revisions to the parking configuration have been requested in order to provide more area for a 24" oak tree within the development. Items number three and four are standard conditions of approval. Item 5) Payment of Parks fees in the amount of $11,004 will be necessary before this is approved. 6) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6' sidewalk and 6' greenspace is also required. 7) Large Scale Development shall be valid for one calendar year. Condition eight is a standard condition of approval. Subdivision Committee May 29, 2003 Page 5 Bunch: Thank you Jeremy. Are there other staff reports? Tree and Landscape, are there any additional comments? Carnagey: I am concerned right now about excessive fill on a couple of trees that are identified to remain and he has made a few changes but there still remain some changes to be made as well as the configuration of the tree well on the 24" oak. We are talking about expanding that out a little bit more and giving that tree a little more room, changing some of the parking on both sides of that tree well to other areas on the site. Bunch: So you are working with the engineering firm on that, thank you. Engineering? Casey: I just have one change I would like to make in the staff report if that is ok. We probably need to make the street improvements a condition of approval if we could move that from the findings and make it a condition for the Planning Commission. That is all I have got. Bunch: Ok, thank you. Parks? Hesse: No additional comments. The Parks Board had voted to accept money, that amount being $11,004. Bunch: Thank you Kim. Now to the applicant could you introduce yourself and tell us if you have any presentation please present it. Hafemann: Certainly, my name is Garrett Hafemann with Jorgensen & Associates. Bunch: Welcome Garrett, I think you are new aren't you? Hafemann: Sort of. We have no additional comments at this time. What it is is what it is. Actually, I did have one question for Planning if I can. Where do you measure the building height from, the center point between the ridge and the eave or the eave of the building? Warrick: It depends on the highest point of the side of the structure adjacent to the property line. If you have got a gable end we are going to measure to the peak. If it is a side that is not a gable end we will measure to the eave line. If you can clarify that. Hafemann: We will be revising the height then because that was given to us by the architect for the mid point of the roof. It is a pitched roof so that height will be lower. I think our setback will be ok. Warrick: That is the issue is the height at the edge of the structure facing that side that requires the additional setback. Subdivision Committee May 29, 2003 Page 6 Hafemann- Bunch: Hafemann- Bunch: Hafemann: Bunch: Hafemann: Bunch: Church; Warrick: Ostner: Hafemann: Ostner: Hafemann: Bunch: Ok, well we will fix that. At this time we will take public comment for this particular item. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments, and motions. Garrett, this tree that you are showing as F, I'm assuming it is being removed, it is not called out as being removed. It is the line type but we actually have added a chart now to this sheet that shows it removed. On the chart it didn't show it and on the designation here it was shown as one that was supposed to stay according to your legend. That is just a minor item. We will clarify that. That is being removed. With the change in determination of eave height, what will that do? It is going to stay exactly where it is at because the height we gave was the architect gave us a height that was the midpoint between the ridge and the eave and it is a pitched roof so we will revise our height, lower it, it will be below 20' at the ridge line. Ok, so that won't change the configuration any. Commissioners, are there any comments or motions? I guess I just have a question for staff'. Have we had any comments from neighbors about this development at all have you heard anything? I have not heard from anyone. Are there residences around here or are there other apartments? Sweetser has the apartments directly to the east and there are residences to the north and to the south. We are expanding that tree well out, Craig and I are discussing how to do that exactly. It has now grown to 51' in width instead of the 38'. It is much larger now. It pushed the tree well all the way outside the canopy. Does that encroach into these two parking spaces? Yes, we had to slide the parking over a little bit and we included a third space up on the northeast corner. Up where there are two spaces we just put a third space in there to make up for the loss. That is something that we were just sort of working on yesterday with Craig. Are you still going to stay with 28 spaces? Subdivision Committee May 29, 2003 Page 7 Hafemann: Bunch: Church: Hafemann: Ostner: Hafemann: MOTION: Church: Ostner: Bunch: Warrick: Yes Sir, absolutely. Commissioner Church, are there any comments, questions