The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-11-24 - Agendas - Final FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 125Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone:(479)575-8267 AGENDA FOR A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission will be held Monday November 24, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Room 219, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Roll Call The following items will be considered: Consent Agenda: Approval of minutes from the November 10,2003 meeting. New Business: 1. LSD 03-41.00: Large Scale Development (Bank of Fayetteville West, pp 401) was submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of the Bank of Fayetteville for property located between Steamboat Drive and Tahoe Place on Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.14 acres. The proposal is to construct a 3,740 sq. ft. branch bank. Planner: Jeremy Pate 2. PPL 03-20.00: Preliminary Plat(Salem Heights, pp 284)was submitted by Landtech Engineering on behalf of John Alford for property located on Salem Road, south of Salem Village. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, with 89 residential lots proposed. Planner: Jeremy Pate 3. PPL 03-19.00: Preliminary Plat(Wildflower Meadows,pp 321) was submitted by Keystone Consultants on behalf of James Coger for property located west of Holt Middle School and North of Mount Comfort Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 18.38 acres. The proposal is to develop 48 lots on the subject property. Planner: Suzanne Morgan 4. ANX 03-05.00: Annexation (Rankin/Rankin/Bowen,pp 400) was submitted by James McCord on behalf of Wilbur Maurice Rankin, Mary Ellen Rankin,Raymond Rankin and Susan Bowen for property located on Rupple Road, 0.5 miles north of Wedington Drive. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 17.19 acres. The request is to annex the property into the City of Fayetteville. Planner: Suzanne Morgan 5. RZN 03-33.00: Rezoning(Rankin/Rankin/Bowen, pp 400) was submitted by James McCord on behalf of Wilbur Maurice Rankin, Mary Ellen Rankin, Raymond Rankin and Susan Bowen for property located on Rupple Road, 0.5 miles north of Wedington Drive. The request is to rezone the property RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Planner: Suzanne Morgan 6. ANX 03-07.00: Annexation (PBS of Fayetteville LLC,pp 359)was submitted by Richard Osborne on behalf of Eugene Nottenkamper,Manager, of PBS of Fayetteville LLC for property located on Jess Anderson Road at Sunshine Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 29.12 acres. The request is to annex the property into the City of Fayetteville. Planner: Jeremy Pate 7. RZN 03-36.00: Rezoning (PBS of Fayetteville LLC, pp 359)was submitted by Richard Osborne on behalf of Eugene Nottenkamper, Manager, of PBS of Fayetteville LLC for property located on Jess Anderson Road at Sunshine Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 29.12 acres. The request is to rezone the property RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Planner: Jeremy Pate 8. RZN 03-35.00: Rezoning(Chance & Tuggle, pp 436) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of David Chance and John Tuggle for property located at West Tackett and Genevieve Avenue. The property is currently zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 7.94 acres. The request is to rezone the property RT-12, Residential Two and Three-family. Planner: Jeremy Pate 9.ANX 03-06.00: Annexation (Schlegel, pp 207/246) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Tracy Hoskins for property located north of the proposed Crystal Springs Phase III subdivision, west of Deane Solomon Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 72.5 acres. The request is to annex the property into the City of Fayetteville. Planner: Jeremy Pate 10.RZN 03-34.00: Rezoning (Schlegel, pp207/246)was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Tracy Hoskins for property located north of the proposed Crystal Springs Phase III subdivision, west of Deane Solomon Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 72.5 acres. The request is to rezone the property RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Planner: Jeremy Pate 11. RZN 03-37.00: Rezoning(City of Fayetteville, pp 608) was submitted by City of Fayetteville for property located off Goff Farm Road. The property is zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 1.95 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Planner: Suzanne Morgan 12. RZN 03-32.00: Rezoning(Troy Parnell,pp. 595)was submitted by Eric Johnson on behalf of Troy Parnell for property located south of 6a' Street on the northwest corner of Hanshew Rd. The property is zoned R-A, residential agriculture and contains approximately 17.37 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RMF-12; Residential multi-family 12 units per acre. Planner: Dawn Warrick All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. A copy of the proposed amendments and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the Office of City Planning (575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street,Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. Interpreters or TDD for hearing impaired are available for all public meetings. 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter,please call 575-8330. ORDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A. Introduction of agenda item—Chairman B. Presentation of Staff Report C. Presentation of request—Applicant D. Public Comment E. Response by Applicant/Questions&Answer with Commission F. Action of Planning Commission(Discussion&Vote) NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item raise your hand when the Chairman asks for public comment. He will do this after he has given Planning Commission members the opportunity to speak and before a final vote is taken. Public comment will only be permitted during this part of the hearing for each item. Once the Chairman recognizes you, go to the podium at the front of the room and give your name and address. Address your comments to the Chairman, who is the presiding officer. He will direct them to the appropriate appointed official, staff member or others for response. Please keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak. Please, as a matter of courtesy, refrain from applauding or booing any speakers or actions of the Planning Commission. 