MINUTES
WASHINGTON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
&
ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS
February 7, 2008
Rescheduled
February 13, 2008
5:00 pm, Quorum Court Room, New Court House
Fayetteville, Arkansas
DEVELOPMENTS REVIEWED:
ACTION TAKEN:
a.
Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA CUP
Conditional Use Permit Approval
County
b. Trudell Woodshop CUP
Conditional Use Permit Approval
Tontitown
Planning Area
c. West Evangeline Tower CUP
Conditional Use Permit
Approval
County
d.
Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA LSD
Preliminary LSD Plan Approval
County
e. Replat Lots 2, 3, 4, & 5 Oakview Estates Phase II
Preliminary and Final Plat Approval
Farmington
Planning Area
f. Elkhorn Springs Road Dirt
Pit Expansion LSD
Final LSD Plan Approval
Fayetteville
Planning Area
g.
Joyce Street Cottages LSD
Tabled
Fayetteville
Planning Area
h. Twin Springs Estates
Phase 2
Removed from the agenda
1. ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken.
Members present include: Robert Daugherty, Gary Head, Randy Laney, Cheryl
West, and Kenley Haley. Absent:
Larry Walker
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (from the January 7, 2008 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, “All items will be heard tonight except for
Joyce Street Cottages Large Scale Development (LSD) that is requested to be
tabled by the developer. Twin
Springs Estates Phase II Final Plat Approval request needs to be removed from
the agenda, as they haven’t resubmitted anything in three months.
Gary Head made a motion to approve the agenda minus the changes. Robert
Daugherty seconded. Motion passes.
4. NEW BUSINESS
County
a. Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA CUP
Location:
Section 25, Township 14 North, Range 33 West
Owner/Developer:
Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA
Engineer/Surveyor:
Steadfast, Inc. – Randy Ritchey
Location Address: 19778 Boys Home Road
32.05
acres and 5 units proposed/ Proposed Land Use: Housing
Project
#: 2007-248 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail
at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA LSD staff
housing and housing for other ministry workers/volunteers, (i.e. Visiting church
groups, retired volunteers, etc). The
proposed project is located on a parcel containing 32.05 acres with 5 proposed
units.
CURRENT
ZONING: Project does lie within the County
Zoned area (Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per acre) recently
zoned December 15, 2007.
PLANNING
AREA:
None.
This project is located solely in the County.
QUORUM
COURT DISTRICT: District 10, JP Jack Norton (D)
BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
Teen
Challenge Ranch of NWA currently owns the property. The proposed project has access off of WC #4434 (Res. Dr.
English) and WC #431 (Boys Home Road).
Please note that they have revised their request to exclude
transitional housing for graduated students.
The 5
manufactured housing units proposed for this CUP are already in place on the
site, as the Teen Challenge Ranch was not aware at the time that they purchased
these housing units that an approval process (LSD) was required for this
expansion of their non-profit. While
working on getting the LSD submittal materials together, zoning was passed in
the County, and the project is therefore subject to zoning (CUP) at this time.
The Ranch is simultaneously submitting a LSD application that will be
heard as item D on the agenda. Please
refer to the attached Preliminary Large Scale Development plans for this project
when reviewing agenda items A and D.
There is
an existing farmhouse and other home on the property that also serves as staff
housing at this time. This CUP
application asks to basically expand the number of housing units on the piece of
property currently used for staff housing and housing for other ministry
workers/volunteers, (i.e. Visiting church groups, retired volunteers, etc).
At the January meeting the
Planning Board chose to table this project, as there were several unresolved
issues. The issues and staff
updates on these issues are as follows:
·
The location of a boundary conflict between the Teen
Challenge Ranch and the Umberson Family.
Boundary
Conflict Update: I believe that the
location of the boundary conflict between the Teen Challenge Ranch and the
Umberson Family has been resolved for the most part.
I have been speaking with Alan Reid, the Umberson’s
surveyor on this project. Looking
at preliminary drawings of the surveying work, it appears that the lines that
will need to be adjusted will have no affect on the area involved in this CUP
and LSD.
The Teen Challenge Ranch will be required to have the boundaries
and lot line adjustments finalized by Final LSD approval.
·
The Ranch was originally requesting that the housing be for
both staff and transitional housing for students. There was no clear definition of what was meant by
“transitional housing.”
Transitional
Housing Update: The Teen Challenge
Ranch has since amended its LSD request to exclude transitional housing for
students (see pg A7 on staff report for additional material)
·
There were concerns from property owners regarding the lack
of screening of these additional housing units.
Screening Update: Staff
will be requiring a planting of evergreen trees as a condition of CUP approval.
Please read over the
attached CUP criteria checklist.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Conditional Use Permit approval of the
proposed Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA CUP with the following
conditions being met.
1.
Any other land divisions, commercial structures, or other types of uses
not considered with this submittal must come through a separate CUP or review
process with the County.
2.
This area should be used only for staff housing and housing for other
ministry workers/volunteers, (i.e. Visiting church groups, retired volunteers,
etc).
3.
Outdoor lighting fixtures should be shielded to prevent shining directly
on neighboring properties.
4.
Evergreen trees should be planted to provide an adequate screening of the
newly added buildings. The screen
should be effective from all directions of sight.
The planting plan should be submitted to the Planning Director for
approval before installation.
5.
All septic tanks should be approved and installed prior to the occupation
of the buildings.
6.
