Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-12-01 - Minutes - FinalCITY OF ae ARKANSAS Subdivision Committee Meeting December 1, 2016 9:00 AM 113 W. Mountain, Room 326 Members: Ron Autry (Chair), Kyle Cook, and Tom Brown Call to Order: 9:00 AM, Ron Autry (Chair) In Attendance: Members: Ron Autry (Chair), Kyle Cook, and Tom Brown MINUTES Staff: Andrew Garner — City Planning Director, Jonathan Curth — Senior Planner, Quin Thompson — Planner, Jonathan Ely — Engineer, Corey Granderson — Engineer, John Scott — Urban Forester, Lee Porter — Urban Forester, and Will Beeks — Fire Dept. Absent: Harry Davis — Planner Consent Agenda: No Items Old Business: No Items New Business: 1. CCP 16-5656: Concurrent Plat (SW OF PROVIDENCE DR. & MTN. RANCH BLVD./PARKHILL AT MOUNTAIN RANCH PH. II — LOTS 1-3 & 98,479): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located SW OF PROVIDENCE DR. & MTN. RANCH BLVD. The properties are zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contain approximately 3.00 acres. The request is for 7 single family lots. Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the Staff report. Lee Porter, Urban Forester: Said she will need to see types of trees being proposed before the Planning Commission. Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer: Detention and water quality measures have been provided by the original subdivision and have capacity for the additional homes. No further engineering comments. Justin Jorgensen: no comments Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 Public Comment: No Public Comment was presented. Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Said that this is a simple project, and that he could support it. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Said he felt the applicant should develop a plan that has no access to Mountain Ranch Boulevard. He discussed where access could be provided by alley. He added that he supported the project. Ron Autry, Commissioner: Said this is a very clean, low impact development, and that he supported it. Motion: Commissioner Cook made a motion to forward CCP 16-5656 with all conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0. 2. PPL 16-5574: Preliminary Plat (NE OF 24" & COUNTRY CLUB DR./MOUNTAIN VISTA SD, 640-641): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located NE OF 24T" & COUNTRY CLUB DR. The properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 54.16 acres. The request is for 52 single-family lots. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director: Gave the staff report. Lee Porter, Urban Forester: Discussed tree preservation for the project. Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer: Discussed storm water detention and utility connection for the project. Captain Beeks, Fire Department: Need more information on parking on the streets. Geoff Bates, applicant, Bates and Associates: present for questions. Public Comment: Todd Deversary, live on S. College Drive: There has been significant water issues and water pressure issues in the area. Adding more homes may make the issue worse. This access point and this curve is an area of accidents where people hit the guardrail. This hill is dangerous. On a summer day your tires spin out. The access point is seven feet below the hill. People drive fast through here at a bad point. We will have deaths right here. It is a nightmare. Making the access point here is very, very dangerous. When you are driving from the country club you cannot see people pulling out. I request they reconstruct the access point. There are too many blind spots from either direction. There is no drainage structure in the street. It all drains typographically so it is a flood system. There is a significant drain problem. The really need to look at improving drainage in the country club because there is not proper culvert. The access point on College Drive is dangerous so this access point needs to re -design the cul-de-sac. You have to have a different access point other than what is proposed. To change the building setbacks for this subdivision to 5 feet compared to the country club neighborhood will not be compatible. He discussed that this development will not look similar to anything else on the mountain. Mark Languaro, live on S. College Drive: He asked what will happen to the Askew Drive access road and our property lines. Alex Marinoff, live on 29th Court: He asked about the collapse of 24th Street at the base of the hill. The asphalt at the base of the hill collapsed a few years ago and whether this project would exacerbate the situation. Are these lots to be sold individually or is this to be developed all at once? Bates: Discussed that there will restrictions on the home size. Tamera Scott: Asked about retention and water areas. Are these to be flat water retention, will the water be still? Besides the water pressure up on the hill we have problems with Internet and cable service. Anytime someone comes in to your internet cable it makes it worse. Has anyone spoken to the Internet and cable company? Bates: I don't think you will even see the retention pond because it will be in the woods. On the existing drive I assume we will remove it and sod it. On the cul-de-sac access we will work with the city to make it work safely. The Askew Drive location is in the straightest location it can be. This is the flattest area. We will have to get some flow tests on water pressure. No more public comment was presented. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Discussed the access point. He asked about a wider entrance apron to allow a safer turn to the right to mitigate the site distance problem. The overall density looks to be 1.05 units per acre and this is an RSF-4 district. They are definitely under the density that is permitted. It seems to be a sensitive development in terms of density. He discussed connectivity and the stub out to the east. It sounds that a lot of these issues will be looked at by Engineering and the Fire Department. Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Asked about Askew Drive. He agrees with staff about the block length and street improvements. I am curious about the water issue. I don't remember this area having a problem but we will look at it during the full Planning Commission meeting. Ron Autry, Commissioner: He discussed site distance issues and traffic he observed in the neighborhood. He discussed site distance on Askew Drive. He asked about the irrigation system on the golf course. Jonathan Ely, Engineer: Discussed water line access to the country club and this development. Cook: Asked about the size of water line. Ely: Responded that it is an 8 -inch line. Brown: Discussed that it may be worthwhile for the engineering to look at the intersection to look at the design of the intersection to make it safer. Motion: Commissioner Cook made a motion to forward PPL 16-5574 with all conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0. 