HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4490 ORDINANCE NO, 4490
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A COMMERCIAL
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED C-PZD
03-02.00 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
FINGER ROAD AND HWY. 62; AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND AMENDED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the zone classification of the following described property is
hereby changed as follows:
From R- 1 , C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, R-O, Residential
Office, and R-2, Medium Density Residential to C-PZD 03-02.00 as
shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved
master development plan and development standards as shown on the Planned Zoning
District plans for Lowe's Home Center and approved by the Planning Commission on April
28, 2003, as amended by the City Council to remove the requirement for a monument sign
and reinstate Condition of Approval #3 as recommended by the City Planning Division , and
to change Condition of Approval # 13 requiring installation of a traffic signal at the cost of
the developer prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy and replacing that with a
requiring the developer to deposit the cost of the traffic signal with the City pursuant to
U.D.O. § 158.01 until such signal is authorized to be installed by the Arkansas Highway and
Transportation Department.
Section 3 . That this ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until all
conditions of approval for the development are met.
Section 4. That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is
hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above.
�III�IIIIIIII�I11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111�1111111111
Doc ID : 005115420003 TVDe : REL
Recorded : 07/09/2003 at 11 : 29 : 45 AM
Fee Amt : $14 . 00 Pace 1 of 3
Vashlnaton county . AR
Bette stamps circuit clerk
F11e2003-00036026
Ord. No. 4490
Page 2
PASSED and APPROVED this the 3rd day of June, 2003 .
pYETT +„
F .` twAPPROVED:
Ck
DAN COODY, M or
A
Sondra Smith, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
PART OF THE NORTHWEST AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTERS OF SECTION 19,
TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST OF THE 5T" P.M., CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS :
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER;
THENCE NORTH 88008158" WEST 42.94 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
NORTHWEST QUARTER TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF FINGER ROAD SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 88008 '58" WEST 387.36 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH
LINE; THENCE SOUTH 2001120" WEST 238.81 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°08 '33"
EAST, 294.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 23°09'36" WEST 107.33 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 88008133" WEST 456.01 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1 '5 I '27"EAST 100.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 90000'00" WEST 62.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1 °02 '36" WEST
39.63 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 54047'38" WEST, 195.89 FEET; THENCE NORTH
88057'24" WEST, 409.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42046'02" WEST, 76.30 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 88057'24" WEST, 50.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 38042 ' 54" WEST,
62.44 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1 °02'36" EAST, 39.45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
90000100" WEST, 28.97 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1002 '35" EAST, 656.56 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF US HIGHWAY 62; THENCE NORTH
74035155" EAST 1160. 14 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE
SOUTH 103 1 '48" WEST, 179.34 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88026' 54" EAST, 290.31 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF FINGER ROAD; THENCE SOUTH
1049'53" WEST, 558.04 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. CONTAINS 26.934 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS .
AND ALSO:
PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH,
RANGE 30 WEST OF THE 5T" P.M., CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON
COUNTY, ARKANSAS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER;
THENCE SOUTH 1004104" WEST, 23.26 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
SOUTHWEST QUARTER TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING
SOUTH 1004'04" WEST, 386.66 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 490 AT PAGE
18, WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK'S OFFICE; THENCE NORTH
8801415691 WEST, 165 .65 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE
NORTH 24°21 '49" EAST, 418.83 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING
0.735 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS.
TOTAL ACREAGE: 27.669 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
� washi�9to
071109, th sn str qR
F;� ?0 11 tr
Nu°p dea/�*28 ag qM as riled o
Bette Stmber2p03oo03state n
by fps . circ 6028
"rk
NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4490
CROSS REFERENCE:
Item # Date Document
1 05/06/03 Staff Review Form w/attachments
draft ordinance
memo to Mayor/City Council
memo to Planning Commission
copy of PC minutes for C-PZD 03-2.00
Close up View
One Mile View
Peters & Assoc. memo to Tim Conklin
Ozark Civil Engineers, Inc. map
2 06/11 /03 1 memo to Dawn Warrick
3 06/27/03 lAffidavit of Publication
NOTES:
7/9/2003 filed with Washington County Circuit Clerk
STAFF REOW FORM - NON-FINANCIAL OBLATION 'P a`d"(0 /�/�
Qot,d tLt y16
x AGENDA REQUEST ' P?iD n3 � 6A, bZ
t,, 3 ) zo 03
For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: May 20, 2003
FROM:
Dawn Warrick Planning CP&E
Name Division Department
ACTION REQUIRED: Ordinance Approval
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
C-PZD 03-2.00 submitted by Lance Mills on behalf of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. for property located at the
southwest comer of Finger Road and Highway 62. The property is zoned C-2, R-O, and R-2 containing
approximately 27.669 acres. The request is for a Commercial Planned Zoning District for a Lowe's Home
Center on a lot containing 13.62 acres (133,532 sq.ft. building), retail lots containing 6.05 acres (53 ,876 sq.ft.
building proposed) and 1 .3 acres (future development), a 2.05 acre detention area and 4.59 acres of tree
preservation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
A �,� ��. � �q Received in Mayor's Office
Divi ion Head at Date
City Atto D . e
A e Cross Reference:
Department Pirector Date
Previous Ord/Res#:
inance & Internal Services Dir. Date Orig. Contract Date:
2 -0.1 Orig. Contract Number:
Chie inistrafve Officer Date
New Item: Yes No
Mayor D to
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A COMMERCIAL
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED C-PZD 03-02.00
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FINGER
ROAD AND HWY. 62; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; AND
ACCORDING TO THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: //�
Section 1 : That the zone classification o" f the following described-property is
hereby changed as follows: G \
Froui R-1, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, R \si/dential Office, and R-2, Medium
Density Residential to C-PZD 03-02.00-as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
Section 2. That the change in classification is based upon the
approved master, development plan and development standards as shown on the
Planned Zoning District plans for Lowe's Home Center and approved by the Planning
Commission on April 28, 2003. )
Section'3: That.this ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until
all citiOns of approv\for\ development are met.
Section 4. That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas,
is hereby a\ded to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above.
PASSED.ANDAPPROVED this day of 92003.
APPROVED:
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
PART OF THE NORTHWEST AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTERS OF SECTION 19,
TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST OF THE 5T" P.M., CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER;
THENCE NORTH 88008158" WEST 42.94 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
NORTHWEST QUARTER TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH TH&W:EST RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF FINGER ROAD SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 88008'58" WEST 387.36 FEET SAID SOUTH
LINE; THENCE SOUTH 2001 '20" WEST 238.81 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°08'33"
EAST, 294.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 23°09'36 WEST 107.33\FEET; THENCE
NORTH 88008 '33" WEST 456.01 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1 °51 '27"EAST 100.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 90000100" WEST 62.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH�1 °0236" WEST
39.63 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 54°47'38"'WEST, 195.89\FEET; THENCE NORTH
88057724" WEST, 409.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH442°46'02" WEST 76.30 FEET;
.THENCE NORTH 88057124" WEST, 50.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 38042'54" WEST,
62.44 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1\02. 366' EAST, 39i 45\FEET; THENCE SOUTH
90000900" WEST, 28.97 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1002' 35
656.56 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF US�HIGHWAY 62; THENCE NORTH
74035155" EAST 1160. 14 FEET ALONG\SAID SOITI'H;RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE
SOUTH 1031 '48" WEST,-L79.34 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88026'54" EAST, 290.31 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE VVEST�RIGHT OF WAY OF FINGER ROAD; THENCE SOUTH
1049' 53" WEST,<,558 04,FEET ALONG SAID.RIGHT OF WAY TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. CONTAINS,26.934�ACRES OELAND, MORE OR LESS.
AND AL/SO
\�f r
PART OF, THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH,
� .: ;• THy
RANGE 3022� ST OF THE 5 P.M., CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON
COUNTY, ARKANSAS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCINGAT THE/NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER;
VN ii
THENCE SOUTW400.4304" WEST, 23 .26 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
SOUTHWEST QUARTER TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING
SOUTH 1004'04" WEST, 386.66 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 490 AT PAGE
18, WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK' S OFFICE; THENCE NORTH
88014' 56" WEST, 165.65 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE
NORTH 24°21 '49" EAST, 418.83 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING
0.735 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS.
TOTAL ACREAGE: 27.669 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
FAYETTEtILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (501) 575-8267
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Mayor Dan Coody
Fayetteville City Council
FROM: Dawn Warrick, AICP, Zoning & Development Administrator
THRU: Tim Conklin, AICP, Director of Community, Planning & Engineering Svcs.
DATE: May 5, 2003
Project: C-PZD 03-2.00: Planned Zoning District (Lowe's, 557/596) was submitted by Lance
Mills of Ozark Civil Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. for property
located at the southwest corner of Finger Road and Highway 62. The property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial, R-O, Residential Office, and R-2, Medium Density Residential
containing approximately 27.669 acres. The request is for a Commercial Planned Zoning District
for a Lowe's Home Center on a lot containing 13 .62 acres ( 133 ,532 sq.ft. building), retail lots
containing 6.05 acres (53 ,876 sq ft building proposed) and 1 .3 acres (for future development), a
2.05 acre detention area and 4.59 acres of tree preservation.
BACKGROUND
The proposal is for a Commercial Planned Zoning District for a Lowe's Home Center containing
13 .9 acres ( 133,532 sq. ft. building) and a retail out lot containing 6.057 acres with 53,876 square
feet of retail space.. Another out lot for future development ( 1 .3 acres) is also being proposed with
this PZD. There are 4.59 acres of tree preservation and 2.051 acres of shared detention proposed.
This item must also be heard at City Council pursuant to the requirements for a PZD.
Use Lot Area
Lowe's 13 .62
Dorado retail stores 6.057
Out lot (future development) 1 .3
Tree Preservation 4.59
Shared detention area 2.051
CURRENTSTATUS
On April 28, 2003, the Planning Commission voted 7-0-0 to forward this item to the City Council
with a recommendation for approval of the C-PZD zoning contingent upon the approved
development plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-PZD.
K.WeporuI20031CC REPORTSIMay meeringA5-20-0A,pzd 03-I_16we's_ccdw
• • C-PZD 03-2.00
Page 1 of 16
PC Meeting of April 28, 2003
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Lowe's, C-PZD
113W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
THRU: Dawn Warrick, AICP, Zoning and Development Administrator
FROM: Sara Edwards, Associate Planner
Matt Casey P.E. Staff Engineer
DATE: April 24, 2003
Project: C-PZD 03-2.00: Planned Zoning District (Lowe's, 557/596) was submitted by Lance
Mills of Ozark Civil Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. for property
located at the southwest comer of Finger Road and Highway 62. The property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial, R-O, Residential Office, and R-2, Medium Density Residential
containing approximately 27.669 acres. The request is for a Commercial Planned Zoning District
for a Lowe's Home Center on a lot containing 13.62 acres (133,532 sq.ft. building), retail lots
containing 6.05 acres (53,876 sq ft building proposed) and 1 .3 acres (for future development), a
2.05 acre detention area and 4.59 acres, of tree preservation.
Findings:
Proposal: The proposal is for a Commercial Planned Zoning District for a Lowe's Home Center
containing 13 .62 acres ( 133,532 sq. ft. building) and a retail out lot containing 6.057 acres with
53,876 square feet of retail space. There is a lot being split with this PZD which is lot 2B to be
developed later. There are 4.59 acres of tree preservation proposed.
Parking: Lowe' s: 598 spaces
Retail: 304 Spaces
Existing Development: None
Surrounding Zoning: North: A-1
South: R- 1
East: C-2
West: R-0
Surrounding Land Use: North: Retail and Agriculture
South: Residential
East: Retail
West: None
Water: A 12" water line running east to west along Sixth Street
Sewer: A 8" Sanitary Sewer line running east to west along Sixth Street
• . C-PZD 03-2.00
Page 2 of 16
Right-of-way being dedicated: 55 ' of Right of Way is being proposed along Sixth Street
Street Improvements Proposed: None
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Sixth Street is a principle arterial and requires 110' of
Right of Way.
