Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-07-15 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A JOINT FAYETTEVILLE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE AND WASHINGTON COUNTY TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING A joint meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee and Washington County Technical Review Board was held on Thursday, July 15, 1993 at 5:30 p.m., in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas FAYETTEVILLE MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred and Bob Reynolds WASHINGTON COUNTY MEMBERS PRESENT: John Crone, Lewis Foster, Emmet Barney and Earl Fochtman OTHERS PRESENT: Bill Lonon, Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Randy Allen, Sid. Norbash, Jim Brink, Sharon Langley, and others PRELIMINARY PLAT - CRYSTAL SPRINGS SUBDIVISION, PHASE I JED DEVELOPMENT, INC. - E OF SALEM, N OF MT. COMFORT The meeting was held to discuss a preliminary plat for Crystal Springs Subdivision, Phase I, to be developed by JED Development, Inc. The property is located on the • east side of Salem Road, north of Mt. Comfort Road, outside the City Limits. There is a total of 39.9 acres with 119 proposed lots. • Ms. Little advised the meeting had been called to take comments from the county, the city, the developer and interested citizens. She explained the meeting would be opened to the public after the committee had made their deliberations. Ms. Little suggested Jerry Allred, Chairman of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee, chair the meeting. She informed those present there had been a Plat Review Meeting on Crystal Springs Subdivision on May 6, 1993. She stated the comments from that meeting included installation of curbs and gutters; installation of storm drainage system; water supply; and the platted lot sizes shown did require service by a sewer system. She noted additional facilities the City would like included open space or parks fees; street lights; fire hydrants; a property owners' association to maintain any common grounds, including shown entry islands; provision of sidewalks; and a tree preservation plan. She further advised there were some joint city/county issues, which included maintenance of roads and adequacy of Salem Road in the vicinity of the subject project; a need for provision for access to adjoining property owners; and the need for provision to connect Raven Road through to Phase I. She stated an addition issue which surfaced due to public comments was the investigation of soils and identify the possibility of any sink holes on the site. She stated the city would like to have these requirements met, reach an agreement with the county on any joint issues and hear additional concerns from the public. Mr. Lonon explained the primary purpose for their request for a joint meeting was to address some of the concerns which had been forwarded to his office, including improvement of streets and access to those streets. He advised they also had 10'4 • Joint Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 2 • • additional comments from the general public who had attended the concept plat hearing and preliminary plat hearing (which had been tabled) . He stated that, in many cases, the city had some authority over road design and road hierarchy which could be higher than county standards. He explained the county standards concerned structural design criteria which he believed were higher than the city's standards. He further explained it was their hope they could jointly decide any discrepancies between the two sets of regulations. He noted their standards specifically set out that, in the growth area, the higher standards should prevail whenever they differed. Mr. John Crone explained they had looked at the hierarchy standards. He stated they understood it was the county's role to stay within the idea of roads and access to development. He further stated they had to pass judgment upon where the access points occurred and the impact they would have on the existing roads. He explained their approach was to look at City Code 159.49 and assess it from a professional point of view on the basis of (G) which said "local street systems should be designated to minimize through traffic movements" and (J) which read "a minimum amount of space should be devoted to street uses." He stated they had made specific comments as how they could achieve both objectives. He advised they had made very specific arguments on how the subdivision could be improved and recommended the city review those comments. Mr. Allred asked if the developer would have to ask for a waiver of the county subdivision regulations and then accept the city's regulations. Mr. Lonon explained this meeting was serving as the county's plat review. He stated the developer had specifically requested a waiver of the street construction standards to permit him to construct all streets and storm drainage to the City's standards. He explained county standards called for soil tests to be conducted to determine the type of base and sub -base necessary. He advised the soil test could create a hardship due to the cost of conducting the test. Mr. Jim Brink, County Street Superintendent, stated the developer was requesting to build the streets to the city standards rather than the county standards. Ms. Little advised the city standard did require testing to determine the type of base required. She noted she had talked to Mel Milholland, the engineer for the project, and he had indicated the developer would be willing to provide a 50 -foot right-of- way, paving 31 feet back to back, and perform testing in accordance with county testing procedures. Mr. Lonon stated that, if the developer would be doing the testing, he would not need a waiver. Mr. Brink advised part of the streets would be Class III streets, which required a 70 -foot right-of-way if using curb and gutter. He explained they went by the traffic count, figuring 5 trips per household per day. Joint Subdivision Committee • July 15, 1993 Page 3 • Ms. Little asked the purpose of the additional right-of-way if the pavement width was only 31 feet. Mr. Brink explained the pavement width back to back was 45 feet instead of 31 feet. Ms. Little explained the City required 80 to 100 feet only on major arterials within the city and 60 to 80 feet on minor arterial streets. Mr. Foster asked if it was true the developer had requested a waiver from the county on the construction