HomeMy WebLinkAbout190-07 RESOLUTIONr
RESOLUTION NO. 190-07
A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF PPL 07-2679
(TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS) AND TO APPROVE PPL 07-2679
SUBJECT TO ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
WHEREAS, the City Planning Department recommended approval of Preliminary Plat
07-2679 (Township Heights) with 17 Conditions of Approval; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission deniedapproval of PPL 07-2679 after public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the owner/developer properly appealed the denial of its requested PPL 07-
2679 to the Fayetteville City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard from Planning Staff, neighbors, citizens, developers,
engineers, and attorneys during a public hearing on this appeal and determined that PPL 07-2679
(Township Heights) met the requirements of the Unified Development Code such that the appeal
of its denial should be granted and that PPL 07-2679 (Township Heights) should be approved
subject to the seventeen Conditions of Approval
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby grants the
appeal of the owner/developer of PPL 07-2679 (Township Heights) and approves Preliminary
Plat 07-2679 (Township Heights) subject to the seventeen Conditions of Approval (attached as
Exhibit A).
PASSED and APPROVED this 6th day of November, 2007.
APPROVED:
By:
ATTEST:
By: 001ticive✓
SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
"EXHIBIT A"
As approved by the City Council on November 6, 2007 on appeal, the applicant shall
comply with the following conditions of approval associated with PPL 07-2679 (Township
Heights Subdivision):
1. Determination of street improvements. The applicant shall improve Township Street
a minimum of 14' from centerline including pavement, curb and gutter, storm
drainage and a 6' sidewalk. Said improvements shall be constructed along the entire
property frontage including the adjacent parcel, which is surrounded by the
development. The six-foot sidewalk on the off-site property shall be constructed at
the Master Street Plan right-of-way line, unless the existing property owner objects.
Should permission not be granted to construct the sidewalk on the adjacent property,
the applicant shall pay money in -lieu for this sidewalk installation.
2. Determination of appropriate connectivity. The applicant has provided two street
connections to provide access to future development. Staff finds in favor of the
proposed connectivity. However, the applicant shall indicate a minor shift in the
road alignment further to the east on the northern street stub -out to allow a future
street extension to occur such that the house to the north will not encroach into the
front building setback that will be created if the street is extended.
3. The existing residential driveway to the west of the subject development (1114 and
1118 E. Township) shall be removed and said properties shall only access Street 1 as
indicated on the plat. A 30' access easement shall be included on the plat to allow
access from the adjacent properties to Street A. Said requirement was offered by the
applicant in lieu of requesting a waiver of the minimum separation between a curb -
cut and an intersection.
4. Any proposed entry feature, including but not limited to walls, fences and/or signage
shall be reviewed and permitted by the Planning Department prior to installation.
5. Payment of $21.160.00 for an additional 21 single-family units in lieu of dedication
of parkland shall be contributed by the developer prior to final plat.
6. The applicant shall work with the Urban Forester and Engineering Department at the
time of construction plan review in an effort to maximize the percentage preserved
canopy along Township Street.
7. Right-of-way dedication in the amount of 35' from centerline for Township Street
shall be dedicated with the filing of the final plat. Right-of-way for all interior streets
shall be dedicated as noted with the filing of the final plat.
8. Development of all individual lots within the subject development shall be subject to
the requirements of the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District requirements and will be
reviewed at .the time of building permit. Grading permits and tree preservation plans
shall be required to be submitted for approval for each lot development within the
HHOD (30% tree canopy and 30% undisturbed area).
9. The lot reserved for detention shall be an unbuildable lot and owned and maintained
by the Property Owners Association.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
10. Street lights shall be installed at all intersections and with a maximum separation of
300' prior to signing the final plat.
11. Impact fees for water, sewer, police and fire shall be paid in accordance with City
ordinance.
12. Signs indicating the future extension of right-of-way shall be posted at the end of all
street stub -outs prior to signing the final plat.
•
13. All street names and addresses shall be approved by the 911 coordinator prior to
signing the final plat.
14. 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).
15. 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.
16. All overhead electric lines under 12Kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed
utilities shall be located underground.
17. Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one calendar year
VV
ENGINEERING, IN.
September 5, 2007
City of Fayetteville
City Council
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
RE: TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION APPEAL
Council Members,
Tofr
;ECEIVED
ISEP 0 6 2007
ga y23Ll
J, J G
Y OF FAYETTEVILLE
1ITY CLERKS OFFICE
%b 707
PPZ a7-02-679,
w nM'p mgbf
lions/up
On behalf of our clients, Randy and Kelly Davidson, 1 would like to appeal the August 27, 2007
decision of the Planning Commission, to deny PPL 07-2679, Township Heights. In order to properly
prepare additional data to present to the Council, I am requesting that this item be put on the October 2,
„2007 City Council Agenda.
This project consists of approximately 5.57 acres of wooded property, on the north side of
Township Street approximately ''A mile west of the intersection with Old Wire Road. The property is
currently zoned RSF-4. We are proposing splitting the property into 21 residential lots and one lot
containing a detention pond. The proposed density is 3.77 units per acre. The majority of this property
lies within the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District. The proposed preliminary plat meets or exceeds all
Unified Development Code requirements for an RSF-4 development within the Hillside Hilltop Overlay
District. "Best Management Practices" from the HHOD Ordinance were used in the design of this
development. We have requested no waivers with regards to this development, and the project received
favorable recommendations from the City Engineer, Mr. Petrie, and the Director of Planning, Mr. Pate.