The
LSD plan shows only part of the parcel. The
split will need to come through the Planning Office but this should not prevent
the preliminary LSD from proceeding. All
splits and lot line adjustments must be finalized prior to Final LSD approval.
7.
Development should be built according to LSD standards.
|
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water –
The property is in the service area of City of Lincoln Water.
Other Utilities - The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric and Prairie Grove
Telephone.
Darren Reynolds,
executive director of the ranch, and Randy Ritchey, Steadfast, Inc., were
present to answer any questions.
Richey stated, “This is
the Conditional Use that we heard last month (January 7, 2008) and we tabled it
due to some questions that we had that weren’t able to be answered at that
time. I think that they will be
able to be answered this time. Briefly,
it is out by Morrow in the southwest part of the County. This is a Conditional Use Permit request from Teen Challenge
Ranch to allow staff housing, and housing for other ministry workers like
visiting church groups or retired volunteer that comes in.
Last month they were also asking for permission to do transitional
housing for students, that part of the request has been removed.
Right now the project is located on a parcel containing 32.05 acres with
five proposed units. This will also
be heard as a Large Scale Development as Item D on the agenda.
That will go through all the improvements that they will need to make for
this. Since we talked about this
last month, I’m going to go over the things that were unresolved in January.
In January they had some questions about the location of a boundary line
between the Teen Challenge Ranch and the Umberson Family property that has been
resolved. We had surveyors that
went out there and I do have a copy of the survey and none of that area is going
to be inside this area that they are asking for the Conditional Use Permit and
the Large Scale approval. They are
still working out how they are going to re-do those boundary lines, but we’re
just going to require that be worked out by Final LSD plan approval and until
then we just know that none of it is going to conflict with this area that the
Board is looking at tonight. The
ranch was originally requesting that the housing be for both staff and
transitional housing students and there was no clear definition of what was
meant by transitional housing and that part has been removed from the request.
There are also concerns from property owners regarding the lack of
screening around the additional housing units.
As a condition of approval Staff will be requiring a planting of
evergreen trees as a condition to the Conditional Use Permit approval.
The existing buildings are a barn, old farmhouse, and a newer house that
they put in about a year and half ago. When
they have a screen it’s going to have to screen those new housing units from
all directions and they are agreeable to doing planting of trees.
The main campus is a little more than a quarter of a mile up the road.
Staff recommends Conditional Use Permit approval of the Teen Challenge
Ranch of NWA Conditional Use Permit with conditions being met.
They have already done the Preliminary septic work on that and it looks
like it is going to be fine.”
Darren Reynolds
commented, “I’m good if you are.”
Daugherty stated,
“I’m going to abstain from voting on this.”
Gary Head moved to approve
Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA Conditional Use Permit subject to Staff’s
comments. Kenley Haley seconded. Robert
Daugherty abstained. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of approving
Teen Challenge Ranch
of NWA Conditional Use Permit.
County
b.
Trudell Woodshop CUP
Location:
Section 32, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Martin Trudell
Engineer/Surveyor:
Halcyon Homes, LLC – Steve Hagood
Location Address: 14160 Savoy Road
83.12
acres and 1 unit proposed / Proposed Land Use: Woodworking Shop
Project #: 2008-007 Planner: Juliet
Richey, e-mail at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us
Planner: Courtney
McNair, e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for Trudell
Woodshop CUP. The proposed project
is located on 2 parcels containing 83.12 acres with 1 unit proposed.
CURRENT
ZONING: Project does lie within the County
Zoned area (Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per acre).
PLANNING
AREA: None.
This project is located solely in the County.
QUORUM
COURT DISTRICT: District 10, JP Jack Norton (D)
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION:
See additional information on page B-3.
CHECKLIST: The
CUP checklist is attached on pages B-4-B-6.
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
Martin
Trudell currently owns the property.
The
proposed project has access off of WC #86 (Savoy Road).
The
developer is asking for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a pre-fabricated metal
building that will be used as a woodworking shop and to store supplies related
to woodworking. According to the developer (pgs B-7-B-8), this will not be used
as a retail or wholesale outlet. Materials sold will be primarily delivered, and
a maximum of 3 employees are anticipated. This should keep the traffic impact
low.
The
County Fire Marshal has reviewed this project and found the water situation
along with tanker support will be adequate to fight fires in this area. His
letter is attached on page B-9.
The
proposed woodshop building currently straddles two properties both owned by Mr.
Trudell, but this will be corrected. The property owner will be completing an
administrative lot split if the CUP is approved. The lot split will make a
1-acre parcel for the woodshop to sit on by itself. This project will not have
to go through the Large Scale Development process, because the lot will be 1
acre in size.
There is
an existing barn and residence on site. The proposed woodshop is to be located
just to the North of the existing barn, and staff requests that a minimum of
20’ separate the new building and the existing building. This is in accordance
with the County Setback Standards. When
the lot split is completed, minimum county standards will apply.
At this
time, staff has not received any feedback from neighbors. The Board will be
updated at the meeting if any comments are received.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends
Conditional Use Permit approval of the proposed Trudell Woodshop CUP with the
following conditions:
1.
Must come through the Planning office to receive an administrative lot
split, as the proposed building is situated on two pieces of property as shown
on the plans.
2.
The proposed building and the existing barn should be a minimum of 20’
apart. When the lot split is completed, so that this property is separated from
the remaining property, minimum county standards will apply.
3.
Large truck traffic should be kept to a minimum (delivery of machines and
wood supplies, etc.) as this is a fairly narrow road.
