Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5139-A Staff AnalysisJune 27, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z -5139-A NAME: Safeway Highway 10 PCD LOCATION: Located at the southwest corner of State ....... ....... ....... . Highway 10 at Taylor Loop Road. DEVELOPER: Vogel Enterprises 11219 Hermitage Road Little Rock, AR 225-6018 AREA: 10.18 acres ENGINEER: Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson, Inc. P. 0. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 375-5331 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R-2" Single family district PROPOSED USES: Food store PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 40.02 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENTOF PROPOSAL: A site development consisting of a single building development structure located an the south half of the site. The property consists of a larger body of land fronting an State Highway 10 of approximately 400 feet of frontage with an ell connecting with Taylor Loop Road on the east. There are proposed two points of ingresslegress to the site. The parcel size at 5.9 acres proposes 221 parking spaces to the serve the total building area of 47,675 square feet, first phase of which will consist of 38,500 square feet; the balance being 9,175 square feet in Phase II for future construction. The building coverage is 18.5%. The plan includes a large buffer along the south property line adjacent to Westchester Subdivision. The buffer, generally, consists of 75 feet, plus or minus, undisturbed buffer with some area of enhanced buffer in the area of construction or grade change. The west property line ri S June 27, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) provides for a 30 foot buffer with existing and new landscaped area proposed. The structure will be serviced on the east side of the building with a truck dock that will be visible from the east property line only. An 8 foot board fence will be erected along the east property line and will follow the inside buffer boundary along the physical improvements from the east to the west property line. The dumpster and trash area will be located at the southeast corner of the building and will be screened by a wall. A service drive of 30 feet variable will be provided around the building running from the west to the east side, thereby permitting vehicular circulation around the entire structure. The ell, or stub access, to Taylor Loop Road will consist of a 30 foot plus driveway with designed intersection at Taylor Loop Road. The land area adjacent to this drive will be totally landscaped areas. There will be no parking or structural involvement. Along State Highway 10, there +s proposed a 40 foot landscape buffer from the property line to the line of the first row of parking spaces. The owner has submitted a landscaping proposal as well as illustrative cross-sections and site development data, including a grading plan. A preliminary plat has been submitted to run with this item on the agenda for review (item #4 under Preliminary Plats). The preliminary plat as drafted indicates the lands that will be re -combined to create the actual parcel proposed for PCD approval, that being the easternmost of the two lots. Additional utility easements, if required, are to be negotiated during the review process to minimize disturbance to the perimeter of the site. The Acadia Markets Corporation, represented by Mr. Richard B. Robinson, the Construction Director, has submitted an operational outline which consists of a statement to the effect that truck deliveries will be coordinated from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m, seven days a week. All trash compacting will be done inside the store. All dumpster pickups will be made between 7:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., Monday through Saturday. The dumpster will be located in a fenced area. There will be nothing stored outside of the building. The parking area clean-up will be done on a regular basis. June 27, 1989 SUBDIVISION TEM NO.: 6 (Con t i nued } ....... ............. ..... A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This developer proposes a Safeway store to be developed in two phases, the initial phase at 47,675 square feet, located on a tract of land containing 5.916 acres, served by a total of 221 parking spaces and a single truck loading facility. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This site currently is occupied by several frame and stone buildings. There are considerable numbers of trees and small brush on the site. Some of the area is cleared and open in the area of the Highway 10 frontage. C. ENGINEERINGCOMMENTS: The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department has Highway 10 under construction currently. The developer should conform to the requirements of the Detention and Excavation Ordinance and specific details should be submitted on the design of the Taylor Loop intersection. The Traffic Engineering Section of Public Works Department has submitted a site plan review dealing with trip generation, Ingress and egress to the site, vehicle speed, and increased traffic volumes on Taylor Loop Road. That report is as follows: "MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Greeson, Director of Planning FROM: H. Wayne Sherrell, Chief of Traffic Engineering SUBJ: Proposed Safeway on Cantrell Road Site Plan Review DATE: June 6, 1989 As requested by the Planning Commission, we have completed a review and evaluation of the proposed Safeway store to be built on Cantrell Road just west of June 27, 1989 SUBDIVISION r ITEM NO.: 6 (Conti-nued) Taylor Loop Road. This evaluation included the following tasks: 1. Total daily trips generated by the new Safeway store. 