Site Coverage: 84%
Tree Preservation: 4.59 acres of on-site tree preservation is being proposed.
Existing canopy: 69%
Preserved canopy: 15%
Required in C-2 zone: 15%
Other: On site detention is proposed. The proposal is for a regional detention pond to the south
of the property being purchased by Lowe' s, which will serve this development as well as
future development.
Wetland mitigation is proposed offsite and has been approved by the Corp of Engineers.
Recommendation: Forward to City Council with recommendation of approval of the
requested rezoning.
Planning Commission approval of the proposed development subject to
the conditions listed below.
Conditions of Approval:
1 . An ordinance creating this C-PZD shall be approved by City Council.
2. Covenants shall be filed which provide for maintenance of parking areas and greenspace.
3. All signage proposed on site shall comply with Chapter 174, Signs of the Unified
Development Ordinance and shall be permitted accordingly.
4. Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver to allow for parking spaces
wider than nine feet. The request is for several 10 foot wide spaces to accommodate
contractor parking.
5 . Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver to allow for aisles wider
than 24 feet in width. The proposal is for aisles up to 55 feet to accommodate truck
traffic.
6. Planning Commission determination of requested waiver from the requirement of a
landscape island along the front of the building.
7. ADA spaces shall be redistributed along the retail stores as shown on development plan.
• • C-PZD 03-2.00
Page 3 of 16
8. Landscape islands shall be added near the ADA spaces.
9. Sidewalk fees in the amount of $ 12,394.62 in lieu of sidewalk construction along the tree
preservation areas. Staff is recommending that a fee be assessed in lieu of construction to
avoid tree removal in these areas.
10. A continuous planting of shrubs is required adjacent to parking lots along the right of
ways.
11 . The tree preservation easement must be filed prior to issuance of any permits for the
proposed project.
12. Large scale development approval is required for development of lot 2B.
13 . A traffic signal shall be installed at the developer's expense prior to any occupancy
permit. This shall be subject to the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department
approval and staff review.
14. Street lights shall be installed along the south side of Sixth Street every 300 feet at the
developer's expense. The street lights shall be a minimum 250 watt full cut off fixture.
15. All utilities shall be placed underground with the exception of a 14.4 KV line that exists
on Lot 2.
16. Right-of-way shall be dimensioned from centerline and include a minimum of 55 feet
from centerline along Sixth Street and a minimum 25 feet from centerline along Finger
Road.
17. Merchandise display shall be limited to that which may be displayed on the sidewalk in
front of the building. No merchandise display shall be allowed within the designated
parking areas unless prior approval is obtained by the Planning Division who will verify
that the required number of spaces are maintained and adequate traffic flow is
maintained.
18. Covenants shall be submitted in accordance with § 166.06 of the Unified Development
Ordinance prior to building permit.
19. The developer shall erect at the entrance of Sherman Way a rectangular sign, not
exceeding 24 inches by 12 inches, designating the street a "private street" which shall be
clearly visible to motor vehicular traffic.
20. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards
including signage.
SIGNAGE: The wall sign does not comply with the sign ordinance as proposed. The
ordinance prohibits signs extending more than 18 inches above roof level. The applicant
is requesting the sign to extend 46.25 inches above the roof. Board of Sign Appeals
• • C-PZD 03-2.00
Page 4 of /6
approval will be required for this variance from the sign ordinance.
There are two freestanding signs proposed. The Lowe's sign is a 30 foot tall pole sign
which exceeds the maximum.square footage. Staff recommends the sign be reduced to 75
square feet in order to comply with the sign ordinance. An area identification sign is
proposed on Lot 2B which meets ordinance requirements.
§166.14 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND CONSTRUCTION AND
APPEARANCE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES.
D. Design Elements Guidelines for Commercial Structures.
1. The elements to avoid or minimize include:
a. Unpainted concrete precision block walls.
b. Square, boxlike structures.
c. Metal siding which dominates the main facade.
d. Large blank, unarticulated wall surfaces.
e. Large out of scale signs with flashy colors
2. Construction and appearance design standards for commercial structures.
a. A commercial structure or development shall be designed to avoid or
minimize the elements set forth in D. 1. above.
b. A commercial development which contains more than one building should
incorporate a recurring, unifying, and identifiable theme for the entire
development site.
c. A development should provide compatibility and transition between
adjoining developments.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
21. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to
the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR
Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications)
22. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable)
for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks,
parking lot(s) and tree preservation: The information submitted for the plat review
process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to
additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current
requirements.
23. Sidewalk construction to include a minimum six foot sidewalk along Sixth Street,
Sherman Way and Finger Road with sidewalk fees in lieu of construction along tree
preservation areas.
20. Development approval shall be valid for one calendar year.
21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a. Grading and drainage permits
b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area.
• S C-PZD 03-2.00
Pages of16
c. Project Disk with all final revisions
d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City
(letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed
Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements
necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just
guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
Background:
The project was reviewed at the March 10, 2003 Technical Plat Review and the April 3, 2003
and the April 17, 2003 Subdivision Committee Meetings.
Discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting included ADA parking, tree preservation,
signage, commercial design standards, and traffic.
The Subdivision Committee forwarded the Commercial Planned Zoning District to the full
Planning Commission subject to all staff comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Date: _
Comments:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Date:
Comments:
yes Required
Approved Denied
yes Required
Approved Denied
The "CONDITIONS
OF
APPROVAL", beginning on page
one of this report, are accepted in total
without exception by
the
entity requesting approval of this
development item.
Im
Title
Date
Findings associated with C-PZD 03-2.00
Sec. 166.06. Planned Zoning Districts (PZD).
• • C-PZD 03-2.00
Page 6 of 16
(B) Development standards, conditions and review guidelines
-(1) Generally. The Planning Commission shall consider a proposed PZD in light of the purpose
and intent as set forth in Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations, and the development standards
and review guidelines set forth herein. Primary emphasis shall be placed upon achieving
compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding areas so as to preserve and
enhance the neighborhood. Proper planning shall involve a consideration of tree preservation,
water conservation, preservation of natural site amenities, and the protection of watercourses
from erosion and siltation. The Planning Commission shall determine that specific
development features, including project density, building locations, common usable open
space, the vehicular circulation system, parking areas, screening and landscaping, and
perimeter treatment shall be combined in such a way as to further the health, safety, amenity
and welfare of the community. To these ends, all applications filed pursuant to this ordinance
shall be reviewed in accordance with the same general review guidelines as those utilized for
zoning and subdivision applications.
FINDING: The General Plan designates this area as Regional Commercial and Mixed Use.
The proposal is in conformity with the General Plan Designation. The applicant has met with
adjacent property owners in order to ensure compatibility. Loading areas have been located
away from residential areas and Tree preservation buffers have been proposed.
(2) Screening and landscaping. In order to enhance the integrity and attractiveness of the
development, and when deemed necessary to protect adjacent properties, the Planning
Commission shall require landscaping and screening as part of a PZD. The screening and
landscaping shall be provided as set forth in § 166.09 Buffer Strips and Screening. As part of
the development plan, a detailed screening and landscaping plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission. Landscape plans shall show the general location, type and quality
(size and age) of plant material. Screening plans shall include typical details of fences, berms
and plant material to be used.
FINDING: The proposal includes a tree preservation buffer around the nearest residential
property to provide a buffer from the Commercial use.
(3) Traffic circulation. The following traffic circulation guidelines shall apply:
(a) The adequacy of both the internal and external street systems shall be reviewed in
light of the projected future traffic volumes.
(b) The traffic circulation system shall be comprised of a hierarchal scheme of local
collector and arterial streets, each designed to accommodate its proper function and in
appropriate relationship with one another.
(c) Design of the internal street circulation system must be sensitive to such
considerations as safety, convenience, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic,
general attractiveness, access to dwelling units and the proper relationship of different
land uses.
• • C-PZD 03-2.00
Page 7 of16
(d) Internal collector streets shall be coordinated with the existing external street system,
providing for the efficient flow of traffic into and out of the planned zoning development.
(e) Internal local streets shall be designed to discourage through traffic within the
planned zoning development and to adjacent areas.
(f) Design provisions for ingress and egress for any site along with service drives and
interior circulation shall be that required by Chapter 166 Development of this code.
FINDING: The applicant has submitted a traffic study which adequately addresses the
adequacy of street systems with the additional traffic from this development. Staff has
reviewed the traffic study as well as the design for Sherman Way and found them to be
adequate to handle traffic from this development. Sidewalks are proposed to accommodate
pedestrian traffic. There is an access drive proposed from Finger Road as well an additional
access drive from Sixth Street. A new street is planned as a private drive with a traffic signal
to direct traffic to and from the site.
(4) Parking standards. The off-street parking and loading standards found in Chapter 172
Parking and Loading shall apply to the specific gross usable or leasable floor areas of the
respective use areas.
FINDING: The proposal is in compliance with Chapter 172.
(5) Perimeter treatment. Notwithstanding any other provisions of a planned zoning district, all
uses of land or structures shall meet the open space, buffer or green strip provisions of this
chapter of this code.
FINDING:
(6) Sidewalks. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Sidewalks are proposed in compliance with §166.03. Fees are recommended in lieu
of construction in areas adjoining the tree preservation tracts in order to prevent the removal
of trees for the installation of sidewalks in this area.
(7) Street Lights. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Street lights have been required in the conditions of approval.
(8) Water. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Water is proposed in compliance with §166.03.
(9) Sewer. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Sewer is proposed in compliance with §166.03.
• • C-PZD 03-200
Page 8 of 16
(10) Streets and Drainage. Streets within a residential PZD may be either public or
private.
(a) Public Streets. Public streets shall be constructed according to the adopted standards
of the City.
(b) Private Streets. Private streets within a residential PZD shall be permitted subject to
the following conditions:
(i) Private streets shall be permitted for only a loop street, or street ending with a cul-de-
sac. Any street connecting one or more public streets shall be constructed to existing
City standards and shall be dedicated as a public street.
(ii) Private streets shall be designed and constructed to the same standards as public
streets with the exceptions of width and cul-de-sacs as noted below.
(iii) All grading and drainage within a Planned Zoning District including site
drainage and drainage for private streets shall comply with the City's Grading
(Physical Alteration of Land) and Drainage (Storm water management) Ordinances.
Open drainage systems may be approved by the City Engineer.
(iv) Maximum density served by a cul-de-sac shall be 40 units. Maximum density
served by a loop street shall be 80 units.
(v) The plat of the planned development shall designate each private street as a "private
street."
(vi) Maintenance of private streets shall be the responsibility of the developer or
of a neighborhood property owners association (POA) and shall not be the
responsibility of the City. The method for maintenance and a maintenance fund shall
be established by the PZD covenants. The covenants shall expressly provide that the
City is a third party beneficiary to the covenants and shall have the right to enforce
the street maintenance requirements of the covenants irrespective of the vote of the
other parties to the covenants.
(vii) The covenants shall provide that in the event the private streets are not maintained as
required by the covenants, the City shall have the right (but shall not be required) to
maintain said streets and to charge the cost thereof to the property owners within the
PZD on a pro rata basis according to assessed valuation for ad valorem tax purposes
and shall have a lien on the real property within the PZD for such cost. The protective
covenants shall grant the City the right to use all private streets for purposes of
providing fire and police protection, sanitation service and any other of the municipal
functions. The protective covenants shall provide that such covenants shall not be
amended and shall not terminate without approval of the City Council.
(viii) The width of private streets may vary according to the density served. The following
• C-PZD 03-2.00
Page 9 of 16
standard shall be used:
Paving Width
(No On -Street Parking)
Dwelling
Units
One -Way
Two -Way
1-20
14'
22'
21+
14'
24'
*Note: If on -street parking is desired, 6 feet must be added to each side where parking is intended.
