Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout114-02 RESOLUTION• i • RESOLUTION NO. 114-02 A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF WASHINGTON REGIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS TO REMOVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REQUIREMENT TO PAY $71,951.00 TO EXTEND LONGVIEW STREET TO PLAINVIEW STREET WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas in 1998 unanimously overturned a Planning Commission requirement that Washington Regional Medical System had to pay for costs to extend Longview Street through third parties' property to Plainview Street; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, still believes it would be inappropriate and unfair to require Washington Regional Medical System to pay for a street through a third party's property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby grants the appeal of Washington Regional Medical Systems and overturns and removes the Planning Commission's requirement that Washington Regional Medical Systems and/or other developers on the subject property must pay $71,951.00 or a proportional cost of the extension of Longview Street across tlurd parties' property to intersect with Plainview Street. PASSED and APPROVED this the 16th day of July, 2002. . AYEE��` .?11 0 APPROVED: By: "Thrvt NAME OF FILE: Resolution No. 114-02 CROSS REFERENCE: • 07/16/02 Resolution No. 114-02 06/06/02 Memo to Fayetteville Planning Commission Members 06/06/02 Engineering Division Correspondence to Planning Commission Members 05/11/98 Planning Commission Minutes (Pages 17-21) 06/16/98 Planning Commission Appeal/Washington Regional 06/10/02 Planning Commission Minutes (pages 7-17) 06/20/02 Letter to Heather Woodruff, City Clerk, from Burke & Olmstead, Attorney at Law 06/24/02 Departmental Correspondence to Mayor Coody and the City Council §166.05 (Large Scale Development) (Pages 13-15) 03/27/02 Departmental Correspondence to Tim Conklin, City Planner, and Hugh Earnest, Urban Development Director 07/18/02 Memo to Tim Conklin, City Planner, from Heather Woodruff, City Clerk NOTES: • s FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 PPL 02-06.00 Page I PC Meeting of June 10, 2002 Brookstone Subdivision, PPL TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner, A.I.C.P. FROM: Sara Edwards, Associate Planner Ron Petrie P.E. , Staff Engineer DATE: June 6, 2002 Project: PPL 02-6.00: Preliminary Plat (Brookstone Subdivision, pp 212) was submitted by Terry Carpenter of US Infrastructure, Inc. on behalf of Washington Regional Medical System for property located at 415 Longview Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 38.62 acres with 8 Tots proposed. Findings: This subdivision includes the Brookstone Assisted Care Facility and the Washington County Health Department. This property was recently rezoned to R-0 to allow for medical offices. Property to the north is zoned C-2, to the east is zoned R-1 and to the south is zoned R-2. Currently 64% of the site exists in tree canopy and the applicant is proposing to preserve 62% of the site until future development occurs. At the time of future development, each tract will be required to meet the minimum 20% canopy preservation requirement. Recommendation: Approval subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of any offsite improvements to Longview Street. At the present there is only one ingress & egress for this subdivision to Wimberly Drive. The original Planning Commission approval of the Brookstone Assisted Care Facility on May 13, 1998 required the cost of one-half of this offsite portion of Longview Street be placed in a surety bond. Subsequently, this requirement was overturned by the City Council on June 16, 1998. On March 18, 2002 the City of Fayetteville Street Committee discussed the possibility of the City extending this street to College Avenue. All Committee members were in favor of placing this project on the Capital Improvement Program list which would require approval by the City Council. However, the acquisition of the right-of-way remains in question. City Staff has provided rational nexus calculations in the event that the Planning Commission approves an assessment for this offsite street improvement. The amount of the assessment was calculated to be $71,957.00. See the attached memo from the Engineering Division. P 01 • • Standard Conditions of Approval: PPL 02-06.00 Page 2 2. All required improvements including street lights will be required to be installed prior to final plat approval Street lights may be deferred if payment is made to the electric company with a certified check and a copy of the check and paid in full receipt is submitted to the Planning Division. 3. Storm water detention will be required for each tract upon development. 4. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Westem Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) 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. Background: The proposed preliminary plat was reviewed at the February 13, 2002 Technical Plat Review and the May 30, 2002 Subdivision Committee Meeting. Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included possible offsite street improvements to Longview Street. The Subdivision Committee forwarded the Lot Split to the full Planning Commission subject to all staff comments. Infrastructure: a.) Water will be extended to serve this development. b.) Sanitary Sewer will be extended to serve this development. c.) Streets. See Conditions of Approval d.) Grading and Drainage. A preliminary drainage report has been submitted. A final report will be required prior to beginning construction. The applicant is not proposing any grading on the site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ves Required alb 411 Date: Comments: Approved Denied PPL 02-06.00 Page 3 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Date: Required Approved Denied The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", beginning on page one of this report, are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. By Title Date s FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE • 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 501-575-8206 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Members Ron Petrie P.E., Staff Engineer June 6, 2002 (June 10, 2002 P.C. Meeting) Brookstone Subdivision (PPL 02-06.00) Longview Street Offsite Assessment These calculations are provided in the event the Planning Commission determines that an assessment is required for this subdivision for the extension of Longview Street to Plainview Avenue. Longview Street is classified as a Collector Street on the Master Street Plan which requires a street width of 36' as measured from back of curb. The following is the rational nexus calculations to construct 500.35' of this street from this subdivision's eastern boundary to Plainview Avenue: Projected Traffic from Tracts 1-5 & 7 - Assume 50% ingress/egress to the east - Collector Street Capacity - 5,393 vpd 2,696.5 vpd 6,000 vpd Percentage of Capacity utilized by Development — 44.94% From Historical Data, it costs approximately $320.00/ L.F. to construct a new 36' wide collector street with curb & gutter and underground drainage. The required length to extend this street to Plainview Avenue is shown as 500.35' on the Preliminary Plat. Therefore, the total cost to extend this street is computed as follows: 500.35 L.F.($320.00/L.F.) = $160,112.00 Developer's Portion = $160,112.00(0.4494) = $ 71,957.00 Therefore, the assessment for the Brookstone Subdivision would be $71,957.00 to extend Longview Street to Plainview Avenue. Brookstone Summary of Average Vehicle Trip Generation For 27.84 Acres of Office Park June 05, 2002 24 Hour 7-9 AM Pk Hour 4-6 PM Pk Hour Two -Way Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit Average Weekday 5393 652 57 117 684 24 hour Peak Hour Two -Way Volume Enter Exit Saturday Sunday 811 51 14 378 24 35 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS • • 4 • Planning Commission Minutes May 1./, 1998 .Page -17- LSD 98-13.00 LARGE.SCALE DEVELOPMENT (ASSISTED CARE UNITS 212/2131 SOUTH OF LONGVIEW AND EAST OF WIMBERLY DRIVE This item was submitted by Northwest Engineers on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Services for property located south of Longview and east of Wimberly Drive. The property is zoned A-1 Agricultural and contains approximately 39.20 acres. Staff's Recommendations: Approval subject to the 11 conditions of approval. Kurt Jones of Northwest Engineers, appeared on behalf of applicant before the commission. Mr. Jones stated there were no objections to any of the conditions. They are requesting a waiver of the overhead utilities. ❑ Mr. Odom stated there were two waivers being presented - one for the parking waiver and the other would be waiving requirement for overhead utilities to be placed underground. Mr. Jones stated the developer is also requesting that in lieu of building the street past this development to the east to provide a surety bond in lieu of construction of the street. Public Comments: ❑ Mr. Odom noted there was nothing proposed by the developer to go to Wimberly. • Thomas Gill, 3195 Butternut, which is the intersection of Village Drive and Butternut to the south of the proposed development. He stated he received a certified letter from the engineer and from the City. He stated he attended the SDC meeting and expressed his concern about opening Village Drive into the project. He stated since that time he had visited with Mr. Jones and was told this was never proposed, and wanted to know if this was a viable solution. ❑ Mr. Odom responded the engineer of the proposed project does not always get to say where they want to build a road, and are required to provide access points. He stated the staff's concerns were of future access. ❑ Ms. Little stated when subdivisions are platted for connectivity is addressed noted when the particular subdivision in which Mr. Gill is presently living was considered, the planning commission did plan for a connection to the north. That particular 50 foot right-of-way was removed from the development for the purpose of extension to the north. The current staff has the obligation to let the current Planning Commission know that in the part the staff and Planning Commission felt there was a need for access to the south. With this subject property being zoned A-1 it could have developed as a subdivision with residential lots, then there would have been a strong push for connection at that time. The property now has developed and since then that particular access has been dropped. That option is not viable due to the way the property has now developed. Discussion: ❑ Mr. Forney noted the MSP shows connection from Longview towards Monte Painter. Because he had not attended the SDC he wondered if there was any question to access to Monte Painter. ❑ Ms. Little referred to page 7.7 and noted the consideration was whether to try satisfy the MSP and the location that was planned which would have connected to Monte