Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-14 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission Subdivision Committee was held on November 14, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: John Forney, Bob Reynolds, and Jerry Allred. Aleft Little, Jim Beavers, Dawn Warrick, Rich Lane, Heather Woodruff, Chuck Rutherford, and Beth Sandeen. LS96-49: LOT SPLIT D W. TIPTON D.W. TIPTON- S. OF DOT TIPTON RD. & W. OF 54TH ST. The first item on the agenda was submitted by D.W. Tipton for property located south of Dot Tipton Road and west of 54th Street. The property is in the county and contains approximately 4.76 acres. • MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the lot split. Mr. Fomey seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 3-0-0. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 14, 1996 Page 2 FP96-13.00: FINAL PLAT FOR DAVID LYLE SUBDIVISION FADIL BAYYARI- N. OF HWY 16 E. AND 1.5 MILES E. OF HWY 265 The next item on the agenda was submitted by Rob Petrie, Milholland Engineering, on behalf of Fadil Bayyari for property located north of Hwy 16 E and 1.5 miles east of Hwy 265. The property is zoned RS (Residential Small Lot) and R -O (Residential -Office) and contains approximately 15.14 acres with 63 units proposed. In response to a question from Ms Little, Mr. Petrie stated that, due to the weather there were some minor items and some asphalting to complete. Ms. Little asked if the City had a letter of credit. Mr. Beavers stated the letter of credit was not due until the final plat was submitted for signature. He added the City Engineer had not conducted a final inspection because of the weather, but they would not sign the final plat until everything was completed. Ms Little recommended the Subdivision Committee not approve the plat today, but wait until the Planning Commission meeting. The delay would give the City time to provide a detailed list of item left to complete and the approval could be subject to those conditions Mr. Beavers added there was a cash contribution due toward the improvements to Hwy 16 E and he would have a complete list of items for the Planning Commission meeting. Ms Little informed the Subdivision Committee the City had received the signed Conservation Easement which dedicated the property in the flood plain along the White River as the developer had originally offered. Ms Sandeen commented there was a bill of assurance for the planting of sugar maples. She asked how and when this would happen. Ms Little stated the trees would be planted when the lots were developed. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to forward the final plat to the Planning Commission with all staff comments and the Engineer's punch list was to be resolved by November 25th. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously 3-0-0. )3z Subdivision Committee Meeting November 14, 1996 Page 3 LSD96-37.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT WAL-MART WAL-MART- SW CORNER OF MALL LANE AND JOYCE STREET. The last item on the agenda was submitted by CEI Engineering on behalf of Wal-Mart for property located at the southwest corner of Mall Lane and Joyce Street. The property is zoned C- 2 (Thoroughfare Commercial) and contains approximately 24.94 acres. Ms. Little stated Mr. Forney had asked for two items relating to the Wal-Mart development. One was a copy of the approved version of the commercial design standards The other was a plat of the entire subdivision, its layout and connections. Ms. Bunch was providing this information. Mr. Forney questioned if the area north of the creek was owned by Nanchar. Ms Little stated it was and was zoned R -O, Residential -Office. She added this was the first development under the new commercial design standards. Ms. Bunch stated Wal -Mart's architect was proposing to use brick colored blocks on the lower • portion of the building and a buff color on the top portion of the building. They would paint the buff colored block as accent strips. This proposal would comply with the new design standards by matching the existing facilities. • Ms. Little asked if the drawing represented all of the signs they were wanting on the front of the building, explaining that, if the signs changed the look of the building, the Planning Commission would need to know. Mr. Reynolds questioned if Wal-Mart was changing their style noting the tire and lube was on the front. Ms Bunch replied there was a dock appendage on the front but they had not changed their design significantly. Ms. Little asked Ms. Bunch to explain the screening along Joyce Street. Ms. Bunch replied, as part of the design standards, they had integrated the block wall to screen all mechanical fixtures on the outside of the building; they were planting the existing 14' berm with trees. She pointed out the building was 30' high and from Joyce Street there would be a 14' berm with trees. Ms Little asked Mr. Maxwell to explain Mall Avenue changing from private to public. Mr. Jeff