Planning Commissioners present at the August 27 meeting, cited "the creation or compounding of
a dangerous traffic condition" as their reason for voting against the approval of the preliminary plat. We
strongly, but respectfully, disagree with this reasoning. Not unlike numerous streets in Fayetteville,
Township suffers from periods of high traffic volumes at peak hours. We feel that this situation, while
certainly inconvenient, is far from dangerous. Dangerous traffic situations generally involve conditions
such as high speeds, reduced sight distances, or confusing/complex traffic maneuvers (i.e. lane shifts, lane
changes or lane merges). None of these conditions exist along this stretch of Township Street. On the
contrary, the proposed entrance to this development has over 600 feet of sight distance, in both directions,
only two lanes of traffic, and a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The expected traffic generated by
this development, approximately 210 vehicle trips per day, will be less than 2% of the overall traffic on
Township for the same 24 hour period, based on a recent count performed by the City Transportation
Department.
Please contact me, if you have any questions or need further information regarding this project, at
582-4234 or thennellv@h2ei.net
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Hennelly, P.E.
President
2758 Millennium Drive Suite 1 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 Phone: 479.582.4234 Fax: 479.582.9254
City Council Meeting of October 02, 2007
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations �(
From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning)`
Date: September 13, 2007
Subject: Preliminary Plat for Township Heights (PPL 07-2679)
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission voted to deny the subject Preliminary Plat request, PPL 07-
2679 Township Heights. A motion to deny passed with a vote of 5-1-0 (Commissioner
Trumbo voted 'No ). The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission decision to
the City Council.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat. The proposed
development meets all ordinance requirements for a residential subdivision in the RSF-4
zoning district, and meets or exceeds all requirements within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay
District (HHOD). Additionally, many of the Best Management Practices (BMP)
recommended for hillside/hilltop developments in the HHOD BMP Manual adopted by
the City Council are being utilized to reduce the amount of grading disturbance and tree
removal for the project.
BACKGROUND
The subject property contains approximately 5.57 acres on the north side of Township
Street, just west of Common Drive. The majority of the property is located within the
Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District (HHOD). In accord with the HHOD Best Management
Practices, street sections and utility easements within the HHOD have been reduced in
width in order to minimize the amount of grading disturbance and tree removal, while
still accommodating utility locations, vehicular and pedestrian movements, and/or
parking. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for 21 single family lots, a
density of 3.77 units per acre. There is an existing single-family residence that will be
surrounded on three sides by the proposed development, although is not a part of the
subdivision. One detention pond is proposed to be located in Lot 1 near the entrance to
the subdivision. All lots meet the standards established for properties in the RSF-4
zoning district and within the HHOD.
DISCUSSION
On October 27, 2007, the Planning Commission voted 5-1-0 on a motion to deny this
request with commissioners Myres, Bryant, Graves, Winston and Cabe voting `Yes',
commissioner Trumbo voting 'No', and commissioner Anthes, Ostner and Lack absent.
The motion to deny passed and the applicant has appealed this request to the City
Council. The main issue of Planning Commission concem was traffic danger on
•
City Council Meeting of October 02, 2007
Agenda Item Number
Township Street. A traffic study was discussed, but not requested by the Planning
Commission. Staff has reviewed traffic on Township St. in this location, based on the
comments received. The development of 21 lots will produce approximately 201 vehicle
trips in a 24-hour period (see MicroTrans Trip Generation Summary). Township Street
in this location, currently supports an average of 11,188 vehicle trips in a 24-hour period.
This traffic count was taken on August 28-29 (Tuesday/Wednesday). When compared to
the existing traffic this results in an approximately 1.8% increase in traffic. Staff has also
conducted a visual analysis of the street and topography in this area. Site visibility is not
an issue when entering or exiting at the proposed location on Township. Additionally,
traffic accident records were reviewed in 2006-2007 from the Fayetteville Police
Department. The amount of accidents that would result in Township being declared
`significant' or `dangerous' does not appear to exist. Of the 62 accidents reported
between College and Old Wire, 6 accidents were reported within a quarter of a mile; 42
were at or near the intersection of College and Township, and an unknown percentage of
these were actually on College Ave. Based on this information, and review of this
project through the established development review process, staff finds that the proposed
development of 21 lots on the subject property meets or exceeds all regulatory criteria of
the Unified Development Code and that the development will not create, nor compound a
dangerous traffic condition on adjacent streets. Staff has recommended street
improvements in accordance with the traffic generated and. the impact it will have on
adjacent streets.
BUDGET IMPACT
None
aye
evu le
ARKANSAS
PC Meeting of August 27, 2007
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner
Glenn Newman, Staff Engineer
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
DATE: August 21, 2007 Updated August 28, 2007
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
PPL 07-2679: Preliminary Plat (TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS, 291): Submitted by H2
ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 1140 TOWNSHIP STREET. The property
is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.57
acres. The request is for 21 single family lots.
Planner: Jesse Fulcher
Findings:
Property & Proposal. The subject property contains approximately 5.57 acres on the
north side of Township Street, just west of Common Drive. The majority of the property
is located within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District (HHOD). In accord with the
HHOD Best Management Practices, street sections and utility easements within the
HHOD have been reduced in width in order to minimize the amount of grading
disturbance and tree removal, while still accommodating utility locations, vehicular and
pedestrian movements, and/or parking. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval
for 21 single family lots, a density of 3.77 units per acre. There is an existing single-
family residence that will be surrounded on three sides by the proposed development,
although is not a part of the development. One detention pond is proposed to be located
in Lot 1 near the entrance to the subdivision.
rounding Land Use and Zoning:
Water and Sewer System: Water and sewer shall be extended to serve the proposed
development.
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Township Street (a Collector Street)
K:\Reports\2007\PC Repons\08-27-07\PPL 07-2679 (Township Heights) doc
Direction from Site
Land Use
Zoning
North
Single-family Residential
RSF-4, Residential Single-family
South
Single-family Residential
RSF-4, Residential Single-family
East
Single-family Residential
RSF-4, Residential Single-family
West
Single-family Residential
RSF-4, Residential Single-family
Water and Sewer System: Water and sewer shall be extended to serve the proposed
development.