2003 Planning Commissioners Nancy Allen Jill Anthes Don Bunch Alice Church James Graves Sharon Hoover Alan Ostner Loren Shackelford Christian Vaught FAYETTEVILLE Pc Meeting of November 24, 2003 THE CrrY OF.FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:501-575$264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner Matt Casey, Staff Engineer THRU: November 18, 2003 LSD 03-41.00: Large Scale Development(Bank of Fayetteville West,pp 401)was submitted by Mandy Bunch,P.E. of EB Landworks on behalf of the Bank of Fayetteville for property located between Steamboat Drive and Tahoe Place on Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.14 acres. The proposal is to construct a 3,740 sq. ft. branch bank. Planner: Jeremy Pate Findings: Proposal The applicant is proposing to construct a new branch of the Bank of Fayetteville, located on Wedington Drive, west of I-540,within the Design Overlay District. A Large Scale Development for the Bank of Fayetteville was approved for this site in August of 1999, but has since expired. With the current development proposal is a waiver request for the requirement of 250 feet distance from curb cut to intersection within the Design Overlay District. The existing lot size and drive locations were predetermined by the approved Wedington Place subdivision plat. The proposed driveway configurations were approved by Planning Commission in approximately the same location with the previous Large Scale Development. Existing Development None. Surrounding Land Use/Zoning: Direction Land Use Zoning North Vacant C-2,Thoroughfare Commercial South Wedmi on Drive, Betty Jo Corner C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial convenience store, car wash East Exxon Gas station, McDonalds C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial West Vacant, Sonic C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial Parking: Total Spaces Standard Spaces ADA Spaces Bike Racks Re uired 19 19 1 0 Pro osed 20 19 1 1* *Recommended by staff K.-Reports120031PCREPOR7S111-24VSD 03-41.00(Bank of Fayetteville wst).doc November 24,2003 Planning Commission LSD 03-41.00(Bank of Fay West) Page 1.1 Right-of-way being dedicated: Minimum 55 feet from centerline right-of-way along.Wedington Drive,a Principal Arterial, 25 feet from centerline along Steamboat Drive and Tahoe Place, Local Streets.Right-of-way will need to be dedicated by warranty deed for Hwy 16, a state highway. Street Improvements: Removal of existing sidewalk along Wedington Drive, install new 6-foot sidewalks along Tahoe Place, Wedington Drive and Steamboat Drive at the right-of-way line. Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Wedington Drive,Principal Arterial; Tahoe Place& Steamboat Drive, Local Streets Tree Preservation: Waived.No trees exist on-site. Design Overlay District: • Greenspace: The applicant has complied with the 25'greenspace and landscaping requirements along the rights-of-way. • Signage: Monument Sign: The applicant is indicating one(1) monument sign along Wedington Drive, in compliance with DOD requirements. All sign illumination is to utilize indirect lighting. Wall Sign: The applicant is allowed three (3) wall signs for the property's three frontages, to be 20% of the wall area or 200 SF, whichever is less. The applicant is requesting one (1)wall sign on the south elevation of the structure, which complies with City ordinance. By Code, all sign illumination is to utilize indirect lighting. • Curb Cuts: The applicant requests a waiver of the 250 feet required from an intersection to a curb cut. The original lot configuration, platted with Wedington Place subdivision,prohibits access from Wedington Drive, yet does not have adequate depth to satisfy the DOD requirement. • Lighting: The applicant has indicated compliance with the requirement for parking lot lighting with a 35-foot maximum height,utilizing lighting fixtures that are shielded and directed downward to the parking lot and light spread not reflecting into adjacent properties. A waiver request has been submitted to utilize metal halide fixtures, as opposed to the sodium fixtures required. • Exterior appearance:. Elevations have been submitted for all four sides of the building. Planning Commission determination of architectural treatment of fronts, along with Commercial Design Standards, is required. • Building Material: A materials sample photo has been submitted,indicating K.'IReportst20o31PCREPOR7SI11-24USD 03-41.00(Bank of Fayetteville Wst).doc November 24,2003 Planning Commission LSD 03-41.00(Bank of Fay West) Page 1.2 the structure is to be primarily constructed of brick with a green metal roof, similar to the existing Banks of Fayetteville in the area. • Site Coverage: Approximately 39%of the site has been left in open space. Fencing: N/A • Outdoor Storage: N/A • Access: Pedestrian access is being provided with new 6-foot sidewalks along all three street fronts. One (1) bicycle rack has been provided for multi-modal access. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of LSD 03-41.00 with the following conditions: Conditions of Approvals L Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards. Stafffinds the proposed structure meets these requirements. 2. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request from the 250 feet from curb cut to intersection as required in the Design Overlay District. Staff is in support of the waiver request. 3. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request to utilize metal halide light fixtures for parking lot lights within the Design Overlay District. All parking lot lighting shall be a maximum of 35 feet in height, utilize full cut-off fixtures with light shielded, directed downward and away from adjacent properties. 4. The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way to fulfill Master Street Plan requirements for a Principal Arterial, 55 feet from centerline, for Wedington Drive (Hwy 16),by separate document. 5. All work within Arkansas State Highway right-of-way shall require proper AHTD permitting. Standard Conditions of approval: 6. All mechanical/utility equipment shall be screened using materials that are compatible with and incorporated into the structure. 7. Trash enclosures shall be screened with access not visible from the street. 8. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk along Tahoe Place, Steamboat Drive and Wedington Drive for the K. -2417SD 03-41.00(Bank ojFayett"ille E>•:'st).doc- November 24,2003 Planning Commission LSD 03-41.00(Bank of Fay West) Page 1.3 length of the project property boundary. The sidewalk shall be constructed through the driveways to City Standards and located at the right-of-way line. 9. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications) 10. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable)for grading, drainage, water,sewer,fire protection,streets(public and private), sidewalks,parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 11. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year. 12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area. C. Project Disk with all final revisions d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City(letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by§158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve' the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required Approved Denied Date: November 24,2003 Comments The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", beginning on page two of this report, are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. By Title Date K.IReportsl2003WCREPOR7SI11-24VSD 03-41.00(Bank ofFayeaeville WstJ.doc November 24,2003 Planning Commission LSD 03-41.00(Bank of Fay West) Page 1.4 E* L a n d W o r k s,"n c. PO Box 3432, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702-3432 phone 479.444.7769 fax 479.444.7793 October 20, 2003 City of Fayetteville Planning Commission c/o Mrs. Dawn Warrick, AICP Zoning & Development Administrator City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Phone: (479) 575-8264 RE: Proposed Bank of Fayetteville - West Branch Wedington Drive Fayetteville, AR Dear Mrs. Warrick: Please accept this correspondence as the scope, nature, and intent submittal required as part of the Large Scale Development Process. The Bank of Fayetteville owns a parcel of land known as Lot 2 of the Wedington Place Addition. It is situated on Wedington Drive between Tahoe Place and Steamboat Drive. A large scale with a different building style was submitted and approved in 2000. The bank is currently proposing to construct a 3,740 sf building on the 1.14 Acre lot. Nineteen parking stalls are also proposed. Per our earlier meeting, a five foot right-of-way dedication is shown along Wedington Drive. This site is located in the Overlay District, so twenty-five foot parking setbacks have been provided on three sides of the site. The intent of the bank is to start construction as soon as possible. May Construction will be constructing the bank. Ken Shireman & Associates is the architect. Please call with any questions or if you need any additional information. Best Regards Mandy R. Bunch, PE November 24,2003 Planning Commission LSD 0341.00(Bank of Fay West) Page 1.5 E10 LandWorks, 'Ilnc. PO Box 3432, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702-3432 phone 479.444.7769 fax 479.444.7793 November 5, 2003 City of Fayetteville Planning Commission c/o Mrs. Dawn Warrick, AICP Zoning & Development Administrator City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Phone:- (479) 575-8264 RE: Proposed Bank of Fayetteville - West Branch Wedington Drive Fayetteville, AR Dear Mrs. Warrick: Please accept this letter as the request of the Bank of Fayetteville to waive the requirement for 250' distance from curb to intersection. The lot configuration will not allow this requirement to be met. The lot size and drive locations were predetermined by the approved subdivision plat precluding access to Wedington. Please call with any questions or if you need any additional information. Best Regards Mandy R. Bunch, PE C F November 24,2003 Planning Commission LSD 03-41.0603116ti of Fay West) - Page 1.6 Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 23 LSD99-21: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF FAYETTEVILLE,PP401 This item was submitted by Roger Trotter of Development Consultants,Inc. on behalf of Bank of Fayetteville for property located at Lot 2, Wedington Place Addition. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.00 acre. Roger Trotter,John Alan Lewis, Gary Gartner,and Shahin Riahi were present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request from the Design Overlay District requirements of 250 feet between an intersection and the closet curb cut, and for minimum spacing of 200 feet between cub cuts. A cub cut is proposed approximately 150 feet north of the intersection of Wedington Drive and Steamboat Drive. An access easement has been dedicated to provide access to this lot as well as to the lot to the north. This easement is located approximately 60 feet north of the proposed curb cut. The owner of the property to the north has submitted a letter requesting that any action taken in regard to this curb cut location will not preclude him from using the dedicated access easement for development of adjacent properties. 2. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. 3. Request for rear setback variance must be decided by the Board of Adjustment. The applicant shall submit.the property application and materials in order to have this request placed on an upcoming agenda. This must be resolved prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. (This item was removed because the setback variance issue was resolved and all fees were refunded.) 4. Payment of$14,033.25 (for 225 feet of road frontage times 14 feet in width times$4.455 per square foot)towards the Wedington widening project. 5. All Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage,water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks,parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional revie �' d 1�ovember 24,2003 Planning Commission LSD 03-41.00(Bank of Fay West) Page 1.7 Minutes of Plamiing Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 24 approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 7. Large scale development approval is valid for one calendar year. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following are required: grading and drainage permits and completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by §158.01. All improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed ,prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Commission Discussion Johnson: There is a waiver that the Commission must deal with asking for waiving of the requirement of 250 feet between and intersection and the nearest curb cut and the distance we are looking at this curb cut is 150 feet north of the intersection of Wedington and Steamboat. Commercial Design Standards apply to this development and this large scale would have to be found in compliance. There are setback variances that would have to approved by the Board of Adjustment. Let me ask whether the applicant has seen these conditions of approval and whether or not the applicant has agreed to all 8 of the conditions of approval. Trotter: We agreed with items 2 through 8. Johnson: Let me turn to the staff and see what you have to tell us about anything we need to know on this particular large scale. Conklin: Condition number 3 can be removed. They