No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 45494549 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED (R-PZD 04-05.00) LOCATED NORTH OF 2730 E. TOWNSHIP STREET, CONTAINING 4.429 ACRES MORE OR LESS; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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 of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: From P-1 Institutional, to R-PZD 04-05.00 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 plat and approved by the Planning Commission on February 9, 2004. Section 3: That this ordinance shall take affect and be in full force at such time as all of the requirements of the development plan have been 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. By: PASSED and APPROVED this the 161h day of March, 2004. `t✓v S NDRA SMITH, City Clerk APPROVED: By: DAN COOD , Mayor IIIIIII IIIIII NI IIIII IIIII IIIII Nlil IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIII Doc ID: 007175730002 Tvoe: REL Recorded: 04/19/2004 at 02:38:51 PM Fee Amt: $11.00 Pace 1 of 2 Mashlnaton Countv. AR Bette Stamps Circuit Clerk F11e2004-00014670 'rU'l Lv- 0 • EXHIBIT "A" R-PZD 04-05,00 A PART OF THE SW /4 OF THE SW '/4 OF SECTION 31, T-17-N, R-29-W DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS NO1°25'41"E 504.20 FEET FROM THE SW CORNER OF SAID SECTION 31, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING A SET IRON PIN; THENCE ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF CEDARWOOD ADDITION, NO1025'41"E 281.03 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF GLENWOOD ADDITION, N74007753"E 514.84 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY NO. 265, S02028'3699W 531.81 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN; THENCE LEAVING SAID HIGHWAY, N88051'16"W 130.63 FEET; THENCE N50°21'20"W 160.64 FEET; THENCE N88°51' 14"W 224.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 4.4291 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY,ARKANSAS. • 0. Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 04/19/2004 02:38:51 PM and recorded in Real Estate File Nu ber 2004-00014670 ctotf?k st mos - Circuit Clerk I 41 NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4549 w/Ex. A CROSS REFERENCE: Item # Date Document 1 02/12/04 memo to mayor & city council 2 draft ordinance 3 draft ordinance 4 02/04/04 memo to Planning Commission 5 copy of Planning Commission minutes 6 01/27/04 copy of memo to Suzanne Morgan 7 01/27/04 copy of memo to Milholland Company 8 01/27/04 copy of memo to Suzanne Morgan 9 02/03/04 letter to Dawn Warrick 10 02/03/04 copy of memo to Planning Division 11 01/02/04 copy of letter to Dawn Warrick & Matt Casey 12 copy of Protective Covenants & Restrictions 13 copy of map 14 copy of Close Up View 15 copy of Future Land Use 16 copy of One Mile View 17 02/12/04 Milholland letter of transmittal 18 three maps 19 copy of Planning Commission minutes 20 03/17/04 Staff Review Form 21 six pages of pictures 22 4 maps of hickory park 23 4 maps of preliminary plat 24 copy of letter to city council 25 03/10/04 copy of letter to Dawn Warrick 26 03/22/04 copy of memo to Dawn Warrick 27 03/24/04 Affidavit of Publication NOTES: 04/19/04 • 0 a3� /off City Council Meeting of March 02, 2004 04159 q Agenda Item Number CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO � fzb 4 �510611,0� To: Mayor and City Council a 5&0 Thru: Tim Conklin, Community Planning and Engineering Services Director/10�. too From: Dawn T. Warrick, AICP, Zoning and Development Administrato,{ �S Date: February 12, 2004 f " Subject: Residential Planned Zoning District for Hickory Park (R-PZD 04-05.00) RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff recommends approval of an ordinance creating the Residential Planned Zoning District (R-PZD) for Hickory Park. This action will establish a unique zoning district for development of a 4.429 acre tract located west of Crossover Rd and north of 2730 E. Township Street (St. John's Lutheran Church). The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District with a total of 14 single family lots. BACKGROUND The applicant requests a rezoning and preliminary plat approval for a residential development within an R-PZD zoning district. The proposed use is single-family residential (use unit 8), with 14 units on approximately 4.429 acres. Density for the entire site is 3.16 units per acre. The site is located north of Township St. and east of Crossover Rd. Currently the property is zoned P-1, Institutional and identified as residential on the General Plan 2020. This site is currently vacant. Surrounding areas are zoned RSF-4, R-A, and P-1 and contain single family homes with St. John's Lutheran Church located to the south. The proposed subdivision will access Crossover Rd and generate approximately 134 vehicle trips per day. Internal streets are a combination of public and private drives with the primary street being a 350 foot long cul-de-sac. Shared drives and build -to lines will be utilized within this development. A POA will be established to maintain private drives and entry features. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission voted 9-0-0 in favor of this request on Monday, February 09, 2004. The Planning Commission modifed conditions to eliminate the build -to lines on lots 4, 7 and 8. Planning Commission recommends that the City research a cost share of sidewalk construction along the esat propery line of the lot south of this development. BUDGET IMPACT None. • • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED (R-PZD 04-05.00) LOCATED NORTH OF 2730 E. TOWNSHIP STREET, CONTAINING 4.429 ACRES MORE OR LESS; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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 of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: From P-1 Institutional, to R-PZD 04-05.00 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 plat and approved by the Planning Commission on February 9, 2004. Section 3. That this ordinance shall take affect and be in full force at such time as all of the requirements of the development plan have been 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. By: PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 2004, SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk APPROVED: �I By: Im D ODY, Mayor EXHIBIT "A" R-PZD 04-05.00 A PART OF THE SW '/4 OF THE SW '/4 OF SECTION 31, T-17-N, R-29-W DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS NO1025'419'E 504.20 FEET FROM THE SW CORNER OF SAID SECTION 31, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING A SET IRON PIN; THENCE ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF CEDARWOOD ADDITION, NO1025141"E 281.03 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF GLENWOOD ADDITION, N74007'535'E 514.84 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY NO. 2657 S02028136"W 531.81 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN; THENCE LEAVING SAID HIGHWAY, N88051'16"W 130.63 FEET; THENCE N50021'20"W 160.64 FEET; THENCE N88°51' 14"W 224.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 4.4291 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY,ARKANSAS. • R-'PZD 04705.00 Page I FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE PC Meeting of February 09, 2004 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 501-575-8264 1 U: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Suzanne Morgan, Associate Planner Matt Casey, Staff Engineer THRU: Dawn Warrick, A.I.C.P., Zoning & Development Administrator DATE: February 4, 2004 R-PZD 04-05.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Hickory Park, pp 294) was submitted by Millholland Company on behalf of St. John's Lutheran Church of Fayetteville for property located at 2730 E. Township Street. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional, and contains approximately 4.429 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District and to approve the development of 14 residential lots. Planner: Suzanne Morgan Findings: The applicant requests a rezoning and preliminary plat approval for a residential development within an R-PZD zoning district. This item must be heard at City Council pursuant to the requirements for a PZD. The proposed use is single-family residential, with 14 units on approximately 4.429 acres. Density for the entire site is 3.16 units per acre. The site is located north of Township St. and east of Crossover Rd. Currently the property is zoned P-1, Institutional and identified as residential on the General Plan 2020. This site is currently vacant. The proposed subdivision will have one access to Crossover Rd. Forty feet of right-of-way will be dedicated from the entrance of the subdivision to the landscaped island roundabout. The two extending drives are proposed as private drives to be the responsibility of the developer or a neighborhood property owners association. The subdivision is proposed to have a 6' solid privacy and retaining wall surrounding the east property along Crossover, a 13' wide landscaped island at the entry way of the subdivision, and a landscaped island with a mail kiosk at the terminus of the right-of-way. Surrounding Land Use / Zoning: Direction Land Use Zoning North Single family res. — Glenwood Addition 2.47 units/acre RSF-4, Residential Single-family — 4 units per acre South St. John's Lutheran Church P-1, Institutional East Single family residential R-A, Residential Agricultural West Single family res. — Cedarwood Addition (3.17 units/acre) I RSF-4, Residential Single-family — 4 units per acre K: IReports120041PC Repons102-0o-041R-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory ParklR-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Parkdoc • • R-PZD 04-05.00 Page 2 Right-of-way being dedicated.• 40' for interior right-of-way, and 55' from centerline of Crossover Rd. Trip Generation Calculations: 14 single family detached dwellings will produce 134 two-way trips per day. Crossover Rd is a principal arterial and can sustain a volume of 20,600 trips per day. Current traffic counts on Crossover and Township are 16,000 trips per day according to the AHTD 2002 traffic count. Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Crossover Rd. (principal arterial) Tree Preservation: A report from the Landscape Administrator is included in the staff report. Existing canopy: 100 % Required canopy: 25 % Preserved canopy: 26.82 % Public Comment: Staff has received several calls regarding neighborhood concerns with drainage, traffic, tree preservation, and safety issues in regard to the round -about. Background: The applicant submitted this proposal on January 15, 2004. It was presented to the Subdivision Committee on January 29, 2004 and forwarded it to the Planning Commission. Discussion included shared drives, maintenance of the underground detention pond, tree preservation, and the landscape island at the entrance of the subdivision. Recommendation: Forward to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the requested rezoning. Planning Commission approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezoning of the subject property to the unique district for R-PZD 04-05.00 with all conditions of approval as determined by the Planning Commission. 2. An ordinance creating this R-PZD shall be approved by City Council. 3. A Final Plat is required to legalize the lot configuration, filed pursuant to City of Fayetteville requirements. 4. Property line adjustment shall be filed prior to final plat approval. Revised covenants to include maintenance requirements as found in section 166.06 of the UDC and revisions to the lots with shared drives to reflect the approved plat shall be filed with the final plat. 6. Use shall be restricted to use unit 8 only. K: IRepons110041PC Reports102-09-041R-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Park1R-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Parkdoc • R-PZD 04-05.00 Page 3 Standard Conditions of Approval: 7. 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) 8. 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. 9. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $7,770 for 14 single-family lots shall be required prior to Final Plat. 10. Street lights shall be installed along all street rights -of -way spaced a maximum distance of 300' apart. 11. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a six foot sidewalk and nine foot green space along Crossover Rd. and a four foot sidewalk with four feet of greenspace along all proposed streets. 12. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. 13. Preliminary Plat shall be valid for one calendar year. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: yes Required _,Approved Denied Date: February 09, 2004 �04„ ,J WI �Cc,,, A -A.a� lf.. Ci ,cj1� A cos s .•c. l7,we z, l4 .+dk cen un 46nt *{ "rc -ere .1 Comments: 1 ua...(+-Vu. G1,.�ecF <FP+..�kta- (�1rn ctwt�e �,.,e^�i) .an 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. By rO0.d5 -� SYIc�✓eci Title drives 1 ►'-\ 0,r Date 0(�SZIYI e ✓1 i �o r' � � 2 TuV4G 09.3 ^' K. IReporls1Z0011PC Re�ponr107-09-041R-PPZD`044-05.00 Hickory ParkLR-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Parkdoc R-PZD 04-05.00 Page 4 Findings associated with R-PZD 03-07.00 Sec. 166.06. Planned Zoning Districts (PZD). (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 subject property is adjacent to property zoned RSF-4 to the north and west. To the north is Glenwood Addition, approved in 1988 with a density of 2.47 units per acre. Cedarwood Addition, platted in 1981, is west of the site with a density of 3.17 units per acre. St. John's Lutheran Church is located to the south and zoned P-1, Institutional. Land to the east of the site is zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural, with single-family dwellings. The subject property currently zoned P-1 Institutional and has consists of 4.429 acres with 14 single-family lots proposed for an overall density of 3.16 units per acre. (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 site has 100% canopy coverage with 26.82% preserved canopy proposed. The applicant has proposed erecting a 6 foot stone wall along Crossover Road to be used as a screen between the road and the housing. Man-made screening along Crossover Rd is consistent with the other residential subdivisions along Crossover Road. K..tRepons12004WC Reports102-00-041R-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory ParklR-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Parkdoc F R-PZD 04-05.00 Page 5 (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. (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: Connectivity from this proposed residential subdivision is being provided east to Crossover Road. Forty feet of right-of-way dedication is proposed within the subdivision from Crossover Rd. to the roundabout, at which point two private drives extend to the east and west to provide access to the lots. Shared drives will be utilized between lots 1 and 2, 6 and 7, 11 and 12, and 13 and 14 to decrease the number of curb cuts. Pedestrian access is provided with a four foot sidewalk and four foot greenspace along all private and public streets within the subdivision. A six . . foot sidewalk with nine feet of greenspace is proposed along Crossover Rd. for the length of the property. The developer also proposes a landscape island at the entrance of the subdivision and a landscaped roundabout with a mail kiosk at the terminus of the right-of- way within the subdivision. Access is provided from Crossover Rd. with a 14' drive isle into the subdivision and a 20' exit drive isle which will provide sufficient width for right and left turning lanes and access for fire vehicles in accordance with the International Fire Code.requirements. KAReporU1200 1PC Reports102-09-041R-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory ParklR-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Parkdoc R-PZD 04-05.00 Page 6 (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: Each lot shall be for single family use and provide the required two off-street parking spaces per unit. (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: The land use meets all the requirements for open space, buffer or green strip provisions of the chapter in the code. (6) Sidewalks. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Sidewalk construction shall be in accordance with current standards to include a six foot sidewalk located at the edge of the right-of-way along Crossover Rd. with a nine foot green space and a four foot sidewalk with a four foot greenspace along all proposed streets within the development. (7) Street Lights. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Street lights shall be provided along Crossover Rd. and within the development with spacing not to exceed 300 feet. (8) Water. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Water shall be extended to serve the subject property. (9) Sewer. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Sewer shall be extended to serve the subject property. (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: K: 1Reports12004WC Reports102-09-041R-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory ParkIR-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Porkdoc R-PZD 04-05.00 Page 7 (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 standard shall be used: KJReports1200APC Repons101-09-041R-PZ0 04-05.00 Hickory ParkIR-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Parkdoc R-PZD 04-05.00 Page g Paving Width o On -Street Parking Dwelling One -Way Two -Way Units 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: The applicant is proposing two private street extensions along Mockernut Crossing which extend both east and west from the terminus the along Shagbark Bend right-of-way. The western extension is approximately 80' in length and the eastern extension is approximately 105' in length. Both are 40' in width with 24' of pavement. The maximum number of units which could use each would be five. All public rights -of -way shall be dedicated to the City of Fayetteville and constructed to City standards. The applicant has submitted covenants that allocate the responsibility of maintaining the private drives to the POA. The covenants shall be modified to include the information in section 166.06 D (10) (b) regarding private streets within a residential PZD. To reduce the number of curb cuts, the covenants required private drives for lots 11 and 12, 13 and 14, and 7 and S. These shared drives differ from what is shown on the plat and the covenants shall be modified to reflect the approved plat. (11) Construction of nonresidential facilities. 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 K.. IReports110041PC Reports101-09-041R-PZD 04-05,00 Hickory ParkIR-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Parkdoo R-PZD 04-05, 00 Page 9 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 site has 100% canopy with 26.82% preservation proposed. Mitigation is not required. Please see the attached report from the Landscape Administrator. (13) Commercial design standards. All PZD developments that contain office or commercial structures shall comply with the commercial design standards as set forth in § 166.14 Site Development Standards and Construction and Appearance Design Standards for Commercial Structures. FINDING: N/A (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: No view shed has been identified in this area. (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. K: Weports120041PC RepoHs102-09-041R-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory ParkW-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Parkdoc R-PZD 04-05.00 Page 10 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 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 K. IRepa sUOPJPC Repons102-09-041R-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory ParkIR-PZD 04-05.00 HickoryParkdoc I I R-PZD 04-05.00 Page Il 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: The applicant has submitted Protective Covenants and Restrictions for Hickory Park. (See attached) 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 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; K:IReports110041PC Reports101-09-041R-PZ0 04-05.00 Hickory ParMR-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Parkdoc I R-PZD 04-05.00 Page 12 (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 proposed R-PZD of 14 lots is located on land identified for residential use on the General Plan 2020. The density and use is similar to adjacent subdivisions and will not negatively impact surrounding properties. The proposal is unique in that there are build -to lines and specific building types and materials called for in the covenants. Shared drives will be utilized and garages will be rear/side entry. The proposal meets the following Residential Guiding Policies in the General Plan 2020: 9.8.a Utilize principles of traditional residential urban design to create compatible, livable, and accessible neighborhoods. 9.8.f Site new residential areas accessible to roadways, alternative transportation modes, community amenities, infrastructure, and retail and commercial goods and services. (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. 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 R-PZD ordinance. This ordinance will be forwarded to the City Council for approval. (C) R - PZD, Residential Planned Zoning District. K. Teporls120041PC ReponsW2-09-041R-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Park1R-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Parkdac R-PZD 04-05.00 Page 13 (1) Purpose and intent. The R-PZD is intended to accommodate mixed -use or clustered residential developments and to accommodate single -use residential developments that are determined to be more appropriate for a PZD application than a general residential rezone. The legislative purposes, intent, and application of this district include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) To encourage a variety and flexibility in land development and land use for predominately residential areas, consistent with the city's General Plan and the orderly development of the city. (b) To provide a framework within which an effective relationship of different land uses and activities within a single development, or when considered with abutting parcels of land, can be planned on a total basis. (c) To provide a harmonious relationship with the surrounding development, minimizing such influences as land use incompatibilities, heavy traffic and congestion, and excessive demands on planned and existing public facilities. (d) To provide a means of developing areas with special physical features to enhance natural beauty and other attributes. (e) To encourage the efficient use of those public facilities required in connection with new residential development. FINDING: The proposed residential planned zoning district allows single-family use which is compatible with surrounding property. The property is currently zoned Institutional (P- 1) and would allow for City-wide uses by right and cultural and recreational facilities. The density proposed will not significantly increase the amount of traffic to cause congestion in the area served by a principal arterial (Crossover Rd/Hwy 265) and a collector (Township) to the south. (2) Permitted uses. Unit 1 City wide uses by righ Unit 2 City sovide uses by eenditional use mit Unit 3 Publie greteetien and tility 4eilit-ie� Unit 4 Cultural and reeFeational f4eilities Unit 5 GeveHffnent €aeilities Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 9 Two family dwellings Unit 10 Thfee family dwellings. upi4 t a a related KAReports12004W Reports102-09-041R-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory ParkIR-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Porkdoc 0 R-PZD 04-05,00 Page 14 FINDING: The proposed single-family dwellings are a permitted use under use unit 8. (3) Condition. In no instance shall the residential use area be less than fifty-one percent (51 %) of the gross floor area within the development. FINDING: The PZD proposed is entirely residential in use. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of R-PZD with conditions. LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Residential. Rezoning this property to R-PZD 04-05.00 is consistent with the land use plan and compatible with surrounding land uses in the area. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF 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 of the existing Institutional (P-1) area to the proposed development with residential single-family use with a density of 3.16 units per acre is consistent with the General Plan 2020 that identifies this area for residential use. Single-family use is compatible with existing and planned surrounding single-family residential homes and the surrounding zoning. The proposal is consistent with the following principles of the General Plan 2020 which are: • Increasing transportation efficiency. Finding: The developer will dedicate additional right-of-way along Crossover Rd. to comply with the Master Street Plan and construct a sidewalk along Crossover Rd for the entire length of the property as well as along the interior streets. The proposal is consistent with the guiding policies for Residential Areas identified in the General Plan 2020 which are: 9.8.f Site new residential areas accessible to roadways, alternative K. IRepnrts110041PC Reports101-09-041R-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory ParkIR-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Parkdoc R-PZD 04-05.00 Page 15 transportation modes, community amenities, infrastructure, and retail and commercial goods and services. 9.8j Implement the Master Street Plan and incorporate bike lanes, parkways and landscaped medians to preserve the character of the City and enhance the utilization of alternative modes of transportation. 9.8.i Establish performance zoning design standards to mitigate adverse impacts of contrasting land uses with residential land uses. The following is from The General Plan 2020 regarding Community Character: 9.19.a Protect and enhance Fayetteville's appearance, identity and sense of place. 9.19.d Discourage perimeter walls and guard houses around the perimeter of new residential developments and promote "connectivity" to increase accessibility and provide more livable neighborhoods. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The proposed density is consistent with the existing surrounding zoning. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The proposed zoning will increase traffic but should not appreciably increase traffic danger or congestion with the surrounding collector and principle arterial streets. 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. Finding: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this Planned Zoning District will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services or create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the area. 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; K. TeporIS120041PC Rcpor&O2-09-041R-PZ0 04-05.00 Hickory ParkIR-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Park doc • • R-PZD 04-05.00 Page 16 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 K. IReports110041PC Repons102-09-041R-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory ParkW-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Parkdoc • • R-PZD 04-05.00 Page 17 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 479444-3469 TO: Suzanne Morgan, Associate Planner FROM: Rebecca Ohman, Park Planner DATE: January 27, 2004 SUBJECT: Parks & Recreation Plat Review Comments ssssssssssss«s.«««s«ssss«:«««««ssssssss«««*ss««sss«««««««««ssssssss«««sss«««ss Meetine Date: January 29, 2004 Item: R-PZD 04-5.00 Hickory Park, pp 294 Park District: NW Zoned: RPZD Billin¢ Name & Address: Land Dedication Requirement Money in Lieu Single Family @ .024 acre per unit = acres 14 @ $555 per unit = $7 ,770 Multi Family @ .017 acre per unit = acres @ $393 per unit = $ Mobile Home @ .024 acre per unit = acres @ $555 per unit = $ Lot Split @ $555 per unit = $ COMMENTS: PRAB recommended accepting money -in -lieu of land on December 1, 2004. Parks fees are due in the amount of $7,770 for 14 Single Family lots. Fees are due before issuance of final plat. Please list the owner/developer and contact information. K: IReports120041PC Repons102-09-041R-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory ParklR-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Parkdoc FAYETTEVILLE SC Meeting of January 29, 2004 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8264 TREE PRESERVATION and PROTECTION REPORT To: Milholland Company From: Craig Camagey, Landscape Administrator Copy: Suzanne Morgan, Associate Planner Date: January 27, 2004 Re: Hickory Park R=PZD ITEM #: BACKGROUND: Requirements Submitted: ✓ Initial Review with the Landscape Administrator ✓ Site Analysis Map Submitted ✓ Site Anal sis Written Report Submitted ✓ Complete Tree Preservation Plan Submitted Canopy Measurements: --- uncow percent of site -- 1 ° J N COT percent of total site area'® FINDINGS: The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age, location, size or species. The general accounting of existing tree groups on this site finds a mix of deciduous hardwoods ranging in age from young to mature with significant species of Post Oaks, Black Oaks, and Shagbark Hickories. The health of most individual species is considered fair to good. The even distribution across the site fdesirable trees for preservation creates a constraint upon any development of this site. Any form of construction activity here will necessitate the removal of some desirable groups of trees for preservation. Whether the design incorporates the required Tree Preservation Priorities. Due to the slope, this site is considered to be entirely covered in high priority canopy. An attempt was made by the developer to limit the impacts of the proposed street, and to avoid significant trees. However, the proposed density of this site will require a significant amount of existing canopy removal. The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to removal of the tree or group of trees. The degree of potential tree canopy loss on this site is significant. The removal of trees to build the street infrastructure and accommodate utility easements will result in a 34% loss of cover. With the building of homes, another 39% will potentially be removed. The removal of 73% of a sloped site with significant trees evenly dispersed across the site could result in extensive environmental degradation throughout this site. The impact of the reduction in tree cover on adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood and the property on which the tree or group of trees is located. This site has remained relatively undisturbed for the past half century while development occurred on all sides. The neighborhood has become accustomed to this site as a natural area that provides a buffer from the traffic found along Hwy. 265. The removal of tree canopy will impact this, and other natural values of the area. Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of development on existing trees. A recommendation to reduce the overall width of the street right of way to reduce the impact of construction on trees has been incorporated into the design by this developer. Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility of the design. Given the amount of density the developer is proposing, the opportunity to cluster lots on this site is reduced by its limited, size. The general health and condition of the tree or group of trees, or the presence of any disease, injury or hazard. The majority of trees and groups of trees on this site were found to be in fair to good condition. The placement of utilities, structures, and use of the property, in relation to the tree or group of trees. Utility easements are shown to be placed in the rear of lots I-11, eliminating the potential to maintain a canopied buffer between adjacent properties and future homes. A sewer easement between lots 5 & 4, 7 and 8 will unnecessarily require the removal of significant trees. The street termination at the east end of `Mockernut Crossing' will eliminate two significant trees. Several significant trees will be removed (including a 23" dbh Shagbark Hickory) along the proposed street `Shagbark Bend'. The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing, repairing, replacing, or maintaining essential public utilities. Some trees will need to be removed in order to provide both sewer and other public utilities. Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography, and routed, where possible, to avoid damage to existing canopy. The trajectory of the proposed street `Shagbark Bend' cuts downward (perpendicular) across the existing slope, while the other street does run parallel with the slope. Several significant trees are proposed for removal to accommodate the building of both streets. Construction requirements for On -Site and Off -Site Alternatives. Minimum impact to all remaining canopy within the building setback should be required in order to avoid the further degradation of natural resources. The effects of proposed On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives. No mitigation has been proposed by this developer. The effect other chapters ofthe UDO, and departmental regulations have on the development design. This is a Planned Zoning District which has as a purpose to provide the developer -with a degree of flexibility in how this site is designed. Another purpose with regard to tree preservation is to minimize disruption of existing natural features. The extent to which development of the site and the enforcement of this chapter are impacted by state and federal regulations: Not applicable. The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application would have on the Applicant The applicant has stated that the requested density is the only feasible option for development to occur on this site. Mitigation Method Approved: No mitigation plan has been submitted, nor is one required. Recommendation: 1. Reduce the overall density in order to provide a cluster development that will not so severely impact the existing tree canopy. 2. Route proposed streets in a way that best avoids loss of significant groups of trees, and works with existing topography. 3. All homes built should strive to minimize the impacts to trees, and preserve as much canopy as possible. Submittal of a covenant running with the title of each lot that incorporates language to achieve this is recommended. Conditions of Approval: 1. The removal of utility easements along the rear of lots 1-6, and 8-11 in order to preserve a canopied buffer for adjacent properties be indicated. 2. The proposed sewer easement be routed to avoid a greater number of significant trees. • • R-PZD 04-05.00 Page !6 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: 479444-3469 TO: Suzanne Morgan, Associate Planner FROM: Rebecca Ohman, Park Planner DATE: January 27, 2004 SUBJECT: Parks & Recreation Plat Review Comments *******sss*s*s*******s***sssss*s*********ssssssss*s********s*sssss***s*ss***** Meeting Date: January 29, 2004 Item: R-PZD 04-5.00 Hickory Park, pp 294 Park District: NW Zoned: RPZD Billing Name & Address: Land Dedication Requirement Money in Lieu Single Family @ .024 acre per unit = acres 14 @ $555 per unit = $7 ,770 Multi Family @ .017 acre per unit = acres @ $393 per unit = $ Mobile Home @ .024 acre per unit = acres @ $555 per unit = $ Lot Split @ $555 per unit = $ COMMENTS: PRAB recommended accepting money -in -lieu of land on December 1, 2004. Parks fees are due in the amount of $7,770 for 14 Single Family lots. Fees are due before issuance of final plat. Please list the owner/developer and contact information. KlReports12004WC Repons102-09-0411?-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory ParkIR-PZD 04-05.00 Hickory Porkdoc FAYE�`TEVI LLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS February 3, 2004 Dawn Warrick Zoning and Development Director City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Director Warrick, RECEIVED FEB 0 3 2004 PLANNING DIV. POLICE DEPARTMENT This document is in response to the request for a determination of whether the proposed R-PZD 04-05.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Hickory Park, pp 294), submitted by Millholland Company on behalf of St. John's Lutheran Church of Fayetteville for property located at 2730 E. Township Street would substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services or create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and traffic congestion. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this Planned Zoning District will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services or create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the area. Sincerely4Wil ieutenanBrown Fayetteville Police Department FAYETTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT (DELIVERIES) POLICE: 100-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 P.O. BOX 1988 JAIL: 140-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72702-1988 PHONE 501-587-3555 FAX:501-S87-3522 Feb 03 04 07:57a DW Farrar (51& 444-3447 p.2 FAYETTEVILLE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS From Fire Prevention Bureau To: Planning Division Date Z ' 3 -Z�y REZONING ci ANNEXATION e fX0 N44�cW PAQ� REZONING# Oaf 1S•nv) OWNERs1JQIIWS fsc.* ANNEXATON# OWNER LOCATION OF PROPERTY - -- - NEAREST FIRE STATION AND LOCATION j5,;o& 514 7PY S L�2oS5o YEre RESPONSE TIME FROM FIRE STATION # S TO LOCATION OF PROPERTY o2. MINUTES S SECONDS. TRAVEL MILES FROM FIRE STATION # S TO LOCATION OF PROPERTY b $ COMMENTS ON FIRE DEPT. ACCESS/ROAD WAYS EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS? IF SO LOCATION WATER SUPPLY WITH HYDRANTS , j# � . ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.. MAIN OFFICE SUBSTATION 115 SOUTH CHURCH ST. N.W.A. MALL (501) 4443448 / (501) 444-3449 (501) 575-8271 FAX (501) 575-8272 FAX (501) 575-8272 11 i &r e riay &Sunfeyiny Melvin L. Milholland, PE, PLS January 2, 2004 FAYETTEVILLE 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 ATTN: Planning and Engineering Division RE: Hickory Park - Subdivision Dear City Staff (Dawn Warrick and Matt Casey): REGISTRATIONS: PE: AR, MO PLS: AR Project No. E-687 The accompanying application and supporting data is for your review and approval of the referenced project, a 14-lot residential subdivision. The property is a tract containing approximately 4.43 acres being purchased from St. John's Lutheran Church. The project site is currently zoned P-1, Institutional. This application request is for a Planned Zoned District in keeping with the general surrounding area of single-family residences (RSF4, Four Units per Acre). Also this application request includes a property line adjustment (application inclosed). There is an existing 4" sanitary sewer service line to the church that will be relocated to the proposed new sanitary sewer system. Dave Jurgens of the City's Water and Sewer Maintenance Division has been contacted and supplied with a preliminary plat to review the requested City service connections for his comments. The owner/developer proposing the project is Tracy Hoskins. Mr. Hoskins intends to develop a subdivision community having an identity of old world flavor, stability and quality, a feeling of intimacy. In accomplishing this desired results, building set back adjustments are requested as well an a narrower street right-of-way. A 28' roadway surface is maintained with sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. The preservation of site's tree canopy is an important aspect of achieving the intended results. The site has been preliminarily reviewed with the landscape administrator, Craig. Craig is in support of a narrower road right-of-way to assist in the preservation and protection of as much of the tree canopy as possible. REC701VED 20S West Center Street; Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701; Phone: (479) 443-4724, Fax: (479) 443A707; E-mail: MC0engtIKLw6eII1et IJ04 PLANI\ili\G% DIV. " iLIL" aniPany REGISTRATIONS: 'neerinS &Suveyirut PE: AR, MO McMn L. Milholland, PE, PLS PLS: AR The lot lines have been placed for the preservation of as many significant trees as possible, and for the construction of most of the homes facing to the project center with limited front yard, access to the community square. The front lot line adjustment is requested to assist in the placement of homes closer to the sidewalk, the center square, assisting to preserve and buffer the development from the surrounding existing homes who also desire the buffer and as much of the existing tree canopy to remain as possible. Grading on the lots in minimized. Your comments and assistance in achieving the intended goals set for the development of this fashionable community subdivision is greatly appreciated. Projects Manger cc: Tracy Hoskins RF(717IVED JAN n 1 2004 PLANNING DIV, 205 West Center Street; fayettevilk, Arkansas 72701, Phone: (479) 4434724; Fax: (479) 443-4707; E-mail- MCOeogr(cDswbelLnet PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR HICKORY PARK FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Tracy K Hoskins (Developer) does hereby establish and create the following Protective Covenants, Restrictions and Architectural Control, which shall apply to all lots as shown on the recorded plat of the Hickory Park, found in Plat Book page—. BE IT KNOWN BY THESE PRESENTS, that whereas XXXXXXXXX, trustee of the XXXXXXXXXXX U/T/D DateXXXXXXXXXXX, as owner and developer, do hereby enter the following covenants and restrictions: 1. "Property" shall mean all the real property and improvements that are subject to these Covenants and Restrictions. 2. "Owner" shall mean and refer to the record Owner, whether one or more persons or entities, of the fee simple title in any Lot which is a part of the Property, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. 3. "Lot" and "Lots" shall mean and refer to any parcel of land shown upon any recorded Plat of the Property upon which there has been or may be constructed a single-family residence. PROPERTY AND LOT RESTRICTIONS 1. GENERAL LIMITATIONS: The subdivision and building codes of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, as they presently exist or are hereinafter amended, shall be and are hereby made applicable to the Property. All dwellings, buildings, fences, walls, structures, storage buildings, swimming pools, and improvements of every kind shall comply with said ordinances as they exist on the date of their construction. Any conflict between City ordinances and the provisions of these Protective Covenants shall be resolved in favor of the more restrictive provision. Building, architectural, and design specifications shall be in accordance with the regulations set forth in the Fayetteville Zoning Ordinance designated R-PZD (Residential). 2, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND BUILDING, TYPE: Lots shall only be used for single-family residential purposes. "Single Family" means one or more persons occupying a single dwelling, provided that unless all such persons are related by blood, marriage or adoption, no such family shall contain over three persons. No structure shall be erected on any Lot which exceeds three stories in height. No prefabricated, manufactured, mobile or modular housing shall be placed on any lot. 3, MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE: All dwellings shall be a minimum of 2,200 square feet of heated floor space (excluding garage). If the residence is multi -storied the first floor shall be a minimum of 1,600 square feet of heated floor space (excluding CI • 4. GARAGES: Each dwelling shall have a garage for a minimum of two (2) cars with dimensions of not less than twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet. No carports will be allowed. No garage openings may face a public or private street. All garages must rear or side entry. Under special conditions, this covenant may be modified by the HPAC (Hickory Park Architectural Committee). All garages, whenever possible should be located to the rear of the structure. 5. YARD SPACE RESTRICTIONS AND BUILDING LOCATION: The most HPAC. 6. ROOFS: All structures constructed on the Property must use tile, wood shake or 40-year composition architectural shingles, and must have a minimum of an 8/12 pitch. Secondary roofs, such as shed or veranda types may be a minimum of 4/12 pitch with the prior approval of the HPAC. 7. EXTERIORS: The exterior of all structures must be at least 80% brick or stone S. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL: No ranch, contemporary, modern, a -frame, log, or gambrel style structures will be permitted. Hickory Park is considered to be a traditional neighborhood with an emphasis on EUROPEAN, ARCHITECTURALLY DESIGN HOMES. All floor plans, elevations, specifications, plot plan showing the orientation of any structure, driveway and sidewalks, and proposed materials must be submitted and approved by Tracy Hoskins representative, Hickory Park Architectural Committee, prior to starting construction. The HPAC will have 10 business days to approve the project or require modifications. The HPAC again will have 10 business days to respond each time documents are submitted. 9. YARDS / LANDSCAPING: All yards shall be fully sodded in front and in within sixty (60) days of a certificate of occupancy being issued by the City of Fayetteville. All dwellings shall be landscaped with a landscaping package that is appropriate for the design of the dwelling. 10. LOT MAINTENANCE: All Lots shall be kept in a sanitary and attractive condition, and the Owner or occupant shall keep all weeds and grass thereon cut and Protective Covenants and Restrictions for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Page 2 of 5 neatly maintained and shall in no event use any Lot for storage of material or equipment except for normal residential purposes (except for during construction of residences or other structures.) Construction sites shall be kept neat, safe, and clear of debris at all times. Construction materials should be kept to the rear of the lot, obstructed from view, whenever possible. No burning of garbage, trash, or refuse is allowed (Except for during construction of residences or other structures and with the approval of the Fayetteville Fire Department). 11. SIGHT DISTANCE AT INTERSECTIONS: No fence, wall, hedge, or shrub which obstructs sight lines at intersections in the subdivision shall be permitted. 12, HOME OCCUPATIONS, OFFENSIVE USES OR COMMERCIAL USES: Home occupations, as defined and set forth in the ordinances of the City of Fayetteville, shall be prohibited. Further, no activity.which may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood or which shall in any way unreasonably interfere with the quiet enjoyment of any Owner of a Lot or which degrades property values or distracts from the aesthetic beauty of the property shall be conducted thereon. No repair work, dismantling, or assembling of any motor vehicle or boat shall be done on any Lot unless in a fully enclosed garage or other structure, not in view from adjoining Lots or the street, and if only for noncommercial purposes. Further, no part of any Lot shall ever be used or caused to be used or allowed or authorized in any way, directly or indirectly, for any business, commercial, manufacturing, mercantile, storing, vending or other such nonresidential purpose. No childcare businesses to be allowed if more than four (4) unrelated children are involved. This area is for residential purposes only. 13, STORAGE OF AUTOMOBILES, BOATS, TRAILERS, OTHER VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT: No automobiles, boats, trailers motor homes campers any punk street rignt-ot-way, yard area or on driveway Permanent or semi- permanent storage of such vehicles or items must be completely screened from public view either within the garage or behind a solid fence. For the purposes of these Protective Covenants, the phrase "semi -permanent" shall be defined as remaining on or about the same Lot without movement for forty-eight or more consecutive hours. No eighteen wheel vehicles or any other vehicle requiring a commercial driver's license may be parked on any public street or any portion of any Lot except to deliver merchandise or materials to residents or construction sites. 