Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-30 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on April 30, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSP 04-17.00: Lot Split (Hatcher, pp 406) Approved Page 2 LSP 04-18.00/LSP 04-20.00: (Fitzgerald, pp 398) Approved Page 4 FPL 04-08.00: (Newcastle Estates, pp 179/180) Approved Page 6 R-PZD 04-06.00: (Rupple Row, pp 439) Forwarded Page 8 ADM 04-15.00: (Lot 17 CMN) Approved Page 14 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Loren Shackelford Alan Ostner Christian Vaught STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Craig Carnagey Suzanne Morgan Rebecca Ohman Jeremy Pate Matt Casey Renee Thomas Subdivision Committee April 30, 2004 Page 2 LSP 04-17.00: Lot Split (Hatcher, pp 406) was submitted by Rudy Hatcher for property located at 488 and 510 W. Lawson Street. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contain approximately 0.64 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 0.18 and 0.46 acres respectively. Ostner: Welcome to the April 30`h meeting of the Subdivision Committee of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. There are four items on the agenda this morning. Our first item is LSP 04-17.00 for Hatcher. Can we have the staff report please? Morgan: The applicant for this project requests approval for a Lot Split for the .64 acre subject tract to create two lots of approximately .18 and .46 acres. The property is located on the north side of Lawson which is east of Gregg Street. On April 22, 2002 the Planning Commission denied a Conditional Use request to build a duplex on this lot. Consequently, the applicant obtained building permits for development of two single family homes. Staff had the ability to approve these permits without the Lot Split being filed due to the area and the configuration of the subject property. The applicant is now requesting to split this lot so that these homes could be sold separately should the opportunity arise. Surrounding land use is RSF- 4 and is used for Single Family Residential. Water and sewer currently serve the existing site and there is existing 50' of right of way for Lawson Street. Staff recommends approval of LSP 04-17.00 at the Subdivision Committee level with the following conditions: 1) Any additional development shall comply with the RSF-4 zoning requirements. Staff recommends an additional condition that the existing structures shall be restricted to single family use. There is a standard condition of approval as well. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant here? Would you come forward and introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Hatcher: I'm Rudy Hatcher. Ostner: Do you have any presentation? Hatcher: No. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to comment on this issue? I wilt close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee for comments and questions. Shackelford: This one mile view map is incorrect isn't it? Warrick: Yes Sir. Use the close up map, that is the actual location. Subdivision Committee April 30, 2004 Page 3 Ostner: This new lot will be a single family residence? Hatcher: There is an existing home there. This Lot Split is just for financing purposes. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 04-17.00 with the added second condition of approval to read the existing structure shall be restricted to single family use. Shackelford: I will second. Vaught: I will concur. Ostner: Thank you. Subdivision Committee April 30, 2004 Page 4 LSP 04-18.00/LSP 04-20.00: Lot Splits (Fitzgerald, pp 398) were submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Don Fitzgerald for property located on the NW corner of 51" Street and Wedington Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 1.03 acres. The request is to split the property into 3 tracts of 0.29, 0.29, and 0.45 acres respectively. Ostner: The next item is LSP 04-18.00 and 04-20.00 for Fitzgerald. Can I have the staff report please? Morgan: The applicant requests approval of two Lot Splits for the 1.03 acre tract to create three lots. This property is located west of 5151 Street just north of Wedington Drive. The Planning Commission recommended and the City Council approved a Rezoning for this property from R -A to RSF-4 in April, 2004 and the current zoning requirements to allow for the configuration of the proposed lots. Water and sewer are currently available to these proposed lots. Surrounding land use and zoning are single family as well as institutional for a church with designations of RSF-4 to the north and R -A in all other directions. There is currently right of way on Wedington. However, Wedington is a principal arterial requiring 55' right of way from centerline. An additional 15' needs to be dedicated by Warranty Deed. Staff recommends approval of LSP 04- 18.00 and LSP 04-20.00 at the Subdivision Committee level with a total of five conditions. Of which, parks payments would be due. I would like Rebecca to address that. Also, the owner shall either construct a sidewalk or pay money in lieu according to a determination of the Sidewalk Coordinator at the time of development. The owner shall dedicate easements along the sewer line as well as right of way by Warranty Deed for Wedington Drive for a total of 55' from centerline. Ostner: Thank you. Are there any other comments? Ohman: Yes. There needs to be a correction to the amount of parks fees owed. The number is listed at $1,110. There is a past fee of S 105 owed on the property so the parks fees will be a total of $1,215. Ostner: Thank you. Engineering? Casey: No comment. Brackett: My name is Chris Brackett, I'm with Jorgensen & Associates. I'm here representing the owner for this pretty straight forward Lot Split. