Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-13 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, August 13, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED: LSD 98-15.20 Large Scale Development (Kautz Place) PP98-6.00: Preliminary Plat (Barrington Parke Subdivision - Phase 11) FP 98-2.00: Final Plat (Stonebridge Meadows, Phase 1) PP98-4.00: Preliminary Plat (CMN Business Park 11 - Phase I) ACTION TAKEN Forward to PC Forward to PC Approved -No further action Tabled/Next SDC MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Reynolds -Chairman, Phyllis Johnson, Lorel Hoffman, Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT: Tim Conklin, Chuck Rutherford, Beth Sandeen, Nancy Dugwyler, Jim Beavers, Alett Little, Dawn Warrick, and Debra Humphrey LSD 98-15.20: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (KANTZ PLACE) WEST OF HWY 265 AND NORTH OF HWY 45 This item was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull, and Assoc. on behalf of E.J. Ball and Jim Lindsey for property located west of Hwy 265 and north of Hwy 45. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 15.23 acres. STAFF'S COMMENTS: Commercial Design Standards: Little: This is an L-shaped piece of property that does have access to both Hwy 45 and Hwy 265. The street through the property will be a public street. Since it is one piece of property, staff has requested a comprehensive elevation. The two elevations staff does not have is one facing Hwy 265 and the elevation facing Hwy 45. Johnson: She inquired which street would the pharmacy face. Little: She stated it would face Hwy 265 except for an intervening lot which is undeveloped. A portion of this lot would be preserved for tree preservation. Staff had requested information on types of materials that would be used. The applicant has submitted information that the front elevation would be split -face concrete masonry units painted light gray, dark gray, and green. There would also be some drivet and the standing metal roofs which would be dark -colored blue. The colors specified on the elevation do not match the list. The colors and materials for the Wal-Mart building are listed below. She stated her concern is the elevation is "brick -colored" and the statement says it would be Tight and dark gray. The applicant has not submitted any landscaping on the south side between the parking and the ROW. Also, there is some concern about cross -access between the vacant lot which is left adjacent • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -2- • • to Hwy 265. She referred to the grading plans which had been provided. The cross access provided goes up a steep embankment and would be difficult to implement when the time comes for development. Staff also questions whether the cross access is in the correct location because it is in the north end of the particular lot. As to the drive-through which relates to the pharmacy, the cars would have to come in and make a sharp u -turn to get back out or go around the entire site to get back out. Staff recommends the cross access indicated, be developed, and then another cross access be required to allow for the people to circle through and come back out. Hoffman: She inquired who owned the vacant lot. Little: She stated the same property owner owns this lot. There has been some percentage of this lot designated for tree preservation. Plat Review Comments: Little: Staff had made the applicant aware that there would have to be coordinated signage for the entire development. She referred to the sign elevation provided. The sign would be 192.5 sf. The maximum allowable for a sign according to our ordinances would be 75 sf. It also does not provide for other businesses to have signage on the area identification sign. The plat is showing location of signs at Hwy 265 and one at Hwy 45. This would be acceptable, but staff recommends coordinated signage for this development with space for the other tenants of this shopping center. Parton: He referred to the second sheet and noted the sign indicated on Hwy 45 was in error and would be removed. Hopper: He indicated the spaces marked "open" on the sign elevation are for the other tenants. So this would be the coordinated sign requested. The applicant visited with Bert Rakes regarding the size of the sign. He informed us that for a joint ID sign for this development they would be allowed 1 sf of sign for every 500 sf of building space which gave them 194 sf of signage. Little: She stated staff would check into this and get back to the applicant regarding this issue. Hoffman: She inquired about the 75 sf for monument signage. Little: She stated this was the standard sign allowed for any commercial lot. There is a provision in the ordinance for this and staff would review the ordinance to clarify this information. Hopper: As far as cross access, the applicant would be willing to change the location. The location they had picked was the area they felt was most appropriate. Little: She referred to the waiver requests. Item #2 and 3 are planning issues. There is an existing overhead electric along Hwy 265 and applicant would be relocating this line within the highway right-of-way. They do intend for it to remain above -ground. • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -3- • Hopper: SWEPCO is going to make this relocation as apart of the Hwy 265 project and not as a part of this project. Hoffman: She inquired when this was scheduled. Hopper: They anticipate construction around February of 1999. Johnson: She clarified all the electric on Hwy 265 would be dealt with by the highway department and it would remain above -ground. Little: Warrick: Hopper: Little: Engineering: Beavers: She affirmed this information was correct. She noted the curb cuts were wider than the city regulations. This development would need access for the 18 -wheelers to get in to the loading docks behind the facilities and therefore request the drives as designed. Staff would support this waiver request. She referred to the drives off Citizen Drive to the west and runs north/south. It is a 36 foot wide drive. This would accommodate the turn -around traffic from the pharmacy. The same goes for the south side of the project which runs in the east/west direction. Staff wouldsupport the 36 footwide drives. He referred to Item #1 on the waiver request from the street standards for the radius of the three curbs and the tangent lengths between them. Since this is basically a drive to serve the facility, engineering would support the waiver. He noted the water/sewer are too close to the retaining walls In the final design, staff would like to see the sewer line a minimum of 10 feet from the retaining wall. Also, the existing sewer line would need to be abandoned. City would not allow the applicant to bring in 9 feet of fill and build a retaining wall over the existing line. He stated staff would require money from this developer for sidewalks along Hwy 265 and Hwy 45. The highway department will not build the sidewalks unless the City pays for them. Staff