Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-03 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, September 3, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED LS 98-29.00 Lot Split (Roy/Beulah Faubus) LS 98-28.00 Lot Split (Wilma J. Baker) PP 98-4.00 Preliminary Plat (CMN Business Park - Phase I) LSD 98-25.00 Large Scale Development (Schmeiding) LSD 98-26.00 Large Scale Development (Hanna) PP 98-8.00 Preliminary Plat (Pine Valley V) MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: ACTION TAKEN Approved --no further action Approved --no further action Forward to PC Forward to PC Removed from agenda by applicant Removed from agenda by applicant Robert Reynolds - Chairman. Phyllis Johnson, Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover - Planning Commissioner Jim Beavers, Nancy Dugwyler, Chuck Rutherford, Kim Hesse, Charles Venable, Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Dawn Warrick and Liz Hopson LS 98-29.00: Lot Split (Roy/Beulah Faubus) 1918 Wedington Drive, Lot 10 of the Turner/Faubus Addition The item was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Engineering on behalf of Roy and Beulah Faubus for property located at 1918 Wedington Drive, Lot 10 of the Turner-Faubus Addition. The property is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential and R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.78 acres. The request is to split the existing lot into two tracts of approximately 0.48 acres and 0.30 acres. Glenn Carter appeared before the committee on behalf of the applicant. STAFF'S COMMENTS: Little: This is an existing situation which is coming before the commission to be made legal. The units are already in place. Sidewalk issues are that sidewalks will be constructed as part of the Wedington Drive project. A sidewalk will have to be installed between the old walkway on Turner Avenue and the new walkway being constructed by the Arkansas Highway Department. Rutherford: He would like clarification on the short strip of sidewalk that is currently unfinished. Carter: He has spoken with the Highway Department and looked at the plans. He has also conferred with Sid Norbash in Engineering. The gap is part of the Highway Department project. Construction has stopped in that one area for an alternate, undefined project currently underway. The Highway Department will build it. The owner will not be required to build the sidewalk. Little: She clarified that the owner has no responsibility in this area. It will be a Highway Department project. Carter: That is correct. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. Subdivision Committee Meeting September 3, 1998 Page -2- Hoffman: Carter: Will sidewalks be constructed on Turner Avenue? Sidewalks exist on Turner Avenue. They are in good condition. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the lot split. Commissioner Hoffman seconded said motion. The motion was approved unanimously on a vote of 3.0-0. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting September 3, 1998 Page -3- LS 98-28.00: Lot Split (Wilma J. Baker) 1389 Farmer's Avenue The item was submitted by Wilma J. Baker for property located at 1389 Farmer's Avenue. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.59 acres. The request is to split the existing lot into two tracts of approximately 0.29 acres and 0.30 acres. Alan Reid appeared on behalf of the applicant. STAFF'S COMMENTS: Little: The city will need a parks fee for this project, and the fee is $375. There are existing overhead electric lines along Farmer's Avenue. When Lot B is developed, the utilities must be located underground to serve that structure. Rutherford: The sidewalk area needs to be cleaned up due to some overgrowth of vegetation. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. Reynolds: He confirmed that the applicant agrees to pay the $375 parks fee. Reid: The applicant is aware of the parks fee. Commissioner Hoffman moved to approve the lot split with the stipulation that the parks fee be paid and the sidewalk be improved. Commissioner Johnson seconded said motion. The motion was approved unanimously on a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee Meeting September 3, 1998 Page -4- PP 98-4 00: Preliminary Plat (CMN Business Park II, Phase I) North of Highway 71 Bypass and east of Gregg Avenue The item was submitted by Milholland Engineering on behalf of CMN Properties for property located north of Highway 71 Bypass and east of Gregg Ave. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 170.89 acres with I I lots proposed. Mel Milholland and Jim Irvin appeared before the commission in support of the project. STAFF COMMENTS: Little: Staff expects to see a Targe scale development on each lot in the future. There are 309 acres in this development. This project contains approximately 170 acres and represents 55% of the land area to be developed. In 1994 during the rezoning of this property, a promise was made that land for a trail would be dedicated. In a previous meeting, staff understood that Chuck Rutherford, Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator, and Nancy Dugwyler, Assistant Parks Superintendent, would walk through the property with the developer and determine a site for the trail. At this time, staff understands that the trail will be placed on the north side of the creek, but a permanent location has not been determined. Should that be deferred to large scale development or decided now during discussion of the largest portion of land? The trail would be a city project, not the responsibility of the developer, but the city would like to define the location to get an idea of the layout of the trail. Dugwyler: Milholland: They walked the site