Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-23 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on September 23, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Lorel Hoffman, Jerry Allred, Gary Tucker, Mark Sugg, Bob Reynolds, John Forney, and John Harbison. MEMBER ABSENT: Conrad Odom STAFF PRESENT: Alert Little, Rich Lane, Jim Beavers, Dawn Thomas, and Heather Woodruff. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as distribute. OLD BUSINESS • Ms. Little stated item one, a conditional use for Wanda Sims, had been removed from the agenda per the applicants request. CONSENT AGENDA LSD96-31: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR SUNBRIDGE CENTER DICK KEATING- EAST OF GREGG AND NORTH OF SUNBRIDGE The first item on the consent agenda was submitted by Dick Keating for property located east of Gregg Street and north of Sunbridge. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains approximately 2.35 acres. LSD96-32.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR PROCTOR AND GAMBLE CROMWELL AND ASSOC,-S, OF MILLSAP RD, AND E. OF PLAINVIEW AVE The next item on the consent agenda was submitted by Cromwell and Associates for property located south of Millsap Road and east of Plainview Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 3.55 acres. MOTION 0 Mr. Allred moved to approve the consent agent agenda as presented. • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 2 Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. • 11 7L) • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 3 NEW BUSINESS INFORMATIONAL ITEM The next item on the agenda was an informational item, a letter from the Washington County Planning. FP96-12: FINAL PLAT FOR WEDINGTON PLACE CLARY -N. OF WEDINGTON DR & W OF 71 BYPASS The next item on the agenda was submitted by Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Clary for property located north of Wedington Dr. and west of Hwy 71 Bypass. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 32.36 acres with three proposed lots. Ms. Johnson explained there were two lots which were being developed and lot three encompassed the remainder of the property. She stated they would not be dealing with the issues of street connections lot three; they were primarily dealing with the location of the two street which would cause curb cuts along Wedington Drive. She added the Commission would see this • again at the large scale development. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions. 1. All public improvement shall be complete and pass the City's final inspection, including all remedial work, punch list items and furnishing of the maintenance bonds prior to the City Engineer's signing the final plat. 2. Utility and water/sewer line easement dimensions shall meet the approval of the Water and Sewer Superintendent as stated at Subdivision Committee Meeting. 3. The final plat shall be corrected to show the applicable zones for lot three. 4. Per the preliminary Plat approval, the developer shall pay: $1500.00 per acre (3,840.00 total for lots one and two) as contribution to the construction of bridges on Salem Road and Shiloh Drive and, off-site sewer charges for the improvement of the Hamstring Creek system equivalent to $200.00 per residential lot (equals $1000.00 per acre) for a total of $2560.00 for lots one and two. • The total of $6,400.00 represents the charges for lots one and two only and shall be paid to the City prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat. 0�2 -7z;2 • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 4 The charges for lot three shall be paid upon further development of lot three. 5. No development of any kind shall occur on lot three without another, separate, LSD or plat being approved by the Planning Commission. 6. No additional curb cuts shall be allowed onto Wedington Drive for lots one and two. 7. Lots one and two shall come back for LSD application and approval prior to any further development on these lots. The future LSD application approval shall include the storm water detention requirements as noted on the plat and sidewalk requirements along Steamboat Drive and Tahoe Place. 8. Plat review and subdivision committee comments. Ms. Little stated they did not have the signed conditions of approval on this application. Mr. Brian Ray, Development Consultants, stated they would like to discuss one of sewer easements: the far west easement along the sewer line on the western property boundary, the plat showed a 20' easement and the City was requesting a 25' sewer easement along the property line. • He stated the City's reasoning was they needed a 1 to 1 slope for safety issues when they had to dig to repair a line. He added in this section the center of sewer line was 6.5' to 8' from the edge of the easement and the line ranged from 6.5' to 7' deep, so if they were to dig out the sewer line, they would go a little beyond the provided 20' easement. He stated the building setback in this area was 20' and, if they were to give up more easement than what was currently shown they would be giving up more area that could be built upon. He advised the developer did not want to limit his future development of the site. He added they had been showing it as a 20' easement throughout the process. He reasoned the standards were simply policy, not ordinance, and had not been approved by the City Council and as such they were simply guidelines. He added they were close to the request and they would like to keep the 20' easement. He added there was a 25' easement on the adjacent property, so it was not a question of being able to get equipment in; it was a question of how close to a possible building it might be. Mr. Beavers stated they had discussed the easement at subdivision. He added, he never considered water/sewer plans approved at preliminary plat review, it was subject to additional review. He advised it was a safety issue and he and the Water and Sewer Superintendent, who was also a professional engineer, had requested the additional footage. He stated he fully supported the Superintendents request for the additional room. He added it did not have to be necessary 25'. They needed to survey it, if the sewer line was 6.5' to 8' from the edge of the easement as he was stated, a 21' or 22' might work. He restated he fully supported the Superintendents request to have a 1 to 1 slope from the bottom of the pipe to the edge of • easement so they could lay a trench back safely. 