Painter and then angle to the northeast to connect to Longview. The applicant has proposed and staff is in agreement that the collector street be • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Page -18- constructed at Longview Street and intersect with Wimberly Drive. One reason this location for the collector is the County Health facility which has been constructed at the intersection of Wimberly and Monte Painter. The second reason is that there is a drainage way running along the southern portion of the 40 acres and if the collector street had been placed in that area this would have necessitated a bridge or another conveyance. The proposed location is a good location as opposed to the plan's location. Therefore, you are not abandoning the MSP but merely accepting a street in lieu of the MSP. ❑ Ms. Little noted that off-site directly to the east there is a site for a fire station, which the City has a plan to connect Plainview from the north down to Longview and this is shown on the map. The new Longview will connect to the new Plainview and staff felt this would be a good connection. ❑ Ms. Hoffman wanted to address the street connectivity and does feel it would be good idea to require a 50 % contribution at this time which would steer traffic from here and the street be built to the property line. • Mr. Jones responded regarding the parking waiver and noted this facility would not require that many parking spaces and the residents would not have automobiles on-site and the only people utilizing the parking would be staff and visitors. Therefore, they feel the 55 proposed parking spaces would be more than adequate which was based on discussions with the developer. ❑ Ms. Little stated staff was in support of the parking waiver request. Mr. Odom moved to approve the parking waiver for 55 proposed parking spaces. Ms. Johnson seconded said motion as stated. Mr. Jones stated he provided some information from SWEPCO and they were not able to prepare a detailed estimate and gave him a•ball park figure which was half a million dollars. The total cost of the proposed project is estimated to be $4 million dollars. Mr. Jones also wanted to discjiss t,e nronosed 50% contribution for the extension and do not feel this would be appropriate due to the fact they are already building substantial road. He stated to require this developer to pay for off-site road. The roll was called and said motion carried on a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. ❑ Ms. Johnson wanted to identify the curb cut issue. ❑ Ms. Little stated this was to be brought to the commission's attention. The normal recommendation is one curb cut per development. In this particular item in order to provide access to the drop out there the staff concurs with the applicant's plan. The item concerning the third curb cut is to provide access to the parking lot. This would not be necessary for the project but since there are no future proposals and with Longview being a collector street. The particular alignment of Longview Street has been placed where it veers back to the north to connect to Longview and it veers back to the north to allow buildable to the south for another development ❑ Mr. Odom stated with this project being a hospital he felt two would be amenable to allow for ambulance use. a Ms. Little stated since this was an assisted care facility emergency vehicles would be adequately served by the two curb cuts. There is no rear access to the building. Mr. Jones referred to their layout and noted the two in front of the building is for the drive-thru area, and the third access to the east is mainly to provide service vehicles to the facility without routing through the front of the building. Also there is a fire hydrant located in that area which would be easier for a fire truck to access the • • • • Planning Commission Minutes May 1J, 1998 Page -19- hydrant and felt these three accesses would be needed. ❑ Ms. Little inquired what their comment would be if they eliminate the middle curb cut. Mr. Jones stated there would be a lot of drive-thru traffic and their goal is to keep the traffic out of the parking lot as much as possible. ❑ Mr. Forney inquired about the conclusions the SDC members had. ❑ Ms. Hoffman stated that since Longview may eventually be a private street and therefore supports an elimination of one of the middle driveways which would still allow delivery vehicles easier access. ❑ Mr. Forney has no objection to three and would support two as well. Mr. Odom moved to deny the waiver to place existing utilities underground. Ms. Hoffman seconded said motion as stated. Mr. Jones stated that the cost is $500,000 for this project which is over 10%n of the overall cost of he development. He stated one of the factors the Planning Commission is required to consider in deciding a waiver is the financial impact and burden and if $500,000 is not considered a hardship or burden, then what is, and feels this amount is excessive. ❑ Mr. Forney stated there are a number of other areas of development going on at North Hills and the issues of burying utilities and stated it is burdensome to go down and up and would not be cost-effective for anybody. He referred to the ordinance and feels that the ordinance needs to be followed. ❑ Ms. Johnson inquired if the motion to deny the waiver was approved, could the applicant appeal the denial to the council and this was affirmed. She further noted if the requirement was not followed to place the utilities underground in this subject area then when