HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-09 Minutes•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 9,
1993 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Kenneth Pummill, Joe Tarvin, Jett Cato, Tom
Suchecki, Chuck Nickle, Bob Reynolds, J. E. Springborn, and
Jerry Allred
OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members
of the press and others
Mr. Suchecki advised the petition for a Conditional Use on Oak Drive had been
withdrawn and would not be heard at this meeting.
MINUTES
The minutes of the July 26, 1993 Planning Commission meeting were approved as
submitted.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - CROSSOVER STORAGE
GORDON WILKINS & DANNY VILLINES - W OF CROSSOVER, S OF MISSION
The next item was a large scale development for Crossover Storage submitted by
Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Gordon Wilkins and Danny Villines for property
located on the west side of Crossover Road, south of Mission Boulevard. The
property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.75 acres.
Mr. Bunn explained the large scale development consisted of mini -storage units.
He advised there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company
representatives. He stated staff remarks had included comments on sidewalks, the
need for screening, a tree preservation plan, and a request for a possible 15 -
foot waterline easement across one side of the development.
He stated the Subdivision Committee had voted to forward the large scale
development to the full Planning Commission with staff comments.
Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved subject to plat
review and subdivision committee comments; approval of the detailed plans for
water and sewer; approval of a grading and drainage plan; construction of
sidewalks; conformance with the city's tree preservation plan; the granting of
required easements by separate instrument; and screening as required by
ordinance.
Ms. Britton stated storage buildings were warehousing, which was not normally in
a commercial area. She asked if a conditional use had been granted on this
property.
Ms. Little advised that had been changed approximately 3 or 4 years ago and
storage buildings were now allowed in C-2 zoning districts.
Mr. Jorgensen advised they were in agreement with all staff comments.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff
comments.
Mr. Nickle seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
•
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 2
FINAL PLAT - BOARDWALK ADDITION, PHASE IV
JIM LINDSEY - W OF CROSSOVER, S OF MISSION
The next item was a final plat for Boardwalk Addition, Phase IV, submitted by
Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located on the west side of
Crossover, south of Mission. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential,
and contains 3.66 acres with 6 lots.
Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments by any of the utility
company representatives. He advised there was an additional easement requested
by SWEPCO and agreed to by the owner. He stated staff remarks included comments
on the location of the fence in relation to the Highway Department right-of-way
and noted possible problems with sight distance. He further stated Mr. Conklin
had asked for a note on the plat that the access easement to the recreation area.
would be paved.
He noted the Subdivision Committee had recommended the plat be forwarded to the
Planning Commission with staff comments.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and
subdivision committee comments; construction of sidewalks and payment of parks
fees in accordance with city ordinances; compliance with the city's tree
ordinance; and the execution of a contract with the city for the unfinished
improvements, including street lights.
He advised the conditions of approved as listed were not intended to be a full
listing of subdivision requirements that might be imposed on the development nor
should it be interpreted to mean that other City, State, or Federal requirements
were being waived unless specifically stated.
Ms. Britton asked about the width of the access to the recreation area and what
type of surface staff was requesting. She stated she had assumed it was a
pathway to the area, not for vehicular access.
Me. Little pointed out there were two ways to access the area.
Mr. Jorgensen stated they were in agreement with staff comments. He advised the
width of the access would be 25 feet.
MOTION
Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the plat subject to staff comments.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 3
PRELIMINARY PLAT - GLENMBROOR ADDITION, PHASE II
GORDON WILKINS - S OF MISSION, W OF CROSSOVER
The next item was a preliminary plat for Glennbrook Addition, Phase II, submitted
by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Gordon Wilkins for property located south of
Mission and west of Crossover. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential, and contains 10.0 acres with 33 lots.
Mr. Bunn stated the utility company representatives had requested several
additional easements and several crossings which were agreed to by the owner.
He further stated staff comments had included comments on the location of
sidewalks, street names, the need for a drainage and grading plan, and water
service.
He advised the Subdivision Committee voted to forward the Preliminary Plat to the
full Planning Commission with staff comments. He noted that, since the
subdivision committee had reviewed the plat, it was decided by the owner that the
connection to the north would not be a part of the preliminary plat. He stated
that staff did believe that right-of-way should be left open to the north to
provide a future access directly to Highway 45.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and
subdivision committee comments; approval of detailed plans for water, sewer,
streets, and drainage; approval of a grading and drainage plan; construction of
sidewalks and the payment of parks fees in accordance with city ordinances;
conformance with the city's tree preservation ordinance; and the provision of a
right-of-way to the north in the vicinity of the cul-de-sac (lots 31 or 32) to
be used as access to Highway 45 at some point in the future.
Mr. Allred stated there had been only 32 lots on the plat when presented to the
subdivision committee. He asked if the access were provided it would be the same
as the original plat.
Mr. Bunn stated it would. He explained that, by eliminating the access to the
north, the applicants were able to create one more lot. He noted that, by adding
the access back in, the subdivision would go back down to 32 lots.
Mr. Reynolds stated he was in favor of staff recommendations regarding access to
the north be provided.
Ms. Little explained there was an intervening piece of property between the
subdivision and Highway 45 which was zoned commercial.
Mr. Bunn explained they would not need all of lot 32 for the access easement so
some of the lot lines would have to be re -drawn.
Ms. Britton asked where the access had originally been shown.
Mr. Reynolds stated it had been on lot 32.
Ms. Little showed Ms. Britton the original plat showing the access.
Mr. Jorgensen explained the adjacent property owners, the Johnsons, did not want
the access through their property. He stated they had written a letter
expressing their desire that the access be removed. He explained the applicant
was purchasing the property from the Johnsons. He stated Mr. Johnson believed
the access would render his commercial property less valuable. He advised the
petitioner desired to work with the city but also had to please Mr. Johnson. He
proposed providing a 50 -foot right-of-way instead of putting in a street.
bbl
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 4
Ms. Britton asked if the developer would be required to pave the street to the
property line.
Ms. Little explained the city had recently begun requiring the pavement of all
stub outs so the persons who purchased the lots on either side understood there
would be a street at that location. She further expressed her belief that, in
this case, it would be acceptable for the Commission to allow for just the right-
of-way, especially since the property did not adjoin any other residential areas.
Me. Britton stated she believed it was a good idea to go ahead and pave it. She
explained that if someone purchased the commercial property they would understand
the right-of-way was intended as a street. She pointed out most people did not
see their plats.
Ms. Little noted that, at the time the commercial property was considered for a
large scale development the issue could be addressed.
Ms. Britton stated that, sometimes, was too late.
Mr. Tarvin pointed out one of the problems with paving the stub out at this time
was that it might not match up with the grade on the adjacent property.
Mr. Allred also expressed concern that delivery trucks, etc. could take short
cuts through the residential area.
Ms. Britton disagreed, stating that would not be a short cut.
Mr. Allred asked who would bear the cost of paving the roadway if, in the future,
it was determined the roadway should go through.
Ms. Little stated it was usually the city's responsibility when there was a
dedicated right-of-way and the need for a street occurred.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Jorgensen explained traditionally
staff wanted two means of access to a tract. He further stated it was the
petitioner's wish to not have the stub out.
Mr. Suchecki stated there would be a 50 -foot access easement so that, if sometime
in the future someone wanted to develop the commercial property, the roadway
would be there.
Mr. Jorgensen explained the commercial property to the north really needed a
street. He stated the problem was Mr. Johnson did not want a street dividing his
commercial property; there was a possibility the property would be developed as
one tract. He went on to say the petitioner would prefer to not dedicate the
right-of-way but would do so.
Ms. Britton asked how many lots were in Phase I.
Mr. Jorgensen stated there would be 28 lots in Phase I.
Ms. Britton pointed out there were approximately 60 homes on a single access.
Mr. Springborn stated it appeared the applicant believed the roadway would not
be extended but was willing to hold it for some time into the future in the event
the adjoining property owner changed his mind. He pointed out if the access was
not paved the applicant could request the right-of-way be abandoned, another lot
made and sold.
2-1°'
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 5
Mr. Reynolds expressed his opinion
in order to provide another outlet
it was not needed, it would revert
MOTION
the 50 -foot right-of-way should be required
if it was needed in the future. He stated if
to the adjoining land owners.
Mr. Springborn moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the provision of
right-of-way across lot 32 and subject to staff comments.
Ms. Britton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Me. Little asked for clarification so the minutes would reflect the motion
did require the provision of right-of-way but not the paving of the right-of-way.
Mr. Suchecki stated that was correct.
90
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 6
PRELIMINARY PLAT - CRYSTAL SPRINGS SUBDIVISION, PHASE I
JED DEVELOPMENT - E OF SALEM, N OF MT. COMFORT
The next item was a preliminary plat for Crystal Springs Subdivision, Phase I,
submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of JED Development for property located on
the east side of Salem Road, north of Mt. Comfort Road. The property is outside
the city limits and contains 39.9 acres with 115 proposed lots.
