Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-15 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, April 15, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD99-9: MNT Investments, pp329 LSD99-10: Marshalltown Storage, pp642 LSD99-11: Marshalltown Distribution, pp643 LSD99-12: Razorback Estates, pp287 MEMBERS PRESENT John Forney Sharon Hoover Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Kim Hesse Janet Johns Alett Little Ron Petrie Kim Rogers Chuck Rutherford Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Forward to PC Approved Forward to PC MEMBERS ABSENT Lorel Hoffman Bob Estes STAFF ABSENT None Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 2 LSD99-9: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT MNT INVESTMENTS, pp329 This item was submitted by Patrick M. McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick on behalf of MNT Investments for property located at Lot 21, Block 1 of Colt Square. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.176 acres. Patrick McGetrick and Jim Nosari were present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 2. All plat review and subdivision comments. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 5 foot sidewalk with a minimum 5 foot greenspace along East Colt Dr. with the sidewalk being continuous through the driveway. 5. Large scale development approval is valid for one calendar year. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits. b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by §159.34. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. Remove the radius lines through the driveway. Committee Discussion Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 3 Little: With regard to this project, it is a 7,700 square foot building that is located in Colt Square. After plat review, we had one remaining issue to discuss with you and that it compliance with Commercial Design Standards. The elevations of the building are over to my left and your right. Other than that, we have the standard conditions of approval. Forney: Are there other staff comments? Rutherford: I don't. Hesse: No. Public Comment None. Further Committee Discussion Ward: What we might do for the Commercial Design Standards is have the applicant describe to us what the building is to be built out of and give us a rundown of the materials and so on. It looks to me like it is very similar to what is out there already in Colt Square. McGetrick: It will be brick with a metal roof and it will have an outcropped, covered front porch area Other than that, it is fairly rectangular and is represented in the elevation. There may be a slight window variation in that. That was a fairly schematic design that was done a month ago. The materials are brick and metal and it is similar to many of the other building in that project. Ward: Is there going to be any connectivity to the south into the old Gibson building? Little: They have agreed to do a large scale and dedicate more right of way which would connect. That would actually be to the east. To the south there is a drainage ditch so we didn't think that would be easy to pass. We do have right of way on the southside of the lot and now we have been trying to keep right of dedications up to the other right of way that exists out to College Street. We though that was sufficient for connectivity. There is one other commercial design standard issue. There is overhead electric on this lot and it crosses over. We didn't bring it to you as an issue because the applicants have agreed to install that underground. I believe they are looking for approval at this level, today. Forney: Because there are no waivers being reflected, this could be approved at this level. Little: Yes. If you don't have any issues and we don't have any issues on commercial • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 4 design standards at all. Forney: What about connectivity to the east as well? This would be in the manner of a pass through between parking lots. Has the driveway been established at the southeast corner -- Little: No. This is for future street. The nature of this business is such that it is federal installation more than likely and it will need to be completely fenced. The fence that they are proposing is the wrought iron fence. Forney: If I remember this correctly, there is drainage to the west? Little: There is one that comes from the south to the north and it joins one that is going from the east to the west. Is that right Tim? Conklin: There is a creek along Green Acres Road. It runs north past the Montessori School and across Township. Forney: This 30 foot access easement could be half of a street right of way in the future? Little: Right. Forney: Do we have right of way on the adjoining property to the south? Little: No. We do not. Forney: It could be running into that creek. East Colt Drive does bridge that street, correct? Nosari: Approximately 200 feet to the west. Forney: Has there been consideration of access continuing along that north side of this property. Little: Thank you for asking that question. I should have briefed you on that to begin with About two years ago now, a request came through to vacate the right of way that existed in this area. There was an extension of the street in other words. The City did agree with that on the condition that we receive right of way in another location because of connecting right of way. We were looking for access to College Street. In a fairly recent action, we vacated the right of way that once existed in this area. I believe that is why we didn't really spend a lot of time considering that. We were still working on getting this to connect. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 5 Fomey: Is there any sense in trying to get this access easement to connect even better -- they are offset. Little: We have the triangle dedication. Is that not shown? They are making that with this plat. In the past, we have talked to the owners of the property on either side who, of course, say that they will never do anything but we are hoping as time goes on that something can develop there. Forney: It looks as though that is a pretty good size bridge. Little: I couldn't tell you how big. Ron, do you know the size of the culverts underneath there? I think they are like two 24 inch. It's not huge. It's not insubstantial either. Forney: It looks like one that is not going to be easily built by a developer of a single property within Colt Square. Little: I would agree. Forney: This scenario for access to College anticipates the City building a bridge there or partnering on a bridge in some fashion? Little: I would imagine that the City would build the entire street at such time as it becomes necessary. Sort of as we're doing down on Sunbridge now. Rutherford: I have one comment. Through the sidewalk there, you need to remove the radius lines. In other words, the sidewalk is continuous. McGetrick: That's no problem at all. MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to approve LSD99-9 for MNT Investments. Ms. Hoover seconded the motion. Mr. Forney concurred. Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 6 LSD99-11: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT MARSHALLTOWN TOOLS UNHEATED STORAGE This item was submitted by Robert O'Connell and Wayne Jones of McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of Marshalltown Tools for property located at 2200 Industrial Drive. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial, and contains approximately 15.34 acres. Wayne Jones, Paul Pinneo, and Robert O'Connell were present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Installation of perimeter landscaping in lieu of interior landscaping for the new parking area as shown on the current plan. The Landscape Administrator will work with the applicant on appropriate species of trees and shrubs. 2. All plat review and subdivision comments. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards. 5. Large scale development approval is valid for one calendar year. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project. c. Completion of all required improvements or the place of a surety with the City as required by § 159.34 to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Replace Bradford Pear trees with alternate species agreeable with the Landscape Administrator. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 7 8. Determination of the waiver request for 72 additional parking spaces. Committee Discussion Forney: Thank you for coming in. Little: We are talking about the addition for the unheated storage unit. Fomey: Is there sense in combining these two items? Little: 1 think it would be best if we talked about them together. It would be easier. Forney: We will also consider simultaneously LSD99-11 which is also a development submitted by the same applicants for Marshalltown Tools. The property at 2354 Armstrong Drive is zoned I-2 and has 28.88 acres. Could you introduce us to the project? Jones: To me it would seem easier if we talk about the unheated storage first and then talk about the other one. There are some common issues about both. We'll talk about the unheated storage first. This is to add 6,000 square feet to the unheated storage warehouse with a dry sprinkle system to the existing facility on the left side of the plant site and relocate 1,080 square foot metal building from the distribution center site. We'll add additional parking of 72 spaces for employee parking due to day time shift, office staff, and second shift overlapping time frames and the need for additional parking they have on site. The distribution center is the next one and it's located on Armstrong Road. They wish to add approximately 45,000 square foot automated warehousing system and revamp the distribution and shipping operation. The facility is to be located basically to the southeast corner of the existing facility. The 7,900 square foot metal building is to be removed and replaced with a portion of this building with truck docks to be located on the east side of the facility at each corner. It will built at the same floor level as the existing plant. Therefore, along the south line of the building, there will approximately 5 feet of fill to the finished floor and there will be a three foot exposed concrete wall and then slope to the existing south roadway and drainage associated with that. There will be some additional parking stripping on existing paved areas at the southwest corner of the facility. Forney. Because they are on apparently two district sites, it might be a little confusing to think about this. What issues are we discussing? Little: There is only one and that is the discussion of trail issues because the trail does go to the southside. Jones: We can discuss everything but the trails. • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 8 Little: That will be agreeable. There are no issues on the addition of the unheated storage area with the exception of landscape issues. What they requested is that they be allowed to install landscaping along the right of way as opposed to within the newly created parking area. One of the things that does support that is that this is already paved This is concrete that is how old? Jones: Asphalt that is 18 years old. Little: It has been there quite some time. They are in agreement to install additional landscaping along side the right of way. I believe the Landscape Administrator has agreed to that. Hesse: I have. I request that you substitute a large hardwood instead of the Bradford Pears. I will give you a handout on the alternative. Jones: Okay. Hesse: of survival. Jones: Hesse: Pinneo: Jones: Little: Jones: Hesse: Forney: Our thinking on that was that trees along the perimeter will have a better chance How big a tree? A hardwood tree? Is that like an Oak. Yes, or a Hawthorn. Would all trees be that way? No. Some of them would be Roadbeds. 4 Roadbeds and 4 hardwood. We currently have a lot of Maples. Is anything wrong with those? The Red Maples are a little bit better. Oaks, Sweet Gums, Black Gums. I want to confirm that the number and location is roughly commensurate with what would be expected. Hesse: They have more trees. Placing those around the parking is an option that we have under ordinance. • Little: I see that now. There were 9 proposed trees and there were 5 Bradford Pear • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 9 proposed there. Are you wanting those to be something else as well? Hesse: Yes. Public Comment None. Further Discussion Forney: I want to confirm that this addition is for storage. I realize the sometimes uses in industrial situations sometimes change over time. If in the future, the applicant wants to transform this into another manufacturing use, what is the procedure by which that is done? Little: Unless they do structural alternations, they will require no additional approval from the City. Forney: So the nature of the use could change without our being involved. Jones: The change would be going from a dry sprinkled system to a wet sprinkled system and adding heat and/or air conditioning to the facilities as the rest of the plant is. That would be the changes made to that. It does abutt an existing unheated storage area where raw materials such as steel and wood and other products are brought in for the manufacturing process. Pinneo: Being unheated and uncooled, it will stay a warehouse. Conklin: What is a dry sprinkle system? Pinneo: It is pressurized with air greater than the water pressure and only if one of the heads due to heat is broken, the air pressure is released and the check valve in the system allows water to go through the system. Ward: On the 6,000 square feet unheated building, we're showing it sitting on 15.34 acres and other one is sitting on 28.88 acres, is this all the same property? Jones: No. Ward: You have 47 acres there? Jones: There are two separate legal descriptions and it was purchased at different times. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 10 Pinneo: 2 different addresses with 2 buildings between us. • Forney: When we get to the trail issue one is north to the left and one is north up. I'm having a hard time piecing this together. O'Connell: They're about a half mile apart. Forney: As far as the number of parking spaces, I'm trying to recall in our ordinance what the limitations on the number of parking spaces and how those are set. Warrick: They have their calculations. What they did was make sure they were accommodating the number of employees. The parking required by code is for the warehouse or the plant portion is 1 per 1,200 square feet and then the office area it is 1 per 300. They made sure they provided parking for each of the employees on a shift. Forney. Is there any limit we put on the amount of paving and parking that typically in this situation would require a waiver asking for additional spaces. I can't tell from our ordinances whether we have those limitations on the industrial zone. Little: I think that you probably do. Our concern here was to make sure that they had adequate parking. We're still concerned that they may not have quite enough parking. One of the main reasons they are here to do this is to add the 70 spaces. Jones: That's up from 30 since the last time. Pinneo: We're adding about 40 additional spaces over what we had previously. Little: We were realizing that they can't even accommodate their employees when they come to work. In other words, when one shift is there and the next shift starts to come up, there was not adequate parking. Just from a stance of reasonableness, we felt like they needed to provide what they are providing. Forney: Do we need to check the ordinances to see about whether this is requesting an overage for paved area and parking? Little: I believe it would that they are requesting an overage for paved area and parking. Jones: At the initial submittal, we did provide a waiver requesting additional parking. Little: With full staff support, I might add. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 11 Forney: The waiver request is not in the staff report so we shouldn't include that? Little: We do need to include that and it will need to go forward. Forney: I want to confirm that is the case Little: I believe that is the case. Forney: Would this be a request for 92 additional spaces? Jones: The ordinance is that you can have up to 20% over which would be 120 so it's a waiver of 72 additional spaces. Forney: Do we want to look at the trails first or do we want to learn about the second project and then talk about the trails? What would make the most sense? Jones: Since the trails are common to both, let's talk about the trails all at the same time. (NOTE: Discussion was held on LSD99-11 before any action on this item occurred. Please review that section as well.) Forney: There are 7 conditions of approval. The only that I am aware of -- Little: They need a waiver for parking so this will have to go forward. Forney: This will need the waiver for parking and therefore will have to go forward. We could approve the second one if we could get some sort statement regarding the trail location. MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to forward LSD99-10 to the full Planning Commission subject to all staff comments and recommendations including the landscaping materials to be changed to have the 9 Bradford Pears with either hardwood or red maples and also determination of a waiver of parking requirements. Ward: You're having to go before the Planning Commission for approval of the 72 additional spaces that you need. Little: • Ward: The trail cannot be a condition. We just needed to talk about it. We understand that Mr. Pinneo is not personally able to give land to the City at • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 12 this point. I think between the staff and Marshalltown Tool, an electric easement and trail right of way can be worked out. Jones: Can the City buy the easement? Little: That requires City Council approval. Forney: I'm confused that staff wanted to look at these together. Little: If we approve the second one today, obviously this will be separate. I think the only reason we felt they needed to be discussed together was the trail issue. We need to negotiation. Ward: I don't think we can approve LSD99-11 until something gets worked out. The trail project is in both of them. Forney: The large scale development could be approved without resolution of this issue. There is no legal requirement that be addressed. This is not like a subdivision of land. Little: It puts us in a little better position to negotiate. I think I understand what is needed. Ms. Hoover seconded the motion. Mr. Forney concurred. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 13 LSD99-11: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT MARSHALLTOWN TOOLS -DISTRIBUTION CENTER This item was submitted by Robert O'Connell and Wayne Jones of McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of Marshalltown Tools for property located at 2364 Armstrong Drive. The property is zoned 1-2, General Industrial, and contains approximately 28.88 acres. Wayne Jones, Paul Pinneo, and Robert O'Connell was present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation 1. Installation of perimeter landscaping in lieu of interior landscaping for the new parking area as shown on the current plan. The Landscape Administrator will work with the applicant on appropriate species of trees and shrubs. The applicant has agreed with this. 2. Installation of asphalt curb and gutter along Armstrong Avenue north of the southernmost entrance into this facility where there is not presently curb and gutter. The applicant was going to supply additional information to the City Engineering Division concerning this recommended condition of approval. The applicant has agreed with this. 3. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot greenspace along Armstrong Avenue. This is not shown on the plat but it is agreed to by the applicant. 4. All plat review and subdivision comments. 5. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 6. Large scale development approval is valid for one calendar year. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits. b. Separate easement plat for this project. c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by §159.34 to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 14 completed, not Just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Committee Discussion Little: This is for a 45,000 square feet warehouse addition and distribution facility. We have similar landscaping issues. There will be installation of perimeter landscaping in lieu of interior landscaping. We have curb and gutter issues and sidewalk issues on this one. Petrie: I had originally requested at Plat Review -- there is 120 foot gap of curb and gutter in between the driveways. There is a problem with ponding out in that street. I had requested resolution of that drainage problem. I understand they are requesting that they not have to do that and they disagree with that recommendation. I have a letter from the applicant. Jones: We have submitted a waiver request for the curb and gutter. Petrie: That is not necessarily what I would say was a waiver. Jones: We submitted information requesting that it not be required. Forney: That is on Armstrong? Jones: The east side of Armstrong Avenue. I think the curb issue is probably the issue. My issue is the way Armstrong Avenue was originally constructed in 1971 is from Pump Station Road south for a ways it has a longitudinal grade or positive grade going to the south. At this point where the curb ends, the longitudinal grade becomes zero. That means it is flat for a number of feet south of the railroad track area Therefore, the only drainage was transverse drainage or drainage perpendicular to the centerline of the roadway over the asphalt and over the grass and into the side ditch. What has happened out there in several places is that the city has overlaid it and since the driveway to the south was improved and curb were added to that particular one to allow the water to drainage off the north edge of the curb. Overlays have taken place and they have not extended out into the driveway to take care of that. Water runs along the curb's north radius and stops where the overlay is which is an one and half higher than the surrounding material and debris ponds out in that area. The other thing is material comes off the roadway and collects at the edge of the grass and builds up there and the water can't get off as fast or as well as it should. We feel that is a maintenance issue with the Street Division. It should be maintained so that water goes transversely