(ix) All of the traffic laws prescribed by Title VII shall apply to traffic on private
streets within a PZD.
(x) There shall be no minimum building setback requirement from a private street.
(xi)The developer shall erect at the entrance of each private street a rectangular sign, not
exceeding 24 inches by 12 inches, designating the street a "private street" which
shall be clearly visible to motor vehicular traffic.
FINDING: A private street is proposed to be constructed to minimum street standards and
ending in a cul-de-sac. Street drainage is proposed in compliance with the Grading and
Drainage Ordinances. Covenants for maintenance of the private drive will be submitted prior
to building permit. A private drive will be erected prior to the certificate of occupancy.
(11) Construction ofnonresidentialfacilities. Prior to issuance of more than eight building
permits for any residential PZD, all approved nonresidential facilities shall be constructed. In
the event the developer proposed to develop the PZD in phases, and the nonresidential
facilities are not proposed in the initial phase, the developer shall enter into a contract with
the City to guarantee completion of the nonresidential facilities.
FINDING: N/A
(12) Tree preservation. All PZD developments shall comply with the requirements for tree
preservation as set forth in Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection. The location of
trees shall be considered when planning the common open space, location of buildings,
underground services, walks, paved areas, playgrounds, parking areas, and finished grade
levels.
FINDING: The proposal complies with §167.
(13) Commercial design
standards.
All
PZD developments that contain office
or
commercial structures shall
comply with
the
commercial design standards as set forth
in
• C-PZD 03-2.00
Page 10 of 16
§ 166.14 Site Development Standards and Construction and Appearance Design Standards for
Commercial Structures.
FINDING: The Planning Commission will make a determination of compliance with
Commercial Design Standards with the development approval.
(14) View protection. The Planning Commission shall have the right to establish
special height and/or positioning restrictions where scenic views are involved and shall
have the right to insure the perpetuation of those views through protective covenant
restrictions.
FINDING: N/A
(E) Revocation.
(1) Causes for revocation as enforcement action. The Planning Commission may recommend to
the City Council that any PZD approval be revoked and all building or occupancy permits be
voided under the following circumstances:
(a) Building permit. If no building permit has been issued within the time allowed.
(b) Phased development schedule. If the applicant does not adhere to the phased
development schedule as stated in the approved development plan.
(c) Open space and recreational facilities. If the construction and provision of all common
open spaces and public and recreational facilities which are shown on the final plan are
proceeding at a substantially slower rate than other project components.
Planning staff shall report the status of each ongoing PZD at the first regular meeting of
each quarter, so that the Planning Commission is able to compare the actual development
accomplished with the approved development schedule. If the Planning Commission
finds that the rate of construction of dwelling units or other commercial or industrial
structures is substantially greater than the rate at which common open spaces and public
recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, then the Planning Commission
may initiate revocation action or cease to approve any additional final plans if preceding
phases have not been finalized. The city may also issue a stop work order, or discontinue
issuance of building or occupancy permits, or revoke those previously issued.
(2) Procedures. Prior to a recommendation of revocation, notice by certified mail shall be sent
to the landowner or authorized agent giving notice of the alleged default, setting a time to
appear before the Planning Commission to show cause why steps should not be made to
totally or partially revoke the PZD. The Planning Commission recommendation shall be
forwarded to the City Council for disposition as in original approvals. In the event a PZD is
revoked, the City Council shall take the appropriate action in the city clerk's office and the
public zoning record duly noted.
(3) Effect. In the event of revocation, any completed portions of the development or those
• • r-P2n nt-zno
Page 11 of 16
portions for which building permits have been issued shall be treated to be a whole and
effective development. After causes for revocation or enforcement have been corrected, the
City Council shall expunge such record as established above and shall authorize continued
issuance of building permits.
(F) Covenants, trusts and homeowner associations.
(1) Legal entities. The developer shall create such legal entities as appropriate to undertake and
be responsible for the ownership, operation, construction, and maintenance of private roads,
parking areas, common usable open space, community facilities, recreation areas, building,
lighting, security measure and similar common elements in a development. The city
encourages the creation of homeowner associations, funded community trusts or other
nonprofit organizations implemented by agreements, private improvement district, contracts
and covenants. All legal instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and
maintenance of such open space, recreation areas and communally -owned facilities shall be
approved by the City Attorney as to legal form and effect, and by the Planning Commission
as to the suitability for the proposed use of the open areas. The aforementioned legal
instruments shall be provided to the Planning Commission together with the filing of the
final plan, except that the Guarantee shall be filed with the preliminary plan or at least in a
preliminary form.
(2) Common areas. If the common open space .is deeded to a homeowner association, the
developer shall file with the plat a declaration of covenants and restrictions in the Guarantee
that will govern the association with the application for final plan approval. The provisions
shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
(a) The homeowner's association must be legally established before building permits are
granted.
(b) Membership and fees must be mandatory for each home buyer and successive buyer.
(c) The open space restrictions must be permanent, rather than for a period of years.
(d) The association must be responsible for the maintenance of recreational and other
common facilities covered by the agreement and for all liability insurance, local taxes
and other public assessments.
(e) Homeowners must pay their pro rata share of the initial cost; the maintenance assessment
levied by the association must be stipulated as a potential lien on the property.
FINDING: Covenants will be required which comply with this section.
Sec. 161.25 Planned Zoning District
(A) Purpose. The intent of the Planned Zoning District is to permit and encourage
comprehensively planned developments whose purpose is redevelopment, economic
development, cultural enrichment or to provide a single -purpose or mixed -use planned
development and to permit the combination of development and zoning review into a
• • C-PZD 03-2.00
Page 12 of 16
simultaneous process. The rezoning of property to the PZD may be deemed appropriate if the
development proposed for the district can accomplish one or more of the following goals.
(1) Flexibility. Providing for flexibility in the distribution of land uses, in the density of
development and in other matters typically regulated in zoning districts.
(2) Compatibility. Providing for compatibility with the surrounding land uses.
(3) Harmony. Providing for an orderly and creative arrangement of land uses that are
harmonious and beneficial to the community.
(4) Variety. Providing for a variety of housing types, employment opportunities or
commercial or industrial services, or any combination thereof, to achieve variety and integration
of economic and redevelopment opportunities.
(5) No negative impact. Does not have a negative effect upon the future development of the
area;
(6) Coordination. Permit coordination and planning of the land surrounding the PZD and
cooperation between the city and private developers in the urbanization of new lands and in the
renewal of existing deteriorating areas.
(7) Open space. Provision of more usable and suitably located open space, recreation areas
and other common facilities that would not otherwise be required under conventional land
development regulations.
(8) Natural features. Maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of existing natural
features and amenities.
(9) General Plan. Comprehensive
and
innovative planning
and design of mixed use yet
harmonious developments consistent
with
the guiding policies
of the
General Plan.
(10) Special Features. Better utilization of sites characterized by special features of geographic
location, topography, size or shape.
FINDING: The proposal is for a single use commercial development. The rezoning of the
property to a planned zoning district may be deemed appropriate due to the measures taken to
ensure compatibility of the proposal with adjacent properties. The proposal will not have a
negative impact on the development of adjacent property.
The proposal is consistent with the General Plan 2020 in which it meets the guiding policies for
regional commercial areas needs which are:
9.9.a Provide enough retail business and service space to enable Fayetteville to
realize its full potential as a regional market.
9.9.b Encourage continuing improvements and expansion of regional shopping
C-PZD 03-2.00
Page 13 of 16
and entertainment attractions.
9.9.c Ensure that the surface transportation network serving regional commercial
areas meet acceptable levels of service.
9.9.d Require that large commercial sites be designed and landscaped in a manner
that preserves the aesthetic character of their surroundings.
9.9.e Direct new regional development into designated regional commercial
centers.
9.9.f Approve new regional commercial development as planned unit developments
in order to assure the overall integration of design and use.
(B) Rezoning. Property may be rezoned to the Planned Zoning District by the City Council in
accordance with the requirements of this chapter and Chapter 166, Development. Each rezoning
parcel shall be described as a separate district, with distinct boundaries and specific design and
development standards. Each district shall be assigned a project number or label, along with the
designation "PZD". The rezoning shall include the adoption of a specific master development
plan and development standards.
FINDING: Staff has reviewed the proposed development with regard to findings
necessary for rezoning requests. Those findings are attached to this report. An ordinance
will be drafted in order to create this Planned Zoning District which will incorporate all
conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission. Covenants provided by the
developer will be included in the PZD ordinance. This ordinance will be forwarded to the
City Council for approval.*
(D) C-PZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District
(1) Purpose and intent. The C-PZD is intended to accommodate mixed -use developments
containing any combination, including multiple combinations of commercial, office or residential
uses in a carefully planned configuration in such a manner as to protect and enhance the
availability of each independent use. The C-PZD is also intended to accommodate single use
commercial developments that are determined to be more appropriate for a PZD application than
a general commercial rezone. The legislative purposes, intent and application of this district
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) To encourage the clustering of commercial and office activities within areas specifically
designated to accommodate such uses and to discourage the proliferation of commercial uses
along major thoroughfares and noncommercial areas.
(b) To provide for orderly development in order to minimize adverse impact on surrounding
areas and on the general flow of traffic.
• S C-PZD 03 -ZOO
Page 14 of 16
(c) To encourage orderly and systematic commercial, office or mixed use development
design or a combination thereof, providing for the rational placement of activities, vehicular and
pedestrian circulation, access and egress, loading, landscaping and buffering strips.
(d) To encourage commercial development which is consistent with the city's General Plan.
(e) To accommodate larger scale suburban developments of mixed -uses in a harmonious
relationship.
FINDING: Staff has found the development of this property to be more appropriate for a
PZD than a standard rezoning due to the proximity of adjacent residential property. The
proposal is minimizing the impact on adjacent residential property. The commercial
development is consistent with the General Plan.
(2) Permitted Uses.
Unit
I
City-wide uses by right
Unit
2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit
3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit
4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit
5
Government facilities
Unit
8
Single-family dwellings
Unit
9
Two-family dwellings
Unit
10
Three-family dwellings
Unit
12
Offices, studios and related services
Unit
13
Eating places
Unit
14
Hotel, motel and amusement facilities
Unit
15
Neighborhood shopping
Unit
16
Shopping goods
Unit
17
Trades and services
Unit
18
Gasoline service stations and drive-in restaurants
Unit
19
Commercial recreation, small sites
Unit
20
Commercial recreation, large sites
Unit
21
Warehousing and wholesale
Unit
24
Home occupations
Unit
25
Professional offices
Unit
26
Multi -family dwellings
Unit
29
Dance halls
FINDING: The proposed development is allowed in Use Unit 16.
(3) Conditions.
(a)
In no instance shall the
commercial or office use area be less than fifty-one percent
(51%)
of the
gross leasable floor area
within the development.
(b) Residential uses must be appropriate to the design of the project.
• • C-PZD 03-2.00
Page 1 S of 16
(c) Warehousing and light industrial uses shall have a gross area per use that does not exceed
five thousand (5,000) square feet and at least twenty percent (20%) of the floor area used for
retail sales.
FINDING: The proposal is 100% commercial.
*Required Findings for Rezoning Request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as
part of this report.
LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION:
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
Regional Commercial / Mixed Use
A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use
planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
Finding: The proposed rezoning is consistent with land use planning objectives,
principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. This area is
designated regional commercial and mixed use on the General Plan.
Surrounding property uses are varied and include commercial, office, bank
and residential.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: The proposed zoning is justified in that the CPZD has enabled staff, the
applicant and neighbors to review a comprehensive project and to look at
ways to mitigate the impact of a commercial development in this location
(tree preservation areas, screening, traffic management).
3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: The proposed zoning and associated development will increase traffic in this
area. The traffic study provided by the applicant and reviewed by staff
indicates that the provisions made by the developer as a partof this project
will provide an effective means of managing the traffic generated by the
project.