Mr. Bunn explained this was the first phase of development of a 283 acre tract
located between Salem Road and Dean Soloman Road just outside the City Limits of
Fayetteville. He advised the owners had begun the process of asking for
annexation of the area and the Planning Commission would consider that annexation
request in the near future. He noted, however, the approval of the development
was not contingent upon the annexation. He advised that along with the
annexation there would probably be a request for an R-1 zoning.
He stated the utility company representatives asked for several easements and
requested numerous crossings at various locations within the subdivision. He
advised all of the easements and crossings requested were agreed to by the owner.
He noted staff remarks included comments on water and sewer service, fire hydrant
locations, green space fees, sidewalk location, private maintenance of entry
islands, and the need to conform to the city's new tree ordinance. He noted
that, when the plat review committee discussed the plat, it had been assumed it
would be inside the city limits by the time of development. He advised the green
spaces fees nor the tree ordinance would be applicable. He stated they could
request the developers conform to the tree preservation ordinance since it was
clearly the intent to have property annexed.
He advised it was his understanding that annexation papers for the entire 283
acre tract had been filed at the county and would be considered by the City, if
the county approved it, in approximately 60 days.
Mr. Bunn advised there was considerable comment from the members of the general
public on this plat as well as the informal plat of the 283 acre tract. He
stated concerns expressed by the public included increased traffic on Salem Road
and Mt. Comfort Road, the incompatibility of the proposed development with the
existing neighborhood and the lowering of property values, soil conditions and
drainage problems, wildlife preservation, and concerns over the adequacy of
schools, parks, etc. to handle the additional people.
He noted most of the comments were made in regard to the total development of the
283 acre tract and not necessarily limited just to the preliminary plat being
considered at this meeting.
Mr. Bunn stated staff had indicated the preliminary plat did meet the city's
regulations. He advised there was additional work that would be required in
relation to water and sewer service, off-site street and drainage improvements,
and other planning concerns such as additional accesses. He further stated it
was the staff's recommendation and the final recommendation of the Subdivision
Committee to have this item tabled at the Planning Commission meeting until the
annexation of the property was approved by the City Council. He advised the
Planning Commission had tabled the item and subsequently, the subdivision went
through the county's planning process and was approved by the county in the
meeting of August 2nd.
Mr. Bunn stated the County's approval stipulated that the street construction
would meet the city requirements as far as width and the need for curb and gutter
and storm drainage was concerned. He noted, however, the developer would be
required to meet the county requirements on the design of the street section
(subgrade, base, etc.). He advised this also applied to the improvement of Salem
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 7
Road where it abutted the development. He stated Salem would be widened to 15
feet on the developer's side and put in curb and gutter and storm drainage.
He also noted it was his understanding the developers would be providing land to
the school district for a future school.
Mr. Bunn went on to say the developers would ask that they be allowed to tie to
city sewer. He explained that would require the construction of a pump station
and a force main to carry the sewage to the city mains. He noted it was possible
that the pumps in the Starr Valley station would have to be changed out to
accommodate the increased flow. He stated any costs associated with furnishing
sewer to the development, including upgrading of existing facilities, would be
borne by the developer.
He explained water for the development would come from Mt. Comfort Road. He
advised preliminary calculations had indicated flows and pressures would be
sufficient for the proposed subdivision. He again advised all costs associated
with the furnishing of water to the development would be borne by the owners.
Mr. Bunn recommended that the preliminary plat for Crystal Springs Subdivision
be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval
of detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage (county having primary
approval of streets in the affected areas); submittal of a grading and drainage
plan for the affected area; off-site improvements to Salem Road and to the
Clabber Creek crossing on Salem Road; the construction of sidewalks (4 feet back
of curb line) in accordance with city ordinances and plat review comments; and
all conditions as imposed by Washington County.
He advised the conditions of approval as listed were not intended to be a full
listing of subdivision requirements that might be imposed on the development nor
should it be interpreted to mean that other City, State, or Federal requirements
were being waived unless specifically stated.
Mr. Bunn further stated it should be noted that, since it was the intent of the
developers to annex into the City as soon as possible, all regulations that
normally applied to development within the City would be imposed on the
development except where the county had reserved specific approval rights.
Ms. Little advised on August 6 she, Mr. Bunn and the City Traffic Superintendent
met with the County Traffic Superintendent and had drafted a memorandum of
agreement relating to construction of the streets in the area, reserving the
right for both the city and county to inspect during the process and for joint
approval and acceptance of the streets.
She further noted at the Joint Subdivision Meeting with both the city and county
she had been approached by Mr. Zaccanti, adjoining property owner to the east,
who had expressed a desire for a provision for access to the east.
Mr. Allred stated the Subdivision Committee and the Washington County Technical
Board had a joint meeting and had worked out quite a few details. He stated it
was his understanding the developer had agreed to all of the city regulations.
He asked if that included the parks fees.
Ms. Little stated that statement had been made but, due to a lawsuit in
approximately 1986, the city had not been enforcing green space fees for
developments in the county.
Ms. Britton asked the difference between the county and city street standards.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 8
Ms. Little advised there was no difference except the county's were more spelled
out in format as to what testing was required. She explained the city required
more by inspection. She stated the county had a very specific standard.
Ms. Britton asked if the county standards were tougher.
Me. Little explained the county's stated standards were tougher than the city's
stated standards but the city did more by inspection. She further stated the
staff was incorporating the county's standards in the new subdivision regulations
so there would not be a discrepancy in the future.
Mr. Milholland stated he had met with Mr. Zaccanti and had agreed to provide
access via the northernmost street of Phase I by leaving right-of-way through lot
24. He also noted that, on a future phase, they would also provide access to Mr.
Zaccanti's property from the south. He stated sewer and water would also be
available at those points.
Ms. Britton asked if it would be a 50 -foot right-of-way.
Mr. Milholland stated it would be 50 -foot right-of-way. He reminded the
Commission they had submitted the plat earlier in the spring. He advised it was
still the intention of the developer to construct 31 -foot back to back curb and
gutter streets. He stated they had asked for one waiver from the county
regarding the width of the street. He explained the county did not always
require curb and gutter but the developer wanted it so it would match up with
other City of Fayetteville streets. He stated the County had a more detailed
testing procedure set out. He advised they had requested to follow the county's
procedure for both testing and design.
Ms. Britton asked the county width.
Mr. Milholland explained county roads had shoulders rather than curb and gutter.
He stated a Class 2 street was 20 feet of asphalt and 4 foot shoulders on each
side. He further stated a Class 3 streets were wider. He assured the Commission
the streets would be the same as any other subdivision within the city limits.
He advised they had requested water and sewer service from the city. He stated
the county had requested that portion of Salem Road adjacent to the subject
property be widened to 15 1/2 feet with curb and gutter on that side. He noted
the developer had agreed to that request. He stated they wanted the opposite
side of the road overlaid and the developer had agreed to work with the county
on that project. He further stated the county had made a request, but it was not
mandatory, to improve Salem Road on to the south. He informed the Commission the
developer did not feel, at this time, it was feasible to comply with that
request. He explained one of the sites they were looking at for the school was
on Salem Road.
Mr. Milholland stated they concurred with staff comments. He did note, however,
that in lieu of money for green space fees, the developer wanted the flood plain
area considered for parks lands.
Mr. Jim McCord, representing Tom and Nancy Muccio, appeared before the Commission
referencing a letter he had sent to the Commission dated August 5, 1993 regarding
the proposed subdivision. He stated the Muccio's opposed the subdivision
together with over 100 of their neighbors. He asked for all of the residents
opposed to the subdivision to stand. Approximately 30 people stood up.
He stated their primary concern was traffic safety consideration. He pointed out
the Fayetteville subdivision regulations required "safe and adequate vehicular
and pedestrian access shall be provided to all parcels". He noted the only
abb
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 9
access for Phase I of the subject subdivision was Salem Road. He informed the
Commission Salem Road was a narrow, chip and seal road, only 20 feet wide. He
stated there were many potholes and the roadway was in need of substantial
repair. He contended 115 new homes would increase the traffic on Salem Road by
1,035 vehicles per day and that Salem Road was not adequate to handle that much
traffic. He informed the Commission courts had upheld denial of subdivision
approved based on traffic safety factors, especially when there was specific
standards set out in the regulations.
Mr. McCord also expressed the concern of the neighbors over lot size, stating the
lot size was incompatible with the primary character of the area. He reminded
the Commission they had considered lot size as a relevant consideration in
determining whether to approve a subdivision plat in the past. He requested the
Planning Commission require the developer to revise the plat to reflect fewer and
larger lots and, if the plat was ever approved, that the developer be required
to pay his proportionate share of improving all of Salem Road between Mt. Comfort
Road and Howard Nickle Road. He stated all of Salem Road would be used and
needed to improve. He further advised that the Fayetteville regulations
specifically authorized the Planning Commission to require a developer to pay his
proportionate share of off-site improvements when the need for those improvements
was created wholly or in part by the proposed subdivision. He stated that was
the case in the subject subdivision.