with Mr. Milholland. No firm decisions were made. It is her understanding that the developer will provide a 20 foot easement in the flood way. After attending a FEMA meeting on flooding earlier in the week, she has concerns regarding placing trail structures (picnic tables, shelters, lights, etc.) in the flood way. During the 1994 rezoning meeting, the agreement was to have the trail in the flood area, not the flood way, and she would request the entire flood way be dedicated for an easement. There was discussion of dedicating the entire flood way as an easement. He doesn't see a problem with doing so as long as there is a determination on the exact path of the trail. There would be some additional complications with regard to sewer and water line placement. If there were additional land needs for picnic tables and such structures, that could be worked out at a later date. His concern is that if he dedicates the whole easement, the city would have first rights to additional area for sewer and water placement. He wants to see a legal agreement on who has rights to what property. Johnson: With that condition, would he be willing to dedicate the flood way? Little: During the rezoning of this property, the developer promised that land would be dedicated for a trail in the flood AREA, they never specifically said "flood way". There have been concerns from the beginning about having a structure in the flood way. According to city standards of development for flood plain management, nothing is allowed to obstruct the flood way. Flood plain development is a different area entirely. The original intent of the promise has not been met. At the last Subdivision Committee meeting on August 13, 1998, there were concerns over the placement of the trail. She read minutes from the previous meeting regarding the concerns over placing the trail in the flood way and confirming speculation of the specific location of the trail. • • • • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting September 3, 1998 Page -5- Irwin: Beavers: They are in support of the trail, and are awaiting staff recommendation on where exactly to place it. They would prefer the trail to be in the flood way, but if there are complications with that, perhaps it could be worked out to place most of the trail in the flood way. He is awaiting recommendations from Nancy Dugwyler and Chuck Rutherford on where they would like to place the trail so he can work with them on specifics. He supports the decisions of other staff members, but they might not be aware of the engineering complications involved in this project. He is strongly opposed to the trail being in the flood way. Mr. Milholland has said he would like to channelize Mud Creek. Milholland: He wouldn't be channelizing all of the creek, just the bridge location. Beavers: Will he be leaving the creek natural except for what is necessary for bridge construction? Milholland: The only channelization he wants to do is to improve the channel for the bridge crossing, probably several hundred feet each way. He understands that Charles Venable wanted to build a bridge at 71 and College, which will be in the flood way. He understands that the trail will be partly in the flood way. If a bridge is built across the channel, there will have to be a permit issued by the Corps of Engineers. Little: That isn't the issue. The original agreement on November 2, 1995 made with the City Council was "to give a 15 foot easement for pedestrian bike traffic through the designated flood areas of the property adjacent to Mud Creek." She requests that this promise be upheld. Irwin: Little: He would prefer to see the trail placed in the flood way, but if that isn't possible, he is willing to work with it being in the flood plain. The flood plain administrator FEMA and the Corps of Engineers all concur that it simply isn't feasible to place any structures in the flood way. The only thing safe to place in the flood way is the trail itself. The city would have to maintain it and would prefer to see picnic tables and other structures making it a nice trail rather than one that is haphazardly constructed. The city needs the 15 feet adjacent to the flood way. Hoffman: She wanted confirmation that the city will maintain the trail once it is constructed. Little: It is her understanding that the parks department is aware that they will be responsible for maintenance. Beavers: He wanted to re-emphasize that not only during this phase but during construction of the entire project, the creek will not be channelized. Milholland: He confirmed that the creek would be left natural except for areas where bridges cross Beavers: At the last Subdivision Committee, he provided Mr. Milholland a letter with the name and phone number of Arkansas Soil and Water Extension Service regarding available money for Mud Creek. Rutherford: Nothing but the trail itself should be constructed in the flood way. There are engineering Subdivision Committee Meeting September 3, 1998 Page -6- issues that need to be addressed. The further the trail is from the flood way, the easier it will be to resolve engineering questions. Beavers: To build the trail in the flood way involves numerous permits and maintenance problems. It is not in the interest of the city to have the trail in the flood way. Little: The location of the trail needs to be decided definitively. What are the engineering issues related to location? Beavers: The trail definitely does not need to be in the flood way. The original agreement discusses a trail adjacent to Mud Creek but says nothing about being in the flood way. Little: Is it possible to designate the location of the trail now? Johnson: Who makes that decision? Little: It should be a decision