of streets in favor of city standards. He asked if that was the request they were considering. Ms. Little stated that was her understanding. She advised it was also her understanding the developer would be willing to comply with the county soil testing standards. Mr. Foster pointed out the subject area had leaf soil with low bearing capability and seasonal high water. Ms. Little stated the county's testing procedures covered soil testing and their requirements for base and sub -base would be adjusted for that soil type. Mr. Allred asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the roads after the project was completed. Ms. Little stated the county would maintain the roadways until the property was annexed. Mr. Crone pointed out the county had higher construction standards but the city had higher design standards. Ms. Mickey Harrington, representing Howard Davis and JED Development, stated they were happy there was a joint meeting of the two different bodies to avoid misunderstandings or miscommunications between the two governmental entities. She pointed out this development did affect both entities. She stated it was their hope to leave the meeting with a clear indication they could go on to the next step, which was a hearing on the preliminary plat before the county on August 2. Ms. Little stated it was a city policy that subdivisions in the growth area would. receive county approval prior to being placed on the City agenda. Ms. Harrington stated they hoped to discuss the waiver even though some of the things to be waived (all of the county street requirements) had been agreed to. She explained they were not requesting a waiver from all of the county regulations. She further noted they were available to answer any questions either from the governmental bodies or the neighbors of the development. • Ms. Little advised the city needed additional information. She explained that, since this was a subdivision in the growth area, certain city amenities could not be required. She requested the developer be prepared to answer whether they would • Joint Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 4 • • install such facilities as street lights, fire hydrants, sidewalks, open space or parks fees, the provision of a property owners association to maintain common grounds, and a tree preservation plan. Mr. Davis stated they were willing to provide all of those amenities. Mr. Lonon explained the technical advisory committee would not be voting on the waiver but would be presented to the County Planning Board. Mr. Crone asked what design standards the city would require in the growth area. Ms. Little explained the city had different subdivision regulations for rural subdivisions. She stated the city regs said the adequacy of the street was decided upon by the traffic engineer and he had promised to give her a statement regarding the design of the street for presentation to the Planning Commission. She further stated he had advised her he did not have a problem with the way the streets were laid out. Mr. Crone stated the county only maintained, as far as the layout, the access points. He advised that was all that was written in the code as far as the design. He recommended that the northernmost access be curtailed and allow one access point off of Salem Road. He explained the one access could then integrate and create a loop which every other street in the subdivision could access, creating a logical hierarchy. Ms. Little advised that would not meet the city's requirement of two accesses. Mr. Allred pointed out Salem was considered as a major arterial. He asked why they would not want as much traffic as possible flowing to Salem and keep other traffic out of the subdivision. Mr. Crone stated the logic would be explained if they considered there would be 600 - 800 houses in the subdivision. He showed the group a hierarchy road system and pointed out the city's standard of "local street system should be designated to minimize through traffic" addressed this issue. Ms. Little explained the city's reasoning had been that, if there was another way out, they were minimizing through traffic so everyone in the subdivision did not use the same ingress/egress. Mr. Allred suggested the proposed street to the east have some curves and turns in order to slow the traffic down. He stated the idea was to get the traffic out of the subdivision onto the major arterial as quickly as possible so the entire neighborhood was not disturbed. Ms. Harrington stated she had been counsel for the City of Springdale Planning Department for eight years and found that, for safety and emergency vehicle access, two entries were best. She further noted the developer had studied this layout for quite some time and felt fairly wedded to the layout. • Joint Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 5 • • Ms. Little advised both the fire chief and police chief had reviewed the plat and had no comments regarding emergency access. She further noted that, in subdivisions with only one access, they had required an emergency access which had been a gravel base covered by grass. She explained that allowed an entrance for emergency vehicles if the one entrance was blocked. She explained that was a compromise measure in those instances when they could not get another access. Mr. Allred stated they also would request those properties backing up to Salem not be allowed to have driveways onto Salem but enter through the subdivision. Mr. Lonon stated he had a questions about those lots, pointing out they only had a depth of 140 feet. He asked if that was considered an adequate buffer to an arterial street. Mr. Allred expr ssed hope the developer would provide screening along Salem Road. Mr. Davis advised they did have plans for some screening along Salem Road. He further noted there would be no driveways entering Salem Road. Mr. Brink asked for a copy of the city's plans and specifications for roadways. He asked who would be doing the inspection on the streets -- the city or county -- if the waiver were granted. Mr. Allred stated he believed that, if the waiver were granted, the city should do the inspection. He suggested that, if the waiver were granted, there be a joint meeting between the city and county road departments prior to road construction in order to address any problems that might arise. Ms. Little stated that, if she understood correctly, the waiver was not for the sub- base nor the testing procedures. She