HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-03 - Minutes (2)Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 1
FYI: THE ONLY ITEMS IN THESE MINUTES ARE: SLOAN ESTATES,
LEGGETT AND PLATT AND ASPEN RIDGE PZD. JG (2-8-05)
PPL 04-1338: Preliminary Plat (SLOAN ESTATES, 258): Submitted by PROJECT
DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC for property located at THE INTERSECTION OF
SAGELY LANE AND GULLEY ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and
contains approximately 25.05 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision
with 59 single family lots proposed.
Shackelford: Welcome to the December 3, 2004 City of Fayetteville Subdivision
Committee. It has come to our attention that there was notification made
about a potential rezoning for Hays. My understanding is that there was a
notification that went out to adjoining property owners and Barrington
Park Neighborhood Association also issued some notification on this.
This committee will not be hearing that item. That was an error that that
notification was made. That rezoning will be heard at the Monday,
December 13th Planning Commission meeting. If anybody is here to
speak about the rezoning of the Hays property near Barrington Park
subdivision the notification went out wrong. That is not this meeting. The
rezoning will be heard at the Planning Commission meeting on Monday,
December 13`h. The first thing we have on the agenda today under old
business is PPL 04-1338 for Sloan Estates. Suzanne, can you give us the
report please?
Morgan: The subject property contains 32.14 acres. It is located west of Gulley
Road. The applicant is proposing a 64 lot subdivision with 60 single
family lots as well as a 4.2 acre park which is also to be the location of a
septic system drip field for a community sewage system. This property is
within the Planning Area and much of the internal area of the subdivision
is wooded with several overhead electric lines and easements which cross
the property and through some of the proposed lots. There is quite a bit of
history and background to this property. It has been submitted and heard
by the Subdivision Committee with a different configuration of lot layout.
This proposal before you has some changes from the previous proposal to
include an increase in number of lots from 52 to 60 for single family
residential. Also, the relocation of the proposed community drip field. It
used to be located on the northwest portion as a leased area and is
currently located on the northeast portion of the site. Also, a 90' right of
way for Sagely Lane to meet the Master Street Plan has been added.
There is shown street connectivity to the north. Water shall be extended to
serve the proposed development. As for septic and sewer, the applicant
does propose lots less than 1.5 acres and proposes to not use individual
septic systems, but, instead, a community septic system within the
property. At the time of submittal for the Planning Commission meeting
staff will need to have a letter from the Arkansas State Health Department
confirming that the proposed septic system can serve the proposed
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 2
development if designed correctly. They may not be able to issue permits
at this time but we would like to see some affirmation that this proposal
can be done. Adjacent master street plans include Gulley Road a
collector, as well as Sagely Lane, which is a minor arterial. They do
propose adequate right of way to meet the Master Street Plan for both of
those streets. For connectivity, the applicant, as I mentioned, is proposing
a connection to the north. This is a little handout that kind of shows the
aerial of the property and their proposed streets. Staff is recommending
that the Sagely Lane stub out to the west is adequate. It will be able to
connect to the west for future development. Additionally, in 1999 the City
Council approved a deed for restriction of development within a 90' area
which the Master Street Plan identified for Sagely Lane. This proposed
street is not in that area which they restricted. The City Council will need
to amend that deed so that structures can be built where it was previously
deed restricted. Currently Sagely Lane from Gulley Road goes west and
then southwest. It used to just go straight west. The Master Street Plan
calls for it to go straight west and it may be shown on your maps in the
packet. You can see the line continuing from Sagely Lane. There was a
restriction on that area and they are proposing to configure that road in a
different way. The City Council would need to approve an amendment to
the previously approved deed restriction filed in 1999. Additionally,
connectivity is proposed to the north. It will run parallel to the Gulley
Road and it appears on the aerial photograph that it will run straight north
into an existing development, I believe a residential single family home.
Staff is recommending that an alternative northern connection further to
the west be explored to avoid that home as well as a connection to the
south between lots 7 and 8 is also recommended. Staff is recommending
forwarding this Preliminary Plat to the Planning Commission subject to a
total of 15 conditions of approval to include Planning Commission
determination of appropriate street connectivity as well as determination
of appropriate alignment of the proposed extension of Sagely Lane as
identified on the Master Street Plan. As I previously mentioned, the City
Council will have to vote to amend the previously approved deed
restriction filed in 1999. Additionally, there are further conditions which
address the proposed septic systems and approvals for those. If you have
any other questions I will be happy to answer them.
Shackelford: Thank you very much Suzanne. If you guys would introduce yourself, and
add anything that you would like for your project at this time.
Hoskins: I'm Tracy Hoskins with Paradigm Development representing the
developer.
Scott: I'm Art Scott with Project Design Consultants, the engineering firm on the
project. We had previously met with the neighborhood and I think the
largest concerns were density and probably septic in certain areas. We
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 3
have gone back and relocated the density sort of back into the
development and left a greenspace area. We put a greenspace area along
Gulley Road there and that area will be reserved for the drip field for the
septic system. That system will have a station, lot 64 as an effluent
treatment system. There are several different designs. We haven't exactly
picked a manufacturer yet but we do know the loading rates are adequate
with this amount of drip space and there is also a 75% alternate area in
there also. It is actually oversized.
Ostner: Is the alternate area left just open?
Scott: Yes.
Ostner: It is just for possible expansion or problems?
Scott: Yes.
Shackelford: At this time I am going to ask for other staff comments regarding this
subdivision.
O'Neal:
Yes. Art, I believe we are missing a water meter for Lots 58, 59 and 64.
I'm not sure if you are providing water service to the pump station. I
believe it is just an error.
Scott: Those were just left off inadvertently.
Shackelford: At this time I would like to open it up for public comment if there is
anybody here that would like to address PPL 04-1338 for Sloan Estates
please come forward.
Eckenzire: I am June Eckenzire, I live on Bridgewater Lane at the very top of the hill.
I'm concerned about this wastewater treatment because it is on a hillside.
This hill is sandstone. I am concerned about the runoff of it. I am also
concerned about the honesty of the developers. Their representative came
to a meeting with us and stated such things as asking the representative of
this wastewater treatment isn't it true you could drink this water and she
stated no, it is not potable water that will be coming out of this drip
system. He stated that this neighborhood, electricity would never go out
because it had underground utilities. Which, if the transmission lines go
out they will be without electricity. He said that the homeowners
association would cover for these individual tanks in front of the homes to
be pumped out and that the homeowners association would force these
people to pump their tanks if they needed to but a homeowner's
association can't force anybody to do anything unless they are willing to
hire a lawyer and payout money to get it done. I am really concerned
about the septic part. The real estate rumor is that this is going to be tiny
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 4
Alter:
Wood:
homes like it is on Hwy. 45, that is a rumor. The rumor in the builders is
that it is going to be town homes. We all have at least an acre and nice
homes out there. I would rather see nice homes go in there and bigger lots
with individual septic systems. Thank you.
I'm Monte Alter, I live on Gulley Road just off of Sagely right there.