do not need a variance from the north setback. That is considered aside setback under C-2 zoning reducing that requirement too. That's a correction. This is a proposal for a 3,372 square foot branch bank facility located in Wedington Place. Staff feels the curb cut distance will not be problem. Clary Development, Inc. wanted to make sure that the 50 foot access easement to the north of this site will allow them to have a drive that will connect across the back of those lots to provide access to those businesses, that granting this curb cut will not prevent them from providing that common access drive on the north side of this lot. Staff does recommend approval. Johnson: Do you have anything to add,Mr.Trotter? Trotter: You have the drawing in front of you and we're simply asking for a waiver from the 250 foot distance required by the design overlay district. If there are any questions,I'll be happy to answer. Johnson: Thank you; very much. Are there any questions for Mr. Trotter? November 24,2003 Planning Commission LSD 03-41.00(Bank of Fay West) Page 1.8 • i Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 23, 1999 Page 25 Hoffman: I can go ahead and brief you on the subdivision committee. We found this parking lot and driveway plan better than what was previously submitted to us. We questioned the city's traffic engineer who also agreed with that point. We found specifically that the commercial design standards had been met. I think you have some elevations in your packet that do show a triangular shaped building in the brick and that is going to be a part of the unified development design for the center. We talked about that. I do have a question for Dawn. Do we have Kim Hesse's landscaping approval? We did not get that at agenda session. Has she approved a landscaping plan for this development? Warrick: She requested revisions at the plat review meeting which are reflected in this plan. She required that the trees along Wedington Drive be moved further away from the water line that nuns adjacent to the street. Hoffman: Have you made those changes? Trotter: Yes. Hoffman: I think we were willing to be compensatory in the lot limitations because in the original plat,the condition had denied access to Wedington from the front lots. MOTION Hoffman: I'll move approval of LSD99-21. Odom: Second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Odom to approve LSD99-21. Public Comment None Roll Call Upon roll call,the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. November 24,2003 Planning Commission LSD 03-41.00(Bank of Fay West) Page 1.9 LSD03-41.00 BANK OF FAYETTEVILLE WEST Close Up view , i ti C-z 'SUBJECT PROPERTY - _ Iy - ---------- -J — --- ry I I u i�- 1 f f ' C-1 W, I a . ' _..:..RMF 24 R_A I R a 4 tx..,. 3c: rW.•r. .:.c �. , ".' .�._^�,`"r``p.-c +r":��' a,k�,�-:�.. L. ?./-�S�m .rr-i Overview Legend Subject Property Boundary - - LSD03-41.00 -�,.. Planning Area Master Street Plan �000% 1i 00000°O Overlay District �Freeway/Expressway -J Streets o ,� Streets L__I City Limits Principal Arterial -J Minor Arterial q `� . Existing 0 Outside Cay November 24 2003 -'%0 Collector e Planned Planning Commission t t -**%, Historic CollectorLSD 0 -41.00(Bank of Fay West) 0 75 150 300450 600 Page 1.10 Feet LSD03-41.00 BANK OF FAYETTEVILLE WEST One Mile View Rd 2I Ft Rte: s 11,7 V�C{11AIL� �-_ t/ IMF-24 RSF< -la RbFd r� j RA � R-fv T� LQ Io 2 eFk �I it _-�o RgF+ I RMF-24 f O 1 1 IRA - T RAI y'RI{Fi r LI I C' 1,. t 111,I 47 f- RSF41 s p'$F{4IIfalb9h` ' 1lrili I ri= I f l Iw 1 RMF-24 RIM - I RSFi I�'F ,� RMF'�j S r i E55EXp� RA c �r � R? 111 " RMF 24 =1 S to 1 .i R � IRcca 11 ,iJ ER t211tlitt111fff1ft — tet- AMF frq j Id II RT 1R fT-4' L t p RT 1� II I y RMF40 RA li 'ri�� *l I RYIR4A / R!J/r2477741', 7 I J _ �iRT 12 t v' j% �t1� L- �rll2t 1 {. I t I RMF .24 R F 21-f�Y�� -Ffn,r R.A L� 1 1 I �r 1 ty � I I kSF-a ` (E RMF e _ r i 1 L I r IRS-1 11i 1 j. t J 11<I R <d-. -- i w ar �I I1 I ik�i�`x-v� --f 'viit� r �, ` 1i'.jf .I I �I t -- .� iLRl.�F-I J RMF-2 .` I� t I� RSFdII .__-�. II 5F r i � i 1 `11 ill ' - iRSFJ.q-` '.RAI I G 11 1 J c2_ ___, R-0 1221 III 1 2 SUBJECT PROPERTY j_ R40. 19 -9i R-0 ICt Pt R4cal-"'� C2 1 / /: RSF-�'.UYA4LEY tR - F.4 III L�� I`'til Ij R-0 IGt c a R-0 1 I c>- f� 1 c2 1 II "I l 1 If_7 IRS �I r 1 -i ct A = a-o R-0 J 4 '. / Y r e Ti ao I n �RTj t2{� RA f t RMF2 i� - 24 -� A II IRSFA �/ I I 1._ - JT RMF-24 RMR2� ..� Iqq I��I IE ITI I-1 z4 r 85 I Ic' II i 0 c --_-- t y t3MF a l -� � �I R-A RT-12, 1 /_ 4y 1 > ♦ J Y III I 'a If ' RSFh { RSF r d ill' - L RMF E4J ij1 1 ll �.. #ek fRr17 I'rfl'( t I 1 1 I �FYAPC�Sr-'MAPL 5 "�--RSFs�_.,. i-- -I c �� RSF< 1� RD EVANGALINF 0,: RSFd _ RA RAy� AR"f�fl"kt�-rt i d� RSF i � 1 Overview Legend - - ,�` Subject Properly Boundary. Master Street Plan LSD03 41.00 '"k-, Planning Area �1�Freeway/Expressway 8e0 1 Overlay District Principal Arterial Streets o_000 I � M nor Arterial Exlsnng L_ ICity Limits /%+Connor L � Planned November 24 SIC Outside City • �� wstoncconecmr 12003 Planning Commission LSD 3-41.00(Bank of Fay West) Les Page 1.11 FAYETTEVILLE PC Meeting of November 24, 2003 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:501-575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner Matt Casey, Staff Engineer THRU: Dawn Warrick,A.I.C.P., Zoning& Development Administrator DATE: November 18,2003 PPL 03-20.10: Preliminary Plat(Salem Heights, pp 284)was submitted by Landtech Engineering on behalf of John Alford for property located on Salem Road, south of Salem Village. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, with 89 residential lots proposed. Planner: Jeremy Pate Findings: Proposal: The applicant is requesting to create a residential subdivision of 89 single family residential lots on 30.96 acres.Two lots are to be used for detention,preservation of tree canopy and existing wetlands. The location of the proposed subdivision is directly south of Clabber Creek, fronting onto both Salem Road and Rupple Road. A dedication of park land along Clabber Creek required by an adjacent subdivision development will be accessed byway of a designated trail through the undeveloped lots. Prior to Final Plat,the trail location shall be coordinated with Parks and Recreation Staff. An original Preliminary Plat for Salem Heights was approved in March of 2003. Since that date, the applicant has decided to create additional lots and street infrastructure,thereby requiring the entire proposal to be reviewed again by Planning Commission. Surrounding Land Use: All surrounding land is zoned RSF-4 and single-family use in nature. Density: 89 single family residential lots on 30.96 acres yields a net density of 2.9 DU/acre Water&Sewer: Water and sewer will be extended to serve this development. Right-of-way being dedicated: Rupple Road requires 45 feet from centerline, Salem Road 35 feet from centerline; all interior streets require a minimum of 50 feet total right-of-way, with the exception of the primary east- west"A" Street,which requires a total of 70 feet of right-of-way dedication as a Collector Street. "A"and"C" streets are proposed to be constructed with 28 feet of width,to include curb and gutter. All remaining streets are proposed to be constructed with a 24-foot width with curb and gutter. Connectivity will be provided to the east and west by way of a through street("A" Street) K,IReportsl20031PCREPOR7S111-24WPL 03-20.00(Salem Heights).doc November 24,2003 Planning Commission PPL 03-20.10(Salem Heights) Page 2.1 and to the south for future street connections. Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Salem Road(Collector),Rupple Road(Minor Arterial), "A" Street(Collector) Tree Preservation: Existing canopy: 4.27% Preserved canopy: 2.79% Required canopy: 4.27% Mitigation required: $10,350 into the Tree Escrow Account Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of PPL 03-20.10 subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission determination of offsite street improvements to Salem Road.Staff recommends improvements to include 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter and storm drainage. 2. Planning Commission determination of offsite assessment for Rupple Road construction from Mt. Comfort Road to the proposed subdivision. Staff recommends an assessment in the amount of$15.755. . 3. Planning Commission determination of offsite assessment for the Rupple Road Bridge. Staff recommends an assessment in the amount of$10.169. 4. The developer shall pay$6,192 pursuant to City Council Ordinance#3 938 for connection to waterlines along Salem Road. 5. Any lot platted so that a portion of the lot lies in the 100-year floodplain shall contain a minimum of 6,000 square feet of buildable area outside the floodplain, or a minimum of one acre. Any lot platted so that the entire lot lies in the 100-year flood plain shall contain a minimum of one acre. (At the time of Final Plat, a LOMR-F to adjust the floodplain map boundary must be approved and submitted with the application in order to plat lots less than I-acre in size when entirely within the 100 year floodplain) 6. All cul-de-sac radii shall be dimensioned on the plat. 7. The applicant shall pay into the Tree Escrow Account for tree canopy mitigation in the amount of$10,350. 8. Tree preservation fencing shall be shown on the plat and corresponding legend. 9. Parks fees in the amount of$49.395 for 89 single family lots shall be paid prior to Final Plat signatures. 10. The applicant shall coordinate with the Parks and Recreation Staff to provide pedestrian K:IReportsl2003WCREPORYS111-241PPL03-20.00(Salem Helghts).doc November 24,2003 Planning Commission PPL 03-20.10(Salem Heights) Page 2.2 access to Salem Village Park, directly to the north of the proposed subdivision,along Clabber Creek. This connection shall be shown on the Final Plat. 11. All street names shall be approved by the 9-1-1 Coordinator. Standard Conditions of Approval: 12. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives-AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications) . 13. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private),sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 14. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. 15. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk and a minimum of ten feet of green space along Rupple Road, Salem Road and"A" Street and a minimum four foot sidewalk with a six foot greenspace along interior streets. Sidewalks shall be installed or guaranteed in accordance with Ch. 15 8.01 prior to final plat approval. 16. Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one calendar year. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required Approved Denied Date: November 24,2003 Comments: The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", beginning on page two of this report,are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. By Title Date K:tReportsl2003LDCREPOR7Slil-24tPPL 03-20.00(Salem Heights).doc - - November 24,2003 Planning Commission PPL 03-20.10(Salem Heights) Page 2.3 FAYETTEVILLE THE:CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 _ Teleplume: 501-575-8264 ENGINEERING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Matt Casey P.E., Staff Engineer DATE: October 28, 2003 SUBJECT: Salem Heights Subdivision(PPL 03-02.00) Off-Site Assessments The following is the Engineering Division's recommendation to the Planning Commission for off-site assessments: 1. RUPPLE ROAD FROM MOUNT COMFORT ROAD TO SUBDIVISION: Rupple Road was completed in 2000 from Mount Comfort Road to this subdivision's southem property line to serve the new Holt Middle School and land to the north of the school that was being developed at the time. This portion of Rupple Road was constructed with a street width of 36' even though Rupple Road is classified as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. Therefore,the Engineering Division recommends an offsite street assessment for this portion of Rupple Road based on the following rational nexus calculations: Projected Traffic from Subdivision (89 lots at 9.57 vpd/lot)—852 vpd Assume 50%use Rupple Road—426 vpd Street Capacity for Minor Arterial—14,800 vpd Percentage of Traffic from Development—2.88% Actual Costs of Rupple Road Construction -$547,361.26 Salem Heights Subdivision's Assessment-$547,361.26 (.0288)_$15,755.00 2. BRIDGE OVER CLABBER CREEK: In addition to these costs, the Engineering Division recommends that this subdivision be assessed for a percentage of the construction costs to construct a bridge over Clabber Creek. The following is a rational nexus calculation for this offsite improvement: November 24,2003 Planning Commission PPL 03-20.10(Salem Heights) Page 2.4 • 0 Approximate Rupple Road Bridge dimensions: Length—250 L.F.;.Width—56'; Surface Area of Decking— 14,000 s.f. Projected Traffic from development—(89 Lots * 9.57 vpd/lot)- 852 vpd Assume 50% of vehicle trips will use Rupple—429 vpd Assume 50 % of vehicle trips using Rupple go north—215 vpd Minor Arterial traffic capacity= 14,800 vpd %Traffic from development=.0145% Clabber Creek Bridge Costs: 14,000 s.f.($50.00/s.f)=$700,000.00 Salem Heights Subdivision Percentage of Costs: 0.0145($700,000.00)=$10.169.00 Therefore, the Engineering Division recommends that the Clabber Creek Subdivision be assessed $9,081.00 for the future Rupple Road Bridge across Clabber Creek. 3. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Offsite assessment for portion from Mount Comfort Road to South Boundary: $15,755.00 B. Offsite Assessment for Rupple Road Bridge over Clabber Creek: $ 10,169.00 4. ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT: hr November of 1995,the Fayetteville City Council passed an ordinance(#3938)assessing anydeveloper connecting directly to the waterline extension on Salem Road. This proposed subdivision is located within the assessment area established for this extension. The ordinance establishes an assessment of$200.00 per acre of development. Waterline Assessment—30.96 acres($200/acre)_$6,192.00 November 24,2003 Planning Commission PPL 03-20.10(Salem Heights) Page 2.5 LO0 (-o X6.90 .. " O a `mac 10,929 sq ft. 0.25 acre N89'52'46"E 90.08 y: d� Q 1n 8,950 sq, ft. w 0.21 LLJ 95.72' O :1L 6.35 13+ o 1 0 i "A" STREET LL- _ a. Pwc94.39' —a w4"— C ; t ,. 1reYi lle C I { 9;688 sq. ft. 0.22 acres- Q0 W N 1 rl' i /N89' '46"E �C.f7Y1a� / 15.06 3 1'� 8 54 sq. ft. I. O Q .18 acres o 2 t 21 �� s 89'52'46"E 1 15.06 8,048 sq. ft. 0.18 acres N N. t=15.8 v 20 Pc ^4 a r2 PRc g C0 \" n O _! 7 N89' _ LO ll 101 _31 erem Pate Subdivision Ty? , .. _. � . Page1 ` From: Rebecca Ohman To: Pate, Jeremy Date: 11/12/03 11:46AM Subject: Subdivision Subdivision Committee Meeting November 13,2003 FPL 03-12.00 The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended accepting money in lieu of land in theamount of $2,820 for six single family lots on December 3, 2001. This fee is based on the previous Park Land Ordinance formula and was locked into place by Planning Commission approval on July S,2002 per Ordinance 166.03.K. Parks fees are due before signing final plat. Subdivision Committee Meeting November 13,2003 PPL 03-20.10 The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended accepting money in lieu of land in theamount of $49,395 for 89 single-family lots. Parks fees shall be due prior to issuance of the final plat. Parks and Recreation Staff and the Tree and Trails Coordinator will walk the site to layout pedestrian access through the development to Salem Village Park and the proposed Clabber Creek Trail Corridor_ Please contact me to set up this meeting: 444-3472. November 24,2003 Planning Commission PPL 03-20.10(Salem Heights) Page 2.7 Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 3 PPL 03-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Heights, pp 284) was submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for property located on North Salem Road, south of Salem Village. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 30.96 acres with 65 lots proposed. Aviles: The first item of new business this evening is PPL 03-2.00 for Salem Heights submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for property located on north Salem Road and south of Salem Village. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 30.96 acres with 65 lots proposed. There are sixteen conditions of approval. Numbers 11 through 16 are standard. Sara, do we have signed conditions? Edwards: Yes we do. However,we do need to change numbers 13 and 14. Number 13 should read payment of Parks fees in the amount of$36,075. Number 14 the last line should be a minimum 4' sidewalk with a 6' greenspace along streets B and G. Aviles: Ok. I will go ahead and read the conditions at this time. 1)The area labeled "Not A Part" shall be included in the subdivision. If the intent is for common open space it shall be labeled as such as covenants will be , required which provide for maintenance. 2) The detention pond, wetland areas and open space shall be labeled as lots in the subdivision. Maintenance shall be provided for in the protective covenants. 3) A note shall be placed on the final plat which restricts access from Salem and Rupple Road for lots within the subdivision. 4) All utilities shall be placed underground. 5) Planning Commission determination of offsite street improvements to Salem Road. Staff is recommending improvements to include 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drainage_ 6) Planning Commission determination of offsite assessment for Rupple Road. Staff is recommending an assessment in the amount of$11,494.00. 7) Planning Commission determination of offsite assessment for the Rupple Road Bridge. Staff is recommending an assessment of$7,350.00 based on estimated bridge construction costs and projected traffic generated by this development. 8) Planning Commission approval of the tree preservation plan with a payment for mitigation into the tree fund in the amount of$10,350. 9) Street "G" shall end in a cul-de-sac. 10) The developer shall pay $6,192.00 pursuant to City Council ordinance for connection to waterlines along Salem. 11) Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 12) Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for November 24,2003 Planning Commission PPL 03-20.10(Salem Heights) Page 2.8 Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 4 general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current , requirements. 13) Payment of parks fees in the amount of $36,075.00 (65 lots @ $555). 14) Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six foot sidewalk with ten foot greenspace along Rupple Road, Salem Road and Street "A" and a minimum four foot sidewalk with a six foot greenspace along Streets "B and G". 15) Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one calendar year. 16). Prior to signing the final plat the following is required: a. Project Disk with all final revisions; b. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by§158.01. Final layer of pavement and sidewalks are the only items which may be guaranteed. All completed improvements will be verified by the City Engineering office and shall include monuments, lot stakes, curbs and gutters, storm drainage, culverts and bridges, water supply, sanitary sewer system, and street lights. c. Payment of parks fees and or receipt of signed deed. One original signed deed shall be provided to the Parks Division and one original shall be recorded by the developer with the final plat. When the deed is filed a file marked copy shall be provided to the Parks Division. d. All street lights are required to be installed prior to signing the final plat. Proof of payment by certified check to the electric company for installation and materials with a receipt is required if not installed. Sara, do you want to give us the staff report before we hear from the applicant? Edwards: Yes. We have a 65 lot subdivision that is just south of Salem Village. It lies between the proposed Rupple Road and the existing Salem Road. Wetlands have been