Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-01 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, October 1, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LS98-36: Lot Split (Vantage Sq. Post Office, pp 175) LS98-34: Lot Split (Carl Papa, pp 560) LS98-30: Lot Split (Gates, pp 564) LSD98-29: Large Scale Development (Hopkins Retail Ctr., pp 443) LS98-31, 32, & 33: Lot Splits (Bond, pp 569) LSD98-15.2: Large Scale Development (Kantz Pl., pp 371) ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Tabled Tabled Tabled MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Bob Reynolds, and Lorel Hoffman STAFF PRESENT: Dawn Warrick, Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Chuck Rutherford, Kim Hesse, and Janet Johns LS 98-36:00: LOT SPLIT VANTAGE SQUARE POST OFFICE, PP 175 N OR JOYCE AND W OF PARK VIEW DR Reynolds: Stated this item would be added as number IA. The lot split was submitted by Kirk Elsass of Lindsey and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Vantage Square Joint Venture for property located north of Joyce Street and west of Park View Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and the proposed split will create an 8.51 acre tract. Mr. Kirk Elsass was present to represent the project. Little: Stated the post office wished to purchase lot 3A. Further, she stated due to budgetary restrictions, the post office was unable to buy the entire tract and it was therefore necessary to split the tract. Ms. Little stated lot 3 is 2 acres and requires the Subdivision Committee's approval Following are the required conditions of the lot split: 1. No improvements are required to Joyce Street. 2. Trail construction along the north side of Joyce Street. 3. Construction of a part of Vantage Avenue. 4. Dedication of 90 feet of right of way. • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 2 Little: She stated a small remnant parcel would be created which may or may not be dedicated to the city at a later date. Elsass: In response to inquiry from Ms. Little, he stated lot 3A would contain 6.044 acres. He stated that Lot 3 would be dedicated. Little: The triangle of land designated as Lot 3 would be dedicated to the city. Discussion ensued regarding the dedication and conveyance of the remnant parcel. Further discussion ensued regarding the post office agreeing to construct the sidewalk, etc. Elsass: He stated that the federal government could not deed or transfer property and therefore the seller would deed the parcel directly to the city in two separate parcels. Discussion ensued regarding the right of way of Vantage Avenue according to the Master Street Plan. • Johnson: She stated no vicinity map had been provided. Little: She stated there was a drainage way which was not well defined creek but carried water during periods of rain. Elsass: He stated it was originally thought the property line ran through the center of the creek but it was determined that it runs to the north of the creek. Mr. Elsass presented the committee with the contract. Mr. Reynolds requested staff comment. Rutherford: Requested a 6 feet sidewalk in conjunction with the street. Elsass: letter. He stated that it was in the contract previously presented and would be in the Mr. Reynolds open the floor for public comment. Floor was closed after no one presented for comment and was opened to the Subdivision Committee. • Discussion ensued regarding the post office commitment to bring the project through large scale development process. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 3 Discussion ensued regarding the Vantage Street connection. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to approve the lot split for Vantage Square. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Mr. Reynolds voted for approval Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 4 LS 98-31.00, 32.00 & 33.00: LOT SPLITS (BOND, PP 569) S OF WEST 6TH ST. W OF RAZORBACK RD. The lot split was submitted by Jack Butt of Davis, Cox, & Wright on behalf of Paul and Geraldine Bond for property located north of Huntsville Road and west of Roberts Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and R -S, Residential Small Lot and contains approximately 6.65 acres. The request is to divide the parent tract into a total of four lots for the purpose of estate planning. No representative was present and this item was postponed until later in the meeting. This project was discussed following the LSD98-29: Hopkins Retail Center. Reynolds requested staff comments. Little: Inquired if Mr. Cox had the information regarding sewer that was requested at plat review. Further, she stated that the location of the lines did not match the as -built drawing. Following are the plat review conditions: 1. Additional right of way along Highway 16 and the drawing reflected that. 2. Dedication of easement at the rear of the property to be reflected as street right of way. The current drawing reflects "street easement" and Ms. Little requested that term "right of way" be used for clarity. It should be 40 feet wide to provide for a city street. Rutherford: Stated sidewalks had been requested. Cox: Stated the split was being done for estate planning purposes and it was his understanding that no improvements were required until relinquishment of ownership by the Bonds through their will. He stated the property was to be dedicated to their children. Reynolds: Inquired if this was the first time actions had been requested on this property. Little: Stated there was an annexation, then a rezoning from A-1 to R -S. Cox: Stated the Bonds were not making any physical changes to the property but that they simple wanted to record the lot splits. Hoffman: Stated the sidewalks should be shown on the plan. Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 5 Reynolds: Stated that he would only support this project if sidewalks were shown Rutherford: Requested that they be shown continuous through the driveways. Johnson: Inquired regarding the 40 feet street right of way. Discussion ensued regarding the right of way and future street access. Further discussion ensued regarding land usage adjoining the property and proximity to the White River. Little: Stated there would not be bridging of the White River. Johnson: Inquiring about the vicinity map noted that not all of the platted subdivision streets were included, namely, David Lyle. Mr. Reynolds open the floor to public comment. There being none, he requested a motion. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to table the project until the vicinity map correctly reflects platted subdivision streets, a continuous 6 feet sidewalk and property right of way designations. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Mr. Reynolds concurred. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 6 LS98-34: LOT SPLIT (CARL PAPA, PP 560) S OF WEST 6TH. W OF RAZORBACK RD The lot split was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Carl Papa for property located south of West 6th Street and west of Razorback Road. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial and contains approximately 9 57 acres. Little: This is a lot split for Cuckoos and it is to separate off the existing building from the remaining land. The remaining tract will be 6.99 acres and the tract with the building is 2.53 acres. Staff requires the following: 1. Sidewalk. 2. Additional right of way from the centerline which is shown on the plat. Discussion ensued regarding the location of the subject property. Hoffman: Inquired if the requirements of the Master Street Plan had been considered. Little: Stated additional right of way had been granted for Razorback Road and no attempt had been made to make a cross street between Razorback and Beechwood. She stated there was quite a bit of development along Beechwood and there is also University property so it was not certain whether that objective could be achieved. She stated it could be look at again when the 6.99 acres comes through large scale development. Discussion ensued regarding access through Baum Stadium and property ownership of adjoining tracts. Hoffman: Inquired as to the zoning of the subject tract. Little: Stated the zoning was I-1 Johnson: Requested that consideration be given to possibilities for east/west streets at large scale. Hoffman: Stated the Master Street Plan did not show a plan street through there. Little: Stated the Master Street Plan designated collectors and minor arterials or the bigger streets. Further, she stated the only time to talk about local streets is when faced with residential developments. Since this is not classified as a subdivision it is technically a waiver of the subdivision regulations so this is the property time to talk about local streets and connections. • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 7 Discussion ensued regarding the development of the remnant parcel and connectivity to Beechwood. Reynolds: Stated the vicinity map was inadequate. Discussion ensued regarding Lazenby warehouse development and whether or not redevelopment might occur. Reynolds. Stated that it was not possible to get a road through there at this time. Further he stated that he was not aware of any traffic problems out there. Hoffman: Inquired if a sidewalk would be provided. Little: She stated a sidewalk would be provided at the site with the existing building but parcel tract A would be postponed until the time of development. She stated all the right of way was being dedicated at this time. Rutherford: In response to inquiry from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Rutherford was in agreement with • the above stated arrangement. There was no comment from Kim Hesse, Landscape Administrator. Mr. Reynolds opened the floor for public comment. Mr. James Arbuckle inquired as to property tax issues and Ms. Little stated the city doesn't work with property tax issues but she would refer him to the proper agency. Further, Mr. Arbuckle stated there was an overgrown raven in the area which was creating an odor and pest problem. Ms. Little took his information and referred him to the proper authority. Mr. Reynolds requested further public comment. There being none, he opened the floor for motion. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to approve the lot split. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. Mr. Reynolds approved the matter as well. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 8 LS98-30: LOT SPLIT (GATES, PP 564) 807-809 CURTIS The lot split was submitted by Jerry Allred on behalf of Ken Gates for property located at 807- 809 Curtis, and at 833-835 Curtis. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.60 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of approximately 0.30 acres each. Mr. Reynolds requested staff comments. Warrick: The only requirements on this was for construction of sidewalks and a waiver request had been filed. Discussion ensued regarding the location of the subject property. Mr. Allred was present on behalf of the project. • Allred: Stated the duplexes were in existence and the split was requested for estate planning purposes. Further, he said he had no intention of building. He said one of the duplexes was constructed in 1994 and there were no sidewalks required at that time. Further he said the City came in a year ago and put in a new street with installing a sidewalk at that time. It is the property owner's opinion that a cost share or something should have been done at that time. • Little: Inquired if there adjacent sidewalks. Rutherford: Stated there were sidewalks to the south. Allred: Stated it was an out lot when they did the other development. Hoffman: I understand the total frontage is 200 feet. She inquired as to the price for construction of a sidewalk. Little: be $2000. She stated standard calculation was $10 per linear foot so a ball park figure would Reynolds: Inquired if a sale was proposed for two more lots. Allred: duplexes. In response, he stated that there was nothing else on the lot except the two • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 9 Johnson: Inquired as to the condition of the street before the City made improvement. Allred: Responded it was a dead-end gravel road. Discussion ensued regarding the improvements to the road and drainage improvements. Mr. Allred stated that would have been the proper time to request cost sharing for installation of the sidewalk. Johnson: Stated that the property owner received benefit of the street improvement which resulted in an increase in value of his property. Allred: Agreed with Ms. Johnson but noted that there was not any intent to sell but rather to estate plan. Discussion ensued as to whether or the Subdivision Committee could approve the lot split since a sidewalk waiver might be forthcoming. Further discussion ensued regarding whether or not the lot split could approved subject to • construction of the sidewalk and whether or not the City would be able to track same. • Allred: Suggested that the lot split be forwarded to the full Planning Commission and at such time the property owners would be available to address the sidewalk issue. Further, he stated he had conferred with the owners as to what they might wish to do regarding a sidewalk requirement. MOTION Ms. Johnson moved that the lot split be forwarded to the full Commission with the Subdivision Committee's recommendation that the sidewalk waiver be denied. Motion failed for lack of a second. Ms. Hoffman moved to approve the lot split subject to construction of the sidewalk and if the owners are not in agreement then the waiver request can be presented to the full Commission. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. Mr. Reynolds concurred with the decision. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 10 LSD 98 29.00 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (HOPKINS RETAIL CTR.) SW CORNER OF WEDINGTON & GARLAND The large scale development was submitted by Steve Hesse of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Mike Hopkins for property located at the southwest corner of Wedington Drive and Garland Ave. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 1 27 acres. Mr. Steve Hesse, Mike Anderson, and Steve Denoon were present on behalf of the project. Mr. Reynolds opened the floor for staff comments. Little: She stated there was agreement on the 4 feet sidewalk along Garland Avenue which is in unsafe condition and the developer has agreed to replace it from the point of the Highway Department stop to the south property line. Further, she requested a fire hydrant at the northwest entrance to the property off Wedington. She stated there were no water lines in the vicinity so there is the possibility that the waterline will have to be bored under Wedington. She inquired if that had been investigated. Hesse: Stated he had talked to both the fire chief and Jim Beavers. They will run a 6 inch loop line and an 8 inch on to the property. Little: She stated revisions had been requested a plat review and those were made. She stated that the bank drive through be moved to the other side of the building and that it appeared to work much better. Further, she noticed that the Wedington driveway is 24 feet wide and that the parking was removed from the one way drive. She requested that the width of the drive be reduced to a maximum of 18 feet. Rutherford: Inquired as to what designated the sidewalk. S. Hesse: He stated it was just a line or that it had failed to be hatched. Anderson: He stated that the developer would be responsible for connecting to the Highway Department's sidewalk work with concrete construction running south to make connection. K. Hesse: Requested that a tree plan be submitted prior to any grading permit issuance. Anderson: He stated that the canopy would not be affected. Mr. Reynolds open the floor to public comments. No comments were forthcoming. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 11 Mr. Reynolds then opened the floor to the Subdivision Committee. Anderson: Stated that the north most building would have a square footage reduction. He did not feel it would change the parking requirements and they would leave the parking as it is designed. Reynolds. Expressed reservation about considering this project without a City engineer present. Hoffman: Inquired as to the amount of cutting and filling that would be done on the site. Anderson: Stated no volume calculation had been done at this time but that the rear retaining wall would be no higher than 10 feet. Hesse: Stated 10 feet maximum back in the corner and tapering down to ground level. Hoffman: Inquired if there was anticipation of a waiver request for cutting and filling or the driveway cuts. Anderson: Stated they had planned compliance with the new ordinance for retaining walls. Further he stated that if they reduced the drive out to 18 feet the situation would be even better. He reiterated that 10 feet was the maximum height of the wall. Hoffman: Inquired regarding site distances on the driveway and had that been specifically addressed in plat review or in house review. Discussion ensued as to what the Highway Department's exact plans were. Ms. Little stated the Highway Department was working on Wedington at present and the cut was already in place and it had been put back as far from the intersection as possible with the lot configuration. Further discussion ensued regarding the locations of the entrances and the grade of Wedington and Garland Streets. Discussion ensued regarding an existing alley and Mr. Anderson stated that was why the plan reflected a curb cut at that location. Discussion ensued regarding the Highway Department's work. Mr. Anderson said they had no firm idea of what the final intersection will be but he gave his assurance they design their project to match their completed project. Further, he stated the entrance was subject to change engineering -wise and slope -wise based on what the Highway Department does. Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 12 Johnson: Inquired as to the distance from the curb cut to the west edge of the traffic triangle median. Little: About 200 feet. Johnson: Inquired as to whether or not there would be left turn lane. Little: Stated there would be four lanes without a turn lane. Discussion ensued regarding the turn lanes on Wedington and Garland. Johnson: Stated she would like to see the issue of turn lanes resolved before the project is brought before the full Planning Commission. Little: Requested that the developer provide information on the Highway Department's plans and schematic. Anderson: Stated they had those plans. Discussion ensued regarding the Highway Department's plans. Ms. Little stated that the City generally only received their rights of way plan. Mr. Anderson stated they had the right of way plans and the construction plan but that it still was not clear Discussion ensued regarding the Mcllroy Bank entrance from Wedington and how same aligned with this projects entrance plans. Little: Requested that the entrance alignments be shown on the plan. Further she inquired if the Highway Department had provided that driveway for them as a part of construction. She inquired as to whether or not they were providing their driveway as well. Anderson: Stated they were proposing to build a 20 feet wide concrete pad for the original access easement. Little: Stated there was a proposed street light on the private drive to Mcllroy. Hoffman: Inquired if the curb radii had been examined for adequacy for truck traffic. Anderson: The plan reflects the standard radius. Discussion ensued as to what types of business would be in the retail center. Mr. Anderson stated a bank was planned for one end and perhaps professional offices Mr. Reynolds inquired Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 13 as to whether or not Fuzzy's Restaurant would be in the center and Mr. Anderson stated that they would remain at their current location. Hoffman: Inquired as to how many drive through lanes were planned for the bank. Anderson: Stated there were two drive through lanes and an ATM lane on the outside. Hoffman: Inquired if there was enough stacking space on the drive through side. Little: Stated that had been reviewed and it was determined