4.
Any outdoor lighting should be shielded so that it will not disturb
drivers or neighboring property owners.
5.
Must comply with all Fire Marshal comments and AR state Fire Code.
6.
This shop is not to be used as a retail or wholesale outlet. Materials
sold will need to be delivered in most cases (some orders can be picked up by
the purchaser).
7.
If the nature of the business changes from unfinished wood products to
finished wood projects, an additional Conditional Use Permit will be required.
8.
Any other land divisions, commercial structures, or other types of uses
not considered with this submittal must come through a separate CUP or review
process with the County.
|
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water –
The property is in the service area of Washington Water Authority.
Other Utilities - The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric and AT & T
Telephone.
Martin Trudell, owner of
the proposed project, was present to answer any questions.
Courtney McNair,
Washington County Planner, stated, “This project is located on the west side
of the County. It is not located in
a Planning Area, but it is located in a zoned area, which is why they are coming
through for this Conditional Use Permit. It
is located in a residential one unit per acre or agricultural area and they are
asking for a commercial type use. It
is located off of Highway 16 and off of Savoy road (WC
#86).
This is a big site the way that the building was drawn was straddling two
parcels which made it 83.12 acres which they are going to come through the
office and do an administrative lot split to make that one acre, so they’re
not even going to do a Large Scale Development because it will be that one acre
and they will not be required to do that. This
will be the only time that the Board will see it. They already have their home
and an existing barn. Where an old
building was, is where the new building will sort of be. The surrounding uses are really completely residential
agricultural just agricultural type land around there.
There are a few subdivisions, but they are at least about a mile even as
the crow flies, so it is still pretty far away.
There is no Land Use plan for this area, which means that Fayetteville
hasn’t gone out and the County hasn’t either, so there’s nothing to
consider with its compatibility with land use.
The interior layout is going to be open woodshop area, bathroom and
office. The elevation is very
simple and very typical of the area, so I think that it will blend in.
They are asking for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a pre-fabricated
metal building that will blend in. They
are going to make unfinished wood furniture in this building and they will
deliver amongst the items that were sold, a few pick-up items would be allowed
and okay. They won’t have very much traffic at all, so that should not impact
in that way. The County Fire Marshal, John Jenkins, has reviewed it and found
the water situation to be okay. He
said that the water flow along with tanker support would be adequate to fight
any kind of fire that would occur out there. We’re
going to request that they follow County setbacks when they come in and do their
lot split, just because they are doing a lot split.
The reason that the building is so close to this other barn is because of
a cliff that goes straight up. They
really can’t set it back any further. They
will meet all of the County setbacks they said that it is 30’ away, which
meets the 20’ that we would require. Staff
does recommend Conditional Use Permit approval of the proposed Trudell Woodshop
Conditional Use Permit with conditions. Condition
#1 (Must come
through the Planning office to receive an administrative lot split, as the
proposed building is situated on two pieces of property as shown on the plans)
it needs to be one acre so that they don’t have to ask for a Conditional Use
Permit to make it smaller and so that they can avoid the Large Scale Development
review that we don’t feel is necessary for such a small commercial endeavor.
Condition #7 (If the nature of the business changes from unfinished wood
products to finished wood projects, an additional Conditional Use Permit will be
required) because that does require a lot further detail for the Fire Marshal to
look at seeing as how the finished wood products tend to be a lot more flammable
and they are going to have a lot of lacquer and stuff in there, but I don’t
think that is what they are intending. I
think that they want to keep on doing the unfinished stuff.”
Robert Daugherty moved to
approve Trudell Woodshop Conditional Use Permit with conditions. Cheryl West
seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of approving
Trudell Woodshop Conditional Use Permit.
Tontitown
Planning Area
c.
West Evangeline Tower CUP
Location:
Section 22 & 27, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Brenda (Hathorn) McCamey / Smith Communications, LLC
Engineer/Surveyor:
Satterfield Land Surveyors
Location Address: 17488 Clear Water Road
37.1
acres and 1 unit proposed / Proposed Land Use: Cell site (tower)
Project
#: 2008-008 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail
at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for West
Evangeline Tower CUP, a 150ft monopole
type cell tower capable of accommodating 3 Carriers and expandable to 5 carriers
total in the future. The ground level facilities will consist of a
compound 75ft X 75ft, this would allow space for 5 carriers to be co-located.
This compound fence would be 6ft chain-link fence with 3-strand barbwire. The
proposed project is located on two parcels containing 37.1 acres with 1 cell
tower proposed.
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 Tontitown’s Planning Area. Documents
were sent to Tontitown for review. Tontitown had no adverse comments regarding the placement of
a cell tower in this area.
QUORUM
COURT DISTRICT: District 1, JP Tom Lundstrum (R)
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION: Please see extensive info provided by the
applicant on pages C-9 – C-27.
BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
Brenda (Hathorn)
McCamey currently own the property. The
proposed project has access off of WC #863 (Clearwater Road).
The
applicant is requesting that a lease area on 37+ acres be approved to allow the
use of a 150’ monopole tower. The
topography of the area is wooded and steep.
The tower will be setback 400’ from the County Road, and the closest
residence is approximately 550’ from the tower site. The base of the tower and compound should not be a direct
aesthetic problem due to the somewhat distant proximity to other developments
and the County Road.
The top
of the tower will be visible above the tree line to some extent.