51 3. PPL 16-5643: Preliminary Plat (SOUTH END OF PUMPKIN RIDGE RD./FALLING WATERS SD, 564): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located SOUTH OF PUMPKIN RIDGE RD. The properties are zoned RSF-2, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 2 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 35.30 acres. The request is for 49 single-family lots. Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the Staff report. John Scott, Urban Forester: Said that all Urban Forestry requirements had been met. Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer: Said that staff is verifying that sewer and water services are within capacity. There is a known drainage problem due to an inlet that does not function. This problem will be addressed with the project. There is extensive grading required with this project. The drainage design is good. The Bill of Assurance does not require LID street sections. Four street sections are proposed: The first street, an extension of Pumpkin Ridge Road, is a standard local street section. The 'Collector' section is intended to be an LID street, which is appropriate on Collectors and in particular on difficult sites. However, all water quality management is being handled in the ponds. The Open ditches aren't serving to improve water quality, rather are simply open ditches. In order to be approved, they will need to serve some water quality measures. I apologize that these comments are coming up at Subdivision Committee, typically we would address this more thoroughly at the Tech Plat meeting. Will Beeks, Fire Marshal: Said they have concerns about grades on certain streets. They support the project at this stage but will recommend denial if the street don't meet minimum grade requirements at the Planning Commission. Tom Hennelly, Applicant: Said that the design was intended to minimize grading, and propose the open ditches as a method of achieving that. We have addressed the grade issues for the Fire Marshal. The ROW will be donated. Public Comment: No Public Comment was presented. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Said that he knew there was some history for this project, including a Planning Commission denial of the rezone due to concerns about flooding and erosion. Hennelly: Said that the flooding problem is a design issue with an area drain that does not function as intended. This will be addressed with this project. Brown: Said he was concerned with storm water velocity along the interior roads due to the layout and topography. He asked about methods to control storm water. Hennelly: Said that he had considered using check dams, also each home will have a culvert for the driveway that can help. Pumpkin Ridge is a standard street section with water inlets. Brown: Said that Lots 7,8, & 9 have a great deal of grading. Can houses be built on these lots? Hennelly: Said that they could, with walk -out basements Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Said he had issue with the water quality at the street level. Since conversation is still ongoing, and that he would wait to see what comes out of that. He said he was in agreement with other conditions. He discussed requirements of the Bill of Assurance, including rain barrels. He asked how that requirement would be tracked. Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer: Said that these homes would need grading permits before building permit approval, so Engineering will have further review over each lot. Hennelly: Asked if ROW widths could be agreed upon, even if final street design is not determined. Granderson: Said that this was reasonable. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Asked the applicant if notification was sent to neighbors in Stonebridge Meadows. He said that should happen before Planning Commission. He also said that an additional Variance should be considered, that many lots are double fronted, and need a variance. Brown: Said that he still had concerns about high velocity water and erosion. Hennelly: Said special attention would be paid to those areas where streets drain across lots. Motion: Commissioner Brown made a motion to forward PPL 16-5643 with all conditions as recommended by staff including the following additional conditions: • In favor of variances for double frontage lots as proposed. • The applicant shall notify neighbors in Stonebridge neighbors adjacent to Pumpkin Ridge of this project prior to Planning Commission. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0. 4. LSD 16-5659: Large Scale Development (SOUTH OF 1102 S. HAPPY HOLLOW RD./PROMOLIFE, 565): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located SOUTH OF 1102 S. HAPPY HOLLOW RD. The property is zoned 1-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL & LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, and R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 3.65 acres. The request is for an 11,957 square foot warehouse, manufacturing space, and office with associated parking. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report. John Scott, Urban Forester: Recommends approval, but is still working on a tree easement for the site with the applicant. Jonathan Ely, City Engineer: Utilities are sufficient, but the City is requesting some additional easements to accommodate the project's demands. The entirety of the project drains to the east to proposed detention. Notes that the proposed drainage to the seasonal creek will need to be modified due to the streamside protection standards. Justin Jorgensen, Jorgensen and Associates, Applicant's Representative: In agreement with conditions, but asks about future AHTD improvements along Highway 16. Ely: Responds that the extent of improvements is not known. Public Comment: No public comment was presented. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Comments on the access to Highway 16, and questions whether these meet state access requirements. Jorgensen: Clarifies that the applicant plans on utilizing the existing southern drive and working with it accordingly. Brown: Questions about drainage. Jorgensen: Confirms that it will all flow eastward towards the proposed detention. Brown: Seeks clarification about the compliance requirements for the design standards. Curth: Clarifies that it is more about the use than the zoning, and that only that portion of the proposed building that is for office use will be subject to the commercial design standards, and not the warehouse or manufacturing spaces. Motion: Commissioner Brown made a motion to approve LSD 16-5659 with all conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0. Announcements: No items Adjournment Time: 10:35 a.m.