Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-200-D Staff AnalysisAugust 7, 1997 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: S-200-D NAME: Northwest Territory Preliminary Plat LOCATION: North side of Hwy. 10 between Chenal Parkway and Hwy. 300 intersection DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Pfeifer Development Co. White-Daters Engineers 400 East 13th St. 401 Victory Street No. Little Rock, AR 72114 Little Rock, AR 72201 375-1246 374-1666 AREA: 43.06 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW STREET: 1,500 ZONING: R-2, MF-18, C-2, 0-3 and C-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: #20 Pinnacle CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None A. PROPOSAL• The owner received plat approval in 1991 but allowed it to lapse after one year. This resubmittal is basically the same lot arrangement. The only changes are in the area of Lot 1 that was recently approved for a mini -storage, as a PCD. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This 40 plus acres is varied terrain with the steep slopes and more difficult land in the large future development tract. There is nothing constructed on the property at this time except the Chenal Parkway extension. The land is in a sparsely developed area with a few scattered houses along Hwy. 10 and a church at Hwy. 300 intersection. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None at this writing, no organized neighborhoods nearby. e August 7, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-200-D D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Provide for street lights, contact Traffic Engineering. 2. National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) and grading permits are required prior to construction, site grading and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved. 3. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 4. Inclusion of Chenal Parkway in the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial should be a part of this approval process. 5.An additional 10 feet right-of-way will be required west of Chenal Parkway at Highway 10 north of Chenal Parkway at Hwy. 300 and at all planned commercial streets for future right -turn -lanes. 6. A minor arterial with a median is recommended as the adopted cross-section with cuts in the median limited to shown street locations. 7. Show the following: a) Street cross sections of proposed streets at 100, stations. b) Street profiles showing existing and proposed centerlines. c) Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec. 31-175 and "MSP". d) Direction of flow for water courses leaving the property. 8. Contact the AHTD for work at Hwy. 300, Hwy. 10, within the State Highway right-of-way. 9. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Outside service boundary - no comment. Entergy: Easements required. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: This area is outside the City. Annexation or execution of a Preannexation Agreement will be required prior to service. A water main extension will be required. On site fire protection will be required on several sites. Fire Department: Show fire hydrant locations. CATA: Hwy. 10 express only - no all day service 2 f August 7, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 5 (Cunt.) FILE NO.: 5-200-D F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: No comment required. Issues: Planning Division: Complies with Land Use Plan - no change proposed. G. ANALYSIS• There is little to be said about the plat except that the various items noted by Staff should be added in order to bring the plat up to code. These are: 1. Need Bill of Assurance. 2. Water and sewer source 3. More detail in vicinity map 4. Lot dimensions 5. Show lot 1 recorded. 6. Building lines 7. Lot 10, zoning current 8. Show Hwy. 10 and 300 current ROW. 9. Dimension AP&L easement. 10. Remove proposed zoning label. 11. Need phase plan. 12. Contour internal. 13. Show abutting owners. 14. Show PAGIS locations. 15. Mete and bounds description of plat. 16. Show city limits if abutting. 17. Wrong preliminary survey certificate 18. Utility service will require annexation. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the plat subject to staff and Public Works Comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997) Mr. Joe White, Jr. was present representing the applicant. The Staff presented its comments and discussed the plat deficiencies with Mr. White and the Committee. It was suggested at one point that there are significant number of basic items missing that require refiling after correction. The Committee and Mr. White discussed how deferral could be avoided. Mr. White indicated that he could correct the filing deficiencies by Thursday the 24th if permitted to go forward. 3 August 7, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-200-D The Committee accepted his promise. The plat will be considered on August 7th only if he corrects the items noted. There was no serious discussion of specific points. STAFF UPDATE: (JULY 23, 1997) The staff received a letter from the applicant requesting a deferral of the plat until September 18, 1997 in as much as Mr. Pfeifer will be out of town. More time to upgrade the drawing will be provided. Staff recommends the deferral. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997) The Staff reported that the owner has requested a deferral until September 18th agenda and that this item should be placed on Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion was made to place the item on Consent Deferral. A motion to approve the deferral of the plat passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. 