Mr. Jim Selby, a neighboring resident, asked if it was true the county and city
met and lowered the standards of the street. He stated the county requirements,
curb and gutter, was 70 feet. He advised the developer was asking to lower the
standards and extend the street through the subject subdivision and through
another subdivision.
Ms. Little explained all of the city subdivision regulations applied except the
parks fees in a county subdivision but the county did retain the right to
restrict or govern the road. She advised the county was willing to work with the
city because there was an annexation issue still pending. She stated they did
believe the property would be coming into the city. She further stated the
subdivider had requested, and the county granted, a compromise to the width of
the county requirement. She advised that was wholly at the discretion of the
county. She stated the city had to defer to the county on roads.
Mr. Selby asked if the city would be granting the developer the same thing on the
northernmost street.
Ms. Little explained the developer was meeting city standards and the city would
not have to grant any waivers on the streets.
Mr. Selby also stated he wanted to addressed the issue of water run-off created
by the subdivision. He advised that, with just the streets being created, the
run-off would be increased by more than 50%. He contended houses, sidewalks and
driveways would more than double the run-off. He pointed out Clabber Creek
already overflowed the culvert and roadway. He went on to say the developer
should be required to pay for the improvements.
Mr. Suchecki advised the developer was required to pay for all improvements.
Mr. Bunn stated staff had asked that, in regard to Clabber Creek, the developer
pay for any improvements required as a result of increased run-off.
Mr. Selby advised both Rogers and Lowell had been taking care of run-off for over
25 years by requiring detention ponds. He stated they needed to take care of the
run-off or they would be sued. He went on to say there was currently 14 houses
on 40 acres. He stated the proposed subdivision, putting 115 houses on 40 acres,
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 10
was not compatible with the existing character of the land.
He also stated that, by putting the lift station in the creek, they would not be
able to contain the raw sewage when the power went off, spilling the sewage into
Clabber Creek and then into the Illinois River.
Mr. Herbert Holcomb, 548 Gray Avenue, stated he was the developer of Mt. Comfort
Subdivision. He stated he had observed they planned a lift station with a sewer
line drawn through to Gooseberry Lane. He advised that neither the plat nor the
deeded record of the property of Lot 1, Block A or Lot 1, Block B made any
provision for Gooseberry Lane to ever be extended.
Mr. Paul Lewis stated it was his understanding the City of Fayetteville had asked
the Corps of Engineers to designate the wetlands in the 283 acres.
Ms. Little stated they had advised the developer he needed to contact the Corps.
She stated that contact was made in May and the response from the Corps was they
would review the land as soon as they could. She advised the Corps had not done
the investigation at this time.
Mr. Lewis asked how they could plan a subdivision when they did not know how much
wetlands were on the acreage or the location of those wetlands.
Mr. Suchecki stated the Commission was only considering Phase I at this meeting
and none of the wetlands were located in Phase I.
Ms. Tina Campbell asked what affect Phase I would have on the wetlands.
Me. Britton asked if the developer did not have to have a ruling on the wetlands
for the entire tract.
Ms. Little stated the developer
question, not the entire tract.
area and would be classified as a
no identifiable wetland areas in
just had to have a ruling on the area in
She stated most of that area was a beaver dam
wetland area. She further advised there were
Phase I.
Mr. Bunn explained the developer would have to receive clearance from the Corps
before doing anything that would affect the wetlands. He pointed out the lift
station would be constructed near the creek and the developer would have to
receive clearance on that area.
Mr. Springborn stated that, should they approve the subdivision, it would have
to be contingent upon the Corps of Engineers searching the area and granting
approval.
Ms. Little explained the federal rules on development were separate and of a
higher order than the city's approval. She stated staff made the developer aware
they would have to get approval from that higher entity.
Mr. Springborn expressed concern that, if they approved the plat, it could
prejudice the Corps in favor of approving it.
Ms. Little explained the Corps was very stringent with the wetlands permitting
regulations. She stated the developer had to have the Corps approval because,
should he destroy any wetlands, significant penalties were imposed.
Mr. Nickle suggested the entire character of the development could change if a
large area was to be left unsubdivided. He stated he believed the Commission
should have an opportunity to review the report before acting on the subdivision.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 11
Me. Little stated that, as far as staff knew, there were no wetlands on Phase I
of the proposed subdivision.
Me. Britton asked if Phase I might not impact the wetlands. She asked if there
were no standards for that also.
Me. Little stated the Corps welcomed added run-off.
Mr. Milholland stated all subdivisions coming before the Planning Commission had
been subject to the same conditions; that Phase I was over a quarter of a mile
from the creek. He pointed out they had approved CMN Tract 1 prior to approval
from the Corps. He stated it was automatically understood the developer would
comply with all requirements.
In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Milholland explained all of the
storm drainage and sanitary sewer system had to be approved by the City Engineer
and the State Board of Health. He further stated consideration would be given
to the location of the lift station. He also noted they would look at the run-
off but there was run-off on every hill in Fayetteville.
Ms. Sylvia Schlegel, 2733 W. Salem Road, asked how large of houses they were
planning on building and the price range of the houses. She advised the
Commission that, had she and her husband known about the proposed development,
they would not have spent their life savings to construct their new home in the
subject area.
Mr. Milholland stated the anticipated size of the homes was 1,600 to 2,000 square
feet. He advised the cost of homes had not been determined.
Mr. Suchecki explained the city ordinances did not require a developer to submit
protective covenants until the final plat stage.
Mr. Bunn explained covenants were not required but, if there were covenants, they
were required to be filed at the time of the final plat.
Teresa Martin, a resident of East Salem, appeared before the Board and stated she
would have to yield the right-of-way of her front yard should they approve the
subdivision. She expressed her opinion the intent of the law on right-of-way had
been abused in this case; that the intent of the law for right-of-way was for
public access for public utilities and for the betterment of the community. She
stated taking half of her front yard, devaluing her property, and taking away
from her children their play area was not for the betterment of the community.
She stated the school had not agreed to accept the property the developer wished
to donate; that the residents did not know they were going to get a school out
of the development. She claimed she had been told she had no legal rights; that
the developers had a right to develop their property. She stated the neighboring
residents were getting nothing except more traffic while the developers were
becoming millionaires. She expressed resentment and stated the residents should
be protected.
Mr. Pummill requested clarification on why they would be taking Ms. Martin's
yard.
Ms. Martin stated she lived on East West Salem Road and the roadway would be
widened if this subdivision was built. She explained the road went in front of
her house and would go through her front yard. She stated there was a 10 foot
right-of-way in her front yard which they would take for the road.
»o)
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 12
Mr. Pummill advised Ms. Martin he did not believe she would lose her yard. He
stated they had not talked about widening the street in front of her house. He.
noted Phase I would not take her front yard.
Mr. Jim Kimbrough stated they talked one time about the entire 283 acres and then
they reduced it down to Phase I. He informed the Commission they were burying
their heads in the sand when they limited themselves to consideration of just
Phase I and ignore the impact to the balance of the property.
Mr. Suchecki explained the reason developments were done in phases was to afford
the Commission better control.
Mr. Kimbrough stated when they were planning for one phase they needed to give
more attention to the entire project. He contended the entire area would be
affected.
Mr. Tarvin asked if the subsequent phases would affect Ms. Martin's property.
Mr. Milholland explained the developer of this project did not own land adjoining
the road Ms. Martin lived on; the subject development was to the south.
Mr. Tarvin verified there were no plans to widen the street in front of Ms.
Martin's house, that Mr. Milholland was aware of, related to any phase of the
subject development.
Mr. Milholland advised that, to his knowledge, Me. Martin's property did not
adjoin any of the land within the subject development He noted the developer
had planned, with future developments, to provide additional accesses to the
south to Mt. Comfort Road.
Mr. Selby spoke again regarding the run-off and asked if there had been any plans
made to construct retaining ponds.
Mr. Milholland stated he had not prepared the grading and drainage plan. He
advised there was some run-off which they would take care of. He further stated
their plans would be approved by the City Engineer.
A resident of Bird Haven Terrace stated they had purchased their home at its
present location in order to live in a small community but approval of the
subject subdivision would include her neighborhood into a huge development.
Mr. Wilson Kimbrough stated he wanted to help people to save their homes and
endorsed every thing he had heard from his neighbors who had already spoken. He
stated he believed the Commission should deny the proposal and there should be
an effort made to reach an agreement between the neighbors and the developer on
lot density and the improvement of Salem Road.
Ms. Virginia Fedosky, a resident of North Salem Road, requested the Commission
listen to all of the neighboring residents. She advised the proposed development
would change the residents' lives.
Ms. Faye Dotche expressed concern on the type of soils in the proposed area. She
explained much of the proposed development would be constructed on leaf soil
which had a high potential of shrink/swell. She told of the conditions in both
dry and wet weather. She also informed the Commission there was summit soils in
the area, which, she stated, was much worse than leaf soils for the installation
of sewer pipes. She forecasted the sewer lines would break and contaminate
Clabber Creek and the wetlands. She advised the city needed to address and study
the soils. She expressed her view they were rushing this project and contended
they would be flooding the property to the east.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 13
Ms. Mona Foster, 3677 Weir Road, requested the project be denied until they had.
received the Corps of Engineers report. She advised none of the Commissioners
were experts on wetland delineation.
