Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-12-12 Minutes` MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 12, 1994 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Tarvin, Ren Pummill, Jerry Allred, Charles Nickle, Phyllis Hall Johnson, Gary R. Head, Tom Suchecki, Robert E. Reynolds, and Jana Lynn Britton OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Kevin Santos, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members Of the press and others MINUTES: The Minutes of the regular Planning Comnission Meeting of November 28, 1994 were approved as written with a unanimous vote. OLD BUSINESS: MASTER STREET PLAN PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Joe Tarvin advised this public hearing was the second one held at the Planning Commission level on the Master Street Plan. He pointed out there were some changes made to the proposed Master Street Plan at the first public hearing in response to citizen input. In response to an inquiry, Mr. Tarvin advised this was the sixth draft. l Mr. Santos advised the changes between drafts five and six included the access through the Fiesta Square parking lot, North Hills, relocation of Oakland -Zion Road on the east to miss Mr. Gaddy's property, shifting of the Dinsmore Trail/Rupple Road extension, and a connection of Shiloh to Persimmon Street instead of an east/west street at the end of Betty Jo Drive. In answer to an inquiry from Mr. Kimbrough in regard to Moore Lane crossing the Razorback Golf Course, Ms. Little advised it was still a part of the Master Street Plan. She pointed out the Master Street Plan only suggested connections between points and noted specific routings would be determined at the time development occurred. In response to further inquiries, there was discussion regarding whether the collector street shown going north from Dean Solomon Road up to Salem Road East would cross the Pfieeler Subdivision. Ms. Little advised they would take a closer look at the proposed road location. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tarvin suggested, in any motion on the Master Street Plan, the Commission should consider eliminating Moore Drive going across Razorback Golf Course, adjusting the roadway crossing Jim Bob 6dreeler's subdivision, and consider the north/south minor arterial presently shown on Salem Road to the west at a location to be determined in the future by development. Mr. Allred contended the Master Street Plan was not etched in stone and therefore could be adjusted as needed on a case-hy-case basis. He recommended the Planning Commission send the Plan to the City Council. Ms. Britton agreed the Master Street Plan was conceptual and some of the streets were not feasible topographically and would have to be adjusted. 5�3 MOTION • Mr. Allred made a motion to approve the sixth draft of the Master Street Plan as presented to be sent with full recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City council for action. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. Mr. Head requested an amendment to the motion to include the three changes suggested by Mr. Tarvin. AMENDED MOTION Mr. Allred amended his motion to include the three changes suggested by Mr. Tarvin. The amended motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried unanimously. CI • • • Planning Commission Meeting December 12, 1994 Page 3 The next item was the preliminary plat of Crystal Springs Phase II submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of JM Development for property located east of Salem Road, north of Mt. Comfort Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 35.32 acres with 104 lots. Mr. Tarvin advised that, at the request of the representative of the developers, the plat would be tabled. CP Planning Commission Meeting • December 12, 1994 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING R94-58 CARL & ELIZABETH FITE & SHERRI MCADOW- S OF JOHNSON RD W OF HWY 71 The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petition R94-58 submitted by Charles Hanks on behalf of Carl & Elizabeth Fite and Sherri McAdow for property located south of Johnson Road and west of Highway 71. The request was to rezone 2.43 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ms. Alett Little advised the subject property was located just north of the Northwest Arkansas Mall. She stated the property to the north (in the City of Springdale) was zoned both commercial and residential and to the west (in the City of Johnson) was zoned conmercial. She added this parcel was not included in the last rezonings as intended because the legal description had omitted the subject parcel. MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the rezoning R94-58 subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion passed unanimously. • 5\(p 1 Planning Commission Meeting • December 12, 1994 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING R94-59 KARYN BROPHY - 1700 E HUNTSVILLE RD The next item was a public hearing for rezoning petition R94-59 submitted by Karyn Brophy for property located at 1700 E. Huntsville Road. The request was to rezone 1.123 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R -O, Residential -Office. Ms. Little advised the staff had no further comments. Ms. Karyn Brophy, the petitioner, stated she was requesting the rezoning in order to locate an accounting practice at the subject site. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve rezoning petition R94-59 subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Head. The motion passed unanimously. • 0 5\1 Planning Commission Meeting • December 12, 1994 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONING R94-60 C & B LAND AND CATTLE CO - N OF M 16 W W OF 54TH ST The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning R94-60 submitted by C & B Land and Cattle Co. (Richard Bundrick) on behalf of J. D. Hall for property located north of Highway 16 West, west of 54th Street (2 miles west of the Highway 71 Bypass). The request is to rezone 51.40 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Mr. Bundrick explained he had requested R-1.5 but would be constructing affordable, single-family homes on the tract. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised staff had not made a recommendation in their report because they had been awaiting further information at the time the report was written. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to recommend approval of the rezoning to the City Council. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1-1 with Conmissioners Head, Johnson, Pummill, Reynolds, Suchechi, Tarvin, and Allred voting •yes°, Commissioner Nickle voting •no• and Commissioner Britton abstaining. • • cs\00 Planning Commission Meeting • December 12, 1994 Page 7 COUNCIL REFERRAL: PARR PLACE/BOARDWALK STREET VACATION Ms. Little noted there were 145 living units using a single access point in Park Place. She advised representatives from both the fire department and the police department were present with comments regarding the vacation. The fire department representative stated he had been to the site and determined a minimum of 20 feet of access would need to be maintained for emergency vehicles. He also requested the access needed to be shown as permanent access for emergency vehicles. The police department representative noted the police vehicles would have difficulty in getting over the existing curb on the access. There was discussion regarding an existing house encroaching into the right-of-way. Ms. Little explained the Planning Commission had given permission for the plat to be redrawn and the engineer had not left a standard size lot. She noted the house did not encroach in the right-of-way but the driveway to the house was physically located in the right-of-way. She explained the procedure for getting a building permit, noting the applicant did sign a statement that they would not build in the setback. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. John Eldridge, representing the property owners association, explained he had been in negotiation with Jerry Rose, the City Attorney. He further stated Mickey Jackson, Fire Chief, bad advised he would like to have 20 feet but could make do with 16 feet in width. • Mr. Nickle stated he believed that, in the effort of compromise, 25 feet would provide enough room for emergency vehicles. He further noted he did not believe the City should give up any more right- of-way since there had originally been 50 feet. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to offer the compromise solution of a 25 -foot right-of-way to be vacated Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. Ms. Britton stated staff had made several points in their report which needed to be addressed. She asked if Mr. Nickle planned on addressing those items. Mr. Nickle stated his motion was intended to just address the dimensions of the vacation, not any specifics such as modification of the curb, etc. He advised he believed those items should be handled with the City Traffic and Street Departments. Ms. Little reviewed the considerations: (1) any modifications to the curb; (2) any surfacing requirements; (3) any requirements for curb and guttering if the street was to be surfaced; (4) the total amount of right-of-way; and the assignment of costs for construction. Mr. Nickle stated he believed the original motion had required all-weather access. Ms. Little explained all-weather access had only been on the west side (from Victoria Lane to the east boundary line of Park Place Subdivision). She went on to say they bad not discussed surfacing on the Boardwalk portion, only that it would be used for emergency purposes and the street would be opened at such time as it became a common thoroughfare for residents but that it could not be opened, • until it was reviewed again by the Planning Commission. She stated that, if it was the intent of the Planning Commission for the 25 feet to be for emergency access only, they would need to state b\01 Planning Commission Meeting December 12, 1994 Page 8 that information and also address surfacing. She also asked if they wanted the curb on Arthur's Court modified. Mr. Tarvin expressed concern that, if there was no surfacing, someone could construct a fence across the right-of-way. Mr. Reynolds stated the curbs would need to be modified in order to be accessible for emergency vehicles. AMENDED MOTION Mr. Nickle amended his motion to include modifications to the curb and gutter, surfacing, and a sign or some type of designation stating the right-of-way was for emergency access only. He advised he preferred to let the Council determine the assignment of cost for construction. Mr. Reynolds seconded the amended motion. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Nickle advised he was referring to hard surfacing -- something that would support a fire truck and any other emergency vehicles. Mr. Allred advised that, if the right-of-way was hard surfaced, it would be used as a street. He noted they had discussed some 27 -foot wide streets for other areas. He asked if that would be appropriate for this right-of-way. Mr. Nickle stated it was his opinion the right-of-way was for emergency vehicles only. Mr. Tarvin reviewed the motion. The motion carried 7-2-0 with Commissioners Head, Johnson, Nickle, Reynolds, Tarvin, Britton and Allred voting °yes° and commissioners Pummill and Suchecki voting °no•. 001 Planning Commission Meeting • December 12, 1994 Page 9 CONSENT AGENDA: A. LOT SPLIT #1: Stmitted by James and Judy Hazen for property located south of Mt. Comfort Road and east of Rupple Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. B. FUM PLAT - KEE CORNER PLAZA: Submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Kirk Elsass for property located south of Zion Road and west of Highway 265 and zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial containing 3.82 acres with 4 lots. C. FINAL PLAT - LOT 9 SPRING PARK SUBDMSION PHASE III: Submitted by Robert Brown on behalf of Clary Development for property located north of Joyce and west of Mall Lane and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial containing 13.26 acres. D. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT LOT 9 SPRING PARK SUBDMSION PHASE III: Submitted by Robert Brown on behalf of Clary Development for property located north of Joyce and west of Mall Lane and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial containing 13.26 acres. There was a suggestion by the staff that Item E. of the Consent Agenda, Large Scale Development - State Farm office and Inspection Station, be reviewed and voted on separately. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda excluding Item E. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. The motion carried unanimously. I C511 Planning Commission.Meeting • December 12, 1994 Page 10 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - STATE FARM OFFICE AND INSPECTION STATION STATE FARM INC - W OF NORTH COLLEGE, S OF HWY 71 BYPASS The next item was a large scale development plan of State Farm Office and Inspection Station submitted by Neal Albright on behalf of State Farm, Inc. for property located west of North College Avenue and south of the Highway 71 Bypass. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 2.38 acres. Ms. Alett Little advised the staff's recommendation was for approval of the plan subject to the provision of cross access to the property to the west. She advised the Coimnission the developers had not agreed to provide the cross access. Mr. Neal Albright, representing the owners, stated the owners wished to waive the provision for a cross access due to a potential for interference with the traffic their claims vehicles. He added they also felt they would have liability exposure by vehicles coming from the adjacent lot. He explained that, since the cross access would be adjacent to State Farm's driveway, adjacent property owners would have to enter the normal driveway in order to access. He added he did not see any benefit to State Farm of the cross access. Ms. Britton explained the cross access was not intended to be of benefit for someone who simply wanted to enter the adjacent property, it was intended as a convenience for someone wanting to go from one property to the other without accessing the thoroughfare and impacting the traffic. Mr. Albright contended traffic accessing the State Farm property from adjacent property would cause increased traffic into the private driveway. • In answer to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Ms. Little explained the access to the west would be to access further development. Mr. Pummill pointed out they could safely assume whatever business did develop to the west in the future would not have mutual customers with State Faun. He noted he did not agree with the rationale of the cross access requirement to the west and noted it appeared they would be setting a precedent. Ms. Little pointed out it would provide for the major streets to serve the function better and not become clogged with persons having to go out from one drive and turn right back into the next one. She noted the staff intended to continue looking at cross access on a case-by-case basis. She added they needed to remember the business might not always be the same. In answer to a question, Ms. Little advised they were not requesting a cross access on the east because the Commission did not require one from the hotel to the subject site. Mr. Nickle clarified there was a provision for cross -access on the east side of the motel, but not on the west side. He contended it was a good idea to have the cross access provision when possible and agreed that State Farm office might not always be located at the site. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the large scale development plan subject to all staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton. Mr. Allred advised he concurred with Mr. PAmmill. He pointed out if both the businesses were retail, . the cross access would seem more appropriate. He contended they were basically requiring a second street through private property. He noted he did not see a cross access as being mutually beneficial 4V Planning Commission Meeting • December 12, 1994 Page 11 to both businesses in this instance. The motion carried 6-3-0 with Commissioners Head, Johnson, Nickle, Reynolds, Tarvin, and Britton voting °yes• and Commissioners Pummill, Suchecki, and Allred voting 'no•. L_J Planning Commission Meeting • December 12, 1994 Page 12 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT R1 KATHRYN DICKEY - 1540 S SCHOOL ST The next item was a lot split #1 submitted by Kathryn Dickey for property located at 1540 S. School Street and zoned I-1, Light Industrial and Heavy Commercial. In answer to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Paul Reagan of Victor Properties advised the property was adjacent to the station. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve the lot split. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion passed unanimously. • 61" Planning Commission Meeting • December 12, 1994 Page 13 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS 01 AND 02 not and did not DANIEL LINTON & RON HOLLINGSHEAD - S OF WILLOUGHBY W OF MCCOLLUM AVE The next item was a lot splits #1 and #2 submitted by Mr. Daniel S. Linton and Mr. Ron A. Hollingshead for property located south of Willoughby Road, west of McCollum Avenue. 'Ihe property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial and Heavy Commercial. Ms. Little advised there had been additional information distributed to the Commission concerning dedication of a triangle of land by the former owners of the property, the Andre' s. She added it concerned a bill of assurance offered in May of 1981 with regard to a large scale development which had been approved but never undertaken. She explained the bill of assurance had related to improvements to McCollum Avenue. In response to Ms. Little's request for clarification, a representative of the petition stated the request was for industrial purposes and not residential. not and did not need to use. Ms. Little advised the concrete manufacturing company located immediately south of the site had been required to make some improvements to McCollum Avenue. She expressed her belief it was appropriate to discuss such improvements with regard to the subject site. She noted that, since the triangle piece of land had already come into City ownership in 1981 to allow the straightening out of McCollum Street, it would not be an issue for the subject request. In response to a request for clarification, Ms. Little advised the bill of assurance stating there would be no access to McCollum was offered as a condition of the prior large scale development approval. She reiterated that, since the large scale development had not been acted upon, the staff did not feel the bill of assurance should be required to stand for either party in connection with the current request. In response to further questions, Ms. Little advised two of the lots in question would have frontage only on Willoughby Road, but one lot had access on McCollum also. Mr. Ron Hollingshead, one of the owners, contended the staff was recommending they pay for street improvements on a street they could not and did not need to use. He referred to a letter which had been submitted detailing their viewpoint. For clarification purposes, Mr. Hollingshead explained the cash contribution the City was requesting was for the length of Lot 1 - 225 feet. In response to a request for further clarification by Ms. Johnson, Mr. Bunn reiterated that, since the previous planned large scale development had neverdeveloped, the bill of assurance was of no effect. He added the City would not deny access to McCollum Road, at least not based on the bill of assurance. In answer to a question from Mr. Hollingshead, Mr. Bunn advised the City was requesting the cash contribution for improvements to McCollum Road regardless of where any access for the lot might be located. Ms. Little suggested the decision on necessary improvements be delayed until a large scale plan was approved for lot 1. She advised the lot split approval could be made subject to a large scale development plan for development on the lot. She noted it would put the burden of those improvements all on lot 1 and allow the selling off of lots 2 and 3. She pointed out the way it was currently set up, lot 3 would be the only one which would be required to go through the large scale development • process unless it was made a condition by the Commission's approval of the split. Planning Commission Meeting • December 12, 1994 Page 14 • Mr. Nickle clarified it was just a policy of the City to request contributions for improvements to streets by the adjoining properties. land a few months ago. He advised they intended to keep lots 1.and 2, Mr. Hollingshead questioned if the staff would consider that a contribution had been made in deeded land as well as the easement. Mr. Nickle point out that, if McCollum was ever straightened out, they could possibly retrieve some of that land. Mr. Bunn advised what generally happened was