The applicant, Smith Communications, will be bringing a graphic
representation of what this might look like to the meeting.
A photograph of a monopole style tower is shown on pg C-18 of
Staff Report.
All
existing residences are beyond 400’ plus the height of the tower.
The tower manufacturer has included a letter addressing the nature in
which a tower of this type (monopole) could fall if there was a structural
failure (see pg C- 9
of Staff Report). From the letter it appears, that there should be no health safety
concerns regarding existing structures located in the area.
The
applicant has also included cell coverage maps (for AT&T- Cingular) in the
area (see pg C-19 – C-20 of Staff
Report). It
appears that coverage is needed in this area.
The tower is also designed to have capacity for up to four additional
cell carriers (in addition to AT&T). This
would facilitate less additional towers in the future with the potential of
co-location.
Staff has received
one negative comment and one positive comment from adjoining property owners at
this time. Please see attached CUP
Criteria Checklist for additional CUP info.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff
recommends Conditional Use Permit approval of the proposed West Evangeline Tower
CUP with the following conditions being met.
1.
Any other land divisions, commercial structures, or other types of uses
not considered with this submittal must come through a separate CUP or review
process with the County.
2.
Electric easement shown to come off of power pole on Steve Gibbs’
property must be moved to a power pole on the McCamey property instead and
increased to a 30’ easement (applicant has agreed to this).
3.
Must adhere to all Washington County Cell Tower Ordinance Standards (also
must include structural statements for tower and foundation).
4.
Must be a monopole type tower approximately 150’ (or less) in height.
5.
Compound must be generally sized as presented (75’ x 75’).
6.
The CUP will apply only to the lease area presented (approximately 120’
x120’), not the entire 37+ acres.
7.
Existing Washington Water Authority Easement should be shown on survey.
8.
Pay mail fees totaling $43.94. See
invoice.
|
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water – Water service is not applicable for this project.
Other Utilities - The lot is in the service area of Ozark
Electric and AT&T Telephone.
Dave Reynolds, Smith
Communications, was present to answer any questions.
Richey stated, “This is a Conditional Use Permit to allow
the use of a cell tower or communications tower.
This is the first time that we’ve had a communications tower
Conditional Use Permit. There are
several things we had them look at. This
is out in the kind of northwestern part of the County it is just off of Wheeler
Road (WC #84) and Clearwater Road (WC #863) it is kind of a cut through to get to Tontitown from Wheeler
Road. This is in the zoned area and in the City of Tontitown’s
Planning Area. It is going to be a
very small area. They are asking
for is approval to put 150’ monopole type cell tower.
It is basically just a straight pole with no guy wires, no lattice metal
work none of that. They want it to
be capable of accommodating three carriers and expandable to five carriers in
the future. The ground level
facilities for this are going to consist of 75 x 75’ compound and that allows
enough space for five carriers and all their equipment to be co-located.
The compound fence will be 6’ chain link fence with three strands of
barbed wire and the proposed project straddles two parcels containing 37.1
acres.”
Richey
also stated, “The property owner is Brenda (Hathorn) McCamey.
The project does have access off of Clearwater Road (WC #863). The
tower is going to be set back about 400’ from the County road and the closest
residence is approximately 550’ from the tower site.
The top of the tower is going to be visible through the trees the bottom
of the tower is going to be mainly obscured except for a little bit by the
closest neighbor from view because it is basically completely in the woods.
One thing to consider is there is a lack of cell coverage out here right
now. AT&T is the provider that
is looking at this area, but like I said it can be expanded from three to five
different carriers, so once this tower is built say Verizon or Sprint or whoever
wants to put an antenna up then we do have rules that require them to co-locate
on an existing tower unless for some reason it cannot support them.
This tower should be able to support multiple carriers.
This CUP is just to determine allowable use.
After that a cell tower (or additional antennas) are reviewed either by
my office administratively or by the Board.
Almost all of them are administrative reviews that come through us and we
look at different things about those towers like how far they are from
neighbors, we make sure that if they are just putting up another array that
there’s not somewhere better that they can co-locate and all that.
This will get review after this; this is just to explain why this use has
been requested here. I did ask that Smith 2 Way provide us with kind of some simulations
of what this tower would look like at that height. It is 150’ tall and we estimated that the canopy is
probably 40 to 50 maybe 60’ tall in that area, so it will come out of the
canopy somewhat, but the bottom portion of it will be surrounded by woods.
These are simulations, not exactly what it’s going to look like just to
give you an idea. It is completely
wooded; they will be clearing out a small portion to get in.
It is in the City of Tontitown’s Planning Area and on the Land Use map
they have it marked as agricultural and low density residential.
We did send it to Tontitown for comment and they said they had no
negative comments for having a cell tower in that area.
We do recommend approval of this project.
We did get two neighbor comments. I
had several people just call asking questions about the tower.
Another thing is there will be no lighting at 150’ it is not required
to have the flashing or blinking lights on top so there will not be that.
We got one negative comment from someone that said that they felt like it
would bring down their land value, unfortunately, I don’t know who sent it
they didn’t put a return address on it or sign it, so I’m not sure like what
proximity they are to this project or anything. Another person (Carol, Richard,
and David Gray) who was in support of it that did write in they are excited
about having cell coverage and access to data stream from cell towers that they
can get, so we have one person written in support and one negative. Staff does
feel like we will support this project with some conditions.”
