HomeMy WebLinkAbout91-05 RESOLUTION•
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 05
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEDICATION OF A
40 -FOOT WIDE PORTION OF CITY PROPERTY AS
RIGHT-OF-WAY TO ALLOW A STREET CONNECTION
TO MADISON AVENUE BY THE DEVELOPER OF THE HAYS
ESTATES SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, the City's longstanding policy of vehicular and pedestrian
connectivity is best achieved by dedicating sufficient right-of-way to allow the developer
to complete the connection of Arapaho Drive to Madison Avenue over about 115 feet of
city property, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Board
unanimously recommended that the City Council dedicate sufficient right-of-way for the
street connection to Madison Avenue; and
WHEREAS, a second means of ingress and egress will be achieved for the
proposed subdivision by this dedication of right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the connection would provide a means by which the subdivision
development can comply with the Unified Development Code by removing a dead-end
street that does not comply with the UDC.
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 hereby
dedicates a 40 -foot wide portion of city property as shown on the attached plat and legal
description to connect an unnamed street to Madison Avenue.
PASSED and APPROVED this 3rd day of May, 2005.
ATTEST.
By
G\. SG.,
U> •"�\iY
Oc c6
s.
E ;FAYETTEVILLE:
t5_,ti
P% ''KANS: J
".aunuo.."
SONDRA SMIT
ity Clerk
By:
APPROVED:
/69AL
DAN COODY, Mayor
• s?65
s
City Council Meeting of May 03, 2005 9/05
Agenda Item Number ,llach,$Q/J
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To:
Through:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Mayor and City Council
Gary Dumas, Director of Operations
Tim Conklin, Director of Planning and Development Management
April 15, 2005
City Council approval to grant a 40 foot right-of-way located on City
owned property south of Madison Drive to provide public street
connectivity to Hays Estates.
Alan u2
(4)49
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of granting a 40 foot public right of way to allow the
connection to be made to Hays Estates as shown on the plat.
BACKGROUND
The Fayetteville Planning Commission recently reviewed and approved a proposed 18
lot, single family home subdivision on 5.45 acres. The City has a long standing policy of
requiring connectivity between developments in order to provide better traffic and
pedestrian circulation and to promote a sense of community.
On April 11, 2005, the Fayetteville Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat
for Hays Estates subject to the following condition:
Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for cul-de-sac length.
Staff recommends dedication of City property to the north for a 40 -foot wide
right-of-way and construction of a city street, including sidewalks, to Madison
Drive at the developer's expense. The Parks and Recreation Board voted
unanimously to recommend to City Council that this street connection be
approved and right-of-way be dedicated across existing parkland to connect the
proposed street.
This property was recently designated as parkland and the Parks and Recreation Board
voted to approve the street to be connected to Madison Drive through this property. This
street connection allows for pedestrian and vehicular connectivity and provides a second
means of access.
Without the access, the proposed 18 lots would be through Arapahoe Drive, located in
Barrington Parke Subdivision. Should the City Council approve this dedication, it will be
the developer's responsibility to construct a street north to Madison Drive compliant with
ordinance requirements.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
• •
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEDICATION OF A
40 -FOOT WIDE PORTION OF CITY PROPERTY AS
RIGHT-OF-WAY TO ALLOW A STREET CONNECTION
TO MADISON AVENUE BY THE DEVELOPER OF THE HAYS
ESTATES SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, the City's longstanding policy of vehicular and pedestrian
connectivity is best achieved by dedicating sufficient right-of-way to allow the developer
to complete the connection of Arapaho Drive to Madison Avenue over about 115 feet of
city property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Board
unanimously recommended that the City Council dedicate sufficient right-of-way for the
street connection to Madison Avenue; and
WHEREAS, a second means of ingress and egress will be achieved for the
proposed subdivision by this dedication of right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the connection would provide a means by which the subdivision
development can comply with the Unified Development Code by removing a dead-end
street that does not comply with the UDC.
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 hereby
dedicates a 40 -foot wide portion of city property as shown on the attached plat and legal
description to connect an unnamed street to Madison Avenue.
PASSED and APPROVED this 3rd day of May, 2005.
By:
ATTEST:
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
APPROVED:
oss
DAN'COODY, Mayor
NORTH
610.64'
z
1343
N0149'15'E ""3.56.29'E
546.07'
3'IVOS 3IHdV21f
339.93
U1
01
0
0
30'
noiong�foz$gEm ,"`momg m
:>
ARAmx-";:g>
mmt-a,"gmg
-IaiNm pgmpm.,...„, ,1 pLZ`m i•
mn$n`=mtIA
NIIAmx
B'i mfnbc3inan$a£mmim"en=-1„
-flsr p € meas
Yg<.`Bmnmmhe
4.Ag
mB
rioi-P1`;$ 01mNomt>E Amr4
m'ig�:?8NNxgi.,mm
x8'g o'"'INcia24:1'A=¢o
2014:M3ocmnomra9aj m 6g ..
6
N00'05'24'E
114.59
S00'05'24'W
11430
A
0
i
EXTSO'
R/W
D
0
O
Z
rri
•
0 0 •
IN2NINON 313M3NOO
Nld NOW 13S
Niel NOW ONH)Od
r
m
0
s
Wttev?lle
ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTE:VILL.E. ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Morgan, Associate Planner
Brent O'Neal, Staff Engineer
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
DATE: April 7, 2005
PPL 05-1437
Page I
PC Meeting of April 11, 2005
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
PPL 05-1437: Preliminary Plat (HAYS ESTATE, 373): Submitted by TOM HENNELLY for
property located at THE WEST BOUNDARY OF BARRINGTON PARKE, PHASE II. The
property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.45
acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 18 single family lots proposed.
