MINUTES
WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
March 1, 2007
5:00
p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse
Fayetteville, Arkansas
DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN:
LAND DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS
County
a. Replat Lot 2, Block 3, Pullens War Eagle Bay Subdivision
Variance & Preliminary and Final Plat Approval
Farmington Planning Area
b. Bethel Oaks
Tabled
Springdale Planning Area
c.
Williamstowne Estates
Final Plat Approval
Elkins Planning Area
d.
Elkins Peaking Generation Project LSD
Final LSD Plan Approval
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS
Farmington
Planning Area
e.
Davis Tract Split
Conditional Use Permit Approval
Fayetteville Planning Area
f. Piper’s
Glen Subdivision Lot 9
Conditional Use Permit
Approval
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS TO BE TABLED
Fayetteville Planning Area
g.
Old Wire Road Subdivision
Tabled
Fayetteville Planning Area
h. Newcastle Estates LSD
Tabled
Fayetteville Planning Area
i.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
Tabled
LAND DEVELOPMENTS TO BE TABLED
Fayetteville Planning Area
j.
Old Wire Road Subdivision
Tabled
Fayetteville
Planning Area
k. Newcastle Estates LSD
Tabled
Fayetteville Planning Area
l.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
Tabled
1. ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken.
Members present include: Robert Daugherty, Billy Smith, Kenley Haley,
Randy Laney, Larry Walker, and Cheryl West.
Absent: Gary Head.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the February 6, 2007 meeting)
Larry Walker made a motion to approve as written. Billy Smith provided the
second. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of granting approval of the February 6, 2007 minutes.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Juliet Richey, Washington
County Planning Director, stated, “The only change on the agenda is that
item b. Bethel Oaks Final Plat request will be tabled.” Larry Walker made a motion to approve the revised agenda and
to table the following land developments: items b. Bethel Oaks, j. Old Wire
Road Subdivision, k. Newcastle Estates LSD, and l. Wheeler Road Cottages LSD.
Also table the following Conditional Use Permits: items g. Old Wire
Road Subdivision, h. Newcastle Estates LSD, and i. Wheeler Road Cottages LSD.
Cheryl West seconded. Motion
passes.
4. NEW BUSINESS
LAND DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS
County
a. Replat Lot 2, Block 3, Pullens War Eagle Bay Subdivision
Location:
Section 18, Township 18 North, Range 28 West
Owner/Developer:
Donald Ginger
Engineer/Surveyor:
Jenkins Surveying, Inc.
Location
Address: 23655 and 23641 War Eagle Blacktop Road (WC #95)
1.57 acres and 3 lots
REQUEST: Variance & Preliminary and Final Plat Approval for Replat Lot
2 Block 3 Pullens War Eagle Bay Subdivision. The property is 1.57 acres split into 3 lots: Lot 2A - .63
acres, Lot 2B - .35 acres, and Lot 2C - .59 acres.
BACKGROUND: The
property is currently owned by Donald Ginger Rev. Trust.
ZONING: The property is currently not zoned.
PLANNING AREA: The development is located solely in the County.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT #:
District
13, JP Joe Patterson (R)
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water - The lot is served by Springdale Water.
Sewer- Individual Septic Systems (septic permits are approved
by Arkansas Department of Health)
Other Utilities - The property is in the service area of
Ozark Electric Cooperative Corporation, AT & T Telephone (South Western
Bell), Arkansas Western Gas, and Cox Communications.
The property has access off of WC #95 (War Eagle Blacktop
Road); the lots are located at 23655 War Eagle Blacktop Road and 23641 War
Eagle Blacktop Road.
STAFF REPORT:
Variance Approval Request:
Applicant’s Request: To allow existing carport to encroach
into setback. The carport, located in front of the residence, is within the
25’ building setback.
Staff’s Response: The carport breaches the 25’ setback by
20’. However, as this structure currently exists and when the original
subdivision was platted, no setbacks were required. Staff will recommend
approval of this variance.
Preliminary and Final Plat Approval Request:
This project comes to the Planning Board because all
of the proposed lots are less than one acre (Does not qualify for
administrative approval). It does not require a Conditional Use Permit, as it
is not in a zoned area of the County. All of the lots have septic system
approval.
The
Road Department has a few remaining comments and concerns. The portion of Lot
2B that is touching War Eagle Blacktop Road needs to be dimensioned on the
plat to ensure that there is enough room for the drive.
They also want the drive for lot 2B to be drawn on the plat to scale
and dimensioned. A note stating “Lot 2B must take access from War Eagle
Blacktop Road unless improvements are made to White River Road,” must be
added to the plat. Plans submitted to the Planning
Office on 2-27-07 reflect these changes.
Other than the Road Department comments, only minor checklist
comments remain.
RECOMMENDATION:
Variance & Preliminary and Final Plat Approval of the proposed Replat
Lot 2 Block 3 Pullens War Eagle Bay Subdivision with the following conditions:
1.
Address numbers must be on the plat for all lots (including 2B).
Call Daryl Pemberton at 444-1721 to obtain this address.
2.
Any further splitting or land development not considered with this
approval must come before the Planning Board.
3.
Have all signature blocks signed on 11 Final Plats - 2 for filing in
the Circuit Clerk’s office, 7 for the County Planning office, remainder for
the developer.
Donald Ginger, owner of
the proposed project, and Bill Jenkins, Jenkins Surveying, Inc., were present
to answer any questions.
Richey stated, “The
property is located in the northeast part of Washington County and has access
off of WC #95 (War Eagle Blacktop Road).
There are currently two lots that are located at 23655 War Eagle
Blacktop Road and 23641 War Eagle Blacktop Road. The property is 1.57 acres proposed to be split into 3 lots:
Lot 2A-.63 acres; Lot 2B-.35 acres, and Lot 2C-.59 acres. The third lot will be located in between the two existing
lots. White River Road was
platted, but never was built. Because
of that we ask that they take access off of War Eagle Blacktop, it is a
dedicated right-of-way. They are
requesting a variance request because part of the carport of the existing
residence is within the 25’ building setback, it is an older home, it was
not done in bad faith. The Board
will need to approve the variance to allow the carport within the setback and
Staff does recommend approval for the subdivision with conditions.”
Michael Sierzchula,
property owner to the west at 23625 War Eagle Blacktop Road, asked,
“Most of the people that live in that area are living on lots or ground in
excess of an acre. They are
cutting out a corner. Everybody
out there is on a septic system. Most people don’t take care of their septic system, how big
is the house going to be, what is the longevity of the septic system, and
where is the alternate septic system?”
Richey replied, “The
septic permits have been approved by Arkansas Department of Health.
It is not required to be shown on the plat.”
Laney commented, “I
understand that to get a permit you have to have a back up site.”
Richey stated, “They will not approve it without an alternate.”
John Hawkins, property
owner to the northwest at 23624 War Eagle Blacktop, asked, “Most of the
houses there are pretty nice homes. I’m
concerned that the lot is so small that they cannot put a decent sized house
on it. I have a 5,000 square foot
home with two acres. What are
they going to put there? Gerene
Hawkins owns property within 100 yards of the proposed split and I am adjacent
to her.”
Bill Jenkins replied,
“Donald Ginger is building a house and he is proposing a two story frame
house, I am not sure of the dimensions. The
septic system will come between the house and the right-of-way on the east
side of the house.”
Sierzchula asked,
“Where is the alternate septic system going to be located?” Jenkins
replied, “There is room in front of the house; between the house and the
right-of-way for the septic system and alternate area.
The water line is on the road and it will come from the west side of
the lot to the house.”
Walker asked, “How does it not justify being a
Conditional Use Permit?” Richey
replied, “It is not in a zoned area. The
zoning map shows that it does not extend to the other side of Beaver Lake.
The County’s minimum lot size outside of the zoned area is 10,000
square feet. These three lots are 10,000 square feet.”
Robert Daugherty moved to
approve Replat
Lot 2, Block 3, Pullens War Eagle Bay Subdivision variance request based on the
carport breaches the 25’ setback by 20’. Larry
Walker seconded.
Motion passes.
Robert Daugherty moved to
approve Replat
Lot 2, Block 3, Pullens War Eagle Bay Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat
Approval Request Plat with conditions.
Larry Walker seconded. Motion
passes.
All Board members were in
favor of granting Replat
Lot 2, Block 3, Pullens War Eagle Bay Subdivision Variance
& Preliminary and Final Plat approval.
Farmington Planning Area
b. Bethel Oaks
Location: Section 28, Township 16 North, Range 31
West
Owner/Developer: Canopy Meadows, LLC / Bethel Sewer,
LLC
Engineer/Surveyor: Morrison-Shipley Engineers, Inc.
Location Address: Between (WC #62) Bethel Blacktop Road and (WC #627) Jimmy DeVault Road
29.65
acres and 68 lots
Richey
stated that Bethel Oaks Final Plat was
tabled at the
applicant’s request
Larry Walker moved to table Bethel Oaks Final Plat.
Cheryl West seconded. Motion
passes.
Springdale Planning Area
c. Williamstowne Estates
Location:
Section 36, Township 18 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer:
Ty Williams
Engineer/Surveyor:
Bates & Associates, Inc.
Location
Address: Between (WC #399) Perry Road and (WC #3520) Res. Dr. Gardenia
26.47 acres and 10 lots
REQUEST:
Final Plat Approval for Williamstowne Estates.
The proposed subdivision consists of 10 lots on 26.47 acres.
Lots 1-9 range in size from .99 acres to 3.71 acres. Lot 10 is much
larger at 8.53 acres.
BACKGROUND:
The property is owned
by Williamstowne Homes, Inc. Ty
Williams is representing the project.
PLANNING
AREA: The development is located in the Springdale Planning Area.
Springdale approved the Preliminary Plat on March 1, 2005 as Perry Road
Subdivision and Springdale gave Final Plat approval on February 6, 2007.
The Washington County Planning Board granted Preliminary approval on
April 7, 2005.
Splits
previously completed on this parent parcel: Parcel #001-18696-000 has
three previous splits.
ZONING: This
project had Preliminary Plat Approval before the zoning ordinance was adopted;
therefore the project is not subject to the zoning regulations.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT #:
District 13, JP Joe Patterson (R)
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water - The project will be served by Springdale water.
Other Utilities - The project is in the service area of Ozark
Electric Power Company, Arkansas Western Gas, Cox Communications, and AT &
T (Southwestern Bell Telephone).
Sewer- Individual Septic Systems
Streets - The proposed project is located between Perry Road
(WC #399) and Res. Dr. Gardenia (WC #3520). Perry Road is chip and seal.
Gardenia is an unimproved road. There
is no access onto Lots 7-9 from WC #3520.
Lot 10 has an extremely steep terrain.
STAFF REPORT:
This
project is requesting Final Subdivision Approval. This project was tabled at
last month’s meeting because the final road inspection had not been
completed. This was resolved. The Road Department has completed the
inspection, received the required maintenance bond, and has received an
updated copy of the As-Built Drawings.
At tech review, some drainage issues remained. The developer was required
to add two drainage easements and direct the flow of water through those
easements. They have now addressed all comments that were given to them at
Tech Review.
The project has Health Department Approval and has submitted all required
bonds to the Road Department.
Staff will recommend for the approval of this project.
RECOMMENDATION: Final approval of
Williamstowne Estates with the following conditions:
1.
Must pay $50.00 engineer fee prior to the Planning Department signing
the Final Plat.
2.
Must have signs (stop sign, speed limit sign, etc…) in place before
the Road Department will sign off on the Final Plat.
3.
Any further splitting or land development not considered with this
approval must come before the Planning Board.
4.
Have all signature blocks signed on 11 Final Plats - 2 for filing in
the Circuit Clerk’s office, 7 for the County Planning office, remainder for
the developer.
Ty Williams, owner of the proposed project, and
Geoffrey Bates, Bates & Associates, Inc., were present to answer any
questions.
Richey stated, “The
property is located east of the City of Springdale north of Highway 412.
The proposed project is located between Perry Road (WC #399) and Res.
Dr. Gardenia (WC #3520). The
proposed subdivision consists of 10 lots on 26.47 acres.
Lots 1 – 9 range in size from .99 acres to 3.71 acres.
Lot 10 is much larger in size at 8.53 acres; I think the owner is going
to retain Lot 10. We did have
them do some last minute changes on some ditches; this is an open ditch
subdivision. They had some
ditches that were draining across some of the proposed lots and moved those to
the lot line so that the drainage will not be going across the proposed lots. They did get that completed.
They have completed everything and they have all of the required items
to the Road Department. They are
working on getting their road signs and stop signs up, those need to be in
place before the Road Department will sign off on the Final Plat.”
Bates commented,
“They did get the street signs in today and the $50.00 engineer fee was paid
today to the County.”
Smith asked, “Has the
soil been tested?” Richey
replied, “Yes it has. The
Health Department has the perc rates; they are on the plat because the Health
Department person has to take them off of the plat.
They have all of their perc and they will support septic systems.”
Larry Walker moved to
approve Williamstowne Estates Final Plat with conditions. Robert Daugherty
seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of granting Williamstowne Estates Final Plat approval.
Elkins Planning Area
d.
Elkins Peaking Generation Project LSD
Location:
Section 13 & 18, Township 15 North, Range 29 & 28, West
Owner/Developer:
Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
Engineer/Surveyor: McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Location
Address: At the corner of S. Hwy. 16 and (WC #49) Springston Ford
15.73 acres
REQUEST: Final LSD Plan Approval for Elkins Peaking Generation Project LSD.
The property is 15.73 acres.
BACKGROUND: The property is currently owned by Arkansas Electric
Cooperative Corporation.
Splits previously completed on this
parent parcel:
Parcel #001-06273-000 has three previous splits, one is for Mt. Olive Water.
ZONING: The property is currently not zoned.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT #:
District 9,
JP Butch Pond (R)
PLANNING AREA: The development is located in Elkins’ Planning Area.
The City of Elkins does not review Large Scale Developments.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water - The lot is served by the Mt. Olive Water Association.
Other Utilities - The lot is in the service area of Ozark
Electric Cooperative Corporation, Windstream Communications (Alltel), and
Arkansas Western Gas.
Sewer- This project will use a sewage holding tank.
The property has access off of AR 16 and WC 49 (Springston
Ford).
STAFF REPORT:
This project comes before the Board for Final Large Scale
Development Approval. This is a Peaking Generation Plant that will only
operate during the summer to avoid power blackouts in Northwest Arkansas. The
noise level is rated 85 decibels at one meter. According to the developers,
this is less noise than Highway 16 creates. The developer’s goal is to have
this plant up and running by June of 2007.
This project received Preliminary Approval from the county January 4,
2007.
Several issues listed on the Preliminary Plat Approval that
needed to be resolved prior to Final Plat have been completed. A
sewage-holding tank has been approved by the Health Department for the site.
The Elkins’ Fire Department’s comments have been added as notes to the
plans and all hydrants have been labeled. Screening has been provided in the
form of an earthen berm and plantings. Road Department and drainage issues
have also progressed.
An agreement between the Washington County Road Department
and AECC has been made regarding WC 49 improvements. AECC has agreed to pave
WC 49 (on both sides of the road) from the intersection of Highway 16 to just
past the entrance into the Peaking Plant facility. They will be bringing in
additional gravel to place on the road from the end of the pavement area to
their property line. The Road Department has received a set of plans showing
all of these improvements.
A
bond for the roadwork must be in place before the Road Department will
recommend Final Plat Approval. At this time, the bond has not been received
yet. A copy of the Letter of Credit
(acceptable) was received on 2-23-07.
One
of the Preliminary LSD requirements by the Planning Staff was that AECC
discuss and come to an agreement with Mt. Olive Water Association on water
issues. The applicant has informed staff that a meeting did occur and is in
the process of providing this office with a copy of the contract created. This
information needs to be submitted before staff can recommend for Final
Approval. This
contract has been received, and provides the following:
1.MOWA providing a fixed quantity of water to AECC for the period of May 1
through October 31.
2.MOWA constructing, and AECC paying the estimated cost for, a 4-inch water
main between MOWA tanks and the Springston Ford Pump Station.
3.To provide service to one fire hydrant within the Generation Facility. (A
fire hydrant on Springston Ford Road will also be installed).
4.The Contract has an initial term of eight (8) years.
Fireflows
must also be submitted before staff will recommend for Final Approval. The
applicant has indicated that they are in the process of getting the numbers. .-Fireflows of 450-500 gpm
have been submitted. Mr. Jenkins approved stating “The gpm for this project
is acceptable, with the addition of tanker support the expected fireflow would
be around 750 gpm.”
The Road Department discovered a
misunderstanding with the applicant. An old farm fence currently on the
property lies within the Right of Way that will be dedicated. The applicant
wanted to leave the fence, but the Road Department does not allow anything to
be within a Right of Way that the County must maintain. It also appeared to
the Road Department that some of the existing electrical poles, and some of
the new support wires may lie within the Right of Way.
The applicant has agreed to move the fence from the Right of Way
and has agreed not to place the support wires in the Right of Way. The exact
location of the electrical poles will be determined, and the Road Department
Superintendent will decide if any or how much encroachment will be allowed.
The Planning Department asked for a letter stating the
applicant’s intent to remove the fence and, if required by the Road
Superintendent, relocate the existing electrical poles. This letter was
received on 3-01-07.
Staff feels that the applicant will have met all of the major
requirements by the time of the Planning Board Meeting. If the above-mentioned
issues are resolved, staff will recommend for Final Approval. However, without
these, Staff will recommend tabling this project until these major issues are
resolved.
RECOMMENDATION: if all above
requirements are met by the time of the Planning Board Meeting:
Final LSD Plan Approval of the
proposed Elkins
Peaking Generation Project LSD with the following conditions:
1.
Show the remote (located outside of the fenced area?) gas
shutoff on the plans.
2.
Add this note to the plans: Any further splitting or land development
not considered with this approval must come before the Planning Board.
3.
Owe $50.00 in engineer fees. To be paid before Planning Department will
sign Final plat.
4.
Have all signature blocks signed on 11 Final Plats - 2 for
filing in the Circuit Clerk’s office, 7 for the County Planning office,
remainder for the developer.
Jonathan Oliver, Forest Kessinger,
Curtis Warner, Steve Williams, and Robert Shields (Arkansas Electric
Cooperative Corporation) owner of the proposed project, and Mike Morgan,
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc., were present to answer any questions.
Richey stated, “The
property is located at the corner of Highway 16 and WC #49 (Springston Ford)
east of the City of Elkins. The
property is 15.73 acres. Some of
the Board members were not on the Board at the time of the Preliminary meeting
on January 4, 2007. I’m going
to give a brief synopsis: this is a Peaking Generation Plant for Arkansas
Electric Cooperative, they are developing it and it will supplement Ozark
Electric power. It will only
operate during the summertime to avoid power blackouts in Northwest Arkansas.
They are natural gas powered generators.
Basically, once you’re within a house length of anybody around the
noise level will be at a normal conversation level.
Several issues that came up at Preliminary approval that needed to be
resolved prior to Final approval have been completed.
They are going to have a sewage holding tank onsite; they’re not
going to have a lot of people there. The
site is not condusive to traditional septic.
The sewage holding tank has been approved by the Health Department for
the site, it will hold the sewage and will be pumped periodically. Elkins Fire Department had several comments and those have
been addressed and added as notes to the plan.
They will be adding an additional hydrant on Springston Ford Road as
well as within the development, which will be an asset to the community that
live on Springston Ford. There
were concerns about screening from Highway 16 they have proposed to build an
earthen berm which is basically a small hill in front of it and they will
plant some trees and shrubs along there to help screen that from view.”
Laney asked about the
ridgeline elevation 1,245.25 on the plan.
Richey replied, “I think it is three feet high, it is not going to
totally screen it, but it will make a difference, that is something that the
Board asked for at Preliminary. The
agreement between the Washington County Road Department and AECC has been made
regarding WC #49. They are going
to pave WC #49 on both sides of the road from the intersection of Highway 16
to just past the entrance into the Peaking Plant facility. They will be bringing in additional gravel to place on the
road from the end of the pavement area to their property line.
They will be cleaning out the ditches and dedicating right-of-way for
the remainder of the property. The
Road Department has received a set of plans showing all of the improvements
and they have agreed to it and also a bond is in place for the roadwork.
Also we received their contract with the Mt. Olive Water Association
they will be providing water and also the fire flows have been submitted.
They are going to be removing an old farm fence that currently lies on
the property within the right-of-way that they’re dedicating.
That will be cleaned up and the County will be able to maintain the
dedicated right-of-way.”
Walker asked about
water run-off. Richey replied,
“They submitted a final drainage report and they do have their detention
pond area in place. The County
Engineer wanted them to define their outlet structure and they have all of
that completed and he is satisfied with that.”
Kessinger, represents
Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation as manager of rates and forecasting,
commented, “We did receive
Preliminary approval on January 4, 2007.
We do believe we have met all of the conditions.
As far as a public hearing there is the venue for a CECPN
(Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need) engine
for the Arkansas Public Service Commission.
The
hearing is scheduled for March 21, 2007.”
Robert Daugherty moved to
approve Elkins Peaking Generation Project LSD Final LSD Plan with conditions.
Cheryl West seconded. Motion
passes.
All Board members were in
favor of granting Elkins Peaking Generation Project LSD Final LSD Plan
approval.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS
Farmington Planning Area
e.
Davis Tract Split (Conditional Use Permit Request)
Location:
Section 28, Township 16 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Wesley Davis
Engineer/Surveyor: Blew & Associates
Location
Address: 12774 Bethel Blacktop Road (WC #62) and (WC #1124) Leam Blvd.
.89 acres and 2 lots
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Approval for Davis Tract Split CUP to
allow the creation of two lots- less than one acre in size.
The property is 0.89 acres proposed to be split into 2
tracts: Tract A - .40 acres and Tract B - .49 acres, for single-family
residential use.
BACKGROUND: The
property is currently owned by Wesley Davis.
Splits previously completed on this parent parcel: There are no previous splits.
ZONING: SF Residential 1 unit per acre/ Agricultural
PLANNING AREA: The development is located in City of Farmington’s
Planning Area. City of Farmington
has no issue with the Cup at this time. The
City currently has no future Land Use plan in place. The City has already approved this split as shown.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT #:
District 11, JP Mary Ann Spears (R).
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water - The lot is currently served by Washington Water Authority (WWA).
WWA has a waterline on Bethel Blacktop (WC 62), which provides water
availability to proposed Tract B, as well.
WWA would require a minimum of 10’ of frontage for Tract B
onto Bethel Blacktop to place a meter. As
Tract B has adequate frontage along Leam Blvd (there is no waterline on Leam
Blvd.), therefore, the addition of a small amount of frontage (proposed where
10’ utility easement is shown on survey, pg. E6) along Bethel
Blacktop for Tract B poses no issues for Planning Staff, as long as City of
Farmington will sign off on this change as well (staff has discussed this
change with City of Farmington, and they have no problem with the lot line
change).
Sewer- Both lots will be served by individual septic tanks.
The applicant has stated that perk tests have been performed, and soils
are adequate for a home to be built on proposed Tract B, as well as the
ability to keep the functioning system on Tract A.
Other Utilities - The property is in the service area of Ozark Electric Cooperative Corporation, Prairie Grove Telephone, Arkansas Western Gas, and Cox Communications. No issues with these utilities are known.
Roads- The property is located between WC #62 (Bethel Blacktop) and WC #1124 (Leam
Blvd.) at 12774 Bethel Blacktop Road. Tract
A (existing home) will access from Bethel Blacktop, Tract B will access from
Leam Blvd.
STAFF REPORT:
Your plan for this project is included with your stapled
packet, page E6.
The applicant has provided a request letter stating
that he would like to split the property into smaller lots (see page
E-10).
See CUP spreadsheet for more detailed information on
this request (pgs. E3- E6).
There have been no responses from surrounding property owners who were notified of this hearing.
Adjacent Uses (see page E-7):
SF residential. Existing subdivision to the North on
Leam Blvd- lots are roughly 0.88 acres in size.
Bethel oaks subdivision approx 325' to the West on Bethel blacktop
(residential density of 1 unit per 0.33 acres). Larger lots on the south side of Bethel Blacktop ranging from
1.5 - 3.3 acres in size. Lots
directly to the east are 0.36 and 0.33 acres in size.
They are split into the same fashion the applicant is proposing.
Surrounding uses- general proximity/ neighborhood (see
page E-7):
Mostly SF residential.
325' from proposed Bethel Oaks Subdivision. Approximately 3/4 mile from Farmington City limits and 3/10
of a mile from Prairie Grove City limits.
There are several larger undeveloped lots within the vicinity ranging
from 12-20 acres in size. The
property is approximately 1/2 mile from HWY 62 where there is a mixture of
commercial and residential properties.
In staff's view, the establishment of the conditional
use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the
surrounding area for uses permitted in the zone, as there are other dense
single family uses within the area, and is in line with other adjacent
densities and uses. Although
there are lager lots and agricultural uses in the area, they are intermixed
with smaller residential lots as well; therefore, the addition of two lots
should not pose a large impact.
Although this development is not particularly rural or
agricultural in nature- which our plan generally focuses on- it is consistent
with the mixed use of the area, which includes some agricultural and
traditional rural residential. Staff
does not feel that the site and the northern side of bethel blacktop has
significant agricultural and rural residential character current time, due to
the already existing subdivision adjacent to the site, proposed subdivisions,
and a miscellany or smaller lot sizes already in existence.
Thus, staff feels that recommending against this CUP would not achieve
a preservation of agricultural or rural residential land, and would not
correspond to the existing densities in the area.
A copy of the plan for the proposed Bethel Oaks
Subdivision is included in your packet on page E-13.
Staff has no issues with utilities or infrastructure
serving this site, and barring any comment from surrounding property owners-
staff recommends approval of this CUP with the below listed conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Conditional Use Permit Approval of the proposed Davis Tract Split CUP with
the following conditions:
1.
Any further splitting or land development not considered with this
approval must come before the Planning Board.
2.
Single Family Residential Use only on Tracts A and B.
3.
Revised split should be
approved via Farmington prior to being approved administratively through the
Washington County Planning Office.
Buckley Blew, Blew & Associates, Inc., was present
to answer any questions.
Richey stated, “The
property is located between WC #62 (Bethel Blacktop) and WC #1124 (Leam
Boulevard) at 12774 Bethel Blacktop Road.
The property is 0.89 acres proposed to be split into two tracts: Tract
A-.40 acres and Tract B-.49 acres, for single-family residential use.
The property is located in the zoned area between the Cities of
Farmington and Prairie Grove. The proposed project is very close in proximity to Bethel
Oaks, which was tabled earlier on the agenda.
Tract A has an existing home that faces Bethel Blacktop Road with a
rather large backyard area. Directly
east to the house that is proposed is a setup almost exactly like what they
want to do. Both of the tracts
have had perc tests. There is an
existing system and alternate area on Tract A and Tract B is suitable for a
standard septic system.”
Richey added,
“Washington Water Authority somewhat recently stated a policy where they
will not give you water unless you have a minimum of 10’ frontage on the
road with a waterline, unless you do a waterline extension.
There is a waterline existing on Bethel Blacktop and there is one on
Leam Boulevard, but not on this portion.
Washington Water Authority will kind of reconfigure this lot where it
has basically a tail that extends down to Bethel Blacktop on the east side of
Tract A so that it has a meter for water; the applicant has no problem with
it. Since it is in the City of
Farmington’s Planning Area they will need to approve this lot split after we
grant it zoning approval, if we do, they don’t have any issues with it and
we don’t have a problem with it, just to let you know that there will be a
slight configuration change.”
Laney asked about
utility easement. Richey replied,
“Right now it is shown as a utility easement, they want to change that to an
actual piece that’s actually a deeded portion of the tract.
To give him a meter Washington Water Authority is asking him to do
that, that’s their policy. This
is in an area where there are larger tracts in the vicinity.
Staff is recommending for this Conditional Use Permit, which the
primary reason being that the main impact that it is going to have is on the
interior of the nearby subdivision (Golden Acres), even though it will be a
little smaller than some of the lots; Lot 18 is .88 acres and Lot 13 is .85
acres. It does not significantly
change the look of this subdivision.”
Richey added, “The
proposed Bethel Oaks subdivision is going in a few houses down that is going
to have a density of one unit per .33 acres, which is even smaller than what
they are asking for. Generally,
Staff feels that it is not going to be a big impact; it is going to fit in
with what is already there even though it is slightly smaller in size. It is not adjacent to larger lots across Bethel Blacktop
(which is what we consider a more rural section of Washington County) and will
have no visual impact. Some lots
are larger on Leam Boulevard; it is a more urban setting than what is across
Bethel Blacktop. There is no
Future Land Use Plan for this area because neither Farmington nor Prairie
Grove has a Future Land Use Plan at this time.
When they don’t have it, we indicate: residential somewhat compatible
with the surrounding area.”
Walker commented, “I
don’t think that it is fair to the applicant to give up land for the back
lot, Washington Water Authority has an 8” line.
The other development is paid for.
I don’t think it is fair.”
Larry Walker moved to
approve Davis Tract Split Conditional Use Permit with conditions. Robert
Daugherty seconded. Motion
passes.
All Board
members were in favor of granting the Davis Tract Split Conditional Use
Permit approval.
Fayetteville Planning Area
f. Piper’s
Glen Subdivision Lot 9 (Conditional Use
Permit Request)
Location: Section 6, Township 16 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer: David Wilson (Port Elgin, Inc.)
Engineer/Surveyor: Jorgensen &
Associates
Location
Address: 1809 N. Fox Hunter Road (WC #75)
2.07 acres and 2 lots
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Approval for Piper’s Glen Subdivision
Lot 9 CUP, to allow the creation of one single family lot, less than one acre
in size.
The property is 2.07 acres split into 2 lots; Lot 9A is
proposed to be 0.63 acres and Lot 9B is proposed to be 1.44 acres.
BACKGROUND: The
property is currently owned by Port Elgin, Inc. (David Wilson). The property directly south of proposed 9B is also owned by
Port Elgin (David Wilson).
ZONING: SF
1 unit per acre/ Agricultural
PLANNING AREA: The development is located in City of Fayetteville’s
Planning Area. Please reference
the letter on pages F9- F11 stating City of Fayetteville’s
comments for the CUP. This letter
states that there are no infrastructure issues and that the split generally
follows the City’s Future Land Use Plan for this area (see page
F-11A).
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT #:
District 9, JP Butch Pond (R)
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water - The lot is served by Fayetteville Water.
Sewer- Lot 9A served by city of Fayetteville sewer.
Lot 9B- no need for septic at present, but septic in future.
Other Utilities - The property is in the service area of
Ozark Electric Cooperative Corporation, AT & T Telephone (South Western
Bell), Arkansas Western Gas, and Cox Communications.
The property has access off of WC #75 (Fox Hunter Road) at
1809 N. Fox Hunter Road.
STAFF REPORT:
This proposed development has elements of both urban
densities (Lot 9A, SF residential on 0.63 acres serviced by sanitary sewer)
and rural or agricultural nature (Lot 9B, which is 1.44 acres with barns, a
pond and other rural outbuildings in place)- which our County future Land Use
plan generally focuses on. The proposed CUP is also consistent with the future
growth plan for this area of the County (based on City 2025 plan).
In staff's view, the Conditional Use will not be injurious to
the use and enjoyment of other property in the surrounding area for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property
values within the surrounding area, as there is only one lot being created
that is smaller than 1 acre in size, and there are existing adjacent lots
(Barrington Parke) which are smaller in size (see pg.
F-8). The retention of
single Family use is also in line with the uses within this area.
There are no utility or infrastructure concerns related to
this CUP.
There have been two surrounding property owner responses to
this CUP (see pages F12- F16). One
property owner has no objection to the project; page F-15, (although
they do point out that the first notice sent had no date for the public
hearing. Staff had noticed this,
and the applicant has re-notified all surrounding property owners showing the
March 1 meeting date). The other
property owner states that he doesn’t feel like it meets Fayetteville’s
Mater Plan. Staff is unsure of
precisely what this means, but as pointed out in the letter from Fayetteville
Planning and accompanying map (pages F9- F11A), the property
does adhere to their plan. Therefore
County Planning Staff feels that this comment should have little to no impact
on your CUP decision-making.
Staff has no issue recommending approval of this CUP request
with the conditions listed in the recommendation section (pages
F2A-F2C). Please look
over the CUP spreadsheet for more information on this project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Conditional Use Permit Approval of the proposed Piper’s Glen Subdivision
Lot 9 CUP with the following conditions:
1.
Any further splitting, use or land development not considered with this
approval must come before the Planning Board for a separate approval.
2.
This approval allows for a lot smaller than one acre for Single Family
Use only.
3.
After approval of this CUP, the replat may be processed through
the county Planning Office after receiving replat approval from the
City of Fayetteville.
Blake Jorgensnen, Jorgensen & Associates, was
present to answer any questions.
Richey stated, “The
property has access off of WC #75 (Fox Hunter Road) at 1809 N. Fox Hunter
Road. The property is 2.07 acres
split into two lots; Lot 9A is proposed to be 0.63 acres and Lot 9B is
proposed to be 1.44 acres. This
Conditional Use Permit is to allow the creation of one single family lot, less
than one acre in size. This is
located on the east side of Fayetteville.
We’re concerned with Lot 9A (0.63 acres) to meet zoning regulations. This is in the County’s Future Land Use Plan area.
The City of Fayetteville’s Future Land Use Plan map shows it in a
residential category. Basically,
it is compatible with surrounding densities and it is more of an urban section
than what is around it, which is what they claim to be a more rural
residential section in the County. Piper’s
Glen subdivision received Planning Board final approval on August 4,2005 that
has larger lots that are roughly an acre in size.
It does connect directly to Barrington Parke in the City of
Fayetteville’s City limits.”
Smith asked, “Which
street are they accessing?” Richey
replied, “The proposed lots will access on Fox Hunter Road, there is an
easement. Trammell Park (north)
was dedicated with the development of Barrington Parke, from my understanding.
The existing home on Lot 9A is on Fayetteville sewer, that is one way
to make it a compatible lot. The
other lot will have septic. Basically,
Staff feels that this development has an urban and rural density, which the
area has itself and we feel like it sits in well with the area and it is
directly adjacent to lots that are smaller in size than it is and it is
directly adjacent to Fayetteville’s City limits.
It is located in the City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area and it does
fall in their Future Land Use Plan for that area.”
Richey added, “We
receive a couple of property owner comments.
It is hard to understand one property owner (Bill Collins 1736 N.
Buckley Drive) that is worried of making a change to the original subdivision;
it didn’t fit in with what Fayetteville wants.
I don’t think that is true, Fayetteville has stated that it does fit
in with what they want. The other
property owner (James Alexander 1946 N. Fox Hunter Road) is not opposed and
they stated that the date of the hearing was not on the first notification.
There is only one opposed adjacent property owner, I felt like their
concerns were answered in the Staff report.”
Jorgensen stated, “David
Wilson (Port Elgin, Inc.) is the original owner of the whole tract of land of
Piper’s Glen subdivision. He currently
lives on Lot 8. He did live on Lot 9 and there is an existing home there, the
split is more of a legal boundary to establish; there is the same access and
there is not an increase in traffic, so it is more or less just a sell of a
lot between the existing homes.”
(The following is from
Jorgensen & Associates January 8, 2007 letter) The owner has opted to make
Lot 9A smaller than the minimum lot size because it is currently served and
will retain service by the City of Fayetteville’s sewer system and would not
need the larger size lot for a septic field.
Lot 9B would be serviced by a septic field. Before this larger tract of land was subdivided into
Piper’s Glen, the access onto Fox Hunter road, serviced the existing house
located on the proposed Lot 9A and a house located just south of Lot 9B, so
this division of land will not create more traffic onto Fox Hunter Road than
previous traffic. A shared access
easement has been proposed through Lots 9A and 9B to continue the shared
access that all property owners currently enjoy.
Larry Walker moved to approve Piper’s Glen Subdivision Lot
9 Conditional Use Permit with conditions. Robert Daugherty seconded.
Motion passes.
All Board members were in favor of granting the Piper’s
Glen Subdivision Lot 9 Conditional Use Permit approval.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS TO BE TABLED
Fayetteville
Planning Area
g.
Old Wire Road Subdivision (Conditional Use Permit
Request)
Location:
Section 30, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer:
Old Wire Investors, LLC
Engineer/Surveyor:
Morrison-Shipley Engineers, Inc.
Location
Address: 3335 Old Wire Road (WC #87)
35.51
acres and 81lots (78 single family residential lots)
Richey
stated that Old Wire Subdivision was
tabled due to
lack of resubmittal (2)
Larry
Walker moved to table Old Wire Road Subdivision Conditional Use Permit. Cheryl
West seconded. Motion passes.
Fayetteville Planning Area
h. Newcastle Estates LSD (Conditional Use Permit Request)
Location: Section 29, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer: SML Landholding, LLC / Hometown
Development
Engineer/Surveyor: Milholland
Company / RCC Solutions, LLC
Location Address: (WC #345) Gulley Road and (WC #2306) Castle
Rock Drive
13.267 acres and 37 units proposed
Richey
stated that Newcastle Estates LSD was
tabled at the
applicant’s request
Larry
Walker moved to table Newcastle Estates LSDConditional Use Permit. Cheryl West
seconded. Motion passes.
Fayetteville Planning Area
i.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD (Conditional Use Permit
Request)
Location:
Section 36, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Winchester Lotto, LLC / Hometown Development
Engineer/Surveyor:
Project Design Consultants, Inc. / Geomatic Consultants, Inc.
Location Address: 6057
W. Wheeler Road (WC #84)
10.03
acres
Richey
stated that Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
was tabled at the applicant’s request.
Larry
Walker moved to table Wheeler Road Cottages LSD Conditional Use Permit. Cheryl
West seconded. Motion passes.
LAND DEVELOPMENTS TO BE TABLED
Fayetteville Planning Area
j.