2. Ingress and egress to the site. 3. Vehicle speed along Cantrell Road and minimum sight distance requirements. 4. Increased traffic volumes on Taylor Loop Road. When completely developed, the new generate 5876 vehicle trips per day these trips will come from the east the site. If this 5.916 acre tract apartments using 12 units per acre, generate 462 vehicle trips per day. Safeway store will The majority of and southeast of was developed with this site would Cantrell Road is being reconstructed and widened to a five lane section at the present time. This project is scheduled to be complete in late fall of this year. Hinson Road will be extended to intersect Taylor Loop Road just south of this si--te. This project is scheduled to be complete in late 1989 or early 1990. The ingress and egress to this site as shown on the site plan is adequate to properly handle the 5876 vehicle trips per day so long as the access drive to Taylor Loop Road is maintained. The construction of an additional driveway off Cantrell Road in lieu of the access drive to Taylor Loop Road would cause additional problems at the intersection of Cantrell Road and Taylor Loop Road. When the construction on Cantrell Road has been completed, vehicle speeds on Cantrell Road directly in front of this development will exceed 45 M.P.H. Therefore, adequate sight distance is very important for traffic entering and leaving this site by way of Cantrell Road. The sight distance between the driveway on Cantrell Road and east bound traffic is 425 feet, which is minimum but adequate. There are no sight distance problems for west bound traffic. The driveway onto Cantrell Road will operate in a much safer and more efficient manner if the developer will construct a deceleration lane for east bound traffic entering the site. June 27, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) __., __.. _ _._.........._ ._... . ......... ... _... We believe at least 60% of the daily trips generated by this development will come from the east and southeast of the site. If these assumptions are correct, 3525 vehicle trips will reach the site by way of Cantrell Road and Taylor Loop Road. We also believe 50% of daily trips from the east will reach the site by way of Taylor Loop Road after Hinson Road has been extended to intersect with Taylor Loop Road. If this assumption is correct, this development will increase traffic volumes of Taylor Loop Road by 1762 vehicle trips per day. Taylor Loop Road is a 36 foot wide collector street at the present time. The additional traffic generated by this development will not cause a capacity problem on Taylor Loop Road. We recommend approval of the site plan with the following stipulation: the access to this site from Taylor Loop Road should remain and the developer should be required to construct a deceleration lane to serve the driveway on Cantrell Road. Please advise if additional information is needed on this proposal." D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The site plan as submitted conforms to the submission requirements set forth in the PUD ordinance with only one exception and that being the use should be clarified further than a statement as a food store. If this is a full service market, it may very well include such uses as a florist shop, a branch bank, or a delicatessen. Those kinds of uses may require separate privilege licenses, or business licenses, and in order to issue such, the PCD should clarify that they are permitted. E. ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff and Engineering Staff have thoroughly reviewed this submittal with respect to all elements as required by ordinance. We find little or no concern with the construction of the PCD. The concerns we will offer deal with the design of the project and its relationship with its neighbors. Staff June 27, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) feels that the following should be accomplished in order to soften the impact of this commercial development and its activities upon the adjacent residential community. 1. Eliminate the rear paved driveway as now proposed on the plan at 30 -plus feet and replace this drive with a maximum 10 foot sodded area with an 8 inch stone base around the south side of the building beginning at the south point of the truck dock. The building could be. moved westward somewhat to accommodate the additional land that could be gained by reducing the access drive on the west side of the building to a 20 foot dimension. On the west side of the building, the fire Department requires a hard surface drive extending southward from the parking area to the point where the fire hydrant is proposed. On the east side of the building, the trash compaction area and dumpster could be modified by changing the configuration of the corner of the building. 2. The current proposed east -to -west eight foot board fence should be increased to ten feet in height and moved northward to the new south line of the rear access area. The eight foot screening fences along the east and west lines of the site will remain at eight feet. This fence should consist of an opaque board fence constructed of redwood or another permanent type material. 