delineated. Floodplain does exist on the north portion of this site. Tree preservation existing is 4.27%, proposed is 2.79% and mitigation is being assessed in the amount of $10,350. We are recommending approval subject to the conditions that have been read already. Aviles: Thanks. Is the applicant present? If the applicant is not present, I don't know if we can proceed without the applicant present on a Preliminary Plat. Mr. Williams? Williams: I think we have signed conditions you probably can proceed. Although,I know normally you don't but I don't think there is anything procedurally that says you could not go forward. Aviles: I am thinking maybe I would like to just table it until the end of the meeting and see if they show up. November 24,2003 Planning Commission PPL 03-20.10(Salem Heights) Page 2.9 .I Planning Commission March 10, 2003 Page 15 PPL 03-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Heights, pp 284) was submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for property located on North Salem Road, south of Salem Village. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 30.96 acres with 65 lots proposed. Aviles: We will return now to Salem Heights, item two on our agenda, is that applicant present? Gabbard: Yes. Aviles: We had already gone through the' conditions of approval, which I understand that you have signed. Gabbard: Yes Ma'am, that is correct. My name is Leonard Gabbard with Land-tech Engineering. Aviles: Mr. Gabbard, do you have a presentation for us? Gabbard: No Ma'am, I just want to apologize for being late. I think I set a world speed record for changing a tire. Aviles: Ok. We waited just for you and we are glad to do that. Gabbard: I appreciate that. Aviles: I had gone through the conditions. Had we taken the staff report? Do we need to talk about the floodplain or the wetlands? That has all been pretty well taken car of. Is there any public comment? Is there anyone in the audience that would wish to address us on this Preliminary Plat? Seeing no one, I will bring discussion back to the applicant and to the Commission. Allen: We continue to approve projects in this part of town and we continue to talk about our sewage capacity being at 95%, I just wondered will this make us at 96% or 97%, what happens next? Conklin: OMI, which is our contractor for our waste water treatment plant,recently presented to the City Council information regarding our capacity of our waste water treatment plant. A lot of our capacity issues relate to wet weather flows depending on the rainfall that we have in Fayetteville and how much we have and the duration and how fast it comes down impacts our ability to handle the flow into the planta I am not going to attempt to try to give you that presentation this evening but I will ask OMI to give a presentation to the Commission if you are interested in hearing from our waste water treatment plant operator with regard to the treatment plant November 24,2003 Planning Commission PPL 03-20.10(Salem Heights) Page 2.10 >I Planning Commission • March 10, 2003 Page 16 capacity. With regard to the other points, it is more than just the amount of water going into the system, it is also removing the total suspended solids and other types of material out of the treatment plant or out of the waste stream. With regard to that, they do have the ability to continue accepting additional flows into the plant. What I will try to do is schedule something for the Planning Commission so you can hear from our contractor. r Allen: I would like that. I have one other question. How close is the nearest fire station to this project? Conklin: That would be on Eagle Street and Garland. Allen: So approximately how many minutes would that be from the project? I am sure you haven't been out to make that run but an estimation? Conklin: We have been throwing around so many response times that I am afraid to throw one out. I am not going to guess. I can get that to you later. On our annexations and rezonings we do have the Fire Department give response times as part of those recommendations that go forward. This was already in the City of Fayetteville. I am not going to guess on the response time but I can get that to you. Ostner: There was a mention of a certain RJN report dealing with the lift station, which you might have already covered that. They were in the process of getting that result when this was in Subdivision. I was just wondering if that might have come through and what those results might have been. Conklin: The city did recently receive a draft report that is being reviewed by city staff and responses will be given back to the consultant. What Commissioner Ostner is referring to is the city's ability to deal with the flow into the Hamestring Creek Lift Station. The city has undertaken a study with RJN and city staff is working on looking at that issue. What we have been doing as part of this development review process is informing people who are developing of that ongoing study and at this point in time staff is continuing to recommend approval of development based on current information that we do have. Aviles: Commissioners, are there any other questions or motions? Ward: Kind of in response to some of Nancy's concerns there, right across the street from this subdivision is Holcomb Elementary School. Not very far from that is Holt Middle School. There are several large subdivisions further west of this particular subdivision. I can't tell you exactly how long it would take to drive a fire truck out there, I would say eight to ten minutes but it is definitely much closer than a lot of our other subdivisions November 24,2003 Planning Commission PPL 03-20.10(Salem Heights) Page 2.11 Planning Commission • March 10, 2003 Page 17 that we have approved further out and I'm sure that before the schools were built out there this was looked at very closely, especially the elementary school across the street. With that, I will make a motion to approve PPL 03-2.00. There are sixteen conditions of approval and number 13 we did change to payment of parks fees in the amount of $36,075 and on number 14 we did change the wording where it says with a 6' greenspace along streets B and G and not just a 6' sidewalk. We did change the wording a little bit on our conditions Mr. Gabbard. Aviles: You have signed those and you are up to date on those? Gabbard: Yes Ma'am. Aviles: Thanks. I have a motion for approval subject to all comments by Commissioner Ward. Do I hear a second? Shackelford: I will second. Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any additional discussion? Ostner: In looking at the drawing I noticed that the street widths are all 28' as our ordinance requires. My question is our ordinance allows down to a 24' street width on certain neighborhood streets with very low traffic. As I Took at the drawing, the four cul-de-sacs would be eligible for this. I wanted to ask you and the Commission about that extra 4' if that would be something you would want to do. Narrow streets are cheaper and safer in general. Not the street all the way through, I think that is street"A", and of course not Salem or Rupple and the right of way stays the same but is that something that you would consider, a 24' curb to curb? Gabbard: Commissioner Ostner, you want narrower streets? Ostner: I am asking if that is something you would be interested in. Gabbard: I will go as narrow as you will allow me to go. It is very unusual for a Commissioner to ask me to go smaller. Ostner: I would need to converse with the Commission obviously. Aviles: I think that is something that would've been more appropriate at Subdivision level. Were you at that Subdivision Committee meeting? Ostner: I was not. I would've loved to have brought it up but I wasn't there. November 24,2003 Planning Commission PPL 03-20.10(Salem Heights) Page 2.12 Planning Commission • March 10,2003 Page 18 Aviles: We have a traffic study underway with the city and we are talking about traffic calming devices and things like narrower streets in general and this is an idea that certainly has a great deal of merit but I'm not sure if it has that merit to change the Preliminary Plat after it has gone through the Subdivision level and all of that. Ostner: I understand that it is very last minute but I didn't see it until now and I had to say something. The other thing that would go along with that Commissioners is a neighborhood street only has one side for a sidewalk whereas what he is doing a 28' local street there are sidewalks on either side. I think that is a good tradeoff that he only has to build one sidewalk and a town gets a narrower street with less pavement, etc., etc. It would only be on these cul-de-sacs where there are three, four or twelve homes. It is not a lot of traffic. Gabbard: On the property to the north that we took out that is in a floodplain and we have intentionally taken that out because we knew that-we would have to come back later before this Commission once we get that out of the floodplain. It would require a CLOMR and then followed up by a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) with FEMA and if we make those roads smaller, my personal preference after 14 years of doing this, is 27' back to back curb don't ask me to go any narrower. I have seen too many situations where if you go wider they are going to park. If you go narrower then it restricts your traffic flow. However, there may be some merit in the fact that you are thinking about a smaller street. We all have opinions and my opinion is 27' back to back is as narrow as any street should ever be built that is for a subdivision. I am totally on board with a 28' back to back. In my opinion, unless you tell me to do otherwise,in all the subdivisions that I design they will be at least that. If you request and if all of you concur that I should go something different I will be more than happy to consider your judgment there. Ostner: Thank you. I understand that this is at a late moment. If we can just carry this on at some other time, this isn't a motion of any sort. There is a motion that has been seconded and I will vote for the project. Aviles: And it is an idea with merit. I didn't mean to be terrible about that but I would like things like that addressed at Subdivision Comrnittee if at all possible. I think our Subdivision Committee does do a good job of that and will continue to evolve as we look at new street design standards and the traffic calming devices and effects and things like that. Were there any other comments? Allen: There are an awful lot of children out there and I wondered if there were any other existing parks other than the Gary Hampton Soccer Field for that area. November 24,2003 Planning Commission PPL 03-20.10(Salem Heights) Page 2.13 Planning Commission• • March 10,2003 Page 19 Gabbard: Yes Ma'am. Immediately north of us is Clabber Creek and that property just adjacent to us on the north side, staff correct me if I'm wrong but is 'that not currently owned by Parks and Recreation? Conklin: It is owned by Parks and Recreation. It is a wetland area and does have some deed restricted wetlands. I don't think it is going to be developed into an active park. It is more of passive type recreation park. Gabbard: One of the things that I found out about dealing with the wetlands on this project and the one north of it, is that if a boardwalk is built in any wetlands the Corp. of Engineers doesn't look at that as being an impact that has to be mitigated. I don't think that the Parks and Recreation people realize this at this point but if you all decided to build any kind of boardwalk or anything in a wetland area, which would get it up above the standing water that may be seasonally or all the time in that area that it would be very easy for you to get that done without having to go and deal. with a long drawn out individual permit from the Corp. There is a nationwide permit and the individual permit when you impact more than %2 an acre you have got to go for the individual. If it is less than % of an acre you can get a nationwide. An individual permit translates to about a year of time. With those boardwalks the Corp. of Engineers love it. I just thought I would pass that onto you guys. Aviles: Commissioners, are there any other questions or comments? Ward: Just going back to a little bit of reference of what Alan was talking about. I personally like the wider streets. I am in subdivisions everyday showing homes and so on and the wider streets on the cul-de-sacs, even though the sidewalks are there, all the baby strollers are out there in the streets,all the joggers are in the streets, all the bicyclers are riding in the streets. Sidewalks are getting used very little in those subdivisions. They are always in the streets. It is pretty safe because the only traffic in there is the people driving to the next house going home. In this type of subdivision I like the wide streets because there is no reason for anybody else to be in there except the neighbors. Ostner: I think the sidewalks might be used more if there is less asphalt. Ward: They won't use them. Ostner: They will. Hoover: Perhaps we should have some type of educational seminar or something on street widths and what really is traffic calming and what is safer November 24,2003 Planning Commission PPL 03-20.10(Salem Heights) Page 2.14