title
Minutes for the MAPC meeting on January 13, 2004.
body
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Minutes, January 13, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beadles, Vance, Damron, Gott, Moore, Krennerich, G. Johnson, Day, M. Johnson
OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Batten, City Planner; Claude Martin, City Engineer; Teddy Hooton, City Engineer; Phillip Crego, City Attorney; Brian Wadley, Planning Coordinator
The minutes of the December 9, 2003 meeting were approved with correction of some typographical errors on a motion by Mr. Gott, second by Mr. M. Johnson and unanimous vote.
#1 RZ04-1 Mitchell Caldwell, dba Don Caldwell Construction, Inc., requested approval of rezoning from the Residential R-1, Single-Family Low Density District to the Residential R-3, Multi-Family High Density District for all of Caldwell Acres 5th Addition and all of Caldwell Acres 6th Addition containing 38 lots on 8.759 acres. The general location of the property is east of Richardson Road, at the east end of Keely Drive.
Mr. Caldwell stated that he wished to change his request from R-3 to a R-3, Limited Use Overlay, to limit the uses to only single family dwellings that will compliment what is already built.
City Planner, Glenn Batten, explained that the reason the rezoning is being sought is so that the proposed houses can be built along the same lines of those currently being built in the previous phases without having to reduce the house size. Without rezoning the houses would have to be smaller to fit on the lots with the current setbacks. The limited use overlay is being added to limit development to single family houses only.
Mr. Gott made a motion to approve the request as amended for a R-3, Limited Use Overlay for single family dwellings only. The motion was seconded by Mr. Krennerich. Voting was 8 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were Vance, M. Johnson, Damron, Day, Gott, G. Johnson, Moore, Krennerich. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED AS AMENDED.
#2 FP04-1 Kensington Development Corporation requested final approval of plans for Riveroaks Phase I, a subdivision containing 45 lots on 17.95 acres. The general location of the property is on the north side of East Craighead Forest Road, west of Harrisburg Road.
Minutes of the October 14, 2003 MAPC meeting were distributed to the commissioners wherein the preliminary approval was granted.
Jim Lyons, Attorney for Jim Abel, addressed the commission regarding the analysis of the proposal by Glenn Batten, City Planner. Mr. Lyons stated that in the analysis, Mr. Batten stated that this should be considered an amendment to the preliminary plat; however, Mr. Lyons stated they are seeking final approval at this time for several reasons which include that they believe it is the proper time and that the items that are necessary to be addressed have been addressed. With regard to a request to submit the data in digital format Mr. Lyons stated that none of the GPS monument information had been provided by the City. Mr. Lyons stated that Terry Bare, project surveyor, had received the disc just tonight. Mr. Bare stated that he would supply the disc as soon as possible. The next issue was Mr. Batten’s question about how does the developer plan to provide for the traffic that will be generated by the Riveroaks development, approximately 224 lots. Mr. Lyons stated that this is a long term project and approval is being sought only for Phase I which is 45 lots which should not generate a great deal of traffic. It is anticipated that it will take two and one half years to complete the first phase. With regard to Mr. Batten’s question about how can we mitigate the traffic impact, Mr. Lyons responded that one thing that can be done is some improvement to Craighead Forest Road and that Mr. Abel is willing to entertain or discuss the improvements with the city. Mr. Lyons contended that improvements to Craighead Forest Road are not required in the ordinances nor is it something that is allowed by law. In regard to the retention pond, Mr. Lyons stated that the size of the pond had been increased to comply with the City Engineer’s request to insure that the stormwater runoff is taken care of. The next question in the analysis was will the developer replace the trees removed during development and add trees and other plant material. If so this should be shown on the subdivision plan. Mr. Lyons stated that there is no requirement in the subdivision regulations for trees to be shown and this requirement could not be imposed by law. The next question asked was will street trees be planted. Mr. Lyons stated their position was the same on this that it is not an ordinance requirement although it is something that Mr. Abel may do, but as homes are built those owners will have control over those trees. Mr. Lyons said he was unclear what information was being sought about entrance features. With regard to the question of will a wall be constructed along the rear of the lots backing to Craighead Forest, Mr. Lyons said it was not their intent at this point in time to construct a wall because these are going to be single family dwellings and they don’t believe it is necessary to have a wall along Craighead Forest Road. With regard to buffering and screening along the east property line, Mr. Lyons, stated that these are single family homes and this is normally not a requirement. Mr. Lyons stated that their position was the same with regard to the types of screening and buffering between the retention pond and the property lines of several lots; however, if some buffering and screening is needed they would be willing to consider it in order to obtain approval. There will be a walking trail installed around the pond and this will be added to the plans. Certain statements about the retention pond and downstream drainage that were requested by the City Engineer will be added by the project engineer with some modification. Mr. Lyons stated that many of the requirements that Mr. Batten is asking for are not set forth in the subdivision regulations which is the law.
