Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-12 - Agendas - Final FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 125Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:(479)575-8267 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE AGENDA FOR A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission will be held Monday January 12, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Room 219, Fayetteville,Arkansas. Roll Call The following items will be considered: Consent Agenda: Approval of minutes from the December 8,2003 meeting. New Business: 1. LSP 04-01.00: Lot Split(Dixie Development, pp 368) was submitted by Jorgensen&Associates on behalf of Dixie Development for property located at 2325 and 2539 N. Green Acres Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.02 acres. The request is to split the parent tract into two tracts of 0.23 and 0.79 acres respectively. Planner: Jeremy Pate 2. R-PZD 04-02.00: Residential Planned Zoning District(Cross Keys,pp 438) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan and Sloan Properties for property located south of Wedington Drive at the corner of N. 46t"and Persimmon Street. The property is currently zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 38.48 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow for the development of a residential subdivision with 108 single family dwellings proposed. Planner: Suzanne Morgan 3. R-PZD 04-01.00: Residential Planned Zoning District(Southern View 11, pp, 519)was submitted by Crafton, Tull &Associates on behalf of Lindsey Management Co. for property located at Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road, east of I-540. The property is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6.713 acres. The request is to rezone the property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow for a mixed use development comprised of 102 dwelling units and 40,398 SF of commercial space proposed. Planner: Jeremy Pate 4. CUP 03-32.00: Conditional Use (Mark Brewer,pp 411) was submitted by Bill Rudasill of WBR Engineering Associates, P.A. on behalf of Mark Brewer for property located at 3501 Whippoorwill Ct. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family,4 units per acre and contains approximately 4.9 acres. The request is to allow for a tandem lot. Planner: Jeremy Pate 5. ADM 04-02.00: Administrative Item: Sidewalk Waiver submitted by Kathy Parker Mastalerz for property located at 811 Huntsville Road. The request is to waive the requirement for a sidewalk and required fees-in-lieu at the subject property. Planner: Suzanne Morgan 6. ADM 03-29.00: Administrative Item: (Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance) An amendment to Chapter 167.04 establishing standards and requirements that would allow subdivision developments the option to mitigate on-site for the removal of trees. Planner: Craig Carnagey All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. A copy of the proposed amendments and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the Office of City Planning(575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. Interpreters or TDDfor hearing impaired are available for all public meetings. 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter,please call 575-8330. ORDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A. Introduction of agenda item—Chairman B. Presentation of Staff Report C. Presentation of request—Applicant D. Public Comment E. Response by Applicant/Questions&Answer with Commission F. Action of Planning Commission(Discussion&Vote) NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item raise your hand when the Chairman asks for public comment. He will do this after he has given Planning Commission members the opportunity to speak and before a final vote is taken. Public comment will only be permitted during this part of the hearing for each item. Once the Chairman recognizes you, go to the podium at the front of the room and give your name and address. Address your comments to the Chairman, who is the presiding officer. He will direct them to the appropriate appointed official, staff member or others for response. Please keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak. Please, as a matter of courtesy, refrain from applauding or booing any speakers or actions of the Planning Commission. 2003 Planning Commissioners Nancy Allen Jill Anthes Don Bunch Alice Church James Graves Sharon Hoover Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Christian Vaught FAYETTEVILLE PC Meeting of January 12, 2004 THE CITY OF FAYETTE VILLE,ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone:501-575-8264 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy Pate,Associate Planner Matt Casey, Staff Engineer THRU: Dawn Warrick, A.LC.P., Zoning& Development Administrator DATE: January 06, 2003 LSP 04-01.00: Lot Split(Dixie Development,pp 368) was submitted by Jorgensen& Associates on behalf of Dixie Development for property located at 2325 and 2539 N. Green Acres Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.02 acres. The request is to split the parent tract into two tracts of 0.23 and 0.79 acres respectively. Planner: Jeremy Pate Findings: Proposal: The applicant is requesting to split the 1.02-acre commercial lot into two tracts of 0.23 acres and 0.79 acres. The site is currently developed with professional office buildings, the smaller of which is being split out. Existing access easements allow for permanent access to the proposed 0.23-acre tract, from both Colt Square Drive and Green Acres Drive. The entirety of the site is within the 100-year floodplain, therefore a variance from the Flood Damage Prevention Code is required by the Planning Commission for lot split approval. Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: The property is surrounded by C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning, and predominantly professional office use. Right-of-way being dedicated: Sufficient right-of-way exists along Colt Square Drive and Green Acres Road. Water: Water lines exist along both Colt Square Drive and Green Acres Drive Sewer: The north tract is served by an existing 6" sanitary sewer main to the north of the property; the south tract sanitary sewer lines shall be indicated on the plat. Background: The lot split request was reviewed on December 17 at Technical Plat Review and December 30 at Subdivision Committee. Discussion included location of sanitary sewer lines serving each proposed tract, parking ratios and accessibility for the new tract, and the waiver request from the Flood Damage Prevention Code. Ki Rep?rtst2004VPCReportsIOI-12-04USP 04-01.00(DWe Development).doc December 12,2003 Planning Commission LSP 04-01.00(Dixie Development) Page 1.1 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of LSP 04-01.00 subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of a variance request from the requirements of the Flood Damage Prevention Code(see attached ordinance and required variance findings). 2. Any new development within the 100-year floodplain shall require a formal Floodplain Development permit,in addition to required Grading&Drainage permits. 