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Township Street (a Collector Street)
K:\Reports\2007\PC Repons\08-27-07\PPL 07-2679 (Township Heights) doc
Right-of-way to be dedicated: Right-of-way dedication in the amount of 35' from
centerline, as indicated on the plans, is required for Township Street and shall occur at
the time of recordation of the final plat. All internal streets shall be dedicated and
constructed according to City of Fayetteville ordinance requirements for a residential
street in the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District.
Street Improvements: Staff recommends that Township Street be improved 14' from
centerline including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drainage and a 6' sidewalk. The
improvements shall be constructed along the entire property frontage, including Parcel
#765-15982-000, which is surrounded by the subject development. The improvements
shall only include the provision of a sidewalk along the off-site parcel if permitted by the
existing property owner.
Connectivity: Future connectivity has been proposed to the west and north. Property to
the east is a platted, developed residential subdivision.
Parks: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed this project on June 4, 2007
and recommended accepting money in lieu in the amount of $21,160.00 for 21 single-
family units.
Tree Preservation: Existing:
Preserved.
Required:
Mitigation:
93.39%
55.05%
30.00%
Not required
Public Comment: Staff has received public comment from one adjacent property owner
who expressed concerns regarding traffic conditions on Township Street.
8-16-07 Subdivision Committee Meeting: Several neighbors of the proposed
development voiced concerns regarding increased traffic on Township St., tree removal,
drainage/runoff from the development, small lot sizes, mosquitoes from the detention
pond and the overall development of Fayetteville's hillsides. Additionally, many of the
neighbors did not feel that they had sufficient time to review the project prior to the
Subdivision Committee meeting and requested that the applicants meet with the
neighbors to discuss the project prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Meeting
minutes are included within the staff report.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of PPL 07-2679 with the following
conditions of approval:
Conditions of Approval:
1. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends
the following street improvements:
a. Staff recommends that Township Street be improved 14' from centerline
including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drainage and a 6' sidewalk.
Said improvements shall be constructed along the entire property frontage
K:\Repons\2007\PC Reports \08-27-07\PM. 07-2679 (Township Heights).doc
including the adjacent parcel, which is surrounded by the development.
The six -loot sidewalk on the o11 -site property shall be constructed at the
Master Street Plan right-of-way line, unless the existing property owner
objects. Should permission not be granted to construct the sidewalk on
the adjacent property, the applicant shall pay money in -lieu for this
sidewalk installation.
8-16-07 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOUND
IN FAVOR OF THE RECOMMENDED STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
8-27-07 PLANNING COMMISSION: NO DETERMINATION.
2. Planning Commission determination of appropriate connectivity. The applicant
has provided two street connections to provide access to future development.
Staff finds in favor of the proposed connectivity. However, staff recommends a
minor shift in the road alignment further to the east on the northern street stub -
out to allow a future street extension to occur such that the house to the north will
not encroach into the front building setback that will be created if the street is
extended.
8-16-07 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOUND
IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED CONNECTIVITY. THE REQUEST TO ORIENT
THE STREET BASED ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO THE NORTH WAS
ADDED AFTER THE SUBIDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING.
8-27-07 PLANNING COMMISSION: NO DETERMINATION.
The existing residential driveway to the west of the subject development (1114
and 1118 E. Township) shall be removed and said properties shall only access
Street 1 as indicated on the plat. A 30' access easement shall be included on the
plat to allow access from the adjacent properties to Street A. Said requirement
was offered by the applicant in lieu of requesting a waiver of the minimum
separation between a curb -cut and an intersection.
4. Any proposed entry feature, including but not limited to walls, fences and/or
signage shall be reviewed and permitted by the Planning Department prior to
installation.
5. Payment of $21,160.00 for an additional 21 single-family units in lieu of
dedication of parkland shall be contributed by the developer prior to final plat.
6. The applicant shall work with the Urban Forester and Engineering Department at
the time of construction plan review in an effort to maximize the percentage
preserved canopy along Township Street.
7. Right-of-way dedication in the amount of 35' from centerline for Township Street
shall be dedicated with the filing of the final plat. Right-of-way for all interior
streets shall be dedicated as noted with the filing of the final plat.
K:\Reports\2007\PC Reports\08-27-07\PPL 07-2679 (Township Heights).doc
Development of all individual lots within the subject development shall be subject
to the requirements of the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District requirements and will
be reviewed at the time of building permit. Grading permits and tree preservation
plans shall be required to be submitted for approval for each lot development
within the HHOD.
9. The lot reserved for detention shall be an unbuildable lot and owned and
maintained by the Property Owners Association.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
10. Street lights shall be installed at all intersections and with a maximum separation
of 300' prior to signing the final plat.
11. Impact fees for water, sewer, police and fire shall be paid in accordance with City
ordinance.
12. Signs indicating the future extension of right-of-way shall be posted at the end of
all street stub -outs prior to signing the final plat.
13. All street names and addresses shall be approved by the 911 coordinator prior to
signing the final plat.
14. 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).
15. 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.
16. All overhead electric lines under 12Kv shall be relocated underground. All
proposed utilities shall be located underground. •
17. Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one calendar year.
Additional conditions:
a.
Planning Commission Action: ❑ Approved '4 Denied ❑ Tabled
Motion: Cabe
Second: Myers
Vote: 5-1-0
Meeting Date: August 16, 2007
K:\Reports\2007\PC Reports \08-27-07\PPL 07-2679 (Township Heights).doc
Township Heights
Summary of Average Vehicle Trip
For 21 Dwelling Units of Single
September 13, 2007
Generation
Family Detached
Housing
24 Hour
Two -Way
Volume
7-9 AM
Enter
•
Pk Hour 4-6 PM Pk Hour
Exit Enter Exit
Average Weekday 201
4
12
14
8
24 hour
Two -Way
Volume
Peak Hour
Enter
Exit
Saturday
Sunday
212
184
11
10
9
8
Note:
Source:
A zero indicates no data available.