the City would ask for the improvement of the road plus whatever right-of-way was needed. He noted that, in this case, the right-of-way already existed In answer to a question from Mr. Hollingshead, Mr. Bunn advised they expected the improvements to the road to be made within two to three years. He noted this was an instance where the owners were not aware of and had not planned for the cost of improving the street. Mr. Hollingshead stated they were assured by the Street Superintendent there were no plans to improve McCollum Avenue when they purchased the land a few months ago. He advised they intended to keep lots 1.and 2, and possibly sell lot 3 later after making improvements to it. Mr. Bunn advised improvements to McCollum would not have been a priority several months ago; but, since the concrete business was being developed and the developers had contributed $35,000 toward the improvement of the road, it was now a priority for the City. Mr. Allred asked if it would be feasible to approve the lot split for the third lot, 1.43 acres, leaving lots 1 and 2 as one tract so, at the time it was developed, the developers would be required to come through the large scale development process because of the lot size. Mr. Hollingshead stated that would be agreeable. Mr. Bunn advised the City would not have any objections and noted it would just delay improvements to the road. Ms. Little clarified there would be one lot split to create what was shown in the petition as lot 3 containing 1.43 acres, which would create another remnant totaling 1.52 acres (.78 plus .74). MOTION Mr. Allred made a motion to approve one lot split to create what was shown as lot 3 containing 1.43 acres and leaving one other tract totaling 1.52 acres. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummnill. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting • December 12, 1994 Page 15 CONDITIONAL USE CU94-31- RECREATIONAL FACILITY AMERICAN LEGION POST 27 - 1355 CURTIS DR The next item was a conditional use request CU94-31 submitted by American Legion Post 27 for property located at 1355 Curtis Drive and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request was for a cultural and recreational facility. Mr. Tim Conklin advised the petitioners did not currently plan to sell alcohol at the facility, but they had asked if they could consider that in the future. Mr. Tarvin clarified the approval of the conditional use would not preclude reconsideration of the sale of alcohol. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the conditional use subject to the staff's comments The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. . The motion passed unanimously. 41 Planning Commission Meeting • December 12, 1994 Page 16 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HIDDEN LAKE SUBDIVISION BMP DEVELOPMENT - N OF MISSION W OF OLD WIRE RD The next item was a preliminary plat of Hidden Lake Subdivision submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of EMP Development for property located north of Mission Boulevard and west of Old Wire Road. 'hie property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 19.75 acres with 44 lots. Mr. Tarvin advised this item had been tabled from the last Commission meeting. Ms. Little stated the staff had presented the Commission with plat page maps which indicated how streets and subdivisions connected in the area. Mr. Bunn advised there had been a question regarding whether the Swale along the east side of Hidden Lake Subdivision would be large enough to handle the flow and also concern regarding flooding to the east of the site. He stated Mr. Milholland had provided information that the swale would handle approximately a 100 -year flow in the area along the east side of the subdivision from Highway 45 back to the main channel. He reiterated they were satisfied the channel would handle any reasonable flows without flooding any adjacent property. He added there was also a concern in regard to the general handling of drainage at the point where the subdivision emptied under Old Wire Road. He noted the box culvert at that location had a capacity of approximately 400 cubic feet per second. He added the developer was to construct detention which would limit the flows from the subdivision in a 25 - year storm to the capacity of the box. He advised the developer intended to develop detention behind Old Wire Road at the box which would total the amount of natural detention taking place at Old Wire Road currently (around 18,000 cubic feet) and add enough detention to take care of the excess flows • created by the subdivision (the difference between the pre -development flows and the post -development flows from the subdivision) which would make a total of approximately 45,000 cubic feet. He noted that, by creating the detention, another 10,000 cubic feet would be added which proposed a total of about 55,000 cubic feet of detention behind Old Wire Road. Mr. Bunn further stated the developer planned to construct a berm along the north side of the creek and tie it into the shoulder of the road to prevent water from flowing north from the subdivision or the creek onto the property to the north (primarily owned by Mr. Perry). He added the situation on Old Wire Road was such that the low point did not occur at the large box, but