Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-17 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on March 17, 2005 at 8:30 a.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 05-1422 & 05-1423 (Brewer, pp 526) Approved Page 2 PPL 05-1408 (Cherry Hills Subdivision, pp 282/243) Tabled Page 5 LSD 05-1416: (Bedford Apartments, Campus Properties, pp 520) Page 22 Approved MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Loren Shackelford Jill Anthes Candy Clark STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Suzanne Morgan Brent O'Neal Jeremy Pate Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 2 LSP 05-1422 & LSP 05-1423: Brewer Tract A & B, pp 526 was submitted by Bill Rudasill for property located at 7 Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 0.81 acres and 0.69 acres. The request is to split the two tracts into four tracts of 0.41, 0.40, 0.41 and 0.28 acres. Anthes: Good morning. Welcome to the Thursday, March 17th meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Today is Loren Shackelford's last day at Subdivision. I want to thank you for six years of service to our Commission. It has been an honor for me to serve as Chair for the past year but today I am going to pass that to Candy who will take over starting this meeting. Clark: Pate: That means be gentle. I have learned a lot from both of you and appreciate your tillage on the Subdivision Committee. Planning Commission has run much smoother because of the work that we do here. Now that we have gotten that out of the way, the first item on our agenda is LSP 05-1422 and LSP 05-1423. Would the participants come forward? Is there anybody here for Brewer Lot Split? Seeing none, we can hear it without an applicant. These two requests I've put together. They are adjacent properties. Back in December, 2003 the Planning Commission granted approval to the same applicant to split a larger tract of approximately 1 % acres into two tracts of .81 and .69 acres. These two tracts are now being requested to be split essentially in half. The reason for that is that before, in December, 2003 there was not sewer in the general vicinity for this area. With the approval of the Cliffside PZD directly to the east there will be sewer extensions with that development which will allow for sewer to be extended to this particular piece of property and thereby be able to have smaller lots without septic systems in this area. The applicant has two requests and they do need to be voted on separately. Tract A is requested to be split into 0.41 acres and .40 acres and Tract B, which is directly south, is requested to be split into two tracts of .41 and .28. All of which do meet the RSF-4 bulk and area requirements. The right of way has been dedicated with the previous Lot Split for this property. Public water is available along Happy Hollow Road. As I mentioned, access to city sewer is not currently available and both of the Lot Splits are contingent upon city sewer being extended to serve these lots. Staff is recommending approval of both LSP 05-1422 and 1423 with five conditions of approval. The owner/developer shall extend a public sewer main to serve the created tracts prior to filing the Lot Splits. Lot Split approval and recording is contingent upon the extension of sewer to serve the proposed lots. The owner/developer and surveyor are aware of these requirements and the sewer line extension has been shown on the plans. None of the conditions I believe are any surprise to them. Item number two, no structure shall be Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 3 permitted to encroach in the utility easements. There is a Targe electric easement running east/west to the north of Tract B1 so they will have to stay out of that. Item number three, there will be additional parks fees necessary and item number four, Lots Al and B2 were the lots on which the existing homes sit now already have an existing access drive and staff is merely stating a condition that they shall not have any additional access drives onto Happy Hollow Road, which is a collector street. O'Neal: Just going over this plat I noticed that the scale is incorrect and there are a few minor problems with some overlapping text. Clark: Is the applicant for the Brewer Lot Splits with us yet? Do you want to introduce yourself and tell us about your project? Rudasill: I'm Bill Rudasill with WBR Engineering representing Mr. Mark Brewer and Brewer, Inc. on these tract splits. Currently he has two lots that he is planning to split into two more. The Cliffside development is occurring across the street which is bringing sewer to that area which is why he is planning to split two more lots off. That is the basics. Clark: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Brewer Lot Splits? Seeing no one from the public I will bring it back to the Committee. Shackelford: Madam Chair, you might let Engineering address with the applicant what changes they would like to see on the plat. O'Neal: I just noticed that the bar scale does not coincide with the scale of the drawing. That just needs to be clarified what the scale is. There are a couple of minor items that have some overlapping text that make it difficult to read. Rudasill: We can clean that up. Clark: Does anybody have anything else? MOTION: Shackelford: We are looking at basically splitting a piece of property into two smaller tracts to allow two homes where one was originally approved. The justification for that is there is now city sewer. That is a better situation for everybody involved to have two houses on sewer rather than one on septic. I am going to make a motion that we approve LSP 05-1422 at the Subdivision Committee level based on all staff comments and the stated four conditions of approval. Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 4 Anthes: Second. Clark: MOTION: I agree. Shackelford: I will make the same motion regarding LSP 05-1423 based on the same comments. Anthes: I will second that as well. Clark: Thank you. I will concur. Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 5 PPL 05-1408: Cherry Hills Subdivision, pp 282/243) was submitted by McClelland Engineers for property located at the west side of Hughmount Road north of Lierly Lane. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 75.85 acres. The request is to approve a Preliminary Plat for a residential subdivision with 202 lots proposed. Clark: Morgan: The next item on the agenda is PPL 05-1408 for Cherry Hill Subdivision. Can we have the staff report? This subject property contains approximately 75.85 acres. It is located west of Hughmount Road and north of Mt. Comfort Road. The proposal is to create a 202 lot subdivision with 200 single family homes. One of these additional two lots contains a lift station and the other is the location of a community septic treatment area. This property is located in the Planning Area and is currently undeveloped. With regard to development in the Planning Area, this property is also within one mile of the city limits and I have noted here in the staff report the different regulations and requirements the city can address when reviewing these subdivisions of land. These include appropriate division of land, review of this, lot area a minimum of 10,000 sq.ft., lot width, a minimum of 75'. In addition, we do review right of way dedication and conformance with the Master Street Plan. We review the impact of traffic, on and offsite improvements to reduce a dangerous traffic situation, grading and drainage as well as construction of streets, sidewalks and installation of streetlights in compliance with ordinance requirements. In addition, we also look at septic system approval from the Arkansas Health Department for lots less than 1.5 acres and street connectivity. With regard to surrounding land use and zoning, all of the surrounding properties are within the Planning Area and consist of large single family properties. With regard to water and septic system, water will be extended to serve the proposed development. With regard to septic system, the applicant is proposing lots that are approximately 10,000 sq.ft. in size with each to utilize a community septic system. The treatment for this system is located adjacent to floodway and floodplain on Hughmount Road to the south of the property. The applicant has submitted a letter from the Little Rock, Arkansas Health Department office confirming the size of the field is adequate to serve the subdivision based on loading rates. However, prior to the Planning Commission consideration, staff has talked with the Arkansas Health Department and determined that we will need a letter from a private soil scientist verifying that the test pits indicate adequate soils for the intended use as well as a letter from the Washington County Environmental Services Department verifying approval of the soil tests and location as preliminary approval. This