3. A low level lighting plan with shielding away from the residential area should be presented. This plan would provide for fighting fixtures below the top of the ten foot fence and cast to the ground or the lower portion of the building. 4. Additional plantings should be provided within the sparsely planted area of the buffer, especially with respect to the elimination of foliage for utility areas and drainage work. 5. The building should not only be painted a color to absorb light, but should be provided as textured surface to assist in baffling sound. June 27, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) g. A specific plan should be presented identifying the types of trees and shrubs and quantities. This could be presented in a narrative form rather than specifically located on the plan. 7. L.imit freestanding signs at the points of entry on Cantrell and Taylor Loop Road to a monument type sign at a maximum height of six feet. 8. The light standards in the parking lot on the Cantrell side of the development should be erected in such a fashion as to cast light downward and be shielded from adjacent residential. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Staff recommends approval of this PCD application conditioned upon modification of the plan to conform with suggested changes in the above text. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT — (June 15, 1989) The application was represented by Mr. David Jones, Mr. Robert Brown and Mr. Wes Lowder. The applicants indicated posal they had read through the Staff's material on this a They and had questions concerning several elements. for clarification of the ten foot area to be located behind the building as to its purpose and construction. Mr. Lawson of the Staff described his discussions with the Fire Department and their apparent need for access for hosemen to fight fires behind the building in an unobstructed fashion. Ten feet was chosen as it would provide such a space. cmope Fire Department indicated that it would probably not ve its vehicles onto this area inasmuch as there would not be a clear fail zone for the building wall in the event of collapse. It was pointed out that there would be fire hydrants located on each side ofthe bu ildingtstfoardthe rear allowing trucks to set up at r fire fighting. Mr. Jones then raised the question of delivery hours for the large vehicles. It was pointed out that should the rear tricted delivery hours drive be eliminated, the need for res would be maintained in would also be eliminated. The trucks front of the building for maneuvering purposes and maneuver June 27, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) ...... - to the dock without being visible to the neighborhood. This would also remove a significant percentage of the sound created. Staff indicated that it felt that a change in the delivery hours would perhaps be appropriate. This item would be discussed further with Safeway and the applicant would be asked to address the subject at the public hearing. Mr. Jones indicated they would need to discuss the elimination of the driveway and its redesign with Safeway. Mr. Brown then inserted several comments on design, these in response to Engineering Staff and having to do with exit of the trucks from the site after unloading. Mr. Brown indicated that they would be exiting onto Taylor Loop Road in the current design as well as the modified design. He also pointed out that due to the maneuvering area required at the front corner of the building, several parking spaces may be lost, or at least redesigned, to accommodate a larger turning radius. An architectural design was then presented and several eievat'ions of the building. These elevations indicated a calor scheme somewhat different from that previously offered by the developer. The building would be horizontally banded with several colors designed to keep the building "down It would contain vertical elements such as drainage spouts which would break up the east/west facade into several smaller elements. It was pointed out during the discussion of these elevations that at least a third or more of the rear building elevation would be blocked from view by the ten foot board fence. It was further painted out that this fence would bleach, or weather, over time and would change to a gray or darker color which would blend with the natural shady element beneath the trees and the color of the bark on the larger, mature trees. The architect that presented the plans indicated that he felt very little of the building would be observed with the various proposals presented by the developer to soften this facade. A brief discussion then followed concerning the infill of additional plantings along disturbed areas in the buffer area as well as treatment of those areas scarred by drainage or utility installation. June 27, 1989 SUBDIVISION r, ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) The signage that would be located on the site at the points the developer indicating of entry was discussed briefly, essarily reflecting that a typical would be prepared not-nec the Safeway name but indicating the height and size of the sign. It would be a 'monument type" sign approximately six feet in height. The architect alsoindicated that the the lighting plan for the parking area o n the property would be presented indicating light standards at the lowest possible elevation while gaining the best lighting for that area. Mr. Lawson madehe rthe omof menthe bthlt at you would not need much lighting in ding if you eliminated the drive. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 27, 1989) The application was represented by Mr. Wes Lowder and Mr. Robert Brown of the Mehlburger firm. Mr. Greeson asked that Jim Lawson of the Planning Staff make a presentation of this item and the two attached matters dealing with the plat and the Plan amendment. Mr. Lawson offered a lengthy history and explanation of this case and the Highway 10 Plan relative to the intersection of Taylor Loop Road and Highway 10. He pointed out changes that have been made in the site plan at the suggestiof on Staff and others. He indicated the added buffer depth the south side of the building, the deletion of the rear drive and modifications of improvements to drive surface on both sides of the building. He indicated the change in hours on the garbage pickup. He closed his comments on the site plan amendments by pointing out that this site provides direct access to two arterial streets which is an excellent relationship for access, and omitting the re6r driveway assists in the buffer being retained as is as well as elimination of the truck noise for the neighborhood. Mr. Lawson then discussed how this use would have been sited on other properties adjacent. He indicated the pluses and minuses of several sites adjacent on both sides of Highway 10. A lengthy discussion of the PCO folloWed with several acreage of the Commissioners asking questions concerning the Plan amendment and its effect on future applications. A question was asked by Commissioner Schiereth concerning access to the corner lot from this development site out that he adjacent streets. Mr. Lawson responded by pointing the corner property is a separate ownership from this June 27, 1989 SUBDIVISION rf, ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont inue ).-.__.....,-.._.__...-- .. _ ... .. .-.. development proposal and that there are landscaped areas intervening; also, that access would be a concern for this owner to deal with at such time as a request is made. Mr. Lawson also pointed out that the City had acquired parcel additional significant right-of-way from the corner p in order to enhance the development design for the intersection atghwy streetoin conjunctionhas withcommitted at least one access to each acquisition. Mr. Wes, Lowder, the engineer for the project, made a presentation. He discussed the project and offered the revised plans. He stated that there was little more that could be done in design on this site. He indicated that the use, in his opinion, was now the primary concern. Mr. Lowder then asked the architect with his firm to address the placement of air questions of the Commission relative to conditioning and other mechanical units. Mr. Bourne' answered the questions by stating that at this time he -,could not specifically -respond to design inasthatmwoulduch s they.had not cleared that material with Safeway, be determined at a later point, but that it would be properly sited and screened. A question was then posed to Mr. Lowder by Commissioner Oleson, the question being how Safeway cleans their parking lot and service areas, at what times of the day. The response from Mr. Lowder was Lthat he wanot fa iliar with the time nor the process that theyemployed, tt information could be developed. Mr. Robert Brown then discussed the dumpsteryand rear area development of the site, responding to questions concerned with how the dumpster would be screened and its relationship to the boundary fences. Mr. Bourne' responded to questions of the Commission concerning the building design. He offered that the building would be of brick or masonry or combination construction with metal slopedroof toodrai�n toCantrell rea�aofside the and a flat roof structure building. Commissioner Oleson then requested information on the speci-ics of how the dumpster might be screened, as to the mater al type. Mr. Brown again stated for the record that there is a fence proposed around the dumpster on three sides June 27, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) with a gate closure. He pointed out again that the site is screened by a ten foot fence to the south of the dumpster and the eight foot board fence immediately to the east. Therefore, the dumpster site is double screened. Commissioner Oleson then offered a question concerning maintenance of the fences. It was pointed out that the maintenance would be Safeways responsibility and that they would be required to be maintained in the form as erected. Commission Leek then questioned the fences and the type Fof construction. Mr. Brown responded by indicating the ty,oe fence that would be constructed, and indicated that his e developer would like a reduction in the fence height on the east from the eight feet as requested by Staff to a heign=. of six feet. He felt that that was more in keeping with the residential property on that side and its relationship. He did not receive an answer. Commissioner Leek then asked about landscaping. Mr. Brown described the saving of the mature timber on the site in the p -Ian's content with respect to buffer,, area and the proposed plantings of both trees and shrubs, indicating on the plan the areas in which they would be provided. Commissioner Collins asked for information on the lignTIng plan and clarification of the information submitted. Mr- Brown described the lighting as