Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-13 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Friday, August 13, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSP 04-1155: (MOORE) Approved Page 2 PPL 04-1141: (SCHLEGEL SUBDIVISION) Forwarded Page 4 PPL 04-1148: (PIPERS GLEN SUBDIVISION) Forwarded Page 8 PPL 04-1161: (PEMBRIDGE SUBDIVISION PH. 1) Forwarded Page 23 PPL 04-1127: (SLOAN ESTATES) Tabled Page 31 LSD 04-1149: (ELDER CONDOMINIUMS) Forwarded Page 41 PZD 04-1154: (CLIFFSIDE PZD) Tabled Page 47 PZD 04-1159: (BEACON FLATS) Forwarded Page 50 MEMBERS ABSENT Jill Anthes Christian Vaught (left early) Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Suzanne Morgan Rebecca Ohman Dawn Warrick Mau Casey Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 2 LSP 04-1155: Lot Split (MOORE): Submitted by KELLY ANGLEN MOORE for property located at 1548 TERRY. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 0.28 and 0.23 acres respectively. Anthes: Welcome to the Subdivision Committee meeting for August 13, 2004. The applicant for item number one doesn't seem to be here. We are going to start with item two. Item one will be moved to the end of the agenda. I do want to say if anyone is here to speak on item seven, the Planned Zoning District for Cliffside PZD, that item is tabled and we will be hearing it at our next meeting. If you are here for that item that will not be discussed today. We will start with item two, LSP 04-1155 for Moore. Will the applicant come forward please? Jeremy, can we hear a Lot Split without the applicant? Pate: It is up to the Committee. If you think that it is a straight forward Lot Split you could hear it. Anthes: Ok, we are going to hear the staff report on that. Morgan: The applicant requests approval of a Lot Split for the subject property. It is a .51 acre tract, Lot 5 of the Creekwood Hills subdivision. The applicant is requesting a tract split to create a .28 and .23 acre tract. The site currently contains a single family home and the applicant is requesting to split this tract in order to create a new lot for a single family home. Water and sewer lines are accessible to the proposed lots and currently serve the existing home. The Creekwood Hills subdivision was platted with a 40' right of way from centerline of Old Wire Road and a 30' right of way from the centerline of Township Road. The Master Street Plan requires an additional 5' for each right of way. Dedication of additional right of way is not necessary at this time. The lots do not impact the existing street intersection which is built to the full extent. The existing structure is also located within the Master Street Plan right of way and any requirement for additional right of way dedication would require the property owner to request approval from the City Council for a lesser dedication. Therefore, staff does not recommend right of way dedication at this time. The applicant is also proposing with this Lot Split an access easement over the existing driveway in order to allow access to each property from Terry Drive. The Final Plat states that Lot 5 shall not have access to Old Wire Road or Township Road except for the life of the existing home. This home, however, is currently accessed off of Terry Drive. Surrounding land use and zoning consists of single family homes in a RSF-4 zoning district. Staff recommends approval of LSP 04-1155 at the Subdivision Committee level with five conditions. The plat shall be revised to show a 25' utility easement from the property line along Old Wire Road and Township Road as shown on the Final Plat. No new Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 3 easement may be dedicated through the existing structure. Access to both lots 5A and 5B shall be limited to Terry Drive and the plat shall be revised to scale at a standard engineering scale prior to filing with two standard conditions of approval. Anthes: Thank you Suzanne. Do we have other staff reports? Ohman: Parks fees in the amount of $555 will be due as part of this approval. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this LSP 04-1155? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners for discussion, comments or questions. Staff, can you just review when we have an existing structure in the street right of way how the conditions are written so if anything happens to that structure what happens in the future? Morgan: The current structure is located within not existing right of way, but within the Master Street Plan right of way. It is located within existing setbacks and it is considered non -conforming. There are certain restrictions and limits placed on the increase of the size of that home as well as if it is damaged to more than 50% of it's replacement cost. It will not be able to be rebuilt in that location. It will have to conform. There is enough area on this proposed tract to provide for a new home that is conforming. Anthes: The tract B lot that will have a shared access easement off of Terry Drive? Morgan: Yes. Vaught: On the utility easement, we are not asking for a dedication, it is a utility easement that is already there? Morgan: There is a utility easement currently on the north of this property. It is 25' and it is located from the existing property line to the north 25' to the south. This plat shows it located 25' from the Master Street Plan right of way which is not accurate according to the Final Plat. MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 04-1155 subject to all five conditions of approval. Vaught: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 4 PPL 04-1141: Preliminary Plat (SCHLEGEL SUBDIVISION): 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 33.41 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 173 single family lots proposed. Anthes: The applicants for item one are here. Normally if we skip something we move it to the end of the agenda but since this is old business we will go ahead and hear that item now. Will the applicants for PPL 04-1141 Schlegel please come forward? Jefcoat: Good morning. Pate: This item is old business. We saw this at the last Subdivision Committee. The subject property is 73.39 acres of vacant property located west of Deane Solomon Road and south of West Salem Road. There are approximately 173 single family lots proposed for the subdivision planned here. At this time obviously, we have a couple of different site plans. I would like to kind of go through an explanation of that. I have numbered mine. Site plan number one that I'm referring to is the original site plan that was tabled at the last Subdivision Committee meeting. That does have a 4.10 acre park. Site plan number two was submitted for this Subdivision Committee review to get on the agenda. It does have a 4.40 acre park. Of course, the applicant has submitted another site plan this morning. At this time the applicant did submit the two site plans for Subdivision Committee review. The first site plan, as I mentioned, was the plan reviewed at the last Subdivision Committee meeting and that was tabled. The original proposal was for a 173 lot subdivision with access from West Salem Road. A stub out was proposed to the west and to the east as well as a connection to the south currently under construction as part of Crystal Springs III subdivision. Since that meeting the applicant has had ongoing meetings with various levels of staff and divisions to determine a suitable solution to the issues of concern we discussed at the last Subdivision Committee meeting. That is primarily the existence of a collector street on the Master Street Plan running east and west and the best suitable location of the neighborhood park in this area. The second proposal that I mentioned, site plan number two, is for 176 lots with similar access points. However, the second plan indicates an east/west collector street, Gypsum Drive, as shown on the Master Street Plan together with the redesigned roundabout and adjusted parkland location to meet the initial Parks and Recreation Board recommendations. It is staff's understanding and obviously, as presented now, the developer has prepared a third site plan for the Subdivision Committee review and subsequent action. Elements of this latest site plan reflect the latest Parks and Recreation Board meeting and recommendation to work with the developer in developing a smaller park at the cost of the developer. The Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page S applicant indicates this site plan does contain a street designated as a collector street with 70' right of way stubbing out to the west for future connections as well as a recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Board. I will let Rebecca with Parks go over that recommendation if she would. There was an initial meeting earlier this year and then there was another meeting August 10`h, 2004 to discuss with the applicant the issues of the park. Ohman: The applicant brought forward this design with a collector street to the south of the park with parkland of 3.26 acres. All improvements shall take the place of the money in lieu of requirement to the maximum necessary to improve the neighborhood park to the standards of the City of Fayetteville. This cost may exceed the remaining money in lieu money. All improvements shall be completed within one year after issuance of the Final Plat. Because there is a change in this and because this is a major development with over 40 acres or 100 units and the recommendation is a combination of money and land, this will have to go to City Council and it is slated for the September 7`h City Council meeting. Very quickly, if there are 176 single family units and they are dedicating 3.26 acres for a park the money in lieu fees will be somewhere around $27,000. Obviously, improvements to a neighborhood park will exceed that amount significantly so the city feels like we are getting a bargain in this respect. Pate: Staff is recommending that this collector street right of way be dedicated as per our initial recommendation, and that the primary east/west street be constructed in keeping with the Master Street Plan. The applicant has prepared several alternatives. Meeting with various levels of city staff and divisions requests Planning Commission consideration of the newly submitted street alignment as meeting the intent of the Master Street Plan. Staff is recommending that this Preliminary Plat be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with fourteen conditions. I will go over a couple of those for you. 1) Planning Commission determination of the Master Street Plan compliance with regard to Gypsum Drive, an east/west collector street. 2) Planning Commission determination of parkland dedication. The language there should reflect just what Rebecca went over. Items three through fourteen were on the last staff report and are just reflected from those comments. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Matt? Casey: I would like to remind the committee that I still have some concerns regarding the drainage located within the streets and where the curbs are located. I will work with you on the design of the planters. Hoskins: Are you ok with us doing the planters as long as we work with you to get the logistics of it? Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 6 Casey: If we can get a proper design configuration then I would be ok with that. Hoskins: Ok, so you are ok with the planters as long as the design is there? Casey: Correct. We have to look at fire truck access as well as the traffic patterns around those curves where those are located at. Also, the ability of on street parking in that area. Anthes: Matt, they have reconfigured the roundabout, does that meet your requirements? Casey: It appears to and we will get more information in the construction phase with this design. I'm much more comfortable with this layout than the previously submitted ones. I did notice that around the parkland they are not showing the sidewalks anymore. That is a requirement that each street has the sidewalks located. Hoskins: We are solely responsible for building the entire park with this new deal. Warrick: Sidewalks will be within the public right of way and street construction, they just need to be shown on the plan. Anthes: Are there any other comments from staff? Would any member of the public like to address PPL 04-1141? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commissioners for comments. I don't believe either Loren or Christian were here at the last Subdivision Committee meeting when we looked at this the first time. I would like to thank the applicants for your redesign on this. I think that we have got a much stronger project that looks great. We had some really good things already and I think that we are to the point, I noticed on your second one we had some backyards on here and the way this is reconfigured is really nice. I appreciate the work that you have done and I really appreciate your look again at the Master Street Plan and these connections. This looks extremely favorable to me. Are there any comments? Vaught: Wasn't there going to be a stub out or is it improved all the way to Deane Solomon? Jefcoat It is a stub out right now with the improvements coming forward when Collins Haynes comes forward with his development, which should be soon. Shackelford: I concur with what you are saying. Although I didn't see this the first time, I did go back and read the minutes and it looks like the new conditions of approval, number one and two, have addressed what we talked about last Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 7 time. I am going to make a motion that we forward PPL 04-1141 to the full Planning Commission. Vaught: I second. Anthes: I will concur. If you would, just before that time make sure we get the sidewalks included around the park. We will see you at Planning Commission. Thanks. Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 8 PPL 04-1148: Preliminary Plat (PIPERS GLEN SUBDIVISION): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE BARRINGTON PARK SUBDIVISION. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 10.49 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat for a residential subdivision with 9 single family lots proposed. Anthes: The next item of business is PPL 04-1148, Pipers Glen subdivision. Will the applicant come forward? Pate: The subject item, Pipers Glen subdivision, is a nine lot subdivision located to the east of Barrington Park subdivision south of Fox Hunter Road. It is located within the Planning Area outside the city limits. It is adjacent to the city limits on the west along the Barrington Park subdivision. To the east is Fox Hunter Estates subdivision. To the north and south are properties that are residential and agricultural in nature. This property contains 10.49 acres and is proposed to be subdivided into nine single family lots, each lot being approximately one acre in size. Access to the subject parcel is proposed from a stub out constructed with the Barrington Park subdivision to the west. I have included a portion of the minutes from the City Council meeting on the Barrington Park subdivision. There was an appeal of the Preliminary Plat when the Barrington Park subdivision went through in 1994. One of the conditions on the resolution the City Council placed on this property to Mr. David Wilson's property, the current developer, was the inclusion of this stub out for future connections to this property. Access to eight lots are proposed from the extension of Caston Drive. That extension will occur, as shown on the plat, from the existing stub outs. Lot 9 to the north is proposed to retain an access to Fox Hunter Road. It has approximately 27.29 feet of access along Fox Hunter Road there. The City of Fayetteville property shown is part of a park system in that area. I believe it is formerly known as Red Woof park. The proposed access from Lot 9 is from Fox Hunter Road with the remaining eight being from Caston Drive. The applicant does request a waiver for that particular lot because it does not have 75' of frontage and is located within the Planning Area which requires 75'. It only has 27.29'. That particular lot is larger than the others, being 2.07 acres and it does obviously, have existing structures and water and sewer lines across the lot. The developer will be required to extend the water to serve Lots 1 and 7. Septic system approvals have been granted for Lots 1 through 7 by the Washington County Health Department. Street improvements include a 28' wide street with curb, gutter and sidewalks along Caston Drive. The applicant is also proposing sidewalks along that area, which will be required because it is adjacent to the city limits. There is no additional connectivity proposed with this subdivision, as you can note to the north to Mr. Johnson's property. The applicants indicated that portions of that property does have at least a 22% slope in some areas. To the north is approximately 1 or 2 single family homes there and to the east Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 9 is a developed subdivision, Fox Hunter Estates. We have received significant public comment. I believe that some of those citizens are here today regarding this subdivision. At least two letters are attached in the staff report from residents of the Barrington Park subdivision. Most of the comments received to date are from residents of Barrington Park concerned primarily with construction traffic through their neighborhood as well as access through Barrington Park for the eight lots. The property owner to the south has also submitted a letter detailing his concerns. Those are listed as drainage, trash from Barrington Park residents and potential trash from future Pipers Glen residents. Requests for a fence and greater setback and access from his property to the north. I've included a little background there with the City Council resolution for this connectivity. Staff is recommending forwarding this Preliminary Plat to the full Planning Commission with 10 conditions. 1) Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for the creation of a lot in the Planning area without 75' of frontage. Staff is in favor of this request. Item number 4) The existing private water service line to the existing structure on Lot 8 shall be abandoned and a new water service connection be provided from the public main extension along Caston Drive. 5) Should the applicant wish to continue public sewer service to the existing structure on Lot 8 the private sanitary service line shall be abandoned and a public main extended to the proposed property line. Private service lines shall not cross private property lines. The remaining conditions are standard conditions of approval. Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Were there other staff reports? Would the applicant introduce yourselves and your project please? Jorgensen: I'm Justin Jorgensen and we are representing Pipers Glen for David Wilson. I have addressed the previous comments and questions that were raised in plat review. The questions that Mr. Johnson has concerning this project I will be willing to address. I did go out to the property and look at it when it was raining. Any of these questions I believe everyone has this particular letter but I'm not sure if I need to address every single one specifically. Anthes: We will go through those item by item after we get comments so if you will just tell us in general about the plan and then we will take comments and go over each item. Jorgensen: Lot 9, the northern most lot will have access from Fox Hunter Road. We have chosen not to have complete access to the whole subdivision from there because it is kind of a blind corner. We can have construction access through this road and that would reduce the construction traffic through Caston Drive. We will be tying into the rest of the eight lots, which most of them are close to an acre or more. Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 10 Jorgensen, D.: We can eliminate construction traffic completely through Barrington, just block it off and it will be a tough situation turning onto Fox Hunter, as you all probably realize it is a blind corner. If they put flaggers out there all construction traffic can go through this private drive and we can just block off all construction traffic completely through Barrington. That will take care of that part. Anthes: Would you like to address these items individually as we go forward? Jorgensen, J: Sure. Anthes: That being the case, I will open it to the public for comment. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on PPL 04-1161? Please come up and sign in on the sign in sheet. Glass: My name is Arnie Glass. I live in the Barrington Park subdivision. I have been asked by the residents to come and speak here. Our concerns are more than just construction traffic. Our subdivision is designed in kind of a dual circle situation where we have had the opportunity to enjoy mostly subdivision traffic. Our children are out constantly playing safely. Of course, children as they do, will not always think safety. I'm concerned that the additional traffic that is going through is going to add to the danger, not to mention our streets have had several repairs this year because they are falling apart in essence. Sewer leaking out onto public streets. The severe drainage problems on Buckley that has run out onto the street and sometimes it is sewer waste. Our concern is that any additional traffic on that street is just going to make it that much worse. I have with me 91 signed petitions from residents of the subdivision. We are asking that this be denied and that these petitions be attached to this project extension. We are also concerned that our subdivision is an active subdivision, we pay yearly dues for the upkeep of our joint property. We have spent over $8,200 this year in maintaining the entrance to Barrington Park including having to redesign what was a fountain because it kept getting vandalized. We had to put a lot of our personal funds into that. Our concern is that this new subdivision will not only reap the benefits of what costs us money every year but that will be adding more traffic and people who could possibly do more destruction to our property. That is another legitimate concern of ours. We are also concerned for the safety vehicles being able to come in and out of that subdivision with the very small opening that they are proposing even off of Caston. As it is, the corner there is sloped and not really designed very well for access for larger vehicles. In addition, we are also concerned about the corners of Barrington Drive and Fox Hunter Road as well as Starr Road and Madison Avenue. The traffic on those two entrances and exits, during certain times of the day it is almost impossible to get in and out. I have, more than Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page I1 once, sat in my car for 15 minutes trying to turn onto Hwy. 45 to get my kids to school. Until those problems are addressed I don't see that anymore traffic needs to be added. Even to the point of I think that they probably need to consider a stop light out that far. I said we had drainage problems over there. We are very concerned that this subdivision will add to the drainage problems. I am not just talking about the sewage. I'm talking about runoff and I'm talking about trash that gets flushed down into the street sewer. Just as of yesterday, I spoke to a plumber who has come to our subdivision and they have been doing the rotorooter thing in dozens of houses and this plumber is now convinced that it is because of the way the drainage was put in that subdivision and has backed out into the city access and is now no longer being addressed at the houses, it is back into the city. Trucks coming down the street is going to add to the problem. In addition, I understand that Fox Hunter Road has a blind curve and that it would be a more difficult situation to put the entrance and exit there. However, I believe that perhaps Washington County needs to address that problem before this subdivision puts an entrance there. If they would fix the problem off Fox Hunter Road then certainly they could come back and put in a road there that would address that subdivision's needs. I would ask at this time that anyone from our subdivision who is here let themselves be known. People have taken off of work to be here. They are that concerned with our neighborhood. Thank you. Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to address this Preliminary Plat? McClinton: My name is Cathy McClinton. Barrington Park is all young couples with very small children. My mother and I live there and I think that we are the only ones who aren't a young couple with very small children. The children are out playing in the streets and in the yards all the time. Collins: I'm Bill Collins, 1736 Hartford. First of all, we are one of the original builders in the subdivision and we feel, and I think a lot of people here feel, that Barrington Park is probably one of the best subdivisions in Fayetteville. It wasn't always like that. When we first built we had some issues, and incidentally, there has been a very good working relationship with the City of Fayetteville departments. Initially I know we had issues with the city waste water treatment plant. Every morning we smelled something not pleasant and we worked with the city on that. The city helped us with the developer, Mr. Caston, to enforce some of the things that were originally in the covenants including the sidewalks. The subdivision had to come together and pull together a homeowner's association, which we did, so we could enforce our own covenants on Phase II. We had to fight the developer about the size of the pool. There is a very interesting history. Again, there is a great history with the City of Fayetteville working with us on a lot of these things. There is an Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 12 attachment, I think to some of the people, certainly myself, about this subdivision and where we have come from and where we are at. The couple of questions that I have for the city, I remember when we bought the lot the concept was the accesses were for Barrington to use for our subdivision to get out. That was originally how it was put to me. I don't know the legal issues for the access roads and obviously, that's part of what we are talking about today. The other question I would have, and again, this has nothing to do with the legalities, but on a precedent standpoint with Boardwalk or Park Place or Savanna or any of these other subdivisions, would you want somebody to come in and put a subdivision on and attach that into their subdivisions. I would be curious to know if there is precedent or that has happened in the City of Fayetteville. Again, I am a neighbor and I respect Mr. Wilson's desire to do something with his property. He has the right to do it and I just hope that he has done everything that he possibly could to see if there could be an entrance off of Fox Hunter Road as opposed to using our access for that. That would give him his own identity as a subdivision. Thanks. Kessler: Good morning, I'm a resident of Barrington Park as well. I just want to know maybe about some of the covenants. There is a subdivision down the way off of Hwy. 45, I think it may be Washington County, right outside of Ridgemont View Estates that put a bunch of multi -family homes. I can't imagine that that is very good for the property value and I just wanted to see if they were going to be one acre lots with single family homes or what the covenants were. Morrison, Jr.: My name is Ed Morrison, I'm a resident of Barrington Park also. Although my children are grown I have three small grandchildren that are frequently there in and out. As has been pointed out, we have a lot of children playing. We don't need anymore traffic. There has been a lot of publicity in the papers lately of other residential sections that now have too much traffic and what to do about it. It is certainly easier to do to start with than it is to rectify afterwards. I encourage the committee to decide not to allow the access through Barrington Park. Silvestry: Hi, good morning. My name is Pete Silvestry. I am a Barrington Park resident. We have lived in our home about two years. One of the things that impressed us as we came to Fayetteville was Barrington Parks' wide streets and the planning that has occurred. You can see as you move from east and west in the development you have basic requirements for housing square footage and requirements and as you go west people have improved because of good planning. What has recently happened that I want to address is some real life examples where I think Fayetteville has been involved. That is the radar guns that are set up. I think they are called Watch Dogs. They set those up twice on North Hartford Drive. The reason is that people looking for a quicker way to Starr Road have Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 13 elected to come through there. I know for a fact that people in less than a block hit 40 miles per hour. We have lost a cat. A cat shouldn't be out but it happens. If the city has already recognized that they need to put reminders for people traveling through there to not speed I think if we open this up to eight more lots, let's just say everybody has two cars so 16 more cars on the street, what happens is that you kind of get sleepy in Barrington. It is a nice country setting, streets are wide. If you are going to go from our entrance to the Caston entrance people are just going to naturally go faster and faster and faster. By the time they get down there they are going to be at some pretty high speeds. I just want to encourage you not to consider this option. I'm not saying we shouldn't have the development, but certainly not through Barrington Park. Barrett: Good morning, my name is Harry Barrett. I have been a resident of Arkansas for 18 years and a resident of Barrington Park for 3 'h years. I was hoping that we were finally finished with construction and the whole works. Evidently not. I recommend that you not approve this. I've been in construction for over 50 years and that is absolutely silly. You have to take down good size trees and I can see a drainage problem right away. You don't have to look at it very long. I hope you just turn it down. Nottenkamper:My name is Paul Nottenkamper, I live at 2109 N. Buckley Drive. Every bit of traffic in this neighborhood goes past my house. I have to be extremely careful when I back out of my driveway when they are building through there with the concrete trucks and the delivery trucks. It is just a bad situation. I'm not against development. I'm just against the eight lots they are adding into our subdivision. The entrance to our entire subdivision is already tore up. The street is going to have to be new blacktopped at some point in time. I don't know if anybody from the city has gone out and looked at it or not. I talked to Jeremy the other day about it. I just don't think it is right. I'm not against David Wilson. I know him and he is a good guy. I do construction too. Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to address this item? Garrison: I'm Michael Garrison. I live at 2064 N. Buckley Drive. My only real concern is that this is practically right through Mr. Collins' backyard. I would think that he should at least get a fence or something if this does go through. It is really kind of evasive on him. Also, the house across the street is close. Buescher: My name is Wayne Buescher. I'm a Barrington Park resident. I was just wondering if you open up our neighborhood to this subdivision could they then stub out that subdivision further up opening us up to much more traffic than these nine lots. The further out they grow their neighborhood into the Washington County. Potentially we could have hundreds of cars Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 14 coming to our neighborhood in the future if they ever open that neighborhood to the Fox Hunter or even more neighborhoods to the north of that. It may not just be limited to this eight lots in the future. If they develop this stub out those cars could go through the whole length of our neighborhood, which is about a half mile that they are cutting through. If they just go up Fox Hunter it would just be right there. It would be nice if they could find a way of opening their subdivision through Fox Hunter and not burdening our neighborhood families. Thank you. Davidson: I'm James Davidson, also a Barrington Park resident. I want to point out there are currently over 115 residents in the Barrington Park division. There are three streets running parallel already in a close environment. Right now the only access to the subdivision is Fox Hunter and also on Starr Road, both of which dump onto Hwy. 45. Again, I know it is a county issue but it was pointed out earlier that sometimes there is a 15 to 20 minute wait. Part of the reason for that is the speed limit is 50 miles per hour. All of these exits are dumping onto an area with a 50 mile per hour speed limit. Obviously, that is a recipe for disaster. It was eluded to that a traffic light might help alleviate that. Any additional traffic would compound an existing safety issue. Also, as we pointed out, the Barrington subdivision is a very close knit community. It also has a community pool. People who pay dues to the property owner's association use the pool in the center of the neighborhood. Drive thru traffic again, is an inviting safety concern. Anytime you have a community pool you have a lot of foot traffic. As much as we would like to train our children, obviously, they are moving back and forth across the road. Not only has the speed limit signs been an issue, we recently last year had a car that exceeded about 50 miles per hour coming down Barrington Road and actually tipped over after striking a parked car. There is more than adequate distance and there is a downhill slope, a nice straight half mite street here. Speed is an ongoing problem for the area. I think you are inviting a lot of safety issues and compounding existing problems here. When we bought our home, which we have only been there about two years, there was about a half an inch worth of covenants associated with the Barrington Park addition. How that will be addressed with the new homes I do not know. I signed a document about a half inch thick with the rules in which we would live by in the neighborhood. Obviously, those are designed to preserve the property value. How those will be associated with the new homes I have no clue. We have all submitted to the conditions of living in the area and my question would be with these new homes and new homeowners be subjected to the same conditions. Anthes: Would anyone else like to speak? Seeing none, I will close it for public comment and bring it back to the Commissioners for discussion. I think what we should do is we have a list of the many items and questions that Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 15 the neighborhoods have brought up. Let's start with the easier ones. Could I ask the applicant what type of homes are proposed here? Are you going to have subdivision covenants? What do you see the value of these properties as? Jorgensen, J: Mr. Wilson thinks about 3,000 sq.ft. of heated space, attached garage, no carports. Rear or side entrance to garage. All single family. No kennels, farm animals, breeding animals, etc. Minimal of 80% masonry on the exterior of building. No cars parked on the street. No campers, RVs, boats, etc., parked or stored on ground. No metal fences. Masonry mailboxes. No outbuildings without approval of developer. All front yards sodded or seeded and landscaped. Roofing material limitations. All drives poured concrete, no asphalt. This is the general layout for Lots 1 through 8 with the exception of Lot 9, since it is a bigger lot and kind of has it's own flavor of being attached to Fox Hunter Road. This is just the preliminary layout of what he thinks. It should be a pretty nice development. Of course being in the growth area of Fayetteville he will abide by those standards as well. Anthes: A question of staff about subdivision covenants when they are required to be filed and when one subdivision is next to another and they share access if there is any overriding thing that we can look at there. Warrick: The covenants are not under the control of the city or the county. Covenants are civil agreements amongst the individuals who live within a development. They are generally instigated, developed by the person who is installing the subdivision or development. They are civil, private agreements amongst the property owners. As the one gentleman stated, he signed a half inch document which outlined all of the various covenants for the Barrington Park subdivision. Those covenants transfer with the title of the property and homeowners are provided copies of them. They are enforced by the property owners or the property owner's association within the developments that they are affecting. Anthes: Let's go to the issue of drainage, trash and the sewer backups. Matt, can you speak to any of those issues? Casey: If there are existing problems with the sanitary sewer system, the streets or the storm sewer system, then those issues need to be brought to the attention to either the Transportation Division or our Water and Sewer Maintenance Division for their evaluation and maintenance. The proposed subdivision, there was concerns about drainage impact. It is outside the city limits but because it is adjacent to the city limits, the engineering staff will be required to review the subdivision for minimum street standards and storm drainage and grading that is proposed for the subdivision. Looking at the plat, the drainage from the subdivision will go to the south Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 16 away from the Barrington Park subdivision. I see no immediate concerns for storm water runoff from this development impacting the existing neighborhood to the west. Anthes: Can you speak to that in terms of the property owner to the south? Casey: To the south there is a drop, if you will, through here along the south of this property and that is where all the water is going at this time. That is where the drainage patterns will not be altered. It appears that they are going to the same place. We will be looking at final drainage design at the time of construction. On most subdivisions we see at this point with this being outside the city limits we are not seeing this at this time but at the time of construction. Shackelford: Matt, for clarification, the storm water runoff ordinances, do they apply in this situation since it is adjacent to the city limits? Casey: Adjacent to the city limits we have authority to apply some of our ordinances. Normally what we apply are grading and the street construction. Shackelford: Thank you. Anthes: Perhaps the developer or the applicant could talk about how you are going to handle grading the site. Jorgensen, D.: As you probably are aware by reading the paper, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality has made numerous visits to construction sites here in the last two to three weeks. They are getting more stringent on storm water runoff and the impact from erosion. We are being more careful, as every other contractor and engineer and any other construction site, in the installation of what we call erosion control measures (silt fences, hay bails, etc.) For the most part this project really doesn't impact Barrington because it runs off the south and to the east away from Barrington. There is a pretty good buffer of trees. The proposed street that stubs out of Barrington stubs out in a location on Mr. Wilson's property that is a high point such that the trees that are to the south along with the leafs and the silt fence and the other erosion control devices are going to at least minimize any impact from the street construction and the installation of the street and the water lines. Other than that, there is no other construction until the houses start. To give you a little more background, we had the choice of annexing and rezoning, bringing it into the city in which case we would have like 20 or 25 lots. After much thought and discussion with the owner, we ended up with this nine lot subdivision and keeping it in the county with one acre lots. It was his wish to lessen the impact by the installation of just nine lots instead of maxxing out the deal. Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 17 Also, you may know that David Wilson is one of the quality builders in this area. If you want a house built that is well built he is the one to do it and he is very much concerned with environmental issues. He has tried to be a good neighbor. From what I understand, he has owned the property for thirty years. It is not like he is coming in here and trying to make money and move out. Glass: May I make a comment? Anthes: I'm sorry, we've closed it to public comment. The next item that I se here is that we have talked about the sewer line. I know there was an item in the staff report about that. Can you reiterate about that? Casey: Currently the house on the property by some previous agreement is connected to public sewer outside the city limits. I'm not sure the history on that. In order for that to continue they are going to have to extend the main to the lot that that goes to. Right now there is a service line shown across the proposed lot line. City regulations prohibit sanitary sewer services to cross property lines. Also, the water line would be the same so we ask that a new tap be made off the proposed Caston Drive extension. Anthes: Just to be clear, all the lots in this subdivision will be on sanitary sewer and city water or are septic systems proposed? Casey: All lots will be on public water. The existing house can remain on public sewer but through a main extension only. The rest of the lots will be required to have septic systems. Anthes: We just had another item come through where there was an acre and a half minimum lot size I thought for septic systems. Casey: Any lot less than an acre and a half does submit the initial letter of approval from the Arkansas Department of Health for septic systems. Pate: We have those. Anthes: I think we are down to streets and traffic. My first question is of staff. I believe that the streets that are running through the Barrington Park subdivision are indeed city streets. Can we talk about our policy of connectivity and anything that we have regarding street development and connecting neighborhoods? Warrick: The City Council, through our General Plan has adopted a policy of connectivity and encouraging developments to connect. There are benefits and drawbacks to having connections between developments. I think we have heard examples of both of those things this morning. The city sees Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 18 them as more beneficial than negative in that the more means of access that you have you are able to disburse traffic instead of funneling it into one specific location. It also encourages vitality and interaction between developments, which is encouraged and deemed appropriate through the city's General Plan and our policies with regard to neighborhoods. This particular development in 1994 there was a specific requirement by our City Council to provide the access that this project that Pipers Glen is proposing to connect to. The original proposal for the Barrington Park project did not have a stub out to the southeast corner. When the project was appealed one of the specific conditions of approval in order for that project to be approved at the City Council level was to provide a stub out for future connectivity to this Wilson property. I think that that is fairly important because this is directly in response to that. We do have some mechanisms that the way that the streets are configured within Barrington is probably not conducive to slowing down traffic. That just happens to be the way that the developer chose to lay them in. They are straight and long. The city is bringing on line within the next week or two a traffic calming program that neighborhoods will be able to submit requests for solutions to calm and slow down traffic within their developments if the criteria are met. That is in conjunction with the Engineering and Police Departments as well as Transportation. That is something that I encourage any neighborhood who feels that there are traffic problems to avail themselves of that option. Our Neighborhood Coordinator, Courtney McDade, in our my office s coordinating that program. It will be available on the city's website within a couple of weeks. The other thing, with regard to the speed of traffic, design consists in that to some degree but people have to be responsible. The Police Department is the enforcement with regard to traffic slowing and initiatives to enforce speed limits throughout the city. These are city streets. The city has a policy for connectivity and we need to look at that whenever we get a new proposal. It is very appropriate in most situations. There are those instances where we look at it and see whether or not it is the best thing to do. Anthes: Another comment that I have about street design is I believe Mr. Silvestri made a comment about one of the things that he really liked about this neighborhood is that it had wide streets. The problem is the wider the street the faster cars move no matter what is posted on that street. The narrower streets tend to slow cars down. That is something that we all know. I don't know whether on these streets you are allowing on street parking or not but I know that I do live in a part of Fayetteville where on street parking is allowed and we have actively in our neighborhood association, are getting people to park their cars on the street because it is dramatically slowing traffic through the neighborhood by allowing that on street parking. That is something that I would just throw out there for you all to consider. That is something mechanically that you all can do at any time that will effectively narrow the width of your streets and will slow Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 19 cars down. Also, you seem to have a very active neighborhood association and sometimes an educational process about people speeding through your neighborhood, just notifying your own residents so everybody is very conscious of the fact that you have children out there can really help that too. That way you don't have to just say it's the Police Department enforcing or not enforcing it. There are some things in your neighborhood that you can do and they have been affective in our neighborhood and that's why I mentioned it. Vaught: In regard to the city's policy of connectivity, I understand the concerns of the neighborhood but the stub outs were put there for a reason. That was for the connectivity policy. What bothers me more than the Caston connection is not having an additional connection to Fox Hunter Road which would allow another connection into the whole development. I would rather see both. There are also two stub outs to the west and when developments come through on those sides you will be connected to those subdivisions and all the way to Starr Road. We don't approve many neighborhoods that are closed off anymore. We like many connections for access for cars to disburse the traffic and also for emergency services so if something happens at one entrance they will have another option to get into your subdivision, which you guys do not have right now. Glass: We have Madison to the west. Shackelford: That is to the west when Phase II was developed. There is a stub out down here. Vaught: That will be extended some day. I would rather be see both connections made. I don't know what the developers have to say to that. The best option probably, if you are going to have just one connection, is the Caston connection because the condition of Fox Hunter Road. I would like to see a second connection to disburse the traffic from this neighborhood and also give options. Glass: Can I have just one point of clarification? Anthes: Sure. Glass: You are saying Caston in this new subdivision is a city street? Anthes: Yes. Glass: So is this new subdivision in the city limits of Fayetteville? Vaught: It is a city street to the city limits and then it becomes a county road. Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 20 Glass: Caston all through this subdivision is a city street? Anthes: That is correct. Pate: In response to the connectivity, that is something that we actually brought up with the applicant in initial reviews with this. Obviously, this connection to the west of Caston was stubbed out for that very reason. We did look at the south. The slopes are really prohibitive. To the east there is a platted subdivision, Fox Hunter Estates. Obviously, the only other option was to go north. Currently, the property there shown as the City of Fayetteville, as I mentioned, is part of the park system. That 27' of frontage there really doesn't allow for any dedication of right of way or a street connection through. That is really one of the prohibitive things about connecting to the north in this area. Additionally, the traffic generated by eight or nine single family lots is not extensive. Anthes: One more clarification, normally when we look at a Preliminary Plat within the city limits we have a different set of criteria of things that we can look at as a committee. We are limited to the things that we can weigh when voting on areas outside of the city limits and for your benefit I would like for staff to review those items. Warrick: Considerations for properties that are outside the city limits within our Planning Area include streets, street grading base and paving must be according to city standards and specifications, curbs and gutters, grading and storm drainage system and water supply. All lots must have access to public water. Because we do not extend sanitary sewer outside the city limits, we require that any lot less than 1.5 acres in size attain a conditional approval from the County Health Department prior to being platted so that we can ensure the Health Department can approve a septic tank for that site. Those are the criteria that we review with regard to projects within the Planning Area. Those are projects that are specifically adjoining the city limits. When properties are further from the city in our Planning Area jurisdiction there are lesser requirements. Anthes: As far as I understand it, we have four things that we can review. One is that the septic and lot area size is met or we have a letter. In this case we do have a letter on file for each of those lots. The second thing we can review is water supply. These lots will receive city water and that meets all Engineering standards. The third thing that we can address at this level is grading and drainage. I believe that our Staff Engineer, Matt Casey, has discussed the grading and drainage on this property. He has indicated that we don't have a full plan at this time but at the time of construction he will do that. That is normal procedure for a county subdivision. The fourth thing that we can look at is street construction, that has to do with the curb and gutter, the width and the engineering of that street, is that correct? Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 21 Casey: The sub base for that street also. Warrick: I think it is appropriate that we look at the connectivity and the configuration of the street, the lots that are being proposed as well. We do have the ability to look at that. It is not enumerated in this specific listing but there are criteria and design standards for residential lots and the street connections that are appropriate and apply to this subdivision. Anthes: As far as lot size and configuration this seems to be pretty straight forward as opposed to other subdivisions we do see in the city. MOTION: Shackelford: I guess the only comments I would make, we talked about the four issues that we can review for county development and those four issues have been addressed. This project hits somewhat close to home. I built a house on Buckley Drive and I lived in Barrington Park for a while. I understand the concerns of the neighbors. It is going to get even more fun because the next one basically we are going to hear the same argument regarding Stonewood subdivision, where I currently live. I'm going to get to talk to most of my neighbors. I feel that as Planning Commissioners our basic job is to apply and interpret the ordinances that are put in place by the city's elected officials. One of the directions that we have gotten from the City Council as Planning Commissioners is to address connectivity on all development going forward. I think that that is something that we have to look at in this situation. I understand it does have an impact on the neighborhood but I think it is a direction that our city's elected officials have directed us to go with neighborhood development going forward. This obviously, isn't the end all. This is going to be forwarded to the Planning Commission. I would encourage the neighborhood association to speak their mind at that meeting as well and it will be heard by the City Council, who are the elected officials that put these ordinances in place. I think that we have done our homework to this point in addressing the issues that we can at this committee level and I am going to make a motion that we forward PPL 04-1148 to the full Planning Commission for consideration. One point that I would like to make, a comment was made very early in this conversation, I do like the idea of having a construction entrance and keeping the heavy equipment from coming through the neighborhood. A lot of damage to the infrastructure and that kind of thing, in these type of developments happen from construction equipment. I would like to see that addressed between this point and the time that we talk about it at Planning Commission. Vaught: I will second. Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 22 Anthes: I will concur. I will tell you that all the minutes from today's meeting will be entered into the record and will be seen by the Planning Commission as this progresses. Please feel free to encourage your neighbors to come to those meetings and we will see you in a couple of weeks. Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 23 PPL 04-1161: Preliminary Plat (PEMBRIDGE SUBDIVISION PH. 1): Submitted by MANDY BUNCH for property located at THE END OF GRAYSTONE DRIVE, EAST OF STONEWOOD S/D AND NORTH OF COPPER CREEK PH. 1. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 20.00 acres. The request is to approve the Preliminary Plat of a residential subdivision with 46 single family lots proposed. Anthes: The next item of business is PPL 04-1161 Pembridge subdivision. Will the applicant come forward please? Morgan: The subject property is 20.01 acres of vacant property located east of Hwy. 265 or Crossover Road and south of Albright Road. The proposal is to create a 48 lot subdivision with one lot featuring an existing pond reserved for open space to serve the subdivision. Additionally, two lots at this time are designated for detention. However, I believe the engineer may wish to address the detention on those two lots. This property is located adjacent to Stonewood subdivision. Stonewood is located to the west of this property. Copper Creek Phase I is located south of the subject property. An annexation and rezoning request to RSF-4 were approved by the City Council for this property in May, 2004. The applicant owns property within the Planning Area to the north for possible future extension of this subdivision. Adjacent land use and zoning consists of both county property and property within the city zoned RSF-4. Adjacent are subdivisions currently being developed. Right of way to be dedicated is 50' for all interior streets with the exception of Lions Hall Place and Queensway Court proposed to be dedicated as residential streets with 40' of right of way. Connectivity will be provided to Graystone Drive and Running Springs Drive, which have been stubbed out for future connections to this property. Connectivity from the subdivision is proposed in all cardinal directions. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets are Crossover Road, a principal arterial, and Zion Road, a collector street. Additionally, staff has received several calls from the public and approximately 24 notification receipts with comments concerning traffic generated by this new development, sight distance, visibility from Graystone to Hwy. 265. Concerns with construction traffic as well as connectivity and type of development proposed for this property. Staff recommends forward PPL 04-1161 to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval with the following fourteen conditions of approval. Of which, Planning Commission determination of required sidewalk on residential streets. Lions Hall Place and Queensway Court, staff recommends construction of a 4' sidewalk on both sides of the street. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for a cul-de-sac length greater than 500' for both the eastern and western extension of Queensway Court measuring approximately 520' as well as 622'. Staff is in favor of recommendation for these waiver requests. Also, parks fees are assessed in the amount of $25,530 for 46 single family units. Item number five, those lots designated for detention shall be classified non- Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 24 buildable on the Final Plat. Should the number of lots to be utilized for detention change at the time of Final Plat parks fees shall be adjusted accordingly. Additionally, the POA or similar entity shall be responsible for maintenance of designated common green space areas. An onsite mitigation for the planting of 22 mitigation trees with an accompanying Letter of Credit in the amount of $5,500. Pate: As Landscape Administrator, I just want to mention that we have been working with the applicant on the tree preservation plan. Staff is recommending approval of this tree preservation plan. They have utilized or routed utilities in areas that do not necessitate the removal of trees along the western property boundary. Additionally, the mitigation trees proposed will be planted in this neighborhood park area maintained by the POA. Anthes: Thank you. Rebecca? Ohman: Condition number four is basically 46 single family units as shown there are only 45 and therefore, the fees will be $24,975. Again, this is subject to change depending on the detention ponds. Casey: I want to clarify, currently our requirements are a 24' local street will have a sidewalk on both sides. It is our recommendation that a 4' sidewalk be shown on both sides of Queensway Court and Lions Hall Place. Right now we are showing a large enough detention pond to accommodate flow on this site and it is on two lots because there is a potential to utilize the detention pond with some modifications to take place on that so they may gain a lot but utilizing the existing pond. Anthes: If the applicants would introduce yourselves and give your presentation. Bunch: I'm Mandy Bunch with EB Landworks. I'm representing the owners, here with us today, John and Leslie Nooncaster. Nooncaster: My name is John Nooncaster. My wife Leslie and I are shareholders in Nooncaster Vineyards. Nooncaster Vineyards is the owner of the property and the developer. We have owned this property for over 20 years. We originally had grape vineyards planted on this property and we grew grapes on the property until Copper Creek and Stonewood were built adjacent to us. Now we are trying to develop the property to blend with Copper Creek and Stonewood and have homes equivalent or greater value here. Bunch: We worked in our layout to try to accommodate all the existing stubs. We had stubs that were required to the south, east and west that were existing that we connected to. We have also been working actively to try to preserve the trees. There is an existing 100'easement along the west Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 25 property line between this subdivision and Stonewood that will act as a buffer and rerouted all the utility easements away and the utility representatives have concurred in not having the utility easement along that west corridor so that all the existing trees can be saved. We were also trying to get that going for us on the south side too but we lost that battle. The interior area is an existing pond area. We are working through some different governmental agencies right now to decide what we can do with that pond. In the event that we can use that pond and modify it to work as a detention area, which it pretty much is now. The site is basically located on a ridge and the site water drains into this existing pond. It was constructed as a farm pond in the past. All the existing drainage will continue in the proposed state. Again, we are trying to use this existing pond more for detention, if possible, so that we can minimize the size of the pond on Lot 9 and 10 and possibly get an additional lot here. I'm not sure what else we need to bring up. We are here to answer any questions that we possibly can. Regarding the comments, the Nooncasters did meet with the neighbors. Nooncaster: I was called by one of the neighbors in Stonewood earlier this week and they were having a meeting on Wednesday evening. My wife and I attended that meeting. We tried to listen to their concerns and answer their questions as best as we could. I would say their main concern is construction traffic. We do have the two existing stubs to the property. We could split the traffic between those. We can try to work with the neighbors as much as we can. As Mandy mentioned, this property is relatively higher than other property. We don't anticipate bringing any fill material in so we hope to minimize construction traffic and all that traffic will, of course, be temporary. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to speak to PPL 04-1161? Please come forward, sign in and give your comments please. Bates: My name is David Bates. I'm a resident of Stonewood subdivision. I was at the meeting with the Nooncasters and the residents asked me to be here. Unfortunately, we don't have the number of residents as Barrington. Really, there are a couple of issues here. Obviously, the construction traffic is a big concern for the residents. We have a pretty contained community there. A majority of the residents do have small children, myself included, we have concerns with a traffic standpoint. Construction is a big concern of ours and along with that is our request for some type of entrance/exit or something to the north that connects with Albright Road. We are not satisfied with Graystone being the main artery. I understand that there is a main stub out, Hearthstone immediately to the south will be used and then basically it is an L to get back through. You are back into Copper Creek. The reality is Graystone is the main artery back there. We have traffic concerns. Personally I have a real concern for that intersection of Graystone and Hwy. 265. That is a dangerous intersection. Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 26 I understand that Hwy. 265 is a state highway but with the speed and the amount of traffic and trucks, that is a recipe for disaster. Beyond that, we understand that the development is going to go through. We don't oppose the homes going back there but we want to see another artery to the north to Albright Road. We would like to see that designated as the construction entrance and exit and be dedicated specifically to all the construction traffic. Secondary to that are some other issues with traffic signs being placed there on Graystone. I certainly think that needs to be studied. Traffic is going to be tremendous. That's it. Anthes: Is there any other member of the public that would like to address this Preliminary Plat? Inaudible Bunch: It is not like it is just one single cul-de-sac that is going on the hillside by itself. There is an opportunity to use the intersection is a hammerhead turn around and for both the full size cul-de-sac locations. Suzanne and I talked yesterday because I was measuring from centerline to centerline and she was measuring from curb to edge line. It was 120' on the eastern, it is only 622' but then there is a turnaround with 150' of that. The other one the way I originally measured it was less than 500' so this is definitely our preferred route. It was based a lot on tree preservation and existing pond locations and also opportunity to extend to the north. Nooncaster: To the north of this there are two existing single family homes along Albright so there never could be a straight through connection to Albright. Anthes: Does any other Commissioner have comments about cul-de-sac length and findings on items two and three? Vaught: They don't concern me necessarily but I think one of the main concerns is cul-de-sac lengths. Besides emergency services it is just connectivity through the neighborhood and boxing it off. This neighborhood seems to have adequate connectivity overall. Circumstances like this I don't have an issue with it. Shackelford: I agree with that also. I think that we have adequate connectivity in this subdivision. I think a lot of what they are trying to do is preserve the natural look out there which I'm a fan of. I would like to stop and have a real quick conversation at this point as obviously, as we look at this compared to the last project we looked at, I like the idea of having streets that aren't straight for traffic calming purposes. One of the questions that I have, we heard comments on the last item is the widths of the streets increase the speed so just a short conversation with staff on the 50' requirement on interior streets. I know that we are dropping two down to 40' right of ways. Can you enlighten us a little bit on the requirements for Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 27 the ordinances in that area please? Warrick: Truly what we use is a guideline with regard to street widths and the type of street that will access is the city's guiding Master Street Plan. A Residential street, which is a 40' right of way is designed to carry a service volume of 300 to 500 vehicles per day. Generally when you look at a single family residential lot the Institute of Traffic Engineers estimates that the trip generation for one single family home is between five and ten vehicle trips per day. In this case these two streets, Lions Hall Place and Queensway Court, combined, have about 14 or 15 lots that will access onto them and if you apply that equation they will generate between 1,400 and 1,500 vehicles per day as an average. We look for smaller streets that are not necessarily going to carry through traffic as an option for the smaller street type and the smaller right of way. A local street's standard width is 28' that allows parking on one side and requires a 50' right of way. Those are designed to carry approximately 4,000 vehicle trips per day. They