Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-24 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held Monday, August 24, 1998, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Conrad Odom, Phyllis Johnson, John Forney, Bob Reynolds, Lee Ward, Lorel Hoffman, Gary Tucker, and Sharon Hoover MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Estes STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick, and Debra Humphrey Chairman Odom called the meeting to order with 8 members present. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR AUGUST 10, 1998 The minutes were approved with no changes. LSD 98-15.20: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (KANTZ PLACE, PP 371) WEST OF HWY 265 AND NORTH OF HWY 45 This item was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull & Assoc. on behalf of E. J. Ball and Jim Lindsey for property located west of Hwy 265 and north of Hwy 45. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains approximately 15.23 acres. FINDINGS: This project proposes 96,713 sf of building space, 465 parking spaces, 578 If. of new 28 ft. wide City Street, and site work to include grading, drainage, retaining walls, water and sanitary sewer. The developer has requested the following three variances: a. Deviation from the street standards conceming centerline radius and tangent distances. This will allow tighter curves - b. Existing overhead electric lines along Highway 265 to be relocated within the AHTD right-of-way. c. Non -conforming curb cuts to allow two curb cuts to be used by truck traffic to be 36 feet in lieu of 24 feet. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to the 14 conditions of approval below: 1. Planning Commission determination of the requested variances: a. Variance from the street standards for curves closer together, and smaller radius, than standard. Engineering agrees with this variance only for slow traffic speeds and as an entrance to the development. Cut through traffic must be discouraged. b. Variance from the requirement to locate the overhead electric along Highway 265 underground. c. Non -conforming curb cuts to allow two 36 foot drives. 2. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. • 3. Planning Commission determination of allowable signage for the project. 4. Planning Commission determination of any additional on-site or off-site improvements. In accordance with • 159 33 E "Off-site improvements to state highways...", the Planning Commission shall determine any improvements required by the developer to be coordinated with the AHTD. Staff requests that the developer contact the AHTD (refer to plat review comments) and determine if a cash contribution or improvements to Highway 265 or to Highway 45 are requested by the State (AHTD). If improvements are requested and/or such improvements determined to be required by the Planning Commission, then the developer shall provide the improvements as a condition of this LSD. In the case of the Glennwood Shopping Center, the AHTD and the City required improvements to Highway 265. In the case of Highway 16 west (Wedington, west of the Highway 71) the City assessed a contribution from Clary Development and Sam Rogers development for the City's share in the widening project which is funded "50/50" City and State. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments furnished to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable). 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, 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 protection to meet the Fire Chief's request. 7. A formal geotechnical report shall be required prior to approval of the grading plans. The retaining wall design and calculations, including safety rails to meet the more stringent of the SSBC and AASHTO, shall be required as a segment of the overall grading plan and shall be submitted for review and approval. S. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk and 10 ft. greenspace along • Highway 45 for the section not included in the AHTD project to widen Highway 265 (includes a short section of Highway 45.) 9. Contribution to pay for the City's share of the new sidewalks along highway 265 and Highway 45 which will be included in the AHTD project. The contribution will be based upon bid construction costs and is estimated at $2.50 per square foot. The estimated length is 660 feet, the estimated total costs is $9,900.00. 10. Dedication to the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department sufficient ROW for the widening of Highway 265 and Highway 45 contiguous to this property as generally shown on the plat. 11. Downstream drainage improvements as determined by the City Engineer to possibly include the cross -drainage under Highway 265, an improved drainage ditch across Mr. Klinger and erosion/velocity control at Mud Creek Tributary. 12. All drainage, outside of public street right of way shall be private and privately maintained by the developer or similar approved entity. 13. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year If construction has not started within one year then the approval is void. 14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 159.34 "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. There were no further conditions of approval. • • • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -3- Thomas Hopper with Crofton, Tull and Associates appeared on behalf of the applicant. Hopper: This project is a proposed L-shaped development at Hwy 45 and 265 in Fayetteville at the northwest corner behind the Mercantile and the two banks. It would involve reconstruction of Citizens Drive out to Hwy 45. This project is comprised of about 97,000 sf of commercial space. This would include a new prototype Wal-Mart on the northeast corner of this development. The developer has made changes in conjunction with staff comments to provide for traffic flow, parking, utilities, and drainage. As far as signage, they have computed the signage allowed for this development. There would be one pole sign with 192.5 sf which meets the requirements for this development per Mr. Bert Rakes. Applicant requests some variances which were addressed in a letter to Mr. Odom. The applicant feels that the street proposed in the development - even though it does not meet the center line radius of the curb and the tangent distance requirements - would provide the access needed for the traffic in and out of this development. There are representatives with Wal-Mart in attendance for any questions which may be addressed to them. The developer has added some features on the east side of the building which would house the pharmacy and a feature over the drive-thru which is similar to the south end of the building. He referred to the drawings before the commissioners so that they would be able to see the changes made. Improvements made to the Hwy 265/45 intersection are in the process of being developed by the AHTD. Those plans are not finished and the improvements would run past this development on Hwy 265. This road widening would involve some relocation of the poles owned by SWEPCO - to remain overhead - and would remain in the right-of-way. The developer understands they have met the landscaping requirements. He also hopes the alignment for trucks to enter off Hwy 265/45 would be allowed. Odom: Items No. I through No. 4 need to be addressed by Planning Commission. Items 5 through 14 are conditions of approval and inquired if the applicant had any problem with the conditions of approval. Hopper: Johnson: Hopper: He stated the conditions of approval No. 5 through 14 were acceptable. She inquired if there was any change in the plat information submitted which was seen at the subdivision committee. He stated the changes requested by the subdivision committee and the staff had been made. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Robert Sigafoos who lives at 2689 Hardy Lane appeared before the commission. He inquired why this development could not wait until the highway department has widened Hwy 265 and Hwy 45. When he came to this meeting, traffic was backed up to Township Road which is standard for this intersection. A few weeks ago he had attended a meeting of the Friends of Fayetteville who were discussing the golf community east of Fayetteville. Their concern was the increase of traffic on Hwy 45 and how this road would handle the increase of traffic. • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -4- The 41,000 sf building does not sound like much in today's world. A few years ago a grocery store of 25,000 sf was considered a supermarket. The proposed Wal-Mart building is not a small building. If this development is a traffic generator, and the highway department delays the improvements, there would be chaos at this intersection. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: Hopper: He visited with the AHTD and was assured this project would be bid in early 1999 and be under construction. This may address the comments of the public's concern. Tucker: He inquired if the islands in the parking lot would be landscaped. Hopper: Yes, the islands would be landscaped. Staff has a copy of the drawings which show the landscaping indicated and the irrigation. Tucker: He inquired if the trees would be canopy trees or another type. Hopper: It would consist of a combination of trees. Tucker: He inquired about the 20% overage of parking and wanted to know why this would be required. Hopper: He stated based on the information provided to Wal-Mart on the new prototype, and the stores expected in this development, they felt 1 parking space per 200 sf would not be excessive. Tucker: In the Wal-Mart facility he inquired if it would be more along the grocery -type store. Shannon York with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. appeared before the commission. She stated this would be the new Wal-Mart neighborhood concept. It would be approximately 40,000 sf. Two-thirds would be a grocery store with 1/3 being general merchandise with emphasis on pharmacy, as well as cosmetics, etc. Little: She inquired if there would be other franchises located at this store. Ms. York stated this had not been determined yet. Tucker: He inquired how this development's configuration compared to Harps. Little: Harps has less parking but it would be fairly comparable. Harps has less parking because they were sharing with the entire retail facility. The Kantz development was slightly over the allowable 20% and have since revised their plans and met the City's parking requirements. Forney: He inquired where the code for parking issues was with regard to the 20% overage. Little: The required parking for retail is 1/250 sf. 20% over would be allowed and this would make it 1/200 sf. She referred to Chapter 172 of the ordinance. Forney: He wanted to clarify the density and traffic issues on this development. Addressing the density and usage of this site would have been addressed at the zoning phase. Now that it is zoned C-1, the size of the development and number of parking are by right. • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -5- Little: The parking is governed by ordinance standards. The coverage of the site under commercial design standards is allowed to be 85%. The citing for parking is on Page 6 of Chapter 172. "Parking lots may contain up to 20% more spaces than the required minimum. Any additional spaces above 20% shall be allowed only as a conditional use and shall be granted in accordance with other chapters." Forney: He wanted to clarify at the large scale development the commission does not evaluate the appropriateness of the scale along as it is allowable by the zoning for the use of the property. Little: Once the density has been set by zoning, then it is up to subdivision regulations to look at the safety and design and other related issues. Traffic is one of the issues and would be one reason for denial of a large scale development. Forney: As he is reviewing the process, he wanted to let the public know when property is rezoned in certain areas, that would be the time for the public to address their concerns regarding the use of the property. Hoffman: She shares the neighborhood concern with the traffic situation. The subdivision committee did look at traffic to the extent that there was a street waiver request for Citizens Drive. Little: Johnson: Hopper: She referred to the cite in the regulations regarding large scale developments. "Planning Commission may refuse to approve a large scale development for any of the following reasons: the development plan is not submitted in accordance with the requirements; the proposed development would violate a city ordinance, a state statute or a federal statute; the developer refuses to dedicate the street right- of-way utility easements or drainage easements required by this chapter; the proposed development would create or compound a dangerous traffic condition. For the purpose of this section, a dangerous traffic condition shall be construed a traffic condition in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is significant due to factors such as, but not limited to, high traffic volume, topography, or the nature of the traffic pattern, city water and sewer is not readily available, and the developer refuses to comply with subsection B and C. There are six reasons to deny a large scale development and traffic would be one reason. At subdivision committee they were aware that the radius was tighter than usual at Citizens Drive. However, given the existing traffic problems of East Oaks and given the facts that East Oaks Drive has been a cut through from Hwy 45 to Township, she wondered if they would assist the neighborhood if Citizens Drive would be more desirable as a cut through. Since this provides a cut through between Hwy 265/45 she felt it would serve the public better to make Citizens Drive more like East Oaks without all the curves. He stated there would be numerous improvements to Hwy 265/45. Based upon his understanding, AHTD would be making improvements to Hwy 265 north of this development to a 3 -lane road. This would enhance the traffic situation. Reynolds: He inquired what the time frame was for the junior high school be developed on Hwy 45. Little: She responded it should be open in Fall of 2000 which is after the widening project along the highway. • Johnson: One concern raised at subdivision committee is the cross access on the east side being too steep to • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -6- Hopper: the property to the east. This appears to be at the same location. She inquired if this problem had been addressed. He stated the developer would be more than willing to adjust the curb cut. The slope grade is about the same further to the south. If staff would make another recommendation, the developer would be glad to make the adjustment. Little: She suggested to relocate the cross access east of the drive which runs in front of the store. The grade seems to be about the same at this location. Hopper: He was in agreement with this alternate location. Hoffman: The alternate access would be acceptable with her and she felt it would provide adequate sight distance. Forney: Because he was not present at the subdivision meeting he asked for information for all the variances proposed for Citizens Drive. All the curb cuts appear to be too close to intersections and wanted to know how many of these would be variances from the ordinance. Little: The first variance is from the street standards relating to the curves within the development. There are three from Hwy 45 to the north and is almost a 90 degree radius. The variance is requested because the radius and the distance between the radius does not meet the standards. Staff supports this because they realize there would be a lot of cut through traffic. This would allow for maximum utilization of the site, for a more level drive, and it would not allow the traffic to pass through the area at a high rate of speed. Johnson: She inquired what the speed limit would be for this curve. Beavers: He responded it would have to be posted at 15-20 mph. which is slower than a standard residential street. Forney: He inquired about the curb cut to the west and if it was short of City's requirements. Little: The requirement is for 50 feet from the intersection. The 36 foot wide curb cut opening is wider than allowed for two-way traffic. Staff supports this variance because it would be the truck access for the stores. Forney: He noted there were 6-7 variances for this street. The two 36 -foot wide curb cuts, the two right- angled turns, the 36 -foot wide curb cut overall. Little: The street is not 36 feet wide. The public drive is 28 feet wide. The location of the curb cut is approximately 24 feet from the intersection. Forney: He stated we were attempting to deal with trucks and their large turning radius, and potential cut through traffic, and curb cuts from the new development and the backside of one existing development. He felt there were more curb cuts than one street could handle. His concern was the configuration of the public way. Beavers: He responded to Mr. Forney's concern about Citizen's Drive. This was not considered at subdivision • • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -7- committee and there appears to be a sight distance problem. Therefore, staff may ask that this be moved. Staff will need to look at this in more detail. He felt there is a potential for someone going from Hwy 45 to Hwy 265 and needing to make this 90 degree turn and at the same time another person may attempt to turn left into the bank and this could create a traffic problem. Odom: He asked if this needed to be addressed now or at a later time. Beavers: He responded it could be addressed now or at a later time. Hopper: He stated the developer would be installing a stop sign at this location for people to stop and then they could turn right to Hwy 265. The applicant would work with staff to make any adjustments necessary. Reynolds: He referred to Item I (b) regarding the OHE utility lines being placed underground. Hopper: Little: He stated this was addressed at Plat Review and the SWEPCO's representative stated this power line was currently in the ROW. The utility lines would be adjusted within the same ROW and would be constructed as a part of the AHTD project because it is a major feeder. He stated there is an overhead line which runs along Citizens Drive into this project which will be put underground. She stated everything in the Glennwood Shopping Center is underground but the power lines in the ROW are still overhead. There are overhead electric lines along the south side of Hwy 45 and along the west side of Hwy 265. Hoover: She inquired if the utility lines could be placed behind the project. Little: In order to get the Hwy 265 power line behind the property, this would entail running the line along Hwy 45 to the rear and then to the east. Relocation of this line within the lot which is not developed may be a compromise. There are a number of retaining walls at the rear of the sight on the north and