Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-11 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on September 11, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 03-49.00: Lot Split (Green, pp 243) Page 19 LSP 03-46.00 Lot Split (Copher, pp 396) Page 21 FPL 03-07.00: Final Plat (Clabber Creek Phase I, pp 322 & 283) Page 15 PPL 03-14.00: Preliminary Plat (Newcastle Estates, pp 180) Page 2 PPL 03-15.00: Preliminary Plat (Copper Ridge, pp 435) Page 9 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Alan Ostner Alice Church STAFF PRESENT Rebecca Ohman Matt Casey Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Craig Carnagey Approved Forwarded to Planning Commission Approved Forwarded to Planning Commission Forwarded to Planning Commission MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Jeremy Pate Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 2 PPL 03-14.00: Preliminary Plat (Newcastle Estates, pp 180) was submitted by Milholland Company Engineering and Surveying on behalf of BMP, Inc. for property located on Gulley Road east of Crossover Rd.. The property is located in the Planning Area and contains approximately 13.23 acres with 10 lots proposed. Bunch: Good morning, welcome to the September 11, 2003 meeting of the Subdivision Committee of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. This morning we are going to alter the agenda just a little bit. There was a typographical error in the notifications that were mailed out so we are going to try to accommodate some of the people that might want to address some of the issues that might be coming in at a different time. I see some people here, let me just take a quick poll. How many people are here for the Green Lot Split? How many people for the Copher Lot Split? Clabber Creek Final Plat? New Castle Estates? Copper Ridge? In order to give people some time to get here we are going to start with item five which is a Preliminary Plat for Copper Ridge submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan Properties. It is PPL 03-15.00, would the representative come forward? Ok, seeing none, we'll move along. Let's go to PPL 03-14.00 for New Castle Estates submitted by Milholland Company Engineering, it is PPL 03-14.00 on behalf of BMP Property located on Gulley Road east of Crossover Road. Who has the staff report on this one? Morgan: I do. The request is for a 13.23 acre residential subdivision with 10 lots ranging in size from 1.12 acres to 1.64 acres. The property is in the Planning Area. Surrounding Land Use is Single Family Residential. There are Individual septic systems. For those lots with less than 1.5 acres in area, the applicant must provide approval from Washington County Health Department. (see attached) Gulley Road is a Principal Arterial (110') and is located to the north of the property. The applicant is indicating 55 feet of right-of-way, which is compliant with the Master Street Plan. Butterfield Road, a planned street classified as a Minor Arterial running through the west of the property, requires 90 feet of right-of-way. In 2002, a parcel south of this lot dedicated a 45' from centerline right-of-way for Butterfield Road approximately 200' west from where the MSP indicated it should be. The applicant for this proposal is also indicating 45 feet of right-of- way approximately 200 feet west of where the MSP indicates so that it potentially connects to the dedication to the south. Staff is in support of this request. Street Improvements Proposed: Gulley Road will be improved to Washington County Standards. The proposed Castle Rock Drive will be built to 28' with curb and gutter. Staff recommends forwarding this item to the full Planning Commission with the following conditions. 1) All street names shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator. 2) Proposed right-of-way shall be dedicated with the Final Plat. 3) Access to lots 1, 9, 6, and 7 shall be restricted to interior streets. Item four is a standard condition of approval. Bunch: Thank you Suzanne. Matt, are there any engineering comments? Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 3 Casey: I just want to say that sanitary sewer service is not available outside the city limits They have provided documentation from the county for the septic systems and adequate water is available in the area. Bunch: Thank you and we have no landscape and trees and parks since this is in the growth area. Mel, could you introduce yourself and tell us about your project please? Milholland: I am Mel Milholland with Milholland Engineering. The projects proposed, the developer is going to have a development in line with what is in the area which is public streets, fire protection, city standards and city street lights. It may exceed city standard but it is close to it. All of the lots are an acre or maybe a little bit more. The land is all wooded except for the area along the power line which is kind of cleared, that is the rear of those lots, most of them. We intend to save as many of the trees as we can. I haven't talked to Matt yet but we would like to put the water line right at the edge of the right of way, in the right of way if possible but if not we will put it outside. We would like to save all those trees that we could. Casey: Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Bunch: Milholland: Bunch: Gaddy: Adjacent to the right of way? We would like to put it in the right of way if we could. As long as adequate easement is provided for the water line. No problem, we just don't want to knock all the trees down there if we can help it. Anything else on your presentation Mel? The report covered this but the Master Street Plan shows that about a year ago the property to the south of this property and in between there is approximately 280' between the south end of this property and the north end of it, at that time the city required us to dedicate 45' for the Master Street Plan on the west edge. There is not sufficient room for the standard radiuses and we would like to keep it on the west side, which we are proposing. The main thing is we don't have room to get sufficient 200' radiuses in. At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address us on this issue? If you would please come up to the podium and state your name and share your comments with us please Sir. Hi, I'm Jeff Gaddy and I own the property on Gulley Road that is immediate to the west of the proposed subdivision. My property goes a little bit further than the full west side of that property, or this proposed subdivision. I have quite a concern, when I first found out about the fact that this proposed minor arterial moving from the north to the south had already been agreed to be moved somewhere to the west and when I looked at this I was very concerned when I Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 4 saw that there is 45' of the 90' on this proposed New Castle because 45' is very strongly implied that the other 45' is on my property. As far as I can tell that puts it about in the middle of my master bedroom. It is not on vacant land on my property, it is on my house. It takes out my pool house that is directly behind my home also. I am very concerned about where this new line is being placed on the map. It just doesn't seem like it works very well for me. I don't know if you have any other questions about that. Bunch: What we normally do is let each person speak and then after everyone has spoken we have staff and the applicant respond to it . Gaddy: Thanks. Bunch: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. The first thing is to have staff and the applicant respond to this right of way situation. Casey: Unfortunately neither one of us were involved in the alignment issues of the previous lot split to the south. I