Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-14 Minutesi • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 14, 1998, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED ACTION TAKEN CU 98-16.00: Conditional Use (Rohrbach) Approved --no further action LSD 98-25.00: Large Scale Development (Schmeiding) Approved --no further action PP 98-4.00: Preliminary Plat(CMN Business Park 1I, Phase I) Denied MEMBERS PRESENT: Conrad Odom - Chairman, Phyllis Johnson, Sharon Hoover, Bob Estes, John Forney, Bob Reynolds, Gary Tucker, Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT: Jim Beavers, Charles Venable, Perry Franklin, Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick and Liz Hopson The minutes from the August 24, 1998 Planning Commission were not approved. CU 98-16.00: Conditional Use (Roll -Mach) 1041 North Woolsey Avenue This item was submitted by Terrell Rohrbach for property located at 1041 North Woolsey Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.62 acres. The request is to allow a photography studio in an R-1 zone. Terrell Rohrbach appeared before the commission in support of this item. STAFF'S COMMENTS: Conklin: Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request with the condition that the driveway and parking area shall be paved and a tum -around provided so that vehicles can exit in a forward motion. He has discussed this condition with the applicant, and the applicant agrees to the condition. Rohrbach: PUBLIC COMMENTS: He operates a small-scale photography studio out of his home performing services that are mostly off-site, including photographing weddings and youth sports teams. His primary on-site use is bookkeeping, and the on-site volume (about 7% of his total business) averages about 4 people per week who visit the studio. He has investigated studies from the Arkansas Highway Department on North Street, the street adjacent to his property, and the average volume is 10,560 cars that pass his home per day. He feels that an additional 4 cars per week is insignificant to the neighborhood. Michael Howard, of 1037 North Woolsey, appeared before the commission. Howard: He has circulated a petition against Mr. Rohrbach's home occupation throughout the neighborhood and has gotten 96 signatures. He has had several people approach his home to ask where the photography studio was. He stated that there are advertisements in at least two separate telephone books for Mr. Rohrbach's service. Since Mr. Rohrbach has been operating his business without a conditional use permit to date, Mr. Howard would like this conditional use application denied. i • • • Planning Commission meeting September 14, 1998 Page -2- Michael Andrews appeared before the commission. Andrews: Howard: He represents one of the people making up the 7% of Mr. Rohrbach's customer base. He feels that Mr. Rohrbach has a right to earn an income to support his family. One vehicle per day doesn't affect the neighborhood, and he would encourage the commissioners to approve the conditional use. When he received his information concerning this meeting, it was his understanding that this item was the last of twelve agenda items. He told his supporters not to be at the meeting until later. That is why there is no support for his side. He has 96 signatures on his petition, which is the greatest majority of the neighborhood base. Paula Martuzzi appeared before the commission. Martuzzi: Her sister Stephanie is the owner of the property at 1041 North Woolsey. She supports the business Mr. Rohrbach is operating. He does a great deal of off-site business. In her opinion, the business does not affect the neighborhood. Mr. Rohrbach has made no changes to the outside of the home or put up signs of any kind. The home still looks like a residence and blends in well with the surrounding neighborhood. She knows of no direct complaints voiced other than those of Mr. Howard and is surprised by the number of signatures on Mr. Howard's petition. Mr. Rohrbach had inquired of his neighbors recently their reaction to his moving his residence but keeping his business where it is currently located. She feels that the action is what upset the neighbors. Mr. Rohrbach no longer has any intention of moving his residence. Rohrbach: He read a letter from Melinda Mesko, a neighbor, supporting his business operation. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS: Estes: When the requested improvement to the driveway is made, how many parking spaces will there be at the residence? Rohrbach: There will be three parking spaces. Estes: He inquired of Mr. Rohrbach concerning the other requirements of conditional use. Commissioner Estes stated that he believed Mr. Rohrbach had met all the requirements. Johnson: She would like to limit the conditional use to say that the 392 square feet currently occupied by the photography studio not be increased and that the studio's business hours be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. She requests also that Mr. Rohrbach maintain the use of the house as his primary residence. Commissioner Estes moved to approve the conditional use within the limitations outlined by Commissioner Johnson and with the planning staffs condition that the driveway be improved. Commissioner Ward seconded said motion. The motion was approved on a vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission meeting September 14, 1998 Page -3- LDS 98-25.00: Large Scale Development (Schmeiding) Lots 1-12, Block 2 of the Sunset Addition This item was submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering on behalf of Schmeiding Enterprises, Inc. for property located in Lots 1-12, Block 2 of the Sunset Addition. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 1.13 acres. Leonard Gabbard and Harrison French appeared before the commission in support of this item. STAFF'S COMMENTS: Staff recommends approval pending the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with the Commercial Design Standards ordinance. Construction of the project shall be in accordance with Commercial Design Standards including the common design theme for the development. 2. Planning Commission decision concerning request for waiver of OHE ordinance. Letters in file from SWEPCO and TCA Cable. 3. Planning Commission determination of the requested variance/waiver from section 161.07.A.3.c of the grading ordinance to allow cuts within 25 feet of the ROW. Please refer to the cross-section on the plans and to the proposed building elevations. Staff supports this request subject to additional review of the cuts and terracing at the time construction plans are submitted. 4. Planning Commission determination of any additional improvements to Highway 180/Sixth Street. 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 and determine if improvements to Highway 180 are requested by the State (AHTD). Staff does not know of any improvements necessary at this time or in the future for Highway 180/Sixth Street and this comment/condition is offered for consistency with other developments along State Highways. 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, Ozarks, 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, 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. The drainage report and grading plan furnished is considered preliminary and a separate "final" report shall be required. 7. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk with a minimum 10' greenspace along West 6ih Street and a 6' sidewalk with a minimum 6' greenspace along Venus, Eastern and Lewis. • • • Planning Commission meeting September 14, 1998 Page -4- 8. Street light installation at 300' intervals on all streets adjacent to this development if they are not currently in place. 9. Reconstruction/Improvement of the contiguous one-half of Eastern, Lewis and Venus Streets as generally shown on the proposed plan. 10. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. If construction has started within one year then the approval shall be void. 11. 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 §159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Gabbard: The applicant agrees to conditions 5 through 11. Conceming items 1 through 4, he has spoken with representatives of SWEPCO, and the company doesn't want to lower the existing overhead electric lines. The grading ordinance § 161.07 a -c waiver requested is a problem because the slopes on the northwest corner of the lot need to be terraced. The grading would increase the aesthetic nature of the development as opposed to following the ordinance exactly. PUBLIC COMMENTS. There were no public comments. Tucker: He is unclear about the grading issue (item #3). Instead of working with the slope of the land, is the developer trying to get the land to one level? Gabbard: They will have to cut into the northwest corner of the project into the existing ground. The foundation of the north building had to be stepped in three locations. That action pushes the development closer than 25 feet to the right of way. The ordinance is specific about not allowing development in that area. To do so, they would have to put a large retaining wall (about 7-8 feet high). The developer feels that terracing the land and putting two retaining walls gives them a place to put some landscaping, making the site more aesthetically pleasing. The northwest corner is the high end of the lot. In his opinion, it requires that type of cut, probably about 7-8 feet overall. Johnson: Has the applicant contacted the State Highway Department? Is that a condition of the city? Beavers: Condition #4 is a standard issue. He knows of no additional required improvements to Sixth Street. Any time a large scale development occurs on a State Highway, staff tries to make this comment to be consistent. Johnson: Does the applicant have an objection to condition #4. Gabbard: We have no problem with that. • • • Planning Commission meeting September 14, 1998 Page -5- Johnson: Her concern is signage. The sign is supposed to be 18 feet tall from the base. French: He is the architect for the project. The sign is 18 feet tall to the peak of the sign. It is a pole mounted sign. Johnson: Does the sign comply with the sign ordinance? Little: Yes, it does. There are elevations showing the sign in relation to the building to give the commissioners and idea of scale. French: Working within setbacks, the sign will be placed perpendicular to the front of the building about 20 feet away from the building in front of the parking lot to the east. Hoover: Comparing this project to other developments on Sixth Street, is the Blockbuster Video sign a pole sign or a monument sign? Little: That sign is a hybrid. The height is 10 feet, with the sign area being about 40 square feet, although that sign is closer to the ground. The sign for this project integrates the two commercial buildings as well as the office building to the rear, while Blockuster Video utilizes a single