Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-03 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on August 3, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSP 06-2174: (MCMAHON, 292) Tabled Page 3 FPL 06-2149: ( TIMBER TRAILS, 526) Approved Page 6 FPL 06-2154: (CREEK MEADOW SUBDIVISION, 247) Approved Page 11 Subdivision Committee August 3, 2006 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Andy Lack James Graves Alan Ostner STAFFPRESENT Jeremy Pate Jesse Fulcher Suzanne Morgan TREE AND LANDSCAPE DIVISION PRESENT Sarah Patterson PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION PRESENT Matt Mihalevich ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENT Matt Casey MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Subdivision Committee August 3, 2006 Page 3 LSP 06-2174: Lot Split (MCMAHON, 291): Submitted by TIM & JENNIFER MCMAHON/MCMAHON FAMILY LLC for the property located at N. OF TOWNSHIP ST., W. OF COMMON DR. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.91 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 1.55 and 0.36 acres. Lack: Good morning and welcome to this Thursday, August 3rd, session of the Planning Commission Subdivision Committee. The first item on our agenda today is Lot Split 06-2174 for McMahon. May I have the staff report, please? Fulcher: You bet. This is property located on Township Avenue, at 1036 East Township. There's an existing single-family home on the property. It's one of those very large lots. It's nearly two acres, but there's only 100 feet of frontage on Township. The applicants are requesting to subdivide this with the existing home to have 75 feet of frontage on Township and to create a tandem lot with a 25 -foot access easement frontage on Township, which would allow that ... meet the requirement of a tandem lot, at least in this situation provide 25 feet of paveback. That's in this case largely half frontage on Township. The applicants have also submitted a conditional use application for the creation of a tandem lot, which has to be approved by the Full Planning Commission in tandem with this lot split application. Therefore, staff is recommending that this item be forwarded to the Planning Commission in conjunct with the conditional use, with nine conditions of approval, some of which include dedication of right-of- way 35 feet from centerline of Township, which is a collector street, payment of park fees for the new lot at the time of building permit, $960.00, and all the other conditions associated with a tandem lot, and then, of course, the back portion of this property is in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District, and so any development there would have to meet those regulations. That's it for this item. Lack: Engineering? Casey: No comments. Lack: And Tree and Landscape, are there any comments? Patterson: No comment. Lack: Okay. At this time I would take public comment if there is any. Seeing none, I will ask the developer if there is a presentation from the applicant. Seeing no applicant, I'll bring it back to the Commissioners. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2006 Page 4 Motion: Graves: I move to table it to the next Subdivision Committee meeting. I don't think we can forward it without the applicant here; can we? We don't usually do it. Pate: You can. It's up to the Subdivision Committee. This item has to be forwarded to the Full Planning Commission because of the conditional use request, but it's entirely up to this committee. Graves: I'm always opposed to cluttering up the Full Planning Commission's agenda with things when the applicant doesn't show, and the applicant is not here. I have no reason to believe that the applicant would necessarily show up at the Full Planning Commission. I'm going to keep my motion to table. If nobody wants to second it, then I guess it will fail for the second. Ostner: I have a question for staff. Are you familiar ... I mean, do you think the applicant would be aware of this ... of this recommendation by staff and have you spoken with them? Fulcher: The applicant ... the surveyor was at the Technical Plat review meeting, turned in the revisions on time, so ... Ostner: Okay. Fulcher: But, you know, since then we have not spoken with him. Ostner: Is he aware of the Conditional Use tandem item? Fulcher: Yes. It was submitted at the same time that the Lot Split was submitted, so... Ostner: Okay. Fulcher: ... they're aware of both items. Ostner: Do you happen to recall if he's aware that his presence at this meeting is ... Fulcher: I would assume that the applicant, who was at the Technical Plat meeting, is aware that a Subdivision Committee would be required for this item. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2006 Page 5 Ostner: I would tend to agree with Commissioner Graves, that if they're not present here it would make things more complicated if we simply forwarded without any discussion with the applicant at this level. I would second the motion to table. Lack: And I will concur. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2006 Page 6 FPL 06-2149: Final Plat (TIMBER TRAILS, 526 ): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. for property located at 226 HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 26.30 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of a residential planned zoning district with 96 duplex and 15 single-family dwelling units. Lack: So the next item on our agenda is Final Plat 06-2149, Timber Trails. May I have the staff report, please? Morgan: Yes. This is ... this plat is a preliminary plat as Cliffside Development. The zoning is a unique zoning. It is a residential planned zoning district. It allows for 15 single-family detached lots and 48 two-family attached town homes for a total of 111 single-family residential dwelling units. There are several lots for tree preservation within this subdivision is one of the reasons that this was a unique development in that there are several preserved areas and trails that will be connecting both to the north and to the south in the Happy Hollow School District area. The applicant has, as part of this development, extended Ray Avenue, which will give the connection from the existing Ray Avenue to Happy Hollow Road, and the streets are stubbed out for future connection to the east. Staff is recommending forwarding this Final Plat to the Planning Commission with 22 conditions. Typically we do not see Final Plats forwarded, but in this case, after construction of this project, staff was made aware that due to the correct location of a ... locating a transmission pole, the cul-de-sac of Woodsprings Drive ... it's the northeastem-most cul-de-sac ... was offset from the street south of Peppervine Drive. That jog in the street is less than 150 feet and it's not centered, as was approved, and a change like that requires a waiver and Planning Commission approval, so we are attempting to address that at this time and we would recommend forwarding this so that the Planning Commission can determine whether a waiver is appropriate. Staff is recommending approval of the waiver. The street was adjusted to the west due to the interference of the electric pole, and relocating the street to provide the 150 -foot separation would eliminate several lots within the subdivision. There are several other conditions of approval that we would like the applicant to look over and address prior to the submission for revision for Planning Commission. That's ... and there are also several requirements for trails, which are found in the ... in the conditions of approval, as the applicant still has left to build several portions of the trail, but that is near completion. Lack: Very well. Does Engineering have any comments? Subdivision Committee August 3, 2006 Page 7 Casey: Yes. There were some plat review comments that have not been addressed yet. Art, if you would, just take my copy. I've marked on here what we need to see. Scott: Okay. Casey: Some of them are just handicap ramps that need to be shown and finished floor elevations on certain lots. That might simplify things if you just took that. Scott: Thank you. Casey: That's all I have. Lack: Okay. Tree and Landscape Patterson: No mitigation is going to be required for this site. They stayed above their 25 -percent requirement. I would ask that you revise the tree preservation area signature block. The title says, "Parks and Rec representative." It needs to say either "Landscape Administrator or Urban Forester." And then I had a glimpse of the covenants that you've got for these ... or for the subdivision ... and the tree preservation areas, it seemed that they were possibly addressed in the covenants as "common areas," so I thought it might be helpful if you called them on the plat "Tree Preservation/Common Areas" so that it's known that they're POA, and that's really all I have. Lack: Okay. I will open the floor at this time for public comment if we have any. Seeing none, I will ask the applicant for a presentation. Scott: I'm Art Scott with Project Design Consultants. With me is Bruce Kemmet, with our firm, representing the Barber Group on this project. We agree with virtually all these conditions. I think Number 12 is one that is going to be almost impossible. The developer ... this additional 20 -foot section of 8 -foot trail is to connect to The Cliffs, and we could not obtain permission from the Lindsey Group for that connection. Mihalevich: Actually, I have talked to them and they have granted permission. Scott: Oh, they have Mihalevich: I sent an e-mail to ... Scott: That was awfully nice of you to do that. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2006 Page 8 Mihalevich: They've agreed to allow that, so... Scott: Well, thanks. Mihalevich: Yeah. Scott: We will get that done then. Mihalevich: Okay. Scott: Because that really does make this a better development for the whole area, so... Mihalevich: Yeah. Scott: Good. So I guess we don't disagree with that one. Ostner: Problem solved Scott: Yeah. Lack: Okay. Commissioners, any comments or concerns about this plat Ostner: I guess I am a little bit curious as to the field changes ... the shift to the west. I understand it was necessary, but could you elaborate Scott: Yeah. Let me explain how that happened. We had shown ... there's a power pole right there (pointing on document) and we had shown our street and sidewalk pretty close to that, had attended to take the sidewalk up a little bit around it, and when it was under construction SWEPCO didn't want us to change any grading around that pole as far as cutting around it, which we would have had to do, and sidewalk administrator and staff engineer, which was Brent O'Neal at the time, they called us in the office and said, "We need to make a change on this. What can you do" And so we kind of worked out some grading around there that was okay with them, and they said, "Okay, go ahead and do it." And I didn't ... I guess we just didn't realize that needed Planning Commission approval. We felt like from an engineering standpoint, that being a cul-de-sac that's fully developed to the north, you're looking at a very small usage, and it's a very short cul-de-sac, and we felt like from a safety standpoint it was okay and didn't feel like there was an issue with it, but ... so what do you do I guess we need to forward that on in attempt for the waiver on it. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2006 Page 9 Ostner: That's just new to me, how a preliminary plat could change its construction drawings without getting approvals, so ... Scott: You know, I guess we felt like we had approval from the City staff and it was ... from an engineering perspective, I think that's a minor change. Obviously, it's not from a planning perspective. Ostner: I understand. So it's this 150 -foot offset, in our rules, that was being skipped ...that the engineers were being consulted, if I'm understanding it ... the city engineers ... in the making Casey: That's what I understand. Unfortunately, he's not with us anymore and we don't have his ... Lack: Is there a record of that modification? Casey: Not that I have found, no. Scott: No, they just ... they asked us to get a solution that was better from a grading and sidewalk standpoint. Ostner: So has Engineering reviewed ... I mean, I understand it's probably built if you want a Final Plat ... has Engineering reviewed this situation? Casey: It will work as your plan shows and as it's constructed. The ... as Art said, it's a very minor cul-de-sac and the traffic conflicts that could result from that offset are very minor, especially the way it's offset. Your ... normally when you have an offset, you'll have conflicts with your left turns on to those streets. The direction this is offset, you won't have that conflicting movement, so I don't see any safety concerns with that. Ostner: Okay. Lack: I guess ... Ostner: That's fine. Lack: ... part of my concern would be is that ... to kind of honor the process and to make sure that, even though this seems to be a very minor modification, I believe SWEPCO moves poles from time to time when development requires it, and I would have hoped that that would probably have been the modification to maintain the plat. But I think I can concur with Engineering on this one, that while the process to how we got here is a little bit uncomfortable, that we're not creating anything dangerous, and I Subdivision Committee August 3, 2006 Page 10 wouldn't want to make you tear up everything to go forward, so ... Any other comments or a motion? Motion: Graves: I'll move for approval of Final Plat 06-2149 ... well, for forwarding it to the full Planning Commission with the stated conditions ... in support of the stated conditions and in support of a finding in accordance with staff recommendations on the list of Condition Number 1 with regard to the requested waiver for the relocation of the cul-de-sac. Ostner: So I have a question for the motioner recommendation for the waiver request? Graves: Yes. Recommendation in support of it. Ostner: Okay. I'll second. Lack: And I will concur. Pate: Mr. Chair Lack: Yes. Would that be a favorable Pate: If I may ask the Subdivision Committee, would this item be an item that you would like placed on consent for the Planning Commission review? I think that the waiver was the only reason that we were forwarding it on. Lack: I would. Ostner: I'd be amenable. Pate: We'll put that on there. Thanks. Scott: Thank you all for your time. Lack: Thank you. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2006 Page 11 FPL 06-2154: Final Plat ( CREEK MEADOW SUBDIVISION, 247) : Submitted by EGIS ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at SPRINGWOODS C-PZD, LOT 5. The property is zoned C-PZD, COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 30.77 acres. The request is to approve a final plat of a residential subdivision with 47 single-family dwellings. Lack: The next item on our agenda is Final Plat 06-2154 for Creek Meadow Subdivision. May I have a staff report, please Morgan: Certainly. This subdivision is on Lot 5, Springwoods C-PZD. It was approved for development of 47 single-family lots. The applicant has constructed ... reconstructed Deane Solomon adjacent to this property, and the internal streets. We do have a street that will be stubbed out to the north. They will be constructing a temporary cul-de-sac around that. You will need assessments or a proposal for the amount that will be required for completion of that street so that in the future when an adjacent property owner connects into that street they will have some funds to use to complete that street. We will need that prior to Planning Commission review. That is listed in Condition Number 2 of the staff report. In regards to this overall development, there is ... this property is affected by the flood plain, and pursuant to City codes, "All lots shall have a minimum of 6,000 square feet of buildable area outside of the 100 -year flood plain or be platted at a minimum of one acre." I believe the applicant is currently processing a letter of map revision through FEMA in order to revise the floodplain on those two lots to the south of the subdivision to allow them to have 6,000 square feet or more outside of the buildable area, but at this time documentation has ... or, excuse me, outside of the floodplain ... but at this time that documentation has not been provided. Therefore, the lot lines will need to be adjusted to contain a minimum of one acre or document provided or as otherwise determined by the City engineer prior to platting this subdivision. That is listed in Condition Number 1. There are several unique ... unique items with regards to this subdivision in regards to the fencing and the lighting, and the applicant is taking care of those, will be complying with the requirements of the C-PZD in providing lighting that will not be detrimental to the adjacent lot that will be owned by the Audubon. And besides that, we do have several conditions required, or ... excuse me, revisions requested to the plat prior to Planning Commission meeting and we are recommending that this also be forwarded to the Planning Commission, and that's all I have. Lack: Thank you. Engineering Subdivision Committee August 3, 2006 Page 12 Casey: It's just to elaborate on the floodplain issue. What we'll probably see is Lot Number 147 and 48 combined to create one lot in that area, and then after that letter of map revision has been processed, you will see a lot split process to split those back out as you see here. So this is just a temporary measure until that paperwork is done. That's all I have. Lack: And Tree and Landscape Patterson: Yes, I have several revisions. Mitigation is going to be required on this site to bring the tree canopy percentage back to the original 3.34 percent, and that was approved for 155 2 -inch caliper large species trees. They have submitted a tree mitigation landscape planting plan, but there are revisions for that that will be needed. I need a note on the final plat stating that onsite mitigation has been utilized and that a plan has been approved by the Urban Forester, something to that effect that comments on this. A note also needs to be included on the tree mitigation landscaping plans stating a time frame at which the trees will be planted. I think you and I discussed that. Davis: Right. Patterson: The trees along Deane Solomon, I'd like them to be planted ... you know, maybe we can set a date for the next six months or less than, and possibly even those interior, since you have planned them to be on the lot lines. I think that that would be beneficial to the subdivision to have those go ahead and, you know, be planted before the lots get sold. But we need to include a note that's going to specify those times, kind of a method for tracking for myself to be able to track that, and it also needs to state that the responsibility of the trees relies ... falls upon the developer/owner. I'm going to need these revisions, and my comment originally said "before signature of final plat," but I would like these revisions before Planning Commission, obviously. Davis: Right. Patterson: And a three-year maintenance and monitoring bond needs to be submitted to the city for these 155 trees in the amount of $38,750.00. After the three-year term, all trees will be inspected for health. Finding 90 percent or greater in health, the bond will be released. And just one other additional comment you and I discussed, but it's not in my report. The trees along the other side of Deane Solomon need to be moved over on to your property rather than placed on that western side. They need to stay to the east or be placed interior to the subdivision. That's all I've got. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2006 Page 13 Lack: At this time I'll open the floor to public comment on this item. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the applicant for presentation. Davis: I'm Gary Davis with EGIS Engineering and of course we've been in discussions with staff on the issues, primarily the floodplain issue, and our ... we're in the process of getting a FEMA letter of map revision for the fill on those two lots. It could take anywhere from three to six months, according to our storm water engineer. So in the meantime, we'll plat those ... re -plat those as one -acre lots and then we'll come back later and do a lot split per staff's recommendation. We're also working with Sarah on the trees and we'll get that addressed to her satisfaction. I don't know of any other issues. It's pretty straightforward. We'll get an estimate for this work and we can do funds in lieu of construction there, and we'll address the other comments that are fairly minor in nature. Thank you. Lack: Very well. Commissioners Ostner: I have a question for staff. Was the ... the preliminary plat, did it not have the same requirement about the LOMAR and these lands that were in the floodplain? Pate: I believe it did state that in our preliminary plat. Casey: But the hopes were ... was that the process would be ... through FEMA would have been taken place before now, but it just hasn't been completed, so ... Ostner: Right. That's what I ... Casey: That's why we have to go back to the acre lots. Ostner: Okay. And is there a reason that it hadn't been initiated until recently? Davis: Yes. We had to wait until all the final grading was done so we could do an as -built topographic survey of that area to actually show what's actually been filled in there. They want to see actuals and not designed elevations. There was some minor grading going on as recently as two weeks ago in the subdivision, and so we've just recently been able to start that application process. Ostner: Okay. What sort of configuration are we going to see after LOMAR is processed and you all want to split these two lots back away from ... Davis: It will be just as shown here. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2006 Page 14 Ostner: Okay. You plan on the same lot configuration Davis: Yes, sir. Ostner: Okay. Davis: We actually... there is a lot in here that's a non -buildable lot that's Ostner: Yeah, 48. Davis: ... I don't know how the lot is platted exactly, but we'll use part of that for now and then split it back off. Ostner: Okay. Davis: There's no reason to, I guess, to have that size lot when they're buildable areas. Ostner: Okay. A question for staff. If all these ... if these three lots were absorbed as one, would that change any rules or stipulations that this preliminary plat would be following or ... I mean, I understand you all want to come back and make this happen ... just on the off chance they didn't come back and Lot 48 stayed ... the configuration we're sort of granting? Pate: I don't think it would change anything. It would only ... it would simply be reducing two buildable lots and ... that were approved in the overall preliminary plat, so they're not ... it wouldn't be increasing any density whatsoever or increasing the number of lots that were approved on that preliminary plat. So if for whatever reason they decide not to build on the south side of Harrier Drive there, it simply would remain one large lot. They have a couple of options, too. It could become one large lot and process lot splits or it could be two larger lots and just do a property line adjustment at some point in the future or something like that. So there ... I think there are a couple options to get back to what the preliminary plat originally was approved as. Ostner: Okay. Pate: I think it's an issue of timing really, that's all. Ostner: Yeah. What about parks fees? Subdivision Committee August 3, 2006 Page 15 Lack: And that was a question that I had. I thought I understood from engineering that we were going to look at this as ... for the time being, until the letter of map revision, we were going to see it as one lot, and then from the applicant I'm hearing basically looking at making it two lots, incorporating 48 into 1 and 47. Davis: Actually, this has just come up in the last 24 hours, so we haven't had a chance to sit down and determine the configuration. It can be one lot. If there's enough area for two, then we may just make it two. I was just ... Casey: But the requirement is that we have one acre minimum for those lots. Davis: Right. It's got to be one acre minimum Casey: So if that's two lots or if they have to go to one it will ... Lack: Mathematically, it