Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-03 - MinutesSubdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 1 Insert Here Broyles: For our home buyer. Additionally, we will capture that water and hold it and as you can see, there is no line where that runs into the creek. The intent is to hold that water and let it seep down through so that you don't get as much runoff chemicals as you would get from the streets. We are trying to capture as much of that as we could and also it tries to hold as much water as we can to keep it from getting into the creek during storms which was our intent to try to slow down what flooding might occur downstream from us. Shackelford: Thank you gentlemen very much. At this point I am going to open it up to public comment. If there is anybody here that would like to address this PZD for Aspen Ridge please come forward at this time. Hoodenpyle: I am Don Hoodenpyle, I live adjoining to the piece of property that they are working with. You had to go by my place to get into the trailer court. I would like to know, I looked at your plans up there but nobody could tell me where that sewer line is joining up at. Is that sewer line going forward to join up with the one that comes down, that 15" one is supposed to be coming down on the other side of the creek. It sure can't join up with that 6" line because that 6" line has all kinds of problems with it. I have had several talks with Hank and he said he is going to put a fence around the place so as long as he does that, that's ok with me. The water runoff, I think he has that pretty well under control but who knows when you get a 3" or 4" rain what the heck is going to happen. I get flooded out every time right now and there is going to be a lot more roofs up there and a lot more pavement than what there was before. Of course, the maintenance on the creek that he's talking about. As long as you have got the University you are going to have that trash in the creek. They throw all kinds of stuff in there. I noticed they block the road off but guys drive around that stuff to throw their refrigerators and stuff on his property. It has been going on for years and they are still doing it. Another main concern of mine, and I think Hank is probably going to take care of this, when he fences it behind my barn over there where it's at, I'm trading a piece of property, when he fences it down behind the barn if he goes over 15' it is going to get pretty well close to the creek. On these trails that he's got people can shortcut my place but he said he is going to put another fence over there to stop that. Basically, those are my main concerns. You know how kids are and people are, I would do it myself. I would shortcut your place if I could save myself '/2 mile of walking and you would do, and I wouldn't care if you didn't have to pay if somebody trips or falls. If they trip or fall though they are going to come after me. This is going to be a great big bunch of people moving in there and I'm a country boy. How long I will stay there after this project is in is anybody's guess. If I could replace what I have right there now I would Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 2 let Hank have my place and leave. I've enjoyed it down there but don't know whether I could tolerate that many people driving through my driveway. Shackelford: Thank you Sir. Would anybody else like to comment on this PZD for Aspen Ridge? Holden: Yes, my name is Fred Holden. I own the property on West 126 Street. That is three duplexes on the south side of that. I represent six families there. My concern is don't come dumping the traffic from this back on Duncan Street. There is just one short block there that what you are doing is just making a circle and dumping the traffic right back on Duncan Street. What would be wrong with taking that and continuing Brook Avenue down and dumping it on 15th Street? To me in my line of thinking it would do a lot to control the traffic flow right there. Really, 12th Street is a dead end street. I have owned property there for almost 40 years. We like it like that. It is a big plus for me and my property there. To dump all this traffic out of this complex onto 12th Street would be detrimental to my property I believe. I would ask that you go ahead and try to take Brook Street onto 15th Street. Thank you. Shackelford: Is there anybody else that would like to address this proposed PZD? Strayhorn: I'm James Strayhorn, I'm a property owner on S. Hill Avenue. I have not had an opportunity to attend any of these meetings prior to today. The property that I own there is a duplex and the word never got to me about these meetings so I've missed out on some of them. What I've gathered from the meeting this morning, I only have one real concern and that is the storm runoff. Mr. Broyles has indicated that the retention ponds there are designed to handle the storm runoff and that is probably true in normal conditions. In the spring whenever you have wet weather these retention ponds are going to fill. When these retention ponds are full and you get a 2" rain in a 24 hour period of time there is going to be a lot of water runoff that creek. Right now with all the vegetation that is there from the empty space it helps control some of that but there is still flooding that takes place. I have a real concern that if there is not a plan to take care of this additional runoff simply because of all the concrete and asphalt from the parking, I think the property owners that are below this development are going to see some major flooding. It just so happens that my property is elevated enough that I don't think that I would get any flooding inside my structure there but the back of my property certainly would flood. Shackelford: Thank you Sir. Is there anybody else that would like to address this proposed PZD? Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 3 Shepherd: Yes Sir. I am Aubrey Shepherd and we live very close to the property just on the south edge of the main property. There are questions unanswered. I think the biggest thing that is unanswered for me and Hank and I talked about this the other day, the FEMA delineation of floodplain along this stream is clearly inaccurate. On the east side of the stream it is much broader. There are five areas, there is no way that you can fill and build in there that you do not reduce the carrying capacity of the stream. At the current time the water overflows in there. As Mr. Hoodenpyle pointed out, the water runs across his property 75' from his driveway. On that side it is clearly floodplain whether FEMA has it delineated that way or not. I would ask that they be very cautious in what is planned for that particular area because if the flow is stopped that occurs now then you will have further flooding. This year there was one house on the west side of Town Branch where it goes under 156 Street was flooded three times in late April and the 2nd and 3rd days of July. As much as they have tried and planned for this, as Mr. Hoodenpyle and others have said, you really can't predict how big it will get. I remember we had a meeting in April with Hank and Hal and Mr. Hoodenpyle brought up the idea of what happens if we have 6" of rain and we all laughed and said we never have 6" rains here, but we did within a few days of that and it happened twice more in July. This is very critical for the future. Flooding occurs and the siltation of Beaver Lake that occurred all Summer is based very much. Long ago we blamed it on the farmers and the rural road goers that we had a lot of erosion. Today building in the cities of all of Northwest Arkansas, this is what accounts for so much of the erosion. During the process of building, maybe after it is over there won't be any muddy runoff, I'm sure that that is taken into account. It is during the process of building that so much damage is done because if that plan is not totally complete and it is not executed carefully and fully before any other ground is turned on the property then you start having muddy runoff. This is why small mouth bass fishermen don't bother to go to the portion of the white river between South Fayetteville and the lake itself because you have so much siltation now. It is a beautiful plan projected. As part of the neighborhood association, we like what is going to be there. Between now and when it is completed there will be a great risk of environmental damage that I think these guys are planning for and I think if they execute that as well as they have talked about it then it could be tolerable. In that floodplain area, the official map may show that it is not but it is there. You can walk it yourself and it is clearly wetland, water stands in there much of the time. A little of the drainage comes off the property these guys have bought from the east and northeast there. The creek itself uses that area now, that means less water downstream at any given moment once the stream gets up out of it's banks. That is the reason that I feel obligated to warn against that. It won't affect my house, my house is up a little higher but over. In talking to people who live on Ellis and Van Buren, the houses that are on Van Buren are high enough that it just gets their yards full. On Ellis it is Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 4 Shackelford: Terry: getting very near the base of the houses. Individuals call the city when it does this but as a group you don't see all of them. They talk to us when we have meetings or are walking around visiting but not everybody can take off work and attend meetings and they don't even attend the neighborhood association meetings because those are inconvenient for everybody I think if these guys persist and take it a little bit slow as they have done to this point that this thing can be something workable for everyone. I haven't read the soil reports but we know that much of this lowland, the name Aspen Ridge is sort of ironic, but it is a nice name Hank, we would call it Town Branch Swamp because this is primarily wetlands along the Town Branch of the West Fork of the White River. It affects the whole watershed downstream. Much of the soil, if they have soil tests, will show hydric soil over much of the area. It is soil that protects people downstream from flooding. Each time we have had these major floods, these flash floods, it has been after we've had rains for days and days and that soil is finally holding all it can and then you get an inch of rain in an hour or two and the creek gets out of it's bank because there is no more soaking power. This is pretty important. It is not just for us who have friends and family living downstream but all the way to Beaver Lake where the Corp. has the right to flood some land that houses were built on I think many of you read the story last July after that flood when people had water in very expensive new homes and they simply had not been warned that that land could legally be flooded by Beaver Lake. Trees, we appreciate the effort to save every healthy tree you can. I know they spent the money on getting a good delineation on that. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to address the PZD for Aspen Ridge? Good morning, my name is Melissa Terry, I am representing Audubon Arkansas, the State Chapter of the National Audubon Society. We are working on a project within the West Fork of the White River Water Shed with funding from the Arkansas Soil and Water Division. I'm happy to say that we have been able to work with Mr. Broyles, Mr. Forsythe, and the Town Branch Neighborhood Association in a really productive way for this particular sub basin, which we selected as our demonstration site for the whole water shed. 40% of Fayetteville drains into the West Fork of the White River and as such, the sediment studies have shown that the Town Branch Stream is the main sediment contributor to the water shed, our drinking water. It is vital from Audubon's perspective, that we really look to creating some best management demonstration areas for other developers, not just as an example, but as an attempt to realistically hold our soils out of this drainage basin. We are contributing a whole lot of sediment into the sub -basin as well and the upper watershed has been paved off. To that end, the preservation area that you see, Audubon is partnering with Mr. Broyles and the neighborhood association to preserve as much of the riparian canopy as possible and the health of those riparian Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 5 Shackelford: Hawkins: Missing Tape trees. We are pleased that this property has been deeded to the Corp. of Engineers as part of the mitigation banking. That means that it is going to have a federally protected status. Our staff, recently in the past week have attended a Corp. of Engineers Dream Restoration Workshop. We will be looking at this site for federal protection standards, way in which Audubon can work with the developer to restore or replace any of the sick, mature trees that they mentioned earlier in a way to absorb some of the storm water runoff. The MS4 regs. will take care of a lot of that and of course, we would look to the city to enforce any of our grading and drainage ordinances. Another way to consider riparian trees and the creek buffer strips is just visualizing them as living straws and so they are going to be pulling up water and addressing all of those concerns that you just heard from the neighborhood. Any way that we can increase that area, maintain that area, and preserve it is something that I feel like each party has spoken to and Audubon supports that and wants to work with the city and the developers as much as possible. Thank you Ms. Terry. Hi, I'm Loren Hawkins. I appreciate your folks' hard work on various issues concerning this. Hank has done a tremendously good job on working on this plan. It is light years away from what it was originally proposed. I, of course, feel like we can do more. My concerns are various. This will be a buyer beware situation as far as sound goes. There is a lovely ridge along the railroad that gets a lot of railroad traffic that fortunately, these houses will create a barrier for me but for them who are spending a great deal of money for these condos that would seem to be an issue. I am concerned about the development of a Property Owners Association if this is originally going to be condominiums that the Property Owners Association understand their responsibility for runoff and it's impact on those downstream. Those downstream now have recourse according to Phase II for what development changes. This property holds so much water it is unbelievable how one could expect it not to increase the flow by that many roads, that many parking spaces. I understand that the city is looking at requiring affordable housing within Large Scale Developments. I am sorry to see that there really is no provision for that in this huge development. To me this may be unique to Fayetteville development but I don't believe it is unique to see rows and rows of starter castle condominiums. I don't see it as a revitalization of Fayetteville when houses were removed. I believe the removal of the houses were included in the cleanup costs. I would really strongly ask that you look at this very carefully. Thank you. Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 6 Shackelford: Thank you for staying with us through the break there. We are going to get back to the agenda. The next two items are Lot Splits for Ron Payne. We are going to hear LSP 04-1312 and LSP 04-1343 as tandem items. Suzanne? Morgan: The applicant is seeking approval of two Lot Splits. The first Lot Split is to split tract A, a .13 acre tract from the subject property. The total property for this tract is 1.86 acres. Tract A has 75' of frontage and .3 acres. This property is located on Ray Avenue, west of Ray Avenue north of Huntsville. It is immediately south of the Bassett subdivision. A lot of the lots in the Bassett subdivision are narrow and very long lots with less than 70' of frontage. Many of those owners have gone to the Board of Adjustment for approval of a variance of lot width. The type of lots in neighboring developments are very narrow and long. The subject property has quite a bit of frontage on Ray Avenue, 209' of frontage, which, if undeveloped, you could theoretically have three lots that would almost meet our minimum of 70' of frontage. There is an existing home on this property. The applicant is proposing to split the .3 acres from the north and the LSP 04-1343 is a request to split the remainder into two tracts of .44 and 1.12 acres. In essence, creating a tandem lot, a lot without adequate frontage and located behind other lots. Right of way is required to be dedicated in compliance with the Master Street Plan for 50' of right of way for Ray Avenue as well as parks fees to be assessed. The applicant has submitted a request for a Conditional Use approval of a tandem lot for this 1.12 acre tract, which will incorporate quite a bit of land in the rear of this property as well as just a little bit of land to the south. It doesn't have direct frontage onto Ray Avenue, it is a strange configuration on that rear lot line. Staff is recommending forwarding both of these Lot Splits to the full Planning Commission for consideration with the Conditional Use so that you can address all of these issues together, even though they are proposing the creation of a tract of land that is compliant with our ordinance. For each of these proposals we are recommending that they be forwarded with conditions to address the approval of the tandem lot as well as some minor plat changes. Shackelford: I want to make sure I have this straight in my head. We have two requests. Basically, the first request is to split it into a .3 and a 1.56 acre tract. The second request is to further split the .56 into 1.12 and .44. If both of these items are approved as presented, this is the drawing that we will have at the end. I'm just a banker, I just have to make things real clear sometimes. Thank you very much. Are there any other staff comments regarding this? O'Neal: On Lot C to show means of service for water and sewer, that will also apply with the Conditional Use. Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 7 Shackelford: Gentlemen, if you would introduce yourselves and add anything to this conversation that you would like. Payne: My name is Ron Payne, I'm the property owner. Reid: I'm Alan Reid, I did the survey for Mr. Payne. Shackelford: Is there anything else that you would like to add to the comments that we just heard? Payne: Not really Sir. The existing home that is on the property was in pretty bad condition when we bought the property. We have spent about $25,000 renovating it. It was more or less one of the worst houses on the street. I think what we are trying to do here would be an improvement to the neighborhood. My middle daughter is buying the existing home from us. The back lot, we plan to build a home on it for our youngest daughter. Shackelford: At this point I will open it up for public comment if there is anyone that would like to address either LSP 04-1343 or LSP 1312 please address the Commission at this time. Lancaster: I would like to know, I own property up there, this is adjoining mine. Which end are you on? I just wanted to know if you are by the church. Payne: This is you on this end here. You are on Ray Avenue? Lancaster: Yes. Payne: You are probably south of the church. Lancaster: Thank you. Shackelford: Is there anybody else that would like to address either of these Lot Splits? Seeing none, I will close it and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions or comments. Ostner: I have a question for staff. This is really for my understanding more than anything else, we are splitting and splitting again, that is not considered a subdivision of land? Pate: A Lot Split is a subdivision of land. However, if it has not been split more than three times you can split that through a waiver of Preliminary and Final Plat requirements. That is the reason we can look at a Lot Split request. Ostner: How far back is being split go and have a bearing? Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 8 Pate: 1985. Morgan: Ostner: This property has not been split since 1985 so they are able to process two Lot Splits with a maximum of three. This all looks good to me. I will make a motion that we forward to the Planning Commission LSP 04-1312. Shackelford: I will second. Clark: I will concur. Ostner: The second Lot Split, LSP 04-1343 I will make a motion that we forward to the Planning Commission. Shackelford: I will second that as well. Clark: I will concur. Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 9 Shackelford: Next we have LSP 04-1314 for Doty. Will the applicant come forward? Olson: The applicant seeks approval for a Lot Split on the subject property, it is a 8.11 acre tract into two tracts of 3.94 and 4.17 acres respectively. This property was bisected by Sunshine Road (County Road #877) and the applicant is now coming forward to make those legal lots in order to have two clear deeds. This is located in the County. Public water and sewer are not available at this location. Right of way being dedicated, a total of 90' of right of way is being dedicated for Sunshine Road. The surrounding land uses, again, this is all in the County so there is no zoning designation there. Staff does recommend approval of this Lot Split at the Subdivision Committee level with the condition that Washington County approval be obtained prior to recordation. Shackelford: Doty: Thank you Sir. Are there any other staff comments regarding this Lot Split? Seeing none, I will let you introduce yourself and add anything that you would like. I don't know if it is pertinent or not, there is water on the lower tract, Tract B. Shackelford: At this point I am going to open it up to public comment if anyone would like to address LSP 04-1314. Seeing none, I will close it and bring it back to the Commission. Clark: Ostner: Shackelford: What you are doing is just putting one lot on one side of the road and one lot on the other side of the road? Wow! Ok. I am going to move that we approve LSP 04-1314 with conditions as stated. I will second. I will concur. Thank you Sir. Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 10 Shackelford: Next we have another Lot Split, LSP 04-1315 for Richardson/Creel. If the applicant could please come forward. Morgan: The subject property is located south of 6`h Street, east of Duncan Street, it is actually just south of the proposed Aspen Ridge PZD. It is currently developed for one single family residence and zoned RMF -24. This site is somewhat heavily wooded in the rear and has a 100 -year floodplain located in the rear of the property. The applicant is seeking approval of a Lot Split for the .82 acre tract into two tracts of .51 and .31 acres. The applicant proposes to subdivide the southern portion of the property, which is currently used for access, a garage and a shed to serve the existing single family dwelling. Because the garage and shed are accessory and located on the proposed lot, they must be removed prior to recordation of this Lot Split because there is no primary structure on the lot. Also, water and sewer is located within the Duncan Avenue right of way and is available to the subject property. Surrounding land use consists of single family dwellings and is zoned RMF -24. The applicant is also proposing dedication of right of way along Duncan Avenue in compliance with the Master Street Plan. Parks fees in the amount of $555 will be assessed for one new single family home. Recommendation is approval at this time. We do show with eight conditions of approval. Specifically, I would like to address condition one. Applicant shall verify the height of the existing structure, just to verify appropriate setbacks for the new proposed lot line. Also, that the existing garage and shed shall be removed prior to recordation. Currently, if you look at the plat, there is a driveway on the proposed lot, I assume to access the garage that is there and the single family home that is existing. Either an access easement to access both lots shall be filed with this Lot Split or at the time of building permit for the newly created lot a driveway shall be constructed for each lot conforming to city specifications to include construction of a sidewalk at the right of way. There are some minor comments. Shackelford: Thank you Suzanne. At this point I will ask for any other depaitmental or staff comments regarding this Lot Split. O'Neal: On the water and the sewer you need to check the size of those utilities and also, on the floodplain, I appreciate the applicant showing the area of the floodplain. However, we do need to label the elevation and they can get that through our Floodplain Administrator. Shackelford: Thank you. Gentlemen, if you would please introduce yourselves and add anything pertinent to the comments that we have heard regarding the Lot Split. Richardson: I'm Herb Richardson, the property owner. Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 11 Reid: Shackelford: Jumper: Shackelford: Osmer: Morgan: Ostner: Morgan: Shackelford: Morgan: Osmer: Shackelford: Clark: Ostner: Clark: Shackelford: I'm Alan Reid, the surveyor. Are there any other comments regarding this? At this point I will open it up to public comment, if anybody would like to address LSP 04-1315 please do so at this time. Seeing none, I will close it and bring it back. I had one question for the Parks Planner. On page three it shows a money in lieu calculation. Obviously, there are two different money in lieu options for Lot Splits and this calculation shows money in lieu of $393 but the conditions of approval call for a parks fee of $555. Can you clarify the difference on those two items? If they are intending to build a single family home the parks fees will be $555. If it is multi -family it is $393. Thank you for the clarification. My question was basically covered by Ms. Morgan about your current driveway. Also, on the drawing there is an existing right of way and there is a right of way as per Master Street Plan. Which one are they having to abide by? They will have to abide by the right of way per the Master Street Plan. As one of the comments, it is a condition, we have asked that it be shown to be dedicated per this plat so it is an additional 5' dedication. That is of course, both lots, the existing home and the one that they are splitting off. Yes. That looks to be addressed in condition number five, is that correct? Yes. That is fine with me. Commissioner Clark, are there any questions? No. I will make a motion that we approve LSP 04-1315. Second. I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 12 Shackelford: That gets us to item ten, LSP 04-1316 for Stratton. If the applicant could please come forward I will ask for staff comments from Mr. Olson at this time. Olson: The applicant seeks approval for a Lot Split for the subject 4.45 acre tract into two tracts of 2.00 and 2.45 acres respectively. This property is located on Dinsmore Trail north of 6th Street. The property is split by two zoning districts, RSF-4 and R -A. There is an 8" water line available along Dinsmore Trail. For sewer, the existing home on tract A has a septic system. However, the property to the west of this proposed Lot Split does have access to sanitary sewer. The location of which has not been shown on the plat. A total of 35' of right of way will be dedicated along the east side of Dinsmore Trail with this plat. This property is surrounded by several different zoning designations, RSF-4 to the north, R -A, Residential Agricultural to the south and the east and RMF -24 to the west. Dinsmore Trail is classified as a collector street and 6th Street is classified as a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan. Conditions of approval, staff does recommend approval but several issues need to be resolved with the plat prior to recordation. They need to show the line separating the RSF-4 portion of these lots from the R -A portion. Show the location of the existing septic system for Tract A. The location of the sewer manhole located to the west of these tracts and the actual site location on the vicinity map. Shackelford: Thank you Mr. Olson. Are there any other departmental or staff comments regarding LSP 04-1316? O'Neal: Yes. Again, the applicant has shown the 100 -year floodplain, they just need to label an approximate elevation. Also, on the water line, I believe there is a fire hydrant adjacent to Tract A. If they would show that. Jumper: Parks fees will be due for this in the amount of $555 for single family. Blew: I'm Buckley Blew with Blew & Associates Surveyors here to answer any questions that you guys might have. Shackelford: At this point I will open it up to public comment if anybody would like to address LSP 04-1316 please do so at this time. Seeing none, I will close it and bring it back to the Commissioners for questions and comments. Ostner: I have a quick question for staff. Dinsmore is listed as a collector here. Where on this locator map is the proposed future minor arterial that we are calling Rupple way up by the Boys and Girls Club? Is it near here? Olson: If you look at the last map in your packet on the last page it shows the approximate location of Rupple. It is quite a ways west of this and the Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 