Property Owner: J.B. HAYS Planner: SUZANNE MORGAN
Findings:
Property: The subject property contains 5.45 acres located west of Starr Road and east of
Barrington Park Subdivision. The property is zoned RSF-4. A single family lot subdivision with
18 single family lots is proposed at this location. A lot split request to create the property which
is represented in this preliminary plat and dedicated the 50' right-of-way for the extension of
Arapaho Drive has been submitted with this preliminary plat request.
Public Comment: Staff has received comments from one adjacent property owner stating that
she would prefer to see the proposed street connect onto Madison Drive to allow for two points
of access.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Direction
Land Use
Zoning
North
Vacant; City Park property
RSF-4, Res. Single Family - 4 units/acre
South
Catholic School
R -A, Residential Agricultural
East
Dental Office, residential & pasture
RSF-1, Residential Single Family — 1
unit/acre
West
Single family residential (Barrington
Park Subdivision)
RSF-4, Res. Single Family — 4 units/acre
Water and Sewer: Water and sewer lines shall be extended to serve the proposed development.
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Madison Drive and Arapaho Drive, Local Streets, and
Starr Drive, a Collector Street.
IC:IReports120051PC Reports104-1I-051PPL 05-1437 (Hays Estate/.doc
• 1
PPL 05-1437
Page 1
Right-of-way to be dedicated: Per the lot split plat requested for approval to create the 5A5 acre
tract of property, staff has recommended dedication of 50' of right-of-way for the extension of
Arapaho Drive and dedication for a total 35' from centerline of Starr Drive. Additional right-of-
way shall be required to construct the 809.47' cul-de-sac. At this time, Staff is investigating the
possibility of dedicating City property for right-of-way north of the subject property to provide a
connection to Madison Drive. The Parks and Recreation Board on Monday, April 04, voted to
approve staff's recommendation that the street be connected to Madison Drive, thereby allowing
for pedestrian and vehicular connectivity and providing a second means of access. Otherwise, all
access to the proposed 18 lots would be through Arapahoe Drive, in Barrington Parke
Subdivision. Should the City Council approve this dedication, it will be the developer's
responsibility to construct a street north to Madison Drive compliant with ordinance
requirements.
Connectivity: Connectivity is provided to the east. A stub -out is proposed to the west, and staff
is evaluating the possibility of connecting to Madison Drive to the north.
Tree Preservation: Existing: 9.6%
Preserved: 8.2%
Required: 9.6%
Mitigation: Required
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of PPL 05-1437 with the following conditions:
-Conditions of Approval: 40
1 Planning Commission determination of a waiver request forJul-de-sac length. Staff
recommends dedication of City property to the north for afoot wide right-of-way and
construction of a city street, including sidewalks, to Madison Drive at the developer's
expense. The Parks and Recreation Board voted unanimously to recommend to City
Council that this street connection be approved and right-of-way be dedicated across
existing parkland to connect the proposed street.(lf the City Council -does -not -approve
d�
51 -Au. leak se„Lnct Te.-r„e4Son.
., of
Should right-of-way for the proposed street be granted through the city owned property to
the north of the property, a trail easement shall be included with the access easement for
White River Trail as shown in the Fayetteville Alternative Transportation & Trail Master
Plan. The applicant shall coordinate these easements with the Parks Division.
3. Planning Commission determination of a waiver from 100' separation of a permanent
water surface from the finished floor of a proposed structure. The Engineering Division
recommends approval of the requested waiver. "i)Cgll;r,„.�1u30:440-a
ll� Ylemn``. EL ppWAn
IwnOa1p en r In *.or �i--
4. A total of 12 two-inch caliper trees or a $3,000 contribution is required to meet mitigation
requirements for this development. Payment or submittal of a planting plan in
accordance with ordinance regulations is due at the time of final plat.
5. Parks fees are assessed in the amount of $9,435 for 18 single family units. Fees are due
prior to signing final plat.
K: IReporis110051PC Repons104-11-051PPL 05-1437 (Hays Estate).doc
•
PPL 05-1437
Page 3
6. Off-site drainage easements shall be dedicated by separate document prior to signing the
final plat.
7. Street lights shall be installed or guaranteed with a maximum separation of 300 feet along
all streets prior to final plat.
8. Subdivision area signage shall be permitted in accordance with applicable city codes.
Signs shall be installed at locations determined by staff to indicate the future extension of
right-of-way prior to recordation of the final plat.
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. All overhead electric lines under 12Kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed
utilities shall be located underground.
12. All street names shall be approved by the 911 coordinator.
13. Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one calendar year
Additional conditions:
a. cglloAI -L CAL1 eo Jj ROGJ rig tcoLeN,a4C„ L.
b. S4,oJ\ Corr% bb oIL tD . a�nn;nern, misa:c.,-GacascwaQ err- Q.
c.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Date: April 11, 2005
ves Required
X Approved Denied
00,A4-1 I\\\ent -b-t0
The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", stated in this report, are accepted in total without
exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item.
By
Title
Date
K:I Repores120051PC Reparts104-11-05IPPL 05-1437 (Hays Psmreldoc
• •
THE. CITY OF FAYETTEVILL.E, ARKANSAS
PC Meeting of April 11, 2005
TREE PRESERVATION and PROTECTION REPORT
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
To: Fayetteville Planning Commission
From: Jeremy Pate, Landscape Administrator
Date: April 06, 2005
ITEM #: PPL 05-1437 (Hays Estates)
Requirements Submitted:
Canopy Measurements:
Total
Initial Review with the Landscape Administrator
/
Site Analysis Map Submitted
/
Site Analysis Wntten Report Submitted
/
Complete
Tree Preservation Plan Submitted
Canopy Measurements:
Total
Site Area ,
acres
5.45
square feet
237,402
Existing Tree Canopy,
acres
0.65
square feet
22,746
percent of site area
9.6%
Existing
Tree Canopy
Preserved
-
acres
0.45
square
feet
19,531
percent of total site area
8.2%
Percent Miimum Canopy -Required
9.6%
FINDINGS:
The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age, location, size or species.