and where would it be required. Mr. Jones referred to the utility lines on the plat and stated that these utility lines were already on the property, the developer would be willing to install the new utilities underground, but felt it was excessive to require the developer to bear the burden of the cost for the existing utility lines. ❑ Ms. Little addressed another item concerning the difference of the line on the north side of the property and the line on the east side of the property. Mr. Jones stated according to SWEPCO there was no difference in the utilities. ❑ Mr. Forney inquired of staff regarding Staffmark and the project south of Millsap regarding burying the utility lines. ❑ Ms. Little responded that Staffmark requested a waiver which had been denied. This is the same line which is a major feeder which runs up north to Hwy 412. Staffmark eventually came back and would want to readdress it and accepted to bury the lines underground with the condition to come back at a future time. Staff has a letter from them and they are going to lay the lines underground. There is amount of the line that the other project North Park Phase H would have been responsible for. Staffmark would have their utility lines completely underground and would be putting up a lot of money for that installation. • If we grant one developer a waiver and do not have any authority to go to the other developers to ask them to help this developer. • • Planning Commission Minutes May 11', 1998 Page -20- • o Ms. Little inquired concerning the other projects in this area and what SWEPCO's input was. Mr. Jones stated it makes sense to install the utility lines at one time, but his disagreement is the overall cost to this developer and it is within the rights of the Planning Commission to grant a waiver due to the financial hardship. Mr. Jones stated at the present time there were no plans for the rest of the 40 acre site. o Mr. Odom stated he did feel the amount was exorbitant and wondered if the developer could put some of the money in escrow to be used when the other property was developed. o Mr. Forney stated the developer had chosen the route of going conditional use but if the developer had done a lot split, then the developer would be addressing only the property subject to this development. The motion was restated by Chairman Odom. The roll was called and said motion carried on a vote of 6-1-0, with Mr. Ward voting nay. There was a question concerning the off-site improvement. o Mr. Beavers stated Mr. Jones provided him with an estimate to extend Longview to the east in the amount of $152,000 excluding the right-of-way. Mr. Jones addressed this issue and noted this was a collector street and did not feel the 50% was for a collector street or a city standard street, but if it was city standard street, the amount would be less. The estimate was based on engineering and some other factors. This is for this street over to Plainview east of the eastern boundary of the proposed development. The developer's preference would be for the developer not to be assessed this cost. o Mr. Reynolds inquired if the city had acquired the land or if it had been donated. o Ms. Little stated they did speak with Tom Lewis, representative of the Lewis family, and were willing to consider the dedication, but this has not been formalized and does not anticipate it would be a problem. She further stated she did not feel it was appropriate to charge this developer for a portion of the acquisition of this land since the development of the street would directly benefit the owners of land. If the owners do not want to dedicate the land, the city has the right to pursue this through eminent domain. The street is estimated to be 500 feet in length. o Ms. Little stated since the estimate includes the extension of water and sewer, those numbers should not be in the street estimate numbers which calculation is based on $60/foot for street cost. Mr. Jones stated the cost for the street is coming out to about $300/foot excluding engineering and utilities which is not uncommon. He further stated Joyce Boulevard worked out to be approximately $300/foot with engineering which is a 4 -lane road, and the asphalt cost is $65/foot. The staff's recommendation came from the SDC and it is not unreasonable to require the applicant to construct IA of the street off-site and the city contribute the other Si of the street. Mr. Forney moved to approved LSD 98-13 with the following amendments to the conditions of approval: 1. That the parking waiver is granted. 2. The requested waiver for utility lines be installed be denied; 3. That two curb cuts be permitted; 4. The developer be responsible for building a 28 foot residential street for the length of 1 • • • • a Planning Commission Minutes May I1, 1998 Page -21- Longview from property line to property line and 34 of such street from east property line to connect with the existing Longview. Ms. Hoffman seconded said motion as stated. ❑ Ms. Johnson inquired about the extension of Longview and the fact that it does not connect with Kenray. Staff had said Kenray would ultimately be vacated so a future street would go up there and meet with Longview. She inquired if staff felt the street platted locates the eastern end of Longview where it should be. o Ms. Little stated they were in support of this configuration. Mr. Jones inquired about the request of putting a portion of the cost of the street improvement in the surety bond addressed in the motion. Mr. Forney moved to approve the surety bond