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public. Is there anyone who would like to comment on LSP 04-18.00 and LSP 04-20.00? I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee for discussion. Subdivision Committee April 30, 2004 Page S Shackelford: You're in agreement with the conditions of approval? Brackett: Yes. MOTION: Shackelford: This one looks pretty straight forward as well. I will make amotion that we approve LSP 04-18.00 and LSP 04-20.00. Vaught: I will second. Ostner: I will concur. Subdivision Committee April 30, 2004 Page 6 FPL 04-08.00: Final Plat (Newcastle Estates, pp 179/180) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of BMP, LLC for property located on E. Gulley Road near Hungate Lane. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 13.23 acres. The request is to approve the development of a residential subdivision with 10 single-family lots proposed. Ostner: The next item is FPL 04-08.00 for New Castle Estates. If we could have the staff report. Morgan: The applicant for this project requests approval of the Final Plat for New Castle Estates subdivision. The Preliminary Plat for this was approved by the Planning Commission in September, 2003. The subdivision consists of 10 lots and is located in the Planning Area south of East Gulley Road and east of Butterfield Coach Road, an undeveloped road identified as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan. The subject property is surrounded by property located in the planning area and devoted for single family use. Water has been extended to serve this development. The Washington County Health Department did verify that the proposed lots did have soil suitable for septic systems prior to Preliminary Plat approval. Right of way to be dedicated includes a total of 55' from the centerline of East Gulley Road to comply with the Master Street Plan. Castle Rock Drive shall be dedicated with a minimum 50' of right of way. Butterfield Road is a planned street classified as a minor arterial. At the time of Planning Commission approval it was determined that 70' of the total 90' right of way required for this street should be dedicated to the west of this subdivision. Staff is recommending approval of FPL 04-08.00 with 12 conditions including a few changes to the plat to include dedication of utility easements as requested by the utility companies at the time of the Technical Plat meeting on April 14`h, as well as modification to certain signature blocks. In addition, rights of way as indicated on the Final Plat, shall be dedicated with the Final Plat recordation. Covenants shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to Final Plat recordation. In addition, county approval shall be obtained prior to the Final Plat. Addresses for each of these lots shall be assigned by the 911 coordinator prior to development. Ostner: Thank you. Are there any other staff comments? Can the applicant introduce himself and give us a presentation? Milholland: Melvin Milholland with Milholland Engineering. You all are wanting a 15' along here? Morgan: As I read the Technical Plat minutes I believe it was Mr. Boles who requested a 15' utility easement instead of a 20'. Subdivision Committee April 30, 2004 Page 7 Milholland: He was wanting it around this cul-de-sac. I pointed out that we had put quads here and then he asked me to make this 15' here which we did. Morgan: On lot 5 only? Milholland: Lot 5 and then lots 6 and 7 went around the cul-de-sac. He said that this 15' would be adequate here because he is coming up through here and running across there. Initially that's what they were wanting but we have got a water line and irrigation for driveways. I put this in the field after it is constructed so they will go across all that. Morgan: We'll verify that, that's fine. Milholland: You all did get the letter that all the septic systems are approved right? Morgan: That was received prior to Preliminary Plat approval. Ostner: Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this issue, the Final Plat for New Castle Estates? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. Milholland: At this point is it permissible to approve it at this level? Morgan: Staff is recommending approval at this level. Shackelford: How do you want to handle condition number one? I think you made the comment that we would try to concur with the utility coordinator. Morgan: I believe that condition number 10 will satisfy that requirement that all comments are addressed from Technical Plat. Warrick: We can remove condition number one. We will refer this back to the appropriate utilities. The appropriate utilities will have to sign off on the final document anyway so we will make sure that they are satisfied with the utility easement layout. MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve FPL 04-08.00 subject to the removal of condition number one leaving the other conditions as stated and supported by staff. Vaught: Second. Ostner: I will concur. Subdivision Committee April 30, 2004 Page 8 R-PZD 04-06.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Rupple Row, pp 439) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of John Nock of Nock Investments, LLC for property located on Rupple Road, south of Wedington Drive. The property is currently zoned RT -12, Residential Two and Three-family, and RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 41.70 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow the development of a residential subdivision with 180 single family and 39 two-family lots (258 dwelling units) proposed. Ostner: The final item is R-PZD 04-06.00 for Rupple Row. Pate: We actually have one addendum item on the end. I'm sorry I didn't mention that before but just following this we do have one additional item. As you mentioned, this is a Residential Planned Zoning District proposal submitted by Chris Brackett on behalf of John Nock for property