information, again, these three items will need to be provided before we can take this to Planning Commission. One of which has been provided and is included in your staff report. Adjacent Master Street Plans include Hughmount Road, Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 6 which is a collector street. Right of way 35' from centerline is proposed to be dedicated in conformance with the Master Street Plan. With regard to internal streets, they are shown at both 50' and 40' rights of way. Staff does anticipate, we have looked over all of the streets and the proposed widths for these and staff does anticipate that Golden Willow Drive and Cotton Willow Drive, which lines the treatment area to the south, will carry larger volumes of vehicle traffic, more than what will occur on a 40' right of way, which is 500 vehicle trips per day. Especially with development to the south and we do recommend that that be revised to a 50' right of way. With regard to connectivity, connectivity from this subdivision is proposed in all cardinal directions. However, this property is very large and is adjacent to several larger tracts of undeveloped property. Therefore, staff is recommending additional street stub outs to the east and west for future connectivity and have addressed that in the conditions of approval on condition number two. Doing so will also result in smaller block lengths which will discourage potential high speed traffic and reduce potential dangerous traffic situations. With regard to street improvements, subject to an ordinance passed on December 21, 2004, the city does require that all subdivisions within the Planning Area that are within one mile of the city limits to conform to our street standards. Staff recommends standard street improvements from the centerline of Hughmount Road for the entire length of the subject property as well as construction of all interior streets to city standards. Staff has evaluated the width of Hughmount Road and the offsite bridge to the south and found them to be of sufficient width and condition to sustain the traffic that will be generated by this development. Staff does, however, recommend improvements to the "Y" intersection of Mount Comfort and Wheeler Road to the south of this property so that there will be created an intersection at a 90° angle. Currently it is kind of at a "Y". This will allow for greater safety for the increased number of motorists who will traverse these streets. With regard to traffic the applicant has submitted a traffic study and the recommendation from that traffic study is included in your staff report. The recommendations consisted of construction of streets per the City of Fayetteville design standards as well as recommending that both streets connecting to Hughmount Road be constructed so that there is a right and left hand turn out onto Hughmount. At this time the plat shows just two lanes, one inbound and one outbound. With regard to public comment, I'm sure that there are people in the audience today who will address this. We have not received any formal letters from the surrounding public at this time. Staff is at this time recommending that this Preliminary Plat be tabled until items addressed in the condition are completed. Condition one addresses the plat revisions. This plat that was submitted for Subdivision Committee does not address many of the items that were submitted by Engineering and Planning. The Engineering and Planning Division have submitted a memo, which is included, which address all of the items that need to be further looked at Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 7 and addressed on this plat before we can evaluate it and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Condition two, Planning Commission determination of appropriate street connectivity. I mentioned that staff is recommending additional stub outs to the east and the west. Planning Commission determination of street design with regard to rights of way for the internal streets. Condition four, Planning Commission determination of off site street improvements. Staff is recommending streets improvements the length of Hughmount Road adjacent to this property as well as redevelopment of the intersection to the south. All streets will need to be constructed to city standards, as addressed in condition five. Condition six addresses requirements for approvals for the proposed treatment area. At the time of Final Plat application submittal a permit will need to be issued by the Arkansas Department of Health and that is addressed in condition five. There is a request that the applicant submitted for an intent to line this property along Hughmount Road with a decorative fence. I've included some elevations that were submitted in the packet. Condition eight states that gated subdivisions shall not be permitted on public roads within the county. Perimeter walls are discouraged within the city's General Plan 2020. Condition nine just further expands on regulations with regard to perimeter fences. Should the applicant request that this subdivision be phased, it was the intent of the applicant to phase this into three phases, possibly four, with the revisions those phase lines were not put on the plat. If it is the intent to phase it that will need to be represented. Approval from Washington County Planning shall be obtained for this Preliminary Plat. As with any subdivision in the county, it does go through our process through the Planning Division for approval and will have to go to public hearings at the county. Finally, twelve just addresses a note that will need to be placed on the Final Plat. The rest are standard conditions of approval. Clark: Thank you Suzanne. Are there any other comments? O'Neal: My comments are included in the packet. Clark: Would you like to introduce yourselves and tell us about your project? Morgan: My name is Mike Morgan from McClelland Engineering. Gill: I'm Ryan Gill from McClelland Engineering. As far as the actual comments themselves, we took staff's recommendations and we consulted with our client and chose to accept some of the recommendations and choose not to on some of the others per this process. Clark: Do you want to clue us in to what you are agreeing with and what you are not agreeing with? Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 8 Gill: We are already providing four stub outs and didn't feel like it was absolutely necessary to provide an additional two stub outs. We did agree with the fact that we needed two entrances per the Fire recommendation. These are going to reduce our subdivision by at least two lots and we are already providing two stub outs to the west so we didn't see the need for an additional stub out for that. One of the comments is specifying the treatment area, which is Lot 81 as an unbuildable lot. In future developments once we get the treatment plant built, it is a possibility that this subdivision could be put onto city sewer, in which case, this drip field would become buildable area. By calling it an unbuildable lot at this point could hinder that future development for our client. We have provided for 50' right of ways to control traffic for all of this, by expanding this to a 50' right of way would not only hinder the addition of these lots because it would make us reduce down to under 10,000 sq.ft. and if we expand it the other way it would have reduced our treatment area so it was efficient to handle our effluent. Those are the ones I'm thinking of off the top of my head. Morgan: We reviewed lot sizes to ensure that all of the Tots are within the minimum lot size. Our street lights have been revised so that they are of adequate spacing. Fire hydrants have adequate spacing. Like Ryan said, we have modified our front two entries to agree with the Fire Code. Perimeter wall, we have lights that we have placed along that perimeter wall to allow for street lighting along Hughmount Road. Our client will improve Hughmount Road to the necessary extent. As far as the streets, the longest one is as long Chenille Drive. It has a large number of intersections that will come to it to slow down traffic so no one gets ahead of speed along there. We can also add stop signs along that longer length to mitigate traffic. The stub out to the east is prevented by a severe grade there at lot 154. Gill: This is really not even possible to do a stub out here because of the TOPO of the land. There is a large swale right here that we are going to fill and grade as much as we can. You would dip to get back to a hill that is right here on this adjacent property. Another comment I saw about the minimum street frontage on Lots 73 and 74, I was under the understanding that the ordinance read that it was 75' at the building setback line. On Lots 73 and 74 there is a 30' building setback which allows for that. Pate: The 25' setback is the setback line that is enforceable. The 30' is not enforceable. Clark: Ok, is that it? Gill: Yes. Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 9 Clark: We are going to open it up to public comment. If you would like to comment on the Cherry Hill development please come to the podium, state your name and address and talk to us. Haberman: My name is Rich Haberman, I live at 3135 N. Hughmount, approximately 3 mile north of this proposed subdivision. I would like to go along with the Planning staff's recommendation to table. Primarily because my first indication that this was at this stage of the game was approximately seven days ago when I saw a sign on the road. Because we are a rural community, you may find that in a one mile radius you will have''/ dozen residents so we are not within your notification process so we received no notification except by sign. The fact that North Hughmount is a single road that is the only way that we can travel. Let me give you a little bit of history if I may. I built my home out there in 1987. The county sealed and built Hughmount Road to it's current standard in 1987. It is a two coat chip sealed road. That's it. It is certainly not designed for truck traffic. I have been watching subdivisions that have been approved by the City of Fayetteville in between my house and Shiloh Road down on Mount Comfort. You have approved four subdivisions on Mount Comfort Road. If you travel down Mount Comfort Road towards the City of Fayetteville toward the end you will make a sharp turn as you are headed east, you will make a sharp turn to the south. Starting at Razorback Road you have within a couple hundred feet Shiloh Road, both coming in from the left. You immediately have an offset Shiloh Road coming in from the right, an off ramp and an on ramp, all within about 150'. Mount Comfort Road is not designed, and certainly does not have the road capacity, I don't believe, for the subdivisions that you have approved, let alone another 202 houses. Rupple Road is clearly a substandard road. It is full of sharp "S" turns, very, very narrow, has a 2" to 4" drop off at the edge. There is essentially no shoulder and if you have ever driven down Rupple Road at night and confronted a concrete truck, of which we are having a lot of those out there, you will find that there is no escape. It is clearly a very difficult situation. The only other road is there is another road, I right now do not have it's name. I think it is a county road that comes off Mount Comfort just past what used to be the glass company, I think it is AAA Glass Company. As I recall, there is a road that shoots off to the west and eventually comes back onto Wedington. My concern here is that we need alternative roads to Mount Comfort Road to handle all of the subdivisions and improvements that are happening northwest of the City of Fayetteville. I know that that may not be part of this particular application but I think the Subdivision Committee and the Planning Commission need to be aware. It was way back in the recesses of my mind, there was a plan to extend Salem Road south all the way to Wedington Road to provide some kind of alternate route off of Mount Comfort and relieve some of the pressure. These are offsite issues that I have grave concerns about. The concern I have with respect to the condition of Mount Comfort Road, Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 10 Pate: Haberman: Pate: Haberman: O'Neal: Haberman: relates again going back to the concrete trucks. If you go back and look at Mount Comfort Road, especially where a lot of the subdivision work has been going, there are sub grade failures already appearing on Mount Comfort Road. It has been beaten down. It was not designed, nor was it built, nor was the sub grade built to handle the kind of truck traffic that is occurring right now. Hughmount Road will not in any way, shape or form handle the amount of construction traffic that will go on for this subdivision. I have concerns on the condition of that road at least maintaining it's current surface viability. If I remember correctly, I would like a copy of your staff notes. One of the requirements you are requesting is that Hughmount Road be brought up to city standards the full length of the subdivision, am I correct in that? Yes. If I remember right, you will do the inspection on that at some point during the construction, is that correct before you will accept the road? That is correct. The "Y" intersection I think is very important. I don't know what the current Arkansas State standards are for sight distance but the sight distance to the west at that "Y" intersection is horrible. If you live out there you know that you don't stop at the stop sign, you stop about 20' before the stop sign so you can see around the corner down low to the bridge. The sight distance there is a serious problem with all of the development that is going on. Mind you, this is a 45 mile per hour road. They are going to be on you before you realize it. Making it a "T" is very important but I think you also need to pay attention while you are looking at your intersection improvements with the sight distances, especially to the west. Are you all operating under Phase II Storm water? Yes. Will this subdivision be monitored for that purpose? If the City is under Phase II I have concerns in terms of storm water and storm water runoff. Clabber Creek is, as I understand it, a tributary to the Illinois River so there has to be some particular attention paid there to ensure that we don't end up with excessive sedimentation and those types of things that will occur on Clabber Creek. Right now that is about all I've got. I put this together real quick in the last few days so I would appreciate if you all would table this. This is not going to hurt me economically. All of this development has made my land value higher. I've got close to 10 acres so they are only going to get so close to me. I have concerns with trying to get into the City of Fayetteville. Right now I can do it in 15 minutes. I Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 11 Clark: Whiteman: Peret: would like to keep it somewhere in there, I would like to make it at least not an hour trip. Thank you. Is there anybody else? My name is Randall Whiteman, I live at 2804 N. Adams Road, which is County Road 707 to the west of this development. I have seven acres that is encompassed by David Dial's and John Armstrong's land. There is probably about 1,500 feet between this development and my land. One of the things that really concerns me is the density. This is an area where most of the people who are investing in homes there are building small five acre estate type places. If you drive around all the area there are a lot of $300,000 to $500,000 houses being built on three, four, five or ten acre pieces of land. The density of the housing, I would like to see it a lot less dense. Another thing is the traffic. Like the gentleman before was speaking, if you drive down Mount Comfort Road it is not far before you start feeling like you are on a dirt road because the road is completely broken down already. If you try to come to Fayetteville at 7:30 in the morning you will find yourself sitting still. It takes 15 to 30 minutes to make a %4 mile stretch of road because they have already built two schools there and both of those schools only have one access. It is just stand still traffic. I think before we just start spreading out that kind of density we really need to address the traffic and the size of the roads coming into Mount Comfort. To the north of the subdivision you can weave around and come out there on Hwy. 112, which I think you have to go on some dirt road to do it. To the south you can cut through Bridgeport or you can go 51s` Street back to Wedington and to Rupple Road. That's about it. Those are a couple of my biggest concerns. Another concern would be, as the gentleman said, that tributary runs out to the Illinois River and I don't think it would be wise to leach that much sewage into the ground all in one spot. I think they should have to build a pump station or something and connect to the sewer. They mentioned that possibly down the road that is the plan, I think it should just be the initial plan if they are going to put in this subdivision. I am Dave Peret, my wife and I own a piece of property contiguous to this development. I would like to also commend you all for moving to table this for the time being. It also seems to be that the property owners in the area were not given sufficient notice to take a look at how we might want to consider what was happening in the neighborhood around us. I have ten acres and have thought for many years that at some point I would build a sort of larger house on that particular site. We live on that site now in a house that is about to fall down that I bought from my grandparents. That being said, it looks to me that the comparables immediately