several hundred feet north at a smaller crossing. In addition to those two things, Mr. Bunn advised the developer planned to improve the channel within the subdivision to make sure the water was channeled to the proper location instead of going to the north. Mr. Bunn pointed out the question was whether the developer would meet the City's requirements in drainage matters (that either the excess flow from the subdivision was taken care of by detaining the water or the downstream condition was being improved) . He added that, by creating the detention, it was fair to say the excess water was taken care of and would be improving a flooding condition to the north. He stated Mr. Perry had indicated the front yard of his property flooded two to three times a year. He noted the changes Mr. Milholland was proposing would probably reduce the flooding to once every five or six years. He advised the only question left would be how the water would act going through the subdivision with the detention. He noted the indication was it, along with the capacity of the existing box, would handle approximately a 6 -year storm. Mr. Bunn pointed out the developers had not completed the necessary flood routing to show exactly how the detention would act. He added the box under Old Wire Road would be the controlling outlet rather than a dam and outlet structure. He advised it would be limited to the capacity of the box (approximately 400 cubic feet per second). He stated that, in terms of not increasing peak flows downstream and in terms of correcting an existing situation, the developer had done what the City • expected. He added the developer had offered to contribute $10,000 toward the improvement of the box culvert on Old Wire Road and noted the question was whether that would be a fair share. He Planning Commission Meeting • December 12, 1994 Page 17 pointed out that, if the area being developed were pro -rated to the entire drainage area, $10,000 would probably be in excess. He went on to say that, if it were looked at from the standpoint of Old Wire Road as adjacent to the subdivision and the developer being responsible for widening old Wire Road to city street standards and, as part of it, constructing the box to city Street standards, it might not be enough. Mr. Bunn advised he believed what the developer was offering would be fair and the City should look at taking the $10,000 and perhaps increasing the capacity of the box under Old Wire Road. He noted the City should also look into taking some additional money from the City's budget and perhaps increasing the amount of detention behind Old Wire Road even beyond what the developer planned if possible. He reiterated he would like the developer to be required to give a flood routing. Mr. Nickle stated that, since most of the subject area was already developed, he did not believe the problem had a chance of getting worse. Mr. Bunn agreed. Mr. Nickle noted he was satisfied with the drainage improvements offered by the developer, pending the flood routing calculations, in light of the fact the City Engineer had reviewed it and pending the routing calculations. In answer to a question, Mr. Perry (an adjoining property owner) advised he would like to see the problem fixed and noted he did not see anything wrong with the developer's new plan. He did express concern that the remainder of the land north of the branch (a part of the Jackson property) would • eventually be developed and, if a berm was constructed, the water would be unable to get back into the branch. Mr. Mel Milholland advised part of the Jackson land would be going into the park system. He pointed out there would not be a major development on the site as originally planned. He noted, if the Jackson property were ever developed, the plat would have to be approved by the City and Mr. Perry's concerns would be addressed. He pointed out the back part of the property currently drained to the south into the creek. He noted the berm would be on the north boundary (the south side of the private drive) and contended it would not stop any flow on this property from going south. • In answer to a further inquiry from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Milholland reiterated the Jackson property would drain into the same creek and not across Mr. Perry's property. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Milholland advised the retention for the increase in flows from the development was based on a 100 -year flood on 15 acres. In answer to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Milholland stated he could not guarantee the proposal would help the problems on Ramsey Street because it was upstream from the subject development. Mr. Head reminded the Commission of earlier discussion in regard to connecting the subject development with other adjacent properties being subdivided because of the consideration for traffic flow. He contended allowing 38 lots to go in bf Planning Commission Meeting December 12, 1994 Page 19 without a link to other property which would probably be developed in the future would be a mistake. Mr. Mark Marquess of BMP Development pointed out they were not involved with the previous development plan (Jackson Place). He added they had looked closely at the quality of life in the subdivision and had learned