function fairly well. When you get two lanes of traffic that can move people are parking on the sides which will slow traffic down to some degree. Those are the criteria that we start with when we are applying these standards. Shackelford: It seems like the more and more of these subdivisions that we see one of the covenants is restriction for on street parking but we continue to build 50' wide streets to allow on street parking and the covenants disallow it. That is something that we may look at. Anthes: It also can provide area between moving traffic and people on sidewalks. That is something to consider. I too think the cul-de-sacs are actually working in this. I do want to say that I really appreciate the way that this is laid out where you don't have all backyards backing up onto your proposed park area that people driving on Pembridge Place will be able to have advantage of visual access as well as physical access to that without it just being tucked behind back yards. I think that is real useful. Nooncaster: We want to make it a used area, not something we are trying to hide. Anthes: Parks fees are pretty straight forward. Is everybody comfortable with this flexibility on the lots and the detention? Vaught: Is that something that is going to be resolved by the time it goes to Planning Commission? Bunch: I'm actually waiting on the Federal government so I don't think I will promise that but we have to have it done before we have final plans so we will get it there as soon as we possibly can. Anthes: Jeremy said he is comfortable with the tree preservation plan. I want to be Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 28 clear, this 100' utility easement between Stonewood and this proposed development, the utilities actually will not be going through there and those trees will be maintained. Bunch: Right. That is a major electric line in there. Nooncaster: The 100' easement is in the Stonewood subdivision and it is a high powered transmission line in that area. Pate: Typically what we are going to see in this situation, and I believe what was requested at Plat Review, would be an additional easement along this property as well in the back. There are existing trees so Ms. Bunch has worked with utility companies to route utilities and manage those additional utilities. Nooncaster: We did not ask for a utility easement to protect these trees. Anthes: The residents of Stonewood will understand that those trees as you see them now will remain as a buffer between the properties. Are there any other comments? Bates: Can I ask for a clarification on the connectivity to Albright? There was a comment made about Albright Road and stub outs but I didn't catch all of that. What is the resolution there? Shackelford: There is a stub out to the north that my understanding is that there is a tract of property between this development and Albright Road that the developer does not own. The connection will happen if, and when, that property develops to the north of this. Bates: There is not going to be a connection at this time? Anthes: Currently no. Ms. Warrick can talk to you about that. We have a lot of developments that are happening after each other and our policy of connectivity and stub outs, we are seeing this in a lot of developments so perhaps you can clarify how that works. Warrick: The Planning Commission has the responsibility of ensuring that the developer not compound or cause a dangerous traffic condition. If you are comfortable in that determination there does not need to be the requirement for a developer to go and acquire additional property to provide additional stub outs or connections to be created in the future with development of adjoining property. We do look for developments as they come through the review process to provide adequate connectivity in the form of stubbing out streets and infrastructure to the property lines where neighboring property will pick up those connections and further them with their developments and provide the same type of connectivity as the Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 29 adjoining properties develop. We look at these properties one at a time, just as we did Stonewood. Stonewood was basically a closed off subdivision until Copper Creek adjoined it and continued those connections into the point of the subject property. Those connections will then be continued further to the north and the east for connections to the adjacent property that will be developed. Bunch: If I may throw a little more information in here. If you look at this we will basically end up with two connections to Hwy. 265 out of this entire conglomerate, which I think could probably mass to a total of around 420 units. The staff report noticed that we could have up to 80 on our tract but with the 20 acres we have proposed basically 45 lots, not 80 lots. This project is currently in process but I'm projecting that we have at least two outlets to ease Zion and that is still not taking into account what could happen on this particular tract. Then you have the one over to George Anderson, which is a county road under county jurisdiction and probably another one when this property develops and possibly another option to the north at that point. One of the things that actually precludes us from doing the move to Albright now is we have an area just to the north of us that is in the county wholly and then we have Springdale city limits. There are several other jurisdictions and I think we an all improvise with the presence of Stonewood. We all live in Northwest Arkansas and it is a lot of fun most of the time. I think probably within the next two to there years this will be finished and then at that point it will be quite a connected situation and I think one of the better connected residential developments in Fayetteville. I just wanted to throw that information about this property just so it doesn't seem that anything is being side stepped here. That is a future opportunity. Shackelford: Staff, Zion Road that we are talking about this stubbing out to, is that a State, a County or is it a City road? Warrick: I would have to look. There are portions of it in the county and portions of it in the city. Shackelford: That is still a dirt road and if that were developed out it would free up a lot more traffic. If that were a standard street I think there would be a lot of this traffic that would go out to Butterfield Coach and give an opportunity not to have to go to Hwy. 265. Nooncaster: George Anderson you mean? Shackelford: Yes, George Anderson, I'm sorry. Bunch: It is a collector on the Master Street Plan. Warrick: It is partially in the city and partially in the county. The north side of Zion Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 30 at Copper Creek is in the city and partially in the county. It is piece meal. Anthes: Are there any other comments or motions? MOTION: Vaught: I will make a motion that we forward PPL 04-1161 to the full Commission. Shackelford: I will second. Anthes: I will concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 31 PPL 04-1127: Preliminary Plat (SLOAN ESTATES): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC for property located at SAGELY LANE, WEST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH GULLEY ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 25.05 acres. The request is to approve a preliminary plat of a residential subdivision with 54 lots proposed. Anthes: The next item on the agenda is PPL 04-1127 for property located at Sagely Lane west of Gulley Road. The request is to approve a Preliminary Plat with 54 lots proposed. Morgan: The subject property is 25.05 acres of vacant property located east of Gulley Road. The applicant proposes to create a 56 lot subdivision with two lots utilized as detention. The property is located in the Planning Area. The proposal is to create lots which will utilize a community sewage system on 7.07 acres of property located to the northwest of this subdivision. This property is proposed to be leased for this use. Staff has found previous actions on this property including two property line adjustments as well as a Lot Split. Surrounding land uses are single family homes on large lots all within the county. Water will be extended to serve the proposed development. The applicant proposes lots of approximately .3 acres, again, utilizing a community septic system on leased land. Conditional approval from the Arkansas State Health Department is required prior to Planning Commission approval. We have not received that conditioned approval at this time. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets are Gulley Road, a collector, which is located to the east of this property, as well as Sagely Lane, a minor arterial, which is designated to bisect this property. Additionally, the applicant proposes to dedicate right of way for a total of 35' from centerline for Gulley Road as well as 70' of right of way for Sagely Lane where 90' is required. Staff has found that with previous actions on this property 90' of right of way was required to be dedicated in a different configuration than that proposed in this subdivision. Staff is continuing to research if that dedication was ever filed but it was required with previous Lot Splits. Connectivity is proposed from the western extension of Sagely Lane to the west. Additional connections are proposed to the north. There is a street stub out to property to the north and this stubs out to the leased area for the community septic system. Staff has had several comments from the public with concerns about proposed density and traffic volume generated by the proposed development. At this time due to outstanding issues with septic system approval and street connections related to the designated Master Street Plan location of Sagely Lane staff is not recommending forwarding this Preliminary Plat to the full Planning Commission. Staff recommends that it be tabled to allow resolution of items which may vary the configuration of the proposed subdivision and for the applicant and staff to better address the issues relating to right of way for Sagely Lane as well as approval for the proposed community septic system. Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 32 Shackelford: I went to look at this property yesterday and I got confused. The subject property is 25.05 acres of vacant property located "east" of Gulley Road, it is west of Gulley Road isn't it? Morgan: Yes, sorry. Shackelford: No problem. I was just hoping that I looked at the right piece of property. Anthes: Are there other staff reports? Casey: I want to clarify our Engineering reviews on this property. This property is not adjacent to the city limits, like we saw in one of the previous developments today, so the only review that the Engineering Division will be doing on this is for the water system. They will be extending public water to each of the lots and the Engineering Division will be reviewing those plans. We will not be looking at streets, storm drainage or the proposed sewer system. Anthes: That is outside our jurisdiction because this is located in the Planning Area. ??: When is the hearing with the county? Warrick: The process in order for a project to be heard and reviewed that is located outside the city limits but within the city's Planning Area is first to obtain approval from the city Planning Commission. Once that is done they will then go to the County Planning Board and slate their item on a County Planning Board agenda. As far as the posting and scheduling of those agendas, I'm sure that the County Planner's office can provide you with that information. This item has to first go through the city's Planning process before they will hear it at the Planning Board. Scott Silkwood: It will most likely be the first Thursday in October. Anthes: For the record, Celia Scott Silkwood is here from the Washington County Planning Department. Since we have had a variety of different kinds of review today, before we take public comment will you remind us of what we can look at on this parcel that is different from the previous two parcels that we considered. Warrick: We are trying to ensure that our Master Street Plan is addressed and that water is provided to all of the proposed lots within this development. Anthes: We don't have jurisdiction over layout, lot configuration and those other things. Warrick: We can look at those things with regard to the assurance that the integrity Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 33 of our Master Street Plan is maintained. Those things may come into those types of discussions. That is one of the things that staff is a little bit concerned about. We have found previous actions that indicated a Master Street Plan right of way that bisects this property. It is not shown in the same configuration as the proposed extension of Sagely. We feel like we just need a little more time to work with the applicant's engineer to ensure that we are getting this thing configured properly based on previous Lot Splits and lot line adjustment actions and the existing adopted Master Street Plan. There is a tract of land further west of this that has a continuation of that right of way being called out and it is very important that we can make sure that these things line up. Anthes: Would the applicant like to introduce yourself and give your presentation? Scott: I'm Art Scott with Project Design Consultants representing the developer. We concur with staff that we need to work on this configuration of Sagely Lane issue. The initial plans that we had shows some schematic lines, there are no dedicated right of ways at this time so obviously, being the first one in we decided that we wanted to lay this out to the best to maximize the use of our property here. Apparently it is conflicting with some things to the west and we are going to table this until the next Subdivision meeting to work through that with the city. I would like to hear any comments from the public so we might be able to address those also. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to speak to PPL 04-1127? Please come forward and sign in. Wood: Thank you. I'm Steve Wood. My property is at 3003 Gulley Road. Certainly we all appreciate the time that the committees here devote to planning issues which obviously are very complex and important to different groups. My concern, of course, is with this plat in many areas. The first of which is probably beyond the scope of what could be decided in any Planning Commission and certainly in any County Planning Commission because we really don't have county zoning yet, unfortunately. My first comment of course is that this development is certainly totally out of character with the surrounding immediate area. When I look at the City of Fayetteville's goals and I see a statement of planned and managed growth, it seems that the plans are developed elsewhere in an engineering firm based on surveys and then are presented to committees to affirm. It is the public's concern that you all evoke your authority and insight and hopefully rules and ordinances appropriately to invoke the managed part of this. I see over here a naturally beautiful city, our mountains and hills, our creeks, our open green spaces. We all know that the Gulley mountain over there generated a lot of controversy when they put that huge water tower. That hill can be seen all around for miles. It is almost a landmark just like Mt. Sequoyah is here in town. What we Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 34 have here before us is essentially on the top of that beautiful southern exposure of that mountain just a track housing development. This is row after row of closely spaced ill conceived, unaesthetic track housing. Basically what we are talking about here is just money. What you have is a beautiful piece of property that was sold off, probably at a high dollar, to a developer who is going to block it off and get his money and go off and live somewhere where there ain't a lot of houses and it is nice, open and green so he doesn't have to worry about it. That is a personal assessment, I can't speak for the owners. However, what happens here is that people make their money on these developments and then they go on and do their own thing but the City of Fayetteville and the citizens of Fayetteville are stuck with what's left for hundreds of years. Guess who's responsibility really is invoked here because of that decision. It is the Planning Commission's and it is our City Council. I am very concerned about this on an aesthetic sense. Getting to other issues here that are probably more pertinent, I know that the Master Street Plan has an arterial line that is supposed to connect all the way through and then go beyond Sagely onto Sassafras Hill Road. I am concerned about the way this plat is laid out and