3. A minimum of one (1) ADA accessible space shall be striped/painted pursuant to ordinance requirements to serve the north lot prior to filing of the lot split. 4. Sanitary sewer service lines shall not cross property lines. The southern tract shall indicated access to a public main prior to final filing of the lot split plat. Standard Conditions of Approval: 5. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives-AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications) Additional conditions: a. b. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ves Required Approved Denied Date: January 12,2004 Comments The"CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", beginning on page two of this report, are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. By Title K lReportsl2004WCReportstOl-12-041LSP 04-01.00(Dixie Dewlopment).doc December 12,2003 Planning Commission LSP 04-01.00(Dixie Development) Page 1.2 Date CHAPTER 168: FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION CODE 168.01 Purpose (1) Restricting or prohibiting uses that are dangerous to health,safety or property due (A) It is the purpose of this ordinance to to water or erosion hazards in times of promote the public health, safety and general flood, or cause excessive increases in welfare and to minimize public and private flood heights or velocities; losses due to flood conditions in specific areas as designated by the latest adopted Flood (2) Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, Insurance Rate Maps, in addition to the including facilities which serve such uses, following: be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; (1) To minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; (3) Controlling the alteration of natural floodplain, stream channels, and natural (2) To minimize the need for rescue and relief protective barriers,which are involved in efforts associated with flooding and the accommodation of flood waters; generally undertaken at the expense of the (4) Controlling filing, grading, dredging and general public; other flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase (3) To minimize prolonged business flood damage; and interruptions; (5) Preventing or regulating the construction (4) To minimize damage to public facilities of flood barriers which will unnaturally and utilities such as water and gas mains; divert flood waters or which may increase electric,telephone and sewer lines,streets flood hazards to other lands. and bridges located in floodplains; 168.04 Flood Hazard Reduction (5) To help maintain a stable tax base by In all areas of special flood hazards the following providing for the sound use and standards shall apply: . . . development of flood-prone areas in such a manner as to minimize future flood (7)Any lot platted so that a portion of the lot blight areas; lies in a special flood hazard area shall contain a minimum of 6.000 square feet of (6) To ensure that potential buyers are buildable area,including setbacks,outside' notified that property is in an area of the special flood hazard area, or if it special flood hazard; contains less than 6,000 square feet of buildable area, it shall be platted to (7) To ensure that those who occupy the areas contain a minimum of one acre. Any lot of special flood hazard assume platted so that the entire lot lies in a responsibility for their actions; and, special flood hazard area shall contain a minimum of one acre.(See illustration: (8) To protect human life and health. Figure 4 (B) In order to accomplish its purposes, this ordinance uses the following methods: K.'IReports110041PCReportsIOI-11-04VSP 04-01.00(Dixie Deve%pment).doc December 12,2003 Planning Commission LSP 04-01.00(Dixie Development) Page 1.3 Eu�lda ble � Area 0.000 Sq. Ft. Rood Mln. Hazard Area� Area - J I K.'IReports120041PCReporis101-12-0411SP 04-01.00(Dixie Deve(opment).doc - December 12,2003 Planning Commission LSP 04-01.00(Dixie Development) Page 1.4 CHAPTER 156: VARIANCES justification required for issuing the 156.03 Development variance increases. (6) Flood Damage Prevention Code. The (d) Variances shall not be issued Planning Commission shall hear and within any designated floodway if any decide requests for variances from the increase in flood levels during the requirement of this ordinance. Any base flood discharge would result. person or persons aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Commission (e) Variances shall only be issued regarding a variance request may appeal upon a determination that the variance such a decision in the courts of competent is the minimum necessary, jurisdiction. considering the flood hazard,to afford relief. (a) In passing upon such applications, the Planning Commission shall (f) Floodplain variances shall only consider all technical evaluations,all be issued if: relevant factors, and standards specified in other sections of this (i) There are exceptional or ordinance. extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the (b) Variances may be issued for the property involved or to the reconstruction, rehabilitation, or intended use of the property, restoration of structures listed in the which do not apply generally to National Register of Historic Places, other property in the same flood without regard to the procedures zone; identified in the remainder of this ordinance. Variances may only be (ii) A determination that failure to issued for such repair, or grant the variance would result in rehabilitation if strict enforcement of exceptional hardship to the the ordinance would preclude the applicant; and, structure's continued designation as a historic structure, and the variance is (iii)A determination that the granting the minimum necessary to preserve of a variance will not result in the historic character and design of increased flood heights, the structure. additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, (c) Generally, variances may be create nuisances, cause fraud on issued for new construction and or victimization of the public, or substantial improvements to be conflict with the other provisions erected on a lot half acre or less in of the Code of Fayetteville. size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures (g) Variances may be issued for new constructed below the base flood construction and substantial level,providing items(1)through(11) improvements and for other of §168.03(A) have been fully development necessary for the considered. As the lot size increases conduct of a functionally dependent beyond half acre, the technical use provided that the provisions of K.'IReports120041PCReportsl0/-12-0411SP 04-01.00(Dixie Dewlopmentt).doc December 12,2003 Planning Commission LSP 04-01.00(Dixie Development) Page 1.5 §168.03(A)are satisfied and that the structure or other development is protected by methods that minimize flood damages during the base flood and create no additional threats to public safety. (h) Upon consideration of the factors in this section,and the purpose of this ordinance, the Planning Commission may impose conditions to the granting of