had requested the applicants to contact the highway department about Hwy 265. He inquired if this had been done. Parton: The applicant has visited with the highway department and obtained a set of plans. Beavers: He inquired if the highway department had any requirements for Hwy 265. Hopper: The highway department does not have any requirements from the developer regarding Hwy 265. Little: She inquired if it was Mr. Rutherford's impression that the developer would construct the sidewalks along Hwy 45. She stated Hwy 45 would need to be constructed and Hwy 265 would need to be guaranteed. • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -4- Rutherford: Venable: Hopper: Little: Beavers: He stated the highway department would be doing some improvements along Hwy 45. He concurred there is a section along Hwy 45 that would be improved for 1/4 of a mile. They would construct the necessary sidewalks along Hwy 45. He inquired what portion would they need to post money in lieu of construction. At any point on the plan where sidewalks are shown to be impacted by highway department construction the city would expect money in lieu of those sidewalks. Where there is no construction, then the sidewalks would need to be constructed. He noted on the drainage report, the applicant is bringing all the water down to the future highway. If the development goes in prior to the highway department, then the developer would have to install cross -drainage. Hopper: He confirmed that at a minimum drainage would need to be coordinated with the highway department construction. Beavers: He stated the developer would need to trace the drainage across Mr. Klinger's property down to Mud Creek Tributary. Any downstream improvements necessary due to additional runoff between this site and Mud Creek tributary would need to be checked. • In reference to the final drainage, the applicant does need to trace the 100 year surface water elevation. • The applicant would need a formal geo-tech report and a formal design at the final plat. Beavers: He stated he had some calls regarding the traffic and noted this is a concern. Rutherford: The applicant would need to remove the radius lines and the sidewalks need to be shown continuous through. If there is an island, it would need to be shown behind the sidewalk or the sidewalk needs to be shown through the island. The sidewalks need to be shown on the plat on Hwy 45 and Hwy 265. Hopper: He inquired if they could make a statement that this would be coordinated with the highway plans, or do they prefer it to be physically shown. Little: She referred to the conditional use request which was for 4 additional parking spaces. Warrick: She noted the requirement for this square footage at 1 space per 250 is 387. With 20% overage this would bring them to 465 parking spaces. Their proposal shows 469 parking spaces and requires a conditional use for excess parking. Hopper: The applicant had talked with Cheryl Zotti regarding the trash dumpster locations. She indicated they would need additional space allocated for cycling containers. Therefore, the applicant may have to remove 4 parking spaces. Warrick: In this case, then they would meet the requirements for parking and would not need to submit the • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -5- Sandeen: Little: conditional use. This would allow them a total of 465 parking spaces. She inquired if there were water and sewer lines along Hwy 265. She stated what she reviewed was for replacement tree canopy. The applicant is not wanting at this time to include this in the tree preservation requirement. The applicant wishes to reserve the right to either split the vacant lot or develop it in the future. Therefore, she calculated the existing trees along the perimeter would not be disturbed. Staff is not counting it for the tree preservation for this project. Applicant is preserving a percentage and are exceeding the replacement canopy requirement with the parking lot trees. There is an existing water and sewer line along Hwy 45 which prevents the commercial design standards requirement of trees along the front. However, they do have interior islands along this area. She inquired if it would be alright for the applicant to install shrubs or smaller trees every 30 feet. This requirement needs to be added to the plat. She also noted staff would take a letter of credit regarding the landscaping until after construction is complete if necessary. Rutherford: He noted Mr. Parton needs to label the greenspace width at 6' minimum. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jeff Cato who lives in East Oaks appeared before the committee. The residents he has met with are not opposed to this development. Their concern is the traffic issue and the amount of increase in traffic they would see as a result of this development. The residents are trying to address the traffic and the control of traffic in this area. The speed limit is 25 mph and the average speed is currently 40 mph. The car count has increased over the 10 years that he has lived there. Their question is how to request a cul-de-sac or some type of closure to East Oaks. What is the proper forum in order for them to pursue this issue. Reynolds: He recommended they meet with the planning department. Little: She stated if they submitted a letter with a map, planning would work with them Johnson: This problem, if it would be addressed, would not be addressed at planning level but would be addressed at the Council level. Some of the council's previous decisions about traffic in this area previously impact East Oaks. Venable: He stated one of the things that would improve the traffic issue is when the highway department makes their improvements. Reynolds: He inquired when the highway department widens Hwy 265, how much further north would they be going past Hwy 45. Venable: 1t would be to the first street or Kantz Street. Steve Beckenstern appeared before the committee. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -6- He noted his concern is that a person wanted to make a left-hand turn onto Hwy 265, with the traffic congestion and the addition of this project, this would make the turn impossible. So, they would take the alternate route to Hwy 45 and cut through the neighborhood section on East Oaks in order to get back to Township. Reynolds: He suggested the neighbors form a committee with a spokesman and go to the mayor's office and try to resolve this issue. This is not the place to discuss this issue. Jennifer Snyder appeared before the commission. She inquired when a project like this is planned does the City not have to do an engineering study regarding the traffic flow around the area and its impact. Reynolds: He stated this has been done in the past. She inquired whether the City is planning to put in new signals where the new street is coming on either Hwy 265 or Hwy 45. Reynolds: He inquired if there was another light proposed out in this location. Little: She noted not at the present time. At either of the intersections they are too