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
Tare MI le
ARKANSAS
PC Meeting of August 27, 2007
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
TREE PRESERVATION and PROTECTION REPORT
To: Fayetteville Planning Commission
From: Sarah K. Patterson, Urban Forester
Date: August 21, 2007
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 444-3470
ITEM # PPL 07-2679: Preliminary Plat (Township Heights)
Requirements Submitted:
Canopy Measurements:
°i;TotafSite urea
Initial Review with the Landscape Administrator
T
Site Analysis Map
Submitted
T
Site Analysis Written Report
Submitted
T
Complete Tree Preservation Plan Submitted
Canopy Measurements:
°i;TotafSite urea
acres
5 43
square feet236,401.58
aExistmg,Treecanopy_ - -'., ie
acres
5.07
square feet
220,770
percent of site area
93.39%
IE
ii
stlrig ill
ee Cailopff reserved
acres
2.98
square feet
130,132
percent of total site
area
55.05%
irEleea
.Minih
Canopy;Requir w
3o%
FINDINGS:
The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age, location, size or
species.
• This site is a very wooded and found within the hillside hilltop overlay
district. Over half of the canopy will be saved after the installation of
required infrastructure. Each individual home in this subdivision will
require a separate grading and building permit to ensure a high
amount of canopy is preserved.
The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to
removal of the tree or group of trees.
• Environmental degradation should not occur on the site. A good
amount of pervious surface will be removed but the applicant is
utilizing options provided in the best management practices manual.
The impact of the reduction in tree cover on adjacent properties, the surrounding
neighborhood and the property on which the tree or group of trees is located.
• Adjacent properties should not be affected by the removal of tree
canopy. All utilities are kept to the fronts of the lots.
Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of
development on existing trees.
• N/A
Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility of the design.
• The shape of this is very long and linear. This does reduce the
flexibility of design.
The general health and condition of the tree or group of trees, or the presence of any
disease, injury or hazard. .
• The general health of these trees was determined to be fair to good.
The placement of the tree or group of trees in relation to utilities, structures, and use of
the property.
• The trees on this site are very dense. There is little allowance to move
the road around The hillside hilltop best management practices are
being utilized to preserve as much of the integrity of the area as
possible.
The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing, repairing,
replacing, or maintaining essential public utilities.
• The trees proposed on this plan for removal are for infrastructure
only. When a single family lot is purchased, the builder will be
required to save 3o% of the canopy on the individual lots. The utilities
have been placed in the fronts of the lots with a reduce easement to
decrease the amount of disturbance.
Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography, and
routed, where possible, to avoid damage to existing canopy.
• Roads and utilities have been designed as best possible.
Construction requirements for On -Site and Off -Site Alternatives.
•
• N/A
The effects of proposed On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives.
• Mitigation will be not be required on this site as the proposal stays
above the 3o% minimum.
The effect other chapters of the UDC, and departmental regulations have on the
development design.
• The project is found within the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District.
The extent to which development of the site and the enforcement of this chapter are
impacted by state and federal regulations:
• N/A •
The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application would have on the
Applicant:
• Staff is recommending approval of this Tree Preservation Plan with
the following conditions of approval.
Conditions of Approval:
i. During construction plan approval, staff would request the
applicant look to preserve more canopy along Township if
possible. Many of these trees are found within the Master Street
Plan right of way but staff feels it is important to try to save some
of these mature trees along the roadway.
2. Mitigation will not be required on the site as the minimum 3o%
canopy will be maintained.
3. Each individual lot within this subdivision will require a grading
and building permit before any land disturbance can occur. A
minimum of 3o% area must be left undisturbed.
•
evi ie
ARKANSAS
•
PC Meeting of August 27, 2oO7
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
LANDSCAPE REVIEW FORM
To: Fayetteville Planning Commission
From. Sarah K. Patterson, Urban Forester
Date: August 21, 2007
113 W. Mountain St
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 444-3470
ITEM #: PPL 07-2679: Preliminary Plat (Township Heights)
Applicable Requirements:
NA
1Site
lStalldaIds
Development & Parking(L0404
.,;:frt.-&.4 :4Ca
A, (>:
NA
++I-'--54o,Design
'overlay eit't.: ,:LI :,
Y4Street
':ii":, t. k.;c
Tree Planting Standard -
y
'Stormwater
y
Faci1ittest;'
`c: ,
Plan Checklist:
Y= submitted by applicant
N=requested by City of Fayetteville
NA= not applicable
dPre1mmiiary„
Subnuttal
tFinal
Wait. _l
'
fY
'!$fr' '?:r''All-laridscapePlans
':ii":, t. k.;c
'. v4?=%h`ri.ice ,tet'. t,'NAL
N
y
Irrigation notes either automatic or hose bib
N
y
Species
of plant material identified
N
Y
Size of plant material at time of installation indicated
N
y
Soil amendments notes include that soil is amended and sod
removed
N
y
Mulch notes indicate organic mulching around trees and within
landscape beds
N
N
Plans stamped by a licensed Landscape Architect
N
y
Planting details according to Fayetteville's Landscape
Manual
_>
ft. w
,�fs ��iG�.�
t dls
�jqY�
'�1 ` • �
,
-Site
.. '%t
Development
A :, `i.
8r Parking"Lot
.5�. -`c l7 fX7 �' .:��•'IH
Standards .T: ,
'Y�".'R'! .�i_ .r_.l �. y,
..
NA
Wheel stops/ curbs
NA
Interior landscaping
Narrow tree lawn
Tree island (8
(8' min width, 17' min length/ 1 tree per 12 spaces)
min. width/1 tree per 12 spaces)
PPreliminaty
wSubmittal
iFinal'
X
,Submittal?