floodplain variances as it deems necessary to further the purpose of this ordinance. (i) Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that the structure will be permitted to be built with a lowest floor elevation below the regulatory flood elevation surcharge and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest floor elevation. A copy of the notice shall be recorded by the floodplain administrator in the office of the Washington County Clerk and shall be recorded in a manner so that it appears in the chain of title of the affected parcel of land. K.'IReports120041PCReports101-12-0411SP 04-01.00(Duie Development)_doc December 12,2003 Planning Commission LSP 04-01.00(Dixie Development) Page 1.6 m•Street Mini-Mart Variance from Flood Damage Prevention Code-minutes as approved by Planning Commission in December, 2003,per Subdivision Committee Request) MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday,December 8,2003 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. LSP 03-60.00:Lot Split(North St.Mini-Mart,pp 405)was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Tom Peevyhouse for property located at 742 W. North Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial,and C-2,Thoroughfare Commercial,and contains approximately 8.35 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 0.57 and 7.32 acres respectively with approximately 0.46 acre right-of-way dedication. Hoover: We do have one item that has been removed from the agenda. That is item number four,a rezoning for the intersection of Hwy.45 and Crossover Road. That has been removed from tonight's agenda. Item number two of new business is LSP 03-60.00 for North Street Mini Mart. Suzanne? Morgan: This Lot Split was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Tom Peevyhouse for property located .at 742 W. North Street. This property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 8.35 acres. The request is to split the parent tract into two tracts of approximately.57 and 7.32 acres with a right of way dedication of approximately.46 acres along North Street. The proposed tract lies within the 100-year floodplain and by ordinance any lot platted so that the entire lot lies within a special flood hazard area shall contain a minimum of one acre. There is a currently a Mini Mart,laundry facility and gas pumps located on the proposed .57 acre tract. Right of way to be dedicated is for a total of 55' from the centerline of North Street, which is a state highway designated as a principal arterial. This item was heard at the subdivision Committee meeting on November 26,2003 and staff recommends approval with five conditions,the fourth being Planning Commission determination of lot size less than one acre located entirely within the floodplain. Staff is unable to make necessary findings to support a variance and recommends that the lot include a minimum of one acre pursuant to §168.04 of the Unified Development Code. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward please? Reid: Hi, my name is Alan Reid,I will be here this evening representing Mr. Peevyhouse on this proposed tract split. While we agree with everything we have heard from staff and we have tried to meet all the ordinances and rules regarding this split the one we can't seem to get to work is the one acre minimum. We would really like to get the split approved with a variance on that one acre minimum. I think you probably have K.'IReportsl2004lPCReports;01-12-04USP 04-01.00(Dixie Deve[opment).doc December 12,2003 Planning Commission LSP 04-01.00(Dixie Development) Page 1.7 a letter that I wrote to Suzanne in your packet trying to explain what we were doing and maybe our reasons behind why we couldn't meet that one acre. Obviously,it is a floodplain issue. The FEMA map shows that this property is definitely in a floodplain. One thing that we are not sure about is that just east of this proposed split is a 30' concrete culvert that was installed by the city to relieve flood damage along that section of the creek. Wherever you see this split, this laundromat/mini mart, there is a concrete culvert directly on the property to the east which extends the whole length of the east line. The water basically goes underground,gets carried through a conduit and is discharged into the natural ditch just beyond this property. That doesn't mean that the FEMA map is wrong. I can't argue that point but I don't think that there is a problem with the flood as much as,some people might think there is. We started out with eight tenths of an acre and by the time we dedicated the 55'right of way it brought us down to a little less than six tenths of an acre. The only way we can possibly get an acre would be to create a very odd shaped property which would in fact take in more of the creek land which is number one,Mr.Tune doesn't wish to sell and Mr. Peevyhouse doesn't want to buy land he could never use and it would take in where that culvert is. I believe the city may already have an easement on that property. I don't know if you can buy that property being constructed like that. What we want to do is split the property off,maintain it as it has been used for the last ten or twenty years as a Mini Mart. Mr. Peevyhouse would by no means be impacting anything on that property or on the adjoining properties. We don't feel it would be any type of hazard to the floodplain or any future development of land around there. All we are trying to do is take land out of one person's name and put it in another person's name, not change the use and not change the impact. I think we've met everything except for this issue of a variance and I don't know if we get that from you or if we go another step or how that works. Hoover: Thank you. At this time is there any member of the audience that would like to address this LSP 03-60.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. City Attorney, would you tell us, as Planning Commission can we grant that variance? Williams: Yes. The variance is discussed, I think they copied it on page 2.5. Although, it is hard to read there. It says floodplain variances shall only be issued if and there are three things that you must find. 1) There must be exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved. You can probably meet that. It has been there a long time so it is extraordinary. Second must be a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant. Again, I think you possibly have some grounds there. I think the biggest difficulty that staff had, and staff can certainly respond to this is number three, a determination that granting the variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expanse to create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public or conflict with other provisions of the Code of Fayetteville. We heard the applicant say that he wasn't going to do anything on there. I didn't see the Subdivision Committee report. I K.'IReportsl2004lPCReports101-12-041EP 04-01.00(Dixie De elopmen#.doc December 12,2003 Planning Commission LSP 04-01.00(Dixie Development) Page 1.8 would think before you could grant this variance you would have to have it