• The trees located on this site are grouped along the eastern boundary, consisting
K: VeremylLandscape Admin(PROJECTSIPlals-2005IHays EsiateslTreePreservalionReport - PC.doc
• •
primarily of a dense screen of pine trees. The majority of these trees are desirable
for preservation, as they provide an existing mature screen to adjacent properties.
Whether the design incorporates the required Tree Preservation Priorities.
• The design of the subdivision does incorporate the required Tree Preservation
Priorities. Those trees being removed are located within proposed utility easements
and right-of-way necessary for the construction of the subdivision.
The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to removal of
the tree or group of trees.
• Environmental degradation will not occur due to the removal of the trees for this
project.
The impact of the reduction in tree cover on adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood
and the property on which the tree or group of trees is located.
• Adjacent properties would be effected by the removal of the trees to the east;
however, this existing buffer is to remain by the developer, allowing future
homeowners instant privacy.
Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of
development on existing trees.
• No alternative construction methods are proposed.
Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility of the design.
• The size and shape of the lot does not inhibit the flexibility of design, as the lot :is..
being created to fit this development. A determining factor, however is the large'
pond to the west.
The general health and condition of the tree or group of trees, or the presence of anyy disease,
injury or hazard.
• The general health of all groups of trees on this site is good, without a noticeable
presence of disease or injury.
The placement of the tree or group of trees in relation to utilities, structures, and use of the
property.
• Most trees shown to be preserved are sited in good relationship to the proposed
streets and utilities, to ensure prolonged preservation.
The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing, repairing, replacing,
or maintaining essential public utilities.
• Some trees may need to be removed to install essential public utilities, but most will
not be in danger for future maintenance of those utilities in the future.
Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography, and routed,
where possible, to avoid damage to existing canopy.
K: Veremy Landscape Admin IPROJECTSIPIats-2005Ways EstatestTreePreservationReport - PC doc
• •
• The streets and utilities have been aligned to minimize removal and damage of tree
canopy.
Construction requirements for On -Site and Off -Site Alternatives.
• N/A
The effects of proposed On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives.
• A contribution into the tree fund is requested.
The effect other chapters of the UDC, and departmental regulations have on the development
design.
• N/A
The extent to which development of the site and the enforcement of this chapter are impacted by
state and federal regulations:
• N/A
The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application would have on the
Applicant:
• Staff is recommending approval of the submitted Tree Preservation Plan.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Tree Preservation. Plan associated
with PPL 05-1437, with the following condition:
A total of 12 two-inch caliper trees or a $3,000 contribution is required to meet mitigation
requirements for this development. Payment or submittal of a planting plan in accordance
with ordinance regulations is due at the time of final plat.
K: VeremylLandscape Admin PROJECTSV'lats-2005V/ays £staresITreePreservationReport - PC.doc
ENGINEERING, INC.
March 22, 2005
Planning Commission
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
RE• HAYS ESTATES —WAIVER REQUEST
Dear Commissioners:
Please accept this letter as an official request of waiver for two development standards in
the proposed residential subdivision of Hays Estates. The proposed project is a single-
family residential development with a zoning designation of RSF-4. The proposed
project is bound by Banington Parke Subdivision, Phase II on the east, City of
Fayetteville parks property along the north, and R-1 zoned property owned by the
developer to the west.
The development is currently proposed with a cul-de-sac length of 859 feet, which is
greater than the City development standard of 500 feet It is our understanding that the
City may be willing to donate right-of-way for connectivity of this development to
Madison. The developer supports an opportunity for connectivity, but requests
conditional approval and a waiver of the cul-de-sac length if City Council denies the
extension.
The developer is also requesting a waiver to the 100 foot horizontal setback requirement
with respect to the 100 -year water surface elevation. Proposed lot numbers 10-16 are not
in compliance with this requirement. However, a minimum finished floor elevation is
reflected on all the lake front property at elevation 1391.0. The 100 -year water surface
elevation is calculated at elevation 1388.0 and the breach elevation of the dam
embankment is at an approximate elevation 1389.0. Consequently, the dam will breach
prior to flooding any inhabitable structures with a minimum finished floor elevation of
1391.0.
Respectfully
s
ipp ame, P.E.
Vice -President
2758 Millennium Drive Suite 1 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 Phone: 479.582.H2EI Fax: 479.582.9254
NORTH
610 64'
co
\§
1
1
1
1
1-6
3.217,017.68N
ecoes
•
M.2boOb.6
114,59
;«05'24v
&
m
\
30'
i!y"`t`-Z`j`\;t='' z '°:`:{
!!�,!!`:;,®,°`-l:;:2,
El.;:l:l;;|,4!§l:;I]\;;;;
!-];Tl=;2.1,1,;!§,)4
;|;4!\|!lr:.0 bn,00Zo zT
M aiW,a"2°�WI,i2a)``
,.,: �: _
!§\-1 0.0t , [)4§j§)�)N
_�_,!;!lE�::;:>!§§::
(\\ \\.<£§;)§§)§/;)[/(
;;z,;,l :::;:4§l;t;;
kf311 I=:U W !;f:N Nii
E2i!,!!:`:.l:;E4:,;
§\- .8M:5—liR „ .,lt;,
8|],,"12,1— AM .!2(0!
,T, r: fie\)`jlliF8M11 0
§ • 6-1-1 it ;! �.