close to the existing intersection. The highway department would not allow anadditional traffic light. Reynolds: He noted the City has grown at such a fast pace in the past 10 years. The City is probably just a couple of years from improving the traffic situation. Betty Hadley appeared before the committee. She noted the Civil Engineering Department does have traffic studies they are working with and wondered if engineering would be willing to work with them. Reynolds: He inquired if Mr. Beavers would be willing to contact the university. Beavers: He responded, no, he would not. June Erkensaire appeared before the committee. She inquired if there would another outlet in and out of Wal-Mart on Hwy 265. Little: She responded, no, there would be no other outlets. Beavers: He noted the city has given some money in order to hire a graduate student to do the traffic studies at the U of A Civil Engineering Department. At the present time, it is not up and running. Larry Ash with Park Place Property Association appeared before the committee. He asked the committee to summarize the traffic comments. Little: The control of Hwy 265 and Hwy 45 is outside of the City of Fayetteville. The City cannot require a higher unit of government to do anything. What the staff has requested is a public street through • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -7- • • the development which will be under the control of the City to provide access for this development in order to access Hwy 45 or Hwy 265 and not further congest the intersection. As far as Hwy 265 and Hwy 45 improvements, work is underway in the future. She noted Park Place requested the City Council and Planning Commission to allow one access for this subdivision. They were informed at this time there would be extreme congestion in this area making exiting to Hwy 45 difficult. Little: She noted Perry Franklin requested street lights on Hwy 45/265 if none are located within 300 feet of the property. She does not see them on the plans. Parton: The applicant would revise plans to reflect the street lights. Little: At each of the drives which intersects the public drive of Citizens Street, there will need to be stop signs installed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FINDINGS: Reynolds: He inquired if Mr. Beavers had studied the water runoff from this development to Mud Creek. Beavers: He has reviewed Crafton, Tull &.Associates drainage plan and it does seem reasonable. They have provided calculation during the timing of the peaks and the hydro graphs. He stated he had no engineering data or information that would indicate anything at this time, and has to rely on the developer's numbers provided. The ordinance requires the developer to control the volume of the water and the velocity. Therefore, the developer will need to review the erosion. Little: She noted this site contains 15 acres as opposed to the development which was required to do a traffic study which contained over 300 acres. Johnson: She inquired about the activity on this proposed site and the traffic generated. Little: She referred to the traffic report from Perry Franklin. Johnson: She inquired if this 15 acre would not be more intensively used. Little: She noted this project is a C-1 traffic generator which would be less traffic than the C-2. Hoffman: She stated the traffic study would not reflect anything that everyone already does know She inquired if the development was in conformance with the grading ordinance. Beavers: He responded, yes, it was in compliance. Hoover: She inquired if Planning Commission would have an elevation regarding the Hwy 45 side. Little: These elevations would be provided only if it was requested. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -8- Hoover: She inquired about the screening between this development and the apartments. Parton: He noted they did have screening at 6'. Little: She noted the screening is a board fence which would be located on top of the cut Hoffman: She noted a wall along Hwy 265, as long as it is, would need to be broken up and articulated. Hopper: He inquired if the feature at the entrance was brought around over the top of canopy would this meet the commercial design standards. Hoffman: She responded, the developer was on the right track. Johnson: She stated the same would be required for Hwy 45 as well. Typically, it would need to meet the commercial design standards. Reynolds: He reiterated the elevation in concern was the east elevation. Hopper: They would make the necessary revisions for Planning Commission Commissioner Hoover moved to forward this project to Planning Commission subject to 1. Sign size being resolved; 2. Sidewalks be installed; and staff makes sure that this project is ready to go before the Planning; Commission. Commissioner Johnson seconded said motion. The motion was approved on a vote of 3-0-0. Revisions are due in the office by Monday, August 17, 1998, at 10:00 a.m. in order to proceed to Planning Commission. • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -9- PP 98-6.00: PRELIMINARY PLAT BARRINGTON PARKE SUBDIVISION. PHASE ID EAST OF HWY 45 AND SOUTH OF FOX HUNTER ROAD This item was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering for property located east of Hwy 45 and south of Fox Hunter Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 27 40 acres with 49 lots proposed. STAFF'S COMMENTS. Little: • This is a Phase II development which joins to Phase I. With construction of Phase II this would have a total of 137 lots. There is a concern regarding access to Phase II. Staff's recommendation to the developer is to extend Hartsford Avenue to Fox Hunter Road in order to allow two ways for ingress and egress for the 137 lots. Madison Drive which connects to the west eventually connects to a subdivision which has been constructed. Since this was City property, the City could gravel this drive at Madison Drive in order to provide additional access to this development. She referred to a cul-de-sac at Chadwick and Hartford Drive. Cheryl Zotti has stated the turning radius needed would need to be at least 40 feet. Also, at the same cul-de-sac Perry Franklin stated the cul-de-sac was not a good design. Staff's recommendation is that Hartford Drive be extended to Fox Hunter Drive. She noted at Caston Drive staff requests a turn -around. Applicant had stated they would provide a turn -around if they received permission from the adjacent property owner. She did not feel it was the adjacent property owner's responsibility to provide the land for a turn -around. She also noted this would put responsibility of providing the drive on the property owner to the west, who is the Catholic Church. Therefore, obtaining access for a street through this location would not be very good. She suggested the stub out be moved 1/2 on the Stanberry's and 1/2 on the Catholic Church in order to obtain the street. This would end up being between Lots 35 and 36. This would change the configuration of Lots 31, 32, and 33. She noted on the west side of the subdivision the utility easements and the building setback lines are contiguous of 25'. The requirement for a building setback is only 20. Staff is processing a number of variance and utility easement requests making this a two-step process. Milholland: He noted there were some trees along this setback line, and he wanted to preserve these trees. Therefore, he made the utility easement at 25'. He noted these lots were not the normal standard lots. They are 196' deep. Milholland: He stated the developer tried to make the lots nicer and larger. They have a bigger setback in front and a bigger setback in the back. He noted the POA has been established and have had the papers for a couple of months. The POA has an architecture committee that has reviewed the plans. Little: Staff would enforce the normal 20' setback in the rear of the property. So if somebody builds over it, it would be a POA problem. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -10- Milholland: He also noted there were some drainage easements that would have to be separated at Madison Drive. He stated if the POA was in agreement with the setbacks then he felt it should be allowed. Little: She noted in Phase I there was a park acquired named"Brigham Park". There was supposed to be a sidewalk constructed to the park which has not been completed. Therefore, staff requests the sidewalks be guaranteed with this Phase. She noted if Madison Drive is to be constructed, this would be forwarded to City Council. Therefore, she requests the developer consider who would pay for the graveling of this street for this connection. Milholland: He has contacted the owners of the Catholic Church property and requested a temporary turn -around easement. The Catholic Church will address this at their next meeting. Rutherford: He referred to the waiver for the sidewalks along one side of the street. The ordinance provides for sidewalks along both sides of the street. He noted if this waiver request was approved it would be the first one. He noted in Savannah Estates Phase I and II have sidewalks on one side of the street and Phase II1 and IV have sidewalks on both sides of the streets. • Milholland: Since the density of the lots are so low due to the size of the lots and the fact they have crosswalks, the developer does not feel the necessity for sidewalks on both sides. He stated the lots are 115' wide x 196' deep. • Hoffman: She stated she would not be inclined to grant the waiver. She feels sidewalks are good for the neighborhood especially if there were children in this subdivision. Johnson: Her observation has been that people would not bother to cross the street to walk on the sidewalk and instead jog and walk in the street. This makes it dangerous. Milholland: He stated the less emphasis on Fox Hunter Road the better for the traffic. He has lived in this area for four years and the maximum backup he has seen are five car lengths. With the other traffic crossing, it would probably be twice as slow. Beavers: He inquired if there would be three islands as indicated on the plat. Milholland: He affirmed there were three islands where indicated on the plat. Reynolds: There was a person who came in and experienced certain islands that were not maintained, and wanted to pave it over because the POA refuses to take care of it. Milholland: He stated these particular islands were, in fact, taken care of. He noted anytime you have a highway or street, the more points of access on to this street, you increase the chance of an accident. Little: She inquired if this development was commercial would he request additional points of access. • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -11- • Milholland: At this particular location, it would be a different situation. Little: She inquired what the speed limit was on Fox Hunter. Milholland: He responded it would probably be around 25 mph, but traffic does go faster down this road. He further noted he was in agreement regarding access on to Madison Drive. Little: She noted Madison Drive lines up with Lots 102 and 103. Although it is not connected, once it was placed, there should be a drive going between the lots. Since this is City property, there is no guarantee the City would put this street through this location. However, staff could probably work with the City and make a gravel connection. This would be 600 feet of gravel road and would connect the two subdivisions and provide another way in and out. Milholland: He noted staff did ask for Madison Drive to be stubbed out. Beavers: He noted per the Fire Chief, the development has inadequate fire flows. It is requested that the developer be required to extend the existing 8" waterline in Madison to Phase II subdivision. Engineering is in support of this requirement. Milholland: He inquired if the Fire Chief had requested the waterlines be 8" and not 6". Beavers: He affirmed it should be 8". At Plat review it was noted the easements were too small. This has not been changed as requested. There were a lot of 16' easements. Milholland: He noted they changed the front easements to 15' vs. 10'. Beavers: He asked the developer to review all the easements and he would find a 15' drainage in some other location. He wanted to remind the developer these would not be accepted at final plat. Mr. Petrie did a good job with the drainage report. He will be reviewing the drainage report to check for any downstream improvements needed due to the velocities coming through this site. He does agree with the report that the detention pond for Phase II will not be required. Rutherford: He gets calls from parents of young children asking why does the City allow sidewalks on one side of the street in subdivisions. Children cross the street to get to the sidewalk to play with other children. Reynolds: He stated Subdivision Committee has made it clear that they would require sidewalks on both sides of the streets. Rutherford: He inquired about the POA and its status. Milholland: He stated he had asked Mr. Caston about the POA and Mark Lindsey prepared the documents and has sent them for review. • Little: She inquired if the developer could get a copy of the documents prepared by his attorney to her • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -12- • • office for our records. Milholland: He stated he would provide this information. Dugwyler: She stated the developer has fulfilled his parks requirement and is still awaiting the construction of the sidewalks. SUBDIVISION COMMITI'LE FINDINGS: Johnson: She inquired if Fox Hunter runs along the entire edge of this development. She felt like it would be a mistake to think of this project as it would look in 1998. May need to look at it as if in 20 years from now. She would be in favor of Hartford being connected with the Fox Hunter and also the Madison Drive connection. Hoffman: She concurs with Commissioner Johnson's comments. She is at the present time wondering whether it should be forwarded to Planning Commission. Johnson: She noted the staff's recommendation to shift Caston Drive to the north