from experience that people definitely liked a cul-de-sac environment. He noted they were only developing the southern parcel of the total Jackson property with no options or plans to develop the north side. He noted they did allow for an ingress/egress the north side in their proposed plan.. Mr. Marquess advised they were concerned with how the cul-de-sac lots would lay in regard to the creek and the pond to make them developable without disturbing the trees. He noted they had also taken into account impact of the development on the trees and, while sewer lines or storm drainage would have some impact on the trees, the would not have the same impact as a street. Mr. Head pointed out it was part of the City's requirement to do the best they could with developments and not dump future development problems back on someone else. Mr. Marquess advised the total 15 acres only represented a total of 38 of the basin catch of the existing box culvert. He noted the total impact of the development into 44 lots with the streets, curbs, storm drainage, homes, and driveways taken out would create a total impact after development of less than 1.78 of additional water flow on the entire project and the entire box culvert. He pointed out they based that figure on calculations using a 2,000 -square foot home with a 500 -square foot garage and a double -car driveway. He added the detention pond would greatly assist in lessening any impact to adjoining properties. He reiterated they had offered a $10,000 contribution to aid in the building of the box culvert. He contended, based on a rational nexus, they would actually • only need to contribute less than $500. He noted they were also dedicating 5 acres to city park land which, with a minimal value, would give another $60,000 contribution. He reiterated they would increase the flow of the existing box culvert by 208. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Marquess advised it was his intention to preserve all the trees possible. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised there was a stub -out from Charlee Drive in Spring Creek Subdivision shown on the plat map, Ash Street had a stub -out to the south, and Ramsey stubbed out to the north. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn advised the acreage to the north of the creek would possibly have access to the other stub -outs and was not currently landlocked. Barbara Holt, a resident on Ramsey Street, expressed concern the proposed plan would not hold the drainage behind Ramsey Street. she advised there was a very bad drainage problem currently and was concerned about the potential for worst flooding with the new development. She noted the proposed plat did not show all the locations where the problems were currently and she expressed concern the berm would wash away. She suggested the developers put up a bond of assurance if they were not going to put in storm sewers. she was upset that the City Engineer had not returned her call in regard to walking the property with her and reviewing the problem. Mr. Don Bunn apologized to Ms. Holt and stated he would make an appointment with her to look at the property. In answer to a question from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Bunn advised the original staff report had stated the staff's recommendation was that the plat be approved subject to Plat Review and Subdivision Committee • comments; approval of a detailed grading plan; approval of a detailed drainage plan involving the elements discussed at the meeting including flood routing through the subdivision; approval of the Planning Commission Meeting • December 12, 1994 Page 19 detailed plans for water, sewer, streets and drainage; acceptance of the parks land dedication; either a bill of assurance for street improvements to Old Wire Road and sidewalks along Mission and Old Wire Road or construction of those facilities at the time of development; and the $10,000 contribution for the improvement of the culvert on Old Wire Road. Mr. Bunn advised the $10,000 would be put in escrow and utilized at the time the box culvert was improved. Mr. Reynolds asked Mr. Bunn if he was absolutely sure the drainage proposals would take care of the problem and not make life any more miserable for the people on Ramsey Street. Mr. Bunn advised he would look at it very carefully, but noted everything the developer had done in terms of constructing a swell and the improvement of the main channel would move water more quickly through the subdivision. Mr. Tarvin stated they should possibly table the plat again until the City Engineer had time to look at it more closely. Mr. Milholland stated they had provided actual construction plans to the City Engineer on the drainage and contended their plan would work. - MOTION Mr. Suchecki made a motion to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments including the contribution of the $10,000 as proposed by the developer. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. • MOTION TO AMEND Ms. Johnson moved to amend the original motion to include the requirement that Jordan Lane be stubbed out to the north edge of lot 38 as a paved street. The motion to amend was seconded by Ms. Britton. The motion to amend carried 5-4-0 with Commissioners Head, Johnson, Reynolds, Tarvin, and Britton voting •yes° and Commissioners Nickle, Pummill, Suchecki, and Allred voting "no*. AMENDED MOTION The motion was the original motion to approve the plat as made by Allred and as amended by Johnson. The motion carried 5-4-0 with Commissioners Johnson, Nickle, Pummill, Suchecki, and Britton voting •yes• and Commissioners Head, Reynolds, Tarvin, and Allred voting °no•. 