When you first started talking I was curious about the traffic flow and you
said something about Sagely Lane. It is a pretty narrow country road with
a lot of bends and a lot of turns in it. I run the road. I am curious as to
where, there is another subdivision right across from this right now that is
going in. I am curious as to where 400 cars are going to be dumping out
here on Gulley Road on blind curves and there are definitely some
situations on that road that have to be looked at. That is a lot of traffic
being dumped on that little road. As it is you have got vehicles coming off
of Hwy. 45 going north on Gulley Road doing 60 miles per hour down
that road. You have got that little subdivision in Sagely right there with
those vehicles coming out off of Sagely and then you are going to have all
of this dumping in right there at that same intersection. I think that is
something to definitely be considered. The other thing is in our first
meeting there were less houses in this subdivision than there are now. All
of a sudden now we have more lots in this thing. I am wondering what the
thought was when reconsidering their plat here and how did they wind up
with four or five more lots? Apparently these lots have gotten smaller.
With everybody maintaining their country two and three acre settings out
there we have this sitting in somebody's backyard.
Good morning. I'm Steve Wood. I have a home that is being built there
on Gulley Road on the south edge of this property. I am a little
disappointed in one respect as to the increase in the scale of the project as
opposed to our concerns that were voiced last time about the current scale
of the project. This is obviously a process that has been developed to go
before Planning Commissions and discussions and committees on a
philosophical note. This is only set up and designed to protect home
owners, property owners, the citizenries to protect us against ignorance of
developers or perhaps just honest mistakes or perhaps just greed. I
certainly feel that we are highly dependent on your judgment and expertise
in looking at these things. The last meeting I was disappointed to hear that
City Engineers really weren't interested in looking at this unless it directly
abutted the city limits. I don't know how that has changed but if it goes
before a city committee and we are talking about major engineering issues
whether it be streets, drainage, sewage, I would implore you to get your
city engineers involved to advise you. If they feel like they don't want to
be involved I feel like that is a big missing link here. Certainly lot size,
density of the development is again, in my opinion, totally out of
character. The drainage issue is a very important problem on that hill.
The density, again, like I said, is very out of character with what is going
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 5
Gibbs:
on. Part of it, the comment that I just heard a minute ago stated that they
didn't know the system that was going to be selected to deal with the
sewage. However, the comment is made that the effluent field is entirely
adequate and in fact, oversized. If you don't even know what system
you're putting in who is telling you that it is oversized? Who is telling
you that it is adequate? Has the state even looked at it? Has the city
engineer looked at it? This effluent goes into Mud Creek, Mud Creek
goes into the Illinois. We know that the east sewage plant dumps it's
overflow into Mud Creek and it is only by guidelines, in my knowledge,
you can only put out so much into Mud Creek otherwise, you are in
violation. I don't know how this plays into that but certainly it does in
some form or fashion. I just have a real problem here in that when people
go out and buy nice pieces of property and then they want to lay out high
density things just to make their money and move on. We are dependent
on thoughtful consideration and planning to see if the opinions and
feelings of the community and the aesthetics of the community are
preserved and looked at. We depend on you for that. I hope that we give
very dear consideration to this problem in my opinion. Thanks for
listening to all of us. I appreciate it.
Good morning, I'm Teresa Gibbs, Tess Gibbs, I live right next to the
property. In fact, it used to be mine. I wish it still was. I have a lot of
issues with this. I will start with one that has to do with you all. I got in
here a little bit late and I am not sure about the continuance on Sagely
Lane. I might ask a question. The property was divided by my brother
and I dependent on the city plan for where Sagely Lane goes. I didn't
realize that that could be changed by any developer that came along. I
really didn't know that. That was kept as a buffer for my land. Now it is
being moved at the whim of a developer. I find that very disappointing.
As you know, we have been here before and the neighborhood has had any
number of meetings and at those meetings we voiced our concerns. At the
time the developer said to us "We will come up with a plan that works
better for you so you all will be happy." They came up with a plan that
was even more dense than it already was. Their representation to me was
that this greenspace will be a playground. Now if you all want to send
your children out to play on a playground where the leach system is and
the drip system is then please do. I personally don't want my
grandchildren or my children anywhere near it. As has been pointed out
already, they don't even know what system that they are going to be using.
I talked to Tracy about that, he is familiar with one system which he says
works well but they haven't even decided on that. How can you ok a
subdivision that we don't know is even going to be safe for the people in
the surrounding area? We just can't do it. It doesn't make any sense. I
know that all of you wouldn't be sitting up there if you didn't care about
this area. You send your time and your effort doing this and with Dr.
Wood and everybody else that has been here I would have to just ask you
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 6
to please decide do we want to overcrowd our areas? Do we want to
strangle our roads? Do we want to put a big load on our school systems
without giving it any kind of consideration? We are in the future growth
area of Fayetteville. What are you going to do when you annex us and we
are packed and you have no place to send us out to the arteries. What are
you going to do? What are we going to do? I would ask you to give it
careful consideration. I think this plan is very poorly thought out. The
developers have not been honest with us from the beginning I don't
believe and they are still not being honest. I would ask you to look
carefully at what they are proposing. Thank you.
Audience: Who is CTC?
Ginger: I am Rebecca Ginger. My property also abuts this development. I
appreciate you all being here. I have always appreciated the Fayetteville
government. We support Fayetteville. We have lived here 30 years. Our
concerns are realistic because we already know the congestion on the east
end of Fayetteville out Hwy. 45. Our concerns are similar to what the
other people have suggested this morning but we are concerned about the
traffic on Gulley Road. Gulley Road is a narrow country road. It just
cannot handle the flow of traffic that is fixing to impact it with the other
two developments that are going in. Hwy. 45 is going to be even more
impacted. Vandergriff and McNair Schools are going to be more
impacted, Root School, Happy Hollow, Woodland. How can 50+ homes
do anything but bring down the east end of Fayetteville? The fire
protection, the police protection, school overloading, traffic on a country
road. Are we going to wait until someone gets killed on that road? It is a
narrow road with severe curves. I just feel like the Planning Commission
needs to seriously consider these things. We implore you, we beg you.
We don't have voting right in Fayetteville but we are controlled by you.
Please consider our pleas. We want to be annexed eventually. We
support Fayetteville with our dollars, our taxes, our commerce goes into
Fayetteville. Just consider us. Consider what this is going to do in
addition to all of the other things that are going on out there. Thank you.
Wolf:
My name is Nancy Wolf'. I live at 5350 E. Sagely Lane. My concerns are
the same as everybody else who has been up here. I would like to
illustrate a little bit more with the traffic problem. I counted in a three
mile stretch of road there, there are currently about 55 residences. With the
three new subdivisions, New Castle, Bridgewater Estates and Overton
Park that have been improved, that is an extra 80 houses. Sloan Estates
puts another 60 so you have got 130 new residences being approved,
tripling the amount that is currently there on a three mile stretch of road.