so it would hit between the two adjacent property owners. Milholland: He noted in this location there is a large pond but was not sure of the location. Hoffman: She is in favor of preserving the tree line. However, she is not clear about the POA enforcement. She inquired why it is recommended to go down to 20' and not maintain the 25' in order to preserve the trees. Little: She was not certain how many trees are in this location. Milholland: He noted there are 3-4 trees in the easement but there are quite a few smaller trees in the fence line. Beavers: He stated the utility companies require that the easement be cleared. So you would not be preserving the trees, you would be talking about moving the easement from the trees. Milholland: He wanted to be consistent so it would make it easier for everyone involved. The developer is offering to install a quad if necessary to prevent damage to the trees. Little: Johnson: To cure a utility easement infringement, it would have to come before the Planning Commission and then before the Council which is a 6 -week process. This is the main reason for preferring the 20' setback. Some of the landscape architects who have been hired to do improvements bring to her attention that easements on these lots have taken up a lot of area they would like to make an investment in and install landscaping. These landscape architects would not install any rock work or expensive plantings for people which may be taken out later or expensive plantings. Without any definite marking City prefers to keep the easements at a minimum. She sees no advantage to the City to make a utility easement wider than necessary. The City should have the requested 20'. What the property owners do with their covenants is up to the them and is enforceable. • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -13- Milholland: He stated he has had a lot of 25' utility easement setbacks in the past and has never had a problem in the past and these were on smaller lots. There is a 40' setback in the front of the lots which exceeds the City's requirements. In order to benefit the neighborhood he feels the developers should have what they request. He stated if the minimum setback for the City and the covenants do not match, then there would be a problem. Johnson: She sees this as a POA problem and not the City's problem. She feels it very unnecessary to have to come back through the City to have variances approved. Milholland: He inquired if it was the developer's prerogative to exceed the setbacks. Johnson: The City is not in the business to enforce the covenants requirements. Milholland: He stated the plat would belong to the developer and to the people who would be building on this property. This has been done in the past. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. • Commissioner Hoffman moved to table this project because she could not forward this project to the Planning Commission with the outstanding issues unresolved. • Milholland: He stated the comments made in the in-house review were about the temporary cul-de-sac which would be on and off-site. Hoffman: She was not sure it would be fair to the developer to take it to the Planning Commission and requested the Planning Commission table it. Milholland: He stated if the Planning Commission states the developer needs to make two connections, they would do so. Little: She noted the property owner is the Catholic Church. She is trying to advise the Planning Commission how to reasonably obtain the connections. The Church is not a standard developer and they would not want to build a street. Milholland: He stated if he had heard this comment at Plat Review then they would have addressed it before today. He does not feel it is fair to make his client wait two weeks. Little: She stated Mr. Milholland received a lot of comments and what he chose to do was to not make any changes and requested waivers for everything. Reynolds: He noted the developer would be giving up Lot 54 to run the street over to Fox Hunter Road. Hoffman: She noted there would also be a lot configuration change and Planning Commission would not approve an imaginary street on an imaginary plat. She would stand firm on her motion to table. • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -14- • • Johnson: If the developer's position is that he has heard the comments and is unwilling to move Caston and connect Hartford to Fox Hunter, then she felt it should go to Planning Commission. However, the developer would find the members of Subdivision would be in opposition to approve this development. If Mr. Milholland wants this project to be forwarded to Planning Commission, she advised him that he may lose in the long run. Milholland: He stated that he knew the sidewalk issues were coming up, as well as, other issues. However, they were not aware of the requirement of Caston Drive. However, he would make a revised plat to show where the changes would be made for Planning Commission's review. Johnson: This would be more agreeable. Reynolds: He recommended the developer check with Mr. Beavers checklist before going to Planning Commission. Rutherford: He stated sidewalks would be required along one side of Fox Hunter Road. The previous motion made by Commissioner Hoffman was not seconded. Commissioner Johnson moved to forward this project to Planning Commission subject to revisions being noted on the plat as follows: 1. Connection from Hartford to Fox Hunter; 2. Connection for Madison Drive and the determination of the responsibility for this connection; 3. Caston Drive moved down to the exit between the Stanberry and the Catholic Church property; 4. Sidewalks shown on the plat. Commissioner Hoffman seconded said motion. Revisions are due by 10:00 a.m., Monday, August 17, 1998. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -15- FP 98-2.00: FINAL PLAT (STONEBRIDGE MEADOWS) HWY 16 E AND WEST OF ROBERTS ROAD This item was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Meadows Enterprises for property located south of Hwy 16E and west of Roberts Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 37.97 acres with 78 lots proposed. The preliminary plat for this subdivision (pp 96-9.00) was approved by Planning Commission 1/27/97. STAFF'S COMMENTS: Little: Staff has requested a copy of the deed for the park land. She noted there is a master street plan street which comes through Goff property. Therefore, staff has secured the document to dedicate the right of way that would be filed at the same time the final plat would be filed. Rutherford: Sidewalk and greenspace widths for each street need to be added to street notes. In review of the plat he stated the applicant has met those requirements. Goff Farm Road needs to be added to the street notes. He noted the sidewalks have not been built. If they are not built, then a letter of credit would be required. Warrick: 790 feet of sidewalks would be constructed per their comments. Rutherford: He noted if the sidewalks were not built, then the fmal plat would not be signed off without a letter of credit to this effect. Beavers: The ordinance states landscaping, paving, and sidewalks may be bonded. Applicant requested to bond the sewer lift station due to the fact that it is complete but cannot be tested due to no electricity on this location. Applicant stated they were in the process of obtaining the electric. However, there is a problem in getting it done within the time frame needed. Beavers: He noted the retaining wall would need to be completed. It would not be allowed to be bonded. Johnson: She inquired where the retaining wall would be located. The developer stated it was located near Hwy 16. The banks would be on each side approximately 2 1/2 feet tall. It is made out of keystone block. Beavers: He inquired since there were waiver requests whether this project would have to go to the full planning commission instead of being approved at this level. Little: She inquired if the developer would want the Mylar copy signed before the work would be completed. Developer: He responded, possibly. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -16- Little: Then it would be a waiver and would go before the Planning Commission. However, if it was something the developer could wait a week on, this committee could approve it and they would not receive the required signatures until this was done. Developer: He stated it may be quicker to wait until the development was finished because they may be able to finish prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Little: She stated if the Subdivision Committee approved this final plat then the pump station could be handled administratively by the Planning Commission. She also noted staff needs the island description for two of the islands on the plat. Also staff would not sign off on the Mylar until staff receives a copy of the covenants. Johnson: She noted on the punch list the sidewalk would need to be built or a letter of credit would need to be provided. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve this final plat subject to the punch list items of' staff. Commissioner Hoffman seconded said motion. The motion was approved unanimously on a vote of 3-0-0. • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -17- • • PP 98-4.00: PRELIMINARY PLAT (CMN BUSINESS PARK II - PHASE II NORTH HWY 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 Avenue. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 170.89 acres with 11 lots proposed. STAFF'S COMMENTS: Little: Johnson: Little: Johnson: Staff will expect Large Scale Developments on all of the lots. This development consists of 309 acres. The plat before the committee is the center portion of the 309 acres which amounts to 55% of the total acreage or 170 acres Under Commercial Design Standards, commercial developments are supposed to have an overall theme developed along with them. We have not received any information. Staff requests this information prior to final plat approval. The developer's intent is to sell a couple of lots prior to the final plat. Mud Creek runs through the site. During the rezoning in 1994 a promise was made that land for a trail would be dedicated. Therefore, there have been discussion regarding the location of the trail with the developers. This is one place in the City of Fayetteville that we have the opportunity to do something relating to the Riverwalk. This is 170 acres of 309 acres and the plat shows part of the street layout. Staff does not have a complete street layout, but does have a vicinity map reflecting the master street plans. Staff had requested that Shiloh Drive be extended to the east property line as shown on the master street plan. She referred to the traffic report reflecting the traffic which will be generated by this development. Staff requests an off-site contribution to Clear Creek Bridge; towards upgrading Gregg Street south of Joyce Boulevard; and a contribution to the Mud Creek Bridge required at the Mall Avenue Crossing. She inquired if the attached area is the entire acreage or does it reflect the 55%. She responded it reflects 55% of the total development. She requested an outline on the vicinity map of the entire property. She also requested the rest of the property is what direction of the street Milholland: He responded it was to the east and to the west. He felt there were approximately 30 acres west of Mud Creek and two lots in addition to this. There would be approximately 65 acres to the west which is in the flood plain. Johnson: She inquired about the balance of the property south of Joyce and how much was east of this proposed tract. Milholland: He estimated it would be around 65 acres. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -18- Johnson: She inquired if the developer had all the property running to Gregg street. Milholland: He confirmed this was correct. They referred to the map in the traffic study for a better location of the proposed site. There was some discussion regarding the proposed location and site. Reynolds: He inquired if the bridge would be built during this phase. Milholland: He confirmed the bridge would be built. Johnson: She requested the vicinity map be amended to show the entire property. PUBLIC COMMENTS: William Giese appeared on behalf of his son before the committee. Utnaw ty He stated his son owns a home in the Independent -Heights. His son's concerns are that any light installed be installed for the area they wish to light and not the entire country side. He further noted, when they blasted for the Northwest Arkansas Mall, they broke a waterline, cracked the stucco, and shattered a window. He spoke with an engineer and an attorney and they stated he was fighting a losing battle, because they did not have any proof of the prior condition of the house. So now he has hired an engineer to show the condition of the house at the present time. Therefore, any blasting done be held to a legal limit so as to not damage the home. Engineering: Beavers: He referred to the Plat Review comments where it notes "future connection" that they extend the firewall. Ile also noted there would need to be a loop on it also David Jurgens requested the sewer line easements meet today's standards and to stub out all the 8" sewer lines to all lots. He requests the Planning Commission to address the proposed construction notes in detail concerning the cost - share. He strongly disagrees with #B under #3 where it says the developer will build a 28 foot street (back to back) north of Joyce and east of Steele. A commercial development like this makes a turning lane warranted, and the developer should be requested to provide the turning lane. Milholland: He inquired if there was a commercial street design. Beavers: He responded, no. He feels there should be a turning lane for the streets which are not arterials. He stated he knows the applicant has not gone through any design on the bridge over Mud Creek. He felt what is shown is extremely optimistic. He feels the bridge will be twice as long. Milholland: He stated this was not a design but a schematic. Beavers: He