14. VISUAL SCREENING: All clotheslines, equipment, garbage cans, woodpiles, refuse containers, storage piles, and household projects such as equipment repair shall be screened by fencing, so as to conceal them from view of neighboring Lots or streets. All rubbish, trash, and garbage shall be kept in sanitary refuse containers with tightly fitting lids and shall be regularly removed from the Lots and not allowed to accumulate thereon. 15, TEMPORARY STRUCTURES: No trailer, tent, shack, garage, barn, recreational Protective Covenants and Restrictions for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Page 3 of 5 vehicle, mobile home, or other outbuilding shall be placed, constructed, erected or allowed to remain on a Lot if it is being used for human habitation either temporarily or permanently. 16, STORAGE BUILDINGS: No detached outbuildings may be constructed without prior written consent of the HPAC. If consent is granted detached storage buildings may only be placed to the rear of the house, no closer to side lot line than the sides of the house and be a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the rear ,yard line and must be enclosed inside privacy fence. All storage buildings shall use same roof and wall materials as used on the house. 17. FENCES: Fencing of front yard is prohibited. No fence shall be erected that is closer to the street than is the garage side door. If no garage side door, no closer to the front than the rear of the house. No fence shall be erected on adjoining side street that is closer to the street than the building set backline, which will be 25 feet from the curb, whichever is greater. No chain link fencing shall be permitted. All wood privacy fences shall have the good side turned toward the outside of the lot. That is, the framework that supports the fence is to be facing inward toward the backyard. No privacy fencing shall exceed 6 feet in height. Any fencing, walls, or landscape walls located between the street and structure must be constructed of brick or stone (complementary of the structure), and must be approved by the HPAC 18, SATELLITE DISHES: All satellite dishes limited to eighteen inches in diameter shall be placed to the rear of the residence, no closer to side yard than the rear of the house and must be enclosed in privacy fence. Basketball goals are restricted to back yards only. 19, HEATING AND COOLING DEVICES: No structure on any Lot shall be permitted to have a heating or cooling device located in a window or any other opening which can be viewed from the street or adjoining Lots (this restriction does not apply during the construction of the structure). 20, LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY: No animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall be raised or kept on any Lot, except that dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept, provided that they are not kept or maintained for any commercial purposes. 21. EASEMENTS SIDEWALKS AND DRIVES: Easements for installation and maintenance of utilities shared driveway entries, and drainage facilities are reserved as shown on the recorded Plat. No incinerator structures, buildings, fencing, or similar improvements shall be built or maintained within the area of the any easements. Owners are hereby put on notice that any structures, driveways, sidewalks, or plant material in the easements are subject to removal at the expense of the Owner(s) of the Lot on which the structure, driveways, sidewalks, or plant material is located. In effort to minimize curb cuts, common drive entries will be shared by lots numbered eleven and twelve; thirteen and fourteen. Shared drive entries are also Protective Covenants and Restrictions for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Page 4 of 5 0 encouraged on all other lots. Each individual lot owner shall construct a four foot wide sidewalk, four feet from the back of curb. Sidewalks shall be of a light broom finish with expansion joints eight feet on center. Driveways shall be of decorative type and have brick pockets, patterned concrete, etc. 22, MAILBOXES: No mailboxes will be installed upon any property. A mail kiosk is provided for each property owner, located at the center roundabout. 23, NO LIABILITY: Tracy Hoskins, the Developer, the HPAC, nor any other Owner shall be liable for damages to anyone submitting plans and specifications for approval, or to any Owner of a Lot affected by these Protective Covenants by reason of a mistake in judgment, negligence, or disapproval or failure to approve or disapprove any such plans and specifications and no approval or required modification of plans and specifications submitted shall be considered a warranty of any nature whatsoever pertaining to the suitability of such plans and specifications. Every person who submits plans and specifications for approval agrees that no action or suit for damage will be brought against Tracy Hoskins or the HPAC, its members, or any Owner(s). 24, DURATION OF COVENANTS: These Protective Covenants shall run with the land for a minimum period of thirty (30) years, and shall be automatically extended for successive periods of five (5) years without further action unless terminated by a Vote of a majority of the Owners of Lots in the Property. Each lot owner will have one vote for each lot owned. The developer shall have three votes for each lot owned. 25. SEVERABILITY: Invalidation of any restriction set forth herein, or any part thereof, by an order, judgment, or decree of any court, otherwise, shall not invalidate or affect any of the covenants and restrictions, or any part thereof, set forth herein, but they shall remain in full force and effect. 26. BINDING EFFECT AND AMENDMENT OF COVENANTS: All Owners shall be deemed to have agreed and covenanted with the Owners of all other Lots within the Property, and with their heirs, successors, and assigns to conform to, and observe the restrictions, covenants, and stipulations contained herein. 27. HICKORY PARK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION: The Hickory Park POA is responsible for the upkeep, maintenance, and repair of drainage easements private streets, landscape islands and walls and any common areas or green spaces Each lot owner will be assessed and annual fee of $_., due and payable by January Wh of each year. The Developer shall be the director/overseer of the POA until such time, that by majority vote of the property owners, another is appointed. Again, each lot owner will have one vote for each lot owned. The developer shall have three votes for each lot owned. Protective Covenants and Restrictions for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Page 5 of 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF this instrument has been executed this day of Ownwe/ Developer ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS ) SS. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON On this day, before me personally appeared XXXXXXXX, to me personally known, who acknowledge that she is the trustee of her respective trust, and that she, as such trustee, being authorized so to do, has executed the foregoing, instrument for the purposes therein contained. Witness my hand and seal this _ day of Notary Public My Commission Expires: Protective Covenants and Restrictions for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Page 6 of 5 .>jr .,Vki6 Yi" '4. 'ZD04-05.00 IAC KO RY PARK Close Up View ppmwAq III dq Ed -o� N; ;. ¢7 it i e . vzOW-0 m %9....aO fty Db Il® Pnndpal Menal — FLOO AY MasMStrcet Plan M MPfiai — iw YEAR Master S4eet plan Otlle[far — &M YEM ® Fee fEwp ay 0000 ltistak CaOeclm ^^"e LIMROFST L _ _I Oly Limns — — - eatelblepm Oatspe city 0 125 250 500 750 1.000 Feel Future Land Use Overview HICKORY PARK k Legend Boundary Subject Property - Master Street Plan ME R-PZD04-05.00—� Planning Area &000� 4� Freeway/Expressway 00000_o° Overlay District p%a► Principal Arterial Streets L _ _I City Limits " 4 % Collector Minor Arterial Existing Outside City VaPjArt. Planned * **% Historic Collector 0 75 150 300 450 600 Feet One Mile View 1IIw+ F � F�'' RSaI Vrtrr! Lr l"+`� I -rr�--i� H y o R�r, s£ { t ly T-R$f'wy„--_� WiKt KW RA 1> P.tl RUA In - It RscAFG-I 22l,. 7 �� nsFi i iIPfl�FIIM11H1Ct04�1lnlh+{�II�Iyr _ L I I 1 1 r i I I Sril f !a I I II .ram � f � � I_J RSF-a I Ram I I RiFii((y� Ra I 1 r R.A OLq- F it qI, ' fir I 4ry,R ATE1�D t",�_i �'rv\y I ICI J J RSFA RA I ,~ Tf LMIF .A\'@r V j ll RUA,1. "iaSUBJECT PRO l./ i i� T RtvA„ T l PERTY �111,-�+ a 11 yl RSFa�jT �I--I-� li_asF4� z.'��—�� a i.cQ 1 141 i-n �L1....1 T i MF r r-t '-! I F rs era I t` a� E t" Tit F)--r Ez l f J RKF j34 AND huNTER RD J I 1 ParvArtoa r�a)••, loi I P1 ti. JRSF 4B1R A�_ ~it' j Fiji L rTRs�cta— RUA 1Xr LN C-11 1 / rtas J Lim 1 1 / Ir-I i I i i •-1 C�rr �� ly��.--L-:.p--71--I -dsr.l C.,sr• -L rr-�- IRBi� Rd 1 ITMil)f N R � �j C7 ctr-J n7#14;q LLT R.s LI r YJr 3 II\, �IbL L�j11'T i.rl �C2 I J-L N l� o of , , gL J �!1j• "I -I- p I 5 F- R IiT`�aro :,p. I-irz-1-JIF �-1,._ �` RA D("4-Elor.et.t_LLi.�'ZY=, -1 r rj�r`mY"rc - 11r-1 •._I ri-1�— Ir -! �1 RMFZAr1-a1s i Rr-I�c L. t' � RUA L�Si-2e ,1- .r� � j altl F\ .' 1 RA Fit*i-� -Lrlt raj 1'- Icl ! —I�' '���1 r I- 1 nnddd' I•'L� 1 y 1 d r— —--- o I'IrR� \C w '1� etictsFq'I i " �1�_ T I�RSF�I �� n"s€ / 1 L la_.1 r-r•.i , 1 r -1 i>>� Ii iE�_�L �`°T at oA i mJP r✓X�'•�.;'�•r�. • r '�: ' F ..i •-- J ,a+a�- - �_ RA 1 a,� C SFROSC_8oW D ff '1RY, T�rl r FSF,'-� sib s rC� .. TR 1� ti 11 t - L.I- �. �_ ! r t ` I -R'A_.l` Overview Legend o Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan RPZD04-05.00 Il%,,t Planning Area t*'i FreewayrE`Wessvray poop s aets °0000 o Overlay District V RNdeal M"r,al [, r _ _ Minor aRo,iol e—, F'stai; L— ICity Limits cyiecy« Ytl�jmPlan"� Outside City go*a Mlsb"c COWW 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0. files Milholland Engineering 65urveying 205 West Center Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Phone: (479)443-4724 Fax: (479)443-4707 E-mail: MCOengr(a)swbell.net To: City Of Fayetteville 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, Ar. 72701 WE ARE SENDING YOU X Attached _ Shop Draw ngs _ Prints Copy of Letter Change Order LETTER 0 TRANSMITTAL Date: February 12, 2004 Job No: E-687 Attention: Planning Department Re: Hickory Park Under separate cover Via Plans _ Samples the following items: Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 15 2-12-04 E-687 Preliminary Plat (I I X 17) 15 2-12-04 E-687 Tree Preservation Plan (I I X 17) THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: X For approval _ Approved as submitted _For your use _ Approved as noted As requested _ Returned for corrections For review & comment For Bids Due 200_ REMARKS Resubmit copies for approval Submit copies for distribution Return corrected prints Prints Returned after Loan to us Irerglms are not noted, km*noW u at air¢ f O Z r N A m m m m m O V w D 1 ?,00 905moCm�noC mZoAo'- I I I LLRIr I I SA-zIm;•Z'y0 m�UOmoZN°-000Na y 110 -�oD a • o • oQ =aANos,o �ztc3:9*M0w0EIS?' 0 �N=_uKZ GM poD 0m,Z oN A-m c 20NDCDZwo I JfoOx yytiO9 mmffClA OZO NmAO OO 0AAM m�ZLLmA-m`ammvx�zto m m m uoi00 1— 1- NZA0 tA D Re p tiWr1no Z0��4ZC ZOAmO ORmOn-NA-1O 0000mm omm Oz mm�Am omO ��zOO�F�mz?yiZOo 0AOIn Am XOA ZCy AmVyIFCm>Z OA1- M Ny1 >OO mZ m-r00A0 mmZZZO1DE \ -1 OOTFNil,O m �-cm0 <mmTE`ocOXi° A zrmw m m w.� mrm�mo MomNoorqO Z Z L0 NZSS0 ZO1mS0 m~O NNDZ�O 0ZN m • O f F O m r WA O w m M N N Z Z£ O ixogr-x9i� zFm l- o�0-zwKO< �WlO zo-> ZAMAX- myAW omA�gZmm00uuO mNOI N Aor> On-r N Ay m[�j100 -n� 4,y�~�r m A�N i AzgDroMmva wpa Pa :pD:o:cD�A �<�cm woz NKOONN0jN O mO bbm044.Joop-loT <muI C�DAJ N4N4 mN4 44y JQp on A0 ��N0 F0A �mm 0A mANm O m J N 1 0 K y n �frr•lmZIN �D l SD n N m Sli yAmO 00 21 10 4Z pm riy 21 zZ?<WNA�y0m Z 02, ymotlzy z m � =fioil Mml tJ1® Male O am> C W W -i •9 9mZ. , om m �bg cos W N O A y Z Z $ z m l N A A letaua m O O O m m O Q �OOOc-y zzo p 1 Ip 0 V pl N P W N+~ J A W N+ O l O A Z Mn pOl VU mPNOamy XU0 NANUql[� NNNU(I�T S<< Km O O m p ZD wo O( mDma�JN�-b %;mW0 omnu� Amm<T<wwm� 1b mcoA N+ 0qD 6Q m < A. y ZC� 11 ~ � yN Z m m aZZ 0m >' b tre NNN NNNNNNNNNNN\♦ 'n 00000o gooQgqq N oDA ��oWmN� Ei� t 9 I� y1 t II W OAN � fir{ O iDNV NO Subdivision Committo • µ )CSC°�- January 29, 2004 R- PZd' Off!-S.Ap Page / Bunch: n ch: The next item on the agenda is a Planned Zoning District for Hickory Park, it is R-PZD 04-05.00 submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of St. John's Lutheran Church for property located at 2730 E. Township and I guess also bordering on Hwy. 265. Suzanne, would you give us the staff report on that please Ma'am? Morgan: The applicant is requesting a rezoning and Preliminary Plat approval for a residential subdivision within an R-PZD zoning district. This item must be head at the City Council. The proposal is for a single family residential subdivision with 14 units with single family homes on approximately 4.42 acres. Density for the entire site is calculated at 3.16 units per acre. The site is located north of Township Street and east of Crossover. It is zoned P-1, Institutional and the site is currently vacant. The proposed subdivision will have one access to Crossover Road. Forty feet of rightof way will be dedicated from the entrance of the subdivision to the landscaped island roundabout. The two extending drives are proposed as private drives to be the responsibility of the developer or a neighborhood property owner's association. The subivisionis proposed to have a 6' solid privacy retaining wall surrounding the east property along Crossover and landscaped island at the entry way of the subdivision as well as a landscape island with a mail kiosk at the terminus of the right of way. Surrounding land use and zoning to the north is single family residential, the Glenwood Addition which is 2.47 units per acre, it is zoned RSF-4, to the south is St. John's Luthre Church with the P-1. Institutional zoning. To the east is single family residential use with the zoning of R-A, Residential Agricultural and to the west is Cedarwood Addition, single family residential, 3.17 units per acre and zoned RSF-4. Right of way to be dedicated is 40' for interior right of way and 55' from centerline of Crossover Road, there is currently 40' along Crossover with an additional 15' proposed to be dedicated. Trip generation calculations, 14 single family detached dwellings will produce 134 two way trips per day. Crossover Road is a principal arterial. Tree preservation, there is currently existing 100% required canopy is 25% and preserved is 26.82%. Staff has received several calls regarding neighborhood concerns with drainage, traffic, tree preservation and safety issues in regard to the round about and there has been a meeting between the developers and the neighbors. Staff is recommending that you forward this to the full Planning Commission with conditions. There are a total of 16 conditions of which condition two, the Fire Department has expressed the need for a 20' interior drive pursuant to International Fire Codes. Staff is recommending a left turn lane onto Crossover. Also, the removal of utility easements along the rear of lots 1-6, and 8-11 in order to preserve a canopied buffer from adjacent properties be indicated. The proposed sewer easement be routed to avoid a greater number of significant trees. Covenants should be filed with the plat and it is my understanding that they will be getting those to us with the next revision submittal. There is a property line adjustment in process which needs to be approved prior to the Final Plat. This Property Line JAI Subdivision Committo • January 29, 2004 Page 6 Adjustment is to adjust the southwest corner just a bit further south than what it is currently shown. Condition ten, payment of parks fees in the amount of $7,770 for 14 single family lots prior to issuance of the Final Plat. Item eleven is no structure shall encroach upon any easement. Items twelve through sixteen are standard conditions. Bunch: Thank you Suzanne. Matt, are there any additional engineering comments or staff report? Casey: Not at this time. I'm sure that there will be plenty of questions that we will have an opportunity to discuss but no comments at this time. Bunch: At this time if you all will introduce yourselves and tell us about your project. Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Engineering representing the owner and developer of the proposed subdivision, Tracy Hoskins. The proposed subdivision, is, as stated, 14 single family lots north of the St. John's Lutheran Church. Bunch: At this time we will take public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the issue of Planned Zoning District for Hickory Park? If you would, please come forward, I don't know if we have a sign in sheet there or not but if you would please sign in, tell us who you are, and give us the benefit of your comments please. Sigapuss: My name is Bob Sigapuss, I live in the Glenwood Subdivision, Hardy Lane. I am probably the representative of most of the people that live on the paraperial areas. Most of the people are not retired and have the benefit to coming to this meeting. I will speak my own mind and then add what 1 think was the result of the citizen's meeting on Monday night. I have three major areas I want to address here. First, existence of wetlands. At least one acre of that land in there is what I used to call as a kid, swamp. It is very low and, it is spongy, it has an ecosystem in there that I think environmentalists would say it is wetlands for sure. Under the definition of the Corp. of Engineers and EPA it is a wetlands. I suppose in determining whether it is a wetlands or not maybe it is the size of the property that is of concern. This is at least one acre. I've walked it several times and it definitely is not a stable piece of land. It occupies lots 11, 12, and 13. Not all of the lots, but a good portion of lot 12. That land where my definition of wetlands exist is about 46" below the grade of Crossover. It sits way down. Mr. Casey said that he would talk about drainage a minute ago, it is a drainage area of sorts. There is a kind of ditch that comes in a northeasterly direction across. It almost starts at the proposed interior street to the northeast comer of the property. If any of you have walked in there you can probably identify it as kind of an unusal part of that whole acreage area. I think that ought to be addressed by the Subdivision Committs • January 29, 2004 Page 7 Corp. of Engineers or maybe you have one in the city, someone who specializes in wetlands. Lord knows, the city has had enough wetland issues in recent years so there probably is expertise far beyond my lamen's definition. The second problem I have is Crossover. That is a major problem. It took me seven minutes this morning to get out on Crossover from Hardy Lane. When I pulled up the hill, you go up a grade toward Township, a fellow behind me was tooting his horn and he gave me the preverbial digital because you can't gun your car up fast enough to get to 45 miles per hour. That is the speedlimit on Crossover, 45 miles per hour. The distance between the proposed entrance to Hickory Park from Township is about 450' more or less andit is about 450' from the entrance to Hardy Lane. That is a very short distance. From 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. and from 2:30 in the afternoon until 7:00 it is wall to wall cars on Crossover. It wouldn't be so bad if there were only cars but there are trucks. It is a major truck route between Hwy. 412 and the south part of Fayetteville. Why they use that as a heavy truck route I don't. know, they are probably cutting off Hwy. 71 and 540. The city has made a lot of statements in recent years. The Mayor talks about the growth, smart growth, and the recent traffic study by the consultants talked about access management, it talks about an access management ordinance. Director Tim Conklin set the access management as a priority for 2004. They also discuss traffic congestion. The congestion that exists between Township and Mission and Township back up beyond Hardy Lane to Old Wire and occasionally, the traffic backs up, if you can believe it, to Joyce Blvd. When it backs up it goes a snail's pace. With 14 homes and 138 entrances and exits a day, that doesn't seem like a lot. Living on Hardy Lane, which has16 homes, we have far more than 138 entmces and exits a day. Some of the families have three cars and everybody in thefamily has a car. This ought to be examined a little further. Having a turn lane and just painting a white stripe, left or right, whichever is not enough. That middle lane on Crossover is narrow. When you come down that grade from Township heading towards Old Wire that traffic starts to really move. 45 miles per hour is the least that people go, they exceed that speedlimit. At night time when you are coming from south to north on Crossover and you are trying to turn into Hardy Lane the oncoming cars coming from the north to the south, they don't know what is happening there, they see these lights in the middle of the road and my god, a guy is trying to pass a car you know and here a person in a car like myself, you look in your rearview mirror and you say if you had one more coat of paint on your car you'd have a crash. The trucks are particularly dangerous there. The other night at the meeting, most of the people, probably 25 people, most of them saw Crossover as a major concern. Mr. Jefcoat agreed, I think Mr. Hoskins did also. Suggestions were made that there is a remedy but the remedy may not be too popular with St. John's Lutheran Church. That is an access off of Township behind the church's parking. Jefcoat: I must object. I did not at any time agree or suggest or give any inference Subdivision Committl • January 29, 2004 Page 8 that the church was willing, or that an access across the church's property was acceptable. Sigapuss: I didn't say that because, I'm saying that is a remedy. Bunch: Let him have his say and then you will have your opportunity to rebut. Sigapuss: To deny that Crossover is not a dangerous situation is putting your head in the sand. The traffic consultants talked about that and they talked about a remedy would be a four lane at some point in the future. I talked to the Highway Department and there is no plans for Crossover for years ahead. Unfortunately, pre -planners, pre city administration and other people in the county missed the boat when they took the outer beltway off the planning map. That would've taken a lot of stress off of Crossover. Ok, so much for that, incidentally, the City Council's goals retreat last year talked about mobility, street quality, improving those things and giving attention to the city's open greenspace. This woods is an ecosystem, pure and simple. There are foxes in there, deer, all kinds of things. It is a virgin forest that has never been touched. I have approached a few people in town who are interested in urban forests and it is the same old answer, there is no money. There is nobody around really to put out the money to buy that thing. The third and last issue is the plan itself. I am not a city planner, however, at one time 45 years ago I was on the city Planning Commission for the city of South Pasadena, California, so I know how it is to have to listen to all this detail. It is the internal street, if you can look at your map there, you will see this Mockernut and Shag Bark Lane, I asked the developer the other night, how will they get the garbage trucks and the fire trucks in those areas? There are four lots that have access onto that narrow street, Mockernut. Hardy Lane, which has 28' width and a pretty wide cul-de-sac street, garbage trucks have to back up twice to get around that. That is going to be far easier than what is proposed here in this Hickory Park. The developer the other night said that that has been approved. The city said that's ok. If I were a prospective buyer I would say I'm not going to be crowded in there, what if I have guests, where do they park? There is no provision for parking. In the proposal itself, they talk about an open area. That open area is about 30' in diameter, that is not much of an open area. Hardy Lane is 90' and that looks kind of small. I think that as a Planning Subdivision Comimttee, you might take a look at that possibility of congestion. From a developer's point of view and marketing point of view I would say does this present any problems to the developer in marketing those lots. I don't know. They talked about a new concept, this PZD is something that they had seen in Atlanta and other eastern cities and it was a new kind of thing to Fayetteville. It seems to me that this is cramping the development substantially. On that point, I shall end this thing and give the developers a chance to rebut what I've said. Thank you. Subdivision Committio • January 29, 2004 Page 9 Bunch: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address us on this issue of Hickory Park? Is there any other public comment? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for comments and motions. First, Tom, now would be an opportunity for you if you have any answers to the comments that were made in the public comment section. Go ahead and respond to them if you would like to. Jefcoat: On his three points that he made, the only one that I really, I can address all three. The access onto Crossover, Crossover is a busy street and it always has been a busy street. I'm sure backup does go all the way back to Joyce at times, which is a considerable distance away. Development is always going to increase the traffic flow on Crossover. I think that there is a traffic light there at Crossover and Township which does slow the traffic and does give an opportunity for some amount of safety. There is an existing curb cut that the highway has approved on the church property here that is closer to the light. There is a center turn lane on Crossover which is an additional safety factor. We are only talking about 14 lots here to generate that closeness to the light. That entrance or existing curb cut that the church has would be abandoned and this curb cut would be applied for through the Highway Department. Bunch: Are you talking about that curb cut that appears to be there but it doesn't connect to anything? Jefcoat: Yes. Ostner: Ok, south of this proposed? Jefcoat: Yes. Bunch: Right in this vicinity I guess. Ostner: Here is their new property line, right there? Jefcoat: Yes. We are removing ourselves from the traffic signal somewhat. Bunch: That begs the question what is the involvement of this piece of property and the church if you are allow to petition for their curbcut. Is that part of the deal in buying this piece of property from the church to develop or is it being developed on. behalf of the church? How does that work? Jefcoat: I think that that particular curb cut was provided for future development circulation around the church for future development of this lot. It will no longer be needed when this lot develops. Allen: Before we move on from the public comment, I wondered if you felt that anything productive did come from your conversation with the neighbors. Subdivision Committo • January 29, 2004 Page 10 Jefcoat: Yes, we had about 35 people there and I think that we had some very pleasant discussion with a lot of the people. We only had a few that are really opposed to any development at all. That was well expressed as being totally against development. Mr. Hoskins would like to speak on that and I think that the neighbors were very receptive to the plan as presented in general. There were some comments about access sidewalks and comment five, about the removal of the easement, those easements are not there. That is on preservation one thing that we have done, is give the buffer of greenspace all the ay around the outside of the property so those easements are all internal now. That was one of the design changes that were made from Tech Plat. Hoskins: My opinion of the meeting the other night, the opinions that I got from the surrounding folks, I don't believe this gentlemen's comments were the concensus. On the contrary, I think most people are very, very receptive to the development. They have a lot of questions, we answered a lot of questions and I personally felt the majority of the neighbors were in support of the subdivision. Jefcoat: As far as the other comments, the wetland issues, there are three criteria for wetland issues and I am a wetlands delineator and have projects submitted to the Corp. and I would not recognize that area as a wetlands. It does not have the hydric soil, the hydroponic vegetation is not there. It may have the hydrolics there to support wetlands but that is only one of the three criteria. I am not sure that the hydrolics are really there. The last comment about the tightness of the subdivision, that is one of the design features that Tracy is trying to create here, a sense of community facing all the houses inward, pulling the house fronts closer to the street, providing sidewalks on both sides of the street almost making a town square situation. There is give and take both ways as far as we do have an 80' cul-de-sac, we have worked those traffic problems out, our circulation problems out with Engineering and we've talked our way through some of it and as a developer, and Tracy is not just developing the subdivision, he is building homes in the subdivision. He is in the process of drawing up the covenants so that shared driveways fence building fronts, some of those issues he will probably address in the covenants and in the building process. Bunch: Tom, as a person who has been involved in wetland delineation processes, can you speak a little bit to the age of this land relative to the potential development of wetlands? I know that on the proprety that the City of Fayetteville had that was formally called Wilson Springs, that that had formally been pasture land and was reverting to wetlands, comments have been made about the age of this forest area so how does that play in if this were a potential wetland if it would've been a pasture then in time it could revert to a wetland but if it is an older forested area what are the wetland Subdivision Committe • January 29, 2004 Page 11 considerations there? Jefcoat: First of all, it would have to be inundated or saturated and in this area they are certainly not inundated by flooding and it doesn't remain saturated for a long period of time. The existing trees have not developed a rooting system that shows above ground or that is surfacing itself to find the hydropnics root system for sustaining growth, they are well rooted into the ground so you do have a forested area and not a hydroponic situation where plants are surviving in an inundated or saturated condition. While it is forestland, it is not an emerging wetland. Bunch: In other words, if it were an emerging wetland it has had plenty of times to have emerged and made itself evident since apparently the age of these trees is pretty old. I know some comments were made that it was a virgin forest so if that would be the case then if it were a wetland it would already be not only fully developed but it would be present at this time. Jefcoat: You also may note that the soil conditions here, this is a very rocky site and there have been rocks are evident on the surface and things and there is a fairly good amount of perculation there, it is not like the water saturates. Bunch: Are post oaks normally associated with wetlands? It looks like the predominant trees that we have are postoaks in this area, that is one of the ones that populates hillsides, I don't know how they do in wetlands. Jefcoat: I think the designation for a postoak is FAC, which is a mid -range, it can work either way. It is not an oblique, it's not an OBL classification so you couldn't submerge it in water but it will stand some saturation but not total saturation. Bunch: Is there anymore comment on the issues that came up with public comment or can we move onto the conditions of approval? I guess since this is a PZD just by definition it will have a hearing here, at the full Planning Commission and then a minimum of three readigs with the City Council. I think in the recent past the City Council has had some auxiliary meetings so there will be a minimum after this meeting, four more opportunities for public comment to address these issues. Part of that is because some of the people are unable to attend an 8:30 going onto 11:30 meeting in the morning but those other meetings will be evening meetings. Staff, can you tell us and Engineering, on the Fire Department, how does this cul-de-sac or public right of way with private streets on either side and a hammerhead, how does that relate to the Fire Department? Casey: At Plat Review the Fire Department did recommend a 20' wide entrance, it is shown as 14'. I think there has been some correspondence between the applicant an the Fire Department since then. I've not heard the Subdivision Committo • January 29, 2004 Page 12 outcome of that. Bunch: You are talkinga bout the entrance off of Hwy. 265? Casey: Yes, right there with the landscape island. One thing, before I get too involved, the public street just includes the cul-de-sac, this crossing is just a private driveway. Bunch: That is pretty much what my question was about, the 40' radius on that cul-de-sac, is that sufficient? Casey: That is what our street standards calls for. The Fire Department at times have asked for more. It is nothing that we have in our standards to require at this time. I don't recall if that was a comment at Plat Review. Do you remember if they had asked for that? Jefcoat: They were interested in having a 20' lane at the entrance and that was addressed at several different levels. One was that there be a left turn lane or that the exit lane be widened to 20' or another lane put in there. You could either take it out of theisland or take it out of lot one. If it was 20' wide that would be a 6' addition to there what's shown. That would be two 10' lanes, one for turning right, one for turning left. That would give the fire truck it's 20' entrance into the 28' road system. However, most fire trucks you would suspect would be coming from the south since Crossover has a centerlane, there is plenty of turning radius to be straight to come in and I submitted to the Fire Department that with the left turn lane if you were coming in you are going to be going in an exit and they said well we get in anyway we can and I said well, if you are going to get in anyway you can and you are straight, maybe jumping the curb and driving on the sidewalk for this short distance, 100' or 60' long then that might not present a problem because it is a short distance. We had conversations with the fact that we are adding additional hard surface, runoff is an issue, trying to save as much greenspace as possible, you are just adding more asphalt. Plus, if you eliminated the island and made that smaller, you are distracting from the purpose, the intent of the developer to do something maybe a little nicer than a huge solid asphalt three lane entrance. A lot of those aspects have been talked about back and forth across the table. I think it has been satisfied that the fire truck could get in and that the access for that short distance would be successful. Ostner: I just have one comment on that. I don't think those islands are the best solution for this street. I think it needs to be just 36' wide, 12' in and two 12' lanes out, a right and a left. In other words, lose the median. Jefcoat: You are talking about a 36' entrance, right now it is 41'. Ostner: It is 41' right now but there is an island in the middle, which I see as Subdivision Committe • January 29, 2004 Page 13 problematic to Crossover mainly. When the Fire Department says that they need wider lanes, I wish these lanes were narrower and not the entrance. I think entrances by safety and by function need to be wider and then let it get narrower inside. That is just my take on that intersection. The left turn would be resolved and the Fire Department issue is resolved and it gets narrower so you pull that landscaping out and put it on the sides. Jefcoat: Well, you are talking about a big, wide, harbor looking spance of asphalt to enter into a subdivision. Ostner: You already need a left turn lane, this is not going to do it so you are going to have to change this already. 41' could change to 50' if you made that a double lane out. Jefcoat: You are saying that you have to have a left turn lane, why are you saying that? Ostner: That's the way I understood it from the traffic being so heavy, this guy trying to turn left could take 20 minutes and everyone would be waiting. That is the way I understood that we need a left turn lane there by function. Bunch: Does Hardy have a left turn lane? Jefcoat: No it does not. Bunch: When was Hardy built? Sigapuss: 1989. Casey: Another thing that Suzanne and I discussed yesterday that involves this landscape island is the driveway access to lot 1 and 13. You are not providing enough space if you are entering off of Crossover and you need to turn left into lot I you've got your 10' from the property line requirement before the driveway starts and then a 24' wide. Jefcoat: We talked that over with Suzanne also and we are in agreement that shortening that island up would make the drive entrance to lot I more attractive and better and it would also shorten the distance coming in there so we would certainly revise the island to be shorter on the west end. We would like to keep the landscaping back there. Casey: Lot 13, would the driveway be coming off the private portion of Mockemut or off of the public right of way? Jefcoat: We've actually talked about the builder/developer, that being accessed Subdivision Committo • January 29, 2004 Page 14 both ways through there. It is very feasible that lot 13 would orientate itself and have its entrance off of Mockernut Crossing but it is very feasible for a drive to go all the way through. By shortening the island up 10' that would certainly give access to both of those lots and resolve that issue. Ostner: I think it would be a lot safer if it only came from Mockernut. This is going to be a really quick turn in with heavy traffic on Crossover. Personally, I was going to ask if access be restricted to Mockernut only. Bunch: We are also looking at lot 1. It is the same thing as turning into here, a person entering here if this is shortened, coming around that making a bad turn coming into lot 1 whether than going up and going around the mail kiosk. Hoskins: At worst, the driveway to lot 1 would be on the property line between lots 1 and 2. As Tom said earlier, for the restrictive covenants we are planning on encouraging shared driveways so we will have as few cuts along the street as possible. The whole idea of the subdivision is to put some more green into it, save the trees, etc. If we want more of the same of what we've got here on North College then we can make that concrete or pavement all the way across that if you want more of what you've got out here. Bunch: Since this is a PZD that is within the realm of our review and it would be helpful to, as opposed to not only having it in the covenants, but to show it on the drawing and it could be a requirement. That is a very important piece of information is to show a shared driveway between 1 and 2 and maybe between 14, it wouldn't be fair to those people to restrict them that much. Hoskins: That is not a problem with showing it at least on these lots up front. Ostner: I think all the lots need to show the driveways. I'm excited that this is a PZD and you are doing something different but I'm not sure how 11, 12, and 13 are going to have driveways. Benton Ridge we made show the driveways and it helped a lot to understand. I like the idea of doing a short 15' building setback in the front. Bunch: While you are on the same issue look at lots 4, 5, and 6. Hoskins: It is a shared drive. Ostner: I think it needs to be on the drawing. Jefcoat: We addressed that with Suzanne about putting it on the drawing. A couple of issues come up, what if that changes, what if the builder shifts it to the other side of the lot or some other idea we haven't predicted. Subdivision Committee• • January 29, 2004 Page 15 Ostner: With this process the design is happening up front. Jefcoat: I understand that. Bunch: Without a shared driveway here I would be in favor of saying that we could send this forward but with a do not recommend vote on it. This is entirely too tight right in here to have two driveways and that wold have to be part of the document package. Jefcoat: I agree but my main objection was that if you show a shared driveway here and then the shared driveways wind up being either here or here you don't want to predict which ones of these begin to share driveways. One of those three lots could have its own drive and the other two could be shared. Certainly shared driveways need to be there. Ostner: Here at the approval process, if we leave it just in text. Jefcoat: I am not saying leave it in text, I just don't want it to be predetermined. Ostner: What if these two guys build it and then those two guys don't, they want to build over there, then suddenly we don't have them. Bunch: What if lot 7 decides they want a single drive then 5 and 6 have to, we are still in a situation of predetermining. It could be you could predetermine and say in here but this is still too narrow. If you have visitors coming in or someone that's lost driving around through the area, depending on these driveways, you are looking at a situation of possibly backing up around a blind curve or blind turn. That brings up the issue of what is this line. According to your legend it is a 6' solid privacy and retaining wall. You are using the same legend so we don't know what this is. Definitely this is your curb and gutter here. What is it? Jefcoat: That is a low retaining wall, it should not be there. Yes, we could predict the shared driveway here which is probably the best because these two lots certainly have a frontage that they can develop a separate driveway on. Rather than say a shared driveway either here or here, if the one shared driveway is predicted here and one of the other lots would have to be there. It is likely that these two will share a driveway and these two and those two. We can go ahead and predict that and put that on the drawing. Bunch: That is pushing 14 an awful lot, you are saying that you would make a driveway here or that you would do it here between 13 and 14? Jefcoat: I'm only saying that there would be a shared driveway here, not that this guy wouldn't want another driveway out here somewhere. Subdivision Committee January 29, 2004 Page 16 Bunch: You are showing 40', actually a 28' road but you are still looking at a situation without knowing where these driveways are that people potentially could get lost coming in there and backing around this or pulling up in here and having to back out of it unless they pull up in somebody's driveway. I understand the concept of using a modified hammerhead with a turn around. We want to eliminate the amount of driveways in that area because we want the integrity of the sidewalk and the uniformity of the whole area. Every compromise has it's price. In order to preserve more landscaping and trees and to slow traffic, then you are also creating a harder turn around situation. I think our major trees are in this area and in this area so our common drive should be here. The same way with our trees located where they are the shared rive should be here and here. On Lot 13 with access on both sides, what is considered a front as far as building setbacks? As a PZD we determine the setbacks in advance. What is your thinking? The way this is shown if this was a driveway in that area you would have a house right up in this corner. What are your thoughts there? Give us a little bit of the benefit of your thinking on how you drew the setbacks in and also in relation to potential shared drives. Actually, I would think 13 would want to face the front just for prestige sake. 14 being a corner lot has a lot of options as to which is their front area. There again, you are sort of looking at a three sided porch with several fronts here and the through drive in the back is sort of the envision of that lot. 13 and 1 and these along this side would certainly not face the common square we would like to see but because of arrangement. We could put a building setback in this area. It is not likely that someone would build a front ended house in that depth. We could move this back further for a straighter line across there. One of the things that comes to play with this is the access and also in dealing with the driveways. We use as a model and as a guideline of development procedures, even though it is a PZD, these are single family homes, the minimum lot frontage is 70'. First off, you are not showing us, I don't know what my numbers are telling me here on interpreting the drawing as far as the frontage of these different lots. Do we show a line along a building setback line which is normally what we accept on comer lots with a narrow frontage. What we are doing here is a compromise where we are deviating from accepted practice because it is a PZD and because there are special considerations. To me it is a cumulative affect. I would say to that regard Commissioner Bunch, when we do look at Subdivision Committe• • January 29, 2004 Page 17 standard RSF-4 zoned subdivisions, there is an exemption granted to the frontage for cul-de-sac lots. These very much resemble what you would see as a cul-de-sac lot configuration in a standard subdivision. Staff did not see a problem with regard to that. We do encourage the use of shared drives and I think it is appropriate to show where we can predict those shared drives for tree purposes and also to cut down on having driveways go everywhere off the end of these accesses. Bunch: One of my concerns here was also for clarity and for ease of reading the drawings because the next step goes to nine people and then the step after that goes to nine more people so that it is more user friendly from the drawing standpoint for people to understand what they are looking at. Jefcoat: That is one reason, like Dawn said, we have shown the building setback here so that you do have more frontage here and we've done the same thing here. On that particular lot it was not done in that way because of the front on there we didn't feel it was necessary. We certainly have the 70' frontage was taken into account and that is the reason we did the setbacks where we had to get the 70'. Ostner: I still think for me that I need to see footprints, not pulled out of a book, house plans that are to be built, but maximum squares that are buildable that would be realistic. Jefcoat: When you say anywhere in the building setback is buildable area then you have done that and that's what we've done. Ostner: Is this guy really going to be square to this street or is he going to turn it? Jefcoat: That is his choice. Ostner: I know but it is such a tight area and it is a PZD and they are getting, I noticed, similar to cul-de-sac frontages, but it is going to require driveway coordination, which feeds into house coordination. Hoskins: These are private street anyway. This is on a public street. Ostner: I'm just saying to coordinate the driveways for me to understand