13 Clark: Ostner: Pate: topography there, I'm not sure that Rupple will actually come in a straight due south location over the top of that mountain. We heard at the last Planning Commission that they were going to alter Rupple to go around that mountain. That is where I was going. This is beyond our level, this is to the City Council. A lot of times when you alter those approximate Master Street Plan locations you have a tendency to go to streets that exist. That is why I'm asking. Dinsmore is not too far away. I would hate to limit our right of way dedication at this point if something like that is in the works. People are already talking about changing it. Is that any kind of consideration or is that not really within our purvey? The applicant at this time is required to comply with our current Master Street Plan requirement. Much as the developer along Rupple Road would be unless the City Council through a policy decision decided to change the location of Rupple Road to somewhere. Osmer: Great. That was my only comment. Clark: This is rather straight forward. Pate: Brent, will you address the sewer please? O'Neal: When existing public sewer is within 300' of the residence there is a requirement that they extend the sewer. That is one of the statements made by Mr. Olson. On the existing sewer, I believe that they are beyond 300' for extending and connecting to the public sewer. That is what that needs to be to clarify it. Pate: Following up on that, staff would like to add a condition stating per our city ordinances, that if a public sewer line is within 300' of this property these lots will be required to extend that sewer line prior to filing this Lot Split, much like any Lot Split we see within the city limits. That is the primary reason we need to find out where that manhole is. Clark: You want to add that as a condition of approval? Pate: Yes Ma'am. Clark: I will make a motion that we approve LSP 04-1316 with the stated four conditions of approval, including the one that Jeremy just read, that if the public sewer is within 300' both houses will have to connect. Ostner: Second. Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 14 Shackelford: I will concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 15 Shackelford: Next we have LSP 04-1321 for Guinn. It looks like we have the same applicant in front of us. Mr. Olson, if you could give us staff's comments please. Olson: Sure. The applicant seeks approval for a Lot Split for the subject 16.25 acre tract into two tracts of 4.39 and 11.86 acres respectively. This property was bisected by Van Hoose Road and the property owner now wants to split off that land that lies to the west. Public water is available at this location. Public sewer is not because it is located within the Planning Area. 60' of right of way will be dedicated for Van Hoose Road. All surrounding lands are located in the county and therefore, do not have zoning. Staff does recommend approval of this Lot Split with the condition that Washington County Planning approval be obtained prior to recordation. Shackelford: Thank you Sir. Are there any other staff comments, departmental reports regarding LSP 04-1321? Is this on a well system for water? The existing house is on water. Could you show the water meter? Are there any other comments? Seeing none, will the applicant introduce himself and add anything. Blew: I'm Buckley Blew, Blew & Associates Surveyors, I will answer any questions that you guys might have. O'Neal: Blew: O'Neal: Shackelford: Shackelford: Clark: Shackelford: Ostner: Clark: Thank you Sir. At this point I will open it up for public comment if anybody would like to address LSP 04-1321 for Guinn please do so at this time. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for questions and comments. Again, this is just going from one side of the road to the other. Commissioners, do you have any questions? I will make a motion that we approve LSP 04-1321. Second. Shackelford: There is a motion and a second and I will concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 16 Shackelford: Keeping with the trend of Lot Splits. We have one more, LSP 04-1322 for McDonald/Bridgedale. If the applicant would please come forward. Morgan: The subject property is located south of Huntsville Road and west of Roberts Road. The applicant proposes to subdivide the almost 7.47 acre tract into two tracts, A and B, of approximately 5.67 and 1.8 acres respectively. Tract A is located within the city and Tract B is located within the Planning Area. Tract B does not have any frontage on a right of way. Therefore, the applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement of 75' of lot width. Just to go over a little bit of background for this request, the subject property was part of an annexation and a rezoning request submitted in 2004. Upon discovering that annexing this entire parent tract would create an island of unincorporated property within the city limits, staff recommended that the applicant reconsider this annexation request. The second annexation request consisted of annexation of only a portion of the property, which is designated here as Tract A so that an island would not be created. The City Council did approve that annexation in August, 2004 resulting in this property being both within the city and in the county. Subsequently, the new property owner, Mr. McDonald, applied for approval of a Preliminary Plat for Bridgedale subdivision on the newly annexed portion of the property. The Planning Commission did approve the Preliminary Plat on October 29th of this year. The plat designated a 25' access easement north from the extension of East Point Street to access this proposed Tract B, the 1.8 acres, part of which was designated as drainage easement for the subdivision. Staff recommends that the Lot Split not be filed until such time as the Final Plat for Bridgedale subdivision is approved and the use of this lot is established. That has been addressed in condition number two for conditions of approval. In conjunction with that, approval of that condition would give an automatic extension of the one year expiration of the Lot Split. The reasoning behind that is that this lot is being split from the proposed subdivision because it is within the county and it is designated for detention. If the Final Plat for Bridgedale is never filed then the creation of this separate lot is kind of null and void, the purpose of it. That is the reasoning there. As for access, the proposed Tract A currently has access to a stubbed road, East Point, from Stonebridge Meadows Phase I. Tract B however, has no frontage on an improved public street or any right of way. The only means of access, as I mentioned before, is through a 25' access easement from the proposed subdivision for Bridgedale. The applicant's representative did, again, submit a waiver request for lot width requirements which would have to be heard by the Planning Commission. This appears as a tandem lot, but because this is in the county and there is no zoning then it is not appropriate to file a Conditional Use, which, is basically a waiver of zoning requirements. Therefore, they are only required to submit a waiver of lot width requirements within the county. Staff also recommends, and Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 17 it is mentioned in condition number one of the approval, that the proposed Tract B shall be restricted from all development until appropriate infrastructure is provided. I have listed several reasons for this. Basically, this proposed Tract B is designated to serve and function for detention, at least a portion of it is. It is important that it remain as detention for the property at this time. There is also, staff believes, lack of infrastructure to sustain any development. In addition, the city will not be able to control any development on this property because it is at this time within the county and we could not review any development proposals on this tract. Access is only by way of an easement. Therefore, this easement is actually located on two lots within the Bridgedale Subdivision. It is inappropriate to establish a driveway on these lots which will access development which we will not be able to control. Also, the Preliminary Plat for the Bridgedale subdivision could have included a stub out to this tract to provide adequate infrastructure for future development but it was not incorporated in that Preliminary Plat. The applicant's representative, I'm sure, will probably address that issue. Staff is recommending forwarding this Lot Split to the full Planning Commission due to the waiver requests for lot width and I do not believe I mentioned that as a condition but an additional condition should be added stating Planning Commission determination of a waiver for lot width requirements to allow a lot with zero frontage. Shackelford: Are there any other staff or departmental comments regarding this Lot Split? Seeing none, I will let the applicant introduce himself and add anything that he would like. Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company. I think that we have discussed several issues with Planning staff and Suzanne understands our feelings about possible future development and how things will change. This Lot Split has occurred so that an island was not created in the city limits. As a matter of schematics and as future expansion of the city limits takes place and future proposed development that we are not ready to release yet, occurs, things and dynamics will start to change and some of these restrictions and things that Suzanne and I have talked about will then alter that lot but we are satisfied with the conditions as presented and we concur. Shackelford: Thank you Tom. If there is anybody here that would like to discuss LSP 04-1322 I will open it up for public comment at this time. Seeing none, I will close it and bring it back to the Commissioners for questions. Clark: Why didn't we just annex all of this? Jefcoat: We couldn't because it created an island. Subdivision December 3 Page 18 Morgan: Jefcoat: Clark: Jefcoat: Morgan: Jefcoat: Clark: Jefcoat: Clark: Jefcoat: Pate: Committee , 2004 All of the area north of this is within the county and so by annexing this it would create an island to the north and you can probably see that on your map. It would've been nice. How much of Tract A is going to be a detention pond? None of Tract A is going to be a detention pond. Just a part of B, and you see the line where it says "DE" and "DE". Actually, there is another line that did not show up on here but it does cut across here. 3/4 or 4/5 of that lot is now designated as a drainage easement. As the Engineering Department knows, there are some downstream conditions that exist and with future development that drainage easement at some point will be eliminated and that detention facility at some point will be relocated. For now, that is the area of detention. I would like to mention, a note has been placed per staff's request, that Tract B is an un -buildable lot. As we further reviewed this, and as noted in the conditions, we feel that until such time as adequate infrastructure and right of way is provided to develop that that it should be un -buildable. We may need to modify that note to reflect that condition. We are opposed to labeling the lot as un -buildable. It is un -buildable because a drainage easement exists because infrastructure is not there so that makes it un -buildable. We don't want it labeled un -buildable on a recorded plat as un -buildable. Those conditions will change at some point and it will be buildable. It destroys any future use or intended use of the lot if you label it un -buildable. The fact that there are drainage easements and conditions that cause it not to be buildable, that is fine and we understand that. So it should be labeled un -buildable. It is not un -buildable. It is un -buildable right now but we can change the designation on the plat when it becomes buildable. That just puts contestations there that are not necessarily true. I would just add a few things to that. What Mr. Jefcoat says is true. The detention easement has a lot to do with it. Staff's concern is that there is no access to this lot. That is another reason that it is un -buildable at this time. Should the Planning Commission choose to follow staff's recommendation and have this as an un -buildable lot at a future date if the Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 19 applicant or owner of this property wishes to subdivide they would have to come back through the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission reserves the right to change that condition and remove that condition of approval. It is under your decision to do that at this time and remove it at a later time when the access or infrastructure becomes available at a later time, for instance, to build a single family home. Clark: It is an interesting looking configuration. It is kind of a box within a box with only one road out. Morgan: That is correct. That is the stub out and Bridgedale subdivision continues through to Roberts Road and then there is a road going north there and then there is an access easement between two lots to access that for detention purposes. Clark: When it develops I can see it becoming buildable. Jefcoat: We have a cul-de-sac up here and this road continues on. We are in the preliminary stages of design. Shackelford: Commissioners, are there any questions? Clark: I have no problem with forwarding this to the Planning Commission with the now stated five conditions of approval. I honestly don't object to tract B being called un -buildable at this point because you are going to come back with a new configuration and magically, it will be buildable and you will be a hero. Shackelford: There will have to be a couple of findings of fact at the Planning Commission level regarding the zero frontage waiver that was required for that. We can address that. Ostner: Since we are forwarding this, I think we are going to give it more scrutiny. I will make a motion that we forward LSP 04-1322 with the added condition number five with a requirement of Planning Commission determination of a lot with zero frontage. Clark: I will second. Shackelford: I will concur. Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 20 Shackelford: The next thing that we have on the agenda is FPL 04-1285 for Bridgeport Phase VII. If the applicant could please come forward. I will ask for Suzanne's comments. Morgan: Shackelford: Pate: The applicant is requesting a Final Plat approval for Phase VII of Bridgeport subdivision. This will create 13 single family lots on approximately 8.87 acres. The property is located south of Mt. Comfort and delineated by Bridgeport Phase I and Bridgeport Phase III to the west and a future Phase VII to the south. My understanding is that the applicant does desire to change the name of this subdivision to Bridgeport Estates thereby creating a separate and distinct subdivision and POA. The subdivision name must be changed to Bridgeport Estates Phase I on this Final Plat for it to become officially recognized. Therefore, the formerly known Bridgeport Phase VIII would become Bridgeport Estates Phase II. The Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plat for these two phases on April 12, 2004. As part of the approval for the Preliminary Plat a Property Line Adjustment was required to create the subject property for these two phases. Staff has received that survey for the Property Line Adjustment and will ensure that it is filed prior to the Final Plat. We have received revisions and are in the process of getting that finalized. Infrastructure is in place for American Drive. This street stub outs to the east. Full street improvements stop short of the property line however, and an assessment is to be made for that portion of un -constructed street. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that a sign would be placed at the end of that stub out just to make property owners aware that this street is proposed to continue to the east at the time of future development to the east. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets are Mt. Comfort. However, not adjacent to this, connected with this subdivision or Phase and New Bridge Road is to the south. Staff does recommend approval of this Final Plat at the Subdivision Committee level with a total of 16 conditions of approval to include payment in lieu of parkland dedication as well as an assessment for the additional street construction along American Drive. As part of the Conditional Use, it was required that the construction office be removed at the time of Final Plat. I don't know if that condition has been complied with at this time but it will need to be removed prior to recordation of this plat. All other conditions are fairly standard and there are some tree preservation conditions which Jeremy may wish to address. Jeremy, do you want to talk to us about tree preservation? Very quickly. The developer has met the tree preservation ordinance. Approval is recommended of this plan with a couple of revisions on the language of the signature block which I've included. In some discussions with the applicant, I just got a fax a couple of days ago with some language to include in the covenants to ensure a permanent protection area along the floodplain there. As you may or may not know, a single family Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 21 home owner on individual lots are expressly exempt from tree preservation requirements. Therefore, technically a tree preservation easement cannot be established along the backs of these because it could not be enforced. The applicant is working with us to establish something in the covenants to help that case. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Are there any other staff departmental comments regarding the Final Plat for Bridgeport Estates Phase I? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicants and allow you to add anything to this proceeding. Helmer: I'm Bill Helmer, the project manager for the development. I will answer any questions that you may have. I will add that as far as removal of the construction office that that is in progress. We have everything turned lose and are waiting for the power company to come by today and disconnect it and move it out. This afternoon you may run by and check it. Morgan: Ostner: Shackelford: Helmer: Bates: Shackelford: Clark: Ostner: Clark: Ostner: Just let me know and I will make a trip out there. I can't believe we are still talking about that construction trailer. I came on the Commission in 1999 and believe it was there at that time. Sorry, we are getting side track. Is there anything else? I don't have anything else. I'm Geoff Bates, I'm the engineer on the project for Keystone. I don't really have anything additional to add. At this point I will open it up for public comment if anybody would like to address FPL 04-1285 for Bridgeport Estates please do so at this time. Seeing none, I will close it and bring it back to the Commissioners for questions or comments. My two questions that I made notes of were covenants protecting the trees. You have saved more than you had to and I truly do commend you for that. Secondly, connectivity, which I'm seeing on the bigger picture with the map so my two issues have been satisfied. Where is that connectivity separate map? I was looking at the big picture on the last two pages. For Bridge Road to head east to Rupple? Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 22 Clark: And Freedom Place. Ostner: Where is Bridgeport Estates Phase II proposed? Bates: South. Ostner: And the proposed access? Helmer: Access to it would be off of New Bridge, which New Bridge will continue through to this property line also. Ostner: And it will access up in here. Morgan: I believe there is even a connection to the south from that phase. Shackelford: Right into the other one right here. Helmer: We have two off of New Bridge through here. Pate: That was reviewed and approved with the Preliminary Plat for Phases VII and VIII. Bates: And it was submitted already for the Final Plat of Phase VII. Shackelford: Commissioners, are there questions or comments? Ostner: I will make a motion that we approve FPL 04-1285. Clark: I will second. Shackelford: I will concur. I assume it doesn't matter if we call it Phase I or Phase VII as long as it is approved. Thank you gentlemen. Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 23 Shackelford: The next item on our agenda is FPL 04-1278 for Allen subdivision. If the applicant would please come forward. At this time I will ask for staff comments from Suzanne please. Morgan: The applicant would like to request approval of a Final Plat for a three lot residential subdivision. This property is located within the Planning Area and located north and east of Old Wire Road. The property consists of approximately 10 acres in which a single family home currently exists. A Preliminary Plat for the proposed Allen subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission on July 12, 2004 with the approval of the Preliminary Plat they were required to extend a water line slightly to the north and after doing so, they have applied for their Final Plat approval. Surrounding properties are residential in nature as well as agricultural. There was a condition on the Preliminary Plat that all lots receive septic approval, or at least, lot three. However, the final revision increased the acreage of that lot to 1.61 therefore, the city does not need to verify approvals for the septic system which actually exists at this time. Right of way is being dedicated along Old Wire Road in accordance with the Master Street Plan. In conjunction with that, one of the conditions of approval is that no structure shall be located within the right of way required for Old Wire Road. With the previous revision of this plat it looked like there were a couple of structures that were located slightly within the required right of way. Those have been removed. I don't know if they have been removed from the property at this time but we will make sure that that right of way to be dedicated does not have any structures within it. Staff is recommending approval of this Final Plat with a total of six conditions. Washington County approval is required prior to filing this Final Plat. Staff would request that this plat be revised to show building setbacks indicated on these lots. Typically on Final Plats we see addresses for these lots. Due to such large acreage the 911 Coordinator is not able to indicate what addresses would be applied. At the time that the structures are constructed addresses would be approved. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Are there any there staff or departmental comments regarding this Final Plat for Allen Subdivision at this time? Seeing none, I will allow you to introduce yourselves and tell us anything that you want to about your project. Brackett: I'm Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates here representing the owners. We are in agreement with all of the conditions of approval and will answer any questions that you may have. Shackelford: Great. At this point I will open it up to public comment if anyone would like to address FPL 04-1278 for Allen Subdivision please do so at this time. Seeing none, I will close it and bring it back to the Planning Commissioners. Commissioners, are there questions or comments? My Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 24 question is regarding the existing structures that were shown in the right of way, have those been removed? Brackett: Those have been removed. Shackelford: Are there any other questions or comments? Clark: It looks pretty straight forward. Ostner: I don't have any problems with it. 1 would like to make a motion to approve FPL 04-1278. Clark: Second. Shackelford: I will concur Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 25 Shackelford: The next item on our agenda is PPL 04-1310 for Cross Keys Phase II. If the applicant would please come forward. Mr. Olson, I believe this is yours. Olson: The applicant requests approval for a Preliminary Plat for Cross Keys Phase II. The subject property contains approximately 34.80 acres and is within the R -A zoning district. The property is proposed to be subdivided into 22 lots, 20 for development of single family homes and two lots for storm water detention. This property was annexed at the request of the owner August 3, 2004 by ordinance 4596 and subsequently zoned R -A. This property is a portion of a larger parcel of land that was annexed and currently we do have a Lot Split in process to create this tract. The surrounding zoning to the north is Cross Keys Phase I and an R-PZD and some RSF-4. The south, east and west are pretty much vacant and zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. Street improvements, staff does recommend that the developer shall construct Persimmon Street a minimum of 14' from centerline with curb, gutter, pavement, storm drains and a 6' sidewalk located at the right of way line along the length of the property. In lieu of constructing Broyles Street adjacent to the subject property staff recommends the developer bear the cost of installing a planned turning lane at the intersection of Persimmon Street and Broyles Road along with a 6' sidewalk that would be located at the right of way line for Broyles Road as you go south there. Like I said, a Lot Split is in process for this. As part of this Preliminary Plat, dedication of the Master Street Plan right of way for the entire 158 acre tract should occur with this plat. Right of way dedication is to be by separate instrument. Appropriate easements for public utilities are also required and descriptions are being furnished to the applicant. Water and sewer shall be extended to serve this development. Right of way being dedicated, 35' from centerline of Persimmon Street. The development will be dedicating a varying right of way for Broyles Road along it's parent tract frontage depending on where that property line lies in relationship to Broyles Road on the Master Street Plan. Connectivity, this development will improve and extend Persimmon Street to the east. Access to this development currently is provided by 46th Street and will in the near future be accessible via Broyles Road to Wedington. Master Street Plan improvements are being planned for the extension of Rupple Road and Persimmon Street as well as Broyles Road. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets, Persimmon Street and Broyles Road are collector streets. Parks and Recreation Board recommended money in lieu of land dedication in September, 2004 in the amount of $11,100 for 20 single family lots. Tree preservation, I will go over this really quick. There will be some mitigation required and Jeremy can speak to that in a minute. Staff does recommend forwarding this Preliminary Plat to the full Planning Commission with the following nine conditions of approval. The first one speaks to the road improvements. The developer shall construct Persimmon Street a minimum of 14' from the centerline with a Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 26 6' sidewalk in lieu of constructing Broyles Road. Staff, again, recommends that the developer installs the planned turn lane at the intersection of Persimmon Street and Broyles Road. A 6' sidewalk shall be constructed at the right of way line along Broyles Road frontage of the subject Preliminary Plat and right of way dedication to meet Master Street Plan requirements is to be dedicated by separate instrument for all streets fronting the original 158 acre tract with all necessary easements recorded at the same time. The rest of those conditions are pretty straight forward. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer those. Shackelford: Thank you Sir. Are there any other staff or departmental comments? Jeremy, do you want to talk quickly about tree preservation? Pate: The developer fully intends to retain all of the trees on site. However, with the platting of at least two easements for this subject property we cannot count that portion of the canopy that is within those easements because technically a utility company can come by and take it right out. There is mitigation due in the amount of twelve trees. Mr. Sloan typically utilizes the on site mitigation request. Shackelford: Even though the development doesn't take out any trees, because of the easements they are required to put more trees on location, is that correct? Pate: Because they are putting the easement there, that is correct. It is not existing currently. Shackelford: Thank you very much. Is there anything else from staff depaitmental comments? Seeing none, I will bring it back to you guys, allow you to introduce yourselves and share anything that you would like about your project. Sloan: I'm Charlie Sloan, the owner/developer. Brackett: I'm Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates. Sloan: I believe we are ok with the conditions. Some of them we were just told about last night. The tree mitigation, Jeremy answered that. That is fine with the replant. We have already 100 something trees 4" to 6" in diameter already purchased so we are just waiting for these guys to get through construction so we can plant them along the streets down 46th Street and down Persimmon on both sides is what we plan right now. I