as a condition that no further development be done on this property whatsoever. Since it lies totally within the floodplain I can't imagine that they could do anything that would not increase the danger. If they did nothing, as the applicant just said, it is very possible that they have met the third requirement also because it talks about it will.not result in increased flood heights, increased danger. If nothing changes whatsoever then they might be able to meet that third one too. That is left up to the Planning Commission to decide whether they meet all three of those requirements. Hoover: Thanks. I guess staff would you respond to that third item if they do not do any more development? Casey: The requirement would be the same whether they developed or not. If we did see a development on this site sometime in the future they still couldn't raise the water surface elevation or increase the risk. That would be reviewed as part of the floodplain development permit that would have to be issued for this development. Warrick: I think part of what staff is trying to do is review this, this is a new development request in that a new lot is being created. They are subdividing this tract of land. We have got a flood damage prevention code that addresses platting lots. It specifically states that a lot entirely within the floodplain shall contain one acre minimums. We are creating a new lot and initially it is important to look first to that regulation because that it is determined by the flood damage prevention code the minimum size of a lot that is entirely within that floodplain area. Another consideration that we tried to take into account is that if we are not able to create a lot that meets this ordinance anything that occurs on this tract in the future will require some type of variance. We don't want to basically create problems for ourselves and create situations where a project or a lot cannot be developed or modified in any way without coming before the Planning Commission for some type of approval of a variance. We were trying to avoid a variance in the future and also to meet that minimum lot size requirement that is stated in the flood damage prevention code. Shackelford: Dawn, you said one thing that caught my attention there. The further developed or modified. As I drove by this property it:is totally paved at this point. I don't know what other development so I am questioning the modification side of it. If they wanted to do a remodel ten years from now and they come.into the City of Fayetteville to get a building permit to change the facade of the existing building it will have to come before the Planning Commission at that point is that what you are saying? Warrick: I think it would depend upon what was being changed. There are variances that can be granted for reconstruction or rehabilitation of an existing facility.That is the way that the code addresses variances in the flood damage prevention code. It talks about that variances can be issued for new construction. They can be issued for rehabilitation of existing structures. We are not talking about new construction or K:IReports12004IPCReporisl01-12-040P 04-0100(Dixie Development).doc December 12,200$ Planning Commission LSP 04-01.00(Dixie Development) Page 1.9 rehabilitation. We are talking about creating a new lot. The variance section doesn't specifically address the creation of a new lot. Another portion of the ordinance does where it talks about minimum lot sizes. Shackelford: We are not really creating new development. We are creating a new lot but the development is already there and I guess that is my next question Matt. I am obviously not a flood expert. If the property is already 100% paved, what development could happen on this additional property that would affect the floodplain? Casey: If they placed any fill on the site or expanded the existing structure that would be taking up volume that would not be occupied by water in a large storm event and that would increase the base flood elevation. Shackelford: In order to do that though they would have to come back through your department for permit and if we noted it somewhere that could be picked up at that time correct? Casey: Yes. Shackelford: Thank you very much. That's all I have. Hoover: Commissioners? Anthes: A question of staff. This building already has some age on it. If we grant this Lot Split and somebody comes back to redevelop and they are going to tear down this building and put something else there,can you see any case that since there is not the one acre minimum lot size that would render the parcel'undevelopable and therefore, be more of a hardship on the applicant than buying extra land now would be? Warrick: I think obviously it would depend on the project. It would seem tome that if the will and the finances are there sites and projects can be mitigated to comply with regulations. Again, I'm not sure. I think that there are always opportunities for people to mitigate situations like that through alternative development methods maybe. They might be able to compensate for the size of the property that they have by elevating the structure or some other means of mitigating the situation. I'm not sure exactly what those development practices might be. I wouldn't say that it is impossible. Shackelford: Let me ask the same question in a different way. Assuming that we were looking at a request today to tear down this building and rebuild it in the same footprint, same size as it is currently a new building would staff be in support of that? Warrick: If we were looking at a new development it would need to comply with our regulations. It would need to meet the minimum standards for the floodplain K.IReports12004WCReportsIOl-12-0411SP 04-01.00.(Dixie Developmentt).doc - December 12,2003 Planning Commission LSP 04-01.00(Dixie Development) Page 1.10 regulation in that area. No rise to the base flood elevation is generally the goal of complying with those regulations. It may require a variance. Hoover: I feel more compelled to grant this variance because this is an existing condition. I can understand our regulations if we were doing a lot split that nothing was built on but these are already existing buildings and I just don't see,to me this qualifies as a hardship in this case. Shackelford: I concur with that too. I am getting comfortable with the waiver request based on the conversation that we have had. My only concern is what are we doing to the potential land owner if we put this requirement that the City Attorney is recommending that no further development be allowed on this property going forward. My question is that something that is going to be a detriment to the deal between the landowner and the proposed owner at this point? Hoover: Matt Casey had a comment about that. I thought when they come to get their permit. Casey: Any redevelopment of the site would still have to meet the no rise requirement. If they did redevelop the site we would still have to ensure that condition. Williams: I guess I would modify my recommendation. I would say without subsequent Planning Commission approval. Obviously, they