west sides. This may make it difficult to move this line in this location. Reynolds: At subdivision committee there were some concerns regarding the box -like structure. Hopper: He referred to the elevations and noted the changes the developer had made based on what his understanding was at the meeting. Bill Correll, staff architect with Wal-Mart, appeared before the commission The materials on the elevation are primarily a split -face as, well as ephes, which is a green stucco material. The materials shown in different colors help to break up the overall boxiness of the elevation. Across the front there are some canopies to break up the linear mass of the building, as well as putting in a base color along the bottom of it for a two-tone color. There is some smooth face concrete block across the front and the west side. On the west side they attempted to enhance the elevation. They added some of the elements from the front. He referred to some of the differences which included columns. This would be a different look than from the standard Wal-Mart look. There are 3 courses of smooth concrete blocks • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -8- in front of the building, then split -face, then smooth, then darker -grey. Reynolds: He inquired if the refrigerators and the compressors would be roof -mounted Correll: Little: He stated they would be located at the rear of the building and ground -mounted. They would be surrounded by a chain link enclosure. There will also be additional ground -mounted compressors for this development. She stated she had met with Wal-Mart today. One of the questions needing to be addressed at this meeting was if this development was not started, that the developer may request phasing for this development. Hopper: The intent is that all the dirt work will be complete, that the Wal-Mart building will be built immediately, and then the rest of the building will be started. Little: She noted if phasing was done, the parking would need to be apportioned at the same time. Therefore, with 41,000 sf the parking in the appropriate ratio 1/200 sf would have to be constructed at the same time. If phasing was approved, then all required improvements would need to be completed prior to the Certificate of Occupancy. The whole street would need to be in or guaranteed prior to Wal-Mart being opened. Forney: Typically, in commercial design standards, signage is addressed. Odom: The applicant has indicated there would be 192 sf signage for the pole. He inquired about staff's recommendation on signage. Little: Using the scale on the elevation, the square red sign proposed on the building is 225 square feet. When this particular sign was presented there was a question about the 192 sf sign proposed. Of this 192 sf sign, 126 sf is proposed for the Wal-Mart store, and two other signs of 33.25 sf are proposed for the other retail space. She referred to the sign ordinance under "Joint Identification Signs". The display surface area of Joint identification signs may be increased to 1 sf per 500 sf of gross leasable -building area with a maximum display surface area of 300 sf. The area identification sign allowed for this development could have a maximum of 193 sf. under the sign ordinance. Under commercial design standards, the commission is charged with determining whether the signs are large out of scale signs with flashy colors. If this was not an area which would have additional tenants, the maximum allowable sign would be 75 sf. Knowing what is in the area, staff feels that this is a large out of scale sign and propose that the commission not allow more than 75 sf. The Wal-Mart store is 41,000 sf. and the total area is 96,000 sf. which is 1/2 of the square footage. She gave this information for the commission to consider. • Hopper: He inquired if it would be okay for the owners to allocate the square footage or should the City • • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -9- allocate the footage to the entities in the center. Little: The commercial design standards leaves this decision to the commission. Hopper: He stated Wal-Mart and the developer have reviewed and agreed on the signage allocated. Reynolds: He asked if the other entities in this development would be only two. Hopper: He noted the signs would be for 2 additional tenants and the other tenants would have wall signs. Reynolds: He stated there was a developer which requested a larger sign and it was not allowed. Therefore, he would not vote for anything larger than 75 sf be allowed. Forney: He noted the sign would be located only on Hwy 265. He inquired about the size of the sign and the height. Hopper: He stated the sign would be 30 feet above the street level 40 feet back from the right-of-way. Forney: He noted the sign at Fiesta Square and inquired where was the regulation for this signage. Little: It was at Chapter 174 in the Signs Ordinance at page 9. It talks about joint identification signs. She stated when this sign was proposed she was familiar with this provision being used at the NWA Mall. She is not aware of it being used anywhere else in the City. The definition of a joint identification sign is "a sign which serves as common or collective identification for a group of persons or businesses operating on the same zoned lot. For example shopping centers, office complexes, etc. Such signs may name the persons or businesses included but carry no other advertising matter". Forney: He inquired about the lack of a joint identification sign for the Harps development and whether it was requested by the developer. Little: It was a part of the agreement between the developer concerning the consistent theme of their large scale development. Hopper: He stated Wal-Mart would agree to a lesser sign of 75 sf. Hoffman: At subdivision committee the pharmacy elevation was discussed concerning it being long and unarticulated. She noted the ownership of the adjoining lot was the same. She inquired if this future lot was developed, if the developer would guarantee that it would have the common design theme similar to the Harps Development. Hopper: The owner is willing to agree to this common design theme. Mr. Hopper indicated what the elevations would include and how they would be viewed from Hwy 265 and Hwy 45. Little: She noted the fence would be 6 feet and the grade difference varies from 4 to 15 feet. • • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -10- Reynolds: He inquired if the 6 -foot fence would be enough barrier for the noise level from the compressors and refrigerators. Correll: He stated there would be one enclosure housing the compressors and the refrigerators. There would also be a chain link fence around the units with screening strips. Odom: He inquired if this would comply with the noise ordinance. Little: Yes, this development would comply with the noise ordinance. There was an elevation difference at this location which is 5 feet below the elevation of the apartments to the north and a 6 -foot fence on top of this. The board fence on top of the wall should deflect the noise. Forney: Johnson: He is appreciative that this project is before them to review. However, he does not feel the commission would be able to do the subdivision committee's work in this venue very easily. There are a series of issues which would cause him to be reluctant to vote in favor of this project this evening. The question of phasing, the sign with a promise of a revision, overhead electric was raised with assurances that this was not possible to do, and side elevation of the pharmacy. In general, he is not supportive of this project and felt this project should be brought back to the subdivision committee meeting. She concurred with Commissioner Forney bringing the project back to the subdivision committee. Her concern is the issue relating to Citizens Drive. They did not know they were talking about a street which was posted at 10 mph and does not feel this street would function as a city street. Along with the public concerns and the commission's ability to help them she concurs that this project should be sent back to subdivision. Odom: He noted if this project was sent back to subdivision it would not be able to be approved at subdivision because of the variance requests. Hopper: He stated the applicant has made the changes and recommendations that were brought to their attention. They have been very cooperative and have tried to address each issue that was brought before them. Hoffman: At subdivision committee Citizens Drive was discussed, but the driveway from the bank was not discussed. She inquired if the drive to the bank was an existing drive. Hopper: He noted this was an existing drive. The applicant's request is to rebuild this portion of Citizen's Drive and has been shown on the grading plan. Forney: There are too many issues which would need to be discussed and shown in drawings. He felt a motion to table would be a better recommendation. He inquired if a 33% grade would be permissible for a driveway. Beavers: Forney: Johnson: He noted the outlot would be cleared and filled and this would lessen the slope. With so many uncertainties on this development he would not be able to vote in support of this development at this time. There is a burden on the commissioners and on the developer regarding putting in this development • • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -11- Hopper: into a residential neighborhood. He noted this development was owned by Mr. Ball and the engineering was done by his company. He is aware of the sequence of the