Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-15 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on April 15, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSP 04-15.00 & LSP 04-21.00: (Dickerson, pp 396) Approved Page 2 LSP 04-16.00: (Oxford/Drake, pp 204) Approved Page 5 FPL 04-07.00: (Lot 17 CMN Phase II, pp 173/174) Approved Page 7 PPL 04-06.00: (Amber Jane Estates, pp 359) Forwarded Page 11 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Sean Trumbo Alan Ostner Jill Anthes STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Craig Camagey Suzanne Morgan Jeremy Pate Matt Casey Renee Thomas Subdivision Committee April 15, 2004 Page 2 LSP 04-15.00 & LSP 04-21.00: Lot Splits (Dickerson, pp 396) were submitted by Carole Jackson on behalf of Hazel M. Dickerson for property located at 1272 N. Double Springs Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 20.0 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into 3 tracts of 5.0, 10.0 and 5.0 acres respectively. Ostner: Good morning, welcome to the April 15, 2004 meeting of the Subdivision Committee meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. We have four items on the agenda today. The first item is LSP 04-15.00 for Dickerson. Warrick: This is actually two lot splits of a parent tract of 20 acres. The splits will create three tracts of land, 5 acres, 10 acres and 5 acres respectively. The property is located at 1272 N. Double Springs Road. It is in the Planning Area just outside the city limits. There is a 6" waterline existing on Double Springs Road to provide water to the tracts. Sewer is not available as the property is outside of the city limits and they will be able to utilize septic systems. The size of the tracts are the size that they do not require approvals prior to the splits being filed. Property adjacent this RSF-4, R -A and property to the south and surrounding property is located in the county and utilized primarily for single family developments. Right of way is being dedicated to total 45' from centerline along Double Springs Road. In this location that is classified as a minor arterial, which the 45' meets our Master Street Plan requirements. Staff is recommending approval of these two lot splits with two conditions stated. One is referencing the right of way dedication. The second requiring that County approval is granted prior to filing the split. The third condition is standard. That's all I have, we are recommending approval at this level. Ostner: Great. Is the applicant here? Go ahead and introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Jackson: I'm Carole Jackson. This property belongs to my mother. My father is deceased and my mother just wants to split it out between the children. That's what this proposal is. Ostner: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and move it back to the Committee. Are there any comments or questions? Anthes: The geometry of these lots are very long and thin. Do we have any kind of regulation about that and will further splits be allowed on this property? Warrick: Each of these tracts does result in a very long, narrow piece of property. There could be future splits on them. We would expect that future splits would require infrastructure development so that it would have more of a Subdivision Committee April 15, 2004 Page 3 residential block type condition. Each of these tracts does meet the minimum requirements for a lot if it were in the city in the R -A district, which is a minimum of two acres. The one on the north wouldn't have the 200' of frontage but the other two would have adequate frontage to meet that requirement for a tract in the R -A district. They would all easily meet the minimum requirements for a RSF-4 district, which is what the property would likely be zoned if it were brought into the city limits and zoned for Residential Single Family usage, that is 70' of frontage, 8,000 sq.ft. of land area. Each of these is a likely candidate for that zoning should it be brought into the city limits. In the future if there were further development on this property we would look for some type of street development so there could be a reasonable splitting of additional lots in the future. Ostner: The only existing buildings are these right here? Jackson: Yes, there is absolutely nothing else. Anthes: I would just like to ask you if there was some reason that these long linear lots were created. Do you have any future plans for these because they aren't three equal parcels or anything. I just wondered. Jackson: My mother is 81 and this is what she wanted done. This part back here will probably never be built. There are two gullies that go. There is a galley that starts here and goes this way and there is a gulley that comes all the way back here so this part is nothing but gullies and woods. That is just how she wanted to split it. We just say whatever she wants. Anthes: It does meet our regulations? Warrick: It does meet the requirements for city and county lot creations. Jackson: You couldn't have really done it in four like this because of the way the land is back here. It is not really feasible, I think that is probably why she chose to do it that way. Tr umbo: The road access does come up to Double Springs. Jackson: This is just a driveway to a private house and there is nothing back here and nothing back here. MOTION: Anthes: I will move for approval of LSP 04-15.00 and LSP 04-21.00. Tr umbo: Second. Subdivision Committee April 15, 2004 Page 4 Ostner: I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee April 15, 2004 Page 5 LSP 04-16.00: Lot Split (Oxford/Drake, pp 204) was submitted by Audrey Drake for property located at 3531 Wagner Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 4.64 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of 0.75 and 3.89 acres respectively. Ostner: Next on our agenda is LSP 04-16.00 for Oxford/Drake. Morgan: The property is located at 3530 Wagner Road. It is in the Planning Area and surrounded by the Planning Area and contains approximately 4.64 acres. The request is to split this property into two tracts of 0.75 acres and 3.89 acres. Washington County records do indicate two parcel numbers for this tract. This is the first split for this parcel. 60' of right of way was dedicated along Wagner Road for the subject property. Therefore, no right of way is required to be dedicated at this time. Staff is recommending approval of LSP 04-16.00 at this level with two conditions to include approval by Washington County shall be obtained prior to filing the lot split. The second is a standard condition of approval. Ostner: Are there any other staff comments? Is the applicant here? Would you please come up? Oxford: I'm Janet Oxford. Oxford, M: I'm Michael Oxford. We are dividing off a chunk of the acreage to build a house for our daughter and bring her back home. Oxford, J: This property originally is owned by my mother, my father is deceased. Ostner: Everything is built? Oxford, M.: Yes. Being in the county we didn't realize there were different regulations. Oxford, J: United Built Homes built the house and we thought this was done. Somehow they got a mortgage on that 3/4 acre, I don't know how. Oxford, M: That set the project back by about three months and resurveying it twice. We were not really mislead by United Built but they generally build away from the cities out in the middle of nowhere so they don't normally run into these things. MOTION: Anthes: I will move for approval of LSP 04-16.00. Tr umbo: Second. Subdivision Committee April 15, 2004 Page 6 Ostner: I will concur. Subdivision Committee April 15, 2004 Page 7 FPL 04-07.00: Final Plat (Lot 17 CMN Phase II, pp 173/174) was submitted by James Koch of CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Nanchar, Inc. and MSB Properties, LLC for property located at Lot 17 of Steele Crossing. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 18.25 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of this development. Ostner: The next item on agenda is PPL 04-06.00 for Amber Jane Estates. Warrick: This is a Preliminary Plat for the creation of a residential subdivision on 27.80 acres located in the Fayetteville Planning Area. The proposal is for 28 single family lots which range in size from .57 acres to 2.58 acres. The western portion of the property does include some floodway and floodplain as well as steep slopes which create the need for the larger sized lots. This property is located west of the Fairfield Subdivision on Sunshine Road. It is adjacent to the Fayetteville city limits. The developer plans to build this subdivision in two phases with the second phase to incorporate lots 23 through 27. There is right of way being dedicated for Sunshine Road, which is classified a principal arterial requiring 55' of right of way from centerline. Also, Jess Anderson Road has a requirement f 35' of right of way. With regard to connectivity, the applicant does propose to stub a street connection south to provide for future development of vacant property. The developer will be improving Jess Anderson Road with Phase II of this subdivision. As I mentioned, there is right of way being required for adjacent Master Street Plan streets. Staff is recommending forwarding this Preliminary Plat request to the full Planning Commission with several conditions of approval. There are thirteen stated. Some of the items that the Planning Commission will need to address are first that we will need to see a formal Lot Split to create the parcels that the subdivision is being created on and would like to process that prior to construction plans being accepted for the subdivision. Second, Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff does recommend that Sunshine Road and Jess Anderson Road be improved to a minimum