Old Wire Road Subdivision (Preliminary Plat
Approval Request)
Location:
Section 30, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer:
Old Wire Investors, LLC
Engineer/Surveyor:
Morrison-Shipley Engineers, Inc.
Location
Address: 3335 Old Wire Road (WC #87)
35.51
acres and 81lots (78 single family residential lots)
Richey
stated that Old Wire Subdivision was
tabled due to
lack of resubmittal (2)
Larry
Walker moved to table Old Wire Road Subdivision. Cheryl West seconded.
Motion passes.
Fayetteville
Planning Area
k. Newcastle Estates LSD (Variance & Preliminary LSD Plan
Approval Request)
Location: Section 29, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer: SML Landholding, LLC / Hometown
Development
Engineer/Surveyor: Milholland
Company
Location Address: (WC #345) Gulley Road and (WC #2306) Castle
Rock Drive
13.267 acres and 37 units proposed
Richey
stated that Newcastle Estates LSD was
tabled at
the applicant’s request.
Larry Walker moved to
table Newcastle Estates LSD. Cheryl West seconded.
Motion passes.
Fayetteville Planning Area
l.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD (Preliminary LSD Plan Approval Request)
Location:
Section 36, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Winchester Lotto, LLC / Hometown Development
Engineer/Surveyor:
Project Design Consultants, Inc. / Geomatic Consultants, Inc.
Location
Address: 6057 W. Wheeler Road (WC #84)
10.03
acres
Richey
stated that Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
was tabled at
the applicant’s request.
Larry
Walker moved to table Wheeler Road Cottages LSD. Cheryl West seconded.
Motion passes.
5.
Old Business
6.
Other Business
- Discussion of
Quorum Court hearing of possibility of building permits within the County.
Richey
stated, “We brought some information to the Quorum Court at their last
meeting on February 8, 2007. We
talked about how much it will cost to start up a Building Permit department;
Benton County was around $250,000. They
asked us to come back with some figures showing maybe one or two full-time
employees for that department and the rest will be contracted inspectors maybe
for the first year. We will be
presenting some information to them next week on March 8, 2007. They also asked us for some data on fires within the County
versus fires in the City. It is
interesting data, there are some smaller cities that have about the same rate
of fire per capita as the County, but then the larger Cities have a lower rate
of fire per capita. They will not
be taking action on it at this meeting. They
have to get copies of the building codes and fire codes and put them in the
Circuit Clerk’s Office for public viewing for at least 30 days and they just
got those about a week ago, so it probably won’t be voted on until next
month on April 12, 2007.”
- Discussion and
action of adding public comment guidelines to the Planning Board By-Laws.
Also the addition of “Zoning Board of Adjustments” to By-Laws
Richey
stated, “I don’t think that the Board ever voted on the addition to the
By-laws for the public comment guidelines.
On page 5 of the By-laws ‘Explanation of the Rules of Conduct’ (Section E number 5) After all
Public comment, Public comment will be closed. That is because we
didn’t have any specific time limits it was taken out of the Quorum
Court’s guidelines.” Laney
commented, “We’ve been following the Quorum Court’s guidelines.
We’ve tried to be flexible; we want to hear the public comment.
This has only been used twice that I can recall to give some order.
These are guidelines that we will implement as necessary.”
Robert
Daugherty moved to add the public comment guidelines to the Planning Board
By-laws. Cheryl West seconded.
Motion passes.
- Discussion of
Quorum Court County Services Committee’s hearing regarding exempting
certain utilities from the LSD and Conditional Use process.
Richey
stated, “At County Services we brought an item to them basically exempting
things that utilities need to put in like utility boxes, phone boxes, lift
stations, water pumping stations, and all of these items that go with
residential infrastructure that we did not have allowed by right under our
zoning to allow. Before we’re
challenged on it we wanted to go ahead and get that in place so that those can
go through. Washington Water
Authority or another utility will purchase an entire tract of land for a lift
station, pumping station, or pressure reduction station that is the only use
on that property. We just want to
make sure that they don’t have to come before the Board because essentially
it is something that has to be there, usually has to be in that certain place.
County Services forwarded it with a do pass recommendation to Quorum
Court, they will vote on it Thursday, March 8, 2007.”
7.
Adjourn
Larry Walker moved to
adjourn. Robert Daugherty seconded. Motion
passes.
Planning Board adjourned.
Minutes submitted by:
Amanda Kimbel
Approved by the Planning
Board on:
_____Randy Laney______________________ Date: ___04/05/07_______
Randy Laney, Planning Board Chairman
MINUTES
WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
April 5, 2007
5:00
p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse
Fayetteville, Arkansas
DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN:
LAND
DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS
Farmington Planning Area
a. Bethel Oaks
Final Plat Approval
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS
Fayetteville Planning Area
b.
Jordan and Associates Office
Conditional Use Permit Approval
CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT HEARINGS TO BE TABLED
Fayetteville
Planning Area
c. Newcastle Estates LSD
Conditional Use Permit
Tabled
Fayetteville Planning Area
d.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
Conditional Use Permit Tabled
LAND
DEVELOPMENTS
Fayetteville
Planning Area
e. Newcastle Estates LSD
Tabled
Fayetteville Planning Area
f. Wheeler Road Cottages
LSD
Tabled
Items to be removed
Fayetteville Planning Area
g. Old Wire Road
Subdivision
Removed from the agenda
Fayetteville Planning Area
h. Old Wire Road Subdivision Removed from the agenda
1. ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken.
Members present include: Robert Daugherty, Kenley Haley, Gary Head,
Randy Laney, and Cheryl West. Absent:
Billy Smith and Larry Walker.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the March 1, 2007 meeting) Gary Head made
a motion to approve as written. Robert Daugherty provided the second.
Motion passes.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Robert Daugherty made a
motion to approve the agenda. Gary Head seconded. Motion passes.
4. NEW BUSINESS
LAND
DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS
Farmington Planning Area
a. Bethel Oaks
Location: Section 28, Township 16 North, Range 31
West
Owner/Developer: Canopy Meadows, LLC / Bethel Sewer,
LLC
Engineer/Surveyor: Morrison-Shipley Engineers, Inc.
Location Address:
Between (WC #62) Bethel Blacktop Road and (WC #627) Jimmy DeVault Road
29.65 acres and 68 lots
REQUEST: Final Plat approval for Bethel Oaks
Subdivision. The proposed
subdivision consists of 68 lots and tract A and B on 29.65 acres.
The proposed project is located between Bethel Blacktop Road (WC #62)
and Jimmy DeVault Road (WC #627). The
lot size average is about 1/4 acre.
BACKGROUND/PLANNING AREA: The project is located in the Farmington Planning Area.
Farmington gave preliminary approval for Bethel Oaks Subdivision on
February 21, 2005. Farmington
chose not to hear the Revised Preliminary Plat in front of their Planning
Commission. Instead, Rick
Cowdrey, Farmington City Engineer, has administratively approved the
revisions. The County had no
problem with this procedure.
Farmington’s
Planning Commission approved final plat with conditions on March 26, 2007.
Condition consisted of providing Steve Tennant information he needs
regarding POA. A further
account of Farmington’s approval will be made available at the Washington
County’s Planning Board Meeting, April 5th, 2007.
The
Planning Board tabled this project at the September 7, 2006, October 5,
2006, November 2, 2006, December 7, 2006, January 4, 2007, February 6, 2007,
and March 1, 2007 Planning Board meetings at the engineer/surveyor’s
request.
Washington
County Planning Board approved a Preliminary Plat on March 3, 2005.
Washington
County Planning Board approved a revised Preliminary Plat April 6, 2006.
Splits
previously completed on this parent parcel: This parcel has one
previous split for Bethel Sewer, LLC.
ZONING:
Project
does lie within the County Zoned area, however, preliminary approval had
been granted before passage of the Zoning Ordinance, therefore current
zoning regulations will not apply to this approval.
QUORUM
COURT DISTRICT #: District 11,
JP Mary Ann Spears (R)
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water
– Served by Washington Water
Sewer- The developer will be using a de-centralized waste
water treatment system. Approximately
7 acres have been set aside for the proposed lateral fields.
Prior to final platting, the developer must show that the
decentralized system is built to handle the capacity of these four
additional lots. This has been
completed.
Decentralized
System includes 3.73 ac. (primary drip field), 2.80 ac. (alternate drip
field) and .63 ac for detention/retention pond acreage.
Other
Utilities- The property is in the service area of Ozark Electric
Cooperative Corporation, Prairie Grove Telephone Company, Cox, and Arkansas
Western Gas.
UPDATED STAFF REPORT:
The
main issues in the past, for Bethel Oaks, were a result of lack of
completion for road related inspections and submittals.
These inspections and submittals have now been completed.
The County Engineer has evaluated the drainage study and found it to be
adequate to deal with both offsite and onsite drainage issues.
All engineering review fees have been paid in full.
There are two remaining requirements that need to be met.
First, documentation from the City of Farmington showing Final Plat
approval with conditions. Melissa
McCarville, City of Farmington, has notified the Planning Dept. via e-mail
that Bethel Oaks- final plat was approved by the Farmington Planning
Commission with a condition on March 26, 2007.
Minutes will be provided as soon as they become available.
Second,
as of March 30, 2007, the proper steps to provide electrical service for the
subdivision had not been completed. The
electric hook up is required before final approval. Engineer/ Developer has plans to have the electric hooked
completed April 2nd, the Monday before Planning Board Meeting.
Information regarding the completion of providing electric service to
the subdivision will be made available at the Washington County’s Planning
Board Meeting, April 5th, 2007.
This has been completed.
RECOMMENDATION (contingent upon completion of electric
hook up): Final Plat Approval
of Bethel Oaks Subdivision with the following conditions.
1.
Need minutes from the City of Farmington showing
Final Plat approval with conditions. Received
Final Plat approval with conditions on March 26th, 2007.
Planning Department will be furnished with minutes as soon as they
become available.
2. Any further splitting or land development not considered with this approval must come before the Planning Board.
3.
Have all signature blocks signed on 11 Final Plats - 2 for filing in
the Circuit Clerk’s office, 7 for the County Planning office, remainder
for the developer.
4. All conditions
from Farmington must be abided by.
PERMITS:
$
Health Department approval of the de-centralized waste water
treatment system
(Letter
from AR Dept. of Health & Human Services dated December 5, 2005)
$
ADEQ - Storm Water Construction General Permit (to control storm
water runoff causing water pollution) and a posted Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) on-site
$
Flood plain certification - It appears that the property is not
located in a special flood hazard area, panel #05143C0090 D, effective July
21, 1999
$ Any
other local, state or federal permits
Neal Morrison,
Morrison-Shipley Engineers, Inc., were present to answer any questions.
Juliet Richey,
Washington County Planning Director, stated, “This is the Final Plat
approval request for this subdivision that consists of 68 lots and Tracts A
and B on 29.65 acres. The
proposed project is located between Bethel Blacktop Road (WC #62) and Jimmy
DeVault Road (WC #627). This is
located in Farmington’s Planning Area.
Tracts A and B are the primary drip field where the wastewater
treatment plant is (this is going to be decentralized).
Tract B is the alternate drip field.
This item has been tabled several times (September 7, 2006 – March
1, 2007) the main issues in the past were a lack of completion for road
related inspections and submittals; those have now been completed.
The County Engineer evaluated the drainage study and found it to be
adequate to deal with both offsite and onsite drainage issues.
They did get approval by the City of Farmington on March 26, 2007.
We got an e-mail from Farmington saying it was approved with one
condition that their City Attorney would be able to look over the covenants
and deed restrictions and we will get an official copy of Farmington’s
minutes for the file as soon
as they become available. The
other pending item in the Staff Report was that they would have to get
electrical service hook up for the waste treatment plant and that has been
done, a verification letter was received today.
Staff would recommend Final approval of Bethel Oaks Subdivision with
a list of conditions.”
Morrison had nothing
to add.
Richey commented,
“As it stands right now it does not fall under the zoning rules
(Preliminary approval had been granted before passage of the Zoning
Ordinance), however, if it was ever re-platted or any other sort of
development would take place that is not under this approval it would fall
under the zoning regulations.”
Gary Head moved to
approve Bethel Oaks Final Plat with conditions. Robert Daugherty seconded.
Motion passes.
All Board members were
in favor of granting
Bethel Oaks Final Plat approval.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS
Fayetteville Planning Area
b.
Jordan and Associates Office
Location:
Section 32, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer:
Stephen Lindsey / Janet Ellis Jordan
Engineer/Surveyor:
Jordan and Associates Office Steve Jordan / Rett Howard
Location
Address: At the corner of Hwy. 45 and Res. Dr. Carson Drive (WC #4347)
.928 acres
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Approval request for proposed use of an
Architectural Office in an area zoned Single Family Residential or
Agricultural, 1 unit/acre. The
property is 0.928 acres.
BACKGROUND: The
property is currently owned by Stephen Lindsey and Janet Ellis Jordan.
ZONING: Single Family Residential or Agricultural, 1 unit/acre.
PLANNING AREA: The development is located in the City of Fayetteville’s
Planning Area.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT #:
District
9, JP Butch Pond (R)
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water: The lot is served by Fayetteville Water. City of Fayetteville has stated that water is available to
this site.
Sewer: proposed septic. A
Designated Representative has completed soil tests for this site.
The soils show that a system servicing an office with 13 employees is
possible on this site.
Other Utilities: The property is in the service area of Ozark Electric
Cooperative Corporation, AT & T Telephone (South Western Bell), Arkansas
Western Gas, and Cox Communications.
Fire: Goshen Fire Service Area.
Fire Flow GPM is 906 GPM. Fire
Marshal, John Jenkins is ok with this fire flow in combination with tanker
support from Goshen Fire Department.
Emergency Lighting required.
Streets: The property is located on
the corner of AR HWY 45 E and Carson Drive (WC #2347).
STAFF REPORT:
Please see the attached project description letter (pg B-7)
for the general description of the Use proposed. Also look at proposed site plans and building elevations
(pgs. B-16-18)
The use is a light commercial use, no heavy traffic involved-
as it is an architectural office. It
is located adjacent to some residential uses as you can see on the aerial
(pg. B-19). There is a mixture
of uses in the area (see item d, pg. B-5), including multifamily, rural
residential (lower density residential), urban residential (higher density
residential), industrial (storage units), a communications tower, and light
commercial uses (vet clinic, medical office, salon, etc).
In general most light commercial uses are along the HWY 45 frontage
in this area. This proposed use
would be similar (if not lower impact) to existing uses, and in staff’s
opinion, will not change the existing character of the area.
Staff does not feel that the proposed Conditional Use (if
passed with proposed conditions) will impair property values, or disrupt
orderly development for this zone; Please see pages B-5 and B-6 of the
attached spreadsheet.
Carson Road does have a 50' ROW (dedicated Sept. 2003). This
should be shown on plans (plans currently show an older dedication of
40’). The plans are under
revision to show this change, and should be ready by the April 5, 2007
meeting. All other
infrastructural issues have been resolved to the satisfactory level for CUP
approval.
Please see the following excerpts from the County Land Use
Plan, stating the County’s perception and vision of what commercial
development within the unincorporated areas should be.
Excerpts from the Land Use Plan:
SECTION II. SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS
2.
Commercial development, though necessary, must be weighed according to
its impact on agricultural and residential areas.
SECTION III. PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
A. LAND
USE CONSIDERATIONS
2. LIGHT
COMMERCIAL
Continuing with the primary goal of retaining the
rural characteristics of Washington County, light commercial uses should be
allowed if:
a.
Not incompatible with adjacent residential and agricultural uses; or by
conditions placed on such to mitigate its impact. Together with community facilities, and compatible
residential uses, this use typically serves as a buffer between general
commercial and strictly residential uses.
Staff feels that the proposed CUP with conditions stated
agrees with the County Land Use Plan.
County
Staff met with City of Fayetteville Planning Staff (as the proposed
development is located with the City’s Planning Area and Future Land Use
area). City Planning Staff feels that although, it does not align
directly with stated use area portrayed in their 2025 future land use plan
(residential, see page B-15), this development/use could be a compatible use
with some conditions; such as the appearance and architectural character of
the building be residential in nature (the use of residential building
materials, etc.). With the
conditions listed on the staff report, City Planning Staff has indicated
that they will support approval of this use in this location.
At this time, staff has received only one property owner
comment (see pg. B-14). This
property owner (residence is adjacent to southern property line of proposed
development) is unopposed to the project if evergreen screening and shielded
outdoor lighting is provided. Both
comments are included in the conditions list recommended by staff.
Staff has spoken with another adjacent resident (also
adjacent to southern property line of proposed development) by telephone.
This property owner may have a comment for staff and the Planning
Board on Monday, April 2. If these comments are received, staff will forward these to
you via email.
As this development will take place on a lot less than one
acre in size, it will not come back before you as a Large
Scale Development.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional
Use Permit Approval for proposed use of an Architectural Office in an area
zoned Single Family Residential or Agricultural, 1 unit/acre, with
the following conditions:
1. Any further splitting, land development or Use not considered with this approval must come before the Washington County Planning Board.
2. Screening for this project is required. For Screening purposes, you have two choices:
The fencing along the rear (south) of the property should be extended to the ROW of Carson Drive with like or complimentary materials (of existing fencing) and the addition of landscaping materials of your choice along the south and western property lines;
or
Fast growing evergreens should be planted along the rear (south) western side property line/fence at an interval to create a screen at maturity of approximately 12’-15’ (minimum) in height. Evergreen types may be selected by the property owner, and may be of one species or a variety. Plants must be between 4’-6’ at time of planting, or approved by the County Planning Director.
Please indicate to the Planning Director in writing which choice you will be implementing as part of this CUP approval.
3. Any outdoor lighting must be shielded from the surrounding property owners’ property.
4. Driveway permits must be approved by the Highway Department and Washington County Road Department.
5. ROW for Carson drive should be shown at 50’. Setbacks should reflect accordingly.
6. Dumpster Screening should be implemented as per 3-26-07 letters from Jordan and Associates. In addition, the County will require that all materials used on dumpster enclosure, including gate, be opaque in nature. Dumpster gate should remain closed unless adding or emptying trash from dumpster.
7. Septic permit must be approved by Health Department.
8.
All statements made in letters dated 3-13-07 and 3-26-07
in reference to use, utility accommodation, general residential
characteristics of the architecture, adherence to Fire Code, and other
matters shall be considered as part of the Conditions of approval.
Steve Jordan, Jordan and Associates, was present to answer any questions.
Richey stated,
“This is a Conditional Use Permit request for proposed use of an
Architectural Office in an area zoned Single Family Residential or
Agricultural, one unit per acre. The
proposed project is located on the corner of Highway 45 East (Mission
Boulevard) just east of Fayetteville’s city limits and Carson Drive (WC
#2347) in Holiday Hills Subdivision (higher density residential).
The property is 0.928 acres in size.
There is a storage unit (Oakland-Zion Mini Storage) (existing light
industrial) and a cell tower across the street. There is single family residential south of the property and
also an animal clinic (existing light commercial) to the west.”
Richey commented,
“They have submitted a proposed site plan, proposed front elevation, and
interior sketch of how the offices will be set up.
Looking across the property to the east is Holiday Hills cottages.
Adjacent to the property to the northwest is basically a large rural
agricultural lot with one home on it. Along
Highway 45 in this area there are several what I call light commercial
facilities. As far as the Future Land Use Map, this is in the City of
Fayetteville’s Future Land Use Area.
Fayetteville deemed this to be residential, however, we spoke with
them and they felt like with the characteristics that they are going to be
putting in this building that it is going to have a residential feel with
the roof pitch, the residential material, the brick, and it kind of fits
right in there with that existing residential neighborhood and it also is in
line with the other light commercial that is already existing on Highway 45.
Fayetteville is looking for the approval of this use.
Essentially, Staff does feel like it is in line with what is going on
around it; it is in line with our (County) Land Use Plan document.”
Richey added,
“Section II. Summary of Major Considerations: Commercial development,
though necessary, must be weighed according to its impact on agricultural
and residential areas and also light commercial uses.
Section III. Physical Development:
Continuing with the primary goal of retaining the rural
characteristics of Washington County, light commercial uses should be
allowed if: Not incompatible with adjacent residential and agricultural
uses; or by conditions placed on such to mitigate its impact.
Together with community facilities, and compatible residential uses,
this use typically serves as a buffer between general commercial and
strictly residential uses. That
is kind of the way that this part of Mission Boulevard functions in general
there is some existing residential right along the frontage, but it seems to
be phasing out and moving towards commercial.”
Richey also added,
“We have an additional property owner (Bee “Kim” Cheah and Ban Yee
Chee at 4182 Carson Drive to the south) comment; they have items 1 and 2
asks for evergreen plants across the rear border and no tall lights shining
on their property, those will be covered in the conditions that we listed.
Item 3 they are asking to build a concrete wall along the backyard;
Staff feels like the combination of the wooden fence extension that they are
going to plant with evergreens are going to be enough screening for that
property. Staff does not
recommend for a concrete wall. Item
4 they want them to actually fence part of their side property line.
Mr. George Butler informed us that that is something that we’re not
legally able to do on someone else’s property.”
Butler asked,
“Arkansas case law you cannot propose conditions on a particular person
getting on someone else’s private property.
Did you take a picture of where the fence will be?
I know it is along one side of the lady’s property. I don’t know where it will be in relation to the
development. On the back of the
property is the wooden fence and evergreens?”
Richey replied, “Yes, there is an existing fence that is a little
short of the right-of-way and that will be a condition to continue that to
the right-of-way not into, just up to it.”
Head asked, “Is
that her fence now?” Richey
replied, “Part of the fence is on her property.”
Head asked, “Did she build it?”
Richey replied, “I don’t know who built it.
I assume probably whoever built the fence built the home. They are going to attach with wood and finish that little
section to the point of the right-of-way.”
Butler asked,
“Where did she want the additional fence?”
Richey replied, “She wanted an additional fence to run up the side
of her property. It will be
solely on her property; not like a dividing fence.
Item 5 she asked that they would be responsible for anything that was
damaged on her property. Mr.
Butler informed me that the Board could use as a condition if you want, but
generally if you must that is someone’s property that you are responsible
for.”
Butler stated, “It
goes without saying hers or anybody else’s.”
Jordan commented,
“This would be our office. We
are a small architectural office and most of our work is out of state.
We will not have a lot of people coming in or out.
We generally have 7 to 8 employees; they come and stay all day and
most of everyone is gone by 5:00 or 5:30 everyday.
We don’t feel like there will be a traffic problem at all.
I am the person that owned all of that land where the houses are
built originally about 9 acres. I
kept this almost one acre site just for this office for that purpose. The only thing I didn’t do is get it built before zoning
went into effect. I think our
use will fit in very well. I
believe that the neighbors are going to be very happy to see us there than
some other use. I was a little
bit concerned when I read the requests for 15’ trees and that sort of
thing; I was going to plant oak and maple (?Oak & Maple) trees and that
sort of thing. Juliet did say
we can plant some kind of evergreen with low tolerance and perhaps block
their yards, but I’m not sure what we’re blocking because we’re not
there when they would be using their backyard in the evening.
We will do that if necessary to get this approved.”
Head asked, “Are we
requiring them to do trees and fence?”
Richey replied, “Most of the fence is already there, but also
evergreens to be planted on the applicant’s site.”
Head asked, “If
there is already a fence where they can’t see; what would evergreens do?
Why do both?” Richey replied, “That was a request to the property owner
who responded and you can do whatever you want.”
Head stated, “They
need to screen one way or other. To
me the fence is more screening than the trees.”
Butler commented,
“I guess that the shrubbery looks nicer and will grow taller than the
fence.”
Richey stated,
“They’re talking about something that will eventually grow 15’ in
height. The wooden fence does
require maintenance. To me if
you’re going to make a wooden fence to block it, it would be nice to have
a back up as vegetation because not everyone maintains a wooden fence.
If you have those two items you would be assured that it will be
screened.”
Jordan commented,
“We will landscape the lot and have lawn sprinklers.
I think that if you look at the other things out there it will look a
lot nicer than what is across the street.”
Gary Head moved to approve Jordan and Associates Office
Conditional Use Permit subject to Staff comments and change that to either
fence it and landscape it or put evergreens that blocks so long as you
screen it versus requiring them to do both. Robert Daugherty seconded.
Motion passes.
All Board members were
in favor of granting Jordan
and Associates Office Conditional Use Permit approval.
CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT HEARINGS TO BE TABLED
Fayetteville
Planning Area
c. Newcastle Estates LSD (Conditional Use Permit Request)
Location: Section 29, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer: SML Landholding, LLC / Hometown
Development
Engineer/Surveyor: Milholland
Company / RCC Solutions, LLC
Location Address: (WC #345) Gulley Road and (WC #2306) Castle Rock
Drive
13.267 acres and 37 units proposed
Richey
stated that Newcastle Estates LSD was
tabled due
to applicant’s request.
Gary Head moved to table Newcastle Estates LSD Conditional Use Permit. Robert Daugherty seconded. Motion passes.
Fayetteville Planning Area
d.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD (Conditional Use Permit
Request)
Location:
Section 36, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Winchester Lotto, LLC / Hometown Development
Engineer/Surveyor:
Project Design Consultants, Inc. / Geomatic Consultants, Inc.
Location Address:
6057 W. Wheeler Road (WC #84)
10.03 acres
Richey
stated that Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
was tabled
due to applicant’s request.
Gary Head moved to table Wheeler Road Cottages LSD Conditional Use Permit. Robert Daugherty seconded. Motion passes.
LAND
DEVELOPMENTS TO BE TABLED
Fayetteville
Planning Area
e. Newcastle Estates LSD
Location: Section 29, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer: SML Landholding, LLC / Hometown
Development
Engineer/Surveyor: Milholland
Company
Location Address: (WC #345) Gulley Road and (WC #2306) Castle Rock
Drive
13.267 acres and 37 units proposed
Richey
stated that Newcastle Estates LSD was
tabled due
to applicant’s request.
Gary
Head moved to table Newcastle Estates LSD. Robert Daugherty seconded.
Motion passes
Fayetteville Planning Area
f.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
Location:
Section 36, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Winchester Lotto, LLC / Hometown Development
Engineer/Surveyor:
Project Design Consultants, Inc. / Geomatic Consultants, Inc.
Location
Address: 6057 W. Wheeler Road (WC #84)
10.03 acres
Richey
stated that Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
was tabled
due to applicant’s request.
Gary Head moved to table
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD. Robert Daugherty seconded. Motion passes.
Items to be removed
Fayetteville
Planning Area
g.
Old Wire Road Subdivision (Conditional Use Permit
Request)
Location:
Section 30, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer:
Old Wire Investors, LLC
Engineer/Surveyor:
Morrison-Shipley Engineers, Inc.
Location
Address: 3335 Old Wire Road (WC #87)
35.51 acres and
81lots (78 single family residential lots
Richey
stated that Old Wire Subdivision is to
be removed from the agenda due to lack of resubmittal.
Gary Head moved to
remove Old Wire Road Subdivision Conditional Use Permit from the agenda.
Robert Daugherty seconded. Motion
passes.
Fayetteville Planning Area
h.
Old Wire Road Subdivision (Preliminary Plat
Approval Request)
Location:
Section 30, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer:
Old Wire Investors, LLC
Engineer/Surveyor:
Morrison-Shipley Engineers, Inc.
Location
Address: 3335 Old Wire Road (WC #87)
35.51 acres and
81lots (78 single family residential lots)
Richey
stated that Old Wire Subdivision is to
be removed from the agenda due to lack of resubmittal.
Gary Head moved to
remove Old Wire Road Subdivision from the agenda. Robert Daugherty seconded.
Motion passes.
5.
Old Business
6.
Other Business
- Discussion of two
ordinances being forwarded to Quorum court from the County Services
Committee:
- An ordinance
prohibiting certain types of septic tanks in Washington County.
Richey stated, “This is an ordinance that was passed though the full Quorum Court prohibiting certain types of septic systems in Washington County. This has to do with some things that we have proposed through the Planning Office is a horizontal property regime using individual septic, basically, in a shared space with shared alternate areas where you cannot differentiate between the septic and the individual maintain which will cause a lot of problems and the Health Department did not quite cover. We showed this to the County Services Committee a couple months ago and they asked us to come up with something that will eliminate this from happening again and that is this ordinance. This will not affect things like RV Parks. This is where you would have a horizontal property regime where different people are owning the septic systems, but they don’t have their own lot. They can’t tell where their lines are, alternate areas become shared, and they have to cross onto other people’s lines. Essentially, in that case you will not be able to do that you would have to use a decentralized system where one person would have to be owner of those. Previous to this, we discussed last month, what we have done before is if you have those right now then it is subject to our community sewer system rules, basically, people will have to set money back because we see it as a potential septic space.”
- An ordinance
clarifying Ordinance No. 2006-74 pertaining to surveys.
Richey stated, “This is going to require surveys for all splits now that are 20 acres or less in size. This is just to clarify that basically the remainder other pieces of the split also has to be surveyed these will be forwarded to the full Quorum Court.”
Daugherty
asked, “I have a question for George Butler on the septic systems, some of
these properties are being sold on current, as-is state, so they
auction as-is, if that happens and the property is sold as is, does it still
require a septic tank approval?”
Butler replied, “I would have to look at the ordinance again. My first reaction to that is that it would if it was auctioned off. The County ordinance said that you would have to perc test it first whether it is an existing system or put one in."
Daugherty
commented, “If it is an existing system, I’m not sure if that is
happening on a sold as is.” Butler stated, “Even if it is being sold as is, the County
ordinance still requires the system to be inspected.”
Richey
commented, “You can sign for the septic (be exempt from the ordinance) if
you’re just buying grazing land. If
there is a concerned buyer there is a form to sign saying that is what is
going on there.”
Butler
stated, “You can sign the form if there is a system on there and you’re
not planning on using the system. Six
months lost opportunity to put into mortgage it is too late.”
Daugherty
commented, “A lot of those are houses and property that are sold as-is.
They don’t want it as is and they don’t want to do anything and
I’m wondering if that is still being tested.”
Butler
stated, “The alternate field is our worse concern; common area lateral
lines sewage don’t know which line (in the proposed septic ordinance).”
- Discussion of
Planning Fee review in upcoming months
Head
stated, “We’re going to get you more money for your fees.”
Richey commented, “We’ll probably have that next month. Just like last year, we’ll say where we are. We’ll see what everyone else is charging, like Benton County, Pulaski County, and Fayetteville. We’ll have graphs to show the Planning Board and County Services. When they raised our fees last year, they asked us to come back on a yearly basis.”
- Discussion of the
general Planning Department business and Current Development numbers.
Richey stated, “The County Planning Monthly Update Packet is the exact same thing that I give to the County Services Committee. There is a note from me on the front it probably tells more than what you want to know. Current Development in the last 6 months has dropped off by approximately 500 lots. We were sitting at about 2,500 lots and they are developing consistently for about 6 months. Now, it is back down to about 2,000 lots. A lot of this is due to completion of projects and getting them off of our current and onto our final list and also we lost some to annexations that the cities did in the fall. This month’s Planning Board agenda is small and I don’t expect for the agenda to stay small. I think that there will probably be seven to ten projects on the May agenda, I think that we are slowing down a little bit. If Current Development continues at this slightly slower pace – Staff will transition into more education for the public and long-range planning, we’re not doing that yet because I’m afraid that there may be another onslaught, I don’t want to start stuff just yet. We’re going to kind of watch for the next six months and see if we stay slow because there are some other things that we need to take care of.”
Laney
commented, “I was wondering if the Judge took over for the RDA (Rural
Development Authority).”
Butler
stated, “Rhonda Hulse is the
Public
Utility Coordinator and she takes care
of all of the nuts and bolts keeping up with that and we need to amend our
rules and regulations. One
thing RDA is completely stowed over with water.
The County Judge is quicker than RDA board for meetings.
He promulgates the rules. We
had a public hearing.”
Richey
commented, “People can come and comment at the meetings.
Jessie Pettit went to a Floodplain class in Conway this last month
and she is now a certified floodplain manager, now there are two of us in
the office. I am planning on
sending Courtney (Tannehill) McNair and Amanda Kimbel next year. Courtney just got married two weeks ago.
We have two new interns, Aaron Jensen and Seth Fleming they are
helping us out in the office.”
7.
Adjourn
Gary Head moved to
adjourn. Robert Daugherty seconded. Motion
passes.
Planning Board
adjourned.
Minutes submitted by:
Amanda Kimbel
Approved by the Planning
Board on:
______Randy Laney_________ Date: __05/03/07________
Randy Laney, Planning Board Chairman
MINUTES
WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
May 3, 2007
5:00
p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse
Fayetteville, Arkansas
DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN:
LAND DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS
County
a. Replat Lot 12 River
Ridge South Subdivision
Preliminary and Final Plat Approval
County
b.
Walnut Grove Acres Subdivision
Final Plat Approval
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS TO BE TABLED
Fayetteville Planning Area
c. Newcastle Estates LSD
Conditional Use Permit Tabled
Fayetteville Planning Area
d.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
Conditional Use Permit Tabled
LAND DEVELOPMENTS TO BE TABLED
Fayetteville
Planning Area
e. Newcastle Estates LSD
Tabled
Fayetteville Planning Area
f.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
Tabled
1. ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken.
Members present include: Robert Daugherty, Billy Smith, Kenley Haley,
Gary Head, Randy Laney, and Cheryl West.
Absent: Larry Walker.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the April 5, 2007 meeting) Robert
Daugherty made a motion to approve as written. Cheryl West provided the
second. Motion passes.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Robert Daugherty made a
motion to approve the agenda. Billy Smith seconded. Motion passes.
4. NEW BUSINESS
LAND DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS
County
a. Replat Lot
12 River Ridge South Subdivision
Location:
Section 11 & 12, Township 16 North, Range 32 West
Owner/Developer:
Marsha Ivey
Engineer/Surveyor:
Jenkins Surveying, Inc.
Location
Address: Off of Valley View Road (WC #2058)
11.72
acres and 3 lots
REQUEST: Preliminary and Final Plat Approval for Replat Lot 12 River Ridge
South Subdivision. The property
is 11.72 acres split into 3 tracts: Tract 12A – 3.25 acres, Tract 12B –
3.16 acres, and Tract 12C – 5.31 acres.
BACKGROUND: The
property is currently owned by Marsha Ivey.
ZONING: The property is currently not zoned.
PLANNING AREA: The development is located solely in the County.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT #: District
10, JP Jack Norton (D)
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water - The lot is served by a well.
Sewer- Individual Septic Systems.
Other Utilities - The property is in the service area of
Ozark Electric Cooperative Corporation and AT & T Telephone (South Western
Bell).
The property has access off of WC #2058 (Valley View Road)
and Hilltop Drive.
STAFF REPORT:
This project comes before the board as a replat of an
existing subdivision. There was some confusion about the road situation, but
this was resolved. A note stating that road improvements may be required for
future splits was added to the plat. The following insert addresses concerns
about the quality of the road for ingress/egress purposes:
Streets
– (Excerpt from Replat Tract 13, River Ridge South Report) According
to the original plat this road should have been called Valley View Road.
However, the County has not maintained this stretch of Valley View
Road. What has been called Valley View Road in the past is in reality Hilltop
Drive. This is the stretch of
road that has, in fact, been maintained by the County.
This is a standard local County road, with a 22’ gravel-driving
surface in good condition.
The Road Department and the 911 addressing coordinator will need to
make a determination on the proper way to name and address the existing tracts
and the newly created tracts.
Soils work has been completed for all three lots and it
states that they are suitable for standard septic systems. The original septic
system on the lot shows no signs of failure or malfunction.
A note has also been added that states all wells must be placed 100’
from any septic systems.
Only minor plat corrections remain.
RECOMMENDATION: Preliminary and Final Plat Approval of the proposed
Replat Lot 12 River Ridge South Subdivision with the following conditions:
1.
Topography at twenty-foot USGS contour intervals
2.
Any further splitting or land development not considered with this
approval must come before the Planning Board.
3.
Have all signature blocks
signed on 11 Final Plats - 2 for filing in the Circuit Clerk’s office, 7 for
the County Planning office, remainder for the developer.
Marsha Ivey, owner of
the proposed project, and Mikel McIntosh, McIntosh Realtors, were present to
answer any questions.
Juliet
Richey, Washington County Planning Director, stated, “Jessie Pettit and
Courtney (Tannehill) McNair have been doing projects for awhile, but they have
not been presenting them. They
are now going to present their projects.”
McNair commented, “This is a Replat of Lot 12 River
Ridge South Subdivision, it is on the left side of the County.
It is located on WC
#2058 (Valley View Road) and Hilltop Drive, which is a little bit confusing, by
the bridge in Savoy. The existing
structure on the site is actually just a foundation; the structure that was
there is now falling down. The
request is for Preliminary and Final Plat approval for Replat Lot 12 River
Ridge South Subdivision. The property is 11.72 acres split into 3 tracts:
Tract 12A – 3.25 acres, Tract 12B – 3.16 acres, and Tract 12C – 5.31
acres. There was some
confusion about the road situation. A
note stating road improvements is from an excerpt from Replat Tract 13, River
Ridge South.
According
to the original plat this road should have been called Valley View Road (the
one that says Hilltop Drive).
However, the County has not maintained this stretch of Valley View
Road. What has been called Valley View Road in the past is in reality Hilltop
Drive. This is the stretch of
road that has, in fact, been maintained by the County.
The Road Department and the 911 addressing coordinator will need to
make a determination on the proper way to name and address the existing tracts
and the newly created tracts.
The
County does not maintain this road called Valley View Road; they do maintain
the road called Hilltop Drive. It’s
all worked out. They said that
because two of the lots were taking access off of the one labeled Valley View
Road that it is fine because it is at minimum of County standards. It should be okay, even though it is not maintained by the
County at this time.”
McNair
also commented, “Soils work has been completed for all three lots and it states that they
are suitable for standard septic systems. The original septic system, where
the existing structure is, shows no signs of malfunction; it should be okay.