being a shoebox fixture with wide spacing and no lighting in the rear area of the building. The only lighting on the sides or rear of the building would be building mounted. This would be lighting of a security nature at paints of entry to the structure, the dock area and adjacent to the dumpster. He indicated that all lighting would be about 300 feet from the residential area. Commissioner Schlereth requested information concerning hours of delivery with respect to the change in the access drive to the rear of the building. Mr. Brown described the hours of day and week in which deliveries are requested. He indicated that inasmuch as they do not enter the rear of the property with the large trucks that they needed more flexibility in the delivery periods in order to avoid conflict with peak hours of store operation. The Pianning Staff indicated its agreement with the new hours as offered by Mr. Brown. These hours and other amendments as now proposed to conform with Staff recommendation are included in a revised cover letter submitted for the file. Mr. Griffin offered that design and plans are not the issue, but'that the use is. He responded to the Traffic Engineering comments by stating that the increases that have been indicated will cause pollution. They will expand intrusion into the neighborhood with lights, obnoxious odors and noise. He described the drainage implications of the area and the effects on the single family neighborhood adjacent to this project. Mr. Griffin offered that siltation would effect the existing drainage facilities of the areas and cause problems. He stated that he felt the land use plan for this area intended for int-ensely developed areas at certain points and the expansion of. this node with this proposal will effect an increase in the intensity of development beyond that originally intended for this intersection. He stated the Planning Commission is charged with planning of areas, not rezoning of property. He felt Safeway had had its chance last fall on another site and had not followed through. A Commission member, Jerilyn Nicholson, then posed questions about drainage on the site. Mr. Jerry Gardner of the Public Works Department responded. Mr. Gardner stated that the plan would not be allowed to increase the run-off from the site, but that detention would be required in order to assure that the existing facilities off-site could handle the run-off. .h'• June 27, 1989 'r'+'l SUBDIVISION z=r Y N ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) i The Chair then asked for objectors to make their presentation. Mr. Wendell Griffin, an attorney representing the Westchester Subdivision, offered a lengthy statement concerning the neighborhood's objection to this proposal. He discussed the history of the case, the node expansion, and the Planning Commission's positions on several requests in the past. He stated that he felt the Planning Commission needed to look closely at this proposal. He felt that the development of this commercial use would generate an increase in rats and roaches within the adjacent residential area. He felt that this development is still a shopping center, although being reduced to one store. It will still be a basis for extension of commercial to the west and further development. He stated that he felt the Commission would approve this application. Mr. Griffin then offered other histories on streets in West and Southwest Little Rock as testimony against the Planning Commission's past actions. He felt that the actions taken by the City on streets such as Geyer Springs and Rodney Parham constituted an evil to the adjacent neighborhoods. He felt that this plan represented an evil to the neighborhood. Mr. Griffin offered that design and plans are not the issue, but'that the use is. He responded to the Traffic Engineering comments by stating that the increases that have been indicated will cause pollution. They will expand intrusion into the neighborhood with lights, obnoxious odors and noise. He described the drainage implications of the area and the effects on the single family neighborhood adjacent to this project. Mr. Griffin offered that siltation would effect the existing drainage facilities of the areas and cause problems. He stated that he felt the land use plan for this area intended for int-ensely developed areas at certain points and the expansion of. this node with this proposal will effect an increase in the intensity of development beyond that originally intended for this intersection. He stated the Planning Commission is charged with planning of areas, not rezoning of property. He felt Safeway had had its chance last fall on another site and had not followed through. A Commission member, Jerilyn Nicholson, then posed questions about drainage on the site. Mr. Jerry Gardner of the Public Works Department responded. Mr. Gardner stated that the plan would not be allowed to increase the run-off from the site, but that detention would be required in order to assure that the existing facilities off-site could handle the run-off. r f� June 27 , 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued} ............ .............. Jim Lawson then offered comments on correcting existing drainage off-site, and answered questions concerning a Staff visit to the site for purposes of erecting flags to mark the building. He discussed the Staff's intent in carrying out that neighborhood meeting. He further discussed similar relationships between commercial users such as this proposal and well established residential areaswhich did noty a have as much buffer area. He stated that, typi y, ot buffer is required. He cited Coy's Restaurant along Rodney Parham as an example. That area rears upon a part of the Pleasant Valley single-family area. Mr. John Halbrook, an area resident, answered a question concerning his perspective and that of the neighborhood of the building. Mr. Halbrook stated that he felt the building will be tall and quite visible. He felt the Planning Commission should visit and observe the site and the relationships presented. The Chair then asked for other comments from the neighborhood. There were none -offered. Commissioner Leek then asked a question about drainage. Wes Lowder, the project engineer, responded by describing this plan's conformance with the Detention Ordinance and corrections that would be made, both on and off site, to correct certain problems. He stated that discharge -from this site into the current facility will be somewhat less after construction than it is currently. He discussed how the new drainage would connect underground and eliminated an open ditch in the rear yard of a Westchester resident. Commissioner Oleson stated that she felt the issue has been reduced to a land use issue since the design has been thoroughly thought out by both Staff and the applicant. Commissioner Leek raised a question about the future development of the adjacent lot which was in the previous application. The applicant could not offer commentary on the future of that lot. No proposal has been made. Mr. Robert Brown then offered a description of the preliminary plat and the reason for including the western lot. He stated that a replat to provide for this development would have to include the other property in order to be a proper plat. June 27, 1989 ,. f SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) r The Chair then read a letter from the League of Women Voters. This letter was a position statement which requested a deferral of this application until such time as the overlay zone is developed for Highway 10. Commissioner Nickolson offered comments on the history of the Highway 10 plan and the difficulty in developing that plan. She offered her position on the issues and said that lines that are fixed on plans get changed. She offered why she will vote the way she will on this issue and stated that it is a judgment call. The Chair then asked for other questions. Commissioner McDaniel called the question. The Chair then decided to place the three items before the Commission for a vote in the order suggested by Staff. (Editor's Note: The vote on Item No. 6 is reflected here as follows with additional discussion on the matter. ) The motion as offered by Commissioner Oleson was that the plan be approved as amended plus the inclusion of air conditioning units, the dumpster screening, detention and cleaning machine operations clarification at the time of architectural design. A lengthy discussion then followed as to exactly what these four elements would consist of with respect to the plan. It was offered that the Staff should be empowered to work out reassurances on each of these Elements before completing the final plan and plat. Commissioner Oleson clarified what her intention was with respect to the air conditioning units and the dumpster. She stated that she wants an unobtrusive relationship for the site and the neighborhood with as little effect as possible. As to the other elements, the cleaning machine, she wanted some time restrictions. Jim Lawson of the Planning Staff then stated that the Staff can work with the developer to clarify the several points and assure the type of resolution which would be needed. David Sones, the owner/developer, offered that he would work with the Staff to resolve the remaining questions. Commissioner McDaniel again called the question. The Chairman placed the item on the floor. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent. 1. Meeting Date: July 18, 1989 2. Case No.: Z -5139-A 3, Request: Approval of a Planned Commercial District for the construction of a Safeway store. 4. Location: At the southwest corner of the intersection of State Highway 10 at Taylor Loop Road. 5. Owner/Applicant: Vogel Realty by Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson & Associates. 6. Existing Status: "R-2" zoned property. 7. Proposed Use: The construction of a single use development as a Safeway store with multiuse consisting of delicatessen, bakery and other ancillary activities. 8. Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval of the revised site plan submitted for the Commission meeting on June 27, 1989. 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the PCD as reflected in the amended filing of the plan and cover letter for the June 27th Planning Commission meeting, plus Planning Staff be charged with review of the A.C. units, dumpster, cleaning machines and detention to assure the least impact. 10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved: None. 11. Right -of-Way Issues: Right-of-way on adjacent streets is provided by a public project on State Highway 10 and a public project on Taylor Loop Road. 12. Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote of 9 ayes, .... _..........._....... _. 0 nays, 2 absent. 13. Objectors: There were several persons in attendance represented by Wendell Griffin, the attorney for the Westchester Subdivision.