Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-11 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held August 11, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED 1. LSD 97-12.10 Blockbuster 2. AD 97-9.00 Parking waiver (Arsaga) 3. VA97-4.00 Vacation (Wheeler) 4. PP 97-6.00 Stoneykirk Subdivision 5. FP 97-1.00 Salem Village MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: • APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES • The minutes were approved as distributed. ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Forwarded to City Council Approved Tabled John Forney, Phyllis Johnson, Lee Ward, John Watkins, Gary Tucker, Lorel Hoffman, and Bob Reynolds. Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin,-Bawit Warriek, and Heather Woodruff. LSD 97-12.10: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (BLOCKBUSTER) SUPERIOR PROPERTIES -N OF HWY 62. W OF SANG. S OF OLD FARMINGTON The large scale development was submitted by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Superior Properties for property located north of Highway 62, west of Sang and south of Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.15 acres. Findings: This is the second Planning Commission meeting for the consideration of the proposed "Blockbuster Video" store. The applicant presented the first submittal to the July 28 Planning Commission meeting. That submittal was denied by a vote of 8-0 due to failure to comply with the commercial design standards. Please refer to the minutes of the July 28 meeting. The applicant has submitted revised elevations of the proposed building and a revised parking lot configuration for the August 1 lth, Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has requested parking in excess of that allowed by ordinance. Refer to the attached letter for the applicant's request and supporting information. • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 2 Staff was informed at the Technical Plat Review meeting that the "Sprint Tax" building adjacent to this site and the overhead power serving the Sprint Tax were to be removed as a condition of the lease to Blockbuster Video. Shared access is being utilized on the east side of the lot (Hardee's) and joint access is being utilized to the west (Tractor Supply). The 1 15 acre lot was created by Lot Split 97-21 approved at the July 14, 1997 Subdivision Committee meeting. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: • 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with the City's Commercial Design Standards and underground utilities ordinances. Elevations have been provided to show the front (facing 6th Street), east (facing Hardee's) and rear (facing Old Farmington Road) sides of the proposed building. 2. Planning Commission resolution of the number of parking spaces provided by he applicant. 3. Planning Commission resolution of the width and condition of the existing curb cut to 6th Street on the west side (shared with Tractor Supply). Planning Commission resolution of the allowable type of signage: limited to the building; monument; pole sign. 5. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozark, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 6. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was ISS • • • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 3 reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. Fire protection to meet the Fire Chiefs requirements. The Fire Chief has requested that a fire hydrant be installed in front of the building on either the north or south side of 6th Street. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 ft. sidewalk with a minimum 10 ft. greenspace along 6th Street. The sidewalks shall be continuous through driveways and tie back into existing sidewalks to the east and west. 8. Right-of-way dedication per the Master Street Plan and as shown on the proposed plat. 9. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 10. All drainage interior to the project shall be privately owned and maintained by the applicant. 11. The owner must provide to the City an agreement or acknowledgment that the City's rights to utilize the water, sewer, drainage and utilities easements are such that if the City must repair or maintain any public water, sewer or drainage then the City is obligated only to replace or repair asphalt, concrete or grass and that all replacement of retaining walls, rails, landscaping or other specialty items will be at the owner's expense. 12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits. b. A separate easement plat for this project. c. Completion of all required improvements or provide to the City a letter of credit, bond or other surety as required by Section 159.33, Guarantees in lieu of installed improvements, to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Harry Grey, Northwest Engineers, stated the developer would agree to the conditions of approval, however, he would like to discuss items 1-4. Mr. Grey had revised the parking lot to accommodate 45 cars. The dumpster pad had been moved to the rear of the building and an island, with a tree, had been added on the east side of the building to break up the long wall and parking lot. In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Mr. Grey stated the Subdivision Committee had tit • • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 4 agreed to leave the existing curb cut as it was, however, they had requested a green area be install. He agreed with the committee's recommendation, believing the green space would add to the appearance of the project. In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Mr. Grey stated the applicant had agreed to limit the signage to a monument sign. Mr. Jim Barnes, developer, presented the design changes. The color on the portico had been changed to white to help define the building. The side walls and rear of the building would be dark grey with white recessed band wrapped around it. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Barnes replied the rear of the building would be like the side elevation The word"video" would be removed from the canopies and the remaining letters would be scaled down. The portico roof had been gabled to create more interest and a window had been added on the east side. He stated he would not be able to share parking with the adjacent property because of the farm equipment located on the property line, but he had reduced the parking on site to forty-five spaces. He was proposing to screen the rear of the building with a 4' wooden fence and trees. He noted an island had been added to the east side to break up the parking lot and the side of the building Mr. Tucker asked if the video business was a seasonal business. Mr. Barnes replied they were busier in the winter and summer and after 5:00. Mr. Tucker stated he was not convinced the 45 parking spaces were needed. Mr. Forney asked the commissioners if they had any objections to condition #3, the existing curb cut. There were no comments. Mr. Forney asked if there were any comments on condition #4, the signage. Ms Johnson asked what the maximum size of the sign would be. Ms. Little replied the maximum would be 75 square feet. Mr. Reynolds stated "pole sign" needed to be removed from the list of condition. • In response to a question from Mr. Fomey, Ms Little stated the allowable signage on the building was 20% of the face of the building or 150 square feet, which ever was greater. 2�3 • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Forney restated the condition to read, "75 square foot monument sign in addition to the allowable signage on building." In response to questions from Mr. Forney, Mr. Reynolds stated the applicant had presented a revised design at the Subdivision Committee meeting. He felt Mr. Barnes had gone the extra mile in meeting all of the requirements. Ms. Johnson commented the Commercial Design Standards had improved this project. Mr. Forney asked if there any objections to the approval of condition #1, the Commercial Design Standards He added the applicant was proposing 45 parking spaces. Mr. Tucker stated he was not persuaded that 45 parking spaces were needed. In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Mr. Barnes stated approximately 65% of the site was paved. He added the ordinance allowed 85% of the site to be paved. Ms. Johnson stated she was not opposed to the additional parking spaces. She added most of the • customers would be driving to the location. • Mr. Ward stated he would rather have too much parking than not enough. He felt there was a need for the additional parking. MOTION Ms. Hoffman moved to approve the large scale development, subject to all staff comments, including: the parking waiver for 45 spaces, Commercial Design Standards, existing curb cut, and a 75 square foot monument sign. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6-1-0. Tucker noting nay. 1' Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 6 AD 97-9 00• ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR PARKING WAIVER (ARSAGA) CARY ARSAGA- 116 NORTH BLOCK STREET The parking waiver request was submitted by Cary Arsaga for property located at 2416 North Block Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial. The request is for a waiver from off-street parking requirements to allow a deck to be built. Mr. Reynolds stated he would be abstaining from this item. Mr. Tucker asked if the Board of Adjustments had approved the deck. Mr. Conklin replied the Board of Adjustments had approved a variance to allow the deck to extended two feet from the front property line. He explained the expansion of the building (deck) would create a greater demand for off street parking. The ordinance required on -street parking to satisfy the increased demand or a $1200 fee per parking space waived. Ms. Little explained the addition of the deck would remove two non -conforming parking spaces. She explained in a C-3 zoning area when the square footage of a building was increased then the parking was reevaluated to accommodate the added use. PUBLIC Ms. Linda Case, neighboring business, expressed concerns about Mr. Arsaga's customers taking her parking spaces because his parking spaces would be taken up with the deck. She also expressed concerns about her customers backing out around the deck into the street. She believed the deck would create a traffic hazard. She also expressed concerns about handicap accessibility. Ms. Hoffman asked if a parallel parking space would be installed in front of the proposed deck. Mr. Conklin replied the Traffic Superintendent, Perry Franklin, had not recommended a parallel parking space. He believed it would increase the traffic