A note has also been added that states all wells must be placed at
least 100’ from any septic systems; that is a Health Department
regulation.”
McIntosh
had nothing to add.
Robert Daugherty moved to
approve Replat Lot 12 River Ridge South Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat
subject to Staff’s recommendations. Gary Head seconded.
Motion passes.
All
Board members were in favor of granting
Replat Lot 12 River Ridge South Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat approval
with conditions listed.
County
b.
Walnut Grove Acres Subdivision
Location:
Section 3, Township 15 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Pat and Beverely Davenport
Engineer/Surveyor:
Jorgensen & Associates
Location Address: South
of the entrance to Valley View Golf Course on AR Hwy 170, south of Farmington
13.61 acres and 26 lots
plus one for pump station
REQUEST:
Final Plat approval for Walnut Grove Acres Subdivision. The proposed
development includes 26 residential lots and one lot for a sewage pump
station, on a total of 13.61 acres. Lot
sizes range from 10,000 square feet to just over one acre.
BACKGROUND: The
property is currently owned by Pat Davenport.
It is located south of the entrance to Valley View Golf Course on AR
Hwy 170, south of Farmington.
This project
was first given preliminary approval by the Planning Board in December, 2004
as a preliminary plat.
As they did
not begin construction of this project within one year of that time, the
approved Preliminary Plat became null and void.
The Planning
Board, again, gave Preliminary approval for Walnut Grove Acres Subdivision on
May 4, 2006.
SPLITS PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED ON THIS PARCEL: This
parcel has nine previous splits. Project
#1997-031 (February 19, 1997) 21.1 acres split into 11.02 and 10.02 acres.
Project #2001-012 (February 8, 2001) 10 acres split into 2 and 8 acres. Project #2001-063 (April 30, 2001) 8 acres split into 6.83
and 1.17 acres. Project #2002-162
(August 7, 2002) 7 acres split into 1 and 6 acres. Project #2004-114 (April
22, 2004) 4.84 acres split into 1 and 3.84 acres.
ZONING:
Project does lie within the County Zoned Area; however, preliminary approval
had been granted before the passage of the Zoning Ordinance, therefore current
zoning regulations will not apply to this approval.
PLANNING AREA:
The development is not located in a Planning Area.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT:
District 11, JP Mary Ann Spears (R)
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water - The
lots will be served by Washington Water Authority with an 8" water line.
Sewer-
proposed to be piped to Valley View via connection to existing 8” sewer line
on HWY 170.
Other
Utilities - The lots are in the service area of SWEPCO, Arkansas Western Gas
Company, Prairie Grove Telephone, and Cox Communications.
Streets -
The interior street is a cul-de-sac with one stub-out street.
The cul-de-sac is 1,178’ in length, therefore falling within the
parameters of County Code of 1,200’ (does NOT require a variance).
The street intersects with Arkansas Highway 170, which
is not classified on the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan.
STAFF REPORT:
Walnut Grove Acres Subdivision has provided plat
corrections, provided required information regarding sewer extension to Rhonda
Hulse, and has completed most road requirements to date, loose signs and
drainage issues need corrected. Fire
flow between lots 16 and 17 has been submitted and noted on plat.
The estimated fire flow = 1,000 GPM @ 37 PSI residual.
Staff has on file fire flow existing at HWY 170 as 1,000 GPM, which
meets fire code.
Final Plat needs to have the proposed contours added,
as per County Engineers request. In
addition to the proposed contours, a few minor additions to plat are needed,
regarding building setback and utility easements along with one additional
address for the pump station. All
remaining requirements are minor. The
engineer assured us that these corrections have already been made, and are
ready for submittal.
RECOMMENDATION: Final Plat
Approval of Walnut Grove Acres Subdivision with the following conditions.
1.
Stabilize street signs.
2.
Correct drainage at the
intersection of Cayman Place and Windswept Way.
3.
Show proposed contours on
plat, as per County Engineers request.
4.
Pay County Engineer Review
Fees, Planning Dept. will provide a summary and total (350.00).
5.
The address assigned to pump station is 12270 Shells Court.
Include this address on the final plat.
6. Labels on the following Utility Easements needs to read Utility Easement / Building Setback.
Between Lots 11
& 12
Lots
19 & 20
Lots 25 & 26
Lots 15 & 16
Between group of Lots (12, 13, 14) AND 15
Rear of lot 10, 25’ U.E. / Bldg. S.B.
7.
Any further splitting or land development not considered with this
approval must come before the Planning Board. *Add this note to plat.
8.
Have all signature blocks signed on 11 Final Plats - 2 for filing in
the Circuit Clerk’s office, 7 for the County Planning office, remainder for
the developer.
9.
Must Comply with all ADEQ regulations.
Pat Davenport, owner of
the proposed development, and Dave Jorgensen, Jorgensen & Associates, were
present to answer any questions.
Pettit
stated, “This is a request for Final Plat approval for Walnut Grove Acres
Subdivision. The proposed
development includes 26 residential lots and one lot for a sewage pump
station, on a total of 13.61 acres. Lot
sizes range from 10,000 square feet to just over one acre.
It is located south of the entrance to Valley View Golf Course on AR
Highway 170, south of Farmington and west of Prairie Grove, right outside of
the recently annexed territory. There
are a few road requirements that need to be taken care of; the signs need to
be stabilized and also the drainage issue on the corner of Cayman Place and
Windswept Way need to be resolved. We
just learned that information today, so it may be new information to the
developer. All of the corrections
have been taken care of on the plat and we just need a hard copy of that.”
Davenport
commented, “I have contacted the sign people and they will come back and
stabilize the signs. We just
found out about the water today, it has rained enough.”
Laney
asked, “Had it not been grandfathered, what kind of issues would it have
had?”
Richey
replied, “Several of the lots are less than an acre in size, so we would
need a Conditional Use Permit to be able to have that density.”
Robert Daugherty moved to
approve Walnut Grove Acres Subdivision Final Plat subject to Staff’s
conditions. Gary Head seconded. Motion
passes.
Laney stated,
“Conditional upon resolution of drainage.”
All Board members were in
favor of granting
Walnut Grove Acres Subdivision Final Plat approval
with conditions listed.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS TO BE TABLED
Fayetteville
Planning Area
c. Newcastle Estates LSD (Conditional Use Permit Request)
Location: Section 29, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer: SML Landholding, LLC / Hometown
Development
Engineer/Surveyor: Milholland
Company / RCC Solutions, LLC
Location Address: Gulley Road (WC #345) and Castle Rock Drive (WC
#2306)
13.267 acres and 37 units proposed
Richey
stated that Newcastle Estates LSD was
tabled due to
lack of resubmittal (1)
Gary Head moved to table
Newcastle Estates LSD Conditional Use Permit. Robert Daugherty seconded.
Motion passes.
Fayetteville Planning Area
d.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD (Conditional Use Permit
Request)
Location:
Section 36, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Winchester Lotto, LLC / Hometown Development
Engineer/Surveyor:
Project Design Consultants, Inc. / Geomatic Consultants, Inc.
Location Address: 6057
W. Wheeler Road (WC #84)
10.03 acres
Richey
stated that Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
was tabled due
to lack of resubmittal (1)
Gary Head moved to table
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD Conditional Use Permit. Robert Daugherty seconded.
Motion passes.
LAND DEVELOPMENTS TO BE TABLED
Fayetteville
Planning Area
e. Newcastle Estates LSD
Location: Section 29, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer: SML Landholding, LLC / Hometown
Development
Engineer/Surveyor: Milholland
Company
Location Address: Gulley Road (WC #345) and Castle Rock Drive (WC
#2306)
13.267 acres and 37 units proposed
Richey
stated that Newcastle Estates LSD was
tabled due to
lack of resubmittal (1)
Gary Head moved to table
Newcastle Estates LSD. Robert Daugherty seconded. Motion passes
Fayetteville Planning Area
f.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
Location:
Section 36, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Winchester Lotto, LLC / Hometown Development
Engineer/Surveyor:
Project Design Consultants, Inc. / Geomatic Consultants, Inc.
Location
Address: 6057 W. Wheeler Road (WC #84)
10.03 acres
Richey
stated that Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
was tabled due
to lack of resubmittal (1)
Gary Head moved to table
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD. Robert Daugherty seconded. Motion passes.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
6. OTHER BUSINESS
- Discussion of
Building Permit Ordinance being pulled from April Quorum Court Agenda.
Richey
stated, “It was pulled from the agenda by the sponsor at the last Quorum
Court meeting. It will be back on
the agenda at the first reading at the next Quorum Court meeting.
I wouldn’t assume that they would move it back to third reading.”
- Discussion of
future possible Planning Department fee revisions.
Richey
stated, “Our intern, Aaron Jensen, has actually finished all the research to
compare our fees with different cities in the County.
The terms we use are sometimes different from the cities.
We need to go back through and make sure that is compatible.
You’ll probably see that next month.”
- Discussion of
Current Development.
Richey
stated, “Basically, we’re still around 2,000 lots under development in the
County. I don’t really know,
but I think that we’re going to have several larger projects on the June 7,
2007 agenda. We have had several
projects come up for expiration; Preliminary Plats have a year to begin
construction. We are giving some
extensions.”
Laney
asked, “Is it a courtesy to notify people of the expiration?”
Richey
replied, “We usually go through our files every couple of months.
We try to keep people aware of what is going on.
The main reason that we do the expiration is we don’t want plats that
don’t reflect our current regulations.
We had one larger lot subdivision with four acre lots outside the zoned
area, the expiration came up and we’re giving it a six month extension.
The ones that are basically within the areas that are now zoned, where
we’ve had a major change in the regulations, so we’re giving them a
shorter extension time (if they are of a higher density).”
Richey
commented, “Since we’re a little slow right now we’re really trying to
get organized in our office. I took a Management Class for Planning Directors in Savannah,
Georgia April 6-11. I learned a lot about everything I am doing wrong.
Basically, I have never had management training.
I learned a lot of things that I need to be doing.
I think we’re going to be a really organized office in about six
months, not that we’re horribly unorganized right now, just there’s so
many things that we were unable to deal with for awhile.
Now, we’re trying to make a list of those things and check them
off.”
Other matters.
Gary Head moved to
adjourn. Robert Daugherty seconded. Motion
passes.
Planning Board adjourned.
Minutes submitted by:
Amanda Kimbel
Approved by the Planning
Board on:
________Randy
Laney_________ Date: __06/24/07__
Randy Laney, Planning Board Chairman
MINUTES
WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
June 14, 2007
5:00
p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse
Fayetteville, Arkansas
DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN:
LAND DEVELOPMENT
HEARINGS
County
a.
Replat Tract 1, Phase 1, Oakview Estates 1 & 2
Preliminary & Final Plat Approval
Tontitown
Planning Area
b.
Legacy Estates Phase 1
Tabled
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
HEARINGS
Fayetteville
c.
Mally Wagnon Estates
Conditional Use Permit
Denied
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS TO BE TABLED
Fayetteville
Planning Area
d. Newcastle Estates LSD
Conditional
Use Permit Tabled
Fayetteville Planning Area
e.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
Conditional
Use Permit Tabled
LAND DEVELOPMENTS TO BE TABLED
County
f. Lowery Subdivision Tabled
Fayetteville
Planning Area
g. Newcastle Estates LSD
Tabled
Fayetteville Planning Area
h.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
Tabled
1. ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken.
Members present include: Robert Daugherty, Kenley Haley, Randy Laney,
Larry Walker, Gary Head, and Cheryl West.
Absent: Billy Smith.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the May 3, 2007 meeting) Robert
Daugherty made a motion to approve as written. Cheryl West provided the
second. Motion passes.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Robert Daugherty made a
motion to approve the revised agenda with item b. Legacy Estates Phase 1 applicant requesting to be
tabled because they didn’t finish their road improvements. Larry
Walker seconded. Motion passes.
4. NEW BUSINESS
LAND DEVELOPMENT
HEARINGS
County
a.
Replat Tract 1, Phase 1, Oakview Estates 1 & 2
Location:
Section 1, Township 16 North, Range 32 West
Owner/Developer:
Mark and Cynthia Dorey
Engineer/Surveyor:
Jenkins Surveying, Inc.
Location Address: 15371 W. Hwy. 16
5.6 acres and 2 lots
REQUEST: Preliminary and Final Plat Approval for Replat Tract 1, Phase 1,
Oakview Estates 1 & 2. The
property is 5.6 acres split into 2 tracts: Tract 1A – 1.18 acres and Tract
1B – 4.42.
BACKGROUND: The property is currently owned by Mark and Cynthia Dorey.
ZONING: The property is currently not zoned.
PLANNING AREA: The development is located solely in the County.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT #:
District
10, JP Jack Norton (D)
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water - The lots are served by wells.
Sewer- The lots are to be served by individual septic
systems.
Other Utilities - The property is in the service area of
Ozark Electric Cooperative Corporation and AT & T Telephone (South
Western Bell).
The property has access off of Hwy. 16 located at 15371
W. Hwy. 16.
STAFF REPORT:
This project is coming to the board because the property is
located in a previously platted subdivision, and therefore, is considered a
replat.
There are currently two mobile homes existing on this
property. Both homes have existing approved septic systems, and both have an
individual well. The wells are 100’ or more away from all septic systems
as required by the Health Department.
This development as it was originally platted was not
considered a subdivision by the Health Department regulations because of the
larger lot sizes. This proposed
split would have come under those regulations, but because each house
already has an existing well and septic (one for each house), no review is
required. Any further splitting
in this development may need to be reviewed by the Health Department as a
subdivision.
After a visit to this site, it is apparent that a structure
(appears to be a small barn for the horses) not shown on the plat is located
within the setback lines. This structure must be shown on the plat.
If the structure is to remain on the property, an administrative
variance must be applied for. This
can be a condition of approval. The cost is $50.00.
Several small checklist items must be corrected, but all
major issues have been satisfied.
Prior to the meeting, all remaining checklist items
were addressed, and an administrative variance has been approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Preliminary and Final Plat Approval of the proposed Replat Tract 1, Phase
1, Oakview Estates 1 & 2 with the following conditions:
1.
Have all signature blocks signed on 11 Final Plats - 2 for
filing in the Circuit Clerk’s office, 7 for the County Planning office,
remainder for the developer.
2.
County Judge must sign Administrative Variance form prior to staff
signing the final plat. (Form
currently en route to his office).
Mark and Cynthia
Dorey, owners of the proposed project, and Bill Jenkins, Jenkins Surveying,
Inc., were present to answer any questions.
Courtney (Tannehill)
McNair, Washington County Planner, stated, “This project is coming to the
Board because the property is located in Oakview Estates, a previously
platted subdivision. The
property has access off of West Highway 16 past Wedington Woods Subdivision.
The property currently has two mobile homes on it, and both of them
have existing approved septic systems and wells that serve them.
The request is to divide 5.6
acres into 2 tracts: Tract 1A – 1.18 acres and Tract 1B – 4.42 acres. There is one interesting thing about this; it has a small
structure that looks like a small hay barn that doesn’t have permanent
footing that is within the setbacks. We
did an administrative variance on that because the structure was there
before the setbacks were, so we went ahead and cleared it up
administratively. The variance
is currently en route to the County Judge’s office for his signature.
All of the checklist items have been corrected.”
Robert Daugherty moved
to approve Replat Tract 1, Phase 1, Oakview Estates 1 & 2 Preliminary
and Final Plat with conditions. Cheryl West seconded. Motion passes.
All
Board members were in favor of granting
Replat Tract
1, Phase 1, Oakview Estates 1 & 2 Preliminary
and Final Plat approval.
Tontitown Planning Area
b.
Legacy Estates Phase 1
Location:
Section 22, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Gary Brandon Enterprises, Inc.
Engineer/Surveyor:
Engineering Services, Incorporated
Location Address: (WC #31) Harmon Road
– across the road from (WC #873) Strawberry Plant Road
69.62 acres and 111
lots
Larry Walker moved to
table Legacy Estates Phase 1 Final Plat as per applicant’s request. Gary
Head seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were
in favor of tabling
Legacy Estates Phase 1 Final
Plat approval.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
HEARINGS
Fayetteville Planning Area
c.
Mally Wagnon Estates (Conditional Use Permit
Request)
Location:
Section 20, Township 16 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer:
Hays Family Development, LLLP
Engineer/Surveyor:
H2 Engineering, Inc.
Location Address: (WC
#139) Van Hoose / South Mally Wagnon
24.68 acres and 112
lots
REQUEST:
Request for Conditional Use Permit Approval for Mally Wagnon Estates, 24.68
acres with 117 lots. Total
Density requested (including area for parks and detention ponds) is: 4.74 units per acre.
If you look
at just the units per acre after subtracting all detention and park areas,
the proposed/ requested density is 5.17 units per acre.
PLANNING AREA:
The development is located in the Fayetteville Planning Area.
The City of Fayetteville approved the Preliminary Plat December 12,
2005. The County Planning Board
granted Preliminary approval on March 2, 2006.
BACKGROUND: The
property is owned by Hays Family Development, LLLP.
Please note
that you have two sets of plans in your packet for this project.
The one marked “revised” (we highlighted it for you) applies to
today’s request. The other
plat- simply marked Preliminary- reflects the originally approved plat).
This project
was granted Preliminary Plat approval by both the City of Fayetteville and
Washington County in prior to the enactment of County Zoning in November
2006. It was therefore
grandfathered in under the old approval process, and not subject to the new
zoning at that time. The
applicant, however, seeks to increase the density of this development from
78 lots on 24.68 acres to 117 lots on the same acreage.
Although
Construction has begun on this project, it is not yet complete, the project
lacks Final Plat approval, and in essence is an unfinished subdivision at
this time.
After some
discussion with the County Attorney, George Butler, on this project, he has
advised us to look at this CUP zoning request as the requested density’s
compatibility with the surrounding area, NOT to just look at the effect of
the upgrade in number of lots from currently approved Preliminary to this
proposal.
In other words, as per County legal counsel, you
should judge this zoning request as a request to allow 117 lots on 24.68
acres in this area, NOT just as an addition of 39 lots.
Splits previously completed on this parent parcel: Parcel
#001-10790-000 has no previous splits, Parcel #001-10794-000 has three
previous splits, and Parcel #001-10799-000 has two previous splits.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water - The project will be served by Fayetteville Water.
The applicant is in the process of extending waterlines to this area,
in conjunction with the City of Fayetteville.
The applicant will need
37 additional water taps. As per Shannon Jones, a water and wastewater
engineer for City of Fayetteville, approval for extra water taps is not
expected to be an issue.
Sewer- The project will be served by City of Fayetteville
Sewer. The applicant must get
approval from Fayetteville Sewer for 37 additional taps (originally only 76
were approved). There is no
guarantee by Fayetteville that these will be approved, as it must be
approved via City council.
As per
Shannon Jones, there is not likely to be an issue with sewer capacity
availability.
Other
Utilities - The land is in the service area of Ozark Electric,
Cox Communications, Arkansas Western Gas, and AT & T Telephone (South
Western Bell Telephone). The
change in density would not likely cause any issues with these utilities.
Roads - The property has access off of South
Mally Wagnon Road / (WC
#139) Van Hoose.
If higher density is approved, the Interior
streets will be bumped up to a class IV and Mally Wagnon (road) must be
improved to a class V to handle new additional traffic.
This means that pavement sections will change.
Fayetteville may also have additional changes at Revised Preliminary
Plat.
Fire- Round Mountain VFD
response area. Fire Chief, Ron
Wood, has asked that to make this situation more compatible, that in
addition to the mandatory requirements for membership being listed in the
covenants and deed restrictions, that the builders of the homes take out the
membership first, and then transfer it to the home buyers.
The VFD is pursuing an automatic response agreement with Fayetteville
for this subdivision.
Drainage- One drainage pond was
approved with original plan. Applicant
has indicated that they can create another pond- if necessary. Drainage
areas must be designed to hold 25-year storm - if not designed this way
previously (this includes ay open ditches and open or enclosed road
crossings). If CUP is approved,
a revised drainage report must be submitted with the revised Preliminary
Plat.
STAFF COMMENTS:
If
the CUP is approved, then the applicant must go through the Preliminary Plat
Process with both the City of Fayetteville and Washington County.
New drainage plans and revised construction plans will also be
required.
STAFF REPORT:
Please read carefully over all of the support
documents included, as there is much information to consider with this CUP.
All support documents except the Staff Report and the CUP Criteria
Spreadsheet were included in your mailed packet
The Developer has shown willingness to provide the
infrastructure upgrades needed to compensate for this density of a
development (refer to CUP Criteria Spreadsheet).
The proposed project density is not recommended by
the city of Fayetteville (within whose Planning area it lies), and is not
directly compatible with any of the surrounding densities. It is, however, close to the City limits, and part of the
requirements for Fayetteville agreeing to extend sewer to serve this
development, was that it be annexed as soon as it is possible to annex (as
soon as an adjacent property is annexed).
It should be noted that the property HAS tried to annex in the
past, but was not able to be annexed at that time.
This development is within the County at this time,
and therefore under consideration by you, as to the allowable density.
The City has stated that they are not allowing this HIGH of single
family density, even within the City limits in THIS AREA at this time.
They are holding (as per their plans and policies) that developments
with these densities should be built closer to the city’s core areas, or
other parts of the city.
It should also be noted, however, that there are
developments within 1 mile and further which have densities that are close (but not quite as high to this
density). Refer to spreadsheet
on page C-11). These densities
are closer to the originally approved Preliminary Plat of Mally Wagnon,
although some are a little higher.
If the original Mally Wagnon Preliminary Plat had
come before you for a CUP (it was grandfathered in, as it was approved
prior to zoning, so it did not originally go through the CUP process),
staff feels that the densities that were approved with that plat would have
been considered for CUP approval, as they are close to the densities of
other existing and proposed single family subdivisions in the area.
There is no question that this development will be
part of the City sooner, rather than later.
The fact remains, however, that the densities
proposed with this request are NOT comparable to densities in the
surrounding property, and are also higher than proposed densities in the
further surrounding area (see pgs C-10 – C-14).
At this date, there has only been one response from
a surrounding property owner (see page C-9).
I feel the concerns of this property owner should be taken very
seriously. I am also interested in the lack of response of other property
owners (within 300’ of the parcels of the proposed subdivision).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If no other property owner comments are received
prior to or at the meeting on Thursday, staff recommends denial of
this CUP, for the following reasons (both items on our criteria list, taken
directly from the Zoning Ordinance):
·
The
proposed Density is not recommended by the City (who will annex it as soon
as the time comes- as per City Resolution 177-05 (see pg C-18),
·
It is
not directly compatible with surrounding densities either adjacent or
further out.
Staff may have a different recommendation depending
on the comments received from other surrounding property owners prior to or
at the meeting on Thursday night.
If the Planning Board/ ZBOA does wish to
approve this CUP, staff asks that approval be based on the following
conditions (minimum), and that the board add other conditions to increase
compatibility:
·
Construction
Plan Approval by the County Road Department
·
Revised
Preliminary Plats and all accompanying documents be submitted though both
the City and County
- Approval of additional
water and sewer taps
Crystal Goedereis,
and Kipp Hearne, H2 Engineering, were present to answer any questions.
Juliet Richey,
Washington County Planning Director, stated, “Today we received a petition
signed by seven property owners who are not in opposition to this project
(petition shown to Planning Board / Zoning Board of Adjustments and
audience) (Appendix A).”
Richey also stated,
“This proposed project is located on south Mally Wagnon Road /
(WC
#139) Van Hoose which is in the County
in the City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area off of Highway 16 east.
This is an originally passed Preliminary Plat prior to the
zoning, so it was grandfathered in, and zoning was not applicable to
it as long as it stayed just like it was approved at Preliminary Plat.
They are coming back to increase the density, because of that they
would have to go back to revised Preliminary Plat.
They have to go back through with both the City of Fayetteville and
us, the County, before they can do that they would have to either comply
with the zoning that is in place because they are making a change or they
can request a Conditional Use Permit which is what they have done.”
Laney commented,
“New things have to be done with the zoning ordinance. The applicant chose to change the lot size, which makes it
subject to the zoning ordinance. The
previous plat was approved before the zoning ordinance.
They are back because of that. They
get this variance, if you will; Conditional Use Permit, then they will
submit Preliminary Plat to Fayetteville and the County.”
Richey stated, “For
clarification, zoning does not have to go through Fayetteville, even though
it is in their Planning Area, that just comes to the County.
Fayetteville does have a review and comment on zoning by State Law.
The County is the superior zoning jurisdiction.”
Laney commented,
“Previously at plat review you can confer with the City, the zoning
ordinance is the County’s ordinance, so that we don’t confer with them,
so the County is the first place to go (for Conditional Use Permit).”
Richey stated,
“They have begun construction on this property, somewhat they’ve cut in
the roads. They are quite close
to Fayetteville’s city limits. They
did attempt annexation, but were unable to annex.
They were allowed a slightly more dense lot configuration to begin
with by Fayetteville, prior to zoning, at their original Preliminary Plat
and they were allowed access to sewer with the condition that as soon as it
became possible for them to annex into Fayetteville, that they would.”
Richey also stated,
“The applicant, however, seeks to increase the density of this development
from 78 lots (grandfathered in without zoning) on 24.68 acres to 117 lots on
the same acreage. It is a
pretty significant increase. The
smallest lots (originally) were 8,000 square feet and these (proposed) are
5,000 square feet. Typically, I
would call this neighborhood for the most part kind of your traditional
rural. There are a couple of
surrounding lots that are a little bit less than an acre in size, .75 and
.40 acre lots, but they are right next to a 33 acre tract, that’s kind of
what you are used to seeing in rural Washington County.
The density of surrounding subdivisions within the City range in size
by units per acre. It is an
urban section, but some of them are a little bigger, than I would say a
traditional urban section is. We
talked about what the comparison was because this is something that will go
into the City relatively soon. They
will have to get part of their sewer improvements.”
Richey added, “How
does this compare (what they are proposing) with the existing neighborhoods
that are within the City? Essentially,
as it is proposed we’re talking about 5.17 units per acre depending on how
you figure it. We took out the
detention pond and a one acre area that is the City park, because that
wouldn’t make them residential density of these other ones that we were
looking at. If you add this back in it is around 4.74 units per acre.
These are apples and apples, that’s the reason that we did it that
way, because we didn’t feel like it was a direct comparison.
When you look at it that way, as it stands right now it is about 3.39
units per acre. You have quite
a few other ones that are between three and four units per acre.”
Walker asked, “You say as it stands right now, does that mean as
it was approved?”
Richey replied, “Yes, as it was approved prior to zoning.
As that stands, I would say that is on par with these few that are
already in the City, however, there is nothing with this type of density
that they are proposing. The
5.17 units per acre, is higher than anything else in that area that is the
kind of density that you see when you get closer to kind of the core of
Fayetteville. Fayetteville’s
recommendation says ‘Yes, we do have zoning that allows for this type of
density in the City of Fayetteville, but that is not something that we would
recommend past that zoning for a subdivision even if it was within the City
limits on the outskirts of town like these are. They recommend higher densities for kind of the traditional
center of Fayetteville then as you go out lower densities.
The Future Land Use Area is one of the things that we look at when we
make a decision on a Conditional Use Permit.
This area is yellow which is residential use that is compatible to
the surrounding residential use that would be allowed; as it stands that use
would be compatible or comparable to the surrounding densities.”
Richey commented, “There are several property owner comments,
they are concerned about drainage issues due to the increase of density,
possible property devaluation, traffic congestion, dangerous intersection at
Mally Wagnon and Highway 16 be made worse, concern about property line
dispute, a new survey done, and water pressure.
We talked about a lot of these in the Conditional Use spreadsheet
(Appendix B). We talked about
drainage, there could be some drainage issues, however, they have stated
that they will build additional detention ponds or whatever needs to be
done. Possible property
devaluation, we do say that it is not directly compatible with the existing
properties around it and it has more density than other subdivisions.
Traffic congestion, that could be an issue, there is a requirement
that they put in a turning lane at the intersection of Highway 16 and Mally
Wagnon, however, it may not be adequate and it is hard for me to say because
we haven’t had a new traffic study. They
would have to build the roads to a different degree, they are building them
right now, that could be possible because they are more off-site
improvements that need to be made, but we haven’t gotten that far.
The applicant said that whatever they are they would be willing to do
it. Property line dispute, we
don’t really comment on property line dispute that is not something that
we have the authority to deal with. Water
pressure, one of the things with Preliminary Plat they are bringing new
larger water lines to this area. There
is an existing water pressure issue out there, property owners in the area
want to see improvements and they (applicant) are working on those right
now. Some of these are valid
concerns while some of them are concerns that we cannot consider.”
Richey also commented, “Right now, our recommendation is for
denial because we do this spreadsheet as the zoning ordinance asks us to,
although, they are doing okay on the adequacy of utilities, Fayetteville is
recommending against approval of the smaller lots. This is in Fayetteville’s Planning Area, they do have
review and comment, and the Board needs to take that seriously. Also, the fact that the density that it is approved at right
now is what’s comparable to the extended area.
What they’re asking for is more dense than that and that is not
what we feel is compatible to that area.”
Laney asked, “By submitting a new proposal they have already
foregone their grandfathering or if they’re voted down go back to the
grandfathering, how does that work?”
Richey replied, “Right now the way we are considering it is that
you don’t forego your grandfathering until you submit a new Preliminary
Plat which they haven’t done yet. That’s
the County’s standpoint on it, George Butler, Washington County Attorney,
has said he feels like there could possibly be some question, he’s not
sure. The petition says, ‘I
do not oppose Mally Wagnon Estates. I
think that this development will benefit the community’ it had seven
signatures. I would like to
point out that 1 and 2 and 6 and 7 have the same last names.”
Goedereis
stated, “I represent Mally Wagnon Estates.
I would like to express my gratitude to all of you for allowing me
the opportunity to bring this project forward.
I feel like we are in a hard place because unfortunately I realize
we’re here about development in a critical infrastructure.
Providing attainable and affordable housing has been my number one
goal with Mally Wagnon since day one, which was three years ago.
I don’t expect the Planners or any of you to take up the subject of
affordable housing, in what I have prepared I do talk about this only in
pretense that you will understand what my goal with this project is.
I would like to point out that the two last names on the petition 1
and 2 was husband and wife and 6 and 7 was father and son.”
Goedereis also
stated, “The traffic is always an issue, no one likes traffic, there is a
lot to be discussed about traffic. I
guess the reason that I don’t mind traffic is because I live on Starr
Drive between two schools in Fayetteville.
I understand that if it wasn’t for that traffic that the economy
would be in such a state that there would be no reason to leave my house. I lived in an area where there was no traffic and the problem
that comes with that is not a good thing.
There are no jobs, no minimum wage with great salary; schools closed
every day, so there were only a few. Instead
of a church on every corner we had a tavern on every corner, because they
were the only ones that would get any business because everyone was so
stressed out. I think that
right now we are in an economical situation where we need attainable and
affordable housing not for what my opponents say for undesirables, but for
firemen, policemen, nurses, and etc. I
understand that my density is high and I understand the reason that my
density is high. My covenants
are strong. The City of Elkins
is continuing to grow at a fast pace that can be a stage for attainable
housing. If it weren’t for
attainable housing being in Elkins there wouldn’t be any Wal-Mart or fast
food restaurants going in. The
economic situation would not be what it is today. The reason that I’m
asking for the density is I would love nothing than to put this in the
middle of Fayetteville. Ground
is $100,000 an acre in the middle of Fayetteville and all of the
obstructions that come along with it. Where
are people to live? Where are
they to build? I guess that I
am one of the undesirables that people talk about because I cannot afford
the $250,000 or $300,000 house, so I rent.
I would very much like to live in a nice house in a designed
development that would allow me to do that.”
Goedereis
added, “There is a point
about this development that has not been addressed, traffic is always an
issue and especially on Highway 16, therefore, when we bought this
development through the first time I amended Fayetteville City Code to allow
me to build a bus barn on my island. The
point behind that is, with attainable housing, one of the main two things
that fall under that group is how do I get my children back and forth to
school? I’m a single mom, I’m a working mother, I leave before
they do. The answer to that is
real easy, have nice bus barns that people can go to that look nice, that
are heated and air conditioned, people can get out of the rain, and the
children have a safe place to go. That
would alleviate a lot of traffic just not in our subdivision, but also to
our school, and on all of the highways, so I worked that deal out with
Fayetteville. Another problem
that still needed to be addressed is the fact that this is a rural area,
what if compatibility is always an issue; we do 10,000 square foot lots with
3,000 square foot houses. I
know no one wants to hear it, but developers and builders have to make a
profit to stay in business. They
pay $50,000 for a lot they’re going to build $250,000 to $300,000 houses,
that’s economics, that’s not me. I
wish that we could have large lots with small houses, but that’s not the
way it works.”
Goedereis also added,
“Subdivision
is designed to have an architectural appeal to it. It would have been a whole lot easier if I have done like
everyone before me did and just cut in streets and put in big lots, that is
not what my goal has ever been. My
goal has been to make it something nice.
Both of our ingress and egress entrances are tree lined. Lots 1 and 2 are both detention ponds, its not just detention
ponds; there are water features in those.
When you’re driving down Mally Wagnon Road, unless you pull into
that subdivision, you can’t even see what’s going on. The whole point behind that is not to hide it, but to offer
not only the people in the subdivision but also the people outside the
subdivision compatibility that they wanted.
When you look at Mally Wagnon, three years of my blood, sweat, and
tears are stuffed into there. I
understand compatibility and I understand affordability and that is all that
I am trying to do. I am not
bringing undesirables in. These
houses will have strong covenants, and they will be strict.
I am trying to build affordable attainable houses with small yards. When you talk about density, affordability, and it doesn’t
fit, where would we be right now if our forefathers said that?
Who is going to break out? Where’s
the difference going to be? I
sure would like to have an opportunity to see what I can do.
We were talking about affordability, why is 78 lots out counted as
sellable lots because there’s 1.13 acres of our development that’s a
Fayetteville park, because they recognized this as a growing area.
They know residential is coming, they know that there is nothing that
they can do to prevent it, and so they took 1.13 acres in lieu of money.
The infrastructure that is critical; I really don’t like to touch
on this a whole lot, but here’s the facts there is a 12”parallel line
that serves up Pump Station Road that is going to run all the way to Mally
Wagnon. I have an 8” main out
there; I didn’t have to bring water.
The only problem with that is there’s no fire flow in the County.
That 8” main runs on Mally Wagnon, it does not pump that flow of
water to maintain a fire. We found that problem and we didn’t run, we asked what
could we do? The easements are
in place; they are not purchased. We
are more than happy to do that. 12”
parallel that starts at Pump Station Road will wander through, already put a
12” in Falcon Ridge (under construction), which is a development that
wasn’t even on the plat. There
are three new developments in that area that is not even on the water
system. I would hate to think what would happen if we had a fire at
Sequoyah Meadows and Stonebridge Meadows at the same time.
We put the 12” parallel in our subdivision it was stalled; we
worked with Fayetteville and with everyone to craft the situation needed.
That 12” line came at a very high cost.
The whole point behind it is our infrastructure on our off-site and
continuing excavation costs, it costs us to do this.
The other point behind it is cute little yards are not such a bad
thing.”
Daugherty asked,
“What price range are you targeting with the 117 lots?” Goedereis replied,
“It will be 112 buildable lots and my price range will be from $120,000 to
$150,000. I am trying to do
three bedrooms and two baths. I
am putting two car garages on there.”
Daugherty asked,
“If you were doing 78 lots what would you think you were looking at?”
Goedereis replied, “At the time that we brought that through before
development, infrastructure, and the water issue it would have still have
been $120,000 to $150,000. After the infrastructure, the houses themselves costing
anywhere from $200,000 to $300,000.”
Dan Saintignon,
property owner to the west at 1872 Mally Wagnon Road, commented,
“That is right behind us, we did not see the petition and we live there.
Other people have been signing things and we never did hear from the
City or anybody coming by.”
James Martin,
property owner to the west at 1811 Mally Wagnon Road, stated,
“It originally started at 78 units increasing around 50% to 117 lots.”
Richey commented, “It is 112 buildable lots, you said that they had 78
buildable lots. Only 112 of
those will be buildable.” Martin
stated, “But some of these lots are 50’ wide.
5,000 square foot that is a very small lot to put a house on. It appears to me this is going to create a slum-like area
with possible illegals moving in. If
the City approved this original plan and they didn’t know that they had a
water problem, they come back now to increase or decrease the size of the
lots to make up the money to put the water line in.
This should have been looked at the original application with 78
units. I just don’t
understand; it appears to me that it is a matter of greed to get money to
pay for the lots. They didn’t
admit their mistake in checking this out with the City if they have water
for all of the lots. I don’t
like the 50’ wide lots; that is just too small of a lot to build a house
on. At the highway entrance,
the pavement is 14’ wide at Mally Wagnon.
They say that they are going to fix this, but before the 78 units are
started, this should be fixed first to allow trucks to come in off highway
16. This is a real problem.
The City has been aiming to fix this for a long time.
I am against the 117 lots, but I’ll go along with the 78 units.”
Richey commented,
“Staff can offer clarification on the water issue.
They did know that they would have to supplement the water at
Preliminary Plat when they first came forward with the 78 lots.
They were aware of that and actually the subdivision was tabled for
about six months while they figured out how they were going to address that
situation and what they came up was the extension of the water line.
That was a situation that they were aware of at Preliminary Plat when
they first only had 78 lots. That
is not something that has come up in the interim.”
Suzanne Brooks,
property owner to the east at 6073 E. Huntsville Road, stated, “I was the one that had the drainage
concern. I have two stock ponds
that depend on the drainage from this area.
I am sure that this will not be destroyed, but it certainly will be
changed, in what way I don’t know. I
am afraid for it. I am like Mr.
Martin I don’t like to be sold on something and have it changed.