am not sure what the justification for the moving of the street was at that time. Mel, were you involved in that? Milholland: I did that project and the home was right in the middle of the Master Street Plan so the city staff felt that it was appropriate since there wasn't any other dedication around it to move it over to the west side of that property and take half of it off. It is a long range plan. The Master Street Plan could be changed between now and then but I understand at this present time that you are asking for some room for the future and in the future if it is dedicated, my concern is I would like to not dedicate it, just put reserved street right of way but city staff, Dawn and Jeremy, wanted me to dedicate it and so we did and we also dedicated the one south. It is 280' south of this property, your minimum radius on a street like this is 200' and you have a 100' tangent and then you have another radius. It is impossible, you would have to own the property around here to set it where it's supposed to be. I am just asking from the previous one to follow the same order and make it straight. We don't know how long it will be before that street is built. It is going to take a lot of traffic to justify it. Casey: We don't currently have any plans for the construction of that. I might want to add that if Mr. Gaddy ever plans to develop then that would be the time that the dedication of the right of way would be required off of his property. If he plans on never developing then that is not likely to happen. As Mr. Milholland stated, it is going to take a lot of traffic generated in that area to be able to justify that construction which is just not there right now. Gaddy: My concern to that would be that in the future if it is decided that it is needed and I still have my home and am still living there and they need 90' then where are they going to get it? Where is that 90' going to come from? Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 5 Casey: Without the development occurring on your property we cannot require the dedication of that and the city would be required to work with the existing right of way and with you if additional right of way is necessary. That would be through acquisition. We would have to have it appraised and buy the land from you if it was required. At this time it is very, very long range planning. Gaddy, B: Can I make a comment? Bunch: We've closed it to public comment but go ahead and come on up. There will be another hearing on this. The recommendation has been to forward it to the full Planning Commission so there will be adequate time to digest some of these comments and then to have more public comment on it. If you would please sir state your name and give public comment. Gaddy, B: Thank you for letting me come up late. My name is Bob Gaddy, I'm Jeff's father. I own Gaddy Investment Company and several acres to the west and also to the south of this new proposed subdivision so I've had some experience in dealing with the minor arterial that goes through that area. What we were concerned about obviously with relation to Jeff's place is the original line for that street, the whole 90' was on the subject property. Now if there is only 45' there it implies that 45' needs to come off of Jeff's property and possibly off of some of the other property I have as well. What we are trying to understand is why it's fair that Jeff is going to be encroached with the possibility of another 45' coming off his place that hasn't been there in the past as a consequence of this approval. I understand that right now the traffic wouldn't call for spending the money to do a minor arterial but that doesn't mean that ten or twenty years from now it won't be needed and as Jeff stated very well if in fact, another 45' is required out of Jeff's property it would go right through his master bedroom because his house is relatively close to the property line. Thank you for letting me comment. Bunch: One of the reasons for having this particular meeting is to bring items like this to light so that we do have time for the applicants and the neighbors and the Engineering Department to respond to it and work out the details. A question for staff, in the past we have used no build lines rather than full dedications. How was that explored in this case? Casey: Unfortunately Dawn and Jeremy are not here today and they are the ones that were involved in this recommendation so we will have to get back with you on that at the time of Planning Commission with that information. Bunch: Mel, were you privy to any discussion on why it is a street dedication and not a no build line? Milholland: The Kelly property 200' south of this the city staff wanted dedication there a year or so ago and we gave it, they asked for 45' there. When I talked to Dawn and Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 6 Jeremy they were satisfied with doing the same thing up here but they wanted it to be made a dedication. It is not a problem with the developer of doing this, it still leaves sufficient room to build. Of course these trees won't be knocked out for years if they are even ever built. They may move the Master Street Plan somewhere else but it leaves enough room to build a nice house through here. I was thinking that if they did relocate the street right of way somewhere else in the future 20 years down the road or whatever, the city policy, which is no benefit to them, half goes to this lot and half goes to that one, that is their standard for right of way. I was trying to preserve this so this would go to the back of this lot and this to this and so forth if they did relocate the right of way. Bunch: Initially all 90' would've been taken from this had it not been moved and now it has been moved to the edge so is there any way that a greater than 45' dedication could be taken? Milholland: It would limit those lots so it wouldn't be very feasible to build on them with a septic system, as a matter of fact, it would probably make it impractical. They would still have to be in the setback. I was just trying to keep in harmony with what we did down here and that is what staff supported. This right here is like 280'. Bunch: However, if that had not been relocated then where would it come? Would it be unbuildable at this time? Milholland: Actually it is located right in the middle of the 69KV power line, which we already have an easement there. Bunch: This looks like something we can kind of wrestle with between now and the full Planning Commission. Commissioners, are there any other comments on this? Ostner: Your question is what I was wondering is where the old Master Street Plan fell, which is just right there. Milholland: There is a 69 KV line and they already have an easement there. Ostner: My first thought is that instead of changing the Master Street Plan if this L were flipped and it did that that the Master Street Plan would work. Milholland: We had to put an extra easement here for underground utilities. I talked to them about power was there first and they want to keep that. Ostner: They want to keep the road development away? Milholland: Off their easement. Ostner: I was just looking for a way out of this situation. Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 7 Milholland: Bunch: Milholland: Bunch: Church: Bunch: MOTION: Ostner: Church: Bunch: Milholland: Bunch: Milholland: Ostner: Milholland: Bunch: Casey: I think it is long term planning, we can get some figures together about how much traffic it would take to build that street. With the way the northeast part of Fayetteville is developing out there with small tracts it is going to be a long time before a traffic count is developed to take care of that. Is the note on the drawing restricting access on lots 6 and 7 to the interior streets, is that based on this in the future becoming a minor arterial? Yes, which we have no problem with that. We want to preserve the integrity of the subdivision as much as possible because it is all trees. It is obvious on one and nine but six and seven are based on the future build out of the street. I don't have any questions. Do I have any motions? I will make a motion we forward PPL 03-14.00 to the full Planning Commission. I will second it. I will concur. Hopefully between now and then we can take another look at this with the added information of the impact that it has on the Gaddy property. I might say again, the reason we're doing this here is the continuity with what is already dedicated here and there is insufficient right of way a distance from this property to this property to get your radiuses in. You'd be back into the property up here and it would just destroy the character of the subdivision. However it could be a minor offset to come in this way. It would prohibit these lots from being very feasible to use. If everything else were shifted just a little to disburse that. These easements don't change right here for the power line, the major easement is already set. Matt, can a septic tank field be in a setback area? I don't know, that's something I would have to check. Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 8 Bunch: That may have a bearing on it if instead of 45' of the right of way if a little more were taken. Obviously, it would move the setback but if the septic tank field could still be in the setback area then it doesn't limit it that much. Casey: Usually the building setback is for above ground structures so I would think that would apply as long as it met the setbacks required by the Arkansas Department of Health, which is usually from property lines and structures. Bunch: Looking to the future, very likely if this road were installed the area probably would be annexed into the city so we wouldn't be worried about septic tanks because we would be using city sewer at that time. It is a reservation more or less right now for the right of way. Milholland: They are wanting dedication. Like Matt said, if and when 20 or 25 years down the road and he never develops, his house is going to be 20 or 25 years older at that time and the city is going to have to purchase his property or if he developed it would be dedicated or negotiated to another location. Design wise, it pretty much demands a straight run through here. Bunch: I just wanted to bring up a couple of these issues for people to be going over between now and Planning Commission. Thank you Mel. Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 9 PPL 03-15.00: Preliminary Plat (Copper Ridge, pp 435) was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan of Sloan Properties, Inc. for property located south of Wedington Drive on Double Springs Road, north of the Owl Creek Subdivision. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and contains approximately 4.32 acres. The proposal is for a residential subdivision containing 13 lots with 12 two family dwelling units (24 units total) proposed. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is item five, which is a Preliminary Plat for Copper Ridge submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan Properties for property located south of Wedington on Double Springs Road. Suzanne, can you give us the staff report on this one please? Morgan: Yes Sir. The applicant requests to create a subdivision of 13 lots on approximately 4.32 acres. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office. Two- family dwelling units are proposed to be built on twelve of the lots ranging from 0.24 acres to 0.30 acres with the remaining lot to function as a detention pond. The land to the north is vacant and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The land to the south is Single -Family Residential zoned RSF-4, Residential Single - Family, four units per acre. The land to the east and west is Single -Family Residential zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. 45 feet of right-of-way on Double Springs Road and 50 feet of right-of-way for Copper Ridge Lane are being dedicated. The proposed Copper Ridge Lane will be built to 28' with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Double Springs Road is proposed to be improved 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter and sidewalks. Double Springs Road is classified a Minor Arterial. Tree preservation, 1.82% is existing, 1.82% is required and 1.02% is being preserved so mitigation is required into the city's tree escrow account. Staff is recommending that this be forwarded to the full Panning Commission with the following conditions: 1) Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for a dead-end street greater than the maximum allowable 500 feet in length. The proposal is for an approximately 672' long dead end street. Staff is in support of this request. The street is planned to provide connectivity to adjacent properties with future development. 2) An assessment for the future extension of Copper Ridge Lane to the property line in the amount of $5,500 shall be paid prior to Final Plat. 3) Proper tree preservation measures shall be taken during construction of the subdivision to ensure the sustained health of the existing 36" Elm located at the end of the proposed street. 4) A payment of $1,575.00 will be required to be paid into the City's Tree Escrow account at the time of Final Plat for tree mitigation purposes. 5) Access to lots 1 and 8 shall be restricted to interior street. 6) Right-of-way for Double Springs Road (45' from centerline) and Copper Ridge Lane (50' total) shall be dedicated with the Final Plat. 7) All street names shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator. 8) The applicant shall install a barricade for safety purposes at the entrance of the detention pond prior to final plat. 9) Payment of Park fees shall be made in the amount of $9,432 before approval of the Final Plat. Items 10 through 13 are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Thank you Suzanne. Matt, are there any additional engineering comments? Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 10 Casey: I have got a question is that is ok for the applicant, and for your information also. The discharge from the detention pond is a question that we had after Technical Plat and the applicant is working with the adjacent property owners for a solution and I'm just wondering if that has been worked out. Brackett: Charlie Sloan, the owner, has been in contact with the neighbor concerning the capacity of the existing ditch along the existing drive and has agreed to work out the details of the improvements required. He understands that there will be improvements to that to accommodate the flows since it is undersized currently. He doesn't have a problem with that. He currently has a problem and we have agreed to help work out the problem that he has currently. Part of the problem, not mainly from this piece of property, mainly from the existing subdivision, quite a bit of that water flows through his barn that he has on his property and he would like it to be brought down a little bit further so it doesn't do that and we have agreed to accommodate that. Casey: Will that be an open channel or a pipe? Brackett: We haven't worked it out right now but most likely it will be so that it can accommodate our flow and the additional flow from the subdivision. Casey: That's all I have. Bunch: Thank you Matt. Any additional tree and landscape comments? Carnagey: There needs to be a tree preservation and easement note added to the plat. Bunch: As I understood it, easements weren't required on residential subdivisions. Carnagey: No, easements are. Page 47 in the Landscape Manual explains that note. That is why you are putting it down here under preservation in the southeast corner, you show tree fencing but there should be a preservation area description as well that just goes with that. That is the 1.02 that you are preserving. Brackett: Ok, I will get with you after this meeting. Carnagey: There is obviously still the payment into the tree fund as well. Bunch: Craig, this same applicant recently used an alternate method, requested an alternate method that was approved for tree plantings in lieu of payment into the tree fund. Has that been explored on this particular piece of property? Carnagey: The applicant hasn't requested anything like that. Bunch: Ok. I guess I'm kind of fishing to see if you want to do that. Subdivision Committee September 11, Page 11 Brackett: Carnagey: Bunch: Brackett: Carnagey: Brackett: Carnagey: Brackett: Bunch: Brackett: Bunch: Ohman: Bunch: Brackett: Bunch: 2003 We probably will but we can work that out prior to Final Plat. There will need to be a note made that you are intending to request a variance like that. If that is your intention that needs to be stated clearly right now. Chris, it would save your applicant time if you anticipate doing that to go ahead and do it. This will be forwarded to the full Planning Commission so you could go ahead and do it at this time rather than to have to come back and go through the motions again to have an administrative decision on it. We'll just have to work out with Craig what the conditions were prior to this going to the Planning Commission I assume. You might want to talk with Mr. Sloan about this but the reason the applicant probably didn't propose a variance is because I don't know if he is creating a P.O.A. There will have to be a P.O.A. because of the detention pond. Then there may be criteria that could be met for a variance. I will discuss it with the owner. This was in the system before the other measure was granted so if you do anticipate it, it would shorten the process to go ahead and include it when it goes to the Planning Commission. We will get with staff concerning that variance before the Planning Commission meeting. Are there any additional Parks comments? The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed this project on Monday and voted for money in lieu of land in the amount of $9,432. Thanks. Chris, at this time, introduce yourself and tell us about your project. I am Chris Brackett, I'm with Jorgensen & Associates. This piece of property, just to confirm the length of the dead end street, is a very narrow piece of property. There are not really many options in what you can do with this so we were forced to put the street down through the middle. Our understanding from staff is that they would like for this to connect through when the neighbor's property develops, when and if that does. That is the reason for that variance. Other than that, I really have no other comment Thank you. At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address us on this issue? Please come forward, tell us who you are Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 12 and where you live and share your comments with us please. Brashears: Hi, I'm Scott Brashears and I live directly behind where the water retention pond would fall. I am not sure if it is lot 13 or somewhere in there. Most of our concerns are with that pond being right there. I would hate to have a water fall coming back to my backyard if something happened to it. Is it going to be concrete or what is going to keep it from just washing away? What is going to make this pond stay there? Bunch: Chris, if you would and possibly Matt, respond at this time on what the general configuration of a pond is and how they work. Matt, why don't you lead off and give us the city's regulations on it and Chris, you can follow up with the specifics to this one. Casey: The pond will just be an earth pond. I don't have the grading plan in front of me but it will be bermed up on the south side is that correct? Brackett: There will be a slight berm on the south side, maybe a foot. Mainly what we're doing is we're digging it down into the earth. Casey: It will be a sod lined pond with a 4' concrete trickle channel down through the middle to eliminate standing water after the rains have ceased. You might have heard us visiting about the discharge from the pond. Right now the water runs down kind of across back behind your lots and onto the property to the east where there is an undersized swale that it goes into and the applicant is going to be discharging in that same direction but is working with that property owner to improve that ditch to increase the capacity to eliminate some flooding problems in that area. Basically, what you will see is it may be a foot higher than what it is now but it will be a grass sodded area. Does it show the depth on your grading plan? Brackett: It is 7 1/2 foot deep. Mainly, we are digging the pond down. There is not going to be a huge bank behind your property. It is really just the southeast corner that is going to have a little bit of berm. Brashears: It is not intended on holding water, it is supposed to drain it off almost immediately, it is meant to surge and dissipate? It isn't going to be fountained or anything like that or it's not going to be a mosquito hazard? Brackett: It should be dry whenever it is not raining. Bunch: A quick recap on how a detention pond works on post and pre -development flows and it's function? Casey: The city's requirements are that the developers cannot increase the peak flow off of their site during any rain event so they design these ponds to where when they have a storm event the water is held back and it is basically throttled back through Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 13 the outlet structure to where there is not an increase and the pond itself holds that excess back and releases it at the rate that it was before so that is the function. It is just temporary and it drains out over time. Again, it is sodded. That will help with any pollutants, it will help filter it before it gets to the pipe to discharge. The small concrete trickle channel in the bottom, the pond will be graded to that channel so it will go through the sod, onto the concrete and that will eliminate the standing water in the bottom that causes mosquito problems and any health hazards. Brashears: We briefly got to look at the schematic of it or the lay out of it. I couldn't really tell is this going to be a secured site with a fence around it? I saw what may be shrubbery or something fuzzy around the west end of it that looked like it might have been landscaped in some form or another. Brackett: That is a gravel access drive to get to the manhole that is in the back. We currently don't have any plans on fencing it. I don't know what the fencing requirements are going to be for the duplexes themselves if the owners are going to require that they be fenced. Your property has an existing privacy fence and I believe it is sod along the north line of the subdivision. Brashears: Will the city be in charge of or whoever be in charge of maintaining that easement back there? I have been occasionally mowing right outside of it so I can open the door and have somebody come in if they needed to. Casey: That will be the responsibility of the property owner's association that will be established with the development of this subdivision. They will maintain the detention pond. Brashears: Do we have a determined size of the duplexes square footage wise or is it still up in the air? Brackett: I know that they are I think it is 1,200 sq.ft. on each side. It is a master suite and two small bedrooms to kind of deter the college tenants. Brashears: That's the important thing. Bunch: Is there anything else Mr. Brashears? Brashears: I think that is probably all of my questions. Bunch: Ok. Is there anyone else who would like to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for questions, comments or motions. One question I have is the turn around, has the Fire Department checked on the hammer head, is that sufficient radius? Casey: Yes. They provided comments at the time of Plat Review and it was acceptable for them and also the Sanitation Department. Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 14 Bunch: We have a waiver request for the length of the cul-de-sac. Commissioners, are there any questions or comments? Ostner: I was just trying to find where is the 8% mitigation tree planting? Oh, excuse me, it's in the escrow account. That's right. Bunch: Since there are waiver requests this one will have to go to the full Planning Commission. Do I hear a motion to forward it? MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we forward PPL 03-15.00 to the full Planning Commission. Ostner: I will second. Bunch: I will concur. Osmer: I do have one question. Are you all aware of the 24' allowance for a street of this size? Brackett: Yes we are aware of it. I don't know that that is an option due to the fact that it connects. Casey: They are providing for connectivity to the east. Ostner: It might be serving more in the future, ok. Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 15 FPL 03-07.00: Final Plat (Clabber Creek Phase I, pp 322 & 283) was submitted by Christopher Brackett of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of BMW Investments, LLC for property located north of Mount Comfort Road and north and west of Holt Middle School. The property is zoned RSF-4 Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 40.67 acres with 109 lots proposed. Bunch: Chris, why don't you keep your seat and we will move onto the Final Plat. Brackett: I apologize for being late. We shuffled the schedule because some of the times that were sent out were different than what was in the newspaper so we started at the bottom and are working our way up. The next item on the agenda is FPL 03- 7.00, which is the Final Plat for Clabber Creek Phase I submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of BMW Investments for property located north of Mount Comfort Road and north and west of Holt Middle School. Suzanne, will you give us the staff report on this one please? Morgan: Yes Sir. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 40.67 acres with 109 single family residential lots proposed. Lot 110 is the detention pond, Lot 111 utilized for a Pump Station, and Lot 112 is the dedicated Park land. The request is to approve the final plat for Clabber Creek Phase I to allow for the sale of lots. The preliminary plat for this subdivision was approved on May 13, 2002. The property is located north of Holt Middle School. Other uses are primarily single-family residential or agricultural in nature. Rupple Road (90'), Mount Comfort Road (45'), all interior streets are to be dedicated as right of way. Rupple Road, classified as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan, has been extended to the north with the required 90 feet of right-of-way with this development. A 10 -foot trail is also being constructed along Rupple Road on the west side, in addition to the six-foot sidewalk required on the east side. Interior streets are built to Local Street standards, with the exception of Morning Mist Drive, which is classified as a Collector Street, six- foot sidewalks, to City Code. Staff is recommending approval of FPL 03-07.00 at the Subdivision Committee level with the following conditions of approval: Dedication of right-of-way for Rupple Road (90'), Mount Comfort Road (45' from centerline) and all interior streets to the subdivision (varies, see plat chart) shall occur with final plat approval. 2) The final plat Mylar shall reflect the Rupple Road and the Mount Comfort Road right-of-way dedication. 3) Deed for parkland dedication shall be filed and submitted to the Parks Department prior to final plat application of signatures. 4) Sidewalk construction shall be in accordance with the Master Street Plan and Chapter 171 of the Unified Development Code to include a minimum four foot sidewalk with a minimum six foot greenspace along Riverbend, WaterWay, Wood Duck, Edgewater and Hidden Creek Drives. Six foot sidewalks a minimum of 10 feet from the curb shall be constructed along Morning Mist Drive, Mount Comfort Road and Rupple Road. A 10 -foot trail, 14' feet from the curb shall also be constructed along Rupple Road. All sidewalks shall be constructed or guaranteed prior to final plat application of signatures. 5) Tree preservation mitigation fees shall be paid into the tree fund in the amount of $34,650 prior to signing of the final plat. 6) Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 16 Access from shall have a floodplain. individual lots shall be limited to interior streets only. 7) All lots minimum of 6,000 square feet of buildable area outside of the For those lots within the 100 -year floodplain, a Floodplain Development Permit in addition to the required Grading & Drainage permits shall be required prior to grading of said lots. 8) Rupple Road bridge assessment in the amount of $19,740.00 shall be paid prior to filing of the final plat. Items nine through eleven are standard conditions of approval. Bunch: Ok, thank you. Matt, are there any additional engineering comments? Casey: Yes. We need to add to the plat a note about the maintenance of the detention pond. I couldn't find one on here. All of the other notes required are on here. I see that that one isn't. Also, we have had some concerns that have come up recently with drainage easements in between lots for the overflow swales. If we could also add a note limiting or somehow addressing that the channel for the overflow swale cannot be filled in or altered between lots 14, 15, 8 and 9, 27 and 26, and 41 and 42. I have recently run across some cases where these were designed in this way where people have put fences in there and totally filled in the swales to where they aren't there anymore. Brackett: We don't have swales. We are using pipes and inlets for the 100 -year. Casey: I'm sorry. I was under the impression that that is how this was constructed. Disregard that comment, I'm sorry. The care for the maintenance pond, if you could include instructions for that and establish that maintenance of that is the responsibility of the P.O.A. Brackett: Ok. Bunch: Matt, do w need to add on note seven of the plat the conditions of condition of approval number seven. It calls for grading permits and it doesn't require a floodplain development permit, does that need to be noted on the Final Plat? Casey: That will be a part of the formal grading permit. It could be added in addition to that and would be part of that procedure. Bunch: I guess so that the people that are purchasing these lots may not speak that language and add that little note in there it would be a lot more clear to a potential purchaser Are there any additional tree comments or Parks comments? Ohman: Yes. The park land dedication aspect of this project was handled administratively due to a large donation by Mr. Mathias. He will be donating a total of 37.74 acres to the city in lieu of all park land dedication. We have received the donation for the southern portion, from the southern portion of Clabber Creek for 19.15 acres. Chris, we spoke that this has been altered due to the detention pond moving or growing in size, is that correct? Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 17 Brackett: We are back to the boundary that was shown on the Preliminary Plat. That is what we show right here. The boundary on this plat is what was dedicated. Ohman: So it has been maintained then? The actual property line for the park land has not changed? Brackett: No. Ohman: Ok, then we have what we need for this phase, that's great. Bunch: Could you give us a quick description as why the park land that is shown on this drawing is a long thin one, is that to tie into the Clabber Creek trail system? Ohman: Yes Sir it will. The Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trails Master Plan calls for a trail system along Clabber Creek. There will be an additional dedication on the northern side of Clabber Creek that will make up the 37 plus acres and will tie into I think it is the Salem Village park that also runs into Clabber Creek and will make up the entire trail system along Clabber. Bunch: Sometimes when you see a long, narrow one like this people say well that's not much of a park. It is part of a bigger system. Ohman: It will connect into several other parks located along Salem Road. Holcomb Elementary, Gary Hampton softball complex, there are several parks along that road. Bunch: Thank you. Chris, can you give us any additional comments that you might have before we take public comment? Brackett: I don't have any additional comments. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone who would like to address us on this particular issue of Clabber Creek Phase I Final Plat? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for comments. Remember when we do get to the motion stage we can approve it at this level so we need to have the additional comments as part of the motion. Ostner: I have a question for staff. On condition of approval number four, Suzanne as you were reading this, I was reading on the third line a minimum 6' greenspace, you mentioned a minimum 5' greenspace. Morgan: I apologize, I didn't read it correctly then. Ostner: That's not a problem. I wanted to make sure what we were talking about. Bunch: One question on lots 86 and 87, I guess it's necessary to note on the plat that they cannot access from Mt. Comfort Road since there is a sizeable right of way and Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 18 sidewalks? Brackett: It's on there. Bunch: What about 86? Brackett: I'm sorry, that's a typo, that should be 86 and 87. Bunch: Ok. Do I have any motions? Ostner: I would but I can't phrase our additional condition on the maintenance of the detention pond by the P.O.A. Bunch: Per Matt's comments. How would you want him to phrase that? Casey: Just need to add a note to the plat for maintenance of the detention pond. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve FPL 03-07.00 with the addition of a condition of approval to read the maintenance of the detention pond be put under the charge of the Property Owner's Association. Church: I will second it. Bunch: I will concur. Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 19 LSP 03-49.00: Lot Split (Green, pp 243) was submitted by Sharon Green for property located at 4369 Weir Rd. J The property is in the Planning Area, with a request to split the 5.63 acre lot into two tracts of 1.05 acres and 4.58 acres. Bunch: The next item on the agenda, we will go back to item number one, which is LSP 03-49.00 submitted by Sharon Green for property located at 4369 Weir Road. The property is in the Planning Area. Suzanne, can you give us the staff report on this one? Morgan: Yes I can. This request is to split the 5.63 acre subject property into Tract A and Tract B of approximately 0.86 and 4.29 acres. The remaining 0.48 acres is to be dedicated with the Lot Split filing. There is an existing residence and shed on Tract A. There are no existing structures on Tract B. The surrounding properties are in the Planning Area and are Single Family Residential. The 0.86 acre Tract A contains an existing septic system, dating to the 1960s. A letter from the Washington County Health Department (see attached) verifies the system is in working order and adequate for this site. Tract B proposes to utilize an individual septic system, as well. Weir Road is classified as a Local Street on the City of Fayetteville's Master Street Plan and requires 30' right-of-way from centerline. The right-of-way dedication shall be made to Washington County. Staff recommends approval at the Subdivision Committee level with the following conditions: A minimum of 30 feet from centerline of Weir Road shall be dedicated for right-of-way to Washington County with lot split approval. Certification and dedication block shall follow Washington County standards. 2) County approval is required prior to recordation. 3) A 20' utility easement on the west property line of Tract B shall be granted pursuant to utility representatives' request. Item four is a standard condition of approval. Bunch: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you would come up and have a seat. Matt, are there any engineering comments in addition to what has already been stated? Casey: As Suzanne said, they have provided a letter from the Washington County Health Department. Sanitary sewer is not available in this area and they will be utilizing existing septic system for the existing house and they will have to have approval for a new system for tract B. Bunch: First off, I would like to thank you all for being patient and waiting. Since this is an item that we could rule on at this level we wanted to make sure that we covered the error in the mail outs that called for 9:30 so I took items first that we knew that we had to forward to the full Planning Commission and this way it gives people time to make adequate public comment. Ms. Green, could you introduce yourself and tell us what your project is? Green: I am Sharon Green. Basically the project is we're just splitting the property. My sister and I, she is taking the acre and the house and I'm taking the rest. It is just a family split property. Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 20 Bunch: Ok, at this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for comments, questions or motions. Are you in agreement with the conditions of approval? Green: Yes. Church: I don't have any questions. I will make a motion that we approve LSP 03-49.00 with the four conditions of approval. Ostner: I will second. Bunch I will concur. I guess now you go through the County. Good luck. Sony to make you wait so long for something that didn't take any longer than that. Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 21 LSP 03-46.00 Lot Split (Copher, pp 396) was submitted by Vance Copher for property located at 6460 Double Springs Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains 0.82 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of 0.33 acres and 0.21 acres with 0.28 acres dedicated right-of-way. Bunch: The next item on the agenda is also a Lot Split. It is LSP 03-46.00 submitted by Vance Copher for property located at 6460 Double Springs Road. This property is in the city I'm assuming since it's zoned RSF-4? Morgan: The subject property is in the Planning Area for the City of Fayetteville. I have to apologize, I didn't write this report. In the report surrounding zoning it says the subject property is in the Planning Area of the City of Fayetteville. Bunch: Ok, so we need to disregard the zoning comment in the introduction where it says it is zoned RSF-4? Morgan: Yes. Bunch: Ok. Well now that we have sort of introduced this, do you have the staff report for us Suzanne? Morgan: Yes. The request is to split the 0.82 acre lot into two tracts of 0.33 acres and 0.21 acres. The remaining land area is to be dedicated as right-of-way with lot split approval. Currently a single family residence is located on the proposed Tract B. This home is proposed to remain. The proposed