Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-12 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission Subdivision Committee was held on September 12, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson and John Forney STAFF PRESENT: Jim Beavers, Rich Lane, Beth Sandeen, Chuck Rutherford, and Heather Woodruff. PP95-23.40: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MARVIN GARDENS ROBERT WESTPHAL- S OF MEANDERING WAY & W. OF CROSSOVER RD. The first item on the agenda was resubmitted by Jorgenson and Associates on behalf of Robert Westphal for property located south of Meandering Way and west of Crossover Rd. The property is zoned R-1 and contains approximately 10.02 acres with 40 lots proposed. Mr. Beavers stated the item had been in front of the committee last month, but there had been several problems, the notification letters had been sent with the wrong time on it and Mr. Reynolds had requested further investigation of the drainage problems. Mr. Forney stated there had been discussion on street naming. Mr. Beavers stated he had received some revised calculations from Mr. Carter, which were satisfactory for preliminary drainage reports. He added, he thought one of the major concerns was the drainage around Manor and Ridgley. He had put a map together to show the drainage patterns. He suggested the City should do a project on Manor and Ridgley because they were receiving runoff from both directions, Hyland Park, Lovers Lane, and Canturberry and Mount Sequoyah. Mr. Jorgenson stated the area they were proposing to develop now would not affect the people on Manor Drive, but the next phase would affect them and the residents on Boardwalk but there would be detention ponds to allieviate the problems. He added he had gone to Boardwalk's property owners association meeting on Monday night to listen to their concerns regarding the fencing and the liablity of the detention ponds. Mr. Beavers stated the City did not require the detention ponds to be fenced, but they did require them to be safe. He added the City addressed safety generally and it was the designer's responsiblity to submit a safe design for review. Ms. Johnson questioned Mr. Jorgenson if he felt there was a need to fence the detention ponds. ion • Subdivision Meeting September 12, 1996 Page: 2 Mr. Jorgenson stated they had not fenced any of their other ponds: the pupose of the ponds were not to hold water, but to collect water during high periods of runoff and hold the water for two or three days and then drain. He added it would not be an open body of water and fencing it would make it more difficult to maintain. He stated the grading requirements were such that the slope of the ponds would be build so they could be easily mowed and maintained, including the entire bottom surfaces. He explained the retention ponds were required by the city drainage ordinance. He had prepared a graph to illustrate the effects the ponds would have during peak storm runoff, adding the postdevelopment flow would not exceed the predevelopment flow. Ms. Johnson added, according to the graph, the pond would also lessen the effect of the predevelopment runoff. Mr. Jorgenson stated there would be a pipe in the bottom of the pond to drain the pond. He explained, as the rain increased, it would fill up the pond and would be stored. The volume of the pond would be great enough to accommodate the excess amount of water due to the development. Mr. Forney question how the drainage system would handle larger 10, 50, 100 year storms. Mr. Carter stated the retention ponds would be designed to handle up to a 100 year storm. Mr. Forney questioned how all the water would be handled from the slopes to the ponds. Mr. Carter replied there would be a collection system designed to pick up the water at various curb inlets and funnelled through pipes to the retention pond. Mr Beavers stated the ordinance required 10 year storm runoff be carried in pipes. The difference between the 10 year and 100 year could be carried in pipes or over ground swale to the retention ponds. Mr. Carter stated that whenever possible, they designed the pipes to carry the 100 year storm, adding it was usually economically feasible to do it. Ms. Johnson stated the reason why so many people were concemed about this development was because there was an existing drainage problem. She questioned from where most of the existing problem originated. Mr. Forney added the Manor Drive swale was not affected by the development, but they would be setting a pattern for what they would be able to do in the second phase. 