tenant. Commissioner Ward moved to approve this project, provided that: 1) the project complies with commercial design standards 2) waivers 1, 2, and 3 are granted 3) the applicant contacts the State Highway Department to determine off-site improvements to Highway 180 Commissioner Reynolds seconded said motion. Commissioner Johnson made the amendment to the motion that there would be no additional signage allowed for this project except for that currently shown. Commissioners Ward and Reynolds agreed to the amendment. The motion was approved with a vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission meeting September 14, 1998 Page -6- PP 98.4.00: Preliminary Plat (CMN Business Park 11, Phase 11 North of Highway 71 Bypass and east of Gregg Avenue This item was submitted by Milholland Engineering on behalf of CMN Properties for property located north of Hwy 71 Bypass and east of Gregg Ave. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 170.89 acres with 11 lots proposed. Mel Milholland, Jim Irwin, Ernie Peters and Micki Harrington appeared before the commission in support of the project. STAFF'S COMMENTS: Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of the requested variances. Refer to the plat for the specific language of the five requested variances. 2. Planning Commission determination of the requested contributions for off-site improvements. At the SDC meeting it was stated that off-site improvements for the entire 309 acres are estimated at $134,000 - $140,000 and that 55% of this will be required for the proposed preliminary plat (phase 1). 3. Planning Commission determination of the street construction requirements for this proposed preliminary plat. a. The discussion and recommendation from the subdivision committee meeting was that the Developer shall construct, at the developer's expense, two of the proposed four lanes for the Steele and Van Asche Boulevards. Please note that the final street section, cost -share and construction for the boulevard and the bridge must be approved by the City Council. Neither staff or the Planning Commission may obligate City funds. It is important to note that neither the current (1998) or the proposed 1999 budgets contain funding for the boulevard or the bridge. Staff supports this funding but the City Council may, or may not, elect to participate in this cost -share. Staff recommends that if the City Council is unable, or unwilling to participate in a cost -share for the construction of any street or bridge that the developer, at the developer's expense provide a minimum 36 ft. street for all sections of Steele, Van Asche and the bridge. Also refer to the November 2, 1995 letter of agreement. b. The Developer shall construct, at the developer's expense, all other streets as 36 ft. three lane streets. c. The street issues east of Mall lane are postponed until phase II is developed. 4. Planning Commission determination of any additional improvements or assessments for state highways not contained in condition 2 above. In accordance with I59.33.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 the June 17 plat review comments) and determine if improvements to Highway 71, the intersection of Shiloh or any other State highway/frontage road • • Planning Commission meeting September 14, 1998 Page -7- 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 preliminary plat. 5. Planning Commission determination of the development which shall be allowed upon the individual lots prior to a final plat or prior to construction of streets, drainage, water, sanitary sewer ... 6. 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) 7. 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. 8. The developer shall connect the water main for this development to the existing water mains at the NW Arkansas Mall to the north and to the water mains near Centerbrook Subdivision at the south as a part of this development (not "future" as stated on the plat). 9. A formal geotechnincal report shall be required prior to approval of the grading plan. Any retaining walls, or vertical cuts in rock shall include safety rails to meet the more stringent of the SSBC and AASHTO, if determined applicable by the City Engineer. 10. The final grading plan and the final plat shall clearly provide for the conveyance of storm water runoff and any requirements to be subsequently placed upon the purchasers of the lots shall be clearly stated. 11. The drainage improvements offered by the developer to the adjacent subdivisions are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Improvements may be greater in scope than that proposed by the developer's engineer. 12. All drainage outside of public street right-of-way shall be private and privately maintained by the developer or similar approved entity. 13. A twenty foot easement for a multi -use trail in the flood plain shall be provide adjacent to and contiguous with the floodway. 14. The Developer, as stated by their engineer at the September 3, 1998 SDC meeting, shall not propose to channelize, or channelize Mud Creek at any point except for the bare minimum necessary for the bridge construction. 15. The Developer, and/or their engineer, shall contact the County extension service and determine any mutual use of Mud Creek with relation to the recent grant received for this purpose. • 16. The bridge calculations and the hydraulic calculations shall be reviewed by the City in addition to any other • • • Planning Commission meeting September 14, 1998 Page -8- State or Federal agencies. Further, unless specifically waived by the City Council, if the City participates 50% or greater in the cost of the bridge then the City shall select the engineer for the bridge project. 