4
NA
Perimeter
Side and rear
Shade trees
Parking lot
8 per tree-
landscaping
property lines (5' landscaped)
as described in street tree planting standards,
adjacent to K.O.W.- continuous planting of shrubs-at least
and ground cover -5o% evergreen)
S
—c.
`o" �$��
.Over aycDtstrtct
'i:''i
M
Requirement$7
y Ono 2.A'
� =r�
.
Cll. .L "}; �[ `
NA
Greenspace
adjacent to street R.O.W. (25' wide)
NA
Large street
trees planted every 30' L.F. along R.O.W.
NA
25% of total
site area left in greenspace (8o% landscape)
NA
Parking lots
and
outdoor
storage screened with landscaping
Stand
ds_ inn ofFV - -ernut
T
`?
IStreetir
ee Planting
N
y
Residential
planted within
Subdivisions- t Large species shade tree/ lot tree
R.O. W. if possible
NA
Nonresidential
tree planted
Subdivision-
within 15-25'greenspace
1 large species shade tree/3o L.F.
NA
Urban Tree
Wells-urban streetscape only-8 foot sidewalk
NA
Structural
soil must
be
Soil-if urban wells are used, a note or detail of structural
indicated on the landscape plan
N
y
Timing of
planting
indicated
on plans (subdivisions
only)
N
y
Written
description of the
method
for tracking plantings
;Stormwatee+telltties
(tame fl' okperaiiit)
N
y
1 deciduous
or evergreen tree/ 3000 square feet .
N
Y
4 large shrubs
(3 gal)
or small
trees / 3000 square feet
N
y
6 shrubs
or grasses (t gal) / 3000 square feet
N
Y
Ground
cover unless seed
or sod is specified .
N
Y
5o% of facility
planted
with grass or grass like plants
Conditions of Approval:
1. Lot 1 will be required 1 street tree. Please consider putting this
adjacent to Township as a good amount of canopy will be lost in this
area with improvements.
2. Please review the report and address all comments marked with the
letter N.
3. Before construction drawing approval, the landscape plan shall be
stamped by a licensed Landscape Architect within the state of
Arkansas.
4. Chapter 177 requires all street trees to be bonded for a 3 -year term.
This bond, letter of credit, or check would be required for signature of
the final plat.
•
•
a e eviile
ARKANSAS
PC Meeting of August 27, 2007
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 444-3470
To: City of Fayetteville Planning Commission
From: Sarah K. Patterson, Urban Forester
Date: August 21, 2007
ITEM #: R-PZD 07-2680: Residential Planned Zoning District (Arcadian
Court)
TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
i. A full Tree Preservation Plan will be required once this development comes
through the preliminary plat process.
2. Staff will assess the plans with a minimum canopy cover of at least 25%.
3. Significant trees, canopy within floodway or along riparian areas is found to
be a high priority for preservation.
LANSCAPE REGULATION
1. Landscape Regulations, as defined in Chapter 177, will be required with
development plan approval. This shall include but not be limited to street
trees, detention facility plantings, etc.
•
yettevtlle
ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 444-3469
TO: Jesse Fulcher, Associate Planner
FROM: Alison Jumper, Park Planner
DATE: August 14, 2007
SUBJECT: Parks & Recreation Subdivision Committee Review Comments
******************************************************************************
Meeting Date: August 16, 2007
Item- PPL 07-2679 (Township Heights, 291)
Park District: NE
Zoned: RSF-4
Billing Nanie & Address: Randy Davison & Kelly Martin
395 Polo Dr.
Fayetteville, AR 72703
Land Dedication Requirement Money in Lieu
Single Family @ .024 acre per unit = acres 21 @ $960 per unit = $20,160
Multi Family @ .017 acre per unit = acres @ $680 per unit = $
COMMENTS:
• This project was presented to PRAB on June 4th, 2007. A recommendation of accepting
money in lieu to satisfy the parkland requirement was made.
• Fees are due prior to signing final plat.
PPL07---1
412
ENGINEERING, INC.
July 17, 2007
City of Fayetteville
Planning Department
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
RE: TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION SCOPE, NATURE, & INTENT
Mr. Pate,
On behalf of our clients, Randy and Kelly Davidson, we are submitting Township Heights
Subdivision for approval by the Planning Commission. This project consists of approximately
5.57 acres of wooded property, on the north side of Township Street, approximately % mile west
of the intersection with Old Wire Road. We are proposing splitting the property into 21
residential lots and one lot containing a detention pond. A portion of this property lies within the
Hillside Hilltop Overlay District. All infrastructure necessary for development is available
adjacent to or very near the property. There is an 8" water line on the north side of Township
Street and an 8" sanitary sewer line on the south side of Township. It will be necessary to extend
storm drain off site, as no storm drain exists along Township in this location. There are no
known drainage problems in the vicinity of or related to this project. Fayetteville Parks and
Recreation Board voted to take money in lieu of land dedication at the PARB Meeting on June 4,
2007. With the addition of 21 single family residential lots, it is anticipated that an additional
210 vehicle trips per day will be generated.
Please contact me, if you have any questions or need further information regarding this project,
at 582-4234 or thennellyna,h2ei.net
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Hennelly, P.E.
President
•
2758 Millennium Drive Suite 1 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 Phone: 479.582.4234 Fax: 479.582.9254
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFICATION
OF UPCOMINGPUBLIC HEARING
Today's Date: August 8, 2007 Project Name: ; iTownsh Yletphtsa�
APPLICANT / REPRESENTATIVE CONTACT INFO:
H2 Engineering, Inc.