5r\ Planning Commission Meeting • December 12, 1994 Page 20 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF TAMMY SUBDIVISION DALE & EVELYN YOUNGMAN - N OF ZION RD, E OF HWY 265 The next item was a preliminary plat of Tammy Subdivision submitted by Dale & Evelyn Youngman for property located north of Zion Road, and east of Highway 265 and zoned A-1, Agricultural and containing 7.74 acres. Ms. Little advised the reason the plat was before the Planning Commission was three lot splits had already been approved on the property. She clarified the regulations allowed for the approval of three lot splits creating four lots. She explained, in this particular case, Mr. Youngman received the third lot split approximately a year earlier creating the fourth lot. She added preliminary plat approval came about because Mr. Youngman now wished to split another lot and since three splits had already been approved, a subdivision was required by ordinance. She added the way they were structuring the plat to create legal lots was that Tract 2 would have a building setback of 200 feet so it would have 200 feet of frontage. She noted cul-de-sacs were required to have frontage and it had actually only 50 feet of frontage along Zion Road. She noted that meant that Tract 1, the remaining tract, would be a tandem lot behind Tract 2. Ms. Britton requested information as to whether any improvements or right-of-way would be required to Zion Road. Mr. Bunn stated he thought the right-of-way was sufficient MOTION • Mr. Head made a motion to approve the plat as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion passed unanimously with a 7-0-0 vote. (Mr. Nickle and Mr. Tarvin left the meeting early.) 6511/ Planning Commission Meeting • December 12, 1994 Page 21 VACATION V94-13 ROUSE TRISTATE VENTURES - SHILOH DR W OF HWY 71 & E OF NW AR MALL The next'iten was a vacation V94-13 submitted by Kurtis Jones on behalf of Rouse Tristate Ventures for property located at Shiloh Drive, west of Highway 71 and east of the Northwest Arkansas Mall. The request was to vacate a right-of-way. its. Little stated the right-of-way vacation was in connection with the signalization of Shepherd Lane since the Highway Department had given an tentative approval for Shepherd Lane to become a through signalized intersection (contingent on the lowering of the grade of the highway). She added the Mall would then be able to implement a large scale development which would mean that portion of Shiloh Dive (the frontage road currently running north of Hooters all the way to over to what used to be Shoneys) would become redesigned and maintained by the Northwest Arkansas Mall. She added, over time, the lack of a requirement for maintenance by the City could save the City a considerable amount of money and would give the Mall more freedom in developing their site and controlling their traffic. She advised staff supported the request. Ms. Britton asked if the recommendation could be contingent upon the approval with the Highway Department being finalized. Ms. Little advised the staff had been assured by the Highway Department of their approval, but she noted it could be added to the motion. Mr. Punmill pointed out that, even if the Highway Department did not signalize the intersection, the City would be unloading a piece of road they no longer had to maintain. • Ms. Johnson asked for clarification that the frontage road would be rebuilt. Ms. Little explained it would be reconstructed as a loop road, but not in exactly the same configuration. Mr. Kurt Jones of Northwest Engineers advised the frontage road would be redesigned and would serve as a ring road to the Mall parking lot and would connect the proposed Shepherd Street entrance to the existing Zion Road entrance. Mr. Ed Pilarz, the Mall Manager, advised all the traffic entering the Mall would move around a two- lane system to be more efficient. Mr. Jones advised the Mall was not requesting a vacation of the road anywhere except directly in front of the Mall. He pointed out the road did not currently continue on past the Mall. Ms. Johnson stated she was asking for assurance that there would be a frontage road through the entire length of the property. Ms. Little explained the ring road would go back to the west where the current ring road went back to the west and added it would continue to the north up to the Shoney's just as it currently di In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Jones stated they would have to eliminate the access to the Mall to the south in order to make the proposed intersection possible. MOTION • Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the right-of-way vacation request. 0 Planning commission Meeting December -12, 1999 Page 22 The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion passed ,,naxii.,nu ly with a 7-0-0 vote. (Mr. Tarvin and Mr. Mickle left the meeting early.) There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.