Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-30 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Friday, July 30, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PPL 04-1143: (Estates At Salem Hills Phase 11) Page 2 LSD 04-1129: (Wal-Mart Mall Avenue Stockroom, 173) Page 6 PPL 04-1141: (Schlegel Subdivision) Page 14 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Candy Clark Sean Trumbo STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Rebecca Ohman Dawn Warrick Mau Casey ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Tabled MEMBERS ABSENT Christian Vaught Loren Shackelford STAFF ABSENT Mike Rozelle Suzanne Morgan Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 2 PPL 04-1143: Preliminary Plat (ESTATES AT SALEM HILLS PH. 11): Submitted by TOM HENNELLY for property located at SALEM ROAD, NORTH & WEST OF PHASE I. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 140.58 acres. The request is to approve a portion of a residential subdivision with 14 single family lots inside the Planning Area and the remaining 42 lots in the county. Anthes: We are going to start the July 30"' meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. We have three items on the agenda today. The first one is PPL 04-1141 for Schlegel Subdivision. Will the applicant come forward? Should we hear it without the applicant present? Warrick: We can bump it to the end. Anthes: We will go to item two, Preliminary Plat for Estates at Salem Hills. Hennelly: I'm Tom Hennelly with Tomlinson Asphalt. Pate: This item is a Preliminary Plat for a residential subdivision in the Planning area of the City of Fayetteville outside of the city limits. Only a portion of that property is within the Planning Area. If you will notice about 1/3 of the way up the sheet north/south is where the boundary is. The remaining portion of the property is within the county beyond our jurisdiction for review. This is Phase II of the Estates at Salem Hills. You may remember to the east the Estates at Salem Hills Phase I, which is currently under construction. We went out and drove that road recently on one of the Planning Commission tours. The applicant this morning is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat for a 56 lot residential subdivision on approximately 140 acres. This subdivision is located north of Salem Road east of Rupple Road. Phase I, as I mentioned, is adjacent to the subject property to the east. There was a stub out required with that development that they are tying into. That is called Cedar Ridge Lane. The southern portion of the property containing all or portions of lots 1 through 13, 32, 55 and 56 are located within the Planning Area. The remaining lots are within Washington County. We do not have design standards outside of the Planning area. Connectivity to the subdivision is being provided from Phase I of the subdivision, Cedar Ridge Lane. Additional connectivity is provided to the west and proposed future connection to the north, which would be in the county. Individual septic systems are proposed. Sewer systems are not extended beyond the city limits. There are lots in this particular subdivision that are less than 1.5 acres and require a conditional letter of approval from the Washington County Health Department prior to the approval of the Preliminary Plat and permits prior to approval of the Final Plat. Staff is recommending that this Preliminary Plat be forwarded to the full Planning Commission subject to nine conditions of approval. Item one is essentially the conditional letter of approval for any lots with Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 3 individual septic systems on lots less than 1.5 acres do need to be obtained and submitted to the Planning Division prior to Planning Commission review. Items three and four are just plat review comments. Item five, a Property Line Adjustment to actually create the western boundary of Lot 55, which is in process does need to be filed prior to Final Plat approval. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Tom, would you like to give your presentation? Hennelly: Really I don't have any problem with any of the conditions of approval. We do have the Health Department working on a conditional letter for those lots that are less than 1.5 acres. If they are not able to give us that we do have some additional property that will stub out out between Lot 13 and 14 where it says P.O.A. park where we can gain some additional property within those lots and make then 1.5 acres if we need to. I will have that letter by the time it goes to Planning Commission. Anthes: Are those the only two that are undersized? Hennelly: Well, actually 13 and 14 aren't undersized necessarily. It is 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13 that have area within the Planning Boundary. The county does not require the conditional approval for lots less than 1.5 acres. That is just a city requirement. Other than that, we are providing, the right of way shown on Lot 43 is just temporary to just show that we do intend on at some point continuing the development either to the north or to the north and the east. Clark: Lot 43 is going to be a big bonus to somebody. Hennelly: As long as they pay a lot for it. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners for discussion. Dawn, will you remind us what the Planning Area restrictions are and what we evaluate on these? Warrick: Within the planning area the city imposes subdivision regulations. We are looking at the orderly configuration of lots, connectivity and ensuring that water is provided to each of the lots that are being created. Anthes: Streets and traffic we have very little to do with. Warrick: Connectivity, if there is a Master Street Plan street then we are looking at that. That is not the situation in this particular case. Anthes: Thank you very much. We don't look at tree preservation in this area correct? Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 4 Warrick: Right. Anthes: Are there any other comments or questions? Obviously, we have quite a bit of topography here. Our grading and drainage doesn't come into play either? Warrick: No. Trumbo: It appears to me that there are only a few lots in the city's planning area. I guess we are just to look at that? Warrick: That is the only area that our ordinances are applicable. We can only control within that area that is within our boundary. Anthes: I'm pleased to see that we are making this connection on Cedar Ridge Lane. I understand that if you do not obtain the approval for those lots that are less than 1.5 acres it comes back to subdivision, is that what happens? Pate: Not necessarily. Basically, prior to our Planning Commission review if there are lots shown at less than 1.5 acres we will need that letter of conditional approval. If that has not been obtained either the item will be tabled or the lots enlarged so that they are at least 1.5 acres. Hennelly: You will have to have copies of that revised plat by your review meeting. Clark: Then that will go onto the full Planning Commission? Warrick: This is a Preliminary Plat, it is required to go to the full Planning Commission. Anthes: In either case, whether or not they obtain the letter we can hear it at Planning Commission and they will either have to provide the letter or a revised drawing? Warrick: Correct. Clark: That only affects what is within our planning area? Warrick: That is correct. There are four or five lots that would need to be adjusted should the county not be able to issue the conditional approval. Clark: I'm not seeing anything about water to these sites within the planning area. Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page S Hennelly: We are tying onto the water line that we put in with Phase I at the end of Cedar Ridge, the gray shaded portion there where you see Phase I, tying it in. I met with Dave Jurgens and Matt about being able to provide sufficient pressure and flow for a loop this size. I think if I'm understanding right, we came up with a solution to be able to tie this in and loop it together to where the Health Department and the city would not have a problem with it. There is sufficient water for the development. Casey: Our concern was the ability for the lines to be looped and not a dead end line. We worked with Dave Jurgens, our Water and Sewer Maintenance Supervisor to come up with a plan to adequately connect back into the system where we could isolate the different mains and not have to shut down the entire subdivision if a break occurs. That was the concern at plat review and we have worked out a solution to that without having extensive offsite improvements. Hennelly: That solution was worked out after this plat was revised. The comment that Matt had after Technical Plat Review was initially I showed the water line running between lots 10 and 11 to the northern portion of the development and I revised it. He wanted it running down the road on the south side of lots 8, 9, 10 and I had that revision made. It wasn't until after I already made the changes, made the copies and submitted that that we found a solution to actually looping the line. That is not reflected in the layout of the water. Clark: When it comes back to the full Planning Commission it will be reflected? Hennelly: Yes. MOTION: Clark: I will move that we forward PPL 04-1143 onto the Planning Commission with the conditions of approval listed. Trumbo: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 6 LSD 04-1129: Large Scale Development (WAL-MART @ MALL AVE STOCKROOM, 173): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 3919 N MALL AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 24.93 acres. The request is to approve a 15,607 s.f. stockroom, 109 space parking lot, a glass canopy addition at the existing garden center, and a trail connection to the new city bike path. Anthes: The second item we will hear today is item three on your agenda, LSD 04- 1129 for Wal-Mart at Mall Avenue stock room. Would the applicant please come forward? Pate: This is the second property expansion that we have seen from Wal-Mart stores in the City of Fayetteville. The first of which was approved a couple of weeks ago on the 6"' Street Wal-Mart. This request is to approve a 15,600 sq.ft. stockroom expansion with 109 parking spaces proposed. Also, a glass canopy addition at the existing garden center and a trail connection to the nearest city trail along Mudd Creek. This property is located at the southwest corner of Mall Avenue and Joyce Blvd. It is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Wal-Mart, it's accessory structures and the parking lot occupy the subject property. Back in January the applicant requested the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use to allow outdoor storage trailers on this site. Those had been stored on the site through the 2003-2004 holiday season. The request was tabled at this meeting and the trailers have since been removed. In order to provide the additional storage for this retail store the applicant has proposed an additional approximately 15,000 sq.ft. structure which is detached from the existing Wal-Mart to the south of the Wal-Mart. Warehousing is a Conditional Use in the C-2 zoning district. It is the primary use of this structure and therefore, the applicant has submitted a Conditional Use permit in tandem with this request which must go through the full Planning Commission. Additionally, in conjunction with this stockroom addition is approximately a 7,304 sq.ft. canopy addition to the existing garden center, much like the addition of Wal-Mart on 6`, Street. The parking area, 109 parking spaces will be added to the east of the proposed structure in order to provide additional parking lost with the removal of 46 spaces with the gas station currently under construction at the corner of Mall and Joyce. As I mentioned, a trail connection to be worked out with the Parks Division from this site is proposed. Both of these items, with the tandem Conditional Use request, this item will need to go to the full Planning Commission for review. Staff is recommending forwarding this Large Scale Development to the full Planning Commission with 14 conditions. This is a commercial structure therefore, there is the Planning Commission determination of compliance with commercial design standards. Staff finds that the proposed elevations are in compliance with the commercial design standards. Item two, Planning Commission determination with regard to lesser dedication of right of way Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 7 on Joyce Blvd. and Mall Avenue. Staff recommends in favor of a lesser dedication in this fully developed area for which the current right of way infrastructure is adequate. Item three, approval of the Large Scale Development is contingent upon the Planning Commission approval of the Conditional Use. The remaining items are standard conditions. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Do we have other staff reports? Casey: At plat review we asked the applicant to provide detention for this site. They have since provided documentation showing that this area in the original design of the site was planned as being paved. They submitted that information supporting their petition. They do, however, propose filters to be used on their storm sewer system that will address the quality concerns for the storm water runoff and the parking area into the wetland area. Anthes: Parks? Ohman: Todd, if you could flag the future trail for Steve Hatfield and let him know that you've done that. Anthes: Would the applicant introduce yourself and your project please? Jacobs: I'm Todd Jacobs with CEI Engineering. Wilgus: I'm Dave Wilgus, Harrison French Architecture. Jacobs: What we are proposing is a large free standing stockroom. The main reason for this was we did come back in January asking for a Conditional Use for storage units. A lot of the stockroom will be used for lay away during the Christmas season and also used seasonally for the garden center. The additional parking is part of Wal -Mart's requirement with this shopping center area. Also, with this we will provide a trail connection down to the new creek. We have roughly shown it on the site plan and how it connects. It has been rough graded out already so it is no big deal. Provide the landscaping in the parking aisles and also the additional trees on the southwest corner to help shield the stockroom and the parking lot from the trail connection and future developments to the southwest. Dave may talk a little bit about the elevations of the stockroom/warehouse. Wilgus: Basically, the first submittal we submitted was more of a generic Wal- Mart prototype. It wasn't sufficient so we came back and really took a look at materials from the main building and mixing that with design elements or architectural elements from the strip mall in that area. There is an "L" shape with the store on the west side and the strip mall running down the south side of the site. In the package is some photographs. This Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 8 is the elevation directly in front of the stockroom addition. We looked at the corners, we looked at the parapet and having a center parapet. We also looked down the north facing elevation strip mall, every store is pretty much identified with some sort of verticality. We played with that theme, we played with painting the canopies blue, something to try to pull in elements from the strip mall. The one thing that Wal-Mart is doing is spending more money on their visible sides of their elevations. In taking those photographs out there I realized that from the trail this is the backside of the strip mall. You can see it here and here. This photo here is taken looking at the bike connection here. What we are proposing is to consider softening the elevation with primary visual elevations and secondary non -visual elevations so we have two of each. We went over that with the Planning Department. That is how you will see on our elevation submittal we have two elevations with all of the articulation and then you have just the split faced integrated color CMU to match the building. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners for comments. Clark: Talk to me about the existing tree canopy on this site. There are some fairly large trees and I'm not sure how they fall within the radius of what you are going to be doing. Jacobs: We have 16 eastern pines that are 6" in caliper. All of those will be removed. Basically what is existing there on the berm will be taken down to a reasonable grade. We do have those that we are taking out. As far as the tree mitigation goes, we are replanting six existing red buds to the south closest to the trail for the tree mitigation. In addition, we are going to go ahead and plant nine larger trees, pin oaks, to help shield the back side of this stock room. Clark: I'm ok with the six mitigation trees, where are the pin oaks showing? Jacobs: Over here. I think as far as the mitigation goes what is actually required is four trees. I talked with Craig before he left and four was the mitigation. We replaced the four and have gone beyond that to help screen it. We would like to try to save some of those trees but a lot of it depends on when construction falls out. If it does fall out this fall there is a possibility we can transplant those and put them back here for additional screening. That wouldn't cost Wal-Mart that much. It just depends on when we start construction. If it is in the fall or winter, which it should be as quickly as possible if everything goes well. It still may be a little too hot to plant the trees with a good chance of survival. Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 9 Anthes: Does staff have any comments or know what Craig's intention was on that? Pate: There are actually a couple of items that have not been placed on this plan and we are requesting that you look in your packets on the tree preservation report. Some of the questions have been answered just by Todd's presentation. The information regarding location, size and type of the trees proposed to be removed, we are a little unsure about exactly which of those were proposed to be removed and/or relocated. We will have to take that into consideration. I believe that transplanting these trees, which were planted originally with the overall Wal-Mart development, would be something that we could work with the applicant on and make sure that the proper measures of course, are taken. We have seen that condition in another Large Scale. Clark: It seems to me if you planted the trees reusing them in a different location would be a very utilitarian thing to do. Secondly, if you are making an attempt to tie onto the bike trail, which I think is a great thing to do out there. Again, aesthetics would be important and screening the "big" building from the bike trail would be a very good thing. I am really disappointed in this report by the way. I would have liked to have seen a few more specifics. You did good Jeremy. Warrick: The tree preservation report will be further elaborated on before this goes to Planning Commission. Anthes: I would like a little more clarification too. These trees were required as mitigation in the original development and there are 16 of them. Pate: No. The trees are planted as landscaping in the original Wal-Mart development. Jacobs: I couldn't find in our records if they were mitigation trees or not. I couldn't find it and Jeremy couldn't find it either. We feel it was probably planted at the time for screening against the big box store. Anthes: I guess my question is if there were 16 trees required for a specific reason why our mitigation requirements only require four of those be replaced? Pate: I agree with you. That is one of our comments on the conditions of approval because one of the reasons that this report is not as sufficient as it needs to be at the Subdivision level is because we were lacking information at this level from Technical Plat Review to get to the Planning Commission. If we still have not received that information before Planning Commission this item will need to be tabled. We are lacking some information to that point as well. In our search through our records Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 10 of the Wal-Mart store we do not believe that these were actually required trees. They were just planted by the developer as part of their project. They weren't mitigation trees. This was built in 1994 or sometime around that area. I think we were under some different tree preservation ordinance as well. There are several circumstances here that we are trying to compile some information on. Clark: So the next time we see this we will have a more flushed out idea of what the tree situation is? Jacobs: Definitely. We will get with Jeremy and take care of it. Anthes: We of course, saw a similar request on the 6`h Street Wal-Mart recently and were able to get quite a significant amount of onsite improvements as part of that project. There were some sidewalks and some other things that were needed at that location. I'm assuming since we have not requested it here that those things were placed on this site? Warrick: The 6a' Street Wal-Mart was developed quite some time before this one was. This one was developed in the early to mid 90's when we did have more ordinances in place with regard to sidewalk improvements and things like that. Sidewalks are in place in this location. There is a condition on here with regard to right of way for Joyce and Mall Avenue. As you know, with a Large Scale Development we typically do require that right of way be dedicated to comply with the city's Master Street Plan. Both of these streets are built out to the fullest width they can be built out with regard to the surrounding development on Mall Avenue and Joyce Street as a five lane section. The existing right of way is not the full Master Street Plan right of way in either of those locations but staff does not feel that a dedication of right of way would be appropriate in this situation because there is not an impact caused by this development on the need for right of way and it would not provide the city any ability to widen those streets anymore than what is currently there. That is one thing that we looked at. Staff made a recommendation for a lesser dedication. With regard to your other items, sidewalks are installed. The landscaping complies with current regulations and we feel like this plan is up to snuff. It meets today's code. Clark: It is very well developed out there with sidewalks, etc. Anthes: Let's look at the conditions of approval. The first one is commercial design standards. I'm not finding that the south or west elevation does meet our requirements for articulation. I understand that they are rear facades but we are facing these onto a public right of way with the trail system and that sort of thing. Staff, do you have comments about why this west and south elevation were viewed as in compliance by staff? Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page I1 Warrick: Basically, as has been said, we were focusing on the areas of the structure that would be primarily viewed from the public. The east, of course, is the most visible elevation. The west elevation as the western elevation of the Wal-Mart building itself, is very utilitarian and not very visible from the public. The drive that goes behind the structure is for truck traffic. We didn't feel that that was anything that needed to be treated specially because it was not something that was very visible. It does not have a great impact. The south elevation, that one is more visible to those individuals who would utilize the trail system. The applicants provided quite a bit of screening and propose to plant that area quite heavily. The trail connection is actually quite a bit further east of the structure. By the time you reach that area on the trail there is an elevation change and I'm not sure if that is real visible in the photographs. Wilgus: This is from the bike trail connection. This photo is taken almost in line with this drive standing out in the trail right here. This is from the back side standing at about the culvert looking this direction. This photo is looking back down at the strip mall. Anthes: We are not in the Overlay District. I still have a real problem with this west and south elevation. I can see your point on the west side and yet I'm looking for consistency with what we have required other developers to do on other properties. I'm thinking recently the Harps out west of town and some other things where we required at least some banding and things. I would really like to see that on the west. The south, I'm anticipating commissioners comments at Planning Commission. Because of the trail situation and it is my understanding that landscape screening cannot be used as mitigation for commercial design standards and therefore, I would really like to see some more treatment on this south fagade. Clark: I can hear it in Planning Commission coming your way, I promise. I'm not an architect but some minimal banding, some minimal work to make it look less like a big, blank wall would be more in line with the overlay standards. I realize it is a stock room but it still has to meet minimum standards so I would like to see something that would articulate it a little better. Anthes: Particularly since it is a stockroom. It is a Conditional Use for warehousing in this area that is coming along with this. Therefore, we might allow that use but I would appreciate it if it had the appearance of more of a retail component rather than warehousing to be in keeping with the surroundings. Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 12 Clark: I certainly appreciate the work that you have done on the other two elevations, the north and the east. I think it does tie in well with what is out in the strip mall. I am thinking that this west elevation even you need to pay some attention to simply because that area to the west behind the building is in fact, going to develop eventually. I don't want you to get into a catch 22. I don't know how cheaply it can be done. Wilgus: We were just trying to look at the surroundings and match our surroundings. What I would propose for our resubmittal deadline is to take the stripe all the way around all four and then go with the integral colored block definition. What I would like to not do until we get further on is add the pilasters and the tall parapets. If that sounds like a scheme to start with. Clark: That is understandable. Wilgus: I will go with the colors and then wait until we have to come up with the parapets. That is where the cost is. We are buying block anyway, it is already split faced. To change the color is not any big deal. We are already having the striped band on there, that is not any big deal. Clark: I think that is a good compromise. This is the back and the side. Anthes: We will see it and we can evaluate it at that time. Trumbo: I would be in favor of that. Anthes: The next item is lessening the right of way dedication, which Dawn addressed. Clark: Will we see that Conditional Use at the same time? Jacobs: Yes. Anthes: You are screening the trash compactor, you are repairing some sidewalks. We are going to see a new landscape plan. Clark: All of the conditions of approval you all are in agreement with? Jacobs: Yes. Clark: Do we want to add a condition about the west and the south or not? Anthes: That will be handled. My question is about the transplantation of trees. That is what I would like to add as a condition. I think Jeremy had some good verbiage there. That the trees that are going to be removed in this Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 13 berm area that every effort be made to transplant those trees to locations that are suitable to the Landscape Administrator and staff and that protection and method... Pate: Appropriate transplantation with a licensed contractor will be required. MOTION: Clark: I will move that we forward LSD 04-1129 to the full Planning Commission. Wilgus: Can I ask a question clarifying item nine? That glazed canopy has been submitted to the building department and then we attached it to this Conditional Use. Am I reading number nine to say at what point can the garden center be removed from this connection and we can go ahead and permit it? Warrick: Staff's intent on condition nine was to allow the permit for the canopy to be approved and issued prior to all of the conditions and guarantees and everything to be submitted to permit the stock room. As soon as the Planning Commission approves this item. Wilgus: Then our glazed canopy is released to permit? Warrick: That was our intention with that condition. Wilgus: When we came in from Technical Plat on #144 on 6`h Street, we took the TLE out of it at this stage, was that because we got approval at this stage? Warrick: It was because you got approval at the Subdivision level on the other because that was an addition to the existing structure. Wilgus: It wasn't worded that it was removed as part of the conditions at that time. It was based on the approval still? Warrick: Yes. Wilgus: I'm just bummed out that I just can't get it right now. Warrick: It is just a few more days. Anthes: We have a motion. Trumbo: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 14 PPL 04-1141: Preliminary Plat (SCHLEGEL SUBDIVISIOlS): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at THE SW CORNER OF DEANE SOLOMON AND SALEM. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 73.39 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 173 single family lots proposed. Anthes: The last item we will hear this morning is PPL 04-1141 for the Schlegel Subdivision. Will the applicant come forward? Pate: The last item this morning is for property located at the southwest corner of Deane Solomon and Salem. This subdivision is approximately 73 acres that was annexed and rezoned by the City Council earlier this year. The property is vacant currently. Single family residences are north of the subject property along West Salem Road. Areas to the west and the south are vacant. Crystal Springs subdivision Phase III is under construction. Those lots are not platted but the Preliminary Plat has been approved and it is under construction. Lot #4 of the springwoods C-PZD is the intervening property between this Schlegel property and Deane Solomon Road. The property's only existing frontage is approximately 271' along West Salem Road to the north. Gypsum Drive, a collector street, is shown on the Master Street Plan as an east and west connection. Anthes: Could you identify that for us? Pate: It is on the vicinity map of this plat and it is on the maps in your packet. Warrick: We are just working on the background. We will get to the conditions and staff s review of Pate: The applicant is requesting removal of this collector street from the Master Street Plan street from the development. There is attached correspondence with regard to their justification for that. As I mentioned, the annexation and rezoning request was approved by the City Council in April, 2004. As part of the annexation and rezoning request the major concerns sited at the time were fire response times which has been ameliorated with Fire Station #7. The waste water system capacity, a study was released and indicated that capacity is available for the number of lots proposed in this area and then traffic and access. As stated at the time, without improvements to West Salem Road to the north, which is currently a narrow gravel road in locations and an additional alternate means of access the proposed number of units would create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in this location. The applicant proposes to dedicate 60' for all interior streets for right of way. A minimum of 35' from centerline for West Salem Road which is a collector street on the Master Street Plan. 70' of right of way for Gypsum Drive is also a collector street that runs east/west through the property. Staff is recommending that 14' from centerline including pavement, curb, gutter, storm drains and 6' sidewalks along the property's frontage onto West Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 15 Salem Road be constructed with this development. The north side of the street will be required to be improved to Washington County standards. West Salem Road is also required to be widened to a minimum width of 20' of pavement from the project to the intersection of Deane Solomon to the east. That is probably best noted on the vicinity map. All interior streets shall be constructed to city specifications. A neighborhood park is recommended by the Parks and Recreation Board. I will let Rebecca go over that with you. It is shown here on the plat currently. Connectivity is probably one of the primary issues with this development. As I mentioned, currently West Salem is the only constructed access to this property. The applicant is proposing a connection to West Salem at the north. To Crystal Springs III, which is being constructed to the south and the intervening property, Lot 4, there is a stub out to that property currently shown. Then there is a vacant agricultural land that exists to the west. This property is not within the city limits. A stub out is proposed to