this you almost need some sort of maximum footprint, not a buildable line. Jefcoat: That is a maximum. Hoskins: Somebody could potentially fill that hole with a house, it would be a big house but they could do it. Ostner: How does that work with the driveways? Subdivision Committe• • January 29, 2004 Page 18 Jefcoat: That is the reason that we have done this example of greenspace and we have said that we are preserving right a 27% where in reality when the house is built that is the worse case scenario should that whole buildable area be used. Ostner: I understand that. I am just saying the driveway coordination and house coordination are not completely separate issues, they work together. If you coordinate some driveways maybe it will just work itself out. Bunch: This drawing disagrees with what has been stated on driveways because you are showing. Jefcoat: If we determine the driveways. There again, the driveways are not taken out of your greenspace. We can do that, yes. That is not a normal occurance. Bunch: Just for consistency, if you are talking a shared driveway here then obviously, if it is called out tha that is a shared driveway then obviously this greenspace comes out of this but it will free up other areas for greenpsace. Jefcoat: I think it may be a toss up as to whether we show a shared driveway or show a shared driveway. Which ever way Tracy feels more comfortable with predicting the development of those individual lots is where we show it. I think we are in agreement here that rather than just say that we are going to share driveways is to at least show it. Bunch: That is one of the costs of the flexibility of the PZD in order to have this type of configuration. Part of that compromise is you pay for it by saying ok, this is where we are going to put the driveway. That is the tradeoff. Hoskins: The essence of the concern is that we implement shared driveways and basically that each lot owner only has one entrance basically. In other words, do we have to determine at this point which lot lines get that shared driveway or can we put in the restrictive covenants that they have to share a driveway on one side or the other with their neighbor? Bunch: If you wanted to do it that way if a builder came in and said he wanted to buy these two lots then that would force these two to share. Ostner: If those two have already shared then this guy isn't left with anything but a single. Bunch: These right in here is a moot point. Ostner: We just said all lots have to share and if it is not coordinated up front. Subdivision Committe• • January 29, 2004 Page 19 Bunch: Lot where there is a frontage issue if you will. Jefcoat: Ok. Ostner: That is my concern. Bunch: Our concern is the access to the individual lots and if we are to go favorable on this we are allowing less than normal frontage so it is important that we say ok, if we are doing that then we need to provide access to those and that is what we are trying to accomplish is the tradeoff between the lesser frontage and guaranteeing access. Hoskins: Are you talking about at the setback or at the street? Bunch: Well, there is reduced frontage here, this property line and this property line for a driveway to be put in if this is an unshared driveway. What we are saying is that there has to be a scheme or a plan for providing access to the lots with minimal frontage, even though this is a private road, minimal frontage on the road. Jefcoat: We've got four lots there and four lots here so I guess we could split it between the two lots. Hoskins: We'll fix it whatever it is. Bunch: That would help as we get further down the line because right now it is rather confusing. On the same deal, let's look at this underground detention pond and who's responsibility that is and where the access is to maintain it since that is going to come very much into play with these driveways. Could you tell us a little bit on how that system works and how it will work in relationship to the driveways and what kinds of loads can be imposed on it? Jefcoat: Right. Your two inlet boxes are here. We were going to use the stormtech system within this end of the drive and include the volume in the pipe and the cleanout would be in front of the outlet structure here so you would have access to the underground facility and the two outlets there and the one cleanout at the pipe. Bunch: Would these have manholes on top of them for access here as well as the cleanout? What affect would that have on placing the driveway between lots 11 and 12 on top of that? Jefcoat: That part would be concrete pipe. Bunch: So that is concrete pipe and it wouldn't really matter but there could be a shared driveway immediately above that? Subdivision Committe• • January 29, 2004 Page 20 Jefcoat: Yes. Bunch: Matt, are you with what we are talking about here? Casey: It would just need to have some sort of private drainage easement then dedicated for the detention system to be able to be maintained since we are not creating a separate lot like you normally see in a subdivision. Bunch: We are also looking at drainage, I guess the existing contours of the land are all draining in the traditional fashion but all the roads and everything are drained to this system? Jefcoat: Yes. One of the issues brought up in themeeting was that these people receive drainage off of this and it does cause them a problem at some time. The development actually will capture and decrease the runoff affect that these peole have and that these people do. The only persn that receives runoff that doesn't get benefit from the development would be this particular lot and he was at the meeting and we talked about that. Bunch: These driveways and everything go into the road? Jefcoat: Yes, the contours all come that way so the road would actually act as an interceptor. All the runoff would be concentrated and captured and let out similar to where it is going now except the valley does come through these lots. We are actually having that water situation. Ostner: I know we've already touched on Hwy. 265 but I think for the full Commission that a better drawing than this needs to show overview. Bunch: Staff provided that didn't they? Ostner: I know, this just happens to be in our packet and this is all I've got. I need something that shows your proposed development and stuff surrounding it. I know that the other committees that have to look at it are going to want to see something more too. Warrick: You have this too. Ostner: I know, but that's confusing. Warrick: We will draw that line for you, this is what you will have in your packet also. Is this not sufficient to what you will need? Ostner: I don't think it is going to be sufficient for others. Warrick: I need more direction then because this shows all of the houses and all of Subdivision Committer • January 29, 2004 Page 21 the surrounding subdivisions. Ostner: If that showed this. Jefcoat: If we overlaid that onto this? Warrick: You want to see the lot layout on this? Ostner: I want to see the curb cut at least into that scale, that would be perfect, I think everyone is going to want to see how this falls into traffic. I would call that an overview drawing. Bunch: Ok, then the drawing that you have here Tom, how does that relate to conditions of approval five and six? Jefcoat: The utility easements have been removed from the rear of lots so there are no utility easements. The previous layout showed the sewer going in the back of those lots. That was in order that we didn't have manholes in the street and we eliminated as much unsightliness as we could, but in order to provide the buffer zone and to have less disturbance with the trees and things we brought everything to the front so there are no utility easements in the back of the property. Bunch: That creates a buffer between this and the properties behind it. Jefcoat: Right, it also creates a buffer between the church. All the outside we kept the integrity of the existing trees. I must point out that this is a thickly covered site and what we've shown is the significant trees. That is not to say that there are not 21" trees and 18" trees there because there are. These are only the significant trees there. There are just multi -trees, while this may be a 24" post oak there may be 10 21" post oaks in that same area. Bunch: The green is representative of existing canopy with the existence of significant trees highlighted. Jefcoat: We have shown the building setback so it is possible that these trees would be lost. Because these are significant trees hopefully not. Bunch: What about these down through here since this is a utility easement? You are showing that as a green. Jefcoat: Some of those, we were going to preserve as many as we can through that. We are not going to just clearcut the whole easement. That is these two locations, we've got significant trees here that we are certainly going to try to protect because of the root structure here and here. We have them listed as preserved, not necessarily lost. We tried to accommodate all of our Subdivision Committee • January 29, 2004 Page 22 utilities down here. Bunch: When you are saying remove that are in a building envelope, can you interpret that for us? Jefcoat: Yes, where it falls within the building envelope we have slated it as removed because it could be removed because it sits in the building setback. Bunch: Not from the standpoint of a contractor looking at this coming in and saying oh my goodness, that says removed, it is in the building envelope, I have to remove it? Jefcoat: No, it is a potential removal and that was terminology that we worked out with the Landscape Administrator. He wanted us to present the very worst case scenario. Bunch: For purposes of calculation? Jefcoat: Right so it is the worse case scenario. It is obvious that this one is in the middle of the lot and it most likely would be lost. Bunch: Just maybe a note. Like I said, there is going to be a minimum of 18 people looking at this and probably many, many more. Jefcoat: That would be a good note to put on there as to why that is the worse case scenario. Bunch: To clarify the ones where it says remove. Ostner: Some people say "not counted towards total." Just lose the removed word and say "not counted towards total." Bunch: There is a lot more clarity that way. Jefcoat: Lot 5 and 6 that we discussed, the last one I guess is no structures in the easement. That has to do mainly with the stonewall proposed out front. This retaining wall shown in the circle, what we've done there is that is about an 18" wall to level the island up and to give it some character. It is going to be a landscape island and to give it a little better look we leveled it up with an 18" wall and it is obvious because of the two contours. Had it been a 6' retaining wall we would've had many more contours. The nomenclature is wrong and we will straighten that out. Bunch: Would that be a stone fagade to match? Jefcoat: To carry unity and to act together. It would be installed like this. That Subdivision Committee • January 29, 2004 Page 23 sort of sets the character. It draws the unity throughout the development so that would be the same character as that. This retaining wall we were talking about a 5' to 6' stone wall. We did what Matt suggested, we took it out of the easement where you've got the right of way, the 5' strip for the wall and then your utility easement so it is not in a utility easement but we do show and would like to do some curbed entrances which crosses the easement. The gas line is out in the road right of way and the only utilities in the easement would be the overhead electrical. Since it is all the water and all the sewer is not in that easement the only utilities that would be in that easement would be the overhead electrical cable and things so if we provided conduit on either side of that wall in the easement we would like the curvature of that wall to cross that easement. Bunch: You are adding conduits should sometime that overhead be buried? Jefcoat: That overhead would be buried for this development. Bunch: Matt, is that acceptable, just like a street crossing to have the quads in under the fence? Casey: I think I'm comfortable with the wall crossing the easement and not running with the easement because it is a lot easier if a utility had to do some work, to put a new line in to go under that wall than to run right beside it if they are having to dig down several feet deep. I think crossing would be acceptable. Jefcoat: Good. We have conduit under the road so what we will do is just extend it on beyond the sidewalk. Ostner: You mentioned a maximum height for the stonewall to be 5', is that so you've got something pictured of how it steps down and follows this grade? Jefcoat: We are not going to level the top of it, we are just going to run it with the grade. You don't have that severe of a slope there that you would want to stair step it down. It would be contoured with the existing grade. Bunch: What sort of covenants do you have as far as house size, we are looking at compatibility issues with adjoining properties in areas so what sort of, you have house construction, house size, could you give us a preview of that? Will you have those available for the full Planning Commission? Hoskins: We are working on the Restrictive Covenants as we speak. To give you an overview, the minimum square footage on the houses will be about 2,200 to 2,300 sq.ft. We are expecting more like 3,000 sq.ft. houses, all brick or stone, no E.I.F.S., no hardyboard siding, no vinyl siding, no aluminum siding, no vinyl soffit, etc., all natural materials, we are looking Subdivision Committee • January 29, 2004 Page 24 at the gas lamps on the fronts of the houses and streets, we are looking at that but we haven't determined that yet. Minimum 8 pitch roofs, all rear or side entry garages, nothing facing the street. This is slated to be a European design type subdivision, in other words, lots of tudor and sweeping rooflines, wood windows, etc. Garage doors being carriage style garage doors instead of sealed or whatever. Those are the things that we are leaning towards, of course, a lot of it is still up in the air, but that is the intent of the subdivision. Bunch: The covenant on the rear or side entry garages would go quite well with the issue of the driveways. Jefcoat: Yeah. We also talked about private fences being setback from the front part of the house to half the distance of the house. Hoskins: Right, no fences would come up to the front corner of the house. Jefcoat: It is good for the appearance of the subdivision to have all house fronts and no visible fencing along the fronts of the houses. Ostner: If you are looking for that kind of high end European style design have you considered narrowing these streets, they are 28' back to back, that is ample for three cars to pass, it is pretty wide. Jefcoat: If you narrow the streets you get back to circulation problems, trash cuts, vans, visitors. The wider the street and still keeping an intimate feeling. Bunch: What about on street parking, is that allowed? Hoskins: That is another issue as well, the width of the streets is for on street parking right? Jefcoat: I think in the covenants you said that there would be no on street parking, it is understood, we talked about hours of on street parking and whether it is 24 hours maximum so you don't have permanent on street parking. Bunch: One of the concerns again would be in this area. Of course, that is a private drive but still, from a safety standpoint and emergency vehicles and access, that is a concern, whether it is a public or private right of way. Jefcoat: Right, we wouldn't want to narrow the streets anymore than what we've got. We have thought through a lot of this. Bunch: In this area definitely not but that works into the overall scheme and I think that people are going to be asking those questions so we want to preview them here to give you an opportunity to be prepared to answer them. Subdivision Committe• • January 29, 2004 Page 25 Ostner: Part of the thought behind the 28' street is that it is in essence three lanes, two driving, on parking. It doesn't matter, it's just a comment. Bunch: Ok, I'll bite on one thing, how did you come up with the name Hickory Park when there is one hickory tree in it? Hoskins: I had a better idea but they didn't like my idea so I let them come up with the name. Bunch: Staff or Commissioners, is there anything that needs to be addressed as far as what we are sending forward if we do send this forward? Commissioner Allen, you've been extremely quiet on this particular one, any recap of the details that Alan and I have gotten into, can you give us an overview of it? Allen: I think everything has been clearly stated. MOTION: Ostner: I will make a motion we forward R-PZD 04-05.00 to the full Planning Commission. Allen: I second. Bunch: I will concur and I guess that is with there were many things that were brought up today I think to which you will be responding so I think that would be a good comment to make that it would be as discussed in this meeting. Allen: A reminder to the neighbor and to the other neighbors that if they are available to come to the hearing at the Planning Commission. Bunch: We are adjourned. Planning Commission• • February 9, 2004 Page 25 R-PZD 04-05.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Hickory Park, pp 294) was submitted by Millholland Company on behalf of St. John's Lutheran Church of Fayetteville for property located at 2730 E. Township Street. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional, and contains approximately 4.429 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District and to approve the development of 14 residential lots. Hoover: The next item on the agenda is R-PZD 04-05.00 for Hickory Park. Morgan: This project was submitted by was submitted by Millholland Company on behalf of St. John's Lutheran Church of Fayetteville for property located at 2730 E. Township Street. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District and to approve the development of 14 residential lots on approximately 4.429 acres. Density for the entire site is 3.16 units per acre. The property is currently zoned P-1, Institutional and is identified as Residential on the General Plan. The site is currently vacant. To the north is Glenwood Addition zoned RSF-4 with 2.47 units per acre. To the south is St. John's Lutheran Church with P-1, Institutional zoning. To the east is single family residential usage with an R-A zoning designation. To the west is Cedarwood Addition, zoned RSF- 4 and has approximately 3.17 units per acre. The existing canopy on this site is 100% and preserved is 26.82%. Staff has received calls from the neighborhood with concerns regarding drainage, traffic, tree preservation and safety issues. Staff has made the following findings: The proposed density is compatible with surrounding properties. In addition, the applicant has proposed erecting a 6' stone wall along Crossover to be used as screening between the road and the housing. There are currently manmade screenings along Crossover and this is somewhat consistent with the other subdivisions along Crossover. In addition, connectivity is being proposed from this subdivision to the east to Crossover Road. Shared drives will be utilized between lots one and two, six and seven, eleven and twelve and thirteen and fourteen in order to decrease the number of curb cuts. Pedestrian access is also provided along the sidewalks with the interior streets as well as Crossover. The developer is also proposing a landscaped island at the entrance of the subdivision and a landscaped round about with a mail kiosk at the terminus of the right of way within the subdivision. Access is being provided to Crossover Road with a 14' drive aisle into the subdivision and a 20' exit drive aisle, which would provide sufficient width for a right and left turn lane. Use Unit 8 is the proposed use for this subdivision. The proposal is unique in that there are build to lines and specific building types and materials called for in the covenants. Shared drives will be utilized. Staff is recommending to eliminate the build to lines on lots 4, 7, and 8 in order to preserve a greater amount of canopy. The proposed zoning, it is in the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that the Planned Zoning District will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase Planning Commission • • February 9, 2004 Page 26 the load on police services or create a traffic danger or congestion in the area. Based on these findings, staff is recommending that this be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the requested rezoning and Planning Commission approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat subject to 13 conditions. Staff has received signed conditions. Hoover: Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company representing St. Lutheran's Church. The applicant is also Signature Homes, Tracy Hoskins. We do accept the conditions of approval, they have been signed. The condition of build to lines on lots 4, 7, and 8 will be added to the plat and also on the tree plat we have a correction to make on not to count the trees in the building envelopes. Those two corrections will be made. Other than that, we are in agreement with the conditions. Hoover: At this time we will open up this PZD to public comment for Hickory Park. Sigafiss: I'm Bob Sigafuss, I live on Hardy Lane. I'm sorry my old friend Mr. Estes isn't here tonight because he generally agreed with comments I made in the past. Hopefully, I can make something constructive of this whole decision. I would like you to take a look at the big picture, particularly the traffic considerations. East Fayetteville is under a lot of pressure. I noticed up front your goals for 2008 number four says "Improve mobility and street quality." I hope that doesn't mean you are going to start to think about that in 2008 because it has been a long standing problem on Crossover Road. Crossover is the eastern corridor of Fayetteville. College Avenue is the center and I-540 is the west. In the last couple of years this street has become a mess. 24 hours a day there is truck traffic constant. From 2:00 in the afternoon to 7:00 in the evening there is heavy traffic. This entrance to Hickory Park is only 450', maybe less, from the' traffic light of Township. It is only 450' from the entrance to Hardy. Hardy is a dead-end little subdivision. There is no outlet. Hickory Park there is no outlet other than off of Crossover. This leads to a lot of problems with safety. When I make a left turn into Hardy Lane sometimes you think that you are going to meet your maker because you are in the center lane, there are three lanes, one north, one south and one center. You have that little turn and you have an instant to get across because the traffic is so heavy. With Hickory Park you are going to be much closer to the congestion and I would think that it is going to be a very difficult thing to maintain a pattern of flow on that state highway is this project is approved. Candlewood is an interesting project, it is a very nice project. They have an entrance on Crossover, they have an entrance on Township, it is an ideal situation, you can get in and out. Hickory Park Planning Commission • February 9, 2004 Page 27 you are in and you notice from your plans it is a very narrow confines in that project. I'm not going to talk extensively about the nitty gritty because that apparently has already been accomplished. I would hope that the church, which is now the owner of the property, would rethink the highest and best use of that property. If they are willing to grant an easement off of Township, and there is room for a 28' road off of Township and at least allow an extra entrance to the project it would make this project much more feasible. That's only one of the considerations I have. The second is the question of the marsh area. 4.4 acres, of that I would estimate one acre, maybe a little more, is a swamp. It occupies lots 11, 12, and 13. Mr. Jefcoat, the engineer for Milholland disputed that at the Subdivision Committee meeting. He said he had expertise in matters of wetlands and marshlands and this was not a problem. I would like to differ with that opinion and I would like to ask the staff, how many of the staff has been in that marshland area? Ms. Morgan, Mr. Casey? Morgan: I've been to the site but I've not walked it. Casey: I have not walked the site. Sigafuss: How about when you visited the other day, the Planning Commission? Did you get down into that marshland? It is a serious marshland. It is something that ought to be looked at by some third party, not take Mr. Jefcoat's word for it. He has a certain vested interest in this project. I would like at least before this project moves forward to the City Council for somebody to take a look at it and convince those of us who think that this is a wetland that it is not and it is going to be safe to develop lots 11, 12 and 13. Two parcels on Hardy Lane abut this marshland. The corner lot and the second one in on Hardy. Even during dry periods you can walk in there and the ground is spongy and it has a certain vegetation on it which looks like what the Corp. of Engineers decides is a wetland. I would think that you'd want to take a look at that first. Second, ask the principals of the church what they considered when they put this land up for sale. I know for a fact that a number of developers have looked at this land over the years and have turned it down because they felt that it was too difficult to develop and the traffic pattern there may affect the marketability of those homes. I tend to agree that it might affect the marketability of these homes. I think three of these homes are directly behind the wall off of Crossover and that drop off to the marshland is at least 3' below the grade of Crossover. It is down, it slopes to the northeast comer of that parcel. That you must address to satisfy my concerns. The church is asking for a rezoning. That is a very important serious matter. They have been living with this land, I think it is 10 acres total for their property, practically tax free for 30 years or more. Have they thought about other uses? Have they thought about maybe approaching one of the urban forest groups to take it off their hands? Have they thought about Planning Commission • • February 9, 2004 Page 28 maybe selling it to a single home owner? There is precedent on Crossover between Township and Mission, there are three or four homes that sit down there on large acreage, very nice places. It is possible that someone could come along and pay the church a fair price for it's land. I hope the church, I don't know their circumstances and why they are choosing to sell the land, it is probably financial, but whatever they are, I would like the church officials to approach the Planning Commission and the City Council and tell them why they are selling this land. I don't think you should just look at the plat and criticize or add suggestions. It is more the big picture as I said at the beginning. Please don't rush this thing through to the City Council and remember item number four, 2008, improved mobility and street quality. You are not adding to the betterment of Fayetteville by this decision. You may be going the other way. I would say either change the design or turn down the project. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public that would like to address this Planned Zoning District? McCartney: Hi, I'm James McCartney, this is my first time here. I live in Glenwood as well with Bob. What I was thinking is when you are considering this residential area here by the church that you would think about the way that Glenwood is closed off and unable to go anywhere in the neighborhood unless you go by car on Hwy. 265. What I would like to see is a continuation of the sidewalk that is in front of our development to go to the west side of Hwy. 265 and continue onto Township so that we can go to Gulley Park, potentially cross the street and go to McNair Middle School and Vandergriff. It would seem like that the financial resources are there and also the construction equipment to do something like that at this point in time. It would not be just in front of the proposed subdivision because that would also be a dead-end but it would also continue on the east side of the Lutheran Church all the way to Township. That's what I would suggest doing so that people can get out from both of those subdivisions, walk up to Township, walk down Township, go to Gulley Park to go to the concert or take the kids to the playground and what have you. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public that would like to address this Planned Zoning District? Hemingway: My name is Doug Hemingway and I'm a member of St. John's Lutheran Church. We were approached by this developer to purchase our property and I said let's see a plan. What he has done is he has designed an excellent plan. The church is most happy with it. We would like to see this really happen. The church is all for it and I would like to commend the city and the engineering staff and the developer for coming up with an excellent PZD. This is just a small piece of land where everything is Planning Commission• • February 9, 2004 Page 29 confined to a center village style and it represents what a PZD to me is. I would like to hear some more comments of how you feel about the design itself. We think it is quite excellent. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public? Mainfort: Robert Mainfort, 2408 N. Hampton Ct. My property is located essentially southwest of the proposed project area at the comer of Hampton Ct. and Township. The speaker before last raised a couple of issues that I would like to address. For starters, there is absolutely no comparability between the proposed development we are discussing tonight and Candlewood. This represents 14 single family units. Candlewood the last time I walked through there has at least several more structures than that. Most residents of the area I think are not concerned with matters of access because of Crossover. The other matter ties in with accessibility and basically creating access off of Township. This would go more or less through my backyard and that of about six other people who would not be pleased by this. More over, I would suggest that the speaker before last is being somewhat hypocritical in proposing this when on the one hand posing that certain areas he considers marshlands and then proposing an access road that would destroy a very large amount of habitat currently preserved. Both the church and the developer we think have been good neighbors on this and I strongly suggest that we proceed with this. Thank you. Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission and staff. I guess first would you address traffic on Hwy. 265 and accessibility? Warrick: I will take that, at least to start. Hwy. 265 is a principal arterial, it is a state highway. It is designed when it is fully built to it's principal arterial standard to sustain the volume of over 20,000 vehicle trips per day. The current Arkansas Highway and Transportation Division count on this particular strip of Hwy. 265 in this location is approximately 16,000 vehicle trips per day. A single family home generates between nine and ten vehicle trips per day. This subdivision would generate fewer than 140 vehicle trips per day on a count based on I.T.E., the Institute of Traffic Engineers software and reporting mechanisms. The developer has proposed an entry that allows for a single access into the development, a one way entrance and there is a wide enough exit to provide for a two lane exit, a right turn and a left turn. Incidentally, that also allows for the necessary vehicle width for fire protection. The applicant has thought about the option to allow for stacking distance if people are stacked up at a peak hour. This portion of the city, like I mentioned, Hwy. 265 is a highway. It is located in a highly residential area, there are several schools in the area. There are peaks and there are times when there is a wait in order to move. Traffic movements are slower at certain times. Planning Commission• • February 9, 2004 Page 30 That is not uncommon. You will always have peak times and off peak times so just as far as the numbers are concerned and as far as our evaluation of the situation staff is not concerned that 140 vehicles will detrimentally impact the traffic flow in this particular area. Hoover: Thank you. I guess I would like to direct the discussion to the suggestion of a sidewalk connecting this subdivision down to Township, which I personally thought was an excellent idea. Vaught: My question would be for the City Attorney. Can we require improvements like that on a project like that, not a part of this site? Whitaker: We probably cannot, however, of course, we do have money in the sidewalk fund and it might be a very good time if this project goes through, to do a cost share with their developer who will already have his equipment out there and can probably build that sidewalk in a cost share with the city much more economically at the time that this would develop as opposed to some other time. I certainly share your agreement with Vandergriff being close and the park being close, that pedestrian access to those areas would be very helpful. Vaught: Would that be a recommendation that we would make to the City Council for a cost share then? Whitaker: It would be a little bit too early to do a cost share, that would have to be when the project was finally approved and coming back after final approval when they start building it but certainly your recommendation that at that point in time that the city consider a cost share would be appropriate. Hoover: I guess I'm confused. Are you saying that it would be alright to suggest that with this? Williams: Certainly I think you can suggest it now. At this point it is pretty early in . the game to get to the final thing but I think that you can certainly make that suggestion as part of your recommendation. Warrick: I believe that if the Planning Commission wishes to see that connection and a cost share consideration you need to make a definitive finding. This is the Preliminary Plat for this subdivision. They will build off of this approval. When you see it as a Final Plat it will be constructed, installed and complete. This is the time to look at those types of requirements. Hoover: Can we have the applicant come back? Planning Commission • February 9, 2004 Page 31 Vaught: This is an R-PZD so City Council will see it next. They won't start construction until after the City Council approves it so if we recommend, can we make it a condition or is it just a recommendation? Warrick: It is a recommendation. The City Council can certainly make it a condition if they deem that to be appropriate. Williams: The problem with trying to make a requirement not on the site that is being built on is I think we might be possibly overstepping our bounds on what the impact of this housing development of 14 houses and a sidewalk of that length, because we should also have it along the front of the church too along Township, I think that would be out of proportion to the impact that they would be incurring here and also it would be on somebody else's property and so in this case we need cooperation with the church to make sure that we have enough right of way to build the sidewalk with them and want their cooperation as opposed to trying to make it an actual requirement of this subdivision. Within this subdivision along Township we certainly can but beyond that I would make it a recommendation as opposed to requirement. Hoover: In the past we have required some offsite improvements. Williams: I've not seen an offsite sidewalk improvement. Hoover: There are other improvements. I don't think that a sidewalk is necessarily different from a road or something else. Williams: Those have always been based also on a rational nexus and proportionality of how much this development will require for a bridge or something is what you are thinking about. Here, we haven't done a rational nexus test to see what that would be when you look at all the sidewalks within the subdivision and then also the sidewalk that will be required along Township within the subdivision. Then to say that they must build a sidewalk along the church's property, which is much longer here, the church has already developed. We don't know for sure if we even have the land at this point in time so I think that it would be a little bit premature to try to require that. I think this can be worked out but I would recommend that you do it in a recommendation instead of trying to require it at this time since we don't have the facts and figures at this point to make that kind of determination. Hoover: I'm correct in assuming in a PZD we have the right to request or recommend what we think is compatible with the neighborhood and all the series of lists of items that we have? Planning Commission• • February 9, 2004 Page 32 Williams: You certainly have a right to recommend this. I think that probably with the Planning Commission unanimously recommending this and the support from the neighbors that it will be done. I would rather see that as a recommendation as opposed to some sort of requirement that we have to follow and meet other tests in order to make that a requirement. Hoover: We might get a response from the applicant. Jefcoat: It is a two fold problem if not more. The sidewalk would be on property not owned by the applicant. The church would have to agree to the property as was stated, we are looking at close to 500' of sidewalk offsite if you go down Township. If you connect to Township you are looking at 200' of sidewalk. You are looking at a considerable amount of sidewalk. The applicant most likely would certainly consider a portion of that cost share and a proportional amount, certainly not half and half. There are some other considerations. While you may recommend that, it certainly would be nice to see the sidewalk at least continued to Township, the question is to how much of that responsibility belongs to the client. That is not for us to recommend or say at this point. Hoover: Are there other discussion items on this? Anthes: Standard condition of approval number eleven, I believe we just saw another project tonight where we required a 4' sidewalk with a 6' greenspace and this says a 4' sidewalk with a 4' greenspace. Can you speak to why we would do one or the other? Casey: Our requirements are that the sidewalk be located at the right of way. The greenspace will vary from project to project depending on the right of way width. I believe this is a 24' street. We have minimum greenspace requirements but the ordinance actually says it should be located at the right of way so that's why we see the varying greenspaces sometimes. Anthes: You can't really plant a tree in 4' but you can in 6'. Jefcoat: I might address that to help clarify that up some. It also preserves trees outside the sidewalk so that is one reason we are trying, we have got a very thick canopy and a lot of trees here. That additional footage outside the sidewalk helps us protect some of those existing trees. Anthes: Because you are clearing the other part anyway, is that what you're saying? Another question is on page 4.5 at the bottom, talking about the International Fire Code requirements for the egress from the subdivision, are we meeting the code with the turn around and the mail kiosk in that area? Planning Commission• • February 9, 2004 Page 33 Casey: The proposed cul-de-sac does meet our current minimum street standards as far as radius. Anthes: My next question is there was a pretty considerable amount of language in the tree preservation protection report that had some strong recommendations about reducing density, cluster developments, rerouting streets, build to lines, using words like significant, unnecessarily requiring, my question is of staff and Subdivision Committee, whether these concerns expressed by Mr. Camagey have been incorporated in any way by the developer. Camagey: This development does meet the minimum requirements of our tree preservation ordinance. As you see in my report, there are recommendations that I have forwarded. However, the conditions of approval that I submitted to Subdivision Committee have been met by this applicant and therefore, because they meet the minimum requirements staff has no reservations about forwarding this project at this time. Anthes: Those are all of my questions, thank you. Bunch: Just some comments from Subdivision. Just like Commissioner Anthes questioned the tree report was prior to Subdivision and prior to additions and changes by the applicant. There have been a considerable number of alterations. There was a meeting with the neighborhood that incorporated some changes. Another thing that has been changed is the landscape island has been shortened in its cast/west dimension to allow better access to lotsl and 13. Also, the width of the outbound has been altered to allow left turn lanes. Shared drives have been added and this was to offset the utilization of some very narrow frontages and accesses on particularly lots 13, 12, 11, 7 and 6. If you will notice in the covenants as well as in the findings and on the drawings, there are shared drives that have now been added. This is to improve the access to the lots but also to eliminate having a maze of concrete at the end of each one of these streets where there might be a 24' driveway on a 25' frontage and that sort of thing. It is an unusual concept to have a public street that ends in a cul-de-sac and then to have hammerhead private streets going from that. Also, one of the things I noticed is it has underground detention ponds. These are some of the things that we discussed at Subdivision was the accessibility to cleanouts for the underground detention system. Also, the access with the shared drives and such with the private drives. That has all been addressed in the covenants as far as the maintenance and that sort of thing. This is a project that has had quite a bit of attention. The developer worked with staff considerably and made quite a number of changes. They worked with the neighborhood and they also worked with Subdivision Committee and there have been changes so it is definitely one Planning Commission February 9, 2004 Page 34 utilizing what a PZD is for where there are multiple inputs and the changes are incorporated. Hoover: Thank you for the report. Ostner: Can you elaborate about the build to lines, where they are? Jefcoat: The build to lines are the front building setbacks only, except for lots 7, 8 and 4 where we have significant trees on the fronts of those lots. The build to line has been eliminated on those front building setbacks to try to come up with an alternative to save those trees. Ostner: It is the front setback line is to pull the buildings to the street? Jefcoat: Yes. Ostner: Since there are so many trees, I'm curious, how many provisions are being made for these trees or are any trees supposed to remain after the lots sale or is it just up to the lot owner to go ahead and develop as he or she wishes? Jefcoat: There is an architectural review committee setup in the covenants and they would have the right to approve any significant tree that was removed from inside the building envelope. In order to meet our minimum canopy, all trees within the building envelope, including the significant trees, were not considered in the count in order to meet our minimum canopy, therefore, that is the worse case scenario if all the trees within the building envelope were to be removed. Also, we have left a buffer strip. Normally utilities such as sewer would be along the rear property lines, these have been located in the front, utilities have all be pulled to the front which in the case of the north side of the subdivision, is the high side. That sewer line there will be constructed at a deeper depth than you would normally find on a short line like that in order to preserve the trees along the back and to give an additional buffer benefit to the neighbors to the north. There have been considerable considerations. Shackelford: As I look at this property I think that it is in accordance with some of the surrounding properties, in particular, Hardy Lane. If you look at the development that happened in the late 1980's and early 1990's just south of this property it is a single entrance road with 16 units, pretty much a carbon copy of what we are talking about doing here. I think we have gone through great lengths to make the best compromises in this area we can to allow development and still maintain the integrity of the overall neighborhood. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we recommend approval of R-PZD 04-05.00 with the addition of the language that we recommend the city research a cost share for sidewalk Planning Commission• • February 9, 2004 Page 35 construction on the east side of the church property and the south side of the church property along Township. Vaught: I will second. Hoover: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Vaught, is there more discussion? Bunch: Yes. Could we ask the representatives from the church what they would be willing to contribute on this if it is going to be a neighborhood effort to try to get sidewalks in and access Gulley Park. The city wanted to make, we are asking the city in a sense to cost share and we are asking the developer to take a look at cost share, what contribution would the church be willing to make on this? Hoover: I think that we can't do that here, I think that will happen at City Council, am I correct? Williams: You can ask them, I don't know if they can speak for the church. I don't know if they have someone here that can actually do that. I don't think it would be binding. Bunch: Just to get the dialogue started since there was a representative of the church here that spoke to us in the public comment session and also to look at the principal of neighbors working together and since the church is the seller of the property they do have a vested interest in it. Hemingway: At the neighborhood meeting that we had this was brought up and it was quickly stopped when I said we'll put in our share. That is when the neighbors were requesting the sidewalk. We said we'll put in our share. There was no more discussion of a sidewalk. These people that are requesting a sidewalk, we are not opposed to a sidewalk, we are just opposed to spending a whole lot of money to do it. If there can be some kind of agreement with the neighbors that want this we will be happy to put in our share. That is what we have come to the conclusion of saying, does that seem fair to you all? Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Jefcoat: I would like to address one other thing that the client has brought to my attention. We are interested in just the sidewalk going to Township on the east side of the church. I'm not sure the church would like to see the sidewalk on the south side of the church and that has nothing to do in the process of the client. Also, while we are doing the assessment consideration, it has been pointed out that the users of the sidewalk, those Planning Commission• • February 9, 2004 Page 36 in the Hardy Lane subdivision should be assessed their equal portion for the sidewalk also. Hemingway: I would just like to state that there is a sidewalk now on Township on our side so it would just be the east side. Shackelford: I was not aware that there was a sidewalk on the south property line so I would like to change my recommended motion to strike that part of it that we research a cost share on the south property line along Township. Hoover: Is that ok with the second? Vaught: That's good. Hoover: Is there any other discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward R-PZD 04-05.