or motions? As far as the Fire Marshall's comments go, your plans are to sprinkle the building? If it's a requirement then it will be sprinkled. On the southern edge this 20' utility easement parking is being built on it, is that an overhead easement? I believe that is underground, there is an 8" water line. The reason that parking is being pushed so far south is to preserve that 24" oak tree that is why the whole thing is off to the south. I will make a motion that we forward onto the full Planning Commission LSD 03- 16.00 with the seven conditions and the additional eighth condition as far as the street improvements proposed. I will second. I will concur. Garrett, we will need revisions by Monday at 10:00 a.m. Subdivision Committee May 29, 2003 Page 8 FPL03-03.00: Final Plat (Fairfield, pp359) was submitted by Philip Humbard of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Cross Creek, L.L.C. for property located west of Bridgeport Subdivision & east of Sunshine Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 12.80 acres with 41 lots proposed. Bunch: The next item on our agenda is FPL 03-3.00 submitted by Philip Humbard of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Cross Creek, LLC for property located west of Bridgeport Subdivision and east of Sunshine Road. Dawn, is this one of yours? Will you give us the staff report please? Warrick: This is the Final Plat for Phase I of Fairfield Subdivision. The subject property contains approximately 12.8 acres with 41 lots proposed. The Preliminary Plat for the combined Phases I and II for this subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission on August 13, 2001. Surrounding zoning and land use, single-family residential in R-1 districts. I believe there is also some portion that adjoins the county. That was for the perimeter of the subdivision. Water, 8" lines were extended to this development as well as 8" sewer lines to provide for service. Right of way being dedicated, New Bridge Road is a collector that runs through this portion of the development requiring a 70' right of way. One of the conditions that we have addresses New Bridge Road as well as its further extension to the west to Sunshine Road and the need for the right of way and those extensions to be dedicated with Phase I of this development. For this particular phase no off site street improvements were required. Staff is recommending approval at the Subdivision level of this Final Plat with some conditions. Proof of payment on street lights will be required. 2) A guarantee for incomplete improvements is required before any signatures are applied to the final plat pursuant to §158.01. 3) All required ROW for New Bridge Road and Sunshine Road for all phases of Fairfield Subdivision shall be dedicated prior to signing this final plat. 4) Payment of Parks fees for this phase, 41 single-family lots at $555 totals $22,755. 5) Sidewalk construction will be in accordance with Master Street Plan requirements as noted on the plat. Other than that, standard conditions of approval. 6) Plat review and Subdivision comments and final information required prior to filing. Bunch: Thank you Dawn. Are there any additional comments from Parks and Recreation? Hesse: Yes. Actually we do need to revise the conditions of approval. What we actually did was take land on this particular development. We looked at the entire development which was 155 lots. We took a land dedication of 3.875 acres with an additional acreage to total 5.57 acres. That additional acreage is going to be banked for future use by that developer. What we have asked, and I believe we spoke to Mr. Moore about this, was getting the deed for the entire 5.57 acres at the Final Plat of this stage. Warrick: We would revise conditions number six to reflect that comment. Subdivision Committee May 29, 2003 Page 9 Hesse: Bunch: Casey: No other comment, thank you. Thank you. Matt? I will just say that our inspector reported to me on the condition of the project and he reported that the final inspection had been performed and the majority of the items that were found to be deficient have been addressed so we see no problems with proceeding with the Final Plat. Bunch: Is there anything additional with Trees and Landscaping? Carnagey: No further comment. Bunch: At this time we will go to the applicant. If you would introduce yourself and give us the benefit of your presentation. Moore: Yes Sir. I am Brian Moore with Engineering Services, actually not Phil. Phil is a little older. This is 41 lots, this is Fairfield Subdivision Phase I and actually I think we need to put that on the plat. That is something that I noticed. It is 41 lots and really the only question I had was the parks and Kim addressed that. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee for motions, comments or questions. I will start it off with the main question I had was the phasing. How many phases are there? Moore: I believe there are three phases. Warrick: We did two Preliminary Plats. The first preliminary was for Phases I and II and the second one followed it immediately for Phase III. Bunch: This is the one that has the hillside overlooking the sewer lift station that was supposed to be dedicated to Parks and Trails? Moore: That is correct, it will be in Phase III. Warrick: Phase II is to the west of this which connects over to Sunshine Drive and then Phase III is kind of to the north which takes in the curve of Sunshine where it goes from a north south street and kind of turns to the east. Bunch: The staff report calls for forwarding to the full Planning Commission however, we do have the option of approving at this level. It is not one with a lot of issues attached. It is unclear in our bylaws and city ordinances exactly who's responsibility it is. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission but it can be delegated to the Subdivision Committee. We can approve it at this Subdivision Committee May 29, 2003 Page 10 level unless you think there are enough issues involved that it needs to go to the full Planning Commission. Church: I just have a question. Does the dedication of land take care of the full requirements for the parks so that the fee goes away then? Hesse: Yes, and we will be banking 1.6 acres. We will be getting the deed for the entire 155 acre subdivision, all phases at this level. Bunch: The banking is just for this subdivision? Hesse: For the developer's use in the future. Bunch: For the developer's use in this quadrant for further development that would not be on this site. Hesse: Right. It could be another site. Bunch: It could be adjoining sites or whatever. Ostner: Should we make a motion that we approve it. Church: Yes, I don't think there are enough issues that we would need to forward it. Bunch: There are also not enough items that need to be revised to delay it to come back at this level. Moore: We would greatly appreciate that. We are ready to get signatures and go. Bunch: You're ready to sell a few lots so you can jump onto Phase II and III? Moore: Yes Sir. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve FPL 03-3.00 with the conditions listed changing condition six to land in lieu of fees. Bunch: Actually just to land because the fees would be in lieu of land. The fees would be in lieu of land. Ostner: Yeah, land. Bunch: And also note the proper phasing on the documents. Subdivision Committee May 29, 2003 Page 11 Osmer: Changing the phasing on the documents to reflect Phase I. Church: I will second it with the change on condition number six. Bunch: I will concur. Good luck Brian. Subdivision Committee May 29, 2003 Page 12 ADM03-13.00: Administrative Item (Golden Corral, pp96) was submitted by Gregory Webb of Freeland -Kauffman & Fredeen, Inc. on behalf of Golden Corral for property located at North College Avenue and City of Johnson's Main Street. The request to extend the LSD approval until November 5, 2003. Bunch: Moving right along, the next item on the agenda is an administrative item for Golden Corral representing a Large Scale Development submitted by Gregory Webb of Freeland, Kauffman & Fredeen on behalf of Golden Corral for property located at North College and the City of Johnson's Main Street. The request is to extend the LSD approval until November 5, 2003. Dawn, is this yours? Warrick: Yes. Bunch: Would you give us the staff report please? Warrick: Sure. The Large Scale Development for the Golden Corral was approved by the Planning Commission on October 22, 2001 with a condition of approval on that that it be valid for one calendar year. On October 23, 2003 staff did extend that approval for three months, which expired March 22, 2003. The applicant has approached staff and requested an extension so that they can get under way with the project. After the Large Scale was approved they did proceed with permitting documents and I will let the applicant kind of give you some history with regard to the site and some of the complications they've had. There were some issues that needed to be dealt with and the time bas kind of run out on them with regard to that extension that was granted on their original approval. Staff is in favor of extending this Large Scale Development approval until November 5, 2003. That is consistent with the ordinance that was adopted on November 5, 2002 which is applicable to Large Scale Developments and other projects that were approved prior to July, 2002. That gave a certain sunset period basically on those projects that didn't have specific deadlines placed on them by the Planning Commission. This new ordinance, which is attached to your staff report, basically sets a deadline by ordinance They were never set by ordinance before for Large Scale Developments. They were just imposed as staff's conditions on projects. We got pretty good about covering all of them but there were items throughout the years that were not given specific deadlines. As of the adoption of this ordinance everything has a specific deadline and anything that was approved prior to July has