107 • Subdivision Meeting September 12, 1996 Page: 3 • Ms Johnson questioned if the surface water had been as bad before the development on Mount Sequoyah or if it had worsen in the area. Mr. Carter stated in general driveways and roof tops did increase the flow, and the existing problems were increased by the development. Mr. Jorgenson stated in '91 or '92 he had walked the drainage paths and talked with the property owners and found the majority of the runoff did not come from the proposed development phase, however, it would eventually come from a later phase. He added there was a rock line ditch down the property line going across Manor Drive and at that time the pipe was not adequate to handle the amount of flow as it existed. Ms. Johnson questioned if the City had of drainage requirements, when Shadow Ridge was developed as they prosently had. Mr. Beavers stated the drainage ordinance was passed June 19, 1995; prior to that time it was left to the developers engineers to handle the drainage. Ms. Johnson stated the drainage ordinance should help prevent the problems that had occurred in the past. She questioned what they were doing now, that they would not have done before the drainage ordinance. Mr. Jorgenson stated there was a large amount of detail work and calculations in determining the effect of the runoff. He stated when they finished the report there would be a report with a set of plans detailing where the curb inlet would go, how wide they would be, the pipe size and slope of the pipe and size of the detention pond. Mr. Beavers added they did not have the detention ponds prior to the ordinance and the water increased, it channeled down the streets and worked its way downhill side. Ms. Johnson question Mr. Beavers if since the problem area would develop later, they should additional drainage facility in the proposed area to try and accommodate the future problems. Mr. Beavers did not think that was necessary. Mr. Jorgenson stated what was shown was the preliminary but, when the detailed plan was finished, there would be a detailed layout that would show the various components of the drainage system, both the underground the concrete swales. • Mr. Forney questioned how the drainage problems would be handled during the construction process. �,o • Subdivision Meeting September 12, 1996 Page: 4 • Mr. Beavers stated they typically used open swales which directed the runoff into the ponds. Mr. Jorgenson stated there was an erosion control plan required by the State Pollution Control which had not been required a few year ago. He added they would place bales of hay and erosion control check dams to minimize the erosion. Mr. Beavers stated the plan was administrered by the Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. Mr. Jorgenson stated they had been working on the plat for more than a year and one of problems was the access to and from the subdivision. He reminded the committee that, during the last meeting the project had been tabled to provide another means of ingress/egress. He pointed out a street coming off of Boardwalk Subdivision to the north and a tie in to Ridgely to the south to provide two ways into the development. He advised eventually there would be another phase that would connect into Aurthers Court. He added, at the meeting Monday night, the property owners asked if it was possible to gate the entry from Boardwalk. Ms. Johnson questioned if that would make it a private street and the length of the street. Mr. Jorgenson stated the street was close to 500' long. He added there would be a full connection with improvements,( water, sewer, curb, gutter, inlets and drainage pipes )between Boardwalk Subdivision and Ridgely. He added they would like an entry sign in Boardwalk and they were open to suggestions. He added there would be covenants for Marvin Gardens similar to those of Boardwalk. He also reminded the Committee that, at the last subdivision meeting, it was pointed out there were several lots that were not very large, as a result lots 20 and 21 had been combined into one large lot and increased the size of lots 19 and 22; Lot 33 in the old layout (now lot 32) was also small so they increased the size and spaced out the lots more evenly to provide a better layout. He stated the lots were not as large as the lots on Manor Drive, but they were in the same size range of Boardwalk's lots Mr. Forney questioned the street naming. Mr. Jorgenson stated he had spoked with Jim Johnson who said he would get back to him on acceptable names. Mr. Beavers added they relied on Jim Johnson and Mickey Jackson for the street naming for safety and fire Mr. Fomey questioned if they needed to address issue of a gate. • Mr. Jorgenson stated there did not need to be a gate, just something to identify the subdivision. \A • Subdivision Meeting September 12, 1996 Page: 5 • Ms. Joanna Cook, an area resident, stated she lived in lot 22 in Boardwalk and she was located close to the detention pond. She question what her recourse would be if there were problems with the pond and the runoff came onto her property flooding her home and causing her property damage. Mr. Jorgenson stated Ms. Cook