We were told that 78 houses would go in and that would be 3 to an
acre, which I thought was reasonable. I
don’t want anybody to think that I am against houses for working people.
I’ve been a working person all my life.
I have 52 acres half of it is wooded.
I know it will diminish the value of my property, but that is not my
main concern. I still go for
three to an acre, but I think that the
5 to an acre is ridiculous.”
Goedereis commented,
“We have no objection putting the road in before we went through, I
totally agree with Mr. Martin on that.”
Hearne stated,
“We’ve been working with Ms. Goedereis on this project and again on the
water system. We went through
the City first in this process, they did not require having a water
analysis, and it wasn’t until we got to the County review that we realized
that it was a requirement. It
really turned a lot of heads with Fayetteville.
No one really knew this kind of condition is part of the City and
part of the County then. That
was a tremendous effect on this project; we worked with a number of
different developers and put together a team and this entire bit of
infrastructure so far with the exception of one small upgrade from 8” to
12” has been funded with private development funds and that is a credit I
think to their elements to work with these other developments.
The drainage issues, this development and our commitments to
Fayetteville is that we would design this subdivision in accordance to
Fayetteville’s standards and that we would not release more stormwater
off-site. If there are special
needs or concerns with an adjacent property owner, we will certainly do some
special design to help fill a farm pond or direct water where they might
need it, but they’re not going to release more water post-development than
pre-development. I think that
it is important to note that in the Staff Report you look at Juliet’s
findings and facts, Juliet had done a very thorough review of this project
with it’s relationship with the surrounding developments.
I believe that it is important to note that in her findings and facts
there is no detrimental effect in the City or County infrastructure with the
additional 37 lots that we are talking about.
Adjacent property owners have some concerns over their detrimental
value, but there is no detrimental effect to the City or County
infrastructure. I think that in
consideration of the water system improvements and the affordable housing,
that we’re talking about our goal here, I think that alone is a certain
implication for strong consideration.”
Walker commented,
“I’ve seen the retention pond drawn on the west side of Mally Wagnon.”
Hearne commented, “The original plan shows that the original
detention pond is located on the northwest side of the property.”
Walker asked, “Lots 1 and 2. If
Ms. Brooks is concerned about drainage to her pond, are you changing the
drainage of this property? If
it drains towards her pond now, looks like to me it is going in the opposite
direction.” Hearne replied, “We have made accommodations on the east
side of the property on our revised plans to include an additional lot that
had been used for detention.” Walker
asked, “It naturally drains to the east now, the drainage to the west to
the detention ponds in this plot, are you changing the overall drainage of
the whole property?” Hearne
replied, “The original plan has poured some water that was going northeast
or east back to the northwest to the detention pond.
There is still the same amount of water going east that was
pre-development, we are still releasing that post-development, we’re not
catching that, it is still going to the east.
We are forcing the water; we are catching the water that was going
north and east to bring that back into the detention pond.”
Walker asked,
“Robert Daugherty asked the price range of the houses.
Comparably the original square footage to the whole square
footage.” Goedereis replied,
“Before it was 1,600 to 2,000 square feet, the covenants were not wrote
and assurances were not given. I
will provide you Bill of Assurance and covenants to match my goal.”
Laney asked, “I
hear that land has been given to the Fayetteville park system. I hear Fayetteville extending sewer anticipating future
annexation. How can the City of
Fayetteville plan on annexing it when their own people are saying that they
wouldn’t approve it anyway?”
Richey replied,
“The Bill of Assurances have to do with the original approval not this
proposed entity. They say that
they will originally extend sewer for 76 residential lot with the
stipulation that you annex it as soon as possible when someone adjacent
annexes into the City.”
Laney asked, “My
point would be though, if the zoning is in fact approved to the Conditional
Use Permit, would Fayetteville not want to annex it in?” Richey replied, “I don’t think that’s true, when we say
the City, you got to think about there is a lot of different departments.
The Sewer Department and the City Council bring in the Bill of
Assurances to begin with. The
Planning Department is now saying you’re asking about density we’re not
recommending for this density. I
called the Sewer Engineer for Fayetteville and I asked, ‘Is there going to
be a problem in paying for additional taps’ and he said, ‘If you’re
asking if that is going to be an impact on the system so that it would have
to be upgraded or would cause a problem with this type of system that is
going to be out there than the answer is no.’ Do we know if when we pass
zoning that the City Council and the Sewer Commission will grant them the
additional taps, no that is not known.
All that we know right now is what I can ask the engineer, which is
will it cause some sort of practical issues for the sewer system?
It could be if we granted zoning that the City may not grant them
additional sewer taps or water taps. There
are further steps to take.”
Goedereis stated,
“After this, if this is approved we go to the City Council and try to get
on the agenda to ask for their permission for water and sewer to be
extended.”
Walker asked,
“I’m still a little confused, if this is annexed then the County would
have no governing issue about the zoning.
If they got the land between the City and them to annex?”
Richey replied, “Then, it would be out of our hands and it would
solely be in Fayetteville’s jurisdiction, but that’s not the case right
now.”
Hearne commented,
“The developer has an agreement with the City Council that whenever the
City limits actually touch the boundary of this that they would be obligated
to grant annexation.”
Walker stated,
“Number 4 on the petition (Richard Miller-Southpaw Developers, LLC)
touches the City they are not opposed.”
Head commented, “I
always set a standard by which if I lived next door how would I feel about
compatibility, I would not want to live next door to 5,000 square foot lots
if I lived on acre lots out in the County.
I don’t deny that we need affordable housing somewhere, but you
can’t just go fit it where you have neighbors that don’t like it, so I
make a motion that we deny it.”
Daugherty stated,
“I think that the developer made a very good presentation for affordable
housing, but I’m like Gary Head I feel that this is something that I
can’t vote for. I hate it for
the developer, but the density is too much.
We need affordable housing, I know that, but I just feel like at this
point I can’t vote for this.”
Gary Head moved to deny
Mally Wagnon Estates Conditional Use Permit. Robert Daugherty seconded.
Motion passes.
All Board members were
in favor of denying
Mally Wagnon Estates Conditional Use
Permit.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS TO BE TABLED
Fayetteville
Planning Area
d. Newcastle Estates LSD (Conditional Use Permit Request)
Location: Section 29, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer: SML Landholding, LLC / Hometown
Development
Engineer/Surveyor: Milholland
Company / RCC Solutions, LLC
Location Address: (WC #345) Gulley Road and (WC #2306) Castle Rock
Drive
13.267 acres and 37 units proposed
Richey
stated that Newcastle Estates LSD was
tabled due
to lack of resubmittal (2)
Fayetteville Planning Area
e.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD (Conditional Use Permit
Request)
Location:
Section 36, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Winchester Lotto, LLC / Hometown Development
Engineer/Surveyor:
Project Design Consultants, Inc. / Geomatic Consultants, Inc.
Location Address:
6057 W. Wheeler Road (WC #84)
10.03 acres
Richey
stated that Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
was tabled
due to lack of resubmittal (2)
LAND DEVELOPMENTS TO BE TABLED
County
f.
Lowery Subdivision
Location:
Section 24, Township 13 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Penelope Lowery
Engineer/Surveyor: Alan Reid & Associates
Location Address: 10505 W. Devil’s Den
Road
16.64 acres and 2
lots
Richey
stated that Lowery Subdivision is
tabled at applicant’s request.
Fayetteville
Planning Area
g. Newcastle Estates LSD (Variance & Preliminary LSD Plan
Approval Request)
Location: Section 29, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer: SML Landholding, LLC / Hometown
Development
Engineer/Surveyor: Milholland
Company
Location Address: (WC #345) Gulley Road and (WC #2306) Castle Rock
Drive
13.267 acres and 37 units proposed
Richey
stated that Newcastle Estates LSD was
tabled due
to lack of resubmittal (2),
Fayetteville Planning Area
h.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD (Preliminary LSD Plan Approval Request)
Location:
Section 36, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Winchester Lotto, LLC / Hometown Development
Engineer/Surveyor:
Project Design Consultants, Inc. / Geomatic Consultants, Inc.
Location
Address: 6057 W. Wheeler Road (WC #84)
10.03
acres
Richey
stated that Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
was tabled
due to lack of resubmittal (2)
5.
OLD BUSINESS
6.
OTHER BUSINESS
- Discussion of
Planning Department Fee Schedule
Richey
stated, “We will discuss this next month, July 5, 2007.”
Discuss
next month
- Discussion of
Current Development
- Discussion of
pending Quorum Court Ordinances involving Planning issues:
- Building Permits
- Requiring surveys
for exempt splits less than 20 acres in size
Other matters
Larry Walker moved to
adjourn. Gary Head seconded. Motion
passes.
Planning Board
adjourned.
Minutes submitted by:
Amanda Kimbel
Approved by the Planning
Board on:
______Robert Daugherty_______ Date: ___07/05/07_______
Robert Daugherty, Planning Board Vice-Chairman
MINUTES
WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
July 5, 2007
5:00
p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse
Fayetteville, Arkansas
DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN:
Fayetteville Planning Area
a.
Miner Acres Subdivision
Conditional Use Permit
Approval
LAND DEVELOPMENT
HEARINGS
Fayetteville Planning Area
b.
Miner Acres Subdivision
Preliminary Plat Approval
Tontitown
Planning Area
c.
Legacy Estates Phase 1
Final Plat Approval
County
d.
Legacy Rock
Quarries LSD
Denied
LAND DEVELOPMENTS TO BE TABLED
Fayetteville
Planning Area
e. West Haven Subdivision
Tabled
LAND DEVELOPMENTS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO BE REMOVED FROM
THE AGENDA
Fayetteville
Planning Area
f. Newcastle Estates LSD (Conditional Use Permit Request)
Removed from the agenda
Fayetteville Planning Area
g.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD (Conditional Use Permit
Request)
Removed from the agenda
Fayetteville
Planning Area
h. Newcastle Estates LSD
Removed
from the agenda
Fayetteville Planning Area
i.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
Removed from the agenda
1.
ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken.
Members present include: Robert Daugherty, Kenley Haley, Gary Head,
Larry Walker, and Cheryl West. Absent:
Billy Smith and Randy Laney.
Robert Daugherty acted
as chairperson due to Randy Laney being absent.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the June 14, 2007 meeting) Gary
Head made a motion to approve as written. Larry Walker provided the second.
Motion passes.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Gary Head made a motion
to approve the agenda and to table item e. West Haven Subdivision Final Plat
and to remove items f. – i. Newcastle and Wheeler CUP and Preliminary LSD
Plans. Larry Walker seconded. Motion
passes.
4. NEW BUSINESS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS
Fayetteville Planning Area
a.
Miner Acres Subdivision
Location:
Section 3, Township 16 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Glenda Miner / OGRE, LLC
Engineer/Surveyor:
Steadfast, Inc.
Location
Address: 2493 N. Double Springs Road
24.46 acres and 7
lots
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Approval to allow 6 lots, less than 1 acre in
size in Miner Acres Subdivision. The
proposed project is 24.46 acres with 7 lots.
(Lots 1-6 range from 0.54 -0.86 acres in size, while Lot 7 is 20.46
acres in size.)
BACKGROUND: The
property is currently owned by Glenda Miner & OGRE, LLC.
It is located on Double Springs Road.
Adjacent Development to the north of the property includes Twin
Springs Estates PH 1 (final) and Twin Springs Estates PH 2 (preliminary
aprvd). Preliminary
approval of this plat was given 05-04-2006; however, required action for
construction by the applicant, had not taken place during 1 year of its
approval and subsequent granted extension making its approval void.
In addition to the Preliminary approval request Miner Acres
Subdivision is also applying for a Conditional Use Permit as the proposed
lots are less than 1 acre and are within the Zoned Area (Agricultural /
Single Family 1 unit per acre). The
Zoning Ordinance (Ord #2006-66) was not in effect at the time of its first
Preliminary Approval (05/04/06)
This project is located in the City
of Fayetteville’s Planning Area, so the County and Fayetteville will both
review it. Fayetteville granted
approval of Miner Acres March 26th, 2007, unaware that it fell
within the Zoned Area and required a CUP.
The transmittal letter from the applicant is included as an
attachment on page B- 9.
PLANNING AREA: The development is located in Fayetteville’s Planning
Area. The City of
Fayetteville’s Planning Commission renewed preliminary approval of
the plat on March 26th, 2007 with conditions listed in the
Fayetteville Planning Staff Report (B-5 through B8). These conditions
include but are not limited to the following:
Double Springs Road shall be improved to include 14’
pavement/street from centerline, curb and gutter, storm drain and a 6’
sidewalk at the right-of-way in accordance with the Master Street Plan,
installation of street lights at one per 300’.
Right-of-way dedication in the amount of 30 feet from centerline of
Double Springs Road, as an unclassified street on the Master Plan.
Shared driveways are approved; all shared driveways shall be
constructed prior to final plat approval.
The City shall perform road inspections for Double Springs.
Attached is Fayetteville’s Staff Report with the conditions it was
approved with in its entirety. The
preliminary plat had to be renewed with the city because it had expired with
them, as well.
STAFF REPORT:
The Preliminary Plat for this project is requesting approval
as a later item at this meeting. This
Preliminary Plat cannot be approved unless a CUP is granted.
No adjacent property owner comments for this CUP request have
been received, either in favor of, or against.
No infrastructure issues exist with the CUP request that will
not be addressed in Preliminary Plat. Please
read over the CUP spreadsheet for More Information (Pgs C3-C7).
After staff research it was found that few properties in this
area are comprised of less than 1 acre (SEE MAP, pg C-9).
Therefore, staff asks, that some acreage (at least two acres) be set
aside as follows:
A minimum of 2 acres of
land in lot 7 (preferably adjacent to lots 1-6) be placed in a conservation
easement, or other instrument that allows the property to remain
undeveloped, for no less than 50 years.
This will allow for
smaller lots within the area to be created, while the density would remain
at 1 unit per acre if Lot 7 is developed within the next 50 years.
At the time of the writing of this staff report, according to
the applicant’s engineer, the owner of Lot 7 seems receptive to the idea
of setting aside acreage in this manner.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Use Permit approval of the
proposed Miner Acres Subdivision with the following conditions:
·
That a minimum of 2 acres of land in lot 7
(preferably adjacent to lots 1-6) be placed in a conservation easement, or
other instrument that allows the property to remain undeveloped, for no less
than 50 years.
·
All lots shall be used for Single Family
or Agricultural Use only. Any
other use or density not approved with this CUP will require an additional CUP
Permit.
Randy Ritchey,
Steadfast, Inc., was present to answer any questions.
Juliet Richey,
Washington County Planning Director, stated, “This is a Conditional Use
Permit approval request to allow 6 lots less than one acre in size in Miner
Acres Subdivision. This
subdivision is located west of Fayetteville.
It is located in the zoned area, agriculture/single-family residential
one unit per acre. Also, this
project is located in the City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area.
This project is located on WC #881 (Double Springs Road) on 24.46 acres
with 7 lots. This subdivision is
directly adjacent to Twin Springs Subdivision, to the north that is under
construction and nearing the Final Plat stage.
The six lots up front are what are requiring the CUP; all of those are
less than an acre in size. Lot 7
is 20.46 acres.”
Richey also stated,
“The Planning Board granted Preliminary Plat approval May 4, 2006.
No construction action was taken within a year and it expired.
It also expired through Fayetteville and they have already renewed
their plat approval through them on March 26, 2007.
However, because it expired and zoning was approved in the interim,
that requires a CUP because the lots are less than an acre in size. The Board will be hearing the Preliminary Plat for this
project next on the agenda. We
have not received any adjacent property owner comments for either one in favor
of or against. The CUP checklist
shows that there are no infrastructure issues that exist with this request
that can’t be resolved with the Preliminary Plat.”
Richey added, “Staff
did some research and found that there are not very many lots in this area
that are less than an acre in size. Because
of that, we do not feel that we can recommend CUP to allow the six lots to
remain less than an acre without some sort of condition being placed on it.
The condition that we came up with is that a minimum of two acres of
land in Lot 7, preferably the land adjacent to Lots 1-6, be placed in a
conservation easement or other type of instrument that will allow the property
to remain undeveloped, for no less than 50 years time.
This allows for smaller lots within the area to be created, while the
density would remain at one unit per acre if Lot 7 is developed within the
next 50 years. The client is
generally in agreement with this. The
area adjacent to this on Lot 7 is a ravine in a creek situation, this would be
ideal to preserve as one of the last buildable parts of Lot 7.
There are going to be shared driveways on Lots 1-6 this limits the
possibility of accidents due to the large number of driveways in this small
area. That was really one of the
only things that we were worried about having the smaller lots directly off
Double Springs Road. The existing character around there is residential and a mix
from large houses, smaller houses, and manufactured homes. The Future Land Use Plan shows that this whole piece of land
falls in three different categories: residential (compatible to surrounding
densities), rural area residential, and public and private / open space; that
is designated around a lot of creeks and floodplains. Actually by having preserved the two acres, it would comply
directly with this piece of land.”
Ritchey commented, “I
am representing the owners. Juliet
has done a great job. I don’t
know if I can just see if the Board will consider approving this without the
two acres. Personally, I agree with Juliet’s recommendation.
There is a little difficulty, there are three owners on this property
and I can’t get the three owners to agree on it. I’m relatively sure that they would probably do it, I
don’t know for sure. There’s
an issue also with the City of Fayetteville, we re-approved through
Fayetteville, and I think I will have to go back through them again.
This project has become real difficult for me. If the Board could consider it without the two acres, I would
appreciate it. If it needs to
stay, it will either happen or it won’t, at this point that’s all I can
say.”
Walker asked, “How
would you get access to the back of Lot 7?”
Ritchey replied, “There are two ways to do that, the streets that are
built in Twin Springs do provide access to that. There is a backup plan if that does not get Final approval to
set aside an easement.”
Head stated, “We just
had a subdivision here last month (Mally Wagnon CUP) that was similar in
nature to this. It was asking for
density of half an acre, much smaller lots.
Obviously, there are not very many people here that are in opposition
to this. I like the idea for the
conservation easement of two acres, but it did expire.
I don’t think that it changes the character of what was already
approved. I would feel
differently if there were opposition, I’m not personally opposed to it.”
Richey commented, “I
don’t think that there were a lot of opposition originally.”
Walker asked, “I’m
like Gary Head, if it was approved without it before, what is the difference
now?” Richey replied, “It is
zoned now. There was not zoning
before, so we didn’t look at that part.”
George Butler,
Washington County Attorney, asked, “The two acres is virtually non
developable land?” Richey
replied, “Right, it is in a ravine-type area.”
Walker stated, “I
have been by the property, it is pretty steep.”
Gary Head moved to approve
Miner Acres Subdivision Conditional Use Permit without the two acres
requirement for the conservation easement. Larry Walker seconded.
Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of approving
Miner Acres Subdivision Conditional
Use Permit.
LAND DEVELOPMENT
HEARINGS
Fayetteville Planning Area
b.
Miner Acres Subdivision
Location:
Section 3, Township 16 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Glenda Miner / OGRE, LLC
Engineer/Surveyor:
Steadfast, Inc.
Location
Address: 2493 N. Double Springs Road
24.46 acres and 7 lots
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat Approval for Miner Acres Subdivision.
The proposed project is 24.46 acres with 7 lots.
(Lots 1-6 range from 0.54 -0.86 acres in size, while Lot 7 is 20.46
acres in size.)
BACKGROUND: The
property is currently owned by Glenda Miner & OGRE, LLC.
It is located on Double Springs Road.
Adjacent Development to the north of the property includes Twin Springs
Estates PH 1 (final) and Twin Springs Estates PH 2 (preliminary aprvd).
Preliminary approval of this plat was given 05-04-2006; however,
required action for construction by the applicant, had not taken place during
1 year of its approval and subsequent granted extension making its approval
void. In addition to the
Preliminary approval request Miner Acres Subdivision is also applying for a
Conditional Use Permit as the proposed lots are less than 1 acre and are
within the Zoned Area (Agricultural / Single Family 1 unit per acre).
The Zoning Ordinance (Ord #2006-66) was not in effect at the time of
its first Preliminary Approval (05/04/06)
This project is located in the City
of Fayetteville’s Planning Area, so the County and Fayetteville will both
review it. Fayetteville granted
approval of Miner Acres March 26th, 2007, unaware that it fell
within the Zoned Area and required a CUP.
The transmittal letter from the applicant is included as an attachment
on page B- 9.
SPLITS PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED ON THIS
PARENT PARCEL: This
parcel has two previous splits.
PLANNING AREA: The development is located in Fayetteville’s Planning
Area. The City of
Fayetteville’s Planning Commission renewed preliminary approval of
the plat on March 26th, 2007 with conditions listed in the
Fayetteville Planning Staff Report (B-5 through B8). These conditions include
but are not limited to the following: Double
Springs Road shall be improved to include 14’ pavement/street from
centerline, curb and gutter, storm drain and a 6’ sidewalk at the
right-of-way in accordance with the Master Street Plan, installation of street
lights at one per 300’. Right-of-way
dedication in the amount of 30 feet from centerline of Double Springs Road, as
an unclassified street on the Master Plan.
Shared driveways are approved; all shared driveways shall be
constructed prior to final plat approval.
The City shall perform road inspections for Double Springs.
Attached is Fayetteville’s Staff Report with the conditions it was
approved with in its entirety. The
preliminary plat had to be renewed with the city because it had expired with
them, as well.
ZONING: Project does lie within the County Zoned area
(Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per acre).
The project must obtain CUP approval for proposed layout.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT #:
District
10, JP Jack Norton (D)
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water - The lot is served by Fayetteville Water.
Other Utilities - The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric Cooperative
Corporation, AT & T Telephone (SBC), Arkansas Western Gas, and Cox
Communications.
Streets – The proposed project has access off of WC #881 (Double
Springs Road).
STAFF REPORT:
Miner Acres has received renewed preliminary approval with
conditions from Fayetteville. An
application for a Conditional Use Permit has been submitted, due to the
original approval expiring and new ordinances being passed in the interim,
such as Zoning (Agricultural / Single-Family Residential 1 unit per acre).
Fire flow information has been provided and deemed adequate.
The County Engineer has reviewed drainage report; there are not any
negative issues that have been made evident.
All adjacent property owners within 300’ of project have been
notified in the specified time period. Most
submittal checklist items and staff comments have been completed only a few
minor items remain.
General Utility Tech Review Comments Comments from
June 19th, 2007:
*Only Tech Comments that still applicable and that
do not qualify as conditions are shown
Ozark Electric Comments:
General Comments:
1. Any relocation of existing facilities or extension
of line that has to be built specifically to feed the subdivision will be at
full cost to the developer.
2. All lot corners must
be marked with lot numbers clearly written on the stakes before construction
will begin.
3. If off site easements
are needed for Ozarks to provide electricity to the development, easements
must be obtained by developer and provided to Ozarks before the design will
begin.
4. All conduits placed
at road crossings by developer must have 48 inch of cover at final grade and
marked with post to identify end of conduits. (3 – 4 inch schedule 40
conduits to be used for electric only at all road crossings, conduits must
extend past the edge of any obstructions so that they are accessible during
construction. Other utilities will require more conduits at road crossing.)
There must be minimum separation of 12 inches between conduits for electric
and conduits for other utilities. This is NESC code 354.
5. All conduits for road
crossings and specific widths of U.E. must be shown on final plat before
Ozarks Electric will sign the final plat.
6. Subdivisions will be
built on Policy 45 (Ozarks is responsible for up to 50% and the Developer is
responsible for the remainder of the cost of construction) There will be extra
charges to the Developer when extra time or materials are used for rock
trenching, boring, select material bedding, shoring, dewatering, etc.
7. All back lot and side
lot utility easements to be 20 feet except side lot utility easements to be
used for streetlights to be 10 feet. All front lot utility easements to be a
minimum of 25 feet.
8. Developer must
provide Ozarks Electric with a Digital copy (AutoCAD 2004) of the Final plat
as well as a hard copy.
9. All Utility Easements
to be cleared of all trees, brush, dirt piles, buildings and debris so that
the easement is accessible with equipment. If easement is not cleared
developer may be subject to extra charges.
10. Please contact me
when construction begins on subdivision and again when construction is within
three months of completion. Greg McGee at (479) 684-4634 or gmcgee@ozarksecc.com
Cox Communications Comments:
- No
plans to service lot 7 until Twin Springs Subdivision is developed.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Preliminary Plat approval of the
proposed Miner Acres Subdivision with the following conditions:
1.
ROW needs to be shown & read as 30 ft from the CL
of road, while this text was added it is difficult to read on plat at present,
due to overlapping text.
2.
Adhere
to all Fayetteville conditions as per staff report dated March 20th,
2007 and approved preliminary at the Fayetteville Planning Commission of March
26th, 2007.
3.
Meet Remaining Checklist Items
(a)
Submit one (1) .jpeg or .pdf AND a .dwg of the plat on
disc or by email to jrichey@co.washington.ar.us
(b)
Concrete or approved aluminum monuments shall be placed at
the exterior boundary corners and one-half-inch by eighteen-inch steel pins
shall be placed at all lot corners.
(c)
Existing roads, streets, culverts, railroads, and other
features: The plat shall show the location, name, width, surface type, surface
condition and right-of-way width of all existing or platted roads,
streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the proposed improvement,
including features such as existing permanent buildings, railroads, municipal
corporation limits, county's state lines, planning district limits, oil
and gas lines or wells, abandoned wells and dry holes.
ROW width from CL is shown however, overlapping
text makes plat difficult to read. This
needs corrected. Planning
district line is shown on vicinity map but not 60-scale layout page.
(d)
Soil analysis: The developer shall indicate the types of soil
found in the plat area according to the USDA Soil Conservation Service.
(e)
Plat and deed restrictions: Restrictions, if any, with use
and perimeters defined. Plat restrictions should be certified as to current
legality by a member of the Arkansas Bar. If none, add a note to the plat
stating there are none. (Signature
Block 6) Plat
states: “ There are no plat restrictions other than those shown on this
plat”, this should read plat and deed restrictions if trying to
satisfy submittal checklist item (15.)
4.
Ozark Electric needs 15’ on either side of the electric line.
Currently on plat there is a 30’ easement on lot 6 to accommodate,
this easement needs to be labeled Utility Easement or Electric Easement to
define what kind of easement it is.
5.
Pay County Engineer Review Fees.
6.
Cox Communications needs a copy AutoCAD 2002 or older emailed to them @
michael.moore3@cox.com.
7.
AT&T Telephone needs 4” conduits under all proposed drive;
currently there is not a note on plat that indicates this requirement.
WASHINGTON
COUNTY ROAD DEPT. COMMENTS: Must be adhered to prior to & during
construction as follows:
- Any
work done in county road ROW has to be permitted and bonded.
- Street
lights can not be installed in county road ROW
- Fayetteville
will inspect roads.
- County
must be copied on all test results from roads material.
- Pre
Construction will have to be done with county Road Dept. before
construction.
- County
Road Dept. will have to do a final inspection.
Randy Ritchey,
Steadfast, Inc., was present to answer any questions.
Richey stated, “This
is the Preliminary Plat portion of the Conditional Use Permit previously
looked at. This project is
located on WC #881 (Double Springs Road) on 24.46 acres with 7 lots. There are
some road improvements that were required by the City of Fayetteville, as well
as the shared driveways. Fayetteville
renewed the Preliminary Plat approval on March 26, 2007. Widen Double Springs Road on their side and do a sidewalk.
The County Engineer has reviewed the drainage report and there are no
negative issues that have come up. Adjacent
property owners have been notified and we have not received any comments.
Fire flow information has been provided and deemed adequate.
There is an existing hydrant near on-site.
Staff does recommend approval.”
Ritchey had
nothing to add.
Gary Head moved to approve
Miner Acres Subdivision Preliminary Plat with conditions. Larry Walker
seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of approving
Miner Acres Subdivision Preliminary
Plat approval.
Tontitown Planning Area
c.
Legacy Estates Phase 1
Location:
Section 22, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Gary Brandon Enterprises, Inc.
Engineer/Surveyor:
Engineering Services, Incorporated
Location Address: (WC
#31) Harmon Road – across the road from (WC #873) Strawberry Plant Road
69.62 acres and 111
lots
REQUEST:
Final Plat approval for Legacy Estates Subdivision - Phase 1.
The proposed project is located on the south side of Harmon Road (WC
#31) and the west side of Columbine Road (WC #864).
Total acreage for Phase 1 is 69.62 acres.
The total number of residential lots for Phase 1 is 111; lot sizes
range from 0.33 acres to 0.78 acres. A
proposed 8.69 acres has been set aside to accommodate the decentralized sewer
system, located on lot 101. Project
site is located in Tontitown’s Planning Area and is in the County Zoned
Area.
*note: lot number 101 is not included in the total
residential lot number given
BACKGROUND/PLANNING
AREA: The property is currently owned
by Gary Brandon Enterprises, Inc. Total
acreage for the entire project; phases 1 and 2, is 117.31 acres.
Washington County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to
the development known as Gary Brandon Subdivision on 12/02/04.
The name of the project has since changed to Legacy Estates.
In addition to the change in name, the property that was previously not
in a Planning Area is now in Tontitown’s Planning Area.
This change was created due to annexations and subsequent alterations
made to the Tontitown’s Planning Areas.
There have been some changes made to the plat since the
recorded date of preliminary approval.
Since preliminary approval, (approved by Washington County
Road Department) the final plat has had the road to the south of the proposed
waste water treatment site removed and several of lots taken out, however,
road construction plans reflect these changes.
It is also important to note that the preliminary plat did not
reflect that the subdivision would be built in separate phases.
Final plat shows only part of the subdivision, which is now labeled as
Phase 1. Preliminary Plat had
open ditch; project now has curb and gutter.
Lastly, final plat shows a common recreation center and pool that was
not previously on the preliminary plat. These
changes are all accounted for in Construction Plans received, approved, and
bonded by the Road Department for Phase 1 only.
Discussion has taken place regarding these changes.
Applicant requested to be tabled at last months Planning Board Meeting
mainly due to not completing required swale work.
ZONING: Project
does lie within the County Zoned Area; however, preliminary approval
had been granted before the passage of the Zoning Ordinance, therefore zoning
is not applicable to the final plat of this project.
Future splits and proposed uses within this subdivision will be subject
to zoning.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT #: District 1, Tom Lundstrum
(R)
Splits previously completed on this parent parcel:
Parcel #001-17223-006 has six
previous splits.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water
- The development will be served by Washington Water Authority.
Other
utilities: The development will be served by Ozark Electric, Arkansas
Western Gas, AT & T Telephone (South Western Bell Telephone) and Cox
Communications.
Streets
-
The preliminary plat (both phase 1 & 2) shows the project having two
outlets onto Harmon. One entrance
directly North (Phase 1) and the other to the West (Phase 2). There is some question regarding the location of the
westernmost entrance coming off Harmon Rd, and it’s relationship to an
existing subdivision (Harmon Trails Estates) on the opposite side of Harmon Rd. This
is an issue that will come up in Phase 2.
Additionally, Harmon Road, which is identified as a major collector on
the County Functional Classification Map and the 2025 Regional Transportation
Plan, requires dedication of a 40' ROW, is currently a 20' paved road with
gravel shoulders. The applicants
are dedicating 40’ from the CL on Harmon, adjacent to this development, via
this plat.
PERMITS:
$
Health Department approval of the on-site sewer system
$
ADEQ - Storm Water Construction General Permit (to control storm water
runoff causing water pollution) and a posted Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) on-site
$
Floodplain certification
$
Any other local, state or federal permits
*************************************************************************************************
UPDATED STAFF REPORT:
Due to discrepancy between Preliminary approved plat and final submitted
plat, some additional information was required by the applicant.
Preliminary approved plat had (2) points of ingress / egress; however
due to changes in the initial plan being divided up into Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Legacy Estates Final Plat Phase 1 contained only 1 point of ingress /
egress thereby not meeting State Fire Code, which requires an adequate number
of entrances and exits to provide for uninterrupted emergency services to all
areas of development. The
applicant has worked diligently to resolve this State Fire code issue. There is now compliance in Phase 1, as the Final plat now
shows lot 9 being reserved as a temporary Fire access which is for emergency
vehicles only, and must be gated with a siren activated gate. The temporary fire access drive will be removed at Final Plat
of Phase 2, when Phase 2 passes inspection.
There is a note on the plat that states “Lot 9 cannot be sold
until Phase Two is completed and final”.
Final Plat will not be signed until road is built to approved plans
& specs, and gate is installed and inspected. Inspections must be performed by Fire Marshal’s Office and
Road Department. *Refer to email
sent 05-20-07 with subject “Second Entrance- Legacy Estate” (page #4)
All road issues to date have been resolved, including the swale work.
There is a remaining final inspection fee that will need to be paid
through the Road Department. Approval
by the Road Department has taken place for the following items: final Inspection, as builts, maintenance bond, testing
conducted for asphalt and 7-day concrete break & engineers statement that
drainage will not be an issue at Emergency Access due to curb alteration.
Any new or additional information will made available at the
07-05-07 Planning Board Meeting.
*Refer to email dated 05-29-17 (page #5)
Staff has worked with applicant to correct all checklist items on the
final plat. County engineer
review fees were sent out 06-28-07 update on fees being paid will be made
available at the July 5th Planning Board Meeting.
The Planning Department has received an email from Tontitown regarding
how Tontitown will handle Legacy Estates – Phase 1 (Final) since the
property is now within their planning area.
Tontitown has “no objections to Washington County’s approval of the
Legacy Estates Phase I final plat”.
*Refer to e-mail date 06-11-07 (page #7) to view email in it’s entirety.
RECOMMENDATION:
Final Plat Approval of the proposed Legacy Estates Phase 1 with the
following conditions:
1.
Pay remaining
final inspection fee through the Road Department.
2.
Siren activated
gate must be installed and inspected for approval by the Fire Marshal &
Road Department.
3.
Pay County
Engineering Fees (sent out on 6/28/07).
4.
Any further splitting or land development not considered with this
approval must come before the Planning Board – this note has been
added to plat.
5.
Have all signature blocks signed on 11
Final Plats - 2 for filing in the Circuit Clerk’s office, 7 for the County
Planning office, remainder for the developer.
Jason Appel, Engineering Services Incorporated, was
present to answer any questions.
Jessie
Pettit, Washington County Planner, stated, “The proposed project is located
on the south side of WC #31 (Harmon Road) and the west side of WC #864
(Columbine Road) on 69.62 acres with 111 lots.
This item is located in Tontitown’s Planning Area and the County’s
zoned area. Even though this
project does fall within Tontitown’s area, Preliminary approval had been
granted before the passage of the zoning ordinance, therefore zoning is not
applicable to the Final Plat of this project. Preliminary
approved plat had (2) points of ingress / egress; however due to changes in
the initial plan being divided up into Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Legacy Estates Final Plat Phase 1 contained only 1 point of ingress /
egress thereby not meeting State Fire Code, which requires an adequate number
of entrances and exits to provide for uninterrupted emergency services to all
areas of development. The applicant has worked diligently to resolve this State
Fire code issue. There is now
compliance in Phase 1, as the Final plat now shows lot 9 being reserved as a
temporary Fire access which is for emergency vehicles only, and must be gated
with a siren activated gate. The
temporary fire access drive will be removed at Final Plat of Phase 2, when
Phase 2 passes inspection. There
is a note on the plat that states ‘Lot 9 cannot be sold until Phase Two is
completed and final.’ Final
Plat will not be signed until road is built to approved plans & specs, and
gate is installed and inspected. Inspections
must be performed by Fire Marshal’s Office and Road Department.”
Pettit
also stated, “All road issues to date have been resolved, including the
swale work. There is a remaining
final inspection fee that will need to be paid through the Road Department.
Approval by the Road Department has taken
place for the following items: final inspection, as builts, maintenance bond, testing
conducted for asphalt and 7-day concrete break & engineers statement that
drainage will not be an issue at Emergency Access due to curb alteration.
Any new or additional information will made available at
tonight’s meeting.”
Pettit
added, “Staff has worked with applicant to correct all checklist items on
the final plat. County engineer
review fees were sent out June 28, 2007.
The Planning Department has received an email from Tontitown regarding
how Tontitown will handle Legacy Estates – Phase 1 (Final) since the
property is now within their planning area.
Tontitown has ‘no objections to Washington County’s approval of the
Legacy Estates Phase I final plat.’ Staff
does recommend approval.”
Appel commented,
“I’ll answer any questions.”
Haley asked, “Once
the gate is inspected, is that a renewal every year, or is that a one time
inspection?” Richey replied,
“John Jenkins, Washington County Fire Marshal, inspects it once and then he
has a list of all the siren activated gates in the County.
He is not present tonight. I
think he goes once a year to check on them.”
Gary Head moved to approve
Legacy Estates Phase 1 Final Plat with conditions. Kenley Haley seconded.
Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of approving
Legacy Estates Phase 1 Final Plat
approval.
County
d.
Legacy Rock
Quarries LSD
Location:
Section 19, 20, 29, & 30, Township 15 North, Range 33 West
Owner/Developer:
Dean and Mila Morris
Engineer/Surveyor:
HGM Consultants, Inc. / Blew & Associates
Location Address: (WC #1018) Res. Dr. Cox
324.46 acres
REQUEST: Preliminary LSD Plan Approval for Legacy Rock Quarries LSD.
The property is 324.46 acres.
BACKGROUND: The
property is currently owned by Dean and Mila Morris (Summers Rock Quarry).
This project received administrative approval on June 8, 2007
to split 324.46 acres into 174.62 acres and 149.84 acres.
ZONING: The property is currently not zoned.
PLANNING AREA: The development is located solely in the County.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT #:
District
10, JP Jack Norton (D)
Splits previously completed on this
parent parcel: Parcels #001-09572-000 and #001-09581-000 have no
previous splits. Parcel
#001-09809-000 has three previous splits.
Parcel #001-09823-000 has two previous splits.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water – This property will be serviced by a well.