events which have been presented, and this properly has been zoned for a couple of years. Johnson: She feels this site warrants the time it would take to work through the different issues. Forney: If this project goes back before the subdivision committee, one question he would like discussed is whether Citizens Drive would be a better and appropriate street if there was only one turn. Hoffman: In other developments the commission has added curvy streets to add aesthetics to the development. Putting in straight streets with one curve would exacerbate the traffic problem. If this was brought back to subdivision, she would still be in favor of the configuration of this public street. Tucker: He would like to see Citizens Drive utilized as a cut through street and slowing the speed would accomplish this purpose. Odom: He stated the applicant has a reasonable expectation to rely on this process and for so much work and time to go into this project. For this project to be sent back to square one would be a detriment to the applicant. He feels the applicant should be given a yes or no to his application and sending this project back would be a disservice to the applicant and to the public. His concern at this time is the traffic and safety issues. He inquired about (1) traffic generation of this project, and (2) if there were any suggestions or discussion about on-site and off-site improvements contributions which need to be discussed. Little: Average weekday traffic generation at 24 hour 2 -way volume is 3,933 cars. On Saturday this would be higher in an amount of 4,066 cars, and on Sunday the volume would drop to 1,976 cars. Odom: Is there any regulation or concern by staff with the traffic volume which would put undue burden on this intersection of Hwy 265/45. Little: Beavers: Tucker: Beavers: Odom: She stated this intersection is not functioning right now and is already over -burdened. In the absence of improvements or anticipated improvement by the AHTD staff would be concerned. Mr. Venable and the Public Works Director have worked to get this widening on track. The City has agreed to pay for all of the right -of way in this area which is something that is not normally done, but this was done to expedite this project. If these improvements were made, this would not be an undue traffic hardship. The AHTD is looking at a November, 1999 letting. Realistically, there are a lot of utilities which will have to be removed and would be a similar project to Wedington. It would take at least 2-3 years in order to complete this project. He asked if there was any plans to phase this project. He was not sure of their plans for phasing. He asked Mr. Beavers to outline what the AHTD would be doing for improvements along Hwy 265. • • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -12- Beavers: He brought his plans and allowed the commission and the public to review the proposed AHTD widening plans for Hwy 265. The AHTD plans to widen the Hwy 265/45 intersection for a minimum of 6 lanes and would taper to 5 lanes up to or near Kantz Drive. Odom: He wanted to know if staff felt the intersection at Hwy 265/45 could operate or handle the traffic. Beavers: He concurred this intersection does not handle the traffic at the present time. Odom: He inquired if staff anticipates this highway widening project to begin in January of 1999 and allow 2 years for completion. Beavers: He has not seen the specifications for the time frame from the contractor. However, the utility work would have to come first and this may take at least one year. Odom: He inquired about any discussion between the staff and the developer in relation to any on-site or off- site improvements and contributions. Beavers: Little: Hopper: Odom: Beaver: Hopper: At plat review it was discussed the potential for some contribution to the AHTD. However, it may not be required. This item was in the report in fairness to all other developers which have contributed to this road widening. If the AHTD was not ready for construction, staff would have charged a share for contribution. One of the factors is that this has already been engineered and in the works to begin construction. It is within the commissioners discretion to apportion a contribution to the developer. He stated the developer has agreed to dedicate the right-of-way to the City at no expense to the City. He needs some guidance from staff regarding money in lieu or any contribution for any assessments. Staff typically requests the developer's engineer to provide the traffic number. Clary's development at Wedington and the bypass was assessed close to $80,000 and staff asked the engineer to provide the figure. He does not feel comfortable making a recommendation at this time, and feels it should be based upon traffic which would be generated by this development. He stated Mr. Ball and Mr. Lindsey would have to consent to any contributions. He asked the commission to consider there will have to be sidewalks constructed and utilities which will have to be adjusted. The developer would hope this would be included in the computation figures. Odom: He asked if the traffic generation numbers mentioned based upon the entire development. Little: She confirmed the traffic numbers were based upon the entire development. Odom: He inquired what the numbers would be if Phase I of this project was considered. Little: She stated it would be approximately 40%. • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -13- When Wal-Mart came for a building permit it would be permitted for the Wal-Mart portion of the building. She would anticipate within 6 months the developer would come back for the building permit for the rest of the building. Odom: He inquired if the applicant has any problems or disagreement with the traffic generation report. Hopper: He had no problem with the numbers presented. Odom: He inquired what the applicant's comment with regard to the enormous amount of traffic added as a result of this development to an already over -taxed intersection. Hopper: The AHTD improvements should be ample to take care of the traffic generation. Odom: He noted the improvements would not be completed until 2 years from now. However, the shopping center would be open and operational within one year Hopper: The shopping center would be open within one year The developer hopes the AHTD improvements may address some of the traffic issues prior to this development coming in. Tucker: In reference to the sign issue he wanted to know if there would be a request at a later time for additional signage. Hopper: Odom: Little: Reynolds: Little: He stated there would be no additional signage requested. The developer would request the 192 sf of which 75 sf would be for Wal-Mart. He inquired what staff's comments would be regarding the 193 sf. She felt the 193 sf would be larger than what should be allowed. The other developments in this area do not have signage of this size. He inquired if this project was tabled, and requested a subdivision meeting, how soon could they be heard. She stated there could be a called meeting for the subdivision committee and this would still allow them to come back before the September 14 planning commission meeting. Commissioner Johnson moved to table this project to subdivision committee to a called meeting to work out the issues and bring it back to the next planning commission meeting. Ward: He recommended that the commission vote on the variances and get this taken care of prior to the subdivision meeting. Odom: He inquired if a large scale development could be approved at subdivision level. Little: A large scale development can be approved at subdivision if there are no variances requested. Commissioner Forney seconded said motion. • Johnson: She did not feel it would be logical right now to deal with the variances if the project would be tabled • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -14- Odom: to subdivision. She would also like to hear on the East Oaks issue which is the next item on the agenda. He stated he would probably be voting against the development for safety and traffic issues. If the developer could provide a traffic study with some numbers that would indicate otherwise, then he may be able to review and reconsider. Upon roll call the motion was approved on a vote of 5-3-0. Commissioners Hoffman, Odom, and Ward voted nay. Commissioner Estes was not present. • • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -15- AD 98-27.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (EAST OAKS CUL-DE-SAC, PP 332) INTERSECTION OF EAST OAKS DRIVE AND GOLDEN OAKS DRIVE This item was submitted by Jett Cato on behalf of a group of East Oaks Subdivision homeowners for property located at the southernmost intersection of East Oaks Drive and Golden Oaks Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low - Density Residential. The request is to create a cul-de-sac at the intersection of the two streets in order to eliminate traffic from the adjacent Kantz Place development through the residential neighborhood. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Staff has recommended this item be tabled until the following entities have had a chance to review and comment on the request: Fayetteville Fire Department, Fayetteville Police Department, Central Emergency Medical Services (CEMS), US Postal Service, Fayetteville Solid Waste, Fayetteville 911, Fayetteville Traffic Division, Fayetteville Engineering Division, and Fayetteville Street Division. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant was going to notify the various entities of this request. Staff is also sending a memorandum requesting their comments for this application. Jett Cato of 2488 Golden Oaks appeared before the commission on behalf of the East Oaks Subdivision. He expressed his appreciation to the staff and the commission for their assistance in this matter. He passed out some points of information for the commissioners to review. He referred to a map which he had brought. The right third portion with the blue coloring indicates the East Oaks Subdivision and the yellow highlighted portion is the East Oaks Drive. The bottom of the map indicates the Kantz Place development. This subdivision's traffic situation exists with or without the Kantz development being approved. The subdivision is not in opposition to the development. The problem is the cut through and design brought by the inadequacy of Hwy 265 and 45 and the intersections in this area. He passed out a petition which was circulated through the East Oaks Subdivision Phase 1 and I1. There were 125 properties represented. The petition contains over 160 names on the petition. There should be one vote for one property owner. 86% of the 125 property owners were contacted signed in favor of the cul-de-sac. There were 5 homes who either abstained or were undecided on this issue. There are 12 property owners opposed to the cul-de-sac. The homes on the map, colored in blue, were in approval of the cul-de-sac. The applicant proposes to close off East Oaks street between Golden Oaks Drive and Kantz Drive and this would be a one-sided cul-de-sac. The north side would be a dead end. Representatives of the subdivision have spoken with the property owner, Jim Lindsey, and he has agreed to work with this subdivision to assist them in any way he could. The Kantz development - or any other development being proposed in this area - would have a positive effect on the property and should increase the value of their property. However, if the traffic is funneled through their neighborhood it would drop their property value. He indicated on the map the easiest way for a person to leave the Kantz Development would be to make a right turn out of the development, a right turn on East Oaks, and from there a person could cut through and get to Township. At this point a person could either turn east or west or go north onto Azalea and cut through another subdivision. East Oaks is continually becoming a busy street. • • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -16- The proposed cul-de-sac can be designed for a drive over for emergency vehicles to allow access. There are currently 5 roads which give access in and out of the subdivision. The speed limit on East Oaks Drive is 25 mph. He noted when the commissioners toured their subdivision someone drove by them at 40 mph. The representatives have discussed some options with City staff and with some of the commissioners. One option discussed was putting in three stop signs. The applicant felt this would definitely help slow the traffic. However, the applicant would like to eliminate the traffic altogether and East Oaks was intended for a neighborhood street and not a major artery. They are attempting to push the thru traffic back to Hwy 45/265 and Township Street. The sound generated from the traffic is getting louder and louder and they are seeing more and more commercial vehicles using East Oaks as a cut through. This neighborhood has over 130 children and ask that the commissioners consider this application favorably and give them a safer place to ride their bicycles and play. Mary Wilson who lives at 2386 Azalea Terrace appeared before the commission. She reiterated there is a major traffic problem. Cars will turn and go north and knock the street sign down and ran into their neighbor's yard. She and her husband can testify they have seen this happen more than once. In the morning, sometimes there are 15-20 cars bumper to bumper going west. The traffic is backed up in front of their home on Azalea going south around the comer of their home 5-6 cars deep trying to turn west. Sometimes when she comes home and has to turn east, she has to stop before turning into her driveway because of the traffic going west. Sherry Manes of 2542 Gentle Oaks appeared before the commission. She stated Citizens Drive would be a used as a cut through for people wanting to go north on Hwy 265 to tum right on Hwy 45 and would in fact come through their neighborhood. Laura Hayes of Bois De Arc Lane appeared before the commission. She has lived in the same home for the past 8 and h years and has three children. She has sat in the front of her yard and has noticed the increase of the traffic and the volume. The people coming through this area would be those people trying to avoid a busy intersection. She is concerned about the welfare of her children. People drive down her street at least 40-45 mph. These people do not realize that there are young children in this neighborhood. She feels a cul-de-sac would cut off the cut through traffic and would appreciate the commission's consideration. Bill Kennedy of 2410 Golden Oaks appeared before the commission. There is a serious traffic problem which has existed for some time. They have neighborhood block parties in this subdivision and there are a lot of children who live in this area. He felt if there were some way to address this problem and protect the neighborhood it would be appreciated. • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -17- Mosha Ghadbian of 2408 East Oaks appeared before the commission. She has two children 9 and 4 years old. When she and her husband purchased their home two years ago they did not realize their street would be used as a cut through. Her 9 -year old cannot ride her bike for more than a 20 foot strip on the sidewalk and she cannot let her 4 -year-old past the end of the driveway. It is not only the fact there are too many cars, but they are going too fast. People driving would not be able to slow down for children and this would increase the probability of hurting a child. Bill Rose who lives at the corner of East Oaks and Golden Oaks Drive appeared before the commission. He has lived in this area since 1986. He keeps two grandchildren at his home. Not only is the traffic growing but the number of speeders are growing. Therefore, he asks the commission for their assistance in helping with this situation. Erin Taylor of Gentle Oaks appeared before the commission. She has four children. She moved to this neighborhood because she wanted a place for her children to walk and ride their bikes. She confirmed the traffic problem is severe. She cannot let her children out to play in the neighborhood because of the traffic situation and a lot of the traffic is not from the neighborhood. Some of the people in this area are talking about leaving this area because of the safety concerns. The purpose of the City Council and Planning Commission is to serve the people. Therefore, the number one concern should be the children. • Elaine Lauger of 2387 Twelve Oaks appeared before the commission. She has lived here for 12 years. Her concern is how would anyone leaving Wal-Mart would not be able to turn north. She stated unless you go down Township you would not be able to go north. She has reviewed the Kantz development and feels traffic would be a major concern. Therefore, the only way to go north would be to cut through the subdivision and out onto Township. Kelly Roark of 2407 Golden Oaks Drive appeared before the commission. She has lived in this neighborhood for 13 years. She stated allowing the cul-de-sac now would give them back their neighborhood. She wanted to emphasize the problem currently exists and does not depend on the Kantz development. There is a lot of development in this area and it will continue to grow. She requests the commission give favorable consideration of this cul-de-sac. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: Odom: The commission wanted to give everyone the opportunity to voice their opinion and expressed his appreciation for their willingness to come forth. However, the commission does not have the authority to approve a cul-de-sac for a road. The commission does have the authority to listen to the public and their concerns and can forward this application to the street committee or the City Council. He has a real concern about putting in a cul-de-sac due to connectivity concerns. He feels this may need to be a last resort. There may be some alternatives that can be done prior to putting in a cul-de-sac. He felt that maybe some stop signs can be an option to help with the problem. • Since staff has not been properly notified he would recommend that staff have an opportunity to address their concerns. • • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -18- Reynolds: He concurred with Chairman Odom to forward it to the traffic department. While the commissioners were touring this subdivision there was someone driving 45 mph through the subdivision. He recommended putting in stop signs. Cato: The applicant confirmed the stop signs would offer a better situation than exists at the present time. However, this would not alleviate the total problem. He is in favor of open streets whenever possible and if all streets were open throughout Fayetteville, then there would be a less congested area than Hwy 265/45. The applicant stated that East Oaks and other streets in this location are not major arteries. However, they have become major arteries due to the inadequacy of Hwy 265/45 and also for the convenienence for