the west and northern portion of the property. Staff has consistently identified the presence of the Master Street Plan collector street known as Gypsum Drive. I included staff reports from the original annexation request back in 2002 that mentions this Master Street Plan street traversing east/west within the subject property. The collector is shown to connect west from Salem Road through the subject property as an east/west through street eventually connecting Deane Solomon. Portions of Gypsum Drive have been removed from the Master Street Plan by the City Council with amendments with the springwoods development. Two actual Master Street Plan streets traversed that property through the wetland areas and those were removed due to concerns with potential impact to the existing wetlands in Clabber Creek. To the west a portion of Gypsum Drive was constructed when the Crystal Springs Phase I subdivision developed that does currently connect to Salem Road. In the spirit of the city's policy of connectivity and the adopted Master Street Plan, staff is recommending that a collector street be constructed with this proposed plat of 173 additional single family units. If the Master Street Plan collector in this location is recommended by the Planning Commission for removal or appealed by the developer for removal the City Council will need to hear that amendment to the Master Street Plan. At this time due to the outstanding issues with connectivity and partially based on discussion that will hopefully take part today and additionally with street connections related to the proposed number of units accessing substandard streets in the area, staff is unable to recommend forwarding this Preliminary Plat with a recommendation for approval. Staff is recommending at this time that the item be tabled and returned to the Subdivision Committee in order for the applicant to better address many of the issues that I just spoke of I won't go over all of these. Item number one is a collector street, Gypsum Drive. Item two, the addition of a collector street could potentially result in a realignment or a repositioning of the proposed park property that is in the general location where a collector street most logically would occur. Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 16 Item number three, sidewalks do need to be shown on both sides of all proposed streets. Along a collector street 6' sidewalks are required and along local streets 4' sidewalks are required. Staff is recommending sidewalks be shown surrounding the park property as part of the street improvements. That is considered part of our public improvements with street construction. Item four, Planning Commission determination of the presence of a landscape island at the south stub out. The applicant states that this is for traffic control. We just need to ensure that it does meet our minimum design standards and allow for emergency access. Item five, the proposed round about does need to be redesigned to conform to established standards and submitted for approval. Staff does believe that the Planning Commission needs to see this as well. Item number six is about the street improvements. Item number seven is just a plat note. The developer shall provide a payment in the amount of $72,600 into the city's tree fund prior to Final Plat approval. The tree preservation plan currently shown indicates that there is an amount to be preserved. However, the trees shown are all within utility easements and not shown to be protected on that plan. Therefore, as of this time, those trees are not preserved. The developer has indicated the desire to submit an onsite mitigation plan which was recently added to our ordinance as an option. Before that it was basically money in lieu for residential subdivisions but now we have an option. I believe if the other staff have any comments they can go over those for you. Casey: I think Jeremy covered most of Engineering's concerns. I did want to bring up one additional one that was not discussed at Plat Review. That is the islands located in the bulbs there at lot 130 and lot 124. There are some concerns that that might cause some traffic safety issues there so we need to look at that further. Also, we need to ensure that those lots will be able to have on street parking and still be able to get out of their driveways and maneuver around the proposed islands. That is something that we should have some additional information on to show that that will function. Jefcoat: We can detail those out for you a little better. We do have the width and everything is there. It is probably hard to see on this plan. We will provide you better details on those. We do feel that those are highly desirable for residential use and provide safety function as well as aesthetic. Anthes: Can I get you to wait? We are just going to get the staff reports and then we will get to your presentation. Jefcoat: I just wanted to address his issues. The federal standards, I did email you on the roundabouts and we are following those federal standards. Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 17 Casey: I will need some detailed information on that on what design criteria. I haven't read the entire geometric design portion. The main concern is the larger center line that is oval shaped instead of the circular dimension. Jefcoat: I see. Casey: The approach islands it looks like you have modified those. Also, at Plat Review we asked that the detention not be shown in the roundabout. Jefcoat: Right, we have taken that out. Casey: You have taken the note off but it looks like it is still shown. Jefcoat It will not be. Anthes: Parks? Ohman: There is a discrepancy in the amount of parkland required. They are showing 4.10 and we need 4.15 because of the two additional lots. The condition of approval states that that can be made up as money in lieu. We would really like to see that as a park if at all possible. If it is in fact a combination it has to go back to the Parks Board to get a separate recommendation from them because this is a major development it would have to be a request for a waiver that would go to City Council. This could exhume the process significantly. If you could find five hundredths of an acre for additional parkland that would be great. Hoskins: We will find it. Ohman: The other issue is, if in fact, the east/west connector happens and it bisects the shown parkland we would like to look at alternative options for locating that park within the subdivision. We do have concerns about locating the park along a collector street because of the uses that will happen in a neighborhood park. We want to look at providing the safest environment for the families and the children that will be using it so we would like to look at the option of moving it a block south so it would be surrounded by local streets rather than fronted by a collector. Anthes: Would the applicant please introduce yourselves and give your presentation? Hoskins: I'm Tracy Hoskins, I'm the owner and developer of the property. With me is Tom Jefcoat from Milholland Engineering. I'm going to have Tom do most of the presentation. Before we get into this thing basically, in the past with staff we have agreed with most everything that they have put before us. I would say about 99% of the time. In this particular project Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 18 we have to respectfully disagree about the through street. Tom is going to address that here in a few moments. I heard in the comments that there were a lot of issues of connectivity. This subdivision at this time has three points of connectivity. We have one at Salem Road. We also heard the comment about substandard roads as well. There are substandard roads around here and that is why we are improving every one of them. This connection to Salem Road, which goes all the way out to Deane Solomon Road, we are not just improving it along our property line, we are improving it all the way back to Deane Solomon Road basically across everybody else's property. This stub out is also to Deane Solomon Road. We are in direct contact with the folks that are developing this property in springwoods and we have already negotiated and already visited with them about collectively getting this out to Deane Solomon Road. This is not something that is going to happen after the