Dave Reynolds commented,
“Not at this point. Juliet really
covered it pretty well. You can see
by the coverage maps that there is a need in that area along with some of the
comments you’ll hear from some of the residents.
Unless you have any specific questions I think that it’s pretty
straightforward. It’s just a
standard type monopole that will house initially one carrier that can hold up to
as many as five to provide co-location requirements of Washington County.”
Gary Head moved to approve
West Evangeline Tower Conditional Use Permit subject to Staff’s comments.
Robert Daugherty seconded. Motion
passes.
All Board members were in
favor of approving
West Evangeline Tower Conditional Use
Permit.
LAND DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS
County
d. Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA LSD
Location:
Section 25, Township 14 North, Range 33 West
Owner/Developer:
Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA
Engineer/Surveyor:
Steadfast, Inc. – Randy Ritchey
Location Address: 19778 Boys Home Road
32.05
acres and 5 units proposed/ Proposed Land Use: Housing
Project
#: 2007-242 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail
at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST:
Preliminary Large Scale Development Approval for Teen Challenge Ranch of
NWA LSD. The proposed project is
located on a parcel containing 32.05 acres with 5 proposed units.
CURRENT
ZONING: Project does lie within the County
Zoned area (Agriculture/Single-Family Residential 1 unit per acre) recently
zoned December 15, 2007.
PLANNING
AREA: This project is located solely in
the County.
QUORUM
COURT DISTRICT: District 10, JP Jack Norton (D)
BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
Teen
Challenge Ranch of NWA currently owns the property.
The
proposed project has access off of WC #4434 (Res. Dr. English) and WC #431 (Boys
Home Road).
The 5
manufactured housing units proposed for this LSD are already in place on the
site, as the Teen Challenge Ranch was not aware at the time that they purchased
these housing units that an approval process (LSD) was required for this
expansion of their non-profit. The
Ranch is simultaneously submitting a CUP application that will be heard as item
A on the agenda. Please refer to
the attached Preliminary Large Scale Development plans for this project when
reviewing agenda items A and B.
There is
an existing farmhouse and other home on the property that also serves as staff
and transitional housing at this time. This
LSD application asks to basically expand the number of housing units on the
piece of property currently used for staff housing.
As per LSD standards, there are some upgrades that must be made,
including upgrading a portion of the Residential Drive providing access to the
property, as well as interior LSD streets.
Other items looked at in this review process include:
septic issues, water issues, fire code adherence, and the impact on the
drainage of the site (with the addition of roads and residential structures).
At this
time, the plans reflect almost all of these upgrades. All additional issues are minor and are listed as conditions
of approval.
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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
|
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water – The property is in the service area of City of Lincoln
Water.
Other Utilities - The lot is in the service area of Ozark Electric and Prairie Grove
Telephone.
Darren Reynolds, owners
of the proposed project, and Randy Ritchey, Steadfast, Inc., were present to
answer any questions.
Richey stated, “This is
the Preliminary Large Scale Development request for the Teen Challenge Ranch
that we talked about earlier (Item A on the agenda). There are a couple of things that they are going to be
required to do. They are going to
be required to improve the residential drive and the interior roads on-site to
be able to support fire trucks in case there were fires.
They are not going to have an actual fire hydrant on-site because there
is one at the Morrow fire station, which is just up the road.
The Fire Marshal and Fire Chief are okay with that arrangement, that
shouldn’t be a problem. They have done their soils work for their septics, which is
what we require at Preliminary, so they have that done and everything looks like
it is going to be fine on that. They
will need to get the private roads built and inspected before they can get Final
approval. The septic permits need
to have their final permits before they can do Final approval.
All of the splits that we had and land swaps and things like that need to
be taken care of before Final approval, but essentially they are showing all of
the improvements that we are going to require them to make the major one being
the road and beyond that there’s not really a lot more to say then what you
know already unless you have any specific questions.”
Kenley asked, “The
water will be from the City of Lincoln?”
Richey replied, “Yes, it is Lincoln water.”
Darren Reynolds had
nothing to add.
Daugherty
commented, “I will abstain again.”
Gary Head moved to approve
Teen Challenge Ranch of NWA LSD Preliminary LSD Plan with conditions. Cheryl
West seconded. Robert Daugherty
abstained. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of approving
Teen Challenge Ranch
of NWA LSD Preliminary LSD Plan.
County
e.
Replat Lots 2, 3, 4, & 5 Oakview Estates Phase II
Location:
Section 1, Township 16 North, Range 32 West
Owner/Developer:
Pearson Family Trust
Engineer/Surveyor:
Jenkins Surveying, Inc. - Bill Jenkins
Location Address: 15322 W. Hwy. 16 & 15314 W.
Hwy. 16
21.55
acres and 4 lots / Proposed Land Use: Residential
Project
#: 2008-005 Planner: Courtney McNair,
e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST:
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for Replat Lots 2, 3, 4, & 5
Oakview Estates Phase 2. This project is 21.55 acres divided into 4 lots
proposed. Tract 2 – 1.91 acres, Tract 3 – 1.73 acres, Tract 4 – 4.90
acres, Tract 5 – 13.01, (and existing Parcel #001-12642-000 – 38.06 acres).
CURRENT ZONING:
No zoning property is located in a Highway corridor.
PLANNING AREA: The
development is located solely in the County.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT:
District
10, Jack Norton (D)
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT SYNOPSIS:
This project comes before the Planning Board because it is a
replat of an existing subdivision
The property has access off of AR 16 West. The
property is owned by Pearson Family Trust.