located on Rupple Road south of Wedington Drive. The applicant is requesting a rezoning and Preliminary Plat approval for a residential subdivision within a unique R-PZD zoning district. The proposed use of this site is for a neo- traditional development consisting of 182 single family residential dwelling units and 78 two family residential units, which would be on 39 lots. The total proposed dwelling units equals 260 on the 41 acre site. That equals approximately a 6.42 dwelling units per acre density . The site is currently zoned RSF-4 and RT -12 which would allow these uses that are proposed. However, the lot configuration, lot size, setbacks, the access, many of the things that are unique to this development would not be allowed within those traditional zoning districts. Thus, the need for processing a Planned Zoning District. The developer is proposing a subdivision with all accesses and entrances to be from rear allies with dwelling units to be sited up closer to the streets. I believe most of the front setbacks are listed as 5', rear setbacks as 20' to accommodate services as well, and then side setbacks would be none, it is just a 16' building separation. This site is located in west Fayetteville across from the Boys and Girls Club on Rupple Road. Directly to the north is the site that the Planning Commission has approved development for the new Fire Station. To the west is the Cross Keys PZD that was also approved for development there. Tie ins for this development will also tie into the Meadowlands subdivision to the northwest. Access to this development is proposed in all four cardinal directions with two connections to existing stub outs in the Meadowlands. Two new access points on Persimmon Street, which is to be constructed with this development and then one connection onto Rupple Road and one connection into the approved Cross Keys PZD subdivision. Rupple Road is a newly constructed street off of Wedington Drive. The developer of Rupple Road PZD is constructing Persimmon Street east of the Cross Keys development and then coordination with this adjacent developer will eventually complete an improved street connection all the way from Rupple Road to 46"' Avenue. Subdivision Committee April 30, 2004 Page 9 6' sidewalks are required on Rupple and Persimmon at the right of way line. A street tree planting plan, as you will notice in your packets from staff reports, is to be submitted as part of the tree mitigation and landscaping requirements prior to Final Plat. The developer is proposing to construct parallel parking spaces along Rupple Road with tree plantings along there as well. Just as a note, a couple of these don't meet our sight distance requirements, especially the ones flanking Meadowlands Drive. There area couple that are just too close and would eventually pose a dangerous traffic situation. Specifically because Rupple Road is a minor arterial classification so we just need to adjust those or remove them all together. Interior streets are proposed to be 28' wide with sidewalks. Additionally, alleys are to provide the only vehicular access to each lot as well as service. This tract of land is part of an overall Final Plat for WHM Investments. I believe it was also called Meadowlands III. This is Lot 7 of that development. Based on a contract which is also in your packets, there was a total of 81 single family units and 28 duplex or townhouse units to be located on these tracts. This proposal calls for more than that therefore, there is a difference and money is due prior to Final Plat in the amount of $30,443.30 based on both the single family and the two family type use. A Letter of Credit is also due. This item is scheduled to appear before the Parks and Rec. Board on Monday. Staff is recommending that this be forwarded to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval. A couple of items to be discussed at this level are allowed uses in this PZD are limited to Use Unit 8 which are single family dwellings, Use Unit 9 Two Family dwellings and Use Unit 10 three family dwellings. Staff also recommends Use Unit 1, city wide uses by right. That is a permitted use by right in all zoning districts. It allows typically for utility access. Also, the applicant submitting a letter from WHM Investments acknowledging that all the park land banked with the Final Plat is being utilized with this development. I will let Rebecca go over that in more detail. Parks fees or land dedication will be determined as recommended by the Parks and Rec. Board on Monday. Item number four I've already kind of gone over and item five as well. I believe I will leave it for any questions that you may have. Shackelford: What is the definition of a neo -traditional development? I haven't heard that word before. Pate: I will let Mr. Nock explain that a little bit. Nock: Neo -traditional development is kind of a trend that has been going on for the last five or ten years across the country. It basically is more of a pedestrian friendly development where the land use is usually around the city core. In this particular one the city core is already built, it is the Boys and Girls Club across the street. Particularly also you put all of your services in the back. The majority of your homes have porches and front Subdivision Committee April 30, 2004 Page 10 entries. It is supposed to be geared more towards living rather than towards cars, that's why the garages are tucked in the back. Usually it comprises of closer setbacks in the front for interaction. Some of the other things that kind of govern it are walkable streets, narrower streets to slow down traffic. We have actually kept the 28' so we could make it easier for the city. Although, at one time we contemplated them even being narrower than they currently are. Shackelford: What are the anticipated sizes of these