fact of the subdivision going in. This is something that is going to happen first. Crystal Springs is under way right now being developed. This is a cross street that goes all the way over to Salem Road. This is being developed right now. The streets are dug as we speak. We will have this connection right off the bat as well. That is three connections to major roads. Whatever roads that are substandard in the area we are getting ready to improve them. As far as I noticed whenever Jeremy was making his comments, I noticed you drawing all over the map and straightening out things and connecting Phase I and Phase II etc., and straightening out the roundabout. This subdivision was designed in the spirit of the Dover, Kohl project. It is not necessarily exactly like that but the idea behind designing this subdivision is to slow traffic down, etc. We agree 100% that there needs to be traffic getting from one area of a subdivision to another area of the subdivision. We don't believe that it needs to be a straight shot every time. We call that urban sprawl. We are trying the best we can not to, we are putting a lot of people in this area. We are trying to make it as cozy and comfortable as possible for folks without creating race tracks through the property. We have spent a lot of time on this project. As a matter of fact, from annexation to this point here we are at two years on this project. I am going to have Tom address the technical issues. As far as the collector street going across the property, the parks lady right here just said out of her own mouth a few moments ago, she wants the safest environment. She doesn't want her park on this street. Why would people want their houses on it? In other words, the way that we have this drawn we have connection all through the subdivision from every subdivision around it. We are trying to encourage people to go to arterial streets as soon as possible without having race tracks through the subdivision. Crystal Springs, when it was originally designed, had a straight through street all the way from Deane Solomon Road to Salem Road as a straight through street. Milholland Engineering happened to have done the same project. When it came before you then you all said then that we do not want the straight through street, you made them bust it up just like this. It was Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 19 originally designed to go straight through. Now they have reengineered the property, which this is being developed as we speak, nobody wanted a straight through street then. I don't think our neighbors to the west of us here who will be developing their property in the near future, I don't think that they want a straight through racetrack as well. They are here in the audience today. Also, this street, Gypsum Drive, that was slated to go through was slated to go through all the way to Hwy. 112. Truckers Drive, which is part of that, has already been abandoned. It is never going to go through to Hwy. 112 anyway. Anybody that lives in this area, their objective is going to be to get to Salem Road, which is a major road or will be in the near future, to Crystal Springs Road which is being developed now or down here to Hwy. 112. These folks that live out in this area, they are moving east and west only to find an outlet to go north and south. They are never going to get, in other words, this road again, was slated to go from Salem Road all the way over to Hwy. 112. It is never going to get there. It is never going to go through the springwoods subdivision. Again, that has already been abandoned. Anyway, all we are asking is and basically, as I have told staff in the past, we are going to do basically what you want us to do. We are here to serve you. We would like to develop nice neighborhoods where kids can play in the street. These bulbs on these streets are there for a reason. Plus, it also affords us area to put trees and landscape. We want to try to create a beautiful subdivision that is nothing other than an expanse of concrete roads. I'm sure Tom wants to make some more comments on this and I'm going to turn it over to him to do so. Jefcoat Just to pick up where Tracy left off. This is Salem Road east/west to this north/south main road. It connects to Wedington and to Salem Road east/west. Crystal Springs does connect to that road. Crystal Springs Phases II and III carry over to Deane Solomon Road by way of not a race track, but the circular roundabouts to get there. The connection of Gypsum Drive through the Zaccanti's property connecting to our property would tie to a round about road in the same way with a connection there. Their main outlet however, through the development of their subdivision will be Raven Drive. Raven Drive we also developed Crystal Springs I, II, and III. Phase IV which is south of here. This is Raven Drive which is also a north/south arterial road that goes north and south. It also goes to Mt. Comfort from Salem Road so you have got north/south Salem. You are going to have north/south Raven Road. Deane Solomon is the same situation. It goes from Salem Road to Mt. Comfort. The improvements are occurring now along Deane Solomon Road. The curve is being straightened out because of the development of two subdivisions that were just approved. We are proposing a future development that will also make improvements along Deane Solomon. The only section of Deane Solomon that will not be upgraded at this point as far as we know, is the undeveloped section along this area. The majority of the rest of it will be Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 20 improved. The east/west corridor with this development is here. The Zaccanti's property is going to be done. The only section that won't be done will be this and it is outside of the city limits. When an annexation occurs this connection will occur so you are going to have your east/west corridor here. You are going to have your east/west corridor on Mt. Comfort. Everything that happens in this section because of Crystal Springs, have to go north/south to get to one of those east/west routes. Just because the collector street is shown here, it goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing. Anyone who lives here goes to the north/south route. Anyone who lives here goes to the north/south route. Anyone who lives here is going to go to the north/south route. All we are seeing is a more neighborhood friendly environment, more traffic control is accomplished by the proposed development with connectivity than would a major collector street that would become a race track. We have met with Ward 4 constituents on Monday night. We talked to Shirley Lucas, we talked to Lioneld Jordan, they are all supportive of the overall concept that we have done. Members of the Ward 4 constituents in the area liked the arrangement. They approved of the non -racetrack environment. They were very supportive of the overall development and of this subdivision. We have done our due diligence. We have worked to get to this point. Just because the collector street is on the Master Street Plan does not meet that that is the correct solution to what we are trying to accomplish and creating livable neighborhoods. The other issues on the conditions of approval, we are very acceptable of. The widening of the streets, the widening of the improvements of the entrances, the 20' connection, the sidewalks and all of those issues. The roundabout, if Matt and we can not find standards to support an oblong circle, our 5/10 of an acre is easily accomplished by just coming into a round circle. We like the roundabouts. It does slow traffic and it provides a place for beautification of entry and that is what we are trying to accomplish. Hoskins: I would like to address a few things just to make a few things clear that Tom started to visit about but I don't think he elaborated on it enough. We are talking about an east/west connection here. The original intention of this east/west connection was to go all the way over to Hwy. 112. Truckers Drive, again, has been abandoned as the east/west connection. This development here is 125 acres that we are coming through with as we speak. In our development we have gone through and created a new east/west connection. That is all the way from Deane Solomon Road all the way over to Hwy. 112. We have even talked to the