Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-15 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on October 15, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in City Administration Building, Room 111 at 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LS98-35: Lot Split (Jim & Laura Higgins, pp 475) LSD98-30: Large Stale Development (Harvey, pp 601) ACTION TAKEN Approved-w/revisions Pulled FP98-4: Final Plat (Emerald Subdivision, Phase II, pp 291) Approved LS98-31, 32, 33: Lot Splits (Bond, pp 569) Approved w/conditions LSD98-15.2: Large Scale Development (Kantz, pp 371) Approved -forward to PC MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Sharon Hoover (standing in) Lorel Hoffman Robert Reynolds Phyllis Hall Johnson (arrived for Kantz discussion) STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Alett Little Dawn Warrick Tim Conklin Jim Beavers Chuck Rutherford Pen -y Franklin Kim Hesse Kim Rogers Janet Johns • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 2 LS98-35 00 LOT SPLIT (JIM & LAURA HIGGINS, PP 475) 5605 DOT TIPTON ROAD This lot split request was submitted by Anthony Bowling and Ellen Sue Hunter on behalf of Jim and Laura Higgins for property located at 5605 Dot Tipton Road. The property is in the county and contains approximately 3.34 acres. The request is for a 1.50 acre tract and a 1.92 acre tract. Mr. Anthony Bowling was present to respond to the Committee. DISCUSSION Little: We understand that the parcel has already sold. So, this is an after the fact lot split. At the plat review meeting, we had asked for Dot Tipton Road to be shown and that has been shown on the plat. We had asked for the floodplain reference to be added and I do not see that. Conklin: Yes. It's up in the left hand corner. Little: Jim Beavers has had several requests. There is an existing 2 inch water line that's 900 feet west of County Road 649. Volume and pressure are probably less than we would desire for that area for fire protection and fire protection is not available. And the Office of the Health Department has to approve septic systems for these lots. Bowling: They did. Little: Only one other thing on this one. This morning I received a call from a lady named Helena Ausmon. Ausmon: I'm here. Little: She wishes to address the committee about her lot line. Ausmon: There is a surveyor's stake about 15 feet inside my property line. And that's my only objection. I just want to know why and what boundaries are being used. Little: I see your name here. Could you point out where that surveyor's stake is for us? Ausmon: This is my original survey in '84. This is my lot. The stake is inside my property about 15 feet. Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 3 Bowling: I not aware of why he set the stake in her yard. Ausmon. What does the paper say? It's out in the field. Reynolds: Are you claiming the 15 feet? Bowling: I would like to give it up but I wouldn't make an issue of it at all. Reynolds: It sounds like a property dispute to me and I'm going to be willing to table this project until you settle your property dispute. Bowling: The survey says it is ours but the fence is already there. Ausmon: The fence has been there since 1971. Bowling: I don't want to make an issue out of it. Hoffman: But the survey you have is still showing the boundaries laid out as such that they include part of her lot. If we approve this, then it wouldn't be her property. This is certainly a neighbor to neighbor dispute and this is something that you have to work out using your surveyor. It might come to having to use lawyers to work out that property line. We do not normally approve lot splits if there is a property line dispute. Reynolds. Thanks for coming but what I think you need to do is sit down and try to work this out or your need to get your engineer to come out and survey your piece of property and see who that 15 feet belongs to. Ausmon: When Ed Jordan set this up back in 1971, we bought that lot and had it surveyed and those were the same. So this is the first error I've ever heard of. Reynolds: So you've got corner pins that show your boundaries? Little: What we need in order to approve this, is a line that we can file over at the county. We need this line right here to be decided before the next meeting or whenever you can get back to us so we can give you our approval. Once these records are filed at the county, they must be as correct as possible or the land records just become more and more confused. Hoffman: If he wants to yield to it and we approve it we just need to have the staff approve it or something like that? • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 4 Little: That would be fine. Now do you own the lot to the east, too? Bowling: Yes. Little: Okay. So you're in a position that you can actually yield to Ms. Ausmon. Reynolds. So do you want to take the stake down and let the fence be the property line. Bowling: That will work. Reynolds: Are you satisfied with that? Ausmon: Yes.. I have no objection to the split. Reynolds: Make sure the minutes state that he is willing to accept the old fence line as the boundary between the subject property thereby giving up 15 feet. Do you have any more problems with that? • PUBLIC DISCUSSION • Mr. Reynolds opened the floor to public discussion. There being none, discussion returned to the Committee. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve lot split 98-35 subject to the plat correct showing the 15 feet be included as Ms. Osmond's property with correct legal terminology and for City staff to approve that prior to filing. Ms. Hoover seconded the motion. • Mr. Reynolds concurred. NOTE: This item was approved subject to revised plat in settlement of the property dispute. This does not require full Commission approval. Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 5 LSD98-30.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (HARVEY, PP 601) 2100 SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE This large scale development was submitted by Mountain Mechanical Contractors on behalf of Gary Harvey for property located at 2100 South School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.27 acres. Reynolds: This item has been pulled. If you are here for that it won't be heard today. • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 6 FP98-4.00: FINAL PLAT (EMERALD SUBDIVISION, PHASE II, PP 291) NORTH END OF EMERALD This final plat was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of J.B. Hayes for property located at the north end of Emerald. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 2 23 acres with 3 lots proposed. Mr. Tom Henley was present on behalf of the request. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Little: At Subdivision Committee on September 17, and there were some errors on the plat based on the recent easements that had been moved. Those have now been corrected. There were other questions. One from the Sidewalk and Trails Administrator about the sidewalk and it being covered. And, one from our City Engineer about the stability of some of the lots. I'll let them address those. • Beavers: The geotech engineer on this is McClelland and they have sent a letter stating that things are favorable and we accept that. • Rutherford: The only question I have is whether the sidewalks are clear. Henley: Yes. The sidewalks have all been cleaned off. Reynolds: Anything from Landscape? Hesse: I don't have anything. Hoffman: I thought I remembered it in a little bit of a different configuration. You've got three lots? Henley: I have shown a 60 feet setback. We added a 30 feet setback here because of that slope on that one lot. It was 30 feet all the way around but on lot 3 we changed that to a 60 feet setback because of the slope that's coming off the street there. Little: Be aware the City will not enforce the 60 feet setback. That's something the people will have to be aware of from the final plat. Henley: It's got something to do with the geotechnical. • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 7 Little: We really don't have that plan and that's not the plat that we distributed. Probably it came with the geotechnical report. We'll have to have that revised before we can sign off on it. . Warrick: It needs to be shown on the mylar. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Mr. Reynolds opened the floor to public discussion. Since none was presented, the discussion returned back to the Committee. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Hoffman: Are the sidewalks acceptable? Rutherford: Due to the steep slope the sod had slipped down and covered the sidewalk and we asked that it be removed and Tom has said it has been. Reynolds: I will favor a motion. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve the final plat 98-4. Ms. Hoover seconded the motion. Mr. Reynolds concurred. • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 8 LS 98 31.00, 32.00 & 33 00: LOT SPLITS (BOND, PP 569) N OF HUNTSVILLE RD AND W OF ROBERTS ROAD These lot split requests were 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. Mr. Jack Butt was present on behalf of the request. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Little: This has also been to you before at Subdivision Committee level. We were asking to be designated as right of way which it now has been. Everything else as we requested is shown correctly. The only other concern that we had at Subdivision Committee level was to show the location of David Lyle Subdivision. That was a request from Ms. Johnson. I believe her request was to see how this piece of property interacted with David Lyle Subdivision and this map (indicating the plat page) shows it better than the survey map plat can. I believe the real question was, are there stub outs from David Lyle. You'll remember we purposely did ask for the 40 feet of right of way so that in case this develops, there could be public access. But, we don't feel like it's necessary to require anything else because of the location of the White River. Hoffman: Is this the property that was rezoned? Little: Yes. Hoffman: This is the first lot split that's been requested. Butt: They had to get annexed before we can get the lot split. We started all at the same time but they had to go in sequence by your procedures. The concern that we have and I understand that you all may not have jurisdiction to do this is, in order to get this approved, we have shown on the survey is a six feet sidewalk within an additional 15 feet street right of way that's been contributed. These people have no present plans to develop. It's an elderly couple that live on the back part of it and a couple of family members and a renter live in the three houses in the front. And, they came to me for about a $300 or $400 will and said we want to give one house to one child and one house to the other and it has evolved into about a $2,000 or $3,000 lot split project because I didn't want to draw a will that was going to leave their children saddled with this. And I said, we have to go to the City and get these lots split up before we put • the lot A for the kids. In doing all that, they've paid for the survey and done all this and made • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 9 the commitments giving this right of way, but as I understand it, this cannot be approved by this committee unless or until they build a 6 feet sidewalk consistent with the development rules. Little: Let me tell you why. This is a requirement and it's going to be shown on this document. What we understood was these deeds will not be filed until the Will is probated. Butt: That's possible. Yes. And I guess were here to work out exactly what the agreement is. Two things. First of all the sidewalk according to your current estimate on the construction is going to be about a $6,000 to $7,000 affair. Second of all, when the sidewalk is built, it will require the removal of a lot of trees. A couple of them, great, big, pretty, mature trees. You're basically building a sidewalk 15 or 20 feet back from an existing highway edge in an area where the neighborhood hasn't developed and you're going to have to level a lot of ground and take out some trees and basically convert kind of a nice rural landscape to a sidewalk in the middle of nowhere that took out trees. So the proposal was that they some kind of a Bill of Assurance be filed or s.omething that says, yes, we will build the sidewalk at the right time, but what is unresolved is what is the right time. It's possible that this couple could move into a nursing home and at that time the lots sell and I don't think we've ever finally resolved that. That's what I'm here to get advice on because I understand this Committee can't waive that, it will have to go on to Planning Commission. Reynolds: Chuck, don't we go around trees when we need to? Rutherford: Yes, there will be no need for any trees to be removed. This business with the sidewalk going nowhere, there's a sidewalk existing just to the east of this tract so this will tie on to the existing sidewalk. Little: He's mainly interested in timing. Butt: Yes. Timing. And I guess one the things that I just raised is probably no resolution, I guess current code requires a 6 feet sidewalk and the sidewalk they are tying on to is a 3 feet sidewalk and they thought that's kind of funny, they have a 3 feet side walk tying into a 6 feet and I called Dawn and she said that other sidewalk was built before the '96 regulations expanded the sidewalk. I just wanted to make you aware of the fact your going to a little sidewalk hooking into a big sidewalk. Rutherford: That's correct. And that's the way sidewalks are built all through the United States. That's the way roads are built. You have a narrow road that ties into a wider one. You don't not build a road because one section is more narrow. It's the same principal with sidewalks. I was under the understanding the same as Alett that the agreement was that deeds would