The other concern is the waste water treatment. Everybody has their
concern. They haven't quite decided what kind of system it is going to be
but most of these systems include septic tanks at every house that have to
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 7
Shackelford:
Brown:
Talbert:
be pumped to a major collection area. Every house has to have the
maintenance of making sure those pumps work. Pumps do go out. They
have alarms on them but they do need to be maintained. Other parts of the
wastewater treatment system have to be maintained. There are filters, there
are fans, there is the drip irrigation system. EPA FAQ sheets say that
these systems should be maintained by trained personnel and require at
least quarterly maintenance inspections. The Health Department requires
somebody to be in charge of the maintenance of these systems but it does
not say who it is going to be. It leaves that up to the developer, the city or
the Planning Commission. All they want is the name of who is going to
be in charge of this. You have to be in charge of this for the life of the
system, 30 years, 50 years, somebody has to be in charge of maintaining
this system. They don't suggest that the home owners do it because it may
not be done. It is setting a precedent here first of all that so many houses
can be put on smaller pieces of land that are not on individual septic
systems so you are setting a precedent that this can be done and it needs to
be decided before anything is approved as to who is going to take care of
it. Is the city going to pay for somebody to go out there and maintain it?
Is the County? Is Washington County going to be responsible for that?
Are you going to let a developer or a business say that they are going to
and then they go out of business? Those kinds of questions need to be
asked before anything is approved. It is going to be a big issue in this area
because they are going in all over. This type of precedent could be bad if
we don't want the growth to explode in every little five acre parcel around.
Thank you very much.
Is there anybody else who would like to speak regarding this issue?
My name is Walter Brown. I live on Oakland Zion Road. My concern is I
am in the drainage possibility of the ditches that come off of that. Two
things, I have my own septic tank and I have my own lateral lines. If
something goes wrong it is up to me to get it repaired. I am sure my
neighbors would come along and say to get it taken care of if the smell
starts going out. The other thing is Ozark Electric will not guarantee you
to have power 24 hours a day 7 days a week. They will not do that. When
power lines go down from ice or trees breaking, I've been without power
out there sometimes as much as two days. Ozark Electric works on feeder
houses and places like that first to get them back up because of the chicken
industry. I haven't lost power a lot but I have lost power. What is going
to happen to this individual septic system that they are proposing if we
lose power? Thank you.
I'm Ron Talbert, I live at 3130 Gulley Road just across the street from this
development. It is my property and my concerns are mainly about the
traffic. I have lived out there for as long as most people out in that area,
since 1980 and that road was developed as a rural road and we had a
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 8
chance to make it a highway several years ago and decided not to because
we wanted the rural setting of our houses that we built in that region. The
curves were left in there. These are 90° curves, one is right in front of my
house. We now find it quite dangerous driving in our lane from the west
because of the traffic and these are blind curves. I am just concerned
about the traffic issue. I also might mention that when they are talking
about the septic system and the sewer system, I've had personal
experience with a very similar system because that is what I have at my
house. It pumps up hill and into the lateral system towards the surface of
the ground. I do know that it requires quite a bit more maintenance than
the old type gravity feed systems. This was approved when I built my
house as an experimental system in conjunction with a project at the
University where this type of system was put in. It works quite well but it
does require maintenance. You have to maintain the pump and I've had
two or three occasions where I have had a problem with that. One was
electrical, one was a pump. Then you have to clean the lines occasionally.
I have had to clean my lines. The lateral lines will gradually plug up.
These are made of pvc pipe. Somebody is going to have to consider a
considerable amount of maintenance.
Wolf:
My name is Dwayne Wolf, I live on Sagely Lane also. Several people
have indicated the issues of concern related to traffic and the waste
disposal system. I think another point that needs to be considered in your
deliberations is the fact that just the total volume of wastewater that is
generated in a very concentrated area, the amount of nitrogen and
phosphorous and forms that are going to be loaded on this very small area
can have some rather significant environmental impacts. We are close to
some water systems there that are grave concern. If we look at situations
where we are talking about putting nutrient management plans in place so
that you can only fertilize your yard with so much phosphorous to help
alleviate some of the phosphorous loading problems in the Illinois and
now we are going to look at a wastewater system where we are taking 50
to 60 houses worth of wastewater and concentrating it in this very small
leach field. There is no doubt that the engineers can put that water in the
ground in that particular soil but I think there are some serious concerns
about what that phosphorous and nitrogen will eventually do. I would
urge you to look at the environmental impacts of this also. Thank you.
Rownak: My name is John Rownak and I represent Gaddy Investment Company
which owns the land to the west of the subdivision. I had three questions.
One, on the street that exits to the north, where is it proposed to go? Does
it go back to Gulley?
Shackelford: We will answer questions after public comment.
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 9
Rownak:
Shackelford:
Simmons:
Alter:
Shackelford:
I would like to know where that street to the north is going to go. My
understanding is that the subdivision is going to be curbed and guttered. I
would like to know where the storm water is going to be dumped.
Thirdly, it was mentioned that the easement for Sagely Lane, which goes
to the west, which goes across the property that I represent is going to be
changed and I would like to know where that right of way is going to go as
it relates to the Master Street Plan.
Does any other member of the public want to make comment regarding
this Preliminary Plat for Sloan Estates?
I am Christy Simmons, I live at 5211 Sagely Lane, which is directly across
from this development. My main concern is the sewage that is going to be
coming out of 59 homes. Washington County recommends that we have
one to one and a half acres for a septic system and we have all complied in
that area. This is at a high point on the top of that hill. Below it lies a
spring fed pond and several creeks. I am worried that the effluent from 59
homes will cause major impact to these waterways. I would like to see the
area around our home maintained as it has been in the past as a rural area,
not high density. Thank you.
Hi, I'm Fay Alter, I live at 3030 N. Gulley. I am kitty corner across the
street. When we met initially with the developers after they submitted and
you folks tabled the initial thing the gentleman who came to the meeting,
these two gentlemen as well as Kerri Barber were there, they assured us
that they were going to go back to the drawing board and create a
development that we all could live with. As you can tell from the group of
us that have shown up, it is very obvious that they have disregarded
anything that we care about in that neighborhood. I feel that they are
constantly, they changed the name of the development company now to
CTC Development, I would like to know who the principals of this
company are. That is for my information as well as everyone else here
who lives in the area. I just feel that they are not being truthful to us. By
saying that they were going to table this and then coming back with this I
believe that they thought that they were going to lull us into believing that
they were going to do something that would be more beneficial to us
rather than less beneficial. Instead of having 52 houses now they have 60
houses. I really feel like they are trying to get over on all of us and I
resent it and I would hope that you would consider our feelings as well as
the economic impact on this area. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to talk about
this Preliminary Plat? Seeing none, I am going to close it to public
comment and bring it back. I would like to start with staff. Our City
Attorney obviously isn't with us this morning but one thing that I think is
critical is this is in the county and in the planning area and not in the city
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 10
Pate:
limits which substantially affects the way that we proceed with this. If we
could just have somebody outline what our requirements are and what our
ability is to review projects in the Planning area is. I would appreciate it.