17. Contribution for stop lights. Five stop lights are warranted for this development based upon the traffic study prepared by the developer's traffic engineer. 18. All lots shall be subject to the Large Scale Development review process and utilization of a common design theme. 19. The preliminary plat approval will be valid for one calendar year. 1f construction has not started within one year then the approval is void. Beavers: He would like to clarify that condition #14 was discussed at Subdivision Committee and that the developer would not excessively channelize Mud Creek, but that necessary channelization would be permitted. Milholland: This is a Targe block of land divided into several tracts. The smallest tract is 5.79 acres, and the largest tract is in excess of 39 acres. Each tract will come through the Planning Commission for large scale development, which is listed as condition #18 of staffs recommendations. They agree to most of the conditions without comment, but they would like to address six items --conditions #2, 3, 4, 13 and 15 and 17. Harrington: Peters: She will address her concerns to each item in order and would like to reserve commissioners' comments until the end of her presentation. Regarding condition #2, she would like to clarify that when the large scale developments come in individually, those developers will not be re -assessed on off-site improvement contributions. Regarding #3, they will comply with the Master Street Plan. The ordinances require only two lanes on this parcel of land, and they have reluctantly agreed to three lane construction for the remainder of parcel. They will hold to the agreement made in Subdivision Committee even though this agreement in beyond the ordinance requirement. Regarding #4, the developers will work with the city and the Highway Department, but she objects to the wording of the condition that her clients "shall provide" any improvements requested. She feels that this is statement provides the requestor with too general an authorization. She prefers to work with the Highway Department on a request by request basis, and if there are issues that can't be resolved, she asks that they be reviewed before the Planning Commission. Regarding #13, she would like to confirm that the trail is to be constructed on the north side of the flood way. Regarding #I7, she would like clarification on the contributions for stop lights. Regarding item #4, he has contacted Joe Shipman with the Arkansas Highway Department in Fort Smith in order to determine off-site improvements. There are no anticipated improvements to the area at this time, but the department will make a final determination upon seeing the project. He is prepared to pursue • • • Planning Commission meeting September 14, 1998 Page -9- issues that arise and cooperate accordingly. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments at this time. Milholland: Regarding items #14 and #I5, he is content with Mr. Beavers' clarification of the channelization of Mud Creek. The county extension office has stated that the grant available is not specific to this particular area and is to be used for educational matters. Odom: He would like to address Ms. Harrington's concems. Does staff have comments regarding the off-site contributions and future funds requested? Little: Johnson: Harrington: The contribution was calculated for improvements to Gregg Street and Clear Creek Bridge in Johnson. The City of Fayetteville is participating in these projects. The way the calculations were derived was to take the traffic projections that were made for the 170 acres of the 309 acre total, or 55% of the land. To say that no further contributions would be necessary would be premature since future developments and traffic generations for them cannot be foreseen. The responsibility for those contributions would pass from this developer to the developer of a future project, and there would be more exact information at that time. There will be additional requests for streets for connectivity when large scale development occurs. This development plan should be considered long range and could potentially take 20 to 25 years for completion of the process. It seems fair to postpone assessment of additional off-site improvements. Regarding the current project, there need to be firm estimates. If the property doesn't develop immediately, she sees no logic in limiting the commission to 1998 figures of cost. She is referring to the concept that the developer is required to contribute off-site improvements for that development's impact off-site. She doesn't want the city to defer its payment responsibility to individual developers. Odom: The commission will follow the law regarding off-site improvements. Harrington: Is there any way for her client to receive credit for what has been paid so that another developer won't be assessed the same charges? Little: Odom: The need for any increase in off-site improvement funds would be necessary only if one tract develops such that traffic is generated that is greater than the figures used to calculate the current rate. City ordinance doesn't allow the city to collect additional monies for an improvement that has been completed. The next question was regarding item #3 