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries nine to zero. STAFF WIEW FORM - NON -FINANCIAL OVIGATION x AGENDA REQUEST For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: FROM: Dawn Warrick Name Planning Division ACTION REQUIRED: Ordinance approval. SUMMARY EXPLANATION: March 2, 2004 CP&E Department R-PZD 04-05.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Hickory Park, pp 294) was submitted by Millholland Company on behalf of St. John's Lutheran Church of Fayetteville for property located north of 2730 E. Township Street. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional, and contains approximately 4.429 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District allowing 14 single family dwelling units, a density of 3.16 units per acre. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval. / p Received in Mayor's Office /Uq Dat Date o 2/t71o4 Date Cross Reference: Department Director Date Aw�Wt�c.c�7 Finance Internal Services Dir. Previous Ord/Res#: 2 —IS-op Date Orig. Contract Date: Orig. Contract Number: New Item: Yes No `yy r S NIr "hip F IN to Ito IN o „A� 1 ka{ 1 I. Ito y °R f%•!� ���;: .per x," ? It� { L. 7.J'A^ 1. v IN IN I m r rli n I L too v� re*,V� rot X { oi t to r Al !tea „G1'`. ' �'� nr qp y .,No N,: �.P.>�4M IT itsi r r I' r�' .r rr•i :' Y� t+" �f 3L XkIt IN o}o t, •; !� . I o' n ccY�, � 4t� Ito/1 yaM' t �b E�i.. .•r..,. T t�lq� a•. -�r tug Wool � ,7 ` �� � .' , , r ot oto !ot �� ): s�{ .ems t N'r^__�iY 4 . . 111 4VIT Ito A, 1,' k 1 to 11 1 IN. IIIj � � it4 � r rNc rlloq Y / k a H yJ ;A,"'Nr4-It tad � PI tooto I�•1Irk t 4 . ; r III ,_ noL r / i'e.. •� / ` Lw It It I. P r =. ;�It Y I It did tt 4 AAA Is 4. w•.% i E C rIs l. it Ad LLta'I+. a CIE dw. Y r .g Kr, r-dd�' b , , '"!�' r ' t, ,l+r IS 'r�'• pNpyyA \AAA °n•.'K•. z. S} ar`I: .a ci .ji..- ^•'4J.`-'Y l[!nIII tll ai- sl'•tI I '°� a :�:.`"iii�4,f7F 1 7 I i\ d ddddd.I� � C 4') did. 4, a7r/ . 1 1'J. 4� f�'t�f�rvl�/ ��I�J's •. 1 owddd- o, ?•+ / Jpy 9 \ ` A pt .: 74' ` l,l, ,, �. /<t'"4f4t'� .l b', i . •. ( Jf / 4 t1.�j�y')UjIld 1l{ / 'Y `� to . :n .v F� d_ 1a ia} t".�i ^ 1`�ry g i �)tl' 4 ` dd tit 1API A, ((,p,},'s r / 1.It I did r t It N,: S ti� T RI 1W d 4r t Y Is do Is Is I d11��..;fare4 ' .'4 r 9 ( 4 / .>^ �� .� N,:i •fir." 'la �'fa :,F ti I V rri *,)m �er� yat v. •Y .. o f a dia It -I,I'—_I It Is-Qt .X gvdY j t 1 \.�ti4 _\•\I,i y 'T 111 did a .k1} ,•�ll-ttIF IdS kip as _ YS''1 I" ew �tqy}�7 .' 1 .'., - 'Idd:+y,I. *y 1 per ''s r\ a ,,4 {.t 1 {;A tea ` _ I \ r �:•ai v M t9" 7\ �r nj T�4;'ty'%yl'° �M �,y l nl iy �.r .� ma r• / J J u p nMJ 11 �t tl ,.did,/ 1L.ft }}rR ( w� i yL' (jh�r:�A- .. 1. :I 'oyP i t."\�a.rq� i r•' ktr7%1 \'U SF. rt u flay ! .F'rY K� l Hwo; '^yf �I Y. Y.+fi r �S�R (�+" �t K 3 fi �fa4a �� I I *�,.�'�YI �. F`HAp is it. +• �i 'Itd/� + f"Il- 5L. t._ 1 \/r�`l r. K ;C byw� i` j' �` '' S I IIp id <� ^ >` S. 7*' "n ''4�'4,'. '.. ' w M { w. a y rye Y it. Jd ' �''� "'7R a2' t yt `il"e 1.t ._�g.,C' ^., d Aid r�C{?k +F,-�gt(j � S �pyuJ 7? v-F,�'nl'i4��1, wi:{ !tY>Ct/tr. Etl ". 2c+Z- jdid. i �� Af fl e *'� , r-i k "/. "Idpj {. \: • S I �ikr�� \ t<\ 1 Ad "I I yP. 4.a •�< l i'�' n . , PAT dA 7 i t ' L Lai didI+��.`.. 17� llay+.+'.t. _ 1. !�'ar,�";k ,d �'�' fY•i '4�"•.yy+ j',lr.," �` qII.Iddh:".' I -\r/ ue s 4e''. .a. \ ' 4 K `{. {X,, _/ \ 4.: '^ �. �'`�t` ^ +ld. ' �rv' _r IIN ! SF i'j �\ 'vra �y \ R o,�it,{ n,tv,�y�t�s >, / \r ram\ / xxt� $'�. 1 Air, /p �p.4 ,:F 11 i ts, ti . 9t� ves,. 1 SS°ri �,)e F�✓' r } 'Mr t�,� m 6r �+� Ad HAS'(' =� v yr �; \+:Yl41 D ' t p + y S *. Hrc{ r`l. a r r`�-�',f I As 'LLI. 1 L y }�,�, /Sr Tyre♦ �+,- �As 11 I. t' '-ixr ,$ 4'aG5 "l Y c f 7 + _ It iry .l4'. l u f W r y e tt 4 ?g4 Ru + 45, � sn , •1 - �71 tc I Q �' f+ :. ri�1 rya 'r_, " 1 ,f .+ �Y ,< . ,•-� �.. 1114 , - j fWst �._it• v ,t(; �. P L� it 7 JI tl 1 •'��tl /• �� a�, Y N �� I l' l g 1 .,if.. 'Lif/ AAIII i{�u 1 I::�.// � ::�, .. . hhtlfM%#',i°+:t �'I. ifS. •::L r• ev' ?•+ / Jpy 9 \ ` A pt .: 74' ` l,l, ,, �. /<t'"4f4t'� .l b', i . •. ( Jf / 4 t1.�j�y')UjIld 1l{ / 'Y `� to . :n .v F� d_ 1a ia} t".�i ^ 1`�ry g i �)tl' 4 ` dd tit 1API A, ((,p,},'s r / 1.It I did r t It N,: S ti� T RI 1W d 4r t Y Is do Is Is I d11��..;fare4 ' .'4 r 9 ( 4 / .>^ �� .� N,:i •fir." 'la �'fa :,F ti I V rri *,)m �er� yat v. •Y .. o f a dia It -I,I'—_I It Is-Qt .X gvdY j t 1 \.�ti4 _\•\I,i y 'T 111 did a .k1} ,•�ll-ttIF IdS kip as _ YS''1 I" ew �tqy}�7 .' 1 .'., - 'Idd:+y,I. *y 1 per ''s r\ a ,,4 {.t 1 {;A tea ` _ I \ r �:•ai v M t9" 7\ �r nj T�4;'ty'%yl'° �M �,y l nl iy �.r .� ma r• / J J u p nMJ 11 �t tl ,.did,/ 1L.ft }}rR ( w� i yL' (jh�r:�A- .. 1. :I 'oyP i t."\�a.rq� i r•' ktr7%1 \'U SF. rt u flay ! .F'rY K� l Hwo; '^yf �I Y. Y.+fi r �S�R (�+" �t K 3 fi �fa4a �� I I *�,.�'�YI �. F`HAp is it. +• �i 'Itd/� + f"Il- 5L. t._ 1 \/r�`l r. K ;C byw� i` j' �` '' S I IIp id <� ^ >` S. 7*' "n ''4�'4,'. '.. ' w M { w. a y rye Y it. Jd ' �''� "'7R a2' t yt `il"e 1.t ._�g.,C' ^., d Aid r�C{?k +F,-�gt(j � S �pyuJ 7? v-F,�'nl'i4��1, wi:{ !tY>Ct/tr. Etl ". 2c+Z- jdid. i �� Af fl e *'� , r-i k "/. "Idpj {. \: • S I �ikr�� \ t<\ 1 Ad "I I yP. 4.a •�< l i'�' n . , PAT dA 7 i t ' L Lai didI+��.`.. 17� llay+.+'.t. _ 1. !�'ar,�";k ,d �'�' fY•i '4�"•.yy+ j',lr.," �` qII.Iddh:".' I -\r/ ue s 4e''. .a. \ ' 4 K `{. {X,, _/ \ 4.: '^ �. �'`�t` ^ +ld. ' �rv' _r IIN ! SF i'j �\ 'vra �y \ R o,�it,{ n,tv,�y�t�s >, / \r ram\ / xxt� $'�. 1 Air, /p �p.4 ,:F 11 i ts, ti . 9t� ves,. 1 SS°ri �,)e F�✓' r } 'Mr t�,� m 6r �+� Ad HAS'(' =� v yr �; \+:Yl41 D ' t p + y S *. Hrc{ r`l. a r r`�-�',f I As 'LLI. 1 L y }�,�, /Sr Tyre♦ �+,- �As 11 I. t' '-ixr ,$ 4'aG5 "l Y c f 7 + _ It iry .l4'. l u f W r y e tt 4 ?g4 Ru + 45, � sn , •1 - �71 tc I Q �' f+ :. ri�1 rya 'r_, " 1 ,f .+ �Y ,< . ,•-� �.. 1114 , - j fWst �._it• v ,t(; �. P L� it 7 JI tl 1 •'��tl /• �� a�, Y N �� I l' l g 1 .,if.. 'Lif/ AAIII i{�u 1 I::�.// � ::�, .. . hhtlfM%#',i°+:t �'I. ifS. •::L r• ev' {IV `,14 �LN ,' 'pp It 40 4 IV m! LT A j\ •'�%01 It JZ - .w , - ti t `�`?f t!••� +� � -\ a MraN p r . .�Tl az �,t,, �r Orr+f --• ' _�-', .6 . 1..•.... ..n.��� S `iAOL'� Y 41to IgIWIIII mIe kt- A t Ti SAC to Vr,_• N M j F S ^j yy VIAf,t"ett I le Art ` n ♦1a./• ot �Nil y �u onrIt S ; [ ` \� S•1 �ii + IS F t+D nyMa't'Pj `at r't<!, itO /—lam' 1N `: p, ctt�\i`I Yt t }I * • r garer •�� H .�1.-+ ty'����rrr...���a�aa..y� M.Mt1. L{ f.. i 1}f rr> �- :�•-4h ti�i�• i }tk ,f+� 9•d0 s �r.. t..r z: !j �� ; C t e.1, yr �'-t, ac' •i rxlA. Y ti- ill i. �' M 7"tzyS'.` - l -s.���a '�' . .. 1 Q� �S.L S ,"'1"'."�P�(��'.�.iRt 4e yo.�3`YI: y '11 f Y>rY{+t; 'P fyjY�f{I tw-T'r ¢A ✓Mha 6� "�'+. t^ S f �I• xa ir:✓fi�...��j� j J�I�C 1lT4ia Yj' ;� a .% , V r�Yr i� 1 0€P F"if - 1 "r 0r' fyjt�s')1 ^V +... r `, ,+ S ' b yr { x 4. rx`fix .•d zYrl _-(' "�°'}. ty,-" f < y'"' '+7 i+ �' IfL'aY'r t f I f _ 7,�� ..Y iyyyl wl k• :� -M$ I S• ��.y Jaw .c` `kr* P, r•JLL`},y.Y It '.� +'" �tl F tau a'.('�Tl+ t 2.' \��iSttr'�t°y4d arc I.y-+✓• ..� i"/v. r t T i +r /r �.+✓Y'�2. �"' ��y�lrMl ��7 �'...-Y✓OF T .. ea x xeG � .-+->�fmm.rt / ,th , _ � �'4E•Y�F_' � �h •4,1 Kra �f�/WIN ,65'�y�x( ? 6 1�.. ,j yZ Y 'ri'T kff-r Fa-f�.+•;,'t.r v..� ,r t /. �`'t'a'r s ,,Y ', Yf'" :'�' /! to ~ ••iY Fpiu'1�'Fr'A.'>"C < il8k#l. i ✓iD s �f _ rrit@+•a +.. �m t+s •ry r Y� " -, ; � ��# Mai 'T�JH i /,�3a� ��' Y; zl♦ �_ ^'= ` a ? r . �•� ��,yt F � 1Z",Y a d iR yt� ti \�✓�'��aF,'+r�} 1 ! „'i=.G�nc4L'-�tc'11li<h � vna`N�SY�,,iX K.. �1 .� 'Y �5 f ��r �y `*A�i� , �494r v J � ' � Y• * aij'QP � ^ � 1 \x IQ � ._ � b�tT�.-�V.a-�- �� 1 Ri� �y ,y�'•Qi`S b1�)q�S� (y� � t .r- '•"`yr q S' "Y���...,D�2Y Y . .'1 l�Yrl # -jPt {� �a �, e... <�9' ��1 AiY1s Y RJ' .•tZ`c' `,?'t'�p l qV�i r 277r e r u'•"�+ �-�a I,,.n.. fill •.ti U}•Ir„r ti I°"^.{ _ ',;-..a.�-s 4'..�' i.�r•rlW r7� xh e Y�� t.,;. .,,,, r n ` •��� lbl �+'¢,; -7,�•t '�v 1 f+;:k 8 •'3tl �.7;�, <-` /`ilOW --"+,r'.rr a•�i:,�r'�y{t2 All as s f� r ) i �.. .Ytil1JG WAII�`F• tt. �'r l4r� aY �. t .y rJ �'1 ..P titer l• Stl-c�t R fvA t.4 VC 6 M r, Fr ri `3 r .. s-. � �"u � � !�,�h'•L! s?' G9't� m.�� �y�_,� ) �rr+1L"�tF� +C'�� 4 �;, Y.t : llp4o Z�- ._..-*.tj _Pr y.. ! s `ty. rr''+1} r t :r, , .. 12'sdi,M1r "�\ 1ti4/' N'N,I+AI�,Yt r u- y > �•� r _�.. _fit / P�Ttl 4trf.� rt n - 'ass .�($'•E[�y�i �•y/+\?:; TrE+'i �'(., /��. • "Yi IIY Issdp�q � Ir,Y ! i� Y;•`c\ w Ltf i• 1 � , �;aX' r , . r r- mr . ' r . (� A , � i _ �• � '"ffC- i ��` � dd�1 �,�.h� �r�Lilt l�� r�� �. f r i Z r',4� y .FiB � ._,'yl t ,� a �r „1 �y♦5(,�� 1�.� I,�aP1. C ? 4^'.S(n' • �� 1 ' � f' � r9 4 � 1 Y;�'�iY * �� 1 •LA'�YI '1.j* � ,� �rif m vJi t.: .i t i, 1tff e1 t t r! Q� +. � ,(i r1ur/>I t. , t Y '+9"�i. '.i � 7 i try 5. '�u', t �. 1YX. a}��y�l._ `.✓ � / yJS:�M {{ � 1� �r rYl, i�. �.'•'` f �� JjjfssyJr�li.`�k{f1, t'�� I ,.(;q•;/ >^«v.4 y',��i`.!' r'l,'7�,J. f\,�F.�as 'Ale ft 1 i 1.' 1 .'1 YF K" } _�•_ „Y ;J. .,.,. `` '`0 tij�(I �r•'!lB 1 t'rt:. !y �z:.�.'a1� i- `o t '�• �r3w.r�1`��.��� (i .+• � 1 ! ��' �k �d A� _stLi� �t 't� �'4 F 1 �Iti � t \ t .� v,�.l .�`�I '% ]+'C•` ,Tr ;f Md fir' t; r .<7 /nN' ,T�1 t ��� /� i f .t A r l • s.x. %/ /� }��i'-a' ks� ` �lp `i f it \ r lyhIf �T .F vY p' 4 1 sh .flY IA IrJ i r 9Yt i f {, - et aft i` �.. ) '^�tLl a.- `•1 3��.r_s rt' rrT. Jy . 4rj t s i a. ."y"`S�a�•ws ." r ' j''i i' �A<�'s,Jyti� ���`v� �+, � ^H�T.z 'y�'��' ` \i )t }`pr Y'{Il�)KE; ,l3#v,a.q''!I K'rt ``m`'-o••+hf'7ri",'Fir�-i fY'i''j/,1. .�:r�, /w/.Sf/�rp+.��""r1n<+��-�a i .14 •.-��-ljL �-% � �i �,. .f7�''4x("4' err' �'frs T' 6�FiY..,t -�a_ 'r' I }'� .f"` c-'. -. -.-"°� a «a ,,{ � r 1 o 1 �t 7� I t�l` 6 f � '.�,i ' 9d r t f l r y po 1'. s,�.� f it >Y � js(l�'1 tr'v� � I ,��� ! n���✓ • P1t1t jfl�� s+�; '1� t�. crr �' ��'` J.AVlttr�x" r �� 'I�l, yl,< L x"'� ri. � �,•' � �'ih�°' v«t���+�ibz / r `.f{�yrr ci-_♦f Y ra^r' Iit��1'4#•� i� i' i +.4 �kf..i� �B'5..1`'�'ytl��✓~ F�" Fr iA � •s>..��s., y, } yy,,���� �yi :r 't Y: .1y yi•f x r my.,��y�q„� a.� sa •--sfri i �•ilitl.�'4�-.lAtlrd iP,•+toµ IT 77•%:�e� . .Q I�-�i�.�-Atrf'�Ti�}E.;_1s�LiN1. �..:ryS?;. `�,..i..- 1"A.'�. �, Vr 4r•ti {(y-_`_-. l ' -,.1 1' AV'i.91 ' ` t. �xi� l`'P F `•t tit v•.- Y,i. y'J.a`�y. ,s ,.a^%l i,'t I� ', �• r' <` �e3 _ :r.�-•3t V,....+9 i.� �. �rX' � ».. s .. % r c . t • r FT77 Ffi'Msf �.ry Apt - to IV— F.=,F Fat 71 i w �. ! -yr,1 tA'AYap.^•.4 - yy'.-?' - :T+�sJ_ 1 X`".-�a{,tw�y FF,(••.a , - Fit i\r.j. ti„....y%r aC, Fb .. r. ..+.. - { IFF-II" IF tmv 55}4. w'k.- r �-'•' • '^ - v , I' J'1 .�• f YTi+c'4>4 �Tb'T' l �'"w'� 'n�� J ,�.[ { pC fi C %17f!!et j jrpy`q,r+yk. y_ -Y, Iv w a.r.c r. _"". t •__ F. Fit It L.I d. �: � .• t .: t - r - met I a..:A"Wy '4/Y �'1 ti 1 \ P i v { YdJ r •`: ylr` (l�Wrl,* S s,• 7.s r•-r.r. . -.' .� Al +'i + Y` - a. 4� •r � 4� 1 i� `{,� y ? b' t2+ !r' -FF dr xs .� +. "-,r: A /�'., /!�f _Sr - .,y ,�i F tit,FV IF .t "J S Q 7S. I_ ♦` [I {{ S tiF �.r..: ' fi. 1 t ''y1(�lm�gahtFt ' '•-C '.. O'a'v'L�.az' r1° ! IF t•L� ° 6'r'�NA3'w 1�.. 'S+(3 ' 1.W1. i I r "E7r _. •y���.� C'7'I"� '•��[''j���•.�'ri t{A'I , `. IF �•�kI C IN- X •ii' "� ..s:�uyyC ' +� ' 11 t �y} S „ I. `••C` I � I"� ir� • v�y. Aj I i\W +' 'fi . `�l, ♦'.LV •� °. �� `x�L' r �'"'rv'0.,. 1� f i• �3 y-'.."3'*Y ,Y lti �, : .•• y .rd. I`-,?. I � ''11 P• - �t^ r �' Ott- � ,IF � ;'a7jA "C '>nys w„ ii•C: 4+'�M�;3: ly ..,y,{aw%r}"�^`J71`�(:'r �-'-'.�' IF Kii,�y^ , IrCkMV� kiA ly 71 IF 1 1''1NN it/ I +� y`a w' ° f�T+;. 9w : ,° r f 1 ' i r ` t M1"•Y1.. ri l}° - t T f pA! +,'/�i' b .t W :j p/ f 1-%IfpR�i"IF + 3 n .'.I tar y S'rli t':-j �>It I 'I 1. trya� .pA{ 1.:Vt Iy�rIt } {rII �. • � ` i l�' .. L p�� ° i II Y, /J11. d Q •� I.y M Ft IF l "S•, y�'s+. r'. 4 • 1 \ b i Sr'P.C!a r.l '-+- „Fij of flf4i 1' y. 7� 4lo �a IFlS rdr i.��^A9 -0{is• �t 'f y�S�"�V '.fired C.dii f Z. �� �•11 It,-'t i ,. 1 '+rrS�, l./ k♦Iu ° .^c•. S.'S.� t-+ ,�i�u •i I'.li_.'t�}„�,i- ��M I ' / '.�+�ii 1 +x: 4'';+ ,nIt or rl,n . k:.1 3°iL (. r s t i :—*I . . 2 �iL�ltl p l! .` ! d v �•,�i�lr tw1 I S� �I+,� tt 1 *+4,p IA , •���� x l 1,VfIf -5;' ",tl,If s �+• ,�': It if +�h�es--•n+�ir h" '1`\}'�} , �i`yq `, �.. ,! ��•\ `�i411t*��e� J �. �^-- ' ti` Sl. y 1 1'1ti2 l�'yf /pvaljl,r '�yrr�f T } ll•Id�l:,"�_ ` r�n'i7ti If yal • ..,a 1� a L,� - s �Y,+1,.IiC7�y�,:y, y.�o,. r:_ Nf- , :;\ R / Zvi. '^�R\•. _ y! avK Y¢tt,, )pj Ypp ' :,, r'i�" J `h1s r rti14 e.1 p p hF 1YzT,jjy"•'e T;. If ILI 41 4GRibf.R�v,1'1�� w Nit Al s� ,, - \S+ig7► �� t i •M' yam; L` \� `j^till,' l j '7Gtyn ,-,h +.3'&.�a.�`t2Ye.c S .,�;\i 4. �„ > •6r t t J��I�y. y`n ... 17�y�y������e-is�' h f \Ie ��,y,• d -c� ,.� � i.b..___�--"'�'—"ar', •:'I�i1ii.-.e.L�1F& dY: la._.�- •'�v n•. a3a,. rILL UC 03M3313 '3Y J 3. 1$ ZC • Al1S a2d-• ocI IMd sm MVW f6L COLD W '3TN3113AV! K•MN )OOC Old 3N•0 NYN9NIWJM ••CC 41UISU1 AJVM1 ,OB=.l •3MS K•k13dO13A30/M3111/0 NVNW OOSO f0 OT.d hr JYbrFW dX0JVfhr . r 6'Zd �2,tY'NIJ1: w S.LS77Y/J9dS A .&1 0NLINl3S %%�/s"/ Pull", // I/ "U, SHHHNI•JNH 7VN0IHSHAOHCI •11 V-a MNINOZ V-N :ONINOZ fom W *Tna3113AV3 ODD-COCCl-99L "130NVd 66C %OB 'O'd SN300H 'S NMl i 53NOr 'M /Y03r 000-VMCL-99L 7130XVd V-V 'UNINOL — — — — — — — — -- — — — -- _ _ _ _ _ OOO-ZMCt-B9L 7-130Wd -----_•i----.--- ol 102 3 0S�5021 59 q�n IKI r La U 1 � � W ,w QW(n W d0HW LLI a Z _ ,d pm00. W(f) .>- W Q W �'~ N O of .LL OQd•Y; it Q_jz0 } W O W _1 I00 }(nXr Y000(Y a -J U N W (y W U LZ> w I w W W O ~ m Of d H _— z H W d U ILj �w 3dz¢ w (�)LLJW� .0 1 Z)z O Ua(nx fo i �p�� � zLx`'Lla� IN O QQ�W (n pW��Q d'�- p W3 W �Z~OX IOM 0 Za U mJ�4 a l,j L� 1- �LLJ ILLiIZ a�pzLj H Oo Q oo�w. ,m- z W~> or w0 o� —U U(nO J J lL J p Fm.. UO �ZZ N(nd WQ MO qt mQOJS 0 0 0 0 0 6 O l n N m O N O N I N N 03 m r tnv 00 (0 m M M (v M WINM Inm O� N M 0) M_ N tv OD (o (o tri .= F U p m 00 00 co co ao 00 co co 60 co co co io a m a C4 m I� to Q y it Q W U = LU o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 Q Q II WO Z of.. w NF O_ JZinininininotnznininoininin O Z L mO r r r r N M r r r IT M r r H F II Q LL > Cl uj W II J (n N O r N d' O m m mit m II oDW Mm MN1�M001� V1N01 O /y W N 0 M m 00 0) M O O N O1 c0 O a W >a,W m2 �NM O Oti O(O O OIn 0)Or O W W>Z� QO(0 N!� Nhm (Dm(Omcl M O 7 01 O) O r to CV) Oj 0) Oj a 0 r O Zd' w�S=p. U O LL a W y z Z aw}>-}Q — p �0000-1 O ZrNMvv�mr�mrn����� W a z z z< ~ wW OOOCL J OJ w m O W Z Z �N OD(o ZODCD CD r J ro o ts D a coa r J 00 M N 0)Z �. M CO O M 00 Z �m m Q W U QZQ Uc11 m Z OZC� �"O 00Z 1 mLL H- (�I t H- aw I r> of� N 0) Z wM w wIF"ZOOWOQ mm 2�JOQ eiz— a_wzw m U�w ml,_LU >>co h F u r Q to O NIOn 01 M00iV m oeoll�rl Woor(n n M M V m II 11 11 II II 11 II 11 d'FJa (-%Q'HJa a r m 00 O N N 0 0 fV O O r <V M O N m N OOro OOMIn oMOOo ool�o 000i(0 o(c0)r� M M V 01 CO) M M N In 11 11 II II 11 11 11 11 II 11 it II �FJa �' H Ja Q'FJa ISONV ral A slaw a13100 TN 0NV1rna -- s�v n•r N3M) fNL LL[ l3a]311a •az l 3T 11S at n A IS'JMMNMTed azrn ONlMZ 00-LO INd w Nnvna 33IOIw00 Na)9Adlalni 9acW ' f ILn O3AVJ f0-el-1 ►BZ nLaL ry '3nIn3u3Are a0r Lyle -WJNP al [•)aN )[[tall Lrld 3NM NM 1)13(10 a M 1-10 SI m SNIMS011 AWU 109M.t OWR KrN13d]l3All/tl3111I10 sa-az-Il t e3M NV)W 4949A97.099 ffZdr Ar 3TM3113Ar! .YU/ff d4YOW1ff AL Trp`9"C=0r �i2a�Y'NIIVI�.�2Yc>t .-c•rflu•)>•L •zn-s.nfuq�«.w wro •r aoz SlSLT77lldS �/+ onrusdans ��I/ BN92NION9 WHOISMUORd oil Y—a iGNINOz v-a :0NINOZ coca NV •3nvqLLuw 000-CMI-99L MObVd BBC XOS -0'd SOOOM •B NNAI — — — — — '4 S3w)r -M ANN3r 000-YOCCI-rift Moved V-N :GNINOZ 000-WCCL-SSL-133NYd oz F I ILL c o o a o u 01n NGO ON O N Ih N 0) 00 In V GO f0 (OM MN N M in (M00 in 0) M M M in sr O N r� C- r� Y W _ cv ao Go m vi .- f 00 Go m m m uo no uo ao uo io ao io io ao Qrn qt N(01n Qy n Q m Y = N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N F m II Zw p W O Z a F- W z F LO Z in in, in in in O in in in in O in in N 0 Z> r MIX ���lnM T Ce) F < LU LL W 11 J� Q� N W. M. N. N� Ol O N M I a0 II 0 D W uJ M W. OI N 1� M t In N Of O M. GD GO M. 0) O O M O> G7 0 dw wwm� y, d'NMO� o h C) 0 0 0 W M 0 r� O WW> Z d Q OLO N1� N ram- 0 G00 O NAM CO O } O ar 0) Q7 O .- T 0) Of O O Qaw2�a LL LL� V 0 dwgZ Z to U' W z of}}}¢ p I-O OOOJ F Z�N Xw¢QQ? 0 OJ wx000IL to W O o z 5 Y Z CL N O Q M Z GOO r Ln L11 W O M U¢ w O OD * rj W CO) N 0) �; Z a p F M W O V 00 0) z V tCO OD 0 t Q ww z GLO O W W m 0OO/v X02 C)0C91O GOLL M zz F=c7 0LLL OF =Z dw z 0) Z J W> v ai Z> w> w z 200WOQ 2 m W TWO¢ (n mUawzw m Ur-w CO Lwzw :V) H Z1 in ,rj ^ = w �•w W lw- > LLJ6Zm0oN z �F¢a�pJam�, 0 > Q0wZ LLwO0 N LLI J V)-jW�iUNW w >m5 w o cif WZ ml-w 'o� H J0Ntlw�a� w IM� 3�ZW 0 NU N2 U 1 01 U J O� J z W W Q � LLJ V) 0 < Q Of W _OJ W W 2!V)00 w Dz~0Q ILn W O � z a U M J W¢ a W ¢ oLi aWZ 0Z> Ol ap �wr mZ6U Ox� wO� OJ FV: QOOW;ZZ Nnd¢ MO qt mJ . amb)� Q O NIn 0) c O GO 1� M w In o 00 > Ix Wj W H J a U F4 O O iV D) OO �vf O O Ih 0) M M qt CD d'HJa a n oo^o O O O 001� O M Msr W m N O O M 1n 00 0)G0 M ' ' CO) N oiuGo� O M Gp 0 O (O 0) 1� M N In 11 II II II TJNON3L JO SILYB IN 'SMAYN FAY CY/ PY3W rNl •Al B3N3■1] '3YPMVJ 3TJIIti z ■ AltII UZd-• OUPW VVVVVV Rd Y.0 M^Y•B 9C9C-M CUO ONOId /8Z Mat ■Y'33VA3LL3AYJ KSPN XOS 1Yld 3N■B MYN'AUX3M BM K.W3d013n3B/„all a3NM 409=11 aMS Nam^ oa so A9 az r ar x,Vrd zffoxL2.r� �N•I10 .-CH(lK.)d.J KL.-CMK1I•==W M..✓J 'M W)i SLSf7YlJ9dS 0MARAIIl3S �/1'�yt•��•�/^L�y/y/��Myry/ •1(^JyIA1n �UI � Ins is Ot nan3a SRZZNI!)N9 IVNOISSMO8d 31Y0 LL3AYJ oil Y-N S%NINOZ Y-a :ONNOZ tom W '3TIvapkY! 000-CO[CL-SOL :73OWd 99f XOB '0'd s83Oaie NNAi s S3NOr 'M AUtUr — — — — — — — — OOO-*M1-S9L -13OWd Y-11 *ONINOZ 000-ZOff I-S9L -133Wd M.ZI_1X3 I �z Nx Z Fj�I Ira rho 0S�5021 =� S9 A H y- ; In LLI z N nLLJ 2 )�QQ Qw� rw`' col-_>w> )d W pm0p F- W(namW W¢ 0Jw> QO�0Of _a QIi,1 O W0 M: J 400 �_ X FX Y O Q O of U` a: 0 z mrWaU 1 of F-�a(naw D O W 3 J z W V) W Of -- _} W�OZ O �,Xa-QU 1 0 I U J K J w Z W w I r70 QJC�d' N pwL�Q .no W Y low 0 ZO U mJ�ZQ Qa o(M� LLI wz aoz p� m z UFj 0om0� N Ww W U :ZZ N0a-wQ IMO 9tmQjSU 0 0 0 o 0 0 O (D N CD O N O N n N 0) ao In 4 W O (D M M N co) )0(DV N M N M O)M_ C)r ni ao (D fD (ri (ri �(4) p °O °o GoSo co iv co eo uo co co co co co Q O V (%jCC) ntD QN 11 Q m W U = In w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Q o� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N F- m II Z a: I W 0 c3F Z (/) J _ Z ID ID, If) ID IN O ID In IA in O lf) IA ID W O Z> DO.-�.-.-�(nMr-��"Cr M.�� H II W U. W II J 0) N ((pp n N a W M O (D n a0 II w Q w M (D 0) N 1� M 00 nto N Q () � O a) N (f) M OD 00 O W O O 6 0) 06 O IL W w m WN M O O n 0 (0 00 (f) 0) O n (f% W>Zn. Q O(D N n N n(D (D(D(D (D It O V O Q) O r� 0I D) O O^ O zww2=a LLLL� Uar OZ Z to U w } } } Q p �Z) OOOJ 0 Z�NMv(n(OnaornC W O z Z z a 1. wCEUUUIi J O to W z 0 Z �j CD ��JuL1 Y N O tn U M Z OR n 5 J CO) 00 N 0) 1 Z d� M, .- pp 0) pp'' F ,p��p�� pp OD } Z a V(O11 � Q�v Z coV0 i< 2 (7 m Z 0 11 U00 02 11 co°D IL w Aw>�� `I(nZ> LLJ I~z0Zioa �_9� ��-1oa Nz— a WZW m 0E-W mtr_wZw >>(1) F a 0 w n H 0) ro ro. M O b) b) 7 a In O N N (� O N (D a) D O O (V O O C fV O O fV M O ZV IA w O ri (`) W O O O Min O M aD O (Doan 00r�0) ool'o oo0)(D o(D0)r� Z n M M V' OD M (M of 0) M M M N (D J II 11 II 11 II II II II 11 11 II II II II II 11 II II 11 II W W F� J< J< Ja U < —j - V1 MUAVW IIY.IV ;*M1 — ] I W,LLy..i iY NN f$DKT S m SISYU li i Oil yly 4S U3YSN3 To"IIII1 3TJNIS L[ i ALISN3U Nd5StI111W 'JNNNyu ULttl Na nz f0 60 ZDVW nd w NnvW 3� No19M0 nere %90-a9c ISM ONOtl w-eL-IO 18Z LUa3L W '3T9A3"3AY! AOIA911 Ill -NONN.T3I Ki mm Ill 3AIW N101191 99Co roHI-l0 �SI✓eS SNDIS011 A3N71a IOlI OMS K•N13dIl3A3U/N3NI10 SO-OL-II rill 0070t0 OZd--,V .YUYd dYOWMI .L Poll crrfl•esy.A .:u-rrKxsl..�1.Ia .wra . aos sls17Y7O9ds � mA ONLIZAarns 44 8822MOUR O II 7YN01889dO8d 3� o' V-N VNINOZ v-a :ONNOZ coal My invauuw 000-1l=t-IM '13ONVd 99c X08 '0'd S93ON 'S NNAI -------- _ _ V S3NOr O/AA N3f _ 000-f{Kfl-99L 'I3OIHd i VNINOZ 000-ZOM-99L .I3O11Vd OZ o� — Z sic k - 0 -1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 O I n N 00 0 N O (%A 1� N 0) 00 In v: 06 (0 <OM MN N M 1n (p Otn N M M O M( n ON 1� Oh YW _ mcsiao romvi QUpmcorororororom5ocouoi+oioao n TQ mN NUJI gQO b 000000 bb b b bb Q Q 0 N N N N N N N N (%J N N N N N m 11 zw O I w 0 Z al.. W U) L0_ z Zr) in in in Ln o in in in in o in in in O ZD > r O'-� ��� NM M r �-�- V �-�- IX F- H 11Ei CQ W II > W 0! W G M (00) M. N 1� M. �� N N N � O } w wwmQ. Q. 0) . . aO D) O) W. 0) aDO NMO Or�O M O O N M O1� O W W Z (L Q O t0 N N (0 f0 O t0 V1 � M Z (n O = } O LL � 0) 0) O � M 0) O) 0) � O O W (L �- �- '- �- •- •- UOa��Z Z C7w c 1-D OOOJ O z�NMITW MFnMMC) W a z z z a W M UUUIi J OJ � CO UJIC7 �Zu Y Z � N O p M Z CR^ 5 0) rn U 0 a � Q J � N 00) Z a M 0� O O m a) w H� oo O } U z �(o � ¢ ww z U(0 m m z Z FL oz �02 a2Z °D 1 0 Q2Z Jm¢ (�2Q=z ZJ ��>of # U) #IW�2P WF U �OOZiOa _�� ��Zi0¢ U) mUd III ZIII m 0E-w M WZw H W Q U I !Fn W p 1 z W V) w d z F- W > 10- pmOp � WFam� p lY JF N �O Jw U �Q 0-rd > QZO W 100 F-N X 0 Y� Q O< J I (Q OJ U(n W 1�.. H Q O>0'O W LL =W O z mr Waa0 Fz- 'o� ocn �wIN¢1W- w IM� 3—ZW NUmcn= U oI UOJ � ZwaaU J IJ d ui Q IM O Q Q W W N � W Y d'- O W?� W z~O� �In W Of MOO O�?m J Z Q d 10= a U OQLEI F- Of (Uj ((00 CD Q Z lO L`_ N'1 )- iW z a�OZ W F'" O 1 Oci rz m— z 0F=> O} �� NOS 1 U_ Z Z N(n M (L W mQ 10 9t m Q OJ 2 U O N N O p 0 0 N a t G O N O ID00 r M O O N O O O U) Oa0 W (D (3 00 h6 h M M a OD M MItt 0) u n u n 7 11 a 11 it 11 n u 11 LY F- Ja L) w H Ja w I-' Ja a (NI N O M i cq O M i O O in Go OOOi(O O (00)r M M M N 1n d'F-Ja �F-Ja A e�c� OZARK HEADWATERS GROUP dOaV ARKANSAS SIERRA CLUB 116 West Spring St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 �,5 To the Fayetteville Council, The Ozark Headwaters Group of the Sierra Club has examined the Hickory Park proposed subdivision on Crossover Road and we would like to express to the City Council some of our concerns. First, this seems to be another situation where the subdivision is designed first and then made to fit onto a piece of property with no regard to the character of the site. The way the street and building lots are arranged has caused the need to remove many of the largest trees on the site. Many of these trees are of a closed -canopy forest type, which means that they are tall and straight with a high crown in the forest canopy. It has been our experience that when trees of this character have a large proportion of the adjoining forest canopy removed they become more susceptible to damage and toppling from straight-line winds. For this reason we would ask that the design for the subdivision be re-examined and redesigned to preserve a larger proportion of the significant trees on the site. Second, after thoroughly walking through and examining the site we are extremely concerned about the drainage that will both result from and that will be interrupted by development of the site. The current design covers over one obvious drainage in the eastern portion of the site nearest Crossover Road. We think this will cause major drainage problems in the future if this is left uncorrected. Also, the slope of the western half of the lot drains almost directly into the back door of homeowners to the north of the proposed subdivision and we feel that this situation is not adequately addressed by the subdivision plan and has a serious potential for damaging the adjoining property in the future. We would ask the Fayetteville City Council to reject the Hickory Park Subdivision as it is currently proposed and that it be sent back for redesign to correct the problems we have described. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Tom McKinney Ozark Headwaters Group 116 West Spring Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 571-3005 Giegirteerirt� CT Jiuve�irz9 Melvin L. Milholland, PE, PLS March 10, 2004 FAYETTEVILLE 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 A D1 V, ATTN: Dawn Warrick, Zoning and Development Administrator RE: Hickory Park, City Council approval Dear Dawn: l+ POA- REGISTRATIONS: PE: AR, MO PLS: AR Project No. E-687 RECEDED MAR 1 0 2004 PLANNING DIV. In an effort to assist City Council members in their approval processing of the referenced project, attached are minutes from the Neighborhood meeting and site photographs. Please provide these to the City Council members for review at the agenda secession. The minutes and photographs are provided by Susan Hemingway, St. John's Lutheran Church. The photographs start with the church property along Hwy 265 looking toward Township. They progress in sequence along the south section (near the south boundary) of Hickory Park going eastwardly toward Hwy265; then westwardly through the middle of the property; then up the north section (near north boundary) back toward Hwy 265, crossing (bisecting) the site three times. These pictures were taken on 3/5/04, following two (2) days of rains (some heavy). No water found - Susan Hemingway. Thank you for your assistance in presenting this additional information to the City Council members. Should you have any question, please contact myself or Mrs. Hemingway (521-6003). Thomas M. JeMoat, ASLA Projects Manager cc: Tracy Hoskins 205 West (eater Street; fayetteville, Arkansas 72701; Phone: (479) 4434724, fax: (479) 4434707; E-mail: MCOenerO wbell.net St. John's Lutheran Church Janurary 26, 2004 7:30 pm Minutes of the Neighborhood Meeting A meeting of the neighbors and concemed citizens regarding the plans for the property to the north of St. Johns Lutheran Church. Tracy Hoskins, developer and Tom Jefcoat, project engineer presided. Mr. Jefcoat thanked the people for coming out on such a snowy evening. He invited all those in attendance to come forward and look at the plans for Hickory Park and present them with any concems they may have. He said that he would address those concems to the group afterward. The majority in attendance did go forward. Three in attendance left at that point. Mr. Jefcoat gave copies of the subdivision plans to any that wanted them. The group was then resealed so all concems could be addressed to the attendance. The following are the concems that were discussed. One couple was concerned that a sidewalk be built along 265 to meet up with Township, so that children could ride their bikes to Gulley Park or walk to school safely. It was said that quite a few people jog along Township for exercise or recreation. Doug Hemingway, the church president, said that we would be willing to work with the city, neighbors, and developer on the issue of the sidewalk. The issue of traffic on Hwy 265 was a concern. Neighbors said the traffic in this area was bad especially during the rush hours.A neighbor, who identified himself as Mr. Sigafoos from Hardy Lane, said he thought there should be a street going along the west side of the church property to connect with Township. Other neighbors Irving on Hampton Ct., said they definitely did not want a street in their back yard, and did not believe any one living next to the church property on Hampton would want this. Mrs. Schoolcraft, the pastors wife, said the church would not go for this as it would be running to close to the daycare playground. It was brought up there is a timing lane on 265, and traffic count was well within the maximum capiticy for the Hwy.265. There will also be a left hand turn lane at the subdivision exit to accommodate the traffic .The addition of 14 new homes in this subdivision should not affect the traffic count much more than it already is. Mr. Sifgafoos said he did not believe that Dave Jorgens from the Sewer Dept would approve of the plan because there was supposed to be a 12' roadway along the back of lots to accomadate the sewer lines. Mr. Jefcoat said because of the very small amount of sewer line to be constructed along the back of the lots that Mr. Jorgens waived that rule. The utilities would run along the front rather than behind the houses giving more room for trees to be preserved. The island on Shagbark Bend and Mockemut was discussed. Mr. Hoskins said it would be landscaped with a mail kiosk for residents. The street design, called a hammerhead was also discussed, as being the best design available to leave as many trees as possible on the site. The island at the entrance to the subdivision was also discussed as to whether it left room for emergency vehicles to enter. It was shown that d did. It is also to be landscaped . Mr. Hoskins said a wall was to be built along 265, also. Mr. Sigafoos from Hardy Lane, said he was concerned with the water that collected on the property.He said someone should come out and look at this water. Mr Jefcoat said that the citys engineering department and city's Landscape Administrator had addressed the issue, an underground retention pond would be utilized to control run-off and to reduce water discharge. Mr. Hoskins and Mr. Jefcoat asked if there were anymore questions that they could answer. Mr. Sifgafoos thanked them for holding the meeting and being so upfront and honest. A murmur of approval circulated the room. Some in the audience asked what the lot prices would be, and if Mr. Hoskins would be building any? Mr. Hoskins stated he would be building on some lots and builders would have to go through an architectural screening. The homes are expected to be somewhere between 2400 sq' and 3000'sq;. The majority of the neighbors lingered, took plans of the site, and departed seemingly in good spirits and in agreement with the design concepts presented. Recorded by Susan Hemingway to the best of my ability. FAYETTEVI LLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIEEE, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Dawn Warrick Planning Division �p From: Clarice Buffalohead-Pearman t City Clerk Division Date: March 22, 2004 Re: Ordinance No. 4549 Attached is an executed copy of the above ordinance passed by the City Council, March 16, 2004, establishing a residential planned zoning district, R-PZD 04-05.00 containing 4.429 acres; amending the zoning map and adopting the developmental plan. This ordinance will be recorded in the city clerk's office, microfilmed, published in a newspaper of general circulation and filed at the county courthouse. If anything else is needed please let the clerk's office know. Attachment(s) amtkEDAM �i ' �,• C^;l' i PUBLICATION I, do solemnly swear that I am LegA 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: $ ! Subscribed and sworn to before me this aV^ day of A(ct (Y. k , 2004. My Commission Expires: 07/U/ao13 '* Please do not pay from Affidavit. An invoice will be sent. Official Seal SEAN-MICHAEL ARGO Notary Public -Arkansas WASHINGTON COUNTY My Commission Expires 07-25-2013 F(F F D MRR 2 5 2004 EVILLE CITY L RKSOFF�E 212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700 0 ED THE O. 48" A RESIDENML PLANNED N-05.00) LOCATED NORRI CONTANNG 4.42E ACRES OFFICIAL ZONN4G AG THE MT PLAN AS APPROVED BY of F"binedb Y R OMOAIMED EY THE CRY COUNCIL OF THE CRY OF FAYETTWVILLE° ARMAMIll Section 1: That the Zane classleceYon of ere folv.MN eeschbed Preperty Is hereby cinarVad W fa10" oSthe de+ebpment Wen here been met OW sbe In hN face at such ttrns es all of the regwrn esnts Section e tion 4: chat Me a ProMOetl Officsill ning nIOP Of Lm 1 fine CAt of Fayetteville, Abranses, is herscy emeneec W relsm Me FAEEED rrC APPROVED Ids the 181h Day of Malch, 2004. APPROVED: BY: CAN COODY° Mryer . ATTEST: EOMDfU EMRM° any CIMt E%HISrr'A" R-PZD 04.05.00 A PART OF THE SW _ OF THE SW _ OF SECTION 31, T-17-N, R-29-W DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS N01925'41'E 5D420 FEET FROM THE SW CORNER OF SAD SECTION 31, SAD POINT OF BEGINNING BEING A SET IRON PIN: THENCE ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF CEDARWOOD ADDITION, N01025'41'E 281.03 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN: THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF GLENWOOD ADDTRON, N74-07'53-E 514.84 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN: THENCE ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF ARWINSAS STATE HIGHWAY NO.2S5, S02628'36^W 531:81 FEET THENCE N50°2'20'W 160.64 FEET: THENCE N88A SET IRON PIN; THENCEV'R'14A 224.99 ID HIGHWAY FFEET TO THE POIM O BEG NI - NING. CONTAINING 4.4291 ACRES. MORE OR FfSS, FAYErTEmLLE. WASHINGTON COUNTY, RECF71\Prn MAR 2 5 2094 CITY OF FA I mTTEVILLL CITY CLERK'S OFFICE _. _. A. T 16?66-001 723 N. 4OTH AVE 6 31 ,. " ,." I _ BAS.SAM A. & JENNtF R E. 21AD :x „�°"" lh2d2 I C^ I .: I k ...,..,.\ ( r b?dr d. \ IV FA YE ZON1fJG=ARSE 4Td4 x I 7 AEN. /,d AVERA A. SHIRLE 1-�.IJ 1 44816 6 WFL t4Cl'fTRELL CANE COWAN w'I - w ,. I" ,<;,, _. I FAYETTEVILLE, AR. 727014 ° I1 ._x _ ,<as ,>:?. r, x I �. t°'' y FAYETTEVlt4LE, AR. 7270f „(r",U'^' �' r ")+'"7 +• 1 -- L - ZONING - R-A „ .�.,.,, .:., �� ( :: ". lii 1 I _.I - NE CORNER ZONING = R-A @^• t A. zb. 75.75' ar o3 67 °66°1 t` (fl i 1 t,� FAH � V t� l h 21 h y :. E IT�.6° r SEI .,.,,. __ ..,.. __ ,.,_ _........ ...... R/ a,3' 8r.03 �,a. - AP.03' i? , k t� �' � 'l� rf�a :T „�. �r�" ,. "-' µ 12-fb-31 .a".:'r T.M,,,... ," w i� 20' l.`E. -8d 03' ... __ -.._. _. ., ^.,_,..�_... ,... ,..... _.... -AL�03 ,is,..... .... _. x,�., X I °y `"k ,+ F h I arE �c , 12,834 FT2 o ti 12,1/S tFT 2uoa w ,a ,,. &! 04 79 54`� 1818,5• - -- ---'- -- (FOUND IRON PIN) W 00, v . Qg,. n 9 P to .,/$ '"' ^° "x 20"..(/.E.� ,_... __ �., ...,., ,_... ...._ __ ._._ _..,, , ..x>; SO2°37'23" x i I,I 1,. - �� f a� N lo,a94 Fr G L0.907 FT2 M 2 " m - " - 1.63' �. a 10,915 FT _ "2^ 4 ....__ ._I� I, ''r I ,,.., >k667'..,,n ca 8"WTR. _"?f0,923FT2 ta,931FT2.Ml0,939FT?.` P.ui `"°' ^.20 ^x.z..,.�`hE X. ik 15,754 FT2°'" . . "_",. Of - - ,,.,.. 10;947 F7 M 2 u2 u� ra < y 13,424 FT °0 k --,._ ;°.,.,,,__„ 'x _ 5' BLDG. SET CKO, 9 5 FT �a,,.:22V ...m._ _-_, ' ! I ,"l ��, c ~^8j-_03 ....._:gym,,- A)v,".".w__.:,.., 8103 4' SLDEt�>' K •t 0,9 T o 70. E / _TM I a �� .,w.,".. �mm 5x7...34 �_-. 8.x. ,,, mm..., ._. AI03, .,._. ,� .._._ ._ & t�LE o.. a.� .,. " bpa.r ��tlb�1 I bl a w ." „",.,:�... _ --^« ... ,. __ -- l_ _ -.,,._ q .."..a.,, ... .�.,x. ,,^g ,87: 03 r'` _.." <'.�. ,5. .r. P x. o sal°26 0' sB7aoz - ar/o3 q 6 44. a PROPERTY LINE X A i - 1 P I �' _,. 0. I .......119.IP' a. d Q !o E _.. 81 04 50 44''< , a q P a° mm +n " �F21.'43 .,"1'.�Q P_"...."'rt: .,:a.,„ . ,,m_.----,,, _''-' r: p x' 0(7,952 FTT j t y is ... \ �. @5'0 : �„ SCALE I lQ I F I of ..�?.....� .rrrx _ -:�.®„ c+ - .,., -I d I ' � �i 03 h 4,� 4. R�6' 4.Ad' SL 4.66' - .m.:a: � "mxa,: ° '.,.'":.�-.�..... P` p'�' �� I I & �...✓''r ..,.. ,. ,..,... I 2 ;; 3y� .. .._._.," 4.86, -..8 �, , a ..xa xi. >, - RN 74 I { I I 12,432 FT _ "4., .._'_� I A4. _ r� O BED WIRE) -_ 8 L S'L'"a4 a6 + 84 p�, F ,q 8" SWR. 15' B! 1>G, SE "BACK & U.E. ab , ven h�,7T"`Y p I' .» '" 4iVO v> ka I I• _ -} r to, UE_ 85 03 wSL .. / (0 4//0'-I'- I EXISTING '"L ,:,R I S87°02'!0"E p @ as to _ I FENCE X 1 19F {'� 17 ?0(4U E. i`i c> I/4, 789 FT2N °'? 11.5l0 FT2t`0 100" m 2 ui "Iu ro 'I (8.'3 " 'O wu''* M o "., ".„.". Sq. - �." Ir,33'4 FT X - L }' i'- = t o If,510 FT I I=' 2 -. u� ui w' "I, �,.., w,w n,5ro Fr r" "3 2 I � i`' " I "> - IL5t0 FT °? 115I0_FT`'' .. ,,"u11, 5IP FT?~` M "� �6 2 : � "� ��x2 v^i u> '� 1 �: ti 3. Yr NI k I2,05z rT ! I' Ls87 02tIO F a? Imo-- t0 U F. ,..,-,... ( I 1/, FSIO FT n I1, 510 'FT ° " If l-.__ r ..,..."....�..;,,-=,.,.,ri...-. 10' ,....., .. •w,b, °t °,.°,,o 14,789 FT2 o f Sal"p"'^•Lh 0"E I _ ''i ^_ 64. R4'-' L_.4"``-1 _,,... S87�02'l0 E ._.....- ,_... �m...� l!.'E:'-' 87°02 /Or �:.. ! ) l3/.5)'a,, I ;1 sal o'ro IV,az A6 - - - -� = _ I I 20 P S i , 20'�1J E. ? I' d -_. _ w.... ...... .....__""_ .-�E @ } "' �W t0, 978 FT2" �w� r,. i 50' R/� All q'w_a 50' R/W - �� � o '- B7"86 .* "''�, 84.86'-'� --_ E G m <P' L! ,t ,ra$ 2 o I o � "' 9"� � M I__._...._. A/..86' _'-° lrP. (T"'' �as � F'°..i ¢" x" { I g5,203 Fr ro @ 2 ^ M I1, 510 FT II 5/0 FAT ui 5t1. 2 , a, -, 2. °' t a t 14 7E4 FT , Il 3 h , {, „, o ui t1.510 Fr2 " ui 2 ° '° xt ua 3 ki - LQ I38. 21' �a i '> 11,.10 FT u>, W FT b in „„„.b @ (� " "' ,. M ui It, FT 2" "� 2 m r .. `° .. Stu r 13<. 06'� J E 1 M L6 11,5tO FT 24 _ ,,. SL 90.25• ` �- ":.,,� ..,..,....-.8 WTRs - __-._- 4 SIDE W !.K-_..__--°'` -X n uS LL,5t0 T R f4,7A9 FT2 `� ; Q �n ', 1 2 I y ( y g 85 03..,84-86 R4.`--" -_ 25sBL6G SE']-BACI( &_U .�_ k is r ,,Fp ' 4"• I `v ,ca,%0, 4 -T ..�-'--P`" __ �_,.._... _ ---- -_ gb6' -�, O'ddU. E.� p p _. Ab I -I132 € 7 l 84. 84 86 85 03 - mt .56 P " I s•, . ,=7.-=: _--._ - ." ._ _-..S87°02'LO E .:"..., .. , , ..,, ' a .02' .n_ w l%`&$'®'.. "° ..".,""^^ ^- _ !�,w.,_.., •gym,,,,_' - ,r.,c .. °w°: - -tr r` @ , r _ _ _ °•.:.,., a4.R6 fir,. _ AN, ryryt' ( „ L"EGAI_ DESCRIPTION: 4 _.. - I u m j;. .<, a ISE,ACK & - __ - .- 4. A6 "� ,,. G' S1)AF WALK p .•. `3 �. caa p ':'. " ua - 84 SWR. '_ _ -_-. IlO00 FT Sr 1 a. 2-r SL 84.86' ."�� � r" I @ x I Y�I U. it 84.86' 85,03 SL °w ` x _ '`: °, "- `^_- -) a PART OF THE SE114 OF THE SWI/4 OF SECTION 12, T16N RJ1W IN WASHINGTON ':� I t'I 14,984 FTz �I ry * �. " '4 a '� I I"i"' �n yl -- - - --1 _ I r /33.OS`•,I , p ! caI j1" 114,7R FT2 0 ui "I I" x kt "a I I, s I 1' 6' ' R/W '*:,I-'" COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: a7°02,..:t0 EM I y iw; ci ~•,,. N M 11,510 FT2 M 11.510 FT2 u-i ;3 " `o '"� ' {� " "' 11,5/0 FT,2 a �` m '� COMMENCING AT THE NE CORNER OF SAID SE1/4, SWPt4 THENCE S02037'23"W 1.63 Qt 1 t a+"_"� r. 0, ca _ I I'• 1t510 FT? �s 11,510 FT' ,n 2 I Iui 'c' "�' h w� `$ ./' 1t,041 FT2 I 'ol ....,. ,� ...,_ u I, ,^Nm..__. r r38.03' oa I Sal°02'!0ki 20' U.F, "I I2 115f0 FT ..,.I.,..TMI/,5/0 FT2 /1,5L0 FT2N /4,78 FT2 a Jp 7.0' U.E. i PFF" FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE S02037'23"W 1320.10 FEET, THENCE N87002'10"W AAAA- �I .....- __- ._ l0' U. E. �i� : 'A"" Q e """ ^ ......._. -,J L„ "'°, 10 ll.C. --�•I Ind-. � I o --- -. 'Al ,t 1266.56 FEET, THENCE NO216'32"E 1318, 64 FEET, THENCE S87 06 /d"E 1274.35 I< a ! I».N..s?_._' ..._. _.,,; -_.. Sg7°02'10 Ew' ,--._,_._.�_�._ Ia" 80.`0<°'""'" -- _.._ e ,�'" FEET TO THE P,O.B.; CONTAINING 38.49 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO ,G I ` "_ 7FL. &(',_- - _.__--t i ..._ _...I L.. / ' i t, 4 da EASEMENTS AND RIG 116R4 FT 2 c � `° i 8" WTR 1 �8�' -_ - B'6''-`" r" ' mm " " -- -- 587„BOz"!0",E� l � L33 54' HT OF WAY OF RECORD. �i k. I , ey &Z". A.Ti r -._, 84.E ,---` 0 0 WIz . ------ .-_.__.."gyp ',:: ,a .. td .x 84.R6' M,.. '�i4.'�b`r-- - _.,., _ - @ ro II:0A2 FT2 I V Ti,, 2 h �� m „ F r ,.. lf0.02' I' w 22,166 ".,, I i�: I b ,T 4 c> ! "..I 4' SIDEWAL�t` }, � to 11,5f0 FT 2" '� 7 " w 7 ,r'7 l,. +"" � i 8"YSWR.�"� �58 �02'f0 E I WFIM LAN(3 LNVESTMENVA� "PMC-""� wl f4,789FT' 2" i` x."".t: I _ t t e�i Ian tit N-. "1-11,F510, r m 1L51(i FT2 ua (L 5101FT2"' 2. Ica ;°,. p '� I< -- _ !# I li; 4 q' a y„x' `a t to .soy 1L5f0 FT 2" 4 71 7I➢ ui ," .F ,"yp .5� _ 134. 03'' _ �i_ 1366 OAKS MANOR DR. FLOOD PLAIN Dl,E�, r' cn f «S � I �' I1h02 Fit � ro t � __ a ,.^{� 4 F uy 11,5(0 T 'ui l/,51 fT2° w °, � � s _ - "•. , 'r ,,.. d "� . M 11510 FT 2 o iei I4,7A4 FT `' �@ r ( FAYFTTEVING AR. 7?.703 i-A`'.iiWR.^\b 3 u,P ` „r-""' -- ---- 4' SgIbEW L.K pgLBltDrG. SETBACK & l/. +`w `, o h" � ,t I` � 133�I7�FT2 I ZOA!NG = RSF-4 THIS PROPERTY IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE I0L? YEAR FLOOD PLAIN _..._._-._.t-.,.. ..1,_.... °II ° 135. 94' �' ...__M•x. , 84 A6 R4 86' 84.&6P -"` ,-._._ d_.-_ _8 WTR- _ .-_...- k R`'-'• c° ^ I o AS PER FIRM +�`F'QTSI43L:Q091D DATED (l%-"z'"1I-9 I IfAA I__ _ """'--- - 84 ad 84 R4 `7 ® 6!8 4 P I- 20' U. E. @ ., fl--,.�..�:..m ,"• -'�- - .•,:. , ," R4 8 - - -- -_I c t l., `oI �, r t -• mow. ®.�.,_,.., ,_ �.�,,, ".. --- ____. " ....m_ ,.,�.. ,::x. ., , ", ^ Auo 94' 85, b3, -, _ .. ;lP o, I '-.t ! ui �I o X ,- .:.. _ ._,. @a@3A' &@WSx .w�:", .,,:,, :,° , , �i^�%' i ."'� '' i IroI 11.515FT m FF z ,.,.�, 85 02' .., (@6 �� - .. :... ;.,:°x,� _ _ _ �'"'�"` "'" �'..o �,7, .,... .�..::�,,,� c- ta.., ._ . __PEDESTRI4N 2 .. 2 ui .. L 4.86' .:•.., -:-..,". "" ."`.� @ ,. -.. ACCESS NOTES: w p I X SL 4 84' ,., -x:. __ --.� --.'.3?"" ^•- K-'...�- rJ• F 34 - I.__. I I 44 a o 1IgR a R4.A6' A5.o3 3G : ` n�ir, I) THERE ARE NO KNOWN WETLANDS ON THIS PROPERTY. R IO; I I. 5' BL.DG, SE CVc & U:E. -- - -. 109 4 „ 2) DETENTION POND SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE P.O.A. .'0 11,429 FT,.' @ �1, o 14,789 FT o °w f1,510 FT2 n 2 �. I«`c's/h 1�0 F 6 ,°`r °� I I- y 1 -./40 to... iI I n,Slb FT z u o , �• @ ° _� l 3) TWO SIDEWALK ACCESS RAMPS WILL BE INSTALLED AT EACH STREET r C 7I I ui.:, .•�,...._. �_,.i I,' ( cn 1 ,�,:.I I` T ".a 11,5(0 FT2 "H510 FT2 to "I I`o6 !n I ;Q `', r;M II I ..,�.._..,." _ M 2 �! . , ,� - 1 _ -., i CORNER. L" _ 6 r"" O,Fa. �„, r, '' 10 U E. C, ll„510 FT Mrl1,510 FT`" `eo 2to ,� a -a k 13,166 F'T'' ai I r i A : VAVAA%VfT " - I - = u X _418 n o"E _ ,, .-.•, ro I 0' LtE. I (; Sro FT Q 14,784 FAT 10 f < 'r 20' 14F. I ° fr•P ,'„} 4) ALL UTILITY CROSSING SHALL BE 6 - 4" PVC PIPES BURIED MINIMUM _I - ,� 58;7 02'JO E' 20 U.E. = I �_ 42" DEEP. n 20 Lr.E. - @ To or _ _ -_ ___-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ '"L* P I., a A4.R4' - - -- -- -- _ i V� � 1 5) LOTS MAY ONLY ACCESS INTERIOR STREETS. " ro Is ,.Ir" !o' r"^. S$77b2,�f0"k� i /t p a q I ,.,,. q , I 1 I f1.342.Fr' ro __. _... 3 B4ab - - -, aa.Ad' 4.86 --A4.86' - - - -- � � 6) THE DEVELOPER SHALL BUILD A DECORATIVE PRIVACY FENCE 2' � "I R4 84 1 " „ i i 1: a a4.A6' 2 I OUTSIDE OF 46rH AND PERSIMMON 1 5A7 D o u " K TRF .. 5 m ER IMMON STREET ,__ _._ _) _ m IO t wx y �2' z �i 112G.. FT ,. 14,7ap'FT2�.9.,":,7 I,9 ' �r ;� xx 6 t. ti ,,....„ ...-.,.,.."...,",.,".,�......��..._...:. � 5 ;'S •c� w ;� w . a"k, f::.. i � - 8 WT'R. I q+ - _..._...,... f 1' t4 IL. 10 RT--?.'„' 11,5to FT ui `. 2 " ,a ux t' „� t ,", ,r 2 I I- I 26.6c"'- ,. G �`V o ,.,., s�� 115/O Fr M ILWO FT2 ui ` :` `q 4 ,o `I "a nc+ " u� ' .587 y -,,," .o M11,510+FT2 'n 2"," r v� !"'rn Q f zr.a3' _ n,SroFT �L1,5YOFr2' ui z^ Q 2 a 36.oa' ? �", 4 �� ^a t m w '^`„ °110,314 FT 'g x`- i �^,l - ___.._, -,__ ` BLDG. SETS CK & UE, n /1,5/0 FTt o M tl,, 789 FT .:,@ 1' I r I h .�A 84 86 �,..,, __' _ ,,,,., to I F' NO t>I'`'7",..., ., I I A5 03 - 84,,R6 R4.R4 _ , _ _. g4, ab "' ,a _ '8" WTR. .. sn �1r° ' „°.a „°iI AN AN } # IV87°56',3( ' ! " \\ I 4 S/L5E Ll( a ti ,T. �, 8 "NfAVAIII p� �••,., ,-, �'--,.�.m»-..,..�.E4^vER6 _ 8.1e 84._-'.`_.:_ ....:,s•; 86 ,,...:, .. --__. •° 85. Pp•^ ,,.�2P,Q3 I,p.n.. _ u `\ (O6 92.'- ,,+. }- .". «.. _ - ,.5 ' R/ --___ M.a.... °: 4 84,86 84 8b 4 „r`xS 11994 Fr2 pl' „- -fA"' tX0' L1 F. .�, :. n:,sm mz•e•a-=_'IF ,.-"-:...�. -a�•,-' c. ,.r,:=: r a t g _ _,.-, " I d~''F. x:". ., W, "'� 94R. 43 8;." `--- - s Q d N79_°09,._...,I...._ �. I '1 , �a ^x,v.�:::'9-, 1 A5. 00 S R 00' ` m;•w,..n- .: a :-� «, . "" ®- '! , u p. _. 116F26 •N, k ,I W. 44.2T -i-- 77. 00' "»::, ...,. .; xwe" ',„'dux.-;„ .._. ...,_ ."." 'RP i p ICI . 2 " 20 DRN. SL 77. 0 :ms r me n,;. '�, - 8" SWR , -� - A5.0 :.:.�,:, o ry, ', " a' ( ai f7,330 FT --'�`' ESMT. s'`' l0' U E. '-' - 1 yr' 5 00' /aly .,- rr R9.41'- � � I_ _ , sL 5 aa' �I y Iw o 6q 2 $° b 25' BLDG. V - 52 02' + 4°, h ._.. 2I Isri '° " ' - '° �]°SWR. 114,920FT ti0 �ry 1 073 FT2 NI I�' •'A ° �I1529 FT2 I,,,,5� r 2 ��(,+ y ,�._. o 1,r c" g 2 ` ro 13.567 FT I 7o ua ` ' ..it (Aft,7+6 6 20' (/. E, 0 1 11, 524 FT 2 N `, I 1. o ua' yJ s q y PLANTERS m q Qt'''� 2" 'ui - ,a :+ , o M rot S<9 FT I . n.. .. Y ,•r.,. ,� � � ---".. �--'-, -. _25' BL�' LSETBACK & U. " dA " m- ,n � x.. ci ` II529 FT'2 ,.� ' , ='lf 529 FT �^ 'u"i c 1�7s,. _ 7, c'K,., 'ka`=~•'%" r •s::�..s .,,;:,.: 85. ob �. aS. QO' 9:, s r s,� �9.2Rrt`u? l0 U. I o �12186F. <" M ,' .°:,x w,,. s,,,,m ., -„ , 85. 00 »...... 77.0 ..,t„ N '-- tR as FT Z� 13,738 FT % z^ w ` w 0 ^ 1 6' SIDEWALK`e. - .. xac,;x r �:,„ ut ,a. .,• TT DO w A.T '@ a 4, p f". sw ,.P�' "�.-,.�_ F k u _ ___ ". .,...,- ...,.. ,..., .,--..._..:-.... SLu _ ..-,-T---_...--�,�,...- � ,°`' "„^N..l ' ,IS svxs 9 . >as .. 5r I� � �_ U5' G�L�iNSF�"AC"F) 'TM 100-YEAR WSE _ `, ,, 4 FL (50DWAY CONCRETE SWAI.` \® N \ \ .,. A 'Alf �. AN AN i \ _I! DETENTION POND �CONCRET (SODDED) A CHANNEL , �IN �ftl YE/jh WSE = 1224.17 f / A ^a d ad F/.i ............... .. �,_ „,.. CONCRETE WEIR / /' 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN THE HOYET GREENWOOD TA JEAN GREENWOOD ✓OWERS, 452 M 46TH STREET FAYETTEVILLE, AR. 72701 ZONING NIA (COUNTY) '--":.....4_-T.m -- - ._' J..,.t7 �; •'l w„45as.y;. '�' e a.a;'?' , .ra" A'is, ws, 'AAN '�.r!�"�'N _ y Am (6' GREE SPACE) 2O, 20 Ft R30' � � - L?G. SETBAcx & C.E, 6 L17Ir K - ld 13,567 FAT 2 W� 46' - r as I 13,567 FT 2 t� n j m� t F ,-- PLANTERS 9.8 PLANTERS -- _ � 6' sraE ALK i { ,.eyu w;;'., "., w ur T r ,I" a -' R30' /(l5"' GR -NSPACE) _- ,TI V , " e+, :� ". ,`{x � a ® - 70' R/W PF3L 1OVIII, .."^" Q FOUND IRON PIN GI BOUNDARY CORNER CENTERLINE MARKER # STREET LIGHT o SET IRON PIN C7 SEWER MANHOLE V FIRE HYDRANT sL STREETLIGHT CENTERLINE STREET UTILITY _A,AAIV _ _BUILDING SETBACK 8" SEWER LINE _ 80 WATERLINE 4 SIDEWALK DRAINAGE PIPE UTILITY CROSSING _ TREE PROTECTION FENCE GRAPHIC SCALE 100 r ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 100 It. STREET RI FIT«Ci d AY $ SIDEWALK TABLE STREET RIGHT OF WAY STREET WIDTH SIDEWALK GREE'N'SPACE PERSIMMON STREET 70' 28' 6'** 15' �.._._ 46TH STREET 26°- �14'*4_ ____ 6 T_-_._.__. ___...�..__.____,_ DIVOT LINK 66' 46' 4' 6' WEDGE DRIVE 50' 28" 40 6 PUTTING GREEEN DRIVE ( 50, 28, 46 FLAGSTICK DRIVE - 1 50 28 4* 6_-_-- LOFTY WOOD DRIVE 50' 28 4' 6 TOURNAMENT DRIVE A 50, 28, 4' 6' MULLIGAN DRIVE � � 50' 4_ 6 _ ENGINEER JORGENSEN £f ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 124 WEST SUNBRIDGE SUITE 5 FAYETTEVILLE, AR. 72703 (479) 442-9127 DEVELOPER SLOAN PROPERTIES, INC, 3459 NOTTINGHAM PLACE FAYETTEVILLE, AR. 72703 (479) 444-8404 OWNER THE HOYET GREENWOOD TRUST A, JEAN GREENWOOD JOWERS, TRUSTEE 452 NORTH 46TH STREET FAYETTEVILLE, AR. 72701 ZONING -- R-A ALLOWABLE USE = SINGLE FAMILY (USE UNIT 6) PROPOSED DE NSITY :: 2.8P LOTSIACARE " DISTANCE TAKEN FROM CENTEhLINE, °# SIDEWALK TO BE INSTALLED 0s1 NORTHSIDE OF PERSIMMON ,STREET ONLY AS SHOWN ON THIS FLA` I-RaNf _ _ srDE _ hL-AR v,r Y INIf, SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS F)R MEADOWLANDS PHASE 1 & H ro "'- LOT 25 - 19682 - CRAIG LUTTRELL, 44i5 BELL FLOWER DR., FAYETTEVILLE, AR. 72704 LOT 26 - 19683 - DEBBIE L. SCOGGtN, 4403 BELL FLOWER DR., FAYETTEVILLE, AR. 72701 '? I• 1 4'3 LOT 27 - 19684 - SPENCER & ALL YSOh BROWN, 4387 BELL FLOWER DR., FAYETTEVILLE, AR, 72704 ---~„. LOT 28 - 1968.5 - BRIAN SANDERS, 4371 W. BELL FLOWER DR., FAYETTEVILLE, AR. 72704 LOT 24 - 19686 - MICHAEL B. & JOANN L. TRAW, 4349 W, BELL. FLOWER DR., FAYETTEVILLE, AR, 72704 F•-� LOT 30 - 19687 - THEODORE J. & MARAN R. STAHL, 882 N. QUEEN ANNES LACE DR., FAYETTEVILLE, AR. 72704 � �^ 7T", LOT 31 - 19688 - EMADDUDIN GROUSE, 43H W. BELL FLOWER DR., FAYETTEVILLE, AR. 72704 LOT 32 - 19489 - ROBERT S. HANNAN REVOCABLE TRUST, 4247 BELLF'L.pWERI FAYETTEVILLE, AR., 72704 LOT 33 - 19690 - GREGORY PROUTY, 4275 BELL FLOWER DR., FAYETTEVILLE, AR. 72704 to „•,,, -Aj cq ' t TREE PROTECTION NOTE: : q !�'°yI P•-.. 0-TREES- SHOWN ARE TO SAVED AND PROTECTED li DURING CONSTRUCTION BY INSTALLING HIGH wVISABILITY PLASTIC MESH FENCING THAT EXTENDS BEYOND THE DRIPLINE OF THE TREE 01? TREEq. 2) IF THE FENCE MUST BE Rf MOVEDf BRIDGING OrOF THE SOIL AROUND THE TREE OR 7KEES TO BE T SYSTEM OF "'HE TREE MUST BE USED IN ORDER TO AVOID C01ITACTION y� y �® SIZE LABEL SPECIES f I ASH 2 ASH 3 PIN OAK Of 4 ELM Lu If to " p VIA 3) CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ARE N'Oi" TO BE t^^� STORED WITHIN THE FENCING DR DRIPC)NE OF THE TREE OR TREES. 4) TRENCHING FOR StTE UTILITIES MU,(.T AVOID v �^• C) THE DRIPLINE AREA OF THE TREES, IF UNAVOIDABLE, ^�----DRI INE-- TUNNELING UNDER THE ORIPLINE WILL RE AN ALLOWABLE ALTERNATIVE. x o2c"s" zs-xi 'a-o a-s -a a s-o-"a• a -a" '�a•a-s- 5) IF A CHANGE IN GRADE OCCURS AR �7UND THE TREES, oaoo o a0000a aaaoo 0 000a „- 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o THEN A RETAINING WALL MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AT ooao 0 000000 oaoao 0 000a 000 00 OPROO 00000 OO POO 0000 O aaoaoo ooao o oaa THE DRIPLINE AREA. P „_J _o -_-- 6) ANY EXCAVATION DONE AROUND TK? ROOTS OF TREES „ TO BE PRESERVED SHALL BE DONE BY 4AND. ALL ROOTS > s-) SHALL BE HAND PRUNED. <i� HIGH VISABILITY - PLASTIC P7ESfl FENCING A ,,,_„ �� TREE PRESERVATION_NDTES ' 9A SITE AREA: L,676,003 SO FT ;, NO SCALE � TREE CANOPY EXISTING' 0.13 % (2 245 so )'T) TREE CANOPY PRESERVED: 0.05 % (877 SG FT) TREE CANOPY REMOVED 0.08 % (1,368 50 +'T) NOTES: I ,- 1.) EXISTING CANOPY THAT IS PROPOSED "0 BE REMOVED WILL RE MITIGATED BY A PAYMENT TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILL.E'S TREE FUND, ,--. 2.1 THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT TREES f ON THIS PROPERTY. IAVO _ rL (a rS