Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1100 Staff AnalysisApril' 25, 1996 ITEM NO._ 5 FILE NO_: 5--1100 NAME: CAPITOL LAKES ESTATES -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Along both sides of Cooper Orbit Rd., beginning approximately 0.9 mile south of the Kanis Rd. intersection, extending southward along Cooper Orbit Rd. approximately 0.5 mile to the north boundary of the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision, and extending northward to the north shore of Spring Lake. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: William L. Dean CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT OF ARKANSAS, INC. CIVIL DESIGN, INC. 600 Pine Forest Dr., Suite 111 15104 Cantrell Rd. Maumelle, AR 72113 Little Rock, AR 72212 868-7717 AREA: 190.624 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 318 FT. NEW STREET: 20,640 ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES RE UESTED: STAFF UPDATE: PROPOSED USES: Single -Family & Multi - Family Residential Ellis Mountain (18) None A revised and corrected preliminary plat, to be submitted to staff within 8 days of the Subdivision Committee meeting, making the changes discussed with the project engineer at this meeting, was not submitted as required by the applicant within the time period allotted. (Staff permitted an extension of the 8-day time frame to 11 days, the Monday following the Friday cut-off date.) There was, therefore, insufficient time for staff to review the revised plat and to prepare the staff report for the agenda, and still meet the printing and distribution schedule for the agendas. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Hill Dean, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the nature of the project and presented an overview of the proposal. Staff presented the discussion outline and the "Preliminary Plat Checklist" to the Committee members, noting that Mr. Dean has gotten his copy the previous day. The Planning Ap r i,l • 25, '1996 SC]BDIVISION ITEM NO_: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100 staff discussed the various deficiencies noted in, primarily, the discussion outline regarding the failure of the proposed plat to meet a number of requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, discussed the Public Works concerns. The Committee members inquired of Mr. Dean if he would be able to make the needed corrections in the plat and meet the deadline for re -submittal of the drawings. Mr. Dean responded that he could meet the deadline, and would have the revised plat to staff by Friday, April 12th. With the assurance that the plat would be amended to comply with the Regulations, the Committee forwarded the plat to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff reported that required revised drawings had not been submitted in sufficient time to include this item on the agenda and still meet the word processing, printing, and distribution schedule to distribute the printed agendas to Commissioners prior to the meeting. Staff recommended deferral of the item until the June 6, 1996 Subdivision Agenda, with the condition that the revised preliminary plat be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on May 16, 1996. The deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 2 June 20, 1996 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: S-1100 NAME: CAPITOL LAKES ESTATES -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Along both sides of Cooper Orbit Rd., beginning approximately 0.9 mile south of the Kanis Rd. intersection, extending southward along Cooper Orbit Rd. approximately 0.5 mile to the north boundary of the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision, and extending northward to the north shore of Spring Lake. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• William L. Dean CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT OF ARKANSAS, INC. CIVIL DESIGN, INC. 600 Pine Forest Dr., Suite 111 15104 Cantrell Rd. Maumelle, AR 72113 Little Rock, AR 72212 868-7717 AREA: 190.624 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 318 FT. NEW STREET: 20,640 ZONING: R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: pages. STAFF UPDATE: PROPOSED USES: Single -Family & Multi - Family Residential Ellis Mountain (18) See underscored material on following A revised and corrected preliminary plat, to be submitted to staff within 8 days of the Subdivision Committee meeting, making the changes discussed with the project engineer at this meeting, was not submitted as required by the applicant within the time period allotted. (Staff permitted an extension of the 8-day time frame to 11 days, the Monday following the Friday cut-off date.) There was, therefore, insufficient time for staff to review the revised plat and to prepare the staff report for the agenda, and still meet the printing and distribution schedule for the agendas. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Bill Dean, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the nature of the project and presented an overview of the proposal. Staff presented the discussion outline and the "Preliminary Plat Checklist" to the Committee members, noting June 20, 1996 ITEM NO.: B (Cont } FILE NO.: 5-1100 that Mr. Dean has gotten his copy the previous day. The Planning staff discussed the various deficiencies noted in, primarily, the discussion outline regarding the failure of the proposed plat to meet a number of requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, discussed the Public Works concerns. The Committee members inquired of Mr. Dean if he would be able to make the needed corrections in the plat and meet the deadline for re -submittal of the drawings. Mr. Dean responded that he could meet the deadline, and would have the revised plat to staff by Friday, April 12th. With the assurance that the plat would be amended to comply with the Regulations, the Committee forwarded the plat to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff reported that required revised drawings had not been submitted in sufficient time to include this item on the agenda and still meet the word processing, printing, and distribution schedule to distribute the printed agendas to Commissioners prior to the meeting. Staff recommended deferral of the item until the June 6, 1996 Subdivision Agenda, with the condition that the revised preliminary plat be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on May 16, 1996. The deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996) Staff addressed the continuing change of the plat which is being driven by the applicant trying to satisfy abutting owners. This has caused staff of Public works and Planning to defer commitment on requirements that apply. Mr. Hathaway offered his plat in the form that he hopes will address the concerns of the "Oasis" Retreat Center. The Plan at this time is to move the MF tract adjacent to the "Oasis", east to the east side of Cooper Orbit Road and against the east boundary of the plat. It appeared that Mr. Hathaway has taken all necessary steps to deal with his neighbors but has not been in a position to pursue rezoning, platting and the annexation at the same time. Mr. Hathaway has pulled his rezoning from the Board of Directors agenda and refiled the application to coincide with the rehearing of the plat. The Committee felt that, since the revised plat in the most recent form has not been distributed for review and staff has not completed comments, the plat should be held over until June 20th. This will bring zoning and plat to the same agenda. 2 June 20,. 