Mr. Howard Davis, President of JED Development, stated they had planned a quality
development all within the standards of the city. He advised they had discussed
the flood plain areas being park areas. He further noted they had offered to
donate from 10 to 20 acres for a school. He stated they wanted to be a part of
the community. He also informed the Commission they had planned on constructing
some walking trails, access to the adjoining golf course, etc. He also noted
that all of the people involved in the project had lived in the area for over 30
years.
Ms. Virginia Fedosky stated if Mr. Davis wanted to be a part of the community he
needed to redraw the plat showing no tract less than an acre in size.
Mr. Joe Massey, 2816 Quail, complained many of the adjoining property owners had
not received a letter notifying them of this meeting.
Ms. Little advised the requirements were for notification of adjacent property
owners and Mr. Massey did not adjoin Phase I.
Mr. Jim Kimbrough again stated they needed to review the entire development and
notify all adjoining property owners of the entire tract, not just Phase I.
Me. Little advised notification had been made in the newspaper of the meeting and
staff had, at Mr. Wilson Kimbrough's request, sent him notice.
Ms. Martin stated it was her understanding people purchasing property in the
subdivision would not be able to purchase home owners' insurance policies and the
insurance would be three times the normal cost. She also stated it was her
understanding the future residents would have to pay a city sewer improvement
tax. She expressed concern for the future residents of the proposed subdivision.
Mr. Bunn stated he was not aware of any reason the residents would not be able
to get home owners insurance. He advised the sewer would be paid for by the
developer and the city would not be charging any extra fee. He explained that,
if the property were not annexed into the City, there was a higher sewer charge
for non-residents, just as there was a high charge for water outside the city
limits.
Ms. Britton stated the insurance issue had been brought up earlier when the
Commission had reviewed the original plans. She further stated she had
researched the insurance issue. She advised that, when the property got closer
to the flood plain (not in this phase), the insurance would be double the normal
cost of a homeowners insurance policy.
Mr. Milholland stated that, as long as a house was outside the flood plain, it
had rates based on fire protection.
Me. Britton stated if the property was within 4 feet of the flood plain the
property owner was required to carry flood insurance and it was double the normal
homeowners policy.
Mr. Milholland advised there was not an improvement district proposed and the
sewer and water rates would be the same for this development as any other
subdivision outside the city limits.
Mr. Bill Wilson, 2340 N. Salem, asked what would happen to all of the water once
it went under the bridge that was no longer on the developer's property.
al
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 14
Mr. Milholland stated water drained down hill and it would go down the creek.
He further stated there would be standard designs for the drainage. He further
advised the box culvert on Salem already flooded and, if it still flooded a year
from now, it was not necessarily because of the subject development.
Mr. Selby insisted the development would increase the run off by 100% and they
needed to design retention ponds.
Mr. Wilson
there was
problem
stated he owned property just south of Clabber Creek. He advised if
run-off into the creek and the creek grew wider, he would have a
Mr. Tarvin explained Mr. Wilson was addressing the wrong governmental body with
his concerns; that this was under regulation of the county. He advised if the
county wanted the developer to be responsible for the adequacy of drainage
structures downstream from developments, then the county should require that.
He advised the Planning Commission could not require more than allowed by law.
Mr. McCord stated the county only had jurisdiction over the roads.
Mr. Tarvin advised the Planning Commission did not make laws and could only
require what the law required.
Mr. Wilson Kimbrough expressed concern that the new land use plan was not in
effect. He stated the Commission was supposed to make judgments and evaluations
regarding the impact to the surrounding territory.
Mr. Tarvin stated that was what the Commission was doing but he also wanted the
residents to understand they had to make a determination as to where it stopped.
He stated he was concerned about the impact on the area and how the lot size was
not the same as the surrounding area. He asked staff to address the question of
how the lot size impacted the value of surrounding property and the character of
the neighborhood.
Ms. Little stated that in preliminary studies they found development of the land
increased the values of surrounding properties. She advised that did not deal
with the residents' feelings about what was now a field or open space. She noted
that, from a planning standpoint, the area to the south was a development with
smaller lot sizes and the area to the north had larger lot sizes. She explained
the transition area between the two would need to be lot sizes in between. She
also advised that, in terms of a general plan, they had recognized they needed,
especially on the outskirts of the city, one additional zone for transition. She
stated they had come up with two new zones for transition to the less densely
populated county areas.
She went on to say the lot size had to be in relation to whether sewer was
provided. She advised in this case sewer was expected to be provided.
Mr. Tarvin asked if the lots to the south should be larger lots to make the
transition.
Ms. Little explained the larger lots should be on the north for the transition.
She stated it was her understanding that all of the proposed development would
be of similar lot size.
Ms. Britton stated she felt they were being asked to ignore some laws concerning
property outside of the city limits. She stated she believed the minimum
requirement was 1 1/2 acres.
a��
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 15
Ms. Little advised they were in a gray area, an area that was not within the city.
limits but was within the planning area. She explained that, if the property
were in the city and zoned A-1, there was a minimum lot size of 2 acres and in
the county the minimum lot size was 1 1/2 acres. She further explained the 1 1/2
acre requirement was related to the provision of sewer.
Ms. Britton asked if the county regulations specifically said that.
Ms. Little advised she was not certain what the county regulations said but knew
it was in relation to the sewer.
Ms. Britton asked if the lot size also related to sewer in the city regulations
or strictly to zone.
Ms. Little stated Section 159.031, Suburban Subdivision (subdivisions outside the
city limits) read as follows: "...Public sanitary sewer not accessible. Where
a public sanitary sewer is not reasonably accessible, the subdivider shall be
required to install a community sewer system, as approved...by the State Health
Department standards and regulations; provided, if a community sewage system is
not reasonably available or economically feasible, and the subdivision has been
plated so that each lot has a minimum gross area of 1 1/2 acres, an individual
sewage disposal system for each lot may be used..." She stated that, based on
that section, lot size was specifically related to the sewage disposal.
Me. Britton asked if that meant the ordinance protected them by saying if sewer
was available they could accept a smaller lot size.
Ms. Little stated that was her interpretation.
Mr. McCord advised the minimum lot size requirement in the county and the city
subdivision regulations was 10,000 square feet. He stated the proposed lots did
comply with the minimum. He further stated the problem was the proposed lots
were not compatible with existing neighboring lots. He contended the Commission
had, on two other occasions, considered proposed lot size in relation to existing
lot size. He further stated that was only one of many concerns presented by the
residents. He advised a primary concern was the traffic hazard the development
would create on Salem Road.
Mr. Nickle stated he too had a concern about the traffic. He advised he did not
believe they had received enough data from the staff on the traffic counts, on
the impact the development would have on the traffic, nor specifics from the
Traffic Superintendent about the condition of the road. He requested more
information from some of the staff. He advised if the road came into the city
through annexation it would be an expense to the city. He stated he was not sure
that some of that expense should not be borne by the developer. He also
expressed concern that the Corps of Engineers needed to look at the entire area.
He stated that, since they had a plat showing future phases, he needed to
consider the entire development and more detail on the drainage.
NOTION
Mr. Nickle moved to table the plat.
Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
a�3
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 16
PRELIMINARY PLAT - THE MASTERS
WRIGHT & PENCE - S OF COUNTRY CLUB, E OF S. COLLEGE DR.
The next item was a preliminary plat for The Masters submitted by Bill Rudasill
on behalf of Dallas and Dee Wright and Eldon and Dryden Pence for property
located south of Country Club, east of South College Drive. The property is
zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 7 acres with 18 lots.
Mr. Bunn stated the motion at the Subdivision Committee meeting was to consider
only Phase I. He asked if that was the intent of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Allred agreed it was the intent of the Subdivision Committee to forward only
Phase I of the development.
Mr. Bunn explained the development had originally been submitted to the
Subdivision Committee at their meeting of July 15, 1993 and forwarded to the
Planning Commission meeting of July 26. He advised the plat had been tabled in
order for certain changes to be made in the plat and was subsequently reheard by
the Subdivision Committee on July 29.
He stated the original development consisted of 54 lots on approximately 20
acres, giving a density of 2.7 lots per acre. He noted the changes involved (1)
a relocation of the entrance to the proposed development; (b) reduction -of the
number of lots from 54 to 53, and (c) dividing the development into 2 phases
rather than 3. He explained Phase 1 would consist of 18 lots while Phase II
contained 35 lots.
Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments from any of the utility
company representatives at the Plat Review meeting other than additional
easements and street crossings requested and agreed to by the owner. He advised
staff remarks included comments on the need for a tree preservation plan,
sidewalks (developer plans sidewalks for both sides of the street), the need for
a drainage and grading plan (for the overall subdivision and eventually for lots
with grades exceeding 20%), and the need for a waiver on the maximum length of
the cul-de-sac.