Tract A is currently vacant, with a residential dwelling planned. The subject property is in the Planning Area of the City of Fayetteville. Surrounding land uses are Single Family, Two -Family Residential. The existing home currently has an individual septic system servicing the residence for the parent tract of 0.82 acres. The existing septic system has been reviewed and approved as adequate by the Washington County Public Health, as required by ordinance. An additional septic system is proposed for the split Tract A, as well. The applicant has submitted the proper Arkansas Department of Health County approval for individual septic systems for the proposed lots. Right-of-way for Double Springs Road requires 45 feet from centerline dedication (a minor arterial) as indicated on the plat. To the west of the site is John Miller Road, a local street with a 25 feet from centerline right-of-way dedication requirement. Certification and Dedication signature blocks need to be added to the plat to fully satisfy the requirements to dedicate the required right-of- way to Washington County. Double Springs Road is a Minor Arterial and John Miller Road is a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. Staff is recommending approval of LSP 03-46.00 with the following conditions: 1) Double Springs Road (County Rd 880) and John Miller Road (County Rd 4712) required right-of- way dedication shall occur with the filing of the plat. 2) The applicant shall provide the correct Certification and Dedication blocks on the plat in order to properly dedicate the required right-of-way. 3) Washington County approval shall be obtained prior to filing of the lot split. 4) No portion of any structure Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 22 shall be built over any public utility easement. 5) The existing septic system location shall be indicated on the plat. Item six is a standard condition of approval. Bunch: Thank you. Matt, are there any additional engineering comments? Casey: Just like the last Lot Split we saw. Sanitary sewer service is not available but they have provided letters from the Arkansas Department of Health stating that the existing system is functional and will work on the .21 acres and that a system has been approved for the .33 split area. Bunch: During this process was it located and can it be shown on the drawing? Casey: They have shown a note here showing the area for the existing and proposed septic system. Bunch: Is the applicant present? Is anyone here representing this Lot Split for Vance Copher. Since we don't have an applicant present to answer any questions I guess we can either forward it or table it. Usually these are fairly straight forward but since this one has considerable right of way dedication and you might say it's giving up a third of it's property in right of way dedication I think we need to make sure that the applicant is aware and in agreement. Normally we would handle these items at the Subdivision Committee level. The only reason for sending one of these, since there are no waivers, the only reason would be to save time. I would entertain a motion either to table and bring it back to this level or to forward it to the full Planning Commission. I don't know what the agenda for the Planning Commission is if it's quite lengthy. Osmer: Suzanne, do you know anything about the applicant? Morgan: I don't, I didn't handle this item. Thomas: This item has been in the process a little longer than a typical lot split due to the size of the lots and the septic system requirements. Casey: As far as the agenda for the Planning Commission, we will see the Copper Ridge and the New Castle Estates. Bunch: We don't know what rezonings and Conditional Uses and those items that would come up. Church: If we tabled it it would be to the next Subdivision Committee meeting, is that correct? Bunch: That is correct. It would be a difference in about three days. It wouldn't be that great of a time penalty, the difference between a Monday and a Thursday. Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 23 Casey: Bunch: One thing you might consider is if it's difficult for the applicant to be here during the day and maybe that's why they missed the meeting today. Why don't we defer to staff on this and if that is the case, the reason they were unable to show up then we can forward it. If the applicant has difficulty coming to this meeting I think we could forward it to the full Planning Commission if that would make it easier for them to attend otherwise, I would rather keep it at this level. Thomas: When we do our legal notification, it states that items not approved at this meeting are forwarded to the Planning Commission so we have already advertised it if you do decide to forward it. If you choose to table it and keep it at the Subdivision Committee level we could advertise again. Ostner: Why don't we just table it and if staff gets with the applicant we can put it at our evening agenda at that point. Bunch: I am wondering how to make the motion. What we could do is forward it to the full Planning Commission and if the question of the ability to attend, once that is resolved, then we can pull it from the full Planning Commission agenda and bring it back to this level. We can make a motion with that in mind that this is the proper place to hear this and we don't want to clutter up the full Planning Commission agenda but if it is a burden on the applicant to come to this particular meeting we can accommodate them by having it at the full Planning Commission after business hours. Church: Would we take public comment? Bunch: Yes, we can go ahead and take public comment today. Then we would take public comment again. I guess at this time if there is anyone in the audience who would like to address us on this issue we will take comment on it knowing that it will be deferred to a later meeting. Would anyone like to address us on this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee. MOTION: Church: I will make a motion that we forward LSP 03-46.00 to the full Planning Commission. Bunch: With the proviso of the applicant's ability to attend that it could be pulled from the agenda and brought back to the next Subdivision Committee meeting? Church: Yes. Ostner: I will second that. Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 24 Bunch: I will concur. Is there any other business? Phillips: I am Robert Phillips at 4542 E. Gulley Road and I got notification to be here at 9:30 in the morning. Bunch: All of the notifications that were sent out said 9:30 and we normally meet at 8:30 and we did adjust our agenda to try to accommodate that. On New Castle, that was one of the first ones that we heard because we knew that it had to be forwarded to the full Planning Commission and that way there would be additional opportunity for public comment and also since it is in the Planning Area it also has to go before the County. Phillips: I have some questions, I intend to be at the next meeting but I have some questions. Bunch: Yes Sir. One of the reasons we are here is to take public comment and we did get some good comment on that one. We will revisit item number four on the agenda, PPL 03-14.00 for New Castle Estates to take additional public comment. If you would Sir, please state your name and give us the benefit of your comments. Phillips: My name is Robert Phillips, I live at 4542 E. Gulley Road, which is directly across the street north from the proposed subdivision. We have been there 14 years and have seen a lot of growth out there and I'm sure that we are going to see a lot more growth out there. I have some concerns however. The housing for the most part that has gone in out there in the last ten years has been large acreage high dollar houses. Let me see if I can