1996 ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: S-1100 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOLLOW-UP ON PLAT REVISIONS The project engineer has submitted the following in response to the last Public Works Review and Staff Comments. Public Works Develo er Response - 1. Clearing and Excavation Permit will be secured prior to start of Phase I construction. A Notice of Intent filing and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will also be submitted to the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology in accordance with NPDES requirements for construction sites of more than five acres in size. 2_ The principal Master Street Plan elements include minor arterial extension from Cooper Orbit Road at the north property boundary to the west subdivision boundary and collector street extension of Cooper Orbit Road from the minor arterial to the south subdivision boundary. The Preliminary Plat shows proposed minimum ROW widths. Variations from minimum widths shall be determined by the street and drainage construction plans for each development phase and incorporated on the Final Plats. Residential and minor residential street grades will not exceed 17% and 18%, respectively. a) Minor Arterial - minimum proposed ROW width is 100, with variations up to 120, in certain locations to accommodate cuts or fills and an extra left turn lane off of the minor arterial to southbound Cooper Orbit Road. Street width is planned as 60, back -of -curb to back -of -curb except for the section at the Cooper Orbit intersection, which will be 72, back-to-back to provide for the two left turn lanes onto the collector street. b) Collector - minimum proposed ROW width is 90, through Phase I and 100, minimum through Phase 3. Greater ROW width in some locations is anticipated due to cut and fill requirements. Normal street width is 36, back-to- back except at the minor arterial intersection where provisions will be made for left turn movements and a right turn merge lane for eastbound traffic. 3. Stormwater detention requirements will be met through construction of series ponds located in the areas indicated on the Preliminary Plat. It is anticipated that all differential runoff storage volumes required for the overall project can be achieved with a pond system involving from four to six ponds in series. Pond system design will involve permanent pool depths and water supply from shallow groundwater for water level maintenance. Runoff hydrographs, stage -storage relationships, and pond routings 3 June 20, 1996 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100 for peak discharge limits will be submitted along with street and drainage plans for Phase 1 construction. 4. Variance requests relative to street and drainagg.- improvements include (a) maximum street grade of more than 14% for more than 200, interval along Cooper Orbit Road through Phase 3; (b) sidewalks along Frankfort and Bangor (cul-de-sac streets in Phase 2 that are slightly loncrer tflan 750')• and c vehicle access for three single -fronted lots aloncr the southern end of Cooper Orbit as follows: Lot Nos. 1, 34. and 35. Sewer and Water Utilities 1. Development of Phases 1 and 2 will require interim sewage pumping stations to serve until future extension of the 24" diameter Brodie Creek interceptor sewer. Interim tie-in the City system is proposed through connection to the 12" diameter Payne Branch collector main currently serving only Spring Valley Manor Subdivision (Sewer Improvement District No. 239). 2. Relocation of the 12" water main along existing Cooper Orbit Road will be completed according to the subdivision phasing. Fire Department 1. Due to rezoning revision, the Columbia cul-de-sac has been eliminated. 2. Fire hydrant spacing to be utilized on the Water Facility Layout will conform to the requirements of the Little Rock Municipal Water Works. Planning 1. The Preliminary Plat has been revised to correctly show front building setback lines. All easements shown are for utility access except where marked as "sewer easement" or "drainage easement", which are proposed as exclusive easements, respectively. All utility access easements shown on the Preliminary Plat that are not needed after completion of all final underground utility layouts will be deleted on the. Final Plat(s). 2. Side lot line and rear lot line setbacks are not shown on the Preliminary Plat but are governed by Section 4 of the proposed Bill of Assurance. Any side lot line setback variations related to utility of lots such as 82 and 96 will be specifically noted in the Bill of Assurance for the appropriate subdivision phase and will be noted on the Final Plats for such phases. 4 June 20, 1996 ITEM NO.: H(Cont.)FILE NO.: 5--1100 3. Legend has been added. 4. Lot depth waiver as applicable is requested for Lots 122 throe h 128 and for Lots 139 through 142. Exce Lion to prohibition of pipestem lots is also requested for Lots 113 and 114. 5. The intersection offset at Cooper Orbit Road between Pierre Drive and Rose Garden has been eliminated. 6. Street continuance signs will be placed per General Note No. 7. 7. Ownership of the property designated as "AP&L Easement" rests with the developer. The AP&L easement south of St. Paul Court is in use and is maintained by AP&L. Accordingly, the abutting lots south of St. Paul respect the AP&L easement. The existing AP&L easement north of St. Paul is not currently used but is maintained by AP&L. The developer is currently seeking abandonment of the unused AP&L easement north of St. Paul. If abandoned, the AP&L easement north of St. Paul will be deleted at the time of final platting of the tier of lots along the west subdivision boundary. 8. All out parcels, open spaces, and stormwater detention facilities will be transferred to a property owner association or other entity appropriate to operation and maintenance of the respective areas and/or facilities. 9. Preliminary street grade estimates for principal streets have been indicated on the Preliminary Plat. 10. Proposed grades on Lansing approaching the minor arterial will not exceed maximum allowable grades, and approach grades within 30, of the intersection will not exceed 5%. 11. Typical property line corner radii and curb line radii are indicated in General Note No. 8 on the Preliminary Plat. 12. Sidewalk requirements are indicated by the Sidewalk Schedule shown on the Preliminary Plat. Sidewalks and sidewalk access ramps will be shown on the street and drainage construction plans for each subdivision phase. 13. Refer to General Note 4 for list of double -fronted lots along the arterial and collector for which ten foot "no vehicle access" easements are proposed. Refer to General Note 5 for list of lots with access limited to Cooper Orbit Road. 5 June 20, 1996 ITEM NO.: B Cant. FILE NO.: S--1100 14. Alignment of minor arterial been adjusted to provide for at a right angle. STAFF REPORT ON REVISION2 at west property boundary has crossing of the property line Planning Staff has reviewed the resubmitted plat and finds nothing of consequence to comment on at this meeting. The responses offered and waivers now stated satisfy all except: linear feet of new street should be indicated; minimum lot size as dictated by Hillside analysis in certain areas; city limits and zoning; provide new updated notices; change Kanis Street name. PUBLIC WORKS RESPONSE TO RESUBMITTED PLAT A grading and NPDES permit will be required. Master Street plan right-of-way and street improvements associated with Preliminary Plat are required. Stormwater Detention analysis is required. Stormwater above ground facilities are not shown on plat, and when included need to be in a common tract with the association responsible for maintained. Staff recommends a wet pond to add to the beauty of this development. Underground facilities may be located in easements. The plans indicate plans for open ditches. The open ditches should be discouraged and replaced with underground piping with above ground swales and area inlets where required. Ditches are a constant maintenance problem with access difficulties. Residents fence the easements and fill ditches. Large open drainageway pose a safety concern with neighborhood children. Ditches that carry more than 10 cfs shall have a concrete invert. All ditches that have velocities that exceed 6 fps will require concrete lining. Staff is not prepared to approve the shown locations at this time without further information. All ends of pipes will be termined with Flared end sections and maximum grades of 3:1 on slopes. All exposed earth within right-of-way and easements will be sodded or seeded with mulch prior to final platting lots. A system of above ground swales to handle the 100 year runoff will be required. These shall conform to City Ordinance 31-176 and 29-127 with appropriate easements. The City Ordinance allows street grades to vary from the Master Street Plan by 2% as long as the average grade does not exceed the Master Street Plan. The applicant proposes 17%, 18%, and 14% grades for residential, minor residential, and Collector streets. As long as they fall within Ordinance guidelines staff will approve and a waiver is not required. The applicants proposal to exceed the Master Street Plan allowables will be addressed at a later date directly to the Board of Directors, unless a profile of streets including intersections can be furnished. Staff will 0 June 20, 1996 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S_-1100 send a recommendation based on construction plans at the time of plan approval for that phase to the Board of Directors prior to construction. The Minor Arterial will need a right -turn lane at Cooper Orbit for east bound traffic versus the plans for dual left turn lanes. Frankfort does not appear to need a sidewalk waiver the dimension scales from intersection to center of cul-de-sac appears to be minor residential street. If the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors concur with the Bangor sidewalk waiver, Public works will not object. This street is less than 50 feet longer than the allowable. Sight distances shall conform to residential standards for Bangor. The applicant may wish to request a width variance for Bangor, if the applicant plans to construct to minor residential width of 24 feet versus residential width of 25 feet. Add lots 138, 139, 183 and 224 of lots with no vehicle access points to Arterial Street. Add lot 36 to lots without vehicle access to Cooper Orbit. This Primary Collector will need as few driveways as possible. Driveway locations on the SF reserved and MF tracts shall conform with ordinances and will be as approved with site plans prior to construction. 