not be filed so the sidewalk would not be required until the time the lot splits were Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 10 actually filed. So, I guess what you're saying is you're trying to keep the children from having to do that at the time the deeds are filed. Butt: Not necessarily. I'm kind of ignorant of exactly how it works. They want to approval to draw a Will that leave lot A to son A and if they draw that will, can they then just hold this in their lock box along with your approval and nobody knows anything until they die and then all the sudden this is all filed and the sidewalk is built. I don't understand the procedure is what I'm saying. Little: That's what we do in the cases of family members are involved. It's not our normal process. Our normal process is that once you have this approval for this lot split then the sidewalk is installed. Installment is necessary if there is a need for it. And the exception that is occurring here is not that the sidewalk is going to be required. It is a matter of timing. At such time that the estate is being settled, there will be money from the estate to build the sidewalk but we won't stamp it for filing until we have the answer that we need on the sidewalk. Butt: What documents and what sequence to satisfy all that? Little: Well this is supposed to be stamped by our office as approved for filing and then to be filed. So at such time that you are ready to file it and put the sidewalk in, we'll stamp it and it can be filed. Butt: So, do we need to go on to the Planning Commission or do we get the minutes from this meeting certified and just hold on to them. Hoffman: Let me just interject something here. Your original objection to building the sidewalk seemed to have to do with the grading and the trees and if you can go around the trees, really it's better to go ahead and put it in now. Butt: You're talking about people in their 80's and 90's who have no intention of selling or developing the property or paying basically $6,000 so they can draw a Will. Hoffman: I understand that's what you say but anything could happen. It can be sold in the interim. Butt: Sure. And we're trying to put a condition on here to say that once this goes out of their ownership and estate whether it's by will, by sale, by anything else, the sidewalk would be built. Little: That's exactly what we want to say. • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 11 Butt: Okay. And how and were do we say that so that you all will know where we are, we'll know where we are and if this doesn't happen for 15 years, the record is clear and their rights are vested to do that. Warrick: We will not stamp a deed to be filed until the sidewalk has been constructed. Little: And the only control we have over that is when the person goes to do their title search because they're wanting to buy a lot. They will go to the county and they will find there's no lot there and at that point, we're notified. Butt: Here's my concern, that these people live here for 10 more years and we've all retired or died and they die and the kids bring them in to file them and the new planning director, says oh no the street dedication here has to be 60 feet, not 30 and the dedication here has to be 70 feet and we're going to require you to do three more surveys. Little: This lot split does give you the approval under current requirements. Say, for instance, that the sidewalk requirement increases to 8 feet. This owner's responsibility is for a six feet sidewalk. Butt: But if you all haven't stamped it, what they got is a survey that's not stamped that a different lawyer -- Little: There will be a copy of the minutes of this meeting. Hoffman: The point for me is that if all the improvements shown will be done at this time and then there wouldn't be any question. I understand they don't intend to develop it. Little: Well, and there's also the thing that we don't have to do the lot split right now. If they are more comfortable to wait and not have a final answer. This is the answer that we can give at this time. Butt: I'm not communicating effectively. If I understand what you're saying, you all say this is okay but we're not going to stamp it. That's what you're saying. We take this back. Little: The reason we're not is because of the sidewalk. Butt: I understand that. But, they are not going to do that right now. Two years for now these people come back with a letter from me that says this survey is okay, so just build the sidewalk. And they walk in and they hand it to somebody they've never seen before, and say, • the sidewalk's built, will you stamp this? And they say this doesn't comply with current • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 12 regulations. And they say but Alett Little told us 2 years ago that all we needed was a sidewalk to be stamped. And they say I don't know who Alett Little is, I don't remember her, there's no record of that and this does not comply with current requirements and you have to give about $10,000 of improvements there in compliance and go through Subdivision to get this done. What paperwork will we have that you have set here this day and said this is okay if you'll just build the sidewalk. Little: Jack, the reason you're before the Subdivision Committee is because Alett Little can't tell you to do anything. So that's the reason you're here at Subdivision Committee. And that's the reason we have minutes. And it's the minutes of this meeting which will be kept on file and kept also in your vault that verify what was said at this meeting and why we said it. Butt: We could get a copy of these certified saying this is accepted and it will be stamped approved as soon as the sidewalk is built. Little: And you can build the sidewalk tomorrow or next year or ten years from now. • Reynolds: Jack, if I was you I'd get a copy of these minutes and put with that Will. Butt: Right. Well, that's what I intend to do. Little: You're going to put it in your lock box which is a good idea. Butt: I don't have any trouble understanding Alett. And if I come back in one year, we'll do it just like that. Like I say, if it's not me and it's not her then you're looking at records and I want to make sure we've got a good record on it. So we don't need to go to the Planning Commission, we just hold on to it. Little: No. This body can approve lot splits. And they're approving it with the requirement for a sidewalk. Butt: One other thing I'd like to clarify. Little: There will also be parks fees due at the time that it is stamped (the information presented to Mr. Butt at the meeting was in error.) Discussion ensued about an error in the parks fee calculations. (No park fees are due because structure exist on all lots.) • Butt: If I can ask one final questions, the initial discussions on the 6 feet sidewalk as I Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 13 understand it were that that would be within the 15 feet street right of way that's being granted by the survey. It will not be six feet more on the property. Little: Right. Butt: This survey isn't really very clear as to where this six feet is and I just wanted to confirm or maybe we need to get a rewrite of the survey or maybe we need to get in the minutes that the 6 feet sidewalk is within the 15 feet of additional right of way being granted not in addition to it. Rutherford: And usually the sidewalk side that faces the property is at that right of way line. Butt: Okay. Little: And if ypu would like to have your survey revised at such time as you come back to get it stamped, that would be fine. Rutherford: An inspection of the sidewalk will be required. Butt: deeds. The sidewalk has to be built, inspected, and approved and then they'll stamp the Rutherford: I can get you a copy of those standards. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Mr. Reynolds opened the floor to public discussion. There being none be closed the floor to public comment. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Reynolds: How old is this couple? Butt: I don't know exactly. I'm guessing they're in their late 70's early 80's. MOTION Ms. Ho an made a motion to approve lot split 98-31, 98-32, and 98-33 with the stipulation that the sidewalks be installed and all other requirements inspected and met prior to filing of the deed. • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 14 Ms. Hoover seconded the motion. Mr. Reynolds concurred. NOTE: This item is approved subject to the conditions above. Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 15 LSD98-15.20: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (KANTZ PL., PP 371) W OF HWY 265 AND N OF HWY 45 This large scale development plan 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. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Little: We have also seen this one several times before. At the last Subdivision Committee you had asked the applicant to go to the Highway Department and discuss with them a signal at Citizens Drive and at Kantz Drive. Really, the only issue I think we need to talk more about is the design standards. Mr. Beaver was not present at the October 1 meeting. I believe he was satisfied and I believe we are in understanding on Citizens Drive. But, there may need to be more discussion on that. So those are the final issues as I'm aware of them. Reynolds. Any other staff comments? • Rutherford: Yes. We had asked previously to move the lines, the radius lines, through the No sidewalk. The sidewalks are continuous through all driveways. Beavers: Mr. Hopper, would you clarify for me if Citizens Drive immediately behind the bank, is going to be an all stop that you can go straight, left, or right? Hopper: We'll do what the City tells us. The intent was that there would be a stop sign coming from 45 at that location and that it would be a through, with no stop coming from 265. Beavers. You can get with Perry and work that out. I have no further comments. Franklin: I have a copy of a letter (referring to the Arkansas Highway Department Letter) that probably everybody has, about the traffic signal there or needing that traffic signal. I just wanted to make the statement that I've been here 29 years and any time the City of Fayetteville has given the information to the Arkansas Highway Department that met the warrant for traffic signal and made a request for one, we have never been denied a permit. So, I feel comfortable if and when in the future we have a situation where we need to do some traffic control and we meet those warrants from that federal manual, we won't have a problem getting a traffic signal. I've talked to those guys on a conference call and I don't see a traffic signal as needed being a problem. The other thing I wanted to share is that the Highway Department right now is in an overlay job where they're going to a three lane from 45 up to 412. In that process they had to mill the north side of the intersection, thereby, wiping out all of our traffic sensors on the north Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 16 side of that intersection. We have to go back in there and place those all back in. Well, I got a hold of the resident engineering office and we had them down there and we measured all that asphalt all the back 140 to 150 feet to that intersection. We submitted a drawing to them to restripe that when they overlay is and we place our sensors back in there to actually move those lines over and actually make a southbound right turn lane. They have verbally agreed to do that in the next couple of weeks. Johnson: At the intersection, am I hearing right? Franklin: There would be a southbound right turn lane, a through lane, and an extended southbound left turn lane. Hoffman: Is there a left turn dedicated signal right there? Franklin: Right now there is a left turn there but it's just a bay with a bubble that holds about six or seven cars Then the right lane is just a shoulder it really isn't a right turn lane. Some people will get in the right out and get on that shoulder. If it's like a flatbed truck or a van they'll Just stick in the queue and go on down there. If they widen it by 12 feet which they have agreed to do, then that will become a true southbound right tum lane approach to that intersection, then they'll have three approaches. With the center left turn lane Just being that continuous left turn lane all the way to 412 in Springdale, so it can hold a bunch of left turn cars and they'll get out the way of that through traffic. They've agreed to do that. • Johnson: I understand southbound will have three lanes and then northbound what would it have? Franklin: Going northbound it will still be a single lane. Johnson: So you've got three total lanes southbound and then northbound one's all you've got? Franklin: There will still be what I consider three lanes although there is a right turn out up at the intersection. I thought they missed the golden opportunity when they came in there and shifted all that over, I thought they would do the same thing on it, but they stripped it out as no man's land and it made a litttle turn out. That didn't make any sense to me. There are 3.5 lanes northbound. I feel like with three full approaches to that intersection for southbound that's going to increase the capacity of that intersection. Hoffman: And at this time, it stacks up about how far back? Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 17 Franklin: I've seen that thing back up nearly to Township during the peak. And, I've watched that several times and that's occurring from like 5:00 to 5:30. Reynolds: In using level of service, during the peak, what are they? You've got C level. Franklin: At the peak hour, some times you're F. But, that's the a.m. p.m. peak factor and that occurs all over Fayetteville. You're talking about a thirty minute period where everybody's going home and you're going to set two or three cycles to get through that traffic signal. But, this right turn lane and a full through lane and a full left tum lane should reduce that stacking because all it takes is seven or eight cars and they can't fit in that left turn lane and then you have some people who will go around and go on. Some won't they'll just sit there an wait for the next cycle. That causes failure when those people are blocked. It's not really a function of the timer. It's the fact that left turners are preventing other people from going on. This continuous left turn lane is going to solve that. That's going to stop those turning left from blocking up traffic. I think it's going to be a.big improvement. Johnson: When will that be completed? Franklin: Well, the best I could get this morning from them was two to three weeks. If you've been over on 265, you know. They called us Wednesday to try to get over there and get those intersections in flash at Old Wire Road and Township and we could not get there. We sat for an hour and we couldn't get there and do it. It had cars backed up on Old Wire Road. It had cars backed up on 265 and we couldn't get our guys there to do it. It's a mess right now. Hoffman: Have you looked at the entry configuration there? Franklin: As I understood at the last meeting I was at, they've agreed to provide a left turn. In the interim geometry, a left turn would get people out of the way of through traffic. Northbound is not nearly as critical as the southbound. I was in on a conference call with Mr. Venable, Mr. Walters, and Tom and Ernie. I feel sure that if we do have problems there and warrants are met there won't be any problem getting a permit for a traffic signal. I think we just need to get the money in escrow for five years In the event that problems did occur there, we could install a traffic signal. Reynolds: Also, you are a member of this Northwest Arkansas Regional Transportation Study and they've given us a document that says that in 1999 the widening of 16 to 45 is going to be done. That's on their projects. But we'll see about that. And it would work out about right with your project because it will be about a year before you guys will have that store completed anyway. • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 18 Franklin: One thing we did ask Mr. Walters was that they start this project on the north end with this intersection. That's a function of the contractor and there's no way they can make them start there but Mr. Walters indicated AHTD would recommend starting with the intersection. Beavers: There's a high pressure gas line out there and they only work on it during certain months of the year. Reynolds: It would be better with they started at Kantz and come south. It would solve our problems at that intersection right of way. Hoffman: I thought at one time we talked about Citizens Drive and that that was too close to the intersection to ever put a traffic light. Are they saying now that it a possibility? Franklin: I think it's a possibility. They could be coordinated together. Hoffman: Why wasn't it okay before? • Franklin: Well, like if it is like an independent traffic signal, not coordinated with another one, you've really got a problem there. But, if you can link those two together you could turn both green as the same time and basically traffic won't even know it's there. The thing is to have those two work together in a system. We have traffic signals in town that are 100 feet apart. Most of the time they work. Coordination is the difference. Hoffman: Right. But I guess I thought at that one meeting we said that it just couldn't -- it had to be at least 1,000 feet away or something? Franklin: In the manual they recommend 1,000 feet distance. Maybe Ernie would talk about this. They're talking about if you have an independent traffic signal. You sure don't want one closer than that that's not coordinated with the other because they would be working against each other. There's not enough time for the cars to queue up in that short of a distance. But, when you have control of both of them they know what each other is doing. You know the distance and speed they're driving. We can turn this green and we can tell the other one I've got three cars that are going to be there in ten seconds, turn green. Peters. Let me just add a little bit to it. At the time your question was raised there had not been any analysis done about the two intersections operating together. Since that time, we have done that analysis and conferred with Perry about it and we've shown that the two can be coordinated and work together so it's not too close. Hoffman: And that wasn't a Highway Department regulation? I couldn't remember whose. • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 19 Was it traffic? Peters: What Perry referred to was just a general provision in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. But with the analysis we did and Perry has reviewed we have concluded it can be coordinated. Hoffman: And who would make that decision then if we find at some point that this warrant is meeting the traffic? Who's decision is that? Peters: That would be Highway Department in concurrence with the City. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Reynolds opened the floor to public comment. Ms. Shari Mains who resides in the subject neighborhood addressed her concerns about the traffic in her neighborhood. Discussion ensued. Ms Carol Swonger who resides in the neighborhood stated she supported the subject project but also expressed her concern about traffic issues in their neighborhood. Mr. Reynolds closed the floor to public comment. STAFF DISCUSSION Little: To get back on track, the issues are summarized on the bottom of page 28. We were talking about destination of the traffic. Who was coming from what direction to get here and we were talking about evaluating a signal at the Kantz location. Those are really the two issues that caused us to table it last week. What don't we let them tell us what they've done since the last meeting. Hopper. I'm Tom Hopper with Crafton and Tull and I have with me this morning, Ernie Peters with Peters and Associates from Little Rock, Cathy Ball representing the developer and Jim Doss representing Wal-Mart. Hopefully, we can answer any questions that you have. Over the last two weeks, we have talked to the Highway Department at least four or five times on conference calls with city staff. The best they can do to tell us if they will look at the situation once the project is constructed and at that time make a determination on what needs to happen. And that's consist like Perry said with their operation. We have furnished to the City the revised elevations for the pharmacy and I feel like that along with the sidewalk issue that I forgot to address takes care of all the issues that we were asked to address. We have not talked about • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 20 Kantz this morning and I'm hoping that the letter and commitment to put a traffic light on Citizens Drive at 265 will meet the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission's requirements for approval of this development. Ernie is here to further go into any details that you would like as far as coordination of the light, traffic, anything that he can add that will give you a comfort level to approve this project. Hoffman: The letter does talk about pending or possible approval of Citizens Drive and other locations in the area. Peters: That was written specifically. We point blank asked them to look at Citizens and Kantz, and Perry can confirm this, that they did not feel like putting a light at Kantz or access to Kantz was a solution to the problem. The solution, if one was needed, was the light at Citizens. Hoffman: I'm very interested to know your opinion about the connection from the development through Kantz. Would it help the situation? What is your opinion about that? Franklin: Well, I don't think it's as bad as everybody's making it out to be. I think people will have opportunities to get out of this development. With the improvements to the existing intersection there are going to be more gaps for people to go north and get out of there. I feel like, once that the double is in there then that would alleviate that problem. Mr. Peter's has done the numbers. The first time he did the numbers, we talked about it. We made some adjustment in it and he ran the numbers again and starting at peak time, the level of service is E or D. But, where in Fayetteville at 5:00 p.m. is it not E or D. I think that's putting an imposition in the developer that we might not have the authority to do. The a.m. and p.m. peak traffic flow problems are all over Fayetteville. There could be some times there when that left turn has some problems getting out of there right at the 30-35 minutes period. But the rest of the time, they may not have any trouble getting out of there. Little: I went out the other day during the noon hour which I also consider a peak hour and traffic was able to move. We had asked Mr. Peters to do the timing problems for this intersection. He did that so Perry could get a higher level of comfort on whether this light could actually be timed to function. Now, in talking to the Highway Department about the work going on there, are they going to make any provisions for installation of a traffic signal or are we going to have to go back and do that? Franklin: In this overlay, I doubt that they'll do anything with that. Little: I see that it's just an overlay and not really enough of a construction job to get the kind of equipment we need in there. Is that right? • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 21 Franklin: The only thing that could be done now would be to carry conduit under the highway and the contractor's going to be able to do that. Johnson: Would the Kantz connection increase the traffic problem in the neighborhood if it were put in. Franklin: I don't think it would personally but you're never going to convince those people. But, I really think that other than that 30 or 40 minute period there's no problem out there. Johnson: Looking at it not from the developers point of view but from the view of either other citizens of Fayetteville, which signal, Kantz or Citizens, really helps the overall traffic problems in that part of town. Franklin: As far as that whole general neighborhood goes, there's no doubt a signal at Kantz would help because then they could come straight out on to Highway 265. They also have access to the signal at Township. Unless you could somehow make all the traffic from this development go out through the Kantz, I don't think the warrant requirements would be met. We could do a • destination study. 75% of those people live in that neighborhood. I don't think we could meet a warrant for a traffic signal on Kantz. • Johnson: What if Citizens was a right turn? My question is, is the City at large better off making Citizens a right turn or is the City at large with a signal at Kantz assuming we can meet the warrant? Franklin: I know that the Kantz connection is going to be expensive and disruptive. At first my thinking was that Kantz would be a good connection for those people. Another thing to think about is typically retail shopping hours are offset from a.m. to p.m. peaks. We confirmed this out at the mall on Joyce Street. That p.m. peak hour is not the same as the p.m. peak hour for College Avenue. It's from 4 to 5 on Joyce Street where on College the peak is from 5 to 6. So, it's offset. Peters: That's typical retail. And I agree with everything Perry has said. To make a comment concerning Commissioner Johnson's question to Perry, let me just say this. If there were sufficient volume at Kantz and Highway 265, that a traffic signal were appropriate it would be in the City as a whole's best interest to address that need. To say that the demand for the signal is being primarily associated with the traffic generated by this development defies logic. Conceivably both locations could be signalized and coordinated, but each should more or less stand on their own. The demand for the center is to accommodate the traffic control needs for it. To force either the Kantz traffic down to Citizens or vice versa the Citizens traffic to Kantz is a little bit kind of false. • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 22 Johnson: I don't see any way that the Kantz traffic can be pulled to Citizens Dr. Peters: I'm not saying it would be but that would be an alternative. Beavers: I want to state my opinion on this connection between Citizens and Kantz. I don't think that would be a good situation at all. The intersection of the proposed streets from Citizens to Kantz is on about a 10% grad I don't recommend that. Franklin: The signals can be operated as a system. The lights at Township, Citizens, and Highway 45 can be coordinated to allow gaps for turning left. Hopper: We've agreed to put a turn lane on Highway 45 in as a temporary measure. When the state builds the intersection improvements, they will build past the intersection and include a turn lane. Hoffman: Is it a common procedure that you can widen and stripe? When AHTD begins construction, I assume that they will be responsible for traffic control as they have on Wedington. Reynolds: Is there some way we can get confirmation? Hopper: We will get the temporary left turn that we will construct from the Highway Department. Conklin: I have a question. On Citizens Drive, at the last meeting you indicated that you we're going to have left turn lanes out at 45 and 265. Is that correct? Hopper: We will make all three lanes at both intersections with a left turn out of that intersection. Johnson: What happens with the problem of turning north at 265 intersection with some of Citizens before the stoplight. Franklin: I don't see that being a problem except during p.m. peak. Johnson: So you really don't. After the interim work is done on 265 in that area, all our fears about the traffic stack up will be eliminated with the three lanes south and a left turn at Citizens. It's going