across the street. Is that for the property owners to maintain or -- I don't think we're here to settle that argument. If you put the curb and gutter in there, you still have a flat longitudinal grade. You have it flowing transversely to the edge of the street. You have no slope on the curb. At some point in there, another flume or whatever could be installed but still along the edge of that curb, you will have silt and debris that • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 15 collects along that curb and you will having ponding along there. Our point is that putting a curb in even though it is consistent with City criteria, it is not going to solve the ponding problem. Petrie: You stated several times that the street is flat. From the elevation you provide to me, it is not. It's at .63%. Jones: That section along through there, if you look at the centerline grade -- Petrie: I was looking at the grade at the gutter line where a curb would be. Forney: This seems to be an important issue. Jones: What I was looking at was the grade along the centerline. Forney: Generally, one important issue to discuss is improvements along Armstrong in relation to a creek and a drainage problem. That is one issue that we will want to try and address. Little: That is condition 3. Forney: I was looking for something about Armstrong in our conditions to address. I don't see it in number 3. Little: Have you got page 2? LSD99-11, that's where we need to be. Number 4, the sidewalk, apparently they are showing the sidewalk and that is no longer an issue or is that something you want to talk about? Forney. They have agreed to number 4. Pinneo: It is a normal 6 foot. Jones: The flat portion of the street actually starts at the end of the north radius and from that point south, it flat and from that north is does have a very slight longitudinal slope. In actuality, it supposedly will drain and a curb and a flume at that radius point could be installed to allow that water to get into the ditch. Forney: Condition 2, installation of perimeter landscaping in lieu of interior landscaping again is proposed in this project. Is this a similar situation to the other project. Hesse: Yes. • Forney: You're happy with the 7 red buds? • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 16 Hesse: Yes. Forney: While we are talking about landscaping, because of parking conditions and I see there is some additional parking. Is there additional paving being done with this project? Jones: No. Forney: Is there an overage in the number of parking spaces? Little: There is an underage here. Jones: Even though they are adding 45,000 square feet of warehouse space, they are only looking at the possibility of adding maybe two or three employees because it is going to be automated. It is going to be a higher type warehouse with pick order and that sort of thing. They are not going to have a severe increase in staff at that location. Little: We did talk at length at plat review about the types of equipment that will be added to this facility. Conveyor belt, pick equipment -- Pirmeo: High bay storage racks. Jones: A narrow aisle warehouse. Little: It did sound like it was nothing other than a distribution facility. Forney: Condition 2 is agreed to by the applicant. Little: That is installation of perimeter landscaping. Forney: The Administrator is happy with that. Condition 4 is also agreed to by the applicant concerning sidewalk construction along Armstrong Avenue. The other conditions are standard so we are looking at 3. Are you agreeing with that condition or do we want to -- Jones: There is a very slight, less than 1% longitudinal grade from the existing curb down to the existing north radius point at the south entrance. Little: You're agreeing with the technical issues about it but as far as paying for it, I'm not certain that the applicant agrees. Ward: How far is that? • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 17 Jones: No. Not at all It's about 120 feet plus the concrete flume. We're not talking about a great deal -- Little: $3,000? Jones: Probably less than that? There's not much of a curb on Armstrong Road. You're not talking about much. There is no gutter to it. Petrie: there. We have agreed to allow asphalt curb in that area. That is currently what's in Jones: On the south radius, due to the overlay and the way the water was initially draining around the curb, there may be a need to add a flume on that south radius near the street out there to allow the water some place to go. Little: Is that something that you normally decide when you get the detailed plans for the project? Jones: We will consider that one and further look at the elevations. Little: You're moving toward getting this approved at this level. Forney: If there are no waiver requests, this committee can vote on it but if there is a waiver request, it must come forward. Pinneo: I have a problem with condition 1. Forney: I know we have a problem with that. I want to make sure we 2, 3, and 4 settled. Jones: One point of clarification, you're fine with the sidewalk going the distance as shown? Pinneo: As shown the length of the sidewalk along Armstrong. To the north there is vacant property. Forney: You own some of the property south of the driveway and that is where the St. Paul Trail right of way is and that is why I assume we are not seeing any sidewalk continue there. Little: This one is a little different. They don't own immediately south of the driveway but about 150 feet in. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 18 Pinneo: The original railroad came through here and therefore, in the planning process, this 100 foot strip was an easement for future railroad. Forney: We need to address the trail issue. Pinneo: I'm concerned about it being a condition of this. I'm having a hard time understanding why it is a condition of this. I've been in touch with the City for over a year on this and asked questions and things aren't resolved. I've asked what kinds of trails and that is unknown at this time. I read in the paper about some thought about what that trail is going to look like. I'm interested in having the trail there. I have concerns about it just like other people have. I'm willing to work with it because we have a problem on the other site. We need an easement for our utilities into that building. Our plan as proposed, I have no reason to think that we can't work something out. But when it says that I have to deed it, that is something that I can't do. That is a board approval from my company. I find it hard to be a part of this. As far as I'm concerned, it has nothing to do with the improvements of the facility. I'm willing to work on it. It's not there yet. I'm not ready to say yes for that reason. Forney: Can we get us a prospective from the City's side on this issue. Rutherford: We are in favor of it. We want them to make a dedication and work with us trying to get this in. I think he is backing off and wanting us to purchase that portion of the trail. Is that correct? Pinneo: I'm hoping we can look at the two parcels together and work something out. Obviously this is no good to us. It is a utility easement as well as a right of way. I talked to Jill Goddard about the possibility of me getting a quit claim deed on the other facility. We give you some land on this distribution site. You give us some land on the other site. Little: I think that was all that we wanted to accomplish. I did talk to Mr. Venable about that. When this revision came in for the storage facility, what had been put on there was 100 feet City of Fayetteville