could come back for another variance that another Planning Commission could hear and determine whether or not any development beyond what is there right now would be allowed. I think if they increase the footprint of their building at all it is going to be impossible to meet this variance. If they did not increase the footprint of their building they might be able to meet the variance requirements. MOTION: Shackelford: With that being said,I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSP 03-60.00 subj ect to the conditions of approval as they are with the specific finding in favor of granting the waiver regarding the size of the lot. I think as we have had this conversation,this is a pretty exceptional situation,extraordinary situation. The lot is developed. They are land locked and there are restrictions on each side. I think that by requiring the one acre would cause an undue hardship and the fact that this is a development that is in place and there is no new development that is being proposed at this time I think this is a waiver that I would support so I would go ahead and make a motion that we approve this Lot Split as presented. Hoover: I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford. Bunch:Second. K.IRepora00041PCReporis101-12-0411SP 04-01.00(Dixie Development).doc December 12,2003 Planning Commission LSP 04-01.00(Dixie Development) Page 1.11 Hoover: A second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there more discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 03-60.00 was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of nine to zero. K.Teports12OO4TCReportsiOl-12-040P 04-01.00(Dixie Development).doc December 12,2003 Planning Commission LSP 04-01.00(Dixie Development) Page 1.12 JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 124 WEST SUNBRIDGE,SUITE 5 • FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 72703 (479)442-9127 • FAX(479) 582-4807 DAVID L.JORGENSEN,P.E.,P.L.S. CHRISTOPHER B.BRACKETT,P.E. City of Fayetteville 12/31/03 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Att: Jeremy Pate Re : Lot Split for Dixie Dev. Dear Jeremy; As requested I am writing on behalf of Dixie Development regarding a lot split that is pending. The lot split location is in Colt Square and it turns out that the entire lot is affected by the 100 year flood plain. You will notice from the FIRM that a good portion of this subdivision is affected by the floodplain. I would imagine that when Colt Square Subdivision was developed that not near as much of this property was affected. As you can see, this property is not next to the creek and in fact is somewhat removed from the creek and in the fringe. With the granting of this variance the lot can be split so that the owner can sell to Area Agency for Aging. Area Agency on Aging has been renting for approximately 12 years and they just want to purchase.the building. The granting of this variance will not present a hardship because these buildings exist and no additional development will occur in this location. No increase in the flood heights will occur and there will not be any additional threat to public safety nor will this variance cause fraud or conflict with other provisions of the code of Fayetteville. Please review and call concerning any questions you may have. Thank you. Sincerely; David L. J gensen, P.E. December 12,2003 Planning Commission LSP 04-01.00(Dixie Development) Page 1.13 • STRUCTURAL DESIGN • LAND DEVELOPMENT WATER SYSTEMS WASTEWATER SYSTEMS • LAND SURVEYING w -Ell .r.. .� ---------------- k J g= RN i f ✓ y c� 3 ss v' £E-w� (•��i°�v'n5 - 31 `-moi- T. �S e� �. n r Y 4 b � � wt�i�P.'i44}c•a ,Y� ✓ FYS y Y 1 • �' II i LSP04-01:00 DIXIE DEVELOPMENT One Mile View 1 '.I I II rRA '> �_ � I a f R-O RSFA RSFAJ 3!5541 I iRSF :_ ( 501•'tT.111fiiPF11f111 - r_ -. J J,L �iT r _ -rte I_ - S I if J- IirTl(II III -IT RMFs4 J(il,l r � I'7 F-- 1�„ if ------ r - _ j IV,Fil � s utF24 °.z _ I - IRMF.SaIQ? r Zi m . .>_ R $ +IryL-1-li �J+I ' 53 , pl , f 1 y cat ca r - c4 i � �`-r il-i f. I 1 Lif , .I 1 `,t 34 1 i Il lI I R`�Irafpl ' , - - ij a_3F'+iFYI-i1�1f}. i 1i A .. I J L R-0 RSFA I. F .RSRA RSRary / r , I- F- 1'--1_ f t daFAi a r it -� - 1, kg- 1r r I - f l 3 ( cz L1F i1�1_: J r1 r 7 rr � , 1� � �t.y �� -_ -4-.��-'-'�'�R i'`"'^- HfIW1WiINIHrIIh'll�y�+ ;•�"- Rs'FA - - a- I� It t I , IIIc-III_RMFR RA . RSFA - r z j - "+L RA 'l it A" Cx __RMF 14 4 - gsFd 7_I-. G2 r I 1 Lao.RgA - -.irk �t i Ir�-0 z L{!j-✓- 1 1L I RW . - R 4t �aerrza�d' � rf it /- .I RA - 1 }- RMFRa z 4 ~ _ r � yiSA R - 1Gz 1 ft(dFZe RMF-24I 1 1 1 e2 RW-34 �L F I-1 I -� I i 1_. L F4O-�_� RSFA_ A �-\y ,r1 rs-'_. { r _ ' UJ - `za 7 — c 4f AMF2 -.-,�1 11 I - 4 ..\ ✓�{3..L _ �' �Aa j'� J�C 2 1 ;{SFS _ GZ i16FA= `�u 1 - RSFA .-�-�•! ��I T 1 at G3 : LL,, I RSF.4� i L �IRMFAO RSrt'�T. s �,it k f z Ic r I r P 3/\ � � Ft1,4F4e R-0 �1. R",'., . -RSF4_..�R�'1 :BSFA 0.SFAR Overview Legend r - Subject Property Boundary Master street Pian LSP04-01.00 ''+,.a Planning Area �'a, FreewaYrRWesswaY Pa streets °oo_o$Overlay District 'Pond IArtenal �p Min°rArivel ri `, ;l -�.E sting L_ I City Limits a�4eda i ,Sd} y'� !�}�`.PWR"°d (J Outside City 00., wstaric coaecwr December 12,2003 Planning Commission- - =' 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 LSP 4-01.00(Dixie Development) _ Miles Page 1.15 R-PZD 04-02.00 Page I FAYETTEVILLE PC Meeting of January 12, 2004 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:501-575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Subdivision Committee Members FROM: Suzanne Morgan, Associate Planner Matt Casey, Staff Engineer THRU: Dawn Warrick, A.I.C.P.,Zoning&Development Administrator DATE: December 29,2003 R-PZD 04-02.00: Residential Planned Zoning District(Cross Keys,pp 438)was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen&Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan and Sloan Properties for property located south of Wedington Drive at the corner of N. 46th and Persimmon Street. The property is currently zoned R-A,Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 38.48 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow for the development of a residential subdivision with 108 single family dwellings proposed. Planner: Suzanne Morgan Findings: The applicant requests a rezoning and preliminary plat approval for a residential development within an R-PZD zoning district. The proposed use is single-family residential, with 108 lots proposed. A detention pond is to be located off-site to the south,on property also owned by the applicant. Density for the entire site is 2.81 units per acre. The development is currently zoned R-A,Residential Agricultural. The site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Persimmon Street and 46th Street. The applicant has proposed to erect a fence along these two rights-of-way. The preliminary plat for Persimmon Place Subdivision, located west of 46th St., was approved with a condition that a privacy fence six feet in height be constructed as required in the Bill of Assurance filed when this property was rezoned. This item must be heard at City Council pursuant to the requirements