don't have a problem doing the turn lane on Persimmon and the sidewalk, that is no problem. That needs to be done now while we are there and get it over with. That's no problem. The easements and stuff, the only thing that we are going to continue discussing is I'm giving up easements on land that is not even before you so I think it ought to be, I don't have a Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 27 problem doing it, but since I wasn't told about it until last night I need to check and make sure that I'm doing the right thing on that part. I think we are going to discuss that in the next couple of days before the final Planning Commission meeting. That's all that I have got. Other than that, I think we are ok with everything. Shackelford: Thank you very much. At this point I will open it up for public comment if anybody would like to address PPL 04-1310 for Cross Keys Phase II please do so at this point. Seeing none, I will close it and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Ostner: The first comment I had was these trees that you are keeping on site with these lots, I would hope that you would come up with something creative to try to convince the future owners of these lots. Mr. Terminella sat with us at a hillside meeting the other day and talked about a $100,000 tree that he built a sewer line around and watched the home owner saw it down. It is a problem with our system that we require you to save trees but we don't require the next guy. It seems like you are going to great efforts and I would hope you do something for that. Sloan: We are going to great efforts. Some of these trees are very large and we want to make sure we keep them. We have very few trees on the 200 acres so there is no sense to take any of them down. That is why we have planned and purchased a lot more to go in there. That is our goal to try to work with home owners and prior to Final Plat we would look at a property line if it needed to be moved or something like that to try to adjust things to make things work for people so they can build. We are going to have 100' minimum setbacks on these homes to try to keep the trees. Ostner: The 100' setback leads into my next comment. Persimmon is listed as a collector and the speeds ought to be a little bit faster there than most local streets and with these wide frontages I would hope that most of these lots are encouraged to do turn arounds. Sloan: We are hoping to make oval drives. I have an oval drive on my home and we would like for everybody to at least have a circle drive with side entry garages and things like that to make them go out face forward. I don't think anybody will back up 100' into a street. We hope that they won't. We are trying to make it look like an estate lot. Ostner: This is a great example of how good design can overwhelm our rules that don't exactly work sometimes. Our Master Street Plan requirements aren't supposed to let houses face collector streets as a rule of safety. It can be done, and it can be done safely, with good design. I just wanted to make that point. I think it is good for the community. Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 28 Shackelford: Clark: Brackett: Are there any other questions? I'm assuming there is no issue with connectivity to the south? There is a creek here and Broyles Street is going to be extended to Rupple so there is no need to cross that creek again. Clark: Is it traditional to consider Preliminary Plats on acreage that is still undergoing Lot Splits? Pate: It is. That is part of the condition that that needs to occur. This is the submitted Lot Split to create this tract. The legal description you see here was rezoned under the legal description, just the lot was never split out. Before we get to that point where it is approved this needs to be recorded. Clark: I would think so. Pate: Sloan: Clark: Ostner: Shackelford: To talk about the issue Mr. Sloan spoke about, you can see from this large tract, this is the frontage of Broyles Road that Mr. Sloan is processing now as part of this Preliminary Plat, which is currently a portion of all of this property, 160+ acres. As part of our conditions of approval currently, and what we will continue discussing with the applicant before Planning Commission, staff is recommending that the right of way for Broyles Road and necessary water and sewer line easements for this entire tract be deeded at this time with this Preliminary Plat and that is something that we will working with the applicant on. It benefits me so I understand that. I knew that when we bought it, it is just that we thought that would come along as the projects went through. To ask for it all up front, I wasn't expecting that. You come to see us so often that we may as well get it all done. Considering all comments, I will be happy to make a motion to forward PPL 04-1310 with stated conditions of approval. I will second that. I will concur. Thank you very much. Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 29 Shackelford: The final item on our agenda this afternoon is PPL 04-1308 for Harper. This is a Preliminary Plat. Suzanne? Morgan: The subject property contains approximately 20 acres. It is located west of George Anderson Road south of Albright Road. This property was actually recently annexed into the city from Springdale and rezoned RSF- 4. The applicant proposes to create a 48 lot subdivision with 47 single family lots proposed. Surrounding land uses consist of single family residential uses as well as vacant property to the south which is currently undergoing development of subdivisions. The property to the north is within Springdale. To the south is within Fayetteville, zoned RSF-4. The property to the east is within the Planning Area, the property to the west is within the County as well as Springdale and the city actually approved an annexation, or is considering approval of an annexation and rezoning for this property. Water lines and sewer lines will need to be extended to serve the proposed development with approval of this Preliminary Plat. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets consist of George Anderson Road which is to the east of this property. It is a collector street and the applicant is proposing dedication of the required 35' from centerline. In addition to that, the applicant is showing 25' from centerline for Albright Road to be dedicated, as well as 50' right of way for all interior streets. Connectivity is proposed to the south from a Phase of Copper Creek subdivision. Two connections to the north to Albright have been proposed and one connection to the west that will be stubbed out for future connectivity. Additionally, I would like to note that the developer has included a note to restrict access onto George Anderson, a collector, and Albright Road. I would like to mention that the existing homes on Albright are facing Albright and staff did request that the applicant consider the possibility of lining these streets up so that they could face Albright Road to be consistent with the existing development. Staff is recommending forwarding this Preliminary Plat to the full Planning Commission with a total of 15 conditions of approval to include Planning Commission determination of appropriate street connectivity. Staff does find that the street connections to the west, north and south are appropriate. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. At the time that this property was annexed and rezoned we did make findings with regard to the existing street conditions and what improvements we would be requesting at a later date when this was developed. Those include widening George Anderson Road 14' from centerline including storm drains, curb, gutter and pavement and sidewalks. As well as the east side of that road, which is within the county to be improved to current county standards. In addition, Albright Road will also need to be improved 14' from centerline including city requirements for storm drain, curb, gutter, pavement and sidewalks. There are a couple of modifications and note changes that staff has requested on the plat before it goes forward to the Planning Commission. Engineering Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 30 has also requested that the force main for Hwy. 265 lift station be upgraded to city engineering specifications as listed in condition four of the staff report. I will let Parks and the Landscape Administrator address any of the additional comments. Shackelford: We will start with Parks this time if you would like to give us your comments please. Jumper: Parks fees in the amount of $26,640 will be due for the 48 single family homes. Pate: Approximately 3% existing canopy is on this property. 