4 September,18, 1997 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-200-D NAME: Northwest Territory Preliminary Plat LOCATION: North side of Hwy. 10 between Chenal Parkway and Hwy. 300 intersection DEVELOPER• Pfeifer Development Co. 400 East 13th St. No. Little Rock, AR 72114 375-1246 ENGINEER• White-Daters Engineers 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 AREA: 43.06 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW STREET: 1,500 ZONING: R-2, MF-18, C-2, 0-3 and C-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: #20 Pinnacle CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None A. PROPOSAL: The owner received plat approval in 1991 but allowed it to lapse after one year. This resubmittal is basically the same lot arrangement. The only changes are in the area of Lot 1 that was recently approved for a mini -storage, as a PCD. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This 40 plus acres is varied terrain with the steep slopes and more difficult land in the large future development tract. There is nothing constructed on the property at this time except the Chenal Parkway extension. The land is in a sparsely developed area with a few scattered houses along Hwy. 10 and a church at Hwy. 300 intersection. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None at this writing, no organized neighborhoods nearby. September-18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: 5-200-D D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Provide for street lights, contact Traffic Engineering. 2. National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) and grading permits are required prior to construction, site grading and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved. 3. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 4. Inclusion of Chenal Parkway in the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial should be a part of this approval process. 5.An additional 10 feet right-of-way will be required west of Chenal Parkway at Highway 10 north of Chenal Parkway at Hwy. 300 and at all planned commercial streets for future right -turn -lanes. 6. A minor arterial with a median is recommended as the adopted cross-section with cuts in the median limited to shown street locations. 7. Show the following: a) Street cross sections of proposed streets at 100, stations. b) Street profiles showing existing and proposed centerlines. c) Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec. 31-175 and "MSP". d) Direction of flow for water courses leaving the property. 8.Contact the AHTD for work at Hwy. 300, Hwy. 10, within the State Highway right-of-way. 9.Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. E. UTILITIES: Wastewater: Outside service boundary - no comment. Entergy: Easements required. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: This area is outside the City. Annexation or execution of a Preannexation Agreement will be required prior to service. A water main extension will be required. On site fire protection will be required on several sites. Fire Department: Show fire hydrant locations. CATA: Hwy. 10 express only - no all day service i!) September-18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.)FILE NO.: S-200-D F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: No comment required. Issues: Planning Division: Complies with Land Use Plan - no change proposed. G. ANALYSIS• There is little to be said about the plat except that the various items noted by Staff should be added in order to bring the plat up to code. These are: 1. Need Bill of Assurance. 2. Water and sewer source 3. More detail in vicinity map 4. Lot dimensions 5. Show lot 1 recorded. 6. Building lines 7. Lot 10, zoning current 8. Show Hwy. 10 and 300 current ROW. 9. Dimension AP&L easement. 10. Remove proposed zoning label. 11. Need phase plan. 12. Contour internal. 13. Show abutting owners. 14. Show PAGIS locations. 15. Mete and bounds description of plat. 16. Show city limits if abutting. 17. Wrong preliminary survey certificate 18. Utility service will require annexation. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the plat subject to staff and Public Works Comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997) Mr. Joe White, Jr. was present representing the applicant. The Staff presented its comments and discussed the plat deficiencies with Mr. White and the Committee. It was suggested at one point that there are significant number of basic items missing that require refiling after correction. The Committee and Mr. White discussed how deferral could be avoided. Mr. White indicated that he could correct the filing deficiencies by Thursday the 24th if permitted to go forward. 3 September 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: S-200-D The Committee accepted his promise. The plat will be considered on August 7th only if he corrects the items noted. There was no serious discussion of specific points. STAFF UPDATE: (JULY 23, 1997) The staff received a letter from the applicant requesting a deferral of the plat until September 18, 1997 in as much as Mr. Pfeifer will be out of town. More time to upgrade the drawing will be provided. Staff recommends the deferral. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997) The Staff reported that the owner has requested a deferral until September 18th agenda and that this item should be placed on Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion was made to place the item on Consent Deferral. A motion to approve the deferral of the plat passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 28, 1997) Staff reported that Mr. Pfeifer's agent, Mr. white, submitted a letter requesting deferral until October 30th. The letter was in order and time. This is the applicant's second deferral request, although staff recommended its deferral last meeting due to plat deficiencies. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 18, 1997) The applicant submitted a written request for deferral. The request was in order as to submittal time. The staff reported that the applicant is requesting his second deferral which means some action must be taken on the plat at the next meeting. After a brief discussion, the plat was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to October 30, 1997. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 4 Oct.-ober 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: 5-200-D NAME: Northwest Territory Preliminary Plat LOCATION: North side of Hwy. 10 between Chenal Parkway and Hwy. 300 intersection DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Pfeifer Development Co. White-Daters Engineers 400 East 13th St. 401 Victory Street No. Little Rock, AR 72114 Little Rock, AR 72201 375-1246 374-1666 AREA: 43.06 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW STREET: 1,500 ZONING: R-2, MF-18, C-2, 0-3 and C-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: #20 Pinnacle CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES WAIVERS REQUESTED: None A. PROPOSAL• The owner received plat approval in 1991 but allowed it to lapse after one year. This resubmittal is basically the same lot arrangement. The only changes are in the area of Lot 1 that was recently approved for a mini -storage, as a PCD. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This 40 plus acres is varied terrain with the steep slopes and more difficult land in the large future development tract. There is nothing constructed on the property at this time except the Chenal Parkway extension. The land is in a sparsely developed area with a few scattered houses along Hwy. 10 and a church at Hwy. 300 intersection. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None at this writing, no organized neighborhoods nearby. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: 5-200-D D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Provide for street lights, contact Traffic Engineering., 2. National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) and grading permits are required prior to construction, site grading and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved. 3. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 4. Inclusion of Chenal Parkway in the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial should be a part of this approval process. 5. An additional 10 feet right-of-way will be required west of Chenal Parkway at Highway 10 north of Chenal Parkway at Hwy. 300 and at all planned commercial streets for future right -turn -lanes. 6. A minor arterial with a median is recommended as the adopted cross-section with cuts in the median limited to shown street locations. 7. Show the following: a) Street cross sections of proposed streets at 100, stations. b) Street profiles showing existing and proposed centerlines. c) Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec. 31-175 and "MSP". d) Direction of flow for water courses leaving the property. 8. Contact the AHTD for work at Hwy. 300, Hwy. 10, within the State Highway right-of-way. 9. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Outside service boundary - no comment. Entergy: Easements required. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: This area is outside the City. Annexation or execution of a Preannexation Agreement will be required prior to service. A water main extension will be required. On site fire protection will be required on several sites. Fire Department: Show fire hydrant locations. CATA: Hwy. 10 express only - no all day service 2 October, 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-200-D F. ISSUESITECHNICALIDESIGN: Landscape: No comment required. Issues: Planning Division: Complies with Land Use Plan - no change proposed. G. ANALYSIS• There is little to be said about the plat except that the various items noted by Staff should be added in order to bring the plat up to code. These are: 1. Need Bill of Assurance. 2. Water and sewer source 3. More detail in vicinity map 4. Lot dimensions 5. Show lot 1 recorded. 6. Building lines 7. Lot 10, zoning current 8. Show Hwy. 10 and 300 current ROW. 9. Dimension AP&L easement. 10. Remove proposed zoning label. 11. Need phase plan. 12. Contour internal. 13. Show abutting owners. 14. Show PAGIS locations. 15. Mete and bounds description of plat. 16. Show city limits if abutting. 17. Wrong preliminary survey certificate 18. Utility service will require annexation. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the plat subject to staff and Public Works Comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997) Mr. Joe White, Jr. was present representing the applicant. The Staff presented its comments and discussed the plat deficiencies with Mr. White and the Committee. It was suggested at one point that there are significant number of basic items missing that require refiling after correction. The Committee and Mr. White discussed how deferral could be avoided. Mr. White indicated that he could correct the filing deficiencies by Thursday the 24th if permitted to go forward. 