Mr. Lyons cited a court case from Little Rock where the Supreme Court had ruled that the Planning Commission, as a matter of law, could not deny approval of a plat that meets the standards of the subdivision regulations. Mr. Lyons stated that it was their position that the plans as drawn are in harmony with the subdivision regulations.
Pam Honeycutt, spoke on behalf of her mother who owns property across the street from this proposed subdivision. Ms. Honeycutt stated that she was not acting in any capacity as an elected official or as a judge. She further stated that her mother was the single most affected property owner by this project because her property is located between the two proposed entrances to the subdivision off Craighead Forest Road. She also has the most frontage and right of way may have to come off her property to facilitate improvements to the road. Ms. Honeycutt stated that from the first meeting that it has never been disputed that this project is going to cause a major problem with traffic, and it has never been disputed that this road is not up to city standards even without this subdivision. It has also never been disputed that there will definitely be a problem with vehicles entering Harrisburg Road (Old Hwy. 1) and trying to make a left turn. She further stated that it has never been disputed that this will add approximately 2000 cars per day on this road nor has it been disputed through any prior meeting that this road will have to be widened and improved and that it may take the city as long as five years to complete the improvements which are estimated at $200,000 which the taxpayers will have to pay for and which are being necessitated by this project. It has also has never been disputed that the City Council will have to meet on this, appropriate funds for this and put it on a waiting list. Ms. Honeycutt stated that the cost of improving this road should be born by the person or entity that causes the need for the improvements. Ms. Honeycutt requested that the road improvements be addressed prior to the approval of this plan and if not addressed now in the first phase, when will it be addressed. Ms. Honeycutt stated that if the MAPC does not obtain the necessary right of way off this proposed subdivision to facilitate the improvements then her mother’s property and the others up and down the road will have to give up property for the street right of way. Ms. Honeycutt stated they were not asking for the proposal to be denied or that the use of the land be denied but they are asking that the MAPC fulfill their duty to the public which is to protect the public from poor planning. Ms. Honeycutt requested again that before the subdivision is approved and built that the MAPC require that an alternate means of ingress and egress to the property be installed now, and that the developers donate the land for street right of way instead of her mother.
Ms. Honeycutt suggested that the MAPC rely not on her opinion nor Mr. Lyons opinion but should seek out the opinion of their own legal counsel.
Glenn Batten, City Planner, went through the minutes of the 10-14-03 and noted that the motion approved by the Commissioners asked the developer to consider or address all of the comments made at the preliminary meeting. Preliminary approval was also subject to approval of the revised drainage plans by the City Engineer. One of those comments was whether a property owners association would be set up to maintain the drainage pond. Another comment regarded information about the walking trail. There was also a great deal of discussion by a number of people regarding the traffic, streets, and the need for improvements to those streets. Open space and recreation was also referenced and Dr. Beadles questioned the improvements to Craighead Forest Road and what would be done. The reference to these points in the motion would be considered conditions of approval of the preliminary plat. Mr. Batten stated that he could not find that these items were adequately addressed in the final submission. With regard to the street situation, Mr. Batten presented a copy of the functional classification map for streets that was adopted as the Master Street Plan in September of 1993. Craighead Forest Road on this map is classified as a collector road which requires an 80’ right of way. The MAPC was authorized to require the reservation of right of ways for all designated streets and further that the MAPC shall have the authority to place future streets into a functional classification and reserve the appropriate right of way. The current plat shows a street dedication of 30’ from centerline and then a 10’ utility easement adjacent to it; however, the property line is drawn all the way to the right of way line. Ten additional feet of right of way needs to be added to the right of way for Craighead Forest Road for a total of 40’ from centerline. If this is not done, the right of way will have to be purchased from each respective property owner that backs up to Craighead Forest Road to be able to improve the street. This has not been addressed on the final plan. The next thing to consider is who should pay for the improvements. You cannot minimize the effect that there will be only two cars per house, you have to look at 45 houses making an average of 10 vehicle trips per day which amounts to 450 trips not 90 vehicles. Nothing has come forward from the developer as to how he is going to participate in the street improvements, other than waiting for the city to initiate the improvements. The requirement to provide the plans in digital format using the GPS points has not been done. Mr. Batten maintained that the developer is responsible for obtaining the necessary information to comply with the ordinance. Maintenance of the detention pond is still not determined at this point and this needs to be established. The elimination of existing trees has been questioned by a number of people and nothing has been done to address that. The drainage questions have been answered and the drainage plans are just about complete according to Claude Martin, City Engineer. Mr. Batten pointed out that in the subdivision regulations the Planning Commission may require the dedication or reservation of open space parks and recreation within the subdivision up to 10% of the gross area. A walking trail around the pond is proposed and that will help but there are other needs for recreation. Mr. Batten expressed concern about