114.30'
/
esy
co
oo
•
us
rn
mz,
L)
U)
0
Z
rriD
<
DOS
1N3140N014 3138ONO
Nld NO& 13S
Nld NO211 ONOOd
\
P]Lutl PRaECTS 2005805-0O8 DwG‘05-000Rp&Rss. owe. PR 4/15/2005 8:17 Oh AR. P4144
M
it
i
A 1,)r2; is
1
,. Ik� frRt.®
et eli 14
'11'111 i'll lb rC'CI '
�...
_f$-
tBR II I
”':I
L'
€N 1 tp
!t
1 g® I
•
!HMI -"r
4 5
Hays Estates
Preliminary Plat
Sro YEAR
--- LIMIT OF STUDY
— — - Baseline Pmfle
Fayetteville
*.Fi outside City
•
PPL05-1437
One Mile View
•
HAYS ESTATE
r ST IN
.1e1/2NSHSF
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Overview
Legend
Subject Property
PP105-1437
•
•
•
•
0 0.1 0.2
Boundary
'\N Planning Area
spoon%
0000000 Overlay District
Outside City
Master Street Plan
Master Street Plan
» Freeway/Expressway
•••a Principal Medal
Minor Merial
Collector
• • • • Historic Celledor
0.4 0.6
0.8
Miles
Tim Conklin( /'
Submitted By
•
City of Fayetteville
Staff Review Form
City Council Agenda Items
or
Contracts
5/3/2005
City Council Meeting Date
•
Planning and Development Mgt. Operations
Division
Action Required:
Department
City Council approval to grant a 40 foot right-of-way located on City owned property south of Madison Drive to
provide public street connectivity to Hays Estates.
Cost of this request
Account Number
Project Number
Budgeted Item
Category/Project Budget
Funds Used to Date
Remaining Balance
Budget Adjustment Attached
Program Category / Project Name
Program / Project Category Name
Fund Name
Departme
City Att• ney
4 -a5
Date
Finance and Internal Service Director
Mayor
14 o'
Date
Date
Previous Ordinance or Resolution #
Original Contract Date:
Original Contract Number:
Received in Mayor s Office
ENTERED
Comments:
• •
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Meeting Minutes
October 11, 2004
Opening:
The regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was called to order at
5:38 p.m. on October 11, 2004 on site at the proposed park site on Madison Drive,
Fayetteville, Arkansas by Chairman Colwell.
Present:
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members Colwell, Eads, Hill, Mauritson,
Shoulders, and Pawlik Holmes; City staff Coody, Coles, Jumper, Weber, Hatfield,
Edmonston, Councilwoman Brenda Thiel; and Audience.
1. Approval of September 13, 2004 Minutes
MOTION:
Hill moved to approve the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
September 13, 2004 meeting minutes.
Eads seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0-0 with Colwell, Eads, Hill, Mauritson,
Shoulders, and voting 'yes' and Bailey, Pawlik Holmes, Marley absent for
the vote.
2. Proposed Park Site:
Barrington Parke Property Owners Association has requested for PRAB to
accept approximately 13 acres of City owned land into the parks system.
The land is located south of Highway 45 East, between Starr Drive and Fox
Hunter Road. It is immediately west and south of the St. Joseph Cemetery.
See attached map.
The City has owned this property for the past 18 years. The land was
acquired by the City in conjunction with a court order relating to the
installation of sewer mains through the property. The land is zoned R-SF4.
It contains a number of sewer and drainage easements. Madison Drive
goes through the southern portion of this property, thus eliminating about
.6 acre and reducing the total from 13.51 to 12.91 acres.
October 11, 2004 / 1
• •
Arnie Glass, a representative of Barrington Parke Property Association, presented
their request to transfer the property that the city currently owns to the Parks and
Recreation Division. She explained their intent was not to develop the land once it is
owned by Parks and Recreation, but to keep the land at a natural state. She then
stated that their POA has located a grant writer to help in the search for funding for
any sort of development of the land in the future.
Jeff Coles spoke about the minimum level of maintenance a natural area is given.
He also explained there are standards that all park land must meet as far as safety
and maintenance.
Colwell pointed out the land proposed to Parks and Recreation may be partly in a
wet land area.
Citizen A stated his opinion to be that he would like a trail developed on the
property.
Hill added his concern is that if development is desired, that it would take four to
five years to begin due to funding restraints and the Capital Improvements
prioritization process.
Citizen B stated her property adjoins the property from the east side of the
proposed park land. She stated her main concern was for security of the property
and that she would like for it to remain natural area as well. There have been many
people driving vehicles back into the wooded areas.
Amie Glass stated that the majority of the POA is in agreement that the land
remains at a natural state and that the POA will research funding if development is
desired.
Hill moved to accept the park land on the north side and south of
Madison Drive into the Parks and Recreation Division.
Mauritson seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-0-0 with Colwell, Eads, Hill, Mauritson,
Shoulders, Pawlik Holmes, and voting 'yes' Marley and Bailey absent for
the vote.
3. Alison Jumper- Dog Park Update
Jumper reviewed that three public meetings have been held and staff is working
on analyzing the results of the meetings and surveys. Survey returns were
excellent. Next steps include determining the top location possibilities and then
hosting public meetings for the affected neighborhoods. Jumper also mentioned
that staff will be posting information about the dog park on the website.
October 11, 2004 / 2
4. Informational Items
Edmonston announced the following events:
*Skatefest 2004 at Walker Park Grinders Skate Park on Saturday, October 9 at 2-4 p.m.
*1s Annual Art Walk at Gulley Park on Saturday, October 30 at 10 a.m. until 4 p.m.
*Fall Nature Walks at East Mud Creek Trail on Saturday, October 9 at 10 until 11:30 a.m.