479-5824234
Subdivision Committee Meeting*:
Planning Commission Meeting*:
Thursday August 16, 2007 9:OOam
Fayetteville City Administration Building
113 W. Mountain Street, Room 219
Monday, •.August 27, 2007 5:30pm
Fayetteville City Administration Building
113 W. Mountain Street, Room 219
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 22 lot residential subdivision on 5.57 Acres north of Township
Street and Y4 milewest of Old Wire Road. Adjoining Property Address 'and Parcel Number(s):
PARCEL: 765-11538-000
CARMACK, WILLIAM & BRENDA -
2445 N COMMON DR
' FAYE11ENILLE'AR72703
Lot:..
Lot:
Block: Subdivision:
Block: Subdivision:
* Please call the City of Fayetteville- Planning Office at 575-8263 to verify this meeting's date and time.
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENTS
(Return Comments to City of Fayetteville Planning Division in Stamped Enclosed Envelope)
Project Name: Township Heights
I have been notified of the above meetings for the described project
I do not object to the project described above.
I do object to the project described above because:
1���`kgrn, b C& P $kc : T3R A CAam�lu
Name of Property Owner (printed) j gd
ignature of Property Owner
di,cack..
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFICATION
OF UPCOMING PUBLIC HEARING
Today's Date: August 8, 2007
Project Name: Township Heights
APPLICANT / REPRESENTATIVE CONTACT INFO:
H2 Engineering, Inc.
479-5824234
Subdivision Committee Meeting*:
Planning Commission Meeting*:
Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:OOam
Fayetteville City Administration Building
113 W. Mountain Street, Room 219
Monday, August 27, 2007 - 5:30pm
Fayetteville City Administration Building
113 W. Mountain Street, Room 219
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 22 lot residential subdivision on 5.57 Acres north of Township
Street and 1/4 mile west df Old Wire Road. Adjoining Property: Address and Parcel Number(s):
PARCEL: 765-11539-000'
HENRY, MORRIS M. & ANN R. TIES HENRY, MORRISS.M. & ANN R.
2465 N COMMON DR
FAYETTEVILLE,'AR'72703-3568'
Lot. Block: Subdivision:
Lot: Block: Subdivision:
* Please. call the City of Fayetteville- Planning:OJjcce at 575-8263 to verify this meeting's date and time.. -.
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENTS
(Return Comments to City of Fayetteville Planning Division in Stamped EnclosedEnvelope)
Project Name: Township Heights
I have been notified of the above meetings for the described project.
I do not object to the project described above.
x I do object to the project
l�. described above because: __ �� \\
o P-44 S s d IA) t't C,V PAY
Name of Property Owner (printed)
Signatuf Property Owner
�� Q'-�9 ` _!� rte^
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFICATION
OF UPCOMING PUBLIC HEA
Today's Date: August 8, 2007
�0
G
Project. Name: Township Heights
APPLICANT / REPRESENTATIVE CONTACT INFO:
112 Engineering, Inc.
479-582-4234
Subdivision Committee Meeting*:
Planning Commission Meeting*:
Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:OOam
Fayetteville City Administration Building
1.13 W. Mountain Street, Room 219
Monday, August 27, 2007 5:30pm
Fayetteville City Administration Building
113 W. Mountain Street, Room 219
-PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 22 lot residential subdivision on 5.57 Acres nortlfof Township
Street .and .%a mile west of Old Wire Road.
PARCEL: 765-11537-000
..KRODELL, F. D. &:CAROLYN B.
2425 N'COMMON DR
FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703-356
Lot: • Block:
Lot Block:
Adjoining -Property Address and Parcel Number(s):
Subdivision:
Subdivision:
* Please call the City of Fayetteville- Planning Office at 575-8263 to verify this meeting's date and time' ;
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENTS
(Return Comments to City of Fayetteville Planning Division in Stamped Enclosed Envelope)
Project Name:
trathtfrifflitia
I have been notified of the above meetings for the described project.
I do not object to the project described above.
n Ido object to the project described above because:
LYA1 1 RoDEU
petty.Owner (printed)
d c„tc t M cc
Sigg nature of perry Owner
•
111-0 1�
UL,- ` a "
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MINUTES
AUGUST 16, 2007
TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS PPL 07-2679
PPL 07-2679: (TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS, 291): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC.
for property located at 1140 TOWNSHIP STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4,
SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.57 acres. The
request is for 21 single family lots.
Jesse Futcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. He added that the Lots meet all
minimum. standards. Staff recommended that the request be forwarded to the Planning
Commission with 16 conditions. Staff recommended street improvements 14' from
centerline including pavement, curb and gutter, storm drainage and sidewalks along the
entire property frontage including the existing developed lot that is surrounding by the
proposed development. Should the property owner of the developed lot not agree to
allow a new sidewalk to be constructed at the Master Street Plan right-of-way on his
property, then money in -lieu shall be required for said section. The applicant has reached
an agreement with the adjacent property owner to the west to remove the existing curb -
cut for the two homes and construct one driveway which will connect to the proposed
street within a 30' access easement. The development is located within the Hill/Hilltop
Overlay District (HHOD) and is subject to all ordinance requirements including all lots
having to submit a grading and tree preservation plan at the time of development.
Commissioner Trumbo stated !a clarification — each individual lot is required to meet
tree preservation requirements.
Sarah Patterson, Urban Forester, stated that yes, each individual lot will have to meet
the 30% preservation requirement. The applicant, with development of the subdivision,
will not only be meeting the 30%, but will be well above, at 55%. She stated that she
wants to work with the applicant on trees along Township where street_improvements
will occur, as well, to attempt to save those trees.
Glen Newman, Staff Engineer, stated that another requirement of the HHOD is the
grading permit with each lot development.
Tom Hennelly, applicant, stated that he would like for the committee to consider an
assessment on Township rather than construction of improvements. He does not contend
therecommendation, but would just like it to be considered. He also stated he has no
problem with the recommended conditions.
Ann Henry, neighbor, stated she owns property on Common Drive, is speaking as a
representative for a crowd of nine other homeowners, and that she just got notice of this
development. She stated she is concerned with drainage from a totally wooded area. She
was blessed to have someone do a subdivision with large lots and have trees preserved.