explained that, whatever was required to meet construction standards, would be adhered to. Mr. Allred agreed and explained the sub -base would not be waived but the street width would only be 31 feet. He suggested the county should do the inspection on the base and then sign off with the city. Ms. Little stated that, since this was a gray area and there needed to be additional coordination, there be a memorandum of agreement between the city and county as to has responsibility for which steps in the process so the developer knew what was expected and who to coordinate with. Mr. Tom Muccio expressed concern regarding drainage problems . He requested they not grant a waiver on anything which would aggravate the drainage. He asked if city code 159.48, Fitness for Development, would come into play. He pointed out the area was in the flood plain with very unstable soil. He stated it was his understanding that, until proper testing was done, the Planning Commission had the ability to not subdivide until there was adequate consideration upon the impact to the area. He pointed out this was a portion of a larger subdivision. He advised that, when the County reviewed the plat and the neighboring residents expressed concern • Joint Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 6 • • regarding the drainage, the County's opinion had been there were excessive streets which would aggravate the drainage if not adequately designed. Ms. Little explained the city had two requirements: first, a drainage plan had to be submitted just past the preliminary plat stage and would have to be approved by the City Engineer (including proper disposal of all storm run-off) and second, an engineering determination of the soils classification. She explained this was not only at the design phase of the subdivision but at the approval of the building permit stage also. She explained the city process of inspection. She stated the soil consideration entered into more than just the design phase. She also noted a grading permit was required on each subdivision which was submitted prior to subdivision approval or the subdivision was approved subject to submission and approval of the grading plan. Mr. Lonon explained the County had a similar process for street design profiles and master drainage plan profiles and specs. He suggested that, if a similar document was to be presented to both entities, they could jointly review the plans. Mr. Jim Selby asked if the developer planned to installing sidewalk along Salem Road. Mr. Davis stated he had agreed to installing a sidewalk. Mr. Selby advised Salem Road was of an inadequate width for both the city and county standards. Ms. Little advised that was being addressed. Mr. Selby also expressed concern on the width of the interior street. He pointed out the county standards were higher than the city's. Mr. Allred explained the down side of the wider paved streets was that more run off was created. Ms. Little stated it was not typical to have shoulders when there was curb and gutter. Mr. Selby stated that, with the extra traffic, they would need extra road width. Mr. Crone stated he believed Mr. Selby was suggesting a wider right-of-way. Mr. Selby stated he did not believe the group present had the authority to change county road specifications. Mr. Lonon pointed out they were not voting on any change of standards or any waiver request at this meeting. He explained any waiver request had to be formally presented to the Planning Board and would be voted upon at the same time as the preliminary plat review. He further noted there was some misunderstanding as to what variance the developer was requesting. He explained the county standards, in the growth ar a, were more in line with the city standards. • • Joint Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 7 Mr. Selby asked if there was a traffic count for Salem Road. Mr. Brink stated they did not take traffic counts on county roads but were assisted by the State Highway Department. He advised he did not know if there had been a count taken in this area. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Brink advised Salem had a 20 -foot paved width and a total width, including right-of-way, of 60 feet. Mr. Allred stated the sidewalk would be on the outer edges of the right-of-way. Mr. Brink stated it was his understanding that portion of Salem Road would be curbed and guttered on the side of the development. He advised the sidewalk would be behind the curb and gutter. Ms. Little stated the city typically required the developer to pay for improvements to that half of the road which abutted the subject property. She further advised she believed the County had the authority to require improvement up to 1/4 of a mile from a major intersection. Mr. Lonon stated that applied to substandard county roads. He noted Salem was double chip and seal surface which was substandard. Mr. Reynolds advised previous land owners had originally paid for the paving of the road rather than the county. In response to a question from Mr. Selby, Mr. Allred explained they were discussing on how to accomplish upgrading the roads and make a workable solution for everyone concerned. He advised that probably would require a waiver requested from the County Planning Board. Ms. Little stated she would like the County Board to consider reasonableness when considering the waiver. She further stated that, if there was a need for 45 feet width of pavement, they should require it; but, if there was no need, look at what was normally constructed. Mr. Wilson Kimbrough stated he was concerned with Mr. Allred's answer to Mr. Crone regarding easing of traffic internally within the neighborhood. He expressed concern that 115 homes would dump a great deal of traffic onto Salem Road and then it would be just a few minutes before it was in his neighborhood. He asked the group to look at traffic from a larger perspective and look at the impact on the surrounding areas. He stated it sounded as though they believed the traffic problem would be solved once it was on Salem Road. Mr. Allred explained his intent was that there would still be the same number of cars whether there was one ingress/egress or two. He stated if there were two points of access, part of the traffic should go north to Howard Nickel Road and then to the east with the balance going to the south to Mt. Comfort which would disburse the traffic. • • • Joint Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 8 