property and it is now proposed that 25 feet be transferred to adjacent owner. There is no reason not to dedicate the 25 feet to Marshalltown if we get 50 feet at the trail location. Pinneo: We need this facility. Little: We need the trail. Pinneo: I also read that it will take 10 years to get the job done. I don't want to get hung up with this portion of it to get this done. • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 19 Little: One of the things we can suggest is that we make a property transfer. We are prepared to agree to deed you 25 feet if you deed us 50 feet for the trail. Pinneo: I'm not sure I'm ready to do that. I can't do that without board approval. Little: Is that something you are willing to take to your board and ask for? Pinneo: I want to know what is going on there. Forney: I didn't know we were getting land deeded to the City. I thought we were Just asking for right of way as a condition here. Little: There are two kinds of right of way. One is an easement for road purposes and one is ownership and fee title. Right of way is normally ownership and fee title. There are such things as road access easements. Then the property owner still has to pay the tax on that. The property owner is not exempt from any liability from accidents which occur there. The City normally takes the fee ownership of the lands for road way type purposes and alley. • Rutherford: That is the procedure we have used on the other trails. The City has ownership. Forney: The applicant doesn't want to have a easement through there because of liability. If we are going to accomplish this trail, we need to have fee ownership of that property. Pinneo: 1 understand. We have the same problem with the sidewalk. Little: That's true If sidewalks are not within public right of way, then the owner of the land underneath bears the responsibility for any liability that occurs. Ward: there. The City would assume the liability once they would acquire sidewalks through Little: I don't think so. That is why they have judges and lawyers. You may know something from your real estate training that we're not familiar with. Ward: Unless you require the public right of way for that sidewalk -- Little: On the tratl issue, we are unable as a condition of this plat to make a requirement for that. We're simply saying this is an issue or that we should negotiate but this cannot be accomplished as a requirement of plat. I think we would be overstepping our bounds. 1111 Forney: If that is the case, we are simply asking the applicant to be a good citizen and -- • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 20 Little: We're offering to be good citizens, too. We're offering to give them, 25 feet that they apparently need and would like to have. Pinneo: No. We didn't ask for it. Jill Goddard told me that was what the plan was They would put the trail on the south side of the 100 feet and there was 25 feet that was of no use to them and they would quit claim it to us. I'm not sure what I would do with it either. Little: None of the purposes behind rails to trails is that we preserve the right of way in case the railroad ever needs to go back in. We do have clients in the industrial park that would like to have rail access right now. I was a little surprised to find out that there was this plan to deed 25 feet of the 100 feet over to people because that would effectively prevent the railroad from ever going back in. Pinneo: I heard the railroad wants to come back. Little: They should. They need to. I think of the industries that are bring in heavy loads Pinneo: That's why we located there and one day we saw them pulling up the track from west to east. It was gone before we knew it. Ward: It could be more complicated if they wanted to come back. Little: I talked to one facility and they were have to locate at the spur and then truck to their facility. Rails kind of go with industrial parks. It is the general rails to trails movement for trails to be put over old railroad so that in the future, the railroad could come back in there. Forney: Where did the right of way come from? Rutherford: That's what Jill told me. Little: She had to get instruction from somebody on what to acquire. Rutherford: Rails to trails is a national organization and that is one of the reasons they give for getting trails built. Little: This 100% City ownership with no dispute about it -- I'm talking about on the 100 feet or the 150 feet in, either one, is 100% City ownership and yet apparently, as a policy, even where we own it, we're deeding 25 feet back. • Forney. And 25 feet to the adjacent property owner. • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 21 Little: Where does that come from? Forney: I don't think you would ever be able to get it put back together again so future rail would be impossible if that is the mechanism that we use. Rutherford: That was put together by the land agent's office. Rogers: At the meeting last night, Ed Connell stated that when the City originally -- the railroad wanted to go straight but the City wanted it to turn and go through the park and the City made the agreement that if the railroad was gone then the park would revert back. I don't know how long -- Little: I would like to see a copy of that agreement. Pinneo: It is my understanding that the railroad was located there and they abandoned the track and pulled up the rails and the property went to the adjacent property owners. Little: The story I have always heard is that it depended on how the land was acquired in the beginning in the documents where the railroad acquired the land. Conklin: The old Campbell Soup back where the subway is, they were approaching the City and other property owners trying to sell that back. Little: Before they abandon a railroad, they are suppose to come to the City or municipality and say do you have any municipal purpose for this. If the City had a municipal purpose, then it was suppose to come to the City. I don't know now they got out of there. It's very murky waters. Rutherford: In Ed's presentation, there is conflicting documentation and hear say. That makes this very difficult. Forney: You're trying to do a project and we don't have clear information. Little: Over on the 45,000 warehouse area, the right of way for the railroad only went in 149 feet. The railroad stopped. The railroad never went on this part here. Pinneo: There's an industrial plat somewhere that shows that curving. Everything you get into a discussion on this it is just like this. There are questions that no one can answer. I'm having trouble with the trail being tied to this. • Forney: It seems and please correct me on this, they are doing a large scale development • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 22 on top this that they already own and we're trying to take advantage of that with this plat before us to clarify this issue. Little: It's time to negotiate and see if there is anything that can be worked out and at what point could we give you information that you could take to your board. Pinneo: When you figure out what you want to do. Little: Like what? Pinneo: No one has been able to tell me what they want to do. Little: It's suppose to be a 10 foot wide paved asphalt trail. Rutherford: That's what the regional drawings show. Little: That's been decided since I was on that committee and that has been 5 years ago so I don't know why there is a question.. Pinneo: I don't know why that couldn't have been answered. Forney: We could make that part of any motion to clarify that our understanding is that and you could come back and get some