concerning street development. Staff supports funding by the city council, but those funds may not be available. Staff requests that the developer construct a 36 -foot street for all sections of Steele, Van Asche and the bridge. • • Planning Commission meeting September 14, 1998 Page -10- Harrington: Forney: Little: Forney: Little: They maintain their position that they follow the master street plan recommendations. They prefer not to construct 36 foot streets in excess of master street plan requirements and will take their request to City Council. The applicant notes that Mall Lane has been made a public way and anticipates a connection to Shiloh. There is also a flyover shown connecting Highway 71 North. He would like clarification regarding compliance with the Master Street Plan. The Master Street Plan is a guide with width requirements outlined. The developer needs to construct roads that will support the traffic for his development. In reference to the current project, it was discussed at Subdivision Committee to postpone discussion of several street connections until large scale development. They have not deviated from the Master Street Plan in regard to the 170 acres being considered with this phase of the project. There are lines drawn on the traffic report reflecting the developer's idea of future development. He agrees that there are no deviations from the Master Street Plan within the current development. He has concerns that the connection from Shiloh to the southwest reflects discrepancies from the traffic study (page 5) to the Master Street Plan diagram. The principle arterial to the west is Van Asche Street which turns into Steele Boulevard. The developer is proposing another street which goes down to connect to Shiloh Drive. The developer's current proposal shows Shiloh Drive extending to the east. The development of the street at lot 7 has been deferred until the development of that lot, and staff has opted to take the right of way in lieu of that street development. Reynolds: Will the city participate to make the bridge a four -lane as opposed to a two-lane? Venable: That was designated in the Capital Improvements Program, and funds will be available for participation in the bridge project. Harrington: With regard to the language in item #3, "shall provide", they would prefer that it read "reasonable requirements will be met and worked out with the staff, and if there is any issue that cannot be resolved, it will be resubmitted to the Planning Commission". Odom: Item #4 should be changed to read "the construction of the trail shall be adjacent to and contiguous with the north edge of the flood way." Beavers: Peters: Regarding item #17, it was his understanding that per discussion in subdivision committee, an agreement was reached that the developer would provide the hardware for the stop lights, and the city would install them. His study has identified the need for five signal locations. It is his recollection that Perry Franklin proposed the division Mr. Beavers mentioned, and he feels that it would be a fair split of costs for the developer to provide for the cost of the stop lights themselves and for the city to provide for the installation. • • • Planning Commission meeting September 14, 1998 Page -11- Milholland: Regarding item #I7, he has spoken with John Garcia and Betty Fay at the county extension office. There is a grant available for Mud Creek, but it is for education, not for construction. The grant is for the entire Mud Creek basin, so there would be no available funds for trail construction. Harrington: She would like to point out that this grant was not sought by the applicant; staff had recommended that the developer investigate the availability of grant funds. Estes: Johnson: Forney: Peters: He has reviewed the traffic study provided by Peters and Associates. The level of service is projected to be better than Dat Gregg and the bypass, and at Greg and Van Asche. This level approaches unstable flow, and the likelihood of accidents is greater. The proposed roads required to disburse traffic do not currently exist. He doesn't feel that he has enough information to approve the project, although he would like to see this project develop. He wants to see an additional traffic study. Staff has provided a transparency showing the immense nature of this development in relation to other developments in the Fayetteville area This development is larger than the current Northwest Arkansas Mall. She would like to see enough right of way dedicated to construct four -lane roads along Van Asche east of Steele and from Shiloh north to Van Asche regardless of what the developers are required to construct at this point. She feels four -lane roads are necessary to service the traffic in this area He has compared this development in size to the downtown area and has noticed that they are roughly the same. While the downtown area has a network of connecting streets, the CMN project doesn't have a south outlet, its east outlet is Joyce, its west outlet is Van Asche , and he doesn't see that those streets are enough to support this development. The problem as he sees it is how to get more access to the project. The proposed flyover might not do any good. Are there studies on the traffic level at the intersection of Highway 71 B and Joyce? He assumes there will be a high volume of left turns in that area which will create traffic congestion. He is willing to defer to Perry Franklin's comments, but he