The detention pond would be a mosquito breeding ground. She stated she was concerned
about access for fire trucks, school buses, etc. The person that would allow connection to
Elizabeth Street has said no. Henry asked if lots are to be sold separately. They would
like to postpone this to allow time to visit with the applicants, and they have lots of
questions. There is movement on the hillside. She added she respects H2 Engineering,
knows them from other projects, and knows they can possibly work things out
Elizabeth Bland, neighbor, lives across the street from the development, on the south
side of Township. Her concern is with traffic coming out, and wonders if the widening of
Township will affect their property.
Doug Grave, neighbor, lives at 1208 Township and has lived there since the 1970's,
when it was country. Grave stated they believe Township will be widened in the future.
Their concern is 22 houses with 50 cars. Ther is also an issue of the location of a property
line three feet into their property .His family has been there since the 1970's and they
hate to see removal of over 100 -year old trees for a detention pond. Another concern is
the detention pond. They live downstream and are concerned of an overflow of the
detention pond. Most houses in the area are on larger lots. Would like more time to
discuss these issues with the applicants.
Diane Warr, neighbor, stated she is part of the Common Drive coalition. Stated she
moved to Fayetteville from California 9 years ago. Her biggest concern is what we're
doing to the entire hillside in Fayetteville. She loves the nature, hills, and trees in the city.
It is what makes Fayetteville unique. Fayetteville has been receiving awards, such as
clean air awards. She doesn't want to see the hillside destroyed. See what Summit Place
has done to the mountain. Counterparts north of Fayetteville don't get quality of life
awards that Fayetteville gets. Up there is mass destruction, parking lots, paving, etc. They
don't get the benefit of quality of life in this City.
Commissioner Trumbo asked if the detention pond would be wet or dry.
Hennelly stated it was designed to be dry. The pond will have25% overage for storage,
and thety could incorporate an overflow on the south side of pond. However, he is
confident it won't breach. As for other drainage, for residents of Common Drive (west
side), there are 11 acres that currently drain onto them. Construction of this street will
divert 9 acres of drainage into the street and then into the detention pond and stone drain
system, thus only about 2 to 2 72 acres of drainage will be onto them after development.
Commissioner Trumbo asked if each lot will have a grading permit at the time of
.. development.
Hennelly stated that yes, just like we are doing with development.
Commissioner Trumbo asked about the widening of the street. Assessment versus
widening?
Newman stated that staff would prefer it to be built, not assessed, to contribute to
improvements along Township as development occurs.
Commissioner Trumbo asked about Ms. Bland's question about street widening.
Hennelly stated it would be widened on the north side only, so it shouldn't be on her
side.
Commissioner Winston asked about street width and a turn lane.
Newman stated there were no overall plans for Township, but widening will be 14' from
centerline.
Hennelly asked about limiting storm drain improvements on Township.
Newman stated it would need to be further evaluated before Engineering could make a
recommendation.
Commissioner Myres stated that there is more of a comfort level because the property is
within the HHOD. Each lot will have to maintain a minimum of 30% canopy, which
will require some creative design. The project has to go before the full Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Winston stated that the public needs time to review the project, and
recommended it be forwarded to the Planning Commission not for the next meeting, but
in four weeks.
Hennelly stated he would be willing to set up a meeting with the neighbors, but would
prefer to go forward to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Commissioner Myres stated she disagrees with Commissioner Winston. The time
between Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission should provide plenty of time
(a week and a half) for them to get together to discuss any issues. •
Motion:
Commissioner Myres made a motion to forward the request with the conditions of
approval as recommended by staff. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. The
motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 27, 2007
TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS PPL 07-2679
•
PPL 07-2679: Preliminary Plat (TOWNSHIP HEIGHTS, 291): Submitted by 1-12
ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 1140 TOWNSHIP STREET. The property
is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.57
acres The request is for 21 single family lots.
Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the existing property
and the project in detail, which consists of 21 lots on 5.57 acres north of Township Street.
The site is within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District (HHOD). Staff has heard
numerous public comments regarding issues including traffic, tree removal, drainage,
more houses in the area, lot size, the Summit Place development to the west, etc. Summit
Place Subdivision (to the west) was developed before the HHOD was adopted and the
requirements were implemented for protection of the hillside. With the development
proposed, each lot would be required to have a tree preservation plan and a grading
permit as they individually develop. Street stub -outs that are proposed will not connect
now, but provides opportunity for connecting in the future. The development meets the
minimum requirements for development and zoning in the RSF-4 zoning district,
including requirements of the HHOD. Staff recommends approval with conditions as
noted. These include a Planning Commission determination of street improvements,
which were described as 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter, storm drains and
sidewalks. Improvements were recommended to include those off-site along the lot
surrounded on three sides by the proposed development. With regard to the Planning
Commission determination of connectivity, staff recommended in favor of stub -outs to
the west and north, with a slight modification to move the north stub -out to the east.
Tom Hennelly (applicant) representing Randy and Kelly Davidson stated:the !density is
3:77 units per acre, and zoned RSF-4. His clients have no problems with the conditions of
.approval. Hennelly stated he agreed at the Subdivision Committee to meet .with :neighbors
to address concerns. They did meet and discussed density, runoff, and traffic: The project
initially had a layout with a cul-de-sac and no street stub -out. It was :requested by
planning to have a street stub -out, and they have done so. They are currently requesting
to stop construction of the street 10' before the property line, to provide some trees/buffer
for the property owner to the north The stub -out to the west allows for a turn -around for
fire and emergency vehicles. By doing so, it reduced. the amount of canopy necessary for
removal. As for drainage, currently there are 11 acres of run-off to the east onto Common
Drive. With construction of the proposed street, roughly 8 acres will be collected in the
street, go to a detention pond with a controlled release, and routed around homes into
storm drains. This will reduce that runoff from going to the east on Common Drive. He
stated he doesn't think density is an issue, as the project meets those minimums. Traffic
would yield 42 more vehicle trips at peak hours and should not affect Township greatly.
