Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout108-01-B RESOLUTION• RESOLUTION NO. 108-01-B A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LESSER DEDICATION OF A DEED RESTRICTING CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS ON LAND WHICH WOULD BE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF STARR ROAD, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, pursuant to §156.03 may approve a lesser dedication of right-of-way for a street on the Master Street Plan in the event of undue hardship or practical difficulties; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to reduce the standard dedication of right-of- way to a deed restricting building upon the proposed right-of-way as a rough proportionality to the impact of this lot split upon the transportation needs of the citizens of Fayetteville. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas reduces the normal dedication of land for the right-of-way for the proposed extension of Starr Road as shown on the Master Street Plan to a deed given by the applicant to the City restricting and prohibiting any buildings or permanent structures to be constructed upon this right-of-way. PASSED and APPROVED this the 17th day of July, 2001. A•�rr. ATTEST: By: 4l/ ` 1 fia5 Woodruff, City C rk APPROVED: By: • NAME OF FILE: CROSS REFERENCE: Resolution No. 108-01-B 1 07/17/01 Resolution No. 108-01-B 07/10/01 Notice of Appeal from Dale Varner, Attorney for Patrick Hannan, LS 01- 20.00: Lot Split at 382 Jarnagan Street 06/21/01 Memo to Fayetteville Planning Commission Members thru Tim Conklin, City Planner, from Sara Edwards, Ron Petrie P.E. 06/25/01 Planning Commission Minutes (Pages 3-10) NOTES: • City Council 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Honorable City Council: • 07-10-01PO4:3' DALE VARNER Attorney at Law 129 West Lafayette Fayetteville. Arkansas 7'_701 Tel: (501) 587-9300 Fax: (501) 587-9339 email: willrrpro©aoLcom i RECEIVED JUL 10 2001 RE• LS 01-20.00: Lot Split (Hannan, pg 529) NOTICE OF APPEAL CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERICS OFFICE Please be advised that Patrick Hannan respectfully appeals the decision of the Planning Commission of June 25, 2001 requiring a 45 foot easement on the south side of the property for future road development. This property is in the growth area of the city, east of Huntsville Road on Jamagan Lane. Please put this on the agenda for the Council meeting of July 17th. Dale Varner Attomey for Hannan's • FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 LS 01-20.00 PC Meeting of 25 June 01 Hannan Lot Split TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner FROM: Sara Edwards, Ron Petrie P.E. DATE: June 21, 2001 Project: LS 01-20.00: Lot Split (Hannan, pp 529) was submitted by Patrick Hannan for property located at 382 Jarnagan Street. The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 11 '/2 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 9' /2 acres and 2 acres. Findings: This property is located on Jamagan Lane approximately 800 feet north of Huntsville Road. There is one single family home on this property. The applicant is dedicating the required right-of-way based upon Washington County road standards along Jarnagan Lane. There is a proposed Minor Arterial street located on this property. Recommendation: Approval subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver to relieve applicant of the dedication of right-of-way required as part of the Master Street Plan. The requirement is for 45 feet from centerline. Approximately 60,000 square feet is the area of required dedication. See attached close up map for exact location. 2. Survey shall show the limits of the 100 year floodplain. 3. Survey shall describe the 15 feet on either side of Jamagan Lane as right-of-way dedicated to Washington County. 4. Applicant shall obtain approval from Washington County Planning pnor to filing this lot split. An elevation certificate shall be required prior to building. Flood insurance may be required on all new structures. 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) Planning Commission June 25, 2001 ISP 01-20 Hannan Page 1.1 Page 1 • Background: • LS 01 -20.00 The proposed Lot Split was reviewed at the May 30, 2001 Technical Plat review and the June 14, 2001 Subdivision Committee meeting. Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included the waiver request from the Master Street Plan right-of-way dedication. The Subdivision Committee forwarded the Lot Split to the full Planning Commission "subject to the four staff conditions for the full Planning Commission to consider the lesser dedication of right-of-way on the Master Street Plan and to also consider making a plat notation that should the money in lieu of sidewalk ordinance be passed by the City Council and become an ordinance that be an option available to this applicant." INFRASTRUCTURE• a) Water will only be available to Tract B. A water extension will be required if water is requested for the existing residence on Tract A. b) Sanitary sewer is not available. c) Streets. Not applicable. d) Grading and Drainage. Not applicable. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ves Required Approved Denied Date: Comments: Planning Commission June 25, 2001 LSP 01-20 Hannan Page 1.2 Page 2 • • LS 01-20.00 Page 3 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Yes Required Approved Denied Date: / / 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 Planning Commission June 25, 2001 ISP 01-20 Hannan Page 1.3 Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 3 LSP 01-20.00: Lot Split (Hannan, pp 529) was submitted by Patrick Hannan for property located at 382 Jamagan Street. The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 11 1/2 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 9 '/2 acres and 2 acres with a waiver of the Master Street right of way dedication requirements. Estes: The first item of business under new business is lot split submitted by Patrick Hannan for property located at 382 Jamagan Street. The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 11 1/2 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 9 '/2 acres and 2 acres with a waiver of the Master Street right of way dedication requirements. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions of approval: Number one, Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver to relieve applicant of the dedication of right-of-way required as part of the Master Street Plan. The requirement is for 45 feet from centerline. Approximately 60,000 square feet is the area of required dedication. Number two, survey shall show the limits of the 100 year floodplain. Number three, survey shall describe the 15 feet on either side of Jamagan Lane as nght-of-way dedicated to Washington County. Number four, applicant shall obtain approval from Washington County Planning prior to filing this lot split. An elevation certificate shall be required prior to building. Flood insurance may be required on all new structures. Number five, Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Westem Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications). Is the applicant present? Do you have a presentation you would like to make to the Planning Commission? If so, would you please come forward, state your name and provide us with the benefit of your presentation. Varner: My name is Dale Varner and I represent the Hannan's and the Jamagan's. This is a situation where a father who owns 11 acres roughly wants to split off 2 and give it to his daughter so she can build a house on the property that he's had for 45 to 50 years. They have no objection to the issuance to the easement across the front of the two acres. However, they request a waiver of the request by the Planning staff for the 45 foot cutting across the back of the 2 acre lot. It seems to me, at this point in time, there is no street that's really dedicated or close to the property and it's a proposal that may or may not happen. I think that in a sense that if they were forced to give this up in the hopes that some day to have a street that goes through there, it would really be taking his property without the benefit of getting money that you would be entitled to if it was condemned for a road purpose. It seems to me that, under the circumstances, this is not a big development that's going through there and they are going to build their own home on the property. There is some problem with the floodplain that the front part of P 0 Planning Comirussion June 25, 2001 Page 4 the property is lower than the back and they will be building on the back portion of the property, it's about five feet higher than the front. I don't think there is a flood problem, although it is in the floodplain area. I think that under the circumstances that this is a father who wants his family to live close to him and be a part of the property that he has owned for a long period of time. You are really straining to hold them to some rigid requirements especially since they are in the growth zone and not in the City of Fayetteville. Recognizing that there must be some orderly positions held for future developments but under these circumstances it doesn't look like Mr. Jamagan is going to do anything on the basis of developing the property other than his own family and I don't think that's going to be a burden on the City. He has his own water supply, he has his own lane that goes up through there. They are requesting that this go up into this property and if it does a part of the right-of-way will go right through his bam and some of the other areas that he already has. I don't think, since he is donating the property to his daughter that he shouldn't sacrifice what will happen to his barn because of some requirement. This is really his driveway in a sense and it has been a dedicated lane, it's not a highway. It is not a dedicated road in any sense. They have no objection to the utility easement and whatnot, they have no objection to widening the lane in front of their property by 15 feet but not to the expense of the father. If you will look on the map the lane on one side has property owned by other people, not the father. There are other houses that are not listed there on the map that they are right close to the comer where Jarnagan Lane and that two acres are. It isn't one of those situations where the road is going to be widened. It will be alright up against their property but they have no control over what happens to the property across those two acres The lane itself has been dedicated already and they have no control over that and connecting to 16. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested lot split? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions and consideration. Bunch: Just a matter of housekeeping and clarification, it is unclear on the drawing just where Jamagan Lane starts and the applicants driveway starts In our conditions of approval it does mention in number three that 15 feet on either side of Jamagan Lane as nght-of- IMP Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 5 way. The point was raised that one side of the street is someone else's property. I think it would help to clarify, for the record, just where Jamagan Lane ends and the driveway begins. Tim, could you shed some light on that? Conklin: On their survey, tract A, Jarnagan Lane is located within the property so they own both sides. Approximately 209 feet south of tract A includes tract B, that is the location where we only have 15 feet on the east side. Bunch: Is it only on the front of tract B? Conklin: It's in front of both tracts. Bunch:. We are saying that the road actually extends into tract A rather than that being his driveway? Conklin: Yes. By our ordinance requirements they are required to have 75 feet of road frontage for tract A. Therefore, it does extend into tract A, it does not end at tract B. Hoffman: To get 75 feet we are extending the road up through their property? Conklin: Yes. They are required to have 75 feet of road frontage. Hoffman: In essence tract A would wrap around it. I thought the issue was more of a right-of- way dedication for Starr Drive on the east but that doesn't seem to be an issue anymore? Conklin: That still is an issue. They are requesting the Planning Commission wave that dedication of requirement, in condition number one. We did place in your packet on 1.7 that ordinance requirement under 156.03(d)(1)(a)(3). It states "..the Planning Commission may approve a lesser dedication in the event of undue hardship or practical difficulties Such lessor dedication shall be subject to approval by the City Council " They are asking at this time not to dedicate that right-of-way Hoffman: I would like to hear a little bit more from that applicant. I would view the hardship as being extension of Jamagan Lane into the property between the house and the barn and if tract A, at some time, were to develop more densely then that would be looked at as a function of the size of the property for either a rezoning or large scale development or something. There doesn't seem to me to be as compelling a hardship on the east side because there are no structures currently located there. If some were posed at a later Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 6 date and it didn't look like that road was going to develop, a future Commission could address it then. I would be willing to consider a lesser right-of-way up through the middle of his property on tract A but keep the required dedication for Starr Dnve. Would it be okay for the applicant to respond to that? Varner: My client has no objection to dedication of the street that runs by the small two acre portion to put it there but not clear up into his where Jamagan Lane ends and runs into his property. It's more or less a driveway in a sense, it's not part of the lane. They have no objection to widening or giving the easement across the two acre portion that's being cut off. Hoffman: The reason I'm saying that I would view it as being okay to stop it at the property or thereabouts would be because it's not shown to be a through street on our Master Street Plan but I'm also addressing Stan Lane on the east side of the property, that is shown to be a through street. As these larger tracts develop in the future, I think that it's important that the Planning Commission consider it. We are pretty big on connectivity and it would be important for us to retain that flexibility. I think we all drive on roads now that were at some time dedicated as right-of-way prior to development. Varner: The problem that I see in terms of that on the east end, that the 90 feet that is required, if and when this is annexed into the City then the street would go through, that could be taken into consideration at that time. I don't think that, under the circumstances, if we are talking 