Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-31 - MinutesSubdivision Committee May 31, 2007 Page I of 10 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on May 31, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED LSP 07-2557: (SCHLERETHIYOUNG, 640) Page 2 FPL 07-2593: (ADDISON ACRES, 569) Page 3 FPL 07-2581: (MOUNTAIN RANCH II, 479,480,518,519) Page 4 LSD 07-2594: THE VILLAGE AT SHILOH, 519) Page 5 LSD 07-2574: (LIBERTY BANK OF ARKANSAS, 175) Page 9 MEMBERS PRESENT Sean Trumbo James Graves Alan Ostner STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Sarah Patterson Matt Casey ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Forwarded Forwarded Tabled MEMBERS ABSENT Subdivision Committee Chair Sean Trumbo called the meeting to order at 9AM. Subdivision Committee May 31, 2007 Page 2 of 10 New Business: LSP 07-2557: Lot Split (SCHLERETH/YOUNG, 640): Submitted by VINCENT SCHLERETH for property located at NW CORNER OF 24TH ST. AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.48 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into three tracts of 0.51, 0.49, and 0.48 acres. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the lost split request. Public sewer is required to be extended to each tract prior to recordation of the lot split. Staff recommended approving the request with conditions as discussed and listed in the staff report. No public comment was presented. Vincent Schlereth (applicant) was present for the applicant and stated his desire to split the 1.5 acre tract to build three single family homes in the future. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the request with the conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Commissioner Ostner questioned the applicant as to the location of the sewer, and discussed the extension. The applicant was aware that a sewer line extension was required at the owner's expense. Ostner then seconded the motion. Commissioner Trumbo concurred, the motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee May 31, 2007 Page 3 of 10 FPL 07-2593: Final Plat (ADDISON ACRES, 569): Submitted by CLAY GROTE HGM CONSULTANTS, INC. for property located at 4230 E. HUNTSVILLE RD. The property is zoned RSF-7, SINGLE FAMILY - 7 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.94 acres. The request is to approve the Final Plat of a residential subdivision with 18 single family lots. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report, describing the final plat request. The property is subject to a Bill of Assurance. Garner noted the conditions of approval, including all assessments due prior to final plat signatures. Staff recommended approval of the request, with the conditions in the staff report. No public comment was presented. Clay Grote (applicant) was present for the applicant and stated his request for approval of the final plat, and to his knowledge the delayed street improvement assessment has been made. Commissioner Ostner requested clarification about the assessment for the Ardiles Street extension assessment, asking if the money was planned to be utilized, and how long it could be kept. Garner stated the assessment was for the street that was not constructed to the property line, and would be constructed with a future connection. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, concurred, and explained the assessment was for the portion of the street that was un -constructed to the property line. The money from the assessment would be utilized when this street was extended to adjacent properties in the future. Because it is not an off-site delayed street improvement, the assessment is not likely subject to the typical five-year time period in which assessments are planned to be utilized. Motion: Commissioner Ostner made a motion to approve the request with the conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Commissioner Graves seconded the motion. Commissioner Trumbo concurred, the motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee May 31, 2007 Page 4 of 10 PPL 07-2581: Preliminary Plat (MOUNTAIN RANCH 11, 479,480,518,519): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located S & W OF PERSIMMON AND I-540, AND E OF MOUNTAIN S/D L The property is zoned zoned multiple zoning districts and contains approximately 79.27 acres. The request is for a subdivision with 30 single-family lots, 2 multi -family lots and 2 commercial out -lots. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the preliminary plat request. The property was approved for a very similar request in 2006, with the exception that a 15 -acre tract has now been removed, as it was approved by the Planning Commission as a large scale development with a separate item. Fulcher described the conditions of approval and went over waiver requests, all of which the Planning Commission had recommended in 2006. No public comment was presented. Chris Brackett (applicant) was present for the applicant and stated he concurred with all conditions of approval. Brackett was available for questions. Sarah Patterson, Urban Forester, explained that due to the large nature of the property, tree preservation fencing would need to be phased. All lots in the HHOD would require a separate tree preservation plan at the time of development. Street trees do not count toward mitigation. Matt Casey, Asst. City Engineer, stated the same waivers requested with the original preliminary plat were being requested now, and staff supports them, to reduce the amount of grading on this hillside. Commissioner Trumbo stated he agreed with condition number one, and questioned staff as to when the north side of Persimmon Street would be completed with curb and gutter. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, explained the cost share agreements between the City and the developer for Persimmon Street from Betty Jo Drive to Rupple Road, and that was considered the improvement for Mountain Ranch development at that time. Commissioner Ostner discussed the plans and confirmed no other change than the removal of the multi -family lot had been made. Motion: Commissioner Graves stated that the request was substantially exactly the same request that had already been approved before, and made a motion to forward the request to the full Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval, with the conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion. Commissioner Trumbo concurred, the motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee May 31, 2007 Page 5 of 10 LSD 07-2594: Large Scale Development (THE VILLAGE AT SHILOH, 519): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOC. for property located at SHILOH DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 1.2 MILES S OF WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 18.09 acres. The request is for a residential development with 200 3 -story town home units. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Garner described the project and its location, and explained the difficulty in connectivity for the site, based on tree preservation easements to the south, topography, parkland and tree preservation to the west and topography and proposed retaining walls to the north. Added conditions from the Trails Coordinator were passed out to the Committee. Staff recommended approval of the project, and explained the conditions of approval. A few minor revisions were recommended to the project, but overall it complies with the Unified Development Code. Emory Brown, citizen, asked if the site is in the Design Overlay District, and if the project complies with those requirements. He also stated the traffic study anticipates another 100 cars a peak periods, Shiloh Drive is 50 mph, and the developers may want to consider adding a deceleration lane. Just south of the site is the I-540 ramp on which traffic backs up regularly. Brown also stated he had been unable to locate the architectural renderings and would like to see them if possible. Garner stated that the project is located within the Design Overlay District, but because the project is residential, it is not subject to Overlay District standards, and is not required to submit architectural drawings. Dale Benedict, citizen, owns property to the north. Benedict stated he would also like to see what is planned, and has concerns about traffic. Staff gave Benedict a copy of the plans. Steven Beam, applicant, discussed the architecture of the buildings as articulated, in natural tones and an attractive product, with garages underneath. Regarding traffic, Beam stated that the traffic study commissioned noted that both driveways operate at a level of service A or B. The intersection of Shiloh and 6h Street was beyond the range of the study, but Peters and Associates, the traffic engineer, had issued an opinion that the traffic generated by this development will have a negligible impact to this intersection. An email from Peters and Associates stating as such was distributed to the subdivision committee. Beam also noted the project now has 198 units, not 200. Sarah Patterson, Urban Forester, commented on the installation of plantings, and to show the mitigation trees. She noted she and Parks had worked with the applicant to get a contiguous parkland and tree preservation area for this project, which was successful. A tracking method for the planting of mitigation trees needs to be established, and the applicant should include the tree preservation and recreation signature block on the easement plat. Beam asked if condition number two could be changed, regarding dumpsters or compactors being utilized, as opposed to individual carts. Garages are present with each of these units, and they are proposed to sold independently; carts are much preferred in this scenario. Subdivision Committee May 31, 2007 Page 6 of 10 Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated this request was not under the purview of the Planning Commission; all structures housing more than two dwelling units are required to utilize commercial service. In this case, that means dumpsters or compactors. Only the City Council can vary this ordinance, the Planning Commission does not have the authority. Commissioner Ostner asked if these would be condos or townhomes. Pate replied technically, condominiums, as land is not being subdivided to be sold with the units. If townhomes were being constructed and land being subdivided, the interior streets would have to be public streets. Commissioner Ostner asked how wide the streets are. Beam replied 24-26 feet, depending upon the height of the buildings and fire code requirements. Commissioner Ostner noted it was important the streets are narrow, because with the numerous curb cuts, parking on the streets would not occur. Ostner stated concerns with the alignment of Road E with the intersection. Beam explained the roads are aligned from a centerline and curb perspective. It may appear to be out of alignment because of the angle of the intersection. Ostner stated he thought the intersection should be realigned, and was not sure he could approve the project with the odd alignment