4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density
and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and
sewer facilities.
• • C-PZD 03-2.00
Page 16 of 16
Finding: The proposed zoning will not alter population density.
5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of
considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed
zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as:
a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted
under its existing zoning classifications;
b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning
even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why
the proposed zoning is not desirable.
Finding: N/A
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 28
C-PZD 03-2.00: Planned Zoning District (Lowe's, 557/596) was submitted by Lance
Mills of Ozark Civil Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. for
property located at the southwest corner of Finger Road and Highway 62. The property
is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, R -O, Residential Office, and R-2, Medium
Density Residential containing approximately 21.53 acres. The, request is for a
Commercial Planned Zoning District for a Lowe's Home Center containing 13.9 acres
(133,532 sq.ft. building) and a retail lot containing 6.05 acres (53,876 sq ft building) with
lot splits to create a 1.3 acre parcel and a 4.59 acres parcel of tree preservation.
Hoover: Item nine on the agenda is PZD 03-2.00 for Lowe's. Sara, will you tell us
about this?
Edwards: Yes. What we have is a Commercial Planned Zoning District for a
Lowe's Home Center containing 13.9 acres with a retail outlet containing
7.9 acres. There is also a lot split being proposed, which is lot 2B to be
developed later: There are 4.59 acres of tree preservation proposed. A
private drive with a traffic signal on the west side of the property is
proposed. A cross connection to the east to access Finger Road is also
proposed. They are providing parking, which meets our code.
Surrounding zoning to the north is A-1, to the south is R-1, to the east is
C-2 and the west is R -O. Water and sewer are available. Additional right
of way is being dedicated according to the Master Street Plan. Existing
canopy on this site is 69%, proposed preservation is 15%, the requirement
in a C-2 zone is 15%. On site detention is proposed. It is for a regional
detention pond to the south of the Lowe's store, which will serve this
development as well as future development. There is wetland mitigation
off site that has been approved by the Corp. of Engineers. We are
recommending that this be forwarded to the City Council with a
recommendation of approval for the rezoning and that the Planning
Commission approve the proposed development subject to the conditions
of approval in the staff report. I just highlighted a couple of them, there
are quite a few. They are requesting a waiver for parking spaces wider
than 9', they are requesting 10' wide spaces to accommodate contractor
traffic. They are requesting a waiver to allow for wider truck aisles. The
allowance in the UDO is 24', they are requesting up to 55' in width. They
are requesting a waiver from the landscape island in the front of the
building in order to place utility equipment. ADA spaces have been
redistributed along the retail store as shown on the development plan.
Number eight I would like to amend. We have reexamined the proposal at
the developer's request and found the landscape island as proposed to
meet the ordinance requirements with regard to the amount of landscape
islands.
Hoover: Sara, what does number eight need to read?
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 29
Edwards: It just needs to be deleted. It was requiring landscape islands near the
ADA spaces. Also, sidewalk fees in the amount of $12,394.62 and that is
for fees in lieu of sidewalk construction along the tree preservation area.
We will require the tree preservation easement to be filed prior to any
permits. A traffic signal is to be installed at the developer's expense prior
to any occupancy permit. Street lights shall be installed along the south
side of 6`h Street every 300'. Number 15 has been amended with the new
report you see and that is that all utilities shall be placed underground with
the exception of an existing 14.4KV line that exists on lot 2A. Because it
is over the 12KV that one is not required to be placed underground. I will
skip ahead to number 20, which is Planning Commission determination of
compliance with Commercial Design Standards. There are two signs that
do not comply with the sign ordinance. The first is the Lowe's wall sign
extends above the roof higher than allowed by ordinance and they are
requesting a waiver from that. Secondly is the Lowe's free standing pole
sign is greater than 75 sq.ft. The ordinance does limit the maximum
square footage to 75 sq.ft. They are also requesting a waiver on that.
Planning Commission determination of Commercial Design Standards
with regard to the signs on the building. I would also like to go over some
findings with regard to a Planned Zoning District because it does include a
rezoning. The General Plan designates the area as regional commercial
and mixed use. This proposal is in conformity with that designation. The
applicant has met with property owners adjacent to the site to insure
compatibility. Loading areas have been located away from residential
areas and tree preservation buffers have been proposed. A traffic study
has been submitted, which adequately addresses the adequacy of street
systems with the additional traffic from this development. There is an
access drive from Finger Road to provide connectivity as well as a new
private drive with a traffic light as well as a third entry into the site. We
do find that the proposal is for a single use commercial development. The
rezoning of this property to the Planned Zoning District may be deemed
appropriate due to the measures taken to insure compatibility with
adjacent properties. We have found that the proposal will not have a
negative impact on the development of adjacent property. We have also
listed standards which meet the guiding policies of the General Plan 2020
which specifies that retail business and service base be provided to enable
Fayetteville to realize it's full potential as a regional market, that we
encourage improvements and expansion of regional shopping and
entertainment attractions, that we ensure our transportation network is
meeting acceptable levels as well as commercial site be landscaped in a
manner that preserves the aesthetic character of their surroundings as well
as some other findings. This will require a Planned Zoning. District
ordinance be approved by City Council. We have found that this is an
appropriate rezoning for the property due to the compatibility and the
consistency with the General Plan. We are also recommending approval
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 30
of the rezoning based on those same principles, consistency with our
policies and compatibility with adjacent properties.
Hoover: Are you sure that's it?
Edwards: Yes.
Hoover: Ok. Can I ask the applicant to come forward?
Shackelford: Just for clarification so we know what we are talking about, this may be a
record, three pages of conditions for approval. It looks like mine are
numbered one through twenty-three and then there is a twenty and twenty-
one. Just for a clarification I think there were 25 conditions of approval,
we deleted number 8 so there are now 24 conditions, is that correct?
Hoover: Yes. Can I get you to do a presentation and also would you include a
presentation from your traffic engineer?
Millis: Yes Ma'am. My name is Mark Millis. I am the site development director
for Lowe's Home Centers. I have several other folks with me tonight that
I would like to introduce. Matt Cobb and Benny Westphal are the sellers
of the property, along with their engineer Matt Crafton. Jack Butt is our
outside council who has helped us through the development process and
the agreement that I will speak to later. David Cummings is with Dorado
Development Company who Lowe's has the option with. Lance Mills
with Ozark Civil Engineering, he is Lowe's engineer. David Riddle is the
environmental and wetland consultant from Adams Engineering. Greg
Simmons with Ernie Peters & Associates, the traffic consultant. Forest
Culpepper with MBM Architects who is Lowe's architect and Mark
Nebble who is Dorado's architect. I also want to thank staff who have
helped us through this process and had additional meetings with us. Being
a first PZD I must say they made it a very smooth process. In addition, the
Subdivision Committee gave us a lot of guidance and direction getting to
this point so we do appreciate their help in that. I know Sara covered
quite a bit of the details of this project but due to the complexity I did want
to give a brief presentation and try to guide everyone through where we
have been and where we are now. Following with Lance Mills who will
discuss some of the waiver requests and then Greg Simmons with the
traffic information. The entire development encompasses 89 acres, which
is the entire property that Cobb and Westphal currently own. From that,
Dorado Development put under option approximately 21 acres and
Lowe's ended up with about 13.9 of that. From the beginning we knew
that Dr. Leffler who lives in the southeast comer of the project had some
interest in the land and previously his family had owned the land. We met
with him and subsequently included the buffer area, as you see, shaded
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 31
around his property on three sides and the triangle across Finger Road as a
buffer to protect him from the development. We shifted the site west,
flipped the Lowe's building to put the loading docks on the opposite side
from him. From the neighborhood concerns, we looked at traffic, which
you will hear of later. Of course, the tree preservation for the entire 89
acres was done to include the Lowe's project and the remaining acreage
when it is developed in the future. The wetlands delineation as you see in
the dark black colors is what has been delineated by the Corp. and
included the entire 89 acres as well, which the sellers felt pertinent to do
on the front end. Since our meetings with Dr. Leffler and the
neighborhood we have entered into a four party agreement between
Lowe's, Dr. Leffler, Dorado, and Cobb and Westphal. That agreement
encompasses the sale of the buffer tract back to Dr. Leffler upon
completion of this project and Lowe's closing on the deal and/or a long
term lease depending on how all of that unfolds. Lighting restrictions,
which reduced our pole heights to not more than 30' and that no poles
would be located within 100' of his property. Screening restrictions with
fencing around the buffer area, rooftop screening on the eastern portion of
the Lowe's building to screen the rooftop equipment from his property.
What we are here tonight to show you is the PZD for the Lowe's and
Dorado development, which does include a mass grading and drainage
plan which includes the detention pond here which will serve the Dorado
Development, the Lowe's Development, Phase I of the Cobb residential
and the future commercial, which is that 6 acres located just west of the
Lowe's development. Again, as I stated, the wetlands was incorporated
into the entire 89 acres. Upon the development of the Cobb commercial
tract Sherman Way will be dedicated as public right of way and it has been
designed to meet the city street requirements today. In addition, there will
be private agreements between Lowe's, Dorado, and Cobb and Westphal.
There is a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions which talks
about cross access and as an attachment to that there will be a pond
maintenance agreement and easements that carry throughout the entire
development. A site development agreement which determines who will
build what and how people will be reimbursed and the building elevations,
we have gone with an earth tone coloring to this building. The standard is
a Lowe's light gray and dark gray. We felt this was a little bit more
upscale. We have added screening to the dumpster from Sherman Way as
well as added a tennis type screen mesh to the garden center to further
obstruct view from Sherman Way. With that, if there are no questions for
me I will turn it over to Lance to discuss the variance requests.
Hoover: Thank you.
Mills: I am Lance
Mills with
Ozark
Civil Engineering. I
don't
want to
take up a
lot of time
but I just
want
to briefly go over
some
of their
variance
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 32
requests or waivers that we are asking for as Sara mentioned. Over in this
area here there are 24 parking spaces, that is the contractor area. We like
to designate these for our contractors because a lot of them typically drive
the bigger dually trucks and we would like to allow for that little bit of
extra room. The next one is in regards to the truck accessibility around the
building. These aisles here, the largest one is 55' and that is for when we
turn our trucks through here, we use a lot of 18 wheelers through here and
we like to have that full accessibility without running into the curbs or
running into cars and the truck drivers like it a lot better. The other item
was the landscaped island in front of the building, which is going to be
right here. This island we are requesting not be landscaped. We have
several utilities located in here, a fire hydrant, a light pole, and several
utilities which doesn't allow us to actually put landscaping in this area so
we are asking for a waiver on that. The other is on item 20, which is in
regards to the waiver on the signage, as you can see if you draw a line
straight across there the Lowe's lettering extends above. Then on the
pylon sign for the Lowe's we would like for you to consider, and I
apologize for not having a better exhibit, but I think as part of your
package you have this. As you can see, the actual rectangular part of the
sign cabinet itself, if you figure the square footage on that it comes to
71.25 sq.ft. and that is the intent. We fully intended on meeting the
ordinance but when you calculate the roof architectural feature at the top
that is what throws us over the edge. We do have the option just to put the
rectangle there and forget the architectural feature but this is a nice
development and we want it to match the front of our building. That is
what we are asking there. It is not so much a variance of the square
footage of the actual sign cabinet but maybe another interpretation of the
ordinance on how you calculate that square footage. The other item I
would like to briefly address that was brought up in our meeting with the
neighbors, was a concern, we have some residents here that had a concern
about drainage. In listening to them, it was probably a very legitimate
concern about some existing problems that they are having here. As you
can see, this is the creek, this low area here and this is where it drains
across the road. For the record, I would like to say that the development
that we are doing, this detention basin is releasing not into that, it is
releasing to this right here. For the record, our discharge pipe right here is
releasing into this existing ditch which is restricted by this culvert. These
individuals here, we are not going to be adding to that already bad
situation. We won't be solving it. We meet the city ordinance on
drainage, we are not exceeding the pre development flows. The detention
pond will serve the Lowe's, this six acres will go here, the remaining of
the Lowe's will go here, the Dorado development will go here, this
acreage here that this pond is designed for and this future commercial. I
think, unless you have any specific questions I will let Greg Simmons
come up and talk about traffic.