Sewer- septic proposed
Other Utilities - The property is in the service area of
Ozark Electric Cooperative Corporation and Prairie Grove Telephone.
Streets- The property has access off of (RD 1018) Res. Dr.
Cox. Offsite Road improvements will be made from the site to HWY 62 via
1018-RD Cox, WC 455 Jones Rd, and WC 17- Wolf Track Rd. The developer must acquire ROW to complete these
improvements. ROW will be 30’
from the centerline of the Road. The
improved road will continue 250’ into the site.
STAFF REPORT:
The property has been split into two pieces via
administrative lot split. The
property now consists of two pieces: Tract
A, 174.62 acres and Tract B, 149.84 acres.
Tract A will be the actual site of the quarrying.
Tract B will be used only for a haul road and general agricultural
land.
The Preliminary LSD plan shows a scale house (Also used as a
break room facility for workers), two 500-gallon fuel tanks (above ground-
with a containment berm around tanks), a rock stockpile area, and a proposed
well site.
The property has access off of 1018Res. Dr. Cox. Offsite Road
improvements will be made from the site to HWY 62 via RD 1018- Cox, WC 455
Jones Rd, and WC 17- Wolf Track Rd. The
developer must acquire ROW to complete these improvements.
ROW will be 30’ from the centerline of the Road.
The improved road will continue 250’ into the site (to help
facilitate the removal of dirt, mud and debris from the truck tires prior to
reaching the public road). This route is shown on the vicinity map on the first page of
the plans in your packet.
The following offsite road improvements will be required by
Washington County along the route described above:
·
Class V
street pavement section must be designed as per County Standards and approved
by consulting engineers and the County Road Department.
The Class V street MUST be a minimum of 21’ in pavement width, with a
minimum of 2’ shoulders on each side of the road.
·
30’ ROW
acquisition is required along all Washington County Roads and the Residential
Drive along the route.
·
All
improvements and ROW acquisition shall be completed at the expense of the
applicant/developer.
·
All
improvements must be bonded to Washington County Road Department prior to
Construction
·
A variance
will be required if the applicant is unable to obtain required ROW.
Prior to any construction, the applicant must provide
construction plans for road improvements, drainage, and building layout (to be
reviewed by Fire Marshal for code compliance) to be reviewed and approved by
the County.
The
drainage report submitted with the Preliminary LSD lacks some information at
this time. Information currently
includes that water will sheet flow prom project site upon completion of the
quarry. Updates stating how
drainage will be dealt with while the project is being built are currently
being completed by the applicant’s engineer at this time, and will be
reviewed by the County’s contracted engineer for this project (CEI
Engineering in Bentonville) prior to the meeting.
Staff will give an update on the drainage and other comments by CEI at
that time. Staff received an update from CEI
regarding the revised Drainage report. The
revised report addresses all of the previous concerns.
The only remaining concern is that the post-development plan does not
show the sedimentation ponds that are mentioned in the report.
Staff has conferred with CEI, and both CEI and staff are comfortable
with Preliminary approval conditioned upon depiction of these ponds.
The applicant’s engineer on this project is HGM Consulting
Engineers. HGM is our contract
engineer for County reviews. Whenever
HGM submits a project to the County, the project must be reviewed by another
Engineering Agency for the County. In
this case we are using CEI Engineering located in Bentonville, Arkansas.
The applicant has stated that no blasting chemicals/materials
will be stored onsite. All
blasting shall be completed by a blasting contractor.
The County should be copied on all NOIs (mining and SWPPP-
storm water) and Air Permit (for Crusher) required by ADEQ.
Property owners within ½ mile of this development were
notified in both Arkansas and Oklahoma. There
have been inquiries over the phone, but no written comments received from
property owners at this time.
The following items still need to be addressed as per
Planning Department:
Washington County Planning Department’s
Checklist:
10. Existing roads,
streets, culverts, railroads, and other features: The LSD Plan shall show the location,
name, width, surface type, surface condition and right-of-way width of all
existing or platted roads, streets or other public ways within or adjacent to
the proposed improvement, including features such as existing permanent
buildings, railroads, municipal corporation limits, county's state lines,
planning district limits, oil and gas lines or wells, abandoned wells and dry
holes. All roads. Wolf Tract and the Residential
drive must have this information shown on the plans.
22. Building setback lines
as fixed by the County, building lines and any setback lines established by
public authority, and those stipulated in the deed restrictions and
right-of-way lines. Minimum County Setbacks: Front or
ROW 25’, Side 10’, Rear 20’. Note
# 10 is okay for both the side and rear lines, but will not be adequate for
the front setback.
Washington County Planning
Department’s Staff Comments:
1.
All setbacks should be shown for development.
This includes 250’ setback from public road (Cox) and general side,
front, and rear setbacks. Please dimension setback
lines on plans. See #22 above for the correct setback widths.
2.
Septic Permit must be obtained by Final
Approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff
recommends for the Preliminary LSD approval of the project with the following
conditions:
1.
Prior to any
construction, the applicant must provide construction plans for road
improvements, drainage, and building layout (to be reviewed by Fire Marshal
for code compliance) to be reviewed and approved by the County.
- The
County should be copied on all NOIs (mining and SWPPP- storm water or
Aggregate) and Air Permit (for Crusher) required by ADEQ.
- The
following items still need to be addressed as per Planning Department:
Washington County Planning Department’s Checklist:
·
Existing roads, streets, culverts,
railroads, and other features: The LSD Plan shall show the location, name,
width, surface type, surface condition and right-of-way width of all existing
or platted roads, streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the
proposed improvement, including features such as existing permanent buildings,
railroads, municipal corporation limits, county's state lines, planning
district limits, oil and gas lines or wells, abandoned wells and dry holes. All
roads. Wolf Tract and the Residential drive must have this information shown
on the plans.
·
Building setback lines as fixed by the
County, building lines and any setback lines established by public authority,
and those stipulated in the deed restrictions and right-of-way lines. Minimum
County Setbacks: Front or ROW 25’, Side 10’, Rear 20’.
Note # 10 is okay for both the side and rear lines, but will not be
adequate for the front setback.
Washington
County Planning Department’s Staff Comments:
·
All setbacks should be shown for development.
This includes 250’ setback from public road (Cox) and general side,
front, and rear setbacks. Please dimension setback lines on plans. See #22
above for the correct setback widths.
·
Septic Permit must be obtained by Final Approval.
·
Show the sedimentation ponds on the post-development plan as
stated in the drainage report.
- The
following offsite road improvements will be required by Washington County
along the route described above:
·
Class V
street pavement section must be designed as per County Standards and approved
by consulting engineers and the County Road Department.
The Class V street MUST be a minimum of 21’ in pavement width, with a
minimum of 2’ shoulders on each side of the road.
·
30’ ROW
acquisition is required along all Washington County Roads and the Residential
Drive along the route.
·
All
improvements and ROW acquisition shall be completed at the expense of the
applicant/developer.
·
All
improvements must be bonded to Washington County Road Department prior to
Construction
·
A variance
will be required if the applicant is unable to obtain required ROW.
Dean Morris, owner of
the proposed project, and Clay Grote, HGM Consultants, Inc., were present to
answer any questions.
Richey stated, “This
project is located near Summers, Arkansas south of Highway 62.
A portion of it is directly adjacent to the Oklahoma State line.
It is not in either a zoned area or Planning Area.
It has access off of WC #17 Wolf Track Road and WC #1018 Cox
Residential Drive. The property
is 324.46 acres and it has been divided by an administrative tract split into
two smaller pieces, Tract A - 174.62 acres and Tract B - 149.84 acres. Tract A is the actual quarry site. Tract B will be used only for a haul road to get from the Cox
Res. Dr. up into the site. Essentially
this is a big hill, small mountain. Basically,
it is a large piece of rock that is covered with dirt and trees.
The other parts of this plan are a 30 x 40’ proposed scale house,
which is also going to be used as the break house for the workers.
There will be two 500-gallon fuel tanks that are going to be housed
above ground that will have a containment berm around the tanks in case of a
spill that will hold 1,100 gallons. There
is a rock stockpile area where the rocks will be loaded up and hauled out.
There will be a crusher that will crush up the rock into different
sizes and it will move around the site depending on what is being quarried at
that time.”
Richey also stated,
“There are off-site road improvements required for this project.
The improvements will be required from the site to go all the way to
Highway 62 via Cox, WC #455 Jones Road, and WC #17 Wolf Track Road.
The developer must acquire right-of-way himself to complete these
improvements. The right-of-way
will be required to be 30’ from the centerline of the road.
The improved road will continue 250’ onto the actual site.
The 250’ onto the site has to be the improved paved road as well,
that will help facilitate the removal of dirt, mud, and debris from the truck
tires prior to reaching the public road.
The drainage report was lacking some information; they have submitted a
new drainage report. CEI
Engineering Associates, Inc. who is the review engineer on this project,
looked over the drainage report and it does address all of the previous
concerns. The only remaining
concern is the post-development plan does not show the sedimentation ponds
that are mentioned in the report, that can be a condition.”
Richey added, “As far
as blasting, we do not have any regulations in our County Code book that deals
with blasting. With this type of
Large Scale Development, one of the main things that we look at is roads
traffic impact, off-site road improvements, and drainage issues, which have
been covered. Basically, on this
project it will be slowly taken down this mountain or hill, and essentially
you have a series of sedimentation ponds that depending on where they are
working at the time they are going to channel the water to settle out the
sediment from all of this disturbed area and then it will slowly spill over
into sheet flow across the property. It
is hard to depict on Preliminary Plan a detention pond somewhere because the
work moves around the site, they will be digging sedimentation ponds as they
go and to address the needs in that area.
There are also several permits that will be required environmentally
and Mining Safety and Health Administration.
They’re going to have to have a Stormwater Permit of some type
through ADEQ and that’s going to deal with erosion control and the water
coming off of the site while being quarried.
Also, they will have to have an air permit that goes with the crusher
and also MSHA permit which is Mining Administration and they submit to them
saying we will be having a mine and people come and inspect it to make sure
that it is being run correctly for the time.
All of the permits, the way that the mining and quarrying is set up,
can’t be applied for until you’re closer to beginning your project,
essentially, actually beginning mining. In
this case, we’re going to require that they have all of those permits and
“notices of intent” to those agencies before they go for Final
approval.”
Richey also added,
“What we’re looking at tonight is just Preliminary; basically we’re
setting out what off-site road improvements would need to be made (yes), we
looked at the preliminary drainage work and it was okay, and we looked at the
adherence to State Fire Code and there are some issues that the Fire Marshal
will need to look at the building plans to make sure that the exits are right
(prior to construction). Basically,
that is all that we can look at, at this time.
Things like blasting are regulated by the Mining Administration and
ADEQ, in a separate body. The
County does have a dust abatement plan that we do require and they have to
water the roads that are unpaved. All
trucks in the County do have to be covered that leave the quarry.
They have satisfied everything that we need them to have for
Preliminary.”
Richey added,
“Something did come up at the end, assessment of the surrounding parcels of
land prior to blasting that the blasting companies do.
I guess the most important thing to convey is that the applicant and
the developer are going to be responsible for all of the off-site road
improvements, all of the acquisition of right-of-way, and if they are unable
to acquire some of that right-of-way they are going to have to come back to
the Board for a variance on that and that will be a decision that Board will
make at that time. It will be a
Class 5 street, which I know doesn’t mean a lot (to you wording-wise), but
that has to do with how thick the asphalt has to be.
That will be designed after they get some core tests back from the
material of the existing road. All
of the (off-site) streets have to be 21’ in pavement width with the minimum
of 2’ shoulders to accommodate the large trucks.
We had them present us with a traffic study and it tells us how many
trucks a day that they will be expecting, they put 100 trucks a day; (100
loaded and 100 unloaded). 100
round trips and how much you figure the weight on those loaded will weigh on
the roads much more than just a regular car, that’s how that was figured.
They will have to have a septic tank permit at Final approval and all
setbacks will have to be shown.”
Richey also added,
“This is Preliminary approval, what we’re doing is approving, basically,
the off-site road improvements and what they are going to have to do and after
they get approval they will have to get construction plans for all of these
roads and how they’re going to be built and those will be submitted to us to
review. If they meet County
standards they will be approved, the County will issue a bond, and the
developer will do all these roads and they will not receive Final approval to
open the quarry until all the off-site road improvements have been completed. That will be a separate meeting.”
West asked, “Where is
Wolf Track road, I’m not familiar with that.”
Richey replied, “WC #17 Wolf Track Road intersects with Highway 62
and comes down and then turn onto WC #455 Jones Road and then turn onto WC
#1018 Cox Res. Dr.”
Haley asked, “How
much is going to be paved?” Richey
replied, “All of it, from the site all the way up to Highway 62, I think it
is a little over two miles.”
Walker asked, “Who
maintains the road after it is done?” Richey
replied, “The County will maintain it after it is built with the
specifications that we required. That’s
why we reviewed the plan and required thick pavement sections, we don’t want
to maintain something if it is going to break down. The only way that there maybe parts that we will not maintain
is if they are unable to get some sort of right-of-way, the road happens to be
smaller than the specifications, we may have to work something out if they
have to come back for a variance. We
don’t want to maintain something that does not meet our regulations.
Generally, the way that it is stated in this Preliminary approval we
will be maintaining the road after it is accepted and we understand that it
will be built to County specifications.”
Walker asked, “What
is the life expectancy of a road built to that with that amount of traffic on
it?” Richey replied, “We did
a life expectancy of it built into our regulations where they figure out what
class street it was, what their traffic count, and loading rate.
We used AASHTO standards, which is a general highway traffic standard.
It is a twenty year life span is what you figure for a pavement on a
road.”
Walker asked, “What
is the life expectancy of the quarry?”
Richey replied, “They told us that there is approximately 200 million
tons of rock. If there really is
that much; somewhere from 15 to 25 years.”
Walker commented,
“When I think about a quarry I think of limestone.
So, then there is not as big a problem of wash off of cars coming out
of a limestone pit rather than red dirt, I didn’t see any place where there
is a wash off.” Richey stated,
“They don’t have one specified on the LSD plan.
They do have the area paved so that it is going to knock off the dirt
from being on the dirt road. Larry
is right, it is a little different than a red dirt pit.”
Haley asked, “Are
there any houses directly along this road?
If there are, how many?” Richey
replied, “I couldn’t tell you exactly how many, if I was guessing I would
say somewhere around 12 to 15 houses. I
bet the residents could tell you and you can kind of see them on the aerial.
I drove out there, but I didn’t specifically count them.”
Haley asked, “What
about poultry houses?” Richey
replied, “Yes, there are several poultry houses.
There are some directly adjacent to the site.”
Haley asked, “Do you know if their water supply is rural water or
well?” Richey replied, “I
don’t know about the poultry houses. They
say it is well.” Haley asked,
“Is there access to rural water along this road?”
Richey replied, “I’m not sure if there is at this time. They say that there is.”
Grote commented, “I
am representing the owner, Dean Morris. This
is about 174 acres rock quarry located southwest of Summers along the Oklahoma
State line border. It is around
two and a half miles that will be upgrading and paving to a Class 5 road,
which is the highest standard by Washington County, 21’ wide minimum with
2’ shoulders. We used 100
trucks per day and that is based on maximum production on a quarry this size
with 2,000 tons being crushed, we don’t anticipate 100 trucks per day.
We really think it is going to be more like 25 trucks per day, but we
projected it 100 trucks per day and it is what we based our pavement design
on. My thoughts and feelings are
it is going to last a lot longer than 20 years.
Juliet wanted me to cover that we also would like to offer a pre-blast
survey for homes and properties within 300’, which will be provided by a
third party, so it won’t be somebody hired by our owner or hired by the
blasting company. Basically, that
will be a survey done on the foundations and water resources.
We feel like there is not going to be a problem, in fact we are going
to put a well on this property, we don’t feel like there is going to be an
issue contaminating the water sources. They
have blasting down to a science. All
the blasting will be done by State and Federal requirements.
Arkansas Department of Labor and Mining MSHA governed body.”
Rod
Lacie, adjacent property owner to the
west, stated, “My wife and I own 45 acres on the Oklahoma side.
Our plans are to build a house and retire; we live in Claremore right
now. This has been in her family
for three generations. I don’t
want to build a house next to a rock quarry; I don’t think anyone would.
What is that going to do to the value of my property?
My only other choice is to sell the property and move somewhere else,
but I feel that it will lower the value of the property now and make it hard
to find somewhere else. Some of
the concerns that I have are the air quality, blasting, and drilling.
Is there going to be seismographs put in? If this is approved, I hope
its not, I request a permanent seismograph on my property to check what this
is doing around if it’s going to effect the foundations and our wells.
How deep is it going to be? Who
is the operator? Who is going to
be the operating company of this? One
big concern, we live about five miles from a rock quarry at Claremore and I
personally don’t drive by the rock quarry because of the trucks coming out
of there and rocks falling off and breaking windshields. I
know the regulations say that they have to be covered, but there are still
rocks that come off like crazy. The
people in that area have really got a concern with that.
Sediment ponds being built as needed; that’s opening it up wide open
to let them do what they want to as far as digging a pond.
If the sediment in it flows over, where does it go?
What creek does it go into? What
contamination of the water source of the creek that it is going into, what is
that going to have? The big
concern, what is going to be done to the hole that this is going to create; nothing has been addressed on that.
If it is like the one in
Claremore it is going to be a landfill. They
fill it back up with trash from the different cities.
I am strongly opposed to this; there is no consideration for the people
around. I beg of you to turn this
down until there are more answers of some kind as to what is going on. Right now what I’m hearing are a lot of unanswered
questions.”
Koua Xiong, adjacent property
owner to the east,
commented, “I own 40 acres. My
poultry farm is 100’ away. My
family and I bought the poultry farm about four years ago.
We bought this place because we like to live in the country.
We enjoy the nature; it is nice, quiet, and peaceful.
There is no zoning in the area. However,
my wife and I think about what is going to happen there, we can’t sleep. We have three teenage sons, 16 to 20 years old; they no
longer want to live there because of the traffic, noise, and the dust.
Our life has been taken away. We
may not be able to sell our place ever because no one will want to live by the
rock quarry and we no longer will want to live there if this happens.
While Legacy Rock will make a lot of money, my calculation will be 1.2
million a year or more; my property value may go down the drain. We could possibly lose our contract with the Poultry Company.
This will affect the chickens and make it dry.
A while ago someone asked if we had access to City water.
It is about a half a mile or more from me and of course I cannot afford
to pay for City water. I am here
asking and hoping that this will not happen.
If it does happen all of my hardworking money that I have put down into
this farm, I will lose it. I just
really don’t want this to happen. I
hope that the Board will take this into consideration and not approve this
rock quarry to happen.”
John Everett stated, “I am a lawyer in
Fayetteville. I represent Dustin
Denton and his family that live in Oklahoma.
He lives southwest of the blasting site. His property does not join the Oklahoma line, but you can
throw a rock from where he lives to that line.
I recognize that we don’t live in a perfect world.
Instincts tell me that this might eventually come back before the Board
on the road variance. I would say Preliminarily that I don’t think that the only
alternative to paving to the landowner is the variance.
The penalty would be he would have to pay damages to the people for the
impact on the farm, as opposed to securing the right-of-way.
He has to come to the financial realization that there is damaged
caused far beyond just a road right-of-way.
I am here to ask you to require the Preliminary matter of this
developer to do some base line studies on the water wells and house
foundations within a half-mile radius of this operation.
I heard that there is some interest of the representative of the
developer spoke about 300’ away. The
notice requirement was half-mile; the half-mile will include Mr. Denton.
I have had the misfortune of trying blasting cases and I will tell you
that the damage goes will beyond 300’.
The problem from the standpoint of the clients, who get their well or
house foundations damaged, is it is true that the blaster is strictly liable
for the damage that it causes. You
got to prove that the damage is caused by blasting; unless there are some base
line studies done prior to the blasting you never know where you started from;
you get explanations about the water table dropping; it makes it a difficult
situation. My request to you is
that you as opposed to the 300’ for the pre-blast survey do the half-mile
radius. I’m confident that we
will come to know each other a little bit better about this as we come back in
the future.”
Herman Cox, adjacent property
owner to the east at 11739 Wr Jones Road, commented, “I own the property on
both sides of the road. I am
concerned about several things. I
bought part of this property from Robert Daugherty a few years ago.
Because of the open springs that we use, in fact my son uses water from
it to serve his house. When they
were doing some core drilling there some time ago, the spring changed. I can’t prove that it happened because of the core driller
on the side of the hill. I have
two ponds that are right behind the chicken houses that are my source of
water. If they build retention
ponds around that side, it is going to shut off my source of water for my
cattle. There is also a
right-of-way problem with the road. I
went out and measured on the roads. The
widest spot that I found on WC #455 (Jones Road) against the fence is 30’. REA just built a new three-phase line up to the corner where
the two corners are. I asked them
to set back a pole so that the trucks can make a better turn there and they
told me that I didn’t have enough money to make them move that pole.
Chicken trucks have hit that pole a time or two and they finally moved
the pole on the corner 10’ and I moved my fence back 10’ to accommodate
them. They told me not to come
back requesting to move another pole. I don’t care if you ever move the pole or not it’s not
helping me any, I’m just trying to prevent knocking the lights out and
having electrical problems. They
need to double the right-of-way that they have now.
Other issues are Prairie Grove telephone fiber optic line is as wide as
it’s going to be. Ozark
Electric 32’ without relocation of the electric line.
60’ will require re-location and some expense.”
END OF TAPE*********************Manual
transcription
Sylvia Turner stated, “I own 35 acres and I
have lived there for over a decade. We
built a house and we like the tranquility, wildlife, and our neighbors.
Most of us here are opposed to this.”
Charlene Scott, adjacent property
owner to the northeast at 11389 Wolf Track Lane, commented, “There’s not
much that I can add. My land has been in my husband’s family for about four
generations. I hope that my
grandkids can live there. We have
a wonderful well; we don’t want rural water.
There are springs that run across the road and also sink holes.
There is a fault line of sinkholes.
The spring comes from the mountain.
Who is going to do the impact study to find out what will happen to the
springs we all count on? They need to do wide studies before they ruin lives.
None of you would want your property, your legacy to your kids,
threatened. The road is being
widened; there have been times that I have to go into the ditch because the
trucks go way too fast and they may take someone’s life.”
Sylvia Lorretta Alderman, adjacent neighbor to
the south at 12516 Dee Smith Road, stated, “I have listened to the problems.
I don’t care for heavy equipment.
There has been no mention of the time of blasting.
The blasting will shake my mobile home while I’m sleeping.”
Edgar Garrett commented, “I join the State
line. I just bought a new mobile
home. This property has been in
my family for five generations. My
daughter and son-in-law want to build on the property.
The broiler houses are Mr. Xiong’s livelihood.
I have been around blasting enough to know that it will ruin
foundations and wells. I am
concerned about my home and I ask that you will reject this.”
NEW TAPE ***********************end of manual
transcription
Charles Crittenden stated, “I am the
son-in-law that Mr. Garrett was speaking of.
We are the ones that are building a home. We set aside this property it has been in our name for 17
years. The timing had come to
build a home. You’re two thirds
finished on your project and something like this comes up and it kind of
dampens your dreams and hopes of the peaceful country living. I have children and grandchildren that when they come out it
is kind of a sanctuary from the City. I
hope and pray that there will be a stop put to this because not only is it my
hopes and dreams, but this is a wildlife sanctuary. Country farmers have been there for years and years.
We raise registered goats. From my house where I am building now, I can
see the chicken houses. I wish
you would consider the fact of the environment of the things that it would
destroy in this area not only in Arkansas but Oklahoma as well.”
Dax Moreton, adjacent property owner to the
north at 10797 Wolf Track Road commented, “If this is approved by the Board
in the Preliminary state before it gets to Final I ask the Board, since this
is coming through a residential area as far as where people’s homes are, to
consider some type of hours of operation as well as a speed limit below 35 mph
because there are several homes along this that have small children.
That way with hours of operation considered we would have some hours of
safety.”
Grote stated, “One of the things that was
mentioned was what is going to happen when this quarry is gone.
It is required by ADEQ the mining section to post a $1,100 per acre
bond for rehabilitation of the property.
That is basically a bond to ensure that all of the property be
rehabilitated to a natural state. The gentleman that was worried about run-off to his pond,
basically sedimentation ponds is used to drop the sediment out. The amount of run-off will be the same to the adjacent
run-off properties. Drop out the
sediment and it will sheet flow where it is naturally going. The proposed blasting hours are 8:00am –5:00pm Monday -
Friday no blasting on holidays or weekends.
Typically, quarry blasting will occur anywhere from once to twice a
week depending on how busy they are. It
is not a continuous blast every day.”
Daugherty asked, “Have you done any studies
as far as widening the right-of-way or moving the utilities?”
Grote replied, “The owner actually had a meeting with all of the
surrounding land owners, the owners were invited, he spoke with them about
acquiring the right-of-way, that’s all in the process.
We’ll move utilities or whatever we have to do; with a development,
that is typical protocol.”
West asked, “Have you spoken to the poultry
companies as far as the blasting effect on chickens?” Grote replied, “Yes, Geo Technical investigation was done
by GTS, Inc. and they looked at the type of chicken houses that Mr. Xiong has.
It was their opinion with their investigation that it would not disturb
those type of chicken houses that he has; those houses are not the older,
open, screened-in style.” West
asked, “Did he talk to the company, Tyson or whoever that happens to be, to
get his information?” Grote
replied, “I’m really not sure where he got it.
The owner might need to speak on that more.
We can also assess that whenever we do the pre-blasting investigation,
it will fall in the 300’ category.”
Head asked, “George Butler, Washington County Attorney, in the purview
of this Board what limits do we have?”
Butler replied, “Not a whole lot because this is not a zoned area.
It is a Large Scale Development our requirements are relatively few.
If this was in a zoned area it could be turned down with a lot of
conditions. Provided for by
statute. This is not
in a zoned area; the Board’s hands are tied quite a bit as to what they can
and cannot do. If it was in a
zoned area you could put conditions on it or deny it altogether, that is not
the situation. Things like
citizen opposition and concerns about property value; would be something that
we could value considerably if this was in a zoned area; it is not something
that we can take into account if they meet our requirements then the Board has
to approve it. I did discuss with
Robert Daugherty, Juliet, and John Everett about there is a provision in our
Planning Code about Large Scale Developments in section 11-101 E states, ‘If
any land development raises environmental concerns, the Planning Board may, at
the expense of the developer, retain its own qualified consulting engineer to
assist it and the Planning Director in assuring that all environmental issues
have been properly addressed by the developer and its engineer.
Said consulting engineer shall maintain an office no greater than one
hundred (100) miles from Washington County.’
The first question that I had, are there environmental issues?
First of all, I think as far as potential damage done by blasting, that
is all speculative at this point. We’re
talking about possible future environmental issues that may or may not occur. If they do occur there will be a lawsuit; it will be up to a
Court of Law or a jury to decide. I
don’t think that we could invoke this particular section to say that either
the developer or us needs to widen the assessment to half a mile.
I think it would be a good idea; it would be for his own protection,
too.”
Butler added, “There are cases on blasting quarries damage to water
and home foundations; some of them won and some of them lost.
I looked at an Arkansas and Missouri case; John Everett and I visited
about them briefly and they are strict liability cases.
Approximate cause looked to me in those cases to be fairly easy.
They don’t all make it to the Courts.
It’s usually up to the jury. There
are a lot of those that we don’t know about.
I didn’t find anywhere that was an issue of an appeal. I don’t feel like, while everyone has concerns, we cannot
require the developer to widen the pre-blast survey.
I would encourage him to do it for his own protection.
When you run a rock quarry you have to know that you are going to be
subject to lawsuits. Some of the
other things that people have expressed concerns about; value of property,
dust, noise, and traffic; they are not things that we can take into
consideration. These are a making
of a lawsuit; I don’t think that they would be able to enjoin before the
operator got started. I think
depending on what unfolds; decrease of property values, wells damaged,
foundations cracking, dust, noise, and traffic are makings of a lawsuit. It is
up to Court and jury and how those types of cases are going to be resolved.
There has been talk about the right-of-way.
There was a meeting with the County Judge the developer indicated that
if he could not obtain the right-of-way that he would most likely get a
variance. That will have to come
before the Board and if you deny it the Judge might grant the variance.
However, he did mention that if he did grant a variance; he would
expect them to maintain the roads and the County would not maintain the roads.
The County Judge is kind of king of the roads as far as County
government.”
Head commented, “I am bothered that there is
no safety consideration for the people that have a business and the business
is chickens. Chickens pile up
when a truck backfires.” Butler
stated, “If that were to happen that gentleman would have a lawsuit.” Head asked, “Why do we have to put somebody in the
situation where they have to go hire a lawyer to sue?”
Butler replied, “You can talk to the Quorum Court, we don’t have
any ordinances on the books that would allow you to consider that.
In the Supreme Court you cannot require more than the regulations on
the books.”
Walker asked, “Why would we want Preliminary with them
gaining full right-of-way and then come back to us and vote on a variance?”
Butler replied, “Right now, they are getting requirements to get full
right-of-way; the Judge has told them that they can get it if he granted a
variance. That variance will have
to go before the Board first and come back and have a meeting over the
variance; a variance requires a three-fourths vote.
If you grant it or not it is subject to the County Judge.”
Walker asked, “My point is, Juliet has
presented to us that they will get full right-of-way, so if they can’t get
full right-of-way why would we want to grant a variance?” Butler replied, “I’m not saying you really want to; I’m
just conveying what the County Judge said, and what you do or don’t do is
going to be appealed to him. If
there is going to be a variance it has to be a public meeting and it has to be
passed by a three-fourths vote.”
Haley asked, “Make sure I understand what
you’re saying, as a Planning Board even though there are concerns about
damage to foundations, traffic concerns, property value, and water supply; we
as a Board, because there is no zoning in the County, we have no authority to
deny. What happens if we do
deny?” Butler replied, “There
will be an appeal to the County Judge; if it is not granted then it goes to
Circuit Court and the Judge would say that it has to be approved.
They have a possible nuisance lawsuit depending on how the facts shake
out. It is highly doubtful that
get to be filed now and get a preliminary injunction.”
Haley asked, “Because of the no zoning can
we have conditions.” Butler
replied, “No, you can only do that through the Conditional Use Permit
process which is only applicable to zoned areas.
The Board members that have been on the Board for awhile know that we
never have had a quarry that was welcome; we have the same issues over and
over.”
Head commented, “I don’t remember a quarry
next to a poultry house.” Butler
stated, “I don’t remember one specifically.
There are poultry houses all over the County. There are no ordinances enacted by the Quorum Court that will
allow you to deny it based on that. Everyone
may have suitable causes of action, depending on what happens right now as
long as speculation in rejection. There
are no ordinances in our Planning Code that will allow you to use that as a
basis to deny it.”
Walker asked, “How will we require the roads
to be brought up to the standards that we are talking about?
We’re saying that they have to bring the road up to a classified
road.” Butler replied,
“That’s per the Planning regulations that require the roads to be brought
up to specification. If they
can’t acquire the right-of-way they will have to come back to you and ask
for a variance; if you deny it they will appeal to the County Judge and if he
does, go to Circuit Court.”
Daugherty commented, “Basically, we can’t
require the half mile base line study, we can recommend as a good will gesture
and ask the developer to do that.”
Butler stated, “I don’t think that you can
require him to. Revision to the
County Planning Board may at expense. I
recommend that they do it for their own protection because quarries are always
controversial. I am aware of
people complaining of foundations cracking, if quarry blasting did that or
not, I don’t know. I don’t
recall where there were water issues; maybe there were and I didn’t hear
about it.”
Daugherty commented, “Sometimes this is a
thankless task and this is one of them and I hope you understand.
Many here are my friends and I care a great deal about your home,
economic value, and especially your poultry houses.
I understand all that, but sometimes we are required legally to follow
the guidelines given to us by the Quorum Court.
We don’t make the rules they give us the guidelines and we are
required to follow them. I really
do care about your concerns; I thank you for addressing those concerns.”
Haley asked, “Do we have to vote on it as
presented or can we defer it to the Judge?”
Butler replied, “The Judge can’t hear it until the Board takes some
action.”
Walker asked, “I’m wondering if all this
requirements that Staff recommendations have made; if they can’t meet all of
the requirements.” Butler
replied, “The only requirement that they possibly cannot meet is the
right-of-way requirements. They
will have to come back and ask for a variance.
The Board might deny it. The
County Judge is subject to grant the variance to require them to maintain the
roads. Whether or not the County
Judge grants the variance actually meets the regulations.”
Daugherty stated, “Basically, if we voted it
down we would really be going against the rules, but the applicant could
appeal to the County Judge. You
would probably recommend that Preliminary would be approved.
I really have a concern for the poultry operation.
We have no rules to let us turn it down.”
Butler commented, “We looked at that while
we were going through the struggle with the zoning. We looked at a potential ordinance on these types of Large
Scale Developments and had a developing ordinance.
Basically, the ordinance was crafted around uses; it would have
required us to put some conditions on outside zoning based on the nuisance
public and private use case law. I
don’t know if we got very far with that.
Got bogged down and zoning got passed and that never got brought up.
Even if it was passed tomorrow it would be too late to apply to this
particular quarry.”
Daugherty stated, “I know that we need
quarries and I am pro-business most of the time. I have a real concern for the poultry operator in this area;
we may not have a choice.”
Head commented, “We all have choices, I
understand your recommendation and the legal aspect. I try to put myself in everybody’s seat, and nobody is more
pro-business than me. I move that
we turn it down based on the safety of some of the surrounding property
owners. I think that it is wise
that everybody understand that the motion even if it passes does not give you
any safety of anything that is happening.
If you know why we have zoning in the County; some people would come
and throw a fit and say ‘No, we don’t want you to tell us what to do.’
Here is a real good reason why you ought to have zoning in the County.
Somebody ought to go find their Justice of the Peace (Jack Norton
District 10) and start talking about that right now.
It is no fun to be sitting up here.”
Gary Head moved to deny
Legacy Rock Quarries Preliminary LSD Plan based on the safety of some of the surrounding
property owners. Kenley Haley seconded.
Motion passes.
Haley stated, “I think too the concern also
is this is going to be a continued problem.
It puts us in a really awkward position.”
Daugherty commented, “There has been a
motion and a second to turn this down. This
is probably the first time that I’ve been on the Board that we’ve looked
at doing something like this against the rules and I have a grave concern for
the poultry operation; I really think that it is going to affect it.”
All Board members were in
favor of denying
Legacy Rock Quarries LSD Preliminary LSD
Plan.
LAND DEVELOPMENTS TO BE TABLED
Fayetteville
Planning Area
e.
West Haven Subdivision
Location:
Section 36, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer: Blind Squirrel, LLC
Engineer/Surveyor:
Jorgensen & Associates
Location
Address: 5673 and 5688 Blake Lee Lane
47.77 acres and 43 lots
Richey stated that West
Haven Subdivision was tabled at the applicant’s request.
Gary Head moved to table
West Haven Subdivision. Larry Walker seconded.
Motion passes.
LAND DEVELOPMENTS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE
AGENDA
Fayetteville
Planning Area
f. Newcastle Estates LSD (Conditional Use Permit Request)
Location: Section 29, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer: SML Landholding, LLC / Hometown
Development
Engineer/Surveyor: Milholland
Company / RCC Solutions, LLC
Location Address: (WC #345) Gulley Road and (WC #2306) Castle Rock
Drive
13.267 acres and 37 units proposed
Richey
stated that Newcastle Estates LSD
Conditional Use Permit request is to be removed from the agenda due to lack of
resubmittal.
Gary Head moved to table
Newcastle Estates LSD Conditional Use Permit. Larry Walker seconded.
Motion passes.
Fayetteville Planning Area
g.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD (Conditional Use Permit
Request)
Location:
Section 36, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Winchester Lotto, LLC / Hometown Development
Engineer/Surveyor:
Project Design Consultants, Inc. / Geomatic Consultants, Inc.
Location Address: 6057
W. Wheeler Road (WC #84)
10.03 acres
Richey
stated that Wheeler Road Cottages LSD
Conditional Use Permit request is to be removed from the agenda due to lack of
resubmittal.
Gary Head moved to table
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD Conditional Use Permit. Larry Walker seconded.
Motion passes.
Fayetteville
Planning Area
h. Newcastle Estates LSD (Variance & Preliminary LSD Plan
Approval Request)
Location: Section 29, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer: SML Landholding, LLC / Hometown
Development
Engineer/Surveyor: Milholland
Company
Location Address: (WC #345) Gulley Road and (WC #2306) Castle Rock
Drive
13.267 acres and 37 units proposed
Richey
stated that Newcastle Estates LSD is to
be removed from the agenda due to lack of resubmittal.
Gary Head moved to table
Newcastle Estates LSD. Larry Walker seconded.
Motion passes.
Fayetteville Planning Area
i.
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD (Preliminary LSD Plan Approval Request)
Location:
Section 36, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Winchester Lotto, LLC / Hometown Development
Engineer/Surveyor:
Project Design Consultants, Inc. / Geomatic Consultants, Inc.
Location
Address: 6057 W. Wheeler Road (WC #84)
10.03 acres
Richey
stated that Wheeler Road Cottages LSD is
to be removed from the agenda due to lack of resubmittal.
Gary Head moved to table
Wheeler Road Cottages LSD. Larry Walker seconded. Motion passes.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
6.
OTHER BUSINESS
- Elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson.
Richey
stated, “Randy Laney is absent.” Head
commented, “Let’s elect Randy Laney as chairperson and Robert Daugherty as
vice-chairperson.”
Gary Head moved to elect
Randy Laney as chairperson and Robert Daugherty as vice-chairperson.
Larry Walker seconded. Motion
passes.
Other matters
Cheryl West moved to
adjourn. Larry Walker seconded. Motion
passes.
Planning Board adjourned.