3 October, 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: S-200-D The Committee accepted his promise. The plat will be considered on August 7th only if he corrects the items noted. There was no serious discussion of specific points. STAFF UPDATE: (JULY 23, 1997) The staff received a letter from the applicant requesting a deferral of the plat until. -September 18, 1997 in as much as Mr. Pfeifer will be out of town. More time to upgrade the drawing will be provided. Staff recommends the deferral. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997) The Staff reported that the owner has requested a deferral until September 18th agenda and that this item should be placed on Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion was made to place the item on Consent Deferral. A motion to approve the deferral of the plat passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 28, 1997) Staff reported that Mr. Pfeifer's agent, Mr. White, submitted a letter requesting deferral until October 30th. The letter was in order and time. This is the applicant's second deferral request, although staff recommended its deferral last meeting due to plat deficiencies. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 18, 1997) The applicant submitted a written request for deferral. The request was in order as to submittal time. The staff reported that the applicant is requesting his second deferral which means some action must be taken on the plat at the next meeting. After a brief discussion, the plat was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to October 30, 1997. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Joe White was present for Mr. Pfeifer. He stated he would ask for street design variances. Staff offered its comments. There was"a discussion on adding more plat details. Mr. White 4 October, 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-200-D said he understood staff comments and would respond by October 16 with an amended cover letter with variance and plat revisions. The Public Works comments are as indicated in the first report. The Committee accepted the revised plat with the changes promised. This plat is forwarded to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Planning Staff reported, that there were no objectors, letters or calls on this issue. The Public Works staff has worked out an arrangement with the developer, Mr. Pfeifer, dealing with concerns they had previously outlined. Richard Wood, of the Staff, reported that there was a continuing issue that the Public Works Department needed to address. Mr. David Scherer, of Public Works, came forward to speak on the issue. Scherer identified the plat as being a multi -lot commercial office and multifamily development at the corner of two arterial streets being Hwy. 10 and the extension of Chenal. He stated that Public Works had concern with the extension of this street and a tie to Hwy. 300 and the developing commercial and other interest along this section of roadway. He stated, "with the requirements for left turn movements in association with the improvements at the Hwy. 10 and Chenal Intersection would cause or soon necessitate the installation of a traffic light at this intersection and staff recommends that this developer contribute 50% of the cost of the installation of such a facility." Mr. Scherer followed this by saying the developer has suggested a 20% contribution. This is the remaining issue before the Commission. Commissioner Berry posed a question to Mr. Scherer on the total cost of such an installation. Scherer stated it would cost more than $100,000 dollars and this figure could vary with the circumstances. He said that Public Works was not asking for the contribution at this time. He stated the developer has asked for and received a deferral of such improvements. He stated this traffic signal would be paid for at the time it is warranted by traffic counts and needs and approved by the Highway Department. Commissioner Rahman then posed a question as to who would pay for the other 50%. Mr. Scherer stated that would be a public cost and possibly shared by some of the development on the south side of the intersection. Jim Lawson of staff inserted a statement to the effect he assumed that when the other side of the intersection submitted a development plan that we would assess the same cost. Scherer 61 October,30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-200-D responded by saying yes they would assess such a benefit at that time. There was a lengthy discussion about percentage of contribution both on the north side developer and the south side. Also, as to the certain traffic movements along Hwy. 10 and on to the Chenal leg of the intersection being somewhat different. Mr. Scherer stated that the traffic generated from this developer meaning Mr. Pfeifer's project would be predominately left hand turning movements which are more significant and would typically require the traffic signal. Commissioner Rahman then raised the question of what the 50% was based upon. The response by Mr. Scherer was that Mr. Pfeifer's development was building half of the development at this intersection. The discussion then continued at length about the ratio of contribution. At this point the Chairman recognized Mr. Gene Pfeifer, the owner and developer of the project. After introducing himself, Mr. Pfeifer offered some comments concerning the traffic movements on Hwy. 10 and what he felt to be was the traffic flow in the area. He