He explained the Subdivision Committee considered the development for the second
time on July 29th. He advised there were several members of the general public
to comment on the project as well as representatives of the Fayetteville Country
Club. He noted the issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting were
basically the same issues that were brought up originally except that the problem
of access over a private drive was taken care of by the revised submittal. He
explained the main issues discussed at the subdivision meeting were whether the
water system was adequate for additional development, the issue of traffic on
24th Street and the fact that there was only one access point for the entire
area. He noted other issues raised previously included drainage and relative lot
sizes.
He advised that, after discussion of the issues, the Subdivision Committee voted
to forward Phase I of the preliminary plat to the Planning Commission with staff
comments.
He advised drainage from the site would be directed to the east into existing
drainage ways. He noted it appeared there were at least 3 existing drainageways
along the east side which would take the majority of the drainage from the
development. He stated Mr. Rudasill had submitted earlier in the day, some
drainage calculations which indicated a very minimum increase in drainage. He
advised he had not had a chance to verify those figures. He explained the
development was not to the point where they normally required a detailed plan for
the drainage. He did say, however, they would require the engineer to show the
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 17
existing runoff from the site and to estimate the additional runoff which would
be generated due to development. He stated the amount of additional runoff
generated would determine how the drainage would have to be handled.
Mr. Bunn stated there had also been a number of complaints at the Subdivision
Committee meeting of low water pressures within the Country Club Addition and
other development in the immediate area. He advised the engineering staff had
not been made aware of any particular low pressure problems or complaints
previous to the subdivision committee meeting.
He explained the area was served by a water pump station located approximately
1,000 feet east of South School Street, just off 24th Street. He stated the
station took suction from the 24 -inch line which looped around the south part of
town from the tanks on Mt. Sequoyah to the Markham water storage tank. He went
on to say an 8 -inch line went up into the Country Club Addition area where 6 -inch
lines looped around the various streets. He explained the pump station had 4
pumps, one was a variable speed pump with a rated capacity of 550 GPM with 2
smaller pumps with capacities of 225 GMP each, and a standby fire pump with a
capacity of over 1,000 GPM.
Mr. Bunn advised that, from the standpoint of fire protection and the ability of
the system to deliver proper fire flows, the development being considered would
not present a problem and fire flows should not be an issue.
He further noted that, in response to the questions regarding the adequacy of the
system to handle existing and proposed flows in the Country Club areas, staff
took the following actions: (1) placed a continuous pressure chart at the high
point on the Country Club water system on Monday, July 26; (2) on the night of
Wednesday, July 28, conducted flow tests on top of the mountain with the system
being checked at flows ranging from 0 GPM to 980 GPM with residual pressures on
top of the mountain as well as at the pump station being recorded; and (3) on
Thursday, July 29, met with the engineers who had designed the pump station to
discuss design data, operation of the station, and other matters relating to the
Country Club system.
Mr. Bunn explained the chart indicated a fairly stable pressure over the one week
period that began on July 26. He stated the maximum pressure drop of about 25
psi occurred on Saturday morning at approximately 7:30 a.m. He noted the system
recovered to normal pressure by 8:00 a.m. He stated there had been another
pressure drop of approximately 10 psi occurring on Wednesday morning beginning
around 7:00 a.m. and lasting for 4 hours. He advised that generally the system
was quite stable with the chart showing spikes both above and below normal
pressure at times. He explained the spiking activity was characteristic of water
systems in which pressure was maintained by pumps responding to demands rather
than by a water tank.
He advised the flow tests were intended to give staff an idea of how the pressure
at the high point varied with different flow rates and how the pump station
responded to increased demands. He pointed out the flow tests results were
detailed in the Commissioner's agenda packet. He stated the test results
indicated the pump station operated as it should, with the large variance speed
pump taking care of flows up to approximately 550 GPM and the second pump coming
on after that to boost capacity and raise pressure. He advised that, with those
two pumps on, staff was able to get approximately 840 GPM at the Country Club
hydrant with a residual pressure of 58 psi (acceptable residual pressure is
considered to be approximately 40 psi with the minimum being allowed being 30
psi). He noted further tests indicated the ability to get at least 980 GPM flow
at the Country Club at a residual pressure of 40 psi with the fire pump running
with the other two pumps with the minimum acceptable pressure being 30 psi.
�1�
•
•
1
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 18
Mr. Bunn stated staff's conclusion was that the city could deliver at least 840
GPM to the system with a residual pressure of 58 psi under normal operation
conditions.
He further stated the charts recording station pressure and flow which were
routinely kept indicated a maximum instantaneous demand of approximately 480 gpm
on Monday, July 26. He noted the country club use, at that time, was estimated
to be approximately 65 gpm, giving a domestic demand of 415 gpm. He advised the
country club did have a separate water source but, due to the sodium content of
that other source, they used city water to water the greens. He stated that, at
the same time, the pressure recording chart had indicated a residual at the
country club of 90 psi.
Mr. Bunn explained the peak flow for the houses was estimated to be 415 gpm
divided by 110 houses, which equaled 3.8 gpm per house. He stated their
projection for the flow for various stages of development. He advised the
existing development (110 houses) with maximum instantaneous demand of 480 gpm,
plus an undeveloped subdivision, containing 15 lots, plus infill, would make 150
houses with a maximum instantaneous demand of 635 gpm. He stated adding Phase.
I of The Masters would make a maximum demand of 685 gpm and, if Phase II was
added, the maximum instantaneous demand would go up to 836 gpm. He stated that,
assuming 840 gpm was a maximum delivery to the system, then with the present
conditions, the system was at 57% capacity; by adding the undeveloped subdivision
and infill they would reach 75% of the capacity; by adding Phase I of The Masters
they would be at 82% of capacity; and adding Phase II of The Masters they would
be at 99% of capacity.
He explained the conditions of flow and station capacity he had just reviewed
tended to be on the conservative side because the flows were made at a single
point and not distributed evenly within the subdivision, noting if the demands
were taken off of each house the residual pressure would tend to be higher; the
flow was not continued until the minimum residual allowable was reached, and the
fire pump was not used to supplement the flows which would have produced flows
of nearly 1,000 gpm at 40 psi residual.
Mr. Bunn stated it was his conclusion that the existing water system was adequate
to handle Phase I of the proposed development with a minimum of 20% reserve
capacity. He advised engineering staff had not received reports or complaints
of low pressure prior to the last several weeks and did not, at this point, have
an answer to those who have experienced low pressure.
He advised that, when meeting with the engineering consultants, they discussed
the operation of the station in general, how the test results compared with the
station design flows and pressures, and possible causes of the shut -down of the
main pump at various times. He stated that generally staff believed the station
was being operated as it was intended and the flow tests corresponded well with
design expectations. He advised there had been no firm conclusions drawn
regarding the cause of pump shutdowns which caused some low pressure problems on
several occasions recently. He stated they were investigating the possibility
that the problems were related to high temperatures within the variable speed
drive controller.
Mr. Bunn then addressed access and traffic, noting the issue of a single access
point, not only for the subject development, but of the total Country Club
Mountain area, had been raised earlier. He stated this involved the access for
emergency vehicles such as police, fire, and EMS, and the traffic problems
created by a single access.
He explained the city had Trip Generation Software which indicated the existing
development in the area (110 houses) generated an average of 1,050 vehicle
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 19
movements per day. He stated the country club added to that total although the
number of cars per day was somewhat uncertain. He noted standard trip generation
software for country clubs did not really give satisfactory results because
facilities and golf course uses varied so much from place to place.
Mr. Bunn stated that, in order to get some actual numbers on traffic, they set
a counter out and monitored traffic for three consecutive days. He advised the
average was 1,255 cars with peak morning hour being 87 cars and the peak
afternoon hour being 165 cars.
He advised the proposed 52 lot development would generate another 506 trips per
day for a total of 1,761. He noted that, with full development of existing
subdivisions, it was estimated a total of approximately 2,260 trips per day would
be generated. He reviewed a summary of the estimated traffic counts.
Mr. Bunn stated the final issue previously discussed was lot sizes. He pointed
out the average size of lots proposed within the proposed development appeared
to be somewhat smaller than those in the existing subdivisions. He noted,
however, the lot sizes did meet the requirements for the R-1, Low Density
Residential, zoning.
Mr. Bunn recommended that Phase I of The Masters Subdivision be approved subject
to plat review and subdivision committee comments; submittal and approval of the
detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; submittal of a grading
plan and drainage plan; construction of sidewalks and payment of parks fees in
accordance with city ordinances; a notation on the plat of the lots which would
require a grading permit under the city's ordinance; and conformance with the
city's tree ordinance.