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 33
Hoover: Yes, if we could get all of the presentations first, thank you.
Simmons: Good evening Madam Chairman and other Commissioners. My name is
Greg Simmons, I am with Peters & Associates Engineers out of Little
Rock. We are the traffic consultants for this project. I would like to give
you a brief overview of our traffic study. I am going to start with the
methodology on how we arrived at our recommendations. We count to
begin with, the existing traffic on the street on Hwy. 62 and on Finger
Road during peak hours of the day, a.m. and p.m. and then we take those
traffic volumes and using the same trip generation software that staff has,
we generate projected trips for the new land use, being the Lowe's
development and the retail. Those trip generation values that are
generated in the software are then adjusted to account for what we call
internal capture on the site. In other words, some of the people that go to
some of the smaller retail areas will also go to the Lowe's site so they are
not all single purpose trips coming to the site. They may visit more than
one development on the site. Secondly, we also make some assumption
based on historical data that some of the traffic that is coming to this site is
already in the existing traffic stream. In other words, they are not all new
• trips coming to the site and that reduction is usually around 18% for that.
Once we arrive at those numbers we assign driveway volumes at each of
• the individual access points and those driveway volumes are calculated for
the p.m. peak hour, in other words, the afternoon heavy peak hour of the
traffic, which would be the heaviest for the development as well as the
adjacent street traffic. Once we have those values established for the
access points then we run capacity calculations for each of the
intersections and arrive at what is known as a level of service. I am sure
that some of you have heard this terminology before, which is a measure
of the operation of the intersection. Once we do that then we look to see
what mitigated measures might be appropriate to arrive at the acceptable
levels of service. Again, this is for the p.m. peak hour of a normal
weekday, which is the typical analysis hour of the traffic study. In going
through this process, we have recommended that a traffic signal be
installed at the western most drive of the development, which I believe is
referred to as Sherman Way on some of these figures and Hwy. 62. This
traffic signal would be paid for by the developer. It would also be
coordinated with the existing traffic signal at Finger Road and Hwy. 62,
which in turn would be coordinated with the traffic signals at 1-540. Staff
has reviews this and is supportive of the installation of the traffic signal at
this point. This study has been submitted to the Arkansas Highway and
Transportation Department to the district office and it is my understanding
that this morning it arrived at the headquarters office in Little Rock for
review there. I will be happy to answer any questions as we go through
the presentation or now.
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 34
Hoover: Thank you. We will come back to you I'm sure. Is that all of the
presentation? Thank you. At this time I would like to ask any members of
the public that would like to address this PZD to please come forward.
Yes Sir, would you sign in on the sign in sheet also?
Leffler: I am Rob Leffler and I live at 1495 Finger Road, which is surrounded on
the north and west sides by this proposed development. My grandfather,
Charles J. Finger built that house more than 80 years ago and wrote about
40 books in that house and my mother grew up there and my brother and I
grew up there for much of our childhood. As you could imagine, we had
some serious concerns when this large project was proposed and many of
the neighbors also had serious concerns. I will say that unlike some major
developers in the past, these people, Lowe's and Dorado and Cobb and
.Westphal, have really come forward to try to address those neighborhood
concerns in my view. As has been mentioned, there is going to be a buffer
protecting the property and the traffic study was redone in response to
neighborhood concerns. Runoff concerns I think were addressed. The
truck turn around location was a problem at first and was addressed. My
mother's old art studio and my grandfather's grave site will be able to be
preserved because of this. To sum it up, we have been very pleased with
the efforts that the developers have made on this and I think that the
meeting with the neighbors was quite helpful as well. I am not speaking
to any of the issues about the size of the signs, that is not something that
we have made a part of the agreement, but with regard to the overall
project it is ok with my wife Sara, me and my daughter as well. Thank
you very much.
Hoover: Thank you. Are there any other members of the audience?
Wilkes: My name is Steve Wilkes I live at 4188 W. 6`s Street, about a mile west of
the current development and I would like to echo Rob Leffler's comments.
I think that the developers and the engineers have all done a great job. I
don't have a particular problem with this particular development.
Although my wife does. She doesn't believe that we need anymore box
stores in Fayetteville. I would like to address the issue of development in
that corridor and to just put it on your radar screen that those of us who
live on 6'" Street, and have lived on 6th Street for many years, are very
concerned about the level of development and more importantly the kind
of development that we continue to build as we move toward Farmington
and how we develop and what we develop. We are very concerned that as
we build these large scale businesses like Lowe's, I think Lowe's is a great
business and I look forward to shopping there, as we build Lowe's pretty
soon the Ace Hardware and the Tractor Supply Store, at were where the
commercial was, with the box stores and the fast food joints. It already is
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 35
there above the intersection, I certainly don't want to see it develop that
way. That is a major concern. I am also concerned about the drainage. I
believe that the drainage for this project doesn't affect me and I think it
has been addressed very well. As we move down this corridor, Farmington
Branch is the little creek that runs along and joins with Clear Creek and I
believe ultimately the Illinois River, as this is developed, every time we
pave one of those cow pastures that water runs a little faster and it runs
right in front of my front door. To date it has cost me about $5,000 in
remediation from the housing that was put in upstream from me. I really
want to be on record in saying that it is extremely important that we pay
attention to this, not just for my property although that is most important
to me, but for the other folks who live downstream. I can't speak for the
folks in Farmington particularly, but there are a lot of folks that live on
that creek and as we develop that we need to make sure that the proper
drainage is done and that we don't just shoot all the water into Farmington
Branch as fast as we can. That really causes a lot of problems. I just had
to have my section of the creek in front of my house re -channeled and it
cost me over $1,000. I have lost retaining walls, I have lost a bridge. It
has been very expensive to me. To date, nobody in the city will say "we
are responsible for this problem." Although I have engineers that say
"absolutely, that is what caused it." I want to make sure that going
forward it doesn't happen again and that five or six or seven years from
now I am not rebuilding those walls again because the velocity and the
volume of water has once again increased. The last concern that I have is
about traffic. I just want to address the fact that there are lots of folks that
live there. There is a subdivision that is there now, there will be new
subdivisions. Every time we add a street and we add a new group of
houses, we have the children. I know that you can't do anything about the
speed limit along there but it is 55 miles per hour. What that really means
is that the people coming to work who are late, who live in Lincoln,
Prairie Grove and Farmington, are really driving about 65 and 70. It is a
death trap to pull out onto that little stretch of road right now. I am very
concerned. I have seen in the past few days people actually running the
stop signs that the school busses put out. The Fayetteville school busses
have stopped on 6`s Street and people shot right through it. This is a big
concern of mine. I am just concerned that as we build large scale
developments, big shopping, hopefully some good restaurants, as long as
we are building these things we really need to pay attention to the quality
of life for those of us who live there now. Those are my concerns.
Hoover: Thank you Mr. Wilkes. Are there any other members of the audience?
Brooks: Good
evening, I am
David Brooks, I live up on
Finger Road at
3142. I
have
lived out there
since I was 9 years old and
we were on up
the road
from
Mr. Leffler. I
am really concerned about
the traffic also.
I have
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 36
children that are presently in school and I have seen the road go from a
dirt road, with Hwy. 62 going from a two lane to a four lane road and Wal-
Mart moved out there to the old 62 drive in that I used to work out. I am
very upset with the potential for the traffic hazards and the traffic
congestion at that site at the end of Finger Road. Right now Wal-Mart,
who I work for, has got that Murphy's Oil down there and now we have
got a bank down there. People coming in on Finger Road off of Hwy. 62
decide that they want to turn into the entrance to Murphy Oil to your left,
they will hold up traffic every time. People are trying to get across that
intersection. With the influx of cars coming from Lowe's, peak times of
the day it is just terrible. The gentleman did this traffic study but I am
tempted to just film it on a regular peak hour during the morning and it is
just unbearable. You will be backed up almost to the skating rink down
there on Dinsmore Trail. That really concerns me with the traffic coming
in. I know that Wal-Mart has a lot of sales and Lowe's will have a lot of
sales and that traffic that is generated on the weekend when people are off
and trying to get things done it is just going to be unbearable. The life off
of Hwy. 62 is a little bit different than what is on there. I live almost a
mile up the road and it is a very nice place. We have deer in our backyard
and the whole nine yards. The large scale that is going to go down there I
am sure will have an effect on the environment. I am not really satisfied
with the way that they are doing the drainage because I can see the
projections later on with residential areas coming in behind there on the
other property. That is going to be a concern for the environment also.
Even though I am not a very good speaker I just wanted to come up here
and voice my opinions because I have spoken to some of the neighbors,
we are not going to go into the store. I am not going to shop there. I don't
want it out there, I didn't want it out there to start with. I didn't want Wal-
Mart out there and I fought that but I lost that battle too. I just wanted to
voice my opinion and I appreciate you all for listening to me.
Hoover: Thank you Mr. Brooks, is there any other member of the audience?
Moorman: My name is Barbara Moorman, I live on Finger Road. I think the
concerns that have been voiced by the last two speakers are my concerns.
They were very well expressed and I certainly concur. The only thing I
don't concur with is anything nice that was said about this development. I
am glad to hear that the staff made this a smooth process for the
developer. I wish that you all could make it a smooth process for the
neighbors. I think first of all that there is a problem with overall planning
on the part of the City of Fayetteville. What will Hwy. 62 look like when
the whole growth area is developed? It seems to me that that should be
uppermost in your mind before you start looking at particulars. This
development, if it was needed at all, which I certainly don't think it is, the
place for it was at the intersection of I-540 and 6th Street and when the
Planning Commission •
April 28, 2003
Page 37
issue was raised about the Lindsey development, the apartments that are
going in right now, there was an excellent talk that was given by a former
member of the Planning Commission to the effect that that was a place for
a commercial center. Out where I am at the comer of Finger Road, which
as was just pointed out, just a few years ago was a dirt road. It has been
used traditionally for walking. People walk their dogs, people ride bikes,
children play. It is not appropriate to destroy that area which is getting to
be quite unique. Getting back to where the commercial centers ought to
be, I know your 2020 Plan says one thing. However, within my very short
memory roughly 10 years ago the Planning Commission and the city was
saying we weren't going to have any strip development west of the
intersection of 540, west of the bypass. Then the Wal-Mart went in. You
turn in and immediately the Wal-Mart went in and now we are talking
about putting in this enormous 90 acre development. It is incremental.
You can see your plan changes. The reason your plans change is you have
no rational for your plans. You don't have a picture of what this area is
going to look like and even if you do think you have that picture you have
no rational to support why you think it is a good thing. For example, are
you going for infill or are you going for complete development of the
growth area? Getting back to more specific issues, traffic, this is just part
of the big picture. Traffic is simply unbelievable on 6'h Street. I know
that you, when I say you please don't take it personally, when I say you I
mean the City of Fayetteville, this is a generic plural you. Something is
going to have to be done our there and I am sure that there are people, I'm
not saying it is a conspiracy but it is a thought in people's minds, there are
going to have to be other arteries cut through out there. Think about it,
you are putting development down Finger Road past the Leffler's house.
You are going to come up with the notion of widening Finger Road then
you are going to come up with the notion, again, this is not you but the
City will come up with the notion of cutting Finger Road through some
other goofy way through to 265. It is a natural, it is going to happen. You
ought to see all of that right now. I don't think that this should be an
incremental thing. Five years down the road we are going to change our
plans. You have a finite amount of space, it is encompassed by the
boundary of the growth area. You can't go on with this foolishness, this
madness forever. You are going to bump into somebody else's
boundaries. I think you need to think in terms of a finite area and what are
you going to do with the traffic on 6a' Street? Are you going to cut a north
and south road or several north/south roads? Just a few years ago the
Planning Department wanted to make Finger Road a collector street.