If you will look on page two of your staff report there, Suzanne has
outlined what we look at with the county subdivisions. The city does have
a limited prevue for development in the county, the City of Fayetteville's
Planning Area. Essentially, that is the division of the property. Those six
items are appropriate division of land, a lot area, which has to be a
minimum of 10,000 sq.ft., a lot width, which is a minimum of 75', right of
way dedication in conformance with our Master Street Plan, which we
have discussed somewhat today, and septic system approval from the
Arkansas Health Department for lots less than 1 '/2 acres. Additionally, we
also look at connectivity in conjunction with our Master Street Plan as
well. Those are the things that we look at with subdivisions in the
Planning Area. To address a couple of those in more detail, the septic
system information, most of it, will have to come from these engineers.
We do not have the ability to review a septic system. The city is not a part
of that review process. We depend on Arkansas Department of Health to
provide us with those approvals that this developer and the applicant have
submitted to them. It is one of our conditions of approval that before this
item gets to the full Commission we need to see something in writing from
the Arkansas Department of Health stating that this will work in this
location. That is based on what our ordinance requires at this time. For
density, again, we have those minimum lot sizes that are set out. There is
no zoning in the county at this time so there are no numbers to assign the
density as long as they meet those minimum size requirements that is
really all we have to go by as far as how we look at the lot configuration.
I think we talked a little bit about the Sagely Lane location. Probably
Suzanne has a little bit of a better idea of what the deed restricted areas are
on adjacent properties. I think that the applicant can probably answer a lot
of the questions because we simply don't review a lot of the questions that
were asked today.
Warrick: Just to elaborate on that just a little bit, with regard to the city's
subdivision regulations, when we talk about development in the city's
planning area outside the corporate city limits, we do have provisions
when public sewer is not accessible and we do not provide public sewer
connections outside of the city limits. Our ordinance states that when that
is the situation the subdivider shall be required to install a community
sewage system which is in compliance with State Health Department
standards and regulations. It goes on to talk about situations when a
community sewage system is not feasible or applicable. In those
situations larger lots, 1 'h acres, is specifically mentioned, are required so
that they can support individual septic systems. What we are looking at is
what I believe is the first subdivision in the city's planning area where
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 11
strict compliance with this regulation is being sought in order to provide
lot sizes that are meeting the minimum standard but less than 1 1/2 acres
uniformly. The ordinance does require the installation of a community
sewage system in compliance with State Health Department standards. As
Jeremy said, we have to rely on that higher government agency, the State
Health Department, to ensure that the system that has been proposed and
designed is appropriate for the development that is being proposed. The
other thing that I think is appropriate and is important to mention with
regard to our review is traffic impact and whether or not this development
is increasing or causing any dangerous traffic situations and if there are
offsite or on site improvements that would remedy that situation if you
find that there are traffic conditions that are detrimental because of this
development.
Shackelford: Thank you very much. I just wanted to make that comment because there
obviously is a significant difference in the amount of review that we can
do with a project within the city limits verses that in the Planning area.
Specifically those six points plus the possibility of traffic impact and
potential offsite improvements are guidelines that we will be reviewing
with this project. With that being said, let's begin conversation if that's
alright, regarding connectivity. That is the first proposed condition of
approval by our city staff. I guess my first question is you recommend
moving the northern connection point so that it doesn't but into an existing
house. Where do you have a proposal of where that would be moved to?
Morgan: Either a continuation of Street 2, which is the next street to the west or
Street 3.
Shackelford: Thank you very much.
Pate:
I believe one of the people who spoke today asked about the connection to
the north specifically. At this time it would not connect to Gulley Road.
It would just stub out to the adjacent property so if in the future that
develops that connection would be available for that property owner to
connect to.
Shackelford: If the applicant would like to take a few minutes to address some of the
questions from the concerned property owners.
Scott:
One comment regarding the location of this connectivity to the north.
That is about 150' off of Gulley Road. We thought that that would be a
good location in the event that this does develop up here to be one lot deep
and then a street would go continuous through that subdivision. That is
the main reason we put it here and not in another location. As for the
request for a connection to the south between Lots 7 and 8 we had not put
any connectivity to the south. These are larger lots that appear to me to be
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 12
Clark:
Scott:
Clark:
Scott:
some place that someone would want to live forever and not want to
develop and sell off. It doesn't look to be a feasible development to me.
That is the reason why we didn't put one down there. We also knew that
these neighbors were not wanting to have any development north of them
anyway so we just didn't add a connection to them. That was the main
reason for that. I would like to address the traffic if I could. The national
design standards, a good rule of thumb for sight distance is 100' for every
10 mph of design speed. This road has a 45 mph speed limit, probably a
50 mph design speed, which gives us a little bit more than adequate sight
distance for design for this corner. Also, as part of this development this
developer is going to clean out a lot of this brush development that causes
this to be a blind curve and have it to be an open green area. To the south
the sight distance is 1,000 feet or more. It goes straight to Hwy. 45. The
other big issue we really have is the drainage. We will have detention,
basically we are going to meet city ordinances for this even though we are
not required to so the detention on lots 45 and 37 will release water in the
same location they are now. Over on the opening off of Gulley Road, lot
14, we are going to have detention there also. Very little developed area
drains to that side because of the park there so that detention pond is quite
a bit smaller. That may end up being some type of a water feature with a
fountain and so forth. When I expressed earlier that we had not
determined the exact type of system. What I really meant was the exact
manufacturer. That is a community system. Early on in this development
when I walked this area I thought this looked like an area where you
would have individual septic systems. When I talked with the State
Health Department they actually prefer a community system rather than 60
individual systems to have to be maintained. What you have here at each
house is a tank that is very similar to a septic tank. The fluids are pumped
out of that to a treatment system up here that does treat that water before it
drips out, it is not drinkable water. It is the same standards that is required
of municipal systems. Instead of pumping into a stream you pump it into
the ground where it is further cleaned.
It is a park, you are calling it a park.
That is really the standard use for these types of fields once they are put in.
It is a shallow buried tube and it is a large grid of those. I think the
Arkansas State Health Department requires that you sign it and says that
there is drip irrigation in this area. You wouldn't want to go out and dig in
it.
Who is going to be in charge of maintenance for this system?
This is definitely a lot cleaner than a typical leach field in a back yard that
the kids play on all the time.
Subdivision
December 3,
Page 13
Clark:
Committee
2004
Hoskins:
Scott:
Clark:
Hoskins:
Who is going to be in charge of maintaining it?
Of course with the subdivision they will put together a POA that will take
together maintenance of the parks, the divided entrances, there is intended
to be a landscape wall or wrought iron fence around the corner here. Of
course, the POA, like subdivisions within the city, will of course, take care
of all of that.
The Health Department will require a licensed operated to maintain this
system. At this point in time, most of the time it is the manufacturers that
are taking over those as the entity of maintenance.
We don't have your covenants yet for the Property Owner's Association?
I don't know if the developers have put that together yet.
Shackelford: We typically don't approve those with a plat.
Clark:
Ostner:
Scott:
Ostner:
Scott:
I would think you would want to with so many comments and concerns.
I had one question about this drip field, did you say that the effluent
getting into this drip field, you say it is non -potable but it is not exactly
sewage either. It is at the level of creek water.