Approved by the Planning
Board on:
______Robert Daugherty_______ Date: ___08/02/07_______
Robert Daugherty, Planning Board Vice-Chairman
MINUTES
WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
August 2, 2007
5:00
p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse
Fayetteville, Arkansas
DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN:
LAND DEVELOPMENT HEARING
Fayetteville
Planning Area
a.
West Haven Subdivision
Tabled
1. ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken.
Members present include: Robert Daugherty, Kenley Haley, Randy Laney,
Larry Walker, and Cheryl West. Absent:
Gary Head and Billy Smith.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the July 5, 2007 meeting) Larry
Walker made a motion to approve as written. Robert Daugherty provided the
second. Motion passes.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Juliet Richey, Washington
County Planning Director, stated, “Item A. (West Haven Subdivision) has requested to be tabled by
the applicant. Larry
Walker made a motion to approve the revised agenda. Robert Daugherty seconded.
Motion passes.
4. NEW BUSINESS
LAND DEVELOPMENT HEARING
Fayetteville
Planning Area
a.
West Haven Subdivision (Final Plat Approval Request)
Location:
Section 36, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Blind Squirrel, LLC
Engineer/Surveyor: Jorgensen & Associates
Location
Address: 5673 and 5688 Blake Lee Lane
47.77 acres and 43 lots
Richey stated that West
Haven Subdivision was to be tabled at the applicant’s request.
Larry Walker moved to
table West Haven Subdivision. Robert Daugherty seconded. Motion passes.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
6. OTHER BUSINESS
- Discussion of Planning Board hearings and action on
Land Development projects (Subdivisions and LSDs) and Zoning Board of
Adjustments hearings and action on zoning projects (CUPs).
Richey stated, “I thought that we can do a little
review on what each one entails. Ways
that Staff can try to make it easier on the Board to understand what you can
and cannot do legally in the Staff report.
I made a document, ‘Planning Board action regarding Land Development
requests,’ that’s going to include subdivision plats (Preliminary and
Final), minor subdivision plats, and Large Scale Development Preliminary and
Final. Land Development requests
are objective for the most part. Basically,
the County has a set of rules and requirements for this type of project.
If all of the requirements for this sort of project have been met, then
by law, you must approve the land development.
If all of the requirements have been met, then Staff will recommend
approval of this project to you in the Staff report.
That is what we have done in the past.
I thought that maybe it wasn’t clear enough using the word
‘recommend.”
George Butler, Washington County Attorney,
commented, “Juliet and I talked about using the word ‘recommend’ when
something has met (all the requirements).
One of the questions was “Why do we have the Planning Board to
vote?” The answer is two fold;
the ordinance is the Quorum Court requires that you rule on those.
When you hold public office and there are some duties that you must
perform by virtue in your office at your discretion. Like if someone goes to the Circuit Clerk’s office to file
a lawsuit, if she has a problem with it she has to file it.
She can look at it and say, ‘That it is the most ridiculous thing
I’ve heard of I’m not going to file it,’ but she has to file it.
Clerks have been sued for not filing things.”
Butler also commented, “I started thinking
about conditions of approval, if there are conditions on there then maybe it
really didn’t meet all of our specifications on the plat. What came out of the discussion was it is typical that we
have something come in like a quarry and they have by and large met everything
there are a few little minor things that need to be taken care of, like the
road to the quarry. Typically, we
have said that we recommend to adopt this at our minimum standards.
Theoretically once could argue that some things are left undone.”
Walker
asked, “Could we have tabled that night until they meet those conditions,
even the requirements of the right-of-way, as a condition that they have to
meet?” Butler replied, “That
was a remark that we knew that they might seek variances.”
Walker stated, “I understood that our Road
Department said that they had to have the 60’ easement in order to put it
in.”
Butler commented, “They know that, but they did not
ask for a variance.”
Walker
asked, “Why couldn’t we have tabled it until they met their obligation to
either come before us to ask for a variance or showing us the right-of-way?”
Richey replied, “What is required at Preliminary is that the road
improvements that must be made have to be determined at Preliminary.
It is determined that they have to have that right-of-way and that they
have to improve the road to whatever standard that may be. That’s kind of an ambiguous one.”
Butler stated, “At Preliminary they don’t have to
have it done.”
Laney commented, “At Preliminary we can express
very clearly the kind of things that we are going to be looking for to give
them a strong hint that they better have it done.”
Walker stated, “That is what we should have
done.” Butler commented,
“Could have.” Walker also
stated, “If you tell the people that if you don’t want it there then I
won’t approve the right-of-way.”
Butler commented, “In the variance situation there
are some constitutional issues that if they show all that we require in terms
of our minimum right-of-way, 60’ total, is not reasonable then we as a
County can’t be forced to not give them a variance.
In that particular situation I find it highly unlikely that we can
grant a variance. You can never
grant a variance against the public’s interest.
If there is a situation where we need our wide shoulders and the
ability to maintain it in that scenario with that kind of traffic they face a
very uphill battle.”
Daugherty asked, “Does the Judge determine that
before it comes back to us?” Butler
replied, “Usually, everything comes back to the Board.
I was reading back in the variances on road width, one way that I read
that sounded like the Road Superintendent will appeal to the County Judge and
may not even come back to the Board, normally it does.
There are kind of two ways to read it.
Normally, they do come back.”
Laney stated, “Conditions that might have been
resolved.”
Butler commented, “Right, they did say that
anytime that they give a variance on road width requirements the County Judge
can get another professional engineer at their expense to determine whether or
not on what they are proposing will still meet the goals that the County is
trying to achieve requiring that road width.”
Walker asked, “All of the Staff recommendations in
this, they really didn’t mean anything to us to pass for Preliminary?”
Richey replied, “Some of them did and that was kind of a strange one.
I do this sometimes, I don’t know if you notice, I put here are the
conditions for approval and then under that I put prior to Final plat or prior
to construction you must have this. I
may divide that up better because really that right-of-way issue is not really
a condition of Preliminary it is just a statement that is what you have to
have, but really a condition of something that you have to have in before you
start construction. I am going to
be more diligent about lining those out in sections that you can
understand.”
Butler stated, “I think when we said, ‘I
recommend approval with all of the conditions it made it sound like you can
put conditions on it, not a Conditional Use.”
Richey commented, “Right, there were some
conditions on there, little things such as they didn’t have some things on
the plan labeled correctly. Technically,
you could have tabled it. Most of
the subdivisions or Large Scale Developments that come through, you hardly
ever see one without any conditions just because there are a lot of detailed
stuff, I’m sure plenty of people don’t get all of their stuff done ahead
of time. What we do, is many
times a project has met MOST of the major requirements and there are only a
few small corrections that remain to be made on the plat or plan.
When this is the case, Staff will usually recommend that the Board go
ahead and approve the request with several conditions.
We do that as a courtesy to the applicant but also to keep projects
from piling up like on our agendas month after month for some small detail.
Usually things like that are addition of notes to the plat or plan,
correction of setback lines, misspellings or incorrect labeling, or that we
receive minor paperwork or an easement or drainage easement or something that
is not into our office yet.”
Richey also commented, “There are other times when
a project has met MANY of the requirements, however, it is still lacking what
Staff sees as a major requirement. In
that case, sometimes Staff will recommend on one of these Large Scale
Developments or subdivisions tabling or denying the project until we get that
information. That can be some
different things; issues with the drainage plan, lack of soil information with
regards to septic, pertinent information that we have to have, that we ask for
them to give us, and they have never given it to us, failing of Final Road
inspection and etc. The people
(West Haven Subdivision) that we tabled tonight failed their final inspection,
a lot of people do and then they say, ‘Come on and recommend us to the
Planning Board anyway and you don’t have to sign off on it until we are all
done.’ There are some times
that we have to draw the line and say, ‘No, you have to get this done first,
sorry.’ There are going to be
times when we are recommending for tabling or denial and you in your own
discretion can say, ‘No, in this case we feel like it’s okay they did fail
their road inspection, but they just told me that they got all of that fixed,
it can be re-inspected tomorrow and I feel like we can go ahead and do this as
a condition even though Staff is recommending otherwise.’
You have some discretion as a Board on when to let things ride and when
to not. There is a point to you
being here.”
Walker asked, “In paragraph 4 in the Staff
recommendations for Legacy Rock Quarries LSD it says, ‘The following
off-site road improvements will be required by Washington County along the
route described; Class 5 road, 30’ right-of-way, all improvements to the
right-of-way, the bond, and a variance will be required if the applicant is
unable to obtain required right-of-way.’
Legally, could we have tabled this until they showed us that they could
achieve these things?” Richey
replied, “I don’t think so. There
were some other conditions at the end of the Staff report that you may could
have done it (tabled it) on, but I don’t think so on the road stuff.
Because at Preliminary, what it says very clearly, I should have put
this in the Staff report, what the road improvements are going to be must be
determined at Preliminary. Determined means that we have to reach some sort of
resolution that says we’ll give you a list that’s what we’re going to
have to do, it doesn’t say that any of it has to be done, unless George
thinks differently, I would say acquiring right-of-way.”
Laney stated, “We have in the past.
When something obliviously has a lot of interest we obliviously have a
lot of questions wondering about the interaction with the road requirements.
You can make a motion, ‘Mr. Chairman I move to table this and I’m
sorry that you guys have to come back but there is too much information here,
I need to do some more research, etc.”
Walker commented, “Hey, I want to think about it.”
Daugherty stated, “Need more information, we did that on the JB Hunt
quarry (2003).”
Walker asked, “I still don’t understand if it
is a requirement that roads have to be brought up to standards why is that not
part of the Preliminary plat?” Butler
replied, “They have to build it to certain standards.”
Walker commented, “I understand that.”
Laney stated, “Standards to enforce.”
Walker commented, “They may get to Preliminary Plat and decide that
it is too hard to do and drop the whole project.”
Daugherty asked, “George needs to explain what
Preliminary Plat means. What does
it allow them to do?”
Walker asked, “Essentially, we can refer to
Preliminary Plat and they have to go out and do what I’m asking them to do
before they come back for Final plat. They
don’t even have to purchase the right-of-way they just have to prove that
they can?” Butler replied,
“When they come back, they have to have them or ask for a variance or a
determination has been made.” Richey
stated, “At Final Plat the road has to be built. They have to determine that before they start construction.
There are three steps. There
is the Preliminary approval where they throw it on the table and say, ‘Here
is what we are going to do.’ We
all gather around say, ‘Alright, generally this meets our codes and things
like off-site improvements here’s what you’re going to have to do to get
it done.’ Then, they do construction plans, which lays out in very detail
how that road is going to be built, where every culvert is going to go,
everything about it. At that point, they have to acquire the right-of-ways to be
shown on the construction plans before they can begin construction.
That is not something that the Board sees it goes through Staff review.
When it is built and ready to go then it comes back to the Board for
Final Plat approval.”
Butler commented, “Unless they come back for a
variance.”
Laney stated, “Keep in mind you are going to be
looking at it very strictly, you understand people’s concerns, but you have
to enforce the rules that we have. For
an example you have to have 60.5 that doesn’t have to be official for my
vote, I’m not going to cut you any slack.”
Butler commented, “What you can’t do is say I’m
not going to approve this because it’s too close to a chicken house because
there is nothing in our regulations. If
you were in a zoned area and someone was trying to get a Conditional Use then
you could look at its impact on whatever, chicken houses, other homes, etc.”
Haley stated, “Coming from someone new, I think
things need to be clearer because I was confused on what to do.
We have issues here that look like the Board is voting for something
that means that they are going to approve it and we approve it according to
the rules that we may not approve it according to what we think personally.
Somehow, I think there is a conflict when people come in they think
that they’re coming to voice their opinion, we have no authority beyond
listening to them.”
Butler commented, “That has gone on for years and
years. The Board will listen to
people’s concerns and the Board will say we have to meet our regulations.
People wonder what are we even doing here.
The Board says because we have to have the meetings in public, we have
to notify you, and you have the right to be heard.”
Walker stated, “That is what doesn’t make sense
about the whole system. What is
the point of even having public comment if it can’t be changed?
The number one thing if it will be used and the whole County is zoned
then you have the rules and regulations and people will understand.
One other thing that bothered me about the last meeting (August 2,
2007) when the man that I look to for County Engineering is the one presenting
it to me, that bothered me. I
didn’t know, what is going on here? I
realize that he works for an independent firm and all this.”
Richey commented, “I covered all of that in my
Staff report.” Walker stated,
“It seems like to me a conflict of interest.”
Butler commented, “He is on contract he is not an employee. We got another engineer to review his project for the
County.”
Washington County Judge Jerry Hunton, stated, “We
need to tell Clay Grote that if he comes to issues that come back to our
Planning Board we don’t need the person that we use as our consultant on
Planning Board type issues. He
will need to recuse himself on his personal business or we need to find
another engineer to advise us in the County.”
Walker commented, “He does not need to present a
real controversial issue.” Butler
stated, “We can address that in our contract.”
Hunton commented, “We need to address that.
It is a sticky issue. You
need to think back to politics 10 or 20 years ago, I guess at some point when
the rules were made up. Basically,
when people came to a public hearing and get it off their chest, but
wouldn’t really accomplish much. I
guess the Quorum Court at that time thought that type of legislation is what
we had to have for that particular moment in time.
I knew that we protect everyone Countywide it would have to become
County wide zoned and I said that in the newspaper.
Maybe the only time that the political garbage will finally stop is
when they finally zone the entire County so that we don’t have all of this
stuff going on out there. It is
frustrating to people who come to Planning thinking that they can actually
start something but I think at the same time that it is fair game to say to
them you could have come to all of these hearings that we had back when PARA
and you could have said that we want the whole County zoned.
I asked Ms. Scott the other day about the landfill when they did all
the testing you saw that happening why didn’t you come to PARA and say we
escaped the bullet just a few years ago when they tried to get a landfill out
here and we want to be included in the Countywide zoning.
Whether that thing goes in there or not, will they come back in and ask
for zoning out there? I bet you
$500.00 that they won’t, because they don’t want zoning out there.
They will fuss about the quarry, but those people out there don’t
want somebody there because if they get ready to put in a subdivision there
they don’t want to have fight the fight.”
Walker stated, “It is human nature, that’s
kind of the way that most of us are, but at the same time, like we talked
before, rules can protect you.”
Daugherty commented, “That is the reason that they
are further out in the County because they don’t want the rules.”
Judge Hunton stated, “I appreciate what you all did
and I understood what you did, I had no problem with what you did and I said
that in the newspaper. Part of my
job is to protect the County. George
said, ‘Look I don’t have a choice.’
I really didn’t have. I
appreciate you guys hanging in there. You’re
appreciated and we need you. I
don’t want anybody to not like the other day to cause you guys to start
thinking about going on, I need you.”
Walker commented, “I thank you (Judge Hunton) for
stepping up.”
West stated, “The feeling that I had was why
are we here. Why did we bother to
go to that meeting if it doesn’t matter?”
Judge Hunton commented, “It does. There are going to be other opportunities for you all to recommend waivers on things or not. There are going to be lots of times when you all will have an influence on zoning issues and those areas, a lot of input. We’re going to grow in the County.”
Laney stated, “We could have Staff, we could have
people who are trying to be king or queen for a day, and not treating the
public right. We would be here to
reject the plat, if she was trying to put in standards that really weren’t
in there. We’re here as a check
and balance, if I understand the rules right, so it is not futile.”
Butler commented, “We don’t want to invest
all of the authority on one person. It
could be also that once in a blue moon that something does come up comment or
something that we didn’t know about, maybe even the developer didn’t know
about, maybe that does make a difference.”
Richey stated, “We’ve had that happen before like
with drainage issues.”
Walker commented, “I think if we would have tabled
it. It would have let us think
about it longer and everyone else think about it.”
Butler stated, “You couldn’t table it because of
concerns that simply we were not allowed to address in the regulations.
You could have tabled it because, theoretically, it really did not meet
all of the minimum requirements.” Richey
commented, “You could have tabled it because they were not showing a pond
and it is required to show all bodies of water on the site.”
Walker stated, “We could have used lack of
information.” Richey commented,
“I don’t know what information you were lacking actually.
The drainage issues were resolved.”
Walker stated, “I’m going to look to you for more
specifics because we’re putting a big load on your shoulders.”
Laney commented, “As the chairman I take some of
the heat since I was out for the 4th of July holiday.
Normally, I try to go to Juliet’s office and try to understand the
issues and look for these kind of things and offer guidance.”
Haley stated, “George got my attention with the
letter.”
Hunton commented, “Maybe if you see some things
lacking in the current law, zoning law, or whatever the recommendation to
change the law coming from you all carries more weight. If you all see something in our regulations that needs to be
changed get with Juliet and get a sponsor on the Quorum Court and bring it to
the Quorum Court and get the changes made.
I think that is the main responsibility of you all.”
Butler stated, “Get on the agenda for one of the
Committee meetings. This needs to
be done; however you want to do it if you want us to start it.”
Richey commented, “The Planning Board had a lot to
do I think with zoning. You all
recommended zoning, there had been other issues. The public comment, I think that it is extremely good to get
feedback from those people. How
would you feel if you were that person and you didn’t even know that was
going to happen? I think that it
is a very good time for the people to get involved in their community.
They find out what the rules are and what is lacking, those are the
people who vote for the elected officials.
It is a time for them to inform you on what they feel is lacking.
Some of the public hearings that we had on Large Scale Developments and
subdivisions last year, the surrounding property owners that came to those who
were extremely frustrated that could do nothing about it, and the Planning
Board informed them that they could do nothing without zoning.
Those were some of the main people who went to the Quorum Court and
demanded zoning.”
Butler stated, “Even though things have already
been passed that zoning won’t effect those people do not want to happen to
anyone else. It can’t get any
worse than what it already is.”
Richey commented, “It was because the Planning
Board told them, ‘We can’t do anymore, this is all that we can do.
You need to talk to your Justice of the Peace and get it done,’ and
some people did. I do think that
it is effective. It is maybe not
effective in the way that people expect it to when they walk in the door, but
it does serve a purpose.”
Daugherty asked, “George, who regulates the
blasting?” Butler replied,
“State Labor Department does, but there is also a Federal MSHA.” Daugherty stated, “They say that they have it down to a
science. The County’s quarry is
next to my farm and they don’t have it down to a science. I can feel it clear across the road sometimes.
My concern when it is this close to the poultry houses that it is going
to have an effect. I know that we can’t do that but it is a concern of mine.
The only recourse is to call one of those.”
Butler commented, “He can sue them if it causes
damages. Anyone out there would
be able to sue. If things got bad
enough out there in terms of blasting, dust, and traffic then they have a
nuisance lawsuit. Not only for
damages, the Judge would have in conjunction to let them still operate under
strict rules. I realize it takes
money.”
Daugherty stated, “You hate to put people in
that position, but that is the recourse.
That’s what we tell them, ‘That’s your recourse.
We’re sorry we don’t have rules to control.”
Butler commented, “There is a State statute that
when the County holds a public meeting they must allow public comment.”
Richey stated, “As far as land developments,
subdivisions, and Large Scale Developments, however, the important thing for
you to remember is that, by law, you cannot consider factors for approval or
denial of a land development request that are not provided for in our
ordinance. Period.
To do so is in violation of State law.
I am going to try to make it much more clear to you what is and what
isn’t. Sometimes if there is a
chicken house, if you would just ask me or George say, “Hey, is this a
factor we can consider?’ We’ll tell you yes or no.
I am going to outline the major things that has come up already I
can’t hit everything that might come in on a thing.
We’ll hit the main things. Once
you all get going, like the other night, I knew what was happening, but I
can’t interrupt, this is your meeting.”
Laney commented, “I have given George a leading
question like, ‘George, I understand what the people are saying about their
wells, is that really something that we can consider?’
George will repeat it for the public.
I say, “Reference to the County regulations that we are representing
I make a motion we approve’ if I can’t consider that.
When you ask those kind of questions, let them go on public record that
you have been instructed by council that you cannot consider that.
I have done that in the past. George
used to not attend very many meetings. We had a couple come up that we said, ‘We wish he was
here’ and he has been coming regularly.
You pretty much know why we ask.”
Butler stated, “I have to give my legal opinion.
If I lived out there I would be upset and worried about the same things
that they were.”
Daugherty commented, “George did a good job that
night stating all of that. We
covered the rules and all that.”
Butler stated, “That particular case Richardson
versus the City of Little Rock has been around since the early 70’s and I
was discussing that case, certain issues have came up and I had a chance to
have a series of e-mails with the City of Attorney here and the City Attorney
of Little Rock, I said if there are any kind of damages consider tabling it.
They said, ‘At times when we would consider tabling because before
you can consider tabling the County has to pay taking the property.
You have to deny someone all of the use which doesn’t mean you have a
taking, but we all were still kind of uncomfortable it seems like there should
be more ramifications than just being ordered by the Court it is approved and
also that the Planning Board shall approve it, order you to approve it.
In the back of my mind I always felt there was something else lurking
and I found this case consider it a violation of civil rights.
If something comes in and meets your minimum regulations and you deny
it then you have violated their civil rights.
Civil rights statute in Arkansas you can be sued for violating that
right. I remember when we kicked
that case around none of us really caught that.”
Richey commented, “Read the zoning part in that it
will tell you that you can vote with your heart. That’s all of the things that you want to look at, but
you’re not allowed to look at on the other ones.”
·
Discuss possible Planning Department fee changes
Richey stated, “Basically, we updated our fees a
little over a year ago and the Quorum Court directed us to do this once a
year. I like to put them in front
of you all first. We raised our
fees quite substantially last year; they had not been raised in 12 years.
We’re still running a little behind some people.
The main thing is on the spreadsheet the white is where we are at now.
We do have different fee rates depending on whether you’re in the
Planning Area or just in the County. Basically,
you’re already paying the City for some review and the Planning Area part is
already done for us, so we charge less for that.
My question to you all is on the Preliminary and Final plat column I am
interested to know Preliminary and Final Large Scale Development fees are the
main ones that need to be raised. My
question to you is do you want to stay with a flat fee or different cities
basically have tiers depending on how many lots or structures that people are
putting on. Basically, in our
department if you submit a subdivision plan that has 5 lots through 300 lots
they cost the same price. Would you be interested moving toward a more tiered system
for subdivisions and Large Scale Developments?”
Laney commented, “As I understand we don’t have
any fees for administrative.” Richey
stated, “We do.” Laney
commented, “Administrative variances show zero.
If someone came in for a lot split for an administrative variance which
you normally pick up as kind of a common guide exception.”
Butler asked, “Is an administrative variance
something that you can approve administratively?” Richey replied, “Yes, and actually right now we’re
charging $50.00. Right now we
have one variance where we are charging $50.00 that’s what I have been
charging for administrative variances which means that there is no bad faith
there is a structure that is already existing and you didn’t try put it
there on purpose and I think that $50.00 is excessive I want to pull that down
to $15.00.”
Laney stated, “What the average person would think
as your small stuff we realize that you do have the two tiers.”
Richey asked, “Yes, that’s true.
Like 4 lots or less for a family split, 4 lots or less is pretty small,
we already have separate categories. Anything
from 5 to 300 or 600 lots is all flat price.
I am asking you do we want some intermediate tiers or would you like to
stay with the flat fee?” Laney
asked, “I am a lawyer, so I’ll answer your question.
Is there any more work to it? Does
the 300 lots mean more work than 10 lots?
If there’s not then there really is no reason.”
Richey replied, “Yes, it is.”
Haley asked, “How much revenue in the last few
years?” Richey replied,
“Before we raised our fees last year, we made $9,620.00 in 2005 and in 2006
we made $16,664.00. We’re
moving on to current Planning Department operating costs $237,000.00.”
Haley asked, “I assume that goes into your general
operating budget?” Richey
replied, “It goes back into the general fund which is where our general
operating budget is. Basically,
we’re bringing back 7% of what we operate.”
Laney commented, “I take it that there is some
rationale, I’m open to it. If
it is minor 100 or 120 it’s significant.”
Richey stated, “If we keep it flat then I think
that it should just stay lower. If
we tier it then I think that we can take it up pretty high. Subdivisions that over like 200 lots are a lot of work for us
to review; it is a massive amount of land there are easements, drainage
easements, and all kinds of stuff going on.
The only thing that it is going to change, right now it cost about
$6.00 per lot this is for the five and above, not for the administrative
splits that comes through our office, in fees from our department for
developers to place subdivisions in the County, which I don’t think that is
a lot of money, but I don’t know what you all views on it are.
I don’t know if you have an acceptable range that is going to change
if we charge more for the people who are doing bigger subdivisions it is going
to go incrementally but it is going to end up being more per lot on those
bigger subdivisions. I don’t
know if there is a range as far as that goes dollars per lot that the County
will need to tack on.”
Laney commented, “When you are preparing it my
direction would be that if it is legitimate more work then we come up with pro
rating higher fees. Have pubic
hearings about why we don’t have affordable housing, so I wouldn’t really
go there in rational, but if it’s twice the work that is enough reason to me
twice the amount. I wouldn’t
try to justify it by saying it is only so much and can’t afford this because
it is a big project, don’t worry about that.
My guidance would be come up with the tiered structure.”
Richey stated, “Last year the Quorum Court asked me
to determine that because they wanted to know.” Laney commented, “I’m open to the tier structure.”
Haley asked, “How often do you do that?”
Richey replied, “Once a year.”
Butler stated, “Budget time.”
Walker asked, “$6.00 per lot?”
Richey replied, “That is our current fee structure, it is roughly
somewhere between 5 and 6 dollars a lot that is how much the developer pays
per each lot that he develops that is not on the small stuff only 5 lots and
up.”
Haley asked, “How is this comparable to Benton
County?” Richey replied,
“Benton County has more of a tiered system, we’re probably closer to them
than other people. They do
basically $250.00 plus $25.00 a lot, that is the $500.00, they do per lot
charge, $25.00 is a lot of money.”
Laney asked, “Are we going to look at those at the
next Planning Board to forward to the Service Committee?
Will we have those in our packets so that they can look for them?”
Richey replied, “I can wait another month.
Yes those will be in the packets.”
Laney commented, “We propose something for our
approval.”
Haley asked, “We need to make a recommendation?”
Walker replied, “It is a recommendation that we have to vote for.”
Richey stated, “You’re going to have another dirt
pit in the unzoned area, so get ready.”
·
Discuss general Planning Department business
·
Other matters
Robert Daugherty moved to
adjourn. Larry Walker seconded. Motion
passes.
Planning Board adjourned.
Minutes submitted by:
Amanda Kimbel
Approved by the Planning
Board on:
__________Robert Daugherty_______ Date: __09/06/07___
Robert Daugherty, Planning Board Vice-Chairman
MINUTES
WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
September 6,
2007
5:00
p.m., Quorum Courtroom, New Courthouse
Fayetteville, Arkansas
DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN:
LAND DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS
County
a.
Replat Lot 730, Wedington Woods, Unit 7
Preliminary and Final
Plat Approval
Fayetteville
Planning Area
b. West Haven
Subdivision
Tabled
Tontitown Planning Area
c. Fred Kirk Pallet
Storage Buildings LSD
Preliminary LSD Plan Approval
Farmington Planning Area
d. Elkhorn
Springs Road Dirt Pit Expansion LSD
Tabled
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS
e. Stone Plaza
CUP
Conditional Use Permit
Request Approval
f. RV Storage
CUP
Conditional Use Permit
Request Approval
g. The
Estates at Hughmount Hills CUP (Rio Bravo CUP)
Conditional Use Permit
Request Approval
1. ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken.
Members present include: Robert Daugherty, Kenley Haley, Gary Head,
and Cheryl West. Absent: Billy
Smith, Randy Laney, and Larry Walker.
Robert Daugherty acted
as Chairman due to Randy Laney being absent.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the August 2, 2007 meeting) Gary
Head made a motion to approve as written. Cheryl West provided the second.
Motion passes.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Juliet Richey, Washington County Planning Director, stated, “Item d. Elkhorn Springs Road Dirt Pit Expansion LSD will be tabled until the October 4, 2007 meeting.” Cheryl West made a motion to approve the revised agenda with the tabling of item d. Kenley Haley seconded. Motion passes.
4. NEW BUSINESS
LAND DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS
County
a.
Replat Lot 730, Wedington Woods, Unit 7
Location:
Section 8, Township 16 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Michael Prater
Engineer/Surveyor: Glenn Carter, PE, PLS
Location
Address: 15283 Red Fox Drive
1.94
acres and 2 lots / Proposed Land Use: Residential
REQUEST: Preliminary
and Final Minor Subdivision Approval for Replat of Lot 730
Wedington Woods Subdivision. The
total acreage of the site is 1.94 acres.
The site is being proposed to be split into Lot 730A – 1.23 acres
and Lot 730 B- 0.71 acres.
CURRENT ZONING: Not located in the zoned area. Property resides in unzoned corridor of HWY 16.
PLANNING AREA:
This project is located solely in the County.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT: District 10, JP Jack Norton (D)
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
This project is located on the corner of W.C. #2149 Red Fox Dr.
and Arkansas HWY #16, in the platted subdivision Wedington Woods. The
project comes before the Planning Board because it is in a platted
subdivision therefore cannot be processed administratively.
The existing access for this property is located off W.C #2149 Red
Fox Drive; the drive services a residence.
Additional points of ingress / egress for proposed spilt will also be
off W. C. #2149 Red Fox Drive. The
potential buyer of the proposed lot 730 A (1.23 acres) intends to develop
the property as a landscaping business.
As the property is not in a zoned area, it will not have to obtain a
CUP for this use; however, due to the property’s size (over an acre)
development of this nature will have to go through the LSD process.
***This replat request will divide the property, where as a future
LSD request allows it to be developed as a landscaping business (i.e.
greenhouses, storage, parking, grading etc).
The applicant has met most of the requirements, a few minor plat
checklist revisions remain.
*Please note that if an item is marked inadequate,
staff will usually recommend tabling or denial of a project.
It is up to the Planning Board’s discretion whether or not to agree
with staff recommendation.
*For more
detail/information on General Plat Checklist please refer to “Full
Checklist” on pages A-4 through A-6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend Preliminary and Final approval of
Minor Subdivision Replat of Lot 730 Wedington Woods Subdivision with the
following conditions being met. For Preliminary & Final Approval the Following
conditions must be met:
1.
Correct all checklist items. For
a detailed list see “Full Checklist” on pages A-4 through A-6. 2.
Development must comply with all ADEQ rules and regulations. 3.
Any further splitting or land development not considered with this
approval must come before the Planning Board. 4.
Have all signature blocks signed on 11 Final Plats – 2 for filing
in the Circuit Clerk’s office, 7 for the County Planning office, remainder
for the developer. (all the details re process, utilities,
infrastructure, past splits, etc that you would have in a regular staff
report) SPLITS PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED ON THIS PARCEL:
This parcel has no previous splits since it has been platted into
Wedington Woods Subdivision. Water – The property is in the service area of
Washington Water Authority.
1. If a tile is needed or any
work done in the county road ROW a permit will be required. 1.
Stormwater permit will be required by Washington County Environmental
Affairs before any construction is begun. 479. 444.1725 2.
Must comply
with all ADEQ rules and regulations. Washington
County Planning Department 1.
Correct checklist item. Please
refer to the checklist copy handed out at Tech Rvw.; the highlighted items
need corrected. 2.
Please note as discussed, developing lot –A- as a landscaping
business will require that the owner/ developer submit Large Scale
Development (site is over 1 acre in size) application / plan and be approved
before development can begin. Utility
comments: Washington Water Authority: 1.
Contact
JC Dobbs with any questions, 267-2111 Ozark Electric: 1.
Any
relocation of existing facilities will be at owner’s expense.
Any extension of line that has to be built specifically to feed this
property will be at full cost to the owner. 2.
Please
contact me if you have any questions. Contact
Greg McGee at (479) 684-4634 AT & T Telephone
(Received Post Tech Rvw.): 1.
Damage
to or any relocation of existing ATT facilities will be at the owner /
developer’s expense. (Susan
Clouser w / ATTSWBT)
“Full
Checklist” Replat
Lot 730, Wedington Woods, Unit 7 Planner: Jessie Pettit WASHINGTON COUNTY SUBDIVISION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST FOR SUBDIVISIONS OF FOUR LOTS OR LESS Highlighted information needs to be corrected on
the plat or added to the plat. j.p.
8-28-07 PLAT
CHECKLIST Existing
Conditions for Land Development (7) Topography at twenty-foot
USGS contour intervals
(8) Names of adjacent land
developments and ownership of adjacent property including corresponding deed
book and page number. Include
parcel numbers. (9)
All plats presented to the planning board and filed for record shall
note the uses of adjacent property owners.
The determination of said use shall be the responsibility of the
developer.
(10) Existing roads, streets,
culverts, railroads, and other features: The plat shall show the location,
name, width, surface type, surface
condition and right-of-way width of all existing or platted roads,
streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the proposed improvement,
including features such as existing permanent buildings, water courses,
railroads, municipal corporation limits, county's state lines, planning
district limits, oil and gas lines or wells, abandoned wells and dry holes
(11)
Existing utilities. List the
utility companies on the plat.
Add
info. (12) Flood areas:
1% (100-year) 100-year flood per FEMA map (13) Watercourses: If the
proposed development is traversed by a watercourse, channel, stream, creek
or river, the present and proposed location of each shall be shown (14) Soil analysis: The
developer shall indicate the types of soil found in the plat area according
to the USDA/ USGS Soil Conservation Service (15) Plat and deed
restrictions: Restrictions, if any, with use and perimeters defined. Plat
restrictions should be certified as to current legality by a member of the
Arkansas Bar. If there are
none, add a note to the plat stating there are none.
Proposed
Improvements (16) Location, dimensions and names of all proposed
roads, streets, alleys, easements, blocks, parcel and lot lines and
dedications and reservations
Address numbers or on
lots that are over one-half acre in size, add the following note to the
plat: Lots that are over one-half acre in size will need
to be addressed after the home location is known. (17) Street typical sections
and pavements sections for each classification of street-if any streets will
be built (18) Bearings and linear
dimensions referenced to true north of all lines, interior angles of lots
may be shown in lieu of bearings (19) Proposed use of all land
within the development
(20) Location and size of all
proposed utility lines (21) Sizes of all driveway and
road tiles shall be stated (22)
Building setback lines as fixed by the County, building lines and any setback lines established by public
authority, and those stipulated in the deed restrictions and right-of-way
lines
There are no rear or side building
setback lines shown on the plat, these need to be added. Information to
Supplement the Plat (23) Access control: The
openings for ingress and egress from the platted area to public street, road
or highways
(24) Letter of transmittal
(25) Payment of review fee
(26) Certification issued by
the County Tax Collector to the effect there are no delinquent taxes payable
at the time of the plat approval (27)
Certification of survey and accuracy of survey by the surveyor (Signature
Block # 2) (28) Certification of
ownership, title and dedication by the developer (Signature Block # 3) (29) Certification of the
developer's engineer that the design meets the County's design standards.
Not applicable to Minor
Subdivisions
(Signature Bock #1) (30) Signature block for
Planning Board Approval (Signature Block # 8) (31) Signature block for the
County Road Superintendent to certify approval of streets, grading and
drainage improvements and easements; and receipt of required Maintenance
Bonds (Signature Block # 7) (32) Signature block for the
Arkansas Department of Health to certify approval of water and sanitary
sewer improvements (Signature Block # 4)
If a decentralized sewer
system is being used. (Signature
Block 11) (34)
All remaining Signature Blocks as appropriate. (Signature Blocks 5,
9, 10) (35) Add note to plat:
Any further splitting, use or land development not considered with
this approval must come before the Planning Board for a separate approval.
(36) Review of these plats
is limited to general compliance with Washington County codes and
regulations and does not warranty the engineer’s design or relieve the
developer of any requirements, even if error, omissions or any inadequacies
are discovered after plat
approval. The County’s
requirement shall govern over any conflicts with the plats or
specifications. Any conditions determined in the field that require changes
shall be subject to further review and corrective action to be paid for by
the developer. Correct
Wording Carter
commented, “I am the surveyor and I am representing the owner, Michael
Prater. I don’t really have
any questions or comments. I
will be glad to answer any that you may have.” Kenley Haley moved to
approve Replat Lot 730, Wedington Woods, Unit 7 Preliminary and Final Plat
with conditions. Cheryl West seconded.
Motion passes. All
Board members were in favor of approving Replat Lot
730, Wedington Woods, Unit 7 Preliminary and Final Plat approval. Fayetteville
Planning Area
b.
West Haven Subdivision Location:
Section 36, Township 17 North, Range 31 West Owner/Developer:
Blind Squirrel, LLC Engineer/Surveyor: Jorgensen & Associates Location
Address: 5673 and 5688 Blake Lee Lane 47.77 acres and 43
lots REQUEST: Final Subdivision Approval for West
Haven Subdivision. This project is 47.77 acres divided into 43 lots.
CURRENT
ZONING: Project does
lie within the County Zoned Area; however, Preliminary Plat approval had
been granted before the passage of the Zoning Ordinance, therefore zoning is
not applicable to the final plat of this project. Future splits and proposed uses within this subdivision will
be subject to zoning. PLANNING
AREA:
The development is located in the Fayetteville
Planning Area. Fayetteville
approved the Preliminary Plat on November 28, 2005, with several conditions.