*Fall Nature Walks at Lake Fayetteville Environmental Study Center on Saturday, October
30 at 10 until 11:30 a.m.
Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Minutes submitted by: Rachel Weber
October 11, 2004 / 3
• •
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Meeting Minutes April 4, 2005
Opening:
The regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was called to order at
5:35 p.m. on March 7, 2005 in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at
113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas by Jerry Bailey.
Present:
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members Hill, Bailey, Harrison, Langsner, Marley,
Davidson, Mauritson, and Park Staff Hatfield, Edmonston, Mihalevich, Coles, Whillock,
Wright and Audience. Scout Troop 116 sponsored by Lake Sequoyah Church was in
attendance as part of a badge requirement to attend a board meeting.
11. Hays Estates: Matt Mihalevich, Park Planner
(Formerly Arapaho Drive Subdivision)
*This item was presented at the March 7, 2005 PRAB meeting. PRAB
Motion was to accept money in Lieu for 18 single family units totaling
$9,990. Due to connectivity recommendations from Planning Staff and
Subdivision Committee, this project is being presented for an access
easement across park land.
Background:
Planning Staff and Subdivision Committee members have recommended
vehicular connectivity from this proposed subdivision to Madison Drive to
the north through Madison Street Natural Area. They are requesting
approval to dedicate a 40 foot wide by 150 foot long access easement
across park land to make the connection. The City asked the developer to
request the easement across the park land.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends allowing the proposed
easement on park land.
Tom Henley representing H2 Engineering stated that the developer's
position in requesting right-of-way across City park land would provide
accessibility to the park area by the residents of the new development.
Because of the benefit provided by this access the developers do not feel
they should be required to pay a compensation to the city.
Tom Henley stated that the Boards approval of the proposed extension is
necessary in order to have a chance at getting the project approved by
Planning. He suggested that the city small section of parks land to the
south of Madison could offer the city the potential to generate revenue in
the future if the City were to sell those lots for building sites.
Davidson added that the city could sell those lots without the street
going through.
April 4, 2005 / 1
0 •
Hill stated there needs to be reassurance that there would be no expense
required to Parks for the extension. Parks will grant easement to the
developer in exchange for the developer bearing the expense of building
the street.
PRAB Motion:
Bailey moved to approve the easement for the extension over City park
land requiring no compensation for use of the land from the developer
and the City incurring no cost for the road. The developer is to pay for
the construction of the extension.
Langsner seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0-0 with Mauritson, Bailey, Davidson,
Harrison, Langsner and Hill voting `yes', Pawlik-Holmes and Marley
absent for the vote.
Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Minutes submitted by: Cheryl Whillock
April 4, 2005 / 2
Planning Commission 0 •
April 11, 2005
Page 13
LSP 05-1439: JB Hays, pp 373 was submitted by H2 Engineering for property located
at 1760 N. Starr Drive. The property is zoned RSF-1, Residential Single Family, one unit
per acre and RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre, containing
approximately 25.27acres. the request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of
19.82 and 5.45 acres.
PPL 05-1437: Hays Estates, pp 373 was submitted by H2 Engineering for property
located west of Barrington Park Phase 1I. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential
Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 5.45 acres. The request is
to approve a residential subdivision with 18 single family lots proposed.
Ostner: The next item on our agenda is LSP 05-1439 for J.B. Hays.
Morgan: The applicant requests approval of a Lot Split for a tract which is 25.27
acres. It is located east of Starr Road and west of Barrington Park
Subdivision Phase 11. The applicant proposes to split this property into
two tracts of 19.82 acres and 5.45 acres respectively. The latter is zoned
RSF-4 and is proposed to be subdivided into single family lots which I
will get to in a short time. This is the third and final Lot Split permissible
for the subject property. Water and sewer mains are accessible to each of
the proposed tracts. Right of way being dedicated with this Lot Split
includes 35' from centerline of Stan Drive. This is a collector street on the
Master Street Plan. As well as 50' adjacent to the southern portion of the
proposed Tract "2" to allow for future construction of Arapaho. Staff is
recommending approval of this Lot Split with a total of six conditions of
approval. Of which require right of way dedication and some small
revisions to the plat prior to recordation.
Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? Would you please
introduce yourself and give us your presentation?
Hem: My name is Kip Hem with H2 Engineering. We don't have any
exceptions to the conditions of approval this evening and I will be happy
to answer any questions.
Ostner: Thank you Mr. Hem. At this point I will open it up to the public if anyone
would like to speak to LSP 05-1439 please step forward and give us your
comment. Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the
Commission for discussion.
Anthes: Staff, this would the be the third and final split that would be allowed on
this property. If there is something about the configuration of the split that
the connectivity could not be made and there might be another way to do it
if the lot was split differently, can they process a Lot Line Adjustment or
some other mechanism that we can look at a different way to subdivide
Planning Commission • •
April 11, 2005
Page 14
this property and allow two ways in and out if this has already been
processed?
Pate: Yes. If, for instance, this Lot Split is approved as shown and recorded at
the County. A Property Line Adjustment in the future could adjust that
property to some other configuration.
Anthes: I will just state for the applicant, I feel like a 809' cul-de-sac is really too
long. My concern here with this and the next item is that we don't know
whether we are going to be allowed access because that is a City Council
approval item. I feel like there is a way to split this property differently
and achieve your development with a much shorter cul-de-sac if that
connectivity is not allowed and it could be reconfigured a different way. I
was hoping to hear what Jeremy stated, that if we needed two points of
access you could actually adjust the lot line. I just wanted you to know
why I made that statement.
Ostner: This item is in conjunction with a Preliminary Plat entitled Hayes Estates.