clarification. We need to offer you some assurance about what we're going to do with this especially since we're asking him help us accomplish this. One concern I would have if I were an owner is whether this could ever be a 25 foot paved road. Little: It is closed to motorized vehicles. In the Industrial Park, we have talked about maybe letting them use go carts on it. We might have to make an exception for Industrial Park area. We could just use bicycles with trailers on them. Jones: Can we leave it on the distribution center that the owner is willing to work with the City on establishing right of way for the trails? Little: I would be happy to leave it -- Pinneo: We have 2 things to work on here. I want a good clear definition of our easements for electricity into the main plant. Jones: Which is on Industrial Drive. • Pinneo: I need that because I don't have an agreement with the Burlington Northern and I • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 23 don't know where there at. It runs down the east side of our property and goes across the rail and comes this way down to an underground power source. I really don't feel we have a good definition there anymore without the Burlington North. It was only with Burlington Northem. Obviously there must be utility on the City property back there to get SWEPCO there. I need better definition there. You need a trail. I'm willing to work on it. I have a director that does like giving up land. Little: What you need in exchange is this easement nailed down. Pinneo: Yes. Little: We can do that. Pinneo: We've been at this over a year. Jill said you were waiting on appraisals and that sort of thing. Little: We may have to ask you to do a survey of what you want so that can then be recorded at the courthouse as a utility easement. We would grant a general utility easement that could be used by SWEPCO for your purposes. I'm sure we can do that. On condition 3, they have asked for waiver on the installation on the curb and gutter. if that is a waiver request, then this would have to go forward, too. If it is not a waiver request -- Jones: We agreed to put the curb and lane in on the east side of Armstrong. Little: You could move this forward but I'm sure the applicant is wanting to get started on their project. Does the Marshalltown Tool Board meet annually? Pinneo: Yes. Little: When is their annual meeting? Pinneo: The board is very small and we could have an emergency meeting. I have been working with Jill Goddard for over a year. Little: We will try and have more information for the Planning Commission. The board may not have met but we will have down on paper in clear terms what it is the they should take action on. MOTION Mr. Ward made a motion to approve LSD99-11 for the 35,000 square warehouse subject to staff • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 24 comments and recommendations and subject to negotiation on the St. Paul Trail issue. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Ms. Hoover concurred. • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 25 LSD99-12: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT RAZORBACK ESTATES, pp287 This item was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Lindsey Management Company for property located on McConnell Avenue east of Highway 71 Bypass. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains approximately 22.38 acres. Jerry Kelso was present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation 1. All interior drive widths shall be 24 feet (Burr Oak Drive is currently shown at 27 feet.) 2. The section of McConnell Avenue adjacent to this project shall be improved and widen 8 feet to be 18 feet in width from centerline. 3. Planning Commission determination of requirement for a contribution to off-site • improvements to McConnell Avenue and to Drake Street from this site to Hwy 112. These improvements would include the McConnell/Drake intersection which appears unsafe for the additional traffic and a possible traffic light at the Drake/Hwy 112 intersection. Improvement to the intersection of McConnell and Drake will be further discussed with the Engineering Division. 4. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculation for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $68,400 (228 units @ $300 each.) 6. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 feet sidewalk and a minimum 10 feet greenspace along McConnell Avenue which is designated as a collector street on the Master Street Plan. 7. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: • a. Grading and drainage permits • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 26 b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by Section 159.34. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 9. The information from OMI, Paul Hawkins, indicated there was adequate sewer capacity. 10. Determination of the waiver request to allow a dwelling with 100 feet of a water feature as required in the grading and drainage manual. Staff supports the request. 11. All drainage detention ponds, open channels and swales will be privately owned and privately maintained. Jerry Kelso was present on behalf of the project. Committee Discussion Little: There are three major issues that we need to talk about. The first one is that all interior drive widths shall be 24 feet. You are still showing one that is at 27 feet. We need that reduced to 24. Kelso: On the 27 feet, I was kind of considering that it didn't have parking on either side that it was more of a street. Little: Streets are 24. One of the things that we do know and the reason that we are supporting that so strongly, is that newer subdivisions with the narrower street are not experiencing near the speeding problems that our older neighborhoods with the wider streets. So, we feel like particularly in this kind of environment that the 24 feet will slow people down coming into this apartment complex. Kelso: I don't have a problem with the 24 feet. Little: Thank you. Number 2, the section of McConnell Avenue adjacent to this project is to be improved and widen to 18 feet. The third one is that you need to determine the requirement for a contribution to off site improvements both to McConnell and Drake Street. One of the things that we wanted to talk about was the intersection of McConnell and Drake which apparently looks unsafe and a possible traffic light at the Drake and Highway 112 intersection with the traffic from this project to come out. One other item I need to add on, is a Plat Review we asked the applicant to contact OMI and to get information about our sewer capacity and the affect of this project on that sewer capacity. Could you give us that? • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 27 Kelso: We have talked to OMI and discussed the capacity we would be adding in and he said there was ample capacity. Little: That is no longer a condition to discuss. Petrie: They are requesting a waiver from drainage criteria. They are constructing an apartment building within 100 feet of a pond up in the northwest corner. Because of the elevation, staff has no problem with this. Hoover: How close are they? Petrie. About 50 feet. Forney: When you say because of the elevations -- Petrie: There is about 12 feet difference in the elevation of the pond and the building. Kelso: The 100 years water surface elevations is not going to be close to the building because of the berm. Forney: It has always been my assumption that requirement also concerned safety. People being too close to the water and their children fall in the lake. I didn't