Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-04-03 - MinutesSubdivision Committee April 3, 2008 Page I of 16 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on April 3, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSP 08-2948 (DAVIDSON, 482) Forwarded Page 3 LSP 08-2994 (WOODARD, 242) Tabled Page 5 LSP 08-2950 (SHOPPES AT WEDINGTON, 401) Forwarded Page 6 LSD 08-2903 (SHOPPES AT WEDINGTON, 401) Forwarded Page 6 LSD 08-2933 (SPRINGWOODS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, 247/248) Approved Page 8 CCP 08-2918 (STADIUM CENTRE COTTAGES, 557) Forwarded Page 9 LSD 08-2854 (EMERITUS ASSISTED LIVING CTR, 138) Approved Page 10 R-PZD 08-2915 (HILL PLACE, 561) Forwarded Page 11 R-PZD 08-2170 (VILLAS AT STONEBRIDGE, 645/646) Forwarded Page 14 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Andy Lack (Chair) Lois Bryant Matthew Cabe STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Subdivision Committee April 3, 2008 Page 2 of 16 Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Carole Jones Matt Casey Dara Sanders Glenn Newman Subdivision Committee Chair Andy Lack called the meeting to order at 9AM. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2008 Page 3 of 16 New Business: LSP 08-2948: Lot Split (DAVIDSON, 482): Submitted by JOHN DAVIDSON for property located at 1614 SAWYER LANE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.69 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 0.45 and 0.24 acres. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report, recommending approval of the application with conditions as listed in the staff report. John Davidson, applicant, stated he wanted to split the existing lot to build a new single family home and clean up the existing home. Wesley Fry, neighbor, 1034 W. Hotz, stated that the house on the property used to be a party house, with a number of students living there. This lot split doesn't qualify as meeting the codes, it is not a quarter acre. The lot split is designed to get another house there to recap some of the cost. No other lot splits in area have occurred. There are fairly large lots in the area, mine is one acre. This is not good for the neighborhood. Old Fayetteville residents are here. I expect that students will live here. Donald Coveney, neighbor, Markham Rd, stated he agrees with the previous speaker. Engineering will probably workout access to Palmer. Very close to here is a park, this will endanger that access. William Martins, neighbor, stated that he is in opposition to the request. Even if it meets technical requirements, it should be denied based on safety. There is a 5 -way intersection here, and the streets in the area have become arterials. Adding an extra driveway would be a bad idea. More than technical requirements, we should consider whether or not this decision is good for the City. He discussed other lot splits in the area, and problems associated with them. Phil Trapp, neighbor, stated he lives directly north of the lot. He understands that zoning rules have been met, which makes the decision somewhat sticky. The committee may need to rise above principles. He discussed history of the land, including Dean Hotz's purchase and subsequent subdivision of the area. This area is a bird sanctuary. Robert Albertson, neighbor, stated he bought two lots to the west, and is spending money on building a house on those lots. Student noise is disturbing quality of life in the area. He is not interested in the tereotypical behavior of students. He mentioned several names in opposition to request. Clayton Barnhart, neighbor, S. Palmer Drive, stated he has lived in the area for 40 years. He discussed concerns in the neighborhood, including parking, trash, and students. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, discussed the request for a lot split. The Planning Commission must approve an application for a lot split if it meets all of the technical requirements as adopted by the City Council in the code. Traffic danger cannot be considered as a criteria for a lot split approval or denial. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2008 Page 4 of 16 Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to approve the request, based on staffs recommendation. Commissioner Bryant stated she could not second the motion. Commissioner Lack seconded the motion. Commissioner Lack discussed the neighbor's comments, stating appreciation for their concern for their neighborhood. However, the Planning Commission is not allowed to make policy decisions; arguments against the split are compelling, but it is not the duty of the Planning Commission to make these decisions when rules have been set out to follow. Pate stated there must be a consensus by all three members of the Subdivision Committee to approve an item. If Commissioner Bryant will not support the motion to approve, staff would recommend the item be forwarded to the full Commission for consideration. Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to forward the item to the Planning Commission with no recommendation. Commissioner Bryant seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2008 Page 5 of 16 LSP 08-2949: Lot Split (WOODARD, 242): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES for property located at 5253 WEIR ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 8.58 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 1.07 and 7.51 acres. Planner: Andrew Garner. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TO THE APRIL 17TH SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING TO GIVE THE APPLICANT TIME TO PROVIDE VERIFICATION OF A REVISED APPROVED SEPTIC PERMIT FOR THE NEW 1.07 -ACRE LOT. Motion: Commissioner Bryant made a motion to table the request to the April 17`h Subdivision Committee meeting. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2008 Page 6 of 16 LSP 08-2950: Lot Split (SHOPPES AT WEDINGTON, 401): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at LOT 2 OF ELDER APTS., N OF WEDINGTON DR. AND W OF SALEM DR. AND THE BANK OF THE OZARKS. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 3.40 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 2.24 and 1.16 acres. Planner: Jesse Fulcher LSD 08-2903: Large Scale Development (SHOPPES AT WEDINGTON, 401): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTIG ENGINEERS for property located WEST OF THE SALEM ROAD AND WEDINGTON DRIVE INTERSECTION. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.24 acres. The request is for a 15,750 s.f. commercial/retail building with associated parking. Planner: Jesse Fulcher Commissioner Lack recused from the items. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, recommending forwarding the item to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval with conditions as listed in the staff report. He also gave the staff report for the ssociated Large Scale Development. Fulcher discussed the history of the site, along with previous conditions by the Planning Commission to only allow two access points from the entire 10 -acre tract, and only one from Wedington. The applicant is requesting two additional access points to Wedington [in addition to the one that is already there]. Staff is not supportive of the west curb cut. Staff recommends forwarding the item for consideration by the Planning Commission with conditions of approval as listed in the staff report. Leslie Munzner, applicant, representing McClelland Consulting Engineers, stated she did not have a lot to add, and the easement vacation is in process. Brian Shaw, applicant, described the retail project. For the access concern, we would like the two access points, for ease in and out for customers. He stated he did agree to a right -in and right -out only for the west access point. His feeling is that the more points into the center, the better the traffic flow. He stated he feels like it is necessary for the success of the center. No public comment was received. Commissioner Bryant stated she agreed with staff's recommendation regarding the access, after listening to the conversation and based on that rationale. Commissioner Cabe stated he concurs with that statement, and is in favor of the other conditions. Motion: Commissioner Bryant made a motion to forward the Lot Split request to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 2-0-1 (with Commissioner Lack recusing from the vote). Subdivision Committee April 3, 2008 Page 7 of 16 Motion• Commissioner Bryant made a motion to forward the Large Scale Development request to the Planning Commission in favor of all conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 2-0-1 (with Commissioner Lack recusing from the vote). Subdivision Committee April 3, 2008 Page 8 of 16 LSD 08-2933: Large Scale Development (SPRINGWOODS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, 247/248): Submitted by EGIS ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 1955 W. TRUCKERS DRIVE. The property is zoned C-PZD, COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 7.00 acres. The request is for a behavioral health facility with two 40 -bed wings, a gymnasium, recreation areas, 24,120 s.f. medical office space and associated parking. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the project. Staff recommended approval with conditions as listed in the staff report. Larry Gregory, applicant, stated he had no further comments. No public comment was received. Commissioner Lack asked if the metal mechanical screening is allowed on the building elevations, and if they have to be the same material as the building. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that they don't have to be the same material, as long as it is integrated into the design of the structure. He stated that in staff's review, the integral color of the screening ties into the building color, and meets the intent of the ordinance. Lack stated he agreed with that assessment. He asked if the applicant agreed with all of the other comments by staff. Gregory stated that he did, but didn't think lots of this large size are as necessary for connection into the facility since it won't be used as much, in relation to the condition for cross -access. Pate described the cross -access is good not only for providing access between adjacent parcels without getting onto the main street, but also serves as a 2°d emergency access into this rather large facility, which only has one way in and one way out, with limited access. Gregory stated that explanation that will help him explain it to his client. Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to approve the request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Bryant seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2008 Page 9 of 16 CCP 08-2918: Concurrent Plat (STADIUM CENTRE COTTAGES, 557): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at LOTS 12-14 OF THE STADIUM CENTRE COTTAGES. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING and contains approximately 2.45 acres. The request is to amend the approved R-PZD 06-2212 with a replat of Lots 12-14. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, recommending forwarding the request to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval with conditions as listed in the staff report. Jeremy Thompson, applicant, stated he had nothing further to add. No public comment was received. Commissioner Lack stated that the request was very straightforward. Motion: Commissioner Bryant made a motion to forward the request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2008 Page 10 of 16 LSD 07-2854: Large Scale Development (EMERITUS ASSISTED LIVING CTR., 138): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING for property located at THE NE CORNER OF ZION ROAD AND RANDALL PLACE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY — 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 3.27 acres. The request is for an assisted living facility with 32,701 square feet and associated parking. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report, recommending approval with conditions as listed in the staff report, including a recommendation of an additional condition from the Fire Department that prior to building permit being issued, the City shall review and approve the FDC location. Jeremy Thompson, applicant, stated it was a complicated site, and that he was in agreement with all conditions. Mark Mayberry, applicant, stated that he was available to answer any questions. No public comment was received. Commissioner Lack stated he concurred with staff s assessment with regard to Commercial Design Standards and street improvements. Commissioner Cabe stated that he agreed, also. Motion: Commissioner Bryant made a motion to approve the request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2008 Page 11 of 16 R-PZD 08-2915: (HILL PLACE, 561): Submitted by APPIAN CENTER FOR DESIGN for property located at THE SW CORNER OF THE 6TH STREET AND HILL AVENUE INTERSECTION. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENT. PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT (ASPEN RIDGE) and contains approximately 27. 10 acres. The request is for zoning, land use, and large scale development approval for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 288 multi -family dwelling units, a community building and associated parking. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report, giving the history of the site and the project previously approved and partially constructed, Aspen Ridge. Prior to Aspen Ridge, the project was zoned for multi -family use, at 24 units per acre. Aspen Ridge was a PZD that allowed 220 units on the property, a density of 8 units per acre. This project proposes 288 units in a different configuration, but utilizing much of the already installed infrastructure, at 10.6 units per acre. Garner added a condition from the Fire Dept. for approval of a FDP connection prior to building permit. Staff recommend forwarding the item to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval with conditions as listed in the staff report. Carole Jones, Urban Forester, described the tree preservation area on the site, and mitigation for removed trees required on site. The developers are preserving trees as before, but may need to amend the Tree Preservation Area for the new bridge. Todd Jacobs, applicant, described the history of the project. He stated that Place Properties will be the ultimate owner and manager of the properties. Each building will have an individual manager to be the eyes and ears for the area. Jacobs described the bridge, which is intended to draw traffic up to 6 t Street and out of neighborhoods to the south. The density is currently at 13-14 dwelling units per acre. They are trying to address issues as they come up, and will continue to do so. Austin Rowser, applicant, described the Low -Impact Development techniques that will be employed on the property. He stated he concurs with staff on the site improvements. Rowser discussed drainage problems in the area and how they will improve the situation. They are hoping to capture urban pollutants before they get into the streams. In terms of the Tree Preservation Area, they are not 100% sure of where the abutments for the bridge will be right now, and they will have to see as we get further in to address Tree Preservation Plan comments. Don Hoodenpyle, neighbor, described the sewer line that went in under the bridge, and the concrete that was dumped out into the creek. His place has flooded with 1'/2" of rain. He discussed flooding and problems with the previous development. He has tried to work with everyone; he is not against the project, but would like to have his property straightened out. They need to have around-the- clock property management available to student renters. Commissioner Lack stated that there was not a lot that the Planning Commission can do to take corrective action on previous issues, so they applaud the efforts of this development to make corrective measures. Robert Williams, neighbor, S. Hill Ave., discussed drainage, flooding concerns, and environmental concerns. Retaining walls are failing all over the site. Historically the neighborhood has always Subdivision Committee April 3, 2008 Page 12 of 16 been single-family, but it s now going to have approximately 1000 college students in and out every year. Cynthia Hadden, citizen, stated she was speaking on behalf of her parents who live on Hill Avenue. She stated she has been to two neighborhood meetings on this