Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-17 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on April 17, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Reynolds, John Forney, and Phyllis Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Dawn Warrick, Chuck Rutherford, Beth Sandeen, and Heather Woodruff. LSD97-5.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Warehouse, pp 599) was submitted by Northwest Engineers for property located north of Cato Springs Road and west of Garland Avenue. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial - Light Industrial, and contains 8.1 acres. Findings: The entrance to this site is by way of an off-site private drive - an access agreement has been secured The applicant has requested a reduction of the front setback (50' reduced to 25') by means of the screening option {§160.117 (G)(2)(d)}. A description of the proposed screening is on the attached form. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6' sidewalk with a minimum 10' greenspace along Garland Ave. • 5. Submittal of required documentation concerning rare tree removal and replacement canopy as requested by Landscape Administrator. Subdivision Meeting April 17, 1997 • Page 2 6. Relocation of dumpster pad sites which are within the floodplain. 7. Dedication of right of way along Garland Ave. to equal 35' from centerline and to also include area east of centerline at the northeast corner of the site as shown on the plat. • • 8. The developer shall improve Garland Ave. and the bndge railings based upon the rational nexus requirements in the ordinance. 9. Revision of existing easements to meet current City standards of a minimum 20' easement. 10. Submittal of an easement plat for this project prior to the issuance of any building permits. 11. A. The large scale approval will be valid for one year. B. The covenant and lease agreement stating no hazardous materials to be stored in the warehouse. C. Agreement with fire chief on the additional fire hydrant. Subdivision Committee Action: Mr. Grey, project engineer, stated they had proposed 70,000 square feet of warehouse space. They would have 2,000 to 10,000 square feet available. They would be accessible by semi - trucks. Ms. Little stated he had moved several of the buildings out of the flood plain. Only the front building would be in the flood plain. In response to a question form Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Grey stated they would clean the area up. Mr. Reynolds asked about the existing road. Ms. Little stated the road was not on their property. It was owned by someone else. It was not a city road. The developer had an access agreement with the other property owner allowing them to use the road for access. The City was not going to require improvements to the road because the road was blocked to the west. Mr. Grey stated they would improve the road to the west approximately 200 feet. He added they were proposing a security fence. Mr. Reynolds believed this would be a good improvement for the area. Adding the site had been • • Subdivision Meeting April 17, 1997 Page 3 used as a dump for years. He asked if he had spoken with the Fire Marshal about the location of fire hydrants noting the fire department had to haul water during the last fire at that location. Ms Little stated Mr. Jackson had requested there be a covenant in the lease agreement prohibiting any type of hazardous materials from being stored in the facility. He cautioned if there was not a covenants prohibiting hazardous materials then the buildings needed to be sprinkled. Mr. Reynolds stated they would need the covenants, stating what could be stored in the buildings. Mr. Grey noted there were three hydrants shown on the plat. Ms. Little stated Mr. Jackson had commented that the hydrant locations met the minimum requirements. Mr. Reynolds urged Mr. Grey to add an additional fire hydrant. Mr. Beaver requested that Mr. Grey consult with Mr. Jackson on the placement of the fire hydrant. Ms. Little asked them to move two dumpster pads out of the flood plain. FEMA had asked them to keep debris from floating into channels in times of flooding. She also asked them to move one building out of the flood plain, adding it would make a large difference in their insurance. Mr. Grey stated they would be able to take it out of the flood plain by letter. The lowest building would be four feet above the 100 year flood plain. Ms. Little stated the they could move the sidewalk into the right-of-way. There needed to be a way to get from the sidewalk to the bridge. She added the bridge did not have adequate guard rails. Guard rails would need to be extended behind the sidewalk. Mr. Forney stated guard rails would need to be added because of the narrow bridge. Ms. Little questioned the proposed nght-of-way dedication of 35 feet from centerline. Mr. Grey explained they would be dedicating 35 feet from the centerline by warranty deed. He added with the street widening the sidewalk would need to taper back into the bridge. • • Subdivision Meeting April 17, 1997 Page 4 Ms. Little stated the City would ask the developer to add the guard rails to bridge when they constructed the sidewalks. Mr. Grey stated they were going to do improvements to Garland Avenue on the west side. Ms. Little stated Engineering Department was willing to take money in lieu of the street construction. The sidewalks would be still be constructed. Mr. Grey commented 6 inches of the sidewalk would be on the developer's property and not in the nght-of-way. Ms. Little stated the City would be willing to take any additional right-of-way needed to accommodate the sidewalk. She added they needed to clarify if the developer was going to construct the street or provide money in lieu. Mr. Beavers stated they could do either. If the developer was going to construct the street the City would try and fine money to finish it to the south. Mr. Grey stated the developer preferred to build the street because it would make a nicer entrance. They would also be able to backfill and complete the landscaping. Ms. Little added an additional condition. The large scale development and approval would be valid for one year only. If there was not substantial construction within one year the City would look at the development again. Mr. Grey thought the dumpsters could be lettered out of the flood plain. Ms. Little suggested they be at least 2 feet above the flood plain. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. Mr. Forney asked if there would be any likely hood of expanding the private street. Ms. Little stated there would be a creek crossing to the north, which would be expensive. The road was not located on the developers property. The developer was favoring the City by not creating another curbcut. She thought if the other property was ever to develop there would be an opportunity to ask for improvements. Mr. Reynolds did not believe this street would ever connect with 15th Street. • • • Subdivision Meeting April 17, 1997 Page 5 Ms. Johnson asked if there would ever be access in the future to the west. Mr. Forney did not believe there was anything planned. Ms. Little stated the street was private and the developer had a cross access agreement with the other property owner. If the city was choosing to change that and wanted a provision for access to the west then they should ask for 25 feet of right-of-way off the developer's south property line. They normally took half from both property owners. Mr. Reynolds commented there was a creek to the north and a rail road to the west. He did not believe it would be beneficial to have the street. Ms. Little stated they were proposing to use the existing vegetation for screening. Ms. Sandeen stated that the screening must be installed before a Certificate of Occupancy would be issued for any of the facilities, however, a temporary C of 0 could be issued for up to 90 days MOTION Mr. Forney moved forward the item to the Planning commission to give them more time to look at the street connections. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. ��Z • • Subdivision Meeting April 17, 1997 Page 6 LSD97-6.00: Large Scale Development (Meadow Brooks Apartments, pp 520) was submitted by Grafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located north of Old Farmington Road and west of Razorback Road The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 13.27 acres. Findings: The issues of slope stability and downstream sewer capacity have been looked at closely by Engineering and will continue to be discussed as final plans are prepared and reviewed. Parks fees was another issue which has now been resolved. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives) All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval 4. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $28,800.00 (120 units @ $240.00) in lieu of park land dedication per City Council decision 4/15/97. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 4' sidewalk with a minimum 6' greenspace along both Sang and Stone Streets. 6. Revision of plat to show plat page 520 in title block. 7. Street improvements to include the total width of Sang Street up to and including the entrance to the project in lieu of construction of one half of a street the entire length of the property. 8. Dedication of right of way along the entire south property line (Stone Street) to equal 25' from centerline. S3 • • Subdivision Meeting April 17, 1997 Page 7 Subdivision Committee Action: Mr. Jerry Kelso, Crafton, Tull and Associates, presented the plan which had been shown at the City Council Meeting for the waiver of park land for money in lieu. At the City Council Meeting, Mr. Linsley had stated any disturbed areas would be sodded. All the cut slopes would be heavily planted with dense pines. The rest of the area would be fenced off for tree preservation during construction. Ms. Little stated the development proposed 120 units, which required a mandatory park land dedication. The City Council had ruled for a $28, 800 contribution to help develop parks in this part of town in lieu of land dedication. There were issues concerning slope stability and down stream sewer capacity, which the engineering division had been working on. She stated the normal street improvement requirement was for the developer to improve one-half of the area along their site to meet street current standards. Sang Street began to steepen after the entry of this development. The developer had offered to improve 100% of Sang Street to their entrance, in -lieu of half a street along the entire length of their property. The City would normally ask for right-of-way, but the street was not along their property. Stone Street was currently a curbed and guttered street It also ended prior to the end of the project. They were going to use the current street to access the last building #3. The staff had asked for dedication of right-of-way, 25 feet, to the west. They had decided not to ask for money, only right-of-way. Mr. Rutherford commented on the Sang Street entrance the sidewalk ended at the south side of the entrance. He asked if there would ever be a chance for the area to be improved Normally the City asked the sidewalks to run from property line to property line. If it was not ask for at this time, he would like to see the sidewalk continue through the dnveway part, so at the time it was connected to it was complete. Mr. Reynolds stated he would like to see the sidewalk continue through the driveway and continue to the end of the property. Mr. Beavers added the improvements to Sang Street may mean reconstruction of the entire street and not just the widening of the shoulders. Ms. Little added curb and gutter and drainage on both sides. She asked about the grade on the private drive coming down into the public street. • Mr. Kelso stated the grade was approximately 12%, which was similar to the existing grade on Sang Street currently. 