made by the developer with the approval of the trails staff. Dugwyler: She and Mr. Rutherford lack the engineering capabilities to make that decision. Irwin: They are willing to give the city an easement anywhere in the flood way or within 15 feet of the north side of the flood way. Little: She requests a line on the plat showing an easement 15 feet north of the flood way. Beavers: Will the developer construct the trail? Little: No, that was never the agreement. Reynolds: The developer furnishes the land; the city builds and maintains the trail. Will 15 feet be adequate for an easement, or will the city need 20 feet to allow for vehicle access? Beavers: The utility companies require a 25 foot utility easement on the rear property line. Irwin: If the land is dedicated to the city as an easement, will the developer get the utility easement back when the time comes to construct utilities? Milholland: The developer needs to reserve the right to put up roads, improvements and utilities. Beavers: Utility companies require a standard 25 -foot utility easement. Reynolds: He confirmed that utility access would not be a problem. Little: The issue of the layout of the development needs to be addressed. Johnson: She wanted confirmation about the location and width of the dedicated easement. It will be at the edge of the flood way and will be 20 feet wide. Micki Harrington, attorney for CMN, addressed the commission. • • • • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting September 3, 1998 Page -7- Harrington: Little: Conklin: Little: Dugwyler: Venable: Milholland: Johnson: Little: Milholland: Little: Johnson: Little: Irwin: Would it be feasible to have the land dedication to the city with an easement reserved for utilities? No problem The location of the trail greatly limits the building of structures (bathrooms, structures can't be built over a utility easement. The request is for the flood way to be considered a 20 foot utility easement. permits will be issued for that area. etc.) because No building With the area being close to the flood way, building is limited anyway. When the area to the east is developed, does the developer envision channel changes to the creek? The creek will remain natural except for bridge crossings and utility placements. The Corps of Engineers will dictate regulations on bridge building. She wanted to clarify that the developer has given the city 20 feet adjacent to the flood way as a dedicated conveyed easement which the developer will get back as an easement in regard to utilities. She is satisfied with that stipulation. She also is satisfied with that action. She wants the commission to realize that it is early in the development process, and questions could arise in future developments that would need to be addressed at that time. He will indicate the easement on the final plat. The commission needs to talk about street placement and its relation to the Master Street Plan. The overall layout has dotted lines indicating the Master Street Plan. There are no objections to what has been proposed. During the next phase of development, there will need to be a bridge crossing at Mall Lane. Staff recommendation is to cause a connection at Mall Lane to avoid another bridge crossing. That doesn't require a decision at this time unless the developer is in disagreement and wishes to discuss the issue further. She wanted to reiterate that the frontage road would be moved north of the creek to run east -west and hit Mall Lane, cease and then turn south. Their proposed layout would accommodate such a change. He speculated that people traveling down Shiloh and turning on Mall Lane would require re -channeling the flood way. The tried to emulate the Master Street Plan as best they could. The plan for Phase I is to stop at Van Asche to the east and to take Shiloh along the frontage road as shown on the plat. They would like to tie the roads in as close to the Master Street Plan as possible. Ernie Peters, traffic engineer for the project, appeared before the commission. Peters: He was not aware of the Mall Lane connection. As the area develops, that connection Subdivision Committee Meeting September 3, 1998 Page -8- could be worthwhile. It is possible to access connections through the properties for more flexibility. Irwin: They don't have enough access around the flood way to construct a road of that nature. Johnson: Is there any type of paved passageway there already? Milholland: There is not a paved area on his client's property. Peters: There is a partially paved portion on National Home Center's property. Johnson: The commissioners have no objection to a connection to the currently paved roadway. They do not anticipate a bridge connection in that location. Little: Johnson: A connection in this area would not require a bridge construction. There is limited access to the site from 71. There is one connection from Joyce or access through a turn onto the frontage road. There is a proposed flyover on the Master Street Plan connecting to the bypass to allow northbound traffic access without having to go around. The commission needs a sense of future development in this area to know what to anticipate for the undeveloped areas to the east and west. She clarified that the developer would build the two Master Street Plan streets indicated on the map to allow for connections in later developments. Peters: They had hoped to have an idea of street layout in general terms resolved at this meeting. Reynolds: That would require a more accurate plat than the one that has been presented. Milholland: A connecting street would await construction of a large scale development. Venable: The plans in relation to the Master Street Plan appear acceptable. Irwin: The developer agrees to adhere to the Master Street Plan and agrees to change the plat before the item is heard by Planning Commission. Little: The land for the streets has been dedicated, but no money will be put up until there is a large scale development in that area, at which time the developer for that project will construct the streets. Beavers: At the last Subdivision Committee meeting, he understood that the streets on the current plat were to be three -lane streets, and two-lane streets are indicated. Milholland: That was the recommendation; however, it is his understanding that he is required to build only a two lane street, and the city has the option of widening it. From Joyce Street to Steel Boulevard and from Van Asche west of Steel Boulevard, his plans are to build a two-lane road. Beavers: The developer is required to build a street necessary to service the development. Peters: From the traffic study in that area, less than 6,000 vehicles per day are estimated. At that • • • Subdivision Cotmnittee Meeting September 3, 1998 Page -9- Beavers: Peters: estimate, developing a three -lane road would be overkill. His concern is minimizing left turn traffic and keeping it out of the main road. There would be isolated locations were turns would occur. The street would be widened out in those areas to accommodate turn lanes. Irwin: The current plans show a two-lane road from Joyce to Van Asche. The city could come back and build the other two lanes later. Beavers: Funds are not available from the budget to accomplish the restructuring of the bridge and the street to a four -lane. Venable: His recommendation is that it would be cheaper to construct the entire project now rather than to re -do it later. Irwin: They will construct three lanes from Van Asche to Shiloh, but he doesn't see the necessity to construct more than two lanes from Joyce to Mall Street. Additional street requirements could be postponed until large scale development. Johnson: Widened turri lanes would be an option if curb cuts had been defined. Since no one is certain of the exact location of the turn lanes, the developer has the choice of constructing a three -lane street or pinpointing specific locations of the turn lanes for a two-lane street. Hoffman: Milholland: Harrington: Her understanding is that the developer will construct three lane streets throughout the project. The streets designated as Boulevards will remain two lanes. All other streets for the project will be constructed as three -lane streets. Are there Commercial Design Standards for streets? Hoffman: There is a street improvements ordinance that specifies the width of the street, but not the number of lanes. Beavers: Commercial project standards are decided by the Planning Commission as necessary. Rutherford: The sidewalk requirements have been met. Little: This development represents 170 acres of 309 acres or 55% of the total available land area. This will contribute to the traffic congestion on Wilkerson or Johnson Road. There is a bridge scheduled to be constructed in that area, and Gregg Street has scheduled improvements from the bypass up to the new bridge. For Gregg Street, the Phase I share would require a contribution of $46,200 and a contribution of $29,700 for the bridge. To obtain a resolution of the money required. the developer needs to prepare an estimate to be taken to City Council. Irwin: The developers agree to pay 55% of the estimated costs with the balance to be paid when future developments occur. Subdivision Committee Meeting September 3, 1998 Page -10- Beavers: If the city is to pay half the costs for the bridge, the city needs input into the procurement of an engineer for the project. Little: The bridge over Mall Lane will be the responsibility of the future developer of that property, which makes it an expensive venture; however this seems to be the most fair decision at this time. Milholland: They will note that on the final plat. Little: Overhead electric is already located beside the creek. SWEPCO says it is one of their larger lines, which they do not believe needs to be placed underground. The developers will need a waiver for the existing overhead, but future lines will need to be placed underground. Johnson: She supports that recommendation. Beavers: Mr. Milholland has requested an additional waiver from the grading order prohibiting cuts within 25 feet of the right of way. Staff supports the request subject to the relocation of the city trees in the area. Irwin: His request was not to place the trees in the first place because the developers were aware that they would be constructing a road. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Marjorie Brooks appeared before the commission. Brooks: Beavers: When the city offered landscaping, they preferred that it be delayed until the final plat. Upon discovering that the city would plant trees anyway, they requested that the city replace or replant them when the time came to make the driveway cuts. That commitment is not in writing. That's not the point. The current request is a variance from the grading ordinance prohibiting them to lower the lot. Staff will support the variance provided that they replace the trees. Little: The alternative to that is not to have curb cuts to Joyce, only to Steele. If they don't lower the lot, their access would be limited to Steele. Hoffman: She wants to address the timing of the tree replacement so that the trees do not have to be unnecessarily relocated twice, due to impending large scale development. Johnson: To summarize the issues discussed: 1) The developer revise his plats to indicate the required changes 2) The trail easement be conveyed to the city and be located 20 feet adjacent to but out of the flood way. The developer in turn will receive an easement back from the city allowing the developer to place utilities through and across the 20 foot easement. 