for a PZD. Surrounding Land Use/Zoning: Direction Land Use Zoning North Single family residential RSF-4, Residential Single-family—4 units per acre R-A, Residential Agricultural South One single-family home Planning Area East Vacant RSF-4, Residential Single-family-4 units per acre West Vacant(Persimmon Place PPL is RSF-4, Residential Single-family—4 under construction) units per acre Right-of-way being dedicated: 50' for all interior rights-of-way, 70' along Persimmon St., and 50' along 46th St. K:IREPORTSI2004TC REPORTS101-12-0418-PZD 04-02.00 CROSS KEYS.DOC January 12,2004 Planning Commission R-PZD 04-02.00(Cross Keys) Page 2.1 R-PZD 04-02.00 Page 2 Connectivity: Connectivity from this proposed residential subdivision is being provided west to 46`h Street, south to Persimmon St., and east to a vacant tract of land for connectivity to future development. Street Improvements: Construction of Persimmon Street along southern property line and a recommendation from Engineering Division to cost share for the developer to overlay the entire width of 46th Street for the length of the project. Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: North: Wedington Drive (principal arterial) approximately 1/2 mile north South: Persimmon Street(collector)planned for construction with this development East: 46`h Street(local street) West: 50 Ave. (collector) is approximately 1/4 mile west Tree Preservation: Existing canopy: 0.13 % Preserved canopy: 0.08 % Mitigation: $1,050 payment into the City's Tree Escrow Account prior to final plat approval. Recommendation: Forward to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the requested rezoning. Planning Commission approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: I Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezoning of the subject property to the unique district for R-PZD 04-02.00 with all conditions of approval as determined by the Planning Commission. 2. An ordinance creating this R-PZD shall be approved by City Council. 3. A Final Plat is required to legalize the lot configuration, filed pursuant to City of Fayetteville requirements. 4. Interior street names shall be approved by the City 9-1-1 Coordinator. 5. Planning Commission determination of appropriate fence material, if desired, and appropriate timing for installation. 6. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends a cost share for the developer to overlay the entire width of 46`h Street for the length of the project. This will require that the Persimmon Place developer leave the finished pavement down 2"from the proposed gutter line on the west side of the street. K.WEPORTS120041PC REPORTS101-12-0418-PZD 04-02.00 CROSS KEYS.DOC January 12,2004 Planning Commission R-PZD 04-02.00(Cross Keys) Page 2.2 R-PZD 04-02.00 Page 3 7. Payment of parks fees in the amount of$59,940 for 108 single-family units. 8. Payment of$1,050 into the City's Tree Escrow Account prior to final plat approval. Standard Conditions of Approval: 9. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives-AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications) 10. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks,parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 11. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a six foot sidewalk and ten foot green space along Persimmon Street and a four foot sidewalk with a six foot greenspace along 46`h Street and all proposed streets. 12. Preliminary Plat shall be valid for one calendar year. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area. c. Project Disk with all final revisions d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by§158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed,not just guaranteed,prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy e. Parks fees paid and/or deed recorded and copy received. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required Approved Denied Date: January 12,2003 , Comments: The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL",beginning on page one of this report, are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. By Title Date K.VREPORTS120041PC REPORTS101-12-0418-PZD 04-02.00 CROSS KEYSDOC January 12,2004 Planning Commission R-PZD 04-02.00(Cross Keys) Page 2.3 R-PZD 04-02.00 Page 4 Findings associated with R-PZD 04-02.00 Sec. 166.06. Planned Zoning Districts (PZD). (B)Development standards, conditions and review guidelines (1) Generally. The Planning Commission shall consider a proposed PZD in light of the purpose and intent as set forth in Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations, and the development standards and review guidelines set forth herein. Primary emphasis shall be placed upon achieving compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding areas so as to preserve and enhance the neighborhood. Proper planning shall involve a consideration of tree preservation, water conservation, preservation of natural site amenities, and the protection of watercourses from erosion and siltation. The Planning Commission shall determine that specific development features, including project density, building locations, common usable open space, the vehicular circulation system, parking areas, screening and landscaping, and perimeter treatment shall be combined in such a way as to further the health, safety, amenity and welfare of the community. To these ends, all applications filed pursuant to this ordinance shall be reviewed in accordance with the same general review guidelines as those utilized for zoning and subdivision applications. FINDING: The subject property is adjacent to property zoned RSF-4 and R-A to the north, and RSF-4 to the east and west. There are single family homes to the north and a preliminary plat has been approved by the Planning Commission for a subdivision of 154 lots on 58.11 acres to the west of this proposed development. The southern property line boarders the City's Planning Area. The subject property is 38.48 acres with 108 single family lots proposed for a density of 2.81 units per acre. (2) Screening and landscaping. In order to enhance the integrity and attractiveness of the development, and when deemed necessary to protect adjacent properties, the Planning Commission shall require landscaping and screening as part of a PZD. The screening and landscaping shall be provided as set forth in §166.09 Buffer Strips and Screening. As part of the development plan, a detailed screening and landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission. Landscape plans shall show the general location, type and quality (size and age) of plant material. Screening plans shall include typical details of fences, berms and plant material to be used. FINDING: The site has 0.13% canopy cover with 0.08% preserved canopy proposed. The applicant has proposed erecting a fence along Persimmon St. and 46`h Street to shield housing to the neighbors to the south and to be compatible with the fence to be placed along the boundaries of the subdivision to the west. The preliminary plat for Persimmon Place to the west was approved with a condition that a fence b' in height