stated the City and State are building a bridge which is longer but it would be a bigger bridge than what is shown. • Milholland: He stated he understands this and this is not a final design. • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -19- Beavers: He reminded the developer that whoever they hire to do the bridge, if the City cost -shares in the bridge, they expect to receive and review the calculations. He felt they would need to visit later regarding this issue. Since the applicant is requesting a waiver for the grading, he feels the commissioners should receive a copy of the grading plan. Hoffman: She inquired how this development would be affected by the new grading ordinance once it goes into effect. Beavers: He noted lots 2 and 10 on the north side of Joyce Street, the existing grading ordinance prohibits cuts within 25' of the public right-of-way except for access drives. They proposed to sit this lot down to the street level and it requires a waiver. As an engineer he agrees with the waiver request. The City has spent money planting the trees, if the developer is doing anything with the streets, the developer would need to relocate the trees. Milholland: He concurred that anything they destroyed they would replace with something similar. Engineer: Developer is not requesting a waiver for the solid rock. The developer is proposing to go from elevation 68 to elevation 62 by stepping rock phase. • Milholland: He noted at the cut indicated, as you go west, it would be going shorter and shorter. There was also a soil exploration prepared and given to Mr. Beavers. • Beavers: He stated Mr. Giese's concern was blasting and if there was any blasting it may be all the way of the property line. Petrie: He stated according to the geo-tech there was no rock along the certain area by the home Mr. Giese was concerned with. Beavers: He stated the new ordinance would benefit the developers. The ordinance would allow cuts in rock of 30' vs. 15'. Johnson: She inquired how could the commissioners work with something until it has been adopted by the council. Beavers: Milholland: It was agreed Beavers: She cautions this ordinance is not adopted until it has been adopted. Additionally on the grading, Mr. Petrie did a good job in the preliminary grading and drainage plans. There is a conflict between the drainage and the grading. The six lots will be sold off. Water from Lot 11 would have to fmd its way to Mud Creek. Somewhere on the preliminary plat there should be a method to control the flow across the adjoining property. He stated Lot 11 would drain to the north. that Mr. Beavers and Mr. Petrie would get together and discuss the drainage plan. He noted the Cooperative Extension Service has received grant money. They want to do a • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -20- demonstration project to save Mud Creek by keeping it natural. They would like to work with the developer. It is for beautification and keeping it natural. It is proposed along Mud Creek from Glenwood Shopping Center to Clear Creek. Milholland: He inquired if they had contacted the City about this proposal. Dugwyler: He stated they did not address the trail. They are interested in the runoff. Beavers: Shiloh needs to be addressed for the extension. Rutherford: He noted under the general construction notes #3E they talk about the sidewalks it is mentioned on Shiloh Drive it would be on one side only. The drawings do not reflect along the north side of Shiloh. Milholland: He stated it was in there but it was among some other things in that location. Rutherford: Mr. Venable may want to discuss just having the sidewalk along the one side of the bridge. Venable: He stated when this project originally came through, the City had agreed it would build sidewalks on one side of the bride and the developer would build the sidewalks on the other side of the bridge. This is proposed to be a four -lane bridge. • Milholland: Mr. Venable and he had discussed the greenspace between the sidewalk and the curb. It was proposed to wall paper the bridge rather than bring the greenspace across the creek. • The developer is not knowledgeable if the City would build their half of the sidewalks when the bridge is developed. Venable: He stated there is money in the CIP for this project and the sidewalks would probably be built at the time of construction. Little: She read Item #4 "the owners of the property shall construct at owner's expense a back to back curb a two-lane bridge from Joyce Street to Shiloh Street with an option to build a 38 foot back to back curb street. The City's expense can increase the size of the bridge from two-lane to five -lanes". Beavers: He recommended that Mr. Milholland put this in writing and estimate and this would be taken to council. Little: She referred to the extension of Shiloh Street and needs this information shown on the master street plan. There is also the contribution issue for Clear Creek Bridge at Johnson Road and Mud Creek Bridge at Mall Avenue and Gregg Street south of Joyce Boulevard. At the time the property was rezoned there was an agreement made in 1995. She read No. 5 "in the event the owner sells apart of the entire ownership prior to the construction of the north/south road, all net proceeds generated from the sale shall be held in escrow until the north/south street is constructed. The escrow fund shall be used or applied to the cost of constructing the north/south street. Specific language for the escrow agreement shall be drafted by the Fayetteville City Attomey and the owner's attorney. In the event, the property is sold in its entirety prior to the construction of the north/south street connecting Joyce and Shiloh, the escrow agreement shall be Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -21- transferred along with the property to the existing owner". Therefore, this escrow agreement would need to be provided. She felt the staff would need to follow through with this agreement. She noted Lot 9 is already being proposed to be sold. Herrington: This agreement has already been prepared and there is an original. It was noted that staff would need an executed copy with the signatures of this escrow agreement. Reynolds: He inquired if there were plans to connect Van Asche to Hwy 112. Little: She responded, yes, this was still the plan. Each lot would be required to go through the large scale development. The commercial design standards and OHE ordinance would apply. The design overlay district applies to Lots 6 and 7. A waiver has been requested for the OHE for this project. It is listed on the plat sheet as Item No. 2. She referred to the notes section No. 2 on the plat. It states one agreement with residents (not of land records) filed with the Planning Department. She inquired what this referred to. Milholland: He stated this was in the City of Johnson and would not be a record owner in the City of Fayetteville. Hoffman: She asked that the planning commissioners see this information at planning commission. Little: There is still an issue regarding