further described the highways and their relationship in the areas of the state that they serve and the amount of traffic that was contributed by each. He stated the development of his property was a small portion of the traffic through this intersection. He further stated that it would not be supportable for him to come to the Commission and state that he would contribute nothing to the intersection. He stated it is unfair that the property owners would have to bear the burden of the entire signalization. He is willing to pay 60% of whatever Deltic pays whenever they agree to pay it. He stated this would be deferring the issue of how much the property owners pay at all, then apportion it between the two owners based upon their respective commercial zonings. He said this is patently unfair that the City would pay half of the improvement and he being committed to pay the other 50%. At this point the Chairman recognized Commissioner Earnest. Commissioner Earnest stated there was an existing road that bears a specific amount of traffic and the only exercise in logic that he could see would be the increase to the total traffic that exist. Coming from the anticipated development, you might have some type of formula for coming up with an equitable cost. Mr. Pfeifer agreed with that statement and basically continued his thought by saying if his project was not crossed by this arterial street and it were not a state highway, perhaps the type of construction he would have to place there would not have to be the same standard because it would not bear the same load. This would not even require a four or five lane roadway. He stated that he was not quarreling with the fact that it is a state development here. Mr. Pfeifer stated that he was agreeing to build this facility on a deferred basis and phased. In essence to have to build what is a state highway, and then provide for the traffic light does not seem fair. N. October,30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: S-200-D Commissioner Daniel was then recognized for comment. He stated that he had just one problem with the commentary of Mr. Pfeifer. It had to do with an intersection further east on Chenal Parkway. Commissioner Daniel offered extensive commentary on how that signal was located and paid for and the demands which were placed on various participants to erect a signal there. If the State Highway Department is not going to erect a signal at this intersection, then it would be the responsibility of the City. He felt the City could not do that at this point; therefore, it should fall to the adjacent developers as done further east on Chenal. At this point the Chairman recognized Commissioner Hawn for a statement. Commissioner Hawn stated he was not particularly impressed with the argument about what the people south of Hwy. 10 owed. He expanded his comments dealing with the turning movements on Hwy. 10 and asked for a response from Mr. Pfeifer. He stated that the turning movements were something not generated by the people south of Hwy. 10 but by the movements coming from the north and west. Mr. Pfeifer stated that in the absence of a signal at this intersection and the shortcut his development would propose. A signal would have to be erected at the existing intersection to the west at Hwy. 300. Mr. Pfeifer then said this corner at the existing 300 intersection is a perfect example of putting 25% on each of the four corners is arbitrary. He stated that currently the northwest corner of this intersection is a lake and to assess a $25,000 contribution on a property such as this is an unfair way of doing it. Commissioner Hawn then asked Mr. Pfeifer if he knew what the current accident rate was at this intersection. Mr. Pfeifer stated that he had no idea. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Adcock. She asked for other examples within the City where significant contributions to signalization have occurred where the developer had to pay for putting up the signals. Mr. Scherer. of Public Works, first off responded to a first question that was a hangover from the previous comment. He stated that he did not know what the current traffic accident rate was at Hwy. 300 and Hwy. 10 intersection. Mr. Scherer then offered an extensive commentary on infrastructure needs throughout the city. He stated the contribution was not required at this time but in concert with the development as it occurred. Commissioner Earnest then inserted a comment that he was still trying to understand the rationale behind the 50% contribution. He stated he wanted to know where the 50% and the 20% came from. 7 October,30, 1997 SUBDIVISION .. A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-200-D Scherer stated that the 50% came from the fact that Mr. Pfeifer owned 2 of the 4 corners of this intersection. Additional discussion occurred involving Mr. Scherer, the Chairman and others. Concerning the Autumn Road intersection and contributions offered there. The discussion about the rationale behind this contribution continued extensively. At the end of discussion the Chairman regained control of the meeting. A comment was made that the city should accept the 20% that is offered. A motion was then discussed concerning accepting Mr. Pfeifer's application with the requested phasing and the 20% contribution for traffic signal as offered if it is ever constructed at this location. A motion to that effect was made and seconded. A vote on the motion produced 6 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent. The application is approved. 8