2_3 • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 5 Ms. Johnson clarified the key issue was that the City would have a 1 to 1 slope. She asked what would be required for a one to one slope. Mr. Beavers stated the 25' was a general width if they did not want to go to the trouble of finding the exact measurement. the roads to be public and Mr. Tucker questioned why Steamboat Drive and Tahoe Place were indicated as private drives. Mr. Ray stated that would be changed for the final plat. The City had indicated they would like the roads to be public and Development Consultants did not have a problem dedicating them. Mr. Beavers stated it was his understanding the streets would not be dedicated until the development of lot three. He thought the streets would be accepted, because they were built to the City's Standards and tested by the City's standards. Ms. Johnson stated they wanted to make sure the streets would ultimately be public and thought they should either require them to dedicate them now or put them on notice that they -would have to be dedicated later. She suggested they add it as a requirement. She questioned Mr. Ray if he • was willing to make them public now. Mr. Ray stated it did not matter if Steamboat Drive was dedicated now or in the future but was a good chance that Tahoe Place would only serve as a driveway to lot three. He advised it was not going to connect throughout the rest of the project and there was an intent to build another road west of Tahoe Place. Ms. Johnson questioned if he was talking about another road west of Tahoe Place onto Hwy 16. Ms. Little stated there had been discussion about during plat review the City would take both the sidewalk and the dedication of right-of-way at the large scale process. Ms. Johnson questioned if a street was a private would the City's control over it be limited or could it be gated. She questioned if they could require the streets to be dedicated now and the sidewalks at the large scale development. Ms. Little stated they could do that. Mr. Sugg questioned if there were proposed projects for lots one and two. Mr. Ray stated they did have a buyer, if the final plat was approved, although he did not know • who. • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 6 Mr. Sugg expressed concern about the access, it closeness to the intersection and there was no access shown into lots one and two. Mr. Ray stated the access into lots one and two would be solely through the private drives, as part of the agreement for the development for this project was that there would be no separate curb cuts to lots one or two onto Hwy 16. Mr. Sugg questioned the curb cuts on Steamboat Drive and Tahoe Place. Mr. Ray stated there would be curb cuts on the streets but he did not where or how many. Mr. Forney questioned if they would be looking at the curb cuts in more detail during the large scale development process. Ms. Little stated they would. She added she had just compared it to the preliminary plat and at the preliminary level they had brought up the closeness of Steamboat Drive to the intersection • and they had stated it would require a waiver of the overlay district requirements, because under the overlay district there could not be any curb cuts within 250' of an intersection. She questioned Mr. Ray if he had discussed or asked for the waiver. Mr Ray stated he had not. Ms. Little stated the other location of the other curb cut was at the westernmost most portion of the property. She added Steamboat was 205' from the intersection. Ms. Hoffman question if he had received State Highway approval for the location of the curb cuts. Mr. Ray stated they had received that as part of the construction process. Ms. Little stated they did not have a copy of the State Highway approval, but from past experience with the State; they regarded each lot to have the ability to have two curb cuts, a minimum of 40' apart. Ms. Johnson question Mr. Ray if the present location of Steamboat and Tahoe were set. Mr. Ray stated the streets were set and built. He added the driveway onto Steamboat Drive from • lot two would be a shared driveway between lot two and the adjacent development on lot three. ;75- Planning 7s Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 7 Mr. Allred questioned if all the requirements from the preliminary plat had been installed. Mr. Beavers stated they were complete and the final inspection had passed. Ms. Johnson stated they had two issues: the width of the sewer easement(the staff was requesting up to a maximum of 25' if necessary to make the slope on the edges of the trench a 1 to 1 slope) and private roads vs public roads for Tahoe Place and Steamboat Drive. Mr. Allred asked why these questions had not been addressed during preliminary plat. He also asked if they had the right to change the size of an easement after preliminary plat approval. Mr. Beavers stated at the preliminary plat stage they did not know how deep the sewer line would be or where the line would be placed within the easement. He noted that in this case, the line was placed toward the edge of the easement and the dept was such that it might need a wider easement. • Mr. Allred questioned why they were approving easements at preliminary, he thought there was a procedural problem that they were not addressing. He added that if they approved a preliminary plat, it gives the builder the "go ahead" to construct according to the preliminary plat. Ms. Little stated the reason for the "as built" was because during constructions things might get placed in locations different from where they were approved. She noted that happened frequently. The as built would be filed after the final plat. They had to know where the easement were going to be at preliminary plat stage because it gave the developer the authority to construct the development. Mr. Allred stated he did not think it set a good precedent for the City to change the easement on the final plat; that the final plat was not the time to be discussing what they should have taken care of earlier. Ms. Johnson clarified this was not something that should have been taken care of earlier. She questioned who decided where the line would be placed and if it had been placed optimally. Mr. Beavers stated that if the sewer line had been placed in the center of the 20' easement it would have worked but might not have allowed room for the other utilities. He explained the depth of the sewer was set by matching the existing manholes and elevations. He questioned if the easements were actually created before the final plat was filed. 