get this where you can understand it. Where I live it is directly below where they want to build. My house is down here and they are up here. I have a 32 year old pond with a drainage ditch coming across Gulley Road that feeds directly into my pond. Where they are proposing to build is heavy brush and trees and a lot of scrub and a lot of thorns and thistles. One of my main concerns is drainage. If they are going to build ten houses on 13 acres I'm afraid that it is going to pollute my pond and it is a neighborhood fishing hole for the kids. I mean a lot of kids from different homes come over there to fish and do quite well. I am worried about my pond. I am worried about if they are going to build 10 houses on 13.23 acres I'm worried about how big the lots are going to be and how much of this acreage is going to be dedicated to streets and sidewalks. I am worried about septic systems. Bunch: If it will help you any, here is a lot acreage. The smallest one is 1.12 and 1.13. This is a lay out. Your property is right here? This way is north. Matt, while he's becoming oriented on this, how much jurisdiction do we have on drainage and grading issues in the county? Casey: We do not regulate the grading and drainage outside of the city limits. That would be up to the County for approval. Subdivision C September 11, Page 25 Phillips: Bunch: Phillips: Casey: Bunch: Phillips: Casey: Bunch: Phillips: Bunch: Ostner: Phillips: Bunch: Phillips: Bunch: ommittee 2003 This has to go through County approval before it is done? Yes Sir. Basically what we look at is street access. I have some concerns on that too. Right about here going east on Gulley there is a sharp hill. That hill comes over. Where is the dirt road that runs down my property? Is this a road? No, this is. It doesn't look like they're showing the driveway. Are you talking about the gravel road to the north? Yes. It shows your fence line here if that gives you any bearings. That's a private road isn't it? No, it is a county road. It has got a number. It is called Hungate Lane. He is showing Hungate here, well I thought I saw it on here. Oh, I bet it's called out in our packets. That's right. It doesn't make any difference. My point is as people are going east on Gulley Road and they come up over that hill, I'm wondering how they are going to make that safe to turn out onto Gulley Road from that subdivision because that is a very blind hill. Again, that I don't believe is within our jurisdiction. I don't think we get into the grading standards. Mainly just that there are roads and they are built to a certain specification and that all of the lots have access to utilities and to the road. We can limit access to major roads. One of the things that is done on this one is this lot and this lot have to access from the interior streets. They cannot access from Gulley Road. This lot down here will by necessity have to access from Gulley Road. That is one of the things in the plan that is minimizing the number of curb cuts on Gulley Road. That brings up another concern that I have. If they are going to build this thing, and I'm pretty sure they are, eventually Gulley Road is going to have to be widened to four lanes. It is a major cut through from Goshen to Springdale. It has become a highway. It is going to be hard to make it four lanes with all of those 90° turns in it. Subdivision Committee September 11, Page 26 Phillips: Bunch: Phillips: Bunch: Phillips: Bunch: Casey: Phillips: Casey: Phillips: Ostner: Phillips: Bunch: Phillips: Bunch: 2003 They are going to have to straighten some of those out because eventually they are going to have to make it. We are growing like crazy out there and it is a bad, dangerous road now, especially coming up over that hill. I have been there fourteen years and every winter at least once I've slid out of my driveway because it is shaded on that side of the street and it is the last think to thaw out and we're going to have some wrecks out there. The point I'm trying to make, I don't want to lose my property to widening. If they are going to build this I want it planned in to where they can take off of that site. Right now it is just brush. I was there first. I don't know that that's the way it works. Probably not. What it normally does is it goes from the centerline of the road and it takes an equal amount in each direction. I can go with that. I have seen it not happen that way many times. Most of our roads are built that way. Every once and a while we have one that is built on one side of the existing right of way. What they've done in this case is Gulley Road is dedicated as a principal arterial and it requires the dedication of 110' of right of way total and they have dedicated the 55', which is their half on their side. That will be dedicated as a part of that plat. They are proposing single-family dwellings, not duplexes or anything like that? That is correct. Do you have any idea about the price range we are talking about? They are very large lots. Out there 1.39 acres is not a very large lot. This shows a one mile view. We are showing Gulley Road, I guess you call that East Gulley Road on the Master Street Plan. Of course this one is one the Master Street Plan as well. This portion that doesn't existing eventually will be where the four lane comes in because I don't think there's any way to do it down through there. I don't either but something is going to be done within the next 10 or 15 years, I know it will. I am just glad they're not building a Super Center out there yet. There is a lot of pressure on that area. There is going to be a lot of growth. Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 27 Phillips: Yes there is and I know that if it is done properly that it can help my property value. If it is not done properly it can destroy my property value and I'm worried about that and I'm worried about having ten houses across the street from me when the way the other houses have been built out there people have bought 5 to 30 acre tracts and they have built a home and now we are going to have a neighborhood. I know I'm the only guy here today but all of my neighbors are up in arms about that. Bunch: There were some other neighbors here Sir. One of the reasons that we moved this item up on the agenda is that it does have to go forward. Some of these other items we decide on this level. That way if there is someone who comes in late on public comment it can become part of the record and get forwarded. No decisions were made other than to forward it. These comments that you are making are well appreciated because they are issues that need to be established. We may or may not be able to provide the answers because our involvement on things in the growth area is quite limited. Phillips: When will the next meeting be and where? Bunch: If it falls on the normal schedule it will be Monday, the 22nd. Phillips: I've got that here. Will it be at 5:30 or do I need to show up at 4:30? Bunch: 5:30 is the standard time. The mailing that you received there was a typographical error on it. The meetings are normally at 8:30 and the typographical error said 9:30 and that is why we adjusted to accommodate, just what we are doing right now to make sure that anyone who came in after 9:30 would have an opportunity to speak and get on record. Phillips: Monday the 22nd at 5:30 in this room? Bunch: Yes. Ostner: There are also the county hearings that may have more. Bunch: You can contact Celia Scott Silkwood. I don't know what her number is, does anyone happen to have that? Thomas: It is 444-1724. She is the Washington County Planner. Phillips: I appreciate it. Bunch: Thanks for coming in to share your comments with us Sir. If there is no other business we are adjourned. Subdivision Committee September 11, 2003 Page 28