The developer is rearranging some previously platted lots of
the Oakview Subdivision for the purpose of adding land back to his existing
farm. Tract 2 was 5.5 acres and is now 1.91. Tract 3 was 5.4 acres and is now
1.73. Tract 4 was 5 acres and is now 4.9, and Tract 5 was 5.6 acres and is now
13.01.
There are no houses on Tracts 2 or 3 and all tracts are
compliant with the size and road frontage standards of Washington County.
Tract 4 has an existing home and the well and septic locations are shown
within the new property lines. Tract
5 has an abandoned trailer home located on it, and the well and septic for that
trailer home are shown.
The other parcel shown on the plat has not been changed and
is part of the Pearson Family farm. It has access from the South through another
piece of the farm, and also has access along the 12’ driveway that is shown on
the plat (not frequently used).
All comments, except one (minor plat information), have been
satisfied.
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.
*The only item remaining is
listed as condition #1.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Preliminary and Final Plat Approval of
the proposed Replat Lots 2, 3, 4, & 5 Oakview Estates Phase 2 with the
following conditions:
1.
According to Plat Checklist: (9) All plats presented to the planning
board and filed for record shall note the uses of adjacent property. The
determination of said use shall be the responsibility of the developer.
Each lot needs to be labeled with its existing use (ex. If it is a
property with a home on it, the use would be Residential; if the property is an
empty field, the use is most likely Agriculture).
2.
Pay mail fees totaling $32.10. See invoice.
3. Any further splitting or land development not considered with this approval must come before the Planning Board.
|
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION:
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water - The project is on well water.
Other Utilities - The land is in the service area of Ozark
Electric and A T & T Telephone.
Streets - The property has access off of AR 16 W.
Tom Pearson (Pearson
Family Trust), owner of the proposed project, was present to answer any
questions.
McNair
stated, “This project is located on the west side of the County.
It is not in a Planning Area nor is it zoned it happens to lie in an
unzoned corridor that we had thought that was sort of transiting over to a
commercial type use, which the Quorum Court may look at later if we feel that is
necessary. This site is directly
located off of Highway 16 West just right off the main highway.
There is one existing home, sheds, and an
abandoned
trailer house.
This project comes before the Board because he is asking to reorder these
lots; he’s not asking for more lots. The
applicant just wants to change the way that they are shaped.
The original layout has each lot equally roughly about five acres.
The new layout has Lot 2 and Lot 3 shortened and they are a little
smaller about two acres apiece, which is still, I know that they are not in the
zoned area, but that is still in accordance with County zoning that kind of plan
that we had for that area. The
applicant has a farm (to the east) and he really wanted to make the new Tract 5
go back into his farm. He’s not
trying to make more lots or anything he just wants to put that back into his
farm so that he can use that as part of that.
New tracts 2, 3, 4, and 5 take up the back of the existing lots.
Proposed Tracts 2 and 3 there is nothing there.
Proposed Tract 4 with the existing home and sheds.
Proposed Tract 5 has an abandoned trailer
house. I talked to Robyn Reed,
Environmental Affairs, and she said that it is still in good enough condition
that she doesn’t need to have anything done environmentally to worry about it.
It’s not in bad shape or burnt down, it can stay there as far as she
and John Jenkins, Washington County Fire Marhsal, are concerned.
The little access road on the plans is not used frequently.
There is an alternate access to that back farm piece of property as well;
access is not an issue. All
comments except for one minor plat thing has been satisfied.
Staff does recommend Preliminary and Final approval for the proposed
Replat of Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 Oakview Estates Phase II with conditions.”
Pearson commented, “I
believe it has been covered completely.”
Gary Head moved to approve
Replat Lots 2, 3, 4, & 5 Oakview Estates Phase II Preliminary and Final Plat
with conditions. Robert Daugherty seconded. Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of approving
Replat Lots 2, 3, 4, & 5 Oakview
Estates Phase II Preliminary and Final Plat.
Farmington
Planning Area
f.
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
Project
#: 2007-149 Planner: Jessie Pettit, e-mail
at jpettit@co.washington.ar.us
REQUEST:
Final Large Scale Development Approval for Elkhorn Springs Road Dirt Pit
Expansion LSD. The applicant is requesting final LSD approval for
expansion of an existing borrow pit to include an additional 19.95 acres, 9.5
acres of which will be disturbed land (the actual borrow pit), the remaining
area will be used as buffer areas.
The 19.95 acres is a portion of a
46.7-acre tract. All area outside of the 19.95 acres tract requesting the permit
will remain as they currently exist (i.e. will remain as home sites, pasture and
woodlands).
CURRENT
ZONING: The proposed expansion pit is
not within the zoned area; it is in one of the unzoned corridors (Hwy 16
W). Therefore, no zoning
regulations apply to this pit expansion.
The existing
pit (not under review with this LSD) is within the zoned area of the County
(Agriculture/Single-Family 1 unit per acre.)
PLANNING
AREA: This project is located in the City of Farmington’s
Planning Area, but Farmington does not review/ exercise jurisdiction over Large
Scale Developments of this nature.
QUORUM COURT DISTRICT:
District 10, JP Jack Norton (D)
BACKGROUND/
PROJECT SYNOPSIS: The project site is located west of
the city limits of Fayetteville and south of Highway 16.
It is between HWY 16 and WC #659 Elkhorn Springs.