Yeah, it is really close to creek water. They are the same bacteria level as
a typical creek around here.
You mentioned that our sewage plant discharges the same level of matter
into the White River. Is that accurate?
If we were pumping this into a creek there would be one more level of
clean up that would be another lowering of the bacteria level. This water
that comes out of here is not the same that comes out of your typical leach
field on a standard septic tank. It is cleaner than most of the septic
systems. Another interesting reason for this, there are some areas that are
not suitable for septic, that could possibly be any one of these septic
systems down south of us. This area right here to the south side and
southwest of this was not suitable from a soil standpoint. It had higher
ground water. These test pits that were done up here showed no evidence
of high ground water in that area. The pits are a minimum of 4' deep and
there was no evidence of ground water in that area. We had two or three
areas that were ultimately suitable. This area that we are in now, the area
along the north here and this entire northwest corner was much more
suitable for septic systems. If somebody came in and bought this you
could get tied up in per acre and acreage per house but if somebody came
in and bought this entire piece of property right here it is very questionable
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 14
Shackelford:
Clark:
Hoskins:
whether they could even put a septic system in that property. It is not just
a question of area. I think that is the reason why the Health Department
has those minimum requirements for individual systems is because they
don't analyze every square inch of that lot. They figure within an acre you
are going to have enough to do one house. The septic tanks are sized to
hold at least two days of normal usage. When power is out you don't have
normal usage. You don't have washers and dryers, which washers are a
very big load on the system. You could conceivably have four or five
days in a power outage. This system will likely have some type o a back
up emergency on this pump system and the opportunity for the
maintenance entity to plug in a generator is probably the ultimate thing. In
the case that it is out for several days then they could come turn that on
and then each individual home owner would have two to four days of
normal usage reserved.
Commissioners, are there any questions or comments?
I'm baffled at the increase in lot numbers. Originally you were at 52, now
you are at 60. I thought you were talking to the neighbors and were trying
to meet some of their concerns.
When we originally had the meeting with the neighbors we listened to Tots
and lots of concerns. I thought some of the concerns were A) They didn't
want the leach fields in their backyards. We have addressed that. I knew
that density was also an issue. The other thing is when we went to
redesign the subdivision, the lots that are on here now are basically the
same size lots as were on there before. We have got a more efficient use
of the street and have taken in this acreage on the northwest corner as
well. We also in the redesign of it, provided the park area above the leach
field and I personally would have no problem with my kids playing in that
park. A septic system in somebody's backyard is probably less desirable
for kids to play over than what this would be. The revamp of the property,
it is a lot better layout. Somebody made a comment a while ago that they
have heard rumors of tiny homes. I believe somebody even said some
town homes or something like that. Of course, from an economical
standpoint, that is not feasible. For town homes or whatever, these lots
would be much, much too large for town homes. The intention for these
homes will be 3500 to 5000 sq.ft. homes much like what is in the Gaddy
Estates area and a lot of the homes around it. The developers have agreed
with this redesign to invest more money in the subdivision to again, put in
the landscape area and literally make this a park, the divided entries. As
Art said before, the developers are really putting a lot more into this
subdivision than what they have to by ordinance. They are doing
detention. They are doing streets and curb and gutters to city standards.
Even the adjoining developer over here, Gaddy Acres, I don't believe they
have curb and gutter. I think they have ditches along the sides of their
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 15
Scott:
roads. I believe the developers are willing to go beyond the call of duty as
far as the quality of the subdivision.
I would like to say one more thing about the drip field. The State of
Arkansas Health Department does not allow that to be put in a disturbed
area. This just trenches into an existing ground. Most states are actually
using those as soccer field, baseball fields, community parks or things like
that. It is a situation that is acceptable to most, if not all, health
departments in the country.
Hoskins: This is not new technology. It might be fairly new to this area but
municipalities have looked at these same type of systems for their small
cities.
Ostner: Some of the questions that the residents raised were about traffic, which
we talked about a little bit. What is the condition of Gulley Road heading
towards Hwy. 45? The average width, the profile.
Scott:
It is around a 20' average. The county road department gives a capacity
for these types of roads of 6,000 cars per day. They also use ten trips per
residents per day so conceivably that would be 600 trips per day. That is
what they use for design. That would be approximately 590 trips per day
on this road for this subdivision on a county road that has a capacity of
6000.
Ostner: What about sight distances?
Scott:
If you go south bound the sight distances are way above adequate. They
are very good. If you look down the street you can see a long way. There
is a little bit of a crest I think before you get to Hwy. 45 which also has
good sight distance over it. We have adequate sight distance before we
get to this curve. Obviously, this curve is a slow going, it is 25 to 30 mile
per hour driving around it. There is a rise around in here just to the north
that is probably not an ultimate sight distance, which is one reason why we
did not want an access over here and we put our access over here.
Ostner: Just to follow up with Mrs. Warrick's comment that we do have a limited
ability to talk about offsite improvements. I wanted to just thoroughly go
through that. I am not sure we need to ask for offsite improvements if the
roads are adequate. From my knowledge, this is the first time that we
have ever had a subdivision in the planning area that chose to do this type
of sewage system and therefore, were able to lower their lots. This is quite
a change in a different approach. As Mr. Shackelford asked for quite
thoughtfully, we do not, as a municipality, have the ability to require
developers to build lots bigger than 10,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. lot is our
requirement in the planning area. If this entire area were annexed by the
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 16
Pate:
city, if it were currently in the city what different requirements would
these developers be having to do to this project?
It looks like the minimum sizes would be met because if it were an RSF-4
zoning district, 8,000 sq.ft. lots with 70' frontage. The big difference
obviously, would be the sewer would be required if it were within 300' to
go to this and pump into our sewage treatment plant. That would be the
big difference in this location, which obviously, we would probably not
look at a septic system for that area. The other things that we don't look at
here, tree preservation, parks requirements, if they are in the county they
don't have to go through those boards to look at that. It sounds like they
are meeting street requirements for their streets so that would be curb and
gutter, our standard street sections would be required, sidewalks, etc.
Hoskins: And storm water detention.
Shackelford: That was one question that was asked during public comment is where the
storm water would go. My understanding is since you are putting in the
detention ponds, basic ordinance of the city if this were in the city, that
storm water would go through the normal procedures of where it is going
now at the same rate or less than what it is going no.
Scott: We will use the Fayetteville manual for design in the county.
Shackelford: A question was also asked regarding the Sagely easement and I know that
is a concern. Can we speak directly towards that requirement and kind of
what we envision that change would be if approved by the City Council?
Morgan: Certainly. Just for a little background, there were several lot splits and
property line adjustments, one lot split and two property line adjustments
in 1997 and 1998 with regard to this property. In conjunction with those it
was recognized at the time that the Master Street Plan for Sagely Lane was
located along this property as well as properties to the west. At the time
there was a deed filed which restricted development within that area to
preserve that for the future Master Street Plan. With many developments,
the Master Street Plan is a guide that shows the street on paper but
sometimes it is not quite feasible to put it in that exact location. This is
one instance in which the developer is requesting a slight adjustment to the
location of where this Master Street Plan street would go. Instead of
continuing west it goes a little bit southwest. Therefore, we have
recommended that the City Council amend that deed so that they can
adjust this south and place homes by the property that is deed restricted in
that area. I can include the deed information and things in your staff
report for Planning Commission and give it to the applicant.