7 June 20, 1996 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100 The Minor Arterial will need a right -turn lane at Cooper Orbit for east bound traffic versus the plans for dual left turn lanes. Frankfort does not appear to need a sidewalk waiver the dimension scales from intersection to center of cul-de-sac appears to be minor residential street. If the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors concur with the Bangor sidewalk waiver, Public Works will not object. This street is less than 50 feet longer than the allowable. Sight distances shall conform to residential standards for Bangor. The applicant may wish to request a width variance for Bangor, if the applicant plans to construct to minor residential width of 24 feet versus residential width of 25 feet. Add lots 138, 139, 183 and 224 of lots with no vehicle access points to Arterial Street. Add lot 36 to lots without vehicle access to Cooper Orbit. This Primary Collector will need as few driveways as possible. Driveway locations on the SF reserved and MF tracts shall conform with ordinances and will be as approved with site plans prior to construction. 7 �?une 20, 1996 ITEM NO.: H Cont. FILE NO.: 5-110Q —eared a recommendation based on construction plans at the time of plan approval for that phase to the Board of Directors prior to construction. The Minor Arterial will need a right -turn lane at Cooper Orbit for east bound traffic versus the plans for dual left turn lanes. Frankfort does not appear to need a sidewalk waiver the dimension scales from intersection to center of cul-de-sac appears to be minor residential street. If the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors concur with the Bangor sidewalk waiver, Public Works will not object. This street is less than 50 feet longer than the allowable. Sight distances shall conform to residential standards for Bangor. The applicant may wish to request a width variance for Bangor, if the applicant plans to construct to minor residential width of 24 feet versus residential width of 25 feet. Add lots 138, 139, 183 and 224 of lots with no vehicle access points to Arterial Street. Add lot 36 to lots without vehicle access to Cooper Orbit. This Primary Collector will need as few driveways as possible. Driveway locations on the SF reserved and MF tracts shall conform with ordinances and will be as approved with site plans prior to construction. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 20, 1996) The Chairman instructed Staff to proceed with staff comment on Item B. Richard Wood, of the Staff, opened his remarks by stating that this plat matter is one of two items associated with the Capitol Lakes project being a preliminary plat and a rezoning action. The rezoning action to be dealt with later on this agenda being Item No. 5. Wood pointed out that both Planning Staff and Public Works Departments' comments had been generally addressed and that the plat was in good shape at this point. Wood pointed out that there are remaining several variances to be dealt with; however, staff has worked with the Engineer toward resolving most of the design issues. It was pointed out that David Scherer, of Public Works, may have some continuing comment on the variance relationship. Wood then proceeded to read the several items that were included in paragraph 5 of a letter. This letter was submitted to staff on June 20, 1996 prior to the beginning of this meeting. The letter containing a number of areas addressed by the engineer that resolved design issues. Paragraph 5 was titled "Waivers" and the several waiver or variance issues addressed are as follows: 7 June 20, 1996 ITEM NO.; B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100 Item A: A request for a waiver on maximum allowable grade on collector streets to be addressed at the time of final design. Item B: This paragraph pointed out that at this time no waiver is required or requested for sidewalk on Frankfort Street in as much as a street length has now been determined to be less than 750 feet. However, a waiver is requested for Bangor Street in view of the fact that the length is approximately 35 feet longer than specified by the ordinance. Item C: A vehicle access is required for Lots 1, 34, and 35 fronting on the south end of the collector street. Item D: A lot depth waiver is requested for Lots 122 through 128 and Lots 139 through 142. The last waiver is a waiver of the pipe -stem lot requirement on Lots 113 and 114. With these items read, Wood instructed the Commission that unless there is an offering from David Scherer, of Public Works, the plat is appropriate for commission action. However, Wood pointed out that the preliminary plat is still guided by the specific determination on the rezoning which will be dealt with later in this agenda. The zoning boundaries as finally approved may or may not change the lot arrangement within the preliminary plat. The Chairman then asked David Scherer if he had comments to add to the Staff Recommendation at this point. David Scherer came to the lectern. He stated that he had received a copy of the letter provided by the engineer on the project prior to his meeting. Scherer pointed out that there are some streets within this plat which will require some waivers; however, Public Works is requesting that they be set aside at this time and be dealt with on the design for the final plat. At that time more detailed information and engineering design will be available and such waivers as may develop can then be forwarded to the City Board. Mr. Scherer then discussed the street access to the large parcel to the east, Lincoln Court by name. He indicated that the engineer had noted that the street may be built to a collector street at a later time in order to provide proper traffic access to a significant potential development. Commissioner Daniel questioned,when did Scherer receive this letter. Scherer indicated that he had received it immediately prior to the beginning of the meeting. He stated that all it did was put in writing those understandings between the Staff and the developer which was a follow-up to the Subdivision Committee discussion. 8 June 20, 1996 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-11.00 Commissioner Daniel pointed out that he thought this was entirely inappropriate to come in this late and in this fashion. David Scherer stated that as far as he is concern they were simply placing it in writing what had already been agreed upon. Scherer also pointed out that everything that is in this late arriving letter is also covered in the engineering write-up portion of the agenda. This communication is simply in agreement to accomplish those items that are noted. A lengthy discussion then involved Commissioner Putnam and David Scherer's response to a specific question about the Subdivision Committee involvement. The discussion generally involved the many issues associated with design of the plat, master street plan, access to various lots and such. A question by a commissioner then introduced a discussion on Public Works' requirements for detention areas and open ditches. David Scherer explained this at length. His response being that Public Works was trying to discourage any open drainage ditches. He also explained that the he did not have much experience with this engineer in dealing with open ditches and detention. This is a relationship that will have to develop and it will have to properly instruct the engineer as to what Public Works' policy is currently. He also pointed out that