was located up hill from the proposed pond and she would not have any flooding due to the pond. He advised he did not know if the developer would be liable, but had gone to great lengths to insure the pond was sized to accommodate the floods that could occur and the factor of safety was high. Mr. Beavers did not think they could answer the question of liability because the pond would be dedicated to the City and he did not know if they could sue the City. The City would be responsible for the maintenance, but they did not warrant or assume liablility for the engineers design. Ms. Mitchell, resident, questioned what would be done with the area that was within the plat on the east side of Ridgely. She stated in 1992 they proposed a 22" drainage pipe installed in that area running across Manor. Mr. Jorgenson stated her notes were from a project that was never approved by the Planning Commission. Ms. Mitchell questioned if the requested drainage study had been done since the August meeting. Ms Johnson questioned if the appropriate drainage studies that were appropriate for the preliminary plat stage had been done. Mr. Jorgenson stated the studies had been done and they were being presented today. He pointed out the overall map and the enlarged view of the concept plat showed the areas affected and noted the benefit of the overall map was that you could see the water patterns as it ran down to the Manor Drive area where the problems were occuring. He stated the area included the southwest quadrant for future development, where they would have to address the affect of post development flows onto Manor Drive. He stated he thought they would be able to help the situation. Ms. Mitchell questioned if the people to the east, even with the retention pond, would be affected without making the necessary improvements to the drainage system. Ms. Johnson stated the studies had shown how the drainage would be handled on site; the other • property owners would not be adversertly affected by the development, but helped. (Iv \\v • Subdivision Meeting September 12, 1996 Page: 6 • • Mr. Forney noted the new ordinances required that the drainage problems be handled on site, but in 1992, the development could have directed the runoff off site, thus the larger drainage pipe Ms. Mitchell had referred to. Mr. Beavers stated Mr. Jorgenson had provided the additional information requested and Engineering would not ask for more studies, until the Commission approved the plat. He added, a typical drainage report would cost $30,000 to produce and did not think it was fair to require anyone to go through it if the Commission was not going to approve the project. Ms. Johnson stated the project had been before the Planning Commission several times. She assumed the developer had spent more money on this project than was typically spent to get this far. She added the Commission could only require them to do so much work, before the plans were approved. Mr. Buddy Babcock, an area resident, questioned where the drainage pipe from the retention pond went. Mr. Carter stated it would go into the existing drainage swales. He noted they would have more survey data and topographic data to help determine the exact location of the pipe and which drainage basin it would go into. Mr. Babcock stated the existing drainage ditch was totally inadequate to handle the water flow. He also questioned who would determine if the detention pond too large to be safe. Ms. Johnson questioned what control the City had over the design of the detention ponds. Mr. Beavers stated there were no controls. Mr. Babcock stated it was very important where the pipes would be located and the problems that would result from it. Ms. Johnson questioned if these elements would be addressed under the drainage studies. Mr. Beavers stated the issues would be addressed. Mr. Babcock stated if they designed the detention pond to handle the 100 year storm and reduce the existing problem, they were not going to want to put a big enough detention pond in the development and they would have to reduce the size of the lots to reduce the amount of runoff. There were two ways they could handle it they could build a bigger system to handle the runoff or they could reduce the amount of runoff. He added there would be a lot of maintenance problems with the street because it would become a river when there was a storm. 