Anthes: Can we hear this together or not?
Ostner: We can talk about them together, we need to vote on them independently
but they are interrelated.
Anthes: I would ask that we do that.
Ostner: I think that that is appropriate.
Vaught: Why aren't we dedicating the 50' right of way for the whole Arapaho
Drive boundary to Stan Drive?
Pate: That will allow adequate access for this particular Lot Split and
connectivity to the west, the right of way will then be dedicated. When we
proceed with the following Preliminary Plat then we will utilize that right
of way area for development of this property.
Vaught:
My question
is why don't we go
along Tract "I" as well all the way to
Starr Drive?
Pate: We did look at that. With 19.8 acres there is a number of different
configurations that actually could potentially pick this Arapaho Drive back
up to meet with the street to the north and west of Starr Drive in a better
configuration as opposed to just along the south of the property. There
could be some lot yield, for instance, along that portion so we felt at this
time it was more appropriate just to have the minimum requirements for a
Lot Split, waiver of Preliminary Plat requirements and go with that at this
Planning Commission
April 11, 2005
Page 15
time. Should this property develop in the future, if it ever does develop,
then we can look at a better means of connection at that time.
Hem: As a note, we did dedicate the 35' along Starr Drive along the west side of
the property for not only Tract "I" but also Tract "3" as well, which is
outside of this particular Lot Split.
Ostner: If we could have the staff report on the accompanying item, I think it
would be nice. We are going to vote on these independently but if we
could discuss them together I think it would be helpful.
Morgan: Hayes Estates is the Preliminary Plat proposed for the 5.45 acre tract,
which is proposed to be subdivided from the overall tract. The applicant
requests approval for an 18 single family lot subdivision in this location.
The applicant is proposing to extend Arapaho Drive along the southern
property of that tract as well as construct a cul-de-sac to the north at this
time. The plat reflects an 809.47' long cul-de-sac. Staff is investigating
the possibility of dedicating city property to the north of this property in
order that right of way may be dedicated and a street constructed at the
developer's expense to connect to Madison Drive. At this time the Parks
and Recreation Board have heard this proposal and on April 4`h voted to
approve staff's recommendation that a street be connected to Madison
Drive to provide a secondary means of access to this property. Otherwise,
all 18 lots would be accessing through Arapaho Drive through Barrington
Park subdivision. Should the City Council approve this dedication it will
be the developer's responsibility to construct the street. Our condition of
approval number one reflects this recommendation that staff has made and
states Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for a cul-
de-sac length. Staff recommends dedication of city property to the north
for a 50' wide right of way and construction of a city street including
sidewalks to Madison Drive at the developer's expense. The Parks and
Recreation Board voted unanimously to recommend to City Council that
the street connection be approved and that right of way be dedicated
across existing parkland to connect the proposed street. If the City
Council does not approve the recommendation, staff recommends in favor
of a waiver to allow the construction of a dead end street greater than 500'
in length. In addition to that condition, there are several standard
conditions. Condition three requests that the Planning Commission
determine whether to grant a waiver from the 100' separation of a
permanent water surface from the finished floor of proposed structure.
There is an existing pond just to the west of the tract which is requested to
be developed and those structures will be closer than 100' to that pond.
Engineering at this time is recommending approval of this waiver request.
If you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them.
Ostner: Would the applicant like to state anything else about this Preliminary Plat?
I
Planning Commission
April 11, 2005
Page 16
Hem: The intent here obviously is to get the Lot Split approved this evening and
then carry this forward onto City Council, which we think we will have a
tremendous amount of support for the connectivity. Staff is
recommending the solution. The developer, although this will be an
additional expense, is willing to do this because he is trying to be a good
neighbor to Barrington Park. We are asking for approval for both the cul-
de-sac and the recommendation going to City Council.
Ostner: Thank you. At this point I am going to open it up to public comment for
the Preliminary Plat, PPL 05-1437 if anyone would like to speak to this
item we can go ahead and hear your comments now. Seeing none, I am
going to close it to public comment and bring that back to the Commission
as well. We have under discussion two items, we need to vote on them
separately. Commissioners?
Clark: When will the City Council hear the request for the street?
Pate: The agenda request going to City Council after Planning Commission is
Friday, it takes about 25 days to get to the following meeting so it would
be about three weeks from now.
Anthes: For clarification, a question from Engineering. Am I reading this correctly
to say that the reason that you are in support of this waiver request is that
there is a dam that would break before the water ever reached the level of
the homes? There are notes in here to the effect that you are in support of
a waiver request for the level of the water within 100', that is because
there is a dam associated with the pond that would break before the water
reached the homes?
O'Neal: I believe the applicant is going to improve the spill of the pond.
Bern: Yes Ma'am, the adjacent pond for the subdivision will be utilized as our
detention facility. We are going to improve the spillway structure to that
facility to over detain. It is being designed to where it will hold a certain
100 -year flood elevation. In addition to that though, we have got the
breach elevation of the dam and it will be held above that with our
adjacent structures. All of our homes are perfectly safe.
Anthes: That makes sense. Another question of staff then, I believe this is the
piece of property we heard quite a few comments on when we were
looking at rezoning. It is next to Barrington Park correct?
Pate: This is one of those. There were two requests on this overall larger piece
of property.
Planning Commission
April 11, 2005
Page 17
Anthes: Part of the neighborhood concern was points of ingress and egress to this
development?
Pate: I believe so. From my recollection, most of the comments were from the
density requested with the original request. The original request for this
particular piece of property was RMF-12. The Barrington Park residents
directly to the east were not happy with that request and staff was not in
support of that request either. At this meeting that request was changed to
RSF-4 and proceeded forward to Council and I believe it was unanimously
approved there.