611 • • • Subdivision Meeting April 17, 1997 Page 8 Ms. Little stated the City did not have a standard for a private street for coming to a flat before it entered on to a public street. She suggested if the entrance was brought more with the contours then it could flatten before intersecting with Sang Street. She expressed concern about people exiting the parking lot if they were in a slide situation would not be able to stop before coming into a public street. Mr. Kelso explained they had placed the entrance there because of the direct access to Main. If they were to move the entrance then it would cause the drive to be very steep. Ms. Johnson added people needed to be able to stop. Mr. Kelso stated they would do the best they could to flatten out at the entrance, without making the rest of the drive too steep. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Lynn Schaper, alderman, expressed concern about the project because to the amount of cutting and filling. He noted the City Council was working on a new ordinance as a result of Marvin Gardens and other developments. He thought the existing ordinance 161.02 B "the development shall conform to the natural contours of the land, natural drainage ways, and other existing site conditions " He did not see how cutting and filling 80% of the site could be in agreement with the ordinance or in agreement with the intent of the ordinance, which was to control excessive grading, clearing, filling and cutting. He knew they had met all the engineering requirements in terms of 1:3 slopes. This was a massive cut and fill operation. He was not opposed to the proposed density or number of units, but the amount of cutting and filling to accommodate the 120 unites. Mr. Kelso felt they were going with the contours. If they had laid the building out different then they would have to do more cutting and filling. Mr. Schaper 80% of the site being cut and filled was massive. It would destroy 13 acres of the hillside. He thought it would be possible to develop this more sympathetically with the existing environment. Mr. Fomey asked why the entry was pushed back. Mr. Kelso stated they had to get a 3:1 slope along the buildings. If they were to push the whole thing back then they could not obtain the 3:1 slope. Mr. Forney commented if they did not change the existing grade then they could do that. Mr. Kelso replied in order to get the balance between the buildings it would have to be filled. • Subdivision Meeting April 17, 1997 Page 9 Mr. Kelso stated they had placed each row of buildings along the contours. In order to do that they had to have separations in order to get their 3:1 slopes to the buildings. If they were tighter in they could not do that. Mr. Forney asked if they could brake the units within the building to work with the slopes. It was a table top layout The design was not as responsive to the slopes as it could be. Mr. Schaper stated it was basically 175 feet shelf being carved out of the hillside in order to accommodate this style of development, which was unsuitable for this hillside. He added they did not do this type of development in California where dense hillside developments were common. The believe the ordinance required the commissioners to deny the item as it was drawn because it did not conform to the natural contours of the land and drainage ways. He did not expect the engineers to agree, but it was up to the Planning Commission to interpret the ordinance, which was to control excessive grading, cutting, filling. He suggested there were alternate ways of doing this development which would result with far less grading and cutting and still achieving the same density. Mr. William Combs, an area resident, questioned where Sang Street would be extended if it were to develop beyond Main Street. Mr. Kelso stated he did not know what the plans were north of Sang Street. They would improve the street to the project's entrance, which was where Main Street come in. They would construct curb and gutter and install new storm drainage in. He had no control over the improvements north of that. They did not own that land. Ms Little stated the existing 30 feet right-of-way line did go to their property line. They would receive detailed plans on that later. Mr. Albertson, an area resident, stated his access was on a private drive. He stated an access easement had been dedicated to him in 1974 to get to his property. He had used the access for 25 years. He confirmed people often slid off the road during the snow and ice. He thought people would be sliding off the proposed entrance of the development. Mr. Forney commented the grading was hard to read because the regrading was not shown. It was only showing the regrading of the overall area, they were not seeing the actual grade on the road. • Mr. Kelso stated the actual grade on the road would be almost flat, like a regular street. Mr. Beavers stated there was no right-of-way along Main Street, but there was a waterline Subdivision Meeting April 17, 1997 • Page 10 • • easement. Ms. Little added area residents had private rights to use the easement. There was right-of-way to the north. Mr. Alberston expressed his concern about access to lus property as well as the increased traffic on Sang Street during the mornings and after school. He did not believe Main Street could handle the extra traffic. He expressed concern for the kids at Ramey School. Mr. Jackie Rich, an area resident. questioned where the proposed buildings would be in relation to his home. Mr. Kelso showed him. Ms. Little requested proof of notification. Mr. Kelso stated they given the notifications to the City to mail out. It had been his understanding they were to give the adjoining property owners addresses to the city. Ms. Little explained on large scale development they developer was to publish the notice in the paper or send a certified letter. The staff did some notification in addition. Mr. Kelso did not know if they had done that. Ms. Little