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 17
Shackelford: You would envision that the extension of Sagely to the west would move
somewhat to the north, is that my understanding?
Morgan:
Shackelford:
Ostner:
Scott:
Clark:
Morgan:
Ostner:
Morgan:
Ostner:
Shackelford:
Clark:
They have adjusted Sagely Lane a bit to the south and so they stub out
west a little bit south of where the Master Street Plan shows. If you look
at that aerial photograph it would continue and they put it just north of a
pond that exists to the west and with the future development to the west
they could adjust that a little bit to the north to clear that pond.
Thank you very much.
Just one quick question, people have asked who is CTC Development?
Can you give some information?
CTC Development is the original owner of this property. The developer
who is doing that now is Barber Developments, Brandon Barber and SCB
Developments. These people own it, Mr. Barber has the option to buy the
land and Tray has come in to represent them. The Finneys are the owners
but are selling it in whole.
Staff, where do you recommend the northern connection move to?
I recommend either through Lot 22, with the extension of Street #2, that
would allow for that street to continue north and not interfere with the
existing home to the north and it would allow for development to the north
to bring that street to the east or the west they could have that option.
Another possible option is to extend Street #3 which is located between
Lots 24 and 25. Either of those staff would feel comfortable with.
But not both?
I think one connection to the north would be appropriate
If Street #3 went northward between 24 and 25 and southward at Lot #2
that does not seem to be a good design.
Commissioners, are there other questions?
I don't have any other questions but I am very troubled by this
development and were it in the city I'm not sure that I would be able to
vote for it Neighbors have to understand that we are very constrained
when you are in the growth area. It doesn't follow our zoning rules, it
doesn't follow our regulations. We can't look at 1/3 of the things that we
can normally look at if it is in the city limits. While you are out of the city
limits you have wonderful advantages but not when it comes to
development I don't think. I have another question for staff though which
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 18
Shackelford:
Clark:
Shackelford:
Clark:
Shackelford:
Ostner:
Shackelford:
Ostner:
Clark:
Shackelford:
Hoskins:
Warrick:
might help. This has to go before the county. When it goes before the
county can these same citizens voice their concerns about the septic
systems, etc.? I am not trying to pass the buck but we can't say anything
if they meet our minimum standards. I wouldn't vote for it otherwise
because I have concerns about traffic. I have concerns about density. I
have concerns about things we can't look at. The county can look at that.
When it goes to the County Planning Commission that might be a good
time for county residents who vote for county folks to show up and do
exactly what you have done here. You have definitely caught my ear and
made an impact. I wish I could do something about it but I can't. All we
can do is follow staff recommendations and talk about connectivity and I
will make the motion that we look at condition one and require a
connection to the north and the connection between Lots 7 and 8 to the
south.
Is that a motion on the entire thing or just condition one?
Just condition one.
Your motion is in regard to street connectivity to require that the
connection to the north be moved to either an extension of Street 2 or
Street 3 and that an extension to the south be added between Lots 7 and 8?
Yes it is.
I will second that.
I will concur with that.
Our other specific finding is determination of appropriate alignment of the
proposed extension of the Master Street Plan in regards to Sagely Lane.
I will make a motion that we approve condition two as stated.
I will second.
I will concur.
How would the commission feel about us providing easement through
here for these two connections but not necessarily constructing them at
this time? I don't know if Tess will ever develop this property and I don't
know if the Gingers will either. We would be happy to provide easements
if that works for you all.
Staff is uncomfortable with the provision of easements and the reason is
that in the past when we have had an easement or just right of way
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 19
Clark:
Shackelford:
Ostner:
Warrick:
Osmer:
Clark:
Shackelford:
extension without construction the individuals who move into the
neighborhood believe that they live on a dead end street or that they will
never see a connection out of their neighborhood to adjacent developments
should they be built. It is more for allowing the public to understand that
we are planning for future connections and that that greenspace between
their house and their neighbors which seems bigger than everyone else's
isn't really all theirs.
The intent of my motion was to do the stub out .
Commissioners, the six areas that we can address is the division of land,
lot area, which they have met, lot width, which they have met, right of
way dedication in conformance with the Master Street Plan which we just
agreed to; septic system approval by the Arkansas Health Department.
We have heard from city staff that our ordinances actually prefer this type
of wastewater disposal in the growth area in regards to that compared to
individual septic systems. We are bound to basically depend on the higher
government of the Arkansas Health Department for approval there and
connectivity which we have addressed with our motion on condition of
approval number one. Are there any other questions or comments
regarding this?
I would just like to reiterate or agree with Commissioner Clark that this is
not easy to approve. I wish we could have more say as to the rural nature
in this area. We are legally bound to operate within our rules. It is not fair
to property owners. They are property owners but it could be you as a
property owner, it wouldn't be fair to you either for us to overstep our
bounds and tell them what to do. I am going to make a motion that we
approve PPL 04-1338 with the conditions as stated and as approved.
I just wanted to clarify that this is a Preliminary Plat, it cannot be
approved at this level. It has to be recommended to be forwarded to the
full Planning Commission.
Right. We will be forwarding this to the full Planning Commission for
review at the next scheduled meeting. I will restate my motion as a
motion to forward with a recommendation of approval.
Reluctantly I will second.
I will concur. Thank you.
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 20
Shackelford:
Pate:
The next item we have on our agenda is LSD 04-1288 which is for Leggett
& Platt. I was notified prior to the meeting that there were some
notification requirements that the applicant had to make before the
Subdivision Committee could make any legal action on this item. Those
notification requirements were not met. Staff, I will let you interject but
my understanding is that we are best served to table this until the next
meeting. Is that correct?
Staff would recommend if there is anyone here in the public that saw the
sign or saw the notice that the city put in the newspaper that they could
take public comment and if the applicant wants to comment but that is
correct, we can't take action on this.
Shackelford: Is there anybody here that would like to address LSD 04-1288? I will open
it up to public comment at this time. Seeing none, I will close it to the
public. The Leggett & Platt Large Scale Development will be tabled.
There were notification requirements that per our ordinance were not met
so we legally cannot take action on the Leggett & Platt Large Scale
Development that we are supposed to hear today.
Clark: I will move that we table LSD 04-1288 until the next Subdivision
Committee meeting.
Ostner: I will second.
Shackelford: I will concur.
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 21
Shackelford: The first item on the agenda for new business is a PZD 04-1307 for Aspen
Ridge. If the applicant would come forward. Jeremy?