40 Ms. Little stated the easements were only on paper until after the final plat was filed at the court • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 8 house, until then it was considered a working document. Ms. Johnson question who had made the decision regarding the need for a water easement after the preliminary plat stage, the City or the developer. Mr. Beavers answered it was both. Mr. Sugg commented if they had ran into a large rock and had to go around, they would have had to change the utility easement to compensated for not being able to build it in a straight line. He suggested they compromise and only require the wider width along the sewer line and the 20' along the rest of the easement. Mr. Ray stated they would widen the easement where the sewer was located. He added, the sewer line was located virtually where it had been located in the preliminary and it had been located that way because of the preexisting utilities along the property's edge. The only new utility that was added was the new sewer line. He added the one to one slope was a recent policy decision by the Waters and Sewer Dept. He advised it was not a policy that was in existence • when their preliminary plat was approved. Mr. Beavers stated the Engineering staff did not look at the water line or sewer lines at preliminary plat as plans that met their approval, they held that until the construction plans and if it was going to come to the point where they were going to have to review preliminary plats as if they were construction plans then they were going to have to add two weeks or a month into the cycle so they could take the time to give detailed reviews. He added this was a safety issue, they needed to do this to support the water and sewer personnel, and he could not believe they were spending this much time arguing over a safety issue. Ms. Johnson questioned Ms. Little what they had discussed at preliminary plat stage on the private vs public street. Ms. Little stated they had required the streets to be built to public street standards and they would remain private, until they were dedicated at the large scale phase. She noted they were deferring the construction of the sidewalks until the large scale development. Ms. Johnson expressed concerns that, if the plat passed as it was drawn, they might get the claim that the street was to be private forever. Mr. Ray stated there might be some reason not to dedicate Tahoe in the future, but Steamboat could be dedicated at any time. He explained the owner wanted the additional flexibility they 40 might have if it was a private drive rather than a public street. ;-7� Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 9 MOTION Mr. Fomy moved to approve the final plat with all staff comments and the amendment that for the length of the existing sewer on the west side, the dimension of the sewer easement shall be set to a one to one slope with a maximum width of 25'. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson questioned Mr. Forney, if they would be able to change the streets from the public to private when they saw it at large scale. Mr. Forney stated his understanding, after reading the minutes from preliminary plat was they were assured they could require the dedication of the streets at large scale. Ms. Little stated they were assured there was another opportunity for them to dedicate the streets and they would have better information at that time. • Ms. Johnson questioned if they would accomplish any thing by calling the streets public now and waiving the installation of the sidewalks until the large scale stage. Ms. Little explained that, if Tahoe was a public street and the developer decided to make it private, it would create the need for the right-of-way to be vacated. Mr. Forney questioned if the streets were public, would they have to require sidewalks at this time. private until large scale development. Ms. Little stated the sidewalks could be deferred to the large scale development. Mr. Allred suggested they restate the motion so that the streets would be built to city standards but they could still be private until large scale development. Mr. Forney questioned if he restated the motion that way would it require that the sidewalks be built at this time. Ms. Little stated they would not require the sidewalks to be built at this time. Ms. Johnson expressed her concern that if the streets were private now, there might be an argument at the large scale stage that the Planning Commission did not have the right to require connections because the streets were private. She requested the right to require the streets to be • dedicated to the public. She stated to Mr. Ray that, if they approved the plat with private streets, they were not giving up the right to have them public street later in the future. • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 10 Ms. Johnson restated the motion to approve the final plat subject to all staff comments with the additional requirement that the width of the sewer easement along the west property boundary where the existing sewer is located be wide enough to accommodate a one to one slope up to a maximum width of 25'. Mr. Allred stated, if the streets were built to private standards and then, at large scale, they required the developer to dedicate them to the public, they would have accepted a substandard street. Ms. Little stated the streets had already been build and inspected and engineering had already stated that, if they were dedicated to the public in the future, they would pass. The roll was called. The item was approved unanimously. • 0 ;2 -29 • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 11 PP96-7.10 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DEERFIELD PLACE GORDON WILKINS-N. OF HWY 16E. & W. OF MALLY WAGNON The next item on the agenda was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Gordon Wilkins for property located north of Highway 16 East and west of Malty Wagnon Road. The property is zoned R -O and R-1 and contains approximately 11.72 acres with thirty proposed lots (29 buildable lots, lot 9 is reserved for a detention pond). The staff recommended approval subject to the conditions listed: 1. Improve (or provide the estimated funds in lieu of improvement) for the section of Malty Wagnon Road adjacent to this development as shown on the proposed preliminary plat. 2. Dedicate a total of 50 feet right-of-way for Highway 16 east as shown. Improve this section of Hwy 16 if ( and only if) the AHTD requests that the developer improve this section at this time. • 3. Staff approval of the final grading, drainage, street, sidewalk, tree, water and sewer design and plans. Improvements shall meet the City's latest criteria. 4. Payment of Parks fees. The amount cannot be determined until the Conditional Use request is resolved. 