to move the bank to the configuration that was not shown on the plan. Discussion ensued regarding the Highway Departments plans for Garland. Ms. Little stated Mr. Venable was working with the Highway Department and stated that they were committed to the University to do the project but that there was a potential problem with the bus access at Leverett School so an alternate plan is being worked on. Further discussion ensued regarding whether or not left turn lanes would be constructed on • Wedington and Garland. Johnson: Addressing Mr. Rutherford, she expressed concem regarding the sidewalk at the intersection. Rutherford: He explained that the Highway Department did things differently than the City. He stated the City has no jurisdiction over the construction of the sidewalk. Hoffman: Inquired regarding the trees and whether or not they were red maples. Anderson: Confirmed that there are 22 red maples. Reynolds: Inquired as to why the trees were shown in designated right of way. Anderson: Stated those are in a utility easement. He stated the City required an extended water line and the requirement was a 20 feet easement for a water line. Discussion ensued regarding the landscaping which would include red buds and red maples and the location of same. Mr. Reynolds stated no trees could be in the water and sewer utility easement. Hoffman: Inquired as to the plans for the detention area in front of the building. Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 14 Anderson: Responded it would be a versa-loc or keystone retaining wall and a glass area approximately 4 feet deep with some trees down in it. Hoffman: Requested the Highway Department plans. Further she inquired regarding the elevations and design standard materials. Little: Stated copies had been provided to the Committee. She explained there would be sand colored drivet, red brick in the middle, and split face CMU along the bottom on the east and north elevation. On the two elevations to the rear that are metal. Mr. Reynolds opened the floor to public comment. No comments were forthcoming. Mr. Reynolds re -opened the floor to staff comments. Hoffman: Inquired if the metal siding would be visible from the street and if so more care should be taken with them. Little: Stated the height of the retaining wall is 10 feet high in that location. Hoffman: And how high is the building? Anderson: 14 to 15 feet. Further, Mr. Anderson recommended coming down Wedington and looking back at the site. He stated the whole facade could not be seen. Discussion ensued regarding the elevations. Hoffman: Expressed concern regarding this site backing up to a residential neighborhood. She inquired what that view might be like. Anderson: Stated the roof would be the most visible but many large trees would obstruct the roof and back facade. Hoffman: Inquired if the property would include a fence or a vegetative screen. Anderson: Indicated a vegetative screen would be in place on the residential perimeter. Discussion ensued regarding vegetative materials which include hibiscus and crepe myrtle. Further discussion ensued regarding the existing large trees. Reynolds: Inquired regarding guttering. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 15 Denoon: Stated there would guttering to the south and west rear of the building which would be brought around and used in the pond. Little: Commented she preferred the new elevation which were presented and depicted a less than simple, flat roof. Discussion ensued regarding the newly submitted elevations. Mr. Denoon stated they design a break in the drivit with extended columns and tried to match the red brick of other development in the area Reynolds: Inquired about the signage. Hopkins: Stated the signage would be on the structure. Further, he stated that he would request a monument sign. Little: Requested elevations to be submitted. Discussion ensued regarding the elevations. Ms. Johnson noted that the only change was the extended columns above the roof line. Little: Inquired regarding lighting. She stated that in the earlier elevations she thought the lights were simply drivet detail. Denoon: Confirmed that they would be lights. Hoffman: Requested that the elevations be revised to show the actual drive-in locations at the west elevation for the full Commission meeting. Further, she expressed concern regarding whether or not the back would be visible. She requested that if the back was visible that further treatment be included for the back of the structure. Discussion ensued regarding what type of treatment would be recommended for this structure. Little: Requested that treatment be on the upper part of the building instead of the usual treatment to the bottom part of the walls. Reynolds: Inquired regarding the lighting for the parking lot. He noted that the property was adjoining with residentially zoned property and he requested that the lighting be oriented down. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little stated the lighting would be along the front of the property. Ms. Reynolds noted that the bank may request some type of security lighting in the back. Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 16 Hopkins: Stated lighting would be on the eastern and southern sides. Discussion ensued regarding the street frontage of the Hathcock property and Mr. Hopkins stated he did not know but that he was 660 feet from Leverett School. Further discussion ensued regarding shared drive access and Ms. Little stated that would not be a bad idea and that discussions had ensued regarding future development in that area She stated that possible connection could be achieved with Hughes Street. Ms. Little stated there 345 feet from this property line to the lot that the school is using. Discussion ensued regarding provisions for stacking of cars on Garland Avenue. Johnson: Stated she was hesitate to pass this project on to the full Commission because of the lack of definitive plans from the Highway Department. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the project was four or five lanes. Ms. Little stated that during discussion of improvements to Wedington she had requested bike lanes but they had made the lane wider to accommodate bicycle traffic and therefore she was not of the opinion that the project was five lines. Further she stated that based the Highway Department did a really good job constructing intersections. Little: Requested the Highway Department information. Reynolds: Requested a motion. Hopkins: Expressed concern that he was going to be land locked. He stated the driveways were as far from the intersection as he could go. Little: Stated there was topographical issues on the Wedington drive. She suggested that the drive either be moved toward the south or maybe widened. Hopkins: Stated he didn't own that property and had not had discussions about shared access drives. Johnson: Suggested the possibility of shared access be explored. Discussion ensued and Mr. Hopkins expressed his desire to get approval to proceed. MOTION Ms. Hoffman motioned to table the project pending further information from the Highway • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 17 Department and possible rearrangement of the driveway situation on Wedington. Further she asked that staff work with the developer to achieve a mutual recommendation. Reynolds. Amended the motion to include the project as the first item on the next Subdivision Committee agenda. Johnson: Amended the motion to include that the development contact the property owners to the south regarding the possibility for shared access drive. Johnson seconded the motion. Reynolds: Stated the project was on the table pending the requested information in the motion. Warrick: Requested revised copies of the plat and revised copies of the elevations. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 18 LSD 98-15.20: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (KANTZ PLACE, PP 371) W OF HWY 265 AND N OF HWY. 45 The Targe scale development 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. Mr. Tom Hopper with Crafton Tull and Assoc., Mr. Ernie Peters with Peters and Assoc. from Little Rock, Ms. Kathy Ball with E.J. Ball Trust and Jim Lindsey, and Ms. Shannon York with Wal-Mart were present representing the project. Little: Stated the project had been previously tabled for allowance of Citizens's Drive through the project. She noted that at one time Citizen's Drive did not meet the city street standards. Further she noted that Citizen's Drive had been realigned with a "T" configuration. She inquired if there had been any discussion with Jim Beavers as to whether he was in agreement with the new alignment. Hopper: Stated the design as shown is closer to city street standards. Little: Stated it would be addressed at full Planning Commission as a street waiver unless the Subdivision Committee wanted to discuss it further. Hoffman: Inquired if the waiver had anything to do with proximity to any driveways. Hopper: Responded it was regarding the radius of the curves. He stated they were at 75 feet radii and the requirement was 150 feet radii. Little: Stated the plat had been revised as requested at the previous meeting of the Subdivision Committee. Following are requests from staff: 1. Drive through in front of Wal-Mart to be stubbed out so that it would go to the future lot in a more direct manner and that had been changed as requested. 2. Subdivision Committee requested information on what it would take to extend the street up to Kantz Drive to provide left turn to the north out of the subdivision increasing the possibility of getting a street light at that location. Little: Stated the traffic engineer had done additional studies and timing patterns as requested by Perry Franklin for a signal at Citizens Drive. Further she stated that it would be feasible to have the signal at Citizens Drive which effects the stub out situation at Kantz. She noted a Bill of Assurance had been received and requested the developer address that. Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 19 Hopper: Recognized Dr. Knolls was present in opposition to the project. Further, he requested that Mr. Peters address the traffic issues. He stated the information has been furnished to the Highway Department in Little Rock via the Director to the Chief Engineer to the head of traffic. He stated Mayor Hanna had written a letter submitting the information to the Highway Department and asking for their input on the traffic. Peters: Stated he had conducted a traffic impact study on this site. He stated he had used the store square footages and uses that are indicated on the site plan for trip generation calculations. He stated that the development as proposed there is one access drive on Highway 45 and on Highway 265. He stated the main concern was the access point on Highway 265 because it is viewed at the predominant access point primarily because of the origin and destination that is anticipated. Johnson: Inquired as to why they anticipated the traffic to originate from Highway 265 as the main entrance. Peters: Stated the estimated and same is outlined in the report that approximately 55 percent would originate north of the site, 20 percent from the east, 15 percent from west, and 10 percent from the south. Discussion ensued. Mr. Peters stated the worst case scenario was a left turn out of the driveway onto Highway 265. He stated they estimated high on the approach from the north. Peters: Based on his data, he stated two traffic signal warrants would be met at the Highway 265 location. He stated a third warrant was one hour short of having been met. Further, he stated the need for signal control at that location is close to the intersection of Highway 45 about 450 feet to the north. He stated the report did reflect that traffic does stack up past this location at the north, particularly during the afternoon peak hours of 5:00 to 5:45 p.m. He addressed the close proximity of the signals at Citizens Drive and Highway 45 and stated that staff had expressed concern regarding coordination with that intersection at Highway 45 is feasible and upon further analysis the report reflects that it is feasible. He advised that he had not worked out the timing of the intersections with Perry Franklin but that is a design detail and does not technically need to be addressed at this juncture. He stated that because Highway 265 is a state highway, the highway department must approve and permit signal locations to the city. Reynolds: Inquired as to whether or not Mr. Franklin was aware of the meeting. Little: Stated he was attending a meeting in Little Rock. She noted Mr. Veneable had a meeting but would be joining the Subdivision Committee as soon as possible. Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 20 Discussion ensued regarding the percentages. Mr. Peters said the assumption was made that the same percentages would be effective for the both directions. Johnson: Inquired as to how those percentages were derived. Peters: Stated it was an educated guess based on peak hour for analysis because that is most critical. He stated he looked at the directional splits of traffic at the intersection of Highway 45 and Highway 265, those percentage correlate to the percentages he derived for this study. Johnson: Inquired as to the numbers from the Highway Department's study that this study is based on. Peters: Stated the north -south volumes on Highway 265 during p.m. peak hours were approximately 1000 vehicles with 600 vehicles southbound and 400 vehicles northbound. Further, he stated that in the east -west direction total about 460 vehicles with 330 eastbound and 136 westbound. In addressing the intersection level of service at Highways 45 and 265 is an E level of service. Further he stated that was not wonderful but the Highway Department did have plans for improvements to the intersection. He state that if this site is developed before the improvements are in place, the level of service would stay in the E range. In response to Ms. Johnson's inquiry as to the meaning of E range, he stated that it is almost failure denoted by stop and go and loaded cycles where you have to wait through more than one green to red cycle. He reiterated that the projected traffic associated with this development would not change the E range level of service. He suggest widening of the Citizens Drive access even prior to the Highway Department's improvement in order to get a short turn lane into Citizens Drive which he referred to as the interim geometry. He stated with the signal and turn lane at Citizens the level of service at that location would be a C level and would not adversely affect the E level of service at Highway 45 and 265. He stated without signal control the intersection would fail. Discussion ensued. Reynolds- Inquired if the Johnson family had been contacted about obtaining their property. Hopper: Stated he believed the Highway Department had been contacting property owners for the obtaining right of way for the Highway 45 widening project. Peters: Stated that once the Highway Department improvements are completed it improves the p.m. peak hour level of service to a D level. He stated the Highway Department's plans include a two lane left turn but one would be temporarily striped out until the widening of Highway 45 was completed to allow for two lanes. Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 21 Reynolds: Inquired if it was unusual for a signal to be installed 500 feet from an existing light. Discussion ensued and Ms. Little stated that it was unusual but it had been done and referred to the Wedington Drive signalization at Highway 71 Bypass. Johnson: Inquired as to whether or not the Highway Department's decision would be finalized by the Planning Commission meeting. Peters: Stated they thought that it would be. Discussion ensued regarding the fact that Highway Department does not commit to the need for a signalization until that need is actually shown by actual traffic volumes. Hooper: Summarized that they would like to construct the development with the understanding that they would go back to the Highway Department for an approval of a signal if it is so warranted. He stated that if the permit was granted for a signal at that location that the developer would pay for it. Discussion ensued and Mr. Conklin reiterated that the intersection would fail if the development went through without signalization. Mr. Hooper added that it would not be a 24 hour failure but the p.m. peak hour. Little: Stated there were two obstacles. She inquired if a signal at Kantz had been looked at without the street and controlled to right turn only. Hooper: Stated that was not an alternative that was indicated for this traffic in the City's best interest. He asked Mr. Peters to address that. Little: Stated that it was her opinion that the Highway Department might be more likely to agree to a signal that was more than 1000 feet away from the intersection such as at Kantz. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the warrants would be met. Reynolds. Stated the neighborhood residents were opposed to a connection at Kantz to get to Highway 45. Discussion ensued. Little: Requested clarification as to whether or not the interim measure for the left tum lane at Highway 265 would be constructed at the developers expense. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 22 Hopper: Stated they would agree to do that. He further stated that it was his understanding the Highway Department is in the process of trying to do that already. Peters: Stated it was his understanding that they would soon widening out by milling an over lane on the shoulders from Highway 45 north all the way to Highway 212. Reynolds. Requested that the State's plan for the area be available to the committee. Peters. Presented a copy of the plan. Little: Inquired if the lanes were shown. Peters: Responded that there had been a change in the plan he presented. The current rendering does not include a center median with two southbound left turns at Highway 45 and initially one lane would be stripped out. There will be two southbound through lanes instead of the current one and a right turn flare out approach at the intersection. The same geometry will exist for the northbound. He stated Highway 45 would be the typical five lane configuration with two through lanes and one turn lane. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed State improvements to the Highways. Mr. Hopper indicated the construction plans they had show the five lanes extending 100 feet past the Citizens Drive and Highway 45 intersection. Mr. Reynolds opened the floor to public comment. Mr. Jeff Kayco was present to get information about the development plans. He opposed access from Kantz to Highway 265. Mr. Bob Sigafuse was present and made a lengthy presentation expressing his concern with the lack of infrastructure along the eastern corridor of the city. He opposed this development. Dr. Elizabeth Knolls a clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist read a statement in opposition to the development because of adverse affects to her clinic at an adjoining site. Mr. Reynolds closed the floor for public comment. Discussion ensued regarding the Project 2019 volumes and the affect same had on Mr. Peter's report. Hoffman: Inquired if the Citizens' Drive signal option had been pursued. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 23 Discussion ensued regarding the Citizens Drive option without a definitive answer from Mr. Peters. Hoffman: Stated she was very opposed to the signalization at Kantz Drive and traffic movement through the residential area there. She cautioned about stopping all growth in the eastern part of the City. Discussion ensued regarding the East Oaks traffic situation and connectivity issues. Mr. Peters made a comparative analysis between the proposed Kantz signal and those at Wedington and Highway 71 Bypass in Fayetteville, and the signal at Highway 412 in Springdale and explained the traffic flow at the proposed signal at Citizens Drive. In response to inquiry from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Peters stated the signal at Citizen's Drive would lead to increase in traffic through the residential section on Kantz Drive. Discussion ensued regarding the City's ability to coordinate the various signals within the City. Reynolds: Inquired as to whether or not Lindsey or E.J. Ball trust had ownership of any property to the east of Dr. Knoll's office. Ball: She stated that Dr. Knowles's had all the property available to the highway. Further discussion ensued regarding cut through traffic along East Oaks. Peters: Stated he had some suggestions for Mr. Franklin which might alleviate some of the problems at the intersection of Highway 45 and Highway 265. In particular changing the left turn signal from protected only to protected and permitted. The protected is the bar indicating left turn then it goes to a green ball and left tum is not protected but can be made if there is no oncoming traffic. He stated that was a fairly simple change be wanted to request from Mr. Franklin if this project doesn't come about. Mr. Reynolds recognized that Mr. Venable had come into the room. Johnson: Stated that the stoplight failure might be resolved when the Highway Department completes their project. Further, she stated that she was not persuaded that people will avoid busy intersections that work and cited the improvements to the Joyce and Highway 71B as an example of improvements that worked and stopped intersection failure. • Discussion ensued regarding the fact that the intersection at Highway 45 and Highway 265 did not have four lanes of traffic in all directions as the one at Joyce Street and Highway 71B. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 24 Johnson: Stated that she had been told there would be a three lane road on Highway 45, a four land on Highway 265 South and a two lane with turn lane on Highway 254 North. Discussion ensued regarding the commercial development in the area and the traffic impact. Little: Inquired if there was a time frame and better idea of the Highway Department's schedule other than the fact that they are going to build it in January. Hopper: Stated that was all he could find out. Little: Requested that they pressed on that, too. Reynolds: Stated that it would probably be one year before this project was ready to open its doors. Hopper: Stated that they had gotten all the information available for this project. He stated the mayor had written a letter requesting that the Highway Department move ahead with their determination on this light. Johnson: Inquired is there was a reason that a light at Kantz couldn't be considered as well as the light at Citizens. Hopper: Stated they had not asked for a determination based on a light at Kantz. Johnson: Inquired why that was not done. Further, she inquired why the Commission shouldn't have all the available information to compare the two possibilities. Discussion ensued regarding the Commission giving consideration to two scenarios - a signal at Citizens or a signal at Kantz. Hopper: Stated that the drive to Kantz involves an additional street which would have to be constructed and it involves taking other people's property that is outside of this ownership and if the light would work at Highway 265 which the light will based on their data, there was no reason to have that additional expense and to take that private property and that was the reason they didn't look at a signal at Kantz. Johnson: Inquired if there was a reason why they shouldn't have that information and the comparison. Further she inquired if the Highway Department looked at those two possibilities. Peters: Responded that if it was a realistic possibility with a connection between this property and Kantz then perhaps that should be reviewed as an alternative. • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 25 Johnson: Inquired as to whether or not from a traffic point of view that would not be a reasonable possibility. Peters: Responded that if the primary purpose of the signal control would be to control the ingress and egress of the site traffic, it would be fairly obvious that signalizing the direct access drive the serves the project would be the first choice. Further he stated that presently volumes on Kantz were not sufficient to justify a signal so you would have to make a jump from the collector that others would be better served as they leave the site on Citizens to make a left on to the cut through and a right on Kantz and then a left on to Highway 265. Discussion ensued regarding service to the public as a whole not just to this development. Peters: Stated that if the Commission wanted to compare the Citizens signal with a signal at Kantz, he would be happy to provide that information. He stated that in terms of volumes he estimated that we would see the locations being very similar. Johnson: Inquired that if Mr. Peters with the City Traffic Engineer and if you were paid by taxpayers of this City, would you be arguing as strong for light to be a Citizens instead of the • light being at Kantz. Peters: Tempered his response with the fact that he has in the past served as a consultant directly to the City of a number of projects including the one at Joyce and Highway 71B. To answer the question directly, he stated his advice would be the same That the signal onto the Citizens Drive intersection is the more reasonable thing to do. • Reynolds: Inquired of Mr. Peters that if the Highway Department comes back here and tells you they aren't going to install this light because it's 500 feet from the existing light then what would be his next move for this project. Peters: Responded that he would pursue the Kantz Drive scenario or to signalize it and see how it operates. Mr. Reynolds opened the floor to Mr. Venable. Venable: Stated that the light at Citizens could work it out. Reynolds: Inquired of Mr. Venable that knowing the Highway Department as he knows them did he think they would install a light there at 500 feet. Venable: Stated that he did not think they would go with one until the traffic was in operation. Further, he stated that sometimes they do and sometimes they don't and that they Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 26 would just have to wait. Peters: Stated a few rare exceptions have been made to not putting the signal in based on the projects and they have come by later requesting the developer to put the signal. He used the example of the Wal-Mart Store in Cabot, Arkansas. Johnson: Inquired if there was any reason that if this project was approved with the plan to allow the exit on to Citizens that we only allow right turns in and out at Citizens until there is a light as a temporary measure. Hopper: Stated that the worst case scenario is the peak hour and the rest of the time you can turn in and out with the movement of the traffic. Reynolds: Inquired of Mr. Venable if the Highway Department would