problems. Mr. Watkins commented the deck would not met ADA requirements because Mr. Arsaga could not control who would park in the space next to the ramp. Mr. Conklin stated the Board of Adjustments had asked the same question. They had been unable to resolved the problem. He added it was the owner's responsibility to comply with the ADA requirements. Mr. Forney added Mr. Arsaga could not use the property in front of Ms. Cases shop for his ramp. 255 • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 7 It had to be on his property. In response to a question from Mr. Watkins, Mr. Arsaga stated the deck was 2' from the sidewalk. Mr. Forney noted there were non -conforming parking spaces all along the street. He suggested installing curb and gutter to create a parallel parking space. Ms. Little stated there was approximately 80' of frontage along the front of the building . She explained the original request had been for a deck along the entire front of all the businesses, which would remove all of the non -conforming parking. As a result the sidewalk would have been upgraded curb, and gutter would have been installed and four parallel parking spaces with meters would be installed. However, the applicant had been unable to come to an agreement with the neighbors, so he had scaled his request back to only a deck in front of his store. She added staff would not oppose the installation of curb and gutters in front of the deck, however they were not in favor of a parallel parking space. • Mr. Forney expressed concern about having a single parallel parking space. He thought it would imped the flow of traffic. Mr. Watkins expressed concern about backing out into traffic around the deck. Ms. Little stated the staff had concluded the deck would be less of an obstruction to visibility than a van if it were parked in the next space. Ms. Hoffman questioned the height of the deck. Mr. Arsaga stated it ranged from 2' to 21/4'. Ms. Johnson noted a car could park next to the deck which would make it impossible to utilize the access ramp. Ms. Little noted there was handicap accessibility now. Mr. Forney referred to §160.117 (E) (5) which allowed the applicant to count on -street parking within 600' of the building as part of the required parking. Another option would be to require the applicant to pay $1200 for each space waived. He noted there were five spaces waived. The staff did not recommended charging for the two non -conforming spaces because they were a hazard to pedestrians. Mr. Watkins asked how many parking spaces were within 600' of the business. He noted there IP Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 8 was no on -street parking on this block. Ms. Little stated there was a public parking lot in block three. However, she did not know the number of spaces. Mr. Conklin stated a large portion of Mr. Arsaga's clientele were business people from the downtown area or people conducting other business on the square. Ms. Johnson did not believe the business would attract customers willing to walk a long distance, since there was no indoor seating. She stated the deck would create a parking problem for his neighbors. She felt they should require curb and gutter and one parallel parking space on the street side. She added the $1200 per space would not solve the problem of his customers using his neighbors parking spaces. Mr. Tucker asked if the city would allow the one parallel parking. Ms. Little replied she did not know if the city would allow one parallel parking space, but the planning staff would submit the Planning Commission's request to the traffic division. Mr. Watkins asked why the applicant was not going to curb and gutter the entire length in front of the building. Ms. Little replied the owners had been unable to reach an agreement with the other three tenants. Mr. Tucker asked if there would be another opportunity to extend the curb and gutter. Ms. Little replied the city would not initiate the improvements, however, if the owners could change the existing parking. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to require curb and guttering along the deck with a provision for one parallel parking space and the applicant would pay $1200 for each of the five waived spaces. Mr. Watkins seconded the motion. Mr. Tucker stated he was not in favor of the motion. He did not believe the fee would accomplish anything. The motion failed by a vote of 3-3-1. Forney, Tucker, and Ward voting nay. Reynolds abstained. j)1 • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 9 MOTION Mr. Tucker moved to waive the five parking spaces, finding there was adequate parking within 600'. He added curb and guttering would be required and a request for a parking space would be submitted to the traffic division. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 3-3-1. Johnson, Watkins, and Hoffman voting nay. Reynolds abstaining. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to waive three parking space and to assess a $2,400 fee for the two spaces, and curb and gutter would be added with the intention of a parallel parking space on the street. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. • Ms. Johnson stated she would be opposing the motion because decrease in parking would hurt business. Ms. Little stated this would be the first money collected under the new ordinance. She explained the money would be used for development of parking in the down town area. She noted this was the first waiver since the adoption of the new ordinance. Mr. Tucker asked if it was possible to curb and gutter such a small area. Ms. Little stated the City was capable of providing curb and gutter if the applicant wished to contract with them. Mr. Forney asked if the applicant could arrange a shared parking agreement. Ms. Little stated the fee could be waived if the applicant had a formal arrangement for parking. The motion carried by a vote of 4-2-1. Johnson and Watkins voting nay. Reynolds abstaining. Ms. Little asked if the curb and guttering would be at the expense of the applicant or the expense of the City. • Mr. Forney stated the cost of the curb and gutter would be at the expense of the applicant. • • • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 10 VA 97-4 00: VACATION (JIM BOB WHEELER AND JOAN WHEELER) .HM BOB WHEELER -2416 HONEY LANE. The utility easement vacation was requested by Jim Bob and Joan Wheeler for a portion (90.83 sf) of the front building setback and utility easement for lot one of Lynn Leigh estates, located at the intersection of Honey Lane and Dean Solomon Road. The applicant has constructed the front section of the garage over the utility easement. The Board of Adjustments did approve the variance for the building setback on 4 August 97. Ms. Little stated the staff had received all the require information from the utility companies. Mr. Wheeler stated they had the property surveyed and pinned by an engineer. When his wife noticed the building looked off, they had the property resurveyed. The was no public comment. Ms. Johnson moved to grant the vacation as requested. Mr. Reynolds second the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 11 PP 97-6.00: PRELIMINARY PLAT (STONEYKIRK SUBDIVISION) JEFF ALLEN AND RANDY BARNES- N & E OF WHEELER RD & S OF WC 94 The preliminary plat was submitted by Brian Ray of Development Consultants, Inc., on behalf of Jeff Allen and Rollin Barnes for property located north and east of Wheeler Road (aka Mount Comfort Road) and south of County Road 94 (aka Weir Road) The property is located within the Fayetteville Planning Area and contains approximately 85.07 acres with 21 proposed lots. Findings: This project was approved by the Washington County Planning Board on 7/3/97. There were specific requirements for road right-of-way dedications for existing county roads adjacent to the development as conditions of the county approval. As a result of discussion at the Technical Plat Review meeting, a special meeting was arranged in order to review street issues with officials from Washington County. The meeting was held 7/28/97 and the following were in attendance: Sarah Riley, Jim Brink; Bill Devault, Alett Little, Dawn Warrick, Brian Ray, Greg Bone. County requirements were reviewed and general planning issues concerning transportation were discussed. It was noted that there could be a connection from the proposed cul de sac street to Weir Road and that the right of way dedication for a future road connecting Weir and Mt. Comfort could be modified in order to have that new road intersect Mt. Comfort and continue south on the existing, paved WC 881. Possible measures to decrease the extreme curves on the south side and northwest corner of the property were also discussed. There is a property line dispute concerning the east property line. This was discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission approves this project, staff requests that the approval be conditioned upon the following: Conditions of Approval: Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's / or County's current requirements as ,�0 • • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 12 appropriate. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval Fire hydrants shall not be allowed unless there is an agreement with a local entity, (not the City of Fayetteville) to maintain and operate the hydrants. Such agreement must be approved by the City of Fayetteville Fire Chief. 5. Planning Commission resolution of the street extension and right-of-way dedication requirements. (Staff has concerns about connectivity, smoothing a curve on Weir Road and a one -lane bridge on Weir Road. The developer's representative is offering two different proposals for the Planning Commission to consider.) 6. Road improvements as required by Washington County Planning Board including the following: a. Dedication of right of way 40' from centerline along all affected existing county roads b. Improve Mt. Comfort where adjacent to the project to % standard county road, dedicating right of way as required for the improvements c. Improve Weir Road (WC 94) where the road is adjacent to and within the project to a double chip and seal surface for the entire width of the road (in lieu of improving 'h of the road to county standard which is a HMAC surface) d. Dedicate 60' total right of way between Tots 18 & 19, and 30' right of way on the east side of lot 16 - to provide for a future road connecting Weir Rd and Mt. Comfort Rd. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant was presenting two proposals. One showed a road connecting Mt. Comfort to Weir Road. The other proposal contained a cul-de-sac. He added at agenda session there had been discussion on the straightening of Weir Road at the "S" curve. Mr. Forney asked if the applicant had a preference between the two designs. • Mr. Ray stated their initial proposal had been with the cul-de-sac. It was also the plan the County Planning had approved. The Planning Staff had been interesting in the connection and Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 13 stated the staff would be recommending the proposal with the connection. He had provided the connection showing the connection with the addition of two lots. In response to a question from Mr. Forney, Mr. Ray stated the second option had been generated out of the Subdivision meeting. Ms. Johnson commented this was not what had been discussed at Subdivision. She felt it looked like a new plat. Ms. Little stated it had been her understanding that the applicant would provide a right-of-way which would extend and connect to Weir Road. She added the applicant had agreed to do two drawings for the Planning Commission. Mr. Ray stated it had been his understanding that the developer would be asked to provide the connection at this time, rather than right-of-way. Mr. Reynolds stated the sub -committee had requested for the cul-de-sac to go all the way through. They had also asked for right-of-way along the property line along the Dunn and Helms property to hook into county road 881. Mr. Ray stated the right-of-way would not affect the preliminary plat. Ms. Little read from the minutes of the subdivision meeting to clarify the committees request. They were connecting the street and adding two lots. Mr. Ray asked the Planning Commission if they were not willing to approve the plan with the cul-de-sac, to approve the plan showing the connection. Mr. Reynolds stated the Subdivision committee had also talked about improvements to the curve near lot 10. Mr. Ray stated the applicant prefered not to do the improvements. However, if he were required to do so, then the drawings would show the layout of the road. Mr. Reynolds stated he was interesting in seeing the curve improved. Ms. Hoffman asked if the applicant were to change the curve, could it be shown on the final plat. Mr. Beavers stated the staff was not asking for the road improvements to straighten the curve. They were asking for the right-of-way. Mr. Ray could show the right-of-way dedication on the final plat. • • • • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 14 Mr. Ray stated the applicant preferred not to extend the cul-de-sac between Mt. Comfort and County Road 94 It would be approximately $30,000 of expense. They had added two lots to the plat, but they had not completed the perk tests in that location. He did not know for a fact they would be able to get additional lots. They did not know if they would be able to regain the cost. He asked if the extension be conditioned upon receiving additional perk test along the creek area. If the lots did not perk that they would not be required to build the extension. If the perk test were successful then the additional cost of the extension could be regained with the sale of additional Tots. Mr. Forney stated he would not support option one. He going to trust the Subdivision preference for option two. He asked if the commission wanted to require improvements to the one lane bridge. Noting the existing connection was not good. Ms. Johnson questioned if the Tots had been renumbered on option two. Mr. Ray stated the lots had been renumbered on option two. Option two had two additional lots. He clarified the right-of-way would be 60' between lots 20 and 21. 30' on the east side of lot 18. PUBLIC Ms. Brenda Helms, an area resident, read a letter from Woodruff Law Firm, in reference to a property dispute between the two property owners. Mr. Fomey stated he appreciated her informing the Planning Commission of the property line dispute. He clarified the right-of-way would be taken from the developer on the west side of the Helm property. Ms. Betty Dunn, an area resident, stated her property was adjacent to Ms. Helms property. She questioned the 30' right-of-way. She asked if she would be required to pay for the street. Mr. Forney explained the Commission was going to ask for right-of-way west of the property line. All of the right-of-way would be taken from the developer and would not affect her property. He reassured the actions the Planning Commission were taking would not affect her property. Ms. Dunn stated the county was asking for 30' on both sides. Mr. Forney explained the county was planning for a road in the future. He stated the neither the county nor the city could demand the right-of-way from her. The only way they would have the opportunity to get the right-of-way was if she was proposing a development. • • • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 15 Ms. Little added if the demand for the road became so great then the regular process for eminent domain, would occur, but she would be paid for the right-of-way. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved to approve the preliminary plat, option two with all staff conditions of approval with changes. In paragraph (6)(D) the 60' of right-of-way between lots 20 and 21 and the 30' right-of-way would be on the east side of lot 18. She added paragraph (6)(E) requiring the applicant to work with the staff to ease the curve on west end of Weir Road. She added condition (6)(F) the applicant work with the staff to acquire a right-of-way on the southeast corner of the project that would allow for a connection between county road 881 and Weir Road. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Mr. Watkins asked if improvements to the one -lane bridge had been part of the motion. Ms. Johnson asked the distance to the bridge. Mr. Ray responded the developer's contribution to improvements would be excessive if he were required to provide off-site improvements to the bridge and provide a connection between Mt. Comfort and Weir Road The new connection would reduce the amount of use on the one -lane bridge. He added the roads were under the County's jurisdiction and they had never mentioned off-site improvements or the connection. Ms. Johnson responded the larger cities in the county were further along in the planning process than the county. She did not know if the county ever required any off-site improvements for subdivisions. She was not persuaded the city should not pursue improvements. She asked if the city staff could consult with the county. Ms. Little stated the city staff and Mr. Ray had met with the county road department. She and Mr. Devault, County Road Department, had gone on site together to look at the one -lane bridge. Mr. Devault had expressed concerns about the one -lane bridge. He was willing to work with the applicant. She felt with the road extension and connection between Mt. Comfort and Weir Road the applicant would be doing their fair share toward improving transportation in the area Ms. Johnson asked if the traffic from the eastern portion of the property would come down Stoneykirk. Ms. Little stated the Stoneykirk would be the most direct route into Fayetteville. The motion carried by a by a vote of 7-0-0. • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 16 FP 97-1.00: FINAL PLAT (SALEM VILLIAGE) TRADITIONAL INVESTMENTS- N OF MT. COMFORT AND W OF SALEM RD. The final plat was submitted by Bill Rudasill of WBR Engineering Associates on behalf of Traditional Investments, Ltd for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road and west of Salem Road. The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and contains approximately 39.2 acres with 111 residential lots and three larger tracts. Findings: The preliminary plat for this Planned Unit Development was approved by the Planning Commission March 27, 1995. The annexation and rezoning was approved by the City Council on March 7, 1995. The final plat was presented to the Subdivision Committee the first time 4/3/97 and was tabled because the final inspection had not been completed. At the 7/3/97 Subdivision Committee meeting, this item was again tabled since the final inspection for streets had been scheduled however not completed. The final inspection was held July 18, 1997 and the proposed Final Plat was discussed at the July 31, 1997 Subdivision Committee meeting. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve this final plat, then staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission resolution of the requirements for the contribution for the proposed future minor arterial on the west side of Salem Village. The developer's engineer has estimated the developer's share to be $92,800.00. Jim McCord, Attorney, has written a letter to the City (March 11, 1997) stating that a performance bond will be presented for the contribution in the amount of 150% of the developer's engineer's estimate of $92,800.00, with the five year time period beginning on the date of the preliminary plat approval of Salem Village (March 27, 1995). Staff agrees with the engineer's estimate for the street, but the estimate for the bridge (or box culvert) appears low. Staff does not know if the five year period can start on the date of preliminary plat approval or if a performance bond can be accepted in lieu of cash. Refer to 159.33.B "Delayed Improvements" of the Subdivision regulations. This section • • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 17 states that "... the subdivider shall pay to the city an amount determined by the planning commission in accordance with the standards prescribed in subsection (A) above to be the developer's proportionate share of the cost of said off-site improvements as of the date of the final plat approval; provided, the subdivider may, with the approval of the city council, guarantee payment of said amount so determined ... " (emphasis added for this report). Please refer to the entire section of 159.33, Required off-site improvements. 2. Determination of compliance with the greenspace requirements. The preliminary plat approval refers to the public usage of 13 acres of greenspace. The proposed final plat has 3.59 acres as Parks Dedication and 10 23 acres of greenspace. 3. The covenants need further review and revision prior to the City Planner and City Engineer signing the final plat. Specific issues include the maintenance responsibilities for the private street, alleys and drainage systems. The covenants as presented state that the developer will maintain the public sanitary sewer - this is not accepted. The covenants must also provide that the total greenspace is open to the public ( this was a preliminary plat requirement). 