of 14' in width with curb, gutter and 6' sidewalks. That is basically the half of the street that adjoins the development. Jess Anderson Road should be improved to meet Washington County standards on the north side and Jess Anderson Road improvements are to occur with the development of Phase II. Item three, all street improvements for the interior streets within the subdivision shall meet City of Fayetteville minimum street standards including 6' sidewalks located at the right of way line along Jess Anderson Road and Sunshine Road. 4' sidewalks constructed at the right of way line on both sides of all interior streets. We mentioned the dedication of rights of way for Sunshine and Jess Anderson. There will be an 8" water line extension along Jess Anderson to serve lots 24 through 27. We also would like to address access to lots 23 through 25 stating that those should be through a common drive with a permanent access easement between lots 24 and 25 prohibiting all other access to Subdivision Committee April 15, 2004 Page 8 those lots. What we are trying to do, of course, is to cut down on the number of curb cuts on the arterial street. Lots within the subdivision shall not be allowed direct access to Sunshine Road. Again, this is for the same reason. All minimum floor elevations should be at least 2' above the water surface elevation and Washington County Planning approval is required. All other conditions are standard conditions of approval. Ostner: Thank you. Are there any other staff comments? Casey: No Sir, the conditions of approval have covered all of my concerns. Thank you. Ostner: Thank you. Could you introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Jorgensen, J: Sure, my name is Justin Jorgensen with Jorgensen & Associates. The project is located south of Jess Anderson Road and west of Sunshine Road. We are developing 27 lots with a minimum of .5 acres to 2.5 acres, all using septic systems and water will be from the City of Fayetteville. Ostner: Do you have an issue with any of these conditions? Jorgensen: I agree with all of them. Ostner: Before we get into discussion I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone from the public who wants to comment on this issue? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. The first item I wanted to just mention I guess, I'm sure this is a typo on condition two. Jess Anderson Road to be 14' in width, I'm sure they aren't going to build 14'. Warrick: Their improvement would be to ensure that there is a 14' section form the centerline. We can modify that condition when it goes forward to the Planning Commission to make it a little more clear. Ostner: They are only building half of it is what I'm trying to say. Ostner: Yes. Trumbo: Where does this road end up? Jorgensen, J: This comes out on Wedington. Warrick: It becomes 51" Street a little bit south of this and it basically connects Mt. Comfort and Wedington, it winds around a little bit. Subdivision Committee April 15, 2004 Page 9 Anthes: It seems to me that we are loading the majority of the capacity onto this road during Phase I and yet street improvements wouldn't be required until Phase II. Warrick: The improvements to Jess Anderson would be with Phase II, that is the road to the north. Phase II is lots 23 through 27. Anthes: Ok, I got the roads confused. Sunshine Road would be with Phase I? Warrick: Yes, that would be required with Phase I. Trumbo: What size homes? Are you planning on selling lots or building homes as well? Jorgensen, J: Selling them, I believe they will be 3,000 sq.ft. homes. Anthes: For connectivity to the south, what is the length of this road? Ostner: Do you know the owners to the south or are there any plans for development? Jorgensen, J: Not that we are aware of. Warrick: It is about 1,330 feet. Anthes: What is our longest allowed? Casey: We don't have standards for that. We have lengths for cul-de-sacs but this is planned to be extended in the future. Anthes: A cul-de-sac is 500'? Warrick: Or 1,000 in hilly topography. We do allow for longer dead end streets or cul-de-sacs when the topography is determined to be "hilly". In this location I think that would probably qualify. We have requested, and they are providing a temporary turn around until that street continues. That will allow for service vehicles and anyone else needing to access these southern lots to be able to turn around on the streets to exit should they need to do that, which they will because there is nowhere else to go. Anthes: In the city limits what's the maximum length? We just had this the other night. Warrick: A residential block length is 1,400 feet. Ostner: A residential block length is measured from the nearest intersection. Subdivision Committee April 15, 2004 Page 10 Warrick: Generally yes, because the other block would be at that point to the other direction. We are going to be real close to that, it may still