Pate:
This property is located at the southwest corner of Hwy. 62 south on Hill
Avenue also bordered by 11th Street and the Burlington Northern Railroad
to the west. The property is currently zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -
Family and allows a maximum of 24 units per acre. It does contain
approximately 27.969 acres. This is a R-PZD proposal before you. As I
mentioned, the property is located in south Fayetteville just south of 6th
Street at the intersection of Hill Avenue is probably the best location
Commissioners would recognize Brenda's Burgers is to the east at that
location as well as the Coors Distributing place. The property was
previously inhabited by a mobile home park which this applicant did
remove in the last year or year and a half. Several tons of debris, trash,
tires, etc. were required to be separated and removed from this property
and beginning the cleaning up process for this particular site. To that, I
would like to commend both the neighbors here today and the applicant.
They have met on several occasions to work out a lot of the issues for this
particular piece of property. I know there are drainage issues that deal
with the existing floodplain on this property which we will discuss a little
bit more in depth and traffic as well in this area. I have also had at least
five meetings with this applicant recorded in our books so we have been
involved with this applicant for quite a while on this project. College
Branch Creek is a stream that runs through this property and basically
bisects the property sort of each and west. This is College Branch Stream,
which divides Phase I and II. The proposal is to construct a Large Scale
Development with condominiums shown. The proposal is to construct
113 units on Phase I and 107 units on Phase II on the west side of the
creek with access points as shown. Phase I access would be from two
points, 6th Street here just east of the railroad and onto Hill Avenue in this
location. Phase II access will be at the corner of 11`h Street and Duncan
and because of the number of units for this development and the lack of
connection available here across the creek staff has recommended that a
secondary means of access be constructed for this property. The Fire
Department also requires that since there are over 100 units a secondary
means of access is required by International Fire Code. The applicant is
proposing to construct Brooks Avenue here within existing right of way
that was platted many years ago and connects to the existing 12th Street
which would provide a secondary means of access for this property.
Currently the project proposal is submitted as one large tract of land. I
don't want to get too much into this but I have included some information
before you, right now we have a Large Scale development on one large 28
acre tract of land which we are reviewing as multi -family or
condominiums. The developer's intent is to divide this land into lots into
each one of these essentially creating town homes. Condominium unit
owners own the inside of their units. Townhouse owners own the
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 22
complete unit including exterior service and the land on which the unit is
built. Ultimately that is the intent as understood by staff from the
developer. We are not seeing it in this configuration at this time. At a
future date the applicant likely will bring in a Preliminary Plat and Final
Plat or Concurrent Plat to split those lots out. It would have to be an
amended PZD because they would be creating lots that don't have any
frontage for instance. The plan would stay exactly the same as this, we
would just be looking at subdividing the land. Just to let you know the
difference between condominums and townhouses. We probably will get
those interchanged in this discussion. The total proposed dwelling units is
220 for the entire tract. Therefore, the proposed density is 7.87 dwelling
units per acre. The project site is zoned RMF -24 which would allow a
maximum of 24 units per acre so the density proposed is much less than
permitted. As I mentioned, the potential for a townhouse style subdivision
of land in the future, the inclusion of a public trail system which would be
located here and recommended by Parks. A public park located here as
well as the land underneath the trail and a large tree preservation and
riparian corridor shown in green here is also part of a deed restricted area
as set forth by the Corp. of Engineers for wetland mitigation in this area.
The challenges presented by the existing natural conditions including the
drainage, the slope, and the railroad which limits access dramatically from
the west, all of these contribute to the need for a Planned Zoning District
for this piece of property in order to get the best project for both the
applicant and the city when we look at this in this form. Through the site
plan, a PZD is required to meet some of the following things. They are
establishing their own zoning district so they will establish building
setbacks there as labled. Building height, a maximum of 40' for these
units. Greenspace, 51.6%, 48.4% impervious surface which includes
streets, the trail, sidewalks, buildings and parking. A small percentage of
wetlands is being mitigated for this project. That is what I spoke about
with the deed restricted area along the creek. Water and sewer lines are
being extended to serve this development and they are being extended in a
manner such that future subdivision of land can occur so public lines will
have individual service to each of these units. If they were just doing a
Large Scale Development per normal you could have private service lines
for all of these units. If the applicant wanted to subdivide those out they
would have to go back through and entirely change that. Just so you
know, they are planning on doing this as a townhouse style development.
Access is from several streets, 6" Street, Phase I has no access across the
creek in a vehicular manner. It does have a pedestrian conection shown by
way of a bridge here. Staff is recommending an additional pedestrian
connection from approximately this location. There is an existing creek
crossing at this location and discussions with the engineers, a trail can be
constructed through this area and connect to the public trail. Since there is
no vehicular connection we feel that it is important that a pedestrian
connection is being made in this location. There is a traffic report that was
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 23
not included as part of this report but I sort of talked about it in the staff
report. The recommendation from the traffic report for these 220 units
have been included and I believe the applicant has some of those as well.
Street improvements, most of them are relatively minor. The first of
which, repair the broken pavement on 11`h Street to make that a safe
configuration. Continue the existing sidewalk on the north side of 11`h
Street to connect to their sidewalks. That is approximately 20' of
sidewalk. One recommendation also is to complete the curb and gutter on
the south side of 11`h Street from the bridge west to the constructed curb
and gutter on Duncan Avenue. That is approximately 240' in length of
curb and gutter there. The challenge here is that this 107 units proposed,
the only right of way frontage that this developer has is this portion right
here. Your typical improvements would be improve your frontage and we
will look at any offsite improvements based on the number of units
developed in a rational nexus calculation. Staff engineers and I have gone
out on the site and looked at the conditions of the street and the width of
the street. Those are relatively good in this area surprisingly enough. The
streets are wide, most of them have curb and gutter with the exception of
this location here which does drain into the creek. Putting curb and gutter
there would help the drainage situation we believe as well as creating a
24' wide street section in that area. Specifically from the recommendation
from their traffic report the developer will be responsible for widening the
intersection at Hill Avenue and 6th Street to include a turn lane and the
traffic signal moving and the signalization changes there that would be the
responsibility of the developer. Also, the relocation of sidewalks along 6th
Street to conform with our Master Street Plan requirements. They will
have to make a transition because the railroad bridge right here the
sidewalk is right there next to the curb so the transition would have to
come back off of that property and be at the right of way line at that
location. Of course, the recommendation to construct a secondary means
of access to Phase II. The applicant has chosen to utilize this access.
They have shown currently on their plans a 24' wide street. Staff is
recommending a 28' wide street. The number of units alone, if you have
the vehicle trips per day out of Phase II would exceed our residential street
24' wide standards. This is a local street with 50' right of way existing so
a 28' wide street is more appropriate in this location. For tree
preservation, the existing preservation numbers are 52% and preserved is
15.1%. We typically like to see at the very minimum 25% being
preserved on PZDs especially. The problem here is that with the existing
trailer park that was located here and here I believe many of the trees were
in very poor condition. They had suffered several years of abuse and
neglect in that area and debris was piled over them. There was pavement
over the root systems in many situations. I walked the site several times
with the previous landscape administrator, that's how long this process has
been in process. We recommended an arborist, the applicant did hire an
arborist to evaluate the condition of the trees and itemize each one of these
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 24
trees in poor, fair or good condition and make recommendations on those.