from the eastern edge of the property line to Longview street. ❑ Ms. Little stated the surety bond would be allowable and the question she would address was when the street would be built and there are two options: 1. Staff take to council a request the other half of the street be built at public expense; 2. Hold the bond until development of the property to the east occurs, then the developer of that property builds the other 14 feet and the surety bond would provide for the building of that street. There is no preference at this time. With regard to the request the street be built to the entry way and not to the property line, the staff does not support this request. Ms. Little stated property to the south is zoned R-1 and houses would be built on this property unless a developer requests a rezoning. Mr. Forney moved to amend his motion that the assessment for portion of the road to the east of the property line could be made as a surety bond. Ms. Hoffman seconded the amended motion. Ms. Johnson inquired if the street be built within five years or the developer could come back and request a refund. The roll was called and said amended motion and was approved on a vote of 7-0-0. The roll was called and said motion to approved the large scale development was approved on a vote of 7-0-0. • June 16, 1998 Schaper voting no and Alderman Young abstaining. This item remained on second reading. PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL/WASHINGTON REGIONAL Mayor Hanna introduced an appeal submitted by Burke and Eldridge on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Services for a large scale development off Millsap Road and Wimberly Street. The request is to appeal the Planning Commissiori's decision to deny a waiver request for the construction of a standard city street. Jack Anderson, Administrator of Fayetteville City Hospital, stated this is a Fayetteville City Hospital project. He stated he was present to ask the Council to waive the portion of the road through Washington Regional property as well as the monetary assessment for the road across the property to the east. They are requesting this, because every dollar required made it less likely the project would be developed. They have an excellent site at that location. They can only afford this type of facility on this site because Washington Regional has worked with them. If the site development costs are significant, they will have to look at altemative sites and possibly not continue with the project. The bottom line is if you take the street development cost off of this four -acre development you'll be taking it off the backs of senior citizens of Northwest Arkansas. He requested the Council wait until Washington Regional developed the remainder of the property to require the road to be completed. If it is required now, it may prevent the project from taking place. Alderman Williams stated the Council saved the development half a million dollars by taking into account the need for this facility. However, the normal procedure is for the developer to build the street all the way through. He could imagine the property on the other side developing and having two streets within half a block of each other not being finished. He stated he has no problem requiring them to pay half the cost of extending the street off their property; but he agrees with the Planning Commission that they do need a street through their property. Mr. Anderson stated his concern is that the additional cost would make it unfeasible to continue with the project. Alderman Williams estimated the cost savings of not running the street through to the property line would be approximately $75,000. Kurt Jones, Crafton & Tull Engineers, stated the estimate submitted did not include storm drainage. He estimated it to be $150,000. Alderman Schaper asked about further development. He noted the development was sited in the middle of a forty -acre tract of land. Mr. Anderson replied that the facility has been situated where it is because it is the least attractive on the property and could justify this type of facility. They have no plans for other development at this time. 3 221 2 2 June 16, 1998 Alderman Schaper questioned the agreement between this development and Washington Regional. Mr. Anderson stated it was his intention to purchase this portion of the property from Washington Regional. Alderman Schaper stated the rest of the site could be further developed. Ms. Little stated part of the reason why the master street had not joined Kenray Street was so that there would be more room on the eastern side for future development. Alderman Daniel stated she had spoken with Chief Jackson who stated the road was needed for emergency vehicles. Little stated it is normal procedure for a developer to guarantee the construction of facilities with a • bond or cash contributions. The City has not taken bills of assurance for two to three years. They are very difficult to collect. Alderman Schaper expressed concern about the developer purchasing a land -locked piece of property. He asked if they were going to purchase the property, would Washington Medical Center dedicate an access easement to them. Little stated they have not discussed a lot split during any of the meetings. It is her understanding that this is a Washington Regional Medical Center project. Mr. Jones stated they are not discussing a lot split at this time. Alderman Williams stated this was Washington Regional property and they would have to have a road constructed through the property. He could not see a good reason not to required the road. Alderman Williams moved to grant the waiver not to req •ir -cite road rnnctrucr nn. The through road would be required Alderman Schaper seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6-0-1, with Alderman Young abstaining. 