stated they would check to see if notification had been done, because this was to controversial of an Item to act on today. Mr. Reynolds stated if the public notice had not been done the Subdivision Committee would table the item and it would have to come back to Subdivision, they could not forward until there had been public notification. Ms. Johnson requested an additional vicinity map to study possible street connections. She felt they needed to be cautious, because there were no connection between Sang Street and Hwy 71. She felt there could be connections sometime in the future Mr. Beavers asked where National large scale development fit into the area. Mr. Kelso stated National was one property away. Mr. Beavers did not believe Stone Street could go west because National had it blocked. • Subdivision Meeting April 17, 1997 Page 11 Ms. Little commented National had not been built and the large scale was over one year old. Which meant it would be looked at again. Mr. Reynolds asked if National were to come back to them if they would be able to get a connection to Stone Street. Ms Little added Ramey School had opposed the connection from 6th Street to Stone Street believing the buses would experience additional traffic on the street, however, they did not know this development was going in. Mr. Reynolds asked about the long lane west of Ramey that went to a farm. Ms Little stated the City had right-of-way which was going to be used to connect into Stone Street. The School had recently built a building in that area. Mr. Forney agreed with Ms. Johnson and asked for a better vicinity map. Ms Johnson stated they needed to look at the National's file to see how the two would fit together and if they had required a one year condition. Ms. Little stated they had been notifying developers to contact the planning department to let the City know what their plans were. Mr. Schaper noted no signs were posted on the property. Ms. Little replied no signs were required for large scales or subdivisions. Mr. Schaper asked how the run off would be carried away from the adjoin property. He did not see any why to divert the run off. Mr. Reynolds agreed with Mr. Schaper and requested a plan illustrating the proposed drainage and all other questionable items shown. Ms. Johnson stated they would need the drainage plan to illustrate the tunoff and swale. Mr. Rutherford requested the sidewalk to be shown to the property line. Ms. Little stated the developer did not own the property, but in lieu of constructing the street they had agreed to construct 100% of the street to the entry. They were expecting the sidewalk to extend in the street right-of-way. 5� Subdivision Meeting April 17, 1997 Page 12 Ms Johnson clarified there would be a sidewalk along the entire eastern most boundary of the rectangle. Including both sides of Sang, beyond Main only one side. and the entire length along Stone Street. Mr. Forney asked if there would be any retaining walls. Mr. Kelso stated there would not be, they were going to use 3:1 slopes. In response to a question from Mr. Schaper, Mr. Beavers stated the project met the engineering requirements. Ms. Little informed Mr. Kelso he could have notified adjacent property owners by certified mail or notice in the paper. Ms. Warrick added he could have the adjoining property owners sign off on a plat. MOTION - Ms. Johnson moved to forward the item to the Planning Commission on the condition that the public notice had been given and the developer providing the requested information. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • Subdivision Meeting April 17, 1997 Page 13 LSD97-1.00: Large Scale Development (Panels by Mikey, pp 642) was submitted by Audy Lack of Hiegel -Miller Architects on behalf of Panels by Mikey, Inc. for property located east of City Lake Road and south of Pump Station Road. The property is zoned I-1 (Heavy Commercial / Light Industrial) and 1-2 (General Industrial) and contains approximately 2.0 acres. Findings: This project is located on the parcel of land which had been requested to be split from the U.S. Post Office site (this lot split has not been approved at this time). The proposed use is manufacturing of steel building panels. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives) 2. All Improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6' sidewalk with a minimum 10' greenspace along City Lake Road. 5. Submittal of an easement plat for this project prior to the issuance of any building permits. Subdivision Committee Action: Ms. Little stated the developers had eliminated a curbcut near the south property line. They now have one driveway into the property which was located two-thirds of the way to the north. They also had the elevation which was required under the Commercial Design Standards because of the office space. U° Subdivision Meeting April 17, 1997 Page 14 In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Audy Lack. representative, stated they were going to construct both phases at one time. Ms. Little stated they did not have any out standing issues at this time. The only problem was from the lots split for the Post Office. One of the conditions for the lot split for the Post Office was the construction of a sidewalk. The City did not know where the Post Office was on the construction of the sidewalk. She did not see any reason to delay the developer on that condition. She added that if the large scale approval was granted that it be effective for one year. Mr. Forney asked if the old curb cut would be filled in or left. Mr. Lack replied they had no plans to change it. Ms. Little stated they had not discussed it in detail. They had requested that they not use it as a drive on the previous plat. They had removed the drive. She added the drive was more of an apron. Mr. Forney stated he preferred the developer to repair the edge of the street rather than leave it - ragged. • Mr. Lack replied it was a continuous asphalt surface. Mr. Rutherford