As per the tree preservation requirements and as Landscape Administrator,
I am recommending approval of this tree preservation plan with on site
mitigation recommended, specifically in that tree preservation area and
then throughout the project as well in addition to landscape trees. We
have a parks representative here so I will let them talk about their
recommendations. I would mention a couple of other things before I get
to the formal recommendation. The applicant is also requesting a
temporary office space within one of these units. That would be for the
sell of townhouse units on this property. Staff is recommending approval
of that in condition number four with the condition that one dwelling unit
be utilized for that temporary sales office for the sole purpose of selling
dwelling units within the Aspen Ridge PZD and the sales office shall
appear in all manners as a dwelling unit and shall cease operation and
revoke to it's intended use as a residence once the remaining units have
been sold. We typically would see that as a Conditional Use for a
temporary sales office. This is a PZD so we are kind of rolling everything
into one. Fortunately, we have the ability to do that. A draft with future
platted lots has been submitted to staff. We have looked over that a little
bit. Again, we are not really looking at subdivision of land here. We are
just looking at this development in an overall way. Also, the developer
has responded to PZD requirements based on how they meet the General
Plan 2020 in this area. It is designated residential so it does meet that land
use criteria. With that, staff is recommending forwarding this onto the full
Planning Commission and ultimately, the City Council with a
recommendation for approval. There are twenty-one conditions, several
of which warrant discussion today. Allowed uses will be limited to Use
Unit 1, City Wide Uses by Right. Use Unit 8, Single Family Dwellings
and Use Unit 26, Multi -Family Dwellings because they are attached
dwelling units. Item number two is Planning Commission
recommendation for future vacations of portions of the existing Duncan
Avenue and Anderson Place. They would have to bring formal vacation
requests back to you so that everyone knows and concurs. Staff is
recommending approval of those vacation requests when the time does
happen. Permits could not be issued for these units until that did occur.
Item three, no structure may be permitted within the platted right of way.
Item four, the determination of the applicant's request for a temporary
sales office. Item number five, Planning Commission determination of
appropriate off site improvements. Item six is the Parks and Recreation
Board recommendation. I will let Allison go over that. Item number
seven, mitigation in the amount of 420 trees to be located on this site. If
all of those trees can not be located on this site the balance shall be
contributed into the tree fund as determined by the Landscape
Administrator. There are a couple of property line adjustments. This
property consists of several parcels so some of the property line
adjustments to create this one individual tract do need to be submitted,
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 25
processed, approved and recorded prior to this item appearing before the
City Council for consideration. Item ten, staff is recommending a second
pedestrian path to be constructed between buildings 35 and 36 in Phase II
to connect to the public trail through an existing creek crossing. While a
hard surface path is desired, asphalt or concrete, at minimum staff is
recommending that the path be constructed of a minimum 4" depth
shredded mulch with edging on both sides. The slope and location
through existing tree canopy shall be approved by the city prior to
construction. We would like to see some sort of pedestrian connection be
made through that area. Item number eleven refers to signage. The signs
shown I believe are a bit large for what we allow by our sign ordinances.
As I mentioned, item thirteen talks about an amended PZD which would
have to go through our development review process and be approved by
the City Council. If the applicant chooses to follow up with this process.
I believe that is all that I have.
Shackelford: Thanks Jeremy. At this point 1 want to hear from the Parks representative
about the condition of approval number six.
Brady:
Parks Board recommended a combination of money, land and services for
this development. We met with developers several times to work out this
recommendation and it will consist of the land underneath the trail that
will count towards the parkland dedication as well as the .86 acres on the
southern edge of the property. In addition, the developers are going to bid
out construction of the trail and that cost will be deducted from the
remaining fees due. They will also be credited for existing units that were
removed from the property. Then if there are additional fees remaining
that will be applied to park amenities.
Shackelford: Thank you very much. If you would please introduce yourself and add
anything you would like to what we have heard at this point regarding the
project.
Crafton: My name is Matt Crafton with Crafton, Tull & Associates. I would like to
introduce Mr. Hank Broyles and Mr. Hal Forsythe. Jeremy did a very
good job of introducing the project so I won't rehash everything that he
has gone over. As Jeremy mentioned, we have been working on this for
literally over two years. We have gone through several different concepts
and looked at several different ways to do this project and have met with
staff numerous times in an effort to try to meet city requirements and
produce something that is unique to Fayetteville and all of Northwest
Arkansas. We think that this is a unique development, just the manner in
which the site is laid out and the type of units that are going to be
constructed. We think it will be beautiful and we are very excited about
this. We are very proud of the work that has gone into it. We do want to
say thank you to the staff that have met with us numerous times over the
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 26
past two years to try to make this something that will work. I would like
to note that one of the city's guiding principals in your Vision 2020 Plan is
to revitalize south Fayetteville and certainly we believe that this supports
that goal. To go into a neighborhood and to do this kind of construction
we believe will be an enhancement to the neighborhood. I think Jeremy
did a great job of going through all of the specifics of the site and so I
won't rehash everything. I would like to show you the units, I realize that
for residential we don't have design requirements, but as way of
information, these are what the units will look like. They are brick
primarily. You can see the townhome units. Some of them, this is a six
plex, some of them are going to be four plexes up to seven plexes
depending on the building. Garages will be in the rear of the units so that
the front of the units will face either streets with the nice landscaped
streets that we are going to have or the lakes that are going to be on the
property or some greenspace for the front of the units. Again, we believe
that is unique to Northwest Arkansas and I think they will be very nice
units for the folks that are going to live there and also the surrounding
community. I believe that is primarily the things we wanted to cover.
Again, Jeremy covered things very well. What I would like to do is to
allow Mr. Forsyte to go over some additional information. He has
prepared a pamphlet for you.
Forsyte: Basically, this pamphlet has a lot of the same information that Jeremy kind
of went over but I did include some pictures on the fourth page of what the
area looked like before we have worked with the neighborhood association
and cleaned up the creek. We have pulled out a large amount of trash out
of the creek and in the surrounding area. Our cleanup costs to date is
north of $87,000 so we have tried to participate with the community and
what they would want to happen in this area. Just to go back on the
playground equipment real quick, we have worked with the Parks
Deparmtent on the playground equipment and we will be trying to provide
an area in the pakr that the neighborhood kids would also be participating
in. The next two pages are just a summary of what our traffic findings
were. The LOS -C rating is what currently is the rating for this area. That
stands for Level of Service and the C rating design level that engineers
strive for during the service life of the facility. The traffic flow under a C
rating is stable with average delays of 20 to 35 seconds. This study was
done by Peters & Associates and after all three phases are completed it
will remain at a level C.
Broyles: I am Hank Broyles. We have had several meetings with the neighborhood
association and members of the neighborhood. One of their major
concerns was flooding in the creek downstream from our property. What
we have tried to do is to set up three, in Phase I we have three retention
ponds that are set up specifically to capture the water runoff, trying to
catch it before it gets to the creek, hold it there, not release it but just let it
Subdivision Committee
December 3, 2004
Page 27
seep through the ground and work it's way back into the creek bed. On
the Phase II side we have constructred a large lake in the center which
works for us aesthetically