03 • Subdivision Meeting September 12, 1996 Page: 7 Ms. Trish Marshall expressed her concerns about the high traffic concentrations that would be generated, stating her children liked to ride their bikes on the streets. She also questioned if the lots sizes were compatible with the existing neighborhoods. Ms. Johnson stated the Planning Commission could not require that developments in 1996 have the same size of lots as the developments in the 50's, 60's and 70's. She did not think it was an appropriate planning tool. Mr. Rich stated they could not regulate lot sizes. Ms. Marshall stated she had heard that new buildings needed to be comparable to the lots in the area. Mr. Lane stated the City concerns were that the lots meet the minimum for the zoning. Ms. Mitchell questioned if the 2020 plan addressed compatible neighborhoods and if it would affect the two adjoin neighborhoods • Ms Johnson questioned if there were elements in this subdivision that would be incompatible with the existing subdivisions. • Mr. Jorgenson stated he thought the proposed development was compatible with Boardwalk and Park Place, but was not compatible with the two and a half acre lot sizes on Manor Drive. He noted there were not many lots in the 90's that were that size. He added, the improvements made to this plan would make it as good or better than the other new subdivisions in the area. Mr. Forney stated the 2020 plan addressed the zoning ordinances. They were not in a position, legally, to start basing compatibility on lot sizes that were not governed by a zoning ordinance. He added the project met the zoning requirements. Ms. Johnson stated it was human nature to not want the undeveloped land around them developed. She added, the only way they could control the lot sizes around them was to either buy in an already developed area or to buy a large undeveloped piece of property for themselves. Steve Nolan, an area resident, stated they could live with the existing drainage problem on Ridgley, but they could not handle any more runoff. Mr. Jorgenson stated he was aware of the existing problem, explaining that Mr. Horner had shown him the problem in 1991; the water came off of Ridgely and went through his front yard and into Mr. Nolan's property. He explained they were never able to follow through with any drainage improvement in the early 90's because the project was never approved. He added they g14 • • Subdivision Meeting September 12, 1996 Page: 8 • • were now under new regulations and they intended to try and help the situation. He had sized the pipe that came across Manor in the low area and it was not capable of handling a two year storm. Mr. Forney stated he was taking the drainage ordinance at it word, that the proposed development was not going to increase the existing drainage problems. In response to a previous question of liability, Mr. Babcock quoted from the Planning Commission Minutes of January 27, 1992, "Mr Bunn explained the recourse would be through the courts against the developers and engineers." Mr. Fryer, an area resident, commented that common sense needed to prevail. he knew the land would be developed some day, but he did not feel it was time because of the existing water problems and the congested traffic. Mr. Forney moved to forward the item on to Planning Commission in its current state. Ms. Johnson stated she would like to hear from staff and/or Mr. Jorgenson about street names and seconded the motion. 11C Subdivision Meeting September 12, 1996 Page: 9 PP96-7 10: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DEERFIELD PLACE GORDON WILKINS- N. OF HWY 16E AND W. OF MALLY WAGNON RD. The next item on the agenda was resubmitted by Jorgenson and Associates on behalf of Gordon Wilkins for property located north of Hwy 16E and west of Mally Wagnon Rd. The property is zoned R -O, residential -office, and R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 11 72 acres with 31 lots proposed. Ms. Johnson questioned what the previous problems had been, other than notification. Mr. Beavers stated Ms. Little had requested a stub out to the west. Mr. Carter added there had been a request to have sidewalks with a four foot green space and a tree preservation plan. Mr Beavers added there had been discussion whether on the improvements of Mally Wagnon should be made by the developer or the City. Ms Johnson questioned if it was a large enough development for them to require improvements to Mally Wagnon. Mr. Forney stated they would have to look at the site before they could make a recommendation. Ms. Sandeen stated there would be a screening requirement at the time a building permit was issued for the area between the R -O and R-1. Mr. Forney moved to forward to Planning Commission. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. Subdivision Meeting September 12, 1996 Page: 10 LSD96 31.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR SUNBRIDGE CENTER DICK KEATING- E OF GREGG AND N. OF SUNBRIDGE. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Dick Keating for property located east of Gregg Street and north of Sunbridge. The property is zoned C-1, neighborhood commercial, and contains approximately 2.35 acres. Mr. Lane stated the concerns about trees and drainage had been addressed. He questioned if some of the issues from Plat Review had not been addressed, referring to the required 50' right- of-way from center line on Gregg Street and 40' right-of-way from Keystone Crossing. Mr. Jorgenson stated that in his talks with Mr. Conklin it had been 40'on Gregg. Mr. Lane stated they could require 80' to 100' feet of right-of-way and it had been his understanding that at some point the street would be widen. In his last discussions with Ms. Little it was 50'. He asked about the share entrance that had been required with Petro Mart. Mr. Jorgenson stated they had spoked with Ms. Little on the subject and the entrance from Gregg Street onto White Oaks became cumbersome and Ms. Little had stated she would prefer one entry into the project instead of a shared entrance with the White Oak Station. He state the driveway entrance off of Gregg would be eliminated. Mr. Lane stated they had changed the parking requirement for restaurant, to one space per four occupants. Ms. Sandeen stated there was adequate screening. Mr. Beavers stated water and sewer would be subject to more review. Mr. Jackson, fire chief, advised he would not accept the fire hydrant as shown. In response to a question from Mr. Lane, Mr. Jorgenson stated he had spoken with Tim Lam, concerning the right-of-way and improvements on Gregg. He elated the State did not have any plans for widening Gregg Ave. He stated he would write Mr. Lam letter requesting a written directive pertaining to what improvements were needed. Mr. Rutherford stated it would make a better design if the sidewalks were continuous across driveways. Mr. Beavers stated Mr. Jorgenson and Mr. Carter were working on the drainage issues. He noted the culvert under Lakeside and the sodded ditch along Lakeside were inadequate. He added a Ili • Subdivision Meeting September 12, 1996 Page: 11 detention pond was not recommended because the project was so close to Skull Creek and if they could get the water through Lakeside entrance into Skull Creek, there should not be any problems. He questioned if they had heard from the State concerning the permit to do the work. Mr. Jorgenson stated he had not pursued it, because they were wanting to do all the work at the same time. Mr. Forney moved to forward the large scale development toy the Planning Commission. Ms. Johnson stated all the projects they had dealt with today would be forwarded to Commission with staff comments. • Subdivision Meeting September 12, 1996 Page: 12 LSD96-32.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR PROCTOR & GAMBLE CROMWELL AND ASSOCIATES -S MILLSAP AND E PLAINVIEW AVE. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Cromwell and Associates for property located south of Millsap Road and east of Plainview Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 3 55 acres. Mr. Kelly advised staff had requested the building be moved forward to the corner of th lot, with the parking in the rear. He explained his client had been opposed to the request and, after talking to Ms. Little, they had decided more berming and heavier landscaping would be required. Mr. Lane questioned the internal connections with the existing building to the east. He thought they had established the topography was to difficult. Mr. Kelly added the grades were steep but they might be able to accomplish it over the whole of the property. He noted they would have to cross some utility easements. Mr. Forney questioned the desire for a connection. Ms. Johnson questioned if the existing building would continue to be leased by Proctor and Gamble. Mr. Kelly stated it would be owned by the same people but it would not be leased by Proctor and Gamble. Mr. Forney questioned if the City was generally encouraging internal connection between buildings. Mr. Lane stated they were encouraging it so people would not have to get out on to the highway and go back in again. Ms. Johnson questioned if it made any sense to required the connection if there was no similarity in use. She added it would make sense if they were connecting a restaurant with retail, but she did not see any need for it with this use. Mr. Forney questioned if Proctor and Gamble would want people crossing the parking lot for security reasons. Mr. Lane stated the staff did not see any reason for the shared internal access. Ms. Johnson questioned if the cross access in the southwest corner would the entrance used by �r2 Subdivision Meeting September 12, 1996 Page: 13 another developer for an entry. Mr. Lane stated they tried to encourage shared entrances. Ms. Johnson questioned if they ever required an entry to be built such that it could serve the next development. Mr. Lane stated they had required it for Sunbridge Center. Mr. Forney added they had but they did not change the capacity. Mr. Kelly stated they had not discussed the entry being used by the next piece of property it had been discussed that it might want to loop across. Ms. Johnson stated she had no problem tring to reduce curb cuts, as long as they did not create some other dangers. She questioned if it was appropriate to do any thing additional with the entry on the southwest off of Plainview. Mr. Forney commented he did not want to change the neck width . He questioned if it met the parking lot ordinance. Mr. Lane questioned if Ms. Little had discussed connecting with the property to the south. Mr. Kelly stated they had discussed it and they were showing future cross access. Mr. Rutherford commented he would like to see the sidewalks continuous across the driveways. Mr. Kelly showed preliminary sketches of the proposed building. Mr. Forney moved to forward the item to the Planning Commission. Ms. Jolmson seconded the motion. 