Finger Road is a dead end that ends up at the top of a mountain and I think
that when that idea was put forth that there was some other idea in mind
about what to do with Finger Road. Nobody could've wanted to run it up
to the top of that mountain. This sounds like it is far fetched I know to
you but if you knew the area you would know that what I am saying
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 38
makes perfect, logical sense. This is an issue that is going to come up
within the next few years. Getting back to the overall planning, I just
don't see that you have any long range plans that stick because of the very
lack of rational. One thing that the UDO says, and it is part of the 2020
Plan, is that you need to protect significant environmental features. The
tree preservation plan looks very nice for this property but you may be
losing sight of the fact that ten years ago, and I know that is outside the
statute of limitations, that land was filled in my opinion it was quite
illegally done, fill was taken from somewhere else and it killed all the
trees that are on that property, the very property that we are talking about
now when you are talking about tree preservation. Secondly, it was
mentioned that part of your policy says that developments have to be in
harmony with the aesthetic qualities of the surroundings. Well that is just
outrageous because there is going to be nothing in harmony with the part
to the south. There is no harmony whatsoever between this huge
development and the mountains and the trees and the creek that are back
there. How do you reconcile that? The only way you can reconcile that is
through a pre -conceived bias that you walk into this with. It is all
basically about money. That is what this room is full of, people who are
here for money. I am talking about the environment and the quality of life.
I really think I want to get back to my initial point, which is that you need
an overall rational. You need some underlying philosophy that backs up
what you are permitting. It should not be just money. The 90 acres that I
live on is in a conservation easement. I have seven pages here of just the
native species on this property and I am not an expert and this is
absolutely not complete, I don't pretend that it is complete, but when you
talk about being in harmony with the surroundings I don't think you are
looking at it from all the possible angles but only from one and that is
speculation, money and fear of potential lawsuits. Thank you.
Hoover: Thank you. Do we have any other members of the audience? Seeing
none, I will bring it back to the Commission. Can I first start with can we
get a report from the Subdivision Committee on this project?
Bunch: The Subdivision Committee met twice on this. One of the things that was
requested at the first meeting particularly after public comment, was an
expanded version of the traffic report. At the second Subdivision
Committee there was an expanded very comprehensive traffic report
presented. Some of the questions were the concerns about Sherman Way
being a private road or a public road and it will be built to public standards
and at such time as was presented tonight, dedicated as a city street.
Commercial design standards were reviewed and changes were made.
ADA parking was redistributed to better access the retail stores on the
Dorado portion. Public comment was taken at both meetings. Property
lines were discussed and clarified as well as a concept plat was requested
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 39
between the first and second Subdivision Committee meeting so we could
see how this project interrelated with the rest of the major block.
Particularly since there were improvements that were shown that were on
land but did not belong to this development. Some of the Cobb Westphal
land I believe had the detention pond and also some wetlands. Also, one
of the things that were brought up is some of the wetlands are lands that
were created by materials that were dumped on this site from other
construction projects. Again, the traffic was a major concern particularly
with public comment. We did discuss signs and we forwarded basically
everything to the full Planning Commission with the changes that were
made by the design group.
Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Bunch. Going back to a few notes through
public comment, Dawn would you just give us a little summary of our
2020 plan? From what we can find on the map this area has been zoned
regional commercial since 1995, or planned to be regional commercial, is
this true?
Warrick: That is true for a portion of the property. A portion of the subject property
has also been designated as mixed use on the General Plan.
Hoover: Thank you. Commissioners?
Estes: I would like to respond to Ms. Moorman's comments, and I see that she
left the room and I am sorry that she did because I would like for her to
hear this. It wasn't raining when Noah built the arc. Planning is a good
thing and this city has made an effort to achieve a certain level of urban
planning that is consistent with growth. We have our 2020 Plan, which is
our future land use plan. On that plan 6's Street is designated as a
principal arterial. It is zoned regional commercial and then mixed use
until the Farmington city limits. This plan was developed after extensive
public hearings and offering of extensive comment, both by the general
public and by professionals and it is the plan that we are mandated to
follow. We don't make these decisions and we don't do these sort of
things without any direction or without any guidance. We follow the 2020
plan. In response to where are we going. and how are we going to get
there, 6`° Street is a principal arterial, it is regional commercial and then it
becomes mixed use to the Farmington city limits. Ms. Moorman asked
what you expect 6's Street to look like, I expect it to be regional
commercial and mixed use to the Farmington city limits. With that said, I
have several comments and several questions. I guess I would like to start
with Matt, if you could help us out with Mr. Wilkes' concerns regarding
the drainage, our requirement that post development flows not exceed pre -
development flows, could you elaborate on that? Can you explain to Mr.
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 41
Millis: It should be the same
Estes: Staff, did we give a waiver on the sign on the store across from the
Northwest Arkansas Mall?
Edwards: We did not. We have had a shift in interpretation of our sign ordinance
over the past couple of months, which I think you all will remember we
went through on Shake's. There has not, other than the Shake's, been a
waiver granted for this reason.
Estes: Is this proposed sign the same size of the sign on the store across from the
Northwest Arkansas Mall?
Edwards: It appears to be to us. We didn't take exact measurements or pull a permit
but it looks.very similar.
Estes: I presume these are cookie cutter prototype or sign address, does the
applicant know are you using the same size here as you did on the store
across from the mall?
Millis: As far as I recall it is the same sign and same size.
Estes: Let me ask you about the
pole
sign.
Your neighbor to
the east did
a real
nice job with a monument
sign,
have
you thought about
a monument
sign?
Millis: Actually we have, and we are willing to do that to match the building
facade.
Estes: Sara, with a monument sign what is the permissible square footage?
Edwards: It is 75 sq.ft. also.
Warrick: It is permitted to be a whole lot closer to the street right of way. That is
one of the allowances if the applicant chooses to erect a monument sign,
the setback from the right of way is 10' as opposed to 30' for a pole sign
of the same size, sorry, 40'.
Estes: Have you thought about a monument sign and you could move it out
towards the street?
Millis: We would be agreeable to a monument sign.
Estes: That is all I have.
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 42
Shackelford: One comment and then a follow up question. First of all, I would like to
concur with Commissioner Estes' statements regarding the overall
development of this property. I too agree that this is in line with the 2020
plan. Although, I do understand the traffic concerns and share some of
those, in particular, the speed limit on 6th Street in this area. I do feel that
this is an appropriate location for this. It is on a five lane U.S. Highway
within a half mile exchange of the interstate. I think it is properly zoned
on the 2020 plan and I think we are following that plan. With that being
said, one question to the applicant. I am obviously not an engineer but I
want to make sure I understand this. Commissioner Estes had some very
good questions regarding storm water runoff and the detention ponds. Is it
my understanding that the plan and the detention ponds that are in place
on this project address the overall project in addition to the development
that will happen at a later date on this location?
Mills: Yes, a portion of it. Phase I is what we are calling the future conceptual
plan for this acreage here and this future commercial. It will be sized to
accommodate the acreage there and there. It is in the report specifically
what areas.
Hoover: Thank you Commissioner. I would like to ask the Commissioners if
anyone has any issues with any of the waivers in the first list of conditions
of approval, number four and five, which is a waiver to allow the parking
spaces wider than 9' and the aisles wider than 24', is there anyone who
has any concerns about that that we need to discuss? Ok, did we discuss
commercial design guidelines, does anyone have any comments about
those or concerns about the commercial design guidelines in reference to
this project?
Allen: I wanted to ask Commissioner Bunch, you said that there were some
changes made as the result of comments made at Subdivision and I
wondered what kind of changes were made to commercial design.
Bunch: Specifically I think there were some changes made to the Dorado
development and one of the things that was more concern was that the
Lowe's sign itself was part of an architectural element that helped break
up a large, box like building. Even though it extended above the parapet it
is in helping satisfy one part of our ordinance, it appears to be in conflict
with another part. I do not recall if the changes of the screening on the
landscape area, if that was an exact result of through the Subdivision
Committee meeting because there were meetings with the neighbors that
were going on simultaneously with this. With the two Subdivision
Committee meetings and meetings with staff and the neighbors, there were
a considerable number of changes that occurred in the total project, not all
of them necessarily design standards.
Planning Commission
April 28, 2003
Page 43
Allen: I wondered if we could be more specific again about the south elevation
and the east elevation.
Hoover: Can the applicant come address that please?
Millis: We are speaking of the Lowe's elevation?
Hoover: Yes.
Culpepper: What did you want to know of the south elevation?
Allen: Landscaping.
Culpepper: I don't know if I can answer that.
Millis: The south elevation located here does have landscaping screen for when
the future residential does occur. Along the east line of Lowe's there will
be an 8' fence along the property line here and then everything to the east
of that is tree preservation buffer area that will ultimately be Dr. Leffler's
property.
Allen: Then I had another question that was I wondered what hours will typically
be delivery times for the Lowe's stores?
Millis: Delivery times are 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Allen: Thank you.
Estes: I have a question regarding the traffic study and to try to be responsive to
Mr. Brooks' concerns. Your traffic study shows warrants for signalization
and what you denominated as drive b, when that proposed traffic signal is
in place and is synchronized with the existing traffic signal on Finger
Road, will that help the traffic flow and will that help the traffic
congestion that Mr. Brooks described and if so, how?
Simmons: Let me back up just a little bit. Somebody suggested that we go out and
film this. Well I have been out and watched this and there is•some cue
that backs up there from the existing Finger Road traffic signal. Presently
that traffic signal, although the traffic system can remotely communicate
with it, it is not actually coordinated with I-540 at this time. When this
new traffic signal at drive b is in fact, inner placed and inner connected to
the system it is my understanding from talking with the City traffic
personnel that the new signal at drive b, the Finger Road signal, will then
both be coordinated with I-540. It should help minimize the cues that
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 44
build up. I am not going to sit here and tell you that we are going to solve
a huge capacity problem that exists right now. I will say that Lowe's
contributes very, very little to the a.m. rush hour traffic that is coming in
from that direction. Is that responsive?
Estes: I think so. I just wanted to be sure I understand the traffic now that is
running east on Hwy. 62 when the new signal device is in place, that
traffic will cue up to the west of that device and then when that device
releases it will go to Finger Road and then it will go to I-540. It should
cue it in three separate cues.
Simmons: It should spread the cue out that is there now. It is not going to totally
alleviate it but it will provide a progressive flow that presently doesn't
exist from drive b to I-540.
Estes: Thank you.
Bunch: I have a question for the traffic. I know this isn't probably a part of the
study but maybe in your expert opinion you can shed a little light on it.
What impact will this Lowe's have at the current Lowe's location? What
level of relief do we think we will see as far as the traffic in the mall area
and Zion Road and will this alleviate that any or will it just be it's own
business?
Simmons: Candidly, I don't know.
Millis: From a customer based standpoint when we add a new store within the
same trade area we usually look at 15% to 20% of that traffic coming to
the new store.
Bunch: One of the benefits of this, from the standpoint of long range planning, is
that this project should help alleviate some of the traffic in the Joyce,
Zion, North College area?
Millis: It should, at least from the customers that go to Lowe's specifically, and
that is how we track that.
Hoover: I would like to pose a couple more questions to the Commissioners. Is
there any discussion about the waiver from the requirement of a landscape
island in front of the building? Does anyone have an issue with that? The
last waivers were on the signage. Is there any issue with the sign
extending more than 18" above the roof level? Commissioner Estes?
Estes: I have no issue with that and would vote in favor of that specific requested
waiver.
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 45
Hoover: I have been going through the findings here that we need to determine for
a PZD and I believe we have discussed just about every issue in the list.
Maybe with the exception of the covenants. When will those be placed?
Warrick: The covenants will be required to be filed with the Final Plat for this
project.