city about cost sharing that and making it three lanes off the bat instead of the 20' back to back or something like that. We are trying to widen that now. The issues in this town is traffic, traffic, traffic. With everything that we are doing here, we are curing those problems as we go in. In other words, we have plenty of circulation through the subdivision and plenty of outlets to get out to main arterial roads. Then, on top of that, at our expense, we are Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 21 providing this arterial road over here. In fact, this 20 acre tract right here, we bought that tract solely for the purpose of being able to get the right of way through. That was the sole purpose of buying that 20 acre tract right there so that we could come in off the bat and connect Hwy. 112 to Deane Solomon Road. Most builders come in and say we are going to develop this thing, we are going to do this first and start getting our money back. We will put a little piece of the street in. Then we are going to come back and we are ready to sale this, let's put a little piece of the street in. That is not our intention. When we come in here and we do these subdivisions, unlike developments that have come before you, we are not going to piece meal things together like you are working with on Persimmon Road as we speak. We are not going to piece meal these together. We are putting these in to begin with. This road goes in to begin with. Even though this is Phase I basically and this is Phase II, we are putting this road in. Whenever we do this development over here, which is coming through right now, we are not going to put that in pieces. We are putting it all in now because it will benefit our subdivision over here, all the folks at Crystal Springs, the Zaccanti's whenever they decide to develop. I think Milholland Engineering and our firm have thought things through. I think we have come up with the best solution for the entire area. Again, we wanted to present this to you as an entire area. There is a total of 200 some odd acres between these projects and we wanted to show you the connectivity through all of them and what we have done to make the neighborhoods safe to be able to have plantings of green and trees, etc. We are trying to develop something nice. Jefcoat You must realize that we are not just representing this one developer with 270 acres. We have another 80 acres south of here. Hopefully with the Zaccanti's support, we have another 70 or 80 acres here. We are looking, as engineers and developers, as a large composite area and not just an isolated development within that area. I think our thoughts and our understanding of the dynamics that are occurring in this area are very important. That is the reason that we are proposing what we are proposing and planning it in the direction that we are planning. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address PPL 04-1141? Can you come to the podium and introduce yourselves and make your statements? Zaccanti: My name is Alford E. Zaccanti and I own the property west of this 80 acres. I have owned it since 1952 when I came back from the Korean War. The main point I would like to cover is the roads. They have already discussed that this morning. There is a real sharp turn there, two 45° turns. My wife totaled a brand new pickup truck there and it put her in the hospital. We have an accident there at least once a week and we hardly have any traffic on Deane Solomon Road at this point in time. With the new subdivisions going in at the Schlegel place Deane Solomon Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 22 is not going to be able to safely take care of the traffic. I know that Salem Road can't take care of it. We have three buses that go by there every morning and three buses go by there every afternoon. Part of Salem Road, right in front of Schlegel's property, is a one lane road. When you meet that bus you have to completely pull off the road and let it go by. There are some little round hills there and you are right on top of that school bus before you see it. If you ride bulls long enough there is going to be a time when you get hurt. That is the same thing with that road. Before these subdivisions go in, I'm not against the subdivision, I'm for it, but I would like to see the safety and our children safe. Another point I would like to bring up is the wetlands. I covered that 80 acres with litter and it has two ponds on it. The bottom pond is between 25' and 30' deep. The other pond is not that deep. There is also a spring that breaks out on the Brown place and runs right through the middle of the Schlegel place, goes on through and empties into Clabber Creek. I would like to know what they are going to do about that spring. They have houses right on top of the spring according to their blueprints, right on top of the ponds too. That is wetland down there. I've been stuck down there and had a wrecker come get me out. I know that land because I've been there 52 years. Another point I would like to bring out is the line fence. When I bought that place the Schlegels had homesteaded that place. He told me when I bought it that that fence line was off. It is just a fence that goes from the end of my place. I talked to Milholland before he surveyed it and he surveyed it and it is off. It is 9' on me. They can either buy that 9' or put a fence up, it don't make any difference what they want to do but I do want those buildings not built on part of me. There is a withholding tank down there at the right corner that shows part of it on my property line. Those are the points I have. The roads that need to be straightened out, that wetland needs to be taken into consideration what they are going to do about that and then the line fence. Those are the three points I would like to bring out. Again, I want to remind you that I'm not against the subdivision. We are going to develop our property. Anthes: Thank you very much. Zaccanti-Bassett-Broyles: I'm Mary Helen Zaccanti Bassett Broyles. I have lived on this property since I was three years old growing up on this property. I was raised in the little house that is now leased and then Daddy and Mom built the house they live in now on the other hill. Dad is right that when we road horses it is very wet and I know they have some detention ponds. Dad's concern is the detention pond that abuts him. What is that going to do to his property right there when they bring the detention pond down? Anthes: You are talking about the comer between lots 19 and 20? Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 23 Zaccanti-Bassett-Broyles: Yes. That's Dad's property there. He is just concerned about the detention pond going over on him. The fence line that goes here and this property is 9' into the fence line that is being developed. The fence line has always been off and Milholland has put his stakes inside the fence line and so we just want them to remember that. It is a barbed wire fence that keeps his cattle. His posts are there. There is a 9' to 10' difference. Just knowing that when they develop this that they stay within their guidelines and put a fence up. Dad will be glad to take this fence line down. Other than the cattle will get into these houses so they are going to have to do some kind of fencing to protect that or there will be a fence here and then Dad will keep his barbed wire fence until we decide to develop the bottom 20 acres or something like that. We have not done anything to go forward with the development. I want to make that clear. Zaccanti: We have been approached by a couple of different developers. I still farm that. I have a couple of chicken houses and have cattle so I have to have a fence. Zaccanti-Bassett-Broyles: This is the very deep pond around this area. The main concern, just like Dad said, you have to pull over somewhere in this area when you are coming or going. The main concern is Salem Road here. It is still a dirt road of course. There is a dirt road from Dad's property as well. That dirt road once you get into this area starts narrowing and you do have to stop and pull over. Those are our main concerns. Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to address this Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners for discussion. Hoskins: I would like to address some of the issues that they just brought up. As Tom said before, one of Mr. Zaccanti's issues was this curve on Deane Solomon Road. Again, this project as been approved and this project here, I think it is Lots 3 and 5 of springwoods. Anthes: We are aware of that. We saw that just last week and we understand that that curve is being taken out. Hoskins: Mr. Zaccanti did not understand that so that is what I'm trying to reiterate to Mr. Zaccanti. Anthes: We can do that too. Hoskins: That is number one. Number two, Mr. Zaccanti also mentioned that this road is very narrow. We have already made the comment that we are getting ready to improve Salem Road all the way from our entrance all the way up to Deane Solomon Road. With this development here and here Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 24 Deane Solomon Road gets improved on both sides. With our development up here it gets improved at least on our side. A lot of the issues that Mr. Zaccanti has brought up have already been addressed and will be addressed. As far as the wetlands, I am going to have Tom speak to that. Jefcoat The wetland issues, we have done a delineation of this property. We have the Corp. of Engineer's concurrence with that delineation. We have discussed it with them and I have provided a letter to staff that the Corp. has found no jurisdictional wetlands or waters of the U.S. on this property. The reason for that is the hydrology is there, the vegetation is not there and the two ponds are manmade ponds and the one spring that is offsite dries up before it gets to a creek so the Corp. of Engineers does not recognize that as waters of the U.S. They do want us to address the carrying of that water flow through Crystal Springs onto Clabber Creek, which we do by allowing an area inlet here to pick up the offsite water that dries up before it gets to this pond. We are carrying all of that underground to Clabber Creek through Crystal Springs. The Corp. is in agreement with the way that that is being handled. Those issues have been addressed through the Corp. As far as the fence line goes, we have field a legal plat and know the discrepancies as far as the fence location, if the fence is 9' into Tracy's property, the relocating of that fence or establishing some boundary would be worked out between the two of them as far as some satisfactory agreement to protect the cattle and relocate that fence. Anthes: I have to leave in about ten minutes so I am going to make my comments and then I'm going to turn over the meeting to Candy Clark. We know that this is either going to stay here or it will be forwarded to Planning Commission so you actually don't need my vote here today. I just wanted to let you know that I'm not going to leave you high and dry but I do need to go. I have a couple of comments that I would like to add. Looking at the conditions of approval, I can appreciate what you are saying about the east/west corridors verses the north/south corridors and the traffic being directed to move north and south. I've lived in cities where you couldn't get there from here. You had to go north and south to get to east and west. Over that kind of repeating that is something that I don't think is positive for the city. However, I can also appreciate the whole designation of collector streets and the width of that and encouraging a certain kind of speed. I would like to look further at the Master Street Plan and understand these things more clearly before I have a final recommendation. My initial hit on it is to leave that connection going through approximately where it shows on the Master Street Plan and look at it as maybe we can downgrade that street to a local street rather than a collector but still make the connection. That is just speaking from the hip, I didn't have time to study or have staff make any recommendation on that. I would personally like to see that go through. I know that Truckers Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 25 Drive and those other things have been abandoned but the reason we did it was because of the wetlands concern in that area not because of the lack of need for that kind of connection. The fact that we could have alternate ways to get to alternate north/south routes seems to me to be a positive thing. Jefcoat: If I might add to that comment. The local street designation with that scenario would assist Parks also in their not wanting to be aligned with a collector street and just being a local street than would be moving the park one block to the center of the neighborhood. Anthes: That was my other comment. I have a concern about this not connecting through and the reason why is I feel like all the people that you are going to sale these lots to want to participate in the public amenity of the park. Hoskins: They are connected up here. This originally started out as Phase I and Phase II. We weren't even going to build this yet. Whenever we visited with Parks they knew that this was going to be coming in and so we decided to put it all together. We wanted this connection and this is the first project where Parks got parkland instead of fees. Anthes: We are thrilled, I love seeing this, don't get me wrong. I like that it is going to be further north rather than south because we have the street connections. I feel that for this neighborhood to feel all connected and kids on bikes and not going out to this road which will carry heavier traffic than this street would, having that connection would be an amenity for the people who live in this neighborhood to get them closer to parks. I think that is nice. I would like to talk to Matt and Parks and understand the adjacency of the roundabout to the park and whether that is something that they have concern about. The idea that the roundabout actually interjects into the park might be something that may or may not be desirable from their standpoint for the same traffic concern reasons. Whether a park set up in the roundabout is as separate is something that I would like us to think about. Obviously, the landscape islands need to be worked out with Matt for width safety, fire truck access and all of those other things. I personally like to see a more urban street grid type of pattern without these kinds of suburban markings in the landscape. An urban street grid has a tighter turning radius rather than these kind of cul-de-sac arrangements. Jefcoat There again, we are trying to accommodate safety and fire trucks and those kinds of things. Anthes: Sidewalks, as far as tree planting and beautification, I think that those can be accomplished with the street trees and things like that. You don't necessarily need islands to do those. My thought is that because we have issues with the roundabout and we are not sure with the parks and don't Subdivision Committee July 30, 2003 Page 26 know about the street connection, we have a lot of issues about understanding the detention and I would like to see the Corp. report that you have looked at for the pond areas so that we know that we have that finding. My feeling right now is that we have a lot of issues to look at and my inclination is to follow staffs recommendation to table at this level and go through another round. Clark: I agree with Jill. Here you all are going to suffer from at least, my inexperience. There are a lot of issues still on the table that I'm not prepared to hammer out this morning with you all. I will go ahead and move that we table this. Trumbo: My main concern is this connector road that we are talking about. Downgrading it or making it smaller, still to me it is going to have the same amount of traffic regardless of what we call it. It is a design issue. I am going to agree to table it too. There are a lot of issues up in the air. I think you can get with staff and make this work. Anthes: I know that you guys have been working on this for a long time. I'm sure we are close. Clark: If you sit down with staff and hammer out this stuff that has been suggested and show it to us on a plan I don't think there will be a problem with it. Trumbo: I don't think it is ready to go to Planning Commission. Staff is making different recommendations and we need a little bit of clarity. Clark: I will come back to the next 8:30 meeting to see the changes because I think they can be done fairly quickly. Trumbo: I will second. Anthes: We are adjourned. Thank you very much.