can provide the figures that there will be an estimated 56,000 daily trips into and out of the area at full development of the 309 acres, not just the current phase of the project which is currently being reviewed In constructing this figure, he has attempted to be fully objective and comply fully with zoning estimates. They have looked at the most recent traffic volume data on the surrounding street system. They have taken into account not only development on this street system, but also growth development to the surrounding areas, including the full development of Spring Creek and the Lindsey property. They have included also the 5% of traffic flow from the proposed flyover, which may or may not ever be built, and that amounts to 1400 vehicle trips per day. There were two street segments at level service D, all other segments are at C level. Level service C is the optimum street design, but accepted city standard is D level. The developers have agreed to increase the number of lanes on certain segments. The Van Asche to the west connection has great future significance, and provisions should be made for accommodating the 4 -lane route through that area. The developer • • • Planning Commission meeting September 14, 1998 Page -12- Estes: Peters: Estes: has agreed to construct two lanes from Steele Boulevard west eventually connecting to Gregg Street with the city picking up the balance of the remaining two lanes in the future. They envision that Mall Lane will eventually be connected with Shiloh creating the east -west connection. He disagrees with commissioner Fomey's comparison of this development with the downtown area, and he feels that the street system will adequately support this development. He has pursued a preliminary cost estimate for an overpass providing a north -south connection over 71 B and to eliminate the interchange at Gregg Street, but the cost would be approximately four million dollars, and an individual developer found that construction cost prohibitive. He requests that the city put plans for the overpass on the Master Street Plan and construct it when funds become available. He believes that traffic issues can be considered when large scale development reaches full impact. The traffic coming from the west would enter by the Gregg Street exit, although that connection is not labeled that way. It is a one lane sharp turn to the right with the traffic control being one stop sign. Beyond that, the traffic would tum right and go north. Would a four way stop be adequate to control traffic? At this time, yes. In the long term, he believes that the Highway Department will be forced to look at an alternate design for that interchange. The railroad to the west of Gregg Street is a limiting factor to an off ramp. If a new interchange aligning Steele Boulevard and North Hills to the south were constructed, the Gregg Street configuration could be totally eliminated. In reference to traffic from the south, people coming from that direction stop at the stop light at the Joyce Street intersection and make a u -turn to the west. Would people access this project in the same manner? Peters: He doesn't think so. He thinks that cars would more likely enter via Joyce Boulevard. Estes: The traffic projection for the flyover has been included in the traffic study even though the structure has not been constructed. Peters: He indicated that structure because it was shown on the Master Street Plan, and he felt it would be an oversight to ignore it. The flyover is unlikely to occur. Estes: Is his concern about the west access from the Gregg Street connection a legitimate concern? Peters: Yes, it is Forney: The Spring Creek Center traffic generation is included in the traffic study with a volume of about 23,600 cars. The CMN development shows about 56,000 cars even though the square footage of CMN is roughly 4 times the square footage of Spring Creek. This seems to be a discrepancy. Peters: At the time this table was put together, the expansion of Spring Creek west of Mall Lane was proposed. Much of it was built. The developer had specific land • • • Planning Commission meeting September 14, 1998 Page -13- uses in mind for the remaining expansion, and the figures are more accurate based on actual use. The CMN traffic projections are not that specific because all the information is not available. They can take factors into account and estimate traffic for the zone and proposed land use. Forney: Since there are so many unknown variables, he thinks they should anticipate the worst case scenario of traffic so that they will be prepared. Peters: That would be inconsistent with the intent of the development project. If they assume worst case scenario, they will construct more road than needed, which will be wasteful in terms of resources, materials, and parking. For a regional development like this, there are quite a few "pass by" trips from place to place instead of to and from a residence. Forney: He doesn't want to overbuild, but he wants to utilize the available space without having to reconstruct structures later. Estes: Is it possible to get an independent traffic study. Beavers: It is possible, but the expenditure of funds would be left to the discretion of the City Council. Franklin: Forney: Franklin: Johnson: Venable: Odom: Venable: At Joyce Street and College Avenue when Wal-Mart opened up, the west side of the intersection generated 8,350 cars. Many more were projected. The Spring Creek estimates were