5. Plat review and Subdivision Committee comments. Ms. Little stated they did have the signed conditions on file, however, after they had received it, they received an additional memorandum from the Engineering staff relating to Malty Wagnon Road being partially in the county. She advised the road was gravel or dirt between the proposed development and the City limits. She stated the recommendation was that the developer should be required to bring the entire street up to rural standards from the existing pavement to the north end of the project. Ms. Johnson question the length of the road that would have to be improved up to rural standards. Mr. Beavers stated the Malty Wagnon was improved about 300' then there was a gap of approximately 200'. Mr. Jorgenson stated the intentions of the requirement was to provide a dust free surface to the north property line. He agreed with the idea. ;8v • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 12 Ms. Johnson clarified the improved portion of the road did not reach the south edge of his property and he would be required to do improvements south of his property. She questioned what the rural standards. Mr. Beavers stated he hoped the county would allow the developer to match what was existing, but they might want the road built to county standards. He thought the road was 26' in width with a barrow ditch on the sides. Mr. Beaver believed the developer should improve the entire width of the street to the north edge of his property and only match what was existing and build it to a 31' street. He added they would request the road be paved but the width would be worked out with the county, engineering and developers engineer. Ms. Little stated the primary difference would be a barrow ditch for drainage would be allowed opposed to the City's standard of a curb and gutter and the enclosed drainage. Ms. Johnson questioned if a sidewalk would be required. • Mr. Beavers stated the sidewalk would still be required on their section. Ms. Little stated they were not allowed to require a sidewalk in the county, they could only require it on the portion within the City, which was the northern part. Mr. Reynolds expressed concern that it would be piece meal Ms. Johnson explained any time they were developing in a new area they always ran into the piece meal problem. Mr. Reynolds added if the developer was going to put in the extra 200' paved road, he might want to put in a sidewalk to match it. Mr. Sugg questioned if Mr. Jorgenson was willing to install the sidewalk and the pavement. Mr. Jorgenson stated they had planned to spend the money for curb and gutter and improvement that were initially specified in item #l, however, in lieu of that the money would be spent to provide a hard dustfree, pavement, from the end the existing pavement to the north end of the property. He clarified that sidewalks would be along his property only. Ms. Johnson asked about the pavement standards. • Mr. Beavers stated the County and the Citys standards were equal for the most part. • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 13 Mr. Reynolds questioned if they would get street lights and fire hydrants. Ms. Little stated the subdivision was within the City. Ms. Johnson questioned if Mr. Jorgenson had signed off on all the conditions, and the substituted condition #1. Mr. Jorgenson stated he had. Mr. Reynolds questioned if the property had been purchased from the property owner to the south. Ms. Little stated it was not. Ms. Hoffman questioned the proposed barrier fences in the front and the backs of the lots. Mr. Jorgenson stated it was tree preservation. • MOTION Mr. Harbison moved to approve the preliminary plat with the substituted condition #1 and all other staff comments. Mr. Sugg seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. r] L ��j • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 14 CU96-21: CONDITIONAL USE FOR DUPLEX LOTS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING GORDON WILKINS-NW CORNER OF MALLY WAGNON & HWY 16 E. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Dave Jorgenson on behalf of Gordon Wilkins for property located at the NW comer of Mally Wagnon Road and Hwy 16 east (proposed Deerfield Place). This conditional use request is for duplex development (lots 2,8,17, and 29) in a residential zoning district (use unit 8 duplex). The property is zoned R-1, low density residential. The staff recommended approval contingent upon the following: 1. Approval of the Preliminary and Final Plats of Deerfield Place Subdivision. 2. Payment of Parks Fees for duplex lots. 3. Compliance with Section 160.95 (C)(2) with specific regard to landscaping, striping, screening, etc. • Ms. Little stated the developer had signed off on all the conditions. Ms. Johnson questioned the location of the duplex lots. Ms. Hoffman expressed the concern about the applicability of duplexes in the neighborhood. She did not notice any duplexes in the general area. Mr. Jorgenson stated their original intention was to request R-1.5 zoning and stipulate they would not place any duplexes on the lots with the exception of the four lots; But the staff recommendation had been to request R-1 rezoning and then request a conditional use. He added lots 2 and 29 were adjacent to the R -O property and he felt it would be a good transition to the R- 1 property. He noted lot 8 had been enlarged for a duplex. Ms. Hoffman questioned if he proposed the same or comparable sizes for the duplexes as for the single family dwellings. Mr. Jorgenson stated they would be comparable. He added they had done this at Crossover Heights and had received good results. Mr. Harbinson questioned what would happen with lots 1 and 30. Mr. Jorgenson stated he did not know, but it probably be neighborhood commercial or R -O • related, but it would not be residential. a • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 15 Mr. Forney expressed concern about duplex development in the area. He was in support of the duplex uses in 2, 29, and 17, but felt lot 8 would affect the adjacent undeveloped land. He suggested they approve all but lot 8. Ms. Harbison questioned if the zoning of R-1 went northward to the border of the property. Ms. Little explained the zoning was only 250' to 300' on either side of the road because past that point was in the County. Mr. Reynolds questioned the lot size on lot 2, believing the lot was not large enough for a duplex. Ms. Little stated a duplex lot required 80' of frontage and 12,000 square feet. Ms. Johnson stated the lot was 80 X 143 and would not be large enough for a duplex. Ms. Little stated they would not be allowed to build a duplex there even with the conditional use. IS She explained they would have the opportunity to lot line adjust to get the amount of footage that would be required, however they would have to lot line adjust to the south, because they could not validate the R-1 