be erected along these rights-of-way. K.IReports120041PC Reports101-12-0418-PZD 04-01.00 Cross Keys.doc January 12,2004 Planning Commission R-PZD 04-02.00(Cross Keys) Page 2.4 R-PZD 04-02.00 Page 5 (3) Traffic circulation. The following traffic circulation guidelines shall apply: (a) The adequacy of both the internal and external street systems shall be reviewed in light of the projected future traffic volumes. (b) The traffic circulation system shall be comprised of a hierarchal scheme of local collector and arterial streets, each designed to accommodate its proper function and in appropriate relationship with one another. (c) Design of the internal street circulation system must be sensitive to such considerations as safety, convenience, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, general attractiveness, access to dwelling units and the proper relationship of different land uses. (d) Internal collector streets shall be coordinated with the existing external street system, providing for the efficient flow of traffic into and out of the planned zoning development. (e) Internal local streets shall be designed to discourage through traffic within the planned zoning development and to adjacent areas. (f) Design provisions for ingress and egress for any site along with service drives and interior circulation shall be that required by Chapter 166 Development of this code. FINDING: Connectivity from this proposed residential subdivision is being provided west to 46`" Street, south to Persimmon St., and cast to a vacant tract of land for connectivity to future development. All rights-of-way within the subdivision shall be dedicated to the City. (4) Parking standards. The off-street parking and loading standards found in Chapter 172 Parking and Loading shall apply to the specific gross usable or leasable floor areas of the respective use areas. FINDING: Each lot shall be for single family use and provide the required two off-street parking spaces per unit. (5) Perimeter treatment. Notwithstanding any other provisions of a planned zoning district, all uses of land or structures shall meet the open space, buffer or green strip provisions of this chapter of this code. FINDING: The land use meets all the requirements for open space, buffer or green strip provisions of the chapter in the code. (6) Sidewalks. As required by §166.03. K IReports120041PC Reports101-12-0418-PZD 04-02.00 Cross Keys.doc January 12,2004 Planning Commission R-PZD 04-02.00(Cross Keys) Page 2.5 R-PZD 04-02.00 Page 6 FINDING: Sidewalk construction shall be in accordance with current standards to include a six foot sidewalk and ten foot green space along Persimmon Street and a four foot sidewalk with a six foot greenspace along 46th Street and all proposed streets within the development. (7) Street Lights. As required by §166.03. FINDING: Street lights are being provided along Persimmon Place and within the development with spacing not to exceed 300 feet. (8) Water. As required by §166.03. FINDING: Water shall be extended to the subject property. (9)Sewer. As required by §166.03. FINDING: Sewer shall be extended to serve the subject property. (10) Streets and Drainage. Streets within a residential PZD may be either public or private. (a) Public Streets. Public streets shall be constructed according to the adopted standards of the City. (b) Private Streets. Private streets within a residential PZD shall be permitted subject to the following conditions: (i) Private streets shall be permitted for only a loop street, or street ending with a cul- de-sac. Any street connecting one or more public streets shall be constructed to existing City standards and shall be dedicated as a public street. (ii) Private streets shall be designed and constructed to the same standards as public streets with the exceptions of width and cul-de-sacs as noted below. (iii)All grading and drainage within a Planned Zoning District including site drainage and drainage for private streets shall comply with the City's Grading (Physical Alteration of Land) and Drainage (Storm water management) Ordinances. Open drainage systems may be approved by the City Engineer. (iv) Maximum density served by a cul-de-sac shall be 40 units. Maximum density served by a loop street shall be 80 units. K.Teportst20MPC Reports101-12-041R-PZD 04-02.00 Cross Keys.doc January 12,2004 Planning Commission R-PZD 04-02.00(Cross Keys) Page 2.6 R-PZD 04-02.00 Page 7 (v) The plat of the planned development shall designate each private street as a "private street." (vi) Maintenance of private streets shall be the responsibility of the developer or of a neighborhood property owners association (POA) and shall not be the responsibility of the City. The method for maintenance and a maintenance fund shall be established by the PZD covenants. The covenants shall expressly provide that the City is a third party beneficiary to the covenants and shall have the right to enforce the street maintenance requirements of the covenants irrespective of the vote of the other parties to the covenants. (vii) The covenants shall provide that in the event the private streets are not maintained as required by the covenants, the City shall have the right (but shall not be required) to maintain said streets and to charge the cost thereof to the property owners within the PZD on a pro rata basis according to assessed valuation for ad valorem tax purposes and shall have a lien on the real property within the PZD for such cost. The protective covenants shall grant the City the right to use all private streets for purposes of providing fire and police protection, sanitation service and any other of the municipal functions. The protective covenants shall provide that such covenants shall not be amended and shall not terminate without approval of the City Council. (viii) The width of private streets may vary according to the density served. The following standard shall be used: Paving Width (No On-Street Parking) Dwelling One-Way Two-Way Units 1 - 20 14' 22' 21+ 14' 24' *Note: If on-street parking is desired, 6 feet must be added to each side where parking is intended. (ix) All of the traffic laws prescribed by Title VII shall apply to traffic on private streets within a PZD. (x) There shall be no minimum building setback requirement from a private street. K.Teports12004WC Reports101-12-0418-PZD 04-02.00 Cross Keys.doc January 12,2004 .Planning Commission R-PZD 04-02.00(Cross Keys) Page 2.7 R-PZD 04-02.00 Page 8 (xi) The developer shall erect at the entrance of each private street a rectangular sign, not exceeding 24 inches by 12 inches, designating the street a "private street" which shall be clearly visible to motor vehicular traffic. FINDING: Rights-of-way shall be dedicated to the City of Fayetteville and constructed to City standards. (11) Construction of nonresidential facilities. Prior to issuance of more than eight building permits for any residential PZD, all approved nonresidential facilities shall be constructed. In the event the developer proposed to develop the PZD in phases, and the nonresidential facilities are not proposed in the initial phase, the