high. The improvements in this area have greatly improved traffic flow. There is level service E during the 5 p.m. peak traffic in that area. When the new Joyce extension to Wilkerson went in, the traffic levels went from approximately 15,000 to approximately 8,000 to give an example of how much a minor improvement can greatly alter and diffuse traffic patterns. He still has concerns about traffic in that area with the Spring Creek development generating E level service at peak. What will an additional development's traffic do to that intersection? How will the intersection be able to handle that? He believes that the Van Asche improvement is a workable solution to these concerns. The 56,000 figure quoted by Mr. Peters is for both in and out traffic movements. It does not reflect 56,000 cars going through an intersection one way at one time. He is comfortable with Mr. Peters' traffic study and does not feel that an independent study is necessary. The project consists of about 170 acres. The only new access is Shiloh. All other traffic will have to rely on existing access. Gregg Street will be improved to a four lane road, which will improve the traffic flow problem. Where is that project on the Capital Improvements Program? His closest estimate is that it will take three years for completion. • • • Planning Commission meeting September 14, 1998 Page -14- Reynolds: Venable: Johnson: Venable: Johnson: Franklin: Johnson: Franklin: Forney: Franklin: Forney: Beavers: Johnson: Milholland: Beavers: Milholland: Has anyone considered putting an overpass at Gregg Street and Van Asche to run the traffic straight west? No. There might be a possibility of an interchange at Van Asche and 71 at some time, but there is no current plan to do so. Is there a possibility for any other connection other than the ones that already exist --Van Asche, Shiloh and Joyce --for the next 30 years. If the project doesn't develop out for 20 years, they should be planning at least 30 years ahead. The Master Street Plan would have to be updated by then. There are several long-term possibilities, but it is hard to predict that far ahead. She would like Mr. Franklin to answer the question of whether or not he thinks this development will be adequately served by one new access--Shiloh--and the existing streets. He looks at that in terms of numbers 56,000 trips per day divided by two to consider trips both directions. It's a different type of traffic because there are no exact figures on the generation of different types of trips. He can't visualize when these trips are going to occur on any given weekday. What kind of right of way would he recommend that the commission get now to incorporate future development on Van Asche and Shiloh. To the south of Steele, the interchange there would greatly benefit Fayetteville and he would like to see that on a 30 year plan. What is the overall level of service for the College and Joyce intersection? Service C, except for the p.m. peak at 5:00. The Steele to the bypass connection would be the most efficient way to get people on and off this site. The commission would need a preliminary layout to determine exact figures but the Master Street Plan requires a minimum of 96 feet (including green space) for the four lane and 110 feet for the boulevards. She would like to see enough right of way granted for the construction of four lane streets on all proposed streets regardless of what is actually constructed. For collector streets on the Master Street Plan, 70 feet is enough for 4 lanes including the sidewalk. The plan presented would allow for 4 lanes. The Master Street Plan requires a minimum of 90 feet with 6 feet of greenspace. This figure also includes a turn lane, which he feels is necessary. We feel like we have offered enough right of way at this point. The Master Street Plan only calls for 36 feet. • • • Planning Commission meeting September 14, 1998 Page -15- Forney: The numbers generated by the traffic study are based on assumption. He doesn't have the assurance that traffic will be adequately addressed. Hoover: Is lot 9 a greater traffic density than the number that was presented in the study? Peters: He has no specific knowledge on proposed development for lot 9. He would like to reiterate that there are some tracts that will have higher intensity tract use. When the specific tracts come for large scale development, the Planning Commission will be able to make a proper decision on them. Irwin: Traffic has always been an issue since June of 1995 when the project was started. That is the reason they are coming before the commission with phase one only. They share the commissioners' concerns that this project is done right from the beginning so that it doesn't have to be reconstructed at a future date. They have tried to be cooperative during the project review process. They would prefer to address issues as they come up, but they would like to get authorization to start the project. Forney: He would like the commission to consider requiring an on-ramp connection from the bypass to Steele and an off -ramp onto Shiloh. Irwin: That is a state issue and must be addressed with the State Highway Department. Johnson: The sidewalk waiver needs to be in the conditions. The commission is only waiving the construction of the sidewalk to the north side only of Shiloh at lot 6. She would like to include that the developer will be allowed to put the utility easements in the flood plain during construction of the