The project site location is 13949
W. Hwy. 16. The developer is Les Rogers Excavating
and Materials and the engineer is Clark Consulting. Larry and Tawana Hillian,
who will be leasing to Les Rogers, own the property. The Planning Board granted Preliminary Large Scale
Development approval October 4, 2007.
As
determined at Preliminary LSD approval, the expansion pit will be accessed
through the entrance of the existing pit on WC #659, Elkhorn Springs Rd.
This entrance has been improved as per LSD standards.
There
will be no access to the site from HWY 16 W.
|
Below
is a list of important High Impact Final LSD Issues, and the status of each.
·
Must abide by all ADEQ rules and regulations – provide
continued copy of correspondence to staff.
Status:
Since LSD Preliminary Approval the applicant has consistently provided
staff with copies of correspondence between ADEQ and themselves regarding the
status of required permits. The
following permits have been obtained: permit to engage in open-cut mining in the
state of Arkansas and a storm water permit for the state.
A copy of both of these permits is attached.
*See pages F-5 through F-6 of Staff Report
·
The asphalt drive will need to be inspected and approved by
the County Road Superintendent.
Status:
Complete
·
Must abide by all regulations defined in Sec. 11-100 Large
Scale Development Standards.
Status:
The drainage plan submitted to the County Engineer shows that the
adequately sized detention pond would detain all increased runoff.
No structures are being proposed on site, nor will there be there be any
hazardous chemicals or materials that will be used, generated or stored on said
development; this information is noted on the plan.
Site distance info, dust abatement plan, 250’ paved road into site,
along with other required road information are on the final plan.
·
Any damage done to county road caused from dirt pit traffic,
(i.e. repairs to road) will be the responsibility of the dirt pit.
Status:
This is a note on the plan.
·
Pay all County Engineering fees
Status:
A summary and copy of all County Engineering review fees will be provided
post Planning Board to assure completeness. Some project related invoices may not have been received to
date that should be included in the tally.
The applicant has satisfied
all requirements with the exception of paying county engineer review fees which
will not be provided until post Planning Board and a confirmation on drive
measurements in conforming with the submitted plan and LSD standards will be
made available at Planning Board meeting Feb. 7th, 2008.
*See
page F-8 of Staff Report for
a summary of adjacent property owner concerns from preliminary.
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.
 |
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Final LSD approval of the proposed
Elkhorn Springs Road Dirt Pit Expansion LSD with the following conditions being
met.
1.
Must comply with all ADEQ rules
and regulations.
2.
Must abide by all regulations
defined in Sec. 11-100 Large Scale Development Standards.
3.
Any damage done to county road
caused from dirt pit traffic, (i.e. repairs to road) will be the responsibility
of the dirt pit. *This is a note on the plan.
4.
Pay all County Engineering fees
totaling $200.00. See invoice.
5.
Any further land development not
considered with this approval must come before the Planning Board.
6.
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.
7.
Have all checklist items
corrected.
Steve Clark, Clark
Consulting, was present to answer any questions.
Richey stated, “This is a Final Large Scale Development
approval for Elkhorn Springs Road Dirt Pit Expansion.
The applicant is requesting a Final LSD approval for the expansion of an
existing borrow pit to include an additional 19.95 acres – 9.5 acres of that
which will be disturbed and the remaining will be used as buffer areas.
It is located on Elkhorn Springs Road (WC
#659)
and Highway 16 just west of the
City of Fayetteville and it is in the City of Farmington’s Planning Area. They
did put in a couple of things some sediment ponds on the existing property and
they did pave a haul road 250’ back into the site and that has been inspected
by the Road Department and is in order. They
decided to use the existing access point on Elkhorn Springs instead of creating
a new one on Highway 16. They are
set back at least 300+’ from Highway 16. A couple of things that we were
looking at between Preliminary and Final they need to abide by all of the Large
Scale standards and they have done that, the drainage plan is fine there are no
structures being proposed for this site nor any hazardous chemicals all those
are notes on the plat. Site
distance information, dust abatement plan, the road paved going into the site
and other required information are on the Final plan and are completed. We did have them put a note on the plan that if any damage is
done to the County road caused by dirt pit traffic that will be the
responsibility of the dirt pit. They
need to pay their engineering fees to us, which is not a big deal, $200.00
that’s for our review. They have
pretty much satisfied everything that we need.
They also have their ADEQ permits. All
of their stuff with the State is in order and ready to go.
We do recommend Final approval with conditions being met.”
Clark had nothing to add.
Robert Daugherty moved to
approve Elkhorn Springs Road Dirt Pit Expansion LSD Final
LSD Plan subject to Staff recommendations. Cheryl West seconded.
Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of approving Elkhorn Springs Road Dirt Pit Expansion LSD Final LSD Plan.
Fayetteville
Planning Area
g. Joyce
Street Cottages LSD
Location: Section 19, Township 17 North, Range 29 West
Owner/Developer: Hometown Development, LTD
Engineer/Surveyor: Project Design Consultants, Inc.
Location Address: Next to the intersection of WC
#87 Old Wire Road and WC #553 Joyce Street
10 acres and 45 units / Proposed Land Use: Residential
Project
#: 2006-152 Planner: Juliet Richey, e-mail
at jrichey@co.washington.ar.us
Richey stated that Joyce
Street Cottages LSD was to be tabled as per the developer’s request.
All Board members were in
favor of tabling
Joyce Street Cottages LSD Final LSD Plan.