4. A Bill of Assurance, as required by the preliminary plat approval, is required for the widening of the public streets from 24 feet to 31 feet within 180 days after the developer has been notified by the City to widen the street. Clearly show the street dimensions, as constructed, on the final plat. Clearly show the future street widening of the public portion of Thames Drive (is currently 24 feet) and the public portion of Westminster Drive (is currently 24 feet). 5. A Bill of Assurance, in addition to being included in the covenants, is required to provide that all of the greenspace is open for the public to use. 6. Indicate on the Final Plat the public access to the "Park" and to the greenspace. A Bill of Assurance, in addition to being included in the covenants, is required to provide that the two trees per lot minimum are provided (refer to the rezoning and preliminary plat approvals). 8. Payment of $200.00 per lot ($22,000.00) for sanitary sewer charges prior to the City • Engineer's signing the final plat. This is a preliminary plat requirement and consistent with development in the Hamestring Creek basin. • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 18 9. A copy of the file marked deed and any deed restrictions for park land dedication must be provided to the Director of Parks and Recreation Division. 10. Planning Commission resolution of the requirements for sidewalk construction on Thames Drive (a portion is private and a portion is public). The final plat shows sidewalk on the north side only. Sidewalks on both sides of "every" street was promised by Mr. Whitfield at the rezoning approval by the City Council March 7, 1995). 11. A Bill of Assurance, in addition to being included in the covenants, is required to provide that the development will be constructed in full blocks such that the alleys will be completed in a timely and uniform fashion. The final paving of the alleys may be bonded or guaranteed by the requirements of § 159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements". 12. All final inspection punch list items must be complete. Those items which may be guaranteed according to § 159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" may be covered by an acceptable assurance as provided in said ordinance. • 13. Clearly indicate on the final mylar which drainage is privately maintained and which • drainage is publicly maintained. 14. Add a note to the final plat that "Tract One" and "Tract Two" shown as"Residential/Office/Retail"shall require both rezoning (or conditional use) and separate Large Scale Development approval if any use other than such use permitted by the current R-1 zoning is proposed. 15. A Bill of Assurance, in addition to being included in the covenants, is required to provide that "Tract Three" will not be used for purpose other than that shown on the Final Plat and that "Tract Three" will require separate Large Scale Development approval if developed. 16. The floodplain must be added to the final plat and the base flood elevation and minimum floor elevations clearly shown for all lots in floodplain. All lots in the flood plain shall require separate grading plans and floodplain permits per existing ordinances. 17. Copy of the signed street light agreement must be provided to the Traffic Superintendent. 18. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 19 Mr. Bill Rudasil submitted a bill of assurance addressing several of the issues that had been discussed during the Subdivision meeting. Mr. Forney questioned the accuracy of the estimate for the improvements listed in condition #1. Mr. Beavers replied the street estimate was adequate, but he thought the bridge estimate was low. Mr. Rudasil stated $92,000 was more than the developer's proportionate share. He added the developer had worked with adjacent property owners to obtain a 50' right-of-way for the city. Mr. Beavers stated the Planning Commission could reexamine the developers proportionate share: Half of a street, half of a bridge, and drainage improvements which had been agreed upon for the preliminary plat, March 1995. Mr. Forney suggested removing "$92,000" from the conditions of approval and inserting "proportionate share" or "one-half of a street, one-half of a bridge, and drainage improvements." • Ms. Johnson referred to ordinance § 159.33 (b), she felt the dollar amount should be determined • now. Mr. Forney questioned when the performance bond would be posted. He did not believe, March 27, 1995 (when the preliminary plat was approved) was acceptable. Ms. Little stated in March 1997 the staff had met with Mr. Jim McCord to discuss which ordinances would apply. They had determined that the ordinances that were in effect when the Preliminary Plat was approved would apply. She added both §159.33 and §159.34 discussed final plat approvals. She explained the Planning Commission had several different options available to them when a performance bond or surety expired. She reassured the Commission the money would not automatically be refunded to the applicant. She noted Mr. McCord had written a letter requesting the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council acceptance of the performance bond. Mr. Forney expressed concern about the number of items listed on the conditions of approval. Again he questioned if the estimates for the planned improvements was accurate. Mr. Rudasil stated the owner was willing to post bonds on the date of the final