west of us are indeed these higher dollar $400,000 to $500,000 houses. They are not on big lots. Some of them are probably an acre or larger. Ideally, if we are Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 12 going to be developed in the area, I would rather not, I am a typical redneck and don't want everybody moving in around me. If we are going to see development I would rather it be on these larger lots. Especially if it is going to be any kind of septic system at all. Conventional wisdom has been for years large lot septic system, you treat what you need to treat on your lot. If it won't support it you won't do otherwise. I don't know anything about the shared septic systems, I am going to have to defer to the gentleman who's job it is to do the engineering, but I do know that lower corner where the substandard bridge is adjacent to where the septic field will be. I know the behavior of the water in the area probably better than anybody else on the property save perhaps Dess Halicker, who is immediately opposite the road there. That corner will flood. It will flood fairly frequently. It may be in the 100 -year floodplain but I have seen it in my lifetime, I've been on and off of that place since 1963. I have seen that water completely over the existing road and the road before 706 was improved, I have seen it 5' or 6' above the old road grade. I don't know how septic fields behave but that is going to be a mess and it is not a matter of if it will be a mess, it is when it will be a mess. We also have, in addition to the concerns I have over a large septic field being there, we are still on a well. My well is 280' deep. I would like to see some hydrogeology on what is going to happen with what you have proposed that tells me where the groundwater moves from what you do to my well that is 280' deep. I am sure it is significantly below where you are going to be leaching. I don't know where the water moves, I would assume it moves down to that Clabber Creek or Hamestring Creek area and then moves out. I would sure like to know that. Also, I have a concern in that you have mentioned that County 706 would need to be revised from 35' from centerline right of ways to 50' centerline right of ways. I haven't had time to go out and measure to see what that is going to do along my property that fronts that road. I have got some pine trees that I would really not like to lose. We lost a huge number of them when they widened the road and made it into an all weather road some years back. I would rather not lose the rest of those. If I am going to I would like to know why, when, where and how and see what kind of traffic is going to be flowing that way. I don't see any reason to cut that road up past me anyway. If, indeed, you widen the entire length of the subdivision, since I include that between 706 and the subdivision, you would still be coming on past my place to widen the road if I understand what your recommendation was. Also, you mentioned the traffic flow that you have concerns within the subdivision about keeping people below the speed limit and accesses and things like that. We are out there day and night and we see what people do on County 706. If you add 500 drivers, that is my swag for what is going to happen if you have two folks in each household that drive, if you add 500 drivers everyday that is going to be very dangerous. We have all had dogs run over in that neighborhood, we have all had people speeding up and down the road. That is just going to get worse. Also, all of us out Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 13 there have talked to the county and said can you get the sheriff out here anymore? Can you patrol this so we can slow people down. It is not going to be any easier for us to get the city police out there because they are stressed and there are not enough of them either. There is going to be a drag race up and down that road. The problem is folks will speed up and down the road until they get to Mount Comfort in one direction or to Salem Road in the other direction where they are bottle necked every morning for about 20 minutes just to drop kids off at school. That already happens. Those roads and that traffic situation will not support 500 more folks out there taking their kids to those schools, if those schools would even support that. Another concern, the stubs to the east and west, the plat that I've seen with the stubs that they have, I don't see any problem with ingress and egress to that subdivision with the stubs already there. If you propose another stub either east or west, my inclination is to believe that that is going to come between me and Kerry on an extension of Lierly Lane, which I would not like to see because that comes right along our property line. I know that that is in the 2020 Master Plan but the character of the dirt through there and the fact that Kerry has a swimming pool and I have a pond, two attractive nuisances that I'm also concerned about if you move 500 people in close to me. The character of the ground through there to put a road across that you are going to have to do a tremendous amount of work that is going to have a substantial amount of impact between what is now the northern edge of my property and the southern edge of Kerry's. Another concern that I have with the dirt work that is going to be done in here, there is a tremendous ravine in and along the lots that border Bob and Dan Cable's place. I think their lots 154 or 158 are in there, the character of the grade in there, I would describe it as a good size drop. It is probably 40' on my place. I could see about a 40' drop. That dirt work in there is going to change the way water flows back through here which is going to affect us all, which I think would concern me quite some bit. Another issue that I see is the 706 and Wheeler Road intersection, which the gentlemen eluded to already, that intersection is already a disaster. I don't know how you will traffic control it because everybody from Double Tree and those additions further west are zooming to town on that road. You can't very well stop that traffic because you will back it up to 707 every morning. It is going to be a disaster traffic wise unless you widen every street around there. You are going to have to do it eventually and I would rather see it done proactively on some sort of street plan before you begin to develop and put all these neighbors in who are also upset that they can't get into town in 1/2 hour when it is only 10 miles, tops. The last question that I have is that the fence proposal seems to me to be a good idea. I don't know what the exclusion for gated communities is, I don't know the rules and regs., and can't speak for any of the other property owners in the neighborhood, but I would much rather see a fence around the subdivision so I don't have the concerns of every kid that lives in that subdivision to come across to try to fish in my pond Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 14 or, god forbid, fall in the pond. I don't know how it should be incumbent on me to police more aggressively a pond that has been there my entire life and we have never had to fish anybody floating out of it. If I were a kid in that subdivision I would want to climb the fence and go look at the pond instead of looking at asphalt in my backyard. Kerry's pool I think is a problem. There is some dangerous character of the land through there, some rocky places with some old trees. We are not going to be able to improve wily Nelly to meet the standard that they probably should meet to be safe for every kid who wants to trespass I thank you for your time. Larson: Good morning everybody. My name is Kerry Larson, I'm a homeowner at 2999 N. Hughmount. I am a neighbor of David's and most everybody else who is sitting here. Everybody who has come up has addressed a lot of my concerns as well. I think for me I feel fortunate that I am in an area that is pretty secluded, unlike David, who has a little bit more open space to the proposed subdivision. I would before I go any further, ask for the Planning Commission to table this issue as well. The timing for us to kind of get together and understand all that is going on would benefit if we had a little more time and information to look at everything that is up against us right now. My ultimate concern for this subdivision again, is the traffic flow situation. I guess with what has been said so far, the thought of widening Hughmount Road to me, for this subdivision is a necessity. I don't understand how that can be done before Rupple Road gets done. If you look at the way that they will funnel out, everybody that is going to be in that subdivision, there are ways to get out. Whether it is from the west or Salem Road, people are going to look for different ways to get to the City of Fayetteville. If we start to limit the ways to get there and the ways to get there aren't safe to begin with I think we need to kind of formalize a better Rupple Road out there. I think with the schools that are out there, the traffic light out of those schools would benefit to start and kind of ease the traffic already, let alone to add 200 more houses out there. I'm not super sure on the understanding of the specific questions I can ask right now. I probably have more specifics on trying to understand everything that is going on in that subdivision. Is this appropriate for me to ask specific questions or am I just here to address my concerns right now? Clark: You can do both. I am making a list of all the questions and we are going to deal with them when you are finished. Larson: I will fire away then. The sewer site situation, do we know where that is going to be located exactly? Can someone tell me based on the map that we are looking at? Clark: The Planning Division can give you all the site plans, just go ahead and ask your questions and we will answer them when everybody is done. Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 15 Larson: Clark: McDonald: Ok. Where that is going to be located. Another question I have, is if this does get approved and it does get approved and it does go into phases, where will the phase begin and how many phases will it be? How long do you anticipate the project to go in order to complete all phases? Was there a survey done on my property and the fellow land owners that are around that particular subdivision? If so, is there a way for me to get a copy of that survey? Is the buyer of this land going to be the one to develop the land and if not, who is the developer and what does the development compare to in the surrounding area? Is it a Clabber Creek development? Is it a Salem housing development? What does the development kind of compare to? I am being super specific but with the lots this small, I might be able to answer this with the type of development, what is the expected lot price anticipated to go for? As we talked about with the privacy fence, I am on the same page as David, I think as much as it is not appropriate for a gated community but I am about to spend a good chunk of money on an addition to my house that is already in the works right now and for me to have that fence that surrounds the corner of my house and this proposed subdivision I think would benefit with the possibility of kids coming in. I've got dogs and a pool and I am not opposed to anything other than a privacy fence to keep my property definitively secluded from someone else's. It doesn't need to be 8' tall but you know, in order to keep the potential kids away from dogs and a pool and to kind of protect everybody's property, I think that would be pretty minimal considering the expense for this project seems like it is going to be pretty significant. Then my other concern is in the 2020 Master Plan, Lierly Lane, I'm just concerned for that because as I said, both David and I share a great property together and to see that road potentially go through to this subdivision, I know it is not a part of this project right here but to potentially see that I would wonder how that would benefit this subdivision and then number two, what other alternatives there may be for that potential road to go through. If it is on the 2020 Plan how realistic is it now that we know that this subdivision is coming in, to kind of see which way to put my house now. Which direction do I go? Do I shoot on the south side of my house or do I go on the north side of my house kind of depending on that proposed road and will this subdivision encourage that road to be there or will it discourage? I don't know if anybody can tell me right now but I would like to ask that question. That's all I have, thank you for your time. Is there anybody else? My name is Michael McDonald, I live at 2825 N. Hughmount Road on Mount Comfort Road I am the subdivision's northern border. It was kind of short notice although, I got to see the engineers come out and start making marks in the road. What concerned me immediately is all of those marks shifted onto my land a good 8', which in turn, pushes my land on Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 16 over to the Cables which pushes further up on Peret. They told me just this morning that that issue is going to go back to the original pins which would be reflected in my survey which I had done in 1985. When we bought in 1985 they did improve that road from a dirt road and I lost a good 20' or 30' on the front of my property by the county straightening that road to just a perfect 1/4 mile race track. Before that, there was a little jog in the road. They had to slow down to get around that jog or end up in the woods. That is no longer there so that road is right now pretty heavily raced on. The other concerns, like David, I've been out there for 20 years, he has been there much longer, but those fields take in a lot of water. A lot of water comes off the back of my property and the Cables' property from that real rough spot on Lot 157, that area where the ground is very rugged back there. There are certain times of the year that there is a lot of water that runs through the back of my place. It could sweep a small child away easily. That ends up running off of my place onto that land. If it is all going to be contained in a sewage situation underground that is great but what is going to happen to the drainage on our land? Is it just going to back up until it can fit through these pipes? I would like to know a little more about the drainage situation coming across the back of that property. A privacy fence would be a nice thing but I understand that is a lot of money to do. I do have a pond right on my fence which is no more from me to you sitting there. That is going to be, like David said, a very attractive thing for people to come and take a look at. It is not a very deep pond, but it is a pond none the less. I also understood the rules for septic, I had to replace mine a while back, I had found out that there are rules that it needs to be an acre or better per housing unit. If it was the whole 180 acres over there with 200 houses, I would probably go with it. Being 75 acres and 200 homes that falls well below that acre per house. I thought that was the rule I had to go by but maybe it is no longer in affect. That is about it. My main concern is the pins and the water flowing across that land. The pins seem to be straightened out and that is a good thing Thank you for your time. Haberman: Just a quick follow up, I don't know this for a fact, but I was lead to believe that the City of Fayetteville may have sewer lines that are running along the Clabber Creek area. If I am wrong then this is irrelevant, but if there are sewer lines down there, I think that would be an alternative that you all may want to look at opposed to septic systems. I know that this is not an area that I'm very familiar with but in another community that had a subdivision with this type of density built on septic systems, 15 to 18 years after that subdivision was approved and built, they were having septic system failures on every single lot because of soil saturation. That would be something that I would ask you to keep in mind for the long term. Thank you. Clark: Is there anybody else? Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 17 Cable: My name is Bob Cable. My wife Dana and I live at 2839 N. Hughmount. I would like to echo everything that has been said by the people before me. There is nothing that I disagree with on anything that they have said. My main concerns are the density of the housing and the sewage, which I said before, you have engineers that know this stuff and know what can and can't be done, but it seems to me that having sewer out there would be a lot better approach since the city is going that way anyway and is eventually going to need sewer out there anyway, to maybe wait on the large septic field that you are talking about. We live between the McDonalds and the Perets and behind our place and the Perets are lots 154 to 158 or so, is very, very steep. I know there can be an awful lot of bulldozer work and stuff to level that out but if you all could look at it, it is pretty steep and rough and it would make more sense from my perspective, if it was left as greenspace or made into a park of some sort rather than trying to build a dozen houses on that steep part. I definitely agree with the opinion that this should be tabled for a while where things can be looked at and addressed with a little bit more research. If there is an opportunity for the people living out there to get with the engineers to work on something that will be agreeable with everybody concerned. Not just us, but for the people who will be living out there later on where they won't have problems with the sewer and the roads. It is kind of a shame that the people who make