He noted the conditions of approval were not intended to be a full listing of
subdivision requirements that might be imposed on the development nor should they
be interpreted to mean that other city, state, or federal requirements were being
waived unless specifically stated. He advised it was also a recommendation of
the staff that no further development, including Phase II, be approved within the
water service area of the Country Club Pump Station until improvements were made
which would provide the flows necessary for such development.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Bunn explained that inclusion of
Phase II would take the water system to almost 100% capacity and the pumps would
not be able to deliver any more than the maximum instantaneous demand. He
recommended nothing be added to the system until improvements were made. He
stated the Country Club area really needed a water storage tank and staff was
looking to place that in the C.I.P. He advised they had not made a decision as
to what type of inter -measures could be put into effect which would increase the
capacity in the event that further development was contemplated. He stated a
larger pump could be added through the station and gain the additional flows
needed. He further advised there were some additional flows that could be placed
on the system but it was limited by the amount of pressures and the capacity of
the water line system.
Mr. Suchecki asked if that recommendation included undeveloped lots which had
already been approved.
Mr. Bunn stated it did not; that it only included new subdivisions.
Mr. Nickle stated he had not seen any comment specific to traffic other than
numbers. He stated the engineer did not make any conclusion. He asked if the
City Engineer or Traffic Engineer had any comments.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 20
Mr. Bunn stated the city did not have any specific maximum traffic which a road
would take under any specific conditions. He stated it appeared traffic would
double on 24th Street with the addition of some infill in the existing
subdivisions and with the full development of The Masters. He advised the norm
was 10 vehicle trips per day generated by each lot, or 180 trips to the existing
traffic count, totaling between 1800 and 1900 trips per day.
Mr. Suchecki asked if there were any plane to extend Country Club Drive down the
east side of the mountain to Morningside. He noted Phase II of the subdivision
was dedicating access down the mountain.
Mr. Bunn stated
normally, those
stated the city
Club.
the city had no plane to extend Country Club. He explained that
kinds of streets were developed as subdivisions developed. He
had nothing in the C.I.P. to provide additional access to Country
Mr. Bill Rudasill, representing Wright -Pence Corporation, stated he had spoken
with some traffic engineers in Little Rock regarding this issue and had found the
the road would typically be maxed out at 9,000 trips per day. He advised traffic
engineers started looking at improvements at around 6,000 trips per day. He
stated that, with the conditions of the road being steep and windy, they needed
to look at lower numbers as far as capacity, stating it would max out at 6,000.
He pointed out the projected traffic counts were approximately 2,500, or less
than half of the max out figure.
He stated the only way to provide other access was to allow development to occur
and move the street on through. He advised they had taken that into account when
planning the subdivision. He stated he concurred with staff comments.
Mr. Bill Greenhaw, attorney for the petitioners, stated the petitioners had
complied with all of the minimum requirements set out by city ordinance. He
reviewed some of those requirements. He noted the petitioner was planning to
submit covenants which would make the proposed subdivision compatible with the
existing subdivisions in the area.
He agreed with Mr. Bunn's comment that the long term solution to the one access
problem could be achieved through development. He advised if the proposed
subdivision was successful, the property owners abutting the subdivision to the
east had expressed an interest in subdividing their property on out to City Lake
Road and Morningside Drive. He pointed out the owners of those adjoining
properties had no objections to the proposed subdivision.
Mr. Jim McCord, representing the Country Club, stated the Board of Directors was
opposed to the approval of the preliminary plat of The Masters, Phase I, due to
traffic safety considerations. He advised the Board was quite concerned about
the safety of its 500 members and families as they traveled 24th Street. He
pointed out 24th Street was the only access to the area and it was very narrow,
substandard, very hilly with a hair pin curve. He stated the street was in need
of repair and was inadequate for existing traffic.
Mr. David Horn, representing a number of property owners from the area, referred
to a petition filed with staff showing the number and identify of the
protectants. He asked those who were opposed to stand (approximately 40 people
stood). He advised that Mr. Bunn's report was impartially done and his figures
showed the proposed subdivision was not exactly the ideal subdivision for
development in the City of Fayetteville. He pointed out the impact on existing
residences. He contended the city infrastructure was not equipped to support
services in the area at the present time. He stated the city water system did
not work properly, breaking down upon occasions; a water tank was needed; there
was only one, two-lane road which was in disrepair to provide access to the area;
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 21
and there were no plans for future development of added water systems; and no
long range plans for additional city streets to the area. He claimed the area
was saturated. He advised the Commission had a duty as planners to do something
orderly which did not impact existing property.
Mr. Tom Dorey, 2702 S. College Drive, advised he had walked the property in
question and had noticed there was a natural deck drainage ditch which started
at the Country Club property line on the No. 1 fairway. He stated it was
approximately 2 feet wide at that point but 100 - 150 feet further down the hill
the ditch was 8 feet wide. He contended when the vegetation was removed the
water flow would increase tremendously. He also spoke about access, and
expressed concern regarding traffic on the roadway during bad weather. He
pointed out that, at the entrance of the proposed subdivision, there was a 15 -
foot drop from the right hand side to the left hand side. He also noted
development would be detrimental to the existing wildlife in the area.
Mr. Jimmy Urgen, 2831 S. College, also spoke in opposition expressing concern
regarding the roads, water, sewer, and traffic. He advised he was also a member
of the Country Club and served on the greens committee. He pointed out there was
a possible loss of the greens if they did not have adequate water and that meant
a loss of several thousands of dollars. He further noted the Country Club had
problems with water pressure.
Ms. Sherlyn Cale, 349 Fairway Lane, advised she had called 6 to 10 times every
year for the last 10 years regarding the water pressure at her house. She stated
there was a water pressure problem in the area and there had been one since 1987.
Mr. Jerry Hart, 160 E. 26th Circle, showed photographs of the roadway pointing
out the problems with the road. He told the Commission the roadway was extremely
dangerous. He further advised the FAA would never allow a water tank on top of
the hill.
Dr. Frank Grammer, 359 Fairway, told of the unsafe conditions of the road when
it was covered with snow or ice. He advised a number of doctors from Washington
Regional lived on the hill and, if there was additional traffic on the road
causing accidents, he was concerned regarding the ability of those doctors to be
able to go to the hospital.
Mr. Dallas Wright, one of the petitioners, stated he currently lived on the hill
at 2919 Wright Place. He stated this was his second development on top of the
hill. He explained they wanted to insure the type of houses in the proposed
subdivision were compatible with the existing houses and therefore would have
covenants. He advised he relied on the city engineer's report and testing which
said the infrastructure would handle Phase I. He further noted the street had
always existed as it was, it was nothing new, and it would not matter how many
houses existed on top of the hill.
Mr. Bill Wyatt, a resident of Country Club Drive, stated he had a report stating
there would be a 48% increase in traffic and he was quite concerned about the
increase.
Ms. Janette Summers spoke in opposition to opening the roadway to the east side
of the mountain and develop that area. She stated quality of life was important.
Mr. Dryden Pence, one of the developers, stated they had attempted to address the
area residents' concerns. He advised they had met all of the city standards.
He stated their objective was to have a nice subdivision which contributed to the
future of the area and the future of the city.
all
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 22
Mr. McCord stated the developers had not complied with "safe and adequate
vehicular and pedestrian access shall be provided to all parcels". He stated
there had been an abundance of testimony that the existing street was unsafe.
Mr. Horn contended the subdividers had proposed a marginal compliance with
subdivision regulations. He stated there were other places more suited for
development. He summarized comments from the area residents. He also advised
the traffic problems alone were enough to deny the subdivision. He advised the
Commission had a duty to listen to the citizens of the community and not approve
and rubber-stamp development without close ecrunity. He further noted the
residents had purchased their homes with the expectation of quality service from
the city. He stated the area was now saturated. He further contended the
current residents deserved protection.
Mr. Rudasill stated there had been concerns expressed regarding the drainage.
He advised the slopes on the hill were steep but the existing vegetation did not
hold the water back. He pointed out the development would retard some of the
run-off. He reviewed the drainage flow patterns and contended drainage would not
be a problem. He further noted they planned on maintaining as much of the wooded
areas as possible so the existing wildlife would still have an area. He also
advised there would be at least a 30 foot buffer between the subdivision and the
country club. He stated they would be providing a development which would add
to the area.
Mr. Greenhaw referred to a list of area property owners in favor of the proposed
subdivision. He requested fair treatment for his clients stating they had
complied with every standard imposed by the city. He stated they were asking for
the same treatment given to any other developer. He stated the area was a
desirable area to live and, if previous developers had been denied the
opportunity to build, the current residents would have been deprived of the
opportunity to live there. He stated hie clients just wanted the opportunity to
Bell to people just like those in the audience.
Ms. Summers stated it was a desirable place to live but there was a question of
balance. She advised they needed to plan ahead, not just with this subdivision,
but with all of Fayetteville.
Mr. Hart told the Commission of the herd of deer which stayed in the same
location as the proposed development.
Me. Jane Wallock, the owner of farmland to the south of the proposed development,
asked the Commission to consider the runoff.
Ms. Marie Mitchell, a Country Club resident, contended the hill was saturated
with development. She also pointed out the roadway was becoming very hazardous.
Mr. Sickle stated that, if it was just 18 homes, it would not worry him but he
could see development to the south. He also pointed out the R-2 property
immediately to the north of the subject property. He further stated he did not
know if the City Council was willing to spend money to widen the road. He stated
some money needed to be spent on the infrastructure.