Public works did not like tc have large wet storage ponds on individual lots which will require individual property owners to maintain them. On some occasions, property owners have filled in or damaged these kinds of areas. He stated that detention areas should be in a collective facility assigned a tract outside private ownership on a permanent open space. Commissioner Adcock then posed a question. Her question has to do with a list of lots that she read from David Scherer's comments in the agenda. Her question had to do with access to streets. She stated that she could not deal with this issue because she did not know where these lots were located. Mr. Scherer explained to Commissioner Adcock the ordinance requirement dealing with double frontage lots versus single frontage on collector and arterial streets the manner in which they would be provided access and the manner in which they were prohibited. He stated there were instances where there is a call for an access prohibition easement that is on lots which are double frontage and have principle access available on an internal street on the frontage of the residence. He also pointed out that in that list of lots which were numerated in the write-up that there were some typographical errors on the plat when they inserted the numbers involved in waivers. This has been corrected. He further stated that the Subdivision Committee 9 June 20, 1996 ITEM NO.: 8 Cont. FILE NO.: S-1100 had seen that plat and had reviewed these issues that are outlined. Mr. Scherer then displayed a copy of the plat and pointed out some of the access concerns by pointing to some of the streets and cul-de-sacs that were involved. Mr. Scherer concluded his remarks. The Chairman then asked if the applicant was in attendance. Mr. Bill Dean, the engineer for this development, came forward and identified himself for the record. Mr. Bill Dean stated that he had nothing further to add and he felt that he had addressed all of the issues in the written communication thats in the Commission's hands. Commissioner Lichty pointed out that this communication was not in their hands and according to Mr. Scherer there were still some unresolved issues. Mr. Dean pointed out that is not the case and he is in agreement with the Public Works on the approach to be taken to solve the several design questions. For the record again, he stated that what was placed in writing today and offered for the record was simply confirmation of the understanding with the staff as follow-up to the Subdivision Committee meeting. Mr. Dean then briefly outlined his proposal for dealing with the storm water detention. At the prompting of Commissioner Lichty, he pointed out the treatment that was proposed for open ditches. He stated that the open ditch sections would be treated as Public Works' requests, either in pipe sections or concrete ditches. Commissioner Adcock asked if there were sidewalk waivers. Mr. Dean pointed out that there was one and it is on a cul-de-sac street. It is only 35 feet longer than ordinance maximum for residential street. He stated that the variance of the sidewalk would be attached to the street becoming a minor residential street and does not require a sidewalk. There would not be waivers for site distance and such because the standard street requirements would still be maintained. In a response to a question from Commissioner Putnam, Mr. Dean stated that any of these issues required would be worked out with the staff or in an appropriate fashion prior to the signing of the final plat. Again Mr. Scherer went through his comments on design specifics being required prior to knowing exactly what kinds or locations of variances on the street design will require Board of Directors attention as waivers. He stated that we cannot possibly know this until specific design is submitted by the engineer prior to the construction. The Chairman then identified for the record that there were two cards submitted from persons present wishing to speak, noting opposition. Mr. Randy Sparks came forward and indicated that his concerns were dealing with the rezoning of a portion of the 10 June 20, 1996 ITEM NO.: H _(Cont-1 FILE NO.: S-1100 property and not the preliminary plat; therefore, he would not be offering comments at this time. Chairman Woods then recognized Mr. McMinn, an attorney representing property owners lying to the east boundary of the subdivision at approximately the northeast corner of the plat. Mr. McMinn stated that his clients owned approximately 80 acres immediately east of this project. He stated that his clients had no opposition to the specific preliminary plat or the zoning that has been requested. He stated that with this proposal, his clients would no longer have access to their property if Cooper Orbit Road is closed. Mr. McMinn stated that should this multifamily be successful at this point no doubt his clients would probably seek such a zoning at some point in the future. He stated his clients required access at some point in a proper fashion or the retention of part of Cooper Orbit Road to provide proper access. Mr. McMinn moved his comments to water service to his clients' property. He stated that they had participated in the cost of extending a 12 inch water main in this area and should the zoning and plat proceed as proposed there was some potential for that line being terminated and loss of water service to his clients. Mr. McMinn stated that he had met with Mr. Hathaway recently and that they had an understanding from Mr. Hathaway that he would work with his clients to provide both access and maintain service connection to the 12 inch water main. Mr. McMinn pointed out that he was aware that the property immediately south of his clients would be provided access over the Lincoln Court street connection that was identified earlier in the hearing. Commissioner Lichty then asked Mr. McMinn if there was a way the Commission could observe on a map or something the location of this property relative to the proposal. Richard Wood, of the Staff, produced a copy of the overall plat and proceeded with instruction as to the relationship of the boundaries of the separate properties. In a response to a question from the Chairman, Richard Wood of Staff proceeded to explain the issue of loss of access versus abandoned street right-of-way for Cooper Orbit Road. Wood point out that the street right-of-way is not abandoned by this plat or the zoning action in as much as this is a public street. It would have to be abandoned by specific ordinance of the City Board. Before that could occur, the abutting property owners with access interest would have to participate in that abandonment petition. At that time it would be appropriate to determine exactly how the access would be provided to Mr. McMinn's clients. Mr. McMinn then offered concerns and some history of his discussion with staff on this subject. His concern at this point 11 June 20, 1996 ITEM NO.: B(Cont.)FILE Ng.: S-1100 being that he be placed on record with his clients' concerns about access and that they not be left out of the issue at some future point and they be instructed that they should have appeared at this meeting. He wants the record to show that access will be an issue for his clients as portions of this road are abandoned. Mr. McMinn stated that Mr. Jeff Hathaway representing the application had indicated that a portion of the road could and would be left open to resolve this issue. McMinn pointed out that he understood staff to say that the road had to be closed in its entirety in order to properly realign master street plan. Richard Wood, of the Staff, came forward to clarify this issue. He stated that staff had not said that the road had to be closed. He pointed out that the roadway in its current alignment is shown traversing a tract of land proposed to be zoned multifamily. If this does occur, then it seems reasonable that the road would be abandoned. Staff would not -prefer to see this street going through the middle of such an apartment project. Wood pointed out that although he would like to see the problem eliminated, we understand the access issue to Mr. McMinn's clients. We are forced to deal with the abandonment of current right-of-way and where you move it to and when. However, he pointed out that no application has been filed for abandonment of the roadway at this time. Again, Wood restated the staff understands it does not all have to be closed. A portion of it could remain open to serve not only the extension of the water main, but physical access to the development of Mr. McMinn's clients' property. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, then inserted for the record that perhaps the minute record is the appropriate place to insert this specific discussion so that there will be a record and when and if the street right-of-way issue is presented these matters can be dealt with. He stated that this being a preliminary plat it may never be developed and may not produce a final product. He also stated that he felt it was good and appropriate that Mr. McMinn come forward and document the record with his clients' concerns. Commissioner Hawn then posed a question as to whether we are realigning Cooper Orbit Road for the Master Street Plan requirement. Richard Wood, of the Staff, responded by saying that the plat has some bearing on where the new alignment would be located. This is primarily because of the grades, the terrain being very steep in this area and there are not that many choices for collector and arterial streets given the kinds of design criteria for those streets. In a response to another question from Commissioner Hawn, Wood pointed out that the Master Street Plan is not a fixed single 12 June 20, 1996 ITEM No.: B Cont. FILE No.: S-1100 line alignment. It is typically sited in the specific final location through development processes such as this one working in concert with Public Works Engineering Staff. This only happens when a developer is ready to build something. Commissioner Daniel then offered that he had a question for Mr. Scherer. The question posed had to do with, since this plat did not cover everything in the intervening area between here and Kanis Road, what would be done with the streets intervening as well as the streets running to the south through Spring Valley Manor. Mr. Scherer responded with a lengthy explanation of Public Works' policy and direction with regard to arterial and collector streets in the urbanizing area. The basic thought of Public Works being that two lane roadway such as Cooper orbit Road entering this plat should not be immediately dumped into a five lane arterial and then perhaps immediately dumped back into a two lane street. Public Works' feeling is that a three lane facility initially constructed will handle the traffic needs for a significant period of time and at the same time the right-of-way would be protected through dedication by the developers so that eventually the roadway could be expanded to five lanes as traffic demands required. At the end of that discussion, the issue was then placed on the floor by the Chairman for a motion. Commissioner Hawn offered a motion as follows. His motion was that we accept the preliminary plat of Capitol Lakes Estates as proposed and amended in the letter received at this meeting and that the Commission recommend that reasonable access to adjacent property be provided. The motion was seconded. A vote on the motion produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 abstention. 13 FILE NO.: S-1 NAME: CAPITOL LAKES ESTATES -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Along both sides of Cooper Orbit Rd., beginning approximately 0.9 mile south of the Kanis Rd. intersection, extending southward along Cooper Orbit Rd. approximately 0.5 mile to the north boundary of the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision, and extending northward to the north shore of Spring Lake. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• William L. Dean CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT OF ARKANSAS, INC. CIVIL DESIGN, INC. 600 Pine Forest Dr., Suite 111 15104 Cantrell Rd. Maumelle, AR 72113 Little Rock, AR 72212 868-7717 AREA: 190.624 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 318 FT. NEW STREET: 20,640 ZONING: R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: pages. STAFF UPDATE: PROPOSED USES: Single -Family & Multi - Family Residential Ellis Mountain (18) See underscored material on following A revised and corrected preliminary plat, to be submitted to staff within 8 days of the Subdivision Committee meeting, making the changes discussed with the project engineer at this meeting, was not submitted as required by the applicant within the time period allotted. (Staff permitted an extension of the 8-day time frame to 11 days, the Monday following the Friday cut-off date.) There was, therefore, insufficient time for staff to review the revised plat and to prepare the staff report for the agenda, and still meet the printing and distribution schedule for the agendas. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Bill Dean, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the nature of the project and presented an overview of the proposal. Staff presented the discussion outline and the "Preliminary Plat Checklist" to the Committee members, noting that Mr. Dean has gotten his copy the previous day. The Planning 1 FILE NO.: S-1100• (Cont. staff discussed the various deficiencies noted in, primarily, the discussion outline regarding the failure of the proposed plat to meet a number of requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. David Scherer, with the Public works staff, discussed the Public Works concerns. The Committee members inquired of Mr. Dean if he would be able to make the needed corrections in the plat and meet the deadline for re -submittal of the drawings. Mr. Dean responded that he could meet the deadline, and would have the revised plat to staff by Friday, April 12th. With the assurance that the plat would be amended to comply with the Regulations, the Committee forwarded the plat to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff reported that required revised drawings had not been submitted in sufficient time to include this item on the agenda and still meet the word processing, printing, and distribution schedule to distribute the printed agendas to Commissioners prior to the meeting. Staff recommended deferral of the item until the June 6, 1996 Subdivision Agenda, with the condition that the revised preliminary plat be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on May 16, 1996. The deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996) Staff addressed the continuing change of the plat which is being driven by the applicant trying to satisfy abutting owners. This has caused staff of Public Works and Planning to defer commitment on requirements that apply. Mr. Hathaway offered his plat in the form that he hopes will address the concerns of the "Oasis" Retreat Center. The Plan at this time is to move the MF tract adjacent to the "Oasis", east to the east side of Cooper Orbit Road and against the east boundary of the plat. It appeared that Mr. Hathaway has taken all necessary steps to deal with his neighbors but has not been in a position to pursue rezoning, platting and the annexation at the same time. Mr. Hathaway has pulled his rezoning from the Board of Directors agenda and refiled the application to coincide with the rehearing of the plat. The Committee felt that, since the revised plat in the most recent form has not been distributed for review and staff has not completed comments, the plat should be held over until June 20th. This will bring zoning and plat to the same agenda. 2 VILE NO • S-1100, (Cont.) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOLLOW --UP ON PLAT REVISIONS The project engineer has submitted the following in response to the last Public works Review and Staff Comments. Public Works/Developer Response 1. Clearing and Excavation Permit will be secured prior to start of Phase I construction. A Notice of Intent filing and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will also be submitted to the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology in accordance with NPDES requirements for construction sites of more than five acres in size. 2. The principal Master Street Plan elements include minor arterial extension from Cooper Orbit Road at the north property boundary to the west subdivision boundary and collector street extension of Cooper Orbit Road from the minor arterial to the south subdivision boundary. The Preliminary Plat shows proposed minimum ROW widths. Variations from minimum widths shall be determined by the street and drainage construction plans for each development phase and incorporated on the Final Plats. Residential and minor residential street grades will not exceed 17% and 18%, respectively. a) Minor Arterial - minimum proposed ROW width is 100, with variations up to 120, in certain locations to accommodate cuts or fills and an extra left turn lane off of the minor arterial to southbound Cooper Orbit Road. Street width is planned as 60, back -of -curb to back -of -curb except for the section at the Cooper Orbit intersection, which will be 72, back-to-back to provide for the two left turn lanes onto the collector street. b) Collector - minimum proposed ROW width is 90' through Phase I and 100, minimum through Phase 3. Greater ROW width in some locations is anticipated due to cut and fill requirements. Normal street width is 36, back-to- back except at the minor arterial intersection where provisions will be made for left turn movements and a right turn merge lane for eastbound traffic. 