drivers to avoid traffic. He requests the commission to consider the fact that their streets are not designated as major arteries. He also noted Azalea was not originally an open street when it was opened up and it allowed for the increase of traffic. Reynolds: He referred to a letter which was received by the commission in opposition to the cul-de-sac. He felt the traffic could be slowed by stop signs. Cato: He noted the police did park on Golden Oaks for a few minutes. The police did stop two people for failure to stop at the stop signs. Odom: Stop signs may not be enough but there may be other alternatives. Tucker: He suggested narrowing the street may cut the speeding on these streets and may address the safety concern. Hoover: She expressed her appreciation to the public and the people who came forth regarding this issue. She would be in favor of trying the stop signs first to increase the traffic safety in this neighborhood. Odom: He stated he has had conversations with people who live in Overcrest, as well as some other areas in town, regarding the same type of traffic concerns. Commissioner Odom moved to forward this application with a recommendation that the street committee outline the options to help alleviate the cut through traffic in this area as well as Overcrest and other areas. Commissioner Johnson seconded said motion. Upon roll call the motion was approved on a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Estes was not present. • • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -19- PP 98-6.00: PRELIMINARY PLAT BARRINGTON PARKE SUBDIVISION, PHASE II) EAST OF HWY 45 AND SOUTH OF FOX HUNTER ROAD This item was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering for property located east of Hwy 45 and south of Fox Hunter Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 27.40 acres with 49 lots proposed. FINDINGS: The proposed subdivision is Phase II of Barrington Parke. Phase I has 88 lots. With Phase II there will be a total of 137 lots created. Staff had requested at Plat Review and at Subdivision Committee that the developer provide a second access to Fox Hunter Road in the approximate location of proposed Lot 54. The Subdivision Committee voted "to forward this project to Planning Commission subject to the revisions being noted on the plat as follows: 1. Connection from Hartford Drive to Fox Hunter; 2. Connection for Madison Drive and the determination for this connection; 3. Caston Drive moved down to the exit between the Stanberry and the Catholic Church property; 4. Sidewalks shown on the plat." The developer and his engineer had declined to make the requested revisions required by staff and the Subdivision Committee. Therefore, it is the staff recommendation that the project be denied. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: 1. Denial of the Preliminary Plat as presented. 2. If a plat is presented which conforms to the requirements of the ordinance, criteria, requested from the Subdivision Committee and the Planning Commission, then staff recommends that such plat be approved subject to 9 conditions of approval as noted. There were no further conditions of approval. Mel Milho!land with Milholland Construction Company appeared on behalf of the applicant. He passed out revised plats with the requested revisions to the commissioners and staff. He asked to allow the President of the POA to address the commission on behalf of the property owners who bought on the basis of the approved preliminary plat. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Scott Sandlin, 1952 Barrington Drive, and is the president of POA Phase 1 and 11. The property owners purchased the lots with the understanding there would be a cul-de-sac in Phase II and a park. The property owners are concerned about the opportunity of the cul-de-sac disappearing and becoming a through street. The commission has asked the developer to open the cul-de-sac and would prefer not to see this cul-de-sac be opened up. Most of the children in the subdivision are 3-4 years old. • • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -20- There are a lot of children in the neighborhood and the property owners would prefer to keep the traffic to the entrances as noted in the first plat. Obviously, there are some streets for emergency purposes but they do not want the connection between Hartford and 75. Brian Barkocy of 3834 Chadwick appeared before the commission. If the developer makes the cul-de-sac a through street there would be another street crossing for the children to have to cross. There is a sign at the entrance to the subdivision and this allows for the one point of entry and encourages safety issues and eliminates crime. Kirk Elsaw who is the real estate agent for this development and Mr. Caston and a property owner in this subdivision appeared before the commission. There are a total of 49 lots in this subdivision in Phase H. He has sold of the 9 of the proposed lots. Many of the homeowners object to the street connecting to Fox Trail. Traffic is a major of concern in the subdivision. The property owners were not aware that there would be a through street with two entrances and that there would be another entrance to maintain and take care of. He requests whatever is decided, the subdivision needs to sell these additional lots and move this project forward. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: Hoffman: She referred to the plat and inquired if it was shown in the preliminary nature for Phase I and this is what people have bought their homes and with the knowledge that this street would not connect to Fox Hunter. Milholland: He confirmed this was correct and he has a copy with him if the commission would like to see it. Little: She noted there was a preliminary plat for Phase I and Phase II. Phase I has been constructed. Any preliminary plat that is filed and construction has not begun within one year is considered null and void. Hoffman: She inquired if the developer was willing to pay for a paved street for Madison Drive in lieu of the connection to Fox Hunter. Milholland: He stated, no, the developer was not in agreement with this. The developer agreed to build the gravel road not to street standards but one that is passable between the two subdivisions if the Planning Commission would not require him to connect to Fox Hunter. Reynolds: He inquired if Phase II would take up the rest of the land out in this location. Milholland: There would be no additional phases. Forney: Apparently there was a preliminary plat which the commission does not have. This preliminary plat indicated a certain configuration which many of the homeowners were dependent upon for their expectations. He felt this was far above the cul-de-sacs beyond 600 feet. Odom: Little: He noted there were still stubouts on Caston and Madison. Caston Drive was the only stubout on the preliminary plat and hope there was a grant for a waiver Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -21- for the 500 feet of the cul-de-sac. Forney: He noted a cul-de-sac is a cul-de-sac until it is connected at a future time. Little: She confirmed this was correct. Forney: He felt the anticipated form of the developer was in direct contravention of the City's regulations and policies. What he has heard so far he would vote in favor of the cul-de-sac at the corner if Madison was paved. To do otherwise would contradict what the City requires. Milholland: There is a resolution which the City Council passed when Phase 1 was approved in 1994. There was some discussion about the trees on the east side of Phase I. This resolution states the developer would in addition to the entrance with an island would provide two more exits for this total project - one to the east and one to the west. The one to the east has been constructed at the southeast comer. The one to the west was Caston. At subdivision level staff.requested the street moved between the property line of the Stanberry and Catholic Church. Ward: Now the developer has had to add Madison to this and if you add Fox Hunter this would make a total of five exits to this subdivision with three on one street. It is his feeling to slow down traffic from being backed up at the intersection of Hwy 45 and 265 and North street He has lived at this subdivision for 4 years. If you control the traffic coming out of the subdivisions you can control the traffic jams down the highway. The developer requests the commission review the preliminary plat and the resolution which was approved in 1994. He would rather see the money spent improving the road to the City rather than putting gravel road across Madison Avenue. There are a lot of people who would use the road east of Fox Hunter which goes to Hwy 45. Little: She stated this road that Mr. Ward was referring to was not in the City but in the County. Odom: This subdivision would generate more traffic. There are alternate routes which may avoid this intersection which would be problematic at Hwy 45 but feels this subdivision would not generate undue traffic. He referred to the waiver to omit the sidewalk along Fox Hunter. Milholland: The applicant has agreed to all requested sidewalks including those on Fox Hunter. Odom: He inquired if staff was comfortable with the plat which the applicant just presented at the meeting tonight enough to change the recommendation for denial. Beavers: He felt he was forced into making this recommendation because what was presented to the planning commission because this was not what the subdivision committee voted on. Little: She wanted to remind