it doesn't seem to be an arterial, it just seems to be a little community neighborhood street. I am very concerned about that. Certainly when you have, first of all, it was posted as being 44 and then it was 54 lots on this small space all the high density traffic in this area, and certainly we already know those of us who have property on Gulley Road, it is a 60 mile per hour place. That is a cut through area going to Springdale. I am very concerned about the density of traffic. There is only one place coming out onto Gulley Road, certainly on the plat there is something coming out west but when is the city going to connect to that? Basically, we are only talking about one entrance and exit to this area for quite a long time I'll bet. The disbursement of traffic and those issues are certainly very concerning here. Another issue, those of us who have property on that mountain, are very concerned about the surface water drainage issues as would happen with any development. It is very severe, the erosion hazard is very severe along that mountain and it is not to be taken lightly I can guarantee you. Just recently we had a concern about a substation being placed up there at the top of the hill by Ozarks Electric and many members of the community in the area around there came to meetings and gave concerns to Ozarks Electric about the aesthetics of this substation with lighting issues, placement, how are the lines going to come in, would you please bury the lines so it is aesthetically pleasing. Again, these issues come to light but this time we've got a track housing development instead of a substation development. Even more importantly I think for a high density area and you are going to pull all the septic into a large septic system for that area, I'm interested in wondering if the city has any concerns about that or is that an adequate substitute for not having enough sewer capacity now? Is this permanent? If it is acceptable then why even worry about sewer systems? What is the deal here? That is one issue that is concerning and basically it has a lot to do with effluent. All the effluent Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 35 in this area goes to the Illinois River Basin. There are many issues regarding that on all levels, interstate, state, community. All these things effect the water shed of the Illinois River. Does the city have standards for these mega septic systems? Has this been done elsewhere in the city growth zone? Does it work? I'm not so sure about that. Is the city allowing substitution to do this as a substitute for putting in sewer systems? I don't know. More importantly, I think anybody that lives on the mountain over there could understand that the geology in that area is certainly unique in that there are many, many, many wet water springs. Almost every farm pond over there is not fed by a creek, it is fed by a wet water spring that percolates up from the underlying stratum. That is very concerning. Certainly in the upper northwest corner of this development there is a stocked pond up there that has been up there for many years. It is fed by a wet water spring. It is constantly flowing. You think, what does this mean? Basically, up there at the very top of the hill you've got water coming up out of the ground all over the place. I would venture to say if you are going to have a 54 or 55 house subdivision dumping their sewage into a single system and then you are going to have a leach field that is three or four acres dumping their effluent in there with the geology and the wet water springs and all of those things I just honestly do not think that that is a doable deal, especially with the density of housing that is planned. I think they are totally out of concept and I certainly agree with the recommendations of everyone on the committee to investigate that further before any approval is given to any development up there. I appreciate your listening to my comments and those are some of the concerns I have, which there are many. I'm not against growth but certainly I think to maintain property values and the aesthetic nature of our community we certainly need to hopefully invoke the authority that you can to make it happen correctly. Thank you very much. Anthes: Is there any more public comment? Gibbs: I'm Teresa Tuck Gibbs. My address is 3031 N. Gulley Road. The property in question is property that was bought by my parents in about 1952 and was sold subsequent to their deaths six or seven years ago. I don't have the exact date. At the time we were contacted by a number of developers to develop the land and we turned them all down. We sold it to a gentleman who gave us his word that he was going to put a house for himself and his two sons on the property. That didn't happen and I don't know why. The property has just now been sold to the developer. To someone who has no history in that area, has absolutely no concern for the area. I'm not naive enough to believe that that land will never be developed but I came back to Fayetteville after an absence of 35 years to move into a house that my parents built almost 50 years ago because I love the area and the natural beauty. It dismays me to see it so totally just ignored, just absolutely ignored! We talk about the density, and I know that you don't have anything to do with the traffic at this point. However, Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 36 there is only one outlet to this plat and it goes to a blind corner. It is right before a blind corner. People come off of Hwy. 45 at 60 miles per hour. They hit a blind corner and then they hit another 45 degree corner. It is just frightening. I cannot walk across the street to my mailbox at this point during certain times of the day. I cannot imagine what it would be like if you put 54 houses there. I know on the public hearing sign it says 44 lots. When I talked to the city yesterday they told me it was 54. I'm not sure how much it is. All I know is that it doesn't come anywhere near meeting the requirements of the sewer system acre and a half which is sufficient to support a septic system. I have two septic tanks on my property. I have ten acres. I have a pond that is half an acre that is totally supported by springs. If I didn't have a good spill over it would go all over my yard. When we had the rains not too long ago I had intense flooding in a house that has been there for 50 years. That is how wet it is there. I think what disturbs me the most about this is that it simply doesn't say what I thought Fayetteville said. I'm very proud of my community and I'm thrilled to be back here. I like to live in a community that builds up its downtown, works on Dickson Street, protects Mt. Sequoyah. I want it to stay that way. If we don't do it now it won't. We are putting in subdivision after subdivision with absolutely no concern for the aesthetics of the area and yet the aesthetics of the area are what bring people to Fayetteville. What we are saying to people is if you are going to build outside the city limits but within the Planning Area, beware. We will not protect you from developments that totally destroy the beauty of this country. Thank you. I have a letter to be included also. Ginger: Good morning. My name is Dr. John Ginger. I live on the north edge of this proposed property and the subdivision. We have lived in that area, I've been in Fayetteville for 30 years and I have lived on that particular piece of property for 25 years. We have owned 14 acres there, part of it was sold to my son in law who is Scott Jones who owns the seven acres which was bought for the effluent field, or is proposed to be bought. I am concerned about several things including what has been spoken of already which is the lot size and the lot density. This is a small acreage with a very narrow configuration with a narrow way to get onto Gulley Road. The 90° angle comes from Gulley Road. From the north is a blind corner and so consequently the cars come around there sometimes at excessive speeds and not paying too much attention to lane position. I have had many close calls in that particular spot and if you have traffic coming onto that road from the west onto Gulley Road then you are going to be into a position of entering into a very busy and very dense and treacherous situation. I'm also concerned that there ought to be some type of preparation for the sewer system. I have lived there for 25 years and there are wet springs that flow from my property onto the west and south and with the wet weather springs I'm concerned that that is going to come right up out of the ground. There are collecting ponds that are there now and those ponds will soon be contaminated with the waste from that sewer Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 37 system. I question that. There is a stub in onto that seven acres. There is some concern that that might ultimately be built upon. I think we ought to limit the number of lots and increase the size of the lots to accommodate larger dwellings and more scenic dwellings and perhaps even increase the value to the developer of making the property more valuable. I think there are many folks who would like to have larger lot sizes rather than these .3 acre sizes, '/2 acre, 3/4 acre and even one acre, even though that is also less than the requirement for an acre and a half lot. I appreciate your concern and I appreciate your attention to detail. As a property owner and a long time resident in the county I have real concerns about the density and the location and the arrangements. I appreciate your attention. Sterling: My name is Brent Sterling. I own the property directly to the south of this development. I also have many of the same concerns. I moved into this area and bought ten acres to be out in an area where it was a beautiful country setting. I built a nice home in that area and the homes in the area and the surrounding area are all nice, larger homes. The development to the north that is going in by Bob Gaddy is a very large development with large sized lots. It has a very aesthetic pleasing look. This layout of 54 tract homes is on very small lots, it just does not fit in with the area. It is not going to be aesthetically pleasing and it is going to be an eye sore for the area. It is going to create a very bad traffic problem with that one exit onto Gulley Road. The concerns about the ground water and the sewer system are great to me because I'm directly south of that property. They have mentioned the water that is in the springs. My interest in my property has water that runs across it and I've had to put French drains in and it runs year around because of the water coming down that hill towards my property. Any septic system that is going to be taking 54 homes into one central location is going to contaminate that ground water that is going to be coming down hill at some point or another and it is going to be coming onto my property and the property of everybody surrounding that area. That is a great concern to me. While I'm not against development, I'm against development that is this small number of properties there. If it could be developed in an area or manner that would be more consistent with larger lots and more aesthetically pleasing that could accommodate it's own septic systems I think it would be more amenable to the public in that area. I am concerned with the type of homes that are going in there and the developer himself. If it is Bob Schmitt's development I've seen some of the smaller homes that he has put in on some very small lots and they have not worked with septic systems and they have had sewer on the ground and it has been a problem in the past. That is on Hwy. 45 East. There is a history if that is the type of property that is going in here it is not going to be something that is going to be workable for that area. We would ask, and I know all the people in that area, would ask that it be looked at very closely and there be some major changes made to this development if it is going to go in at all. Thank you for your time. Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 38 Anthes: Thank you. We are going to deviate from our general pattern. We have a person that is going to have to leave and I want to get his comments for the record. Vaught: My main questions are, besides working out the Master Street Plan issue, just understanding, I don't know what kind of control we have over the lease. The septic area that is on our plat is a leased area which raises more questions. I know other cities in the area or other counties has passed this as their type of sewer system. Lowell passed an ordinance that they are going to this type of sewer system inside their city limits. I am interested in the process of that and knowing what we need to look at as commissioners on this. Do we have control over that type of issue? I don't know. You said we can look at lot layout but does that mean size or traffic? Is that something that is done at the county level? I just would like an understanding of all of those. That is from my perspective and maybe we can have a report by staff on that by the next Subdivision Committee meeting. I believe that the septic area that specifies a lease area is something, it is just a question, but I want to know if we can consider that at this level or if that is a county issue. Those are my comments. Then just the Master Street Plan layout and how it is going to, if there is a possibility for another connection up to Gulley Road coming off that sharp corner or if there are other options at all. Anthes: I will go back to public comment now. Alter: Hi, my name is Fay Alter. I live at 3030 N. Gulley Road, which is kitty corner from this particular property. Most of my comments are actually reiterations of what other people have already said. We bought that property about six years ago and moved out about four years ago and our main reason for moving out of the center of town was to be on a piece of property that had aesthetics and a little more room. When they started developing north, in fact, there are two subdivisions a quarter of a mile north of this particular property in question. I know that one, the piece of property that is on the west side, the smallest lot is two acres. The one on the east has yet to be determined as far as I know, but I'm assuming that it is going to be at least two acres. Scott: They are 3/4 acre lots. Alter: Ok, that is a little higher density than the rest of the neighborhood but obviously, they are trying to manage it in some aesthetics. It just really kind of breaks my heart that they are going to be putting houses one after another down a strip of road. I'm assuming that the Master Plan connects Gulley Road along that corridor on this property, is that correct? Warrick: No. Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 39 Alter: Nothing goes onto Altus, so that makes it even harder. I don't mind development. I really appreciate the fact that we are growing out in our part of the county and that at some point we will be incorporated into the city. I would ask that they modify the plan to get larger lots that are configured with septic systems that would be self sustaining rather than putting it out onto a leased piece. Ultimately, I think the tax base that the taxes that would be collected for the county and the city would certainly bounce out instead of putting all of these little houses along the way. It would configure with the rest of the neighborhood and larger homes, so the tax base would certainly equal out to what they are proposing. Anthes: Is there any other member of the public who would like to address this item? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Subdivision Committee for discussion. Shackelford: I think that the applicant asked your opinions, I think we have given everybody an opportunity to speak to those concerns. There are some administrative items, if you will, that need to be addressed before we go into those issues. I am going to make a motion that we table PPL 04-1127 to the next Subdivision Committee meeting. Anthes: I will agree. I would tell the neighbors that Ms. Silkwood is here. She can clarify what the county can review at their level verses what the city can and it will be back here in three weeks if the applicant is ready. We will be looking at this piece of property again. I would encourage the applicant to meet with the surrounding property owners as soon as possible. Gibbs: Can I have one clarification on that? It is scheduled to be addressed at the Planning Commission on August 23rd. Does that mean it won't be? Anthes: We are tabling this back to this committee before it goes to the Planning Commission. Ginger: Will we be notified of that meeting or do we just need to check and see when it is normally scheduled? Warrick: We will be posting new signs and sending notification on the new meeting dates. You are more than welcome to keep in touch with the city Planning Office and we will let you know of any new information that we have as we have it. Shackelford: The next meeting is three weeks from today. You might want to put that on your calendar. Anthes: I just want to say that I do have concerns. We would want to hear from a board that does approve septic systems in the county so that we have a Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 40 better understanding about what this system will be. Warrick: I was just going to add that there were questions and concerns about this community septic system being utilized. It has been used in other areas in Northwest Arkansas. To our knowledge, this is the first one that has been proposed in the Fayetteville Planning Area so it is new for us as well. It is outside the city's jurisdiction to govern it directly. However, we will do our best to understand it so that we can answer questions and the applicant can assist in that as well since he is going to be designing it. Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 41 LSD 04-1149: Large Scale Development (ELDER CONDOMINIUMS): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC for property located at SALEM ROAD, N OF WEDINGTON. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 4.77 acres. The request is to approve an apartment complex with 116 bedrooms and 145 parking spaces proposed. Anthes: The next item of business is LSD 04-1149 for Elder Condominiums. Will the applicant come forward please? Pate: This is a Large Scale Development for a 4.77 acre tract located on Salem Road north of Wedington Drive. It is directly south of Walnut Heights subdivision. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office. The applicant is proposing multi -family dwellings which is allowed by a Conditional Use in the R -O zoning district. You may remember back in April there was a Conditional Use approved for multi -family dwelling units. I have included that staff report with the conditions of approval for that Conditional Use which must follow through with this Large Scale Development. As a summary, the maximum density of 14 units per acre, which is being complied with. Another condition was that a LSD be processed, which we are processing currently. Screening of utilities, trash enclosures, parking lots and planting street trees along Salem Road are some other items in that conditional approval. The subject LSD plan before you is proposed to meet all of those requirements as well as all other applicable development ordinances that we review with LSDs. The applicant is proposing to develop the subject property with 58 two bedroom condominium units for a density of 12 dwelling units per acre. A total of 116 bedrooms are proposed with 125 parking spaces to serve future residents and visitors. There is a wrought iron fence proposed to surround the development on the south, the east and the west along with a fence and vegetative screening on the north property line adjacent to the existing single family residences. Access is proposed from the existing curb cut along Salem Road, which was constructed with the Arkansas National Bank. The developer as for that Conditional Use and Final Plat for this property is required to build a private street and a 6' sidewalk to city standards along that southern boundary which is within an access easement. Right of way has been dedicated along Salem Road for this property with the Final Plat. There are no specific street improvements recommended at this time with the exception of the broken sidewalk that does need to be replaced. Staff is recommending an additional connection to the south of the property to facilitate future traffic movement in the area with additional development. As you may know, in the plans to the west there is a note to be stubbed out in the future. Staff is recommending that that be stubbed out at this time so that future development is clear that that is to be connected to. For the tree preservation areas, the only existing trees along this site are to the west of this property are along the western property boundary. Most of which are actually located on adjacent property, the canopy of which extends onto this subject 4.77 acres. As Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 42 you notice, there is existing 2.2% and preserved is 0.01%. The reason being is those are in existing utility easements and cannot be counted as preserved trees. Again, our calculations for on site mitigation, staff is recommending that on site mitigation occur in this location and utilizing those as screening trees along the northern property boundary. I believe all of those trees and then some will be accommodated in that location. Staff is recommending approval of LSD 04-1149 at this level with a number of conditions, 19 in total. I will mention just a couple of those. Planning Commission determination of the Conditional Use compliance. Specifically, for condition number eleven. The reason that you have elevation submitted is there is a request in the Conditional Use that elevations be presented at the time of LSD. Item number two, Planning Commission determination of the development's connectivity. Staff is recommending an additional connection to the south for future cross access and the stub out we are recommending be constructed to the south property line with this project. Item number three, prior to issuance of building permit, the affected building, which is the building at the southwest corner, there is an existing 20' utility easement along the overhead electric line on the southwest corner of the property that does need to be formally vacated before the building can be constructed in that location. It is indicated on our plats that that overhead electric line will be relocated underground however, it does need to go through that process. The Conditional Use conditions of approval do need to be complied with as well, which is condition number four. Item number five is just a clarification. On the plat it is listed as the building height is 26', we just need a clarification if that is the eave height or if that is the roof height. If it is the eave height there may be additional setback requirements. The main conditions are for the most part, repeats of what the Conditional Use conditions were. If you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them. Anthes: Are there any other staff reports? Ohman: Yes. Parks fees are due in the amount of $32,190 for the 58 units. This has changed from a multi -family designation formula to the single family because the units will be condominiums so based upon that, it will go to $555 per single family unit. The total is $32,290. Thanks. Pate: I have a clarification as well, because we only have two commissioners remaining we will have to recommend that this be forwarded on. Anthes: Will you introduce yourselves and give your presentation? Moore: I'm Brian Moore with Engineering Services. The project engineer, Jason Apple, is with me as well as Steve Miller who is the architect on the project. I really don't have a formal presentation. The only issue that I would see is the stub out to the south in that area. We really don't want to build to the south property line right now. We don't mind the stub out Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 43 going to be there but if you will look at the grading it is pretty extensive right there so you would end up having to get on the adjacent property to grade if you were to grade down. Matt can maybe address that, build some kind of retaining wall or something, but that is the only issue that we have. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to speak to LSD 04-1149? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Committee. The first thing we should do is ask Matt about this stub out and the grading. I'm pretty sure that that is our general requirement on most projects so that the next adjacent property owner that builds connects directly to the property line and they don't have to then come and do work on your property. Casey: For the drive it needs to be stubbed out right to the property line. The grading for the building pads that are shown, if it comes within 5' of any property line we need to have on file a written approval from the adjacent property owner authorizing that work to be done. Moore: Sure. Matt, what my concern is on the stub out to the south. We have got a 4' drop right through there. It would just, without going onto the adjacent property, we are not going to be able to grade that out. Casey: I would like to see something other than just a vertical drop there. If you can just include that written agreement with the adjacent property owner in that temporary grading shown so you don't have a vertical drop. Moore: The only thing I can think is if we went ahead and dedicated some kind of easement there that they could get on our property. We don't know when that is going to be or anything. Casey: Isn't there an easement already for that? Moore: No, I'm on the west side. Are you familiar with where I'm at over here? It is not the main drive. It is over here on the west where they wanted that additional stub out. Casey: The answer would be the same. We just need to work with the adjacent property owner and get their permission to do that grading and show that on the grading plan. Moore: If they won't give us that permission? Casey: Then we have to go back to the drawing board and we may look at, it would have to be setback 5' from the property line. Whatever construction is done, whether it is grading or retaining wall construction. Without their consent we can't get within 5' of the property lines. Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 44 Pate: I would also want to mention too that coordination of that wrought iron fence along the south is crucial as well because obviously, if there is no new connection made then at this point there is a wrought iron fence along the property line that would obviously, preclude any connection being made. Moore: We will make provisions for that. Shackelford: I've got one question. What kind of time frame do you think you need to visit with the adjoining property owner? Moore: I guess we will go ahead and stub it out all the way and put a retaining wall right there if we have to. Right now staff is telling me on this side that I have to go to the adjacent property line. Matt is telling me if I go within 5' I have to get written approval from them. I don't know if I'm getting two different waves right here. I don't know which way to react. We may call this lady and she say we can't grade on her property. We try to put our detention pond and buy a piece over here and she wouldn't allow that so we will try to contact her as soon as we can. Warrick: I would just add that you are showing several areas along this south property line that you are grading within 5' so regardless of that stub out you are going to need an agreement between the adjoining property owner and your owner in order to construct it the way it is shown on your plan. That is something that you were going to be approaching that property owner about regardless. Staff's concern about not having the stub out actually built is that the residence within this development won't understand that there is a future connection proposed. The developer of the property to the south won't understand that and then when we get to this point with that project we will have an issue. It is an issue that we don't need to discuss. It is an issue that we have talked about at Conditional Use stage. We have talked about it now. If the Planning Commission deems it appropriate it just needs to be built. Moore: We will try to get the ... we will talk to them and see what we can do. If we can't we will come back at Planning Commission and tell you that we tried and they would not allow us to do it and not only will we show the stub out here 5', we will put a small wall on the south side and alleviate any grading within 5' of the property line. Warrick: The only situation that I've seen where we have not required the stub out fully to the property line on a project occurred with the extension of Mall Avenue south of Joyce when it was extended further south for the development that included Old Navy and then the strip center where Goody's and David's Bridal are located. There were issues with the grade and when the project with the LSD came through and the street was going to be extended fully south to the property line the developer of that project Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 45 put money in escrow as a delayed improvement, made notes on the plat and they paid for the extension to the property line. However, it could not actually be constructed until the street was extended south on another project. That is another option. It is my opinion that it is this developer's responsibility to ensure that the connection can be made whether that is physical improvements on the ground or money in escrow. Moore: We wouldn't be, if we can't get the easement, that is not something that we would bock at at all. It is only about 10'. Shackelford: You shouldn't have any trouble getting that done between now and Planning Commission? Moore: No. Anthes: Let's go through the conditions of approval. One is Conditional Use compliance. Condition number eleven with the Conditional Use was that the elevations be submitted to ensure compatibility with adjacent development and provide an appropriate transition for the commercial development to the south and the single family and two family residential to the north, west and east. We wanted to look at articulation of structures and building material selections, etc. First of all I guess we need to clarify the building height complies. Apple: It is 26' to the ridge. Anthes: Since we have exceeded our height by 6' do we have an additional setback requirement? Pate: That measurement is to the eave so this would be appropriate. Shackelford: Obviously, we are going to have to forward this to the full Planning Commission. I think determination of conditions number one and two can be addressed at that time. As I read back through the minutes and as I remember this project, I think that they are in line with what we intended whenever we looked at this previously. I'm comfortable with what has been presented and with what the Planning Commission heard when we reviewed it at that time. Anthes: I guess I differ a little bit in that. I want you guys to have the benefit of comments so you don't get blindsided if there are additional comments at Planning Commission. I would have hoped that these units would have contributed to the street that you are building through the property in a more direct way. The entrances are setback and the prominence of garages. There is a perimeter of fence proposed that is iron so you can see through it. That is just a backdoor condition which may not be very exciting to the adjoining property owners in terms of visibility. The blank, Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 46 unarticulated ends to these structures. I guess these seem so internally contained in that there is not a lot of contribution to a community or public life within this development. Apple: Can you explain what you are talking about in terms of "contributing to the street." Anthes: Sure. Porches, stoops, things where people can interact with their neighbors that they are living in such close proximity to rather than going back into sort of a dark recess and having the garages prominent. People will want to park their cars in the garages, go right into the unit and not have any of that kind of relationship that builds community. Your parking lot is essentially your street. I guess that is my comment about the elevations. We don't normally look at that at this level, I will grant you. But, because the condition of granting the Conditional Use I felt like I needed to make those comments. Connectivity, I believe, is exactly what we looked at and agreed upon at the Conditional Use process so as long as we get the stub out going through we have met that condition. The Vacation request, obviously, you have to go through the process on that. With the building height we have clarified that setbacks are ok. You are in agreement with the parks fees that you heard today? Moore: Yes. Anthes: Are there any other comments or questions? Shackelford: I don't think so. Like you mentioned, the rest of the issues are things that we addressed when we looked at this a few months back. I will go ahead and make a motion to forward LSD 04-1149 to the full Planning Commission. Anthes: Second. We will see you then. Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 47 PZD 04-1154: Planned Zoning District (CLIFFSIDE PZD): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC for property located at THE EAST SIDE OF HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD, SOUTH OF THE CLIFFS APARTMENTS.. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 26.30 acres. The request is to approve a Residential Planned Zoning District on the subject property with approximately 46 two-family and 20 single family lots proposed. Anthes: Item number seven has requested to be tabled. Do we need to take action on that? Warrick: I think it is appropriate for the committee to understand that we are recommending that it be tabled. The applicant is working with some adjoining property owners. In this case this project adjoins Happy Hollow school. We are trying to make sure that everybody is understanding where things are going. The applicant is going to be meeting with representatives from the school and I guess if anybody here is wanting to comment on it, it would be appropriate to hear what kinds of comments or questions that they have. Anthes: Is anybody here for that item? We will have a brief staff report and take public comment. That means we will be looking at item seven, PZD 04- 1154. Morgan: This item is a proposal for a Residential Planned Zoning District for property located east of Happy Hollow Road south of the Cliffs Apartments. The property is currently zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 26.3 acres. The request is to approve a R-PZD with approximately 46 two family and 20 single family lots proposed. Connectivity is proposed to Happy Hollow Road as well as a stub out to the south and to the east. Anthes: Are there any overriding principals that we need to discuss? Casey: Nothing at this point. We have some issues that we need to work out with the applicant. Ohman: This has been before the Parks Board already. Parks fees will be $29,178 with the current configuration of 20 single family and 46 multi family. Pate: It looks like they are meeting or exceeding the required amount for a PZD, 25%. Additionally, this applicant has worked with staff to ensure that they are saving riparian corridors as part of that tree preservation area. The applicant is also proposing a trail system through this corridor. Anthes: Would the applicant like to give a brief presentation? Scott: Certainly. My name is Art Scott with Project Design Consultants. I'm the Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 48 engineer on the project. We intend to access Happy Hollow Road at one point here. Staff has recommended that we take a look at connecting to Ray Street here. I think that is a good idea, it gives us another access for this subdivision and will alleviate some traffic concerns down here with congestion at the school. We will be at the open house at the school on Tuesday night to discuss that with parents and teachers. Anthes: What time is that event so anyone watching can go? Scott: I don't know. Warrick: The principal of course is ensuring that the parents in the Happy Hollow school district knows. The open house was scheduled prior to any consideration of the project and they have agreed to allow the developers set up an informational booth and be available to answer questions as people have them about what may be going on in the area that could affect the school. Anthes: I will open it to public comment if you would like to come to the front, introduce yourselves and sign in we can hear your comments. Portner: Good morning, my name is Arthur Portner And this is my wife Donna. We live at 324 Happy Hollow Road, which puts us pretty close to this project. Basically, today we have just came to see the plat. I don't really know what I'm talking about as far as the looks but I'm concerned about the drainage. There is a big drainage problem over there. There is some property across the street from your proposed project, a little to the south, that is owned by the Mayor. I think it is 35 acres and he once tried to develop that area there and started what looks like to be a subdivision and I think probably what happened was the drainage killed the project because there is a heck of a wash that comes off of Mt. Sequoyah that ends up in my yard, which I bought into with my eyes open. I saw that coming. It seems to me that every time we get projects going into town here we follow up with what is going to happen with the drainage after all the concrete is down and hardened. I would like to get ahead of the curve on that if we could. Other than that, again, without seeing anything or having any knowledge of it, I have no objection to a project like this going in. The only other situation that it might pay to get ahead of is the ingress and egress, which I think you are addressing with Ray Street opening and if Happy Hollow is going to be used for ingress and egress then again, we are right back to the drainage problem because if you look on the city maps you see that that one section of town is probably the only section of town that doesn't have any sewers in it. Whenever the runoff comes it comes right into a gulley and washes out everything. You can pretty much see where I'm coming from. It is pretty obvious I'm worried about the drainage and how it is going to affect my property that my home is on and the approximately three acres that sits north of my property that I own too. Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 49 If we could address those problems in the preliminary discussion of this I would appreciate it. Thank you. Anthes: Again, there will be an open house at the school on Tuesday night so if you want to see this I'm assuming they will have drawings there. You can also come to the Planning Office. Portner: I have another question if I may. On your single family housing residential establishments, do you have an idea of the average price per house you are going to put in there? Scott: We are looking at 1,300 to 1,500 square feet at $100 per square feet or maybe a little less. Portner: This is going to sound kind of dicey, I don't mean it to sound dicey, but there are other places in town that shoot for a little lower socioeconomic group that we have found out after a while deals with a lot of "thugs" and stuff like that and so I don't want my property value to go around. You can understand that, nobody would want that. It sounds like you're not shooting for that. Of course, the old thing, we have got the kids going to Happy Hollow there and I think they are overburdened with kids already and shipping them out and the trash problem. I don't think we can do much in front of the curve ball on that one. Anthes: I don't see anybody else here so I will close it to public comment and have a motion to table. MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion that we table PZD 04-1154 to the next regularly scheduled Subdivision Committee meeting. Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 50 PZD 04-1159: Planned Zoning District (BEACON FLATS): Submitted by MORGAN HOOKER for property located at 867 N COLLEGE AVENUE. The property is zoned R - O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.69 acres. The request is to approve a Planned Zoning Development with office space and 9 dwelling units proposed. Anthes: Our last item of business this morning is R-PZD 04-1159 for Beacon Flats and this one is Jeremy's. Pate: You may remember, we have seen this property before with a Conditional Use request. The property is located on the corner of College Avenue, Cleburn Street and Pollard Avenue. It is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.61 acres. The site was formerly used as Nick's Auto Garage. The applicant is requesting a Residential Planned Zoning District approval for the .69 acre tract. Of course, the PZD does entail a rezoning and large scale development approval. This particular use is a mixed use development consisting of three buildings. The applicant proposes to renovate the building at the comer of Cleburn and College with a total of 2,500 sq.ft. office space. The connected building to the west is to be demolished and rebuilt into two two bedroom apartments and two one bedroom apartments with six parking spaces located underneath and with existing access off of Pollard. An entirely new building is also proposed onsite with five two bedroom apartments and two parking spaces underneath each. The applicant is also proposing to construct on street parking to meet the parking demands in this area along with patios, landscape plantings, lighting and outdoor courtyards. In your staff report I have itemized the square feet, the number of units and minimum spaces required. The applicant is proposing 19 on site spaces with additional space to park outside of each of the five units. Additionally, they are requesting to construct 12 on street parking spaces. The maximum density proposed on this property is 13 dwelling units per acre for nine total units. The development is proposed to have one means of vehicular access on the site on Pollard Avenue. All other access points are pedestrian. The buildings and parking for the development have been situated to create a desirable pedestrian oriented streetscape along two fronts of Pollard and Cleburn. As I mentioned, parallel parking and sidewalks are incorporated within the development and onsite parking is located to the rear of the structures. Primary greenspace is located along College Avenue with the addition of numerous plantings as shown on your landscape plans. Careful selection of plants for the corner of Cleburn and College is necessary to enable safe sight distance lines. This is an intersection, headed to the east on Cleburn, the sight distance is problematic here which does not allow landscaping to be planted along that corner. Elevations of the proposed structures have been submitted for Planning Commission review. All interior drives, landscaping of common areas and buildings will be maintained by the developer. As you know, this site is currently a derelict abandoned automobile service station. One of the big issues with this proposal, College Avenue is indicated as a Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 51 principal arterial on the Master Street Plan with the dedication of 55' of right of way required. The applicant is proposing a lesser dedication of right of way to what BWR, our traffic consultants, identified a constrained principal arterial. That is what they are requesting. That plan has not been adopted but they just took an element out of it in this particular location. They are asking for a constrained principal arterial dedication of 45' from centerline along College Avenue. As you may remember, there is a large retaining wall in that area. Any expansion of College Avenue would require quite extensive construction, either removal of that wall and construction of a new one or simply just go in the other direction. Staff is in support of that request, which will have to go to City Council as a separate item along with this PZD. You may notice that existing tree preservation is 17% and preserved is 0%. Typically with a PZD we like to see the maximum tree preservation requirements met however, in on site visits with the applicant we determined that a certified arborist did need to make an evaluation on these trees because they did seem to be in poor health. That arborist's report is included here. I will forward it with your Planning Commission report as well. The evaluation there is that the trees on the site are in poor condition and subsequently, development on this property will most likely make them hazard trees required to be removed. Staff is recommending that this be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval with sixteen conditions. Anthes: Would the applicant introduce yourself and give us your presentation? Cooper: I'm Tim Cooper. Basically this color board kind of explains what we are trying to do and the existing conditions on the property. What we did is a construction model to give you an idea of the topography and the retaining wall. What we are planning to do is basically come in and renovate this building and this portion, this is an entry and this would be the office space area. This is the courtyard entrance and this would be the area that we would raise. Right now the canopy goes over that. We will be moving it and raising that. Basically, this is the area over here that accesses the residential space and then this is the garage area below. There are two bedroom lofts and one bedroom lofts. I am trying to just keep the actual spaces of these garages and such to pull out just a little bit at the entry of the project. We ended up getting rid of a few parking spaces here and here so we will be landscaping that. The neighbors all support the project. We are proposing access here. Scott: I would like to mention that we have parking inside, six here and then these have two cars inside. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this PZD 04-1159? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the committee for discussion. I have a couple of questions. Obviously, we have seen a preliminary development on this site. That received rather enthusiastic comments from the Planning Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 52 Commission as I recall. This seems to be in the spirit of that. Normally this condition of the parking lot and what we are trying to do with College Avenue might be in conflict with the height and the differential with the retaining wall I don't have any problem with it at all. The Commercial Design Standards, I think this meets all requirements. The dedication I guess we have to wait for the paperwork to come through and then the Planning Commission will hear that. Warrick: We will have a specific administrative item for a lesser dedication of right of way along College Avenue for an amendment to the Master Street Plan to allow that lesser dedication of right of way. Planning Commission will be asked to make a recommendation on that and then the City Council will have a final decision to make. That is the same condition on Pollard Avenue. We will look at the information that we have coming on that and have that a little more formulated when we get to Planning Commission and give you some action as to what we may or may not need you to take on that. Anthes: From our last discussion, I believe there was an issue about the sign and whether to allow it to remain. It looks like it is maybe removed here. Cooper: It is going to be removed. There is one issue. We are showing some signage on the building itself and we are talking about a small, clean line sign for a professional office. There isn't really a whole lot. Shackelford: Just a small monument sign? Cooper: Yes. The reason we haven't shown it is because I think we are going to be able to accomplish it on the building instead of actually doing it out here. It is such a huge issue if we did come out here it would be very cautious because of the sight lines. Anthes: We would want to see that design by the time of Planning Commission and be able to review those sight lines. We have the conditions of the tree fund payment. How is trash going to be handled here? Pate: I actually have some new information in this report. If you could get with Travis Dotson. You were probably showing this area here in the middle of the site. I don't believe Solid Waste can access that. They would like to speak to you. Cooper: I will give them a call. There are two options that we are looking at and that is to do some kind of community here where we use brick to come out and make a space here and reverse to enclosures that they can access from their garage and then be responsible to just pull them around. Anthes: You mean carts? Subdivision Committee August 13, 2004 Page 53 Cooper: Right, do smaller carts. This is an option for this building to have a structure out here that would be landscaped and they could access out here and then come down. The other option is to actually come in through the building in a private area and throw their trash. Pate: You just need to contact Solid Waste and coordinate that. They usually like to use the larger container for any commercial development. Anthes: Are there any other comments? Shackelford: Are there any of the conditions of approval that you guys have an issue with? Have you had an opportunity to read those? Scott: Yes. Shackelford: Between now and the next Planning Commission meeting we are going to address the solid waste and you are comfortable with all of the designs? Anthes: Yes. The only thing I would remind you is that we would like to have a materials sample board and color elevations on 8 'h" x 11" sheets. MOTION: Shackelford: Based on that information I will make a motion that we forward R-PZD 04-1159 to the full Planning Commission. Anthes: I will agree with you. Are there any comments or announcements? We are adjourned.