improve the intersection before they begin the overlay toward Highway 16. Venable: Responded that he couldn't respond for the Highway Department one way or the other. Reynolds: Further inquired if they could request that the intersection be improved prior to the overlay of Highway 16. Venable: (His response was not audible because he was too far away from the microphone.) Johnson: Inquired as to whether or not the Highway Department had the same kind of built in economic incentives for quick completion of their projects as private contractors and cities often have. Venable: Stated that they do on some. (Mr. Venable's complete response was not audible.) Discussion ensued regarding the Wedington project and Ms Johnson stated that she didn't feel as if there had been a push to get to completion. Hoffman: Inquired regarding the condemnation procedure for condemning that piece of private property whether it is Lindsey's or Dr. Knowles' office for a private development even though it is going to be a public street. She asked Ms. Little was that procedure entailed. Little: Generally, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. City Council may only condemn property if it is in the general public interest. But they have to make the decision. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 27 Hoffman: Inquired if the general public's interest will be served. Further she inquired if this project would fall within that definition. Little: Stated that is was her understanding that the intersection design of the 2019 had been done. She stated the developer has the information but we don't have that information. We don't know what traffic volumes they have based it on. Peters: Stated the City does have it because he has submitted it. Little: Stated that it would be important for us to understand what volume they have anticipated for that 20 year period. She further stated there were a lot of subdivisions going on in the eastern sector of the planning area and she wanted to check the rate of growth to see if the volumes were accurate. Mr. Reynolds recognized and opened the floor to Mr. Rutherford. Rutherford: Requested that the radius lines be removed from the sidewalk and that the sidewalk be shown continuously through the driveways. Hoffman: Inquired what other waivers had been requested besides the streets. Hopper: The streets and the signs. Hoffman: Inquired if the design standards had been discussed adequately. Reynolds: Stated the design standards hadn't been discussed very much but the design of this project and the one on Highway 412 in Springdale were identical. Hopper: Presented pictures from various angles. Discussion ensued regarding the design of the pharmacy's drive through. Little: Inquired if the additional Highway information could be obtained before the next Planning Commission meeting. She stated that if it couldn't there was no point in taking it before the full Commission. Peters: Stated that during his meeting with the Mayor, Mr. Franklin had supported a signal at this location. Hopper: Stated he thought he was doing what he was told and that was to get some decisions from the traffic engineer and from the state and that was the direction that the took and • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 28 we presented a letter. He stated he had submitted a report to Herb Phillips requesting that they consider a traffic signal at this location. He stated Phillips' response to that was that they would respond officially upon hearing from the City. Johnson: Inquired of Ms. Little if that was set forth in the conditions of the Planning Commission. Little: I don't think it was what we asked them to do. Hopper. Stated he thought that he was doing what the Commission had directed them to do. Intense discussion ensued regarding what the Planning Commission had requested at the last meeting. Reynolds: Inquired of Mr. Venable if he thought they would get a signal there. Venable: Stated he thought that they would. Mr. Reynolds recognized Kim Hesse, Landscape Administrator. Hesse: Requested that the shrubs be moved from the right of way. Hoffman: Stated that the overhead versus underground utility service had been resolved. Further she stated that obviously the traffic is the big issue and since there was not a firm commitment on the traffic signal whether or not there will be a split vote at the Planning Commission. She stated she preferred to send this project on to the full Commission since they had obtained a request to the Highway Department fairly timely could they request the same information on Kantz? Reynolds. Stated they were pretty sure about getting the signal there. Johnson: Stated her only thought was just that we still have enough gaps in information that we force the full Commission to act as a committee and I think with the traffic questions we have out, we still do that. She further stated that she was aware that this project has been in process for awhile. She requested that Mr. Peters work out the same kind of traffic numbers (i.e., the percentages) of the traffic in every direction at this intersection based on the Highway Department's 2019 numbers and I guess also to what extent these intersections work based on the 2019 numbers and the other things she requested was for the Highway Commission to have the option of evaluating both the Kantz location for a signal with a connection of this project to Kantz as well as evaluating the signal at Citizens. Subdivision Committee Minutes October 1, 1998 Page 29 Little: Stated the deadline for revised information is 10:00 on Monday and she did not feel that would be adequate time for those kinds of answers to be determined. Discussion ensued regarding what should be done with the project. Hopper: Inquired that if he could get a definitive answer on the traffic signal light could this Committee send the project forward to the full Planning Commission. Little: Stated that staff would not be available for Agenda Session on the 8th of October prior to the Planning Commission meeting and therefore, there would not be a time to talk about the information requested for this project. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to table the project for the above stated reasons. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Hoffman: Stated she would not vote to table because she truly believed that if the state wouldn't commit to a traffic signal they will be in the same boat two weeks from now. Johnson: Stated that she wanted to be very clear that the Mayor's office should request information on Kantz. Little: Stated that electric service would be overhead along Highway 265 and underground on Highway 45. Requested 12 copies of revised drawings and elevations. The meeting adjourned at 11:50.