Shackelford: Commissioner Estes brought up a point. Visiting with the applicant about
the waiver of a pole sign verses a monument sign. Obviously as it reads
now if someone were to make a motion as it reads now we would be asked
to grant a waiver on the pole sign. Is that something that the applicant
wants us to do or should we try to work in the ability for a monument
sign? I guess since Commissioner Estes started this conversation, how
would you like to see that specific finding addressed?
Estes: My proposal would be that the first waiver request regarding the extending
more than 18" be granted, that the second paragraph read that two
monument signs be allowed not to exceed 75 sq.ft. in order to comply with
the sign ordinance. It is my understanding that the applicant is in
agreement with that.
Millis: Actually, Commissioner Estes, the one sign is a shopping center sign
which has a different square footage requirement than the specific Lowe's
sign so the wording would probably need to be different or separated.
Estes: I was giving you two monument signs of 75 sq.ft.
Millis: The ordinance allows for the sign that will be for the Dorado development
to be 300 sq.ft.
Warrick: That is an area identification sign and it does have a larger provision.
Estes: Your next sentence is an area identification sign is proposed on lot 2b,
which meets ordinance requirements. So you are ok with that but did you
want two monument signs or just one monument sign?
Millis: Just one. If we just go with one do we get the additional square footage?
Estes: That is correct.
Hoover: Is there anymore discussion?
Warrick: I have a question. The last statement was If we just go with one do we get
the additional square footage, so are we talking about recommending to.
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 46
the Board of Sign Appeals a monument sign larger than 75 sq.ft. for the
Lowe's store?
Estes: That was not my understanding. My understanding was the one
monument sign not to exceed 75 sq.ft. but then the area identification sign
will be the larger sign. Is that correct, is that what you are thinking?
Millis: That wasn't my thinking but I will agree with it.
Bunch: A question for Commissioner Estes, on our recommendation to the Board
of Sign Appeals addressing the 75 sq.ft., is that to include just the naming
portion of the sign or does it include the architectural peak at the top of the
sign? I believe that the monument sign and pole sign both have been
designed with the Lowe's theme peak on top of it that may make it exceed
the 75 sq.ft.
Estes: Commissioner Bunch, as I think Dawn or Sara explained to us, in the last
couple of months there has been a re thinking of how we calculate the
square footage and we are now including the architectural features, where
in the past we did not. Again, my thinking is if the applicant will give up
that pole sign and substitute a monument sign they can have their
architectural feature in addition to their 75 sq.ft.
Shackelford: I would concur with that, I think that is a great idea.
Estes: Let me explain the reason for that. That is not a negotiation or a bargain
that we struck here this evening. What that is is that we heard from the
Chair of our Subdivision Committee that this architectural feature actually
enhances the general overall appearance of the project and meets the
commercial design standards. Rather than break it up I would defer with
the Chair of our Subdivision Committee and go with the architectural
feature on the monument sign. Incidentally, that is my reason for granting
the 18" above the roofline is to allow you to have the architectural feature,
which as Commissioner Bunch said Subdivision reports that it adds to the
architectural feature of the building and meets the commercial design
standards but yet conflicts with the sign ordinance.
Anthes: I believe that we just heard Mark state that he would accept the sign with
the 75 sq.ft. including the architectural element, are we then going to go
back and give him that in addition?
Estes: That is what I have tried to explain. To have continuity in the
architectural feature of the project I would say that if they want the
architectural feature on the monument sign it is appropriate because it
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 47
carries over to the 18" above the roofline waiver that we are giving on the
building sign.
Anthes: Did you plan to put the architectural element on as included in the 75
sq.ft.?
Millis: I would agree with Commissioner Estes' last statement.
Hoover: Do we have a motion?
MOTION:
Estes: I move for approval of PZD 03-2.00 granting the requested waiver to
allow parking spaces wider than 9', that is a request for several 10' wide
spaces to accommodate contractor parking. Granting the requested waiver
to allow for aisles wider than 24' in width with the proposal being for
aisles up to 55' to accommodate truck traffic. Granting the waiver of
landscape islands to be added near the ADA spaces.
Shackelford: Number 8 was stricken from the conditions of approval.
Estes: I thought it was now a requested waiver from that condition, is staff just
striking it?
Edwards: Yes.
Estes: Ok, then deleting previous condition number 8 that landscape islands shall
be added near the ADA spaces. Making the finding of compliance with
commercial design standards, including signage. Granting the waiver of
the sign extending more than 18" above the roofline and allowing the sign
to extend 46.25 inches above the roofline. Recommending to the Board of
Sign Appeals that this variance be accepted providing that there is to be
one monument sign not to exceed 75 sq.ft. in area, not including the
architectural feature with an identification sign proposed on lot 2b, which
meets the ordinance requirements. With a finding of fact that each of the
requirements of the PZD have been met.
Hoover: We have a motion from Commissioner Estes. Sara, do you have a
comment?
Edwards: I just wanted to point one thing out to make sure that everyone understood.
A monument sign is defined by being no greater than 6' in height. I
wanted to make sure that the applicant knew that they were agreeing to a
sign no greater than 6' in height.
Planning Commission • •
April 28, 2003
Page 48
Hoover: So noted, applicant?
Estes: Your monument sign can't be anymore than 6' this way and you get the
square footage going this way.
Shackelford: Does that include the architectural design on the top of the sign?
Estes: Sara, is it permissible for the architectural feature to go above 6' as long as
it doesn't exceed what?
Warrick: It would require a variance from the Board of Sign Appeal. We are going
there anyway. Is there a maximum height that the Commission feels to be
appropriate?
Estes: Let's leave it with the 75 sq.ft. and not to exceed 6' in height because the
applicant is going to have to go to the Board of Sign Appeals anyway and
they can adjust this and do whatever they want to there.
Hoover: Is that correct staff?
Warrick: That's fine.
Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Estes, do we have a second?
Shackelford: I will second and I appreciate him making that motion.
Hoover: Thank you. We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there
anymore discussion on this item?
Allen: I just would like to know if architectural features are often synonymous
with advertising. The only architectural features that I see on the building,
or things that we are calling architectural features are signage.
Estes: I think that architectural features are more often than not considered part
of the trade dress.
Hoover: Ok, is there anymore discussion?
Anthes: On page 9.2a and on our original page 9.2 we have gone back and forth
about the tree conservation area, whether it is on site or off site. This
evening we heard that they plan to sell the property or lease the property to
Mr. Leffler, does that change the text of this page in anyway?
Edwards: What
we are looking at
is the boundaries
of the Planned
Zoning District,
which
includes the tree
preservation area
and the off site
detention. The
Planning Commission •
April 28, 2003
Page 49
tree preservation area
although will not be
development.
will still be within the boundary of the PZD
owned physically by Lowe's or the Dorado
Anthes: Ok, so the 9.2a as it is currently written stands?
Edwards: Yes.
Hoover: Is there any other discussion? We have already closed it to public
comment, I am sorry. I do appreciate the public coming and the
neighbors' comments. If there is no more discussion then Renee, would
you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve C-PZD 03-2.00 was
approved by a vote of 7-0-0.
Hoover: Thank you. Do we have any other business?
Warrick: I have a couple of announcements. Just so everyone knows this is Sara's
last Planning Commission. We bid her a fond farewell and will miss her.
I will be introducing our new Associate Planner at the next Planning
Commission meeting but we will miss Sara, she is headed to Springfield
for her new job. Also, with our next agenda session and Planning
Commission I have arranged for OMI, the management company who
runs the Paul Noland Waste Water Treatment Plan to provide us with a
presentation at the Planning Commission meeting on May 12th. They have
agreed to allow us to tour the facility and to assist in that tour during our
agenda session on May 8th so that is going to be a part of our activities
with the next meeting. I just wanted to give you a heads up that that is
coming.
Hoover: Sara,
we are
going
to miss you and I hope that you go off to bigger and
better
places
and do
great things.
S
0
l„e w t `S oma..YY11 ��C.�(�.
a�Q N U✓l O2
rS
l Q
Mt _ a O FI]LMEV
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
UENGINEERS, INC.
• CIVIL R flA"IC ENGINEERING
P.O. Box 21638 15011 225-0500
LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72221
Memorandum
To: Tim Conklin, Director of Planning
City of Fayetteville
From: Ernest J. Peters, P.E.
Subject: Highway Capacity Calculation
Project: P873; Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse; Highway 62 and Finger Road
Date: May 29, 2003
As you requested, further analysis was conducted to determine the capacity of Highway 62 in the
vicinity of the referenced project. All calculations are expressed in Level -of -Service (LOS) for the
PM peak hour which was determined to be the "worst -case" projected traffic condition on Highway
62 adjacent to the project site.
It was determined that the traffic volume on Highway 62 during the PM peak hour is approximately
11 percent of the twenty-four hour traffic volume of 22,000 vehicles per day as reported by the
Arkansas State Highway and Transportation. Department. The Highway Capacity Software (Version
2000) was used to determine what traffic volume could be present on Highway 62 and maintain and
acceptable LOS "D" (design LOS) for the conditions of a five -lane highway with when the peak
hour traffic is 11 percent of the 24 -hour traffic volume. This calculation indicates that LOS "D" can
be maintained for the PM peak hour on Highway 62 if the 24 -hour traffic volume does not exceed
36,500 vehicles per day.
The City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan defines the "Design Service Volume" for a Principal
Arterial Street to be 17,600 vehicles per day to 20,600 vehicles per day. •This value is less than the
capacity. Using the same analytical tool referenced above results in LOS "C" at this "Design
Service Volume" value.
As you are aware, analysis conducted as a part of our traffic study dated April 8, 2003, was for
existing and projected full development site generated traffic volumes for the PM peak hour. Those
results indicated no adverse traffic operations with improvements therein recommended, including
signal control at the intersection of Highway 62 and Leflar Way.
FAYETTEWSJE •
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Dawn Warrick
Planning Division
From: Clarice Buffalohead-Pearman
City Clerk's Division
Date: June 11, 2003
Re: Ordinance 4490
Attached hereto is a copy of the above ordinance passed by the City Council, June 3, 2003,
establishing a Commercial Planned Zoning District, C-PZD 03-02.00, amending the official zoning
map of the city; and adopting the Associated Development Project.
The original ordinance will be microfilmed, filed in the city clerk's office and published in a
newspaper of general circulation per Arkansas statutes.
If anything else is needed please let the city clerk's office know.
/cbp
Attachment(s)
cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Auditor
John Goddard, IT
Scott Caldwell, IT
Clyde Randall, IT
Ed Connell, Engineering
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, , do solemnly swear that I am
Le al Clerk of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/Northwest Arkansas
Times newspaper, printed and published in Lowell, Arkansas, and that
from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said
publication, that advertisement of:
was inserted in the regular editions on
PO#
** Publication Charge: $ o'OY. 3 5
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
day o&p i , 2003.
Public
My Commission Expires: 5 -/IC?
** Please do not pay from Affidavit.
An invoice will be sent.
OFFICIAL SEAL
SHERI DENISE SUTTON
NOTARY PUBLIC . ARKANSAS
WASHINGTON COUNTY
COMMISSION EXP. 05/o1[07
212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700
C
th
ORDINANCE NO. 4490
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A COMMERCIAL PLANNED
ZONING DISTRICT TITLED C-PZD 03'02.80LOCATEDAT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FINGER ROAD AND HWY. 62; -
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTFzVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING City of. Fayetteville
COMMISSION AND AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the zone classification of the following deso'ibed property is hereby changed as follows:
From R-1, C-2, Thorofghfaie Commemal, R -O, Residential Office, and R-2, Medvn Density Residential
to C-PZD 03.02.00 as shown in ExNW W attached heroto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That the change in zonng classification is based upon the approved master development plan
and development standards as shown on the Planned Zoning District plans for Lowe9 Home Center and
approved by the Flooring Commission on Aprd 28, 2033. as amended by the City Caun1 to remove the
regtuement for a monument sign and reinstate Condition of Approval #3 as recommended by the City
Plenrvrg DMSlon , and to tlwge Condition of Approval #13 nonliving installation of a traffic signal at the
polst of the developer prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy end replacing that with a requiring
the developer to deposit the cost of the traffic signal with the City N pursuant
nsporttiU. D.O. §15801 until such
aortal a authorized to be installed by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department
Section 3. That this ordinance shall rot take effect and be in hi force tnt 0 corgttions of approval far
the developma t am met.