Anthes: My major concern is that I remember those discussions and the request for
RSF-4 which seemed to be more compatible and I think was in line with
staffs recommendations. My main concern at this point is what if City
Council denies the dedication for the Madison connection? I really
believe that an 809' cul-de-sac is really too long and on top of that the two
points of connection are beneficial to the residents, the new residents and
the surrounding residents. That is why I'm particularly interested in the
configuration of the Lot Split. If the Madison connection was denied, there
would only be one way to develop that with one point of ingress to the
new development. However, if the Lot Split was reconfigured there might
be a way to then head west with the second point of egress. The cul-de-
sac length would be reduced and probably come close to or within our city
standards. Because it is kind of a cart before the horse thing and we are
not quite sure what the City Council is going to do, I'm pleased to hear
that there would be a way to process the Lot Line Adjustment. I'm not
inclined to provide a condition of approval that would allow the waiver
request.
Goodereis: My name is Crystal Goodereis, I'm J.B. Hays' assistant. As Mr. Ostner
knows, he was present through the City Council of all of this. A lot of the
discussion that was heard was on the 1.59 acres, which was the dental
clinic which we withdrew and we permanently tabled. Barrington, when
we met with Barrington's POA, they were very much in favor of a cul-de-
sac because if you go back to the very beginning over a year ago, the
developer, J.B. Hays, originally tried to make this connectivity from day
one. We were told that this was Park ground that could not be purchased
for 20 years and that a right of way was not ever going to be on the table.
That was part of our concern. The second part was let's look at Starr
Drive. We were told that Stan Drive is not feasibly ready right now at this
time and won't be until it becomes a collector street. We have a school
emptying out there. They also stated, I need to tell you that staff have
been great to work with and all of them, Planning, Subdivision
Committee, the whole nine yards, but the reason that we chose not to do
the Starr is because Planning would rather see it connect up, swerve
around and connect up to Cherokee to alleviate pressure from the school,
Planning Commission
April 11, 2005
Page 18
so we don't have three driveways, two from the school and then one
connecting out. Barrington was very concerned about this connecting to
Starr because they felt like that it would then be a cut through, a cut
through from everyone on Hwy 265 that needed to get over to Crossover
or Starr and then especially avoiding all of the traffic coming down
Mission in the morning with the school traffic. Barrington was more
inclined to want to see the cul-de-sac than they were to see connectivity to
Starr. There was a lot of issue which would permanently table, because,
as we said before, there is no further intent to develop the ground
anymore. That is why we withdrew the 1.59 request for an R -O because it
just wasn't feasible to have the neighbors upset when we are not planning
on developing that ground. To answer some of your questions Ms.
Anthes, those were some of the issues that were on the table that we tried
to address over a year ago. It wasn't anyone, it was all in hindsight
because that ground had just recently then been given to Parks Board,
back in October, which was a day late, a dollar short. Prior to that, before
that, this could have all been a moot issue and we could've went to the city
and got a right of way and been done and not have had any of this happen.
That's why I'm asking for granting of the cul-de-sac right now. As a
citizen who lives on Starr and will continue to live on Starr, Starr is not
ready right now until it turns into a collector to handle the traffic because
it wouldn't just be my 18 homes that would be coming out there. That
was what Barrington said. That's all that I have to pass on. That's why
we ask. I can't speak for City Council, but I would hope that they would
be willing to grant the right of way, especially since the Parks Board saw
the need for it. The only reason that I'm speaking instead of Kip is
because I did the rezoning so I was there for all of the wonderful "fights"
if you want to call them, or whatever, but I was there from the beginning.
I did the rezoning. Kip came in later so he didn't know how the history of
the property went. That's the only reason we are asking for a cul-de-sac
that long.
Anthes: Parks has recommended approval of that dedication to Madison?
Pate: That is correct. Planning staff did speak with the applicant's
representative in talking about how to reduce this, obviously, with any
waiver requirement we try to reduce it as much as possible to meet
ordinance requirements, and continue with the approval process. We
spoke about this situation at agenda session where probably a different
property configuration and a street connection west to Starr Drive could
alleviate some of that waiver request. We felt it was a little much to ask
for an entire street connection to Starr Drive, even with a stub out in a
different configuration, we would still have a dead-end street for all intents
and purposes that emergency vehicles would have to get to the end of
longer than 500'. We did approach the Parks staff and the Parks and
Recreation Board to attempt to hopefully resolve those issues. Knowing
Planning Commission
April 1l, 2005
Page 19
the property best, the Parks and Recreation Board did vote unanimously to
support this City Council request. As per our typical process, the Planning
Commission needs to vote and recommend something to the City Council
and that is why it is the cart before the horse, but that is sometimes how it
has to go with this process. They are looking for your recommendation as
well as the Parks Board recommendation. We feel confident that it is a
good recommendation, that it provides the city's policy of connectivity for
both pedestrian and street connectivity. This area, this parks land
specifically is not currently be utilized for parks purposes. There is a trail
that could potentially go in this area that would not be impeded by the
street connection either. We feel confident in our recommendation.
Hem: One more comment. On the design of the cul-de-sac, you will notice on
the very north end of the property, there is a considerable easement there
that leads into the property. That in our mind, from a development
perspective, is very good use of a cul-de-sac, as you shorten the cul-de-sac
and with the prescription of the cul-de-sac with the subdivision to the east
and with the pond to the west, any cul-de-sac that you bring back to the
south will eliminate a number of lots. We did the best that we could to
present something. We have 18 lots here, we understand that we are
asking for a waiver, I don't know that that is really an unsafe situation. I
would ask you again to consider approval of this particular design here
tonight.