project. She knows that the developers are making a good effort to remedy the impacts of the abandoned development. At the meetings, they promised there would be supervision such as that done at UA dorms, management, good efforts at mitigating water issues. In order to make it happen, it needs to be written into the PZD. What guarantees are there that this level of quality management will continue? What about security, trash management, bus stops, environmental protection, tree plantings, etc.? Her problem is the basic concept of bringing in this type of development to a traditionally single-family neighborhood. As years go by, the quality goes down, and this is the main concern. Property values will change for those around this area, and will pressure other areas to sell for multi -family development. Quality of life issues exist. Student apartments are different than owner occupied condominiums, thereby adding continuity to the area. Students are very transient, and a very different demographic. More noise, traffic, crime, etc. They deserve something more like Ruskin Heights, if those are the standards the City has set. Hadden discussed other concerns. All multi- family developments should be doing this low impact development. She stated her argument is with the basic premise and concept of the development here. She described other properties in the area in transition, how it fits into surrounding environment. She would like to see this area looked at like the Walker Park neighborhood was. There are a lot of other uses in the area. Her last concern is with opening Brooks Avenue — she is very much for encouraging that opening; the more points of access available, the better the traffic will be distributed. Brooks Ave would be even better if it went all the way to 15`h Street, but it has been vacated. At least get a bike lane out there. Aubrey Shepherd, citizen, stated he still does not understand the private streets in the development. The only thing he doesn't agree with from the previous speaker is that no street should be connected to Brooks Ave & 12`h Ave. He would prefer a trail. Shepherd discussed drainage concerns, and how the outlets become clogged. He hopes native plant species will be used, and would like to discourage the use of herbicides and pesticides. He stated he appreciates all the good planning going on. Commissioner Lack asked about the retaining walls failing. Matt Casey, City Engineer, stated that many of the walls will be removed and reconstructed. All improvements will be evaluated and inspected. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, discussed to what extent the City can meet the discussed requirements. The City does not exist to enforce operational responsibility of individual projects, that is not really something for which the City can assume responsibility. The City can require commitments within the PZD for items related to City codes, such as low impact development techniques, detention, retaining wall design, street standards, etc. He also discussed how 15'h Street could be connected to in the future by Brooks Avenue. Though some right-of-way has been vacated, it is not out of the realm of possibility. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2008 Page 13 of 16 Lack asked about the public street vs. private street question. Jacobs discussed the exhibits they will be providing for a public street, which removes a lot of parking. Commissioner Lack discussed how he wouldn't want to jeopardize the bridge provided, but would be interested to see their options, to understand the ramifications. He does understand, though, why staff would not put forth a recommendation at this time. Pate stated that staff is recommending approval of the project based on the described plans and the commitments provided. Motion: Commissioner Bryant made a motion to forward the request to the Planning Commission in favor of the condition # 1 as recommended by staff, holding a recommendation on #2 for more detail, and in support of#3, #4, and all others. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2008 Page 14 of 16 R-PZD 06-2170: Planned Zoning District (VILLAS AT STONEBRIDGE, 645/646): Submitted by APPIAN CENTRE FOR DESIGN for property located S OF HWY 16E AND E OF GOFF FARM ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 53.03 acres. The request is for zoning, land use and preliminary plat approval for a Residential Planned Zoning District with a maximum of 354 dwelling units and 65,000 s.f. of non- residential space all with associated parking. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Fulcher described surrounding properties, use, and project proposal. This property was annexed in 2005; it is surrounded by land in the County, rural/agricultural land and a golf course to the east. While many aspects of the internal design of the project seem to meet the City's stated policies and goals, staff finds the project is sited in an area without adequate infrastructure to support the proposed density, very incompatible in its proposal to add 3 -story multi -family structures in the area, and in an area that is not well -served with schools, commercial goods and services and jobs, which creates an auto -dependent development, thereby adding to the traffic issues already in the area. Staff recommended forwarding the request to the Planning Commission for consideration, and recommended denial based on the issues associated with the project's location at the edge of the City, incompatibility, and lack of