10 or 20 years before they develop that road, we would be taking that property without compensation by forcing them to give a right-of-way through there right now just for the sake of giving their daughter a place to build a house. Somehow I don't find that quite ethical. Hoffman: We certainly don't want to appear to be punitive and that's not my intention at all. It's a question of trying to apply the subdivision regulations evenly across the board. As lots are subdivided and re -subdivided, the Planning Commission typically does require the nght-of-way to be left aside. There have been times where other people have shown, over long periods of time, if the development is not warranted then we can take a look at the Master Street Plan and the Master Street Plan goes through public hearings and so on and so forth. We've revised it several times within the last year. Varner: I certainly would agree that if this was a development which would be putting 20 or 50 houses in there, there would be a problem later on with deciding where the road is going to go and we would have to take houses out to accomplish it I could certainly understand that. They have no intention of building close enough to that proposed a �r Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 7 right-of-way that it might happen to create this. This is not a big development, he's giving his daughter two acres to build a house on. It isn't going to create a problem I can see for any future development the City might have by putting that Starr Lane through there. Estes: The reason that we must consider the dedication of nght-of-way is because of our Unified Development Ordinance in Section 156, is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. Any time you consider a lot split, the applicant is required to dedicate the right-of-way based on the Master Street Plan. Estes: That is City ordinance? Conklin: That is correct. Ward: Tim, if we approve this, they can appeal to City Council if they want to get this street dedication changed? Conklin: If you approve a condition that they dedicate it, yes they could appeal that decision. If you make a recommendation not to require them to dedicate it, it still needs to go to City Council and they have to approve that lesser dedication. Vamer: I might indicate that in the event that this is turned down, that they are required to do this, you are not going to have a lot split. There is not going to be a portion to have. Hoffman: Are you referring to the dedication on the east for Starr or are you referring to both? Varner: Just to Starr. Ward: With what we have to work with, the only thing we can do is approve a lesser dedication, in the event that you can prove an undue hardslup. We've done this in past where somebody had a home nght where a major arterial was going through. We've taken deed restrictions where they couldn't put any other structures on this land. It looks like we are talking about an acre and a half here of dedication you are being asked to provide. At this level, unless you can show us an undue hardship, I don't think we have any choice. Varner: It certainly is an undue hardship on the people who are planning to build a home near their father so they can look after their father. It's not like they are going to build 20 Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 8 Ward: a houses in there. It certainly is an undue hardship on them in terms of having to look someplace else to build a home and they wanted on the family land. It's not like the father just went in and bought the acreage. If next week we wanted to extend that road through their property, we would have to come out and buy it and condemn it, take the property one way or the other and pay them for that right which we are not having to do at this point since they are asking us a favor. Varner: They would consider that they would give a covenant that they would not build on that proposed right-of-way and when it comes time to build it or do whatever you are going to do with it, as far as the road is concerned, they could decide what they have to do. The City is going to have to buy it or whatever. Estes: My views are in conformity to Commissioner Ward's. We have this UDO section that when there is a subdivision creating only one new lot or lot split, which is what is before us, that we must consider a dedication of right-of-way. There is nothing subjective on our part, it's mandated by ordinance and we must follow the ordinance. It provides that Planning Commission may approve a lesser dedication in the event of undue hardship or practical difficulties. Even if we approve a lesser dedication, it's subject to approval by the City Council. We've got to make a finding of fact that there is an undue hardship or practical difficulty. When we discussed this at agenda and also at Subdivision, there was some reference to, in the past, if we have ever done such a thing. The answer was "Yes". For example where the dedication