Pate: Just to clarify too, our recommendation is that the City Council approve a
street connection and this cul-de-sac not be constructed. That is our
recommendation. Following that, should the City Council decide not to go
with that recommendation, then it would be constructed as shown. I just
want to clarify that emphasis is placed upon our recommendation to the
City Council and then proceed forward with this request.
Ostner: Just to clarify that clarification, that would only happen if we granted the
waiver request. If we did not grant the cul-de-sac waiver tonight and it
moved forward and the City Council did not grant the right of way
request, they would need to proceed in a different fashion.
Pate: That is correct.
Ostner: I have a question for the City Attorney. In the area of Lot Splits to what
degree of latitude are we entitled? I think I understand our decision
making processes on Preliminary Plats.
Whitaker: I'm not certain what you mean what degree of latitude on a Lot Split.
Ostner: If a Commissioner were not pleased with the configuration of a proposed
Lot Split, how would a Commissioner go about denying that Lot Split?
I
Planning Commission
April 11, 2005
Page 20
Whitaker: A Commissioner could, if they felt that it was not a proper configuration,
they certainly could vote against it if they thought it didn't meet the
criteria listed in the ordinance. Again, you always have to come back to
that. You are restrained to the extent of the language of the ordinance
which speaks to factors to be considered. I do not have that in front of me.
Clark: I have absolutely no problem with the configuration of the Lot Split and
didn't at Subdivision either. We agreed with staff that the right of way
needs to be dedicated to make the connectivity but I understand
Commissioner Anthes' argument that if Council decides not to that we
will have granted a waiver for an extremely long cul-de-sac. Would it be
possible on the first condition of approval to remove the last sentence that
we don't give that waiver. We send it to Council with a recommendation
that they give the extension. If they don't then they would have to come
back for a waiver, would that be appropriate?
Pate: That is. That is your call to make. The Planning Commission is given the
discretion to recommend a waiver.
MOTION:
Clark: That would make our intentions clear to the Council that we want this
extension and give the developer more argument that it needs to be
approved at that level to move ahead or they are going to have to come
back to us to ask for a waiver. I will make a motion that we approve LSP
05-1439 as stated in the staff report.
Myres: Second.
Ostner: Is there further discussion on the Lot Split?
Anthes: We are clear that if something does fall through with the connectivity,
they can process a Lot Line Adjustment if we want to require a different
configuration, correct?
Pate: That is correct. It is an administrative request that does not come before
any board.
Anthes: Thank you.
Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 05-1439 was
approved by a vote of 8-0-0.
Planning Commission
April 11, 2005
Page 21
Thomas: The motion carries.
Ostner: Our tandem item, PPL 05-1437 is currently on the table
MOTION:
Clark: I will then make another motion that we approve PPL 05-1437 with
amendment to condition one to strike the last sentence and the
Commission finding of fact on number three that we approve the waiver.
All other conditions as stated.
Vaught: What I don't want to see here is if the City Council doesn't approve the
connection, they have to start over. That is not going to happen, they
would have to just process a waiver request that would come through to
the next meeting, what would be the process for the applicant?
Pate: For the record, I would recommend that should the City Council not
approve the right of way dedication and allow the street connection to
come through, it could just come back to this body with a proposal that
would meet the ordinance requirement if it is stricken as indicated. Also,
for the record though, I want to make it clear that a Preliminary Plat would
be approved with the Council approval of the right of way dedication so
that it is very clear tonight what is being approved and what is not being
approved. It is a little bit unusual in the fact that we are recommending
approval of a Preliminary Plat, that is not unusual, that would meet
ordinance requirements. However, we would just like to make clear for
the record for the applicant and for everyone in the public listening, or for
City Council reading these minutes, as they look at the right of way
dedication, if they choose not to recommend that right of way dedication,
that it would come back to this level and a configuration that we could
look at. We would need to work with the applicant to make sure that time
is not lost. Time is obviously of the essence, but we would need to make
sure that all lots meet minimum requirements. We might see a Property
Line Adjustment, we might see a situation where if it is the same
configuration with a 500' cul-de-sac, we would be looking at pretty large
lots along the east side so we just need to make sure that those all meet
ordinance requirements.
Vaught: To follow up, do we need to include language in condition number one
stating that should City Council deny the dedication, the applicant will
return to the Planning Commission for review of waiver request or new lot
configuration?
Pate: I would recommend adding a condition, number fourteen, stating should
the City Council deny the right of way dedication, this Preliminary Plat
Planning Commission •
April 11, 2005
Page 22
shall return
to the Planning Commission
for approval
or denial, and we
would look
at whatever configuration
at that time.
Clark: I incorporate that into my motion.
Ostner: We currently have a motion for approval of PPL 05-1437. On the first
condition of approval we have struck the last sentence. I am going to read
the way that condition currently reads. "Planning Commission
determination of a waiver request for cul-de-sac length. Staff recommends
dedication of city property to the north for a 50' right of way and
construction of a city street, including sidewalks, to Madison Drive at the
developer's expense. Parks and Recreation Board voted unanimously to
recommend to the City Council that this street connection be approved and
right of way be dedicated across the existing parkland to connect the
proposed street. That is condition number one. A finding of fact in the
affirmative for condition number three, the determination of a waiver from
the 100' separation of a permanent water surface. The addition of
condition of approval number fourteen, should City Council deny the right
of way request, this Preliminary Plat will return to the Planning
Commission.
Pate: In condition number one it is a 40' right of way as opposed to a 50' right
of way.
Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 05-1437 was
approved by a vote of 8-0-0.
Thomas: The motion carries.
From: Clarice Pearman
To: Conklin, Tim
Subject: Res91-05
Tim,
Attached is a copy of the resolution passed by the City Council, May 3, 2005 regarding Madison Avenue
right of way dedication.
Thanks.
Clarice