Maxwell, Clary Development, stated Mall Avenue was private to the south of Joyce l0 • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 14, 1996 Page 4 Street because they were wanting to maintain the landscaping themselves with irrigation and seasonal planting, but the north side of Joyce was an entrance into the Mall and should be public. Ms. Little stated it had been a landscaping issue. Clary had wanted the boulevard and the City had not wanted the responsibility of maintaining the boulevard. She reminded the committee that, When the first part of the development came through, the City had vacated a portion of Mall Lane. She stated Mr. Forney had brought up a circulation issue questioning what they could do to make the traffic flow better and to make sure all of the traffic did not dump into Joyce Street. As far as she knew, there no connections to the west from any Clary property. Mr. Maxwell stated the only connection was to Joyce Street. Ms. Little added the only other place for a connection would be near the creek in the flood plain. Mr. Maxwell stated they would be introducing other traffic into what they intended to be a service lane, which would be linked to the drive behind National which linked to Shiloh. Mr. Forney expressed concerns that Wal-Mart, National Home Center, and the Mall were all depending on Joyce Street as their ingress and egress. He suggested this was the City's opportunity to encourage connectivity to the south that would create another way in and out to ease some pressure. He knew no one wanted to build a bridge over the creek, but they had a large area dependent upon one public way. Mr. Maxwell stated they had completed traffic studies for the signals at Joyce and Mall Lane and Hwy 71 and Joyce with knowledge of the projected numbers for the development. He explained those studies were the reason Joyce was five lanes (it was sized adequately to handle all the traffic) and the reason the signal at Mall Lane and Joyce was in place. Ms Bunch stated Wal-Mart had owned the property for a long time and all the traffic studies had taken into account the Supercenter and its size. The issue of the bridge on Shiloh had been dropped due to the limited movement at Joyce Street and because of the closeness of Shiloh to Hwy 71. Clary Development was responsible for the entire development and had made more than a 40% contribution to the extension of Joyce Street, Mud Creek Bridge, and the revamp of the intersection at Hwy 71 and Joyce. She agreed the streets were dead end development streets but added they could not justify spending the money for more streets. She argued the development had contributed enough. Mr. Allred asked why they were wanting the deviate from the master street plan. Mr. Fomey commented they needed to resolve if the street was private or public. He expressed I'0 • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 14, 1996 Page 5 concerns that the City might lose the opportunity to make a connection later. Mr. Allred questioned why he would want the streets to be public and make the city maintain them. Ms Little stated the discussion was valid, but they should have done it when they approved the final plat. She questioned what was happening in the ditch to the south. Ms. Girelli stated there was not a defined ditch that far south, because the area was in the flood plain. She explained the velocity of the run off would be spread out because of the natural drainage way. Mr. Beavers stated the grading and drainage was subject to further review. Ms. Little stated that, if they were interested in more efficient circulation, they had the opportunity to take a public right of way along the front, near the intersection. Mr. Maxwell commented they should consider pedestrian traffic, before they considered converting internal drives into city streets. Pedestrian would be at an increase risk with the speeding traffic. Mr. Reynold commented that Fiesta Square was telling their employees the opening date would be next November. Ms. Bunch stated they were shooting for a January bid date. Mr. Reynolds asked if Gregg Street would be four lanes with a new bridge and connection to Joyce Street before next November; if not, he saw this project creating a large problem. Ms Bunch stated that when they originally approved this project the traffic study on Joyce Street did not show an over whelming usage difference with the revamp of Joyce and 71. She felt it was a dead issue. She contended the developer had been cooperating, it had been more of a City slow down. Mr. Beavers stated Joyce Street would be complete but the one lane bridge would still be there. Ms Little stated the only thing they could consider was if they would like to take right -of- way for the future in case they would need it. • Mr. Allred stated it would not hurt to have the right-of-way and, if they did not need it, they did not have to develop it. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 14, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Maxwell expressed concern they would be introducing vehicular and truck traffic together. He did not believe it would be a good alternative. Mr. Allred asked how they would be directing the truck traffic. Ms. Bunch stated a sign would be posted stating it was a truck entrance and the signs at the other entrances would say "No Trucks". Ms. Little explained they would only have conflict in a very small area and only from the Wal- Mart trucks. Mr. Forney expressed concerns that someone would develop the adjacent property and they would have no way to access it because of the lot split. Ms. Bunch stated the development had been planned out and approved by the city. Mr. Forney expressed concern about the city's process and policy of connectivity. Mr. Beavers stated they had never found a final plat creating the lots. Ms. Little stated Ms. Bunch had brought them a plat, but the City had not received a final plat. She added she had asked Robert Brown to provide a complete and final plat. Ms. Girelli stated their surveyor had an abstract and there was a lot split to change the configuration of lot 4. Ms Little stated she would like a copy of the abstract. Ms. Little stated she did not believe they could disagree with the streets being private since she felt the decision had been previously made. She stated the issue was what was approved at final plat. She asked how the lots had been created and what were the conditions of their approval Mr. Allred asked if the problems concerned this lot. Mr. Reynolds commented he wanted the planning department to have every tool they needed, before the Planning Commission would approve the item. Mr. Allred asked if Wal-Mart had met all of the requirements for this project. Ms. Girelli stated they were talking about the entire layout and not Wal-Mart. She stated Wal- Mart was not the developer and it was not their burden; they were trying to develop the lot they i s� • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 14, 1996 Page 7 • had purchased. Mr. Reynolds stated would need the plats before the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Fomey commented the city had vacated the right-of-way but he was still interested in the street connections. He asked if they could have a sidewalk along the private road. Ms. Bunch stated they did not require sidewalks on private roads. The planning commission would have to require the sidewalk. Mr. Reynolds stated he could guarantee the Planning Commission would want sidewalks. Ms. Little stated that, in commercial developments, there needed to be pedestrian access and vehicular access. Mr. Beavers asked if the ordinance specifically exempted private streets from sidewalks. Ms. Little replied it did not. Mr. Rutherford commented the sidewalk needed to remain continuous through the driveway. He added the elevation would not change. The driveway approach would come up to the sidewalk. He added that ramps were also acceptable in order to meet ADA requirements. Ms Little asked how the lighting would compare with the lighting at the mall. Ms. Bunch stated they were lower; they were the same fixtures as the Hwy 62 store lights. Mr. Allred requested they permit access onto the private drive from any development to the south. Mr. Maxwell asked how they could require him to provide access; they should put in their own access. He did not believe they should have to give up buildable area to serve someone else. Ms. Little stated the only way he could get to his site was by using City streets. She did not want them to use more of the city's public street than what would be necessary when there was a more direct route. Mr. Allred clarified he was not suggesting Clary develop the street; he was wanting Clary to allow someone to access the end of the private drive. '61 • • 4 Subdivision Committee Meeting November 14, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Beavers pointed out the project was subject to further review. The approval of the large scale did not approve the utility plan. Ms Bunch stated they had talked with Clary and Wal-Mart and there was a detailed agreement between Clary and Wal -mart about what would be done and there had been money escrowed for years for these improvements. Mr. Beavers commented the term "proposed" should not appear on any final plat. The approval of the large scale did not mean approval of grading, drainage or utilities. Ms. Little stated commercial design standards were a requirement. The project must be built in compliance with what they had presented; If they needed to make some minor changes, she could approve it, but if any changes was major, it would come back through the process. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to forward the Large Scale to the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion but added they needed to have all agreements on paper before the Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried unanimously 3-0-0. The meeting adjourned at 11:15.