exceed it slightly if you measure from that cul-de-sac. Those particular regulations we don't have specifics because it is in the planning area Casey: Since this is next to the city limits we are also extending our minimum street standards and water requirements. Normally in the Planning Area we will look at water only and then the lot configuration but since this is next to the city limits we are also extending our street requirements as well for the street construction itself. Warrick: We do have a statement for the Planning area for dead end streets, and it is 500'. Since this does have an extension to the south it would be a temporary but it does exceed that. Ostner: Would that require a waiver? Warrick: Let me look at that a little bit more. We will phrase it properly in the condition as we bring it to the full Planning Commission. I think that for this particular location it is important to look at how we would be able to, if we did require, a connection, if it would be feasible and reasonable, with this layout or this particular topography that we are dealing with. We will ensure the proper terminology on that condition. It may require a waiver on the length. Anthes: My only comment on that would be that there would be a different way out if Phases I and II were reconfigured because you could go out on Jess Anderson Road. With the applicant stating that they didn't know of any plans in the near future to develop to the south then I am concerned about that street length. Ostner: Is this street built? Jorgensen, J: I believe it is in the process. Fairfield Subdivision to there to the east and that is in the process of being built. MOTION: Anthes: With staff s reworking of the verbiage on the streets I would move that we forward PPL 04-06.00 to the full Planning Commission. Tr umbo: Second. Ostner: I will concur. Subdivision Committee April 15, 2004 Page I1 PPL 04-06.00: Preliminary Plat (Amber Jane Estates, pp 359) was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of PBS of Fayetteville for property located at the SW comer of Sunshine Road and Jess Anderson Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 27.78 acres. The request is to allow for the development of a residential subdivision with 28 single family lots. Ostner: Our last item is FPL 04-07.00 for Lot 17 of CMN. Can we have the staff report please? Warrick: Lot 17 of CMN, also called Steele Crossing contains approximately 18.25 acres. This is a request to approve the Final Plat. The subdivision consists of five lots on the original Lot 17 and excludes lots 17a and 17b which were already approved through lot splits. Those projects are of course, the constructed Olive Garden Restaurant and the approved Marriott Courtyard. Lot 17C was previously approved through a lot split but also for the Smokey Bones restaurant. 17D was also approved for the Red Robin restaurant. The remaining lots are vacant and have not brought development proposals through. Van Asche Drive, a collector street, was extended into lot 17 to serve the lots created with this Preliminary Plat. A future extension of Van Asche Drive to connect eastward to Shiloh Drive was removed from the Master Street Plan. Therefore, all traffic from the approved and additional developments created by the subdivision will be traveling through the intersection of Mall Avenue and Van Asche Drive. Staff is recommending the developer of Lot 17 be assessed for a traffic signal at this intersection based on projected traffic numbers from a supplemental traffic study that we requested at the time of Preliminary Plat for Lot 17. I will talk a little bit more about that as we get to the conditions. With regard to surrounding land uses, property in this area is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R -O, Residential Office. Surrounding land uses include the Olive Garden, the approved Marriott Courtyard hotel, which has not been constructed. Vacant lots, West Mud Creek, a trail and dedicated tree preservation area to the north and Hwy. 71B to the east. Water has been extended with 8" water lines, sewer also with 8" lines to serve these lots. Tree preservation, there was an existing 20.4% existing canopy. The requirement is 15% and the applicant has preserved 16.2%, therefore, no mitigation is required for this project. Right of way being dedicated is for Van Asche Drive which requires 70' and is a collector street. Van Asche Drive again, was approved and constructed with a cul-de-sac configuration as shown on your plan for access to this development, a 28' street with 6' sidewalks on both sides is the configuration. Staff is recommending approval of this Final Plat at this level with 12 stated conditions. Condition one, as I mentioned, staff is asking the Planning Commission to determine an assessment for a future traffic signal at the intersection of Mall Avenue and Van Asche Drive. Staff recommends that the developer be assessed $109,500 for the future installation of said signal based on projected traffic volume generated by the subdivision and subsequent development of Lot 17. There is a memo Subdivision Committee April 15, 2004 Page 12 attached. 