This project is going before Fayetteville for Final approval on
August 30, 2007. At this time,
staff is unsure as to whether this plat will be approved by Fayetteville or
not, due to currently unresolved street and septic issues. QUORUM COURT
DISTRICT: District
1, Tom Lundstrum (R) BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS: The
property has access of WC #84 Wheeler Road, WC #2026 Staci Lane and WC #3701
Res. Dr. Blake Lee Lane. The property is owned by Blind Squirrel LLC and is
proposed as a single-family residential subdivision. West Haven Subdivision has provided plat
corrections, and provided required information regarding site distance (at
the intersection of internal subdivision roads and Wheeler Road). The fire
flow analysis for the critical hydrant on lot 21 was submitted and found
satisfactory by the Fire Marshal. In
order to satisfy concerns about drainage and future grading that may be
completed by individual lot developers, a note was added to the plat,
requesting individuals to exercise caution when grading. However, some major
issues remain unaddressed. West
Haven has satisfied most road requirements. The Final Inspection was
approved with some conditions that must be completed before the Washington
County Road Superintendent will sign the Final Plat. The items still needed
are as follows: submit correct bond, and a letter from the City of
Fayetteville approving this subdivision. Final approval from the City of Fayetteville was
granted on August 30, 2007; however, approval was given based on approved
septic permits. These permits were NOT approved. Fayetteville has now stated that the approval will be
contingent upon the septic permits being approved by the Health Department.
If any minor Lotline adjustments are made to the plat to accommodate these
systems, the city may still sign off on the subdivision. If more major
adjustments (such as the elimination of some lots) are necessary,
Fayetteville will require West Haven to come back to the City for Final Plat
approval. Staff has not received the official letter from the City of
Fayetteville that includes all conditions that will be required for the City
to sign the Final Plat. All conditions placed on this project by the City
will become conditions of approval for the County as well. The Health Department has some concerns about the
septic information. It is unsure at this time if all lots will receive
septic approval. In addition, the Health Department is investigating the
possibility of asking for the preliminary plans to be re-submitted to their
office.
CHECKLISTS:
*All General Plat Checklist information complete. STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Staff
recommends tabling West Haven Subdivision due to lack of information and
possibility of revised Final review through City of Fayetteville, which will
result in the County requiring the project to submit a revised Final Plat
for review. If the Board
does approve this project, Staff recommends that the following conditions be
placed on the approval: 1.
Need a letter of acceptance/approval from the City of Fayetteville. 2.
All City of Fayetteville conditions must be met. 3.
Pay all Engineering Fees to the Planning Office. Total = $ 350.00 *See
attached invoice on pg. (B-4). 4.
The Road Department must receive the correct bond. 5.
All Health Department issues must be resolved. 6.
Any further splitting or land development not considered with this
approval must come before the Planning Board. 7.
Have
all signature blocks signed on 11 Final Plats - 2 for filing in the Circuit
Clerk’s office, 7 for the County Planning office, remainder for the
developer.
CHECKLISTS
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION:
Signature
Block # 6
(33) A
notice stating: "Each individual lot developer shall obtain approval of
septic system from the Washington County Health Department Sanitarian
Division."
*For more
detail/information please refer to “ADDITIONAL INFORMATION” on pg. (B-3)
*Please note that if an item is marked inadequate, staff will usually
recommend tabling or denial of a project.
It is up to the Planning Board’s discretion whether or not to agree
with staff recommendation.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
|
Splits
previously completed on this parent parcel:
Parcel #001-17648-001 has two previous splits, Parcel #001-17651-000
has no previous splits, and Parcel #001-17652-000 has three previous splits.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water - The
project is served by Fayetteville Water.
Sewer- This
project is serviced by individual septic. (Fayetteville requires septic
permits to be in place at the time of final plat.
These are not yet complete).
Other
Utilities - The land is in the service area of Ozark Electric, Arkansas
Western Gas, Cox Communications, and AT & T Telephone (SBC).
Streets -
The property has access of WC #84 (Wheeler Road), WC #2026 (Staci Lane) and
new internal streets
Mike McDonald, (Blind
Squirrel, LLC) owner of the proposed development and Blake Jorgensen,
Jorgensen & Associates, were present to answer any questions.
Courtney McNair,
Washington County Planner, stated, “This project is located to the west of
the City of Fayetteville. It is
in a current zoning area, but it received Preliminary approval before zoning
went into effect, so zoning does not apply to it.
It is in the City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area.
The City of Fayetteville did give this project Final approval on
August 30, 2007, but there were some unresolved issues with that.
The site is located off of WC
#84 (Wheeler Road) and takes access
through another subdivision to the south (Double Tree Estates Phase 2) off
of WC #2026
(Staci Lane).
The proposed project is 47.77 acres with 43 lots.”
McNair also stated,
“West Haven has done most of its corrections that it needs to do.
There are no more plat corrections that need to be done at all.
It has all of the site distance information, all fire flow
information, and they have addressed our drainage concerns with a note on
the plat. West Haven has
satisfied most of the Road conditions, however, there are a few left,
including the bond corrections. George
Butler, Washington County Attorney, has not had a chance to look over the
bond.”
Butler commented,
“Shawn Shrum, Washington County Assistant Road Superintendent, and I talked about it.
I know what the correction is; it is the date.
I have looked at the bond and it was good in all respects except the
date was wrong. There has been
an addendum to change the date from the beginning date if that is correct
than the bond is appropriate and can be approved.”
McNair
stated, “The Road Department also asked for a letter from the City of
Fayetteville accepting the subdivision without any conditions.
The letter that we received today still had conditions from the City
of Fayetteville on it, so that is another issue that is causing us some
problems with this project. The
City of Fayetteville granted approval on August 30, 2007; the approval was
given based on the septic permits approval, but the Health Department has
told me that these septic permits were not approved.
Fayetteville has now stated that they may be fine with minor
adjustments to the plat to make these septic approvals work, but we don’t
have that information. If there
were more major adjustments like entire lots being removed in order for
these septic systems to get approval, the City of Fayetteville will require
that the subdivision go back through for Final Plat approval through the
City. If the Board approves
this we would have to approve it based on the contingency that they either
get septic approval or they go back through the City of Fayetteville if they
don’t and replat it as a Final Plat through the City of Fayetteville, that
is one of my major concerns.”
McNair
also stated, “The Health Department was concerned because they’re unsure
at this time if all of the lots will get septic approval.
They were concerned by a good deal of the lots not being able to
receive that approval so some lots may very well have to be merged or
absorbed they have not said one way or another whether they are approved or
not they are saying maybe. Staff
does recommend tabling West Haven due to lack of information for
Fayetteville and the possibility of a revised final review through the City
of Fayetteville, which will result in the County doing a revised Final Plat
as well. We’re also
recommending tabling based on the road issues, the City of Fayetteville
letter that we need, and the final from George Butler on the bond saying
that it is 100% even though he does seem pretty confident that the bond will
be acceptable as it is. The
developer does not agree with me on this.
I do feel that tabling it at this time will clear up some confusion
that we’ve had, we’ve been working on this right up until the last
minute and I’m still not sure that we’re entirely clear and that we have
all of the information that we need. If
the Board does recommend for approval, I have listed some conditions that I
would like you to approve it with.”
Jorgensen
commented, “I wouldn’t say that I totally disagree with everything that
she said, in fact all of the conditions of approval we do agree with.
The letter of acceptance from the City of Fayetteville, last week the
engineer who was reviewing it was out of town and we couldn’t get the
letter. Matt Casey wrote a
letter today around 1:00 or 2:00, we thought that it was efficient.
We sent it to the County and it wasn’t everything that they wanted,
so I couldn’t get a revised letter from Matt this afternoon.
I talked to Jeremy Pate and they had no problem with this, but they
have the stuff in place and they have reviewed everything.
It is contingent on them signing it.
We will still get the letter and it will still have to be signed, it
is just a condition of approval in our view.
The bond, unfortunately it wasn’t sent to you early enough.
I have a copy of the bond that does have the revised date.
As for the septic, when the City approved this, they understood that
there was a condition of approval that the twelve signatures are going to
take time to obtain. It has to
receive septic approval and some of the notes on the Final plat do indicate
that as with any subdivision you can’t build a house until you have the
lot approved from the State, so we’ll receive that either way.
We feel that if they do, they haven’t verified which lots; they
know that the majority of those lots have passed.
I don’t know where it is in the review cycle, I don’t know how
many days it is going to take, if it takes just two or three more days, it
seems unnecessary to not approve this based on the fact that it could get
approved with all of the septic stuff and if there are changes it could be a
minor change that the City of Fayetteville feels could be administrative.
If we have to block out a lot and say an unbuildable lot we could
change the plat now to indicate that or if we have to do a minor lot line
adjustment we wouldn’t have to go back through the review cycle. The City is comfortable approving it if the Board is
comfortable approving it. They
have already approved it and they are not going to sign off on it until we
do get all of the septic stuff fulfilled.”
Haley
asked, “Is there a reason to hurry this and approve it tonight?”
McNair replied, “My preference would be to wait until we get the
septic issue worked out that way we would know for sure.
However, Blake do you of any reason to rush this along, they can’t
build homes anyway?” Jorgensen
replied, “That’s why I feel that it is unnecessary to not approve,
because it is not going to result in us not getting a septic, it’s going
to have to get permitted either way. The
problem is this is on a cycle; let’s say it is all resolved tomorrow we
can’t see you for another month. It
seems unnecessary to me if the Board are comfortable understand that we have
to fulfill these conditions either way.
We can’t build a house, we can’t sell a lot, and we can’t do
anything until we get that resolved either way.
There can’t be an issue where we say, ‘Hey, we can call you
tomorrow it turns out we got it fixed.’
It may take 15 to 20 days, but this is on a cycle and getting the
septic permits is not. We’ve
been trying to get this approved for quite awhile; we’ve worked with a lot
of issues that have come up. It’s
way overdue for us to have this project finalized.
We understand that approving it tonight doesn’t mean that we’re
going to build a house tomorrow. We
have plenty of work to do outside of that in terms of getting the septic
stuff resolved, we understand that. We
prefer the Board to agree with these conditions of approval with the
confidence that it has to get resolved.”
Daugherty
asked, “George, do you have any guidance for us?” Butler replied, “I think that this is a matter of
discretion for you on whether or not you want to table it or if you want to
give it conditional or we sometimes call it contingent approval if you are
comfortable. I know that we try
to not have a huge long list of conditions like a few years we used to we
tried to get away from that. It
is just a matter of your discretion if you feel like there are so many
conditions that have to be addressed and if you don’t feel comfortable
with approving it. I think that
it is a matter of discretion you can approve it with conditions or you can
table it. It is how comfortable
you feel of doing it. You have
the discretion of doing either one.”
Haley
asked, “The Planning Office, are they most comfortable with this being
tabled?” McNair replied,
“Yes, but if you do choose to final it we have listed the conditions that
we would need you to approve it with. I
would recommend tabling it just because it has been so confusing I would
like to get some of the issues cleared up and get a solid approval. We have not received the official approval letter from the
City of Fayetteville yet and I would like to know what conditions if any
that they have put on it. Matt
Casey sent us an approval letter. It
said that once they received the bond and the as-built drawings for the
roads that they would then sign off on it, however, so they are still saying
that they are contingent upon. I
feel like we are putting contingencies upon contingencies if the Board
approves it, but if you do approve it please approve it with the conditions
that I have listed.”
Jorgensen
stated, “Planning has sent you an official approval letter, Andrew Garner
did. You said that we need one
from the Engineering. The
as-builts exist because the County has them, its not that they haven’t
approved them yet. These
conditions are going to apply whether you approve it tonight or a month from
now that’s not changing. That’s
what I’m trying to emphasize is that these conditions of approval are the
City we have to meet those regardless of the approval tonight or a month
from now. It doesn’t change
which conditions they are. The seven conditions the first one (need a letter of
acceptance/approval from the City of Fayetteville) may be sitting in my
e-mail, number two (all City of Fayetteville conditions must be met) has to
be met regardless, number three (pay all Engineering Fees to the Planning
Office. Total = $ 350.00) we can pay that, and the correct bond George
Butler may have looked over it is correct, number five (all Health
Department issues must be resolved) is the main issue, but it is not going
to change tonight or it is going to have to get resolved thorough review
time it seems that it is an item that it is contingent on.
I just don’t feel that these conditions are going to change
drastically in a month it’s all going to be the same conditions of
approval from the City as well; they approved it with conditions of approval
just like other plats. That is
why we have signatures to obtain.”
Richey
commented, “We would like to think that hopefully the septic issues will
be cleared up in a month.” Jorgensen
stated, “It could be five days.” Richey
commented, “It could be a month and today is your final plat day and it
has been for three months that you have submitted.” Jorgensen stated, “I agree, that’s why we are asking for
it now because it has been three months.”
Haley
commented, “I will make a motion to table it and go with the
recommendation you had three months and it is still not completed. You can take the argument either way, months are not going to
make any difference.”
Kenley Haley moved to
table West Haven Subdivision Final Plat due to lack of information. Cheryl
West seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were
in favor of tabling
West Haven Subdivision Final Plat.
Tontitown Planning Area
c.
Fred Kirk Pallet Storage Buildings LSD
Location:
Section 8, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Fred Kirk (Kirk Joint Trust)
Engineer/Surveyor:
Blew & Associates, Inc.
Location
Address: 4046 Kirk Lane
38.47
acres / Proposed Land Use: Pallet Storage
REQUEST: Preliminary and Final Large Scale Development
Approval for Fred Kirk Pallet Expansion. The
proposed project is 38.47 acres with 6.99 acres being used for pallet
storage.
CURRENT ZONING: The property is within the
zoned area of the County (Agriculture/Single-Family 1 unit per acre.)
At this time a Conditional Use Permit is not needed, as the use of
the property will not be expanded (They are only asking approval to
construct buildings to enclose existing pallets that are currently stored in
open air).
PLANNING AREA: This project is located in
the City of Tontitown’s Planning Area, but Tontitown does not review Large
Scale Developments of this nature.
QUORUM
COURT DISTRICT:
District
1, JP Tom Lundstrum (R)
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS: This project
is located on WC #855 Musteen Road and WC #3804 Res. Dr. Kirk. The project
has access from two drives off of WC #855 and an access point off of WC
#3804. The property is owned by Fred Kirk and is currently used to store
pallets. There are two existing buildings on site, and two more are proposed
to store the pallets that are outside.
All Road Department, Fire Marshal, and Health
Department Issues have been addressed. Only a few minor Planning Issues
remain.
Some utility comments remain unaddressed and
should be corrected. The proposed buildings must be taken out of the Utility
Easement, and the correct width of the Utility Easement should be drawn on
the plans. However, staff does not feel that these corrections will alter
the plans significantly.
Dry-hydrants will be placed in the ponds on site
to meet Fire Code issues, and the Public Utilities Coordinator regulates
this kind of structure. The hydrants must be inspected by the Fire Marshal
before Final Approval. Also, in order for staff to recommend Final Approval
for this project, several items will have to be submitted to Rhonda Hulse
before the Planning Board Meeting. If these items are not submitted, and
the hydrants not inspected, staff will recommend the Planning Board approve
only the Preliminary LSD.
*For
more detail/information please refer to “ADDITIONAL INFORMATION” on pg.
(C-4)
CHECKLISTS:
*Please note that if an item is marked inadequate,
staff will usually recommend tabling or denial of a project.
It is up to the Planning Board’s discretion whether or not to agree
with staff recommendation.
*For
more detail/information on General Plat Checklist please refer to “Full
Checklist” on pg. (C-5)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Preliminary and Final LSD approval of the proposed Fred Kirk Pallet LSD if all requirements from the Public Utilities Coordinator and Fire Marshal have been met (staff will update you at the meeting to the status of this information) with the following conditions:
|
If all of the required Public Utility and Fire
Marshal conditions have NOT been met, staff recommends: Preliminary LSD Plan
approval of the proposed Fred Kirk Pallet LSD with the following conditions:
Required for Preliminary Approval:
- There
is an office in one of these buildings?
This needs to be shown or noted on the plans.
- Remove
the text “Tract 2” from the plans.
- There
are several places were “Pallet” is misspelled. Please correct.
- “Proposed
Building B” is in the utility easement and will need to be move to the
west out from underneath the power lines. Ozarks Electric easement is 30
feet, which is 15 feet on either side of the center of the power lines.
Due to safety standards, these easements will need to be maintained as
30 feet in width. Only showing 20’
easement (should be 30’-15’ on each side), and the buildings are
shown in the easement. Correct.
- Fill
out the Public Utility questionnaire and return it to Rhonda Hulse.
Required for Final Approval:
- *See attached letter from Rhonda Hulse, Washington County Public Utilities Coordinator on pg (C-6).
The
Washington County ordinance states that the developer must have the
following submitted to the Public Utilities Coordinator, Rhonda Hulse before
this project can be approved by the Washington County Planning Board because
dry hydrants are being used to supplement fire flow:
·
Inspection
of these hydrants will be performed by the Tontitown Fire Department
quarterly, and inspection results sent to the Public Utilities Coordinator.
·
Each owner
to ensure compliance with the ordinances of the Quorum Court must post a
bond or letter of credit or other similar financial instrument. The amount
must be 25% of the total cost of the system.
·
A bond or
letter of credit must be posted equal to five years worth of projected
operation and maintenance costs to cover sums needed for expenditure of an
funds from long term reserves in the event there are insufficient funds on
hand to pay for such.
·
The owner
must maintain a sufficient sum of money that includes reserves for
operation, maintenance, energies and capital improvements. The Public
Utilities Coordinator will need to know this amount of the reserves and how
the reserves will adequately provide for sustainable performance and
compliance with permits.
- If
at any time the developer decides to split the Pallet LSD from the
remainder of the property, a survey must be approved through the City of
Tontitown and Washington County.
8.
Pay all Engineering Fees to the Planning Office. Total = $ 50.00.
*See attached invoice on pg. (C-7-8).
- The
hydrants must be inspected by the Fire Marshal.
10. Any further splitting or land development not considered with this approval must come before the Planning Board.
11.
Have all signature blocks signed on 11 Final LSD Plans - 2 for filing
in the Circuit Clerk’s office, 7 for the County Planning office, remainder
for the developer.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
SPLITS
PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED ON THIS PARENT PARCEL:
This parcel has no previous splits.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water
– This property is in the Tontitown Water service area.
Other
Utilities - The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric Cooperative
Corporation, AT & T Telephone (SBC), and Arkansas Western Gas.
Streets
– The proposed project has access off of WC #855 (Musteen Road) and WC
#3804 (Res. Dr. Kirk) at 4046
Kirk Lane.
Fred Kirk, owner of
the proposed project, and Glenn Carter, PE, PLS (Blew & Associates,
Inc.) were present to answer any questions.
McNair stated,
“This project is located just south of Highway 412 west outside of the
City of Tontitown’s City limits. It
is within the zoned area of the County, but at this time a Conditional Use
Permit is not needed because the use of the property will not be expanded
and this is something that we have discussed with George Butler and we have
decided that they don’t need a Conditional Use Permit.
They are simply asking for the Board to approve the construction of
buildings to enclose existing pallets that are currently stored on-site in
open air. The project is
located in the City of Tontitown’s Planning Area, but Tontitown does not
review Large Scale Developments of this nature.
It takes access off of WC #855 (Musteen Road) and a little driveway
WC #3804 (Res. Dr. Kirk) that also gives the site some access.
There are two drives off of Musteen and one off of Kirk; it is one
big parking area out front they have plenty of room. There are two existing buildings on-site and two more are
proposed. All Road Department,
Fire Marshal, and Health Department issues have been addressed except for
the Fire Marshal for Final had some issues.
Only a few minor Planning issues remain which are just plat
corrections, which is nothing unusual.
Some utility comments remain unaddressed that are from the Public
Utilities Coordinator, Rhonda Hulse, and from Ozark Electric.
Ozark Electric would like for them to scoot the square proposed
building just to the west to get it out of the electric easement, which
should not affect the LSD Plan too much.
Rhonda Hulse will need to regulate the dry hydrants that they have
been required to put in by the Fire Marshal.
Rhonda said that she would be willing to give Final approval
contingent upon all of the information being submitted to her.
John Jenkins, Washington County Fire Marshal, would rather the Board
give Preliminary approval at this time and hold off on the Final approval
until after he has had a chance to inspect those dry hydrants, as of right
now they are not in, and he wants to be able to look at them before he does
that. Based on what Mr. Jenkins feels is necessary, Staff would
recommend that the Board approve the Preliminary Plan for Fred Kirk Pallet
Storage Buildings, and they just need
to make the minor plat corrections; move the building out of Ozark
Electric’s easement and they will need to get Rhonda the questionnaire and
she said that they have contacted her and that they have that questionnaire
and will be submitting it to her so she is not concerned about Preliminary
approval at this time either. I
do have conditions if the Board does decide to give it Final approval that
they will need to adhere to. John
Jenkins the Fire Marshal would prefer at this time that the Board just
approve the Preliminary and give them time to get the hydrants in so that he
can inspect them.”
Carter commented,
“I am the engineer for this project.
We initially requested Final LSD Plan approval and I guess there was
a little misunderstanding about the dry hydrants.
We kind of felt like we needed to get approval of the drawing before
we built it so we never built them, so now we’re at Final LSD Plan and
we’re being told that John Jenkins doesn’t want to give us Final
approval until they’re built. We
don’t care one way or another we thought that we could get through here
tonight and not have to come back and get approval contingent upon those two
hydrants being built, but either way it is not a problem to us.
We would like Final approval, but we understand his request.”
Gary Head moved to approve Fred Kirk Pallet Storage
Buildings Preliminary LSD Plan with conditions. Cheryl West seconded. Motion
passes.
All Board members were in favor of approving Fred
Kirk Pallet Storage Buildings LSD Preliminary LSD Plan approval.
Farmington Planning Area
d.
Elkhorn Springs Road Dirt Pit Expansion LSD
Location:
Section 8, Township 16 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Larry H. Hillian / Les Rogers Excavating and Materials
Engineer/Surveyor:
Clark Consulting / Bates & Associates, Inc.
Location
Address: 13949 W. Hwy. 16
46.70
acres / Proposed Land Use: Borrow Pit
Richey stated that Elkhorn Springs Dirt Pit
Expansion LSD was tabled due to adjoining property owners not being
notified.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS
Lincoln Planning Area
e.
Stone Plaza CUP
Location:
Section 25, Township 15 North, Range 33 West
Owner/Developer:
Craig Dunham
Engineer/Surveyor:
Gore Engineering & Land Surveying
Location
Address: Highway 62 / Pridemore Drive
2 acres / Proposed
Land Use: Commercial lease for retail space
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Approval for
Stone Plaza CUP for retail space in a residential and agricultural zone.
The request is to allow a retail/light commercial center that would
house businesses such as an electrician business, hair salon, pet grooming
store, etc. (See applicant’s use description letter, pg E-7).
The proposed project is located on parcel 2 acres in size.
CURRENT ZONING:
Project does lie within the County Zoned Area
(Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per acre).
PLANNING AREA:
This project is located in Lincoln’s Planning Area.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT: District 10, JP Jack
Norton (D)
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The property is currently owned by Craig Dunham.
The proposed project has access off of Highway 62 / Pridemore Drive
just to the west of Lincoln city limits.
There are many other commercial uses within this
area (see attached surrounding uses aerial maps, pg E-). While staff supports the general idea of the proposed use,
there may be some shortfalls in the existing water infrastructure.
|
The
Fire Marshal has looked at the situation, and the following shall be
applicable:
Rough
Estimates by Lincoln Water put a 6" line extension from the City to the
site as bringing up the GPM from less than 700 GPM (present estimate) to
900-1000 GPM (new extension estimate).
The Washington County Fire Marshal, John Jenkins, has stated that
this new amount, with tanker support, will achieve minimum State Fire Code
compliance with the 1500 GPM that is required for commercial structures.
Alternatively, it may also be acceptable for the applicant to
install tanks or holding facilities (or other fire suppression systems, as
approved by the Fire Marshal and in compliance with State Fire Code) to
achieve 1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration.
Upgrades or tanks/holding facilities would be at the expense
of the developer and subject to all state and local laws and ordinances.
BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS (continued):
An
update to the criteria checklist :
If the conditions listed are adhered to- staff feels:
•That the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding
area.
•That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the
conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare
•That the Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property in the surrounding area for the purposes
already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values
within the surrounding area.
•That the establishment of the conditional use will not
impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding
area for uses permitted in the zone.
Since
the time that packets were sent out, staff has received the 4 additional
property owner responses from surrounding property owners.
These responses have been provided fro you at this meeting.
All responses are in favor of the CUP being granted for this project.
These responses mean that 5 out of the 7 people notified for
this project have responded, and positively.
The applicant notified all property owners within 300’ of
this CUP hearing. It has come
to our attention, however, that the incorrect date of September 1st (instead of Sept 6th)
was included with these notices for the CUP hearing. Staff has contacted all property owners to see if they are
aware of the change. Some were
reached by phone, others have submitted positive responses. Please see staff recommendations for update at to how staff
would like to handle this situation.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Planning
Board is comfortable with discussion of this project due to notifications to
surrounding property owners bearing the wrong date, then Staff recommends
approval of the CUP with the following conditions (see condition 8- which
deals with notification issue):
1.
Must proceed through County LSD approval process if CUP is granted.
2.
Arkansas State Fire Code standards must be adhered to: adequate GPM
flow suitable for this type of development, and availability of a hydrant
within a suitable distance.
3.
Rough Estimates by Lincoln Water put a 6” line extension from the
City to the site as bringing up the GPM from less than 700 GPM (present
estimate) to 900-1,000 GPM (new extension estimate).
The Washington County Fire Marshal, John Jenkins, has stated that
this new amount, with tanker support, will achieve minimum State Fire Code
compliance with the 1,500 GPM that is required for commercial structures.
Alternatively, it may also be acceptable for the applicant to install
tanks or holding facilities (or other fire suppression systems, as approved
by the Fire Marshal and in compliance with State Fire Code) to achieve 1,500
GPM for a 2-hour duration.
Upgrades
or tanks/holding facilities would be at the expense of the developer and
subject to all state and local laws and ordinances.
4.
Commercial uses should be limited to light commercial types as laid
out in applicant’s letter (i.e., flower shop, hair salon, nail salon, pet
grooming, small electrical or plumbing business.)
Businesses should generally not be open for business past 9 –10 pm,
with exception of special circumstances – occasions.
5.
All outdoor storage (if any) should be screened in an enclosed area
by a privacy fence of some sort.
6.
Building and Parking area should be built along the general
architectural guidelines that were given in the applicant’s letter (4,000
sq ft metal building with brick on front façade.
Asphalt parking lot).
7.
All outdoor lighting should be shielded with proper fixtures to keep
them from shining onto neighboring properties.
8.
Approval is conditioned upon no surrounding property owners within
300’ raising objection to the CUP between tonight’s meeting and the
October meeting. If objections
are raised during this time period, the Board should reconsider this use at
the October meeting. If no
objections or concerns regarding the CUP are raised during this time, then
the Board approval of the CUP shall be considered final on October 5, 2007.
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION:
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water – The
property is in the service area of Lincoln Water.
Other Utilities - The lot is in the service
area of Ozark Electric Cooperative Corporation, Prairie Grove Telephone,
Arkansas Western Gas, and Cox Communications.
Craig Dunham, owner
of the proposed development was present to answer any questions.
Richey stated,
“This is located just west of the City of Lincoln on Highway 62 and
Pridemore Drive.
It is in the City of Lincoln’s Planning Area, it is also in the
zoned area. It is right next to
the riding arena by Lincoln. There
are many other commercial uses in this area.
There is a car repair shop, grocery store, auto parts store, and
Highway Department maintenance center along there.
There are several residential and residential/agricultural areas
there as well. We have received
comments from five of the seven property owners within 300’ and they all
have no objection to it at this time. A
lot of the commercial is within the City limits unless you consider the
riding club arena and a lot of it outside is residential/agricultural,
however, it is an area that we kind of consider in transition slowly as the
City of Lincoln moves out that way, it will probably slowly transition to
commercial. I think that it
will be an amount of time and there will still be a mixture of residential
and commercial for a little while.”
Richey also stated,
“When we sent out the Staff report we still had some questions about water
availability, pretty much good to go on the other front as far as utilities,
health, safety, and welfare, blending in into the community with this type
of development. The only
question was is there adequate utilities to function in the fire fighting
capacity as far as water goes in this area at this time?
It is a 4” line out there right now which is not going to sustain
the fire flow needed to fight fires in a commercial building.
There are a couple options after getting together with Lincoln Water,
they can put in a 6” water line extension from the City, and there are
several variations depending on getting easements, generally along the
easement that the Water Company already has, it is 1,335’ so it is not an
insubstantial extension. The
Fire Marshal said that if that was not what he wanted to do then it could
also be achieved by installing holding tanks or other sorts of facilities or
fire suppression systems as approved by the Fire Marshal in compliance with
Arkansas State Fire Code to achieve the 1,500 gallon per minute for the two
hour duration. All upgrades,
tanks, and holding facilities or line expansions will be at the expense of
the developer and subject to all State and local laws and ordinances.”
Richey added, “The
criteria checklist basically says is the infrastructure available or can it
be made available? The answer
is yes it can be made available so I don’t think that this is an issue
that should hold up the approval of this use in this area, it is just
something to let him know as a condition that it is something that he is
going to have to address at Large Scale Development.
Our Future Land Use Plan Map comes from the City of Lincoln’s
Future Land Use Plan; it does show this area to be slated for commercial
growth in the future. It is a
4,000 square foot building and he is going to put it on this lot with
basically a parking lot entrance don’t do a lot with aesthetics generally
at this point. Basically, we
had some conditions laid out. We feel like if these conditions are adhered to then it is
essentially going to fit everything on the criteria checklist.
There is one other issue that came up, the applicant did notify
everyone within the time limit that he was suppose to notify them.
He sent out seven notifications which is what he is required to do,
there are seven people within 300’, five of them responded back all of
them responded in favor of the project, however, he accidentally put the
wrong date of the meeting on the notification, he put it for September 1,
and we didn’t find out that he put the wrong date on it till last Friday
we posted a sign at the Courthouse on the door in case anybody did show up
on Saturday and let them know that it was not going to be that day and if
they called the office then we would let them know when it would be, we
didn’t receive any calls about that.
We made our best effort to call everyone last night to make sure that
they still knew that there was going to be a meeting, there were two people
that we weren’t able to get a hold of.
We wrote a condition that basically said that approval of condition
upon no surrounding property owners within 300’ raising objection to the
Conditional Use Permit between tonight’s meeting and the October meeting.
If objections are raised during this time period then the Board
should reconsider this use at the October meeting.
If no objections or concerns regarding the Conditional Use are raised
during this time period then the Board’s approval of the Conditional Use
could be considered final on October 5.
The Board can go ahead and give him feedback whether you’re okay
with this use with these conditions listed or not so that he can proceed
with getting his Large Scale Plan underway.
It is not something we usually do when people miss at notifications,
however, this is a very small project there are only seven people notified
and also we heard back from five of the seven people, seems like everyone
knows what’s going on. However,
this is also at the Board’s discretion whether you want to proceed with it
or not.”
Dunham
had nothing to add.
Gary Head moved to
approve Stone Plaza Conditional Use Permit with conditions. Kenley Haley
seconded. Motion passes.
All Board
members were in favor of approving Stone Plaza Conditional Use Permit
approval.
Elm Springs Planning Area
f.
RV Storage CUP
Location:
Section 31, Township 18 North, Range 30 West
Owner/Developer:
Jerry Martin
Engineer/Surveyor:
Satterfield Land Surveyors, P.A.
Location Address: 10281 & 10289 W. Gibbs Road
1.62 acres / Proposed
Land Use: Camper Storage
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit Approval
for the commercial use of open-air RV and camper storage in an area zoned
Single Family Residential and Agricultural.
The proposed project is located on a parcel 1.62 acres.
CURRENT ZONING: Project does lie within the
County Zoned area (Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per acre).
PLANNING AREA: This project is located in
the City of Elm Springs Planning Area.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT: District 1, JP Tom
Lundstrum (R)
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
The property is currently owned by Jerry Martin.
The proposed project has access off of WC #910 (Gibbs Road) at 10281
& 10289 W. Gibbs Road.
Please see the attached letter that the applicant
has submitted explaining his request for this project (pg F7).
The
applicant would like to enclose approx ½ to 1 acre of the southern portion
of his property with a fence to provide open-air (secure) storage of RVs and
Campers on this parcel. Staff
is awaiting information regarding nearby waterlines for Fire Flow, and
information regarding the location of the nearest hydrant before making a
recommendation on this project. This
information should be available to staff by the time of the meeting.
Staff
received information from the Springdale Water Department today (9/6/07)
regarding this project. The
existing water line is a 6” line. Although
they do not have any current fire flows for the area directly adjacent to
this property, they do have some in the area which are approximately 1250
GPM. Staff asked the Water
Department what the estimate might be for this area on the existing 6”
line. The Water Department
estimated that it would be the same, and probably not less than 1000 GPM. They do not have the equipment to complete this test at this
time, however, a test is scheduled for the future in this area.
At this time, staff would state that the flow is probably ok (with
tanker support) for this type of commercial development.
The Fire Marshal will require a hydrant onsite (on Gibbs Road) at the
time of LSD approval.
Staff
has listed below a list of conditions that we feel make this project
compatible with the surrounding area. The
use is quiet and generally unobtrusive, and if screened, should not be an
aesthetic issue.
There is a SWEPCO transmission line and easement that crosses
this area. After extensive discussions with SWEPCO, it has been determined
that this use is allowed in this easement. However some stipulations
regarding clearance, access, etc must be adhered to. The owner is agreeable to all stipulations.
There is a possibility of minor static electricity issues in this
area; however, it is not a health safety risk, just the possibility of a
minor nuisance.
Staff
has also received two surrounding property owner comments since the mailing
of staff reports. One simply
states “in favor”. The
other (an email) states that they are not specifically opposed, as long as
screening requirements are favorable to residential atmosphere (wooden
privacy fence) and directional/ shielded lighting is used (as proposed in
the conditions listed).
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the CUP with the following
conditions:
- Fencing area must provide some visual
screening from storage area. Wood
privacy fencing should be used.
2.
Outdoor lighting should be shielded from adjacent property owners
(down cast/shielded light fixtures or other appropriate measures).
3.
Must adhere to existing stipulations in AEP SWEPCO easement
(clearance, ingress/egress,etc)
4.
As stated in applicant’s letter- no one will be allowed to occupy
an RV while it is on the storage lot.
5.
Must proceed through County LSD approval process if CUP is granted.
6.
Arkansas State Fire Code standards must be adhered to.
Adequate GPM flow, adequate availability of a hydrant, siren
activated gate with manual override if securely fenced, and road into site
must be 20 in width and support 75,000 lbs (fire truck) in all weather
conditions.
Richey stated,
“This area is located in a small portion of incorporated area sandwiched
between Elm Springs, Springdale, and Tontitown.
It is in the City of Elm Springs Planning Area and also in the zoned
area. This is directly north of
the new Har-ber Addition and the School.
The
property has access off of WC #910 (Gibbs Road) which comes off of Highway
112 (Maestri). The parcel is
1.62 acres; it is kind of long and skinny.
The existing circumstances are this is an existing business that has
been in place for several years before we had zoning; he makes stamps he has
a rubber stamp business. Also,
he has an existing business where he rents out several campers that people
can rent out for the weekend. When
he first approached us he wanted somewhere organized to keep his campers on
the back portion of this lot as well as renting out a few spaces to other
people in the area. There is
also a home on-site and this is a residential home that is a rent house.
He wants to split off a portion of the rear of this property
somewhere between ½ acre and one acre.
There is an existing pole barn that he is going to tear down. Basically, this area will be fenced off securely and there
will be RV’s or campers stored there.
One of the primary conditions and the first thing that people ask is
will there be people living in these campers and the answer is no and that
is one of our conditions and something that he also wrote in his first
letter. When we sent out Staff
Reports there was also a question about the availability of water to fight
fires in this area. That has
been answered there is plenty of water in this area; it is estimated to be
between 1,000 and 1,250 gallons per minute.
The Fire Marshal is fine with that figure.
At Large Scale Development they will be required to put in a hydrant
on-site.” Richey
also stated, “We have received two surrounding property owner comments
since the Staff Report; one simply states that it is in favor of this
project and another states that they are not specifically opposed as long as
the screening requirements are favorable to the residential atmosphere
(wooden privacy fence) and directional/shielded lighting is used and that is
something that we have also proposed in our conditions.
The existing conditions around here this is also kind of a transition
area ever since the Har-ber
development gone in, it has changed quite a bit.
You have residential, schools, commercial, multi-family and other
single family, right next door to him is an auto repair shop that has been
in business for quite some time as well, and also several rent houses are
also on that property. This is
kind of a mismatched area what he is asking to do is a very low impact
commercial basically he already has campers on-site because of an existing
business and basically he is going to put them in a tidier manner.
The conditions that we’re asking are fencing the area to provide
some visual screening from the storage area.
We’re not saying that it needs to be a wooden privacy fence we’re
okay with basically any material as long as it is effectively screened not
just open chain link, but some sort of screening material. We also suggested that the fenced area should be setback from
rear and side property lines in a minimum of 10’ it is not something that
has to be done and the applicant would rather not because the lot is so long
and skinny to begin with we just do it as a safety precaution to keep
permanent structures from going onto other people’s property. Really, nothing that he is doing is a permanent structure,
but because of the type of fencing it is going to be rather permanent, that
is what we recommend, but I will leave that up to the Board as well.”
Martin
commented, “It’s by the Springdale High School where it is located and
Hellstern Middle School we’re approximately a quarter of mile north from
there, but the Har-ber Meadows subdivision which has very restrictive
covenants on RV’s being parked there.
It’s within a half mile of the new subdivision that Philip Taldo is
doing (De Tonti Estates). I
feel like this is appropriate for the area.
We are going to do a very aesthetic job as far as screening of it. We will only allow RV’s or boats to be there, I’m not
going to be storing cars or salvage or anything like that.
It is a narrow lot; we’re talking about 112’ approximately east
to west. I would like for you
to consider there is an existing fence along the east and south side that
lies well within my surveyed area and I would like to use that fence row for
the privacy fence rather than taking up an additional 20’ off a very
narrow lot. I would ask that we
might look at that as an exception just let me stay where the existing fence
is or on the south and east and also I have had it surveyed and I certainly
will stay well within on the west boundary as well.