think it was about flooding per se. Petrie: That's a good point. I'm really not sure but that is something to consider. Little: None of the staff here was present when that particular element of the grading ordinance was adopted. We've talked about it before. We do not know all of the underlying reasons behind that. Jim Beavers particularly stated that he can't figure that out. That is one of the things that we will bring to you to change. We will probably proposed a reduction to something like 50 feet. Petrie: All drainage, detention ponds, and open swales will be privately owned and privately maintained. Hesse: I wasn't at plat review. Jerry, do you understand all my comments? Kelso: Pretty much. When we go to construction plans, we might need to talk. There are additional items that you have asked for like types of mulch, etc. Rutherford: They are showing the sidewalk in the appropriate manner. • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 28 Little: The Planning Commission needs to be aware that this has a phase line with a phase 1 and phase 2. There is an AAO office and football field and basketball arena. This office and recreation area that is separate from the apartment complex. That does require conditional use and you will hear that conditional use requirement at the Planning Commission. We need to look at the elevations. There is no reason not to approve it but it was a matter of timing. Forney: There are two things then that require this to be forwarded to the full Commission. That is the conditional use and the other is the wavier. Rogers: I want to know when this will be built. Is this all going to be built at the same time? Kelso: Yes. Rogers: On March 31, the Parks Advisory Board elected to accept money is lieu of land dedication for 228 units at $300 for a total of $68,400. Please correct my report to reflect $300 per unit instead of $375. Little: Let's review the elevations for the building. Jerry, would you tell us what they are going to be made out of? Kelso: They submitted a materials list with this. I was hoping Brad Freise with AAO would be here. Warrick: The information that I was given verbally when I met with Brad Freise and Lindy Lindsey was the AAO office would as proposed would be an identical building as the apartment club house with similar materials. Kelso: Similar to the club house at the Cliffs. Warrick: The materials would also be the same for the basketball arena. Little: The basketball arena is going to be brick? Warrick: That is my understanding. Kelso: That's my understanding. Ward: The materials are listed here in on the plat. • Warrick: They will use composite shingle. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 29 Forney: There is drivet as well. Warrick: You need to keep in mind on the basketball arena, the front faces the football field and it is not facing McConnell. We need to have more of a discussion with them as to the elevation facing McConnell. Little: Jerry, will you make Brad aware of that and make sure that he knows he needs to be at Planning Commission. Public Comment None. Further Committee Discussion Forney. We cannot approve this at this level but I think we owe it to the Commission to try and make sure that we take care of the large scale development as best we can in this committee. Petrie: We have discussed this with the engineering staff and we finally came up with a recommendation and I apologize to Dawn for not getting it to her earlier enough to put in here. At this time, we are recommending that they widen McConnell 4 feet without a curb and the intersection with McConnell and Drake be approved at this time. Kelso: As far as we're concerned, I don't have a problem with it if I knew exactly what we want to do with that intersection. Petrie: What we have at that intersection is the old highway continues through there and when they put in the bypass, they dead ended it. It's a dead end to the north of there. It doesn't go anywhere. That curb has a real steep elevation on it. The intersection has a deep ditch right at that stop sign. It is really hazardous and with this density of apartments you will be adding a lot of traffic to this area. We are really concerned that this street be improved more than McConnell needs to be widened. We would not anticipate additional widening until the City is willing to come in and make that connection all the way through there. Little: Did you get the traffic generation from Perry on this? Petrie. Yes. Little: We do not have that on file. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 30 Petrie: During the 24 hour 2 way lane, it was 1,512 vehicles. Little: Do we have any idea what is on that street now? Petrie: No we don't. It's practically none. Forney: Except one long weekend of the year. Are we getting curb and gutter along the frontage? It seems to me that not getting curb and gutter would be inappropriate. I understand about that intersection improved. We may make that a priority. In another condition where we were going to add 228 units, we -- Little: This is a commercial recreation facility so there will times when it will generate a good bit of traffic. Is that included in? Petrie. Kelso: No. That is the peak and AAO won't have the same peak. It will be more of a weekend type thing. Forney. I'm trying to think of another instance where we have this large a residential development and we don't get the standard street requirements. It seems unusual to me. Kelso: As far as a developer in this particular aspect, obviously under ordinance, we are required to improve half of a street with curb and gutter, storm drain, or whatever. Obviously that is what is expected. What is not expected is improvements off the bypass. I think from what I understand we're trying to offset those costs to where the developer is still paying his full, fair share. Little: I am going to disagree with that. I think the ordinance is clear that any time you are adjacent to a substandard city street, you are required to bring it up to city standard. In addition, anything that is required off site must be decided by the Planning Commission so it is not to say that is unusual occurrence or that the ordinance doesn't address that. Was the lack of recommendation for a curb in anyway tied to a lack of a storm sewer system out there? Petrie: That has something to do with this, yes. That and the fact that if it's ever widened, it would all have to torn out. It is 20 feet now and if we widen it 4 feet it will be a little bit wider and a little bit safer. Forney. The other rational would be that they do one half of a city street. If there was any widening in the future they would provide the portion on either end and the other side of the street. Wouldn't that typically be how we would do it another situation? • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 31 Petrie: It really varies. More than likely, this whole street would have to be torn out and redone to make it all work properly. When you start putting in little bits and pieces that is when we really have problems with engineering. Kelso: That is usually what happens when we redo a street project where you have pieces that have been built, you end up having to redo the whole thing anyway. That has been our experience. Forney: Does it make sense that we get the money to do half of the street and put that in escrow until the City gets out there and does the whole thing. Petrie: done. I would normally agree with that but this particular road, I don't see it ever being Little: With regard to offsite: "The developer may be required to install off site