the November 5, 2003 deadline. Staff is recommending that we remain consistent with that ordinance and go ahead and grant the extension on this project to that date. Bunch: Does this need to go to the full Planning Commission? Warrick: I don't believe so. We saw one just like this two weeks ago for a lot in the Sunbridge area for a Large Scale and that was approved at the Subdivision Committee level and I believe it is appropriate that you can approve that. It is an extension of the Large Scale project that has already been approved and it is Subdivision Committee May 29, 2003 Page 13 consistent with an ordinance that has already been adopted by the City Council. Bunch: Unless there are extenuating circumstances that we feel the full Planning Commission would need to review. Warrick: That is correct, that is your option. Bunch: I don't guess there are any other staff reports on this. Applicants, if you all would introduce yourselves and tell us why you are here and what we can do to help you. Thibodaux: Good morning, my name is Dirk Thibodaux, I am not Greg Webb although I am with Freeland -Kauffman and Fredeen. I am here representing Golden Corral. Basically what we have is we were granted Large Scale and contamination was found on the site. They put in monitoring wells, they monitored the site for 18 months. We have now found that the contamination is not moving, it is isolated to one spot and we would like to proceed with development of the project. As Dawn has stated, the time line has run out and we are asking for an extension of the Large Scale approval. Bunch: Ok, at this time we will take public comment. Seeing none, I will bring it back. Shaw: I am Brian Shaw with Irwin and Saviers Company. I am working with the sellers on this piece of property and am working with Golden Corral. I'm just here to answer any questions you might have. Bunch: One thing I think might be good for general information and all of our educations, what was the methodology and what particular ordinances and permitting processes and that sort of thing lead to this discovery of this contamination and the procedure that you're in? If you could just give us a brief overview of what it is in our body of red tape that helped discover this problem. Thibodaux: I am not an environmental engineer. I am just basically kind of working with the sellers. Basically the site is a vacant piece of property. It has a used car lot on it. It is right below the mall, just north of the mall. The typical Phase I environmental analysis show that everything was clean. There weren't any concerns in the area. Golden Corral has a pretty specific process they go through on every site where they do soil testing for structural capabilities of the soil and in that process they also just do as a test just an extra kind of sampling of all the soils just to determine if there are any potential problems and they found small traces of contaminate in some of the soils. It is my understanding, like I said, I don't know all of the details but they have gone through a pretty specific process with ADEQ out of Little Rock to make sure all the T's are crossed and the I's are dotted. They are very particular. They have an environmental engineer out of Houston that will make sure they do everything by the book. They are at the point now where they have got approval from the ADEQ to go ahead and remove the contaminated area, which my Subdivision Committee May 29, 2003 Page 14 understanding is about a 10x10 area of soil to be removed and replaced and to have all the proper permits and move forward. Bunch: Thank you. The reason I asked for that is often times in these meetings for sake of brevity we lump these things into standard conditions and often times people ask questions of what happens if this occurs or that occurs and here is an example where it has occurred and the system has found the problem and is addressing it. It is just a good opportunity to learn about it and to let people know because it is something that is included in our standard conditions but we don't delineate it every time for every project that comes up. Shaw: It has been an interesting process. My understanding is they are going to start that process later next month and then they will move forward right after that with their final permits and start construction hopefully by September. Bunch: One thing about it, if we extend the Large Scale Development that means one thing you will continue on the process of cleaning it up. Otherwise, you might say well gosh, if we're not going to build a building we might as well quit. Do I have any other questions, comments, or motions? MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we extend the LSD 01-19.10 approval until November 5, 2003. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Thank you and good luck. We appreciate the presentation. Do we have any further business? Warrick: No Sir, there is no further business. Bunch: Meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 9:07 a.m.