Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-03 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on March 3, 2005 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 05-1396 & 1397: Hall Approved Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Candy Clark STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Suzanne Morgan Brent O'Neal Subdivision Committee March 4, 2005 Page 2 Anthes: Welcome to the Thursday, March 3, 2005 meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. We have one item on the agenda today; it is LSP 05-1396 and 1397 for Hall. Can we have the staff report please? Morgan: Yes Ma'am. The applicant is requesting approval of two lot splits for the subject property, which contains 203.79 acres. All of this property is currently within the Planning Area and under consideration for annexation and rezoning to RSF-4 by the City Council. The subject property does currently still have several residences located on the property. Portions of the property are expected to be developed in the future while other portions are proposed to remain rural in nature. Public water is available along Dead Horse Mountain Road and access to city sewer is not available at this time in the Planning Area. Dedication of 45' right of way measured from centerline along Dead Horse Mountain Road is required. Dedication for parks however, is not because this property is still within the county. However, at the time of any development of these tracts, if annexed into the city, parks fees will be assessed. Staff does recommend approval of LSP 05-1396 and 1397 at Subdivision Committee level with a total of five conditions of approval. Condition one, a minimum of 45' from centerline of Dead Horse Mountain Road shall be dedicated as right of way to meet Master Street Plan requirements by this plat. Condition two, no structures shall be permitted to encroach into utility easements as well as existing septic systems shall be a minimum of 10' from any proposed property line per ordinance. A note confirming this is the case shall be added to the plat. Condition three, with initial development of the subject property typical street improvements, as determined by the Planning Commission, shall occur for the entire 203 acre tract frontage onto Dead Horse Mountain Road including pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalks, storm sewer and street lights pursuant to City Code. Condition four states that Washington County Planning approval shall be required prior to recordation. That is because this property, as you know, is still within the county. Condition five is a standard condition of approval. Anthes: Thank you Suzanne. Do we have an Engineering report? O'Neal: A couple of items that were asked for at Tech Plat were to show the extents of the 100 -year floodplain that would be extending north across Tract B. The second comment that I have is in regards to a utility easement along Dead Horse Mountain Road. We requested a 20' utility easement. There is one shown but it is part of an existing Southwestern Bell telephone easement. The 20' easement, as requested, needs to be outside that easement. I do not believe Southwestern Bell will freely give us easement. That 20' easement needs to run the entire length of the property outside of the telephone easement. Subdivision Committee March 4, 2005 Page 3 Jefcoat: O'Neal: Jefcoat: O'Neal: Jefcoat: O'Neal: Jefcoat: O'Neal: Jefcoat: O'Neal: Jefcoat: Anthes: Jefcoat: Anthes: The only concern I have there is when we give utility easements normally 20' covers telephone, electric, gas and other people can go into that utility easement. Why would the phone company want a 20' easement all by themselves? That is a Southwestern Bell Telephone easement. That is their easement, they purchased that. If they are happy with sharing the easement with other utilities we just need to get something from them. If you can get some documentation stating that. 1 know that is not normal practice. I know in the past that they have been real sticklers about easements that they have purchased. We will get with them and make sure that we give an additional 20' if they are not cooperative. That could be fiber optic out there and they need 20', I don't know. We will find out. The floodplain ends at the edge of Tract C and B, it doesn't show the extent. I think if you will look at the flood map floodplain is indicated through there and the hatched line, if you will note in the legend, that is one that has been field located by our field crews. They haven't gone across the other portion there. That is just where you stopped when you were locating the floodplain? Yes, in the field. The reason for that is that the proposed future development will only occur on Tract A and C and we didn't change it or try to field locate it beyond that. Would you like to introduce yourself and give us your presentation? I am Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company and I think after explaining the floodplain and knowing what is required for the easement dedication along Dead Horse Mountain Road and I think we are in concurrence, we are in concurrence, with the five conditions that Suzanne pointed out. Would any member of the public like to address LSP 05-1396 and 1397? Seeing none, we will close the floor to public comment. Suzanne, I have a question about procedure here. This property is currently under Subdivision Committee March 4, 2005 Page 4 consideration for annexation and rezoning at City Council. Would you please describe for us anything that would change if we were seeing this now versus after City Council action? Morgan: Certainly. If this property were currently annexed into the City and zoned RSF-4, which is what the applicant is requesting. We would initially review that these tracts meet our zoning requirements. They are large enough and have enough frontage that they would meet any zoning designation that we have. We would also look at parks fees, which would be assessed for the creation of the new Tots in the amount of $555 per additional lot. We would also make sure that water and sewer were extended to each of these tracts. We do ensure that water is extended to each of these tracts within the Planning Area but we would also look for sewer if it were in the city. Those would be the changes if this property was located within the City of Fayetteville. Anthes: You don't see any indications that it would be beneficial for us to hold this until after City Council? Morgan: No. Clark: Most of the things that you talked about would be seen in the Preliminary Plat that would come back to us. Morgan: Correct. If they did subdivide this property with either a PZD in the future or just a subdivision they would have to extend sewer to serve the development and parks fees would be assessed at that time. Jefcoat: We are planning development with water and sewer. The only thing that I could see if it were in the city right now and those things were done would be that you would be losing one park fee because of the Lot Split. Clark: This is all land owned by Mrs. Hall correct? Jefcoat: Yes. Clark: This is not all of the annexations? Jefcoat: No, it is just the Hall family. Anthes: Is there any other discussion? Subdivision Committee March 4, 2005 Page 5 MOTION: Clark: This Lot Split is, in my mind, totally separate from the annexation, which you know I didn't vote for to begin with because of the island issue, although on its face value I can truly see no reason why we can stop a Lot Split from happening, nor should we. For that matter, I will move that we approve LSP 05-1396 and 1397 with conditions as stated including the utility easement with Southwestern Bell to be worked out. Shackelford: I will second. For the record, there are five conditions of approval. We have two fours and we should show for the record that there are five conditions. Clark: We have six now with the comments from this meeting. Anthes: I will concur. Are there any announcements? Hearing none, we are adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 8:41 a.m.