of Road E. Commissioner Trumbo requested for comments on the alignment from the Engineering division. Matt Casey, Asst. City Engineer, stated on the plans it appears the intersection is offset, but it could be because of the larger radius, which was requested by Engineering to allow for Fire access. Commissioner Ostner noted he would prefer the turn/curve to be made prior to the intersection, on the west side, not east, for driver safety exiting onto Shiloh. Casey noted the low volume of the private streets and the fact they are not subject to public street standards. Beam stated the drive was shifted to where it is because of the grading cut required over the existing waterline if the drive is located to the south. If relocated to the north, the same could occur. Commissioner Ostner stated that with 198 units with heavy peak hour volumes, this will be the # 1 key intersection, and thinks the alignment of the intersection is not what it should be. Commissioner Graves noted he suspects Road B will be used more, and is not convinced there is enough evidence to deny the LSD on traffic for this one driveway. He asked staff to remind the Committee what may be considered to deny a large scale development, and discussed these Subdivision Committee May 31, 2007 Page 7 of 10 considerations further. Pate went over the applicable considerations as requested, which includes if a development will compound or create a dangerous traffic condition and if it does not meet the criteria of the Unified Development Code. He noted that should the Subdivision Committee desire to deny the project, it should be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with that recommendation for the final decision, and should not be denied by the Subdivision Committee. Commissioner Graves asked about the deceleration lane mentioned by one member of the public, and whether the City could require it on a State highway. Pate stated Shiloh is a State highway, and any improvements recommended by the Planning Commission must be coordinated and approved by AHTD. Additionally, those improvements typically have to meet warrants, and the traffic study for this project seems to indicate that would not be the case, though that particular issue had not been analyzed. Commissioner Graves asked about the removal of the parking from the intersections, as recommended by staff in the conditions. Garner explained that there would be a heavier volume of traffic and turning movements at the intersections, especially the one to the east, and staff found that vehicles backing out into these intersections may cause a traffic issue. Commissioner Graves stated he was comfortable approving the project at this level, but that if there was not a unanimous motion supported, it could not be approved. Commissioner Ostner stated he did not state he wanted to deny the project; perhaps it could be tabled or forwarded to the full Planning Commission. The drive could be shifted 25 feet to the north so drivers begin the turn before the intersection rather than after. He would like the applicant to comment. Beam stated moving the driveway to the north would complicate the grade over the waterline, and they would need to evaluate that with engineering. Beam noted that he is also charged with public safety as a registered engineer. People tend to follow curb lines, and he feels the alignment is safe. Commissioner Ostner discussed various concerns with the alignment of the driveway as proposed. Beam asked if the project could be approved with a condition the driveway be moved if they could work out the grades with engineering. Motion: Commissioner Ostner made a motion to amend the project, adding a condition of approval that Subdivision Committee May 31, 2007 Page 8 of 10 states the following: The east segment of Road E shall be shifted north 20-30 feet so that the break tin he alignment horizontally occurs on the west side of Road C instead of the east side of Road C. The motion failed for a lack of a second. Commissioner Graves stated he was in favor of a condition where the specific location of the curb cut of Road E would be worked out to the satisfaction of the applicant and engineering, for maximum safety and in consideration of grade levels. However, he was disinclined to make this motion if it was not supported the condition as noted by the applicant. Graves asked Ostner if he would be in favor of this condition. Commissioner Ostner stated he was hesitant to support that condition, because staff doesn't have much control over the safety of traffic on private property. Commissioner Graves stated his condition would direct staff to specifically consider traffic safety, but that staff has as much control over traffic safety on private property as the Planning Commission does, because we all follow the same ordinances. Commissioner Ostner stated that forwarding the project would likely be the best route. Motion: Commissioner Trumbo made a motion to forward the project to the full Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval, with the 20 conditions of approval and asked the applicant and engineering to meet prior to Planning Commission. Commissioner Graves seconded the motion. Commissioner Ostner voted in opposition to the motion. The motion to forward passed 2-1. Subdivision Committee May 31, 2007 Page 9 of 10 LSD 07-2574: Large Scale Development (LIBERTY BANK OF ARKANSAS, 175): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE NW CORNER OF JOYCE BLVD AND VANTAGE DR. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.68 acres. The request is for a 21,613 s.f. bank with associated parking. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Fulcher described the request for the bank facility, and noted that there were two primary issues on the project to be discussed and decided. First, a greenspace waiver along Vantage Drive is being requested for a portion of the site. Staff is not recommending in favor of the waiver request, finding there are several options that should be pursued by the applicant to reduce or eliminate the need for the waiver request. These options were described. Secondly, staff is not supportive of the access to Joyce Blvd. as proposed. Reasons for this recommendation are outlined in the staff report; adequate access is provided to this site through three other points, and the increased turning movements onto and from Joyce in close proximity to Vantage is not advisable. Staff recommended forwarding the project to the full Planning Commission with these comments and recommendations. No public comment was presented. Matt Castor (applicant) presented the project for the applicant. Castor noted the access is central to the design of the site, and sets it apart from other banks. Castor described the traffic study that was conducted, which found levels of service A and B for most turning movements from the driveway, with the exception of the left -out, which was an F. Castor cited a traffic concern if the driveway was removed, because of excessive stacking from the drive-through. Castor offered to remove the left - out, and proposed to reduce the two-lane entrance to a one -lane entrance. The entry is the main focal point, and it is crucial to have access onto Joyce for the project. With regard to the landscape waiver, Castor discussed the circular design of the project reduces the ability to reduce parking stall width or length. Currently the project is at 39% greenspace, and enhancements to the area with benches, walkways, and a bio -retention facility is planned. He also questioned if the money -in -lieu assessment for Mud Creek Bridge was a negotiable fee. Howard Hamilton (applicant), president of Liberty Bank, stated the entrance is critical to the bank to set it apart, and is important for aesthetic reasons. Sarah Patterson, Urban Forester, stated she would like the opportunity to work with the applicant to see a reduced waiver or no waiver at all. Matt Casey, Asst. City Engineer, explained the assessment for the Mud Creek Bridge, and that there was a memo explaining the methodology in the Committee's packet. The same methodology was used for other projects in the immediate area for Mud Creek Bridge. Commissioner Trumbo asked if the assessment was negotiable. Casey replied that the assessment is a recommendation to the Planning Commission for this project's share of the Mud Creek Bridge, and the actual determination is entirely up to the Subdivision Committee May 31, 2007 Page 10 of 10 Commission. Commissioner Trumbo stated that in his years of service on the Planning Commission, he had not seen an assessment such as this negotiated. Hamilton asked if the amount was set by ordinance, or if it is a recommendation by staff. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, reiterated that the amount is a recommendation by staff to the Planning Commission, based on the established methodology. Pate further discussed the adjacent Bellafont development, which was required to pay for traffic signals, and improve all streets adjacent to Liberty Bank, including Vantage and Joyce, for which this project would normally be responsible. Commissioner Graves stated he was more inclined to table the project. The offer by the developer to reduce the entry onto Joyce could result in a different recommendation by staff, who would need sufficient time to review it. Additional time would also allow the developer and staff to get together regarding the landscape issues and options there. Pate stated that staff had actually sat down with the developer to discuss various options, and in consultation with the City Engineer and other staff, did not think staff could support Joyce Boulevard access for this project with the turning movements at the close traffic signal, more than sufficient access to other streets with less chance of conflict, and other issues concerning traffic safety. Commissioner Ostner stated he agreed with staff on the curb cut issue, and discussed his concerns. Commissioner Graves stated he appreciated staff s "on the fly" recommendation and comments, and is not prepared to recommend against staffs recommendation based on the information presented. He stated he is not prepared to make a finding against staffs recommendation if the project goes forward to the full Planning Commission. Castor discussed peak hour traffic and how stacking in the turn lane would function properly with the proposed access to Joyce Boulevard. Commissioner Trumbo discussed his experiences in West Fayetteville, near Steamboat Drive and Colorado Drive, and how there were no additional curb cuts onto Wedington in that vicinity. In his opinion, the traffic backs up because there is not enough access, and he disagrees with how it works, because traffic will cut across parking lots to get to other places. Trumbo stated he is not as concerned with access as others, and is not opposed to the curb cut. Motion: Commissioner Ostner made a motion to table the project. Commissioner Graves seconded the motion, and Commissioner Trumbo concurred. The motion to table passed 3-0. All business being concluded, the meeting adjourned at 10.30 AM.