of right-of-way went through somebody's home. In this case, I concur with Commissioner Ward. Let me ask staff some questions, Starr Road is on the Master Street Plan? Conklin: Yes. It is designated as a collector and minor arterial street. Estes: It extends north from Huntsville and connects with Wyman Road to the north9 Conklin: It goes north of Wyman Road and when you get to the top of the hill, before it turns back to the west, it continues on north as a minor arterial, Starr Road south of Highway 45 back to the east, it is designated as a collector street. The portion of right-of-way that we are looking at today is located between Wyman Road and Huntsville Road, it's at the east end of this lot so it would be one piece of undeveloped nght-of-way that would be dedicated to the City at this time. Estes: To grant the requested waiver, we cannot amend the Master Street Plan? Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 9 Varner: Conklin: Estes: Varner: Estes: MOTION: Hoffman: Ward: Estes: M Does the Master Street Plan include the growth area? Yes it does. The way I view it is, we cannot, in this proceeding this evening, amend the Master Street Plan and to grant the requested waiver. We are going to have to ignore, pay no attention to or amend, see no evil, hear no evil, do no evil. We are going to have to create a fiction that the Master Street Plan doesn't exist. We can't do that. The second thing we would have to do, according to the ordinance, is make a finding of undue hardship or practical difficulties. 1 guess the Planning Commission has to do what they have to do but it's going to eliminate the need for a lot split. I would almost guarantee it. On condition number three, I'm in agreement with Commissioner Hoffman, I don't see any reason to run that 15 foot on either side of Jamagan Lane as a right-of-way, past the point where the west 230 foot line meets the north 209 foot line. I would not be in favor or requiring that at all. I would not grant the requested waiver of the dedication of right-of-way because I just don't see that we can do it. I was going to enter a motion because I do agree with the others about Starr Drive right-of-way. I think that if he wants to take the case to City Council to request that they waive or change the Master Street Plan, that's certainly your right to do so. I agree with you, there is no point at all in having the extension of Jamagan Lane up into the property. I think that's your hardship. Therefore, my motion would be to recommend LS 01-20.00 with the amendment to condition number three, that the 15 feet on either side of Jarnagan Lane dedicated as right-of-way not extend past the northwestern point of tract B, that it extend only to that intersection at the northwestern corner of tract B, where it adjoins tract A. Leave in place the right-of-way dedication for Starr Drive. Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffiiian and motion by Commissioner Ward, is there any discussion? Ward: Would the applicant like to pull or table this or do you want us to go ahead and go a Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 10 through with the voting of it. Varner: I assume you have a vote on it because the other altemative they may have is to ask the Council to change it and if they are denied there, they can also withdraw their motion. I guess we need to take the next step to where we are needing to go to get some relief. Estes: Any other discussion? Sheri, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LS 01-20.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • LOCATION NAP 3E0.13 R 30 11 T N H i Ni NOTEI TNS PROPERTY IS ^ ''AFFECTED EIT TIE IPO YEM 191-000 RIM 111000 YM 0514390180 DATES July 21, S99 LEGEND -x- rE1lE • !OMD ROM Y -r--- POMRUNE O SET POM • LSP01-201Il-WNNAN CHOSE UP Master Street Plan Al Freeway/Expressway N Pnnapal Arterial •.. N6nor Arterial �. Collector Historical Collector %�% STREETS ;%Fayetteville City Limits 200 0 200 400 600 800 Feet Planning Commission June 25, 2001 LSP 01 20 Ila,,,,an Page 1.4 LSP01-20,1ANNAN Olt MILE Master Street Plan Freeway/Expressway Principal Artenal , • Minor Arterial 1 / Collector Historical Collector -`STREETS .,•• Fayetteville City Limits 0.5 Miles Planning Commission June 25, 2001 LSP 01-20 Hannan Page 1.5 015 04 Document Reference RES Date 7/17/2001 City of Fayetteville 6/20/2002 It" 12:39:30 iter Action Ref. Taken Brief Description 108-B STARR ROAD/PROPOSED EXTENSION/R-O-W Keywords • File Reference # Security Class Expiration Date Date for Cont/Referred: Name Referred to • • • RES. 108-01-B STARR ROAD DEDICATION DEED RESTRICTING CONSTRUCTION BUILDINGS ON LAND IN R -O -W RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED EXTENSION JARNAGAN STREET, 382 JULY 17, 2001 HANNAN, PATRICK MICROFILM Cmdl-Return Cmd2-Check Out Cmd5-Abstract Yes No Retention Type: **** Active **** Press Cmd 6 to update Cmd8-Retention Cmd3-End Press 'ENTER' to Continue (c) 1986-1992 Munimetrix systems Corp.