Mr. Pummill asked if they were not just asking for approval of Phase I containing
18 lots.
Mr. Suchecki advised they were considering only Phase I with 18 lots.
Mr. Reynolds stated it appeared they were getting ahead of the public services;
there were water pressure, sewer, street conditions, traffic, and drainage
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 23
problems on the hill. He stated he believed they needed to look at those items
before approving the subdivision.
Mr. Springborn stated it appeared the principle problem was a matter of safety
and public service. He noted he had heard no comments nor objections regarding
lot size. He stated if there was a way to approve the preliminary plat and
restrict approval of the final plat until such time as the city took care of the
street and water pressure problem, he could go along with it.
Mr. Tarvin stated it did appear there were some problems and sooner or later
something had to be done to cause attention to be drawn to those problems. He
suggested a motion to deny acceptance of the preliminary plat would be the action.
which would cause some attention to be brought to the area. He stated he could
sympathize with the developers but he was concerned that, if they approved Phase
i it would open the door to subsequent phases. He further stated he would like
to see the city do what was necessary to provide the infrastructure needed for
proper development and protection of land owners.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to deny the preliminary plat for The Masters Subdivision.
Mr. Nickle seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-4-0 with Commissioners Tarvin, Britton, Reynolds, Suchecki,
and Nickle voting "yes" and Commissioners Springborn, Pummill, Cato and Allred
voting "no".
a$`
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 24
CONDITIONAL USE CU93-23 - RADIO ANTENNA TOWER
SWEPCO - SE CORNER OF SKYLINE & WILLIAMS
The next item was a conditional use submitted by Bob Waldren on behalf of SWEPCO
for property located on the southeast corner of Skyline and Williams and zoned
R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is for a radio antenna tower.
Mr. Conklin reminded the Commission this item had been tabled at the July 12,
1993 Planning Commission meeting because of a property line dispute with an
adjoining neighbor. He advised the applicant had hired a professional surveyor
to determine the location of the property line and had received a report.
He stated the applicant was requesting to replace an existing 90 foot radio
antenna pole with a 185 foot steel antenna tower and construct an operations
building. He explained Use Unit 3 allowed public protection and utility
equipment as a conditional use within R-1, Low Density Residential, zoning
districts due to the special location needs of the equipment. He stated the
antenna tower would be self supporting (mono -pole).
Mr. Conklin explained that, as the request was an existing use and an increase
in height and increase in the size of the operations building, staff recommended
approval of the request. He further stated staff recommended the approval be
subject to the applicant providing view obscuring fencing or vegetation along the
west, north and south property lines.
Mr. Bob Waldren, representing SWEPCO, advised they had amended the request and
were requesting a tower of 120 feet rather than 185 feet in order to try to get
along with the neighbors. He advised the survey did show there was ample room
for the tower and operations building. He explained the unit would come on only
during short test periods lasting approximately 10 minutes once a month or
whenever the normal power systems failed.
Mr. Suchecki stated the Commission had received correspondence from Ms. Virginia
Fields and she had made mention of other sites which had been considered by
SWEPCO.
Mr. Waldren stated they had looked at a number of sites in both the Fayetteville
and Springdale areas but there had been problems with all of the other sites;
they did not give the coverage required. He further stated it would probably
take 3 sites to cover the same area as would be covered by the one they were
requesting. He stated they had found a site in Springdale which would have
worked but FAA would not approve it. He noted FAA had approved the requested
site. He reviewed the location of the existing sites. He also reviewed the
planned system with the Commissioners.
Mr. Suchecki asked what type of personnel and traffic would be at the facility.
Mr. Waldren stated that, after construction, someone would be there once a month.
Mr. Springborn asked the radius of service from the present antenna.
Mr. Waldren stated the new system would reach out further. He stated the new
tower was a line of sight. He noted he had some plots showing how it would look.
Mr. Springborn asked about the use of an existing tower.
Mr. Waldren stated they had looked at commercial towers but did not believe they
were safe. He further stated it was not a guide tower.
ag �
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 25
Ms. Britton asked how a shorter pole would be adequate since they originally
asked for a much taller pole. She also asked how long this pole would be
adequate.
Mr. Waldren stated it would be adequate as long as it was there. He explained
the system was designed to cover 90% of the area, 90% of the time. He stated
that, at the request of the neighboring property owners, they agreed to a smaller
pole and could cover 70% of the area, 70% of the time. He stated they could not
go any lower than that.
Me. Britton asked if this was approved how long it would be before they had to
come back asking for the higher pole.
Mr. Waldren stated they would have to find another location rather than asking
for a higher pole. He stated he would much rather have the 185 foot pole. He
further noted there would be some microwave dishes on the pole.
Ms. Britton stated she did not believe 40 or 60 feet higher would make that much
difference and she would just as soon discuss the 185 feet.
Mr. Waldren stated the objection was raised the 185 feet was so much higher and
they were trying to get along with the neighbors. He stated they would be
putting a redwood privacy fence around the building.
Ms. Britton stated her concern was they would have to have another site together
with the requested site. She further stated she would prefer having all at one
site rather than having 2 sites in Fayetteville.
Mr. Waldren presented pictures of the pole and the proposed building.
Mr. Cato asked when the current tower was constructed.
Mr. Waldren stated the original tower was in 1950.
Mr. Reynolds pointed out SWEPCO had taken 65 feet off of the request just to try
to get along with the neighborhood.
Mr. Suchecki stated he agreed with Ms. Britton; that the height of the pole was
not significant. He further stated if it would enhance the service and was
approved by the FAA, he had a difficult time seeing what difference 65 feet made.
Mr. Springborn asked if the communications would reach Bella Vista.
Mr. Waldren stated he did not believe it would.
Mr. Springborn stated it appeared the service was weighed to the south end.
Mr. Waldren stated there was another tower in Rogers but it would not reach to
Fayetteville due to the terrain.
Me. Virginia Fields, a resident of Mt. Sequoyah, presented the Commission with
a copy of the service area of SWEPCO. She referred to a letter she had sent to
the Commissioners earlier listing some of the neighborhood concerns. She further
stated the current tower did not contain microwave dishes nor flashing lights.
She stated that tower was not as intrusive as the one proposed. She advised the
proposed building was also intrusive and stated it would be concrete and not
compatible with the adjacent properties. She expressed concern with the purpose
of the tower and asked if it improved communications for SWEPCO or did it improve
electrical service.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 26
She referred the Commission to Article 9 of the City Code where the utilities
were specifically addressed and given guidelines. She requested the Commission
make written findings with regard to the compatibility with adjacent properties.
She expressed concern regarding the visual impact of the tower. She also noted
SWEPCO was installing two other towers in more appropriate rural areas, Rogers
and Prairie Grove. She contended there would always be frequency interference
for utility companies due to the low frequency required by FAA no matter where
the tower was located. She asked where they planned to draw the line on the use
and extent of towers on Mt. Sequoyah. She contended this was not a compatible
use.
Ms. Fields also noted there was a proposal for a 500 gallon above ground propane
tank to be placed on the site. She stated the Fire Marshall had determine such
a tank would be a fire hazard and was not allowed in such a residential area
under the city fire codes.
She expressed her belief the conditional use could be granted only if the
Commission's written findings showed that all alternative locations had been
sought out. She further stated that, if the request was granted, the
neighborhood would like to see further restrictions on the building, that it be
more residential in appearance. She advised the neighborhood considered the 120 -
foot pole much more feasible than the 185 -foot pole, due to the detrimental
visible impact.
Mr. Suchecki asked if there was a propane tank on the premises at the present
time and, if so, the size.
Mr. Waldren stated there was a 110 gallon tank presently on site.
In response to a question from Mr. Suchecki, Mr. Waldren explained the tank was
to run the emergency generator in the event of power failure.
Mr. Pummill asked if they would be going from 110 gallons to 500 gallons.
Mr. Waldren stated they were.
Mr. Carroll Rainwater, Chief Operating Officer for Mt. Sequoyah, stated the tank
was totally unattended and placed in an open environment. He requested the
Commission deny the request from SWEPCO stating he represented the Conference and
Retreat Center, the Board of Trustees and approximately 26,000 day guests. He
presented pictures of the existing building and expressed his opinion it was more
of a shack rather than building.
He presented the history of the tower at the present site. He advised that,
while the water tower was not "a picture of beauty", it was a necessity. He
further stated that, with the technology of today, it was totally unacceptable
to place either the 120 -foot tower or 185 -foot tower in a residential area.
Mr. Rainwater continued by expressing concern regarding aircraft striking the
tower since aircraft flew very low over the area. He stated such an accident
could kill or injure several people
He reviewed the history of Mount Sequoyah and asked the Commission protect the
integrity of the area. He again requested denial of the request or tabling it
for further study. He advised Mount Sequoyah had not received any notice either
from SWEPCO nor the City regarding this request and, therefore, had not had
adequate time to have the people affected by the decision to properly express
their resistance. He also contended there were safety problems with the tower
and the unattended propane tank. He reviewed various natural disasters in the
area, pointing out if this type of structure were placed outside a residential
age
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 27
area and it fell, there would be minimal risk of life or property. He also
requested that, if the subject site became unusable or abandoned by SWEPCO, that
the city restrict selling of the site for an additional antenna, and the site be
placed back into a residential type environment.