the commission that there were several times when staff had been chastised for not having complete and full information before the commission. The revisions were requested at two different times and the developer did have the opportunity to bring both of these to subdivision committee. It is frustrating for the subdivision committee to make revisions and not be presented with those requested revisions. • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -22- Odom: He inquired if those requested revisions were before the commission this evening. Hoffman: She noted at subdivision committee there was some talk about Mr. Milholland bringing two plats. One with the requested revisions and one plat reflecting what he requested. She does believe the plat he has brought before the commission does deal with those issues. The plat does show Caston at the location preferred; it does connect Hartford with Fox Hunter Road; it shows Madison location; it does show sidewalks along both sides of the street and Fox Hunter Road; it does narrow the utility easement from 25 feet to 20 feet. Hoffman: She wished this plat would have been presented at the agenda session and not at the meeting this evening. Milholland: His understanding at the subdivision meeting is that they were going to table his project. He stated the developer has the right to waive any item requested. At that point, the developer was requested to move a street and this was the first time he knew about it. He felt he was given the opportunity to provide two plats - one with the waiver requests - and one with the requested revisions from subdivision committee. Beavers: Mr. Milholland faxed a 20 foot street which was the cul-de-sac. He received this about 4:00 this evening. He was not sure if Mr. Milholland felt this street goes with this plan. • Milholland: He stated if the commission approved the plan presented, the design could be altered to meet whatever the City engineer or Traffic engineer wanted. Beavers: He stated what was presented to him would not meet the street standards. Mr. Franklin said what was presented was better than the first proposal but he would not necessarily be in support of this alternative cul-de-sac. • Odom: Perhaps a motion to grant a waiver which would allow this cul-de-sac be built to city street standards Mr. Beaver could support. Beavers: Yes, this is correct. Hoffman: The subdivision committee's intent in getting the connection to Fox Hunter is that we did not want one ingress and egress for this subdivision. She would not personally be willing to grant a waiver on the cul-de-sac issue. She is against only one way of ingress and egress. She would support a paved connection through Madison and this would meet the subdivision requirements. The question is how to finance this. Does the City finance 50/50 and would the City be willing to do this. Little: She inquired what the distance was from the existing Madison Avenue to the proposed stubout. If it is 521.10 feet, then the connection from Hartford to Fox Hunter is 191.15 feet, then there would be talk of 300 additional feet. Commissioner Forney moved to approve Preliminary Plat No. 98-6.00 subject to all staff comments, denying all waivers, which would ensuring there would be a second connection either to Fox Hunter or Madison with the expense to be borne by the developer to meet the City standards. Forney: He expressed his appreciation with the developer coming with a plat requesting waivers but does • • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -23- Hoffman: Forney: not feel his case has compelled him to vote for the waivers. She inquired if the motion addressed Caston Drive. He stated Caston Drive was relocated at the request of staff and incorporating staff comments should address this with Caston Drive being moved between Stanberry and the Catholic Church. Commissioner Forney seconded said motion. Odom: Forney: He clarified the motion is to approve PP 98-6.00 subject to all staff comments and for it to be left at the discretion of the developer as to what the second connection would be. Either Hartford Drive to Fox Hunter Road or Madison Drive paved to Madison Avenue and denying all waivers. He wanted clarification if the developer decides to pave Madison Avenue, the commission would grant the waiver of the additional outlet from Hartford to Fox Hunter. If the developer makes the second connection, then the second connection would be made. Milholland: He clarified if the applicant agreed to put Madison Avenue through the other subdivision, then he could put his cul-de-sac at the corner of Harford and Chadwick. However, if he chooses to put Hartford to Fox Hunter Road, then he would not have to build the road at Madison Drive. Odom: The motion as he understands it is the developer would build Madison Avenue to meet the City Standards. Milholland: He stated the applicant would be willing to build Madison Avenue and it be graveled. Odom: Forney: Little: Beavers: Odom: Forney: Ben Caston, He clarified the motion states that Madison Drive be paved as a City Street. He would also be in support of the motion. Staff recommended that a connection be made from Hartford to Fox Hunter Road and that a gravel road be accomplished at Madison. His motion would only allow one connection to be made. Staff would concur with the motion as made. He added the right to use the city property would have to be approved by the council. He stated the motion gave up better connectivity for this subdivision. He preferred the developer make the connection to Madison Drive. However, he feels we should give the developer the option to choose which connection he chooses. Sr., from Heber Springs, Arkansas appeared before the commission. He stated he has had to redo Fox Hunter and widen which cost approximately $80,000. They had to purchase some land over $35,000 for more park land. He expressed his concern about the requests being made of this development. Odom: He inquired if he should be required to do something less than what is required of the other developers. • • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -24- He stated he wanted to make the same requirements as everyone else. However, there is a subdivision which was approved which had one point of entry. Beavers: Odom: He clarified this subdivision `Easton Parks" has multiple stubouts and do have a connection to Hwy 45. At the developer's expense, this developer is required to extend Township in the amount of $4-600,000. He stated he was in favor of allowing the waiver request to Fox Hunter Road because of what has been done in the past. However, require Madison Avenue be graveled or cost be contributed proportionately with the City paying its share. If the City does not allow the property to be paved then the waiver should be denied and require another stubout. This is what his inclination is, however, this is not the motion before the commission. Hoffman: She felt Madison Avenue connection was a better connectivity but requestd a 50/50 participation which is standard. Ward: He felt the Madison Avenue connection is better but is not sure if the City would want it or could afford it. However, if Madison Avenue was the other exit then he does not feel the need for Caston Drive as a stubout. Odom: He stated there may be future development with the church and his concern was future landlock. Forney: His concern is Caston Drive to the south and Caston Drive to the east. He inquired if this was Caston Drive between the two streets or would it be a continuous street. Little: She responded Caston Drive to the west should be renamed. Forney: He referred to staff's concern about the cul-de-sac type proposed at the intersection of Hartford and Chadwick. He noted there was a similar type at the intersection of Caston and Hartford. He wanted some clarification regarding this information. Beavers: He responded this was basically for a 5 lot private street. Forney: He is sympathic to the developer's issues. However, this is one of the conflicts when variances are requested. Milholland: He inquired if the commission could make a recommendation for a 50/50 proposal to the City. Commissioner Odom moved to amend the motion to allow the waiver of the cul-de-sac on Hartford to meet city standards, for a 50/50 contribution for a standard city street from Madison Avenue, with a request to City Council that this be allowed to be built and the City contribute the other portion of Madison Avenue. Tucker: He inquired if the City does not want the connection then what would be the recommendation. • • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -25- Commissioner Odom stated if the City does not allow the connection and the developer is not willing to pay for the full street, then the developer would be required to make a connection to Fox Hunter Road. Upon roll call the amended motion was approved on a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Estes was not present. Odom: He referred to the motion on the table to approve the PP 98-6.00. Upon roll call the motion was approved on a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Estes was not present. • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -26- AD 98-26.