homes? Nock: Between 1,500 and 1,800 sq.ft. Camagey: Staff did meet with the applicant regarding the street sections and their design layout and as they are shown right now they do lend themselves to a street tree planting plan. On both sides of the street there is 6' of greenspace and there will be mitigation required as part of some tree removal. The applicant has requested some tree mitigation and as a part of that plan we would just request that that be incorporated into a street tree planting plan that meets the specifications of the city. We did speak to the applicant about this previously and at that time he was agreeable to submitting a comprehensive street tree planting plan. Ostner: Does condition eight cover that? Camagey: Yes. Ostner: Parks? Ohman: Back in 2001 WHM banked 5.37 acres as part of Final Plat 01-7.00. The developer has requested that that 5.37 acres be applied to the parks fees requirements due on this project. However, the amount of units exceeds what has been banked by either 7,482.75 or .33 acres. The applicant will go before the Parks Board on Monday to review this. The applicant has requested that it be money in lieu and the Parks Board will make that recommendation on Monday. If, in fact, the Parks Board does recommend money in lieu a second step will have to be taken and this project will have to go to City Council to approve a money in lieu recommendation as this is a major development. By our ordinances major developments have to dedicate land so a waiver of that will have to be accepted by City Council. Casey: Just for the Commissioner's information, we will be recommending a cost share with this developer to upsize some of the water lines to a 12" line to be able to complete a 12" grid in this area. We will be looking at it on this as well as some future development to the west. That is just something for your information. Subdivision Committee April 30, 2004 Page I1 Ostner: Thank you. At this point if the developers could introduce themselves formally and give us your presentation. Brackett: I'm Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates, I'm here with John Nock and Tim Cooper the architect. Just a couple of brief things, one on the use units. We are also showing other allowable uses will be Use Unit 1, 2, and 24 and we will incorporate that into our covenants. As was said, we will be going before the Parks Board concerning the additional parks fees. I don't believe we have any issue with any of the other comments or conditions. Ostner: Great. At this point I will open it up to the public for comments. Is there anyone who would like to comment on this R-PZD? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Committee. What exactly are Use Units 2 and 24? Warrick: Use Unit 2 is all Conditional Uses. It includes things like Home Occupations and Bed and Breakfasts. Those are anything that is allowable in any zoning district but that requires a Conditional Use. Use Unit 24 is Home Occupation. Nock: You heard a little bit about the neo -traditional side of it. In Fayetteville there are a number of developments that go on that are at a much higher price point. What we are trying to do is a very quality home at the end with a smaller footprint, smaller land use. It incorporates what I think is smart design planning where with the end result you get a good product. I hesitate to use the word affordable because people think that that is cheap but in this case it would be a price point that really fits a demographic that is currently not served well in Fayetteville. We hope that the final product homes will be in the $125,000 to $150,000 range. Right now you have to go out of Fayetteville in other areas or in the County to find that price range. With this point I don't think that you can even find that in the county. We think it is an exciting project. I think not only for first time home buyers but for others that want the convenience that Fayetteville offers. Ostner: I would agree that the smaller footprints and smaller land is helpful because large lots and large houses do get more expensive. I am pretty excited about this project. I think that it has a lot of merit. Changing the front setbacks and restricting the rear access. The parking on Rupple Road I really like. I have been a big believer that we turn these subdivisions inward and we wall them off. That is the case just west of here we have two walls where they meet each other and we drive down the middle. I wish Persimmon could do that too. Subdivision Committee April 30, 2004 Page 12 Nock: We looked at that and what we've tried to do is create pockets. On the front along Rupple obviously we wanted to face the community core, the Boys and Girls Club and we also have plans for additional development out there as well. Along Persimmon because of what is going on next to it we want to put a green buffer rather than just a home front. One of the plans in working with the developer on that is potentially a Par 3 nine hole golf course that would be incorporated with the Boys and Girls Club. That truly becomes the backyard in conjunction with what's already there with the Boys and Girls Club. Normally we would open the whole thing up to street front parking but we had to pick our strategies on that. Shackelford: How many street front parking spaces are proposed along Rupple, do you know? Brackett: Each of these spaces can allow for two cars and we tried to get one space for every house. There is an existing drainage that is running along Rupple on our side of the road that limited us to where we could not and with taking out these two also we are probably going to be short about five. Pate: There are 34 spaces right now. Nock: There are 39 lots along there. The beauty of that is we would intend that for visitor parking only and chances are there aren't going to be 