3) Street issues east of Mall Lane haven't been discussed at this meeting and will be taken • • • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting September 3, 1998 Page -11- up at the time large scale development is processed. 4) Half of the four -lane portions of Steel and Van Asche Boulevards will be constructed by the developer now; the parts of the streets that aren't constructed as boulevards will be built into three -lane streets by the developer. 5) The only sidewalk variance granted will be that the sidewalk will run only on the north side of Shiloh since that street is adjacent to the bypass. Sidewalks will be constructed on both sides of the other streets. The developer will be allowed to bond the sidewalk on the west side of Steele Boulevard and the north side of Van Asche. 6) Off site improvements will require a contribution of approximately $134-140,000. Fifty-five percent of the total will be required now; the rest will be assessed as future phases are requested. 7) The commission will determine a waiver to allow the existing overhead electric lines to remain overhead: any additional lines will be placed underground. 8) The developer will comply with staff requirements to replace the city trees along lots 10 and 2. The commission will allow the developer to make cuts within 25 feet of public right of way by granting waiver #4. 9) The developer is required to bring estimates of costs to City Council after the Planning Commission meeting Commissioner Johnson made the motion that this project be forwarded to the Planning Commission provided that the developer meets the preceding requirements. Commissioner Hoffman seconded said motion. The motion was unanimously approved with a vote of 3-0-0. Subdivision Committee Meeting September 3, 1998 Page -12- LSD 98-25.00: Large Scale Development (Schmeiding) Lots 1-12, Block 2 of the Sunset Addition The item was submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering on behalf of Schmeiding Enterprises, Inc. for property located in Lots 1-12, Block 2 of the Sunset Addition. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R/O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 1.13 acres. Leonard Gabbard and Harrison French appeared before the commission in support of this project STAFF'S COMMENTS: Little: The project is subject to Commercial Design Standards. The developers are asking for a waiver of overhead electric. Other issues include the improvements to East Avenue and Lewis Avenue. The proposed sign is a joint identification sign that is 32 feet in display area because it sits back only 28 feet from the right of way. Since the development includes a Mazzio's Pizza, the developers are somewhat limited by the Mazzio's theme standards and have designed the rest of the buildings to be comparable. Lewis Avenue and Eastern Avenue are not standard city streets. The developer needs to pave and gutter their half of these streets. Gabbard: The second page of submittal shows a proposed widening detail for the streets surrounding the project that will hopefully comply with Master Street Plan requirements for width. The plan shows widening from the center line of the existing roads --Eastern Avenue, Venus and Lewis. Sixth Street has already been widened, and ordinance requires widening from the center line. Reynolds: He confirmed that sidewalks will be placed all the way around the project. Gabbard: There is no access on the west side of the project because there is limited sight distance, and the decision to limit access eliminates a potentially dangerous traffic problem. In reference to the overhead electric and TCA cable waivers, the developer has met with Dennis Burrack of SWEPCO, and the power company doesn't want to lower the existing overhead lines. The proposed estimate for doing so is approximately $56,500. He also requests a 25 -foot landscaping waiver that he submitted to Jim Beavers. Beavers: He agrees to the waiver subject to further review at the time construction plans are submitted. He has a concern about having water lines in the retaining walls. Rutherford: He requests that the plans reflect the sidewalks running continuous through the driveways. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. Johnson: Gabbard: The building elevation showing the retail building that faces Lewis concerns her because it looks too plain to face the street. He feels that they have provided adequate canopy cover --24% instead of the 15% requirement --to offset the aesthetic difficulties. • • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting September 3, 1998 Page -13- French: There is no need for any windows on that side as it is the back of the building. He could add windows or awnings depending on tenant requirements. Little: The developers would be entitled to additional signage than what has been utilized. They need to know about windows or other structures so that the Planning Commission can approve them for building permit requirements. Hoffman: French: She congratulated the developers on their use of landscaping beyond the requirements for commercial design standards. Her concern is signage --she would prefer to see a monument sign instead of a pole sign. Their client would prefer the pole sign rather than a monument sign. The businesses listed on the sign elevation are arbitrary and could possibly change based on the actual occupants of the building. Commissioner Hoffman moved to forward this item to Planning Commission for approval of the two requested waivers. Commissioner Johnson seconded said motion.