3 Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance amendmg Chapter 33 of the Code of Fayetteville to provide for the Board of Adjustment, the Plat Review Committee, the Subdivision Committee, the Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee, and the Board of Sign Appeals. Alderman Williams moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading of this item and the next item, an ordinance deleting Title 15, etc, and adopting the Untried Development Ordinance. Upon roll call, the motion carried on a vote of 7 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinances for the second time. Alderman Schaper asked if editing corrections would have to come back to the Council. 4 1 • 303 AUGUST 18, 1998 Alderman Miller stated they would be able to connect to the sewer, if they were annexed. Alderman Williams made the motion to suspended the rules on the annexation and go to the third and final reading of the re -zoning. Alderman Miller second the motion. Upon roll the motion carried 7-0-0. City Attorney Rose read the annexation ordinance. Alderman Trumbo made an motion to suspended the rules and go to the third and final reading. No second motion was made. The re -zoning ordinance was left on the second reading. Mayor Hanna called for the vote on the annexation. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0-0. ANNEXING ORDINANCE 4114 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. REZONING LEFT ON THE SECOND READING WRMC ASSISTED CARE DEVELOPMENT: Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution from Council concerning a proposed cost -share for the cost difference between construction Longview as a 36 ft. Collector vs. A 28 ft local street for approximately 1450 ft at the WRMC Assisted Care development. Alderman Schaper stated that he did not know if this policy was in the City's best interest. Alderman Williams replied the reason behind the policy was that it is assumed that many other people other than that developer and his tenants will be using the collector. We do require a larger right way. Alderman Trumbo made the motion to move the resolution as presented. Alderman Pettus second the motion. Upon roll call the motion carried 7-0-0. RESOLUTION 113-98 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance amending Section 97.016 of the Code of Fayetteville to allow the Mayor or his designee to establish fees for the use of City Park Ballfield for tournaments. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance. Alderman Williams made the motion to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman Miller second the motion. The motion carried 7-0-0. Legend Subject Property JJJJJ® PPL02-06.00 Master Street Plan s. Freeway/Expressway ae. Prindpal Medal e a. Minor Medal O % 0 Collector eeeee listorio Collector 750 1,000 PPL02-06.00 One Mile View a 4 BROOKSTONE SUBDIVISION Overview Legend Subject Property Boundary PPL02-06.00 Streets Planned 0 0.125 0.25 °N.,..1 Planning Area Baca% 0000008 Overlay DlsUIU L _ I City Limits Outside City Miles Master Street Plan 4Z ,Freeway/Expreasway 41.11%.0, Prindpal Arterial 08•16. Minor Arterial t ♦ • Collector eeeee Historic Collector 0.5 0.75 1 Planning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 7 PPL 02-6.00: Preliminary Plat (Brookstone Subdivision, pp 212) was submitted by Terry Carpenter of US Infrastructure, Inc. on behalf of Washington Regional Medical System for property located at 415 Longview Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 38.62 acres with 8 lots proposed. Hoffman: Item number eight is a Preliminary Plat for Brookstone Subdivision which was submitted by Terry Carpenter of U.S. Infrastructure, Inc. on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Systems for the property located at 415 Longview Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 38.62 acres with eight lots proposed. Background is the subdivision includes the Brookstone Assisted Care facility and the Washington County Health Department. This property was recently rezoned to R -O to allow for medical offices. The property to the north is zoned C-2, to the east is zoned R-1, and to the south is zoned R-2. Currently 64% of the site exists in tree canopy and the applicant is proposing to preserve 62% of the site until further development occurs. At the time of future development each tract will be required to meet the minimum 20% canopy preservation requirements. There are five conditions of approval Tim, do we have signed conditions? Conklin: No. Hoffman: I will read those into the record. Planning Commission determination of any offsite improvements to Longview Street. At the present there is only one ingress & egress for this subdivision to Wimberley Drive. The original Planning Commission approval of the Brookstone Assisted Care Facility on May 13, 1998 required the cost of one-half of this offsite portion of Longview Street be placed in a surety bond. Subsequently, this requirement was overturned by the City Council on June 16, 1998. On March 18, 2002 the City of Fayetteville Street Committee discussed the possibility of the City extending this street to College Avenue. All Committee members were in favor of placing this project on the Capital Improvement Program list which would require approval by the City Council. However, the acquisition of the right-of-way remains in question. City Staff has provided rational nexus calculations in the event that the Planning Commission approves an assessment for this offsite street improvement. The amount of the assessment was calculated to be $71,957.00. See the attached memo from the Engineering Division. Standard Conditions of Approval: 2. All required improvements including street lights will be required to be installed prior to final plat approval. Street lights may be deferred if payment is made to the electric company with a certified check and a copy of the check and paid in full receipt is submitted to the Planning Division. 