added it would need to meet the 10 feet greenspace. Ms. Little clanfied there needed to be 10 feet of space between the edge of the pavement and the beginning of the sidewalk. Mr. Reynolds asked why they were accepting SB2 in a parking area. Ms. Little replied the graveled area would be the storage area for their product. It was not technically a parking area. She asked if all of the parking spaces were paved. Mr. Lack responded all of the parking spaces were paved. The dumpster pads and recycling pads were concrete. Ms. Little clarified the drive for the trucks was paved to the loading docks and the storage area was gravel. She added this would be a dust producer. There were adjoining industrial neighbors. Mr. Reynolds noted there were also residential neighbors across the road. Mr. Lack stated the traffic on the storage area would be minimal. It was an area for the storage • l�� • Subdivision Meeting April 17, 1997 Page 15 of material and product. There might be a lift to pick materials. It would not be used as a commercial parking lot. Ms. Johnson asked what material had been used for Rideout's storage area. She expressed concern about this storage area becoming a dust problem like Rideout. Mr. Beavers stated he had received a drainage report from Garber and Garber, the drainage plan was adequate as a preliminary, but they had some work to do for a final. Ms. Little stated they would need to know the landowner or proposed landowner, so they would know who's signature to look for. Mr. Lack replied it had been his understanding and his clients understanding that the Chamber would get the site ready. They were to make sure all the easements were in. Ms. Little advised him to be very careful in the coordination of that the City had requested an easement during the lot split that had not occurred. There was not power lines crossing the street in two locations rather than one. If they had provided the easement that had been requested they - could have serviced both lots with one crossing. Mr. Lack replied, it had been his understanding there was adequate service to the property. Ms. Little replied the existing service to the house did not extend to the property. It went north. Mr. Burrack, SWEPCO, had told her he would have to cross the street again. She noted it was not Mr. Lack's fault, but she wanted to make sure what he got what he was asking. Mr. Reynolds asked if the legals were correct. Ms. Little replied the legals looked good. Mr. Beavers asked if the lot existed. Ms. Little replied as a condition of the lot split, the Post Office had to build the sidewalks. She was looking for the sidewalks. She had not see the sidewalk. She suggested reiteratmg to the Chamber that the sidewalks were effecting their development. Mr. Lack stated they had spoken with them and had stressed that to them. It had been difficult to do that until they were at a point they were being held up. • Ms. Little stated they were being held up. • • Subdivision Meeting April 17, 1997 Page 16 Mr. Beavers asked if the Chamber was going to do the dirt work. Mr. Lack stated it still had to be worked out in the purchase agreement as far as who was to do what in getting the lot ready. The basic understanding was that the utilities would be present. Mr. Beavers informed the Chamber had to go through the normal review process. Mr. Reynolds asked if the Chamber was going to provide water and sewer to them. Ms. Johnson questioned the gravel storage area. Ms. Little stated the storage was for the storage of materials used to fabricate. The fabncation would take place in the plant and would be loaded onto the truck. She asked if there would be finished inventory on site. Mr. Lack replied he did not know if there would be finished inventory on site, but he would find out. Ms Little thought it would help them understand the business better. Mr. Lack stated they had a plant in Little Rock, where they built entire wall panels that could be taken to a site. They locked together to fabncate a building. The size of the panels ranged from building to building. Ms. Johnson thought the Planning Commission needed to see the ordinance Justifying the storage area not being paved. She suggested the condition of it not being paved would be the limited use the area would have. Ms. Little commented they had asked them staff about the storage area early on. They had explained as long as it was storage area it would not have to be paved If they were going to create a dust problem then it would have to be paved In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Lack stated he had not planned to buffer for noise. Mr Reynolds thought there should be some type of buffer between the development and the residence to the north. Ms. Little explained by buffer they meant earth and berm or vegetative planting. She added they had required screening m A-1 zoning areas when the area was used as a residence, the screening would be consistent with what they had done in the past. If the land was plain A-1 then they • • Subdivision Meeting April 17, 1997 Page 17 would not require screening, but if there was a house there then they would require screening Mr. Lack questioned how they would protect all of the surrounding area from noise from this industrial area. Ms Johnson thought the Foster's residence could be far enough away that they would not be affected by the noise. Ms. Little asked Mr. Lack to furnish adjoining features such as curbcuts and adjacent residences and the distance. Mr. Lack believed at that distance would not be affective. Mr. Reynolds noted the noise from the industrial park echoed against the mountain. MOTION Mr. Forney moved to forward the item to the Planning Commission with staff comments for - resolution of the lot split contingence and surface of paving area, buffenng and screening, and curb cut. He added they would not see it at the Planning commission level until the issue of the sidewalk had been resolved. Ms Johnson seconded the motion.