seems ... Casey: ... meet the criteria. Davis: It looks like we have enough area for the two lots, so I'm thinking that it's probably going to be split pretty much in the middle of 48 and have half of it go this way and half of it that way (pointing on documents). Lack: And would there be any reason besides just having an awkward lot to have to come back and re -plat or do a lot split after that Morgan: You mean if they have two lots Lack: They could have two lots and those lots just share part of that unbuildable area. Pate: I don't believe so. We can check back through our preliminary plat comments, but I don't think there is any ... there would be any reason that part of a lot ... Lot 48 is unbuildable anyway, so that's not really changing the status of that, but we can certainly work with the applicant prior to Planning Commission to determine the best way to make that happen. Lack: Okay. And I think that would be helpful, in that we do need to forward it. Pate: Right. Lack: If we can know that that's ... that that's ... everybody is comfortable with that. Any other comment? Subdivision Committee August 3, 2006 Page 16 Graves: Well, I had a question about things like park fees, which we based the calculation on 47 lots, and it sounds like we're potentially reducing two lots off, even though it's temporary. I have a question about doing calculations right now for things like that when it's ... that's not how many lots we have right now. Pate: The parks fees would be based on the number of lots that were platted for residential use per our ordinances, and so whatever ... and actually our ordinances go specifically into that. If a density ... a certain density is approved, but not constructed, it's whatever is constructed. That's the fees that are changed for that. So that would be simply knocked off the ... knocked off the top of that prior to final plat reaccredidation. Ostner: And did this unbuildable Lot 48 come into play when the preliminary plat was approved and was the size of that something that was required or ... Morgan: I don't believe it was required. Ostner: ... anything like that Morgan: I think it's just that this is ... a majority of this is ... you can't build in it, so they didn't want to put it with a lot. That's my assumption. Ostner: Okay. So if these three became two instead of three, which it sounds like is one of the options, that would be no change to the approvals granted at the preliminary plat Morgan: No, I don't believe so. It's just a reconfiguration of that. Motion: Ostner: Okay. Well, I would hope that the ... the open space of Lot 48 would somehow be kept or revisited instead of absorbed into two person's private lots, but that's simply my take on the matter in the future. I would be in favor of forwarding this. I'll make a motion that we forward 06- 2154 to the Planning Commission with conditions as stated. Graves: With a recommendation or not Ostner: Yes, a recommendation for approval. Graves: I'll second it. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2006 Page 17 Lack: There was one minor modification on Item Number 12 to be listed as "to be before Planning Commission as opposed to signature of Final Plat'; is that ... Morgan: You may want to strike 12. I think Number 11 might fulfill that requirement. Ostner: Would the Urban Forester feel comfortable striking Condition 12? Patterson: Yeah. Yeah, keep 11 and strike 12. Ostner: Okay. I'll revise my motion to remove Condition Number 12. Graves: And I'll still second. Lack: And I will concur. Thank you. Davis: Which ...The revisions to the tree mitigation? Lack: Yeah. It was ... Davis: I think they said it was. Okay. Thank you. Lack: Sure. Do we have any announcements? Pate: I don't believe so. Mihalevich: I actually have one announcement. We're going to be doing a groundbreaking ceremony for Clabber Creek Trail on August 16th at 5:30. Here's a little map showing ... just trying to get the word out. We'll be beginning another about .7 mile trail section out near the new bridge at Rupple Road and Clabber Creek Subdivision. It's 40 acres of parkland there that we have, will be building in that, so ... Lack: Wonderful. And this groundbreaking is when? I'm sorry, I missed it. Mihalevich: I'm sorry, what? Lack: I'm sorry, I missed the time. Mihalevich: Oh, August 16th, that's Wednesday, at 5:30, and it's going to be taking place near the new bridge and the new section of Rupple Road they just finished. There's parking along the road and we're going to clear out a place near the creek and do a groundbreaking ceremony. Subdivision Committee August 3, 2006 Page 18 Graves: It's in the middle there. Mihalevich: So it's on there in the middle, the date, ... Lack: Oh, there it is. Mihalevich: ... Wednesday, August 16th, at 5:30. Lack: Great. Thank you. We are adjourned. (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 9:32 a.m. on August 3, 2006.)