improvement where the need for such improvement is created in whole or in part by the proposed large scale development. For purposes of this section, off site improvements shall mean all or any part of a street, a surface drainage system, water system, or sanitary sewer system which is to be installed on property located outside the proposed large scale development. Any required off site improvement shall be installed according to City standards. The developer shall bear that portion of the cost of off site improvement which bears the rationale nexus to the needs created by the large scale development." Petrie: I anticipated that the intersection would cost more than the off site cost. I don't have the numbers. We would expect some off site contributions in order to complete that work. Forney: It must be difficult work to try and figure out what the rationale nexus would be. In the past, we have had the staff try and come up with some numbers. We'll need to see some numbers at the Planning Commission. When we are trying to make a decision about what we ask for here and what we get down there, that is the only way that we can rational decision. Kelso: We will be happy to work with staff however we need to and come up with an agreed upon concept. Petrie: That street has very little to no traffic except for one weekend out of the year. We have to base our rationale nexus on the traffic generated. We'll have to put the counter out and it may take a little bit of time. Little: Did you do your public notification on this project? • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 32 Kelso: Yes. Little: The University told us they were going to send somebody. Forney: I'm concerned about the situation where we have a very nice residential development in a relatively under improved infrastructure. I think that creates a certain imbalance. As I understand, the AAO project will have members -- Kelso: and -- It was explained to me it is like a summer camp where they have basketball games Little: It's Arkansas Athletic Outreach Kelso: It's a way to get kid together to play sports and have a summer camps. Warrick: I understood that they would have sporting events and toumaments. Forney: This is potentially done all year There will be people coming out on a regular basis. I was pleased to see this rezoning when it came forward. I'm pleased to see the development inside the bypass. We need to make the highest use of the land as possible. This is a situation where we really do need to take advantage of the growth opportunity but I think we need to make sure we have the infrastructure in place for this. Without anything more to go on, I find myself arguing for half of a city street. Conklin: This is a collector street on our Master Street Plan. Kelso: The 18 feet was quite a bit more than just a regular residential street. Little: Number 2 is widened 8 feet to be 18 feet. Forney. It's 18 feet from edge of pavement to edge of pavement? Petrie: From center of pavement to back of curb. Little: So, 18 feet on their side and 10 feet on the other side makes it a total of 28 feet. Forney. That needs to be clarified because I'm sitting here discussing this as though the staff is recommending we have an 18 foot wide street with no curb and gutter and that is not the case. Petrie: We're recommending they widen 4 feet on their side. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 33 Forney: So it's 24 total feet in width. Little: That sounds right to me. Conklin: The plans are showing 18 feet of improved street. Kelso: That is the original plan. Little: That explains it. Our staff took something off the plat that is different from the recommendation so we'll get together. Warrick: Keep in mind that this report your looking at was written based on plat review comments and the information that Ron is providing is information subsequent to that meeting. Kelso: We showed everything on the plat subject to comments from plat review. Warrick: The original recommendation has changed as of this morning. Petrie: At plat review, we recommended our standard recommendations which was to widen this half of a collector street and that we would study the off site improvements and make a recommendation at that time. After we studied the off site improvements, we decided to change that standard comment. Ward: Right now, you recommend that they widen it 4 feet and not put a curb in. It would be a total of 24 feet without a curb. Little: That is the staff recommendation this morning. Ward: How much cost are you talking about to do the improvement off site? Petrie: I really don't have any idea. Kelso: We will get that resolved before Planning Commission. Little: Absolutely. We have to have that resolved. Ward: What you might do for us is to give us a scenario of what it would cost for one half of a street widening with curb along this project and then how it will be offset with the extra cost of off site improvements and only do a 4 foot widening without curb. Forney: I'm trying to recall what we have required for similar projects with these • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 34 conditions. Little: The only one I recall is Savannah and every time I go by there, I wonder why we didn't get curb and gutter. Hoover: Is the AAO considered separately? Do they have enough parking? Is there an overlap? Warrick: The parking calculation for development is based on the entire development including the sports facility. Jerry, when you drew your phase line, did you calculate the parking for the sports facility separate within that phase? Kelso: Yes. I should have moved this phase line. The 104 would be if the phase line were included. Little: What is this Althia Drive? Kelso: It's a tree or something. Little: Isn't is spelled with Althea. It's Rose of Sharon. Kelso: Back to the parking issues, you have all the parking there that you need. Yes. Hoover: As far as looking at this as a separate commercial venture -- I'm trying to figure out that accessibility for the drop off points. Do the parents drop off kids or is this a Walker Park situation? Little: There are two ways in and out. That is the main thing that we looked at. This was one of those items that apparently was discussed during the rezoning but 1 did not pick up on it. When we saw it that it was an AAO office and the football field, we had to ask additional questions and at that point, we had to make them aware of those conditions. So what do you know about drop off points? What types of activities occur at this facility? Kelso: I don't know exactly the times people will be dropped off. There is plenty of circulation here. Hoover: It would help to know what events will occur here. Ward: The have camps there for specific age groups that will be there on Saturday and Sunday. The will have basketball camps there. • • • Subdivision Committee Minutes April 15, 1999 Page 35 Warrick: When they came in to talk to me about it, the said the Youth Center can provide only so much. This is a take off point from that. They use the athletes from the University to provide services to the young adults by helping with coaching. It benefits the athletes by providing hands on training in presentation and study skills. This takes off from where the Youth Center stops. Kelso: I thought Brad Freise would be here. He could answer these questions. I will make sure he will be at Planning Commission. MOTION Mr. Forney made a motion to forward LSD99-12 to the full Commission subject to all staff comments and recommendations. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Ms. Hoover concurred.