the decisions regarding this subdivision don't live on Hughmount Road, nor will they likely move out to the new subdivision when it is built. Most of us have been living in this neighborhood for 10 years or better, some of us going back to our grandparents. Although change and growth is inevitable, it should be at a good pace and well thought out. I was looking at the Fayetteville Vision 2020 Guiding Principles up there, I'm impressed by what it says Fayetteville is doing, I just hope it is taken into consideration when they are building on this subdivision. I would really like to see larger lots, fewer homes, I know it is probably a money issue, the more houses you can have, the more money that is there for the developers and maybe for the city but that area is surrounded right now by five acre and up lots with houses on larger lots. That's it. I thank you for letting me speak. Clark: Peret: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address this issue? He mentioned something about park, I know we don't have any park out there really, there is a softball park out there on Salem Road, I noticed that a lot of the other subdivisions that have been built out there have incorporated parks into the development, they have set aside a couple of lots for a park for the kids to play in, I don't know if you all have incorporated that or not. The other thing is there is a lot of wildlife out Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 18 Clark: Morgan, M.: Clark: Morgan, M.: Clark: MOTION: Shackelford: there. We have a herd of deer that roam free through there and things like that, there might be some kind of impact on that. Thank you Sir. Is there anybody else? We will close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commission. Wow gentlemen, let me make a guess, nobody talked to the homeowners around this proposed development? We have spoke with the homeowners along the eastside of Hughmount Road. They must be the ones not here today. I have made an attempt to go by, it looks like everybody works, so when I would go by from 8:00 to 5:00 there wasn't anybody home. I would like to say that I certainly appreciate everybody coming out today and voicing their concern. We are located at 1810 N. College and are certainly available to you anytime during the day and after hours and will be sure to provide surveys and all the information you need. We are McClelland Engineering directly across from AQ Chicken. I have a list of about 25 or 26 concerns, do you want to jump in now or head for the list? Obviously, as has been stated by staff, and I whole heartedly agree, this is something that needs a lot more work before it comes back to this level. I don't know that we need to go through all of it. There are some very basic issues that we need to address. One thing is obviously, we have to get the developer and the folks that live around this on the same page. A lot of what we are hearing is regarding the septic system. It is not really a septic system, it is what is called a drip system. We have seen these in other parts of town. A lot of municipalities are using this. This effluent will actually be treated to within one step of what the city wastewater treatment system would treat effluent. We are not even comparing apples to oranges when we are talking about septic systems on large lots verses this drip system. I've seen this type of system used in other municipalities where the leach field is actually parkland, the city's baseball fields, soccer fields and that sort of thing. There is not that impact, that is just something that you are going to have to help educate the public on what we are talking about. There is a knee jerk reaction thinking of septic systems as we all know septic systems and that is not at all what we are talking about. With that being said, there is a list of, a record in my six years, 62 items that the Engineering staff has addressed on your plat. I think all of those issues need to be addressed, I think all of the concerns of the neighborhood needs Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 19 Pate: Clark: to be addressed and I think a substantial amount of work needs to be done. I think you need to get on the same page with staff regarding connectivity and some of the basic things that we can look at with property in the county. That is my take on it Madam Chair. I don't know that we need to go through every item other than to acknowledge that there is a lot of work that needs to be done on two or three different fronts and table this. I will make a motion that we table it subject to all comments that have been made. If I might add a couple of things before we vote on that, the Planning staff is also available in the Planning office if the neighborhood has any questions. We do have some of this information as well I think I have more than 25 items that I listed down from the property owners adjacent or nearby. I would highly recommend in having gone through this process with a number of Commissions and Subdivision Committees, when we get to a point of this nature, that you guys hold a neighborhood meeting so that it is a publicly notified, everyone can come to it, Saturday afternoon or Sunday meeting or sometime in the evening, get together with some of the folks that are here today, establish a meeting in a time and place that would be in your best interest so you are not answering the same question 17 times. Additionally, I think after getting some of that information, another meeting with just staff to work out some of these issues with regard to drainage, septic approvals and all of the comments that we had that were or were not addressed. I don't think it is insurmountable, I don't want to scare the applicant off, I don't want to scare the neighborhood as well, I fully anticipate a development will occur on this property, obviously, that is why they are here. I think it does need to be done in a manner that benefits all involved. I agree. This is something that will go much smoother if the neighbors are willing to get together and work with the developers on this. There is a lot of work to be done. Anthes: There is an enormous list, I certainly don't think that we need to go over all of those again because there is going to be a lot of work done. I do think that there are a few items that we should give direction with so when they are reviewing the plans so they have some indication on what this committee feels. One of those had to do with street right of ways. I am looking particularly at Golden Willow Drive. I believe the applicant was wanting to keep that as a 40' right of way where staff was recommending 50'. If this was going to indeed stay an unbuildable lot, I might be more inclined to support that request. However, if you are indicating that you want to look at the possibility of development in that area in the future then we will have considerably more cars and people fronting that property and using that street, which would seem to me that you need to have more right of way. We need to look more closely at that 40' or 50' Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 20 right of way and I would like recommendations from staff on that going forward assuming that that becomes a buildable lot. As far as connectivity, I really believe that I would support staffs comments to stub out to the west and looking east, I looked at the grading plan briefly during the meeting, it looks to me like if you take Sedona Hills Drive to the east, which is somewhere around Lot 157 or 158 you will just clear where the ravine starts coming down and again, that would be something if you needed staff's comments to look at that grading. The fencing verses wall situation, I realize this is in the county and we don't have the same regulatory control as we have on property within the city limits, I understand the current property owners and the surrounding properties wanting some sort of privacy fence, what I take issue with is the wall along Hughmount Road. As far as street improvements, I think we have already looked at that and that seems consistent with what we usually look at. Because this property is in the county to tell the neighbors that we don't have the same regulations concerning parkland dedication, parks fees or trees and landscape, we don't have any means to evaluate those at this committee. The last thing that I would want to see is a really good case for the environmental impact for this field. I am looking at the map and it looks like these unnamed tributaries feed directly into a creek system. It looks like this field is situated directly in the branch that leads directly to Clabber and I would like to know a lot more about that before we approve it. I think those are my basic concerns just to give you some direction. Shackelford: I would concur also. I appreciate you bringing up those specific points. In regards particularly to the street width, recently I've supported the smaller roads in the neighborhoods but I think that is kind of an either/or situation, I would support a 40' right of way is Lot 81 was not going to develop. With the thought that Lot 81 is going to develop, I think you need a 50' right of way there. O'Neal: We do have improvements slated for several streets all the way from I-540 to Mount Comfort. We are available to also provide that to the public. On storm drainage, we are currently in the process of reviewing our policy of detention in the planning area. Everything else would be built to city standards. Sewer, this development is not within the city limits. A connection would have to be approved by the City Council. This is one of those that it is very close to the proposed main transmission line that would run fairly close to Clabber Creek. That is a possibility but when that will be nobody is sure. That's all I have. Morgan, M.: Our client would like to connect to the sewer. He would propose connecting to the sewer in this phase if it was possible. I understand that traditionally it is not possible since we are outside the city limits. Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 21 Clark: Being non-traditional by nature you might want to talk to staff about that a little bit more and let's get a definitive declaration on that. This is a long list and I hope that you can work with the neighbors. To the neighbors, let me tell you two things. This is not in the city limits so our jurisdictional reach is somewhat abbreviated. There is a very specific thing that we can look at with developments outside the city limits. Needless to say, there is a whole bunch that was relevant today. We are going to table this item. That does not mean it is stopped, it means it is tabled. The county, however, has a Planning Commission itself, you still need to show up there when this gets there. They have the ultimate authority. There are not a lot of rules or regulations in the county, that is good sometimes, that is bad sometimes. Typically it is bad when the development is in your back yard. Unfortunately, that is what it is this time. It is not only this body that we need to talk to, the County has an arm that needs to be addressed as well. Having said all of that, I agree with everything Commissioner Anthes said, especially about the environmental impact. I'm very, very concerned about storm water runoff, I know we have our ordinance under revision and it is a very, very good ordinance if it gets passed, but I don't know that that will be relevant for this development. Anthes: Are we tabling to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Subdivision Committee? Pate: I would recommend tabling indefinitely, just in case it can't get back by the next one. Shackelford: That was my intention. I think we have a lot to do, more than can get done in one meeting time. Clark: The motion is to table indefinitely until these issues are worked out. Anthes: I will second that motion. Pate: Essentially, you just make the deadline for the next Subdivision Committee meeting. For the public's benefit, there won't be an additional notification because this is tabled. Please keep your eyes open for the newspaper so keep your eyes open for that and call about when this will be on the next agenda. Clark: I will tell you that the Planning Division is great with working with citizens. You've got the number, you've got the name, call them and ask them what is happening with it and they will be happy to tell you. I am in concurrence so this item is indefinitely tabled. Thank you all. Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 22 LSD 05-1416: Bedford Apartments, pp 520) was submitted by Milholland Engineering for property located between Lewis & Cross north of Stone. The property is zoned RMF - 24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately 3.75 acres. The request is to approve the completion of the previously approved LSD 03-10.00, an apartment complex with 48 bedrooms and 32 parking spaces remaining to be constructed. Clark: The next item on our agenda is LSD 05-1416 Bedford Apartments. Morgan: This Large Scale Development before you has actually been reviewed and approved once before this current submittal. The original approval was granted April 28, 2003 with conditions. I have attached the previous staff report to this. The expiration period for a Large Scale Development is one year. Within the one year period after it was approved, the applicant did receive several permits for four of the eight proposed structures. However, not all permits were received before that year period and no extension of the Large Scale Development was requested. Therefore, after that year, we could not permit any additional buildings because the Large Scale was expired. Because of this, the applicant recently requested a building permit approval and staff notified him that he was not able to get that until he proceeded with a new Large Scale Development for approval. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Stone Street and Lewis Avenue. An existing 17,764 sq.ft. of residential space and 800 sq.ft. of office space for a manager's office has been constructed on this property as well as improvements to the street and installation of sidewalk as required by the previous Large Scale Development. The proposal at this time is for completion of this project which entails four additional residential structures as well as parking areas. The plat that you have for the Subdivision Committee does not have the already constructed areas hatched in. This plan will show the areas that have been constructed and those left to be constructed. Those which have been finished are shaded. All right of way has been dedicated and easements have been dedicated with an easement plat which was filed prior to issuance of any permits with the last Large Scale Development. Water and sewer will be extended to those units that are proposed. Parks fees have been paid for these units and we have evaluated the tree preservation and landscape plans proposed with this Large Scale Development. At this time staff does recommend approval of this Large Scale at Subdivision Committee level with a total of 15 conditions of approval. Required compliance with all conditions set forth in the previously approved Large Scale Development and several of these conditions actually address landscaping and tree preservation, which I will allow our Landscape Administrator to address. Additional conditions are standard conditions of approval. Pate: With the last Large Scale Development a tree preservation plan was approved for that property and most of the trees on the site, as you can see with the development plans, have been removed for construction of some Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 23 of those lots and buildings. You will notice under the tree preservation numbers in the staff report on page two that the preserved canopy proposed with the previous large scale, LSD 03-10.00 was 9% and the proposed with this is 5.6%. The reason for that difference is that during the process of construction and relocating the overhead lines along Stone Street two trees were removed illegally, essentially, from this area along Stone Street. A violation notice was sent to the property owner at that time and mitigation was required for that. Pursuant to our city codes, that essentially has been formulated and the numbers put into this staff report. There are a total of 44 mitigation trees required on the site, which are reflected on the preservation plan there before you. There were several other conditions that were requested at Technical Plat Review that did not make this plan. A couple of those are add the labels for each tree as requested. Those were shown on the 2003 plans but it is really hard to look at tree numbers and not reference these. I have referenced some tree numbers here that you don't see in your plans and that is what I requested. Condition number four says remove trees 472 and 473 from the tree preservation plans as previously requested. Those were the ones that were removed. Just to reference, it is essentially southwest of the manager's office and maintenance garage, two of the trees there are no longer there. Condition number five, all tree preservation fencing shall be inspected prior to resuming work on this site. There are bonds required for mitigation trees after they are installed and planted. Those are three year bonds required by ordinance with a maintenance and monitoring program. That includes a total of $11,000. After that three year period the Landscape Administrator then is required to go and look at those trees and see if they are indeed, healthy and still there. If they are the bond is then returned. If not, the funds are utilized out of that bond to replant those trees. Clark: Do you want your comments added to the conditions of approval? Pate: I believe they are. Numbers two through seven are landscape comments. Clark: Is there any other staff? O'Neal: I need to add one condition. The sidewalk along Lewis Avenue, which was previously approved with a separate project was not constructed and I need to add that as a condition, that the sidewalk be continued to the north property line. A couple of things that need to be confirmed, one is just I don't know if the interior street lights are installed yet, Tom, do you know if that is the case? Jefcoat: Not on the part of the property where there are no buildings, everything else is. Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 24 O'Neal: I just needed to confirm that there are not conflicts with the proposed street lights and the water line that goes through the property. The other thing that needs to be confirmed is the Fire Marshal asked for an additional hydrant at the Tech Plat level. Jefcoat: I think they sent you a letter saying that is not required. O'Neal: I have not seen that letter, but if that is the case, that's all that I have. Clark: Mr. Jefcoat, introduce yourself and tell us about your project please Sir. Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company. As Suzanne stated, this project was started over a year ago and essentially, all of the infrastructure has been built in place. Water, sewer, overhead electrical, sidewalks have been improved and accepted by the city. Maintenance bonds are being put in place for those. Certified As Builts have been submitted and essentially, this is a resubmittal of a LSD for the additional development of the remaining Phase II four remaining units and parking areas and sidewalks to those units to be completed. Clark: There are four buildings? Jefcoat: That is correct. Clark: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to LSD 05-1416 for Bedford Apartments? Yes Ma'am, please come up, give us your name and your comments. Benedict: I'm Hillary Benedict, I own property at 221 Cross Street right across from the development. In fact, it is up above it so that any exhaust fumes and such will come up to our property and effect the living quality there, the environmental quality there. I understood that there would be a lot more trees and apparently I did not hear what he said, all I could hear is that he was talking about trees. There are not many trees left. I'm very disappointed in the quality of that development. I think that is so close to the University and I was really surprised at the quality. It wasn't upgraded much more from what it was before. That area should be upgraded, there are some efforts being made to upgrade that area there but they are not adjacent to this so they could not come and make any comments. I just want to express my concern about the quality of that development. I would not permit anymore of that. I object to anymore of it right there. I think it is going to be high density and low quality development and it is so close to the University, I would just like to express my objections to it. I would like to see Fayetteville upgrade their quality rather than downgrade their quality, especially close to the University. That whole area in there needs Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 25 Clark: Anthes: Pate: upgrading. There is going to be eventually more upgrading, but this is not going to help it. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public who would like to comment on this development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission. I seem to remember when this came through originally there was a lot of discussion about the utility lines and overhead verses burying, could someone bring me up to date? The applicant, I'm not sure if they went to City Council or not, to request that overhead electric not be installed underground, that request was denied so overhead electric lines, per ordinance, were required to be put underground in this location. I believe it was primarily along Stone Street. This applicant predates me as well, I believe it was along Stone Street, potentially along Lewis as well, but there were overhead electric lines that were required to be put underground and that has occurred to the best of knowledge. Jefcoat: I may mention too that the majority of the trees in this area were sycamore trees and were in fairly poor condition to begin with, damaged from the type of structures and existing conditions there. The installation of the storm drainage, the installation of conduits to put the electrical underground, all of that affected those trees and they just didn't make it. Anthes: Was this bend in the sidewalk constructed in order to go around a tree? Jefcoat: Yes it was. Anthes: That tree is gone but the sidewalk still bends? Jefcoat: I don't know if it is gone or not, but that was part of the construction to save the root systems as much as possible. Anthes: Ok. That's in place now? Jefcoat: Yes, it is in place. Anthes: Are you in agreement with the sidewalk along Lewis Avenue to the north property line is something that needs to be extended here? Jefcoat: I think that there are several issues that have taken place and transpired over and over again. The property actually ends here. This little unit belongs to the gas company and the gas company has from time to time agreed to the sidewalk and not agreed to the sidewalk because their entrance to the property is here, because of the grade change and drainage Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 26 Anthes: Crandall: issues. The city inspector and the developer have agreed to the construction as it exists I believe. If that is not correct and the city inspector in the future development works that out with the developer to extend it across there and Arkansas Western Gas agrees to it then yes, it will be extended. So that piece doesn't exist yet? I'm Marc Crandall, the builder. We have agreed to extend that all the way up to the corner. What's holding us up right now, I own this building, there was supposed to be a sidewalk here, but because of the questions we had in terms of burying power lines, we didn't do it. Right now we have the sidewalk up to here, I've agreed to bring it up to the corner. Basically, what is holding us up is there is a utility pole, that utility pole that is supposed to be removed is still there. We are just waiting for SWEPCO to come. Anthes: Is this a dumpster? Crandall: That is from the old development. The gas company is here, there is a transformer and a pole that is remaining there so we are going to have to kind of, as we have done with a lot of the sidewalks, go around some of the existing utilities in order to do it. Clark: You are in agreement to do it? Crandall: Yes. We are just waiting for the pole to be moved. Anthes: I just have one other comment in response to the lady about the quality of your development. We do not have design standards for residential properties within the City of Fayetteville so that is not something that we can look at. Shackelford: I will make a motion that we approve LSD 05-1416 based on all conditions of approval with the addition of condition number sixteen, the sidewalk to be completed on the north property line known as Lewis Avenue, to Main Street. Anthes: I will second. Clark: Before we vote on it, I have two questions. One was about the trees. On one of the drawings it is a reduction, it is like a 20% reduction, is that because of the loss of those trees? Pate: No. The Landscape Administrator is given the ability to reduce onsite mitigation of up to 20% if all trees are planted on site. In looking at any Subdivision Committee March 17, 2005 Page 27 property we have to evaluate special constraints and conditions. Kim Hesse's evaluation in 2003, the trees were in poor condition. In my review of this project, I probably would not have recommended some of these be saved because of the amount of infrastructure, storm drains and utilities going in in this location anyway. It is so close to those trees that it would be very difficult to save those so I felt it was appropriate in this location to recommend a 20% reduction, which brings it from 55 to 44 trees to be planted on this site, which will be a major improvement for this property. Clark: Are some of those trees going to be planted along the backside of this property? Jefcoat: There is a landscape plan. Pate: They are actually planted around along the backside of the property. Jefcoat: There are mitigation trees and the others are required for landscaping for parking. Clark: I couldn't figure out from these plans which buildings were built and which were not. These are not the best plans we have ever received. I think that would address part of Ms. Benedict's issue. If you can't see it you can't be upset about it. Those were my comments. I have a motion and a second, I concur. We are done. Thank you. Announcements Meeting Adjourned: 10:01 a.m.