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (THE THREE SISTERS, PP 484) NORTH OF DICKSON STREET AND WEST OF ROLLSTON STREET This item was submitted by Gregory T. House on behalf of H.M.T. Development Company, LLC, for property located north of Dickson Street and west of Rollston Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial, and contains approximately 1.13 acres. The request is to amend the conditions of a previous submission to approve the revised building elevations and provide an alternate to the original parking design for the project. The applicant has requested the planning commission to review a revised design of the HMT Large Scale Development project. The first issue is the second access (north access) for the lower parking structure. The applicant has stated in the attached letter that they have not been able to secure the easement and are still trying to secure the easement which would provide the second ingress and egress. They do not want to hold the project up because of this issue and have proposed the following options: 1. Eliminate the second access. 2. Provide a second ingress and egress on this property. If option "I" is unacceptable, the applicant would provide the access on his property which would eliminate two parking spaces. The applicant is willing to do either of the following to address the two parking spaces lost by providing access within their property. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the second access be provided on the property and that 750 square feet be converted into a one bedroom apartment. Staff also recommends approval of the revised elevation drawings as submitted. Staff had no further conditions of approval. The commissioners do have a copy of the building elevations of the proposed project. Rob Sharp, architect, appeared before the commission on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is agreeable to converting the retail into a one bedroom. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: Forney: In reviewing the drawings it looks like the last two stalls would have to back out of the parking lot and there would be no place for them to turn around. Odom: He referred to page 4.5 of the information they have in their packet. The commission reviewed the various drawings presented to them with the ingress and egress. Sharp: The applicant has discussed the possibility of striping each lot at each run. This would have the • same effect as the two. Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -27- Conklin: He referred to page 2 of the colored elevations which were approved originally for the commission to review. There was some discussion about the parking spaces and the ability to back out of those areas The applicant would be losing 1 parking space as opposed to 2 parking spaces. Hoffman: She inquired what the parking module width from space to space in the center aisle. Sharp: He stated it would be standard city space consisting of 9 foot wide x 19 feet long x 24 foot drive. Conklin: He clarified that a 24 foot aisle space would not work when cars need to turn around. Staff's concern is more cars than spaces and cars being in there without the ability to turn around. Therefore, staff requests additional access through the garage. The parking garages he has seen normally have a one-way drive or a drive that circles around so when you pull into the garage you can go to another level or you exit. In this instance, once a person was in the garage, they would have to either turn around or find a space. Commissioner Odom moved that the applicant provide a 2nd ingress and egress and convert 750 retail space on the 2nd floor to a one bedroom apartment. Commissioner Johnson seconded said motion. Forney: He inquired if this would leave the project with the same problem in the other aisle. Conklin: He responded, yes, it would. Staff had discussed the option of creating a tum around in the garage. Hoffman: She inquired if the applicant could assign and reserve spots in certain areas. Odom: He inquired how people would park during the day. Sharp: They have discussed installing an electronic gate with a sensor which would not allow vehicles in when the parking lot is full. Upon roll call the motion was approved on a vote of 7-0-0. Commissioner Estes and Johnson were not present. Little: She inquired about the elevations and if they were approved as submitted. Commissioner Hoffman moved to approve the revised elevations submitted. Commissioner Tucker seconded said motion. Little: She referred to the elevations which was passed out and noted the new ones were higher than the previous elevations which were approved. One thing discussed during commercial design standards were the surrounding buildings. She referred to the project square footage on page 4.13 and page 4.14. The project square footage is actually decreasing with what is presented at this time. However, she does feel the height of the building is something which needs to be clarified. • • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -28- There was some discussion between the commission and the applicant regarding the proposed changes on the elevations submitted. Odom: He noted there was a large enough change on the elevation which requires planning commission approval. Hoffman: She wanted clarification regarding the building height originally submitted is not the same as what has been presented this evening. Little: She noted the original design was a 3 -story design. The new design appears to be 4 -stories. She wanted clarification regarding this change for the record. Sharp: The square footage and plans were for a 3 -story design. The applicant used a 3 -story structure and they utilitized the attic space to gain additional space. The building would be 4 -story building with the 4th floor inside the roof space. Originally, it was a 3 -story building with the square footage in the roof space. Greg House appeared before the commission. He stated the plate line was at the top of the 3rd story in the original submittal and in this submittal. Because of the pitch of the roof, the applicant was able to utilize the area in the roof for the 4th floor area. In the original submittal it was in the plan. Odom: He inquired if the 4th floor was considered in the total square footage of the project. House: He responded, yes, it was. Beavers: He inquired if the Fire Chief was aware about the building being 4 floors vs. 3 floors. House: He responded, yes, the Fire Chief did know there were 4 floors in this project. Hoffman: She would be voting against her motion because she originally thought this was a 3 -story building vs. a 4 -story building. House: He noted there was always a 4th floor level in the original large scale development approval process and this was not an addition. Sharp: He referred to the drawing which broke down the area of the loft which is referred to the 4th floor which included the square footage of the building. Forney: He noted to his eye the change in character was not significant. He felt the issue was with regard to mass and whether it has changed substantially from the original plans. Upon roll call the motion was approved on a vote of 5-2-0. Commissioners Hoffman and Reynolds voted nay. Commissioners Estes and Johnson were not present. • • • Planning Commission Minutes August 24, 1998 Page -29- AD 98-28.00: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (STONEBRIDGE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION - FINAL PLAT MEADOWS DRIVE AT HIGHWAY 16 This item was submitted by Jorgensen & Assoc. on behalf of Meadows Enterprises for a variance request to guarantee the performance of the sanitary sewer lift station and retaining walls at the entrance of Meadows Drive at Highway 16. FINDINGS: §159.34 states "The Planning Commission may approve a subdivision final plat prior to the installation of the final pavement, tree replacement or landscaping if all other required improvements have been substantially completed provided the developer deposits with the City....in an amount equal to 150 percent of the estimated cost of the uncompleted improvements...". The developer cannot test the sanitary sewer lift station at this time as electricity has not been provided to the lift station. The developer will have electricity and will test the lift station in approximately one week. The developer has not completed the retaining wall at the entrance of River Meadows at Highway 16. This wall may be completed prior to the August 24th Planning Commission meeting. The developer desires to also guarantee these walls. The developer proposed to add $15,000 for the sanitary sewer lift station and $5,000 for the retaining walls in addition to the normal guarantee for the sidewalks (to be determined at a later date). Engineering is in support of the developer's request. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the requested variance. There were no further staff comments. Dave Jorgensen with Jorgensen & Associates appeared before the commission. Commissioner Ward moved to approve AD 98-28.00 for Stonebridge Meadows. Commissioner Forney seconded said motion. Upon roll call the motion was approved on a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. Commissioner Estes and Johnson were not present. • • r PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 24, 1998 r -d o elf LSD 98-15.20 Kantz Place AD 98-27 East Oaks PP 98-6 Barrington Parke AD 98-26 The Three Sisters AD 98-28 Stonebridge Meadows MOTION S�I (911/6"'-- /20/29 NAIL nem'''. !jztd SECOND ui ,Y+" � 724944dr4 ia/c+Cc,// ",, � COPIAtik: ineniCnwnYi-- L. Hoffman /U y "/ 1 V N 1 / S. Hoover 1 (' 1.7 i4 ✓ vi 17 C. Odom N ti 14 g I/ )/ V J. Forney 1 1 y N V/ t/ B. Reynolds y I -/ if t, e Ex G. Tucker lit Lf 1/ ✓ ✓ tv P Johnson _/ f "/ /� _l y - , L. Ward IV y / "I 17 I/ L7 ACTION /N l tj sbe-latealtee A��tas 4A ce / aNer VOTE _6%3-0 $'-1I-0 rtp,0 9-d--0 4-n r -d o elf