the need for fencing or buffering especially considering that the back yards of the houses back up to Craighead Forest Road. Mr. Batten reiterated the point that he did not think the plans were sufficient for final plat approval because of the many unresolved issues. Claude Martin, City Engineer, stated he had received a revised plan of the detention pond on the previous day but was out of town and had not much time to review the plan. Mr. Martin requested that a statement be added to the plat regarding the drainage plans. In response, Robert Hendrix, Project Engineer, stated he had no problem with doing that but that he would need to put some classification or parameters to that to the effect that based of the calculation methods using the SCS, 25 year flood. The detention pond is designed for the 25 year storm which actually increased the pond size from 1.73 acres to 2.75 acres, and the depth increased from 8 feet to 10 feet deep. This pond will be dry except during periods of rain. Mr. Martin stated that this type of statement was acceptable. When asked, Mr. Martin stated that this detention facility is designed to detain only the additional water runoff caused by this development. It will not affect the other pond on the property at this time. Future developments to the south and west will have to design their drainage to detain their additional runoff as well.
Mr. Lyons addressed the commission regarding ordinance #2504, adopted in September of 1993, where the right of ways were specified in the Master Street Plan based upon their functional classification. Mr. Lyons contended that a MATA ordinance adopted in 1997 replaced that ordinance and only required a 60’ or maybe a 70’ of right of way for a collector street. Mr. Lyons also noted that the ordinance only requires a developer to provide the right of way on his side only. Mr. Lyons noted that Section 14.36.03 of the zoning ordinance specifically exempts R-1 zoning from the landscaping requirements of the ordinance.
City Attorney, Phillip Crego, stated that when a developer has meet the requirements of the ordinance that he is entitled to be approved. Mr. Crego said he questioned whether the final plans were in compliance with the ordinance after hearing Mr. Batten’s comments, but if they are, they should be approved. Any stipulations required at the preliminary approval stage must be met on the final approval and if they haven’t then it should not be approved. Mr. Crego went on to say that the preliminary stage of approval is when conditions are supposed to be attached.
Terry Bare, Project Surveyor, stated that with regard to the right of way on Craighead Forest Road that there currently is none. The only right of way is what this developer is dedicating. The property lines are drawn to the right of way line where they are supposed to be and not the easement line. They are dedicating 30’ from the centerline line with an additional 10’ easement and imposing a 50’ building setback though it was pointed out that the plat shows a 35’ setback on the rear of the lots backing Craighead Forest Road. The subdivision regulations only require that a developer enter into a street improvement agreement to participate in the future street improvements and is specifically not required
to install those improvements now on an existing paved street. This agreement transfers with ownership of the land and obligates future owners to participate.
At the conclusion of the discussion, Mr. Krennerich made a motion to grant final approval of the plans with the following stipulations:
1. The developer shall provide a legal document stating that he will maintain the retention pond until such time as another entity is developed and they take responsibility for it
2. Dedication of 35’ of right of way from the existing centerline of Craighead Forest Road by the developer
3. The developer entering into a street improvement agreement for future improvements to Craighead Forest Road
4. Furnishing the plans in digital format as required before work commences and before final approval by staff
5. Showing the walking track on the plans
6. Plans reflecting the above revisions shall be submitted to city staff for their review and if the plans are not in compliance they shall be rejected
The motion was seconded by Mr. M. Johnson. Voting was 7 in favor, 1 opposed. Those voting aye were Krennerich, Day, M. Johnson, Vance, Damron, Gott, Moore. Those voting no were G. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST APPROVED WITH STPULATIONS.
#3 PP04-1 H.A.M.L. Investments, Inc. requested preliminary approval of plans for South Caraway Village, a commercial subdivision containing 6 lots on 69 acres. The general location of the property is on the west side of Caraway Road, south of Higginbottom Creek, and east of Medallion Circle.