3. Stormwater detention requirements will be met through construction of series ponds located in the areas indicated on the Preliminary Plat. It is anticipated that all differential runoff storage volumes required for the overall project can be achieved with a pond system involving from four to six ponds in series. Pond system design will involve permanent pool depths and water supply from shallow groundwater for water level maintenance. Runoff hydrographs, stage -storage relationships, and pond routings for peak discharge limits will be submitted along with street and drainage plans for Phase 1 construction. 3 FILE NO.: 5-1100. (Cont.) 4. Variance requests relative to street and drainage improvements include a maximum street grade of more than 14% for more than 200' interval along Cooiper Orbit Road through Phase 3; (b) sidewalks along Frankfort and Bangor (cul-de-sac streets in Phase 2 that are slightly longer than 750') ; and (c) vehicle access_ for three sincrle-fronted_ lots along the southern end of Cooper Orbit as follows: Lot Nos. 1 34 and 35. Sewer and Water Utilities 1. Development of Phases 1 and 2 will require interim sewage pumping stations to serve until future extension of the 24" diameter Brodie Creek interceptor sewer. Interim tie-in the City system is proposed through connection to the 1211 diameter Payne Branch collector main currently serving only Spring Valley Manor Subdivision (Sewer Improvement District No. 239). 2. Relocation of the 12" water main along existing Cooper Orbit Road will be completed according to the subdivision phasing. Fire Devartment 1. Due to rezoning revision, the Columbia cul-de-sac has been eliminated. 2. Fire hydrant spacing to be utilized on the Water Facility Layout will conform to the requirements of the Little Rock Municipal Water Works. Plannincr 1. The Preliminary Plat has been revised to correctly show front building setback lines. All easements shown are for utility access except where marked as "sewer easement" or "drainage easement", which are proposed as exclusive easements, respectively. All utility access easements shown on the Preliminary Plat that are not needed after completion of all final underground utility layouts will be deleted on the Final Plat(s). 2. Side lot line and rear lot line setbacks are not shown on the Preliminary Plat but are governed by Section 4 of the proposed Bill of Assurance. Any side lot line setback variations related to utility of lots such as 82 and 96 will be specifically noted in the Bill of Assurance for the appropriate subdivision phase and will be noted on the Final Plats for such phases. 3. Legend has been added. 4. Lot depth waiver as applicable is reauested for Lots 122 throucrh 128 and for Lots 139 through 142. Exception to 4 FILE NO.: S-1100 Cont. -prohibition of ninestem lots is also requested for Lots 113 and 114. 5. The intersection offset at Cooper Orbit Road between Pierre Drive and Rose Garden has been eliminated. 6. Street continuance signs will be placed per General Note No. 7. 7. Ownership of the property designated as "AP&L Easement" rests with the developer. The AP&L easement south of St. Paul Court is in use and is maintained by AP&L. Accordingly, the abutting lots south of St. Paul respect the AP&L easement. The existing AP&L easement north of St. Paul is not currently used but is maintained by AP&L. The developer is currently seeking abandonment of the unused AP&L easement north of St. Paul. If abandoned, the AP&L easement north of St. Paul will be deleted at the time of final platting of the tier of lots along the west subdivision boundary. 8. All out parcels, open spaces, and stormwater detention facilities will be transferred to a property owner association or other entity appropriate to operation and maintenance of the respective areas and/or facilities. 9. Preliminary street grade estimates for principal streets have been indicated on the Preliminary Plat. 10. Proposed grades on Lansing approaching the minor arterial will not exceed maximum allowable grades, and approach grades within 30, of the intersection will not exceed 5%. 11. Typical property line corner radii and curb line radii are indicated in General Note No. 8 on the Preliminary Plat. 12. Sidewalk requirements are indicated by the Sidewalk Schedule shown on the Preliminary Plat. Sidewalks and sidewalk access ramps will be shown on the street and drainage construction plans for each subdivision phase. 13. Refer to General Note 4 for list of double -fronted lots along the arterial and collector for which ten foot "no vehicle access" easements are proposed. Refer to General Note 5 for list of lots with access limited to Cooper Orbit Road. 14. Alignment of minor arterial been adjusted to provide for at a right angle. at west property boundary has crossing of the property line 5 FILE NO.: S-1100 (Cont.) STAFF REPORT ON REVISIONS Planning Staff has reviewed the resubmitted plat and finds nothing of consequence to comment on at this meeting. The responses offered and waivers now stated satisfy all except: linear feet of new street should be indicated; minimum lot size as dictated by Hillside analysis in certain areas; city limits and zoning; provide new updated notices; change Kanis Street name. PUBLIC WORKS RESPONSE TO RESUBMITTED PLAT A grading and NPDES permit will be required. Master Street plan right-of-way and street improvements associated with Preliminary Plat are required. Stormwater Detention analysis is required. Stormwater above ground facilities are not shown on plat, and when included need to be in a common tract with the association responsible for maintained. Staff recommends a wet pond to add to the beauty of this development. Underground facilities may be located in easements. The plans indicate plans for open ditches. The open ditches should be discouraged and replaced with underground piping with above ground swales and area inlets where required. Ditches are a constant maintenance problem with access difficulties. Residents fence the easements and fill ditches. Large open drainageway pose a safety concern with neighborhood children. Ditches that carry more than 10 cfs shall have a concrete invert. All ditches that have velocities that exceed 6 fps will require concrete lining. Staff is not prepared to approve the shown locations at this time without further information. All ends of pipes will be termined with Flared end sections and maximum grades of 3:1 on slopes. All exposed earth within right-of-way and easements will be sodded or seeded with mulch prior to final platting lots. A system of above ground swales to handle the 100 year runoff will be required. These shall conform to City Ordinance 31-176 and 29-127 with appropriate easements. The City Ordinance allows street grades to vary from the Master Street Plan by 2% as long as the average grade does not exceed the Master Street Plan. The applicant proposes 17%, 18%, and 14% grades for residential, minor residential, and Collector streets. As long as they fall within Ordinance guidelines staff will approve and a waiver is not required. The applicants proposal to exceed the Master Street Plan allowables will be addressed at a later date directly to the Board of Directors, unless a profile of streets including intersections can be furnished. Staff will send a recommendation based on construction plans at the time of plan approval for that phase to the Board of Directors prior to construction. The Minor Arterial will need a right -turn lane at Cooper Orbit for east bound traffic versus the plans for dual left turn lanes. 11 FILE NO_: S-1100 Cont. Frankfort does not appear to need a sidewalk waiver the dimension scales from intersection to center of cul-de-sac appears to be minor residential street. If the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors concur with the Bangor sidewalk waiver, Public Works will not object. This street is less than 50 feet longer than the allowable. Sight distances shall conform to residential standards for Bangor. The applicant may wish to request a width variance for Bangor, if the applicant plans to construct to minor residential width of 24 feet versus residential width of 25 feet. Add lots 138, 139, 183 and 224 of lots with no vehicle access points to Arterial Street. Add lot 36 to lots without vehicle access to Cooper Orbit. This Primary Collector will need as few driveways as possible. Driveway locations on the SF reserved and MF tracts shall conform with ordinances and will be as approved with site plans prior to construction. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 20, 1996) The Chairman instructed Staff to proceed with staff comment on Item B. Richard Wood, of the Staff, opened his remarks by stating that this plat matter is one of two items associated with the Capitol Lakes project being a preliminary plat and a rezoning action. The rezoning action to be dealt with later on this agenda being Item No. 5. Wood pointed out that both Planning Staff and Public Works Departments' comments had been generally addressed and that the plat was in good shape at this point. Wood pointed out that there are remaining several variances to be dealt with; however, staff has worked with the Engineer toward resolving most of the design issues. It was pointed out that David Scherer, of Public Works, may have some continuing comment on the variance relationship. Wood then proceeded to read the several items that were included in paragraph 5 of a letter. This letter was submitted to staff on June 20, 1996 prior to the beginning of this meeting. The letter containing a number of areas addressed by the engineer that resolved design issues. Paragraph 5 was titled "waivers" and the several waiver or variance issues addressed are as follows: Item A: A request for a waiver on maximum allowable grade on collector streets to be addressed at the time of final design. Item B: This paragraph pointed out that at this time no waiver is required or requested for sidewalk on Frankfort Street in as much as a street length has now been determined to be less than 750 feet. However, a waiver is requested for Bangor Street in view of the fact that the length is 7 LE NO.: S- approximately 35 feet longer than specified by the ordinance. Item C: A vehicle access is required for Lots 1, 34, and 35 fronting on the south end of the collector street. Item D: A lot depth waiver is requested for Lots 122 through 128 and Lots 139 through 142. The last waiver is a waiver of the pipe -stem lot requirement on Lots 113 and 114. With these items read, Wood instructed the Commission that unless there is an offering from David Scherer, of Public Works, the plat is appropriate for commission action. However, Wood pointed out that the preliminary plat is still guided by the specific determination on the rezoning which will be dealt with later in this agenda. The zoning boundaries as finally approved may or may not change the lot arrangement within the preliminary plat. The Chairman then asked David Scherer if he had comments to add to the Staff Recommendation at this point. David Scherer came to the lectern. He stated that he had received a copy of the letter provided by the engineer on the project prior to his meeting. Scherer pointed out that there are some streets within this plat which will require some waivers; however, Public Works is requesting that they be set aside at this time and be dealt with on the design for the final plat. At that time more detailed information and engineering design will be available and such waivers as may develop can then be forwarded to the City Board. Mr. Scherer then discussed the street access to the large parcel _ to the east, Lincoln Court by name. He indicated that the engineer had noted that the street may be built to a collector street at a later time in order to provide proper traffic access to a significant potential development. Commissioner Daniel questioned when did Scherer receive this letter. Scherer indicated that he had received it immediately prior to the beginning of the meeting. He stated that all it did was put in writing those understandings between the Staff and the developer which was a follow-up to the Subdivision Committee discussion. Commissioner Daniel pointed out that he thought this was entirely inappropriate to come in this late and in this fashion. David Scherer stated that as far as he is concern they were simply placing it in writing what had already been agreed upon. Scherer also pointed out that everything that is in this late arriving letter is also covered in the engineering write-up portion of the agenda. This communication is simply in agreement to accomplish those items that are noted. A lengthy discussion then involved Commissioner Putnam and David Scherer's response to a specific question about the Subdivision 8 FILE NO.: 5-1100 Cont. Committee involvement. The discussion generally involved the many issues associated with design of the plat, master street plan, access to various lots and such. A question by a commissioner then introduced a discussion on Public Works' requirements for detention areas and open ditches. David Scherer explained this at length. His response being that Public Works was trying to discourage any open drainage ditches. He also explained that the he did not have much experience with this engineer in dealing with open ditches and detention. This is a relationship that will have to develop and it will have to properly instruct the engineer as to what Public Works' policy is currently. He also pointed out that Public Works did not like to have large wet storage ponds on individual lots which will require individual property owners to maintain them. On some occasions, property owners have filled in or damaged these kinds of areas. He stated that detention areas should be in a collective facility assigned a tract outside private ownership on a permanent open space. Commissioner Adcock then posed a question. Her question has to do with a list of lots that she read from David Scherer's comments in the agenda. Her question had to do with access to streets. She stated that she could not deal with this issue because she did not know where these lots were located. Mr. Scherer explained to Commissioner Adcock the ordinance requirement dealing with double frontage lots versus single frontage on collector and arterial streets the manner in which they would be provided access and the manner in which they were prohibited. He stated there were instances where there is a call for an access prohibition easement that is on lots which are double frontage and have principle access available on an internal street on the frontage of the residence. He also pointed out that in that list of lots which were numerated in the write-up that there were some typographical errors on the plat when they inserted the numbers involved in waivers. This has been corrected. He further stated that the Subdivision Committee had seen that plat and had reviewed these issues that are outlined. Mr. Scherer then displayed a copy of the plat and pointed out some of the access concerns by pointing to some of the streets and cul-de-sacs that were involved. Mr. Scherer concluded his remarks. The Chairman then asked if the applicant was in attendance. Mr. Bill Dean, the engineer for this development, came forward and identified himself for the record. Mr. Bill Dean stated that he had nothing further to add and he felt that he had addressed all of the issues in the written communication thats in the Commission's hands. Commissioner Lichty pointed out that this communication was not in their hands 0 FILE NO.: S-1100 (Cont..) and according to Mr. Scherer there were still some unresolved issues. Mr. Dean pointed out that is not the case and he is in agreement with the Public Works on the approach to be taken to solve the several design questions. For the record again, he stated that what was placed in writing today and offered for the record was simply confirmation of the understanding with the staff as follow-up to the Subdivision Committee meeting. Mr. Dean then briefly outlined his proposal for dealing with the storm water detention. At the prompting of Commissioner Lichty, he pointed out the treatment that was proposed for open ditches. He stated that the open ditch sections would be treated as Public Works, requests, either in pipe sections or concrete ditches. Commissioner Adcock asked if there were sidewalk waivers. Mr. Dean pointed out that there was one and it is on a cul-de-sac street. It is only 35 feet longer than ordinance maximum for residential street. He stated that the variance of the sidewalk would be attached to the street