Mr. Kimbrough advised he was concerned about the increase of traffic on Salem Road. He stated that would impact the quality of living along Mt. Comfort Road. He requested they look at the impact and ramifications to the surrounding area. He noted there had been discussion regarding placing an elementary school in the area which would have further impact for the existing residents. Mr. Al Zaccanti, an adjoining property owner to the east, spoke in favor of the development. He asked if his property would have access to the proposed roadways. Ms. Little pointed out the proposed Crystal Drive did have access to the east. She stated staff had commented earlier that the stub out to the east could be moved mid - block, which appeared would give access to Mr. Zaccanti. Mr. Zaccanti agreed. He pointed out that, without that access, everything would be funneling onto Salem and Salem would not be able to take it. Mr. Crone disagreed. He stated any of the roads could take any amount of traffic if there were some type of alternate plan made within a set of standards. He stated that, if they would look at the whole area, they could size the streets to handle any amount of traffic in a logical, sequential way. He noted what was missing was the application of standards beyond the 40 acres. Mr. Allred stated his concern was not flow of traffic but to slow it down. He explained that whenever there was a long, straight stretch, the speed of the traffic tended to increase. Mr. Selby also expressed concern regarding additional run-off. He advised the roadway already flooded and additional construction would flood everything below the road. Mr. Allred explained some of the requirements set out included storm drainage system, catch basins, etc. Mr. Selby stated the City of Rogers had been requiring subdivisions to construct catch basins for the last 25 years. Mr. Lonon asked if the City of Fayetteville had a requirement for catch basins. Ms. Little stated the City had a requirement for a drainage plan and use whatever was required to reduce the flow of run-off. Mr. Selby expressed concern that they not approve the subdivision until the drainage problems were solved. Ms. Little explained the drainage plan was approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Allred pointed out subdivisions were approved contingent upon the studies being successfully completed and workable. He stated no construction could begin until the engineer signed off on the drainage plan, the grading plan, etc. He stated that was in the city ordinance. Joint Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 9 Mr. Selby stated the plat showed various items and he hadbeen told that was the minimum requirement. Ms. Little and Mr. Allred attempted to explain that was why the preliminary plat was reviewed by staff, a technical review committee, the Subdivision Committee and the Planning Commission. Mr. Allred noted if those items needed to be changed from the minimum after review and testing, that would be a requirement. Mr. Lonon advised the County also approved preliminary plats subject to storm drainage and run-off plans. He noted they had over a page of requirements. Mr. Selby stated he did not think it was right they expected a developer to spend money on putting together a plat when there was a possibility the soil would not meet minimum requirements. Ms. Little explained preliminary plat procedure gave the developer the right to spend the money to come up with adequate plans to address those concerns, those items which required further engineering. She advised the developer had a reasonable assurance, after preliminary plat approval, that the subdivision would be approved and could then start detailed studies to address the drainage, type of streets, etc. She stated that was the standard procedure. Mr. Selby asked who paid for the maintenance of the streets when they washed out because the developer did something wrong. Ms. Little advised they expected the streets to be property engineered so it would stand up a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Selby again asked who paid for it. Ms. Little stated it was turned over to the entity in which it was located for maintenance. She further noted that entity had to accept it for maintenance from the developer. Mr. Selby stated he understood the procedure but the taxpayers paid the bill. Mr. Lonon explained that was why they went to great lengths to assure the streets would stand up. Mr. Allred also pointed out the developer was liable civilly if he created problems for the adjoining property owners. Mr. Crone stated the adjoining land owner had to take the case to court. Mr. Reynolds pointed out there would be sewers for these lots rather than 800 septic tanks. A member of the audience stated the developer should have come prepared with some soil tests. • Joint Subdivision Committee July 15, 1993 Page 10 • • Ms . Little explained the engineer was aware of the soil. She stated they were trying to go through the regulations and make sure what the city and county required was met so the developer would have a reasonable expectation of what would be required of him in order to develop the property. Mr. Crone asked if they were agreeable Jim Brink and the City Engineer would get together and outline a policy that was agreeable to both the city and county to be forwarded to the developer. Ms. Little stated that was agreeable on the streets. Mr. Allred pointed out the developer had also agreed to meet the requested city requirements. Ms. Little stated it was her understanding the city would be the responsible entity for addressing the storm run-off. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little suggested the Subdivision Committee approve the preliminary plat for passage to the City Planning Commission subject to the memorandum of agreement on the streets and formal action by the County Planning Board. Mr. Lonon advised the preliminary plat was on the County's agenda for August 2. Mr. Allred asked if the Memorandum of Agreement needed to go to the City Council. Ms. Little advised the Director of Public Works could approve the Memorandum of Agreement rather than the City Council. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the preliminary plat to the Planning Commission subject to approval of the Memorandum of Agreement by the Director of Public Works and approval of the plat by the County Planning Board. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.