Section 4. That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. is hereby amerided to reflect'
the zmug change provided n SBcron 1 above.
PASSED and APPROVED Ws the 3rd day of Jtuo,
APPROVED:
By:
DAN GOODY, Mayor
ATTEST:
By
Sondra Smith, City Clerk
EXHIBIT"A'
PART OF THE NORTHWEST AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTERS OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 1E
NORTH. RANGE 30 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH
88°0858• WEST 42.94 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER TO ITS
INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF FINGER ROAD SAID POINT ALSO BEING
THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 88°OB'58' WEST 387.38 FEET ALONG
SAID SOUTH UNE; THENCE SOUTH 2°01'20• WEST 238.81 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 88°08'33• EAST,
294,91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 23°09'38• WEST 107.33 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°08'33• WEST
456.01 FEET: THENCE NORTH 1'51.27 -EAST 1 00 OU FFFT THFNCP cry nH ar°m•m• utter en •e
THENCE NORTH 80.5724• WEST, 409.39 FEET THENCE NORTH 42°46'02• WEST, 76.30 FEET,
THENCE NORTH 88°57'24• WEST. 50.47 FEET, THENCE NORTH 38.4254• WEST, 62.44 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 1.02'36' EAST. 39.45 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 90.00'00• WEST, 28.97 FEET,
THENCE NORTH 1.02.35 EAST, 656,56 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF US
HIGHWAY 62; THENCE NORTH 74.35'55EAST 1160.14 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY;
THENCE SOUTH 1-31-48- WEST, 179.34 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°26'54' EAST, 290.31 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF FINGER ROAD: THENCE SOUTH 1.49.59• WEST, 558.04
FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 26.934 ACRES OF
LAND, MORE OR LESS,
AND ALSO:
PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19. TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH. RANGE 30 WEST
ttOF THE P.M., CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON -COUNTY, ARKANSAS. DESCRIBED AS
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE ROUTH
1 °04'04• WEST, 23.26 FEET ALONG THE EAST UNE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNNG: THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 104.04' WEST 386.66 FEET ALONG SAID EAST
LINE TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 490 AT PAGE 18,
WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK'S OFFICE: THENCE NORTH 80°14'56• WEST, 165.65 FEET
ALONG THE NORTH UNE OF SAID TRACT, THENCE NORTH 24.21'49' EAST, 418.83 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 0.735 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS.
TOTAL ACREAGE: 27.669 ACRES, MORE OR LESS,
SITE COVERAGE CHART
5QAURE FEET (5.FJ
PERGENT ('X,)
f301LOINO AREA
14
GREEN 5PAGE
215,341
IC,
EXI5TINO CANOPY TO REMAIN
20054`i
IS
PARKINS LOT AREA
544P8'
46
TOTAL LAND AREA
1,301,443
1OO
EX15TINS CANOPY COVERAGE
2>4b,b15
61
EXI5TINO CANOPY REMOVED
blb,524
53
CENTERS, INC. ANY USE OR REPRODUCTION IN
WHOLE OR PART IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT TOUT THE
EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF I OW F S HUM[
CENTERS, INC. COPYRIGHT 2001 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
a
eer ........ ®�..,.. .., m o n p
155.Cib� Commrncmn at the•. No,lhe.at corner of nd Sonthwcvf Qvulnr; ihencc South 7 0461 1Vt v1.2326 feet along the Nast line nfsaul
Southvsi (luarler W the pmnt ofbeayinnmg, thence con ,inung South l 0 (YI'04" W ert, J86 66 fret along said I aat ltie to the
T' NnthcastcomerofaInctollanddescnihedinBooL.490atPage18,WmhmpionCounty('arc,,n('k,LsOficc,thenceNodh88 ORIGINAL
14'5(i" West 165.65 feet along the North line of said tract, th,.ce Nanh 24 `21'49" Cash 41 RB.. feet to t ,e point of rogmmng, 1530E DATE: 22,
<:onn,ins 0 735 acres of land, more or 1rss.
PERMIT SET
Total Acreage, 27.669 acn.s ofland, more or less, 1330E DATE:
CONSTRUCTION SET
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWING NUMBER:
AREA OF EXISTING TREE CANOPY
(No significant trees ore impacted)
_ y 1,_( Y Y Lr a— , ._ _ _ p .. ._� 02-0240-L ",.x' ALE2
G05 1N .`J I F"1a�f L tl PLAT PACE 5S1 AND 596
5E
SITE COVERAGE CHART
5QAURE FEET (5.FJ
PERGENT ('X,)
f301LOINO AREA
14
GREEN 5PAGE
215,341
IC,
EXI5TINO CANOPY TO REMAIN
20054`i
IS
PARKINS LOT AREA
544P8'
46
TOTAL LAND AREA
1,301,443
1OO
EX15TINS CANOPY COVERAGE
2>4b,b15
61
EXI5TINO CANOPY REMOVED
blb,524
53
CENTERS, INC. ANY USE OR REPRODUCTION IN
WHOLE OR PART IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT TOUT THE
EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF I OW F S HUM[
CENTERS, INC. COPYRIGHT 2001 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
a
eer ........ ®�..,.. .., m o n p
155.Cib� Commrncmn at the•. No,lhe.at corner of nd Sonthwcvf Qvulnr; ihencc South 7 0461 1Vt v1.2326 feet along the Nast line nfsaul
Southvsi (luarler W the pmnt ofbeayinnmg, thence con ,inung South l 0 (YI'04" W ert, J86 66 fret along said I aat ltie to the
T' NnthcastcomerofaInctollanddescnihedinBooL.490atPage18,WmhmpionCounty('arc,,n('k,LsOficc,thenceNodh88 ORIGINAL
14'5(i" West 165.65 feet along the North line of said tract, th,.ce Nanh 24 `21'49" Cash 41 RB.. feet to t ,e point of rogmmng, 1530E DATE: 22,
<:onn,ins 0 735 acres of land, more or 1rss.
PERMIT SET
Total Acreage, 27.669 acn.s ofland, more or less, 1330E DATE:
CONSTRUCTION SET
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWING NUMBER:
AREA OF EXISTING TREE CANOPY
(No significant trees ore impacted)
_ y 1,_( Y Y Lr a— , ._ _ _ p .. ._� 02-0240-L ",.x' ALE2
G05 1N .`J I F"1a�f L tl PLAT PACE 5S1 AND 596
5E
SITE COVERAGE CHART
5QAURE FEET (5.FJ
PERGENT ('X,)
f301LOINO AREA
14
GREEN 5PAGE
215,341
IC,
EXI5TINO CANOPY TO REMAIN
20054`i
IS
PARKINS LOT AREA
544P8'
46
TOTAL LAND AREA
1,301,443
1OO
EX15TINS CANOPY COVERAGE
2>4b,b15
61
EXI5TINO CANOPY REMOVED
blb,524
53
CENTERS, INC. ANY USE OR REPRODUCTION IN
WHOLE OR PART IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT TOUT THE
EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF I OW F S HUM[
CENTERS, INC. COPYRIGHT 2001 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
a
eer ........ ®�..,.. .., m o n p
155.Cib� Commrncmn at the•. No,lhe.at corner of nd Sonthwcvf Qvulnr; ihencc South 7 0461 1Vt v1.2326 feet along the Nast line nfsaul
Southvsi (luarler W the pmnt ofbeayinnmg, thence con ,inung South l 0 (YI'04" W ert, J86 66 fret along said I aat ltie to the
T' NnthcastcomerofaInctollanddescnihedinBooL.490atPage18,WmhmpionCounty('arc,,n('k,LsOficc,thenceNodh88 ORIGINAL
14'5(i" West 165.65 feet along the North line of said tract, th,.ce Nanh 24 `21'49" Cash 41 RB.. feet to t ,e point of rogmmng, 1530E DATE: 22,
<:onn,ins 0 735 acres of land, more or 1rss.
PERMIT SET
Total Acreage, 27.669 acn.s ofland, more or less, 1330E DATE:
CONSTRUCTION SET
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWING NUMBER:
AREA OF EXISTING TREE CANOPY
(No significant trees ore impacted)
_ y 1,_( Y Y Lr a— , ._ _ _ p .. ._� 02-0240-L ",.x' ALE2
G05 1N .`J I F"1a�f L tl PLAT PACE 5S1 AND 596
5E
In
\
/12
n + rI' ,/o` > f ,,::E:;.
f"
/
`_ — —+
ARMY CORPS OF ENOINEER5 PERMIT #1"1666-2
24 CONTRACTOR
SPACES
SITE COVERAGE CHART
.-.
SQAURE FEET (5.F)
PERCENT (%)
BUILDING AREA
167406
14
GREEN SPACE
215,341
16
EXISTING CANOPY TO REMAIN
200,541
15
PARKIN& LOT AREA
54g,086
46
TOTAL LAND AREA
1,304,483
100
EXI5TINO CANOPY COVERAGE
&4&,6I5 15
e,q
EXISTING CANOPY REMOVED
646,524
53�
N
U
f
1_IC41T POLE
' 2,
PP
POWER POLE
{>
HATER VALVE
Iw�
WM
MATER METER
X
' uMH
STORM DRAIN MANHOLE-
'
Er
1.13
CATCH BASIN
<`)
SSWLI
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
H.'
1X1
!iV
GA5 VALVE
ITLI
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
OH
i3ORIN6
f..
MVERT ELEVATION
FIRE HYDRANT
O
IDS
IRON PIN SET ( 5/H" REBAR )
0
Ipp
IRON PIN FOUND
OF.—
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE
I
, '"
UE —
t1NDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE
SS4—
SANITARY SEWER LINE
—
A —
WATERLINE
+";-
OAS LINE
On_.—
OVERHEAD TELEPHONE LINE
UNDERGROtMD TELEPHONE (_INE
,
�
GUARD PO5T
{
@
) sMR6".
UNDEREvR UND OAS MARKER
)
bar
(.6.
CLEAN Off
rX:P
REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
1
4 NP
CORR05ATE'D METAL PIPE
a
(
is
LI
I'
a
m'
1
F I,
�
z',
I
fH
I
i
I
Fri
1,
e47'
It
O.
r.
�Q„... a 4„ Agendfl item C. 3. /"f4* °C,.T-cf',cmr ,_,
Lowe's Home Center .~"
JL...
o�
HOME CENTERS, INC.
P.O. BOX 1111 N WILKLSDORO. NC 28656
vl Y@Ei/lslgl
PRE -DID SET POST BIDSET
if i Q� N ISSUE DATE ISSUE DATE
Gn
DESCRIPTION
ITEM(5)
REQUIRED
PROVIDED
BIKE RACK(S)
(1) 12 BIKE RACK
(2) 12 BIKE RACK
t:7
s
cr.ni�+V'A:v
Y.
2.. 41
;YY
__________________ ..
_____________ _________________ia ..
Y
:. r+ It it k, , R ,< •Vt
,� l i
+F bti
Sa, N4LF'Vv , �4
• .+
A t 1
\�1�1� �v. �1pf i
PARKiNG SUMMARY
SOFT.
SPADES
RATIO PER 1000 SF
LOVE'S
133532
5gb
4.46
RETAIL
53616
304
5.64
TOTAL
161406
402
4.61
� 11/11111/ IYIYI 1111111 q,
lu
9 „J w
U
ISSUE DATE: 2-25-03
PERMIT SET
ISSUE DATE:
CONSTRUCTION SET
ISSUE DATE:
DRAWING NUMBER:
PLAT PAGE 55-1 AND 5% 1
0
02-0240-Ln., € 5CALE2