infrastructure sufficient to support the density proposed. Staff discussed that recommended conditions of approval were provided, if the Planning Commission found in favor of the project. Matt Casey, City Engineer, clarified that the recommended street overlay on Dead Horse Mtn. Road would be between thetwo main entries to Dead Horse Mountain Rd, which is the only street that serves this project. Carole Jones, Urban Forester, stated there were not a large percentage of trees on-site, but 52 good - quality significant trees were identified. She recommended relocating the utility easements along the north lots to the front to save 9 significant trees along lots 50-62. Todd Jacobs, applicant, presented the project. He discussed an agreement with the adjacent Falling Waters developer that this project will build the second access up front, and will be reimbursed for the Falling Waters developer's cost later. Jacbos stated they are in a difficult position with staff's recommendation, in order to provide density and also get a project approved. He discussed phasing out of development over 6-8 years, which should alleviate staff s concerns. His understanding is that the bridge will be replaced in the next year. Hank Broyles, applicant, stated there was one large property owner to the west. They are not pushing this up next to others. They are also not asking for everything now. The phasing offsets the lack of infrastructure there today. They have invested a great deal of money into extending water and sewer to this area across the river. They disagree with staff's recommendation for the off-site improvements that are recommended. $350,000 is the cost of the overlay; they would like to contribute $100,000 to City, let them do what they'd like to do with it instead. Jacobs stated the phasing covers a lot of the issues. This is what the City of Fayetteville needs. John Boltz, neighbor, stated there was a lot of development in this area already without adequate Subdivision Committee April 3, 2008 Page 15 of 16 infrastructure: sewer, bridge, road, access to town. He would like to have development curtailed until this is fixed. Why are we allowing all of this to start up now? It can't be controlled — problems need to be fixed. Commissioner Lack asked staff about the timing of the bridge reconstruction. Ron Petrie, City Engineer, stated he has been working with the Highway Department, who will be replacing the bridge. Utility work is set to begin next fall. It will take probably a year for construction, once they begin. Broyles stated there are probably 15-16 months before we could go vertical. Commissioner Lack stated that the development plan overall is a nice product in its inclusion of unit types, sizes, parts, all very compelling amenities in the layout. He can see staff's hesitation for increasing density on the edge of town, though. Placing a project like this on the outskirts of town is counter to the goals of sustainability. Broyles discussed his disagreements with that notion. There is a demand for this project. It is difficult to make a project work at 3-4 units per acre, and he argues that next to a golf course is a different amenity than if it were just farmland. They don't do Greenfield development, they stay away from it. Commissioner Lack stated that there are things about the development that are more compelling than another RSF-4 zoning, but the issue is about development at the edges of town. He stated he will be interested to see the policy discussion at the City Council level. Internal to the development, the project seems good. Lack asked about the street improvements. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, discussed the recommended street improvements related to phasing, which will be more detailed at Planning Commission level. Commissioner Lack asked fellow Commissioners for responses on item #1 — determination. Commissioner Bryant and Commissioner Cabe stated they were in agreement. Commissioner Lack stated he would look for ideas of phasing the street improvements for the Planning Commission meeting. Overall, the development will have a fairly large impact on streets in area. Commissioner Lack asked about condition #2, the waiver requests. Pate described all waivers, and staff's recommendations. Commissioner Lack discussed the street section waiver with the boulevard. He stated he will honor the Fire Department's comments. If they are okay with it, provide some written agreement. He discussed use units in condition #3. Subdivision Committee April 3, 2008 Page 16 of 16 Fulcher described staffs concerns with the use units proposed, based on their impact within neighborhoods. Some of them were not appropriate. Commissioner Lack asked if there were additional comments or questions. Commissioner Cabe stated he had the same concerns with density on the outer edge of town. Commissioner Bryant stated she had the same concerns, but did like the single-family phased first. Commissioner Cabe stated he would like to move it forward without a recommendation. Commissioner Lack stated he would agree with that. The main consideration is the location and context of the development in this area of town, not the workings of the development itself. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to forward the request to the Planning Commission with no recommendation, but determining in favor of all conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0. All business being concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 PM.