110 • Subdivision Meeting September 12, 1996 Page: 14 • • FP96-12: FINAL PLAT FOR WEDINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS. INC: N. OF WEDINGTON DR. & W. OF Hwy 71 The last item on the agenda was submitted by Development Consultants, Inc for property located north of Wedington Dr. and west of Hwy 71 Bypass. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 32 36 acres with three proposed lots. Mr. Beavers stated the sewer line on the west needed to have a 25' easement and 20' easement would be needed on the south. He added they would need the maintenance bond, before the plat would be signed. He added the changes could be on the mylar copy. Mr. Forney question if they could approve the item. Ms Johnson stated she did not feel she was a legitimate member and did not feel they should approve it. Mr. Ray stated it would not slow them down if they had to wait until the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Lane added they had discussed sidewalks on the drives and decided at the time of large scale development the sidewalks could be put in. Mr. Beavers added the drainage would be put off until the large scale development. Mr. Forney questioned why they were doing a final plat on something that would be revisited later. Mr. Ray stated it was the process of development. The owner, Steve Clary, did not have a buyer yet for the remainder of the property and because he did not know how a future client would like the property laid out he did not want to develop it further. He explained the land was being phased and this was the first phase. Ms. Johnson stated they had seen the plat before and questioned if they had discussed the location of the streets. She expressed concern about too many streets being located so close to Hwy 71. Mr. Ray stated lots 1 and 2 would not be allowed to have a curb cut on Wedington. The two streets shown would be the only access because of the difficult intersection. He added they had a concept plat and, as they had buyers, they would continue through the process. Ms. Johnson commented she thought it would be difficult, because of all the other things going 1U Subdivision Meeting September 12, 1996 Page: 15 on along Wedington. Mr. Ray stated he did not think a third drive or street would make a difference, because any development along the area would increase the concentration of traffic. Mr. Forney questioned if there had been some discussion during the concept plat about the potential connections to the north. Mr. Ray stated they might do one on the north and the east. Ms. Johnson questioned what they were asking to have approved now. Mr. Ray responded lots one, two and three. Ms. Johnson stated they were being asked to approve the whole thing for a final plat, so she thought they should be concerned about streets. Mr. Lane stated the purpose of the final plat was so they could go in and subdivide and sell off the lots. Mr. Ray stated it would have to subdivided again. Ms. Johnson stated if they knew they were going to want connections to certain streets why would they say they did not have to be shown now. Mr. Ray stated they did not know exactly where the roads would be. Mr. Beavers stated they would be private streets and would be made public when lot three was developed. Mr. Forney questioned if lot three would have the same restrictions that lots one and two did that they must not have curb cuts on the front. Mr. Ray stated he thought there had been a third street planned. Ms Johnson stated she would want to see the preliminary plat and the minutes from the meeting. Mr. Ray stated lots one and two were in the overlay district. He explained they were asked to approve lots one and two so they could sell them. He explained that, when lot three was subdivided again, they would see another preliminary plat and another final plat and they would also see the large scale development on each lot when it is developed. I Z2 • Subdivision Meeting September 12, 1996 Page: 16 • • Ms. Johnson moved to send the plat to the Planning Commission. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. 0 • Subdivision Meeting September 12, 1996 Page: 17 Irl