2) The developer shall coordinate with the Transportation Division to re -stripe Van Asche Drive on the west side of Mall Avenue, to allow for through traffic onto the new Van Asche Drive extension. Right now it is striped with arrows in either direction because there was not an option for a through street passage. 3)The associated easement vacation between lots 17E and 17F shall be approved by City Council prior to filing of the Final Plat. Should the vacation be approved, the plat shall reference the appropriate ordinance number. That item is scheduled to go before the City Council on Tuesday. 4) Cross access between each lot shall be required with future development. We just wanted to emphasize that is the criteria for Commercial Design Standards. We also felt that that was important to emphasize on this particular subdivision. 5) No additional curb cuts onto Van Asche Drive other than those indicated on the plat within a shared access easement shall be allowed without Planning Commission approval. For those lots on the cul-de-sac, one curb cut per lot shall be allowed. 6) Van Asche Drive shall be dedicated as a public street at the time of Final Plat recordation. 7) Those lots fronting the West Mud Creek trail shall provide visual and physical pedestrian connections at the time of development. 8) The following comments from Technical Plat Review shall be addressed and the Final Plat resubmitted to Planning for review prior to signatures being applied: Include a note addressing the maintenance responsibility for the detention pond.; Add a note stating that all retaining walls must be set back a minimum of 2 feet from the ROW.; Add the total linear feet of sidewalks and streets in a chart on the plat.; Show the streets, sidewalks, and outline of the detention pond on the plat. All other conditions of approval as stated, are standard conditions. Ostner: Thank you. Do we have any other staff comments? Casey: I will just touch on the assessment. You've got the memo in the packet. The volumes that were listed here for each of the developments approved on the lot 17 subdivision were taken directly from the traffic study that was submitted by the applicant with the exception of Lot 17F and G. They were omitted from that study but I estimated those based on what was shown for the other lots. We just used a comparable number. The total is 5,475 vehicles per day from that subdivision. We took that number and divided it by the total collector street design service volume to get a percentage of the applicant's portion of the signal cost. The signal cost is estimated at $120,000, their volume is 91% of that to equal $109,500. We need to have the as-builts, construction costs, and maintenance bonds in place before we can sign off on the Final Plat. Ostner: Would the applicant introduce himself and tell us about the project? Koch: Yes, my name is James Koch with CEI Engineering representing the Lot 17 subdivision for Steele Crossing, what was formerly known as the CMN Subdivision Committee April 15, 2004 Page 13 Subdivision. This project is, of course, by necessity. The original tract size for lot 17 was about 22 acres. In order to develop this with the commercial development that was taking place a subdivision was required and the lot configurations that you see are what we anticipate being developed, especially these areas right here. As you are aware of, the Red Robin is 17B and Stookey Bones has started construction on 17C. These remaining tracts will develop soon. This Marriott Courtyard has been permitted but that has been expired, I'm not sure what's going on with that, maybe they have some financial problems or something. Other than that, we expect the lot to develop pretty much as you see it right here. Of course the trail is being constructed at this time. This is just a really nice area for commercial development. The trail is going to provide a pedestrian access across the expressway and it is going to meander around that creek. There are some really nice old trees that are preserved down here and we look forward to getting this thing built so we can start eating and drinking up there. The restaurants that are going in are something that to my knowledge that are not in the state of Arkansas. Smokey Bones is not. Red Robin is not and so we are just really fortunate to have that. Of course, right across the way you've got Fuddruckers and Logan's Roadhouse, two more that aren't in the state of Arkansas right now. Fayetteville has really achieved some unique development out here. Ostner: At this point I will open I up to the public for comment. Seeing no public, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the