trail. Little: Johnson: There needs to be an understanding that if the developer dedicates that portion of land for a utility easement, that the city doesn't allow construction of facilities in utility easements. There will be no construction of pavilions or other trail structures allowed in that area. She would request that condition #I3 be amended to ad the sentence, "The developer retains the right to put utilities in and across this easement." Condition #17 should be amended to say that the developer will pay for the cost of materials for the traffic lights, and the city will provide the installation for the traffic lights." She feels that they need right of way for 4 lanes for all the streets located in this particular tract, a minimum of 90 foot easement. Milholland: Some of those streets platted are not on the Master Street Plan. Beavers: Milholland: Johnson: He is referring to the specifications outlined in the Master Street Plan, not the streets themselves. These streets have been enlarged beyond what the Master Street Plan has called for. The Master Street Plan could not have contemplated a 309 -acre development adjacent to the mall, adjacent to Spring Creek, across 71 from the other Planning Commission meeting September 14, 1998 Page -16- development, and reality suggests that this will be some of the most heavily traveled area in Fayetteville. She isn't suggesting that the developer build these streets, rather that the developer allow for additional street construction. Milholland: When the Master Street Plan was updated, they had information on this project. This land had already been rezoned. Realistically, 80 feet is all you need to build four lanes, two sidewalks, and ten feet of greenspace on each side. Odom: Does this development have any type of restrictive covenants? Irwin: They definitely will have that, and it will come back for approval. Forney: Is there mention made in staff's comments of consistent design theme? Little: Yes, it is condition #18. It is required by commercial design standards. Beavers: He would ask that the commission review condition #5. He wants to know if Steele Boulevard is required to be put in for the project to go forward. Irwin: The answer is yes. Johnson: She wonders about the possibility for Steele to eventually have an on-ramp to the bypass. Beavers: If you want four lanes in the future, and you want 80 feet of right of way, that limits your tum lanes and greenspace between the back of the curb and the sidewalk. Johnson: Do you feel that 90 feet is a reasonable number? Beavers: 96 feet is what it actually comes out to be. You could possibly compromise the greenspace, but he doesn't recommend it. If you desire four lanes, that is staff's recommendation. Three lanes would probably be adequate for the north part of the development, but the southern part with the interchange should have more right of way reserved. Mr. Venable feels that the interchange should be to the east. When the new hospital development comes in adjacent to this property, a specific location might be pinpointed. Irwin: Little: Estes: One of the three property owners is not present, so he can't come up with a specific opinion of the group. He suggests that the commission make a recommendation, and they will do their best to work with it. The Master Street Plan has streets outlined, but it also has street sections. The question of what it takes to put in a four lane street ultimately calls for a standard. It takes 96 feet to build a four lane section. If they are contemplating an interchange with the proposed hospital development, he feels that it is reasonable to consider a 96 foot right of way on Steele. • m • Planning Commission meeting September 14, 1998 Page -17- Odom: Johnson: He reviewed the waiver requests. The trees being removed should be replaced with trees of comparable size where the developer gets the waiver for the grading. Commissioner Odom moved to approve the waiver requests 1-5 subject to staff comments with the inclusion that the developer replace the trees that were lost with ones of comparable size, per condition #3. Commissioner Reynolds seconded said motion. The motion was approved on a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve PP 98-4.00 subject to staff conditions of approval with the addition in condition #13 that the developer retains the right to put utilities across the 20 foot trail easement, and in condition #17 that the city will install the traffic lights with the equipment and materials being provided by the developer. In addition, add condition #20 stating that the city obtain a 96 foot right of way on Steele south of Van Asche and Van Asche east of Steele but that the streets will be constructed as shown. Commissioner Reynolds seconded said motion. Commissioner Odom moved to amend the motion to require the developer to obtain on-off ramps from the State Highway Department at the south end of Steele Boulevard and that once obtained, the right of way for these ramps shall be dedicated by the developer. Commissioner Estes seconded the motion to amend the previous motion. The motion to amend failed on a vote of 4-4-0. Commissioners Estes, Hoover, Forney and Tucker voted in favor of the motion, and Commissioners Odom, Reynolds, Johnson and Ward opposed the motion. The original motion failed on a vote of 4-4-0. Commissioners Odom, Reynolds, Johnson and Ward voted in favor of the motion, and Commissioners Estes, Hoover, Forney and Tucker opposed the motion.