As requested by Engineering, they also checked sight distance along Township, and it is
more than sufficient.
Ann Henry (citizen) stated she represents most of the residents on Common Drive. She
stated she was surprised that Common Dr. is zoned RSF-4. Their development on
Common Drive is a good example of how a development can be done on a hillside. She is
concerned about RSF-4 in this area, that it is not appropriate for this area on the hillside.
Street stub -outs that are requested don't seem to make sense. One goes to a private street,
or to an area platted many years ago, that will not be connected. She is affected most by
drainage from the property. Summit Place, to the west, is a good example of a bad way to
do it. Development here will denude the site. There is a lot of wildlife in the area. Where
will it go? Does the city have the manpower to monitor hillside development, or is it up
to the neighbors? Generally it is up to the neighbors to get it enforced. Another issue is
compatibility of homes in their area. There is no variety in the homes. Narrow setbacks,
affordable housing is proposed. Henry discussed the availability of housing in the market
in the City. As a Planning Commission, you have the responsibility of attracting people
here. If development only meets the minimums, why is there a Planning Commission? At
King's Drive, where Mr. Graves lives, how much is the City going to spend on that fix?
And on Mission with Lake Lucille. Park Place has had a lake recently filled in as well.
Doug Graue (citizen) stated that he lives on Township, and is surrounded on three sides
by the development. Graue discussed the history of his parents living at the house for
many decades, when Township had very little traffic. He discussed the 50 homes at
Summit Place, with 500 vehicles per day; 21 homes would add 210 more trips per day on
Township. He requested a moratorium on future development that accesses Township.
Do we need houses? Graue began discussing the housing market, economy, trends in
housing...
Commissioner Trumbo reminded the public that the Planning Commission can't
consider economic issues for a development.
Graue acknowledged Trumbo's statement. He read from chapter6.6 under:Land Use in
City Plan 2025 regarding removal of vegetation, runoff, and soil types. Since the land
was rezoned to RSF-4, which happened in the 1970s, the City must have notified through
the paper, because his family didn't know. The Commission should carefully evaluate
these projects. Graue described the Summit Place development, which should be a wake-
up call. The City should not rezone anything to RSF-4 in the HHOD. The density is
actually not 4 units/acre at 0.19 acres per lot, with a detention pond. He referred to
graphic, and stated the developers were trying to shoe-hom 21 houses into 5 acres on the
site. He referred to the tree preservation plan, trees going away and those preserved. The
detention pond will remove trees, but engineering requires it. Engineering rrequires it..
Engineering doesn't live under the detention pond. All the trees will be gone there. Graue
discussed tree preservation requirements, and fencing. Five of the lots have trees in the
center of the lot, and you can't build a house and meet tree preservation requirements.
Drainage east of the street will be intercepted. The detention pond may fail. He discussed
soil suitability. What will a big pond facing Township look like? There is a surplus of
houses in the area, drainage issues, detention pond, Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District and
RSF-4 are mutually exclusive, and loss of trees, etc. are the issues. He requests the item
be tabled to address these issues. He requested that 21 lots not be allowed, 5-8 be
approved. Graue also asked that the storm drain along Township collect all drainage.
John Weiss (citizen) referred to the drawing, lots west of the development have not
given permission for anyone to have street through their yard.
Commissioner Trumbo explained that street is not currently proposed to be constructed,
only stubbed out in case they sell their property or choose to extend the street at some
point in the future.
Weiss stated that he just didn't want the property condemned, that he wanted to clarify
that.
Robert Ginnavin (citizen) stated that if Fayetteville seeks to have connectivity, is it
practical this will occur? Is there a likelihood the streets will go through? If you want
them to go through, it will require condemnation and draw political fire. He referred to
the map, where will stub -outs even go? :If the street is a dead-end street, like on
Sherwood, as it is drawn, is it safe for emergency vehicles? Can fire trucks turn around?
Jack Claiborn (citizen) asked about the houses — will there be garages, driveways off the
street? He indicated he was disappointed with the development. It is the same density
from Jimmie east to Crossover. It is likely trees and undergrowth will get removed, and
they will have runoff.
Anna Mullis (citizen) lives on Common Drive. She stated that water drains downhill and
doesn't know how the drainage they propose is going to work. With an additional 50 cars
along with Summit Place, why are we adding more traffic to our east -west connection?
Bob O'Connell (citizen) lives on Sherwood Lane, and questioned the stub -out on the
west. If ever developed, will it ever? come over to Sherwood Lane? Their covenants and
developments say that if Sherwood ever connects two public streets, it must be brought
up to current public street standards at the expense of the property owners. He discussed
the tree preservation plan; existing tree canopy is 93%. 55% is preserved with
infrastructure. Putting in a house, :driveway, sewer lines, etc. on an 8,100 square foot lot
doesn't seem to be feasible for homes. Is it in the purview for the Planning Commission
to look at people's property values?
Bill Bishop (citizen) lives at 1016 E Township. The developer would have to take part of
his driveway for the street to come. through. Township has become.:,a main artery, though
it wasn't intended to. Traffic is backed up to Sherwood, 10 cars past. They need to visit
Township, see the real world.
Rick Osburn (citizen) represents,Caywood, LLC, own east, north, and west side. It is
their intention not to allow a street in any case on this property.
4
Dr. Morris Henry (citizen) stated there is a steep slope on this property. They don't have
drainage problems right now, but will have if this development cuts all the trees on the
property. There are families here, and children won't have a place to play except in the
street. Drainage will do damage to their property. The Planning Commission is
responsible to make a better place to live. Consider putting this off until more careful
consideration is given.