frontage on lot 3. Mr. Jorgenson stated he would lot line adjust to the south to add an additional 500 square foot. Mr. Allred stated they had experimented with the same scenario in Crossover Heights where they allowed mixed use. He reminded the Commission the discussion, at the time, was that it was a better situation than having a complete duplex development. He stated they had approved Crossover Heights and, to his knowledge it had not had a negative impact on the property values or the neighbors; it had been a positive situation and was a good use on the busier corners. Mr. Allred moved to approved the conditional use as requested. Mr. Sugg seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson place Mr. Jorgenson on notice that there had to be a lot line adjustment on lot 2. Mr. Jorgenson stated they would need additional 3.2' frontage, which would come from the 40 south. I* 40 Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 16 Ms. Little stated they could make that a condition of the preliminary plat, he could go ahead and make the lot line adjustment. Mr. Allred amended his motion to include the lot line adjustment in the preliminary plat. Ms. Johnson restated the proposed amendment would be an additional condition of this approval and lot 2 would be increased in size so its east and west lines would be 83.2' with the additional 3.2' being taken from the south off of lot 1. Mr. Tucker stated he would vote against the motion. He expressed concern that the development was at the far end of the City Limits and it was an extremely dense development. He advised he didn't think the additional duplexes would benefit the city. Ms. Hoffman stated she would be voting against the motion, she believed lot 8 would be problematic for adjacent development. Mr. Sugg stated they could cut the lot into two small single family lots for the same density, with less green space. He stated the mix use would give variety and in theory more affordable housing. He added people lived in duplexes just like they lived in single family homes. The roll was called and the motion was passed by a vote of 5-3-0. Tucker, Hoffman, and Forney voting nay. • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 17 PP95-23.40: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MARVIN GARDENS ROBERT WESTPHAL-S OF MEANDERING WAY W OF CROSSOVER RD (HWY 265) The next item on the agenda, a preliminary plat for Marvin Gardens, Phase I, was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Robert Westphal for property located south of Meandering Way, west of Crossover Road (Hwy 265). The property is zoned R-1 and contains 10.02 acres with 39 proposed lots (38 buildable lots, lot 24 is reserved for storm water detention). The staff recommended approval based upon the following conditions: 1. Staff approval of the final grading, drainage, street, sidewalk, tree, water and sewer design and plans. Improvements shall meet the City's latest criteria. 2. Payment of Parks fees in the amount of $11,400.00. 3. Plat review and Subdivision Committee comments. • Ms. Johnson reminded the Commission they had looked at the subject plat before when the configuration of a rectangle running north to south limited the street possibilities. She stated this preliminary plat did not have a street with such a lengthy cul-de-sac. She noted the second time the plat was before the subdivision, it was sent back for more work on the issue of drainage. Mr. Sugg stated he would abstain from this item because of family relations involved in the discussion. Ms. Little stated the engineer had the signed the conditions of approval in agreement with the conditions set by the staff. Ms. Johnson stated the streets were configured in a way that reflected the suggestions earlier subdivision committee work. She added a street naming issue had come up. She questioned how they were to deal with street names. Ms. Little explained the person who was developing the land was required to visit with the 911 coordinator. The 911 coordinator checked the lists of names not only on the Fayetteville but throughout the county and tried to avoid duplication. She stated there were a couple of rules the coordinator tried to go by: the main street through the subdivision would be the name of the subdivision and, due to street signs being stolen, the Traffic Division has asked that they not allow any first name to be included in street names. • Ms. Johnson questioned it that would affect the proposed name of Scarlet Drive. �v(� Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 18 Ms. Little stated it would, and she was surprised there was not a comment from 911 or Traffic. She recommended the street be renamed. Ms. Johnson ordered the name Scarlet to be changed. She asked Mr. Beavers to explain the new drainage ordinance now in effect compared to what was required prior to 1995. She also asked what additional things the subdivision committee required the developer to do in order to get the preliminary plat to them at this stage. Mr. Beavers stated the city storm water management ordinance was approved in June 1995. It adopted the drainage criteria manual of drainage review. The ordinance itself had several section to protect wetlands and adjoining properties, but the one that pertained to this subdivision was that post development flow shall not exceed predevelopment flow unless other limits we redeemed to be appropriate by the city engineer. For this development, post development flow will be limited to predevelopment flow and the most probable and correct method to do this would be through the use of detention pond. He advised there might be times when post development flow exceeded predevelopment flow, but that would be rare, and typically it was when the development was adjacent to a very large body of water, such as Hamstring Creek. • Prior to the ordinance, drainage was designed by the developer's engineer and checked by the City, but it was more of check that the drainage facility would convey the water down stream; there had been no requirements to detain water, unless there were know flooding problem based upon the preliminary report and the preliminary calculations for the subject project, it was very clear that they could limit the post development flow to the predevelopment flow both to the north and to the south. Ms. Johnson questioned how the detention ponds worked and if they were an important part of the new drainage ordinance. She questioned if they used to require detention ponds. Mr. Beavers stated that in the past, detention ponds were only required if there were know downstream flooding problems. Their were only two subdivision that had them, and a few large scale developments, such