Mr. Rainwater also noted the only access to Mt. Sequoyah was behind the first row
of houses, through the 50 -foot lot area. He advised they would protest that
thoroughfare being taken away.
Mr. Suchecki advised that, in the event SWEPCO vacated the property, the
conditional use would no longer be in effect.
Mr. Tarvin asked how high the existing tower was above the ground.
Mr. Waldren explained normally the pole was buried six feet plus 10% of the
length of the pole, or approximately 75 feet above the ground. He pointed out
the pole was not the highest pole at that location.
Mr. Suchecki asked if the location of the propane tank had been discussed with
the fire department.
Mr. Waldren stated they had not. He advised that, if they received approval from
the Planning Commission, they would then need to get approval from the Fire
Department and a building permit.
Mr. Suchecki stated it was conceivable the 500 gallon propane tank would not be
allowed. He further stated they were aware of environmental problems and they
were closely monitored.
Mr. Springborn stated Mr. Waldron had
wind and ice. He stated he believed it
of ice. He further stated it sounded
previously given the typical loading of
was 62 miles per hour with a half of inch
like it was cutting close.
Mr. Waldren assured him the engineers had looked at the proposed tower and had
assured SWEPCO the tower was safe. He pointed out the poles stayed in place and
their communications stated intact during the 1989 winds when trees were down.
Mr. Jeff Shanlin, 816 E. Skyline, stated the area had a unique visual character
which was very valuable to the community. He advised that changing the height
of the tower was an intrusion to the entire community.
Mr. Ron Farmer, 1134 Skyline, cited safety concerns regarding enlarging the
tower, as reason for denying the request. He advised the residents believed the
Commission had an ethical and civic obligation to not put them at risk.
Mr. Fred Hunt, a Mount Sequoyah resident, contended there was not enough room to
place the tower on the subject property; that there was only 6 feet after meeting
the setback.
Mr. Suchecki informed him the Commission had received a survey of the subject
property with the current date which demonstrated the legal description being the
one presented by SWEPCO
Frank Goudy, a Skyline resident, stressed the dangers of placing a taller tower
stating a tornado could blow the tower down and it could strike existing
residences. He also noted the proposed building looked more like an industrial
building rather than a residence.
a5�
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 28
Mr. Rainwater pointed out a small gate on the survey advising the Commission that
was the access to Mount Sequoyah. He expressed concern there would be an effort
to shut them off from the gate and access to their property.
Mr. Nickle stated he believed it was a good faith on the part of SWEPCO to reduce
the height of the tower. He further stated he would be in favor of the 120 foot
tower as opposed to the 185 foot tower. He advised the building would be fenced
and screened from the area; that it was only a maintenance building.
Mr. Waldren stated the proposed building would require less maintenance and be
more functional. He did advise there would be an 8 -foot fence screening the
building. He stated they would work with Mr. Raintree on access to the Mount
Sequoyah.
Ms. Britton stated her original comment about the height had not taken into
consideration safety; that visually she did not find one height to be more
detrimental than another, but she did see the shorter pole would be safer. She
stated her concerns were that the building fit in with the residential area. She
advised that, if the building were properly screened, the residents would not see
it. She stated she was concerned about what people walking around Mt. Sequoyah
would see since it was a scenic area which many visitors to the area made a point
to see. She stated her concern was that the fence be set back from the street
so it would have a residential feel to it.
Mr. Springborn stated his concern was that the area, from a residential area
standpoint, had changed substantially from when the first installation had been
made. He advised that, from a technical standpoint, he was not satisfied that
there were not other locations that would serve the area outside residential
areas.
NOTION
Ms. Britton stated any hill she could think of was a residential area so she did
not see the possibility of placing the tower in a commercial area. She further
stated she saw this as necessary and, for the greater good of the community, she
would move to approve the tower on the conditions agreed to (screening, setback,
and 120 feet).
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
Mr. Conklin asked Ms. Britton be more specific on the fencing material.
Ms. Britton stated she wanted wood fencing, eight feet in height.
The motion carried 7-1-0 with Commissioners Britton, Nickle, Reynolds, Suchecki,
Tarvin, Pummill, Cato and Allred voting "yes" and Commissioner Springborn voting
"no".
a$�
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 29
WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1
GLENN MccURISTIAN - 1313 STUBBLEFIELD RD.
The next item was Lot Split #1 submitted by Glenn McChristian for property
located at 1313 Stubblefield Road which is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
Mr. Bunn explained
Stubblefield Road.
into two lots of 0.
stated the frontage
this was a request for a first split of property at 1313
He noted the split would divide an existing 1.45 acre tract
725 acres each with approximately 105 feet of frontage. He.
and size requirements of the R-1 zoning were met by each lot.
He informed the Commission the widening of Stubblefield Road was in the city's
Capital Improvement Program and was likely to be constructed either in 1994 or
1995. He advised construction would include the installation of a sidewalk on
the north side of the street.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the lot split and explained Mr. McChristian had
visited with him earlier in the day and had expressed concern that Mr. Bunn had
not warned him of the possibility the city would ask for half of the construction
cost for his side of the road. He stated the city had done that along
Stubblefield Road; there were several subdivisions and at least 2 lot splits that
the city had asked for construction funds. He further stated Mr. McChristian was
willing to pay for the cost of the construction of a sidewalk. He explained he
was modifying his recommendation and asking for $550.00 which would be equal to
the cost of the sidewalk.
In response to a question from Mr. Cato, Mr. McChristian stated this was not part
of a platted subdivision. He stated he was too old to mow the property and
wanted to split off half of the lot and sell it. He explained he was willing to
pay the cost of the sidewalk.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to approve the lot split subject to staff comments.
Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
sl
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 30
WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1
PARTNERS & ASSOCIATES - N OF FUTRALL, R OF NORTH HILLS BLVD
The next item was Lot Split #1 submitted by Tom Campbell on behalf of Partnere
and Associates for property located on the north side of Futrall, east of North
Hills Boulevard.
Mr. Bunn explained the proposal was to split an existing 4.3 acre tract into two
lots of approximate equal size. He reminded the Commission this property was the
proposed North Hills Center which had been approved as a large scale development
at the last Planning Commission meeting. He noted the lots being created were
legal lots for the C-2 zoning district.
He stated a letter requesting the split indicated the deeds would contain
appropriate cross easements and a reciprocal parking agreement. He recommended
approval of the lot split subject to all easements as requested at the large
scale development, being granted by separate instrument prior to the split. He
further stated it would be understood that all requirements as set out in the
large scale development approval should also apply to each of the lots created
by the split.
Mr. Nickle asked if the Commission had to approve the split because the property
was commercial.
Mr. Bunn explained the size of the tract required the request to go before the
Planning Commission. He stated anything less than 3 acres had to go before the
Planning Commission.
• In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn stated the granting of the
easements did not need to be approved separately.
•
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to approve the lot split subject to staff comments.
Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
a%%
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 31
WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1
MARILYN SHOFFIT - 2406 OLD WIRE ROAD
The next item on the agenda was a request for Lot Split #1 submitted by Marilyn
Shoffitt for property located at 2406 Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1,
Low Density Residential.
Mr. Bunn explained the proposal was to split an existing 0.80 acre lot into two
lots of 0.40 acres each. He advised the lots created by the split would be legal
lots in the R-1 zoning district. He reminded the Commission the subject tract
had been brought before the Planning Commission at the last meeting for a re-
zoning to R -O but the request failed.
He stated the lot sizes appeared to be compatible with the lots in the
surrounding neighborhood. He recommended that the split be approved subject to
the construction of sidewalks in accordance with the city's master sidewalk plan
and the granting of an additional 10 feet of right-of-way off Old Wire Road to
bring the right-of-way in conformance with the Master Street Plan requirements.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn stated the lot with the
existing building would continue to have the same access but the vacant lot would
only access Township.
Ms. Britton asked how the present structure related to the property lines.
Me. Shoffitt presented a drawing showing placement of the structure.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to approve the lot split subject to staff comments.
Mr. Cato seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Britton asked if there would be sufficient frontage on Township after taking
of the right-of-way.
Mr. Bunn explained the frontage requirements and assured her there was sufficient
frontage.
9-0
•
•
•
Planning Commission
August 9, 1993
Page 32
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Suchecki stated the first item, case discussion by Jerry Rose, had been
tabled until the next meeting. He suggested they discuss the revision of the
sidewalk portion of the Subdivision ordinance and table the off-site improvement
discussion.
Me. Britton stated she believed they were asking a lot to have sidewalks built
on both sides of the street.
Mr. Conklin explained the item needed to be advertised 15 days prior to public
hearing and it had only been advertised one day.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
al°