committee for questions, comments or motions. Anthes: I have a question about condition number five talking about the curb cuts not being allowed other than those shown on the plat with shared access easements, but then it also has another statement that says those lots on the cul-de-sac one curb cut should be allowed. I see these shared access easements indicated on the lots on the cul-de-sac so I'm confused if that is additional or what are we talking about? Koch: A good question. I guess one would be a half. We pretty much have a half a curb cut on each property line. Warrick: The expectation is that there could be one unique curb cut for each development in the cul-de-sac and that they would share access with their neighbor. Koch: The one lot that is not going to receive the benefit of all these others is going to be G. If this tract were to develop without any independent access not shared with anyone it would have to go in somewhere along this stretch. It certainly could not share it here because we have our detention pond in this area. I think that is what is driving the comments Subdivision Committee April 15, 2004 Page 14 from engineering to show it on the plat. They may need an additional curb cut. Anthes: I would like to reword that condition instead of for those lots on the cul- de-sac just for lot 17G one additional curb cut might be allowed. Warrick: Keep the first statement and then the second would be for Lot 17G one additional curb cut could be considered. Anthes: Right because the other ones have clear access with the shared easements that are marked on the plat but I could see that depending on how 17G builds out, it might be reasonable for that one lot to look at a different access. Warrick: For lot 17G one additional curb cut shall be considered at the time of the Planning Commission review. Anthes: Perfect. Koch: When will the $109,000 need to be put up or given to the city? Warrick: Prior to filing the Final Plat. Koch: Do we have any options as to how you receive those monies or how you secure that amount? Warrick: We can look into that. We have done it in a few different ways in the past so let's discuss that and we will try to provide you some options. Koch: I will work with you guys on that or get the attorney for our client. MOTION: Anthes: I will move for approval of FPL 04-07.00 subject to the 12 conditions of approval with the $109,500 assessment and the rewording of condition five. Trumbo: Second. Ostner: Before I concur I just wanted to ask for general interest I suppose, on number seven, provide a visual and physical pedestrian connection at the time of development, what does that mean? Koch: Certainly I think you would need to be able to see the trail so that you would know it was there if you were at a restaurant or something, you'd know that the trail was there. If there is a way for us to provide Subdivision Committee April 15, 2004 Page 15 connection or access from the lots that border the trail I think that whoever the prospective developer is, that's certainly easily done. As far as being able to do that with the developments along the Fulbright Expressway, we added a sidewalk so they could have really good access to the trail along Mall Avenue and if you cross Mall Avenue you can go across the bridge and get on the trail as well. Warrick: Staff's expectation is that developments, especially along 17F and G, because they immediately access and adjoin the trail corridor, will be able to provide either a combined pedestrian access with a sidewalk, or some type of trail leading to the city's trail so that people walking along that trail corridor could come into this commercial development. We also encourage a visual connection because we want people, like James said, to be able to see that amenity. We expect that should additional restaurants develop back here, maybe they put their patio seating in an area that is conducive with that kind of activity. People can walk off the trail and access the development and enjoy the amenities of that trail and tree preservation while they are dining. Koch: It also helps people walking on the trail see the restaurants. Warrick: We don't want to wall it off. We want it to be part of this commercial subdivision. Koch: With the Marriott approval, that was one of the conditions that they have a trail, whenever that development gets under construction they will have to install an independent connection to the trail. I would expect that same condition to apply to anyone bordering a trait throughout the City of Fayetteville. Ostner: I would too. It seems like a good note. There is nothing more infuriating than being able to see something open to the public and you can't get there. Warrick: That trail is actually under construction right now and will be opened sometime this summer Ostner: Are there any other comments? I will concur. Meeting adjourned: 9:12 a.m.