as the Wal-Mart on Hwy 62. Typically in the earlier subdivision, such as Boardwalk and Park Place, there were no detention facilities. Ms. Johnson questioned how much difference the detention ponds would make with the drainage problems. Mr. Beavers stated the pond would provide storage for the runoff would collect in the pond. The pond would have a series of openings that would only allow a certain amount of flow out. Ms. Johnson explained that the hydrographic they had received, showed the approximate • discharge would be at predevelopment level and the run off would be at post development level, and then, at the peak there was a detention pond. The graph illustrated that, with the detention • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 19 pond, the post development flow off the property would be less than what it was before the development. She added this graph was only for a two year storm and the engineer had explained during subdivision that, if the project was approved the large part of the engineer work for drainage is yet to be done. Mr. Beavers stated only the preliminary numbers had been provided. He added he had visited with the engineers and they had calculations for both a 10 year and 100 year storm routed thought the northeast pond to prove that it would work and would fit the area they had set aside for the pond. He added the figures were based on a preliminary design. He added that in his opinion, the numbers were conservative they could fine tune the numbers and produce a smaller pond. Mr. Tucker questioned if the examples were specific to Marvin Garden. Mr. Beavers stated the two year was an example but the ten year and one hundred year were specific to the northeast detention pond at Marvin Gardens. IS Mr. Harbison questioned if the information had been shared with the concerned neighbors. Mr. Beavers stated it had not, adding this was something that was not usually required at this stage in the development. Ms. Johnson commented the only reason they had this information now was because the Subdivision Committee had asked the applicant to prepare the report sooner in the process than normal. She questioned what portion of the engineering work relating to drainage had been done and what percentage was yet to be done if the plat was approved. Mr. Jorgenson stated a small percentage of studies and details. It had given them an idea of the size of the pond and the location of the ponds. He added there was still a tremendous amount of work to be done on the drainage calculations and details and construction plans. He noted the final drainage report would detail the pipes and structures that would be installed. Ms. Johnson stated some of the concerns that had been expressed was the effect of the drainage. She added there were already several drainage problems in the area. She questioned if a person lived in a place where there was already and drainage problem was there any reason why they should believe their problems would not worsen because of a new development. Was there any assurance Mr. Beavers could give, that the development would not worsen the existing problem. Mr. Beavers replied, based on the current and the best models and data that was available, the • drainage would be designed so that the post development flow would not exceed predevelopment flow. However, drainage was the least precise of any engineering. He firmly believed that Mr. Im • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 20 Jorgenson would design the drainage so that their problem would not be made worst down stream. He added it was very hard to convince people who lived down stream that they could take care of the problem. He stated he was confident that the problems would not be made any worst than they were. Ms. Johnson question Mr. Jorgenson if most of the drainage collection would be underground. Mr. Jorgenson stated they would be providing curb inlets and underground piping at locations that would intersect naturally and would be piping it to the detention pond and, in addition, they would be providing surcharge capability for a 100 year flood. They would compute the 100 year flooding that occurred at various locations and provide for these facilities also. Ms. Johnson stated there were existing ditches now: one ditch was rock lined and another one running east west along Manor Drive. She questioned if any of runoff from this project fed into those above ground ditches. Mr. Jorgenson stated the ditches she was referring to were located on Manor Drive and would not be affected by this development. He illustrated his point by presenting a topographical map of • the area noting most of the area that flooded the Manor Drive area occurred to the east along Lovers Lane, Ridgely, and Shadow Ridge. Ms. Marian Bassett, an area resident, stated when this project was originally presented in 1992 it was denied for three reasons: did not conform with existing properties, the traffic, and the drainage problem. She expressed her concern about the engineering in her area, stating they have had water problem and every time something was developed above them, they had more water problems. They had been told Shadow Ridge would not affect them, and it did the new addition on Manor increased the runoff. She stated they have had to protect themselves from the runoff and the City had never done anything about it. She questioned what the City was going to do about the drainage on Ridgely Drive. She commented that when this project had been proposed before, the City had said there would need to be a lot of drainage work done near Ridgely and new culverts put in. She added she was tired of her tax money being used to benefit developers. She did not mind the property being developed, but asked the commission to consider the existing property owners problem. Mr. Buddy Babcock, an area resident, stated he was a registered professional engineer in the state of Arkansas for 31 years and directed the Arkansas Water Resource and Research for 11 years. He stated he had attended the Subdivision Meeting and had received the sample hydro graph they had distributed, but he thought it had pertained to the Marvin Garden's project. He understood why he could not had figure out how it related to this property. He had read the City's drainage • ordinance and the design criteria, he had made some calculations himself. He added there was no way they could place 40 houses on the proposed area and prevent the post flow to be equal to IF? • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 21 or less than the predrainage. He respectfully and completely disagree with Mr. Beavers. His understanding was that there was to be a preliminary drainage