3. Storm water detention will be required for each tract upon development. 4. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the Planning CommissioS June 10, 2002 Page 8 • applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 5. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) 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. Is the applicant present? Would you tell us who you are and give us the benefit of your presentation? Nierengarten: I am Peter Nierengarten, I am an engineer with U.S. Infrastructure. Hoffman: Do you have a presentation for us or would you prefer to just answer questions? Nierengarten: We can just answer questions. There are some other people from the hospital here as well to answer any questions. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Tim, do you want to give us any further information before we take public comment? Conklin: Back when the Planning Commission looked at the Assisted Care facility there was a requirement that Longview Street be completed through this track of land. They did build the street and did cost share with the City of Fayetteville to their east boundary line. One of the Planning Commission's conditions of approval was to put up a guarantee for the future extension of Longview. They appealed that decision to the City Council in 1998. The City Council removed that condition from that approval at that time At this time staff is not recommending to place that condition on this development. However, once again, the Planning Commission is the one that will decide what the conditions of approval would be for this Preliminary Plat. Thank you. Hoffman: Thanks Tim. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this item? Seeing none, 1 will bring it back to the Commission and the applicant for discussion. We have a summary of the average vehicle trip generation and if I am reading this correctly, Tim you may want to help me with this but on an average weekday we have 664 vehicle trips per day on page 8.5. Conklin: Average weekday 24 hour volume is 5,393. Petrie: 5,393 average vehicles per day. Hoffman: That number seems really high to me and I was trying to find that. fillePlanning Commission June 10, 2002 Page 9 Petrie: It was determined using this standard ITE computer program. What was inserted into the program was the acreage of the undeveloped tracts so it didn't include the assisted care facility, it did not include the Washington County Health facility and that is the item that the computer program asks for is the acreage and the type of development. Certainly the developer is in their right of submitting their own calculations. Our general practice is to use this computer program to make that determination. Hoffman: Thanks Ron. Do you have any comment on those numbers? Nierengarten: They do seem high. We haven't done any calculations and have nothing on paper to dispute them though. Petrie: I should point out on my calculations of course, I only used half of that number, half of it exiting to the west and half going to the east. Hoffman: Ok, thanks. It seems to me that in light of the possibility for high trip generation that it would behoove the Planning Commission to look again at the assessment for the offsite street improvements and that is under our condition of approval number one. Are you prepared to discuss that? Nierengarten: The $70,000 on here, yes, I believe we are prepared to discuss that. Olmstead: My name is Tom Olmstead, I am the general counsel for Washington Regional Medical Systems and I would like to speak really quickly to the requirement that Washington Regional pay for the cost of extending Longview to Plainview and ask the Commission to consider the fact that back in 1998 when this matter came before the City Council, the City Council unanimously agreed to waive that requirement and at the time did require us to build a standard city street to the boundary line of this property, which was done. I think that that fact as we sit here today creates some significant legal issues on the part of the city if they were to go forward and request this additional money from Washington Regional Medical System at this time. Namely I would suggest to the City that under its ordinances having built the standard city street to the property line it would seem to me that there is no requirement under the ordinances that could force Washington Regional Medical System to bare this cost on an adjoining land owner's property. Also, I would point out that we had a meeting with the Planning Division and discussed this several months ago. I believe the City's attorney, Mr. Williams, might be able to advise the Commission on that issue in a little more detail but would ask that you consider that in weighing this request. Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Olmstead.