39 visitors at one time. Having 35 is pretty gracious and the residents still need to park in their back. Ostner: You eluded to a drainage issue. I know this plat says there is a floodplain something. Brackett: It clips this property. This is floodplain. This is a greenspace. There are no buildable lots in the floodplain on this plat. Lots 226 and 224 are greenspace. Nock: The majority of this land is fairly blank when it comes to trees and it is mostly scrub vegetation. There are about 8 trees out there. We met with Craig and there is one beautiful tree that we had in our initial plan to try and save right across from the Boys and Girls Club but after his suggestion of bringing in an arborist it was determined that that tree, as magnificent as it is, is pretty heavily in decline and in decay. We've elected then to take some other space and make a little mini -park as well. Unfortunately, that tree has other trees growing out the center of that so unfortunately, we are going to lose that. Brackett: It is more of a safety concern than anything else, especially with it being his close to the Boys and Girls Club. Subdivision Committee April 30, 2004 Page 13 Nock: The limbs are almost hitting the ground in some areas and as a seven year old I would be climbing it and I would hate for something to happen. Ostner: I really like a lot of things about this project. I like how it is feeding into the other developments around. You have the stub outs for the future development. It seems like a good project to me. The density I just wanted to comment on is about 50% above what it is zoned for now so this is a minimal density increase. Brackett: For the whole development as it is zoned currently we could by right develop 301 units. This plan only has 260 units. Even though this is more dense than single family as a whole project we are actually less units than we could legally build at it's current zoning. Vaught: There was a lot of discussion about utilities at Technical Plat, were those addressed? Brackett: We had a meeting with the utility companies and we are going to have a follow up meeting. We are in the process of working that out with the utility companies. With the alleys it presents a unique problem for service for these lots but we are in the process of working that out with the utility companies. Nock: It is a lot more challenging to do this kind of development. It is easier to put in garages in the front. It is a lot less expensive to do that as well but I think the end product for years to come this is probably a smarter investment. MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we forward R-PZD 04-06.00 to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to all staff comments and conditions of approval. Ostner: Do I hear a second? Vaught: I will second. Ostner: I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee April 30, 2004 Page 14 ADM 04-15.00: Administrative Item (Lot 17 CMN) To modify a condition of approval for the approved Final Plat FPL 04-07.00 (Lot 17 CMN II Phase II). Ostner: The last item on our agenda is an ADM 04-15.00 for Lot 17 CMN Business Park II. Pate: On April 15, 2004 this Subdivision Committee approved a Final Plat for Lot 17 of CMN Business Park Phase II with 12 conditions of approval. Condition of approval number one is for a traffic signal assessment at Van Asche Drive and Mall Avenue based on a traffic study supplied by the applicant and rational nexus calculations, this subdivision was required to bear 91.25% of the cost of that future traffic signal. That number ended up being $109,500 due prior to filing the Final Plat. That is stated in your condition there just below the original condition of approval for FPL 04- 07.00. This item is to modify that condition of approval based on some correspondence with the applicant. The modified condition of approval would state the developer shall be assessed $82,125 as payment for equipment and materials for the future installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Van Asche Drive and Mall Avenue. Just a little background for the reason for this item, with the Final Plat of the overall CMN Business Park II, Phase II of which Lot 17 was a part, an assessment was required for five traffic signals within that overall subdivision. The agreement between the City of Fayetteville and the developers of CMN Business Park II was for the developer to provide the money for the equipment and the materials for those signals while the city would bear the cost of installation of the signals as the traffic signal warrants were met. The city collected $150,900 for these five signals. The Transportation Division has indicated a current cost for equipment and materials of a traffic signal to be approximately $90,000. with the 91.25% applied to that for this Lot 17's responsibility that amount is $82,125. This modification does not violate any ordinance requirements. The Planning Commission ultimately makes the determination of an appropriate assessment for offsite improvements for development. Staff recommends that this assessment reflect the conditions of a prior agreement with the CMN Business Park II, Phase II subdivision. Ostner: Thank you. Are there any other staff comments? Commissioners? Shackelford: The cost of a traffic light actually went down? Pate: No, actually it is just the cost, the original $109,500 was assuming the cost of equipment, materials and installation. It is the installation that the city is bearing the cost of. Shackelford: Thank you. Subdivision Committee April 30, 2004 Page 15 Ostner: The developer is paying the same percentage, the overall amount has come down though? Pate: That is correct. MOTION: Shackelford: It seems pretty straight forward. I will make a motion that we approve ADM 04-15.00. Vaught: I will second. Ostner: I will concur. Announcements