It will have a security gate with an access code requirement to get
in and it will also have an on-site security gentleman that lives in the
house on the property, he has been there for quite some time and I have
discussed with him and he agrees to be on-site security for me for people
coming in after hours. I live
directly across the street on the north side we own 5 acres that’s where
we reside. It is a family business we do rubber stamps, rent campers,
and now I want to store some of them. With
the approval of this facility currently our campers are stored between Gibbs
Road and the building. None of
the neighbors have complained; I have talked to all of them about it.
I will be moving all of them back into my storage area, so it will be
off of the main road in behind a privacy fence.
I do think I will go with a wooden privacy fence that will be
economically feasible and work for the area also.
I would like to compliment the Staff; I have served on Planning
Commissions in the past and worked with various staff they have been the
most pleasant people. I think
that we have this worked out so that everyone is in agreement.”
John
Easterling asked, “I work for Springdale One, Inc. we own a lot of
property surrounding this project, basically all of the vacant area. I’m
confused about the fencing requirement as far as being setback off of his
property line; you’re making him put his fence not on his property line?
Richey replied, “It was a suggestion by Staff, but we can go either
way it is kind of up to them.” Easterling
stated, “We own property directly to the south and to his east and right
now it is vacant, but we have ideas on developing that and if he builds a
fence and it is 10’ off his property line; who is going to maintain that
whenever I get developed up against him?
It kind of draws a nice clear-cut line when you have your fence on
the property line. I could get
with my surveyor and his surveyor his pins and my pins and we can put it
right on the line and save him room and save us maintenance aggravation in
the future.” Gary Head moved to
approve RV Storage Conditional Use Permit with conditions and item number 7
(The fenced
area should be set back from rear and side property lines a minimum of
10’) being omitted from the
conditions and I agree particularly since his neighbor who wants it on the
line that makes it a lot simpler. I
would like for you to do the wooden fence just because I think that if they
do develop that’s going to be a lot better for everybody else. Cheryl West
seconded. Motion passes. All Board members were
in favor of approving
RV Storage Conditional Use Permit
approval. g.
Rio Bravo CUP Location:
Section 30, Township 17 North, Range 30 West Owner/Developer:
Blind Squirrel, LLC Engineer/Surveyor:
Jorgensen & Associates Location
Address: 4352 W. Weir Road & 3339 N. Hughmount Road 34.17 acres and 34
lots (Lot 35 & 36 are detention ponds) / Proposed Land Use: Residential REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Rio Bravo
Subdivision CUP to allow lots less than 1 acre in size.
The property is 34.17 acres split into 34 lots (Lots 35 and 36 are
detention ponds.) CURRENT ZONING:
AG/ SF- minimum of one-acre lots. PLANNING AREA: The
development is located in the City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area. QUORUM COURT DISTRICT:
JP District 1, Tom Lundstrum BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS: The property is
currently owned by SML Landholdings, LLC (Blind Squirrel, LLC & Hometown
Development.) The property has access off of WC #94 (Weir Road)
and WC #706 (Hughmount) at 4352 W. Weir Road and 3339 N. Hughmount Road. The applicant is requesting to place 34 lots on
34.17 acres. There are some
property line disputes that could alter the total acreage of the development
by about an acre (smaller). That
being said- Staff will recommend that no more than 33 single family acre
lots be approved for this development.
Staff is also recommending that the minimum lot size within the
subdivision should be 32,500 sq. ft. (approximately ¾ acre).
There have been several comments by surrounding
property owners at the time of the writing of this staff report.
The property owner comments range from concern about property line
disputes (which are currently being resolved between respective surveyors)
to traffic, drainage, and general adherence to the base zoning requirements
for the area. (See pages G16 – G27)
In many areas of the County, property lines come
to the center of ROWs and roads. Due
to this, staff has made the decision to factor the ROW width into acreage
calculations of lots (average density) to therefore treat all land areas the
same. Therefore, if they
strictly adhered to the zoning ordinance, there would probably be
approximately 30 lots in this subdivision regardless.
Staff feels that the addition of conditions on this project that
could improve the quality of the project in general is worth the addition of
3 lots and a slight density change. Drainage, offsite road improvements, and other
infrastructure issues involve nothing that cannot be covered under regular
Preliminary Plat Review. Staff feels that with some conditions placed on
the property that this development can meet the general intent of the zoning
ordinance, and provide a higher quality subdivision than there might be if
base zoning was observed. We have received 3 additional property owner
comments since Staff Reports were mailed out.
Please see attached. Staff feels that most proposed conditions address
the relevant concerns of property owners.
One concern that staff has not considered is that privacy fencing be
placed along the Northern and Western property lines (brought up by
adjoining property owner JD Lyman). The
board should consider this and see if they feel it should be a condition of
approval. *For more
detail/information please refer to “Additional Information” on pg. G7 STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Use Permit Approval of the proposed Rio
Bravo CUP, with the following conditions: 1.
Any further splitting or land development, use or density not
considered with this approval must come before the Planning Board and Zoning
Board of Adjustments. 2.
All
lots may have only one single family home per lot (single family
accessory buildings, ie garden shed, personal workshop, etc. are permissible
too). No multi-family, attached
patio homes, etc. 3.
All
lots must be able to support the appropriate individual septic system
(including alternate area and other ADH provisions) on the lot. 4.
Overall
density must agree with the overall acreage of the project if that acreage
has to be adjusted per agreements with adjacent property owners (property
line disputes) 5.
Offsite
street improvements, drainage and other infrastructure improvements will be
determined by Washington County and the City of Fayetteville as per their
respective subdivision requirements, at Preliminary Plat review. Drainage and Detention calculations must be completed and
designed to a minimum of City of Fayetteville Standards.
6.
All
detention pond areas shall be landscaped and maintained by the property
owners association (or equivalent body).
Landscaping of detention areas should be completed to City of
Fayetteville standards found in 177.06 of the Fayetteville UDC (pages
G28-30). Landscaping plans for
the detention pond areas must be submitted with Construction documents and
approved by the County Planning Director and the County Engineer.
Landscaping must be installed, approved and inspected (by County)
prior to Final Plat approval. 7.
Minimum
lot size within the subdivision should be 32,500 sq ft. (approximately ¾
acre). 8.
There
shall be a maximum of 33 residential lots within the development (it appears
if property line adjustments are made, then the remaining property will be
approx. 33.17 acres), or lower,
if the adjusted acreage falls below 33 acres.
In any case, residential lots shall not be of a density of more than
1 residential lot/acre. 9.
The
plan shall keep the same general street/lot layout.
In no case shall there be less than 2 entrances to the subdivision
(currently three are shown). 10.
Adherence to Arkansas State Fire Code is mandated.
GPM fire flow must be acceptable to Fire Marshal, and hydrants must
be placed to code throughout. 11.
Covenants and deed restrictions should make the joining of Wheeler
Volunteer Fire Department mandatory. Membership
is required prior to building taking place on each lot. 12.
All property line dispute issues must be fully resolved prior to
Preliminary Plat Approval by Washington County. Mike McDonald, (SML
Landholdings, LLC) owner of the proposed development and Blake Jorgensen,
Jorgensen & Associates, were present to answer any questions. Richey stated, “It
was submitted as Rio Bravo Conditional Use Permit and in response to some of
the surrounding property owners say that they have to change the name to The
Estates at Hughmount Hills; we can go with both for now.
This is in the City of Fayetteville’s Planning Area and also in the
zoned area. This is in the
Wheeler area as well and it is on the corner of WC
#94 (Weir Road) and WC #706 (Hughmount Road).
It is listed as 34.17 acres, but there are some issues with that. This is in what is called the rural area residential area of
our Future Land Use Plan, which means that it should be somewhat rural in
character and compatible with surrounding densities.
The density map shows that the lots around there, the lot itself is
34.17 acres; there are seven lots that are around five acres that are across
Weir Road. It ranges between one and two acres as you get into another
development (Mayes Oakwood Subdivision).
There are also a couple that are less than an acre across Weir Road.
Weir Road Subdivision (southeast), which is single-family and
multi-family units, is planned for a density of 4.25 units per acre and that
happened before we had zoning. The
recommended density of one single-family home per acre including the
detention pond area and or one single-family home per 0.95 acres if you
exclude the detention pond. Basically, what our base-zoning ordinance says that if you
have lots that are all above one acre in size then you do not have to come
for the Conditional Use Permit. However,
if you want to do lots that are smaller than that or another type of use
then you go through the Conditional Use process.
Something that George Butler and I have talked about is when we did
zoning the idea was not to exclude anything and everything that is less than
an acre in size, but to basically take a more critical look at things that
are going to be less than an acre in size.
Sometimes I think that people feel that when we passed zoning what we
said is that we don’t want anything no matter what that has lots that are
less than an acre in size and that is not really the intent or the statement
of the ordinance. The ordinance
says is that if it is less than an acre in size that it basically goes
through a process where we look at it more critically and make sure that it
is going to be compatible with this area or can be made compatible with
conditions.” Richey
also stated, “They originally asked for a density of 34 single family lots
on 34 acres. There are some
property dispute areas as far as who owns this property that is a civil
matter and that is not something that we usually get into at all; that is
something that they will have to work out between each other it has to do
with deeds overlapping with old fence lines and other people’s deeds this
is something that just happens; that’s the way that it goes in the world
of land transactions. Because
this is not resolved at this point with this area is in question; what we
did we calculated that acreage which we found to be around .6 acres and then
we subtracted that from the total that they presented, because we don’t
have super exact documents and we’re going off of the surveys and fence
lines. We said that we are
going to round this up to it’s possibly an acre that maybe under question
for the whole thing, so we’re taking that out.
Staff has said that instead of 34.17 acres to look at we’re going
to look at 33.17 acres that is the number that we are going to use to make
our density decision, because this other acre is still up in the air.
Staff said that with conditions we would be in favor of having a
density of 33 lots on 33 acres. Condition
number 4 (Overall density must agree with the overall acreage of the project
if that acreage has to be adjusted per agreements with adjacent property
owners (property line disputes) basically to where it is less than 33 and
Staff is recommending for one unit per 32 or 33 after they finish this
dispute. It doesn’t look like it will be less than 33.
Condition number 7 (Minimum lot size within the subdivision should be
32,500 sq ft. (approximately ¾ acre) by putting down a minimum lot size it
says that yes you can have 33 lots, but none of them can be ridiculously
small, this keeps everything up to at least three quarters of an acre.
Condition number 9 (The plan shall keep the same general street/lot
layout. In no case shall there
be less than 2 entrances to the subdivision (currently three are shown) it
doesn’t have to be exactly the way that it is now, but they can’t come
back for Preliminary Plat and have 33 lots with six cul-de-sacs, that’s
not going to work, it needs to be the same kind of the same general layout
having outlets. Condition
number 12 (All property line dispute issues must be fully resolved prior to
Preliminary Plat Approval by Washington County) because there are things
that need to be figured out before we start looking at the actual platting
of it; to me density can be figured using these numbers where we just
subtract that acreage. Once we
get to that point, it needs to be solved.
I feel like this can be a much better looking subdivision and high
quality if we put a couple of conditions on it like we are.
I think it would be great to have a little bit of landscaping the
detention ponds this doesn’t mean flower beds, basically you put some
trees in there and some things like that.
There is a mandatory requirement to join the Volunteer Fire
Department; I think those are two big important things.
We can get those under the Conditional Use Permit whereas basically
if they just drop two or three lots they can make all of their lots an acre
and then they will be going on the bare minimum of our subdivision
ordinance. To me you get a
better quality subdivision by letting them have a few more lots.
I don’t think that there are any detriment to surrounding property
owners by adding these three additional lots, I feel like both conditions
help out and I feel like with the conditions that we are posting on there
we’re not allowing them room to do anything strange like bringing in
really small lots or anything like that, I feel like we have addressed
pretty much all of the surrounding property owner’s comments through the
conditions that we’re asking to place on it.
One thing that we did get an additional comment today and that
property owner wanted to know if we would consider mandating a privacy fence
around the northern and western borders of this development, that’s not
something that we have considered. Fences usually go up when people move in
and build their yards anyway. I
don’t really have any feelings about that one way or another about that,
but it is something that I didn’t look at when I addressed a lot of the
other property owner comments that I feel like were addressed with the
conditions. I feel like this is
sort of a complicated situation.” Haley
asked, “Condition number 11 (Covenants and deed restrictions should make
the joining of Wheeler Volunteer Fire Department mandatory.
Membership is required prior to building taking place on each lot)
who enforces that?” Richey
replied, “Basically, the Fire Marshal and the Fire Chief for Wheeler will
enforce that, we’ll check with them to make sure that’s under way and if
we find out that it hasn’t happened then they will be in violation of
their zoning.” Butler
commented, “The County will be able to enforce that.”
Daugherty asked, “Does the County also enforce like we require the
landscaping for the detention pond or who is going to enforce that five
years from now?” Richey
replied, “We will.” McDonald
commented, “I represent the owners of the project. We are in general agreement with practically all of the
things that Juliet has stated. We
would ask you to reconsider one item, obviously the unspoken word here is
this is probably the catalyst for County zoning, this project was.
We obviously planned to build much more than 34 single-family houses
on it when these owners bought the property. It was zoned under an emergency
ordinance and now we’re trying to make the best of what we have left with
that and comply with the zoning.
We would like to have 34 lots and our layout shows 34.
I understand Juliet’s math. Our
olive branch to that would be that we offer to deed the property line
disputes along the west and north sides primarily roughly .6 acres.
We offered to deed that property to the appropriate landowners on the
other side of those fences obviously our survey shows that our land goes
20’ on the other side of the north fence and 7’ or so on the west fence. We have no problem deeding that at Preliminary Plat, but what
we would like not to do from our perspective deed that land away and then
loose a lot because we gave that land away.
We think that we are complying with the spirit of your zoning
ordinance in asking for 34 lots and we would ask you to consider that.” Travis
Clark, adjacent property owner to the north at 3449
N. Hughmount Road,
stated, “We have been in contact with Buckley Blew who surveyed our land, the
Bixby’s land which is next door, and the Lyman’s land which is on the
west side. All of our surveys
show that the property lines are where the existing fences are according to
historical stones, pins, and stakes that Mr. Blew has dated back to 1914.
The only other survey that we have seen that disagrees with any of
the surrounding landowners is the one for the subdivision.
I understand the dilemma, we know that there is a subdivision going
in there, there’s nothing that we can do about it.
I understand that everyone has to make money.
We don’t feel like that he should be able to increase the number
houses by using land that does belong to us rightfully.
However you decide to do this, if he actually owns 33 acres then we
feel like he should build 33 lots. If
he deeds that land back to us he is basically saying that land belongs to
us, so by giving him 34 acres it doesn’t follow the zoning.
We realize that they are going to put it in there and as long as they
do what Juliet and these ladies have worked on then I don’t personally
feel that there will be any problems. The
only way that we’ll be agreeable to it is if we get a law binding deed for
our entire property and it was made known to me by Mr. Blew that they were
intending on deeding us each little piece of property as the lot sold; if
that is what they are intending to do then there would be a lawsuit filed to
keep that from happening. The
only way that we would be agreeable to it is if they deed us the entire
property law binding saying that my property boundaries belong to me and
they’re not going to try to use my property for anything same thing with
the Bixby’s and the Lyman’s. It
has to be in full, otherwise, we’re not going to be acceptable to it, but
if he has 33 acres we feel like he should develop 33 lots.” Sharon
Green, adjacent property owner to the
south at 4565 W. Weir Road, commented, “My property is to the south of the
proposed almost the entire length. I
appreciate all that Juliet has done and I agree with the conditions that she
is proposing. I do have a
problem with compatibility. All
of our homes are existing homes that have been there for years; have the
five to ten acres and some twenty acres.
When you come in and you bring the smaller lots, we’re just asking
for the acre. That would be
incompatible to what we have; we’re not asking for miracles.
We’re just asking that we have homes within our neighborhood.
We want our neighborhood to be conserved; we’re in the County for a
reason; so we’re asking for that. We
would like the conditions of the detention pond.
I’m concerned that is going to flood my property, it already does.
When you put a detention pond there that’s coming right on my
property and it will flood, there’s no doubt, and we have pictures prior
to that flooding. I know once
that detention pond is there my property is going to be flooded between the
Tuckers and myself we will have a property problem that we will have to
address. The fencing I think
that the detention pond should have a fence around it for safety reasons for
children. Hopefully, the homes
will be homes and there will be children and if you had the acre you can
expand your home and you can grow and people will stay there and retire and
have grandchildren; that’s what neighborhoods are about.
We’re not about flip-flopping or the turnaround that’s rental and
comes in and out you never know anyone.
We have an existing neighborhood we just ask that you help us to
conserve that existing neighborhood. Are
they going to build? Of course,
but at least be compatible and help our neighborhood to continue to grow.
Annexation, this particular developer has been known to come out into
the County and then at the very end when the sewer and septic doesn’t perc
or get approved they go back to the City for annexation.
I ask that one of the conditions is that you say that they cannot go
back for City annexation. We
know the City is right at our backdoor; we still want to be in the County as
long as possible. We should not
and they should not be allowed to be annexed.
That’s another little step that they should not; if it won’t perc
they just have to build the lot where it will.
I ask you to consider not allowing them to be annexed.” Head
stated, “I think a detention pond is designed to be dry; it catches the
water. My understanding of a
detention pond, I believe you probably are the one that wrote part of this,
just so that you know that way that I understand it the reason that we
require detention ponds is that any excess flow that this creates. If you already have a water problem, this doesn’t
necessarily solve it. If you
guys get along real good, technically speaking, they could solve it. My point is they are designed to be dry.
We wouldn’t require a fence around it because it is a dry pond it
catches the water in a heavy rain situation, and the reason is that it
suppose to let enough water come out of that subdivision that would have
come out naturally. It is not a
pond; it is empty. On Highway
45 Covington Subdivision is across the street from St. Joseph cemetery right
on the highway and there is a big hole in the ground with a concrete culvert
and it is always dry. If you
see it in a heavy rain it is full of water, but it drains out more slowly
than a normal run-off would. I
think a detention pond sends a lot of people the wrong message by the word
‘pond’, but it is intended to be dry not intended to be full of water.
We can’t say whether or not you can annex or not that’s really
not in our purview, we can’t say, ‘Hey, you can never annex your
property,’ or anyone can ever annex their property.
This Board does not have the purview to require that of anyone.
Anyone that lives in the County if they ever wanted to be part of any
City they could ask to be done or annexed.
One lot owner in that subdivision if they chose to could ask to be
annexed into the City. We can’t require anyone to stay in the County.
That’s not something that I believe that we have the purview to
do.” Green
asked, “You can’t put it on this subdivision as a condition?”
Head replied, “I would be very uncomfortable that it wouldn’t be
legally binding. I don’t
think that we can create law on a situation.” Butler
stated, “This is the first that I have heard this request.
I’m somewhat skeptical whether or not that we can do that, too.
I would need to do some research on it.
The reason that I am skeptical is because annexation is governed by
State law. There are statutory criteria under which a person can annex or
the City itself can annex it. I’m
somewhat skeptical right now whether we can do that or not.
I would need to do some research on it before I can give you a final
opinion.” Head commented,
“I just can’t imagine how we can ever require that would go beyond the
scope. I just don’t think that we could ever do that.”
Butler stated, “There is a possibility; I think that it is kind of
remote.” Head commented, “I
am just saying as a Board member that I would be uncomfortable ever putting
those kind of long lasting. It
maybe your grandchildren decide they want to subdivide your five acres, and
so if I did that you might be subject to something that your grandchildren
may not particularly like some day. I
don’t like to do things as a Board member that I can’t see beyond and I
can’t see beyond annexation.” Green
stated, “The reason that I say annexation is within the development.
It’s like once they start developing and then their sewer doesn’t
perc and then they want City sewer, so they go back to annex.
They haven’t paid any of the fees, they haven’t done the
greenspace, or the tree preservation, and they haven’t done the City
part.” Head commented, “I
was on the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission for eight years, there
are far more requirements of the City than there are of the County.
If these guys go to the City they have a lot more problems.”
Green stated, “They wait until after the fact and then they can’t
do anything.” Head commented,
“I am just telling you that if they have to be in the City of Fayetteville
their requirements are far more exceeding than ours.”
Green
stated, “If they are there ahead of time.
If they go there before they start development; it is at the end is
when they do this and it has been done on several of this developer’s
projects, so that is where my concern is.
I know that we will be annexed at some point.
I just don’t want to be forced to annex because a developer has
came in and he comply only with a small group of what the County is able to
do. He gets his cake and eat
it, too and then the neighborhood that has been there for years are the ones
who have to pick up the pieces, so that I am concerned about.
As far as communication, we tried contacting this developer; he
won’t come to any of our meetings and he won’t return any of our calls.
I contacted Mr. Jorgensen and he wouldn’t answer any questions they
were vague; he didn’t know what was going to be developed, he didn’t
know what size homes, and he didn’t know where Weir Road was going to be
developed. So why should we not
be skeptical? If they can’t
tell us those things that are coming into our neighborhood, we meet every
month we are a neighborhood who is concerned about our neighborhood and they
won’t talk to us; there is a problem.
We are very skeptical we are concerned about if they say 33 or 34
lots. Juliet has addressed that
and I appreciate that. We are
very concerned. We’ve seen
his previous work and history, so we know this.
We want you all to be aware and help us to keep our neighborhood as
conservative in the County as we possibly can.” Butler
commented, “Sharon, tell me again the scenario that you are worried
about.” Green stated, “They
will get to the point where their septic will not perc they will go to the
City and ask to be annexed. The
City would either say yes or no and then we would hopefully know that they
were coming up for annexation and the rest of us would be annexed at that
point.” Butler commented,
“Your problem is not being annexed in themselves, but they may annex you
in also because you’re in between.”
Green stated, “It’s just not them it’s going to be the whole.
They have done this.” Daugherty
asked, “When they are annexed they are not meeting the City requirements
at that point?” Green replied, “Exactly.” Richey
commented, “What she is referring to happened to Lierly Lane, which is a
subdivision right down the road and it started out in the County.
I personally cannot remember all of the details on that when I first
started working here. They were going to do septic or decentralized septic system
and the Health Department ended up making a recommendation that they wanted
to see it on sewer. I think
that is part of the reason why the City did it.
The City is aware of where the project is at when they annex them;
they know that they haven’t complied with this or that.
There are some pretty strict annexation policies now.
I know what you are saying. I don’t know if that is particularly
something that may come up with this. One
of our things is that each lot must be able to perc and hold it’s own
septic system and the City of Fayetteville requires people to now have
approved septics before Final Plat. She’s
worried about them getting annexed before they get to Final Plat.” Green
stated, “The widening of the roads; I think that the developer should have
to pay for all of that. It
should not come off of my property. We
took property when the road was paved to begin with.
He knew he was coming out there; he should have to pay for all of it.
I or any of the other neighbors should not have to loose land for him
in order for him to develop his property, so that will take some more
acreage that he is planning on developing.
I think that you should consider that before you say that he has 33
lots to develop because he needs to widen the road on Hughmount and Weir and
not take it from our property.” Richey
commented, “In the County there are several different ways that it is
done. Sometimes people start
their property lines at the edge of the right-of-way and sometimes in the
middle of the right-of-way; because it is done both ways; try to treat
everybody as fairly as we know how. We
count roads in because a lot of times it is part of people’s property.
I don’t know what the existing right-of-way is for Weir and
Hughmount, I think that they are both 60’.
If they need additional right-of-way to widen it then they will be
required to acquire that themselves, the developers, the County does not
acquire that for them.”
Chris
Tucker, adjacent property owner to the
south at 4525 W. Weir Road commented, “I live right across from Sharon Green.
My only issue is the detention pond because when they did Lierly Lane
we got the flooding coming from that direction.
If this detention pond does what it suppose to which doesn’t change
the natural flow of what it is right now; right now it is already bad.
This thing has to be very productive because anytime that we get a
good downpour we get a huge river coming between our two properties. My only concern along with that is that detention pond has to
be very good because between that one and the other property we get zapped
at every heavy downpour. When
you add this many houses and streets and all that stuff that increases the
water flow coming off of there.”
Jorgensen
stated, “It has a lot to do to be designed with the City of
Fayetteville’s standards, detains at a 100 year storm and that is the
worse case scenario. There has
been some concern about the location and function of the detention pond; we
don’t have a problem moving it to where that existing pond is; it will
function just the same. The
stream is running east to west, we will re-direct all of the water into our
pond and we will release it in a manner in which it won’t flood.
The pond will release it at a slower rate than what is there now.” Tucker asked, “Where is it going to release to?”
Jorgensen replied, “There are two existing culverts underneath the
road.” Tucker commented,
“There is one between my property in between our boarders.
Actually, where that detention pond is that is going to release
probably 90% of the water straight onto her property because unless you
change the drainage on the road it is not going to drain down to my
property.” Jorgensen stated,
“We’re going to put it to pre-existing conditions that’s the City of
Fayetteville’s standards.” Tucker
commented, “It’s going to be the same, I can live with the way that it
is right now. My point is
you’re going to have to do whatever grading is necessary so that it still
equalizes that water in between our properties.”
Head stated, “That is exactly right.
Considering the pond is full, that pond obviously can’t hold any
water because any excess water is going to run out of the top of the
pond.” Tucker commented,
“The pond that is there right now is less than probably a quarter of an
acre, if it is that big. I don’t think that it has any water in it, it is too
shallow.” Head stated, “If
we replace the pond that is even better because a pond would obviously now
be dry.” Jorgensen commented,
“It does not have the capacity to hold the water back.
The water that is in there is channelized as soon as it gets out of
there. The water is getting a
quicker release from that pond. The
water elevation fills up like a cup and immediately channelized the flow
down onto your property. This
will actually hold more water because it is an empty bowl.”
Tucker stated, “I want to make sure that this is adequate, because
I don’t want to come back three years down the road.”
Head commented, “As do we. That’s
why we want detention ponds so that we can avoid you getting flooded because
they put more houses across the street that’s why we require them.” Lisa
Dennis, at 5080 W. Weir Road,
commented, “I am not an adjoining property owner, I’m just a little bit
west of the development. I am
here because there are some concerns that I have; I’m part of the
neighborhood group. Some
concerns are on the detention pond; Mr. Jorgensen didn’t really answer the
question of what it is going to look like.
My concern is I have two children that are ages two and three also a
third child who is ten, my ten year old rides his bike up and down that
road. There’s going to be
more kids coming in with the development.
Mr. Jorgensen told me in telephone conversations; I don’t think
that I have seen a detention pond and he said, ‘Think of in front of
Wal-Mart on 6th Street.’ I
thought my kids would be looking over the edge and falling through and
that’s a very deep cement pit. That’s
the kind of detention pond that we’re talking about, Mr. Jorgensen
didn’t answer how deep it is going to be, and we need a fence around that,
that’s dangerous. We have
cows running around and will be walking up and down the road and the cow can
fall in that. We’re still
rural over here we have cattle and horses, we’re agricultural.
If these detention ponds are going to be cement pits we need
protection. I would ask you to
please consider fencing around this detention pond.
I don’t know about the water situation.
The detention ponds are going to detain water even for a day or two,
that’s dangerous if kids are around a body of water like that.
I have lived in this neighborhood all of my life.
The fences have been there for decades.
Please don’t let this developer profit from his own mistake, please
make it 33 lots. I don’t know
if you have the power to do this, but on his where the adjoining property
owners are can you request some setbacks from their lot line to where the
building is going to be so that there won’t be a house right up against
their land? There would be some
space between their land and the structure.
Please consider a privacy fence around the development; because there
are all different kinds of animals, we are out in the country out there.”
Richey stated,
“Existing in the County right now we have rear setbacks of 20’ from the
property line, unless they chose to make those more stringent, that’s what
it would be anyway. It is 10’
from side setbacks that would be within the subdivision.
The ones that backs up to the Lyman’s, Bixby’s, or Clark’s are
going to have 20’ setbacks except for Lot 7 because it is on that stub out
street that could be 10’. The
detention ponds the one in front of Wal-Mart is somewhat of a retention
pond, I think that the outlet is maybe a couple feet out so it does actually
hold a little water. We can
make a motion to make sure that it is going to be sodded or grass lined
detention pond.” Jorgensen commented, “The stipulations of your conditions
of approval to meet the landscape requirement we would have to sod and add
trees, it’s not going to be a concrete box.
The one at Wal-Mart is sodded it is 3 to 1 grading, there is a
concrete outlet structure, but you can’t access it, I don’t think that
they have converted it to a concrete drop off, I don’t think there is a
vertical drop there at all. Our
pond will have standard grading just as all of the other detention ponds
are.”
McDonald stated,
“We wouldn’t have any problem if you want us to stimulate this fence on
the detention pond. I
personally don’t think that would be a good idea, I would be worried about
my child being trapped inside the fence.
If you want a fence, we would be glad to put a fence around it. It would be a grass lined pond with a structure where the
water comes out.” Head commented, “I
think that the biggest issue is that most of these people have no idea what
a detention pond was.” Tucker stated,
“There is a detention pond across from Triple A big green building (AAA
Lawns) – Clabber Creek Phase 3.” Richey commented,
“One reason that we went with City of Fayetteville’s standards is
because they do require some trees so that it doesn’t end up being a huge
open grass, it is going to look a little more park like to have that in
there. That’s one thing that
we think will actually make it look a lot better.”
Nadine
Brannan, adjacent property owner to
the east at 4340 W. Weir Road, asked, “There is a 4.51 acres lot that is taken
off of that. I want to know if
the detention pond if it was to drain into the County road on Hughmount as
it is now, the ditch doesn’t hold water that comes down. I have pictures showing how my property floods now.
I’m not against the detention pond I just want to know how it is
going to affect my property. I read a handout that my two driveways are going to be the
access to that. 4352 Weir and
3339 Hughmount I have two houses. They
did come up my driveway a couple of times till I asked them to quit. They said, ‘We won’t bring big dump trucks up your
driveway,’ I said, ‘No, you won’t.’
Weir Road is a wide road and Hughmount Road is a dead end, it was
dirt till three years ago, I believe. Judge
Hunton came out and looked it over and agreed that they would put the base
down and we as neighbors went together and paid the chip and seal.
Now, are they going to come back along the east side of my almost 4
and half acres? It is showing
60’ on the plat, it isn’t that wide now I have for 34 years of the
privacy screen of bushes lining the east side deliberately and it is back
where it hasn’t been on the right-of-way up until this time.
Is that telling me that they are going to widen the right-of-way on
Hughmount to 60’, it is now just a little narrow dead end road with only
about 12 houses?” Shrum
replied, “I think that portion of Hughmount does not have 60’ I think it
was done as is.” Richey
stated, “If they need to acquire right-of-way to widen that, if that is
required, then they will need to acquire right-of-way from you and other
property owners on that road.” Brannan
commented, “Joyce Striegler owns the property straight across the road and
she is here. Ozark Electric has
a big transmission line near the road.
I have a feeling we would have a fight on our hands if they want to
take it all off of my side, I would be agreeable to maybe sell my half, but
not the entire amount. I am
concerned; I assume they are taking out the 6 to 7 acres of trees on the
north side. The City would not
allow that, but they will get that done before they go to the City.
Right now, that acreage is strictly trees.
I assume the County doesn’t have a tree ordinance.
If the trees are taken out it will make the erosion much worse.
I do want to say that I am glad that they are changing the name, it
was not compatible with our community.”
Carolyn
Bixby, adjacent property owner to the
northwest at 4649 W. Mayes Drive, asked, “I own property on the northwest
corner adjacent to the subdivision. When
you refer to the 20’ setback, are you referring from the boundary line on
the north or our property line on the north?” Richey replied, “It would be whatever that new boundary
line is decided to be between you all it will be 20’ from that.
When that is resolved it will be 20’ off of that.”
Bixby asked, “You are referring to the north and the west sides
when you talk about setbacks?” Richey
replied, “Yes, but I don’t know what it will be, that is a dispute
between you all.” Clarenda
Carr, stated, “I live next to Lisa Dennis at 5010 W. Weir, which is only
about a quarter of a mile from this development.
My question is for the engineers, as we’ve been watching this
development come along we have seen already all of the holes up and down
that field for perc tests; we’ve always felt like part of the problem in
our area was it is a red clay area and that it wasn’t going to perc for
that many lots. I am interested
if they can tell us if they have already perc it and if any of it did
perc.” McDonald commented,
“A year ago we did a pretty extensive soil analysis based on having a more
dense development with a decentralized system.
What you saw was a cross hatch of perc tests out there to determine
if a decentralized system could go in and we determined and sized that based
on the pre-zoned conditions of the property.
We will now have to do perc tests on the individual lots and we
understand that is a condition of approval.
We believe that each lot will perc when it is an acre, I don’t
think there will be any problem with that.
The perc tests that have been out there were not done to support an
individual lot. Perc tests simply analyzes the soil where it is, but the data
was used to locate a field where we would have put a decentralized
system.” Head asked, “So,
you didn’t do a perc test, did the perc tests perc?”
McDonald replied, “We had to perc test every lot, yes they did
perc, but we didn’t say how many lines.
Those did perc and we did those in a certain portion of the
project.”
Travis
Clark stated, “Three years ago we built our house and got a perc test just
north of them. The company that
did the perc test said that there would be no problem for anything percing
out there.” Wesley
Opela asked, “I live on 3590 Wagner Road, we are just north of the
Bixby’s. We do have drainage
issues out there in the area; certainly that’s one of our biggest
concerns. Fire protection, our
waterline out there, we do not have hydrants in our area now, and it is a
4” line it does not support hydrants, what are they going to do about
that?” Richey replied, “That is something that they got in their
report that we didn’t go over today.
They will be required to do upgrades, they are aware of that, it will
be at least 8” lines that will run back from where Lierly is, all of that
has to be upgraded through there and throughout the subdivision, which means
that an 8 is either going to run on Weir or Hughmount to get there. They will have to upgrade that and adhere to the Arkansas
State Fire Code which means that they have to have at least a 1,000 gallon
per minute flow, there’s no way that they can get that on the waterlines
right now, they are well aware they can do that.
We had the engineers at Fayetteville run some estimates for that part
of their water system, and they feel that once that is upgraded to an 8 it
will get to that 1,000 gallon per minute that is needed.
Someone asked if it would take away from the water that they had,
like if they lived farther down, it will not, that’s not something that
Fayetteville Water will let happen. They
have to upgrade it enough for this subdivision that it’s not going to
effect people down the line, that’s what the water company makes them
do.” Opela commented,
“As long as they have adequate fire protection.”
Richey stated, “That is one of the conditions that they have to
have adequate fire protection and it just so happens that they will have to
upgrade the line to get that.” Haley
asked, “The engineers are saying that the detention pond will work
effectively, what if it doesn’t, what happens then?”
Richey replied, “If they put it all in and it doesn’t work then
basically, it becomes a civil lawsuit between that property owner and the
engineer or the developer that does the plan.
Something that we can do to make sure that at least it gets as
stringent as we can make it, it’s not worded like this, I’m pretty sure
that they have to go by Fayetteville’s detention pond regulations anyway,
theirs are a little more stringent than ours, so I think that we can just
say that and they don’t allow for any increase whatsoever in flow from
what was there before to what goes there afterwards.
I think we can stipulate that to this development, although I am 99%
sure that it already applies but go ahead and do that to make sure that
that’s covered, because ours is a little more loose, ours just say that
you can’t damage people substantially.
Fayetteville’s mean that no more water can come out than came
before.” Kenley Haley moved to
approve The Estates at Hughmount Hills Conditional Use Permit (Rio Bravo
Conditional Use Permit) with conditions. Cheryl West seconded. Motion passes. Head asked, “Mr.
Jorgensen would you do your best to take a look at the situation with the
water in that area. I know that
you don’t have to do anymore than this subdivision requires to detain
that, but if we already have at least it has been in my 25 years of being
around here, the people that are going to help you sell the lots out there
are going to be the neighbors and if they don’t like you then you have a
bigger problem because that’s going to be someone they’re going to ask,
‘What kind of place do you have to live out here?’
You have an opportunity in my estimation to do more than you have to
do to fix their water situation and if you’ll tell me that you’re going
to do that then I’m going to feel better about voting for this.
I know you don’t have to do it, and if you say you’re not going
to do it, we can’t legally require you to, but we know that there is a
problem, they have already told you that there is a problem.
I know that you are already going to do the engineering; I don’t
think that is going to be that more difficult than it is now.
You’re telling me that you’ll engineer it beyond what you have to
do to take care of your situation to take care of your neighbors that is
what I am asking you to do.” Jorgensen
replied, “The approval that we have today will alleviate pre-existing
problems.” McDonald stated,
“We will take a second look at the detention, not only do we have to
design it but Fayetteville will come out and inspect it.”
Head commented, “My point is that we know that there is an issue,
because these people have lived there for a long time and we don’t have to
have somebody tell you that, they already have pictures of it.
You telling me that makes me feel better.
I appreciate that.” Daugherty
stated, “It would be a good will gesture at this point if you could do
that."
All Board members were
in favor of approving
The Estates at Hughmount Hills (Rio
Bravo) Conditional Use Permit approval. 5.
OLD BUSINESS 6. OTHER BUSINESS Gary Head moved to
adjourn. Cheryl West seconded. Motion
passes. Planning Board
adjourned. Minutes submitted by:
Amanda Kimbel Approved by the Planning
Board on:
Robert Daugherty Date:
10/04/07
Robert Daugherty, Planning Board Vice-Chairman
Jerry Martin, owner of the proposed
development was present to answer any questions.
Fayetteville Planning Area
Staff feel that most of these issues can be addressed through the
conditions that we are recommending be placed on the approval of this
project. With the addition of a
couple of additional lots through this submittal, the neighborhood will be
receiving some safety and aesthetic features that we would otherwise be
unable to impose (mandatory requirement to join the volunteer fire
department, landscaping of detention pond areas).