report and if there was he had not seen it. He stated the report had not been signed by a registered engineer, nor was the a description of where the coeffects or the calculations had come from. In the design criteria manual it listed three different procedures or models they could use. There was no indication of which model they were using. The information had not been shared with the landowners. He stated phase one would affect Manor Drive and the rocklined ditch Ms. Johnson had mentioned, because the water would come down the little swale and ditch at Ridgely Drive and would come down Manor Drive and down the street flowing west into the culvert. If the numbers given during Subdivision did relate to Marvin Gardens, they were tremendous flow rates. The ditch that ran beside Ridgely Drive could hold two or three cubic foot per second. The retention pond shown on the plat would fill up in less than 30 min. He questioned to where the water would be released. He requested the Commission to deny the project because the drainage report was inadequate. He added, because drainage was so imprecise, was the reason why common sense would need to be applied. He added the common sense was that this plat needed to be developed with larger lots. • Ms. Dalister Mitchell, an area resident, stated their common purpose was to express concerns regarding the drainage problem that related to this parcel. The history of this parcel indicated that a detailed independent drainage study would answer questions concerning drainage. She pointed out all concerns that had been expressed had been drainage, access, and traffic. The impact of 30-4o additional homes on the traffic flow through a subdivision, Boardwalk, was a concern. She expressed concerns regarding safety because of the increased traffic and detention ponds. She reminded the Commission it was their responsibility to enforce the standards established to protect the public and private properties from being unreasonably burdened with excessive surface waters. It was their responsibility to protect properties from damage from excessive water. She contended the City, with taxpayer dollars, should not be burdened with correcting these problems; instead, the developers should be held accountable. She requested they address the drainage issues and deny the proposal as presented. She questioned how example of drainage opposed to specific calculations could be expected to give assurance. She again requested that they deny the proposal. Ms. Johnson questioned if there had been any other projects, that at this stage, had more preliminary drainage reports. Mr. Beavers stated that in the short time he had been attending the meetings, there had not been. He added, there had been one other project with more extensive drainage calculations that had been required prior to the preliminary plat being approved. • Ms. Johnson questioned the project mentioned by Mr. Beavers had been subject to the drainage requirements in the new ordinance. :.?yD • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 22 Mr. Beavers stated it predated the ordinance. Ms. Little agreed with Mr. Beavers and explained the reason the new drainage ordinance required more information at the preliminary Mr. Beavers stated some projects had provided more drainage detail, but it was typically the smaller commercial large scale type project. He explained the drainage report submitted was typical of what they would see in a preliminary report; they would look for more detail if the preliminary plat was approved. Ms. Johnson stated it appeared there was an existing problem on Manor and Ridgely, but the proposed development would neither increase the problems, nor help the existing. She questioned if the citizens contacted the City Council members to help with the existing drainage problems. Mr. Beavers replied the City did two or three drainage projects during the year. They had a capital improvement program and a budget set up for preexisting drainage problems. • Ms. Johnson questioned, if the project passed preliminary plat stage and went onto the next stage of development, had the City waived any requirement whatsoever, regarding requiring drainage recourse in the future. Mr. Beavers stated they had not. Ms. Johnson stated her observation was that this project was much improved over the previous plats. Mr. Harbinson questioned Mr. Jorgenson, if the detention pond would be inadequate given the flow rate. Mr. Carter, Jorgensen & Associates, replied they had completed calculations on the northeast pond and found the southeast pond was about 65% of the size of the northeast pond. The size of the pond that was shown on the plat was not intended to show the final design size, it was to show the location of the pond. He advised that, based on the calculations on the northeast pond, the southeast pond would easily fit on the lot as shown. Mr. Harbison replied it would provide more assurance if they would show dimensions of the pond so people, such as Mr. Babcock, would have something to work with in determining if the pond would be adequate. is Mr. Carter responded that the calculation to do that was tremendous. He explained they had 2 9/ • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 23 done a worst case scenario, and that was what the numbers indicated. He stated they were not examples, they were hard numbers and those numbers could be refined to reduce the size of the pond. The pond they had designed with the numbers they had been presented was a first go through, which often resulted in an over sized pond. After more calculation, they would fine tune and try and reduce the size of the pond and still have an adequate detention pond. Mr. Harbison stated that, if they were asking people to rely on this detention pond, it would be helpful to provide the information. Ms. Johnson commented it was her understanding from both the City and the developer's engineers that it was not appropriate to ask for that information at this stage. Mr. Beavers stated that had been their policy, but if it was determined that policy needed to be changed, that was fine as long as it applied fairly to all developers. It was his opinion that if the preliminary plat was approved, then Jorgenson and his staff would design a detention facility that complied with the ordinance. He stated the drainage ordinance did state that either the staff or the Planning Commission could request additional drainage studies. He advised the staff had no need for additional data, but they could require a more formal and complete drainage report, but • engineering did not recommend it. He believed it would be an unfair expense, but that was their option. Mr. Harbison question