2.2% is proposed to remain. Therefore, mitigation will be required. The developer has done a better job than when they initially submitted. The detention pond was originally up around where Lot 31 is at the entrance, which would have caused the removal of all of those trees. It has been moved south. The areas with the best tree canopy out here are also the areas that have the best logical configuration for entering this subdivision. One lines up with an existing street and the other allows for a logical lot configuration here on the west. We are going to do everything possible to protect those trees at the entrance because it would become an amenity if they can be saved. I did sort of include a caveat condition on this particular case, because it will be difficult, especially with grading, that per city ordinance should any trees shown to be preserved in part or in total need to be removed once construction commences prior approval shall be obtained by the Landscape Administrator by way of a tree preservation plan. If this should occur additional mitigation will be required at the time of Final Plat. I can't stress enough that prior approval needs to be obtained. The last thing I want to see are those trees removed when I go out there to take a look at that. Shackelford: Thank you. Are there any other staff departmental comments regarding this Preliminary Plat? O'Neal: On the lift station I'm trying to get together what our requirements are. I will get you a copy of that before you go to construction. The other thing is on your drainage, since you moved your detention pond it kind of altered your drainage areas so you need to revise that and resubmit that. Shackelford: Are there any other staff comments? Seeing none, I will allow you to introduce yourself and add whatever you would like. Moore: I'm Brian Moore with Engineering Services and we don't have any problems with any of the comments as stated. The one thing that we did not want to do was front our houses on Albright for the basis that it would take away from our own subdivision. I understand the comment but I Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 31 think it would take away from pretty much these lots would not be in our subdivision if we fronted them that way. That is really the only comment that I have. Shackelford: Nooncaster: Shackelford: Moore: Shackelford: Moore: Shackelford: Thank you. At this point I will open it up to public comment if anybody would like to address PPL 04-1380 please do so. My name is John Nooncaster, I own the property to the west of this proposed subdivision. I have no problem with the density or any of the issues that we've covered earlier on some of the other issues. I did have a question about backing the houses up to Albright. I understand there is a concern with a collector street such as George Anderson, which you wouldn't want to do that. We just recently went through the process of annexing the property west of this. There is a portion which is annexed and a portion which still requires the consent of Springdale to complete the annexation. We had the Pembridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat approval and we provided a Phase II that showed our lots with instead of fronting Albright we had five lots to Albright on our Phase II I think that is something that should be considered, maybe not fronting Albright but at least having the side of the houses face Albright. A couple of other questions I would like to have answered, I know part of this acreage at one point in time was in the Springdale water service and I didn't know if that had been changed to Fayetteville water service. I also had questions about the sewer capacity for the lift station on Crossover. Also, during the annexation of my property there was some concern by the Chairman about improvements to Albright. I was just curious if there were any off site improvements required from this development for Albright. Thank you. Let's start with the technical questions regarding water and sewer capacity. This is now in the Fayetteville Water Service boundary area. Have you seen any sort of documentation regarding the sewer capacity of the lift station on Hwy. 265? I have actually had discussions with Matt Casey on the sewer lift station. That lift station will have to be upgraded. That is really something that we take care of during the plans portion. It is my understanding that Matt is trying to work something out with Mr. Nooncaster in partnering with this development and Mr. Nooncaster in trying to make those necessary improvements. We are amenable to that and have no problem with that. The final question is regarding Albright. The question of fronting or siding houses to Albright. Do you have any comments regarding that? Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 32 Moore: Other than, you've got four homes fronting Albright on the north side of the road. If you front all of these you are going to have four houses looking at the back towards the subdivision. If you do it the other way you are going to have eight houses looking at the backs of homes. We feel like it really takes away from our subdivision and really don't want to do that. Ostner: I really think that this lends itself to a larger issue. I think the backs of these buildings facing a street, we are not talking about turning around buildings, we are talking about rearranging the entire subdivision. Building a street where a house backs up to a street is counter productive. We are creating extra streets in our town. There is already street frontage and it is being bypassed to build new frontage. We have got a limited amount of frontage in this town and to turn our backs on it is not good planning. Streets need houses to face them. I have said this for a long time but our rules, once again, don't really fit the issue. I think it is as much a problem with perception as anything else. It has been built this way for a long time. We see it, owners and developers see it and we kind of get used to it but it makes traffic go faster when houses don't face the street, you ignore speed limits. It promotes dangerous driving habits that we all fall into. I'm not saying dangerous drivers, I'm just saying regular people. I am not in favor of backing houses to these streets again. Moore: My comment to that will be Albright will eventually be a collector. It might not be that on the Master Street Plan but it will eventually be that no matter if you front streets on that or not. It goes from Hwy. 265 to George Anderson Road and will be a cutoff. Therefore, you are going to have it function that way no matter what you do. That being said about the design, there is no way that I can design this any other way. I have 660'. This is not an extension of Copper Creek. This is a different developer, a different deal. I have got 660'. When you do the math you cannot front that street. My client would be thrilled if I got ten extra lots but I don't have enough room to do it. If I had another 135' or 140' I would be able to do that and any developer would be thrilled if you could get ten more lots for them. I will remember that on my next one I bring here and maybe I will be able to get those lots. Clark: Moore: Clark: Pate: In the spirit of compromise what about siding the houses? What do you mean siding the houses? Where the sides face both streets, creative driveways. I understand where this conversation stems from. Unfortunately, we don't have much purview as far as what's in the ordinance. Our ordinance doesn't really address that. Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 33 Moore: I seriously will remember that. When you are designing a subdivision like this a lot of times if you have more than 660' you will be able to do that. Every developer would be glad to do that. Pate: We have looked at situations where it is possible. The last subdivision we saw, Cross Keys II, we looked at potential for an alley way back there and we can recommend those. Again, we don't have a way to require those of the developer, even through covenants because we don't enforce those covenants, about how the streets face. Unless this is increasing or compounding a dangerous traffic situation by locating a street as it is that is really what our ordinances tell us we have to do currently. Ostner: I was talking about here are two rows, if this street were here that faces a street and that faces a street. Then you have these two and instead of the street being there, these are already facing a street. If this street were there if the pattern continued it would all work. Moore: Right, if you had more land. Ostner: If these weren't already the backs. You all were dealt a poor hand and you are making the best of it. I'm just suggesting it is not about the land, it is about a poor pattern locking you in. I understand this is how it has to be. Shackelford: I would add that I do live in an adjoining neighborhood to this proposed development and Albright Road is already a cut through. I would not personally want to have a house that my driveway came out onto Albright Road. I think it is much safer coming into a neighborhood street and pulling out on that road. With that and the somewhat constraints that you have with the lot sizes in this area I don't know that there is going to be a better design than what has been designed here based on the configurations of this property and how it relates to the existing neighborhood. Ostner: I would really like to see the City Council address this issue. We are backing houses to the street and it is the way that the system works. The Council talks about that they don't like it and yet, if they don't create a rule to make it happen then it is going to keep happening. Clark: So what is the situation with Albright? I think Mr. Nooncaster asked that question. Has Albright been improved? I know we have talked about it. Pate: The off site street improvements required for this developer is to improve all of the frontage there along George Anderson and the 1300 feet along Albright directly adjacent to this property. As far as other improvements off of this map no, there are none recommended at this time. I would just Subdivision Committee December 3, 2004 Page 34 mention George Anderson Road south of this is being improved as we speak. If you drive out there with the Planning Commission tour we can see how much of that is being constructed right now. Curb and gutter is being poured and asphalt is going in. Clark: This will go to the full Planning Commission and will be seen. In that spirit, I will move that we forward PPL 04-1308 with stated conditions including that we find connectivity appropriate and with the recommendations from staff on street improvements and the rest of the 15 conditions. Ostner: I will second. Shackelford: I will concur. We will see you guys at the Planning Commission. Is there anything else that we need to address? Announcements Shackelford: We are adjourned.