developer shall enter into a contract with the City to guarantee completion of the nonresidential facilities. FINDING: N/A (12) Tree preservation. All PZD developments shall comply with the requirements for tree preservation as set forth in Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection. The location of trees shall be considered when planning the common open space, location of buildings, underground services, walks, paved areas, playgrounds, parking areas, and finished grade levels. FINDING: The site has 0.13% canopy with 0.08% preservation proposed. Mitigation of $1,050 into the City's Tree Escrow Account is required. (13) Commercial design standards. All PZD developments that contain office or commercial structures shall comply with the commercial design standards as set forth in §166.14 Site Development Standards and Construction and Appearance Design Standards for Commercial Structures. FINDING: N/A (14) View protection. The Planning Commission shall have the right to establish special height and/or positioning restrictions where scenic views are involved and shall have the right to insure the perpetuation of those views through protective covenant restrictions. FINDING: Location of property is located on relatively flat land. No view shed has been identified in this area. (E) Revocation. (1) Causes for revocation as enforcement action. The Planning Commission may K.IRepor&2004WC RepoHs101-12-041R-PZD 04-02.00 Cross Keys.doc January l2,2004 Planning Commission R-PZD 04-02.00(Cross Keys) Page 2.8 R-PZD 04-02.00 Page 9 recommend to the City Council that any PZD approval be revoked and all building or occupancy permits be voided under the following circumstances: (a) Building permit. If no building permit has been issued within the time allowed. (b) Phased development schedule. If the applicant does not adhere to the phased development schedule as stated in the approved development plan. (C) Open space and recreational facilities. If the construction and provision of all common open spaces and public and recreational facilities which are shown on the final plan are proceeding at a substantially slower rate than other project components. Planning staff shall report the status of each ongoing PZD at the first regular meeting of each quarter, so that_the Planning Commission is able to compare the actual development accomplished with the approved development schedule. If the Planning Commission finds that the rate of construction of dwelling units or other commercial or industrial structures is substantially greater than the rate at which common open spaces and public recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, then the Planning Commission may initiate revocation action or cease to approve any additional final plans if precedingphases have not been finalized. The city may also issue a stop work order, or discontinue issuance of building or occupancy permits, or revoke those previously issued. (2) Procedures. Prior to a recommendation of revocation, notice by certified mail shall be sent to the landowner or authorized agent giving notice of the alleged default, setting a time to appear before the Planning Commission to show cause why steps should not be made to totally or partially revoke the PZD. The Planning Commission recommendation shall be forwarded to the City Council for disposition as in original approvals. In the event a PZD is revoked, the City Council shall take the appropriate action in the city clerk's office and the public zoning record duly noted. (3) Effect. In the event of revocation, any completed portions of the development or those portions for which building permits have been issued shall be treated to be a whole and effective development.After causes for revocation or enforcement have been corrected, the City Council shall expunge such record as established above and shall authorize continued issuance of building permits. (F) Covenants, trusts and homeowner associations. (1) Legal entities. The developer shall create such legal entities as appropriate to undertake and be responsible for the ownership, operation, construction, and maintenance of private roads, parking areas, common usable open space, community facilities, recreation areas, building, lighting, security measure and similar common elements in a development. The K.IReports120041PC Reports101-12-0418-PZD 04-02.00 Cross Keys.doc January12,2004 Planning Commission R-PZD 04-02.00(Cross Keys) Page 2.9 R-PZD 04-02.00 Page 10 city encourages the creation of homeowner associations, funded community trusts or other nonprofit organizations implemented by agreements, private improvement district, contracts and covenants. All legal instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of such open space, recreation areas and communally- owned facilities shall be approved by the City Attorney as to legal form and effect, and by the Planning Commission as to the suitability for the proposed use of the open areas. The aforementioned legal instruments shall be provided to the Planning Commission together with the filing of the final plan, except that the Guarantee shall be filed with the preliminary plan or at least in a preliminary form. (2) Common areas. If the common open space is deeded to a homeowner association, the developer shall file with the plat a declaration of covenants and restrictions in the Guarantee that will govern the association with the application for final plan approval. The provisions shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: (a) The homeowner's association must be legally established before building permits are granted. (b) Membership and fees must be mandatory for each home buyer and successive buyer. (C) The open space restrictions must be permanent, rather than for a period of years. (d) The association must be responsible for the maintenance of recreational and other common facilities covered by the agreement and for all liability insurance, local taxes and other public assessments. (e) Homeowners must pay their pro rata share of the initial cost; the maintenance assessment levied by the association must be stipulated as a potential lien on the property. FINDING: The applicant has submitted a Bill of Assurance and Protective Covenants and Restrictions for Cross Keys Subdivision. Sec. 161.25 Planned Zoning District (A) Purpose. The intent of the Planned Zoning District is to permit and encourage comprehensively planned developments whose purpose is redevelopment, economic development, cultural enrichment or to provide a single-purpose or mixed-use planned development and to permit the combination of development and zoning review into a simultaneous process. The rezoning of property to the PZD may be deemed appropriate if the development proposed for the district can accomplish one or more of the following goals. (1) Flexibility. Providing for flexibility in the distribution of land uses, in the density of development and in other matters typically regulated in zoning districts. K.-Teports120041PC Reporis101-12-041R-PZD 04-02.00 Cross Keys.doc January 12,2004 Planning Commission R-PZD 04-02.00(Cross Keys) Page 2.10