Fayetteville
Planning Area
To be
removed due to lack of resubmittal
h. Twin Springs Estates Phase 2
(Final Plat Approval Request)
Location:
Section 35, Township 17 North, Range 31 West
and
Section 3, Township 16 North, Range 31 West
Owner/Developer:
Gabby Hills Enterprises, Inc.
Engineer/Surveyor:
Landtech Engineering, Inc. – Leonard Gabbard
Location Address: On the west side of Twin Springs
Estates Phase 1
30.45
acres and 23 lots / Proposed Land Use: Single Family Residential
Project
#: 2005-120 Planner: Courtney McNair,
e-mail at cmcnair@co.washington.ar.us
Richey stated that Twin
Springs Estates Phase 2 was to be removed from the agenda due to lack of
resubmittal.
Gary Head moved to table
Twin Springs Estates Phase 2 with conditions. Robert Daugherty seconded.
Motion passes.
All Board members were in
favor of removing Twin Springs Estates Phase 2 from the agenda.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
6. OTHER BUSINESS
Richey stated,
“Basically, we’re doing an update that is required by the State and the
Feds. George Butler, Washington
County Attorney, has made a couple of minor adjustments to the language to fit
County standards. I think some of
those were written more for cities and besides that we’re good to go.
As long as we adopt it by May 16 we’ll be good to go and everybody in
the County can continue to have Floodplain insurance.”
Richey also stated, “The other thing is cell towers, an amendment to the cell tower ordinance. At the December meeting of the Quorum Court we passed something that requires an applicant who is going to add an additional array or antenna to an existing cell tower they have to produce some sort of document that says that that tower can structurally handle another antenna, so we passed that. We decided that we needed to look at the actual tower part of our ordinance and make sure that people that are building towers that are structurally sufficient because right now in our ordinance the only way that we can look at whether a tower has been built correctly or not is after the tower is built which really doesn’t seem like the best time to pursue that. We don’t have building permits in the County, but because these tend to be such tall structures then it is a matter of concern. It is not a building permit we just need somebody from the manufacturer of the tower or an engineer who is doing the foundation for it to just sign it to say yes we are doing this. The reason that this came up is we actually had someone who wants to dissemble an existing 300’ tower in Oklahoma that was built in 1980 and bring it over in Washington County and reassemble it. We never had anybody ask to do that before usually we just get new tower applications and they come with engineered plans and everything. It was kind of a wakeup call for us because we realized that they can do this and we don’t know anything about it or how it’s put together. They did give me the original plans from 1980.”
Richey
stated, “When we zoned we left some of the highway corridors unzoned and what
we’re looking at is some sort of limited commercial zoning that allows
single-family, agricultural, and then some sort of lighter commercial not
aluminum smelters or landfills or things like that.
This is at the request of some of the Justices of the Peace.
We haven’t even started this, it will probably be three or four months
before we get it done, but that’s kind of what we’re going to look at.”
Laney
asked, “Are you between obviously, Farmington, Prairie Grove, and Lincoln, but
like Highway 16 all the way out to the end or so many miles out of the Planning
Area?”
Richey
replied, “We were thinking about that they should probably be zoned all the
way. There are some of those areas
as you go farther out west on Highway 16 you have all of that natural forest and
I’m not really sure that commercial is appropriate out there and things like
that and we haven’t really started that discussion yet.
Prairie Grove and Farmington fixed their gaps for us, between Prairie
Grove and Lincoln needs to be dealt with and between Greenland and West Fork and
down there and parts of 412, so I don’t know what we’re going to do with
some of the other areas.”
Daugherty
asked, “What’s the situation between Prairie Grove and Lincoln, in other
words part of that is not commercial? I
thought all along the highway would be commercial.”
Richey
replied, “Right now it is just not zoned.
We just left it unzoned because when we first done the zoning we thought
with these areas along major highways that it is probably not appropriate to
restrict them to just single-family and agricultural because there are things
that have been transiting to different types of commercial for a long time.
We just left them alone; basically, we’ll think about this and come
back later and decide what we’re going to do.
They’re just unzoned, so basically, you can put something commercial in
there and you don’t have to get a Conditional Use Permit right now. We do want to allow some types of commercial for the same
reason that we didn’t want them zoned in the first place, but still limit some
things.”
Laney
commented, “An effect of that there is no review.”
Richey replied, “Not for use just for Large Scale or subdivision.”
Daugherty
asked, “So, is there a review for Large Scale or not?”
Richey replied, “Yes, there is a review for Large Scale just not
Conditional Use. If the Board has
any suggestions, ideas, or input we’ll take it, it doesn’t have to be
tonight.”
Laney
asked, “Any news on detention ponds?” Richey
replied, “ No, I thought Larry might be here, but he was kind of wanting to
reopen that I think and I know that is something that we talked about in the
past. We kind of looked at several
different models and I don’t know that the County wants to take them over.”
Laney
stated, “There is going to be some big problem happen before we have the
political inertia to do something.” Richey
asked, “So, just wait on that or do you want me to rehash the list that we had
before and talk about pros and cons?” Laney
replied, “Did that once with the Services Committee and they didn’t do
anything with it. You can report
next time when Larry is here if you like.”
Gary Head moved to adjourn. Robert Daugherty seconded.
Motion passes.
Planning Board adjourned.
Minutes submitted by: Amanda
Kimbel
Approved by the Planning
Board on:
___________________________________
Date: __________