to be a piece of cake most of the time. • Franklin: Traffic doesn't stack up there much. Recently the state accidentally removed out Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 23 traffic sensors as a part of their overlay project. Reynolds: So the state tore out some very delicate equipment that belonged to us. Lindsey: Can you coordinate that with Township even now without the other one? Franklin: We are almost ready to connect Township with Highway 45. We had the equipment installed at 45 and 265 and we had the antenna up at Township, but we don't have the interface wire yet. Reynolds: What people are going to have to realize is the little Fayetteville isn't here anymore and instead of leaving home ten minutes before work time they're going to have to start leaving 30 minutes before work. I think you've done a great job with traffic. The other day I stopped in front of the old courthouse and I drove 35 mph and I went all the way to the mall without stopping. Franklin: If somebody doesn't mess you up you should be able to go ahead and do that. • Reynolds. I was proud of you. You're doing a good job, Perry. • Hoffman: With this information that you've brought forward, I am satisfied that we have enough information about the traffic to send this to the Planning Commission. Before we end the traffic discussion, I would like the concurrence of the Subdivision Committee on the traffic issues. Johnson: I think we've gotten all we're going to get on the traffic issue. And I think we've gone a lot of work on it and I'm not going to try to keep it here longer. Reynolds: Knowing Mr. Franklin, I think that he will take care of business. I don't think we'll have to worry about. it. Reynolds: You had a concern about the drainage out there. Has that been worked out? Beavers. Yes On the plat I had requested and Mr. Hopper has added to the plan that if the development precedes the Highway Department drainage improvements, they will install the drainage improvements. It's a small note at the bottom, central part of the plan. But basically, that will be part of the final design process. Hoffman: I understand that the plan is in compliance with the new hillside grading ordinance? • • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 24 Hopper: Yes. That ordinance took affect September 17th. Beavers. The major changes in that are limited cuts to 15 feet without terracing and establishing setbacks to protect utilities. There is no hillside protection of commercial property. There is hillside protection of residential, subdivision, and homes. Reynolds: We went to Springdale on our tour and we looked at the Springdale facility. Really we didn't like some of the aesthetics of that store. And one of them was the left side of the building where the pharmacy. It has a little -- Hopper: And we tried to address that. We've added a large canopy at the pharmacy side. Hoffman: Is this the elevation closest to 265? Hopper: Yes. Little: Is this a portico? It has a big shadow line. Doss: No. That's the offset. The shadow line is just at the docking appendage where they bring the material into the store. It's just sat back a little bit and that's why there;s a shadow there. Little: Okay. So, it's just flat against the wall. Does it stick out at all? Doss: so. Well it probably has some relief. It looks like it does have probably 6 inches or Johnson: That's those right beside the canopy? Warrick: Actually those are the columns. Johnson: It looks to me like there's four columns. Hoffman: This was actually a drive through. Is that correct? Hopper: Columns are in front of where the pharmacy sign is and then the other is just an application to the wall that set out 6 inches or so. Johnson: Okay. I see the columns. It looks to me as if there are four of them. Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 25 Hopper: That's correct. And if you look at the front of this building you can better see over the side. It has that same feature. Little: The Planning Commission takes the position under commercial design standards that they will tell you what not to do. I'm sure, however, that the applicant would appreciate as much direction as we could give them now. Reynolds: I think we were talking about continuing that color band down that side and I think that would make the building. I think we'd be satisfied. Hopper: Just bring the color band on around the end of the building. And there's nothing across the front here, you can look at these pictures and see. Doss: What about the possibility of taking this element and putting it here also. Since we don't have the colorband extending across the front it would be similar to what you have on the front side. Reynolds. That would be up to the other Commissioners. We looked at the store in Springdale and from the west side it's just blank. I think it needs to be broken up more. And I think it will help you. Little: I've draw one of these on that facade you're working on. Reynolds. You think we ought to back with the color stripe instead of adding? Johnson: It's kind of hard to imagine exactly. Why do we have two of these? Hopper: What if we put a sign right here in this blank spot that is the same as the one in the front? Doss: Keep in mind that color is very wrong on this rendering. There's another and it's more of a golden. Reynolds: There's just that pharmacy there and that's all there is on that big wall. Hopper: Yes. That picture that you're looking at right there is much more correct with that sign occurring on that. Reynolds Reynolds: Okay. I guess what we need to think about is what are we going to ask them to do • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 26 to correct this for the Planning Commission. Johnson: It's not up to us to tell them what to do. Little: The agreement was when we adopted the Commercial Design Standards that we would not tell them what to do. We would only tell them what not to do. Hopper: If we agreed to put the "Neighborhood Market" in that blank spot, would that help? Would that be desirable to do. Johnson: Well that also gives another sign. Hopper: We did agree to go with a pedestal sign as the only sign on 265, so that would be ideal for Wal-Mart to go ahead and add a sign that identified it on front. Little: The pole sign is less than 75. On the building it's already bigger than a 75. I don't remember exactly what that was. Hopper: A pedestal sign is what we've agreed to on 265. Little: I think personally a sign would probably help and I think it would help get you to the store. From that standpoint I think it is positive. But I think another one the size of the one in front is too big. I think this one is getting close to being way to big for what's necessary to see the sign. I kind of like your idea of moving this element up there and that would give you opportunity to put another sign. Hopper: Put a sign on that element. Little: And that would be a sign that would be appropriate for an additional sign. I've drawn it in on this elevation. Maybe it could be centered on this wall right here. Some spacing might have to change in order to get proportions correct. Reynolds: They have agreed to put a monument sign. We certainly need to go along with some type of bonus for doing that. They've done everything we've asked them to do. I don't want to bring it back here anymore. It seems like we got the traffic handled and they're ready to do whatever he suggest to them about that wall. So let's come up with some kind of solution and move on. Little: We are also discussing elevations for the rest of the center. We understand that • the entire center will built at this time. Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 27 Hopper: That is correct. Mr. Lindsey and Ms. Ball have agreed to move ahead where all the construction would take place concurrently. Little: I'm going to ask so that we have a complete packet of elevations for the Planning Commission approval. Include the other elevations and then give us 12 copies of those so that we can get those to the Planning Commission. Warrick: We need them by Monday at 10 a.m. Reynolds: We looked at the one in Springdale and the east side of that building and your refrigeration equipment. Is it going to be like the Springdale store in the back on the ground? Are you going to have any rook mounted stuff? Doss: It's not planned to have any roof mounted stuff for refridgeration. You have the air conditioning units that are on the roof. But we are screening with those parapet walls on the east and the south side. • Little: Is this your refridgeration equipment in this screened area? Doss: Yes. Little: And what is that screening made of? Doss: Right now it's just the chain link just like what you saw down at Springdale. Hopper: There is also a screening fence at the top of the slope. Reynolds: The reason for chain link is that those units have to breath. • Johnson: My concern on these elevations for design standards is, I fear, this is awfully close to a building that we allowed on Township on a split vote. And I don't know whether this facade is any more attractive than that facade and I'm not sure if that project would be approved again now that we've seen it. Now, this is all very subjective and if I maybe the only one who has the fear that the Commission as a whole might not go with this. Little: I'm seeing something and I think need to ask for clarification. On the front of the building, the columns that go down the side and the stripe along the bottom are a different color block. They're dark gray. Are those going to be that same color on the side? It is on this one. You needed to bring this band of color and that darker color around to this side and it dust didn't show up well. I'm comfortable with that. And do you all understand that there's going to be the Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 28 darker band here? So we had what used to appear to be pretty much a monochromatic side. There's now this color going around. Reynolds: Is that a sign you've got drawn in or another one of these. . Little: Yes, sir. That's a sign. Doss: And I guess there's also that possibility that since the pharmacy does not lie in the center that there would be some possibility to either expand this or break that up and not make it so symmetric looking. Little: I agree. All I was doing was drawing it in to get an idea but I think my proportions are maybe a little bit wrong. Reynolds: I think you get the idea of what we think is wrong. If you would correct that for us we would appreciate that very much. Little: And let me also say that if you don't plan on making those kinds of changes, you need to at least bring us what it is that you do want to change. Please don't ask the Planning Commission to decide without having a drawing in front of them. Maybe you need to, bring us two drawings and say we are not willing to this but we are willing to do this. Let them see that so they can make a definitive decision on that. We need this Monday. Reynolds. What about underground electric on this project? Little: We don't have the new ordinance yet. We are working on that. They are agreeing to put their one line that runs along Citizens Drive from Highway 265 underground so all the utilities on site will be underground. Hopper: That's correct. Reynolds: Good. Thank you very much. Hopper: To be sure though, on 265 there are line that are being dealt with my the Highway Department. We're not going to do it. Hoover: Landscaping here, is this okay? It seems like this is a large area of parking without any trees. Hesse: Along 265 they are. Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 29 Little: We need an island. Hopper. We moved the driveway down and there was not an island added back so we'll add an island back on the north end. Reynolds: Let's get a report from Kim. Are you satisfied with the project as it is right now. Hesse: I'll get with Chris Parton. He has added shrubs in the front area We'II need a few shrubs here and along 265 and the size and species will need them on the construction set. I'll get with Chris. Little: Remove the street to Kantz. Hoffman: Or bring two sets. One with it and one without it. Obviously you've done them both. So you won't have to address that again. Reynolds: If you leave that on there, we're going to have another all day meeting because they'll be there in full force. They don't want people driving in their neighborhood and they're going to fight it. So these lights will work if the state puts the light in 500 feet from a light that's already there. I see that being the answer to moving northbound traffic. Mr. Lindsey probably knows better than anybody about moving traffic out of a hot corner. He's right in the middle of it over there. Ball: Can I ask a question about that Bill of Assurance that we gave you for the stoplight. Is that going to be adequate? Is that what you want a Bill of Assurance saying that we will put the stoplight in? Mr. Franklin said something about escrowing money. I don't care. Our Bill of Assurance says that we will pay for it at that time. Little: What Perry said about escrowing the money was different. The money figure that we've used, out of the air, was $75,000. Ball: I want to be sure that is what you want and the way it's worded. Beavers: That would fall under guarantees in lieu and the Highway Department is not going to make a requirement. Little: We would like a Bill of Assurance. Reynolds: And you are in agreement with the Bill of Assurance. • • Minutes of a meeting of the Subdivision Committee October 15, 1998 Page 30 Ball: Yes, we are. Hoffman: I request that all minutes of the Subdivision Committee meeting regarding this project be in this packet. Hopper: I'd like a copy of those, too. Just to be sure. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to forward the large scale development to the full Planning Commission. Ms. Hoover seconded the motion. Mr. Reynolds and Ms. Johnson concurred. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.