plat approval Referring to condition #8, he stated the owner was requesting the sewer fees be adjusted to a lower fee, similar to those charged to Crystal Springs. Mr. Whitfield requested item #10 be amended to allow for a nature trail rather than a sidewalk. Zug • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 20 In response to a question from Ms. Little regarding condition #11, Mr. Whitfield stated Engineering had required them to stabilize the alleys. He had decided since the subdivision meeting to pave all the alleys with a double -chip and seal surface before the final plat was approved. Mr. Tucker asked if the chip and seal was a final paving. Mr. Rudasil replied it was a permanent surface. Ms Johnson explained condition #11 had been added to ensure the paving of the alleys. Mr. Rudasil explained the owner had originally planned to collect money in escrow for the alleys. He had planned to pave the alley when the block of homes had been completed. However, the developer had decided to pave all the alleys during the construction phase, to prevent the planning commission from limiting his building permits. Mr. Whitfield stated the alleys would be paved before any of the homes were constructed. The alleys would be completed prior to final plat approval. Ms. Little stated the bill of assurance guaranteed the alleys would be stabilized and paved with a permanent chip an seal surface. She suggested using the wording in the bill of assurance to replace condition #11. Mr. Forney stated condition #11 would read, " the alleys shall be paved". Mr. Whitfield agreed to pay the $200.00 per lot sewer fee, but he stated he would do so under protest. He requested #10 be amended to allow a nature trail rather than a sidewalk. He explained the area was a wetland and fell under the Army Corp of Engineers jurisdiction. The Corp had agreed to allow a nature trail. Ms. Hoffman asked if the trail would run the length of the creek. Mr. Whitfield stated the trail would be on the north side of the creek. He added plans had been submitted to the Parks Department. Ms. Hoffman stated she was uncomfortable approving the waiver without seeing where the trail was going to be located. She asked what paving material would be used for the trail. Mr. Whitfield explained the area was in the floodway and gravel or loose materials would not be allowed. He was proposing a mowed trail, which would be maintained by the property owners association. • • • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 21 Mr. Forney expressed concerns about the estimated cost of the required improvements. Mr. Watkins stated he had requested the City Attorney to attend. He noted none of the commissioners had reviewed the language in the bill of assurance. He suggested the Planning Commission table the item. Mr. Beavers stated he and Mr. Conklin had met with the city attorney, Mr. Rose. Mr. Rose had determined the five years would start when the final plat was approved. Mr. Whitfield stated he would agree to any amount the set by the Engineering Department. Although he had not been notified of any problems with his estimates. Mr. Watkins stated he had not reviewed the language in the bill of assurance. Mr. Whitfield explained the bill of assurance would be subject to Mr. Rose's approval. Mr. Forney replied the Commissioners did not normally review the bill of assurance. However, he was uncomfortable moving forward without a better since of the number issue on the bill of assurance. PUBLIC There was no public comment. Ms. Hoffman stated she was uncomfortable with the 18 conditions of approval, even though many of them were resolved. She felt they were rushing things. She requested a plan of the proposed trail. MOTION Ms. Hoffman moved to table the item until the next Subdivision Committee meeting. Mr. Beavers stated the committee could approve the item at Subdivision meeting. He stated the 18 conditions of approval should not be held against the developer. The report was a convent method of listing all requirements from the preliminary plat. Ms. Little stated the staff typically used the reports to list all of the conditions of approval from the preliminary plat. It also gave the developer an opportunity to discuss any of the items on the list. Mr. Reynolds asked if the bill of assurance covered items # 4,5,7, 11, and 15. • • • Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1997 Page 22 Ms. Little stated items 4,5,7,11, and 15 were covered in the bill of assurance. She added, item #4 needed to be reworded to reflect the staffs wording in the conditions of approval to be acceptable. Mr. Reynolds thought they should table the item. He did not believe the developer's wording was close enough to the staffs conditions of approval. Mr. Watkins seconded the motion. In response to a statement from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Beavers stated the same conditions would be listed on the next report. Mr. Forney stated the commissioners expected to see the conditions of approval agreed to by the applicant and a plan illustrating the proposed trail through the wetlands. Mr. Reynolds felt condition #4 needed to be clarified. Ms. Little stated only what was listed in condition #4 was acceptable She added the condition had been agreed upon during the preliminary plat. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0-0. 4,