Glenn Lovett, attorney for H. A.M.L., stated that the reason for not providing the plans in digital format was because the engineer had only received the GPS information at this meeting. With regard to a question in Mr. Batten’s analysis regarding how they were going to provide for the traffic generated by this development, Mr. Lovett responded that they believed that the streets proposed were sufficient to handle the initial development and then the market would dictate what additional streets and or improvements are needed. A drainage plan was not provided for the whole development because of uncertainty of how it will develop. Regarding downstream storm water runoff, Mr. Lovett stated that as development occurs each development would be responsible for his own drainage. Mr. Lovett stated that Mr. Batten had suggested or requested that a master plan be prepared for this site in his analysis and Mr. Lovett stated that specific development plans were not known at this time.
In regard to the City Engineer’s comment about needing 8” of SB-2 and 4” of asphalt on a commercial street, Mr. Lovett stated that the ordinance did not make such a provision and therefore could not be required.
Robert Hendrix, project surveyor, stated that this was a 70 acre development with large tracts, and not knowing how it is going to be cut up, that each individual site plan would include its own individual drainage plan in the site plan. Mr. Hendrix said it was their plan that as tracts are sold, each individual developer would be responsible for maintaining their drainage and they could not exceed predevelopment runoff which means there is a potential for many retention ponds instead of a regional pond.
Claude Martin, City Engineer, stated that in lieu of requiring 8” of base and 4” of asphalt, he would require a geotechnical study that would have to be conducted by the developer on the streets in this commercial subdivision to determine the base thickness and asphalt thickness for the projected loads on the street. Mr. Martin’s other comments were how much increase is there in the pre-flow and post flow of stormwater? The top of bank needs to be shown on Higginbottom Creek along with the easements. At station 6+00 on Latourette Lane how does water get in pipe (extend throat opening in back)? A Q is needed at every entrance of the drainage system. Mr. Martin questioned if a pipe is needed at Latourette Drive and Caraway Road? Details and typical sections are needed in the plans. At station 17+50 on Latourette Drive, are standard inlets adequate? A moisture barrier and French drain is needed to prevent water from entering street subgrade. Look at the cemetery off Highway 1B.
Glenn Batten, City Planner, stated that when he looked at the land absorption on this property, it is easy to calculate that this land could hold up to 1,300,000 square feet of commercial space which is about 100,000 to 200,000 square feet greater than Southern Hills Mall. Even developed piece by piece it could be a very large development. Questions still have to be asked about how the developer intends to develop the property and how does he mitigate the traffic generated by the development and how will drainage be handled? Mr. Batten stated that he had not seen it, but, he knew that a master site plan had been prepared for this site. One real critical question that has to be asked is with the magnitude of this development is that master plan being followed or are we veering away from the concepts laid out in that plan? Mr. Batten stated that it is fair for the MAPC to ask what was proposed in that plan and how does this proposal relate to that master plan. The concern is that the property is being developed in a piece mill fashion in just a straight shot instead of a unified development. Mr. Batten questioned whether a 60’ right of way is adequate for this type of development. The street itself may not have to be built to its full width right now but provisions need to be made now for that future widening. Mr. Batten stated that these issues need to be given some thought before seeking preliminary approval.
Commissioner Day questioned the 60’ total right of way shown for Caraway Road which doesn’t seem adequate for a street that is probably classified higher than a collector street.
Mr. Batten stated that the functional classification on the master street plan was as a minor arterial which requires a total of 100’.
Terry Bare, project surveyor, stated that his firm had worked independently of the firm that prepared the master site plan for the property. At least two other groups have done some work on the plan for this property. Information was not shared with the other consultants but only with the developers.
Concern was expressed by some commissioners that Latourette Drive was an extremely long street with no curves or bends to slow traffic down. The design is not that good.
When questioned by Mr. Batten about the projected uses of the property, Mr. Lovett stated that it would be the uses permitted in the C-3 and the C-5 zoning districts. Mr. Batten then asked if a copy of the master site plan could be provided so that there is another concept to look at for the development of the property.
Mr. Damron made a motion to disapprove the request stating that the street proposal for Latourette Drive is inadequate for a commercial subdivision of this size and drainage plans and details were not provided as required by ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Day. Voting was 8 in favor, 0 opposed. Those voting aye were Damron, Krennerich, Vance, Gott, Moore, G. Johnson, Day, M. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED, REQUEST DISAPPROVED.