becoming a minor residential street and does not require a sidewalk. There would not be waivers for site distance and such because the standard street requirements would still be maintained. In a response to a question from Commissioner Putnam, Mr. Dean stated that any of these issues required would be worked out with the staff or in an appropriate fashion prior to the signing of the final plat. Again Mr. Scherer went through his comments on design specifics being required prior to knowing exactly what kinds or locations of variances on the street design will require Board of Directors attention as waivers. He stated that we cannot possibly know this until specific design is submitted by the engineer prior to the construction. The Chairman then identified for the record that there were two cards submitted from persons present wishing to speak, noting opposition. Mr. Randy Sparks came forward and indicated that his concerns were dealing with the rezoning of a portion of the property and not the preliminary plat; therefore, he would not be offering comments at this time. Chairman Woods then recognized Mr. McMinn, an attorney representing property owners lying to the east boundary of the subdivision at approximately the northeast corner of the plat. Mr. McMinn stated that his clients owned approximately 80 acres immediately east of this project. He stated that his clients had no opposition to the specific preliminary plat or the zoning that has been requested. He stated that with this proposal, his clients would no longer have access to their property if Cooper Orbit Road is closed. Mr. McMinn stated that should this multifamily be successful at this point no doubt his clients would probably seek such a zoning at some point in the future. He stated his clients required access at some point in a proper fashion or the retention of part 10 FILE NO-: 5-1100 of Cooper Orbit Road to provide proper access. Mr. McMinn moved his comments to water service to his clients' property. He stated that they had participated in the cost of extending a 12 inch water main in this area and should the zoning and plat proceed as proposed there was some potential for that line being terminated and loss of water service to his clients. Mr. McMinn stated that he had met with Mr. Hathaway recently and that they had an understanding from Mr. Hathaway that he would work with his clients to provide both access and maintain service connection to the 12 inch water main. Mr. McMinn pointed out that he was aware that the property immediately south of his clients would be provided access over the Lincoln Court street connection that was identified earlier in the hearing. Commissioner Lichty then asked Mr. McMinn if there was a way the Commission could observe on a map or something the location of this property relative to the proposal. Richard Wood, of the Staff, produced a copy of the overall plat and proceeded with instruction as to the relationship of the boundaries of the separate properties. In a response to a question from the Chairman, Richard Wood of Staff proceeded to explain the issue of loss of access versus abandoned street right-of-way for Cooper Orbit Road. Wood point out that the street right-of-way is not abandoned by this plat or the zoning action in as much as this is a public street. It would have to be abandoned by specific ordinance of the City Board. Before that could occur, the abutting property owners with access interest would have to participate in that abandonment petition. At that time it would be appropriate to determine exactly how the access would be provided to Mr. McMinn's clients. Mr. McMinn then offered concerns and some history of his discussion with staff on this subject. His concern at this point being that he be placed on record with his clients' concerns about access and that they not be left out of the issue at some future point and they be instructed that they should have appeared at this meeting. He wants the record to show that access will be an issue for his clients as portions of this road are abandoned. Mr. McMinn stated that Mr. Jeff Hathaway representing the application had indicated that a portion of the road could and would be left open to resolve this issue. McMinn pointed out that he understood staff to say that the road had to be closed in its entirety in order to properly realign master street plan. Richard Wood, of the Staff, came forward to clarify this issue. He stated that staff had not said that the road had to be closed. He pointed out that the roadway in its current alignment is shown traversing a tract of land proposed to be zoned multifamily. If this does occur, then it seems reasonable that 11 FILE NO.: S-1100� (Cont. the road would be abandoned. Staff would not prefer to see this street going through the middle of such an apartment project. Wood pointed out that although he would like to see the problem eliminated, we understand the access issue to Mr. McMinn's clients. We are forced to deal with the abandonment of current right-of-way and where you move it to and when. However, he pointed out that no application has been filed for abandonment of the roadway at this time. Again, Wood restated the staff understands it does not all have to be closed. A portion of it could remain open to serve not only the extension of the water main, but physical access to the development of Mr. McMinn's clients' property. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, then inserted for the record that perhaps the minute record is the appropriate place to insert this specific discussion so that there will be a record and when and if the street right-of-way issue is presented these matters can be dealt with. He stated that this being a preliminary plat it may never be developed and may not produce a final product. He also stated that he felt it was good and appropriate that Mr. McMinn come forward and document the record with his clients' concerns. Commissioner Hawn then posed a question as to whether we are realigning Cooper Orbit Road for the Master Street Plan requirement. Richard Wood, of the Staff, responded by saying that the plat has some bearing on where the new alignment would be located. This is primarily because of the grades, the terrain being very steep in this area and there are not that many choices for collector and arterial streets given the kinds of design criteria for those streets. In a response to another question from Commissioner Hawn, Wood pointed out that the Master Street Plan is not a fixed single line alignment. It is typically sited in the specific final location through development processes such as this one working in concert with Public Works Engineering Staff. This only happens when a developer is ready to build something. Commissioner Daniel then offered that he had a question for Mr. Scherer. The question posed had to do with, since this plat did not cover everything in the intervening area between here and Kanis Road, what would be done with the streets intervening as well as the streets running to the south through Spring Valley Manor. Mr. Scherer responded with a lengthy explanation of Public Works' policy and direction with regard to arterial and collector streets in the urbanizing area. The basic thought of Public Works being that two lane roadway such as Cooper Orbit Road entering this plat should not be immediately dumped into a five lane arterial and then perhaps immediately dumped back into a two lane street. Public Works' feeling is that a three lane facility initially constructed will handle the traffic needs for a significant 12 FILE NO.- S-1100 Cont.) period of time and at the same time the right-of-way would be protected through dedication by the developers so that eventually the roadway could be expanded to five lanes as traffic demands required. At the end of that discussion, the issue was then placed on the floor by the Chairman for a motion. Commissioner Hawn offered a motion as follows. His motion was that we accept the preliminary plat of Capitol Lakes Estates as proposed and amended in the letter received at this meeting and that the Commission recommend that reasonable access to adjacent property be provided. The motion was seconded. A vote on the motion produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 abstention. 13 TR$ 1N 13W 7 PD 18 CT zs6.vg: PRELIMINARY PLAT S-1100 Capitol Lake Estates NORTH ITEM NO. Na W AC VE.Z Ta P EV-Mk-r R L Tb eXGEE-D MuseR, -S-r- 5T L1ti7D YV u� a-m S u 35 FE T 1 b7 D cjP4DS F ►JAL `�sfzEE � COC]G�IZ Otzrr TR$ 1 N 13W7 PRELIMINARY FLAT 11-EM nu. PD 18 S-1100 Capitol Lake Estates CT 4 07 NORTH