if the detention pond would be built to comply with the ordinance, even if it had to be three times the dimensions on the plat. Mr. Beavers stated it would. Mr. Forney questioned how many acres and how many lots were they talking about overall. He commented some of the residents had suggested it would solve some of the traffic and drainage problems with lower density and fewer houses. Ms. Little stated the concept plan dated 12/22/95, showed 91 lots on 40 acres. Mr. Forney stated that the zoning would allow 160 units. He pointed out the developer could have chosen a different zoning classification, residential large lot, which allowed two units per acres, limiting the subject tract to about 80 lots or units. Mr. Allred questioned if, since this was an existing problem, would it be appropriate for the Planning Commission to request the City Council look at the drainage problem and put the existing drainage on the capital improvements program in order to correct some of the existing • drainage. • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 24 Ms. Johnson responded she thought the Planning Commission could recommend drainage project, but did not think they could require it. Mr. Allred stated they needed to discuss a drainage project and act on it regardless of the decision of Marvin Gardens. He thought it should fall under other business. Ms. Johnson stated the motion could include a full drainage study be required before any dirt work could be done. Mr. Beavers stated that was required by ordinance now; the developer was not allowed to break ground before the final drainage report had been reviewed and approved by the city. The final report would have to include the entire drainage basin, all the area in the concept plat. He added the Commission would not typically see it. Mr. Allred questioned if the study did not meet the requirements would the developer have to redesign it or abandon the project. Mr. Beavers stated that was correct. • Mr. Tucker questioned if they approved the preliminary plat they would be approving 39 units. Ms. Johnson stated they would be approving 39 units on 10 acres. Mr. Tucker stated the previous plat had 40 acres with 68 lots; they were increasing about 30 lots. He expressed concern about increasing units on the same acreage. Mr. Jorgenson stated that was part of the reason why the previous development did not go through, because the developer could not afford it. He commented that people on Manor Drive had lots ranging from one 1-3 acres but it was difficult to do the large lots any more. They were trying to put in a development that would complement the area around Manor, but he felt the lots were comparable to the lots on Park Place and Boardwalk. He added they had a copy of Boardwalks covenants and the covenants for Marvin Gardens would be similar. Mr. Forney noted the City now required a greater investment in infrastructure to deal with the drainage problem, curb, gutter and detention ponds, which put an economic burden on the developer making it impossible to do the large lots. He though Mr. Allreds idea that they make a resolution to the city council was a good idea. He added he thought they needed to have faith in the drainage ordinance. He did not think the commission could do anything more than what they had done, with the exception of lowering the density. He did not think 91 buildable lots was too • high of a density for this area. � 53 • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 25 Mr. Reynolds stated he had looked at this project three times. He noted the staff was satisfied with the reports. He pointed out, the developer has met every request they had made. He added this developer had gone overboard trying to cooperate with everyone, they had changed streets and added exits. He did not think the Planning Commission could deny the plat again. He suggested everyone call the mayor and council members and urge them to get involved int he drainage problem in that area. Ms. Hoffman stated she supported the development, but did not think they were there yet. She thought there needed to be more drainage studies done. MOTION /l Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat with the staffs recommendations and with the understanding that a complete drainage study would have to be completed prior to any construction. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. • The preliminary plat was approved by a vote of 5-2-1. Hoffman and Harbison voting nay. Sugg abstaining. 0 X614 • Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 26 RESOLUTION Ms. Johnson moved that the Commission recommend to the Mayor and the City Council that the City look at doing a drainage project in the Ridgely, Manor Drive, and Crossover Road area and intersections. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Mr. Forney questioned if they wanted to limit it to the southern drainage issues or did they want to engage the known connections. Ms. Johnson clarified the motion talked about Manor and Ridgely and the Crossover intersections. Mr. Forney asked about the northern direction of flow toward Boardwalk. Mr. Beavers stated that at past Subdivision committee meeting the residents of Boardwalk area • had discussed existing drainage problems. He could not say there were or were not existing drainage problems. Ms. Johnson stated her property because those motion only applied to were the only drainage the drainage problem on problems brought to her the southern edge of the attention in any detail. Mr. Forney replied he was only questioning to make sure that was all they were needed to request. Mr. Beavers questioned Dave Jorgenson if he was aware of existing drainage problems in Boardwalk to the same degree as Ridgely and Manor. Mr. Jorgenson stated he was not aware of any existing drainage problems with the exception of the water running rapidly down the streets. He stated they were aware there were people who were upset with them to the north and to the south and they would do their very best to try make sure the post development flow would not exceed the predevelopment flow. Ms. Johnson restated the resolution was to urge the Mayor and the City Council to look at doing a drainage study and a drainage project in the area of Ridgely, Manor and Crossover and their intersections. 0 The roll was called. The motion was approved unanimously. . Planning Commission September 23, 1996 Page: 27 SUBMITTAL DEADLINES AND AGENDA DISTRIBUTION Discussion was held on changing the deadline for paper work submitted for the Subdivision Committee meeting. No decision was reached and further discussion will be held at Subdivision. The Meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. • E