the location of the trails and how wide they would be. She noted staff may not want this trail in the floodway. The agreement was to get a 15 foot easement for a pedestrian bikepath through the designated flood areas adjacent to Mud Creek. If anything was constructed in the floodway, the developer can expect it to be washed out. Therefore, she recommended the trail be relocated adjacent to the floodway. Dugwyler: She emphasized the importance of this area is the location of a multi -use trail. This would be a connection from Hwy 265 to Gregg Street. During the rezoning meeting there was a great deal of concern. Yesterday at the Trails Committee it was noted there was a desire to use this area for a trail. The developer may dedicate a 30 foot easement in the floodway. She encourages the developer to use this as benefit to their development and to the City by preserving the creek, orienting businesses toward the creek. This area would afford the City the opportunity to offer events for the comunity. Johnson: She inquired where the continuous trail crossed Hwy 71. Rutherford: It would go under the Hwy 71 bridge on Front Street unless the trails ends north of the bridge and the pedestrian traffic would cross the bridge on the top. Rutherford: He, Nancy and Mel will be meeting in this location and review the site. Mr. Milholland would have it surveyed and dedicated to the City. Milholland: The current subdivision plat only shows 1/4 of a mile. He agreed the developer would dedicate the land for the trail to the City prior to the final plat. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -22- Franklin: All the traffic signals and study are based on project figures. At the times when the streets are built all the conduits would need to be put under the road for future installation. He inquired about the contribution for the traffic signals and street lights. He stated this has been required in the past from other developers. He stated Don Bunn has this information and the developer would need to meet with Mr. Bunn regarding what contribution should be required. Milholland: He proposed that the contributions be dealt with when the lots come through as large scale development as they are developed. Little: The traffic analysis had been prepared which was approved for Spring Creek She referred to page 8 which reflected zoning and traffic related. Hoffman: She inquired if the traffic study included the other two parcels which are not on this plat. Greg Simmons with Peters & Associates appeared before the committee. Simmons: He responded, yes, it does include the entire development west of Hwy 71. Everyone reviewed the traffic study and there was some discussion regarding the information presented. Little: The study shows a collector which runs along Shiloh. The master street plan shows two connections. The developer is proposing to bring Van Ashe across and loop it up and back down to join Mall Lane. She inquired why it was looped. She noted it was critical to keep the connection to Van Asche because this would be the only way to get under the bypass to the west. Milholland: He noted this area was where a pond was located. Johnson: She inquired if the drawings are accurate with the master street plan. Little: She responded the traffic study is in agreement with the master street plan. Reynolds: He referred to a subdivision where the planning commission would not put in a street through their subdivision. These people were also promised they would be protected from noise etc., and wanted to ensure the developer would meet these requirements. Hoffman: She inquired when could the commission expect to see large scale developments coming through on this project. Milholland: He responded they should be starting within the next thirty days or so. Hoffman: There is a large development in Austin, Texas called the arbiretum which is a mixed-use development with retail, office, hotel, etc. They have used an outdoor amphi-theatre for outdoor concerts etc. This has drawn a lot of business to the center. Beavers: He inquired with the prior agreement and Lot 9 being sold. How would the city know the drainage would work with the rest of the development. He felt there would need to be some more work from the developer regarding these issues. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting August 13, 1998 Page -13- Milholland: This developer gave Wal -mart an easement to take care of the drainage on this site. Beavers. He noted Dave Jurgens was at the plat review when this project came through and he felt the sewer would be a good place to put the trail. Mr. Jurgens stated he would be willing to work with the developer on this issue. Milholland: He noted the sewer on Lot 9 is on the north side and a little bit on the south side. Conklin: He wanted to confirm that the developer was planning to build the infrastructure to serve Lot 9 streets which would be in before the development was built. Milholland: He confirmed this was correct. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FINDINGS: Hoffman: She stated in order to bring this to the planning commission all the requirements mentioned in this meeting. Any motion would have to include the numbers for contribution. Little: She stated Mr. Venable has been preparing the numbers for the contributions which would be required for this project. There would be three off-site contributions regarding Phase I to include: 1. contribution to Clear Creek Bridge, 2. contribution to Mud Creek Bridge, and 3. a contribution to the upgrading of Gregg Street south of Joyce Boulevard. There will also be additional contributions for the projects coming through as large scale developments. There will be also a requirement for the contribution for traffic signals. Johnson: She noted this project has a lot of issues that still need to be dealt with and was not sure this project would be ready to go forward to the next planning commission meeting. Little: Whatever is assessed to this development 55% of this amount would be contributed at this time. Franklin: He stated some of the developers have purchased all the equipment to meet the city standards in order to install the traffic signals. So some developers have elected to do this to save money for the development. This may be something the developer may want to consider. Johnson: She has some concern with the master street plan issues. The issue before the committee is Shiloh whether it would go east and cross Mud Creek. Little: She felt what was imperative right now is that if there is a required connection it be addressed at this time. There was some discussion as to whether Shiloh should be a dead end or required to connect to another street. Hoffman: Requested the map in the traffic study to be made larger for the commissioners to be able to see the proposed layout of the streets. Commissioner Johnson moved to table this project to the next Subdvision Committee Meeting for revisions of the project. Commissioner Hoffman seconded said motion. The motion was approved on a vote of 3-0-0.